Stack Exchange
log in

Adriano Repetti

 Discussion on question by bitmaker: S…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Sep 18, 2020 15:34
Ask him to work Sunday.
 

 Discussion on question by PrintlnPara…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Jul 29, 2020 06:28
Don't make a fuss out of it. You'll learn and you'll be soon as productive as before. I just made the same transition and I feel your pain. Think about it as a new car to drive.
 

 Discussion on question by Gilad M: Na…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Adriano Repetti
Feb 25, 2020 20:27
20 portals (even in the worst case scenario) give you a manageable name (and you may alternate digits and numbers to drop the separator, something like: /1/2/3/1 is A2C1.
Adriano Repetti
Feb 25, 2020 20:27
@GiladM did you consider to simply use the numbered path from the original universe? / is the origin, /1 is the 1st duplicate, /2 the 2nd, and so on. If Someone opens a portal in the 2nd duplicate then it will be /2/1. Like...well... folders in your file system. In this way the uniqueness is given by the full path and each alt universe does not need to know how many other universes are out there (just its own origin). You may even give a (pseudo!) scientific explanation (like...I don't know...each number in the path is the count of quantum spins in the universe lattice...
 

 Discussion on answer by motosubatsu: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Dec 10, 2019 17:22
Ethically wrong? I fail to see anything unethical in boss' part. You ask for PTO then they might be denied. There might even be a good reason, as far as we know.
Adriano Repetti
Dec 10, 2019 17:22
@undefined you're right that the boss can't fire OP without proof. That said, OP did everything wrong!
 

 Discussion on answer by apsillers: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
Adriano Repetti
Nov 27, 2019 11:42
Whoops, re-reading now I see you're right. I wrote it really poorly
Adriano Repetti
Nov 27, 2019 11:42
@mars that was an answers for msalt. Of course they can (must!) release the kernel but they can't release 3rd parties closed source code (which is what my comment is about, it's allowed to mix them)
 

 Discussion on question by Brydon Gibs…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Nov 19, 2019 12:11
Then you might assume it's like that. I'm not saying I consider this a good test...just that it might be completed.
Adriano Repetti
Nov 19, 2019 12:11
@brydongibson while the test is somehow questionable, from the code you posted I do not see any sign that gets() is the one defined in stdio.h and without any #include you may simply assume it does what it seems to do and correctly included+implemented when compiling the test.
 

 Discussion on question by derik: If s…

Imported from a comment discussion on opensource.stackexchange...
Adriano Repetti
Aug 7, 2019 15:43
@Derik we for sure can't start a debate about their ethic but the guy in that article CLEARLY violated the law. The restore disc is LEGALLY linked to a specific computer and it cannot be used with another one. If you do not like it then...you do not use MS Windows and you can try an Open Source alternative. If you sell those discs (which are not even licensed to YOU) then you're selling: 1) something you do not own 2) something that can't be sold 3) you're making money out of it 4) refurbishers pays you instead of MS 5) end users have a pirated copy. It's like selling your friend's car...
 

 Discussion on question by Code Projec…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Mar 15, 2019 12:07
@gregory I agree, I'm assuming no reasonable manager may expect to have a bug fixed "today" because, by definition, it may take days even to consistently reproduce it, let alone to fix it. I may be wrong on this but I read it as "start fixing now" (unless OP alway finds these critical bugs around 16:55 which is unlikely)
Adriano Repetti
Mar 15, 2019 12:07
@gregory how do you define an employee that ignores orders from his manager? Let me stress a point: the dev does not need to work overtime but he MUST start immediately if his manager asked so.
Adriano Repetti
Mar 15, 2019 12:07
@alexander without blaming anyone for the bug itself, imagine a critical bug preventing users to use the app. Let's say you will need 3 working days to fix it (9-5, no overtime). This will cost the company, for example, 10$×3 (because of missed revenue). Your senior dev ignores your orders and does not start to work on it today but tomorrow. Who will pay those extra 10$? Now should be obvious that it's not a dev call to decide and it doesn't even matter who caused the bug (the dev). If it was your own money then the dev would be outside the door even before OP finished typing his question.
Adriano Repetti
Mar 15, 2019 12:07
@gregory of course, but the vast majority are upvoting answers where the only point is to blame OP management without even considering how unprofessional his senior dev is behaving. It's popular but it doesn't make it sensible
Adriano Repetti
Mar 15, 2019 12:07
@codeproject asking this question here is like asking directly to your senior dev...do you expect anything else than "management sucks" answers? Fortunately you already know what you have to do in this case, you have a serious issue (both technical and professional) with this employee. Let's have a serious talk with him...
 

 Discussion on answer by Ethan The Bra…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Feb 10, 2019 00:24
I really don't think so.
 

