|
Bloody posted:if you can look at 6 month old code and not cringe it mean you stop growing as a develop
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 18:31 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:41 |
|
St Evan Echoes posted:same but 6 hours if you're not cringing RIGHT NOW you're probably, uh, not reading my posts or something
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 18:32 |
|
well i have an interview tomorrow, which deity would be most helpful to pray to atm
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:07 |
|
I'm cringing because vb.net and because I don't know why/how to affect select going before where or where going before select.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:09 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:well i have an interview tomorrow, which deity would be most helpful to pray to atm as many or as few as you want
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:11 |
|
gently caress them posted:I'm cringing because vb.net and because I don't know why/how to affect select going before where or where going before select. list.where(g).select(f);
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:11 |
|
coffeetable posted:list.select(f).where(g); Well see, I did... yanno, the first one. In LINQPad! And it worked!! Then I try it in my application. And it doesn't. So now I'm confused.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:18 |
|
gently caress them posted:Well see, I did... yanno, the first one. well, do you want to filter the old elements before you have applied f to each one, or the new elements after you've done that?
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:24 |
|
more like dICK posted:Unrelated, I remember seeing projects similar to FPM but can't remember their names. Is there another, easier way to make debs/rpms? I need to package some things that are only distributed as source tarballs. fpm is already the other, easier way. packages produced by fpm are almost invariably poo poo quality and irreproducible (unless the first guy to fpm it was so kind as to provide you a makefile, but then you've just moved the ugly packaging details from a specfile to a makefile) if you absolutely must produce total poo poo packages from a source tarball, use mock/docker (for a clean chroot) + checkinstall. i can't really recommend it but it's better than nothing. your life will be much easier if you abandon this line of inquiry, and go find a specfile or SRPM written by someone else. "shortcuts" to packaging almost always make life worse rather than better.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:34 |
|
also no matter what you do, even if it's fpm, build your package in a clean chroot. unwitting contamination from the host system is like the #1 way to gently caress up an rpm. there are shitloads of ways to do it. configure/make scripts are really drat good at finding the host's libraries and depending on them.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:36 |
|
AlsoD posted:well, do you want to filter the old elements before you have applied f to each one, or the new elements after you've done that? I want to apply "remove hyphens" then filter things. But that wasn't my problem. The problem was that – is a different character from -. Even though when I hand loving typed the input to be checked and tested, and the character to replace with nothing, and I hit the same key on my keyboard both times, ultimately different characters were there. God dammit fonts. I hit the same loving key on my keyboard when making input to test with, and when I typed in what to search for and replace. Does XAML/wpf just like to gently caress with you? EDIT: NOPE I'M EVEN DUMBER gently caress ME The split wasn't working right and had a whitespace before the H. So, because I had a ^ at the start of my regex it didn't match, since it was looking for the start of a string. It wasn't, it was a whitespace. Shameful. Fuck them fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 15, 2014 |
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:37 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:well i have an interview tomorrow, which deity would be most helpful to pray to atm alternatively, hail satan
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:38 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:also no matter what you do, even if it's fpm, build your package in a clean chroot. automagic dependency selection is the devil's build script
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:53 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:your life will be much easier if you abandon this line of inquiry, and go find a specfile or SRPM written by someone else. "shortcuts" to packaging almost always make life worse rather than better. specfiles kinda suck and getting started with rpm packaging definitely sucks. but theres no part of a specfile with a reasonable cross-distro default. you just gotta bite the bullet and write the specfile. i imagine its much the same with debs
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 19:57 |
|
I think I'll just bite the bullet and build / install the apps on the server. RPMs are insane.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 20:10 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:fpm is already the other, easier way. packages produced by fpm are almost invariably poo poo quality and irreproducible (unless the first guy to fpm it was so kind as to provide you a makefile, but then you've just moved the ugly packaging details from a specfile to a makefile) Notorious b.s.d. posted:also no matter what you do, even if it's fpm, build your package in a clean chroot.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 20:58 |
|
more like dICK posted:Unrelated, I remember seeing projects similar to FPM but can't remember their names. Is there another, easier way to make debs/rpms? I need to package some things that are only distributed as source tarballs. src2pkg is another low-effort low-quality package maker i've used it for single installs when the alternative is going "gently caress it" and installing directly to /usr/local
