|
It's been available since about October 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
like you said, its kinda old news, still looking forward to final product
|
|
|
|
|
Did you get the latest release of January 27?
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em.
Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info - i was considering upgrading from 2015 but wont bother now, at least for a while.
Bob.
Thornik wrote: VS2017 just suxx, it's full of stupid bugs and it's for Win8+ only. Who needs that?? I use Win7 and it's more than enough for any app development. Even Android programs can be written using Win7! But not for Microsoft... they push that Spyindows and fail. Double fail when they count developers as a stupids who will follow 'em.Win7+VS2015 - that's latest stable point. Everything beyond just cr@pware from Monstersoft. |
</td></tr></blockquote>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, sorry! I keep in mind that people get VS2017 for UWP development also AND THIS requires Win8+. Simple desktop apps can be done even in VS2003 (and VS2017 don't help a lot here).
In any case, I have few sure points to NOT use VS2017:
1. VS become more and more "online" (read "able to send 'telemetry' to MS servers") - that's not cool from any side of development. 20 years ago NOBODY fetch telemetry and software was way more quality than now. If telemetry doesn't help MS, they should remove it at all.
2. Looking at current bugs (I'm prof.developer), I count 'em as "stupid" and which cannot appear even in "beta" software. That means "level of mess" in VS design reached maximum that even Release Candidate cannot offer stable experience. Moreover: VS was written long time ago (that still contains legacy sht like "COM"), but it doesn't help to current version - it's still buggy like written from scratch on a previous week! (and written by beginners).
Mature product like VS should grow with features, not jumping from bug to bug! MS spreads everywhere how "modular and extensible" VS is, but modular software should be more stable than we see now in VS.
So finally I think better to ignore VS completely, until all telemetry will be removed and Win7 users got ability to create UWP programs (inc. Win Mobile).
|
|
|
|
|
Does it need a dedicated datacenter to run? 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Does it need a dedicated datacenter to run
No, unless you consider my modest little Dell XPS a data center.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
JavaScript for Babies[^]
The only thing I can't figure out is if it's for actual babies or for some people at my office 
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect they looked at QA and realised that the "... For Dummies" series was going right over some people's heads. 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: "... For Dummies" series was going right over some people's heads.
The "... for Babies" series is actually the advanced version; in British English, a "Dummy" is what the USians call a "Pacifier".
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: in British English, a "Dummy" is what the USians call a "Pacifier"
And also what we in Wales call "a complete f**kwit". 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
These concept books will familiarize young ones with the kind of shapes and colors that make up web-based programming language and give them the head start they need. You’re never too young to be standards compliant!
I don't know why but that standards compliant line almost made me fall out of my chair
|
|
|
|
|
There is one for cats as well JavaScript for Cats[^]
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Maths is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can well believe that pussies could handle javascript.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can finally repurpose all those old IrDA devices!
Seriously, why is using the visible spectrum better than using the infrared spectrum for this purpose?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
It looks cool?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Because visible light has higher bandwidth than IR?
|
|
|
|
|
Visible light frequency range: 430..790 THz (that's Tera Hertz)
Infrared frequency range: 0.3..430 THz
What application(s) do you have that require Tera-Hertz bandwidth?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I believe visible light travels further and reflects better so should get to a few more places, like the back of a PC.
OTOH, they say LiFi has better security than WiFi because 'light doesn't go through walls,' so the guys in the next building can't get your signals, but, but, unless of course they have windows (glass ones that is) that face your windows - and again with light having a longer range it could be any building on the street with LOS to your office windows. So once more only real security will be encryption.
They don't mention, what if you have different networks in the office, with WiFi can use separate channels, but with LiFi? Likely they will need to add baggage to the data to separate; it will be fast enough but will add complexity - and as everybody knows complexity = more issues, more failures and higher costs.
(Also won't be able to stream movies using the company WiFi when sitting on the toilet.)
It's a good idea, but it won't beat let alone replace RF.
Sin tack ear lol
Pressing the any key may be continuate
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: with WiFi can use separate channels, but with LiFi?
WiFi and LiFi are both electromagnetic energy and in fact are just different spectrums of the EM band. So, if you can have different WiFi channels you can have different LiFi channels. A WiFI channel after all, is just a EM frequency range, hence a LiFi channel will be the same.
In any case, LiFi will likely be used only for "Internet of Things".
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
