Well, anything that existed already in earlier versions of .NET is fine; they've usually just kept the same documentation. However, anything to do with MVC (3 or 5 etc.) or any other new component in .NET 4.5 is what Joel Spolsky (?) called "undocumentation," that is, documentation in the format DoThing(); // Does the thing That's not an explanation; it's just a rearrangement of the function name.

6/10? Die in a fire!

If you look up a .NET 4 function, you'll get extensive documentation of each parameter, remarks, examples, everything you need. Look up .NET 4.5. Do it right now, look up anything. You'll get

actionName
Type: System.String
The name of the action method.

How does this help? How is this help? It's clearly just the GhostDoc default auto-generated filler! Thousands of pages of this crap, fobbed off on developers as "documentation." If a machine is generating it, it isn't explaining anything, is it? Do they really think this is going to save them money? Stack overflow is not an acceptable substitute for documentation! I'm going back to C so I can at least read man pages written by a human.

Cherry blossoms drift Caressing still air in this The Age of Terror

Romani eunt domus?! What's that supposed to mean?

I don't know, I think you've got enough of a reputation already. ;P

Sodium and Potassium both form positive ions. Am I missing something?

Balboos wrote:

you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient).

This is actually the opposite of what is true. Internal combustion engines have an average efficiency of 18-20%[^], whereas a fossil fuel plant is about 33%[^] efficient. Safety is an engineering problem which has been solved, as far as I understand. Gasoline is not exactly a safe material, and won't disappear into the air when released from its tank. Have you read up on this? As for "classic media," this is an ad hominem, or I suppose ad medias argument and in itself invalid. Hydrolysis: lately they've been using algally-derived enzymes to split water using sunlight. As I understand it, it's not commercially available, but it does seem promising to me. I'm not saying you're wrong in the debate between various kinds of vehicles; I'm just saying your arguments are, if I may, utter duck-sh$($.

During the dotcom days, entrepreneurs had to raise $5 million to try stupid ideas. Now I’ve proven that you can do it for $12,107.09.

Wow, that's a huge savings on trying out stupid ideas!

You're right, I would rather look at a #2 gradually stop steaming over two hours than sit through Star Trek: The Motion Picture again.

All water ice is made from water; Not all water is ice. When you commit a crime, you've made a criminal mistake; When you make a mistake, you have not necessarily committed a crime. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I would love to see an article about this.

http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3356232/Frontpage-question.aspx[^] Best fail ever in the third message.

It calls the constructor below it: it's like base(whatever). The point is to avoid duplicating whatever functionality is in the two-parameter method.

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

eh, what can you do?

GC.Collect()

Maybe site suggestions would be a better place to post this.

I occasionally maintain an application that has been ported to 3.5, but was originally written in 1.1. This of course means it pretty much is in 1.1. Not that bad, to be honest; I still view anything beyond VB 6 as a miracle. Our management has fairly good business/marketing reasons for making our apps backwards compatible with SQL 2000, but I don't know why you wouldn't upgrade to 3.5, unless they're running NT workstations or something.

I thought about this for a long time before posting: What?

Transit. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor.

The reason it has to be "Agile" is that it can't take a hit.