|
Mike Barthold wrote: Do you upgrade immediately too?
I normally do upgrade immediately. So far Google / Android Studio / JetBrains have done a good job on upgrades and things continue to work well.
Mike Barthold wrote: Will you start with Kotlin, which is now integrated/supported by AS?
I will definitely begin learning Kotlin. I really do like the Android Java though and I have about three years invested in it. I was never really a Java dev before Android either.
Mike Barthold wrote: Did you use Jack&Jil toolchain with 2.3?
I'm not sure what jack&jil are.
I use the built-in gradle build stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
jack&jil was a way to enabled lambda and java 8 syntax in android studio 2.3
some ppl used retrolambda for that, but jack&jil have been implemented by google and they planned to replace their compile system with that.
i was happily converting to jack&jil and then they abandonded that tool chain, leaving me with android studio 2.3, java 8 syntax in all of my apps and NO WAY to use build tools 26+ / android 8 compatibility until today 
now i am converting all my stuff to the new build tools and away from (the dead) jack, back to the original tool chain.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Barthold wrote: jack&jil was a way to enabled lambda and java 8 syntax in android studio 2.3
Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining that.
Mike Barthold wrote: converting all my stuff to the new build tools and away from (the dead) jack, back to the original tool chain
Good luck on the conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You maybe old, but that irrelevant...
The only - and not even new - conclusion from all this is that there are hundreds of RFCs that make no sense (or call it incomplete) on their own. That's the reason for the related RFC list at the end of each...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: You maybe old, but that's irrelevant...
About a decade ago I had to train myself to stop adding the DOT at the end which had been working for so many years...
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: The only - and not even new - conclusion from all this is that there are hundreds of RFCs that make no sense (or call it incomplete) on their own.
It makes perfect sense to some of us who were around during the earliest days of the internet. The root domain servers are listed here:
IANA — Root Servers[^]
Those root domain servers are authoritative for COM,NET,ORG and all of the other top level domains[^].
The .COM[^] domain is managed by VeriSign and they are authoritativefor the codeproject subdomain... and codeproject is authoritative for the www subdomain.
To put this in perspective...
www.codeproject.com is an incomplete URL which could technically be on the www.codeproject.com.lan.wherever subnet.
Using the standard set by the IETF... the only URL that guarantees that you get to the desired destination is to use the fully qualified domain address.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
We've moved a long way since 1987: we don't need to type "http:" or "www." either.
Live with it - the domain name itself specifies the root folder and implies the appropriate default file to open.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
It's actually really important for engineers to learn how these systems are implemented. I wonder how many firewalls and security products are filtering out:
http://www.reddit.com/
But perhaps allowing:
http://www.reddit.com./
Simply because the engineer never read the RFC
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: Simply because the engineer never read the RFC
Perhaps if they wrote them in a way that did not cause your eyes to bleed, they would get read more often.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Have to admit that a majority of thé RFCs I've read has been about avian carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: We've moved a long way since 1987: we don't need to type "http:" or "www." either.
I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption. Every once in a while I'll come across a site that doesn't automatically redirect me "www.[whatever.com]" if I don't include the "www." part, and gets confused by that.
Of course I'm drawing a blank right now, but I know I'm still encountering it.
|
|
|
|
|
You got me a bit wrong I think...
What I'm saying that reading 1034 - alone - does not teach you that TLDs can have an optional DOT at the end... According to the RFC DOT ends only full names (with a root as last part - absolute) and TLDs are not such (they are relative to the root)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for teaching me something new 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Thank you for teaching me something new
You are welcome. Please tell your manager that software engineers over the age of 50 can be a valuable company resource. They are packing a lifetime of engineering experience.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
My managers know it very well - the only reason we have a single engineer over 50 is that this branch opened only 20 years ago and the older people changed jobs in time on their own volition (job is interesting and fairly safe but is a bit underpaid).
We don't ditch anyone unless for severe disciplinary violations.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi David, it's been a long time since I saw you here (partly also because I've been relatively inactive myself). How are things going with you? 
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Rajesh,
I have been doing fine. I was sometimes spying following your career moves over the last few years. Congratulations on the senior lead position and I see you have moved down under...
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Hi David, as far as position titles go, as you very well know, they might as well call a person like me as "Ginger-tea-addict-coding-human-gorilla-thing" and it wouldn't make a difference.
I also moved out of Intel, but haven't updated it on linkedin. It's only been a couple of years though, so lazy me figured what's the hurry. 
modified 26-Oct-17 23:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
That's different... the URL rewrite in your case was to redirect you to a UK server. I just tested and this is working fine on the google UK server:
https://www.google.co.uk./[^]
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, I only ever use the .com address. And I must admit, even though I have been around since pre-internet days, I had never heard of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget RFC stands for "Request for Comment." 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Don't forget RFC stands for "Request for Comment."
Don't let the name fool you. Many of the RFC documents are IETF internet standards[^].
RFC1034 was adopted as Internet Standard 13
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Some have become defacto standards, others aren't worth the bandwidth used to upload them. Unfortunately there's no obvious and immediate way to figure out which are which since it comes down to other devs deciding the proposals are good enough ideas to be implemented.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
