|
There's always one 
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, I abandoned using office years ago and use LibreOffice instead ( A really long ago when it was still OpenOffice ). It has not failed me yet so I will stick to it.
|
|
|
|
|
I use Google Office when I can but I find that the raw power is not there and Google Sheets tends to choke and bog down on anything that has more than a handful of formulas and data. Based on that experience, I'm not keen to go M$ 365 online. Nothing beats a locally installed app.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
I too prefer local over web, which put me off 365, I know these days it's seen as old fashioned but gimme a local copy preferably from a CD (or DVD). If it's local the web is not needed so speed is constant!
|
|
|
|
|
When I bought my Windows Me desktop I ordered Office Pro
so I could get the database Access to use with VB 6 I was a nube and uninformed
This included a copy of Word 2003 on a CD
So when I moved up to Windows 7 64 bit MS would not accept my registered
copy of Word 2003 and blocked the registration
After long e-mail arguments and law suite threat and e-mailing Bill Gates
they gave in and accepted my registration key
Not a fan of renting software or on line versions
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is why I use Libre Office. Does everything that MS Office does, but without the forced upgrading nonsense. I suppose if you were using MS Office for some really advanced professional integrations/coding project, then Libre Office can't compete, but really, who does that for day-to-day personal use?
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
- If your mom can't use Office 2007, she's not going to be able to use Office 365 either.
- You don't have to buy Office 365 with the recurring subscription, you can use Office for free on the web. All you need is a browser and an Internet connection.
- Like others said, there's also Libre Office.
Cheers,
Vikram.
|
|
|
|
|
As a quick answer, Yes and No!
Their are tons of articles on it's worth, it's unworthiness etc. etc. There is a Q&A from this morning that turned out quite interesting IMO - How to take specific element from the first list , second list and those specific element add into third list[C#][^]
Richard MacCutchan and Graeme_Grant posted respective solutions, both of them works as a solution. Graeme did an excercise in using ChatGPT (as he mentioned in his post, just for fun and interest sake) and it actually returned a correct answer, for a change!
I then did a fun check by asking CHATGPT to check both blocks of code and show which block is -
1) The fastest generated output
2) Using the least performance
3) Is the most efficient
The returned answer were that it's own generated code were the worst performer. Richard's code were Block2 and Graeme's ChatGPT code were Block1 -
Quote: Block 2 will run faster and use less performance compared to Block 1.
In Block 1, you are using a List<string> to combine the elements from two lists (a1 and a2) into a single list (combinedList). The code iterates over the length of the longer list (maxLength) and checks if the current index is within the bounds of each list before adding the element to the combinedList. Finally, it uses string.Join to concatenate the elements in combinedList into a single string.
In Block 2, you are using a StringBuilder (output) to build the combined string directly. The code iterates over the length of a1 and adds each element to the output. It also checks if the current index is within the bounds of a2 and adds its corresponding element. Finally, it prints the output using Console.WriteLine.
Block 2 is more efficient because it eliminates the need for an additional list (combinedList). It directly builds the string using StringBuilder, which is more efficient for concatenating multiple strings compared to repeatedly appending to a List<string>. Additionally, it does not involve the overhead of checking list bounds for every iteration, as it directly uses the lengths of a1 and a2 in the loop condition.
We do from time to time make use of ChatGPT, more as an exercise than a solution and we found, as mentioned in my comment at the psot, that you have to hammer the blue &^%$ out of it to return actual proper code. By hammering I mean that you ask question after question leading it into the expected answer until you can compile, test and run properly the desired returned code. The secret I think lies in the way or form the questions is submitted to ChatGPT, same as the way we Google for things. The better the question, the better the answer (there are many links on how to ask ChatGPT questions/give it instructions).
Problem is that we can see it in the Q&A (not all members mind you) where code is generated by ChatGPT, the user has no idea what the code means or why it does not work and they will post their question "It does not work!", "I'm new to programming", with a zillion lines of code posted, expecting a miracle working solution from other members. 
So, to the question in the title - It is a great tool if you have a general idea of what the code should look like or function as. The time however in hammering it to return what is expected is just not worth the while, I can write the code, have a coffee, eat my lunch and then some in the same time trying to make ChatGPT work for me!. Is ChatGPT worth the effort for a developer? - IMHO, NO!
modified 16-Jul-23 5:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
I get the feeling that a lot of the people here in the Lounge really don't get ChatGPT, etc. They really don't.
