|
If an adapter makes sense, then yes you can, but that may be a lot of adapters if there are many levels that need to be created for different objects, and if adapter does not make sense, them may be increasing maintenance significantly as need to provide different access to methods and properties.
|
|
|
|
|
All the better! If ReadOnlyReference enables you to dispense with multiple adapters, you are further ahead of the game in reducing code bloat. However, I usually prefer to extend an existing adapter over creating a new one, especially if the extension just adds a property. The exception to that rule is if that property is hidden to prevent information disclosure or leakage.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Gray wrote: lots of branches that add little value, and the extra objects make the assembly bigger
Don't worry, we'll never need more than 640K of RAM!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Why does PHP not have mutable constants?[^]
Uh...
(Found through WTDWTF)
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
The WTF for me was in the comments. It exists.[^] Just... why? 
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what problem somebody had that the only solution was to make constants mutable
|
|
|
|
|
I cry a little when I think of the years that I wasted on that language.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
PHP and JavaScript are remarkably similar, especially in the ways that make both so malleable, at the cost of being dangerous in unskilled hands.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get if you cross an Elephant with a rhinocerous?
"Elefino!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to see why I should go to Office 2016 and found this: 13+ Reasons You Should Upgrade to Microsoft Office 2016[^].
Looking at it I just could not see any justification. I would love it if they would allow you to use C# or Visual Basic instead of vba for macro programming. I recently did some coding and it was such a pain because vba now has very little in common with even Visual Basic.
I would like to have a more reasonable listing for addresses, phone numbers, email address, etc. You cannot have an arbitrary number and no custom labels. Also the display is just as rigid as it was in 1997.
The location on the appointments has no flexibility, such as being able to use web lookups for things like restaurants, or local lookups for items in your address book.
What the hell has Microsoft Office group been doing for the last 20 years. Not much from what I can tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is why Office365 is sold on a subscription basis. They have made so few real enhancements to Office over the years many people just don't update it. I have an old version, about that age actually, that works just fine for me and it will not be updated.
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason to go as high as 2007 in my mind is that is when they started using XAML for storage. Sure to have compatibility with programs that access the files.
I upvoted you.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still on Office 2007. It's paid for. I don't see why I should pay repeatedly for 'features' that I'll never use. Also (and I hate to admit it but), all of my 'home' applications (media library, contacts list, accounts, etc) are written in MS-Access because it has a reasonable database for single user usage, good front-end, and adequate programmability - or at least it was in 2000 when I originally wrote them (in Office 97). I can get a free database engine and write everything in a free language e.g. C#; but what is the point of rewriting something that has work well for nearly two decades and any mods can be done directly in one place without needing compilers etc; especially just so I can pay for unwanted features. So, I agree with the others who say stick with Office 2007- I'm beginning to get used to the new (in 2003) ribbon UI as the old menu short cuts still work.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I am on 2016, but that is only because I basically got it for free. Was on 2010 for the longest time.
Ribbon was the stupidest thing that Microsoft ever came up with. Basically just a fancy toolbar, and when originally implemented did not even have the ability to customize which absolutely sucked since they got rid of the menus and the only way to get to things was the Ribbon. Ribbon is fine for simple programs, but for complex ones it just has its limitations. Funny is that you see menus all the time in web apps including this one (codeproject).
I also use access. It does what it needs to do in one nice compact file which includes the macros. My problem is that, as stated, VBA is so different from anything current and struggled significantly with the syntax.
|
|
|
|
|
jsc42 wrote: and I hate to admit it but
It's a real pity that Access gets such a bad reputation around here when, as you mention, it works quite well for single-user apps...especially as just a simple datastore, without the VBA. Since we're confessing, my company still offers Access (v. 2002) as a database option for smaller customers.
In fact, I'm aware of one company that still uses access 97 for a commercial inventory system. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
The first company I worked for, had the whole personal management for worked hours / holidays and so on in Access for all 20+ workers.
It worked quite fine, I had only one problem in the over 2 years I worked there.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 years old now LOL. And I am not happy since I have to work with Visual Studio 2013. LOL. Actually I was not too big on this upgrade and thought 2010 was about as good, but really like what was added to Visual Studio 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No question in my mind that 2012 and 2013 were a waste. Did think that 2015 added some really good stuff to C#.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: VS 2010 was the peak.
Agreed!  which is why I still use it when I can...still does almost everything I need and starts fast. I can have multiple projects open without the crippling my main workstation...not so with 2015 which seems to have a lot more overhead. I've started using 2017 occasionally and it seems much better than 2015 as far as resource usage.
As for Office, I switched around 5 years ago to Office 365...works for me as all 5 licenses are being used. I only keep two older Office products around...Access 2002/3 and Photo Editor. I really can't stand the UI in Access 2007+, however I've just found the tab view option that might just convince me to drop the older version. (WU always has issues with it anyhow)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Only 1 reason I can think of - everything is synched across all platforms. Not sure if this was ever achieved in earlier versions.
And yes it pisses me off having to buy it every year for no benefit. When I have time I may well look for an alternative platform.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yes, as many have pointed out the basic functionality has been there for a great many years.
Form a user's point of view, there's really a limit to how much genuinely useful stuff you can add to a spreadsheet or a word processor.
From a developer's point of view, there's a gaping hole where a good API should be.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Very true, and you can see that they have not upgraded VBA, nor added security features so that you can have different levels of risk. Still you cannot add a background to Excel, which really sucks since you could scan an form, and then put the input fields in the foreground. Also I find the search in Excel to not be very good. In word they still have the same horrible format box from 20 years ago. Lots of things they could do.
The one I think is horrible are the improvements they could make in Outlook. Not really fond of their focused emails.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
