Lynn-Queue
-
@OzPeter said:
@Jaime said:
This is not case sensitive. Case is being used to convey meta-information. For example, the word "case" in the first two sentences is written using two different case conventions, yet is identified as the same word with the same meaning. However, since one is at the beginning of the sentence, it is capitalized. Having a different definitions for "case" and "Case" would be an issue -- and it's exactly what C derived languages do.Case insensitivity is more human-friendy
Yet you choose to write in a case sensitive manner. Methinks there is an issue with this.
-
@Jaime said:
@OzPeter said:
@Jaime said:
Case insensitivity is more human-friendy
Yet you choose to write in a case sensitive manner. Methinks there is an issue with this.This is not case sensitive. Case is being used to convey meta-information. For example, the word "case" in the first two sentences is written using two different case conventions, yet is identified as the same word with the same meaning. However, since one is at the beginning of the sentence, it is capitalized. Having a different definitions for "case" and "Case" would be an issue -- and it's exactly what C derived languages do.
Besides, case insensitivity prevents the abuse of case sensitivity. It drives me up the wall when I see a declaration like "HWND hwnd;" You can't do that in a case-insensitive language.
-
@dhromed said:
I usually pronounce it something like "sk-wul", myself.@Mel said:
Yeah, "ess que el" is just a pain to say.
Don't be silly. It's no more a pain than 'sequel'.
@dhromed said:
@Mel said:
Well, that's what horseradish sauce was made for!I stumbled across the idea of labiaplasty. Something is *seriously* wrong with that!
Some girls have roast beef.
-
@DaveK said:
@dhromed said:
Well, that's what horseradish sauce was made for!Some girls have roast beef.
You put the cream, on the beef.
-
@Smitty said:
PMPtard now has a permanent place in my work-bashing vocabulary. Thanks for that.
Any time.
Around here one of our fave work-bashing terms is marketing-douche. We have a marketing guy with a huge ego who thinks he's technically literate and is a huge mac fan boi (I run a mac at home, but I don't preach about it, nor would I bother claiming it's soooo much better if all I do is run programs that I could have been running on windows.. Macs are better for media is sooo 90's, but so is our "new" company slogan now, it uses the word extreme 3 times...).
So yeah... we all have our own idiots to deal with, luckily I'm not dealing with a bunch of lazy business analysts like at my previous position (in which I was a BA that actually did work.. including writing actual sql instead of just bragging that I used to do it and was such an awesome dev)
@Smitty said:
Also, the exchange described above is pretty close to the truth, though the less-than-PC parts were in my head. This guy was a COBOL programmer in the 80s and is currently trying to simultaneously learn VB and convince us of its superiority over C#, which means his technical recommendations are immediately suspect.
I used to have to deal with a senior business analyst that would brag about the good old days and how she'd "normalize then denormalize" and how she was so great at what she did and how she still knew what was going on and I shouldn't talk to her like she has no clue what she's talking about. Truth is she had no clue technically anymore (if she ever did), however she did have one great strength: She could always get funding and resources as needed for the team. Her methods might sometimes make a used car salesmen blush, but her projects always got funding and were on-budget and on-time. They would have been lower stress if she would stick to the business side and not stick her head into the technical side, but I guess there's a sort of ego thing where you have to feel like you are contributing to the actual project directly.
The best project managers I've known get the resources and funding then get out of the way. If you have good technical people there is no need to micro-manage. If you have people that legitimately need to be micro managed then get rid of them (if you can) or only micro-manage those people and make sure the rest of your team is somehow shielded from them. With enough pressure on people who need to be micromanaged they will either: shape-up or ship-out (move to another dept or quit entirely). If they don't do either and are able to withstand the pressure then you aren't pressuring enough.
-
@dhromed said:
Slap it between two bits of bread, add a bit of lettuce ... luvverly!@DaveK said:
@dhromed said:
Well, that's what horseradish sauce was made for!Some girls have roast beef.
You put the cream, on the beef.
-
Hahaha, you'll never guessed what happened today at work. One of my beloved devs seriously asked whether he could use Lynn-Queue for database access. I am so glad I read this thread and knew what he was talking about. :)
