Posts by not_equal_to_null 37 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2011
You appear to have stumbled upon this site from The Daily Mail.
This site, you see, is about technology and is mostly inhabited by 'geeks'. You may have more luck at T3 or somewhere like that. Please close the door behind you on your way out.
Kisses,
Dan
You, sir, are (willfully or dimly) missing the point.
Your original point was actually about deterministic (ie. knowing everything there is to know about an applications execution ahead of time) and non-deterministic approaches to software development, as seen through the lens of reflection in .NET, which you seem to despise for some reason.
Your point was that the potential dynamism provided by reflection was outweighed by the performance penalties inherent in introspection. Though you didn't quite put it that clearly.
It is certainly possible to write entirely deterministic software (in terms of behaviour within the CLR) on .NET, but it's not really _desireable_, is it, when taking into account maintainability and the complexity of modern software.
Again, it's a tradeoff - different tools for different jobs.
For the majority of modern applications, I'd take maintainability over performance (to a point) every time. Software is about solving problems to make user's lives better, not being a purist. A user doesn't care if you write specific deterministic code to cover every eventuality - they care that when they throw a vaugly-correctly-shaped bit of data at whatever you create, it'll work as expected.
Popular libraries such as newtonsoft json, automapper, restsharp etc all make use of reflection because its the _right tool for the job_ - namely taking diverse inputs and doing something sane with them.
What has that got to do with how 'fast' windows runs on your server?
Meanwhile, in the real world, you often have arbitrary input to process, and it's often JSON.
You've broadly two options here - treat it as data and access it as such (like reading from a nested dictionary), or deserialise it into a strongly typed object.
Using strong types obviously leads to better structured code, as we're explicitly defining our domain rather than relying on a nebulous bucket of data, and better performance as we're using CLR data structures to hold our data, not big old dictionaries.
Deserialising does requires that you know something about the target type, so you can populate properties, validate values etc.
You could hand-craft a deserialiser, but frankly why bother when type introspection gives you reliable, testable and an above all predictable experience? Any decent code builds compiled expressions from the results of reflection rather than using it every call, as it is expensive to do, but the results when properly used (for example to build an expression tree which is then compiled to a lambda) give similar performance to hand written code.
And any decently architected software will allow selective optimisation where required, so your point about NEVER DOING THIS is somewhat naive and shows a lack of understanding.
Rather than banging on about '.not', perhaps you could instead use some of your evidently vast intellect to consider that some tools are best for some jobs, and every tool is a compromise between performance, effort and maintainability. Just a thought.
Some very interesting points raised here - fundamentally that male and female needs are very different. I'd actually go so far as to say there are major differences between gay and 'straight' men - certainly in my experience Grindr is less a tool for finding a date, and more a tool for finding something significantly less romantically involved.
The fact that most of my conquests have ended up as friends (and even the occasional boyfriend) is more a happy and unexpected result than what I was originally seeking (I'm assuming I'm pretty average here as far as homosexual males go).
My (admittedly overly generalised and stereotypical) view of females' attitudes to dates and relationships is that it's the romantic and not the sexual aspect of the relationship which takes precedence. This by it's nature negates grindr-style apps as they are all really designed for one thing.
I do worry when I see quotes about enforcing female empowerment and the like - I get that many women feel uncomfortable about some of the messages they receive on these types of apps, but, frankly, that's part of the risk of using these types of apps. I've had to turn down many an unwanted advance - this is what the 'block' button is for.
All I'm really trying to say is, that it's nice to see an article that shows some thought and balance and approaches this subject in a sensible way rather than the usual 'OMG LOOK AT THE SLUTTY GAYS'.
Top Score :)
Actually, you managed to totally miss the gist of my point. I'll make it a little more succinctly here for your convenience:
'Pride' in this instance is not a glitter-covered banner being waved at every opportunity, more an internal feeling of completeness and honesty with oneself.
All I'm trying to say is that those guys that do use Grindr shouldn't feel any embarrassment about it, as seeking out people who like the same things as you is a *totally normal* thing to do.
I totally understand that everyone's circumstances are different, but the important thing is that comments perpetuating the idea that Grindr or 'loud gays' (to paraphrase your crock of nonsense) are weird or somehow should shut up and be greatful they're on the whole accepted is, frankly, bizzarre and archaic.
I was simply trying to make the point that the casual mockery of gay culture and lifestyles creates a climate of friction, and ultimately hurts not those of us that are out and loudly proud, but those of us at our most vulnerable... the ones that are still in the closet.
I'm really not sure why I got downvoted there... I'll have a little rant about it now...
As a gay man and regular user of Grindr I take offence to people insinuating (not just in the comments above, but also in the comments on this site in general) that the use of apps such as Grindr (or, being a sexually active gay man) is somehow something funny, quirky, weird or embarrassing.
I for one am *proud* to be gay, and am *proud* that I am comfortable enough in my own skin to be honest and open about what I like to get up to.
I resent the attempts of all the hetronormative morons in the comments fora to somehow 'shame' me and others like me just because they are repressed, illiberal stick-in-the-muds under the impression that it is still somehow the 50's.
How about LINQPad - I use it for all of my little scripts, as it gives me all of .NET, without the bloat of Visual Studio.
You can make things as simple or as complex as you need, and can choose from VB, C# or F#.
It *is* still object oriented (again, you don't have to jump in with both barrels), but once you get your head around oop, you'll wonder how you ever did anything any other way ^_^
If you re-read my post, you'll notice that I wasn't actually trolling (though I did leave myself well open to the light roasting).
