@blakeyrat said:
But since you're being retarded, let's go ahead and go full-retard
NEVER go full retard.
@blakeyrat said:
But since you're being retarded, let's go ahead and go full-retard
NEVER go full retard.
@TwelveBaud said:
@lettucemode said:what really sells me on them is the unnecessary features they often have, "unnecessary" in this case being used as a synonym for "awesome". ... Recently, I shelled out for a Razer Naga because it has 12 extra thumb buttons on the side, and I can map actions there instead of stretching my left hand to reach the number keys for stuff.Ugh, I never liked those things, because of how badly companies fumble at carrying them out. Use our Special Driver Software (otherwise the buttons do nothing)! You can map them to any key on the keyboard (except Compose, F16, Win, Scroll Lock... and forget about mapping them to be "the fourth and fifth buttons on the mouse", because everyone knows they don't exist...)! You can map them to whole lists of keys (which aren't sensitive to context, which can result in mode errors)!
It would be absolutely amazing to have a mouse that had two (or more) extra buttons, and actually exposed them as extra buttons, so I can bind them to whatever the hell I want in game. Games support X1 and X2, so why do mouse manufacturers stubbornly refuse?
I just keep mine bound to the Numpad, then bind in-game commands like melee attack or grenade throw to the numpad. I hardly use it anyway and there's definitely no way I'm reaching over there during gameplay.
@Peraninth said:
Mass Effect 3 anyone? The multiplayer is pretty damn fun.
I haven't played Mass Effect 2 yet :-( I'll get around to it someday.
@Peraninth said:
When did they sneak such a good third person shooter into my rpg???
I find it interesting that other forms of media name their genres by content, but video games name their genres by mechanics. So we run into some confusion when describing a game like Mass Effect 3. "It's mostly a third-person shooter with cover and squad mechanics...but also some RPG elements...and then some moral decisions." Whereas if it was a movie we'd say "Sci-Fi action adventure" and be done with it.
@blakeyrat said:
Also I refuse to let this thread become about cutting boards when it could be about video games.
A worthy cause, good sir.
I don't really care too much for the accuracy of my mouse - what really sells me on them is the unnecessary features they often have, "unnecessary" in this case being used as a synonym for "awesome". My last mouse had these little weights you could add/remove to adjust the mouse's handling as you desired. Recently, I shelled out for a Razer Naga because it has 12 extra thumb buttons on the side, and I can map actions there instead of stretching my left hand to reach the number keys for stuff. It's useful for all kinds of games - a full action bar in MMOa, items in DotA, miscellaneous actions in Tribes...
@dhromed said:
There's this door and I don't know what's behind it. You expect me to be open to the possibility that there's a cross-dressing minotaur behind it, ready to give me a fine chocolate-chip cookie (because it loves me), but I have absolutely no cause to think that. Thus I will not consider the option. Fucking up the wiring of a house, however, is a fine possibility, even if pride is keeping me from wanting to explore that avenue.
Should it happen, though, I will reinvestigate what the hell that minotaur is doing there, obviously. But what you're asking of me is not reasonable.
The reverse is also true, though. If you claim that the minotaur is not there, nonpartisan similarly has no cause to think that there's nothing there. Neither one of you knows what is behind the door.
@ASheridan said:
You are trying to have it both ways. You are saying that a person (nonpartisan) can claim a person (nonpartisan) was in a certain place at the right time because of gods actions. Then you say that I can't infer that gods actions were what caused the people to be in the accidents that nonpartisan arrived at. Why is one assumption fine, but mine not so? Both are assumptions attributing certain events to the actions of a god. I see no logical reason why one set of actions cannot be attributed whilst another can.
You make a good point; it's inconsistent to make one set of assumptions about something unknowable and disregard another. But just to play devil's advocate, how about this: If we humans, in some way, obtained evidence of god acting in certain ways, could we then use that evidence to determine whether or not some other action was god's?
