|
|
|
Jacquers wrote: i still have to watch it.
Who is making you do that? The Mafia? Did a judge sentence you to watch it?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you put off watching initially for some reason, or just didn't feel like it? After The Last Jedi, I sort of completely lost interest in the franchise. I've never watched Solo, and never felt like watching. And I still don't. I used to think this indifference would fade with time, but it still hasn't. Wonder if I'll even feel like watching Episode 9 when it's out.
|
|
|
|
|
I felt the same, It was a classic meet at the flat go out for a meal & drinks as it was a friends birthday. It was raining and not very inviting outside weather wise so time needed to wasted going through the Prime account of my flat mate we found Solo and watched it, retored my faith some what...like Rouge One but the end was not as obvious (the two stand alone movies I think have been better than the sequels)...
|
|
|
|
|
CBS All Access may have more for you: Star Trek Short Treks Schedule Revealed[^]
Four short "minisodes" of series. Odd release schedule though ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If you are a Discovery fan, then ...
Yes, if...
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: CBS All No Access
FTFY - As luck would have it, no-one is upset about this.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I read the subject line as referring to the Discovery Channel. Well, nope...
|
|
|
|
|
Against many whales, the short Spanish down under. (9)
This space for rent
modified 24-Sep-18 4:28am.
|
|
|
|
|
Against ANTI
many whales, POD
the short Spanish ES
down under.
ANTIPODES
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
We have a winner.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all!
I think I need some help in navigating the incredibly huge sea of web technologies that have appeared in the last years - it has been a while since I had the time to actually study newish frameworks and products.
My job consists mostly of LoB applications, so until now I have found myself very comfortable with ASP.net Web Forms, WCF for AJAX interactions, a little bit of jQuery and ADO.net for database access - trying to keep it simple on the client side and have most of the work done on the server side. To achieve a 'modern' look I use the DevExpress Web Forms controls, and that's pretty much it.
It feels, however, like I'm missing something. Everybody is talking about different approaches but they all seem like huge steps backwards to me. I can't honestly believe people are more productive this way.
- ASP.net MVC? Yeah, just put some server side code alongside HTML. Back in my days we called that Classic ASP, and we hated it. Bonus hell points: video tutorials.
- Data binding? Yeah, bind everything to a EF context, you get IQueryables, it's fast! Oh, you need to call an API? Tough luck... no data binding for you. Back to ObjectDataSources!
- Bah! HTML5 and JS is all you need! Just use server side code for your APIs and learn to love
Angular/KnockoutJS/SoupOfTheDay and AJAX calls! Yep, until the devil finds you in the 666th level of callback nesting. Oh, and no strict typing for you - I swear, you don't need it. Except when you need it, and it's in production, and you got screwed by something that in server side code would have never happened. More bonus hell points: huge javascript files with very little editor support.
There MUST be some secret that all of the fancy web dev are hiding from me. Like, you know, a C# client side variant that gets compiled to JavaScript, has some DOM manipulation helpers and lets us avoid all of this mess. Bonus points if the examples' code works, because most of the other technologies' tutorial are either 'a) Dumbed down beyond the point of usefulness' or 'b) Outdated and just plain not working without the exact balance of dependencies and API keys and the right moon phase'. Is there a single tutorial that builds a real LoB application? I swear, I only need authentication, authorization, some attention to security and invoking web services. And some UI like forms, popup dialogs and toolbars.
This is becoming a rant and I didn't really want that. I really think this is my fault. I just don't know where to start - and be productive with a simple but complete web app. I like having web services for application logic. I am ready to ditch Web Forms. I just don't want to lose my time again and again. Do you have any suggestion?
Thanks in advance
Luca
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. -- Wing Commander IV
En Það Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað, Er Nýr Dagur.
(But the best thing God has created, is a New Day.)
-- Sigur Ròs - Viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
I was hoping to help you and started reading your post.
Unfortunately about two lines into your post, my something in my head went BAZZZINGA!! and it was all downhill from there (hint: I'm of no use to you).
When I read this line, there was a conversation of this sort in my head:
Luca Leonardo Scorcia wrote: My job consists mostly of LoB applications
Mind: There are LoB applications, Rajesh.  
Me: Yeah?
Mind: LoB applications, there are; you stupid twonk. Also, your mouth is open, Rajesh. Close it.
Me: Mate, th...
Mind: STOP IT! This from a guy who thinks his knowledge is out of date. And you don't even know what's an LoB application. When are you going to ask for help?
Me: Hmm?!
Mind: When are you going to build an LoB application?!
Me: [Grabs the sandwich from the side table]
Mind: Yeah, that's right. Keep eating. Would you like fries with that samich, capt'n fatso?
