> I've learned a couple of things so far. First, in almost two months,
> I've yet to

...install Thunderbird.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's also conspicuous that, unlike any of the people we interviewed, 
> you're currently employed. :-P

I have had the great fortune of never having to work with someone who
isn't a competent programmer. My first job was at the university, in the
deparment of computer science, so you might imagine the competence of
the average programmer working there. (In my current job I basically work
alone on the code. We have another developer but he develops unrelated
projects. Nevertheless, he's quite competent himself too.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:40:55 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> It may be too early to say, but the WTF quotient of my new employer
>>> appears to be significantly lower than my previous one. I mean,
>>> there's still some minor brokenness there. But it's not like the last
>>> bunch of losers I worked for, where the company was run by deranged
>>> howler monkeys.
>>
>> It's good that you are seeing that what many of us told you for so long
>> is in fact true - not all employers are as odd as the one you just
>> left. :)
> 
> Or rather, I had assumed that I was working for *the only* broken
> company. But now it appears that each company is broken, it's just a
> question of how seriously or trivially.

All companies face challenges, certainly.  People are involved.

>> Spotify is great, subscribed recently myself - very large catalog of
>> music, not all of it is as annoying as Gangnam Style or "other terrible
>> music."
> 
> I think my boss just likes trolling people, BTH. ;-)
> 
>> And yes, it is legal - you pay a monthly fee and get access to what's
>> in their catalog.
> 
> But not Pink Floyd or The Beatles, apparently... And yet, at the same
> time, unknown bands like The Senti-Mentals are there. Very odd.

It's called "licensing fees", and some of the very popular bands (and 
their labels) want extortionate fees to be included in the catalog.

But I did find some Floyd on Slacker, another similar service that I also 
subscribe too.

> 
>> Think Netflix or Lovefilm for music.
> 
> Ah yes - two other services that I don't yet understand...

What's to understand?  I want to watch a movie, it's in their catalog, I 
stream it to my PS3 and watch it.  I pay a monthly fee and can stream as 
much as I want.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Think Netflix or Lovefilm for music.

> Ah yes - two other services that I don't yet understand...

You don't understand why people would pay a moderate sum of money in
order to be able to watch movies or listen to music? (And *legally* at
that...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 03/12/2012 12:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> I've learned a couple of things so far. First, in almost two months,
>> I've yet to
>
> ...install Thunderbird.

At works? Are you nuts?? They have aggressive network surveillance 
systems. It would probably be grounds for immediate termination. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 3/12/2012 2:54 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 03:06 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> Here's a challenge - write me a C# function (or even just some
>>> psuedocode) which will take a string containing space-delimited positive
>>> integers, and return them in ascending order.
>>
>> If it were C++, I could write a few lines of code that does that
>
> Haskell:
>
>    foobar :: String -> [Int]
>    foobar = sort . map read . words
>
>
> C#:
>
>    public List<Int> foobar(String s)
>    {
>      string[] words = s.Split(' ');
>      List<Int> list = new List<Int>();
>      foreach (String word in words) {list.add(int.Parse(word));}
>      list.Sort();
>      return list;
>    }
>
>
> Not exactly taxing, eh?

Of course there are many ways to approach this in C# and most other 
languages.  Using LINQ and and working in decimal datatype without error 
handling:

private List<decimal> ParseAndSortValuesFromString1(string text)
{
	return text.Split(' ').Select(s => Decimal.Parse(s)).OrderBy(s => 
s).ToList();
}

Post a reply to this message

>> Not exactly taxing, eh?
>
> Of course there are many ways to approach this in C# and most other
> languages. Using LINQ and and working in decimal datatype without error
> handling:
>
> private List<decimal> ParseAndSortValuesFromString1(string text)
> {
> return text.Split(' ').Select(s => Decimal.Parse(s)).OrderBy(s =>
> s).ToList();
> }

According to one of the guys I work with, "LINQ is great and everything, 
but it makes the code extremely slow". Does anybody have any actual 
/facts/ with which to confirm or refute this? I would have expected 
there to be a fairly minimal speed difference...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue 04/12/12 19:09, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Not exactly taxing, eh?
>>
>> Of course there are many ways to approach this in C# and most other
>> languages. Using LINQ and and working in decimal datatype without error
>> handling:
>>
>> private List<decimal> ParseAndSortValuesFromString1(string text)
>> {
>> return text.Split(' ').Select(s => Decimal.Parse(s)).OrderBy(s =>
>> s).ToList();
>> }
>
> According to one of the guys I work with, "LINQ is great and everything,
> but it makes the code extremely slow". Does anybody have any actual
> /facts/ with which to confirm or refute this? I would have expected
> there to be a fairly minimal speed difference...

LINQ has a certain amount of overhead, as to whether that significantly 
impacts the speed of your code obviously depends on the exact code and 
data you're dealing with. Even in your example I suspect the speed 
differential is highly dependent on the size of the list.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>    public List<Int> foobar(String s)

Btw, why return a list?

I know that memory allocation in C# is probably faster than it is
in C++, but it still feels odd to use a list instead of something more
memory-efficient (which C# most certainly ought to support) and faster
to access. What possible advantage could there be in using a list of
ints?

Are you transferring your customs of using lists from Haskell to C#?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Think Netflix or Lovefilm for music.
>
>> Ah yes - two other services that I don't yet understand...
>
> You don't understand why people would pay a moderate sum of money in
> order to be able to watch movies or listen to music? (And *legally* at
> that...)
>
No, he doesn't understand how a service can offer near-HD resolution 
over the Internet.  Despite the fact that tv providers have had no 
problem doing 60 channels of the same thing over the same wires for the 
last 30 years (10 years in the case of HD).

He also complains of not knowing what "cable tv" is, despite the fact 
that he admitted his parents used to have it.

You, know, regular Andy stuff.

;)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message