|
Don't forget your coat... 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Honey won't be leaving, the outside world is scary.
I mean dental work with no anesthesia because the codewitch can't be around people?
Not making fun of the condition just the idea you'd willingly go out.
|
|
|
|
|
I never said to leave... you can change the room as well 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
It's one way to get a Valentine.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Had you found that prices are dropping?
modified 14-Feb-20 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been tasked with upgrading one of our web apps. It's currently implemented using ASP.NET Core 2.2 and we want to upgrade it to ASP.NET Core 3.0. I've upgraded many web apps previously and thought 'How hard can it be?' Well, I've spent the last two days getting it to compile and run. There's quite a few changes that are necessary in the assembly references, nuget packages and middleware that all need to be updated to work. I'd recommend spending some time reading some of the docs before plowing ahead and migrating your own projects. Also, you might find that some of your 3rd-party references won't work as they haven't been updated to support ASP.NET Core 3.0 (as we've found with one of ours).
But hey it's all good fun 
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
3.0? 3.1 mate. 3.0 isn't an LTS offering.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm upgrading to 3.0 first, then immediately upgrading to 3.1. Several articles I read stated that the migration path is easier if going to 3.0 first (and getting all the hard work out the way) before upgrading to 3.1.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
The removal of UseWebpackDevMiddleware made me weep.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
For someone that is not a programmer, the man has contributed more to computer science than most anyone i can think of short of maybe Ulman and Aho.**
My hubby calls him "that <expletive> generativist" because apparently generative linguistics is not fashionable in academia.
Still, bless the man.
** and a non-exhaustive list of foundational contributors like Turing.
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 14-Feb-20 8:25am.
|
|
|
|
|
And hats off to (Roy) Harper, of course. 
|
|
|
|
|
If it's not "fashionable" in academia, it must make sense.
Chomsky's political views are close to yours, I believe, so there's also that.
I still have the Aho/Ullman text from my compiler course. A quick check on Amazon seems to show that it's still going strong and even continues to feature a dragon on the cover!
For computer science and software generally, there's also Knuth, Dijkstra, Hoare...
|
|
|
|
|
And Wirth. =)
Chomsky is pretty left, and I do have some of his books including Failed States, but I'm actually more concerned and impressed with his contributions to CS than I for his politics.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I rememeber having to study Noam Chomsky on my degree course all those years ago when we studies compilers and in particular grammars relating to language design. It was a really useful and enjoyable part of my course. Not sure if they still teach this stuff. One of the junior developers where I work hadn't done anything at all relating to compilers on his course and he graduated 2 years ago.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
I only ever see papers online (be they simple assignments or entire theses) produced by what looks like masters and grad students so maybe they don't teach it during 4 year courses at some unis.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I had compilers in 4th year, and that was in the late '70s. But with everything being dumbed down...
|
|
|
|
|
I went straight into the field at 18 rather than going to school for it, so I have no idea. I just have to go by what I find.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You're proof that a degree isn't necessary, even for STEM disciplines.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's being dumbed down so much as there's just much more to learn now in the same amount of time. Project management (get that fail rate down!), CI pipelines, machine learning, big data, operating systems are way more complex, web and mobile development, etc. If someone was really into compilers, the colleges I've been to/researched have a generic "blank" course for undergrads where the student simply has to find a teacher willing to teach a specific topic.
|
|
|
|
|
My first time of hearing about Chomsky's classifications of languages was with compilers on my Comp Sci degree, then came across his work when learning Sign Language (apparently he was the first to recognised Sign Language as being a real language), and have had good discussions with a Speech Therapist about him as she had had to learn about him as well.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: apparently generative linguistics is not fashionable in academia
Oh, I think we've managed to kill off most (if not all) of the prescriptivists in academia, by now. The only ones left are laymen who've only read a style guide or two, so they don't have a clue what they're talking about.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I particularly thank Noam for the intellectual spawn of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Also really appreciated that Noam begat Pinker who could actually describe some of Noam's linguistic theories in a form mere humans could understand, and who has the courage to argue against some of them.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
So I wanted to use a piece of software written in C(++?).
As a user, I shouldn't really care what it's written in, except that when I want to use it on anything else but a Mac I have to build it myself... 
I've seen that more often, although there's usually a Windows installer as well, but not this time.
Screw that, I'm not using a tool that's supposed to help me except it first makes me work for it.
I believe this is standard practice for everything ever written for Linux, but what's the idea behind having to build it yourself? 
Why do the developers not simply build it for me (and thousands of others) and save me some trouble?
Why would a user ever want to build it himself? 
I'm sure "because we're 1337 and you're a n00b" isn't the only reason although it's the first that comes to mind
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
