|
Don't use a tuple like that!
(TAccept meaningfulNameInsteadOfItem1, (KeyValuePair<char, char>[] keys, int something)[])[] So much more readable... Ok, I guess just don't do this 
In such scenario's I usually create a class, which may inherit from Dictionary<...>, for readability.
Or I do something like:
var lookup = originalCollection.ToLookup(i => i.Key, v => v.ToLookup(...)); So that I never have to specify the type 
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't used that syntax before. I know it's available but i just haven't touched it.
I'm relatively new to the more modern iterations of C#.
Luckily this type is used to store machine generated tables and isn't touched by the end-developer at all. That profoundly limits the impact of using non-descriptive names
That being said I updated my code according to your suggestion. Thanks!
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
modified 3-May-19 5:34am.
|
|
|
|
|
I was moving a bit of code just yesterday and I had a class with two properties to return a result from a function.
That was the only place where the class was used and other than that it didn't add anything of value.
Of course, back in the day you could use an out parameter if you had more than one return value, but that is now frowned upon.
So then I remembered C# has introduced named tuple values and I rejoiced.
Never again will I use these multiple-return-values-from-function-classes anymore
Had you posted this the day before yesterday I wouldn't have known either 
I've been using LINQ for years though (and even rewrote it in JavaScript[^]).
It's been making life so much easier
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use Linq because of perf issues with enumerators and esp. iterator functions**, but then I'm not writing business code.
I'm writing things like parsers and code generators and compiler toolkit stuff.
** they aren't bad in moderation, but they cause a lot of object creation that isn't strictly "necessary" if you use other methods to enumerate. Linq relies on this stuff super heavily and so there's a performance penalty for that - the worst maybe being the added memory pressure.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
LINQ has a small performance hit, if only because you do multiple method calls and it creates some extra objects.
The iterations aren't so bad if you do it right though.
For example, collection.Where(...).Select(...).ToList() only does one iteration, and not the three you'd expect.
The ToList() causes the iteration, which iterates through the SelectIterator, which uses the WhereIterator, so each item just goes through a chain of iterators just once 
|
|
|
|
|
small perf hit *per subquery*. not a small perf hit. not for complex queries.
I've perfed LINQ.
No.
Just, no.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
adding, I'm glad there are some optimizations. that still doesn't make it appropriate to use in parsing code
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: that still doesn't make it appropriate to use in parsing code
Yeah, I never said nor believed that
In terms of business applications the performance hit is small (unless you're doing LINQ to SQL/Entities/other data sources, in which case the performance hit can be huge if the query isn't build properly).
I'm just saying the amount of iterations probably isn't the problem.
I've met people who believed every LINQ method was a separate iteration, but that certainly isn't the case
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care about performance in business applications.
If I'm talking about performance I'm not talking about business applications.
For business applications, performance is a last priority. Including for business.
LINQ is about developer productivity. It's a business dev tool, primarily.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: How often do you get to declare nasty things like this?
Often enough. It can be quite fun. You can use the using statement to declare a name for a more complex type, example:
using ThreadPool =
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<System.Tuple<System.Threading.Semaphore,
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentQueue<System.Action>, System.Action<System.Exception>>>;
but it's cumbersome, and this is where F# really shines[^]
Example from my article I linked above:
type Work = unit -> unit
type ThreadExceptionHandler = Exception -> unit
type ThreadGate = Semaphore
type ThreadQueue = ConcurrentQueue<Work>
type AThread = ThreadGate * ThreadQueue * ThreadExceptionHandler
type ThreadPool = ConcurrentBag<AThread>
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging
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
|
|
|
|
|
yeah i really wish there were something in C# as flexible as typedef in C++. Using has too many limitations when it comes to declaring templates (for example no templated usings)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reading a lighter book right now and it is fantastic. It hits on a lot of things I'm interested in.
The Setup 40-something psychologist / university prof with no musical skills but a lot of desire plays Guitar Hero and becomes mediocre at it. He then wonders, "hey, could I learn to play the guitar? Could I learn to play it well?" The journey ensues.