It's just that I've seen more and more articles like this recently - I'm sure I'm not the first to pick El Reg up when they slip from their usually high quality, and I certainly won't be the last. The pedantry endemic to the commentarati is what makes this place, after all.
Did anyone bother to proof-read this in between copying and pasting from the press release?
A few pointers:
- Sentences shouldn't start with 'But'
- You don't need a comma between the final element of a list and the 'and'
- 'It can also performs dangerous operations' makes no sense
- 'a skilled hackers' makes no sense
- I'm not sure what 'unsecured HTTP' means. I know what unencrypted HTTP is, though...
- There are various clunky and awkward phrases dotted around the place
I don't claim to be anywhere near perfect, but I can at least make myself understood. Can we have this article sorted, please?
Depends if you jokingly threaten to blow him to smithereens if some snow isn't cleared.
On reflection, I wish someone *would* bloody bury him under a few tonnes of the stuff. Preferably along with that other snake by the name of Ed Milliband.
I would post AC but due to the super-snoop powers of the British plods, it would do nothing to protect me should they wish to charge me with a 'terror' offence.
On the face of it, this sounds great (though I obviously have to look at it in detail).
Static Typing (though I assume var is still supported for interop) is exactly what we need for well-engineered clientside functionality
Proper inheritance will make things much easier to structure
Generics support would be fannytastic
This is pretty exciting! It's like C#, for the browser.
Sir,
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
'The R-Pi does not have a touchscreen and the foundation has no plans to produce one at present.'
Actually, there are a number of touch screens on the market that communicate over USB or Serial. I myself have a 3m monitor with a serial touch controller, and am writing some drivers for it. You can also get units consisting of an LCD panel and touchscreen for ~£75 from various online tat bazaars.
'...enforces by remotely disabling and/or removing the 'offending' item'
Yes, but only on devices with the Play Store installed. These are so-called 'Google Experience' devices, which are approved by Google. Android is to the Play Store as Windows is to Office.
I think you'll find the door is over there.
Kisses,
Dan
I fail to see why everyone is so up-in-arms about paying $799 for the Surface (I refuse the acknowledge that the ARM version even exists). It's not cheap, but it's not too over the top either.
Let's face it, you're getting:
- Decent build quality (by the looks of things)
- Reasonable processing performance (I'm currently developing on a 1.6GHz i7, and it's great)
- I assume a reasonable amount of ram (3 or 4 gb)
- FULL 1080p HD (a real winner for me!)
- Touch and Pen input
.. for the price of an upper mid-range laptop.
(and no, I'm not a MSFT fanboy...)
We host about 20 domains and a few virtual servers with Fasthosts - I've not got a bad word to say about them (except for their slightly odd management console).
Their support people are great, and things get sorted fast when there are issues.
Just lucky, I guess.
You seem to have stumbled upon this website by accident. This site is visited mostly by technology enthusiasts more interested in the potential of said technology, rather than the artificial/short-sighted shackles applied by the device manufacturers.
Might I suggest you retire somewhere safer? Possibly ZDNet or the BBC?
I was under the impression it's more to do with the round-trip time when requesting 100 or so assets (js, images, stylesheets, xmlhttp) to load one page. This silk stuff essentially does the actual loading of the assets server side, then squirts it all back down to you in one compressed gobbet of data.
This removes the overhead associated with each individual request.
This is all crap of course. If websites were written by proper, able coders instead of designers with a different hat on, the whole internet would be a better place.
And that's the end of my rant. Cue flames.
As a 20-25 year old software developer, I agree with this totally.
And now for a rant about other 20-25 year old programmers...
My first experience of writing software was on my dads old ZX Spectrum (the posh +2A version with the integrated tape drive!) when I was 5 or 6, and it has stood me in good stead giving me a solid understanding of how to write efficient, low-footprint software.
We recently had to recruit a new software developer to work in my department, and the quality of the candidates was SHOCKING. Asking the candidates to explain the point of the .NET CLR, not one candidate could give me a sensible answer.
How can these people be expected to write decent software in a high-level language like C# when they don't even know the basics.
I'm sure they could all make a very flashy and pretty website with jQuery though...
I own one of these, and use it all the time. The screen is somewhere between a netbook and a laptop, it's very small and convenient to lug around, does exactly the same job as a netbook, but has 9 hours of battery life. Also, it has no fan vents to cover, so I don't have to worry about it melting down when I'm using it on my lap.
Oh, and it works great with our Citrix server at work.
OK, so it's a bit pricey, but hey, it's got the geek factor :)
Although the idea sounds great, and fits in well with the 'web application' model of thinking, we already have the ability to do this - they're called URLs, and we can already pass data between stuff in a standard manner - this is called XML.
For example, lets say I want to send an email from a web page - I simple embed a mailto: link. mailto: causes a 'handler' to be started to create an email. Others exist - you may have encountered http: or even https:!
Then there's this newfangled invention of xml, which can be used to wrap up data in an easy-to-parse, standardised format. Why do we need yet another framework?
</rant>
You may also want to point out that WebTop comes with Citrix Receiver baked in, so accessing XenDesktop or XenApp deployed solutions is, in a word, awesome.
We're seriously considering a few of these for our sales team in the field.
There's also rumours of a WebTop NDK coming out - suddenly this becomes a whole lot more interesting (and useful)!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
