I Told You So...

realJSOP

I refer you to this post: VS2012 and Existing WPF Solutions[^] Well, I'm pretty sure I've encountered it again. This time, in Anagrams2 (also, curiously enough, a WPF app). I developed the app with VS2012, and after posting the article here, someone downloaded it and immediately reported a bug involving the fact that a property marked with private set should not be private. I couldn't understand how he was getting an exception, when it worked fine for me on my machine (I think this is the first time i could say "works fine on my box", and have it be a viable answer). So, I downloaded the code to a VS2010 box, and what do you know - I got the very exception he was complaining about. This project does NOT use .Net 4.5, but since 4.5 addresses some bugs in 4.0, your 4.0 apps may not run on pure 4.0 machines (where VS2012 and/or .Net 4.5 have not been installed). Looks like the highway exit from DLL Hell was merely a cul-de-sac, and we're right back in the thick of things. Thanks a bunch, Microsoft...

".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

Ian Shlasko

Always hated that glitch... I make a lot of public-get-private-set properties, and often change them to private once I'm sure I don't need the value outside the class... And VS whines about a little redundancy that should just be ignored by the compiler... But did the COMPILED version fail, or would it just not compile in VS2010? If the former, that's a real piece of work...

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

realJSOP

The compiled version runs fine on my machine at home (VS2012 installed), but the same binary fails on my box at work (VS2012 NOT installed). The exception happens when you try to start a new game.

".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

Kenneth Haugland

I thought you didn't want to write the article, what made you change your mind?

realJSOP

Absolutely nothing else to do. - Car was clean, I'd been to the shooting range, and the wife wasn't home.

".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

Kenneth Haugland

Ah, so you decided to do something that could benefit others, blasphemy! :laugh:

Ian Shlasko

Ok... Yeah, that settles it... Microsoft fails.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

realJSOP

I'm not that magnanimous - I merely like talking about myself (remember, I'm the narcissist that wrote Reputationator). :)

".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

Kenneth Haugland

I think you suffer from Magnanimity, a serious disorder ;P I did have a quick look at your article, and its a game, right, so It would probably be downloaded and waste some poor buggers time :laugh: Mission accomplished ;P

realJSOP

Once started, it's hard to stop. Near the end of development, each time I tested it, I ended up playing it for an hour at a time (while it was running under the debugger). So far, my highest score is over 500 points, with over 60% of the words found for a given anagram (that was an un-timed game - when it's on a timer, it's even more addictive).

".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

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

Holy Phucking Shiite Batman! PHUCK! PHUCK! PHUCK! PHUCK! PHUCK!

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein

Kenneth Haugland

Perhaps you should enter the article in the App contest, could be worth while, and perhaps make you a bunch of money ;)

realJSOP

There's nothing innovative about it. Maybe if I could port CamoPicker before it's too late...

".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

Kenneth Haugland

Maybe not, but theres a lot of apps that isn't exactly innovative, meaning they could be found on other devices. CamoPicker seems really nice, or you could take a picture of the surroundings, and then a picture of your painted face. Then calculate how invisible you are, a percentage from 0 to totally not there, now that would really be something :-D

realJSOP

THAT would be cool. Or maybe try to find a picture on the internet where you blend in the most, and as a joke, every x number of tests, show someones ass, or a pile of dog crap. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Unfortunately, there's not enough time to port CamoPicker. I have a car show coming up between now and the 24th, and that's going to consume two whole days.

".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

wizardzz

Great for Halloween (and those post election riots I've heard about from some sheriff).

SoMad

Holy crap on a cracker...[^] :~. Yeah, I ripped that off, but I don't know what else to say. That is pretty bad. Soren Madsen

Kenneth Haugland

Quote:

how someones ass, or a pile of dog crap

Or a picture of people in rehab, or a picture of politicians or some mental institution or a techno party :laugh: That would be an awesome app though.

Daniel Grunwald

This is nothing new, the same problem exists with any .NET service pack that was released in the past. Whenever a bug is fixed, people will start writing code that ends up breaking when encountering the bug on a machine without the fix. To avoid this issue, every .NET release (including minor service packs) would have to be side-by-side. Looking at the .NET releases + service packs, that means we'd be at .NET 13 right now. Users would likely need many .NET versions installed at the same time. Java has the same issues, and there, applications often come with their own private copy of the Java runtime to ensure the users have exactly the same version as the developers. In .NET 4.5, Microsoft has been quite aggressive with changes that are backwards but not forwards compatible, so I expect many more people will run into such issues now than before. But what else are they supposed to do? Are you suggesting that Microsoft shouldn't fix bugs? Or that we start shipping private .NET copies with each application? By the way, the same stuff can happen with the compiler. It's less bad than the runtime problems as you can control which compiler version your developers are using, but this can still bite you in your case where you're switching your development environment back to 4.0 due to such runtime issues... Consider this bit of C# code:

List<Action> list = new List<Action>();
foreach (int i in new int[] { 1, 2, 3 }) {
list.Add(delegate { Console.WriteLine(i); });
}
foreach (Action action in list) {
action();
}

If you compile this code on a machine with .NET 4.5 installed, it'll print "1, 2, 3", which is what most people would expect. But compiling on a machine with .NET 4.0 will print "3, 3, 3" due to a quirk in definition of the variable lifetime of foreach loop variables in C# 4.0. The quirk got fixed in C# 5.0 and it is a mostly backward compatible change (the old behavior wasn't useful, so almost nobody was writing code like this). But someone using C# 5.0 might write such code not realizing that he's depending on the new variable lifetime, and then when the project switches back to C# 4.0, the code will break in a subtle way.

Lost User

ahmed zahmed wrote:

Holy Phucking Shiite Batman!

PHUCK! PHUCK! PHUCK! PHUCK! PHUCK!

That gets a big Faarrrkkkking Five.

Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004