|
|
Great. Hopefully the people you're hiring for your companies are on the same page with you. Personally, I disagree, and wouldn't hire someone who agreed with you on this particular subject because it likely means they think a lot of other things that I don't agree with. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote Unidex, its competes with SQL, its about to be released as it was just finished.
It allows for pictures, video and songs to be placed in a record - the actual data not the file name...
It also can index 200 GB of memory, create 8 million records an hour, have records in the same table with different number of columns, records can have columns unique to its record.
In fact Unidex does all the hard work that pretty much I need to stay away from anyone that thinks they know computers.
|
|
|
|
|
And? I'll bet you'd be extremely disruptive at planning meetings. You can have it your way if you want. I just wouldn't have you in my company. And, you say it competes with SQL, meaning 'it attempts to go after the same market.' Which is well and good, but that doesn't mean anything, because I haven't heard of it, and probably most other people who use SQL haven't either. I wrote a database server, and query language for it too, and sold it commercially. That doesn't make me any more of an expert than someone who hasn't. Nor does it make you. It just means you know what an index is, the appropriate data structures for using it, etc. Congratulations. You're still wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
Just remember that once you hear of us.
|
|
|
|
|
I sincerely wish you all the best. I just think you're still wrong about VB.
|
|
|
|
|
What that it needs more credit?
There are practically no differences between the two, and opinions for and against it being a better language then others suggest that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
My dislike of with (also in Pascal I think) is that the only place I would have liked to use it, it won't work...
If I have two things (not necessarily the same type), and I want to copy a number of values (not necessarily all the values) between them:
thing1.fieldM = thing2.fieldP ;
thing1.fieldD = thing2.fieldQ ;
...
I want a with that will allow me to do something like:
with ( thing1 , thing2 )
{
fieldM = fieldP ;
fieldD = fieldQ ;
...
}
That would be usefull. As it stands, with is pointless (in my opinion) so I have never used it.
However, one could use something like:
{
var src = thing1 ;
var dst = thing2 ;
dst.fieldM = src.fieldP ;
dst.fieldD = src.fieldQ ;
...
}
which is almost a good. :shrug:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
modified 10-Jun-14 12:54pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I would not hire you sorry.
The reason you can not use the with operator in such a fashion is scope
|
|
|
|
|
This is hilarious. This guy is straight out of dailywtf.
|
|
|
|
|
And this, in turn, is why I wouldn't hire you: you don't look past what is and see what could be. See, a simple rule that ambiguous member references within a With statement are not allowed (and are a compiler error) would sort out the scoping issues, produce something that has significantly more expressive power, and not make the language any more complicated. The fact that this is not part of the language is irrelevant: there are open-source visual basic compilers (eg, as part of the Mono project) that would be easily extended to support whatever extensions you like.
This is not, of course, to say that I would advocate for such a feature to be added. It wouldn't result in any increase in code readability (rather, it would significantly decrease readability), and any given piece of code is likely going to be read far more times than it will be written.
|
|
|
|
|
I own 3 companies - do you own any?
In order to get C# lines to fit into the viewable area of the screen it is common practice to use a short variable notation, in visual basic it is common to use full words like PictureNameTextBlock - so when variables are that long the lines of code stretch far out off the screen - making the with block extremely important, once we compare the differences at a management stand point we saw reading visual basic was like reading English while reading C# code in general was impossible and had to rely on comments.
Visual basic saves a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Two, in fact, one of which has developers in 3 different countries, and produces provably secure software. I am also chief architect at a third. It has been some years since I've looked for a job, but you can look at an old CV of mine if you like. I program in many languages; I even speak BASIC as a native language, by linguistics standards (I learned it when I was 3, during the critical language acquisition period). Further, I regularly program in C#, Java, Python, Go, Postscript, Bourne shell, Prolog, Ocaml, Haskell, and Lisp, and have at other points been paid to program in everything from Brainfuck to VHDL. I could keep going, but I think you get the picture.
Also, it turns out that, from a human processing perspective, our brains are far better equipped to handle things like tb_pic_name than PictureNameTextBlock; we recognize words by their shapes and so the shorter the word, the more efficient it is to read.
Finally, management tends to like things like VB because they look like English... but they are not in so many critical ways that this is in fact a negative feature. At the end of the day, management doesn't need to read code. They only need somebody that they trust to review the code quality of their developers' code, and to make sure that they're getting good value for their money.
VB may seem to save a lot of money, but really it's costing you far more than you can imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
A project lead is management.
Accounting does not lie about the costs.
The picture you gave a psychologist is that you are a lair.
|
|
|
|
|
If your project lead doesn't code, then you have much bigger problems than we're discussing here.
Also, your accountants will tell you exactly what things cost, this is true. However, this is all that they will tell you. They won't tell you what it would have cost had you taken a different course, what things would have cost if you could work at a higher level of abstraction. There is a point at which individual language features like "with" statements become irrelevant, and you need to think of your program in terms of composing Bayesian filters, simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, and other such high-level topics. VB, C#, and most other languages keep you at the level of writing for loops, when really you'd rather be calling in much higher-level building blocks. You can kind of achieve this by writing a domain-specific language and then interpreting it, but I challenge you to find even one VB programmer among your staff who can manage this. In fact, I'll put my money where my mouth is: I'll bet you $100 that you can't write an AIM-349 scheme interpreter with your hordes of programmers faster than I can write one by myself in Ocaml.
And finally, everything that I have spoken is the truth. I am a fairly public person, and you should be able to verify everything that I have said, at least about myself, personally. (Really, though, what the hell does it matter how many companies I own? The real question is who is a better programmer. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that would be me. Show me your open source code and prove me wrong. Mine is here.)
|
|
|
|
|
That reply is based on a lot of wrong assumptions
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense. Mindsets in programming are about how we handle abstractions. Expression syntax is just that.. expression syntax. I find I use the same mindset for programming no matter what language I use.. and I've used a lot over the years. Basic, C, C++, Algol, Perl, Forth, 8086 assembler, 6502 assembler (yes.. I'm that old).
I find this statement highly unconvincing.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a diploma in psychology by any chance?
|
|
|
|
|
See my answer to your other post - you don't need the With operator in C# for object or collection initializers.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: this message is spam
OK, at least you're being honest about it. As requested, I've reported your message as spam.
Happy now? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Advertising your other post is spam
|
|
|
|
|
No, posting links to unrelated sites or commercial products is spam. Telling a user that you've already replied to their comments in another post on the same site is not.
Falsely accusing other members of posting spam, however, would count as abuse. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
In my defense I got this exact post 3 times without validating you only posted it once
|
|
|
|
|
Claiming spam doesn't make it so.. and arguing with folks like this only detracts from your position, it doesn't add to it.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
