|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: They have nothing in common
Except that they were all introduced in the .NET 3.5 release.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought they were all introduced in .NET 3.0 and then just improved upon with .NET 3.5. LINQ is one of the features of .NET 3.5 which was not in .NET 3.0.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
First, you're wrong - they were introduced in .Net 3.0.
Second, that should have absolutely nothing to do with grouping them together. WPF is about as far from WCF as two things can possibly be.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
God you can be sanctimonious sometimes.
You're right they were introduced in 3 not 3.5, but the point was still valid. It was my opinion that the reason they were grouped in one forum is that they were a feature of one of the .NET releases. I agree that they shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: God you can be sanctimonious sometimes.
I prefer the term "precise", or even "pedantic".
J4amieC wrote: It was my opinion that the reason they were grouped in one forum is that they were a feature of one of the .NET releases. I agree that they shouldn't be.
Quote Selected Text
But your argument was stated in such a way as to not convey agreement with my original supposition.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: or even "pedantic"
Ok, im happy to go with that one 
|
|
|
|
|
Splitting them up would be a good thing. You're right that they have nothing to do with each other. Along similar lines, the "LINQ and .NET 3.5" forum should probably be split as well or at least renamed to just LINQ.
Scott Dorman Microsoft® MVP - Visual C# | MCPD
President - Tampa Bay IASA
[ Blog][ Articles][ Forum Guidelines]
Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Why is there a single forum for WPF, WCF, and WF. They have nothing in common, and it's pretty difficult to find WCF stuff in that forum.
I think when those technologies came out, there wasn't enough interest in them to warrant 3 forums. If that has changed now maybe you could coax Chris into splitting them into separate forums 
Though I still don't see why anyone would use WF for anything
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Though I still don't see why anyone would use WF for anything
To make something that should be simple insanely complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds an awful lot like WPF and WCF as well.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to disagree, but well no. Considering it took me about a year to get my head around WPF, I can't disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Why is there a single forum for WPF, WCF, and WF. They have nothing in common
Sure they have. There's the W, and the F, and they, errrm, use XML.
I suspect that a WF forum will have low traffic because the vast majority of the questions seem to be about WPF, with a minority being about WCF.
|
|
|
|
|
- add a button on the author's article list page next to an unlisted article that will "list" it
- color the heading of unlisted articles something different, e.g., poofy pink, so the author will realize it's unlisted
|
|
|
|
|
The "This is an unfinished article" isn't enough.
(I'm just not sure I want poofy pink on the site...)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The "This is an unfinished article" isn't enough.
That's on the article list, not on the article itself. When you're looking at an article, there's no indication that it's unlisted. A different color header would be in keeping with the other colored headers - and besides, the public would never see the poofy pink. Whatever color, I think it should be different - maybe a poofy green?
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhhh....
Gotcha.
But we're not having poofy anything.
It'll be manly red or something. Rare T-bone steak red.
[Both suggestions on the TODO]
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm just not sure I want poofy pink on the site
Good answer. Don't want to have to take away any man points 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
I know this will be controversial, so I ask you please read to end before making up your mind.
In the past some have suggested a membership fee to assist CP in its future growth. I think there is a middle ground between mandatory fees and the present everything-for-free.
My idea is this: each author will be able to optionally choose whether to have a Paypal button appear on his/her article. Clicking on the button will again be entirely optional. If a reader clicks on the button, some percentage (example: 20%) of the amount donated will go to CP, the rest to the author. I suggest to keep this simple, and have fixed amounts like $1 - $2 - $5 - $10 selectable by reader. [From what I understand of Paypal, it is possible to have this set up so that Paypal automatically sends the 20% to CP, and the rest to the author, so there would be little bookkeeping involved on CP's side.]
This idea could also give people another reason to write quality articles for CP. The main reason, of course, is to ensure that CP has revenue to keep growing, offering new services, and hiring great people.
We all want CP to be even better in the future, and this is my idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, that sounds like a very nice, basic solution. I assume that the buttons would be only for optional donations. The only flaw I can think of: what incentive do the readers have to donate to a (particular author and the codeproject) and not just the codeproject?
I can see where the controversy comes into place, but if done correctly most of the controversy could be avoided.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
The issue we've always had with accepting donations is that you also accept the donators right to yell very loudly at you when the code doesn't work perfectly, when the author doesn't have time to answer questions, when the reader wants new features or when someone votes the donator's comment down.
Donators suddenly assume that their $5 entitles them to Royalty.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but don't the hamsters have some weasel friends who could write a EULA?
Another idea was much better, of course, but went nowhere: black CP t-shirts (preferably with pocket).
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, because *everyone* reads EULAs, right? 
Black T's: check out http://codeproject.cafepress.com[^]. I tried black and they turned out really, really crappy so I need to have the graphics redone. They are shaded, and the T-shirt came back with dithered and pixelated printing (even though I submitted a high-res image). 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That link doesn't seem to work for me, just googling it gave me this link that works: http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store.aspx?s=codeproject[^].
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
They keep busting the links.
Bad overpriced, poor quality store! Bad!
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Just include a disclaimer similar to: Donations do not constitute an agreement for the projects' continuation or satisfactory customer service. Donations are strictly to show appreciation to the site and the authors work thus far.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
