@morbiuswilters said:
"making a ramdisk for Firefox would be a waste of time in Linux".
'Cause using Linux is a waste of time amirite?
@morbiuswilters said:
"making a ramdisk for Firefox would be a waste of time in Linux".
'Cause using Linux is a waste of time amirite?
@morbiuswilters said:
@pkmnfrk said:There is NEVER any reason to use a fixed-width encoding for strings, period. Variable-length encoding is ALWAYS the way to go, without exceptionLots of internal representations use UTF-32; it makes memory allocation and rendering easier. It also comes up in on-disk database formats, where you want each row to be a fixed width. So, there are cases.
And to play devil's advocate: UTF-8 may be more efficient for Westerners (1 byte per char vs. 2) but it's less efficient for most Asians (3 bytes per char vs. 2).
Read the tags.
@KattMan said:
@ShatteredArm said:
You can use the object after it is disposed. Perhaps you're confusing the dispose() method with the GC disposing of it?
Nope not confusing it at all. The GC can dispose of it at any point after you call dispose, maybe immediatly, maybe some time later, thing is you have no control over that. Disposing of an object then attempting to access a property or method of that object can very well give you the error mentioned, if you couldn't then why even have the exception designed to catch this very thing? I have seen it happen, had to fix the problems caused by someone losing track of what was disposed and what wasn't while writing thier code. If you call dispose, you should be done with it, not trying to access another property or method on that instance, that's just asking for trouble.
As far as VB "now" having it, that was for the poster that asked for those not familiar with c# to explian using.
No. First of all, C# doesn't allow function level shadowing. 2. The only thing that Dispose() does, or what it was designed to do is release unmanaged resources. 3. The collector will not delete an object until after its memory becomes unreachable.
@El_Heffe said:
Dear Python,
Fuck You.
Sincerely,
Everyone
I should have been a pedantic dickweek and said "Dear Python Installer,". I like tolerate Python itself because it's probably the least wtf-filled scripting language I've used.
@PJH said:
@tOmcOlins said:It's the year 2012. Why the hell are you still trying to install yourself to C:\python32 ?Given all the crap on this thread, are you complaining about the *default* path that is supplied in the installer? You're complaining about the default path in the installer?
To belabour the point - they give you a path (which you're free to change,) and you're complaining about the default they give you?
Yes. The installer should use sensible (and correct) defaults. It should do the right thing without me having to tell it to. There's no reason any app written after 1995 should try to install itself to C:\
@boomzilla said:
No, I think it's clear that TRWTF is python32. C'mon, get with the friggen times and upgrade to 64 bits already!
Not sure if trolling, joking, or...
It's the year 2012. Why the hell are you still trying to install yourself to C:\python32 ?
@Cassidy said:
@tOmcOlins said:
CSS has nothing to do with it. Amateur sites are better they use wordpress instead of geocities.Amateur sites now are better since they use one of the widely-available CMS built by (someone|a community) that knows how to develop code. That wasn't the case back in the Geoshitty and AOL days.
That's exactly what I said, unless you were just adding your own dash of dickweedery. In which case yes, not everyone used geocities either. Some people were on Angelfire.
I'm done talking about appearance too. I'm now saying that HTML is/was no more painful than CSS. I'd like to mention that I'm not a web designer or a web developer, but I've never heard anyone complain "WTF, why are there are 8 extra pixels when I set cellspacing=0?"
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Wordpress themes don't design themselves, you know.
Yes, I know. They're designed by a handful of people who (mostly) know what they're doing. Then anyone who wants to can use these, rather than designing a site from scratch himself. My point was that, it was people who don't know how to design a site, and not HTML that made these sites crappy.
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
and where any appearance change meant altering every single page one by one. Have you, too, forgotten how painful pure HTML was?
Evidently I have, because what I remember is that any appearance change meant altering the script that generates the HTML.
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Younger folk probably aren't even aware of just how awful web design was before CSS …
CSS has nothing to do with it. Amateur sites are better they use wordpress instead of geocities. Professional sites are about the same or worse. I never saw a table layout let text run off the right edge of the screen or position an image on top of text.