I just submitted my first article... [modified]

[Nish Nishant]

Marc Clifton wrote:

I soooo want to b*tch about the use of "this." everywhere, but I'll refrain.

What's wrong with that? It's even a Style Cop guideline :-)

Regards, Nish

---

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link

[RichardM1]

Remember FORTRAN? (You might not. How old are you? :-O ) REAL was any variable that started with a letter in the set A-H, O-Z INTEGER any that started in the set I-N The compiler will figure out what I meant, no need to spell it out. The next guy on it is at least as smart as me. Otherwise he would be doing boring original code instead of exciting maintenance. He can figure it out the first time second time, every time 60% of the time. ;P So, how is _not_ using access modifiers any different from not specifying the type of a variable in VB? Ha, ha, just truthing. :laugh: Actually, maintenance CAN be exciting. But not usually in a good way. :~ And you clearly didn't hit a nerve with me. X|

Opacity, the new Transparency.

[The Real Geek]

True - more people should use StyleCop.

[realJSOP]

I insist on using it, especially if the guy that doesn't do it also doesn't use "m_" to indicate member variables in a class. That's the only way you can really discern local method vars from global class vars...

.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

[realJSOP]

It's almost impossible to get a clean run with style cop... I stopped using it for that very reason. EDIT - It may be FXCop I'm thinking of... In any case, I try to avoid cops...

.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

[realJSOP]

Adam Maras wrote:

I just updated the article to include VB.NET code

But why ruin the article?

.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

[Marc Clifton]

Adam Maras wrote:

I just updated the article to include VB.NET code, so if you want to bitch about the use of "Me." everywhere, you can do that too

Hehe. Somebody should make a spoof on the Beatles' song. "I, me, me, this" Marc

Will work for food. Interacx

I'm not overthinking the problem, I just felt like I needed a small, unimportant, uninteresting rant! - Martin Hart Turner

[The Real Geek]

FXCop - which deals with compiled code - can be a PITA, but it does catch some nice things (like int overflow). StyleCop only deals with source code - what it looks like and the order of items in a file. The Law

[PIEBALDconsult]

RichardM1 wrote:

Remember FORTRAN?

I had one semester of it in 1987.

RichardM1 wrote:

REAL was any variable that started with a letter in the set A-H, O-Z INTEGER any that started in the set I-N

Yeah, that's about all I remember of it. That's all fine when you have only two or three datatypes. Now we have billions and billions with more created every day. And did you check out the Go language?

[Dan Neely]

I spent an hour porting a small fortran program into C++; and a few minutes replacing a half dozen user input values in a much larger one with hard coded ones to reduce the pain involved in trying to tune my model to fit. Broadly speaking I had to find the peak of a curved ridge by changing the X and Y values and rerunning the program, anywhere other than the optimum point the model failed. This took an hour or two per set of fixed initial conditions because one model didn't work until I tuned the user configurable values to 11 digits of combined precision; the second took 13. X and Y needed to be keyed in for each run; most of my classmates were also keying in U(?), V, W, and Z as well with each iteration.

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

[Lost User]

Congratulations.