« first day (230 days earlier)      last day (1601 days later) » 

12:00 AM
The time is 2015-09-07T00:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
Certainty level 0.4
I think a big reason so many people find it confusing is that the workings of object context are so different from C++, Java, and C#, and yet all those languages and JavaScript use this as a keyword for a similar, but far from identical, purpose. All the Java programmers I know (including me) found it extremely weird in JavaScript until the point that the terminological similarity just has to be ignored finally sank in. — Pointy 54 secs ago
 
 
1 hour later…
1:12 AM
2015-09-07T01:12:00.453Z Quota has been reset. Was 8573 is now 9999
 
2:00 AM
The time is 2015-09-07T02:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
 
 
1 hour later…
3:01 AM
Certainty level 0.4
Using four stars is immediately a problem. Three Star Programmer is not a term of praise, and going for 4 stars — well, let's just say I'm not going to expend any time fixing your code, because where there are 4 stars, there are far too many opportunities for innocent mistakes with experienced programmers, let alone people needing to ask for help. You need to rethink your code so that you are not using as many levels of indirection. — Jonathan Leffler 1 min ago
 
3:32 AM
Certainty level 1.81
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it probably belongs on Programmers, but even then it may still not be a good fit without some serious editing. — Jim Garrison 38 secs ago
 
4:00 AM
The time is 2015-09-07T04:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
 
 
1 hour later…
5:12 AM
Certainty level 0.4
Thank you! It works fine and solves my problem easily. I could never image a solution like this before, are commercial programmers storing content to their exe files like this as well? Would be interesting. Only disadvantage is the size of the script after pasting the BaseString into it: Picture has ~500 KB, BaseString has ~1500 KB. But I can live with that ;-) — Hamstibamsti 1 min ago
 
6:00 AM
The time is 2015-09-07T06:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
 
6:24 AM
Certainty level 1.4
Check-out the other StackExchange websites, like, possibly, programmers.stackexchange.com. — SwiftArchitect 45 secs ago
 
6:41 AM
Certainty level 1.4
 
 
1 hour later…
8:00 AM
The time is 2015-09-07T08:00:00.004Z and @Duga is alive
 
8:11 AM
Certainty level 0.4
@Hamstibamsti Could you accept the answer please and yes I would image that there are some commercial programmers using similar techniques to store items within scripts. There many well be a other slightly shorter format that you could uses but I'm not aware of one in PowerShell. — Chard 27 secs ago
 
8:56 AM
Certainty level 0.4
This is not the right site for this. Maybe Programmers ? — Rohit Gupta 12 secs ago
 
9:21 AM
Certainty level 0.4
I do care. But I can tell you from long personal experience at SO that labelling something as "commercial" gets it immediate downvotes. (I find it stunning that some programmers, presumably who get paid to code, object to software that has to be paid for). Otherwise I would have no problem with your advice. — Ira Baxter 58 secs ago
 
9:35 AM
Certainty level 0.42000002
Very interesting paper! I just love it when there's actual scientific studies about things like this, instead of subjective opinions by random programmers. — Lundin 1 min ago
 
10:00 AM
The time is 2015-09-07T10:00:00.001Z and @Duga is alive
 
 
2 hours later…
12:00 PM
The time is 2015-09-07T12:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
 
12:38 PM
Certainty level 0.4
Thanks a lot, just added my final code to OP for future programmers. Good to see StackOverflow was kind to me tonight haha — Blake 1 min ago
 
 
1 hour later…
2:00 PM
The time is 2015-09-07T14:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
 
 
1 hour later…
3:08 PM
Certainty level 0.4
@Olaf: yes it doesn't write beyond. But there are implementations like Microsoft's _snprintf wich does not terminates the string with 0 if the buffer isn't big enough, and some programmers doen't know about it — Dave 32 secs ago
Certainty level 0.4
@πάνταῥεῖ: i added C++ tag since i was able to find such service for, uhh, ruby or python? But wasn't able to find one which accepted C++ build artifacts. As for 2nd comment - where do you suggest to ask? "Programmers" part of StackExchange? — RippeR 35 secs ago
Certainty level 0.4
@RippeR Programmers may be, but be aware to read their policies before asking. I'm not so sure if it's OK, to ask such there. — πάντα ῥεῖ 50 secs ago
 
4:00 PM
The time is 2015-09-07T16:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
Certainty level 0.4
@Marco13: It might yet come back, because of the meta effect. Anyway, while I agree that this is a trivial question, that does not make it invalid or useless. Sure, you know that the obvious answer is "use %" and so does any experienced programmer, but there must be millions of beginner Java programmers out there who don't (yet) know that. It's a valid and useful question that (based on a quick Google search) does not appear to have a good answer elsewhere on SO yet; accordingly, I've voted to reopen it. — Ilmari Karonen 43 secs ago
 
