|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: The heck with localization.
Yes, but it's so much fun, Ravi...
Been there, done that, got the UNICODE/UTF-8 scars to prove it.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Coder For Hire wrote: I've been working at this place about a month now, and EVERYTHING is way too abstracted out...
Are you being required to write sh*t like that, too? If so, then leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Already looking
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
You're put off pretty quickly I have to say, this is really just superficial. Looks like the messages are localized, but other than that doesn't seem unnecessarily verbose.
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
There is no good reason to code a messagebox like that. I'm put off because, like I said, EVERYTHING in this app is way over cooked. It takes FOREVERY to find something, and then FOREVER to make a small change.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they can switch one compile time flag or library and... Voila! it works on Mac or Linux?
Create your own wrapper/adpater on any vendor specific API.
|
|
|
|
|
You think that's bad, how about working with a class named VirtualEthernetCardDistributedVirtualPortBackingInfo ?
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of my current workplace. All the C++ class are heavily templated(The one I am working on, 20 data members are generic), even integer type are templated(can use int32 or int64). Very versatile but very difficult to find and read code because intellisense is not working as it does not know the type used; F12 is not working. Development time is impacted. PITA everyday!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah that's pretty horrible. I hate people over-abstracting... nooooooooooo point.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigator
.PrepareMessageBox(
TheApp
.Messages
.ErrorWarningMessages
.StateProceduresMenuVM_MsgboxBody_OpenStateProcedureWithLock_2,
stateProcedure.StateDescription,
t.Result.LockMessage
)
.UseButtons(MessageBoxOptions.OK).Show();
If I were to deal with code like this, the first thing I would do is sprinkle newlines everywhere...
|
|
|
|
|
Is this guy channelling Salvador Dali or what?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
But ... but it's so FLEXIBLE! 
|
|
|
|
|
Never trust atoms: they make up everything.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
So that's why Intel Atom wasn't a preferred processor after all. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Not enlightenment. 
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of being pedantic what about sub-atomic particles? Logically atoms can't make them.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
And what about the "empty" space between the sub-atomic particles? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's where programmers dreams (reference[^]) come from
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
And what about quarks[^] then? Neither atoms nor sub-atomic particles can make them.
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Quarks are sub-atomic particles
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well in a way, but that would be like saying sub-atomic particles are atoms or atoms are molecules, wouldn't it?
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
"Particle" is a pretty generic term that describes a small amount of matter.
A particle can describe sand, dust, atoms, protons, neutrons, quarks, electrons or anything that makes up something larger. 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't someone say "pedantic"? 
In my defense, I would say when one says "sub-atomic", the idea generally converges to protons, electrons and neutrons. Of which, protons and neutrons are composed up of quarks. I was simply going after your post that atoms can't make up sub-atomic particles and simply meant quarks make up sub-atomic particles.
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Agent__007 wrote: Didn't someone say "pedantic"?
Come on, we're software developers - it's part of our job description!
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