If yes, then I think it's safe to say that from nonpartisan's perspective, arranging him to be nearby to help the accident victims is in line with god's actions, but causing the accident in the first place is not. This conclusion is based on evidence from nonpartisan's own experiences and what those experiences suggest about the nature of god.
Off topic, this is the most civil religious discussion I've ever encountered on the internet. Kudos!
@blakeyrat said:
@nonpartisan said:I've had revelations come to me even about work-related problems when I did, and typically they were unusual but elegant solutions that I never would've considered otherwise.I just take a shower, that's where I get all my best ideas.
I prefer the method wherein I scratch my balls for a while. It puts me in such a relaxed state of mind.
@dargor17 said:
@nonpartisan said:
"None of it is about judgement." Pardon me, but your judgment is showing.My post was in reply to lettucemode, claiming that people who are not religious are so because they're afraid of the inescapable judgement after death that religions guarantee. And my point was, I'm not really worried about that and therefore he's completely wrong about my reason for not being religious, which I summed up in those 2 points.
I didn't mean to generalize my statements to include everyone - I used the phrase "most people", I think. checks Yup. Sorry if it was unclear.
@blakeyrat said:
Once I prayed to God that I needed a new stereo, and not a day later my roommate was shanked by an escaped inmate, and I totally went over and took his stereo. (God wanted me to have it, of course, because he arranged the shanking.)My belief is that He put me in the right place at the right time to get a free stereo, but didn't shank that bitch.
Your roommate was a bitch? Your bitch, perhaps? That's something I'd expect out of morbs, and I haven't even been around here that long.
@roelforg said:
RTFM!!!
Just escape the space (or any special char ftm) with a backspace!!!
Jeah, when you mean "cat, open and print the content of file /path/with spaces/file.txt" and issue:
<font face="Lucida Console" size="2"></p><p>cat /path/with spaces/files.txt</p><p></font>
cat receives (due to the shell parsing the space as a arg. seperator): "cat, open and print the contents of files /path/with and spaces/file.txt"
What you're meaning can be achived like this (either like will do):
<font face="Lucida Console" size="2"></p><p>cat "/path/with spaces/file.txt"</p><p>cat /path/with spaces/file.txt</p><p></font>
I mean: STFU and RTFM before flaming and (blakey)ranting!!!
EDIT:
CS got me! It added <p></p> in the code blocks! How do i fix this? (seriously, the editor and the bbcode don't get along well)
I don't understand a word you just said
@ffelthc what said:
You don't escape something by believing it doesn't exist. I can believe all I like that a bus is not about to hit me, but that won't stop the bus hitting me. I can, however, however irrational it may be, insist that the certain prospect of being hit by a bus will not prevent me from stepping into the road. (Yes, I did construct that sentence in that manner purely so I could write 'however, however'.) That would, in most circumstances, be a bizarre attitude to take. But don't things change if the bus could in fact brake in time? And what's the difference between a bus that can brake and an omnipotent god?
You make a good point. I didn't expect you to take the discussion in the same direction as I was planning to! From my perspective, since we don't know whether or not the bus will brake in time, the more sensible move is to not step out in front of the bus at all.
@ffelthc what said:
See above. It's not that I think god can't judge me, but that if he/she/it can, then for that judgement to mean anything, I have to accept that it is correct. If an omnipotent being can't persuade me it's right, is it?
I would argue that whether or not you accept the judgment of someone in authority is irrelevant - you'll still be judged and punished according to their rules. This is true when you're a kid growing up in your parent's house, when living in a country that enforces laws, when you're at work under your boss, or if you're on trial before a judge. The difference between our opinions is that one advocates going down fighting, whereas the other advises deferring to the powers that be. Would you agree?
@serguey123 said:
Well, yeah, but also the fact that they were pretty tolerant with religion as long as it did not contradict mos maiorum (hint: that is one of the reasons they did not get along with the christians, that and the other dude named Chrestos)
I thought it was like Greek religion - many gods, but they're all still a part of the same "pantheon" of gods, the same religious "universe". No?
