|
Richard Deeming wrote: Some people seem to think QA is a free outsourcing tool.
Well if people keep giving them the code instead of forcing them to do the work themselves that's exactly what it is.
The most expensive tool is a cheap tool. Gareth Branwyn
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: A question on bubble sort got 7 (seven!) solutions at QA.
Damn low hanging fruit. I can't even get 1 satisfactory answer for a simple question I asked last week! I'm not complaining...just ranting as it fades into oblivion.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you're the only one on Earth using OData[^], whatever that is. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeat question for those who may have missed it
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Not all responses are solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone suggest LINQ? :snicker:
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve been doing architecture and development in Azure a little over three years, and at the on-premise enterprise-level for nearly 40 years.
The last couple of projects I designed in Azure, I went with PaaS instead of IaaS. No VMs, no load balancers, no containers, and no Kubernetes.
Instead, how I configured the app services (scale up or scale out, as one example) took care of scalability, multiple regions, etc. replaced the older IaaS functionality listed in the 2nd paragraph.
This greatly simplifies the design, makes support less complicated, and puts the responsibility for scalability and up-time on MS.
I would like to read your opinions on the benefits/drawbacks to shifting that responsibility from an IaaS oriented design to a PaaS oriented design.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, not needed.
VMs are just for legacy applications that can't run any other way.
Containers allow you to spin up the same services across multiple cloud vendors, on premise, and developer boxes relative easy. So specifically if support for multiple cloud vendors or on-prem installation is important, consider using them. They also make it easier to spin up "random services" as part of your application without relying on the cloud provider having a PaaS version of that service - or them breaking it by upgrading it or other entertaining things that happens in the cloud. If you do not need any of this go as server-less as possible (or as I used to call it before the term was invented: shut-up-and-run-my-code... and I still believe this is the better name).
|
|
|
|
|
I just picked up on "shifting responsibilities"; never an easy task; particularly if someone doesn't wanted to get shifted.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
To answer my own question - unifying the desktop appearance for all devices? Thoughts?
So, I have a new laptop, and it upgraded to Windows 11. Now most of you who recall my rants on Microsoft automatically rebooting machines understand that I consider this abhorrent behavior at best. So I'm trying to work with it, get comfortable etc. But it occurs to me - I work in the world of embedded devices and HMI development. If I or my team or customer changed the HMI on a product like Microsoft does, we'd be laughed out of the factory. You just don't do it.
What the elephant is MS hoping to gain but elephanting around with the desktop like this?
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a question of whether MSFT's UI designers have greater push for constantly dicking with the UI as opposed to their users having greater pushback against it. And MSFT doesn't interact with users all that much, so those who think they can make the UI "better" (or justify their jobs, to be cynical) hold sway.
|
|
|
|
|
If they did not change anything, they would be blamed for that as well. Most of the Windows 11 UI changes are pretty "meh" in my book, so I could certainly do without, but do not really mind them either. But I do appreciate they have kept updating the UI and interaction model so it does not work the same as Windows 1, even if it does mean they had to ignore a bunch of "why did they do this" comments.
|
|
|
|
|
You agreed to what? Doctor check-in software harvests your health data.[^]
Not sure if this is used in Europe, but I would not be surprised. What do you do when the doctor office converts to this? I suspect that most offices have no idea the application farms patient data. It's despicable.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
And not "see_you_later_allocator()"?
I'll allocate my coat and deallocate myself now.
|
|
|
|
|
In a while, blockodile!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
while (true)
{
var a = "dile";
}In a while-block, a dile!
|
|
|
|
|
You're free to rename it.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oi!! No programmin' questions here!
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I would call it bob_hope()
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with the name, but I would have made the side-effects of dereferencing a NULL return value much more spectacular. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I would have made the side-effects of dereferencing a NULL return value much more spectacular
CRASH!
isn't spectacular enough for you?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
That's only relevant to protected-memory O/Ses (most of them, these days, I'll grant). Running on good old DOS, you could easily read (and sometimes write) to NULL, while your program went off into hyperspace.
If every NULL reference cost the perpetrator money out of pocket (e.g. if the computer literally crashed and burned), I'm sure that software quality would have been much higher.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Running on good old DOS, you could easily read (and sometimes write) to NULL
Back in the day my product ran under the DOS4GW extender (just like DOOM!). In that environment I had both real-mode and protected-mode code for things like interrupt services in order to reduce unnecessary mode switches. Dereferencing NULL meant different things happened depending on which mode you were in. My hindsight has cataracts, so good times.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