4:33 PM
Certainty level 0.4
Using the two-part convention, which binding was missing? Also note, that with the two-part convention, you would have bound every IExport twice. For the the first convention you should have excluded all IExports. I'd suggest you create a new question in regards on how to form the question. Maybe another SE platform like codereview or programmers would be better. Suggestion: Why not have a convention for all types ending in Service, and specifically bind all the rest? Furthermore, if there's more specific bindings they can be put into NinjectModules in the specific assemblies. — BatteryBackupUnit 31 secs ago
 
4:57 PM
Certainty level 1.7
Perhaps this is a better fit for programmers.stackexchange.com ? — col6y 55 secs ago
 
5:34 PM
Certainty level 0.48000002
What about moving this to programmers? It feels more design pattern that pure code. — user877329 48 secs ago
 
6:00 PM
The time is 2015-09-07T18:00:00.001Z and @Duga is alive
 
6:34 PM
Certainty level 1.41
IMHO (and that of others) your question is not answerable in the context of SO. EG the answer to Should a frontend developer really deal with routing and authentications? is philosophical and cannot be answered with a specific software example. The remainder of your questions are of a similar vein. As for other forums, I'd say the closest one that suits your question is programmers.stackexchange.comPeter M 1 min ago
 
6:48 PM
Certainty level 0.49
I did feel that some part I've added was unnecessary and it did cause confusion. Is the discussion of frontend vs backend for modern SPA really opinionated? Just that I'm thinking of rewording the question to be more concise, but if it's truly an opioniated topic, I want this question closed. Thank you very much btw, I might try on programmers SE. — Nelson Yeung 26 secs ago
Certainty level 0.44
@NelsonYeung I would recommend against posting this on Programmers. We would also close it as "primarily opinion-based" in its current form. — Ixrec 13 secs ago
 
7:11 PM
Certainty level 0.42
@PeterM this would be a very poor fit for Programmers - it would be quickly voted down and closed over there, see meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/a/6488/40980 Recommended reading: What goes on Programmers.SE? A guide for Stack Overflowgnat 20 secs ago
Certainty level 0.42
@col6y this question is a very poor fit for Programmers - it would be quickly voted down and closed over there, see meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/6483/… Recommended reading: What goes on Programmers.SE? A guide for Stack Overflowgnat 21 secs ago
Certainty level 1.4300001
@gnat I was going by programmers.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic which seemd to imply that this sort of question was OK. However I have never hung out on Programmers so I have no idea what is considered reasonable there. — Peter M 1 min ago
Certainty level 0.42
@SwiftArchitect this question is a poor fit for Programmers - it would be quickly voted down and closed over there, see meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/6483/… Recommended reading: What goes on Programmers.SE? A guide for Stack Overflowgnat 1 min ago
Certainty level 0.42
@RohitGupta this question is a very poor fit for Programmers - it would be quickly voted down and closed over there, see meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/6483/… Recommended reading: What goes on Programmers.SE? A guide for Stack Overflowgnat 1 min ago
Certainty level 0.42
@JimGarrison this question is an extremely poor fit for Programmers - it would be quickly voted down and closed over there, see meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/a/6488/40980 Recommended reading: What goes on Programmers.SE? A guide for Stack Overflowgnat 53 secs ago
Certainty level 0.42
 
7:38 PM
Certainty level 0.45000002
I already know all about this stuff. This question is intended as a FAQ, because I see so many well-intentioned programmers getting it all wrong. — Emile Cormier 21 secs ago
 
8:00 PM
The time is 2015-09-07T20:00:00Z and @Duga is alive
Certainty level 0.4
That's why I think programmers should always learn *nix first.. — texasbruce 1 min ago
 
8:30 PM
Certainty level 0.4
regarding the security of the mobile app using the api: programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/219028/…Derick Bailey 20 secs ago
 
 
1 hour later…
9:56 PM
Certainty level 0.43
@MarkDickinson As Kahan has shown, log1p and expm1 are also easy to emulate. Presumably the point of providing such functions in a library is to provide the fastest and most accurate implementations to programmers who are not particularly knowledgeable about numerical analysis. — njuffa 1 min ago
The time is 2015-09-07T22:00:00.004Z and @Duga is alive
 
10:53 PM
Certainty level 1.6
You can ask, just not that kind of question here. Read Rainer's first comment. This has nothing to do with Lisp, you'd get a similar reaction if it was Java, C#, C++, etc. [stackoverflow.se] is for specific and practical programming questions, even Programmers wouldn't be a good place. — Paulo Madeira 51 secs ago
 

« first day (230 days earlier)      last day (1601 days later) »