Discussions

Anyone else heard of this project: http://refix.codeplex.com/

I think it looks pretty handy, as it's picking up on the one part of Maven that I thought .NET could do with.

Michael Butler said:

If I could work at Microsoft, it would have to be Steve Ballmer's job. No point trying to work my way up

 

 

I know you're being facetious, but this is kinda my problem when it comes to working in a big company. (And unlike others I would like to work in a big company because I know I work best when others are around me.) But what would I actually DO for a big company?

Technically I'm a dev, I have pretty good dev skills, but that's not what I'D bring to a company, it doesn't reflect my personal strengths.

As a person, I bring ideas, like for everything. You want a feature? Sure, give me ten minutes and I'll give you a list of ideas; I'll even give you rough ideas on how to implement them, and how to gradually introduce them if they're a dramatic change. I've got a bit of a reputation for being a original (that's the polite term) thinker, even when I think I'm being pretty conservative.

But in what job would an organization find that skill useful? Short of CEO? It's vexing that MS haven't written asking me to lead them, but what's a guy to do?

ExceptionDuck said:

Jonwib said:

*snip*

I did something like this to copy Jquery.data function

 

public static class extends{
  public static Dictionary> v = new Dictionary>();
  public static object data(this object o, object key,object val = null)
  {
   if (!v.ContainsKey(o))
   v[o] = new Dictionary();
   if(val!=null)
    return v[o][key];
   v[o][key] = val;
   return val;
  }
}

It won't distinguish between equal simple types, but for complex it works well.

 

With this you can call any object's data method

 

F = new Form();

F.data("language","EN");

 

and inside F you could call

 

this.data("language") and it would return "EN"

Wow, thread Necromancy!

Also, use F# you can extend everything

It'd save me a lot of time skipping over method name calls when I want to change something in the middle.

Minh said:

Maddus Mattus said:

*snip*

What if I had this really common scenario?

 

class Chicken { }

class Hen : Chicken { }

class Rooster : Chicken { }

 

List<Chicken> roster = new List<Chicken>();

 

roster.Add(DoWork());

 

That was going to be my next question

And for all that breakage and confusion, what does it get you really?

Maddus Mattus said:

Massif said:

*snip*

I hate var's

 

they are for lazy programmers

 

and worker.DoWork() would not be possible, because DoWork has a return type. Ignoring the return is not 'first class' as Erik would call it

Or of course:

ojbect thing = worker.DoWork();

And, if you have a class A which inherits from B which inherits from C (and DoWork implementations returning As and Bs) what does:

C wtf = worker.DoWork();

Resolve as? It'd just be too confusing for us humble programmers.

And I'm not letting you take away my god-given right to ignore return values!

Sven Groot said:

Maddus Mattus said:

*snip*

Yes, that's part of it. But so's Bernoulli's principle. Some people (I'm not saying you're one of them) seem to believe that because the equal transit time explanation is wrong, Bernoulli's principle itself is wrong or doesn't apply to how wings generate lift. But that's not true. Bernoulli's principle works and is part of how aircraft generate lift. It's just the equal transit time part of the explanation that's wrong. What you're saying is also part of it, but not the only part. It's really quite complicated.

So the pressure difference comes from something else? Like turbulence under the wing?

Gah... I could look something up, but I'm supposed to be pretending to work.

Well what would

var whatAmI = worker.DoWork();

Do? and of course what would:

worker.DoWork();

Do when we don't care about the return?

I also don't like it because it doesn't seem properly polymorphic to me, as the return type is clearly related to what the function does, and now the identically named functions are clearly doing something different. But that's just me.

Maddus Mattus said:

Just watched a documentairy on the BBC about the history of power. Was an interesting bit about the steam engine. People used it for 200 years before they understood the theory.

 

Nowadays we take the theory for fact and we forget to check the theory afterwards.

 

Same with the plane. For years scientist thought that the wind over a wing created a vacum beneath the wing. This vacum would generate lift. Recently that theory has been ditched. A wing just bends air, the direction on the bending results in an opposite force (lift). That's why at slower speeds they extend flaps to make the wing bend the air even further.

 

Theory is all good and well, but practise is what we deal with on a day to day basis.

Oh good. That whole "makes the air go faster over the top" thing never made much sense to me.

But have we figured out how sailing works yet?

Charles said:

justth3fax said:

*snip*

I'll ask them if they use integers in their form of computation or, more interestingly, hand them a calculus text book and see if they recognize the language, mathematics, it contains.

 

C

You read Anathem yet then? If not, thoroughly recommended.