|
Rome is fantastic. We took a guided tour of the Coliseum and Forum. Money well spent
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who has been to Rome many times, over the last several decades, I F***ing hated it, the last time I went there, a few years ago.
I wanted to find a T-shirt printing place that could emblazon T-shirts for me with "Do I look like the kind of moron who wants a F***ing selfie stick?" on the front, and "I Probably know the Vatican better than you do, you F***ing uneducated, half-trained foreigner!" on the back.
Vedi Roma e muori -- da vergogna.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bit the bullet and installed the FxCop Analyzer on my own pet home projects...
First I ended up with thousands of warnings 
Plenty of them useless....
Well then I embraced the global warning suppression...
It is good, but annoyingly create a GlobaSuppression.cs, it is annoying because I would have edited the error.ruleset file instead, which would be better I guess (more prominent), and sometimes it can be tedious to find the annoying rule one want to suppress in the treeview manually...
after that it did find some vaguely less than desirable code. Yeah!
(Remark, I mean just that, not quite a bug, but less than desirable, like incorrect exception constructor or using string.ToLowerInvariant() which is problematic, advised to use ToUpperInvariant(), or use a TaskScheduler explicitely, or use Array.Empty<T>() instead of new T[0])
except it is sometimes quite tedious to review 87 warnings in 4 years old code while I got other things to do... (particularly as I am, for once, "productive"... I do not need one more excuse to procrastinate on the feature that defied me for almost 2 years so far...  )
|
|
|
|
|
It gets even more fun when using FxCop and Resharper together, one says correct this and after that the other gives a warning 
But this was years ago, maybe things have improved by now ...
|
|
|
|
|
It hasn't. 
|
|
|
|
|
Uninstall it and go on with your life.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Look up C lint.
A tool that developers hated decades ago.
And static analyzers serve no better purpose now except, unlike lint, companies charge for them.
Hypothetically they might be valid if a company was only using junior programmers, or perhaps had more than a couple and the senior developers refused to review code. But in that case then it is a management problem not a technology one.
In a recent case a static analyzer required re-engineering a simple factory pattern that was using a switch statement. The re-engineered effort passed review (not by me) that was done by creating a dictionary which instantiated all of the classes controlled by the factory...every single time. Passed the static analyzer though.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: In a recent case a static analyzer required re-engineering a simple factory pattern that was using a switch statement. The re-engineered effort passed review (not by me) that was done by creating a dictionary which instantiated all of the classes controlled by the factory...every single time.
That sounds like a candidate for the Weird and Wonderful. But my main comment: F*** that!
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like making the dictionary reference static would have fixed it. The analyzer was probably afraid of "globals".
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Sounds like making the dictionary reference static would have fixed it.
Nope.
Point of a factory is to create a new instance each time. A static dictionary would not do that.
The implementation, which the static analyzer passed, was to create a new dictionary and populate it will all new instances, each time the method was calle.
|
|
|
|
|
If we ran FxCop on our main application where I work, it would probably explode! 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
...on Bob?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
His face looks like a painted egg though. 
|
|
|
|
|
They were on his head, until his weekly visit to Madam Rita.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I don't quite understand is why doesn't the software combine the pitch of the aircraft from the AI together with the vertical speed from the VSI and the airspeed to calculate whether the aircraft is at a dangerous angle of attack for a given airspeed.
I also wonder if a number of the software engineers protested and said it was a really bad idea but were overruled by management.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
It's in the comments.
If they had taken data from more than one sensor in account they would have needed a procedure for how to handle contradicting sensor information, with a following change of the manual that would have turned it into a new model. With associated costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - so basically they sacrificed the safety of the passengers to save money?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it is actually worse than that. Apparently, there is an MCAS override system, operated by a cockpit switch for use in case of malfunction. However, as it was not required for certification, it became optional extra at considerable cost - so there was no way to turn it off unless you paid for a safety feature that wasn't necessary for safety according to Boeing and the USFAA.
Ransomware, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
I had heard about the switch but i did not know that it was an 'optional extra'.
I wonder if the jets that crashed had that switch.
I smells a bit like the banking scandal where banks were seen as too big to fail, Boeing and Airbus being the main suppliers of passenger aircraft perhaps they are seen as too important to modern transport for their aircraft to be grounded.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I wonder if the jets that crashed had that switch.
I know for a fact that the Lion Air 'plane didn't, as the director of aircraft maintenance for Lion is a personal friend, who retired two years ago, and he told me so.
|
|
|
|
|
Um, so you're not familiar with US corporations?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
