|
The signature kinda looks like it could be the american artist Thomas Adrian Fransioli 1906-1997, although he primarily did oils.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting...
Here's a shot of the pic [^] - dated 1959, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if the artist realised that a water colour does not mean you pour water on the finished product.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parfait! Merci!
![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
How did you figure that out? Amazing!
|
|
|
|
|
currently I am working on a user control(charting) for windows form. I wonder if you use weakreference? in what case to use it?
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Weakreference is one of those things I've always wanted to deep dive into. There was some use case I had a few years back, which I don't remember now, and I'm particularly curious about it whether weak references need to be used in cases of wiring up event handlers across objects and how the GC cleans things up nicely.
It's a fascinating subject!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I am in the same situation. this article inspires me to go further:
click here
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Southmountain wrote: I am in the same situation. this article inspires me to go further:
Cool article. Thanks for pointing it out.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Composite applications.
See Microsoft Prism for instance: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff648465.aspx[^]
I worked with Prism for a couple of years. Nice stuff. Can be a little hard to learn at first. Their are articles here in CP for Prism/Composite Application development.
Edit: This isn't the only reason to use weak references, just one of the reasons/ways.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for this article.
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