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 22:58 |
|
AlsoD posted:doesn't js have a lot of weird scoping issues? hoisting isn't very intuitive yes but that has nothing to do with saving a function to a variable so you can pass it as a parameter though? or are you just drive by commenting
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 23:22 |
|
it's bad because the syntax is exactly like the block syntax from C I wouldn't say javascript's scoping itself is bad. it's just consequence of a hasty syntax coming from something that was supposed to look like lisp. Symbolic Butt fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 15, 2014 |
# ? Jul 15, 2014 23:30 |
|
Symbolic Butt posted:it's bad because the syntax is exactly like the block syntax from C
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 23:44 |
|
can confirm, JS scoping is weird not bad once you get used to it though
|
# ? Jul 15, 2014 23:47 |
|
var that = this; cause bind() is voodoo to some people I guess
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 00:02 |
|
Uncomfortable Gaze posted:var that = this; bind() is voodoo to me because i've literally had zero need for it. like i know the how but the why is unclear to me. explain why we need it plz
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 00:26 |
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:bind() is voodoo to me because i've literally had zero need for it. like i know the how but the why is unclear to me. i was just harping on the bit where 'this' context can change in a lot of annoying ways, and that = this is just a stupid workaround for that. if someone blindly reassigns a function without bind, you could cause potential bugs without that dumb workaround
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 01:01 |
|
coffeetable posted:do some more searching, maybe look further afield. the biotech i joined a month back sounds p cool good on you mate i'll prolly wait till jan to start looking. Curious to see my year end bonus then bounce
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 01:06 |
|
Uncomfortable Gaze posted:var that = this; Isn't it backbone.js littered everywhere with var me = this.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 01:10 |
|
I have a bunch of var self = this; in my viewmodels. idk what the gently caress bind() is but its probably some retarded hack for dealing with the inherent flaws in javascript that are a result of trying to use it for more than it was designed for.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 01:12 |
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:bind() is voodoo to me because i've literally had zero need for it. like i know the how but the why is unclear to me. this isn't lexically scoped, you might say it's dynamic - it depends on the call stack. so if you return a function, inside a function, 'this' will depend on how it is called. code:
code:
so, how do you say "give me foo a method of obj"? you use bind. code:
code:
code:
if we want to force 'this' to be a particular value, we can bind the function to this value using func.bind(foo). in a method that returns a function, which also operates on the object, we can do .bind(this). or we can use a lexical variable, 'that'. bonus points: python's explicit self is an alternative way to build methods from functions.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 01:35 |
|
tef posted:... thanks so are there any advantages to unbound "this"? i see pain but i don't see gain. also the python way is 100% better.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 01:51 |
|
it makes prototypes work properly, right? if you call [1, 2, 3].each() the method is found on Array.prototype but this will be the literal array and non-var variables are actually properties on window so that's where that comes from what i want to know is what happens if you do this: JavaScript code:
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 02:03 |
|
Kevin Mitnick P.E. posted:it makes prototypes work properly, right? if you call [1, 2, 3].each() the method is found on Array.prototype but this will be the literal array I just prototyped one of your posts. It's in my toilet. lol
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 02:04 |
|
Kevin Mitnick P.E. posted:it makes prototypes work properly, right? if you call [1, 2, 3].each() the method is found on Array.prototype but this will be the literal array let me just ask a question about what happens when you do a thing in a programming language which is implemented by the thing I'm using to ask the question just loving type it into the console and see
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 02:36 |
|
javascript is very bad
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 03:04 |
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:javascript is very bad much like your posting!
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 03:08 |
|
if my posting was as bad as javascript, then all my lovely posts would be hoisted to the top of the thread, no matter where i make them
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 03:10 |
|
Dessert Rose posted:let me just ask a question about what happens when you do a thing in a programming language which is implemented by the thing I'm using to ask the question no i'd really rather someone else do it
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 03:19 |
|
Kevin Mitnick P.E. posted:no i'd really rather someone else do it I'd rather someone else do your posts! haha
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 03:32 |
|
oh my god I loving hate JavaScript
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 04:51 |
|
AlsoD posted:doesn't js have a lot of weird scoping issues? no it has weird scoping features
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 06:39 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:41 |
|
on build chat literally kill yourself if your build system doesnt build your package dependencies down to poo poo like the compiler to guarantee a clean build.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 06:55 |