Comments for Jay R. Wren - lazy dawg evarlast

Comment on CodeMash 2012 Changed Me by Leon

Leon — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:52:30 +0000

Jay you are amazing! Great hanging, chatting and experiencing life with you and I can’t wait to do it again soon. Be well, brother!

Leon

Comment on OSX /private/var/vm disk usage by Ali

Ali — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:53:39 +0000

Thanks for this! You just dropped my /private/var/vm folder’s size down from 58gb to 8gb.

Comment on Build MVVM Applications in F#… or C# by Chris Marinos

Chris Marinos — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:10:46 +0000

BTW, F# is adding support for auto-properties in F# 3.0. See:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/fsharpteam/archive/2011/09/14/f-3-0-developer-preview-now-available.aspx

and

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd483467(v=VS.110).aspx

For more info

-Chris

Comment on Michigan Loco Ubuntu Global Bug Jam 11.09 for 11.10 is Over by jrwren

jrwren — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:56:58 +0000

SQL Express won’t run under Linux, but you can talk to a Windows Server running any versions of SQL Server (including express).

If you have never used Linux, it can be a steep learning curve. I suggest getting hello world asp.net working, and adding database connectivity with a simple select to your hello world. Once you have done that you should be much more comfortable in the next steps.

Comment on Michigan Loco Ubuntu Global Bug Jam 11.09 for 11.10 is Over by Dr Ebby Sargunar

Dr Ebby Sargunar — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:23:51 +0000

I am using Windows with ASP.NET 3.5. I want to change to a suitable version of Linux with MYSQL/SQL Express database and a platform to develop Web-Applications. What do you suggest

Comment on CodeRush test runner for NUnit25 without NUnit installed. by noah

noah — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:10:35 +0000

thanks a lot man, this saved me who knows how long! fyi the spacing on your blog looks odd on my machine, especially this contact-me form (the form fields are not aligned).

Comment on Are Access Modifiers Antiquated? by Michael Letterle

Michael Letterle — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:24:26 +0000

I would think it’s likely that if members that are “marked” private are not shown in Intellisense by default, 99% of developers would never know the difference anyway.

Comment on Are Access Modifiers Antiquated? by Jon Skeet

Jon Skeet — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:11:01 +0000

I’m afraid I still disagree – I’d rather use a compiler than conventions. Simple things are simple – a small visible API which only shows you things you *should* do, and *bad* things (taking dependencies on implementation details) are hard but feasible via reflection. I think the hardness reflects the extent to which I think such things should be strongly discouraged.

Comment on Are Access Modifiers Antiquated? by jrwren

jrwren — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:06:51 +0000

@jon

I agree with all of your points, but my agreements are orthogonal to my original points.

The crux of my point is that these .NET and C# idioms needs to change.

In python, yes, callers of “privates” know that they are messing with something that they shouldn’t by naming convention. Its far easier than using reflection.

The key is that the value added by this ease is greater than the value added by making it difficult using the private keyword. For evidence, see python and ruby.

By following this convention you can still change your implementation details without breaking callers. If they have deliberately used something with private naming convention, that is still their own fault. You can still take responsibility for keeping your own public API (and ABI) stable.

It is a matter of, “Simple things should be simple. Hard things should be possible”

If it isn’t clear yet, I am not advocating for everything public and that is all. I’m advocating for everything public with a convention (or maybe even interface) based approach to defining the public API. The private API should still be there for all the uses the original developer never considered. The consuming developer knows that “there be dragons.”

Comment on Are Access Modifiers Antiquated? by Jon Skeet

Jon Skeet — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:07:52 +0000

(As also posted to http://simoncropp.posterous.com/make-everything-public)

I disagree strongly.

Yes, callers can circumvent access control via reflection – but then they’re *knowingly* messing with something that they obviously shouldn’t.

I should be able to change my implementation details without breaking callers. If they’ve deliberately messed around with reflection, that’s their own fault – but I take responsibility for keeping my public API stable. This isn’t a matter of what’s advanced and what’s not – it’s a matter of what’s meant to be relied on and what isn’t.