|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Skipping lunch [very hungry now] as Mrs Wife is home early and we're going out for a drive in the toot-toot car and a Worzel Gummage*
* Shag in a haystack
FTFY
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: Shag in a haystack
You, like me, are married. Shirley you'd know such things don't happen any more. 
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I went to the pub and had a pint of wife beater whilst watching the Ausies tumble.
Then I went to Subway.
It is Friday after all. Now I'm back at work.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sending in a special ops team to raid your home. All the ingredients you have listed are banned by interpol and must be taken in, as evidence of your crime.
|
|
|
|
|
You may take my yeast, but you'll never take my freedom!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It's Friday and we're down to the bottom of the barrel so leftover steak strips and cheese on a hoggie bun and chips for me.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: What are you planning on?
Coming over?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a large (16 oz) Melton Mowbray Pork Pie that I am currently looking at (and slobbering on my desk about) and deciding whether to eat the whole thing for breakfast or save half of it for lunch! These pies may be common in the UK but they are like gold dust here in the US.
I have found a new US, legal source for these pies (and Cornish pasties and sausage rolls, etc.) and am stuffing myself with long-missed goodies at the moment.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Oooo....a good pork pie is a thing to love!
I can make the hot water pastry and get that right, but I've never managed to get the filling "just there", no matter what mixture of pig parts and spices I use. 
One day I'll find a good recipe...but until then I'll have to buy them. And the good ones are getting scarce here too, being replaced with manufactured cr@p that tastes of plastic, not pork.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: that tastes of plastic
Ah, the fresh taste of plastic. Just like mama used to make. 
|
|
|
|
|
Where? Please do tell. I've been looking but haven't had much luck  . I've tried to make my own (Cornish pasties etc) but they somehow don't come out the same.
|
|
|
|
|
theenglishporkpiecompany.com [^]
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Methinks olive bread, Camembert, salami, and Tomkin tomatoes is going to feature highly on the luncheon menu today.
It's 16:31, it's an hour before I leave for home and now, after reading that, I'm really hungry... thanks... 
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I went to a talk on Functional Programming (related to CQRS) and it just seems like such a natural match. This got me wondering - why isn't functional programming far more widely used than it is?
(Thoughts I had - lack of visualisation tooling, and steep learning curve for juniors...?)
|
|
|
|
|
Because"the long established other paradigms do the job, so why change" ?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - that was what held back object-oriented programming...until it didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
With the difference maybe that the multi-paradigm languages actually do a pretty good job.
|
|
|
|
|
Object oriented languages (including C#) are truly awful in multithreaded / parallel situations, but we have got so used to working around this that we don't see it.
I remember a similar thing with pre-OO code where we just couldn't imagine why you'd put the data and the code together.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: are truly awful in multithreaded / parallel situations
Which means that functional programming not ? Then I have to have a closer look at it 
|
|
|
|
|
In my not humble, but bloody good, opinion if the language needs to 'do multithreading' then you're doing it wrong. Write good code that does what it is supposed to do, then the process can be placed in a multithreaded do-hickey quantum runbot and your good to go.
The amount of times I've had the same old argument, if you need to know how to set up queues and threads to handle them in the every day environment then you're application framework is FUBAR.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: Object oriented languages (including C#) are truly awful in multithreaded / parallel situations, but we have got so used to working around this that we don't see it.
Actors is the latest fashion. I assume you've looked at the recently-released Akka.NET and MS Project Orleans? The former seems more approachable IMO, though I've only done "Hello World."
Of course, Actors are "new" but not new since they were invented over 40 years ago!  But it will appear new to most devs. Often the way with "new" tech.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Dysfunctional programmers?
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: steep learning curve for juniors...?
And for not so juniors! It's like the shift from procedural to OO initially. Plus most of the line of business applications I do seem to have no need for it.
I have dabbled a bit in F# though. I like to keep aware of what else is out there - for the day I may need it.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
This answer by a former C# compiler developer (Eric Lippert) on SO is pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
It took OOP a while to catch on, this is no different.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
