|
Well, errrr, some scientists say that each person's ass is unique, such as his/her fingerprint...
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine dusting for ass prints?
As an Atheist I am offended by any reference to religion.
I want all Muslims, Christians, Jews and [Insert fuller list of Religious Communities Here], to get the f*** off my planet and go live in space pixie land with the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. - DD
|
|
|
|
|
That might be the most appropriate ID name for a customer that I have ever seen.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
They were only saving 2 characters with the abbreviation, so you know what was really on their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
awesome name
you just enlighten me ,take a look at this name
public TitlesInfo
{
....
// Customer Title id.
public string CustTitsID;
....
}
well, some scientist said there are no same tits in this world, too ,they are all unique .
Today is a gift, that's why we call it present
|
|
|
|
|
that can be called as 'programming with tits n ass of customer'
lol
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of my utility class for accessing assembly attributes:
public class AssInfo
{
... stuff ...
}
|
|
|
|
|
damn! thats nice. Why do you post it here and not in "clever code" ??
regards
Torsten
I never finish anyth...
|
|
|
|
|
We worked with a third party application designed in France - all the database table names were French abbreviations or acronyms. The "Authorized List" table was called ASS. Imagine the SQL when we desired to create a new record in that table:
"INSERT INTO ASS ..."
|
|
|
|
|
Really a way to show performance improvement.
Version 1.0
for ( int i = 0; i < data.Count; i++ )
{
Thread.Sleep(200);
container.Add(data[i].Items);
}
Version 2.0
for ( int i = 0; i < data.Count; i++ )
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
container.Add(data[i].Items);
}
Version 3.0
for ( int i = 0; i < data.Count; i++ )
{
container.Add(data[i].Items);
}
Should I tell the boss?
|
|
|
|
|
I would if I was you: he should have used a foreach ...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
|
|
|
|
|
At this rate, you shouldn't expect the following code until about v43:
container.AddRange(data);
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- "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
|
|
|
|
|
You will burn in hell!
|
|
|
|
|
Only tell the boss if the Version 1.0 and Version 2.0 devs are already gone from the company... Then you guys can have a good laugh about it.
BTW... I have seen something similar in code that I could trace back to one specific dev here where I work now. He is thankfully not with the company anymore.... He went to our biggest competition. YEAH!!!
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Better hope Julian Assange doesn't get a hold of that leak.
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely. There's no excuse for
for ( int i = 0; i < data.Count; i++ )
instead of the obvious, clearly superior and faster
for ( int i = 0; i < data.Count; ++i )
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is surprising how few C++ programmers know that ++i executes faster than i++
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
CIDev wrote: Yes, it is surprising how few C++ programmers know that ++i executes faster than i++ Smile
Look at the assembly and you'll see why.
Fewer instructions to execute.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Because ++i doesn't have to keep track of/return the previous value of i.
|
|
|
|
|
The really sad thing is that most programmers don't know that i-- is the fastest way of the four...
I'd blame it on the Brain farts.. But let's be honest, it really is more like a Methane factory between my ears some days then it is anything else...
-----
"The conversations he was having with himself were becoming ominous."-.. On the radio...
|
|
|
|
|
Is there some subtle sarcasm going on here? I've never seen "++i" used (in a for loop) - ever.
EDIT ==========
Just to see if you guys are chain yankin' here, I tried it both ways :
1 million iterations = both completed the iteration in 0.0040002 seconds
10 million iterations = i++ took 0.0350020, and ++i took 0.0340019 seconds
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- "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
modified on Sunday, January 2, 2011 9:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean the wife is not up yet as is the case for me and that it is best to let her sleep in on Sunday morning?
(Might be a good idea considering she's quick on the draw)...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: "Is there some subtle sarcasm going on here? I've never seen "++i" used (in a for loop) - ever."
Somewhat subtle. The increment operator is slightly more efficient in its prefix version (++i) because it just increments 'i' and returns its value. The postfix version has to do more work because it returns the *previous* version of 'i', so it has to store that value somewhere before incrementing i.
If you're just incrementing 'i', it makes more sense to use the more efficient prefix version. It's just better form, and encourages good habits. (For example, applying it to something more complex than an integer, say an iterator to an STL container class, might produce a more significant performance hit than the miniscule one your test found.)
Yet you're right, most of the instances of '++' or' --' I've seen in code, particularly in 'for' loops, is the postfix version. There's no reason for it, yet somehow that has become a near-universal meme in programming. Perhaps because the most common example beginning programmers encounter is the classic C-string copy code snippet, where you really *do* want to use the postfix version:
while (*dst++ = *src++)
;
So I was making a joke that the real coding outrage in the original poster's message was using 'i++' instead of '++i', as if I had completely missed the real outrage of sleeping the thread in each pass through the 'for' loop.
(Getting off my soapbox now.)
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't there a version 2.5? Thread.Sleep(0);
|
|
|
|
|
another version may come up with something like
for ( int i = 0; i < data.Count; container.Add(data[i].Items,i++ )
|
|
|
|