|
Are you just checking in a new version?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, thought I unchecked the "publish to the insider forum" box when including it in the queue for tomorrow.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
That vaguely creeped out feeling you get from Googling something for the first time and then seeing ads for it when you log on to Facebook two minutes later? It's soon going to follow you to your Android games. You'll never guess what tools they're adding. Dang, you guessed 'ads'? You're clever.
|
|
|
|
|
I was so actively trying to argue why DVCSes were so superior to the existing centralized source control systems that we had that I never really stopped that long to think about if maybe, just maybe, they in fact weren’t well suited to every single situation that involved source code.
And as a result of the efforts of people like me, we’re now seeing some truly insane “best practices” in the name of adopting Git.5 And mind you, we insist they’re “best practices”; they’re not workarounds, oh no, they’re what you should have been doing since the beginning.
And that’s bullshit.
Today, I’m putting my foot down. I helped start this nonsense, so I’m going to help stop it. If a DVCS is great for your workflow, fine. If the trade-offs it imposes are good for you, great. But let’s stop claiming that they’re free, because they have a cost, and the cost is sometimes not worth it.
Because there hasn't been enough bomb tossing around here lately.
*dives into his bunker*
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
|
|
|
|
|
Never even been tempted to try one.
If something requires hype to attract interest; I'm not interested.
|
|
|
|
|
In my workplace, given the deployment requirements and the organization of us developers, we use the best and most portable versioning tool: properly named zip and changelog.
Pros:
1) Easy to backup;
2) Always compatible, no new tools to install;
3) Soothes the ultra-conservative copy-only-delete-never approach of all the members of the staff (except the one who sometimes loses some file and has to rework from scratch);
4) Packs the data with the source code, may be useful when developing and deploying customized algorithms.
Cons:
1) Soothes the ultra-conservative copy-only-delete-never approach, leading to several WIP archives and cluttering of the hard-drives.
Geek code v 3.12
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--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I used to do that too, then I discovered source control when I started coding professionally and never looked back.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I was hired at a place years ago where their "source control" consisted of a networked directory and passing around popsicle sticks with filenames written on them. Whomever had the popsicle stick "owned" editing of that file. Of course, there was no history kept and errors did occurr. But, it mostly "worked". However, I was aghast. I quickly switched them to a SCR, which they didn't even know such a thing existed.  
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
There has been more than one company I've introduced to the wonders of source control.
I'm not trying to educate a manager that looking at the history can give him a great view into the work going on too. Haven't got through yet.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Madness!
|
|
|
|
|
I take this does not mean District Vehicle and Computer Service.
tl;dr:
- DVCS won becasue they got merge+branch right
- many of us (a.k.a the author) rarely needs the distributed aspect
- no non-diffable or large binaries
- doesn't actually scale well for large repos
- Before pull requests, we had diffs
|
|
|
|
|
While I accept that a reliable merge+branch is a good thing, over-reliance on it is a sign of a broken process; fix your process.
|
|
|
|
|
note: content uses ShockWave Flash: [^].
"DOUG: I think the most difficult word from the list was “photobomb.” “Photobomb” was a bit of a challenge. I asked others in the community how they sign it, and we had all different versions, and so we'll see what the comments are. Some people agreed and disagreed, but this is the one I chose. You could also change it depending on whose POV you are presenting: am I taking the picture or am I the one in the picture doing the “photobomb?” So it brought about quite a hot discussion about which way to sign “photobomb.” Which of these words do you never use?"
