|
Because it's a fun song with a funny dance and a hot Asian chick? 
I'm glad to have contributed to this historical event!
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Why did this happen?
Murphy's law
|
|
|
|
|
They used int32 and not int64?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah... they should totally have used an unsigned integer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
They couldn't - PHP doesn't support it. Somebody posted about it earlier in the week, or I misread the whole thing.
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's also sort of wrong  isn't it?
If you follow their instructions and do the maths you'd discover the number of "boxes" is capable of holding about double the number of hits - effectively UInt32. This also results in no explanation about why the number flips round to int32.MinValue;
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
Stupidness is transferred just by mention "that's stupid". Smart things have no attention until you push people face into that thing and proof "it's worth to see".
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question about your preferred programming style.
Whenever I write code in C# I make extensive use of the 'this' keyword and I use class names when referencing statics.
So:
this.SomeProperty = someValue;
this.SomeMethod();
ThisClass.SomeStaticMethod(); Instead of:
SomeProperty = someValue;
SomeMethod();
SomeStaticMethod(); My reasoning behind this is that I can tell something is an instance method or a static method.
And to be completely honest it's also something I started doing in VB because VB has Modules and Modules don't make you specify the Module's name. So Me.SomeMethod()
Now there's a new guy at work and he really hates this style of programming because he thinks it's redundant.
I'm not asking for right or wrong (unless I'm the one who's right  ), but I want to know personal preferences.
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Prefixing this. for members is a Microsoft .NET programming style guideline. I've tried to use it as often as I can remember to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did some searching but could not find that any more. Looks like they don't have a single document any more. This was from several years back. Once you installed the StyleCop plugin (was not part of VS then), it would issue warnings when you accessed a member without prefixing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Sivakumar wrote: StyleCop
|
|
|
|
|
Heh 
Not everyone's cup of tea, I know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've gone both ways, and both points are valid. I find myself using this a lot in JavasScript for some reason, but in C# I seldom do. For me, my biggest peeve is inconstancy in a project. So, looks like one of y'all are going to have to give in, or you could have him off'ed.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's tip 97 in the How to Make C# Look Like Java guide.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errrm, this.
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
Only assignment, call, increment, decrement, and new object expressions can be used as a statement.
Your time will come, if you let it be right.
|
|
|
|
|
I do that. I prefer to type more up front and scratch my head less later.
That it honks off some members here is frosting on the cake. ![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
My preference is to never use this unless there is a reason to do so (like conflicting names).
My methods are small enough that it is rarely a problem to see what is local and what is a property
and anyway, properties begin with a Capital and locals don't.
For static methods I use the classname. option, as there is no other obvious differentiator. That said, I don't work with many classes with static methods, so not something I have formed a habit out of.
When I see
this.SomeProperty = this.SomeMethod(this.SomeOtherProperty)
I cringe, and think "this? What else?)
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do that sometimes....
And I don't really care either way...
And sometimes it's necessary when function parameter has the same name as class field!
|
|
|
|
|
I do not care about these redundancy but, personally, I do not prefer these type of redundant code.
___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /
|
|
|
|
|
By that same reasoning, stop using any "using" and reference only via fully qualified "System.Windows.Forms.ListCtrl.Item item"  who needs any shortening of a line, just buy BLACK FRIDAY 50" MONITOR THATS IT?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