 Discussion on question by Sam Pearson…

Imported from a comment discussion on codereview.stackexchange...
Adriano Repetti
Nov 9, 2018 12:18
Of course it's slightly more complex because you may need to concatenate mulitple calls but its should be trivial. Given that you need 8 characters and time spent to generate 256 random bytes is negligible...you may even optimize your code for the best case (just use StringBuilder to store chars and put above code in a while (stringBuffer.length < length) (change Take() to actually take only required number of characters...)
Adriano Repetti
Nov 9, 2018 12:18
[cont] that you may live without writing a goto for most of your career (with few more chances for its little brother goto case). In this case, if performance are not a MEASURED issue (read: you're generating 1,000,000 passwords) then I'd definitely pick the most readable version. It might even be to use GetBytes() to generate a huge buffer and filter out what you do not want: rng.GetBytes(buffer); string password = new String(buffer.Cast<char>().Where(Char.IsLetterOrDigit).Take(‌​length).ToArray())‌​;.
Adriano Repetti
Nov 9, 2018 12:18
@SamPearson not to mention that if you consistently use goto you're also (probably) preventing some optimizations compiler might do. Depending where in the compiler pipeline the optimization is applied (near the frontend where goto and if/else differ, or near the backend where they already generated the exact same code) a compiler is probably not optimizing goto (because it's uncommon to be worth of the time and when you're using it then you know what you're doing). I'm not saying that there are not use-cases (there are) but hey're so rare that [cont]
 

 Discussion on question by ESR: How ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Sep 12, 2018 15:50
Also, if you stick to community practices then there is a good chance to re-use existing tools to enforce those rules (think about fxcop, eslint & friends). With an even more important benefit: someone already tried them in the real world and advantages already proved to overcome their disadvantages (it's always a trade-off, after all)
Adriano Repetti
Sep 12, 2018 15:50
@EdmundReed that's absolutely reasonable, if there isn't any more compelling reason then to stick to established and well-known conventions is a fairly good approach. Most obvious benefit is that you can pick any random programmer without any experience on your code base and it'll know how it works/it's organized, plus no wasted time to decide and to document these decisions.
Adriano Repetti
Sep 12, 2018 15:50
@EdmundReed DonFusili's previous comment is pretty to the point here! Note that "it will make things much more complicate without any visible benefit" might be a good reason to question a decision (but again...don't question everything...for your own, your team and your lead's sake)
Adriano Repetti
Sep 12, 2018 15:50
Don't fight a holy war, discuss about it but don't waste energy or time on this, if code base is such bad then I'm sure there are better topics to fight for. On the other hand you may have evidence (what went wrong because of this in the past?), in this case present it and be ready to discuss alternatives (but, again, carefully pick your battles). If you do not back up your assertions with data then they'll always be ignored. Everything else equal, to do it again in the same way it was is a very strong point in his favor.
Adriano Repetti
Sep 12, 2018 15:50
@EdmundReed let me explain better: you (or your team or your lead) must decide how to organize source code (for example). It's not yes/no but A/B. Which one is better? Sometimes - honestly - it does not matter (think about all those holy wars about code formatting). When it matters then you have to make an informed decision but IT IS a decision:should you organize code/files in a higly hierarchical structure? Why yes? Why no? Pros and cons of each one? If you can't say WHY his decision is bad (which are the cons?!) then you're just rejecting a gut decision with another gut decision...
Adriano Repetti
Sep 12, 2018 15:50
If you don't have any evidence and concrete data to support your ideas then he will think you are making a whimsical suggestion. If you can justify your suggestions then you may also find arguments against the other one(s).
 

 Discussion on answer by mjulmer: Empl…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Jun 26, 2018 06:46
@glen it's about RULES. Some rules are undoubtedly obsolete, in some circumstances, but you don't break them before asking your boss. Especially after three months you signed a contract. If you had other needs or you did disagree then you had to discuss them before accepting the offer.
Adriano Repetti
Jun 26, 2018 06:46
@dank I agree (see my other comment) and I say this from my very own experience. I have been like that employee, I've not been fired and I kept ignoring those complaints. It took years to finally learn how bad it is but it's when you understand that a job is a collective sport and the team plays well when everyone plays together (and timetable is just ONE symptom).
 