@morbiuswilters said:
@Cassidy said:Damn, I fail at trolling. You didn't bite.Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment. For my next topic for this thread I'm thinking of going with: "America: Why is it so much better than all of the other sissy nations?"
I'm not actually trolling, but I was born blessed/cursed with the ability to derail threads. Oh, Allah, the One True God Who Smites All Infidels, why have you chosen me for this power???
I got everyone to talk about drawing circles that one time, though.
@serguey123 said:
@lettucemode said:
This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?
I don't know if there's a good answer to that question. Maybe it is that boring!
@fterfi secure said:
Do you have to justify yourself to yourself, or to some other being?
You know, it's rare to reach the heart of an issue so quickly on the internet. I like this forum.
I assume that you value the former over the latter, despite any consequences? (getting arrested, for example)
@Cassidy said:
@fterfi secure said:@morbiuswilters said:a court ofAnother one?
equity might issue an injunction against your penis
shrugEh? How many penisus (penii?) do you have?
Do you not know who this is? This is fterfi secure; the number of injunctions against his wang are legendary.
@serguey123 said:
@lettucemode said:
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
You are comparing apples to oranges, unless you consider religion more flexible than usual people.
Not really...it's just a matter of scale.
Suppose that I see two young kids, one bullying the other. It's easy for me to tell the bully to go away, and tell the other kid to stand up for himself a little more. The bully's actions have very little effect on me since I'm bigger and stronger, so I can act as I please. I'm outside his rules.
Now let's take this concept and expand it. Let's suppose that I live in America and want to sell crack. Unfortunately, those coppas are always on my grill for selling crack because it's illegal. America is bigger and stronger than me in this case. Now, it's much more difficult for me to escape that set of rules - I have to leave the country. Then from my happy home in Bolivia or wherever crack sellers go, I can point and laugh at those silly American crack sellers for giving into something as absurd as authority, because I don't have to recognize any authority over my ability to sell crack.
Now let's expand this even further. Suppose that there is a divine, all-powerful being who created the universe, the plants, physics, animals, human beings, everything. This divine being has a set of rules that he wants me to follow. Not following his rules is illegal and is punishable by something called Hell. How do I escape this set of rules? It's much harder than becoming stronger than the child bully, or leaving his area of jurisdiction. In fact, escape is impossible because this divine being can sent me wherever he wants even after death. In this case, since there is no escape, the only thing I can do if I value my person is follow his rules.
This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.
@fterfi secure said:
They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.
Think of it from a theists' point of view: Would you consider being arrested for breaking the law "giving into bullying"?
@fterfi secure said:
@DOA said:You know I've never heard anyone challenge the 40 hour week in that it just might be too long. I mean the 8 hour workday is a byproduct of the industrial age; just how relevant is it in the information age? It's a common secret that in IT at least you can't actually be creative for 8 hours straight. Not unless you happen to be working on something you enjoy.That's another of my pet annoyances. If I can earn decent money, I'd much rather work only four days a week - 32 hours - and have less money and more free time. Alternatively, if I have to do 40 hours a week, I'd rather do four ten hour days than five eight-hour days. It helps that I generally have plenty of time spent doing things that don't need me anywhere near my best - like waiting for something to finish - which can easily be pushed to the last two hours of each day.
My employer has Alternative Work Arrangements which you can sign up for if your position qualifies for it. There a 4/10 work week like you described. There's also 9/80 schedule where you work 9 hours a day Monday through Thursday, and on Fridays you alternate between an 8 hour day and having it off.
@serguey123 said:
Sleeping and having sex are not mutually exclusive
Apparently there's a disorder known as Sexsomnia, where a person can actually have sex in their sleep and not know anything about it the morning after. I saw it in an episode of House so it must be true.
