The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I only use it on my private network, so I can't say if it will work outside that. I'm not eager to expose the laptop that way and there's nothing that I would need to do on the laptop that would be so pressing that I'd need to access it remotely from my local Starbucks. My big use case is paying bills from the living room -- Open Quicken on the laptop using remote desktop, then pay away. If I were to have a flash of inspiration for one of the apps I'm working on, I could even run Visual Studio like that, though it would be somewhat cramped.
I only use it on my private network, so I can't say if it will work outside
This is surprising because I thought Windows Store certification required that the app did not attempt to connect to localhost as well as local IP addresses (same network). Perhaps this is an official app from Microsoft where they could bypass these rules?
I'm sick of NuGet micro-managing my references and shafting me in the process. Why are people releasing stable NuGet packages that reference pre-release versions of things?
I've used McvMailer in my current project which has a reference to T4Scaffolding stuff that in turn reference EF6 PRERELEASE ... whereas all our production code references EF5 ...
I know have a broken solution that compiles but wont run ...
A few other devs I've spoken to are equally fed up with NuGet and the mess it can make in the background. I really don't see the benefits, it just wastes time imho and If I want to carry on using MvcMailer it appears that I have to upgrade everything to a pre-release version of EF ...
Am I Massively missing something here or is NuGet just a total pain in the ass?
Ouch. I feel your pain. I don't use NuGet all that often, most of the time I either download the source and compile it or download the binaries. I actually created a NuGet package downloader to assist with that. I will post a link if you want to see it.
If the problem is a package from Scott Hanselmann, may I suggest you contact him: [^]
Or, perhaps, leave a contact on his January 10, 2013 blog article about using NuGet to do some exotic thing with Google Spreadsheets: [^]
He's responded to me, personally, before.
good luck, Bill
“Thus on many occasions man divides himself into two persons, one who tries to fool the other, while a third, who in fact is the same as the other two, is filled with wonder at this confusion. Thinking becomes dramatic, and acts out the most complicated plots within itself, and, spectator, again, and again, becomes: actor.” From a book by the Danish writer, Paul Moller, which was a favorite of Niels Bohr.
This morning I dropped my daughter off at school in bright sunshine, 5 minutes later I noticed a flake or two of snow drifting down, then it really started going down, but the sky was clear in front of me. In the near distance (if you see what I mean) it looked like a swarm of insects with the snow silhouetted and blowing about all over the place against the bright blue sky. Continued to drive to work in practically a blizzard then 5 minutes before I got there it slowed, stopped, and I arrived in bright sunshine again.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
I was in a departmental meeting today where there was a discussion of our company newsletter. One worker raised his hand and said he couldn't access our site. I'm thankful that the first I heard of the problem was in a meeting full of upper management - you know, instead of sending me a discrete email the first time the problem occurred.
I'm always working very hard to sabatoge my career.
Thankfully, I've many team members willing to make substantial contributions to the cause.
The odd part about all of this is that the person is question isn't supposed to have access to the newsletter because it is IP restricted. The newsletter contains confidential information - and I suspect he's been told this on more than one occassion. It really is the kind of thing that gets me to dreaming about a confrontation in the parking lot with a tire iron.
That was the perfect opportunity to thank him for testing the security of the site and verifying that it was working properly because he was not deemed to be worthy of accessing the site. Remind him that repeated attempts to access the site could be viewed as an attempt to hack the site.
I was brought up to respect my elders. I don't respect many people nowadays.
One worker raised his hand and said he couldn't access our site. I'm thankful that the first I heard of the problem was in a meeting full of upper management
Perfect chance to blame him in front of the upper management.
The odd part about all of this is that the person is question isn't supposed to have access to the newsletter because it is IP restricted. The newsletter contains confidential information - and I suspect he's been told this on more than one occassion.
