|
Telerik sucks every day - believe me I have 10 years of experience...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
No surprise there. Try looking at ComponentOne next.
People who work for these companies are outdated people.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no control over 3rd party tool selection - our shop uses telerik, so that's what I have to work with.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Joke of the weekend because I'm bored!
People that confuse the words "burro" and "burrow" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground!
Got my site back up after my time in the woods!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
who doesn't enjoy coming down a mountain on their ass?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use TurboCAD Pro, I like it but still learning to use it with my 3D printer.
Got my site back up after my time in the woods!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Loooonnnngggg ago, I did some CAD too with AutoCAD 10
Even made some AutoLISP scripts, since then I have developed a real passion for LISP ...
NOT
|
|
|
|
|
return JsonConvert.SerializeObject(Process(JsonConvert.Deserialize<SomeClass>(inputStream.ReadToEnd())));
Such a PITA to inspect the intermediate results when debugging a problem. Is it bad data in the input?
Is it bad data being produced by Process ? Does the output JSON look like what the client is expecting? Wouldn't you want to do some validation before handing off to Process ? What about a try-catch if the deserialization fails? What about a try-catch if Process fails?
Latest Article - Slack-Chatting with you rPi
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
I feel your pain.
I find always difficult to understand others code, even well written one (a former workmate wrote a C++ library without comments, because 'clean code explains itself'. Well 'clean code' doesn't explain its rationale at all).
Hence byzantine statements are the last thing I need. Anyway, I suppose my code might look byzantine to other people.
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: Anyway, I suppose my code might look byzantine to other people. or even to you in a couple of years
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: or even to you in a couple of years
E A R L I E R
|
|
|
|
|
|
earlier indeed
"Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?"
Brian Kernighan
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. I look back at some of my earlier stuff and immediately think "what the hell was I thinking!?"
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Actually that C++ developer was correct in his belief in clean code explaining itself. However, "clean code" is only truly clean when a less experienced person can easily understand it.
If you are a competent developer and found difficulties with understanding this person's code, than it is that developer who did not understand that his code was not as "clean" as he believed. Obviously, it was clean to him because he could easily understand it but he didn't take into account that someone else may not.
Truly clean code means that the code is written with the most basic syntax available that will process the task efficiently. However, many developers believe their code is clean today simply because they wrote it in a legible manner while still using a lot of syntax sugar that vendors come up with in their compilers to make things simpler.
Surprise, surprise! The result is exactly what you are complaining about... And with good reason...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
I just used some hours in the last days o re-structurate a library I will probably use in my project. One of the files went from 3400 lines more or less to over to almost 4100 just because I added the missings {} and made some "shortcuts" full again, i.e.
if (something)
new_command;
else while (something)
{
command 1;
command 2;
}
if something for (...) if something one_liner;
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 9-Feb-19 10:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
when the proper way to do it is don't read the stream into a string, json.net can parse right from the stream with less allocations.
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
using (Stream s = client.GetStreamAsync("http://www.test.com/large.json").Result)
using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(s))
using (JsonReader reader = new JsonTextReader(sr))
{
JsonSerializer serializer = new JsonSerializer();
Person p = serializer.Deserialize<Person>(reader);
}
from Performance Tips
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to do either of those two things.
So I rolled my own JSON iterator. JSON in, XML out.
|
|
|
|
|
Object oriented programming. makes it soo much easier to read.........
I use pretty much only C (windows drivers).
It is extraordinary how simple it is. How flat. What you see is the machine working, right in front of your eyes. NO hidden functionality, ticked away in some derived function, or constructor.
And of course it has to be this way, the environment is so chaotic, that the code, the machine, has to be 100% perfect. And you can see that just by looking at it.
|
|
|
|
|
I have found that writing code that is easier to debug is an idea that contradicts some of the more modern suggested coding patterns.
I am someone who likes to use LINQ and lambdas but admit that sometimes it doesn't make debugging particularly easy.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 9-Feb-19 12:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: code that is easier to debug is an idea that contradicts some of the more modern suggested coding patterns. Or it's just because so many "developers" do not learn or understand debugging. When things don't work they just open a QA.
|
|
|
|
|
When the guy who wrote the code has to spend an half an hour figuring out what the code actually does, is it a lack of debugging skill on the other people's part?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard, I'm guessing you never had to deal with code that was complex enough that, some 3 months after writing it, the author had to figure out what he wrote?
If so, count your blessings.
|
|
|
|