Wordle 1,086 5/6 ⬛⬛🟨⬛🟨 ⬛🟨⬛🟨⬛ 🟨⬛🟨🟨🟨 🟩⬛🟩🟨🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Wordle 1,082 3/6 ⬛🟩🟨🟨⬛ 🟨🟩🟨🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Wordle 1,057 3/6 ⬛⬛⬛🟩⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 WordleBot Skill 86/99 Luck 76/99 I have no idea how I found the word today. According to WordleBot there was just one possible solution after my second guess. I guessed in less than 10 seconds and… solved!

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Wordle 1,052 6/6 🟨⬛⬛🟨⬛ ⬛⬛🟩⬛🟩 ⬛⬛🟩⬛🟩 🟩🟩🟩⬛🟩 🟩🟩🟩⬛🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 WordleBot Skill 94/99 Luck 23/99

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Wordle 1,045 3/6 🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩 🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 WordleBot Skill 74/99 Luck 74/99

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

4% of players guessed on first try today according to the WordleBot stats. Wordle 1,035 4/6 ⬛⬛🟨⬛🟩 ⬛🟩🟨⬛🟩 🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Skill 91/99 Luck 56/99

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Wordle 1,034 3/6 ⬛⬛🟨🟨🟨 🟨🟩⬛🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Skill 84/99 Luck 74/99

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Wordle 1,032 3/6 ⬛⬛🟩🟩⬛ 🟩⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Skill 82/99 Luck 74/99

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

This feature is useful to avoid all kind of bugs related to the usage of mutable values with multiple ownership shared through references. Think about scenarios when a method 'foo' receives an object as an input parameter. The initial contract is that the object's fields are not changed inside 'foo' . In a big codebase there would be many places where 'foo' becomes used over time, with the semantics of not changing the fields of the input object. If at some point someone makes a change in 'foo' to mutate one of the fields, this could cause many non obvious problems. In practice, in complex codebases these problems might be difficult to detect in a code review. Immutable types and non destructive mutation provide a solution to better express this kind of semantic.

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Haskell: it makes me feel smart.

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Basic - first language, so kind of fun Pascal - in high school, meh C - first language at the university, no fun, no discipline C++ - interesting, almost fun, and with newer additions also disciplined; first programming language at work Delphi - seemed like a good tool for one job; not really funny but a little discipline; Java - booooring (it seems to me like a poor man's tool) PHP - wat!!? who really wants something like that? ASM - interesting and fun, challenging C# - a little bit better than Java, and getting better; sometimes funny with LINQ; Javascript - funny but... no discipline, it's almost worse than C and C++ Python - yay, no more braces, no more wasted space but... not really funny and not really disciplined Haskell - fun, discipline, beauty and a lot of challenges, I love it!

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

j, k, w, b, SHIFT+*, n (using vsvim)

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Maybe you should look to have a DisplayPort also (this is for external displays with resolutions bigger than 1920x1200). i5 should be enough (I have an i3 and it's still good), but definitely go with more than 4 Gb RAM and an SSD.

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

And following this kind of development model, if you check your code at the end, you'll find that most of the times it will follow the SOLID principles, without doing any kind of prior design work. Maybe you can think about SOLID as a quality check for the end result, rather than some principles to follow from the start. You can also think that SOLID are some pretty subjective principles and it's your job to decide to use them or to use something which suits the current job better. SOLID are just some general OOD principles, and of course there are some others, and as you can see right on the SOLID wikipedia page[^], there are other OOD principles You aren't gonna need it[^], KISS principle[^], which are somehow in contradiction with SOLID. So in conclusion, if you are a good programmer you don't have to think about the OOD principles and design patterns before you start to code. You will just know when your code is nice (starts to fit together very tidily). Then, you can bet that your code follows the best OOD principles. And if you search, you will also find some implementations of different design patterns (if I think back I implemented the factory pattern many times before reading about design patterns).

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Q&A where?

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

It seems that after they bragged so much about the awesome speed of Chrome and V8 they screwed some things in it. The canvas element in the latest version (Chrome 15) is painfully slow. Initially I thought that there is a problem with my code, but it runs fine in any other browser (Firefox, Opera and even IE9 :laugh: ). These are the links to the issue and to the discussion forum: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=102284 http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=4302254a6794b5fd&hl=en. In the meantime another team worked for several months on the new look for GMail, Google Reader, Blogger, etc. Remember just the UI changed, there is no new functionality, and they worked on it for months. And of course the new UI runs much slower than the older one (at least in Firefox) and I would also dare to say that is far from a perfect design. It has at least on major downside over the previous version: there is much less vertical space for reading the email content (event when you choose the compact display density) and this matters on a regular laptop screen. Also, recently I bought an Android smartphone. In general Android seems to be ok from an user perspective, but of course there should be a black spot: the default Gallery application is terrible, it can't be used by any sane person. I wonder how these things happen in a company which has thousands of the smartest developers in the world? Do I expect too much from Google's free products?

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

The icons look somehow like the Windows Phone monochrome icons. It seems that it is a new fashion.

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

First, the good things: - the "comfortable" display density is comfortable :) - the new bigger buttons look nice - everything seems to be more clear - the possibility to better customize the left side is welcome Next, the bad things: - the site is noticeable slower especially when scrolling (using Firefox 7) - there is much less vertical space when reading the mail content - there are some inconsistent design elements: the compose button, the search button, the behavior of "Tasks" button and tasks and UI And of course I could add more subjective opinions about other small design issues. And with this I try to say that it is impossible to make a design for such a complex application that will please all the users. I think that a better approach will be to create some kind of user interface API using CSS and javascript (something like GreaseMonkey, but officially supported) and let third party developers to create different public designs for GMail and other Google products. What do you think about this and which things do you love and hate in the new GMail's UI?

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)

Regarding the WP7 emulator there are some important things that don't work out of the box. The most important missing feature is multitouch, altough this can probably be sorted out somehow. Another important thing that can't be tested in the WP7 emulator is the "Photo Extras Application". The following quote is from MSDN: "For this release of the Windows Phone Developer Tools, this topic can only be completed on a Windows Phone device and not on the emulator. The current version of the emulator does not include access to the Pictures application on the device." - and I will complete: the current version of the emulator includes access only to the Internet Explorer application, so no email, no pictures, no music ... And as a comparison, the iPhone simulator seems to be much more useful. I worked on two applications and I mostly tested in the simulator, because is faster.

If you can't explain something to a six year old, you really don't understand it yourself. (Albert Einstein)