|
Excel does a lot of magic; read theoldnewthing if you want details that you never need.
Fun fact; Excel has better VB than the other MS products.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Read The Old New Thing in any case!
Some posts are really entertaining (especially when he tells about crazy legacy issues), and some of it is really useful! (I made an adjustment as late as last night, based on what I read in one old entry about file system tunneling.
C++ / Win32 people will find more useful stuff there, there is less of C#/dotNet. But a lot is also general, about Windows in all forms.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if by correct they mean no hacks. In some cases hacks are acceptable if undesirable. The real world (deadlines and budget) often intervenes to undercut design, leading to kludges, and also maintenance can lead to kludgy code over time. Maybe by correct they mean with as little of this as possible. If I'm reading it charitably this is how I would interpret it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that could be true.
However, that doesn't show from the context.
It's really just a form that users have to fill out and since they always enter the same thing (everything is fine, if it isn't there's another form) the filling of the form has to be automated 
Filling out the form regularly for all employees is a legal obligation and it could add up to thousands of forms per year.
It's really stupid, expensive and time consuming, but it's bureaucracy at its finest
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a case that parts of it are simple (but not correct) and other parts are correct (but not simple)
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can think of is they're warning against overengineering this process?
In other words, it maybe could be made "more correct" to catch every single possible error, but the time involved in tracking down those corner cases and implementing a new part of the process is more costly than just having a human fix the spreadsheet when a corner case comes up.
Still seems weird; a fix is done once, so its cost is fixed. Manual fixes have an ongoing cost over time.
|
|
|
|
|
There is generally a lot of truth in jokes[^] - no need to follow the actual link. There are quite a few replies but no one gave the correct reply:
"Are You Kidding ?"
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Shirley you mean: "Are you joking" 
|
|
|
|
|
You are joking, right?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
No - there's a nuance of civility in not repeating too many words from the original title. It invokes a bit more mental digestion.
Or more sublty put: It's my post. You should have thought of it first and been quicker to post it.
Nyah-nah-nyah-nah-nyah-nyah!.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: there's a nuance of civility in not repeating too many words from the original title. It invokes a bit more mental digestion.
There is more than a nuance of lack of civility in your posting your response to an existing thread as a new top-level thread.
Of course, I realize your infatuation with yourself is: limitless. Why should you follow forum rules for mere mortals ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Why should you follow forum rules for mere mortals ?
You got that right!
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: "Are You Kidding ?"
You must program in Python?
On a serious note, I have no clue what your post means. Not that you care. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Think about recursion (sort of).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Why a space before your question mark? Who taught you to write like that? Is that method still being taught in schools? I've never seen it in any books but have seen one or two others on this site do it and I don't remember what they said.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Why a space before your question mark?
Just readability in this particular format. Depending upon the font it could be important. Some fonts I use (lately) do a bad job with exclamation points and the space, in that case, makes it clearly not an l or 1.
But, in fact, it was not taught anywhere and is wrong in the sense of proper spacing.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Humor makes us cope; makes us able to share griefs with a laugh instead of a whine.
On a coding-site you find a lot of people who take things literally. And from experience, some jokes are hard to get if English isn't your first language. Some I have to speak aloud a few times to "get it" 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: The Missing and Only Valid Reply
42
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since you know that answer (too), I won't bother asking you that question.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is any good at all: In less than a microsecond, it can be factored into 2*3*7. So it isn't useful for any practical purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's factored into 6 * 9.
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason, there appears to be no wickedly efficient mechanism to "switch/case" in IL. Whereas in C for example your switches can form little jmp offset tables .NET compilers do not produce code like this (not even sure if it's possible or at least efficient in IL, I'd have to look)
In fact, the C# compiler will take long switches and turn them into hashtable lookups instead of jmp tables.
What this means in the real world is that generating compiled code to do something like lexing or parsing is slower than generating table driven code in the first place.
For example, a state machine can be rendered as a bunch of labeled code sections that goto/jmp around to each other, and that's how you'd typically compile it, but in .NET this creates significantly *slower* code in practice than generating an array/table driven state machine which doesn't goto/jmp around, but rather performs actions based on array lookups
This is really annoying to me, because I feel like there's a faster option involving generating actual jmp tables for switch cases but either the CIL can't efficiently provide it or the .NET compilers won't produce the code for it. This limits the effective performance I can get out of state machine code.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: In fact, the C# compiler will take long switches and turn them into hashtable lookups instead of jmp tables.
HTCW, do take another look at how the C# compiler can and will generate IL switch structures as jump tables under certain conditions. AFAIK: number of cases is not a factor.
[^]
And, once again, I would so appreciate discussions of this type appearing on the C# language forum, where they will not be submerged by Lounge traffic.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 2-Jun-20 8:42am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
