|
That sort of money would make a good downpayment on the real thing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may have to use some money from my savings account for that... 
|
|
|
|
|
Keep the box.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I always keep non-generic boxes 
|
|
|
|
|
A True Nerd would have designed it from scratch, and 3d printed the legos! (It probably would have been cheaper in the end, depending on the cost of printer!) But I won't harp on it too much! Enjoy your build!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: It probably would have been cheaper in the end
Time == money too, so it definitely would not have been cheaper
|
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't be a consideration to a True Nerd! Have fun with it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey man, good to see you here 
Wow, I never even heard of that!
It's a really dubious name for a toy, though 
It reminded me of something I had when I was a kid, Meccano[^]
It seems Erector was bought by Meccano in 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It's a really dubious name for a toy, though
That is only in the modern times, when we are striving like crazy to find something to comdemn, or to be "stimulated" by absolutely everywhere!
Take a look in the photo albums of your grandparents (in the US of A: your great grandparents). Look at the photos from the beach, from the nursery etc. - lots of them would be "child pornography" today. Noone thought of it that way, in those days, "They are innocent children!".
"Ercect" is a perfectly "normal" word! Should we restrict the use of it? What about "slit", is that similarly "sensitive"? What about "balls", "rod", "hard", "wet", and "turned on"? How should we refer to an activated heater, if we cannot say that it is "turned on" because the term might cause some readers to become "turned on"? 
I think this word game has gone way too far. I demand my rigth to erect a pole. I will paint that board black, not "afro-american". And I want to describe my coworkers from the south of India, who have never been to neither Africa nor America, as black rather than "afro-american". I could of course say "the fellow with the complexion of an afro-american", but I choose not to.
In the same style: I see no problem with explaining to kids of any age the meaning of "erect" in any sense of the word, even though I know very well that you are supposed to keep secret certain interpretations until the child has turned 18 and is no longer a child.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised your post even came through the spam detection with so many "trigger words"
On another topic, I think I know who you are ("that guy" who writes longer-than-average replies), but I can't be bothered to check.
You should REALLY get a username that people can remember if you plan on posting so much and sticking around
|
|
|
|
|
What do you prefer?
+ CPP
++ logic
++ gui
++ test
+ Cs
++ logic
++ gui
++ test
+ ...
or
+ logic
++ Cpp
++ Cs
++ ..
+ gui
++ Cpp
++ Cs
++ ...
+ test
++ Cpp
++ Cs
++ ...
and why?
Background:
I am soon doing a major re-factor / start over and take what still is usefull of a product where several things are working together and I would like to re-structure it a bit. I already see advantages and disadvantages on both approaches. Just want to "hear" about your tastes / opinions.
EDIT-ADDITION:
The current project has a section of "static" files for configuration staff.
A huge C++ part with over 20 tiny apps separated in threads, a cpp server to manage them, some cpp third party libs / add-ons...
The .Net Framework with some libraries, a couple of background services, some different WPFs, a bunch of tiny satellite apps...
In the next major version we want to move to the next Standard LTS (IIRC is .Net 6 somewhen in the end of 2021), so right now what is getting redone from the scratch and some background performance improvements that I want to test is getting targeted in .Net Core 3.1
@RickZeeland, @code-witch, @Member-7989122
you had already answered, and I thought this additional info could have changed something in your opinion, so I wanted to let you know.
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.
modified 27-May-20 9:28am.
|
|
|
|
|
I would prefer the second way, this will save you a lot of time in a complex solution e.g. when you want to search the files in a directory. Example: search for some error message from Notepad++ with "search in files".
|
|
|
|
|
I choose A.
(even if we are doing B)
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
And ... what are your motives ?
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the former because I often find that I have build scripts that invoke language specific tools, so I might have input files for the CPP project that are not source files, but rather, input files for tools that generate source files. Same with C#
There are other cases too where I might have non-source inputs that are nevertheless language specific.
Putting everything under the CPP branch, including the non-source input files - everything that is needed to build the CPP project makes it easier to use and copy the projects as complete and hopefully self contained sub-projects of code. I mean sure, it's not the entire overarching project, but where I can I prefer each sub-project to build on its own as much as feasible.
The same goes for the CS projects as it does for the CPP, i just used CPP as the example above.
I hope that makes sense.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I hope that makes sense.
It does, the right question is... Am I still understanding what you were saying? Or just interpretating what my mind wants to read instead?
