|
GenJerDan wrote: And am slightly radioactive
Welcome to the new age, to the new age! I am radioactive, radioactive!
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine that, I actually know the reference. :p
|
|
|
|
|
Keep on truckin' GenJerDan,
Bill (cancer survivor: 80 months and no remission)
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
See Here[^]
Fantastic Prequel to The Day of the Doctor
Only 9 days to go.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
I like the same old tardis , sonic screwdriver everything but not the new doctor. He looks boring.
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
He is the old doctor.
After him came John Hurt, Christopher Ecclestone, David Tennant, Matt Smith then Peter Capaldi.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
I think I missed "John Hurt" episodes but Christopher Ecclestone, David Tennant are brilliant, have to watch new doctors 
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
John Hurt hasn't had any episodes yet.
But watch on Saturday 23rd November as it is the 50th anniversary episode and it is being shown in over 100 countries around the world at the same time.
John Hurt plays the Doctor alongside Matt and David.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. Will make my calender. Wont miss it. As of now I'm watching all old episodes in Netflix. Time travelling is very exciting and interesting.
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
And it, of course, completely blows away the Doctor numbering system (in terms of regenerations) from Ecclestone onwards. Which, of course, also throws the whole 13 regenerations to the wind because we also know the Doctor was the Valeyard in a future incarnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily.
The Valeyard is described by the Master as an amalgamation of the Doctor's darker sides from between his twelfth and final incarnations.
I think rather like The Watcher of Cho-Je, he is a 'Potential Incarnation' rather than an actual one.
Plus the Doctor does not count the War Doctor as a Doctor, so the number of Doctors remains in place, but they have slipped one extra regeneration in there so Peter Capaldi will inherit the final regeneration.
Unless there is some way in which a whole new regeneration cycle can be started.
(QV the Time Lords offered the Master a new cycle, so it must be possible).
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
That was brilliant. Forgot how good McGann was as the doctor. Can't wait - I watched the first ever episode from behind the couch and it has stayed with me ever since.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
You kept the same couch for 50 years?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes: been re-upholstered a few times but the craftsmanship was superb and the frame extremely solid. You wouldn't be able to buy anything of that quality at DFS.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the 50th will feature Mr Nielsen[^]. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Okay just completed my first (very trivial app) using MVC5 + EF6. Not sure what all the fuss is about. Like VS2013 but I'm easy; I've liked 'em all!
Seriously, what is the fuss all about? Why is this better than web forms? I mean, it's pretty neat and needs less code to do the same things but that only appears to be because it's all hidden away. Is that right? Seems like it is. Not sure why you'd prefer this for small/medium apps. Maybe it's better with the big stuff: enterprise apps or real time trading systems and the like.
Opinions? I want to like it and I'll keep at it; just want to know that it isn't going to be dead in a couple of years - seems like web forms will be here for the long haul.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks: hadn't seen that: interesting.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Because WebForms is essentially a dead technology? It doesn't scale well and is not something you want to use for mobile platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Because WebForms is essentially a dead technology?
Don't think that is right at all: MS Development Platform Technologies[^]
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: It doesn't scale well
In what way? (Have not found that to be the case at all in a number of web applications).
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: is not something you want to use for mobile platforms
Why not? (If you create a new project in VS2013, one Web Forms and one MVC, they look and feel identical as they both use bootstrap). Are you trying to say that would not be enough?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: Don't think that is right at all: MS
Development Platform Technologies[^]
Actually, did you read that post and the document it points to?? I have the 70 page tome sitting right here. "Mobile Web: Anything but WebForms" "ASP.NET MVC with Modernizer is the base line recommendation". WebForms is mentioned very little as a recommendation of any kind, being mentioned only once as a possibility for Small/Medium standalone data-centric business apps using simple databinding. MVC is mentioned far more often and is the top choice for "modern web applications...supporting mobile devices".
In my experience, Web Forms also generates some pretty crappy JavaScript.
That tells me WebForms is essentially dead.
mark merrens wrote: In what way? (Have not found that to be the case at all in a number of web
applications).
With the increasing number of controls on the page, ViewState size increases, sometimes dramatically. With the ever increase in mobile platforms using 3G/4G/LTE/whatever, ViewState increasingly eats the sh*t out of your data limits.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, the View-State and heavy web pages are not suitable for Mobile. Also the rich / traditional web controls available for WebForms are also not suitable for responsive web design, and will not render correctly in Mobile view.
But it is not dead, no were near dead. There are many scenarios where one doesn't need Mobile version at-all, there are scenarios where they have Native Mobile apps And there are companies with existing WebForms work-force, these all will still use WebForms.
Also in the latest version of WebForms, they have added support for seamless switching between Desktop and Mobile views. Now you can create YourPage.aspx and YourPage.mobile.aspx and it will render the webpage based on the device, just like MVC.
MVC has many advantages over WebForms and WebForms also has many advantages over MVC. It's a choice. 
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe - we will agree to disagree. Only time will tell what the ultimate outcome is. 
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting: thanks. Looks like it is still a choice based upon the usage of the application though I suppose MVC will win out. Pity: I like Web Forms and have never felt limited by the functionality offered.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
I went to try and recreate something I did in 2012 using MVC5 only to find they now have identities for memberships/roles etc. etc. Got confused, put it to the side for another day so went back to another headache I've got at the moment on a javascript node.js package not building under windows. It brings me to 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
