|
That's cool, tell her you'll take up rock climbing as a hobby instead, watch 127 Hours with her, and then return to the concept of "irresponsible" hobbies (time wasting).
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
You could try being strategic and talk to her about the need for both of you to "reconnect with your inner child" as a way to "enrich and improve the relationship". Such bullshit usually works. Or at least it won't get you fired from google.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: I want to know , if 35 years old is too old for games?
I'm a 40-year old level 100 fire-mage. Why don't you login for a quick showdown in Alterac Valley?
Different partners reacted, well, differently. At one time, there were two desktops in the living-room next to each other, and that was were dinner got served. Then again, if you both like the same game, you may be putting some more hours into it than originally planned <grin>.
The current romantic interest does not like to play computer-games at all, and thinks I need to grow up more - but she will look at other grown kids playing "soccer" and even cheer to the TV.
Vunic wrote: I'm wasting time, *irresponsibly*.
Ask her, nicely and from a distance, how one would waste time responsibly.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Let me think... i know a lot of 35y+ gamers...
i am not one of those guys but me and her organizied a LAN Party at our place and she played every game with us (Counterstrike, Call of Duty, her favourite Stronghold Crusader and so on), then on XBox Fifa with her sometimes although she always loses.
Also VR games, but mostly before sleeping ... 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: I mean to make her play Multi-player games with you
Not long ago that would attract the comment "liberal minded,"
but there's websites and chat groups for that stuff and niches for those with other tastes and....
oh, you meant computer/console/phone multi-player games (make-believe whips and chains and...?)
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: Have you ever managed to convince your wife to give you company for a multi-player game?
You just need to find multi-player exercise or cooking games. 
Can't wait to be fired by Google for making that comment. Oh wait, I don't work for Google.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Not action/violent type games, generally. Neither of us actually.
Though we have played some Kinect games with the kid in the past.
And the Lego games.
More recently, the kid has been playing games on Steam and downloaded some party-type games that we all played.
|
|
|
|
|
Is 35 years old is too old for games? Nope, so long as you deal with your other responsibilities.
Vunic wrote: Anybody older than me here playing PC/Xbox games at home?
Mostly PC when I have the spare time, which isn't much at this point in time.
Vunic wrote: Have you ever managed to convince your wife to give you company for a multi-player game?
That is actually how we met, playing games.
Vunic wrote: If so, what game was that & how did that happen?
We met playing World of Warcraft, which is a habit we kicked. We've also played Forza, other racing games, some of the tactical shooters, Minecraft, and so on. We have to be careful because if it is a game that either of us get seriously competitive in and the other isn't as good, it can get frustrating. Just have to remember that it isn't as important as your marriage and happiness.
So long as we take care of life first and this is a way to blow off some steam, then it works. Everything in moderation.
|
|
|
|
|
66+ and I play Guild Wars 2 every day. My wife is just fine with this - she has her own business and is equally busy with that. We do see each other every so often, so we're OK...
'PLAN' is NOT one of those four-letter words.
'When money talks, nobody listens to the customer anymore.'
|
|
|
|
|
I'm older than you are, and I still play the occasional computer game (XBox mostly, these days). Never really got into them when they were newfangled things, so I'm not as into them as a lot of people are. I've never gotten my wife to play, but my kid, now that's a different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
My husband plays online games a lot and I realize that is a form of stress release for him. I don't have very good hand-eye coordination that is usually necessary for the games he plays but it is fun to watch him play.
They can be a huge time-drain if you let them but some form of recreation is a good thing. I'm thankful that his hobby is gaming and not something that takes him away from home a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
As a 41 year old I generally find myself playing games with my Kids !!
|
|
|
|
|
If it pleases you,... well, go ahead. I was singing in a chorus, and you wouldn't believe how excited those 70+ year old grandfathers were every Wendnesday night, telling about the new smartphone apps they had obtained since last chorus pratice. I am sure that they were out chasing pokemons with their grandchildren, and I am quite sure that the most eager own was the grandpa.
I had had enough of computer games when I was 21 or 22. Some of my fellow students really should have consulted a psychologist; one of them later stated that "I was a university sophmore for the three best years of my life".
That was due to one single game. It even is so long ago that we didn't have any network. We didn't have any graphic animations, we had 25 by 80 characters: Black, dim green and green. And inverse video: When these gamers set off the dynamite they had found in the cave, the blast set off a dozen of inverse video flashes of the entire screen; first time you saw it you probably tipped your chair over on its back. The original, one-player Adventure game.
It doesn't take fancy animation, graphics, 32 bit colors and sound effects. All it takes is a lively fantasy (the images are much better in radio plays than in screenplays!), and a monomaniac mind.
Watching the "life" of my fellow students gave me computer games up to here. I early learned how far it can go. You have the right to spend your spare time the way you like. I just never felt like going into the same trap myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you might ask She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed: "Didn't you marry me because I was Peter Pan ?"
