Wife 2.0 | The Coffeehouse

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

Yup. The feature-list in Wife2.0 is substantially more complete than 1.0. Not to mention the new skin! Woooo (Wife 1.0 shipped with an American Skin. Wife 2.0 has a Brazilian-theme) Hehe.

This version supports internationalization and multi-lingual user-interfaces. It breaks less and works more than 1.0. It serves the user rather than forcing the user to serve it, like all good software should!

I feel sorry for the poor fella who got my 1.0 version. That thing was littered in bugs, and there was no recovery-disk either, which means no format/clean-install...

So I'm downloading the 2.0 update right now. At this rate, I'll have it finished installing and functioning in about 6 months. Only thing is, it has a proximity-sensor which requires it to be ran from Florida, so I'll have to relocate their to get full satisfactory output from the application.

I've been using the Demo of 2.0 for a few months now. It doesn't come with all of the functionality...the great features are only available to owners of the license Smiley

But I'm really enjoying its seemless-integration with my current configuration and environment.

It also works well with vista.

littleguru
<3 Seattle

OMG! Get back to the real world! To much virtual is no good! believe me.

She is nice! AND she is a person not a thing - you make me feel as if you treat her like a thing!

littleguru
<3 Seattle

jsampsonPC wrote:
Guru, is a "Queen" a thing? If so, she's treated like a thing A very important thing

Nope, but "Queen" appears only in your first reply to me Tongue Out

I'm so happy for you that you found such a nice girl (again)! I hope for you both that it is working out this time! Man enjoy the time with her, she is worth it a million times!

btw. What's up? You have hair!!!

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

Guru, is a "Queen" a thing? If so, she's treated like a thing Smiley

A very important thing Tongue Out

She probably received nearly a dozen massages this weekend, and visited nearly every attraction Chattanooga, TN has to offer - she treats me good, and I return the favor. We work pretty well Smiley

Oh, and the public methods of Wife2.0 have fewer arguments Wink

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

Yup. I have hair now Smiley

I'm going for the W3bbo-style Wink

Still have a ways to go. First time having hair in nearly 10 years.

littleguru
<3 Seattle

jsampsonPC wrote:
Yup. I have hair now I'm going for the W3bbo-style Still have a ways to go. First time having hair in nearly 10 years.

you look older now - without the hair and with the cap you looked really a lot younger -- when's the first baby due?

Btw. I can lend you my old hair - cut it down right before TechEd - muahaha!

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

littleguru wrote:

jsampsonPC wrote:Yup. I have hair now I'm going for the W3bbo-style Still have a ways to go. First time having hair in nearly 10 years.

you look older now... when's the first baby due?

Baby-production is one of the licensed-features Smiley

As per our terms of agreement I will get that functionality when I stop using the Demo, and move into my production-environment with the full-version of the application Smiley

I don't use full-featured demos...if you know what I mean Tongue Out

littleguru
<3 Seattle

jsampsonPC wrote:
Baby-production is one of the licensed-features As per our terms of agreement I will get that functionality when I stop using the Demo, and move into my production-environment with the full-version of the application I don't use full-featured demos...if you know what I mean

Well there might be cracks around - haha! No, she is really nice - I also told you over IM that I like her Smiley

Tell her best wishes from me!

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

littleguru wrote:

jsampsonPC wrote:Baby-production is one of the licensed-features As per our terms of agreement I will get that functionality when I stop using the Demo, and move into my production-environment with the full-version of the application I don't use full-featured demos...if you know what I mean

Well there might be cracks around - haha!

Possibly. But I have an agreement with the Senior Developer of this application not to use certain features until the application is licensed Wink

It's in the Terms of Agreement Tongue Out

JohnnyAwesome
Eggshell with Romalian type. What do you think?

Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.

littleguru
<3 Seattle

jsampsonPC wrote:
Possibly. But I have an agreement with the Senior Developer of this application not to use certain features until the application is licensed It's in the Terms of Agreement

Tell me that you signed an NDA that prohibits you to walk around technical limitations and doesn't allow you to reverse engineer to find a way to crack it Tongue Out

I hope she never reads this conversation Wink

ZippyV
Fired Up

jsampsonPC wrote:
I feel sorry for the poor fella who got my 1.0 version. That thing was littered in bugs, and there was no recovery-disk either, which means no format/clean-install...

There is only one way to fix that problem: do a complete disassembly.

jason818_253.33
Yippi skippy

congratulations!

Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.

ZippyV wrote:

jsampsonPC wrote:I feel sorry for the poor fella who got my 1.0 version. That thing was littered in bugs, and there was no recovery-disk either, which means no format/clean-install...

There is only one way to fix that problem: do a complete disassembly.

With a sharp object... whoa I'm in a stabby mood Expressionless

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote:

littleguru wrote:She is nice! AND she is a person not a thing - you make me feel as if you treat her like a thing!

not a thing but an instance of a class

Wife newWife = New Wife.CreateFromGirlfriend(Jonathan.Girlfriend);

magicalclick

jsampsonPC wrote:

YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote:

littleguru wrote: She is nice! AND she is a person not a thing - you make me feel as if you treat her like a thing!

not a thing but an instance of a class

Wife newWife = New Wife.CreateFromGirlfriend(Jonathan.Girlfriend);

I thought it should be WifeV2 newWife = New WifeV2.Create(Girlfriends.Jonathan);

It should have more features and bug fixes, not an instance of an outdated class.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

jsampsonPC wrote:

... when I stop using the Demo, and move into my production-environment with the full-version of the application.

Whoa! That instance-of-a-class looks pretty fully featured to me! JSampsonPC.Wife extends BeautifulObject all right! Congrats!

cheong

magicalclick wrote:

I thought it should be WifeV2 newWife = New WifeV2.Create(Girlfriends.Jonathan);

It should have more features and bug fixes, not an instance of an outdated class.

No need for a new class name if the class is in strong named assembly, and you correctly referenced the assembly in the config file. Wink

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Congratulations, jsampsonPC!

Chadk
excuse me - do you has a flavor?

Or maybe: Wife wife = Jonathan.GirlFriend.ConvertToWife();

HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code

This whole thread is just so, so wrong. Perplexed

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

HumanCompiler wrote:
This whole thread is just so, so wrong.

Yet why am I so fascinated by it?

Anyway, wouldn't this be right up the alley of somebody who compiles humans?

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

Take your time.

As the old saying goes "Marry in haste, repent at leisure".

Only seems a few months since you split with your last wife.

You should try living together for a while first (separate bedrooms if you have a problem with sex before marriage) to see if you can live together.

My wife and I lived together for 5 years before we got married, so we knew it would last. Then we bought a house and started a family as a married couple.

There's no rush.

Herbie

HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code

Bas wrote:

HumanCompiler wrote: This whole thread is just so, so wrong.

Yet why am I so fascinated by it?

Anyway, wouldn't this be right up the alley of somebody who compiles humans?

One would think, but no. Have any woman read this thread and you'll probably understand why not. Smiley

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

HumanCompiler wrote:

Bas wrote:

HumanCompiler wrote: This whole thread is just so, so wrong.

Yet why am I so fascinated by it?

Anyway, wouldn't this be right up the alley of somebody who compiles humans?

One would think, but no. Have any woman read this thread and you'll probably understand why not.

We should redress the balance: feature\bug list for Husband v1.1 (alpha)?

Issue 1 : bad estimates ('That's supposed to be 12 inches?')
Issue 2 : incorrect interpretation of user requirements.
Issue 3 : does not accept user unput

and more?

Herbie