Right click, Run as administrator. Never have to turn UAC off and limit your exposure to the smallest possible attack vector. For file level stuff, do this on explorer. For other things you might want to do this with a command prompt and execute stuff
from there. Just be sure to close elevated processes as soon as possible.
BTW, UAC isn't "protecting the user from themselves". If you're computer is internet facing, you run the risk of being hacked. If UAC is off and you're running as an admin, the hacker has complete access to your computer. With UAC on, you only get prompted when doing admin level stuff, and that should be rare enough that you could rarely care less, especially when you can employ "Run as administrator" tricks for more serious administrative tasks.
Right click, Run as administrator. Never have to turn UAC off and limit your exposure to the smallest possible attack vector. For file level stuff, do this on explorer. For other things you might want to do this with a command prompt and execute stuff from there. Just be sure to close elevated processes as soon as possible.
Sounds like a devious way to introduce hard-to-find deadlocks as well.
Any sort of synchronization mechanism that requires blocking is going to introduce the possibility of deadlocks unless it is explicitly designed not to do so, e.g., the software transactional memory mechanisms you referenced.
True, but some ideas are worse in this regard than others. The "atomic" concept is a horrible idea on many fronts, including the likelyhood of leading to deadlocks (though the performance problems are the worst... using this to "fix" DCL is like riding a bike instead of a toyota because the Ferrari is busted.
And the real answer to all of this is a "once" function. I'm not sure that .NET has such a thing, but it's trivial to roll your own. The implementation of a "once" function can actually _safely_ use the DCL, especially since .NET has a MemoryBarrier. The problem in this example, however, is that even a "once" function isn't going to help you with the issue of needing to add to the dictionary.
Sorry, if you must have this concept, you're going to have to always pay the penalty of doing proper synchronization. The DCL is broken and isn't going to help you. If speed is a primary concern, and memory a lesser concern, you can optimize by using a thread local dictionary for lookups first. If the item's there, use it. If it's not, use the shared dictionary (with proper synchronization) to get the instance and store it in the thread local dictionary.
Yes, right now the best setup for WPF is Blend with VS2005 or VS2005 EE.
Don't agree. Blend is great, but you'll have to do some actual coding as well, for which Blend won't work. And VS2005 is going to frustrate you for WPF. The latest CTP (June, hidden, but there's references to it on here) seems very stable and has actually made the designer finally usable (though Blend, once you learn it, is till nicer). Beta 2 is due out very soon, and I'm sure it will be rock solid.
As others have said, though, run it on a VPC.
Making a profession easier to practice makes the practitioners better. Simplifying a task makes it less prone to error. The more complicated a task is, the more likely you will screw it up, no matter how good you are.
Except at the end of the day programming really isn't hard. The hard stuff is the design and thought around it; the integration with business needs, scalability, and so on. Things that cannot be taught out of books or followed by recipes. In the same way that medicine is not about "you have symptom X you are suffering from Y", it cannot truly be simplified in that sort of way.
Code monkey work on the other hand might be easily simplified, except the amount of *bad* advice on google has already put paid to that.
Can't agree. Programming is NOT easy, and not for those not dedicated and with some apptitude. Here's a great example: http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html. The "best and the brightest" have been coding a simple algorithm incorrectly for years.
I agree that we should be trying to simplify our profession. I don't agree that we'll be able to simplify it enough to lower the entry level requirements, at least in any reasonable time frame.
You certainly don't need a degree. Some of the best developers I've worked with have not had degrees. However, they did lean heavily on those of us who did have degrees for many tasks that they didn't have formal training to handle. Not that we didn't rely on strengths they had either. My point is that dismissing a degree as a "pointless piece of paper" is as short sighted, and wrong, as dismissing a potential employee because they don't have a degree.
You are free to your opinion, but calling people like Rossj a troll is incredibly immature.
