Namspace and Using Statements
-
We are using StyleCop at work and I happened to ask my boss if there was a way to turn off the inside-the-namespace placement of using statements, and he informed me that there were subtle differences in the way .Net resolves class names depending on whether your using statements are inside or outside of the namespace. I accepted that, and then he added that only one of our assemblies can't be placed inside the namespace, but that he wasn't sure why. When I tried it, sure enough I got an Error 43 (
_“The type or namespace name 'Namespace2' does not exist in the namespace 'Namespace0.Namespace1' (are you missing an assembly reference?)”_). The problem turns out to be that of all the (dozens of) assemblies in the solution, only one doesn't have theNameSpace0namespace prefix, which instead is justNamespace1.Namespace2. Given the extensive use of the namespace elsewhere in the code as it exists today, I'm not sure we should try to "fix" the problem. Sometimes, sleuthing can be as interesting as writing the code itself, even if it turns out to be a bad idea to fix the problem.".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 -
We are using StyleCop at work and I happened to ask my boss if there was a way to turn off the inside-the-namespace placement of using statements, and he informed me that there were subtle differences in the way .Net resolves class names depending on whether your using statements are inside or outside of the namespace. I accepted that, and then he added that only one of our assemblies can't be placed inside the namespace, but that he wasn't sure why. When I tried it, sure enough I got an Error 43 (
_“The type or namespace name 'Namespace2' does not exist in the namespace 'Namespace0.Namespace1' (are you missing an assembly reference?)”_). The problem turns out to be that of all the (dozens of) assemblies in the solution, only one doesn't have theNameSpace0namespace prefix, which instead is justNamespace1.Namespace2. Given the extensive use of the namespace elsewhere in the code as it exists today, I'm not sure we should try to "fix" the problem. Sometimes, sleuthing can be as interesting as writing the code itself, even if it turns out to be a bad idea to fix the problem.".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, 1997I get all itchy fingered when I find a problem :java:
-
We are using StyleCop at work and I happened to ask my boss if there was a way to turn off the inside-the-namespace placement of using statements, and he informed me that there were subtle differences in the way .Net resolves class names depending on whether your using statements are inside or outside of the namespace. I accepted that, and then he added that only one of our assemblies can't be placed inside the namespace, but that he wasn't sure why. When I tried it, sure enough I got an Error 43 (
_“The type or namespace name 'Namespace2' does not exist in the namespace 'Namespace0.Namespace1' (are you missing an assembly reference?)”_). The problem turns out to be that of all the (dozens of) assemblies in the solution, only one doesn't have theNameSpace0namespace prefix, which instead is justNamespace1.Namespace2. Given the extensive use of the namespace elsewhere in the code as it exists today, I'm not sure we should try to "fix" the problem. Sometimes, sleuthing can be as interesting as writing the code itself, even if it turns out to be a bad idea to fix the problem.".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, 1997There was a thread on this a couple of years back though don't recall exactly when. Found this as well: c# using statements placement[^]. Seems to be more of a preference thing - I prefer outside.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
There was a thread on this a couple of years back though don't recall exactly when. Found this as well: c# using statements placement[^]. Seems to be more of a preference thing - I prefer outside.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
Seems to be more of a preference thing - I prefer outside.
Yeah, I've always put them outside because I've never had more than one namespace in a file (which is where it appears to actually make a difference).
