|
I have the plugin FlashBlock installed on Firefox to block annoying self playing audio/video on sites. It works fairly well. As it happens, it would appear the latest update of Flash removes it.
Increasingly I am thinking of Flash as more of malware.
|
|
|
|
|
Flash is used mostly to embed spammy advertising into commercial web pages. If users can block Flash from delivering those ads, the websites do not get any revenue. So, the people who buy Flash development tools have been demanding that Adobe consider the play-blockers to be malware that must be disabled.
The only real solution is not to install Flash. Unfortunately, that breaks far too many websites.
|
|
|
|
|
I reinstalled FlashBlock so I'm good again. The thing I like about flash block is I can enable the plugin for specific pages if I am interested in the flash content.
I have not found it breaking the web sites I visit. I guess it would depend if the site won't load until all the adware loads? I don't think people code that anymore?
Anyway, whoever uses flash on auto-play when site loads with audio must be thrashed severely.
|
|
|
|
|
That's far too kind of a punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
You can pretty easily disable the browser plugin and just enable it when you need it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Adobe has had that reputation for some time; starting their PDF reader when Windows starts, as if viewing PDF is the primary purpose of any PC and it "needs" be preloaded. Slowing down other apps, just to "appear faster".
Flash even warns about "new updates" when there hasn't been an internet-connection on that machine - it IS malware.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Flash even warns about "new updates" when there hasn't been an internet-connection on that machine - it IS malware.
Well said!
I love go-o-o-o-ld!
|
|
|
|
|
{dc7c68de-3931-43b9-9102-6dbe3972c5c3} wrote: Increasingly I am thinking of Flash as more of malware.
Most of the time I disable it.
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, I usually set chrome to block all plugins unless I specifically tell it to show them. Judging by this behavior though, it wouldn't surprise me if Flash changed that when you update too...
|
|
|
|
|
Coding standards with my employer are strange based on everything I've ever known, everything I've ever read, everything I've ever been told. They are set in their ways and I don't think anything could change their mind on these internal standards. Here are a few:
1. Excessive commenting -- practically every operation in code has a preceding comment. No matter how descriptive the code is, and no matter how simple the operation may be, there is a comment such as the following:
private int Add(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
private void Process(MyFileObj myFile)
{
if (myFile != null)
{
myFile.StripBadData();
_myFileCollection.Add(myFile);
}
}
2. Variable declaration -- this may not be so bad, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But I've never seen it done this way. According to their standards, all variables in a method must be initially declared at the top of the method, before anything else is done:
private MyClass MyMethod()
{
int count = 0;
MyClass someObj = null;
foreach (MyFileObj file in _myFileCollection)
{
if(file.Name.Length <= 20)
{
file.CopyTo(@"C:\SomePath\" + file.Name);
count++;
}
}
someObj = new MyClass();
someObj.FileCount = count;
return someObj;
}
The "MyClass someObj" isn't referenced until the very end of the method. Why should it be declared at the very top of the method? Maybe I'm missing something? I've never declared objects until the time I need them.
These are just a few examples. There are some other things I don't really agree with, but I can't change any of them.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Coding Standards are the first step in an organization to removing code quality. My personal experience suggests that code reviews become about fiefdoms and pet "issues" of enforcing the standards instead of about the code, errors in the logic, mismatched to requirements, etc.
Also, when you don't have standards it is a lot easier to read other peoples code. (You can intuitively know who wrote it; most people make the sames types of errors over and over as well) And, oddly enough, without standards but with code-review and team work the code base naturally coverages. I personally keep standards to something regarding actual quality.
That said, I usually declare all variables at the top of a method. And always only have one return in a method, preferring if-statements over multiple returns. Bottom-line is as you experience things you will learn what works best for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm quickly beginning to understand your thinking on the subject. I kind of felt that way about it already. And the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. However, I will say that our manager and the lead developer both offer assistance to clear up code, to write more efficient code, etc. So I suppose it could be much worse.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, so much to hate here.
