Bugs and Suggestions

13-Oct-10 4:05

the Insider link "C# Hidden Optimizations" doesn't work for me. 404.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.

Chris Maunder13-Oct-10 4:21

Chris Maunder

13-Oct-10 4:21

It 404's for Google as well. Looks like some time between midnight and now that page was removed.

The CodeProject effect?

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

Luc Pattyn13-Oct-10 4:23

13-Oct-10 4:23

Maybe you should start caching the pages you publish links to? As Google does.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.

Nish Nishant13-Oct-10 4:38

Nish Nishant

13-Oct-10 4:38

Chris Maunder wrote:
The CodeProject effect?

That site got Maundered.

Regards,
Nish

My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com

Code Project Forums : New Posts Monitor
This application monitors for new posts in the Code Project forums.

Dan Neely13-Oct-10 4:47

Dan Neely

13-Oct-10 4:47

It worked around 6:30am EST.

3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18

Pete O'Hanlon13-Oct-10 22:20

Pete O'Hanlon

13-Oct-10 22:20

Having read it, I suspect he removed it because the hidden optimizations were very old hat. I was going to comment on his blog to correct him on some of his terminology but he'd disabled comments.

I have CDO, it's OCD with the letters in the right order; just as they ruddy well should be

Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

#realJSOP13-Oct-10 23:27

#realJSOP

13-Oct-10 23:27

It's been optimized out.

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001

Luc Pattyn14-Oct-10 2:30

14-Oct-10 2:30

Or just hidden, as the title said.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.

Terrence Dorsey15-Oct-10 13:19

Terrence Dorsey

15-Oct-10 13:19

The blogger in question changed the name of the post, breaking our link. I've updated the news item with the new link, so go check it out if you missed this the first time around.

As noted already, he's turned off comments, too.

Enjoy

Luc Pattyn15-Oct-10 15:37

15-Oct-10 15:37

Thanks. Got it.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.

Language

Richard MacCutchan13-Oct-10 3:48

13-Oct-10 3:48

Apropos Chris's message in the Lounge about swearwords in the title, I think this message[^] title should also be adjusted.

Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash

Chris Maunder13-Oct-10 4:19

Chris Maunder

13-Oct-10 4:19

Every message has a "vote to remove message" link at the bottom right.

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

Richard MacCutchan13-Oct-10 6:30

13-Oct-10 6:30

Yes, but the content of the message itself was quite acceptable and relevant to the forum.

Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash

fjdiewornncalwe13-Oct-10 8:27

13-Oct-10 8:27

My humblest apologies, Richard. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone. Just a voice of frustration with the issue at hand. I agree with you that I was precariously balanced on the fence with this one, but before I slip and fall, I'll change it.

Richard MacCutchan13-Oct-10 11:37

13-Oct-10 11:37

Apology not necessary, I know how frustrating IT can be, and you obviously understand why I raised the point.

Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash

Dalek Dave13-Oct-10 11:50

Dalek Dave

13-Oct-10 11:50

I think'Bloody' is acceptable, it is a very mild expletive, no worse than Damn or Bugger.

Hardly worthy of a complaint of this nature, but it may be a cultural thing, here in Britain it is fine.

------------------------------------

I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave

CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[^]

fjdiewornncalwe13-Oct-10 12:49

13-Oct-10 12:49

I was actually thinking of sticking with bollocks.

Richard MacCutchan13-Oct-10 13:18

13-Oct-10 13:18

My point was less about the word itself than Chris taking exception to a message of yours in the lounge that contained an asteriskised(I apologise for this) expletive.

[edit]Apropos of another of your recent posts, would you want your newborn to be reading such messages?[/edit]

Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash

Dalek Dave13-Oct-10 13:44

Dalek Dave

13-Oct-10 13:44

I did apologise for that, but it was frustration at watching a bunch of useless tossers give a woeful performance.

Richard MacCutchan13-Oct-10 21:49

13-Oct-10 21:49

Dalek Dave wrote:
a bunch of useless tossers give a woeful performance.

What did you expect?

Anyway, everyone has apologised (and I apologise for starting this thread) and I really don't believe it's important enough to worry about any more; let's move on.

Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash

fjdiewornncalwe14-Oct-10 2:10

14-Oct-10 2:10

I'm sorry I made you feel like you needed to apologize as well... Wink | ;)

Richard MacCutchan14-Oct-10 2:43

14-Oct-10 2:43

PogoboyMtK wrote:
I'm sorry I made you feel like you needed to apologize as well

And I'm sorry that you feel sorry ... Wink | ;)

Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash

fjdiewornncalwe14-Oct-10 3:29