|
No wonder they're replacing the rendering engine with Chromium.
And reasons for why I'm posting this will be explained at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
Internet Explorer, because "better the devil you know..."
|
|
|
|
|
A long time ago I made a very primitive webpage to collect my bookmarks. It has a background image, a title image, and a table of two columns with all of the links. I have used this page for about twenty years to hold my frequently visited links and it has worked fine with every browser I have tried it on this entire time except for Edge.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, but three columns.
KISS solutions always work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
My favorite part is that I have to run the Microsoft Teams web app in chrome because it doesn't work for me in Edge.
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
DRHuff wrote: My favorite part is that I have to run the Microsoft Teams web app open a fair percentage of sites in chrome just about any other browser because it doesn't they don't work for me in Edge.
Unfortunately, installing "just about any other browser" at work is not an option.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Edge is microsoft's attempt at punishing the public for abolishing internet explorer
what? our security sucks. Here. Have NO plugins. *sticks out tongue*
And get stuck with our crappy rendering engine.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: And reasons for why I'm posting this will be explained at some point.
I almost took this up as my signature  The ultimate disclaimer.
|
|
|
|
|
I use Edge for about 95% of my browsing. The other 5% is IE. I have to ask what weird sites people are going to for Edge to not work. (In fact, I'm typing in Edge right now.)
|
|
|
|
|
You're doing web development, aren't you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You're doing web development, aren't you?
I burst out laughing when I read that. You are so right on the mark there!
I tried my article on divs and tables in Edge. What crap. I'm working on a simple pure Javascript HTML with Preview "page", and it looks beautiful in Chrome. Edge, well, let's just say it's like a rusty knife with a really dull edge. Rather useless and you might get some disease from it.
|
|
|
|
|
The everlasting struggle of developers and naming stuff...
I'm not quite happy with my current project names (they're a bit longish, Company.Domain.Project.Data, for example), but what's bothering me even more at the moment is my own naming convention in Azure.
I prefer PascalCased, like ThisIsMyWebApp, which is fine, except for other resources, like a SQL Server, which only allows lower characters.
Long story short, I now have:
MyWebApp
my-sql-server
mystorageaccount
I'm now leaning more towards my-sql-server style for everything unless -'s are not possible, like with storage accounts.
If this is what I'm worrying about everything must go pretty well, and it does, but this kind of stuff bothers me more than it should 
|
|
|
|
|
Just add an X at the end comment it with something like "add modern experiences for Windows 10 users" 
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: add modern e Xperiences for Windows 10 users
|
|
|
|
|
I usually use swear words for naming things. It makes coding so much more amusing. 
|
|
|
|
|
So would it be B****A**M************WebApp or b****-a**-m************-web-app? 
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much like that!
Of course the member functions of 'MassiveWhore' are very amusing!
|
|
|
|
|
var yoMomma = new MassiveWhore();
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take an F.
I'd like to buy a vowel Pat, U!
I'd like to solve that Puzzle Pat...
Sorry, could NOT resist.
On the topic, I often throw a little slang around when I get bored with naming. An example would be a module I wrote to get domain whois data. I named the function "WhoIsDis" and another "WhoIsDat" for the string data received.
|
|
|
|
|
I've done that so many times unintentionally.
I also get function names like ExpandRights, which sounds quite libertarian as code goes. That one gave me a chuckle. Also Explode, which totally makes sense once you understand it.
I've used the local decl "sex" more often than i care to admit, usually in exception handlers
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I've always preferred the underscore and all lowercase like my_web_app and my_sql_server...kind of a pain with the added shift, but eventually muscle memory kicks in. I know this is against sql server best practices, but I don't follow stupid rules. 
Sander Rossel wrote: like a SQL Server, which only allows lower characters.
 This can be enforced?..or is it a policy thing?
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like underscores, they're kind of a throwback to the pre-2000's last resort
PascalCasing for classes, methods and properties in C# and SQL, camelCasing for variables and Java(Script), this-type-of-casing in HTML and CSS (and now Azure too I guess), this_kind_of_casing only when I have no other option or if that seems to be the standard in the project I'm working on and thiskindofcasing only for Azure storage accounts because that only allows lower case characters for some reason.
I also never use THIS_SORT_OF_CASING, constants just get regular PascalCasing.
And fields aren't prefixed with an _underscore.
Azure simply doesn't allow upper case characters in a SQL Server name (I'm talking about the SQL Server resource, not the actual database).
Only lower case characters, numbers and -'s, so sqlserver1 and sql-server1 are alright, but SqlServer is not 
|
|
|
|
|
I typically use underscores as lead ins for private members in .NET classes and structs.
such as
bool _foo;
int _bar;
The reason being is because .NET/C# will not let you declare two members of the same name at different protection levels. Leading with an underscore prevents naming conflicts with protected, public or internal members used in derived classes.
Other than that, I feel the same way you do about them.
The other exception is when i'm working in an environment where everything is named like that. When in Rome...
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to do that until Visual Studio stopped generating fields with underscores.
So now I just use this if I have the same name for a field and a local variable.
|
|
|
|
|
i didn't think it even let you declare them. maybe i'm wrong. i'm just going by how they're implemented in the IL. The actual fieldnames are what are present in the metadata along with a simple flag that gives you the protection level, so there is no space for two items with the same name. I don't know if I've ever tried it in C#, but *if* it works, it would have to munge the name in IL, which can create a few problems regarding reflection and such but only in narrow circumstances.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