First, code standards make it easier to read the code (if they make sense). You don't need a lack of standard to tell who wrote it. Besides your source control can tell you who wrote the code.
Second, keeping variable declarations at the top and avoiding multiple exits of a method make code harder to read. And the whole if thing? Code quality is (generally) inverse to the number of if statements a coder uses.
But I would find a new place to work as quickly as possible. The code standards show that this organization has not embraced the C# way of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
Declaring all variables at the begining of the method is an old c++(i am not sure if it comes from c) standard closely connected with the variable block of sight. In c# i dont believe there is such thing.
Today i was sooo close of declaring such variable
bool bResultBecauseMyBossDoesntLikeMoreThanOneReturnInTheMethods = false;
next time ask your boss if you need to put a comment to the line
i++;
Sometimes i wonder... why does they want us to comment everything like the next "programmer", who will manage this will be a monkey.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
That makes sense. I'm pretty sure my manager is the guy who set the coding standards. And if I'm not mistaken, he has a background in C++ as well. He has quite an extensive list of areas in which he's knowledgeable, so that is probably where it comes from.
And that's my point. You're supposed to write code with readability and maintainability in mind, right? Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't have to comment every single operation. The more complex operations, yes, I completely understand. Sometimes, even if you think a complex piece of code is readable, it may be better for the next person if you comment and summarize what's going on. But to comment on a "return" statement? Or an increment statement? That seems a bit ridiculous.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Argonia wrote: (i am not sure if it comes from c)
It does. But I prefer leaving it away in C# and C++ code, since I don't feel like it'd give me any benefits in these languages.
Clean-up crew needed, grammar spill... - Nagy Vilmos
|
|
|
|
|
I use the declaration of the variables at the beginning of the method in my c++ coding, the code is read more easily and its more tidy, especially when you use complex stl structures and interators to them. One more reason is reuse of the variables which served their main purpose - for example a string used for XPath, or string used for middle string result or something like that.
In my c# code i dont use that rule... i get yelled for doing it and putting prefixes on the variables showing their type 
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
Argonia wrote: Declaring all variables at the begining of the method is an old c++(i am not sure if it comes from c)
It is from C.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: It is from C.
It's in Pascal, which AFAIK predates C. Which isn't to say that both didn't pick it up from some other language.
|
|
|
|
|
John Nurick wrote: It's in Pascal, which AFAIK predates C. Which isn't to say that both didn't pick it up from some other language.
I seriously doubt that.
First at least Wiki reports that development and C and Pascal both initially started in 1969. And certainly seems possible that Pascal wasn't terribly successful early on. Whereas C was actually being used in 1972.
And C was proceeded by B and that came from BCPL.
Of course C++ was derived from C. And in terms of where variable declarations occurred, C++ and Java would have had more influence on C# than C. Pascal wasn't in the picture.
One might suppose that a Pascal programmer went directly to C# but it is more likely that either Java or C++ was the precursor.
|
|
|
|
|
It's from COBOL.
You had a DATA DIVISION (variables) and a PROCEDURE DIVISION (executable code) ...and a few other divisions.
The PROCEDURE DIVISION followed the DATA DIVISION and one could not mix elements of one with the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: It's from COBOL.
You are missing the point....
The question is why C# coding standards might have been insisting that declarations be at the beginning of a method.
And it is much more likely that that is holdover from C, perhaps going through C++, than it is that it came from COBOL.
One then might wonder why C had it. And it is possible that it came from COBOL. But it also possible that it was just easier to write BCPL, and then B and C that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Do this next time:
private int Add(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Matt U. wrote: 2. Variable declaration
I do declare all my variables in one block at the beginning, maybe it comes from COBOL - I'm still thinking in sections...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Matt U. wrote: foreach (MyFileObj file in _myFileCollection)
Whoops - you didn't declare the MyFile file variable at the top of the method! 
Matt U. wrote: someObj = new MyClass();
someObj.FileCount = count;
Now how is anyone supposed to understand that code with the single comment you've provided? Surely it should be:
someObj = new MyClass();
someObj.FileCount = count;
There, isn't that better? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