Thread summary:
Blakeyrat: Guys, iOS devices don't have a Javascript debugger.
DailyWTF: That sucks.
Blakeyrat: It sucks because I need it to figure out why X doesn't work.
DailyWTF: X doesn't work? Have you tried doing Y?
Blakeyrat: I have in fact tried Y and it did not work.
DailyWTF: What about Z?
Blakeyrat: Z didn't work either, but I didn't create this thread for the purpose of suggestions.
DailyWTF: Surely you haven't tried W yet.
Blakeyrat: I have tried the entire alphabet of things, all of which did not work. The things you suggest in the future also will not work. There is only one way to do what I want to do, which is X, and X is not working on iOS for some reason. Hence why I need a Javascript debugger.
DailyWTF: Well, you're an idiot for rejecting all our suggestions without even trying them. Also you're a meany head.
DailyWTF: X is dumb. Can't you do what you want to do some other way?
Blakeyrat: I agree that X is dumb. However, there is no other way.
DailyWTF: There must be some other way, because X, as previously mentioned, is dumb. What about Q?
Blakeyrat: Here is a myriad of reasons why X is the only way to do what I want to do.
DailyWTF: Why do you want to do X? Isn't there another way?
Blakeyrat: X is the only way to do it. I realize that X is dumb and slightly annoys the user. But there is no other way.
DailyWTF: We've suggested lots of other ways and you just shot them down! I don't understand why you're clinging to X.
@DaveK said:
Regardless whether it delays the next page load or not, running your request still takes up my cpu cycles, my electricity and my bandwidth.
Yea, this is ridiculous. His pixel request will not delay any other process by a human-noticeable amount of time, nor will it add a penny to your electricity or internet bills. Unless you're paying $10,000 / MB for internet.
@DaveK said:
A lack of interest that I claim is entirely justified by one of the design requirements of the browser software: do what the user wants, not what someone else wants.
This is dumb, too. Browsers also have to do what the website wants, what the server wants, what the programmers and owners of the website want. The owners of this website want Blakeyrat's company to provide them with analytics information which necessitates this delay workaround.
I think you and Blakeyrat are unknowingly on the same side of this issue.
@Sutherlands said:
Are they adding a day, and then subtracting a day... therefore converting it to the same value as the startDate?
Also, ToShortDateString() doesn't print out times. So it queries for values between midnight and midnight on the same day.
@Peraninth said:
Yes, but I didn't create a pointer specifically. I declared a class.
My favorite part of the thread. "I didn't raise my left hand, I lifted my not-right hand (of which I have two, just to thwart any pedantic dickweeds)."
If you create an instance of a class in C#, then specifically creating a pointer is exactly what you have done.
@too_many_usernames said:
I have no idea what the point of that gif is, either.
It was more or less a test/demonstration of that gif's power to derail threads. Things seemed like they were looming off course so I just sealed the deal.
@Jaime said:
It's a warning in VB.Net, so I assumed C# would give a warning too. Sorry.
I refuse your apology
@morbiuswilters said:
Is that anything like the Mile-High Club, except you have sex with dhromed instead of in an airplane? Because dhromed is a whore* who had sex with 10 million men prior to you?
Hell hath no fury like a moderator scorned
@Jaime said:
It throws a compiler warning, but the people who do this sort of thing are also the same people who ignore warnings.
I get a compiler error. "Member 'string.IsNullOrEmpty(string)' cannot be accessed with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name instead"
@boomzilla said:
So, does C# allow method calls on a null object? In Java, you'd never get to the null check if you had a null, since you'd get a NullPointerException. Or am I being TRWTF for getting trolled or not understanding the OP?
It's a static method of the string type. So:
string testing = null; if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(testing)) return 1; else return 0;
will return 1.
>> One large Japanese retailer used to need three days to process its customers rewards program. With HANA it now takes three seconds.
3 days = 259,200 seconds.