If you're interested in how we learn in general, music, music theory and practice and/or guitars you will like this book.
Guitar Zero: The Science of Becoming Musical at Any Age - Kindle edition by Gary Marcus. (amazon)[^]
|
|
|
|
|
What I find funny is all of my friends who actually play the guitar and have tried the game say they are horrible at Guitar Hero. I don't bother with the game - I prefer the real thing.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: all of my friends who actually play the guitar and have tried the game say they are horrible at Guitar Hero.
I know. Same thing here. Been playing Guitar for a long time but terrible at Guitar Hero.
The author's experience is a bit different because he started with Guitar Hero and went to the Guitar. Basically leveraging only the rhythm / syncopation of press buttons on Guitar Hero.
|
|
|
|
|
Rhythm is an issue for many musicians people who play music.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I play bass, upright and electric, and tried GH at a friend's house. Bass instruments are usually slower to speak, so you have to start the note a little early if you want the sound to start on time. The program complained about every note until I tried deliberately playing each note late.
|
|
|
|
|
Playing the guitar like playing Guitar Hero is simply a motor skill. Anyone can do it with practice. It takes more practice to play Through the fire and flames than it does to play Slow ride.
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt see 'Guitar Hero' mentioned on that page at all, but anyway, it isnt a real instrument at all of course.
However I do think we all have musical ability, to greater and lesser degrees, and anyone can learn an instrument.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I do think we all have musical ability, to greater and lesser degrees, and anyone can learn an instrument.
I agree. That's why I'm finding the author's study of the subject so fascinating since he started so late in life (and many people believe that is a problem, while brain plasticity suggests otherwise.)
|
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere that it is a myth that we can not learn new skills in later life. I think motivation and energy is the real limiting factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just looking for some general advice I can offer my friend who's in a tricky predicament involving a project he hired a software company to develop for him.
A few days ago, my friend calls me in a panic to see if I can help resolve an issue he's having. He owns a small business in the medical industry & hired a software company to develop some software for his business. Development started about 9 months ago, using AngularJS. This software company got about halfway through development before their sole developer who was working on the project left & they needed to hire a new developer. For some reason, this new developer informed the software company the entire project needed to be upgraded to Angular 4, and the company agreed to move forward with the upgrade (at this point, I don't know the specifics as to why this was decided). This developer then left the company as well. Fast forward to now & 1 or 2 additional developers who have come and gone, & the application is now a mess & they're telling my friend they're stuck & not sure how to move forward.
The trouble seems to be about 10,000 lines of code which was originally written in AngularJS, which contains crucial medical info & very delicate medical rules that cannot be incorrect & the software company's been unable to upgrade this code into Angular 4.
So, after speaking with my friend, I've offered to at least speak with the current developer to see his pain points but I'm curious if there's any advice anyone can give as to best handle this situation?
They've already developed a great deal in Angular 4, but for some reason, can't upgrade about 10,000 lines of Angular JS code. Do I recommend they revert everything back to AngularJS & redevelop anything they've written in Angular 4, back into AngularJS? Do I say they just need to keep trudging through this code and make it work? Do I simply say they're out of luck?
I know this is a very general question but just looking for some general advice or questions I should ask them. I have a call with them today to figure out more details as to what's going on.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer up.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
This software company is willing to talk about how their project is elephanted up and take resolution advice from a complete stranger? I agree with Griff.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Goalie35 wrote: The trouble seems to be about 10,000 lines of code which was originally written in AngularJS, which contains crucial medical info & very delicate medical rules that cannot be incorrect & the software company's been unable to upgrade this code into Angular 4.
I think that the bold part above should invite extreme concern. If the code cannot be ported to another language I would be asking - "Where are the unit tests?" It should be possible to port the code and via the existing and new unit tests prove that the new code is not broken.
If the answer comes back that "There are no unit tests" then the integrity of the "very delicate medical rules" comes into question and with it the whole of the project.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