BTW I added a bit more info in the OP, just in case you want to have a look
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I read what you added and I still think the former. The other reason I like the former structure is that it's easier to separate by binary deliverable - not that you can't place those wherever you like, but, producing the deliverable requires that subfolder tree, rather than the entire tree.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
If you have are making two (or "n") alternate implementations of the same application, I would prefer alternative A: You probably have different developers for the language alternatives, and if the languages are quite different you would not regularly compare, say, the C# code against a JavaScript or Fortran implementation. Comparing them side by side to verify that the logic is identical (at an abstract level) is something you do not do often. At those few occasions, the effort of picking files from dispersed directories is insignificant.
The files making up one language implementation are closely related to each other. Keep closely related files close together. Files in different languages, being processed in different ways, maybe even demanding a different modularization (at least at low level) gains very little from being close together.
But I guess that your case is a single implementation, with different parts written in different languages (e.g. that the cpp code provides p/invoke interfaces, or you are running a WPF GUI in a frontend process, communicating with a backend working process written in C).
In that case, alternative B is obvious to me. Again: Keep closely related (e.g. coupled as caller and callee) files close together.
Why keep files close?
Another reply already mentioned directory-wide searches: You will want to search in a the code you are working on, with as few false hits as possible to stuff you are not working on. Caller and callee should be in the same (sub)directory.
Second: With parallel versions in different implmentation languages, you usually make a release for one language at a time. The tests are passed at different times. The system integration done at different times. So you would want to make the checkpoints etc. (e.g. creating an offline backup of all source code) at different times. Most such tasks are much simpler if the files involved are gathered in a its own subdirectory.
If you have a single implementation (with parts in different languages), but split into major subsystems, you may create new releases of each subsystem at different times, or at least you complete full testing at different times. Again, you would like a checkpoint to relate to a whole subdirectory, not some files here, some there.
I am curious about your splitting off "Test". For low level, module testing I find it natural to put it close to the code to be tested - logic module tests in the Logic directory, GUI tests in the GUI directory. Maybe even lower: If you e.g. put module test C# code into a partial class, having to climb several levels up towards the root and down several levels into the Test directory to find the test part of the class doesn't feel right. They partial classes are closely related, and should be locaded close together. It is like if you made a directory at the level of Cs, Cpp, Test, where you gather all the header / interface files in all the languages used in one place - that is not what you would do!
Integration and system tests are different matters: They should be separate from the modules they integrate, in its own directory the way you have indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: You probably have different developers for the language alternatives,
Nope, we are two of us. The one programing it for the last 15 years and me (got into the team over a year ago).
Member 7989122 wrote: But I guess that your case is a single implementation, with different parts written in different languages
More or less. More info added in the OP.
Member 7989122 wrote: I am curious about your splitting off "Test".
To be honest... I am not the "test" guy. I left the "high level" programming in the times of VC++ and MFC, stayed in automation (PLC, Robots and so) for many years, then some years more in other industrial aspects of programming and now came back to the "high level" field (just to see that the ecosystem has grown like a pest plant).
The whole concept of testing is something I still have to improve a lot, I was used to test the app by using it not by doing things on code.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I would prefer the second option for the possibility that shared resources of any filed (logic, gui, test) will be placed more closely to those using them...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
As I am playing Assassin Creed for the first time, I am learning of those who came before, our creators, the mighty Isus.
Now, I am in awe and want to learn their wisdom.
Brother Assassins, who have followed this path before, let me know if I am on the Way of enlightenment!?
Here is a simple ethical questionnaire that will judge my progress on the way of the Isu, with my answer after each question.
Q1
5 innocents are tied on a trolley's track A. And 1 innocent is tied on a trolley's track B.
The trolley is on its way to crush people on track A very soon. However you have the power to make it go to track B, hence killing only one person.
Do you?
1. do nothing?
2. change its path to be on track B?
A: 1, Let the trolley continue! Life is pain, and killing 5 people is better at reducing misery!
Q2
A heinous crime has been committed and 2 suspects have been arrested, but it's not entirely sure if either is guilty. You are the judge condemning them.
Do you?
1. kill them both?
2. arrest them both for 10 years?
3. let them both go?
A: 1, kill them both, just to be safe. The guilty will surely be punished this way!
Q3
Your friend is hopelessly depressed. His one true love doesn't love him back He wants to kill himself.
Do you?
1. help him commit suicide to end his misery?
2. convince him there is more to live for?
A: 1, In death he will rest in peace. Achieving the ultimate goal of life!
Did I get that right?! Am I becoming as wise as the mighty Isus?
|
|
|
|
|
Q3: 3. Kill him myself for being such a whiny creep.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OMG! You have progressed further on the way of the Isu than I have! 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