259,200 seconds / 3 seconds = 86,400 times as fast
While this may appear to be a simple mathematical error, keep in mind that according to the article, the people who buy this software are admitted into the "100,000K" club, or the 10 million club. Then you'll realize that the maths are not strong with these ones.
In case you ever come back to this, the Silverlight 5 beta has direct support for shaders - and you compile the shaders as a part of the build process, just like XNA. It's got other XNA stuff too, like Matrix and the content pipeline.
However, you can't use the .dlls from your XNA 4 install, you have to use the ones built against Silverlight 5 which come with it, but are installed to a different location. They also moved around some of the classes to different namespaces than what you're used to in XNA. No big deal, but I lost some time figuring that out.
My favorite part is the no-argument constructor function that calls a constructor with arguments.
What could lead to such large amounts of unused code? You would think that if a function or class is being replaced with another it would make sense to delete the old one. Perhaps the fear of breaking code others have written who may still use it? Or wanting to preserve any undocumented side effects?
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:@blakeyrat said:
If I then say, "those instructions are so difficult, I'm going to adopt some puppies just so I can strangle them," I'm not literally going to the pound, going through the pointlessly bureaucratic adoption process to obtain puppies and then strangling them. What I actually do is break into a PetCo at 3:00 AM by throwing a brick through the window, steal the puppies, and drown them in a nearby lake. Got it? Good.Fucking figures. Of course you would turn to a commercial provider of closed source puppies. If you got a REAL open source puppy, you could just breed as many other puppies as you wanted, and strangle to suite your personal needs.
And he avoids vendor lock-in: he's got access to the puppy DNA, all he has to do is fork it and he can modify it to his heart's content.
Of course, he's got to be careful with his licenses. Puppies are licensed under the GPL but rope is dual-licensed under a proprietary commercial license and the MIT license for non-commercial use. He's likely not going to make any money off of this, so he should be okay with the MIT license. However, the MIT license isn't GPL-compatible, so rope and puppy can't be linked.
However, there is a Puppy Toolkit (PTK) that's released under the less-restrictive LGPL. It gives him 90% of the pieces he needs to build his own puppy; all that's missing is the head (although head support should be added in 0.0.99-BETA3).
Strangling a puppy without a head isn't going to be very satisfying, though, so I recommend using BPHALXWM (Better Puppy Head And Lightweight X-11 Window Manager). There's no API, but if you know C you can easily graft BPHALXWM's puppy head onto your PTK puppy body. He doesn't need the X-11 Window Manager part of BPHALXWM (although it is a really great, lightweight window manager--there's absolutely no documentation to bloat the file size and you can remap keys if you know X64 assembly). The X-11 Window Manager itself is small but it links some dynamic libraries that aren't going to be available on his system, so I recommend editing the Makefile to skip building that part.
dunno man, seems complicated
I found the website about a year ago, discovered the forums a few months ago, made an account this past December. One of my favorites sites for sure.
@morbiuswilters said:
No problem, dude. Sorry if I came off a bit rude, but I'm just so tired of the open source vs. closed source debates. Both sides produce good software and both sides produce a shit-ton of bad software.
I don't have a problem with rudeness on a forum, especially when trying to convince someone of something (obligatory XKCD link), so you're fine. Sorry if I came off as dumb and uninformed, because I was :D
@morbiuswilters said:
@lettucemode said:
I'll clarify. I assume that finding vulnerabilities in binary programs is much more difficult than finding vulnerabilities in C programs, and anything you can do to raise the bar for entry into your system is a good thing. Though I recognize that Linux prefers its open-source-ness to obfuscating its source code, such an action lowers the bar for malicious entry.I know what you are saying, and you are wrong. Binary software is not terribly difficult to analyze. You'd think the sheer quantity of Windows and OSX 0 days would attest to that.