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
cool - its only natural that sign language would evolve - I guess not just by geographic regions (AUSLAN is what's used in Australia, different from the American and similar to English sign languages) but as shown, in the interpretation by different age groups, possibly even more factors
- one of the funniest experiences I had was taking a group of hearing impaired kids diving - the 'rest of us' were just simple pointing at things - the hearing impaired kids were having full on conversations - they had a good laugh with us airside about the advantages of signing 
|
|
|
|
|
Not since Monica Lewinsky was a White House intern has one blue dress been the source of so much consternation. Just in case you haven't seen a gazillion articles on 'the dress'
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a colour blind synaesthetic, this whole dress thing smells a bit fishy to me.
|
|
|
|
|
It’s fair to say, Windows 8.x has enjoyed something of a rollercoaster ride when it comes to usage share. It's almost like a new version was announced, but not released yet.
|
|
|
|
|
AngularJS can strand users in backward incompatibilities, but its Google pedigree and wild popularity could give it staying power. v1.0 or v2.0? Or some future incompatible version?
|
|
|
|
|
Not an expert on web frameworks, but as far I noticed along those months of learning, the closer these frameworks are to WPF, the better are the results (and the popularity). AngularJS is one of the closest and well supported at the same time.
Still too much crowded, too many giants-wars and too anarchy, though...
|
|
|
|
|
I feel as though everybody just forgot about ng-europe and is carrying on as normal with Angular.
Then when Google pulls the plug on 1.x, we're going to have to read lots of articles on how nobody saw this coming and what an outrage the whole thing is! 
To choose AngularJS 1.X for a new project today, when 2.0 is on the way and incompatible , and 1.X is unsupported shortly after it's release is insane.
So, Is AngularJS ready for the enterprise?
No! 2.0 might be (it looks awesome so far) but 1.X definitely is not, because it's already dead.
Until 2.0 is out in the wild, I recommend EmberJS!
modified 1-Mar-15 19:30pm.
|
|
|
|
|
For the lulz I decided to create my own Google Trends chart[^] combining AngularJS, ReactJS (because infoworthless seems to think it might be an Angular killer), and Bootstrap (because I couldn't believe an article about web frameworks wouldn't mention it. Strangely enough it shows Bootstrap crushing Angular; and the numbers from before the framework was released makes it clear it's not due to Google being confused between the framework and footware. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
|
|
|
|
|
Bootstrap and angular aren't really comparable though. Bootstrap is more of a base CSS package. You can even use the two together.[^]
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that some coding languages are more Serious than others is a myth that needs to be disproven. "Why so serious?"
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Ruby’s Goals: “beauty, simplicity, and developer happiness.”
That's a joke; not a serious goal.
Quote: Because execution time is easily measurable (and people love optimizing things they can measure), ‘fast’ languages like C tend to sit at the top of people’s mental hierarchy as the most ‘serious’ of programming languages.
This is the myth
I agree with that; it's not about speed.
Quote: Languages like Ruby allow programmers to do more with less code, making them faster for the developer. Increased developer-speed means it’s faster to find out whether anyone wants what you’re making, easier to add the features users request, and easier to finish your project with fewer developers.
Getting closer; but that's not it either.
Quote: This diversity of needs, then, makes a strong argument for the importance of a diversity of programming languages with diverse design goals.
Also true, but that can only help us group languages and then determine the seriousness of languages within a group.
Quote: The whole purpose of coding languages is to help anyone build or accomplish cool things more easily. Use whatever language helps you accomplish this most quickly and most completely.
No, "more easily" is not truly the goal (although I do appreciate how C# makes things much easier than C, C++, and even VB). And I certainly hope he rolled robustness, maintainability, and stability into "completely".
To return to the discussion of the benefits of high level languages over machine code -- developer speed is actually a side-effect, the real benefit is in reduced maintenance cost, including the portability that was a primary goal. Increase portability, readability, add strong data typing, and you improve maintainability, which reduces the coding burden on the developers. Please don't take the following out of context: "Speed" is distance-through-time. Rather than focussing on decreasing the time used for the distance, it's better to decrease the distance, and reap the savings in time while achieving the same speed.
In fact, I don't think "seriousness" is really an attribute of the language itself, but of the practitioners -- is a language "for serious developers" or is it a toy, a learning language, something for quick Proof-of-Concept development?
To expand on that, and to relate this to the quote about "developer speed", you need to bear in mind that code is generally written once and read many times. "Developer speed" can lead to unreadable code. Whereas a language that lends itself to discipline and clarity of thought can lead to lessened cost of maintenance.
Relevant adages:
A stitch in time saves nine.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