Or, you might remind her that there are other vices the male-beast is susceptible to that are far worse.
cheers, Bill
«While I complain of being able to see only a shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is now, since I'm not at a stage of development where I'm capable of seeing it. A few hundred years later another traveler despairing as myself, may mourn the disappearance of what I may have seen, but failed to see.» Claude Levi-Strauss (Tristes Tropiques, 1955)
|
|
|
|
|
'The good software development manifesto', to be precise. Now that's sweet. So sweet that it makes me ill.
Quote: This means you need tests to prove your code works, and you need processes around your code that produce data that prove you’re not reverting code.
In no place and at no time a test has ever proven anything.
Quote: Coding is important, but it is important in the way an engine is important in a car. The best software developers have empathy for others who have different roles, interests, and stresses on them.
<cynism>The best software developers are complete masochists and have no empathy for anyone, including themselves. They will gladly say 'I told you so' and rub in your mistake until your last breath.
Quote: One of the first “languages” I learned was 8086 assembler. That was as close to the metal as I ever came. If we were really just “programming computers,” we would all be writing bytecode. Computers understand it best. But we’re writing in a “compromise” language that other people can understand and that can be translated to something the computer understands.
Oh yeah. That's it. That's why we have so many who will never grasp what stuff like type safety or object orientation are about. You know, those poor souls who always are looking for that silver bullet that will finally make them successful.
Quote: Conway’s law predicts that your software is doomed to reflect your team and its communication structures. Process is the structure of that communication.
Then Conway's law also explains why a single good developer can succeed where entire teams have failed. A case for the 'Cowboys' and the 'Ninjas'.
Quote: If you believe that people’s ethnicity, gender, or whatever is a good way to judge their skills or what they have to teach you, you’re limiting your own development as a software developer.
Shirley that does not mean having to tolerate the speech bubbles from the management, marketing or sales? Or anyone else who could not program the escape routre out of a wet paper bag?
Quote: A logical theory tends to have a means by which you could be proven wrong. If it doesn’t, it probably isn’t a very good theory.
Oh Gawd! Science would be in deep trouble if that were true. It's, for example, impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. Instead, a theory should make predictions which then can be validated or falsified.
I need a perfect, to the point answer as I am not aware of this.
Please don't reply explaining what method overloading is
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: In no place and at no time a test has ever proven anything.
Then write better tests.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannae change the laws of logic!
I need a perfect, to the point answer as I am not aware of this.
Please don't reply explaining what method overloading is
|
|
|
|
|
In this case im on OP's side but also on yours.
A test proves if a predefined result is returned after inserting a predefined input.
So yeah, on one side the OP is right by saying test do not prove if the code works, but they prove if the code works under certain circumstances.
That is why i say, tests give us a result about how confident we can be in our code.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote: but they prove if the code works under certain circumstances.
That is why i say, tests give us a result about how confident we can be in our code.
That's great stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
You can't always simulate real world conditions. You are always missing one factor... the DUA (dumbest user available)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Unit tests aren't trying to emulate real world conditions, they are meant to test small isolated pieces of functionality. Failure to predict what real users might do is down to standard testing.
|
|
|
|
|
You can prove the test works, but the code being tested could still be cheating.
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
Which brings us back to....write better tests.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Then write better tests.
Heh, you replied the same with my rant on the Insider News. 
Personally, I prefer to avoid unit testing. Success/failure is a completely subjective phenomenon. Some users will say the app works as intended, others will not. What's the difference? Surely not the unit tests, they pass under both conditions. The difference is hierarchical -- the higher you go in the management chain, the more probable the "it's not working" response. The lower you go in the user chain, the more probable the "it's broke" response because the user doesn't understand basic computer operations.
Ultimately, the goal of a unit test is to provide some confidence that you can build higher level functionality on low level units of code. The goal of building higher level functionality is so you can build even further higher level functionality. Ultimately, that results in the application. Given that only a narrow band of people in the hierarchy of management/knowledge will actually say "it works!" only goes to prove that unit tests, if not downright useless, are incredible cost/time wasters.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Ultimately, the goal of a unit test is to provide some confidence that you can build higher level functionality on low level units of code.
I disagree entirely. The purpose of a unit test is to prove that unit of code works, that it behaves as you want it to. That given a certain range of inputs you get the desired outputs. If you write tests that don't explore boundary testing and different scenarios then your tests *are* useless and you shouldn't do them. When you build functionality on top of that code then that introduces more logic etc so requires its own testing. Of course that code isn't going to automatically work just because the code it uses does. If that's what you think unit tests are for then it's no surprise you don't see their value.
Unit tests come into their own when refactoring code or amending code to encompass new functionality, especially when working in a team. Unit tests should add confidence that changes you are doing don't alter the previous logic in any way, and if it does alter that functionality you should be told of such by the failing tests which then enables you to have a discussion around how you come up with a solutoin that satisfies all parties.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
