Are the posted questions getting worse?

Question

Are the posted questions getting worse?

June 2, 2023 at 5:40 am

This was removed by the editor as SPAM
June 6, 2023 at 12:20 am

This was removed by the editor as SPAM

Viewing 15 posts - 66,391 through 66,405 (of 66,708 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

David Burrows SSC Guru Points: 65142 More actions · Answer 1

below86 wrote:

If you ever had to deal with Assembler then COBOL would look like the futuristic flying car. When I was in college they taught us both Assembler and COBOL. I had to use both early in my career. I even had to convert an Assembler program to COBOL because there wasn't many of us that knew it. Now Assembler is a dinosaur, 1947 I believe. I have great empathy for anyone who would have to deal with that language now. How about some BASIC code? Who remembers that? But COBOL again looks futuristic compared to BASIC. IMHO

When I started with assembler I did not have fancy compilers like MASM but coded in Hex.

I too have programmed in several flavours of BASIC and one of my last projects before I left that particular company was to convert a BASIC program with over 20 overlays to .NET, not something I would like to repeat.

Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon.

Jonathan AC Roberts SSCoach Points: 18346 More actions · Answer 2

Dennis Jensen wrote:

Jonathan AC Roberts wrote:
As C compiles into an Assembly File it can't be faster than Assembler, at best the same.
Assembly instructions are the instructions on the CPU.
Johnathan that was not my claim, that was a claim by someone much more knowledgeable than I and they had facts to back up their claim. I would share the article with you but that would require me stumbling across it once more. I had the same initial opinion that you have, but facts are facts.
Further let me ask you if all languages are compiled into Assembly and thus as you say the same. Why then if you have a need for speed you should use Assembler or C to code that in?

Dennis Jensen wrote:

Jonathan AC Roberts wrote:
As C compiles into an Assembly File it can't be faster than Assembler, at best the same.
Assembly instructions are the instructions on the CPU.
Johnathan that was not my claim, that was a claim by someone much more knowledgeable than I and they had facts to back up their claim. I would share the article with you but that would require me stumbling across it once more. I had the same initial opinion that you have, but facts are facts.
Further let me ask you if all languages are compiled into Assembly and thus as you say the same. Why then if you have a need for speed you should use Assembler or C to code that in?

Not all languages are compiled into assembly, some languages are "interpreted" that means each line of code is read by an interpreter at runtime and then converted to assembler/machine-code then the instructions are sent to the CPU. This is obviously a lot slower than compiled languages.

Assembler is basically machine code but is just about humanly readable. For example, for x86 assembly mov $1, %rax is the instruction to move the value of 1 into the RAX register, in machine code it would be written as 48 C7 C0 01 00 00 00 there is a 1 to 1 mapping of assembly to machine code. If you were to write something complicated in assembler it would be virtually unmaintainable. If you were to write it in machine code, well only a computer with the right chip and maybe Rain Man could understand it.

All .NET languages compile code into a Common Intermediate Language (CIL) aka Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) which is then converted to machine code at runtime with just-in-time (JIT) compilation.

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 3

And you now have COBOL in the .NET world, so it is evolving.

Michael L John One Orange Chip Points: 27054 More actions · Answer 4

Lynn Pettis wrote:

And you now have COBOL in the .NET world, so it is evolving.

The first time I saw that, I kind of fell out of my chair. I think it may fall into "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 5

Michael L John wrote:

Lynn Pettis wrote:
And you now have COBOL in the .NET world, so it is evolving.
The first time I saw that, I kind of fell out of my chair. I think it may fall into "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

Doesn't mean you shouldn't either.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736150 More actions · Answer 6

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 736150

June 5, 2023 at 3:34 pm

#4204881

I think you're both saying "it depends"

Michael L John One Orange Chip Points: 27054 More actions · Answer 7

Well, here is a new one.

While reviewing design standards with a set of contract developers we pointed out that any object needs to be qualified with the schema of the object. The exact sentence in the documentation is:

When creating a database object, or referring to an object in code, the object name needs to be qualified with the schema in two-part naming.

They submitted about 100 scripts for review.

The create tables scripts are all like this:

CREATE TABLE schema_TableA ( ...

CREATE TABLE schema_TableX ( ...

I guess we need to clarify the documentation.

Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004310 More actions · Answer 8

Michael L John wrote:

Well, here is a new one.
While reviewing design standards with a set of contract developers we pointed out that any object needs to be qualified with the schema of the object. The exact sentence in the documentation is:
When creating a database object, or referring to an object in code, the object name needs to be qualified with the schema in two-part naming.
They submitted about 100 scripts for review.
The create tables scripts are all like this:
CREATE TABLE schema_TableA ( ...
CREATE TABLE schema_TableX ( ...
I guess we need to clarify the documentation.

I'm thinking that you need to be more clear on the job description that you use to hire people... a LOT more clear. For more than just the most obvious reason, this is some scary stuff you just posted. 😀

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Michael L John One Orange Chip Points: 27054 More actions · Answer 9

Jeff Moden wrote:

I'm thinking that you need to be more clear on the job description that you use to hire people... a LOT more clear. For more than just the most obvious reason, this is some scary stuff you just posted. 😀

Hire? These are all contractors. We send out a "we need this done" request and they give is people.

Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/

jonathan.crawford SSCertifiable Points: 6612 More actions · Answer 10

Monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please follow Best Practices For Posting On Forums to receive quicker and higher quality responses

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004310 More actions · Answer 11

Michael L John wrote:

Jeff Moden wrote:
I'm thinking that you need to be more clear on the job description that you use to hire people... a LOT more clear. For more than just the most obvious reason, this is some scary stuff you just posted. 😀
Hire? These are all contractors. We send out a "we need this done" request and they give is people.

Three words.... BWAAA-HAAA-HAAA!

Michael L John wrote:

I guess we need to clarify the documentation.

Apparently so! 😀 Lordy!

I'm not telling you anything new but I have to say it out loud for others. You need to do code reviews early and often, even if the code is all in-house.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Dennis Jensen SSChasing Mays Points: 604 More actions · Answer 12

May experience with overseas contractors has been anything but stellar, most of them are extremely sub-par but yeah they are cheap to hire and of course you get exactly what you are not paying for and that is quality 99 times out of 100. So yeah, I am talking poor-quality at best and it simply goes downhill from there unless you are extremely lucky.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736150 More actions · Answer 13

I find hiring anyone is very hit and miss. Whether in tech, or on the ranch.