|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Oy vey. My monitor is only 1680x1050, whatever will I do?
Nothing. May I should have mentioned that the program runs on a closed environment with a fixed screen size? Which makes the comment just more useless 
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: runs on a closed environment
What does that matter when we're talking about the code?
|
|
|
|
|
With closed environment like I mean: Even the screen size is predefined because the customer receives the medical diagnostic instrument with a built-in computer and a built-in screen which already has been defined in the requirements before a single line of code was written...
So it is not just logically a closed environemtn: It is physically close too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: Until the customer requests a different screen size and your BD say "Sure no problem!"
They do not. This is medical business, changing something even if it is just a change at the monitor size does need a validation of the whole system and would cost millions.
But this restriction will fall down anyways with the next SW version. The app will finally become screen size-innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the original comment was about the source code. Meaning you (yes, you the programmer, not the customer) would not be able to see the entire line of code in your IDE if you were using a lower screen resolution.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
But the specifics of output device have nothing to do with the format of the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, an update from 80x24 to 1920x1200, that's great!
Obviously, you had to give up MUMPS. Does your C++ code still resemble the original MUMPS code?
|
|
|
|
|
No. And it is not just C++ code. It once was pure C code 
|
|
|
|
|
The guy's got a point, though. I'm looking at my code here (which is written according to received standards), and the rightmost 2/3 of my IDE's code editor is pure black, because the text is just in a tiny strip down the left.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah! The stone age is over. However, non-superhumans get very confused when lines contain more than 60 characters.
|
|
|
|
|
this is so yesterday!
the new 1920x1200 is 1366x768  
|
|
|
|
|
And on laptops the stone age isn't over, really. Try getting a laptop nowadays with that resolution. Luckily I got mine 2 years ago.
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
Function GotoSleep(Milliseconds As Long)
Sleep (Milliseconds)
End Function
|
|
|
|
|
I say this developer had brilliant foresight and should be given both a raise and a promotion! They must have known that VB's built-in functions would be transitioned to the .Net Framework at some point. Now, they only have to change a single line of code to make sure their entire code base uses System.Threading.Thread.Sleep().
They have also created a function rather than a sub, a clever trick in case they ever decide to return a value (e.g., a bool indicating whether or not the sleep operation was successful). Ingenious!
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention the magnificent documentation this programmer provided! It's better documented than most code I know 
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
Surely, they should return the value while the thread is asleep, and stop returning it when it wakes up? 
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a little change will allow for multi-threaded sleeping, i.e. create a new thread which does the sleep thus not blocking the main application . Imagine you'd have to do that when you used the built-in function everywhere...
|
|
|
|
|
And he even included a "Goto" in there somehow. Awesome.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
You get VB? 
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
Good Time to all, Amici(Friends).
Here, i'd like to discuss how to reduce conditional branches in the code. 1st of the all, i would like to share some tricks. Their description is here.
-----------------------
Thanks in Advance for attention of Yours.
|
|
|
|
|
The readability of the if-less code is bad. What do you have against conditional branches? I would much rather have readable code with conditional branches instead of less readable code with out them.
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
yes, readability is worse but superfluous IFs make code slower. Actually, it will be extremely helpful, if new compilers shall be able to generate such blocks of IFs.
|
|
|
|
|
SarK0Y wrote: superfluous IFs make code slower.
That isn't necessarily true. Modern processors use a variety of tricks that reduce the 'cost' of unused branches. One of the problems of 'computed conditional' logic is that you incur the cost for all cases, not just the unused branch. Your overall performance actually decreases.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Especially with moores law hitting the ceiling lately (until someone finds a trick to break through and go up another 100 floors). Can't make it go any faster -- so add more cores. Can't utilize all the cores -- so add more microcode parallelism. Soon they might end up having CPUs that can follow dozens and dozens of branch path pipelines at the same time (until it can prune unused ones). Of course, the information that can be saves during context switches may limit that technique.
On a side note.. Some languages (like Smalltalk) don't actually use branching in "if"'s (well, their equivalent to an if).. what may seem a condition check/branch is really an expression returning a boolean object, and then when asked to _run_ the "ifTrue" conditional code block it either does, if it is a "true" object, or doesn't if a "false" object, without any checks/branching. And the same for the "ifFalse" (aka "else") code blocks, only reversed.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
