|
I use WPF, so I use weak references all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes her name is McGill, and she calls herself Lil but everyone knows her as Nancy.
Sorry couldn't resist.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
With .NET 4.5 you now have the WeakEventManager facility: [^].
Something I have not explored yet, and would really like to see a good tutorial on.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at this article, I think it's pretty good. While not exactly a specific tutorial on the WeakEventManager, it does give a good first idea. Weak Events in C#[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone still participate in pair programming? I had thought it long dead and buried but someone just sent me a job spec and pairing was what they do!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Twice the resources, quarter the progress.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Contrarywise... it allows two developers to play ping pong but only affect progress on one task rather than two, so efficiency is increased. 
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought that pair programming was stupid and a waste of my time.
All attempts to do this, ended up in failure. Egos and individual programming style always got in the way.
This is my personal opinion, and in now way reflects the opinions or views of brogrammers, arround the world. 
|
|
|
|
|
I never have, but it seems Scrum still recommends it.
|
|
|
|
|
"Pairing on demand", yes - meaning there are tasks where we sit down together. Which is more or less what we did before Pair Programming was a thing, but now we can claim it's a "best practice".
|
|
|
|
|
I don't, but when I did it worked really well,but then we did it right. i.e. we paired people with about the same level of ability so one wasn't slowing the other, it isn't a training exercise. Initially it is slower, but the code quality sky-rockets and you end up with two people who actually understand why particular decisions were made.
It does tend to deter loners or those not confident enough to share their code though - so that excludes the whole of the IT industry from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: the whole of the U.S. IT industry
Clarified that for you. We have seen that others in far-away parts of the globe are all too confident in sharing their code. 
|
|
|
|
|
In the past my experience is it is more like au pair programming.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: In the past my experience is it is more like au pair programming.
HAHAHA! Aye, that be true. While most of the time I'm holding someone else's hand, I've definitely had the "hand being held" experience, especially when it came to being mentored in Ruby on Rails. Rarely is pair programming a matter of equal partners -- interestingly, I think pair programming is actually sort of useless in that case. I find it most useful in mentoring or code review situations.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is against advice - the whole point isn't to train the weaker dev.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: I think this is against advice - the whole point isn't to train the weaker dev.
Yup, and like most guidance / advice, the real world is quite different. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: au pair
I've never gotten my hands on one of those either.
|
|
|
|
|
You know what they say; Two in the hands...or is it one in the hand, but that would mean there was a problem and then something about a bush? Not sure!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
I tried Pear Programming, but it never worked on my Apple so I stopped it immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: I tried Pear Programming, but it never worked on my Apple
It's not a core language no wonder it didn't work!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: It's not a core language
+1 for being as bad -- or worse -- than mine.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: +1 for being as bad -- or worse -- than mine.
In the quality stakes, I reckon he pipped you at the post.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, there are times it's really useful - pair programming is not some newfangled idea, I've been sitting down with another coder as necessary since I've been programming DOS apps 25 years ago.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We all have, but pair programming is a discipline usually thrust upon people.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: but pair programming is a discipline usually thrust upon people.
However, calling pair programming a discipline is like asking a 5 year old to write the Kama Sutra. Nobody actually knows what the hell it is or how to do it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
