|
Christian Graus wrote: with no payout of leave entitlement
WTF? That's not legal, I thought. If you have vacation time accrued, they need to pay you for it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Know how it feels, see ya in the PUB? 
|
|
|
|
|
We're under snow and ice. So...same as usual, really.
That totally sucks about the Random Act of Management. What's next? How's the family?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: So I figured I'd drop in on old friends.
All 12,5 million+ of them? 
Not the most happy news, but you could see it as an opportunity for something better ...
|
|
|
|
|
Long time no see here. That sucks! Hope you find out at the exit interview.
|
|
|
|
|
Random Thought of the Day:
Why did the developers of System.Collections.Concurrent name it concurrent? Many leading books about concurrency define it simply as a non-strictly-synchronous execution environment generally focused on responsiveness (could be asynchronous or parallel). It does not imply or require parallelism which the concurrent classes address 
EDIT: I see the flaw in my assumption as stated below. Just a random thought I had at 2am and hadn't considered some cases 
modified 18-Dec-16 14:54pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean... you can literally just do a google for it if you really wanted to answer that question yourself. Rob Pike has mentioned it in talks, Stephen Cleary mentions it in Concurrency in C# iirc, Joseph Albahari recognizes the distinction in Threading in C# by referring to parallelism as "genuine concurrency" implying a subset, etc. Even the wiki you linked to agrees that concurrency is a more general term that can involve things such as time-slicing, asynchronicity (yielding time-slices), and parallelism.
I do see the flaw in my statement now though. While parallelism I think is the worst offender by far and general time-slicing the least offender due to time-slices being relatively long - it is still possible to run into issues.
modified 18-Dec-16 14:59pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: I mean... you can literally just do a google for it if you really wanted to answer that question yourself.
That would be a nice reply for about 90% of every question here, including the one we started with.
In short, it is the most appropriate name as that is what would be expected. The name might not be entirely accurate but that is of lower importance.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If you had addressed my initial question this would be a relevant reply. However, you explicitly went after my references which are easily validated via Google. Also my initial question is not easily solved via Google as time-slicing (a subset of concurrency) is only relevant if data-sharing between processes is taking place. This is not as trivial as it would initially seem as processes have their own address-space 
|
|
|
|
|
Just put some very complicated code together and it works, perfectly, first time, in a very time critical event driven fashion, real time, without error.
Sometimes it just comes together, and you think, damn, that actually works like its supposed to. Doesn't happen much in the MSFT world! 
modified 16-Dec-16 20:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is a good feeling. Especially when hard work was involved.
Since you seem to be the resident expert on low-level programming, I wonder if I might prevail upon you to take a look at a question I posted on the Architecture board. If you have any insight into it, I would definitely appreciate your words of wisdom.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
It took a lot of research to understand the API, since it isnt documented and the only code I could find was a wrapper for it.
But, once you know how its easy to do, and quite logical really. Have to say, its a well designed API, rare for MSFT to achieve that, perhaps they did it in combination with others.
|
|
|
|
|
What about an article or a tip to explain what you found out before you forget?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a great feeling, but you're right it don't happen often...congrats.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
Personally? It's not a great feeling. 
It might be at first, then you start feeling kinda surprised, then you start thinking something bad has to happen at some point, then self-doubt sets in and you can't shake off that feeling of unease and you can't help but go and spend a couple of hours double-checking all of the code, looking for that ever-so-subtle bug you might have missed...and you can't find it.
I'd rather have something almost work, find a problem, do a quick fix, then confirm it's all good. It's like I have to justify my pessimism.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats your mind playing tricks with you!
|
|
|
|
|
If it works for you on the first attempt and you're confident it's no fluke, you're a better man than I.
|
|
|
|
|
I researched the sh*t out of the API, and put the code together with the utmost attention and design.
Its perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Just put some very complicated code together and it works, perfectly, first time, in a very time critical event driven fashion, real time, without error.
static EventHandler<EventArgs> SayHello;
static void Main()
{
SayHello+=(sndr, args) => Task.Run(()=>Console.WriteLine("Hello World!"));
SayHello.Invoke(null, EventArgs.Empty);
Console.ReadLine();
}
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: it works, perfectly, first time, in a very time critical event driven fashion, real time, without error.
That means you've missed something critical. Be prepared for an emergency phone-call at 5 AM on Sunday.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Everyone,
I have 2 servers running SQL Server 2014 which are in different location. Server 1 does not see Server 2 and vice versa. I have a shared drive where both servers can access. On server 1, I have created a backup job and the backup file is saved locally. I need to move the backup to the shared drive. And then, on Server 2, take the backup file and restore it. I need to automate the process.
Any help and solution is greatly appreciated.
Sal
|
|
|
|
|
Better don your asbestos suit. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
You are asking this in the wrong section. If I were you, I'd move it pretty sharpish.
BTW, have you bothered to try and figure out a solution on your own before asking other people to do your work for you?
|
|
|
|
|
Why would he want to do that?
He's far too important to get involved in mere implementation tasks!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
