tcfunk wrote:

The fact of the matter is that no one cares how good IE 10 is, because IE 7, 8, & 9 are still being used. Microsoft needs to upgrade the problem browsers, not make a new one.

IE 7 - ouch! I was on a project recently where we still had to support this browser. At least 50% of our problems stemmed from this alone, because the specs said that it had to look 100% the same in IE 7 as in modern browsers. I think we could have cut at least 25% of our dev effort if it was acceptable to look 90% the same as in modern browsers. As a side note: If you're ever in the same position, http://css3pie.com/[^] might help you considerably.

I definitely like this answer. Maybe the wording can be reduced to one word, e.g. "Finish". But it also depends on your users. If they are typical Microsoft Office and Excel users, find a dialog somewhere in Office or Excel that does something similar and mimic it.

I spent a lot of time at some point learning Dvorak. I even peeled apart(1) and reorganized my keyboard to that end, and got somewhat proficient at typing Dvorak. But then I realized that just about every keyboard that I will ever encounter that I do not own will be qwerty, and I'm not about to peel apart a brand new laptop that I bought just for a Dvorak keyboard, let alone, say a work laptop that I don't own. So I re-learned qwerty, which ended up being a somewhat painful exercise, because I had grown used to Dvorak at that point, and had to re-learn what I already knew. I don't regret going back to qwerty. I don't think it's better, but it is so universal that I don't see myself as having much of a choice. 1) If you rearrange a Microsoft Natural Keyboard, you will notice that all the keys are wobbly, because each key is slanted to fit the row that it is in.

This is not necessarily a bug or performance problem. Never make an assessment on performance without using a profiler first. For all we know, this code could commonly execute on 0 or 1 items, in which case, there is not much wrong with the code above. What if the above is in a message pump where other threads are allowed to peak at the queue head? That said, with the way it is written above, I probably would have gone for the "foreach(){} fakeList.Clear();" construct.

Hi all I have encountered a stored procedure template that we are supposed to use for our daily development work. The strange thing about this template (to me, at least) is that it has a RETURN statement just before the final END statement. Obviously if the proc is returning a value, this statement is necessary, but we are talking about a stored proc that returns no value. I do not understand why this convention exists, much less why someone would care to enforce it. It looks like it clutters the readability of the stored proc by appending code that does nothing. I don't recall seeing any C code like this: "void fx(void) { return; }", at least not on purpose. But I figure that this convention must have come from somewhere, and maybe at some point there were a perfectly valid and good reason for it. So my question is this: What good reason is there (if any) to have a RETURN; statement just prior to the final END statement in a stored proc that does not return a value? Here is an example:

CREATE PROC fx
AS
BEGIN
RETURN; -- Why is this here just before the END?
END
go