Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 200 Rep.
See reduced ads
Badges
9
Newest
 Critic
Impact
~39k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 10 helpful flags
  • 80 votes cast
Sep
7
comment Is learning C essential for Computer Science?
For the record, AI training was traditionally done with C's egghead companion through the 70s and 80s, LISP, but the answer is on the head.
Sep
5
comment Developer thinks they do not have to follow standard development process
I don't think that this satisfies the (admittedly high) community requirements for objectivity of questions on programmers.
Aug
23
comment How much functional programming expertise can programmers be expected to have?
Question is no longer about whether the information exists, but if anyone has expert experience in using it; a verifiable fact not based upon opinion.
Aug
23
comment How much functional programming expertise can programmers be expected to have?
I added criteria that would require references.
Aug
21
comment How much functional programming expertise can programmers be expected to have?
Note that the question isn't about what concepts they are "supposed" to know, but rather what concepts they can be "expected" to know -- IE, what can I use without having to worry that a reasonable programmer will understand what I was doing. And I think that's a fair question. (Just as there are concepts of procedural or logical programming one can assume any programmer will know.) The people who do maintenance on my code will not always be the team I currently have: I must, in some sense, write towards an imaginary audience.
Aug
21
comment Is it legal to imitate how an API looks?
The answer to this question is going to be super-locality specific.
Aug
21
comment How much functional programming expertise can programmers be expected to have?
Any suggestion as to how I can convince them that they just don't know C#, when they think lambda functions are black magic?
Aug
21
comment How much functional programming expertise can programmers be expected to have?
I do honestly think in this case that my excessive documentation isn't because the code itself is unreadable, but because I've lost trust. Under other circumstances I would think these areas would need little to no explanation. But this is a very good answer.
Aug
21
comment How much functional programming expertise can programmers be expected to have?
Touche. I have been dutifully rebuked.
Aug
17
comment Explanation of the Google Gravity trick
It might be interesting to note (if you don't know already) that the author of the demo in question is the primary author of three.js, and a SO user.
Aug
13
comment Don't Use “Static” in C#?
Er. I'm dumb. You meant a static class for HOLDING extension methods, which, of course, is how you have to do them. Yes, of course, you want a static class for that purpose. That slipped my mind: and this goes to show that C# was not intended for IoC. :)
Aug
13
comment Don't Use “Static” in C#?
You and I agree on the general point that you should choose the right tool for the right job and not be handcuffed by philosophy. If, however, there is a well established culture in place in your project of pure IoC/DI, it'll hurt just as much as converting a traditionally top-down solution to IoC/DI. Engineering needs to consider the transitional costs. By the by, I don't think extension methods quite get you there. I think a better solution for IoCish behavior with static classes would be to have multiple classes chosen between at compile time with preprocessor directives, C style