|
The long road to C# 9 has already begun and this is the first article in the world about the C# 9 Candidate features "Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine"
So we're already talking about it? Yeesh
|
|
|
|
|
They're ruining .Net...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dictionary literals??
They're adding so much syntactic sugar to language it's stupid. Yeah, using Dictionary is common, but how often do you initialize them using literals? I can only think of one instance in the code I've written going back to 2001.
The example of "records" originally seemed a bit off. The 8 line example wouldn't translate to the 32 lines of code. It seems like the author is presenting a new Point3D class definition using the "record" feature instead?
Type Classes? Oh sh*t. Adding functional programming support to C# is just begging for an excuse for adding even more sugar.
The base C# language is being buried by a truckload of syntactic sugar. I wouldn't even call it C# anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
You're not required to use it all ofcourse; my usual code is still .NET 2.0 compatible. Makes it more accessible to new developers who didn't have yet the time to digest all the sugar.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I know I don't have to use it. I just hate where the language is going. It's blurring the lines between C# and F# and the .NET BCL itself.
I'm writing code now that will have to be maintained after I leave and I'm writing it so that there's nothing special being done and the structure should be easily understandable by a noob.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I just hate where the language is going.
Yup, me too.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: It's blurring the lines between C# and F# and the .NET BCL itself.
It feels like change for the sake of change; C#, now new and improved, and with active oxygen to make your code even cleaner 
Makes you not want to think about how the language will be in 10-15 years.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You're not required to use it all ofcourse; my usual code is still .NET 2.0 compatible.
But that's the entire point with the morons who upgrade solely for the sake of upgrading or reaping upgrade fees.
It's like acrobat. The default setting in acrobat is still to produce pdf files to version 4.0 of acrobat standards (which is hardly surprising, because acrobat is nothing more than a shell over PostScript).
So the 183 later versions of acrobat still produce pdf files to exactly the same standards, meaning that every "Great! New! Feature!" they've added is nothing more than digital belly-button lint.
The last few "Great! New! Releases!" of .NET have followed exactly the same principle.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If there's a good prize, everyone is going to game the system to get that. So... create as many as you can? (Mission Accomplished!)
|
|
|
|
|
A dev who believes that he doesn't create bugs is the same as a person who believes that he's a great driver.
As in, they only see crashes in their rear-view mirrors.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung and TSMC move to 5-nanometer manufacturing "But I never studied law"
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments). Google is essentially saying that Chrome will still have the capability to block unwanted content, but this will be restricted to only paid, enterprise users of Chrome.
For the rest of us, Google hasn’t budged on their changes to content blockers, meaning that ad blockers will need to switch to a less effective, rules-based system, called “declarativeNetRequest.”
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think they will succeed in it. People who want to block unwanted ads will find other ways to do so, like PiHole etc. Or finally see the value in alternative browsers like Firefox again, and that a monopoly in this area can never be healthy to the web.
|
|
|
|
|
Pihole for the win.  I'm running two of those appliances.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Blocking potential malicious content should be done at the OS-level, and is one of the primary reasons why I am thankful that Google doesn't own MS or anything GPL'ed.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Video by engineers: [^]. DPreview article here: Quote: 'This approach, which includes no explicit demosaicing step, serves to both increase image resolution and boost signal to noise ratio,' write the Google researchers in the paper the video is based on. 'Our algorithm is robust to challenging scene conditions: local motion, occlusion, or scene changes. It runs at 100 milliseconds per 12-megapixel RAW input burst frame on mass-produced mobile phones.'
[^]
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
there are also similar algorithms for deblurring images.
|
|
|
|
|
And they can charge companies extra for ads in super-HD.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Physicists have confirmed predictions of Stephen Hawking’s namesake theory of black holes using a black hole they constructed in their lab, according to a new paper. Wait a second. Back up. Laboratory black holes? Can I have one?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: using a black hole they constructed in their lab
"Let's make a black hole, what could happen?"
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.
|
|
|
|
|
My new trash compactor
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but they are referring to a sonic black hole, which is basically a drain hole where the water is flowing into it faster than the speed of sound. Sound cannot escape from this, but light can.
:waves hand : This is not the black hole you are looking for.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Last summer, I poked a hole in the sand on the beach, and water fell into it.
This categorically proves that everything said about black holes is true.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Performance has been a big focus area for Visual Studio 2019 Because sometimes I have to post comedy items
But I guess they have room pre-prepared for improvement?
And true, it's not Eclipse.
|
|
|
|
|
When I use Visual Studio, I literally never thought "gee, I wish this started faster." It was more swearing at the various bugs that they haven't bothered fixing in the nine years since VS 2010.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