Mind: I bet LoB is different than IoT. Your RPI-connected-IoT-enabled fruit peeler project wasn't all that good.
Me: I know.
Mind: Learn how to do an LoB application.
Me: But the dude says something along the lines of his skills being already out of date, yes?
Mind: Oh!
Me:
Me: [takes an enormous bite]
Mind: God, that's dry. Samich needs more sauce.
Me: OK, will do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try and start from the top....
What's "LoB"?
|
|
|
|
|
LOB applications are usually large programs that contain a number of integrated capabilities and tie into databases and database management systems. Had to google it 
We use the term LOB as well but it describes a market segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel your pain, Luca. I've been writing LoB applications for most of my career (thankfully!), most of the time with small companies and operating as a freelancer. At the end of the day, the client neither knows nor cares what technologies you've used; until, that is, the day you're not around and he needs to find someone to enhance the application that's powered his business for the past 15 years. At that point he'll be less than pleased - and his estimation of you will plummet - when he finds you're using some flavour-of-the-month framework that went out of fashion 10 years ago and no-one will touch with a barge-pole.
I've found that keeping it simple - ASP.Net (either C# or, yes, VB.Net which saves a serious amount of faffing about) with WebForms, ADO.Net, JQuery and some simple ASMX webservices does everything I've ever needed to do. Conversely when working with "99% complete" applications that I've been asked to "finish off", I find an enormous pile of redundant code, a massive dependency list and at least 2 or 3 versions of frameworks and tools that are no longer supported or even accessible.
It sounds like you're pretty much in charge technically; so stick with what you know and works, and build up your own personal library of routines and techniques for the things all these applications need to do. Even with a restricted toolset, you'll find you still learn new stuff about it every week, you still learn new ways to use it, and still get that satisfaction from solving problems elegantly and robustly.
Have fun!
PS LoB = Line of Business - those un-sexy, day-to-day back office applications that keep businesses running day in, day out.
|
|
|
|
|
Even now you'll probably struggle to find people who do webforms, or want to do them anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right there (had to try and find a competent WebForms developer to take on a project I didn't have time for (would have used lots of common code from an existing WebForms application I'd written) and simply couldn't find anybody. Which I think is a great shame as WebForms is a mature, proven and highly capable platform with a huge codebase to borrow from. Done properly it can be very efficient and, as above, I've never found anything I can't do with it.
I looked at MVC and took the conscious decision not to learn / use it. But that's because I'm now semi-retired and really just maintaining existing customers; for career protection if I'd been even 10 years younger I think I'd inevitably have gone down that road.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a competent WebForms developer. Just sayin'...
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
When I started to seriously write web apps, both for personal use and for my clients, I came up with three "truths":
TL;DR:
- It's got to look good and be fast.
- It's got to be clean code on the client.
- It's got to be clean code on the server.
Elaboration:
- The user doesn't care what's behind what they see, they want a fast and good looking UI. For that reason, I glommed onto jqWidgets (lovely controls, but there is a minor performance hit because jqWidgets doesn't support minified .js files, mitigated by turning on compression. I also use Bootstrap because it works very nicely for helping me style the UI on mobile devices. And that's it. I also code the client-side almost always as a responsive UI -- auto-update the server on a UI change, and I use HTML5's websockets for auto-syncing the client.
- I do care what is behind what the user sees, so after fussing with a couple of them, I ditched all those SoupOfTheDay frameworks. Really don't need them. I learned enough of the DOM and Javascript (with frequent googling to learn what the best--by my judgement--way to do something is) and learned how to write cleanly structured and maintainable Javascript -- the rule is, write very small functions. I look at patterns in my code and refactor them into reusable functions. Rinse and repeat.
- I also care what's on the server side. That means C#, my own web server which can run standalone or under IIS (which is nice for hosting multiple HTTPS sites), using LetsEncrypt for certs and a acme.net for cert renewal. It's in C#, I don't use EntityFramework, preferring my own as powerful but much more lightweight implementation relying on just Linq2Sql. Most importantly, everything on the back-end that the client has to talk to (or listen to) is handled by a clean API architecture.
Now, you don't have to go down the whole "re-invent the wheel" process that I went down, and it was a major decision to throw out those client-side frameworks as well as EF, as well as the Microsoft web server stack and selectively roll my own. Not very marketable on my resume, haha. But I get a very clean separation of concerns and what I consider to be very maintainable web apps. And nothing uses Nuget. 
So, at the end of the day, I need to know:
jqWidgets
Bootstrap
Javascript
DOM
C# /.NET
SQL
JSON
That's it.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
We use Angular (4+) as the front end stack and today I'm busy trying to update it to v6... unsuccessfully so far  And then there are all the npm packages to update as well. A bit of dll hell in a way. So I definitely see your case for not using all these fancy frameworks.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
