|
Follow up question. Is there one that doesn’t produce a result of “10”?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
+5 for the best and most simple solution.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I can already see tomorrows question in the lounge:
"Is there any checksum algorithm that does not produce 65535?"
|
|
|
|
|
Plz send codez. I need a checksum algorithm that always produces 42!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
uint Hash(byte[] data)
{
uint result = 0;
if (data == null)
return result;
uint MAX = uint.Max - 1;
for (int i=0; i<data.Length; i++)
result = 1 + ((result << 8 + result >> 24) | data[i]) % MAX;
return 42;
}
|
|
|
|
|
The modulus algo I've experienced return X if the remainder is 0
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
uint Hash(byte[] data)
{
uint result = 0;
if (data == null)
return result;
uint MAX = uint.Max - 1;
for (int i=0; i<data.Length; i++)
result = 1 + ((result << 8 + result >> 24) | data[i]) % MAX;
return result;
}
|
|
|
|
|
This is the type of cryptography thinking that allowed us to break the Enigma code
|
|
|
|
|
int CalculateChecksum() {
return 1;
}
|
|
|
|
|
xkcd: Random Number[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, and I apologise if this question has been asked a billion times already. I just remembered I used to code for a living, and was idly wondering if that huge ...um... "mistake" has been fixed yet.
You know the one, where everyone has now moved on to fast but small SSD's and MS wants to dump about 50Gb of stuff on your C: drive, no options, so suck it up.
I actually quit programming because of that and now wear steel-cap boots and a hi-viz vest to make ends meet.
But I want to return to the stuff I love the most - coding.
Yup, I could choose another platform and IDE, but I don't want to.
Is there any hope?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, SSDs have grown in size and a 500 GB is within reach for most folks. The drive space that VS 2017 requires varies, depending on which features you install. I installed it for C# + WPF as well as UWP apps. It took about 8GB of my 500 GB Samsung SSD - virtually negligible.
I can highly recommend going for an SSD, as it just runs so much faster. I would not bother with any IDE other than Visual Studio 2017. And keep in mind the fully functional Community Edition is completely free.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
You beat me to it! (I had to lookup vs 2017 typical footprint)
I really need to get with the times and move on from VS 2010. I use 2015 for a few projects, but dislike it due to load times/resource consumption. One of my new year resolutions is to install and start using 2017 instead of 2010/2015...figured the kinks should be worked out by now.
Enjoy your weekend!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I have used VS 2010, 2012 and now 2017. The latter is by far my favorite. I did try 2013 for a short while, but did not like it. 2017 rocks!
Oh: Have a great weekend yourself!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Plus VS2017 2nd latest update has project load on demand, so it doesn't take all week and load each project in the solution on startup, but it only loads a project when you want to debug or work on it.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
I disabled this. Found that when performing a search across the solution, it had to wait for everything to load. I'll take the hit from my SSD and have the whole solution ready to work.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Aaah, yes, I suppose I never noticed that because my solutions are normally very small, and it doesn't unload projects, so I probably only ever do a solution wide search once all projects are loaded.
I don't have the luxury of an SSD so I wait ages even for small solutions to load all projects.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly, everyone has moved on to SSD's due to increased capacity at a lower cost. Currently, you can get a 480GB SSD for < $150 USD. You don't have to worry about a license for VS anymore, so get VS 2017 CE and forget about the 20-50GB it's going to occupy. btw, welcome back to coding!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a 1TB (well, 960GB but close enough) for 2 years, and it cost £160 then - about twice the price of an equivelant HDD.
It's nowhere near full, and I have Vs 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017 installed...
They are so worth it - the speed at which apps load is phenomenal - it can change the way you work because you don't need to keep apps open, so you get more ram to play with.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Just a few more thoughts:
If you are starting afresh, consider installing two drives in your machine: A SSD drive for the operating system and apps, and the second drive for data, including your Visual Studio projects. The second drive can be either a SSD, or a less expensive traditional HDD.
This will make it easy for you to back up your systems drive with an imaging utility, like Macrium's Reflect or AOEMI Backupper. Both of these have free versions.
Your data can be backed up by simple copying to an external drive. Your images should also be backed up to the external drive.
Leave the external drive(s) normally disconnected, in case you become the victim of malware that corrupts your internal drives.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
modified 13-Jan-18 17:25pm.
|
|
|
|
|
For VS2017 I have pretty much everything installed except Android/iOS utilities and UWP. I don't remember exactly the size but it wasn't that bad (definitely wasn't over 40GB). Plus as others have mentioned you can dynamically add and remove components from your install which is extremely convenient.
|
|
|
|
|
While others have pointed out the benefits of using Visual Studio with one or more SSDs, my opinion is that VS and SSD should play little to no factor in your decision to return to software development. Depending on how long you have been away from software development, you may find the languages, development frameworks/libraries and architecture have undergone considerable changes. This may present a large and formidable learning curve for you, especially if you must continue working full time at construction while studying on the side. I do not know what your circumstances are but my two cents worth of advice is that a return to software development will necessarily entail consideration of more important issues than VS and SSD.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote my own (very simple) IDE for working on C and C#.
|
|
|
|
|
They call me Bruce wrote: I actually quit programming because of that I sure hope that's a joke.
I don't have SSDs and do just fine at work. None of our developers have SSDs.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I've too gone all SSD, my initial worries were more about the lifetime of SSD's under heavy use, well basically even for heavy home users that was just fake news. The consumer grade samsung evo's will handle years of work.
But something else I can report regarding SSD's: a client had some software running on XP they wanted moved to somebody else's machine - 2 years back they moved to new win 7 boxes. So it was off to their hardware graveyard to find a working XP machine, every single HDD failed, every single one, just because they had sat idle for 2 years. Found 1 machine with an old Intel 60GB SSD, (had vista on it). Moved that SSD to a smaller machine, installed xp (luckily it was a dell, say what you like about dell but they still have all of their old drivers on-line, and that handy sticker with the windows licence number on every machine.) I tried VM's but something in this app didn't like VM's - xp mode, virtualbox and wmware - all problematic, running direct on win 7 also rain weirdly.
Summary: Out of a stack of 11 used HDD's and 3 used SSD that had sat idle for 2 years: only SSD's still worked - all of them! Not one spinner worked - not a single one! (The smaller cap HDD's sort-of worked for a bit but would soon fail with bad blocks, the 250G and up spinners were all 100% lifeless and wouldn't even report presense to the bios.
Seems to me SSD's are in fact more durable than spinners, and for that little bit more a way smarter investment for your next upgrade. (Yes the speed diff is hugely noticable.)
On that even my earlier idea of using spinners as a backup is out the window, (and new external SSD's are all USB 3.1 ready which given their speed makes proper sense.) Not only are they smaller but I feel way more confident both chucking them into a backpack for commuting as well as putting them on a shelf for 6 months as long generation backups.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|