|
Earlier this week I needed something to quickly decode a string - I don't know how this string I'm handed has been encoded, but I know it's part of some well-supported standard. Anyway, I did find a NuGet package that had the function to break it apart, but it had its own set of dependencies - it brought along 8 new packages (!)...some of which I was already using, but still - had it not been for time, I would've been very, very tempted to roll my own. I held my breath in disgust and they're now part of my solution file...but every time I look at it, I can't help but go " "
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know it's correct? How well does it react to corrupt data? 
I would learn the "well-supported standard" well enough to at least make a rough version of the encoder and decoder, and then compare inputs and outputs between the two. Once you have that in place, if they agree and unless it's seriously slower than the reference implementation, just use yours.
I'd be interested in knowing more about this "well-supported standard" -- last year I had to implement a JSON parser which could detect and react to certain imperfections in some files we were receiving from a third-party utility.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: How do you know it's correct? How well does it react to corrupt data? 
I don't. And I don't have the resources to investigate.
All I know is that it's a library Microsoft wrote, so I have to trust it (as far as I can trust Microsoft). I'm still not going to name names to protect the innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: a library Microsoft wrote
I'd put money on it then.
dandy72 wrote: not going to name names
 I would have welcomed the exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Earlier this week I needed something to quickly decode a string
For something similar to which I knew how to write the code, the very best solution I found pulled in hundreds of dependencies. It was part of a much larger application. No way I was comfortable with that so I just rolled my own code.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agreed. I'll have a look at the actual implementation and, if I'm allowed the time, just might roll my own as well...
|
|
|
|
|
You know my stance. I roll my own.
I haven't yet run into a situation where I wasn't able to write what I need just with what's in .net itself -- or things like Oracle's own .net provider.
Third-party solutions don't appeal to me. Not to forget that any third-party packages had to be approved by corporate and that could take months.
I will say that I have dabbled with EPPlus and AngleSharp (both fine products), just to see what they offered, but never used them for anything that went into production. I don't recall either having other dependencies.
Personally, I see dependencies as red flags.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: with the state of software development these days.
These days? Versus when?
Like when they first attempted to re-write the airline reservation system and managed to end up with a failed project and something like 10+ million (or billion) dollar lawsuits?
Or when they released a CPU that had a bug in the floating point library.
Or the space craft that had to be destroyed after taking off.
Humans are fallible. That is true now and always has been. Complexity in no way helps with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Versus when software did not have 150 dependencies for an online guest book
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing that AI can't fix. . . but I guess that scares me more.
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to retire next year and it won't be soon enough, partly because of what you are talking about. After 50 years of working on computer systems, I think I will progress to home craft activity.
|
|
|
|
|
I use as few dependencies in my project as possible.
In my current, rather large project, the only actual dependency I am using is for Syncfusion's WPF control suite.
I have an additional Open Source project, which I ported to VB.NET so all of my source is consistent (it is an Open Source project) and the Firebird Database Provider, which I also include the source code for. This latter project is in C# and is the only one I decided not to port since most people would not be looking at it anyway. However, it is compiled with the rest of the project so that if I want to upgrade my framework version, there are no issues.
When I upgrade the database engine to the latest version, I will probably just use the DLL for the data provider.
All this being said, I attempt to minimize project dependencies as much as possible since they can and do cause issues when updating and\or upgrading one's project.
As one who came out of the mainframe environments we all learned one thing about our coding and project infrastructures... Keep it as simple as possible so the least experienced member of a team can quickly come up
to speed with the project.
Today, however, many developers seem to regale as to how complex they can make their code and project infrastructures by using much of then newer and arcane coding constructs, which really do very little for performance in most cases while making the source code more ambiguously complex. At the same time, projects are no longer offered as separate versions on a per framework basis but are all combined into one solution with a lot of directives to produce all of the necessary assemblies on a per framework separation. All this makes a project difficult to read and understand...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
One of the great/horrible things about node dependencies is that sub-dependencies can be interdependent so if your code uses version 5 of a library and your dependency uses version 3, you will end up with both version 5 and 3 loaded independently in your app. I've wasted so much of my life attempting .net dependency updates and just giving up because nothing is actually broken yet.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't quite figured out what language it thinks I should be using, but all my English words are red-lined now. No idea how this happened, checked my language preferences and they are US-English, refreshed the browser page multiple times. Well, I guess for bugs, its fairly benign, not like it launched nuclear missiles, and I'm almost the point where my brain is ignoring all the red-lining. 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I do say Ole Boy, There is only one right and proper English in this world and that is the Kings English. Ones spell checker should always respect and reflect that simple fact. It is such a trifling and awfully embarrassing proposition you make that it should represent anything from the uncivilised colonies.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
RossMW wrote: Ole Boy
RossMW wrote: he Kings English
RossMW wrote: Ones spell checker
I guess they don't teach either spelling or grammar down your way. 
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. Just cussing. Thats all we need
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Well, I guess for bugs, its fairly benign
Untill you sent the documentary too you're customer
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: customer costumer
FTFY.
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow, every once in a while, Outlook seems to detect I've written something in French and the squigglies will adjust themselves accordingly (allowing me to right-click to place accents, etc). At other times it remains completely oblivious and place squigglies under every word that doesn't happen to be spelled the same in English. I cannot find any sort of on-screen indicator as to what language it thinks I'm currently working with.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm only on episode one because my anxiety is such where I have to watch it in short bursts, but I'm super impressed so far.
The raiders were downright terrifying. In the game(s) they are soft targets I use to develop my character's combat skills. It's kind of disappointing actually. In the series, holy hell they are scary. That's more like it!
Anyway, even if you've never played the games, Walton Goggins is worth the price of admission. If you liked Westworld give it a shot. Some of the same people involved in making it, and it shows.
(forgive me if you saw my previous attempt at posting this - it went in the wrong section because I'm slow this morning)
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
modified 11-Apr-24 12:50pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I see it's offered on Prime video - I'll check it out! Thanks for the tip.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
I there a way to see it without having to register to yet another streaming service ?
I f*cking hate all those streaming silos..
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I think Amazon has a free, ad supported service it's available on but I can't remember the name of it or even where I heard that - it was in passing.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
