|
Oh noes! Grown up work!
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that the cyborg?
Feels like forever since I read any comics.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
He is the head of SHIELD. And he is, in fact, a hydra agent! 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. Google says I was thinking of Donald Pierce.
Seems that they think "Pierce" requires a Scottish forename.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Totally different! 
|
|
|
|
|
Done by toddlers.
This is the infrastructure we stand on.
Sometimes, it's almost exciting!
|
|
|
|
|
We follow agile. No documentation. Just code.
Long back, we'd heard a term called 'ad-hoc'. They've renamed it as ....
.
.
.
.
.
.
A-G-I-L-E 
[Jokes apart, agile has worked for us. All documentation (along with planning and tracking trail) is in the agile tool itself.
We've achieved much more in the last three years with agile, than in the earlier three-year period, which was semi-waterfall.]
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, like it too!! 
I guess they just to see how I am thinking, this is not a spec... more like a draft!
|
|
|
|
|
Our place thinks they do agile.
the documentation in the agile tool (TFS) tends to be things like "fix the bug"!
So helpful!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations, and (possibly) deep sympathies !
cheers, Bill
«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
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Bill, always some tongue in cheek words coming from ya! 
|
|
|
|
|
MS's rules for store apps (Linkety[^])state that:
"Your app must not attempt to change or extend the packaged content through any form of dynamic inclusion of code that changes how the application behaves with regard to Store certification requirements. Your app should not, for example, download a remote script and subsequently execute that script in the local context of the app package."
On my phone, I have Microsoft TouchDevelop, an app specifically designed for sharing, downloading and executing remote scripts. I have no problem with this, especially in the context of TouchDevelop, which is a great environment for experimenting with development (my 11 year old uses it), but doesn't in seem unreasonable (and anti-competitive) that noone else can develop such apps.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's the kind of confusion between direct interpretations of the text versus purpose of the text (and I really don't know if it needs to be revised).
The purpose is clear: The application should come fully functional from the store. It can't be an application that comes in half and loads the other half from somewhere else.
Yet, for an application that deals with creating new applications, it is like an image editor that loads images. It is not that part of the application itself is coming from somewhere else... its actual content for the application... in this case it happens to be a script (or similar, as I don't know the application). But it is clearly not part of the application coming from somewhere else.
So, I don't know... to me it doesn't violate the rules. Maybe it violates the example. But I don't know how strict these terms must be interpreted under the law, so... I simply don't know and I can see both interpretations as valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait...are you trolling me? Because, if you are, I'm not responding.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I be "hatin'" ?
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: Why would I be "hatin'" ?
Exactly. Bill Gates built the world (Windows OS) we work in. So all sound-minded individuals are 100% happy he is the richest person in the world. 
And, anyone else, don't be acting like you are running Linux or some other OS. That's all just lies, because it still isn't:
THe Year of the Linux Desktop
That's not for another 5 or 6 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget about Ballmer and Allen... MSFT has generated a tremendous amount of wealth.
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Errm, I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people built the Windows OS. In fact, the core NT based version was written by a team that came in from VMS and NT went on to underpin a lot of what we now know as Windows. As for those of us who still use Linux systems, Bill had very little to do with it.
So, while I still love coding Windows applications, I love it when people are accurate with their facts. The pedant in me gets upset when people play fast and loose like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: lot of other people built the Windows OS
No, no. Bill wrote Windows 3.1 by himself while bouncing on his trampoline.
Then, later, some guy copied his code and slapped a new name on it: Voila Linux!
I have my facts straight, according to certain Internet sites.
|
|
|
|
|
And those sites call Windows 3.1 an OS?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: And those sites call Windows 3.1 an OS?
You have broken the rules are are now banned from CP.
I told you not to be hatin'!!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I'm not hating on Bill. I like Bill.
Your blatant disregard of historical facts however....
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
