On a Surface? Generally Windows 10 is all good on other machines, but my Surface likes to s**t itself every now and again (more frequently than that - I think it may need a prostate check) and explorer crashes and restarts resulting in the icons get loosely spaced, anchored top-left.

But fret not! I will fix the typo in EmailAddress :-D

If only... But I still feel like I am going to put this into production... It's not not understandable :-\

Just thought that this was funny...

private ErrorDetail Get([CallerMemberName]string errorName = "")
{
return this[errorName];
}

public ErrorDetail MissingAccountDetail => Get();
public ErrorDetail InvalidEmailAdress => Get();

I feel I should get a new hobby...

Having scored technical interview questions/tests before, I can tell you now, that developers that don't know-and-use linq, are the bottom of the barrel... In one of the threads of this discussion performance is talked about, and while true that raw performance of a for/foreach for basic enumeration is marginally better, and has less overhead, you'll find that linq performs scores faster for more complex enumerations. It basically comes down to devs not really understanding how they are putting code together, and linq is a great way to build up an enumerator before actually executing it. It is simply plain wrong to say linq doesn't perform as well, because not only did the succinct linq answers perform better than the code of the senior devs that were taking those tests, but we ran benchmarks, and the memory footprint was minimal in comparison, and every time a linq expression was used, the unit test covering the question passed, whereas it was closer to 20% for devs not writing linq (there was time pressure on the tests - I am sure the number would have crept up had there been more time, but it also shows that linq was faster to write a solution with). Whether you think it is less readable, less simple or less maintainable is truly your opinion, but it sounds as though you, and others posting in this discussion, actually need to do some research on linq, because it shows a lack of understanding of the other benefits too. Yes, it can be abused, but in the right hands it can produce some fantastic results.

Ha! But then there is value in experiments:

public static void ForEach<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, Action<T, int> action)
{
// argument null checking omitted
var index = 0;
foreach(T item in sequence) {
action(item, index);
index++;
}
}

For example, I am curious if I could find value in (probably with a different body implementation):

public static async Task ForEachAsync<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, Func<T, Task> actionAsync)
{
// argument null checking omitted
foreach(T item in sequence) await actionAsync(item);
}

Looks like a 'Right' to me, rather than a 'Left' :)

Don't forget the null check! And a small tweak because I like doing it this way :P It's called Truncate in my library, but if you're from VB, I guess Left is ok... Or you could just reference the Microsoft.VisualBasic assembly!

public static string Left(this string target, int length)
{
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(target) //could just do == null; condition below caters to empty (which is faster I wonder)
return target;

return target.SubString(0, Math.Min(target.Length, length));

}

Chris Maunder wrote:

It's interesting, isn't it?

I do tend to agree with you about the settings screens being terrible - but it's just a matter of using them more to get used to them I think (aside from the obvious missing functionality, of course!) I am stuck with Windows 7 at work and I must admit, I find the UI very outdated in general and don't find it a pleasant experience to use anymore, but I do like feeling like a power-user still: able to actually control my own windows experience. Dumbed-down would great if it could just sort everything out without me thinking about it. Windows X.13?

OMG I AM out of milk!

It's not about proving or disproving it with philosophy, just that with a non (or less) scientific perspective where an object does not need to exist in an instance to perform a measurement (in that instance) would yield entirely different results than if there was an object there to interfere with its surroundings. This then becomes a discussion for philosophers. Sure, philosophy is not entirely out of place in the realm of science (being that science evolved from philisophical theory), but a scientist is bound by previous measurements (a measurement being a result that has lead to the development of a tool/platform/framework) I just think that philosophy can go much further in explaining the how or how not of the existence of determinism, and to put scientific restriction on a proof is just a very scientific thing to do because humankind has done so in the past, when scientific theory may not be the best way to approach it. My reference to the universe not obeying any rules of infinity simple alludes to the fact that infinity is also a man-made concept. It exists to explain something that we can not understand. Sure, in mathematics, we can 'understand' that numbers can be counted forever, but our comprehension of what exists beyond the edge of the universe is non-existent (that assumes there is an edge to the universe, because a edge generally implies finity :P)

In the scientific definition of not existing, yes, that is fundamentally true... It's not about having insight, it's about thinking about things in a different way. Don't get me wrong, I have a very mathematical mind, and I like that science can explain much of the world today. My point really was that, we can't prove or disprove predeterminism with quantifiable measurements based on modern day science - just like scientists of old used to do: we need to look toward philosophy. Imagining yourself in the shoes of someone viewing the changing world still results in human restrictions (which is anything finite - clearly the universe doesn't obey any rules of finity!)Step beyond existence, and you are in the realm of philosophy, where argument can lead to scientific discovery.

This place seems to be full of computer scientists... The point of view of many responses assumes an ACTUAL point of view: some tool, person or other physical object to actually witness the event. The fact of the matter is, that none of us, nor any tool we can make, can measure every atom at every given time, so one needs to step out of the box that is science. I am not talking religion (definitely not!), but quantum mechanics is a scientific notion, and science is itself a man-made concept, so the only way we can measure anything as a result of a discussion around it, is by using man-made restrictions. To truly understand, we must put aside what we know about time and space and matter because absolutely everything we base our present and future understandings on is from past definitions of measurements that scientists needed to make up in order to provide an answer to their question. If we could truly step back and witness things from a distance, we wouldn't be interacting with the environment, we would, in communicable terms, actually no longer exist... I love the philosophical debate around predeterminism, because it shows us as humans, really have no clue :)

I haven't had this problem at all with Vista. I often hibernate it (not sure why - I mean, saving state is great, but it takes so long to boot back up!) I am running Ultimate on a laptop, but I doubt that would make a difference...

Haha I just had another look, and the version I was looking at correctly uses 'principle' :P Obviously she saw the problem and sorted it, so yes, your corrected first post is indeed correct and I shall no longer mock Canadians ;)

Ravi Bhavnani wrote:

No it's not. I made a mistake in my original post (corrected). See the 2nd sentence of the 2nd para on page 2 and tell me if "principal" (and its plural) is used correctly.

Heh, yup - it is used absolutely correctly :) Maybe you Canadians (flame on!) are a little odd. Haha! Nah - but it could be a language quirk - it wouldn't surprise me any if you guys in the far north used Principal *cough* incorrectly *cough* :doh: At least you put a 'u' in colour :P

Ravi Bhavnani wrote:

You're right - I won't. But I doubt it'll be because of poor grammar.

Sounds like the exact same reason I never will!

Heh, this is why you won't be writing any computer books too soon ;) Principle is used correctly... You are right though! It is an excellent read!

Ask them. Better that you ask them what they want from a salary history than have them accidentally stumble across the code project forum and see that you took some advice from someone and refuse to tell them what it is! Employers are people too ;)

Personally I don't think this is a bad question at all! ASP, I believe, appears slower because the pages are! You will find that some pages are not pre-compiled, so when you hit the web-server the compilation happens and that slows the page down, to begin with at least. Once compiled you should have a reasonably fast time browsing the site. However, anything written in .NET is very page-heavy as it adds a whole heap of Javascript and rather long id's to each element in the page (if it is an asp control.) If you want to cut that down you need to do it yourself instead of providing asp controls that really don't need to be 'runat="server".' Often a developer will just simply drag a label onto the page in design view rather than write text into it, and that just adds more overhead. Visual Studio 2008 helps with this as it is much more HTML friendly. It's not ASP that is the slow part, it is the developer generally making the page large, and people who watch all those 'how to' videos to begin their ASP.NET development without knowing about what is going on behind the scenes are probably the ones making the slow pages :P