Write an email to him to explain it. And CC the whole upper management
Unfortunately it's not easy to do with email, but in the good old days of paper memos we had the perfect cure for this kind of guy. Memo him, cc all the way up his management chain, then "lose" the original. Works wonders.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
So the victim will get a call from his boss (who probably got a call from his boss, etc) saying "What the elephant is this all about?" He will have extreme difficulty in formulating any answer, let alone an appropriate one.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
With regard to database design: Is it just me or are there others out there who are driven nuts by repeating the table name in the column name. E.g., I see things like Widget_Attribute_Type.Widget_Attribute_Type_Id all the time when all that is needed is Widget_Attribute_Type.Id. Seems when I debate this with the DBA types and architects they use the same [similar] tired arguments.
I must say that I hate that too. And it is even worse when the fields get too long and so they start to abbreviate parts of the name (be it of the table name or the column name)... it makes it impossible to create C# code that automatically generates queries without using alternative methods to say: Hey... Id becomes "SOME_ABBV_TB_ID".
I can think of something worse ... I'm having to deal with a database (designed by someone else I hasten to add) where table names and column names have spaces in them e.g. [Current Sterling Rate]. Drives me nuts. But on a positive side - at least I don't have to hit the Shift key again to get the 
I have a real preference for 4th normal because I don't like null checks in code, The down side is a less natural object model. For foreign keys:
create table order
It is actually, kind of funny, my rationalization for the Id. Code commonality. As far as the DB is concerned consistent trumps any rationalization but when it comes to writing code, writing less code is better. If Id is always the key value there are a lot of interfaces and base classes that can be written to support that. (No, I don't use code generators) [Yes, I know they can save a lot of time; yet I have never missed a dead-line because of DAL code--I am just that good]
My real and true db pet peeve, however, is people that Alias all table names. There are cases for aliasing, sub-query joins, multiple joins on the same table, name too long, but to alias just to save typing significantly reduces the readability of the query. Consider:
select o.id,c.id, /*notice here one of the reasons some people use table name?*/,
l.id,c.name, op.method from order o,customer c, lineItem l, orderPayemnt op
where o.customterId=c.id and l.orderId=o.id and op.orderId=o.id
JOIN order ON
order.customerId = customer.Id
JOIN lineItem ON
lineItem.orderId = order.id
JOIN orderPayment ON
orderPayment.orderId = order.id
With the expense of a few extra key strokes, every one and their mother can read and modify the query.
Well actually you're not alone, that's my preference of naming too.
Actually if a table doesn't have a natural ID column I feel almost olbiged to add one (either bigint or more recently uniqueidentifier).
For other columns I prefer to use something closer to the real use of the column e.g.:
etc... and oh I really hate the habits developped by some developper or database designers:
TBL_ for a table name
COL_ for a column name
_NU for a numeric column
_CHR for a string column
_DT for a datetime column etc.... (I think you can see the picture here)
I really don't see the point in prefixing a table or column name with and indicator of the type of object, frankly when we start typing "SELECT * FROM " dont we know the next word will be a table name ? or that the list of words after the SELECT represents columns ?
Now having a meaningfull prefix for a column name can help understand queries with joins and can save aliasing even if it means longer queries let's say than instead of having ID everywhere we have CUS_ID, ORD_ID, etc... then we don't need aliasing since we know for sure that CUS_ID comes from the Customer table and ORD_ID from the Order table....
As for the postfix representing the type of the column I'm completely clueless to its advantages, if you code against a database then you must known its structure, that means knowing the table names, the column names and their types !
It makes joins clearer in regards to key fields, and I assume that's what you're talking about. Although I wouldn't use such an unwieldly name in the first place. For example, I'd likely use AttributeTypeId. That would then match nicely as a foreign key which you'd name similarly.
It doesn't; it clutters up the statement with redundant text.
FROM Employee e
JOIN Department d ON d.Id = e.fk_Department
FROM Employee e
JOIN Department d ON d.DepartmentId = e.Employee_fk_Department
..worse are the people who add the text "table" to a tablename.
..worse than that, tools that make it easy to model data; any idiot can make a list, and any idiot does. Solving the same kind of errors, over and over. "The same customer is recorded three times in the database, and someone needs to correct that."
Bring me an MS-Access database, without any relationships defined, without primary keys, and with every field being a varchar (memo!).