|
Ah well, I've seen worse.
Every project has "before-we-knew-X-stuff" 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
For is generally faster than foreach, but I guess if you were interested in speed you wouldn't be using Javascript.
|
|
|
|
|
So I could just claim my older code is my newer code and say I switched to for loops to make it faster?
Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can also do this...
for(var i in myArray){
var thisItem = myArray[i];
}
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Did not know that either, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Which works well until you include an external library that extends Array.prototype with a custom property.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
What you're saying is pointless. If I screw with existing members of a native type then duh of course things will break. Only a fool would write a lib that did that, so there's no point in even pointing it out. With that being said...
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<script>
Array.prototype.remove = function(member) {
var index = this.indexOf(member);
if (index > -1) this.splice(index, 1);
return this;
}
var myArray = ['poppy', 'sesame', 'plain'].remove('poppy');
for(var x in myArray) console.log(myArray[x]);
</script>
</head>
<body>
<p>Oh gee, common sense gets ignored again.</p>
</body>
</html>
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, the "wrong" way you were doing it was probably faster.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I should never have doubted myself 
|
|
|
|
|
It took me a while to figure out that on my wife's laptop I need to use Fn-F5, then I come back to my computer and start hitting Win-F5. 
|
|
|
|
|
My laptop does that too! I hope I won't have the same problem you have... 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing! I needed that!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this era of international hacking why expose critical lob information to the internet? Cut the cord to in-house servers...
|
|
|
|
|
?? huh?? What do you mean - put everything in the cloud?
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
I think he means have no internet connection attached to critical business systems.
|
|
|
|
|
I read that the IT security was only a "handful fo people (aka five) and the security policy was outdated and only a joke. And it wasnt the first breach, so they were alarmed about attacks. 
After reading that I only got sarcastic like a old men: "They only got what they deserved" 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: I read that the IT security was only a "handful fo people (aka five) and the security policy was outdated and only a joke.
Wouldn't surprise me entirely. Sony laid off thousands last year (or was it the year before?)...I don't remember the source, but I recall hearing/reading that a lot of these were IT people responsible for their own internal infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
|
What I mean is, do not place critical business information on servers (or server farms) that are connected to the internet. This includes accounting, CRM, customer data, credit card, planning, source code, any other company confidential information. Only public facing websites need be hosted on servers connected to the internet. Everything else should be placed on isolated, internal networks. Even systems such as accounting should be on separate internal networks, available to only those with a need to know, apart from general company network.
PCs are cheap (in comparison to being hacked). Use a KVM switch to switch between desktop PCs for browsing the web/email, and a PC with access to internal, confidential application systems.
|
|
|
|
|
These are people in the entertainment industry; they're not very imaginative.
|
|
|
|
|
Passed with a 920 - what a giant pointless pain in the ass this whole thing is.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Google says it's -392. How do you come up with 920??? 
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: what a giant pointless pain in the ass this whole thing is.
OK, but is it actually worth the $150? Perusing what you learn, it strikes me if I don't know something already that I need to do with SQL Server, I can just google for the answer.
BTW, cute, how you got around the profanity sensor.
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