 Discussion on question by Manager X: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Adriano Repetti
Jun 25, 2018 08:31
@ayrtonclark It's unprofessional (IMHO) because he signed a contract without flextime. He then decided to have flextime for himself and he didn't even consult his manager to ask if it's OK. He did put his manager in an embarrassing situation in front of the other employees (if it was agreed then manager might simply answer "it's part of his benefits/contract"). When confronted he replied with a funny excuse ("I can't get up in the morning") and shifted the blame (poor specs). All of these (and some more minor things) make me think the this employee is acting in an unprofessional way.
Adriano Repetti
Jun 25, 2018 08:31
(of course unless you can keep the concentration required to drive a truck for 12 hours without killing anyone and you're able to sell products, contact customers, prepare offers which may take down your company...in that case it's your own experience)
Adriano Repetti
Jun 25, 2018 08:31
@solarflare "... if a company has truck drivers that work 12 hours a day...sales people don't have as intellectually demanding a job as a developer..." sounds elitist, unfair and plain rude. I'd love to see you reword your sentence focusing on developers without comparing our merit to any other valuable profession. That said let me repeat that it's not about the policy (I agree that we may have flexible time) but how this specific employee dealt with an existing rule. If he disagreed (and he actually cares) then he had to discuss this matter before accepting the offer (or, at least, ask)
Adriano Repetti
Jun 25, 2018 08:31
@solarflare no, this is what happens when someone (the employee) is not professional. If the rules (fixed entry time and worked hours) are in-place he cannot decide to ignore them both, without asking (and if he was in bona fide he had to arrive late and leave late). When confronted he found excuses and shifted the blame. This is someone you don't want to employ (or to work with). This isn't a post about the rules but about an employee that doesn't know how to be a PART OF A TEAM.
Adriano Repetti
Jun 25, 2018 08:31
@joe I strongly agree with that but, in this case, not now. Not after he he blatantly ignored the rules and justified himself instead of apologizing. It's all about the message you communicate, as a manager, to everyone else.
Adriano Repetti
Jun 25, 2018 08:31
@joe would you change the rules FOR him? Do you want to give the impression to every single other employee that 1) he is that essential and 2) if you are important enough then you can break the rules to change it? You will soon deal with more and more "essential" employees breaking this or another rule (because well...everyone loves to sleep in the morning)
 

 Discussion between Ljdhameliya and Ad…

Imported from a comment discussion on codereview.stackexchange...
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:47
If not then I'd start with a simple implementation, it's something you can/should resolve elsewhere (introducing a memcache between ORM and database, for example) but there is really no need to make it more complex than needed
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:46
to save...well, again it depends on server load. If you log 10000 items per second then probably it's MUCH more efficient to save a bulk of changes.
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:36
hi t3!
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:35
Goal is to test logger code in unit testing, completely. If you have to deal with HTTP request then you can't (easily) test it in unit testing but in integration tests. They're slower and harder to write (but you still need them, of course, both to test the whole and to test your concrete IHttpRequestInspector implementation)
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:34
it's a step, yes.
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:25
hello!
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:25
Think, for example, 5 requests received within 10 ms from the same client. Something went wrong (and you can easily see it from timestamps). If however 5 requests are completed in 10 ms it may be a server load issue (and user repeated the request because she didn't get any response for, let' say, 10 seconds). A VERY naive log inspector may help you to quickly build some analytic data.
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:25
"Right" depends on your use-case but yes, in general, I pick the timestamp directly in the Log() method. It's not a problem if you do not have 10,000 requests per second and time spent in processing is negligible (otherwise you may want to have a slightly more accurate timestamp, possibly related to when request has been accepted and not when log effectively will be written).
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:25
Yes or...not. You can pass it as parameter or inject a service to resolve it. Default implementation may access directly System.Web.HttpContext.Current (for both User and Request) but you open your code to testing. For testing purposes you may mock that interface to provide test values you need and then all this code will be testable in unit testing! Of course you will need some integration tests (at least to test the whole implementation and the concrete classes) but they're small, fast and easy to write.
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:25
You may introduce a mem-cache to save batches but I'd add such complexity only if you have a MEASURED requirement. Also ORM and DBE you're using may already have in-place effective optimizations.
Adriano Repetti
Jan 25, 2018 10:25
Then you may create a simple most used, overload or extension method for that. To simplify caller to EventLogger.LogInfo(EventType.Update, "Update Listing", "Completed", listing.ID.ToString());
 

 Discussion between Adam Brown and Adr…

Imported from a comment discussion on codereview.stackexchange...
Adriano Repetti
Jan 12, 2018 22:03
you welcome! it has been a pleasure. Good night (not sure what's the time there)
Adriano Repetti
Jan 12, 2018 22:03
MAYBE. I think problem with double is much worse than this
Adriano Repetti
Jan 12, 2018 22:02
I think OP was somehow on the right way (I don't know if he tried to follow the same article I posted, it's quite popular and well-known) but I'd not diverge from a tested implementation without really knowing what I'm doing (and with a good refresh of the math tools I'll need to validate my algorithm...)
Adriano Repetti
Jan 12, 2018 22:00
it's a possibility. it's always a compromise between efficiency, speed and complexity
Adriano Repetti
Jan 12, 2018 22:00
exactly because these implications are not obvious (don't ask me to rememember martin-loz test...my math is da** rusty)