|
Microsoft has been warning us for months now that the "old" Skype would eventually stop working, as it's being phased out by that redesigned atrocity that looks more at home on Win 8/8.1/10 (although they back-ported it to Windows 7).
That version gets installed by default under C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Skype for Desktop and bears the version of 8.43.*. That one works fine. That's the newer one with the dumbed down UI.
The older version (the last to still have a semi-usable UI) is version 7.41.*. That version installs itself under C:\Program Files (x86)\Skype (both can run side-by-side), and has been sitting all week on my system with the spinning blue arrows icon, which indicates it's trying to connect. It's been stopped/restarted many times, the system has been rebooted - and I just found out it's doing the exact same thing on a secondary system of mine.
All public Skype status pages I could find all show everything as normal.
I'm guessing I'm not the only one, and that this actually means MS has finally pulled the plug on it...
[Edit]
I see it's being called "Skype classic", and was actually supposed to get killed last year on November 1st. Somehow mine kept chugging along until early this week...
|
|
|
|
|
Next up: Control Panel.
Just keep reciting the mantra "Best! Windows! Evah!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You still use Skype?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also here, still using it. This even though MS is able to make it worse and worse. Don't know a better alternative.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We're using Zoom. So far so good, though it creaks a bit when there are over 6 people with video
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for this. I will have a look for it.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We're using Zoom. So far so good, though it creaks a bit when there are over 6 people with video
A corporate customer has started using this. Seems to be very hit and miss. Have several staff who can see the other end but have no sound and can't send video. Camera and microphone work in other applications though.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I went through this decades ago with all the various chat apps. I got tired of switching to the flavor of the week and settled on Skype when it got Microsoft's backing.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the old skype tries to bind/listen on port 80 - if the new skype is running in the background, and has that port already, yer not gonna connect. Maybe. I think.
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting theory, but I've had both set up side-by-side for a few months now, and it's not until this week that the older Skype has gotten itself stuck.
|
|
|
|
|
The de-evolution of Skype from a mean-lean useful app to (post MS acquisition) a mush of un-coordinated facilities (with many of the most useful features removed) ...
Is a classic story of how software development can go off the rails.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Steed: Oh, I feel as though I'm sprouting two heads. Mrs Peel: Do you have room for expansion?
Call me oldfashioned, but these are the real Avengers to me 
|
|
|
|
|
I know your mother probably told you that you looked great with the Purdey haircut, but...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It was the cat suit that worried me when he wore it. 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Sure he's a cat
Nobody's gonna argue with that
Sure he's a creamer
A tall walking family dreamer
|
|
|
|
|
99. Ego small little girl matter (5)
|
|
|
|
|
So I've been giving myself a double dose of pain trying to learn both Linux and Rust together on the side. Rust has some interesting ideas, but man some of the stuff just seems crazy to me. One I ran into tonight is that there's no such thing as a constructor.
You can create a method to gen up a structure instance and return it, but there's no overloading at all. So if you wanted to allow different sets of parameters (enormously likely and sometime quite a few) you'd have to have differently named methods for every variation which would get really awkward.
Of course you can just make all the members public and let everyone directly set them without any constraint using the {} type initialization, which is a complete NO in almost all cases in any sane world, and utterly bizarre for a language that is so otherwise anal retentive.
Or, you can use the 'builder pattern' which is the most convoluted way of constructing a structure of all and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it (see the Builder Pattern section.)
Method Syntax[^]
I mean, it's like they are trying so hard not to be C++ that they really are making some of the most obvious stuff way harder than it needs to be. I mean, come on, a single exception to support some sort of constructor concept and to maybe make an exception on overloading for that?
Or even allow you to do a 'post validation' after a 'direct member' type initialization or something, to check for constraint violation. Or just provide a way to map a direct initialization with a given set of values provided to a method that will handle it for validation and defaulting of unprovided values (which may be different depending on the particular set of provided values, so a single fixed value isn't sufficient necessarily.)
Ultimately I'm not sure why I'm bothering since there's probably fewer Rust jobs out there than women who want to sleep with me. But I'm trying to broaden my horizons and the way C++ is going is getting scarier and scarier to me, with people now claiming that using OOP is a dangerous and outdated practice and can't possibly work (despite the fact that it's been used for decades.)
I don't want to be around to suffer through all these people re-living the 80s and finally coming out the other side a decade later finally realizing why software development back then sucked. So having some options to go elsewhere moving forward could be useful if it really goes full retard.
But of course Rust may never get beyond the interesting idea phase and get seriously used. Utlimately, though a lot of people in the software world don't want to hear it, open committees aren't great at creating good software. I think that single company driven languages like Java and C# have an advantage on that front, other things being however equal or unequal. C++ is going to end up with a language spec that requires a fork lift. And Rust may suffer in other ways from not having any real single driving force.
Other than C#, I don't know of anything else that is for real right now and for serious developers, not a glorified scripting language or something that will likely always be niche'y. But C# is still (despite a lot of efforts) quite Windows oriented. Not that I'm against that, I'm very much a Windows person. But if I'm looking to create options, doubling down on the OS isn't a great way to do that. I have no interest in going to iOS world.
Anyhoo, I'm rambling now. Sort of fried from my approximately 10,000'th straight day of programming and discouraged from arguing with anti-OO cultists.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my limited experience, the people that don't like OO are the same type that don't like SQL.
Or if you don't understand it, there is something wrong with the concept. Instead of realizing it might be the other way around.
Or, if your only tool is a hammer...
And as always, one should use the right tool for the job.
But when looking at all different programming languages around, one realizes there are many shapes to a hammer.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: In my limited experience, the people that don't like OO are the same type that don't like SQL.
In my extensive experience the people who like OO don't like SQL. But to be fair been a very long time since I have even been around anyone that could even express an opinion about non-OO programming.
The OO folks do like No-SQL and specifically MongoDBt. Of course they still can't get that right and then I have to support it even though it is often a poor solution.
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote same type of people, not necessarily the same people.
The point I tried to convey was that, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
tl;dr
I'll be honest, I only read your title, and I thought, with a name like that, who would like Rust? I just spent nearly $2K last year to get rust dealt with and my car repainted.
Who picked that name anyway? Does "rust" ever have positive connotations?
|
|
|
|
|
If you have to try to like it why bother.
I do all my own stunts, but never intentionally!
JaxCoder.com
modified 27-Apr-19 10:44am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