".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 -
We are using StyleCop at work and I happened to ask my boss if there was a way to turn off the inside-the-namespace placement of using statements, and he informed me that there were subtle differences in the way .Net resolves class names depending on whether your using statements are inside or outside of the namespace. I accepted that, and then he added that only one of our assemblies can't be placed inside the namespace, but that he wasn't sure why. When I tried it, sure enough I got an Error 43 (
_“The type or namespace name 'Namespace2' does not exist in the namespace 'Namespace0.Namespace1' (are you missing an assembly reference?)”_). The problem turns out to be that of all the (dozens of) assemblies in the solution, only one doesn't have theNameSpace0namespace prefix, which instead is justNamespace1.Namespace2. Given the extensive use of the namespace elsewhere in the code as it exists today, I'm not sure we should try to "fix" the problem. Sometimes, sleuthing can be as interesting as writing the code itself, even if it turns out to be a bad idea to fix the problem.".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, 1997The big issues with where you place namespaces comes with namescope collisions, whereby putting the using statement inside your namespace conflicts with something you define locally. This results in the compiler being unable to decide how to compile this up, which results in a compiler error.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
We are using StyleCop at work and I happened to ask my boss if there was a way to turn off the inside-the-namespace placement of using statements, and he informed me that there were subtle differences in the way .Net resolves class names depending on whether your using statements are inside or outside of the namespace. I accepted that, and then he added that only one of our assemblies can't be placed inside the namespace, but that he wasn't sure why. When I tried it, sure enough I got an Error 43 (
_“The type or namespace name 'Namespace2' does not exist in the namespace 'Namespace0.Namespace1' (are you missing an assembly reference?)”_). The problem turns out to be that of all the (dozens of) assemblies in the solution, only one doesn't have theNameSpace0namespace prefix, which instead is justNamespace1.Namespace2. Given the extensive use of the namespace elsewhere in the code as it exists today, I'm not sure we should try to "fix" the problem. Sometimes, sleuthing can be as interesting as writing the code itself, even if it turns out to be a bad idea to fix the problem.".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, 1997to be honest I had no real understanding on what you posted so I googled it. I came upon 2 links that I found to be interesting: Back to Basics - Do namespace using directives affect Assembly Loading?[^] Ian Griffiths had a similar reaction and a similar test![^]
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pate, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam - Monty Python Spam Sketch
-
We are using StyleCop at work and I happened to ask my boss if there was a way to turn off the inside-the-namespace placement of using statements, and he informed me that there were subtle differences in the way .Net resolves class names depending on whether your using statements are inside or outside of the namespace. I accepted that, and then he added that only one of our assemblies can't be placed inside the namespace, but that he wasn't sure why. When I tried it, sure enough I got an Error 43 (
_“The type or namespace name 'Namespace2' does not exist in the namespace 'Namespace0.Namespace1' (are you missing an assembly reference?)”_). The problem turns out to be that of all the (dozens of) assemblies in the solution, only one doesn't have theNameSpace0namespace prefix, which instead is justNamespace1.Namespace2. Given the extensive use of the namespace elsewhere in the code as it exists today, I'm not sure we should try to "fix" the problem. Sometimes, sleuthing can be as interesting as writing the code itself, even if it turns out to be a bad idea to fix the problem.".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, 1997We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray() -
We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray()Is his name Myron (pronounced Moron)? What an idiot. Seriously, if he worked for me, he'd be out the door for lack of understanding.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray()Employee emp = Utils.GetEmployee(".....") //Repace ..... with the employee name or ID emp.Type = PersonTypes.IDTenT | PersonTypes.Useless | PersonTypes.HalfNuts; //Set the type of the employee. PersonTypes has the FlagsAttribute applied. Utils.FireAtWill(\_employee); //Fire At Will! But he is my brother! :-)Bob Dole
The internet is a great way to get on the net.
:doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
-
Is his name Myron (pronounced Moron)? What an idiot. Seriously, if he worked for me, he'd be out the door for lack of understanding.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
I fully agree, and I agreed in code below.
Bob Dole
The internet is a great way to get on the net.
:doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
-
We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray():omg: :wtf: 'nuff said
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray()Seriously? Wow: amazed that people with this level of ineptitude last more than a week, anywhere.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Is his name Myron (pronounced Moron)? What an idiot. Seriously, if he worked for me, he'd be out the door for lack of understanding.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Nope, he's a very long-serving member of staff who comes from the Delphi world. I count myself very lucky that he's not above me in the team hierarchy and my team leader tends to agree with me on most things. The colleague in question has cemented his place in the company forever because he's one of only a few who have in depth knowledge of our legacy Delphi stuff (conveniently undocumented of course), which I refuse to touch because I didn't spend the last 12 years getting proficient in .net just to go and live in the past. Oh yeah, I almost forgot another couple of gems: "You have far less deployment issues with COM .dlls than .net assemblies" "There's too many assemblies in your web front end and wcf application (11 including unit test projects and implementiations totally decoupled from their interfaces), can't you reduce them?" - while he has solutions with 50+ projects, no meaningful unit tests and point blank refuses to use UML to visualise the bird's nest of dependencies he's just created I've taken to just saying whatever mate. trying to reason with him is like trying to teach calculus to your dog. If I was in charge I'd get all the legacy stuff documented in detail and tell him to get his act together or find another job. Attitudes like his are just a barrier to quality, progress and productivity, some of which has rubbed off on someone who sits next to him but that's an entirely different rant altogether.
