Hmm...
-
It's Programmer Day[^] today. Developers and Software Engineers need not apply
And who is the programmer the day's for, anyway?
-
I think we are safe to abstract the implementation of 'this.year' because the value held at this.year[255] (zero based) remains the same as this.year[256] (one based) and the 256th row if we do a COBOL style start (on 1 Jan) and then a sequential read until 256 days have been read. The 256th day of the year will always be the same. Except on leap years.
"If you reward everyone, there will not be enough to go around, so you offer a reward to one in order to encourage everyone." Mei Yaochen in the 'Doing Battle' section of Sun Tzu's: Art of War. .
[ftw]melvin wrote:
I think we are safe to abstract the implementation of 'this.year' because the value held at this.year[255] (zero based) remains the same as this.year[256] (one based) and the 256th row if we do a COBOL style start (on 1 Jan) and then a sequential read until 256 days have been read. The 256th day of the year will always be the same. Except on leap years.
When I find myself reading and understanding something like that, I have to wonder how I ever managed to marry and reproduce. -Rd
-
If people could sign it, previous year's 31 st Dec could be every year's Programmer's Day.
...byte till it megahertz...
bleedingfingers wrote:
If people could sign it, previous year's 31 st Dec could be every year's Programmer's Day.
I'd rather use unsigned integers, because that naturally excludes Java wallahs, without going through the stress of having to break it to them that they're not real programmers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
bleedingfingers wrote:
If people could sign it, previous year's 31 st Dec could be every year's Programmer's Day.
I'd rather use unsigned integers, because that naturally excludes Java wallahs, without going through the stress of having to break it to them that they're not real programmers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Well, it is the 256th day as non-programers see it, but if we were to select that day from the zero indexed array of days, which we call year, it would of be referenced as
this.Year[255]:)If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it. Margaret Fuller (1810 - 1850) [My Articles] [My Website]
-
January 1st is day
00000000.Software Zen:
delete this; -
January 1st is day
00000000.Software Zen:
delete this;Yes, I meant there was no day zero in history. So for Actual Dates rather than numbered by computer dates, day one is number 1. There was no Year Zero either, it ran from 1AD to 1AD. Don't forget that there are 13 months in a year and it is the year 2003. (If you live in Ethiopia).
------------------------------------ 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[^]
-
-
Yes, I meant there was no day zero in history. So for Actual Dates rather than numbered by computer dates, day one is number 1. There was no Year Zero either, it ran from 1AD to 1AD. Don't forget that there are 13 months in a year and it is the year 2003. (If you live in Ethiopia).
------------------------------------ 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[^]
-
[ftw]melvin wrote:
I think we are safe to abstract the implementation of 'this.year' because the value held at this.year[255] (zero based) remains the same as this.year[256] (one based) and the 256th row if we do a COBOL style start (on 1 Jan) and then a sequential read until 256 days have been read. The 256th day of the year will always be the same. Except on leap years.
When I find myself reading and understanding something like that, I have to wonder how I ever managed to marry and reproduce. -Rd
-
Richard A. Dalton wrote:
When I find myself reading and understanding something like that, I have to wonder how I ever managed to marry and reproduce.
Have you done paternity tests?
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
Have you done paternity tests?
:laugh: I haven't. But I do have some doubts: He arrived one day early, which would be the first project I've every delivered that close to a scheduled release date. He's currently back in hospital having had some tummy surgery. I definitely would have caught that flaw in System Test prior to release. All that said, when they told me that they would be shutting down the intestines and restarting them I knew he was the offspring of programmers. -Rd
-
It's Programmer Day[^] today. Developers and Software Engineers need not apply
And who is the programmer the day's for, anyway?
Yes, today I will program my VCR for the next 12 months. And buy some more tape. :)
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.
-
Yes, I meant there was no day zero in history. So for Actual Dates rather than numbered by computer dates, day one is number 1. There was no Year Zero either, it ran from 1AD to 1AD. Don't forget that there are 13 months in a year and it is the year 2003. (If you live in Ethiopia).
------------------------------------ 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[^]
Sure there was; weren't you there?