What you are proposing is security through obscurity. In crypto, it's the idea that "keeping our cipher algorithm secret makes it more secure" which is bullshit. For one thing, discovering the algorithm is not difficult. Primarily, though, a well-written algorithm needs to be extremely resistant to cryptanalysis. If it does that, keeping the algorithm secret raises the bar for malicious entry by such a tiny amount it is meaningless. If you algorithm is vulnerable, then keeping it secret won't do jack shit.
I'm not suggesting the opposite, either, that by making something open source it will suddenly be more secure. What I am saying is that if keeping your source code secret forms an integral part of your security posture, then you are doing it fucking wrong.
OK, I defer to your experience. Thanks for the write-up.
@morbiuswilters said:
Look, I'm hardly an Open Source zealot, but that's just idiotic. It's a paean to security through obscurity. You assume that 1) vulnerabilities won't be found in binary programs and 2) that finding and fixing vulnerabilities is a bad thing. It's completely out-of-touch with reality.
I'll clarify. I assume that finding vulnerabilities in binary programs is much more difficult than finding vulnerabilities in C programs, and anything you can do to raise the bar for entry into your system is a good thing. Though I recognize that Linux prefers its open-source-ness to obfuscating its source code, such an action lowers the bar for malicious entry.
@token_woman said:
The other stuff you said, about security and what-not, showed far more ignorance than would not knowing about "grep". So to be charitable I'll assume you didn't mean any of it, and are just a silly old troll.
I'm not knowledgeable in security or *nix, so I'm interested in your comments on this blog post, which details a hack to grant root access. Seems like this hack was found only because of *nix's open-source-ness. It seems to me that exposing source code is by nature less secure than not exposing it.
There's a fix out already, but there are likely many, many systems that remain vulnerable to this because the companies that own them can't be bothered to recompile and redistribute the OS their applications run on.
@PJH said:
Especially if what you're debugging is time-sensitive, because - like - if you're spending time stepping through code while it's trying to do stuff, what it's interacting with decides to time you out because you're not quick enough in your debugging. Clearly using a debugger is the way to go here since it's so much better than printf's because otherwise you might be able to fix any problems.
My sarcasm-dar is in the red.
If you're going to strip away the context of the discussion like that, then I guess I have to agree with you. However, to my knowledge, implementations of printf or sprintf for Javascript just return a formatted string. So to output it you still have to pop up an alert window, meaning that it has exactly the same effect as breakpoints on time-sensitive code in the situation you describe. So nyah.
@ASheridan2 said:
Yeah, because heaven forbid we actually think outside the box a little and add a few output messages here and there to act as manual breakpoints.
Sure, it's not the nicest of ways to debug, but it would have stopped blakey from giving the customer something that didn't even work.
It's not just "not the nicest of ways to debug", it's the obsolete way to debug because of debuggers. You can't step line-by-line and watch variables using output messages unless you place one after every line which prints each variable to the output window. It's tedious, time-consuming, and is only as good as the time you put into it. Those are exactly the problems that debuggers were created to solve.
Saying that debuggers aren't necessary because of alert() is similar (not the same, but similar) to saying that DirectX isn't necessary because graphics cards have instruction sets anyway, or XML parsers aren't necessary because you can read it line-by-line yourself. You're technically correct, but c'mon. It's 2012.
@ASheridan2 said:
I wasn't trying to hurt you, that was just a nice bonus. Thing is, when I was debuggin, rather than complain about lack of tools, I used the debugger in the iPad to find out what it though were errors in my code. You can call it what you want, that doesn't mean it's not a debugger. It's not a great one, but it is better than nothing. You're meant to be a human being aren't you? One of the defining bloody characteristics is that we can learn and adapt. I'm sorry that you're not spoilt for choice when you're developing for iOS, but them's the breaks, so suck it up and do what you can with what you've got. Everytime you come on here ranting about something you just come across as a little kid who's only just about been pulled away from his mothers skirts.
Now if other developers can manage to write code for iOS and you can't, where's the problem? I'll give you a clue, you need to look a little closer to home.