-
We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray()Its the drugs
-
We've got StyleCop at work in one project <sarcasm>thanks to a colleague</sarcasm> and I think it's the single most pointless tool you can get. Not only that, but if you're not careful the StyleCop installer trashes your Visual Studio class and interface templates, exactly by putting namespaces inside and not outside. The thing is that Microsoft is the manufacturer. The manufacturer's templates specify namespace includes outside of the file's namespace, but someone who doesn't know you from Adam or what you're working on thinks they know better. As soon as I'm on another project it's getting uninstalled. ReSharper contains much of the same functionality as standard but is actually useful which is why it's allowed to stay. The same colleague also comes out with stuff like: "3rd party dependencies are really bad, they make everything too complicated" - so instead of using an ORM he reimplements ADO.net from scratch, taking months, despite ADO.net's presence in .net "You're referencing System.ServiceModel from a client application? That needs removing immediately. You're breaking separation of concerns" - despite the fact that System.ServiceModel contains stuff for client connections to WCF Services "I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation "I prefix all my classes with 'X' so I know if a class is ours or not" - despite the fact that our classes reside in our own namespaces "How is your ASP.net web application going to work if you don't have IIS? you need to remove all dependencies to IIS altogether and find another way" - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. and he doesn't like
List<T>so any time he uses a method that returns a generic list he for loops over the result and turns it into an array - despite.ToArray()"jim lahey wrote:
I don't use interfaces because they're too complicated and I can't find the implementation" - despite right click + goto implementation
I don't think he means the actual interface. He probably means the classes that implement the interface. It can be hard to tell which class is being used unless you have a breakpoint set at runtime.
-
Seriously? Wow: amazed that people with this level of ineptitude last more than a week, anywhere.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime. Teach a man to fish poorly, and he'll spend all of his time fishing and not have time to learn much else.
-
Nope, he's a very long-serving member of staff who comes from the Delphi world. I count myself very lucky that he's not above me in the team hierarchy and my team leader tends to agree with me on most things. The colleague in question has cemented his place in the company forever because he's one of only a few who have in depth knowledge of our legacy Delphi stuff (conveniently undocumented of course), which I refuse to touch because I didn't spend the last 12 years getting proficient in .net just to go and live in the past. Oh yeah, I almost forgot another couple of gems: "You have far less deployment issues with COM .dlls than .net assemblies" "There's too many assemblies in your web front end and wcf application (11 including unit test projects and implementiations totally decoupled from their interfaces), can't you reduce them?" - while he has solutions with 50+ projects, no meaningful unit tests and point blank refuses to use UML to visualise the bird's nest of dependencies he's just created I've taken to just saying whatever mate. trying to reason with him is like trying to teach calculus to your dog. If I was in charge I'd get all the legacy stuff documented in detail and tell him to get his act together or find another job. Attitudes like his are just a barrier to quality, progress and productivity, some of which has rubbed off on someone who sits next to him but that's an entirely different rant altogether.
jim lahey wrote:
who comes from the Delphi world
That's all you had to say... :laugh:
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
-
jim lahey wrote:
who comes from the Delphi world
That's all you had to say... :laugh:
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
-
Nope, he's a very long-serving member of staff who comes from the Delphi world. I count myself very lucky that he's not above me in the team hierarchy and my team leader tends to agree with me on most things. The colleague in question has cemented his place in the company forever because he's one of only a few who have in depth knowledge of our legacy Delphi stuff (conveniently undocumented of course), which I refuse to touch because I didn't spend the last 12 years getting proficient in .net just to go and live in the past. Oh yeah, I almost forgot another couple of gems: "You have far less deployment issues with COM .dlls than .net assemblies" "There's too many assemblies in your web front end and wcf application (11 including unit test projects and implementiations totally decoupled from their interfaces), can't you reduce them?" - while he has solutions with 50+ projects, no meaningful unit tests and point blank refuses to use UML to visualise the bird's nest of dependencies he's just created I've taken to just saying whatever mate. trying to reason with him is like trying to teach calculus to your dog. If I was in charge I'd get all the legacy stuff documented in detail and tell him to get his act together or find another job. Attitudes like his are just a barrier to quality, progress and productivity, some of which has rubbed off on someone who sits next to him but that's an entirely different rant altogether.
jim lahey wrote:
trying to reason with him is like trying to teach calculus to your dog.
My dogs all have the combination to the gun safe.
".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 -
jim lahey wrote:
trying to reason with him is like trying to teach calculus to your dog.
My dogs all have the combination to the gun safe.
".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, 1997Good start. How's that dexterity training progressing?
BDF I often make very large prints from unexposed film, and every one of them turns out to be a picture of myself as I once dreamed I would be. -- BillWoodruff