They hate on it, because it scares them and they want to destroy what scares them and what they don't truly understand.
ChatGPT and similar systems will ONLY get better (more accurate) over time. It will NEVER get worse (less accurate) over time.
To answer the question in your Title of your post: Yes! ChatGPT is worth the effort for developers. It's a great resource. I have found it to be very helpful, along with Google searches, etc. You have to understand its CURRENT limitations, and double check its results, knowing that some day soon, it will be more accurate than you.
Its a tool, like a hammer. You don't use a hammer to cut boards. It has its time and place, like all things.
modified 16-Jul-23 7:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly man. History repeats itself. Before the web when peeps were using Gopher and IRC for everything, only a very select few had a full grasp of where the Internet would be headed. Things evolve. Nobody uses Gopher. Nobody believes AOL is the Internet anymore. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with both, it's just that it does not justify the time now, same as before the web, to try and secure 100% operable code immediately IMO. Will it get better, YES!, it's already better going from 3.5 to 4, will it be soon, YES, quicker than we anticipate.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that ChatGPT did not spot was the missing bit in my code. If string a2 was longer than a1 then the output would be incomplete. That is why I put the words "Something like" above the code, to show/suggest that it is not a complete solution.
I think the only way to decide whather ChatGPT is worth the effort, is to use it. Just don't assume that the answer will always be 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a novelty toy... I think they're called cracker-jacks surprise in the US. I do not take it serious.
It is good for converting code (some of the time) and polishing my shoes...
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
Think of ChatGPT as a baby. And as a baby, it can already code some algorithmic stuff better than some devs. Guess what though... it's going to grow up eventually. Anyone who thinks AI isn't the future is going to be left behind in the dust.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
"Question after question" amounts to interviewing and creating a problem definition: a first step in any sane undetaking.
This gets really boring when you already know your craft and the problem domain: "teaching" the AI.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
When ChatGPT is wrong, as is often the case, it is confidently wrong, often with citations.
That's why I suggest only using it on things that are immediately verifiable.
Most code falls under this category, so I think coding is a good application of it, in a capacity as ersatz instructor to someone trying to learn a concept.
I've not seen how advanced the code it can generate is. I haven't really used it for anything like this, but I have a colleague who is an engineer who uses it sometimes to help him through code he's stuck with.
I'm a bit iffy on it myself, but OTOH I don't see a reason why not to try it when you get stuck.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, remember when we Google became the thing that contained all answers to the universe. We all had to learn how to search by using the right keywords and we just got better at it, same with ChatGPT.
|
|
|
|
|
I find that you need to know what you are doing to handle iffy code when it happens, even when the queries that you input are of quality. Sometimes it helps, other times you spend more time trying to fix the code it generated, taking your focus away from trying to do it yourself.
Where I do find it useful, is using it as a babelfish[^], ie, translating from one language to another. Not always perfect, however, it's better at this task than reliably generating code. But same conditions apply, do not trust it and if too fishy, don't get bogged down in what it generates.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't know firsthand. My colleague has found it helpful. As far as coding goes, he knows enough to be dangerous. He can work it out, but the result is usually a (thankfully somewhat procedurally structured at least) mess. So for him, he can kinda tell what things do even though he gets things like & and | confused sometimes.
It has worked for him in the past. I don't know how often he relies on it. That's all I got.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
|
|
|
|
|
Hence why I said "you need to know what you are doing" which he obviously does. You don't ask a Cessna pilot to fly a Space Shuttle. ChatGPT for code is the same, dangerous in the hands of novices.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
ChatGPT will keep the mediocre, mediocre. The less motivated will accept whatever it offers and will never attempt a better solution, or accept there is "no solution" (when in fact there is; it just needs exploring).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with that, as I see my colleague improving in his coding endeavors, though to be fair he doesn't use ChatGPT exclusively. He has used it to unstick himself, which is how I suggested it be employed.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to people who "call" themselves programmers. I got the sense your colleague is using it properly (and is not a "programmer").
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
imho: yes ... when you take into account:
1) you are using relatively new code tools/encyclopedias that are rapidly evolving.
2) you learn/adapt/master the queries/prompts that give better results.
i'm using the new JetBrains ReSharper beta AI assistant (EAP 9), tuned for, of course, programming. It works in Visual Studio with no glitches.
Look for an article/tip-trick from me soon on how to use it as a "secretary" which transforms bare-bones schema into boiler plate code 
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
modified 18-Jul-23 4:04am.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