What if there's no error, but the browser is executing the Javascript in a non-standard fashion, resulting in undesired consequences? Your "debugger" doesn't help in that case, whereas a proper debugger would.
@ASheridan2 said:
It's not perfect, but iOS does indeed have a Javascript debugger, I've used it before myself. It's basically on a par with the IE Javascript debugger though.
Interestingly, if you Google for "ipad javascript debugger", the first result is to a question on StackOverflow, and the only answer is a link to a graphical guide on how to enable it. I'd say that the real WTF is the Blakeyrat doesn't know how to use a search engine.
I followed those steps and found the website in question. Then I nearly fell out of my chair. Nice one.
@Master Chief said:
Again, it's deadweight to most users, on devices that are already typically low on power (for good reason). Everything on a mobile platform has to be put against what it will do to battery life, screen space, user experience, performance overall, etc.
Same reason you don't put Media Player on Windows-based car computers. There's no point, it'l never get used.
Did you miss this?
@blakeyrat said:
I'm not asking for a local debugger, I'm asking for any debugger.
Windows provides a remote debugger for Zune apps, it's quite good. Battery life isn't an issue because the device is connected via USB to the workstation running the debugger. Screen space isn't an issue because the debugging data is transferred to the workstation running the debugger. The user experience isn't affected because you have to enable developer options on the device. Performance overall isn't an issue because you're debugging and low performance is expected, and the results of said debugging will probably increase the performance of the debugee. All those things you listed are the responsibility of the developer creating apps, they are not important considerations when developing features for developers on your platform to use.
@Master Chief said:
Consumer devices have no use for a javascript debugger, really.
wat
Are you perhaps saying that they're unnecessary due to emulators? EDIT: which apparently don't exist for iOS mobile devices?
@blakeyrat said:
I'm not asking for a local debugger, I'm asking for any debugger.
Zune devices have a remote debugger through VS. It takes like 5 minutes to load the context after hitting a breakpoint but it's pretty nice. No reason for Apple to not provide one for their mobile version of Safari.
@Quietust said:
It's pretty much a demonstration of Community Server's complete and total inability to sanitize HTML tags to prevent them from breaking the rest of the page (specifically, it allows you to end tags that you didn't start yourself and start tags without ending them later).
Now that I know what's going on, I kind of like it, actually. If I was writing forum software targeted at knowledgeable software professionals I'd let them put in whatever they wanted (within reason).
@topspin said:
I was totally underwhelmed by this post until i read
@lettucemode said:Since this is the nuclear industry
I would have hoped whatever they do there, they have some serious code reviews by competent CS people instead of having EEs whack stuff together. (Not trying to diss the EEs here)
No worries; this is a non-safety critical system.
@snoofle said:
For programs written by non-computer science folks, that seems fairly innocuous.
If that's the worst you're seeing, count your blessings.
Oh, I am. Hence the disclaimer.
@TheCPUWizard said:
First, it is important to remember that the addition of boolean is relatively recent.
Yea, but 2006 doesn't exactly predate the boolean type. It's in the compiler manual.
@TheCPUWizard said:
There is also a potential for unintended changes in behaviour [which by your own statement is "completely unacceptable"] by making the change from the if construct to the direct assignment.
There's a difference. What values of GIODINA will cause voltageError, a boolean, to be set to different values between the code examples given above?
I do see where you're going with that, though.
@TheCPUWizard said:
Unless there was an actual defect being caused by the existing implementations, I would have rejected those changes at a code review [based on the information provided]
There is a need to conserve ROM space where possible. Since I can't turn on compiler optimization, removing BR statements from the generated assembly seems like another good way to save space (to me, anyway).
@Cad Delworth said:
And in some languages and compilers, true = -1 unless explicitly declared as = 1, which could be literally disastrous if a variable which has 'true' assigned to it is used elsewhere in the program to set bits or states on some kind of interface to hardware.
Een-ter-esting, thanks for sharing.