Ya know, I didn't call him a troll. Go read what I said again. I stand by what I said, and I believe the thread in question bears it out. To be honest, I didn't check who started the thread when I followed your link. Knowing other things he's posted here, I'm confident his intent was not to troll. But the post itself was certainly of the caliber of many troll posts. In this case, it's actually a frustrated rant,
Exactly true, frustrated rant trying to make a point about Windows being all things to all people, but put across so annoyingly badly (in my despair) that it turned into a bad thread - if, indeed, it didn't actually start out as one.
I post threads like that from time to time because I get incredibly frustrated with Windows and Microsoft, and C9 is the only outlet I have for that frustration where I would hope there are people to calm me down
And, if kept to some degree of modicum (I think you did in that post, which is why I described it the way I did), then I don't think there's anything wrong with occasional rants. It can be productive.
There's just two things for me to say about it, though.
1. With the prevelance of trolls we have now, such rants are much more likely to be taken wrong and less likely to produce any meaningful discussion, as that thread illustrated.
2. The thread is still not any indication of the hypothesis in question .
Chinmay007 wrote: wkempf,
You are free to your opinion, but calling people like Rossj a troll is incredibly immature.
Ya know, I didn't call him a troll. Go read what I said again. I stand by what I said, and I believe the thread in question bears it out. To be honest, I didn't check who started the thread when I followed your link. Knowing other things he's posted here, I'm confident his intent was not to troll. But the post itself was certainly of the caliber of many troll posts. In this case, it's actually a frustrated rant, but you can't go off like that and not expect the thread to degenerate. Especially given the infestation that C9 has with Microsoft bashers and trolls.
However, this still doesn't help you with your attempts to show blind Microsoft drones attacking anyone who supports the "competition."
Chinmay007 wrote: PaoloM, wkempf:
Of course this isn't scientific or anything , but I'm seeing no problem finding negative posts on this forum and very hard time finding anything positive.
This one is negative, but balanced and accurate. More important, it's posted by someone who owns an Apple, and thus can hardly be considered as an example of W3bbo's point. I mean, come on, there's stuff a lot more negative than that posted about Microsoft products on a daily basis here.
I don't get why you think this one relates? It's not about any of the "competition." Granted, it's attacking Scoble, and as such I don't think it too appropriate for here, but sorry, this one doesn't back up your claims.
Even more confused than the last. This is negative only because the guy needs some help. And it's with a Microsoft product, not with a competitors. This is actually evidence of the opposite of what is being claimed.
Heh? This is strictly about the next version of C9. Unrelated.
The post is neutral. One reply is strictly negative. Two replies a pro some alternative, but neither alternative is a Microsoft product, and neither of these is negative to Yahoo! Messenger. Two replies are negative towards Microsoft technologies. Sorry, this is not evidence.
OK, this one is full of negativity. I personally don't think it's an example for your cause though. Why? Because it starts out so negative towards Microsoft that it's basically a troll post (hard to tell if trolling was the intent of the original poster, but it was so negative that the end result could only be the same). Given that you start out this badly, there's little where else a thread can go.
I see no negativity here. More importantly, there's no mention of any Microsoft technology or even any technology that Microsoft competes with.
Linux troll post. Anything in there is fair game, or irrelevant depending on how you think trolls should be dealt with. Sorry.
That's just on the first two pages.
Now to compare Ubuntu Forums's Coffeehouse:
Yes so it has it's fair share of negative posts. Only one I noticed is for something other then Ubuntu (the PS3). Which is funny cause I thought Linux users are suppose to be really negative towards Windows.
These posts are cherry picked from both sites. I'm willing to bet I can find equivalent posts on either site (barring the troll posts).
You stil haven't found a single example to prove your point though. Unless your point is unrelated to the topic on hand. Just to be clear, you need to find enough posts that show community members attacking and/or dismissing technologies that Microsoft competes with. More importantly, they should be doing so with no knowledge of the "other side" or without stating reasons why they prefer the Microsoft tech.
Responses to trolls don't count. I could go into Ubuntu forums and troll there, and I bet the responses to me would be magnitudes worse than what you see here.
If your point is more about just a general negative "vibe" here, yeah, there is one. Guess who's at fault for that? Just a hint, it won't be anyone that W3bbo was ranting about. We're back to the trolls and Microsoft bashers for that.