|
vs_enterprise__1772378612.1554282312.exe --layout "A:\VS2019" == 24.7 GB
next to see if can install
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
give it time. soon the install will be 2 TB and will cause your machine to physically explode,causing a rip in the space time continuum.
|
|
|
|
|
as soon as you install expect another several gigs of updates and downloads before you can actually use it
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
abmv wrote: "A:\VS2019"
Seriously? It ships on floppy drives? At 1.4MB per floppy, that like 24,000 floppies?
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
lol
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing install time is about the same too.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc, we are old. People nowadays do not mentally associate A: with floppy anymore. Actually, there is no floppy drive anymore. Well, people even do not know anymore what was a floppy.
Installing MSWord - Insert disk 16/17
.
.
General failure reading drive A:
(A)bort, (R)etry, or (F)ail ?
*NOooooooo*
|
|
|
|
|
Working in the database today...
0) We import data from a remote source, and the data includes several datetime columns taht come over as varchars. This wouldn't be so bad, if after receiving that data, the programmer would have taken the time to convert it to the appropriate datetime datatype. But no.
0.5) We can't change the string date to a datetime, because we don't know exactly where the side effects will crop up, in the database, or in the app itself.
1) We directly modify the table that contains imported data, based on our business rules, and then move that table into the dbo scvhema for use by the application. The data pull is 4-5 hours long, and involves about 30 million records. After post-processing the imported data, if we find an error, we have to re-pull the data because we modified what we imported last time, because post-processing the already-post-processed data woiyuld be an invalid test of the post-processing code.
2) Importing and post-processing is handled by a 77-step sql job.
I talked the DBAs into adding as step to the job that copies the freshly imported data to a different schema so we could at least move it back to effect more timely testing, but FML.
While I was complaining loudly about the state of the data, one of the otrher devs suggested that I go ahead and "fix it", and I actually had to cite item 0.5 as a reason we can't.
This crap shoulda been fixed YEARS ago.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Couldnt you add a new string field?
datestring leave elephanting format untouched
datestring_standard unindexed aux data "should" not bother stuffy DBAs (in my dreams)
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how that would fix the actual problem.
We propogate a date string into the database, and use it that way (other stored procs ar casting it to a datetime, and the app is expecting it as a string value, so we're right and truly f*cked). We can't change it because of the inevitable side effects it would cause. This is a massive system, and in point of fact, this is just one of the DOZENS of reasons I want to do a complete rewrite (app and data).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Add a column to the DB? He'd need permission in triplicate from The Donald himself, plus an allocation from Congress of a few billion dollars ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Adding a column to the db could be done dynamically in the stored proc. This would mitigate the need to add instructions to our deployment script to change the table.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: This crap shoulda been fixed YEARS ago.
Ah, the mantra of the free soul that hasn't been crushed by the cogs of "I don't give a sh*t anymore."
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: This crap shoulda been fixed YEARS ago.
"Technical debt".
If there was ever a great example to use as a definition, this is it.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you prefer to always wrap the JSON in an outer object?
For example, a call to a credit card processor to get supported credit cards. Do you prefer simply the array returned:
[
"AM",
"DI",
"EB",
"EP",
"MC",
"VI"
]
or the array wrapped in an outer "object":
{
"PaymentMethods": [
"AM",
"DI",
"EB",
"EP",
"MC",
"VI"
]
}
If one or the other, why?
Personally, I'm leaning toward the second form, which forces the Javascript writer to at least initially use the PaymentMethods tag:
let ccs = resp.PaymentMethods;
Which I think improves code readability. It's also more maintainable IMO, as perhaps other tags at some point might be added -- one simple thing that comes to mind is a flag that indicates whether ACH is supported (mind you, these are all concrete examples of the general question of JSON tags):
{
"PaymentMethods": [
"AM",
"DI",
"EB",
"EP",
"MC",
"VI"
],
"SupportsACH": true
}
Using an outer object wrapper doesn't break the code if additional JSON elements are added later.
So...thoughts?
Marc
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of an obvious reply:
If there's more than one dimension to the data then I want the outer objects.
Otherwise, although I prefer it to be clean (data really doesn't include a 'header'), so long as I know it's coming it's no big deal.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The outer object is important because even if currently there aren't any extra data items, such as the ACH you mentioned, yet, inevitably there will be and this could cause a failure in the simpler case while being handled smoothly with an outer object wrapping things up nicely. 
Having said that, many past members of projects I have worked on didn't get the memo... 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: inevitably there will be and this could cause a failure in the simpler case while being handled smoothly with an outer object wrapping things up nicely.
My thoughts as well.
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
2nd one for sure, helps with deserialization as well. You end up with a better formed object model.
|
|
|
|
|
No-brainer. 2nd as you say.
Another reason is: another day, another person may look at your data or code. That other person might be yourself, in a galaxy far far away. I usually like to spend good time on naming things cleanly.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I go with the second version as well and for the reasons stated. We all know that the only thing constant is change so the second form is a no brainer!
I do all my own stunts, but never intentionally!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I think the first example is not valid JSON, there again I am not a JSON expert.
Definitely go with the second one!
Edit] turns out I am wrong about the not valid statement I made -JSON[^]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 3-Apr-19 9:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: turns out I am wrong about the not valid statement I made
Given I copied the response from the actual service call....
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Just because a service call works, doesn't mean it is correct. Many internet services incorrectly implement the rfc (dns, smtp, many more...).
|
|
|
|
|
I also thought that a valid JSON document has to have a root object. Is it not the case then?
Anyways, I prefer the first one because it's shorter, and since it is a response, you should already well know what's gonna be in it: exactly the data requested.
However, I have had some issues with the Java JSON library being unable to parse arrays by themselves. As a result, the way it's implemented in production right now (as suggested by StackOverflow :P ) is as follows:
- JSON comes in on the network, looking like the first example you gave
- Function checks if it starts with '[' and finds that yes, it does
- So it appends some string around the received text, making it look like the second one
- JSON lib parses this. The returned JsonObject's only JsonArray member is saved, the rest discarded
- Prod code gets this JsonArray back to do whatever
Fun times!
"I don't think about dying. It is the last thing I want to do. " - theoldfool
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
