The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology
Welcome to TDWTF Forums Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Odd definition of "Bottom"

Last post 03-07-2013 6:44 PM by MiffTheFox. 34 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (35 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 03-05-2013 9:42 AM

    Odd definition of "Bottom"

    I'm doing some cleanup and refactoring on a bit of Silverlight code and I just encountered this:

    <Grid>
       <Grid.ColumnDefinitions>
          <ColumnDefinition x:Name="leftColumn" />
          <ColumnDefinition x:Name="rightColumn" />
          <ColumnDefinition x:Name="bottomColumn" />
       </Grid.ColumnDefinitions>
    </Grid>

    Left column, right column....and bottom column
    This is a signature. It's not a good one, but it's still a signature.


  • Mon, February 30 2010 2:64 PM

    • Fabulous Darth Vader
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined a long, long time ago
    • In a Glittery galaxy far, far away
    • Posts π x 10-14


    I have cornified this post, pray I don't cornify it further.






  • Filed under:
  • 03-05-2013 9:46 AM In reply to

    • toon
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 01-07-2012
    • The Netherlands
    • Posts 378

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Silverlight bashing in 3, 2, aaaaand...
  • 03-05-2013 9:53 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Well, it's better than assColumn.
    I denounce myself for this post
  • 03-05-2013 9:56 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    clbuttic!

  • 03-05-2013 10:05 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    boomzilla:
    Well, it's better than assColumn.
    Cassidy:
    clbuttic!
    I think they meant to write 'colon' instead of 'column'. Easy mistake.
    In Soviet Russia, Football watches you!
  • 03-05-2013 10:13 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Shoreline:
    colon
     

    You stole my joke, you assColown.


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

    Filed under: , ,
  • 03-05-2013 10:20 AM In reply to

    • toon
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 01-07-2012
    • The Netherlands
    • Posts 378

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    boomzilla:
    Well, it's better than assColumn.
    Stop bashing those poor donkeys.
  • 03-05-2013 10:21 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    So he says, "Column? Damn near killed 'em!"
    Signatures are stupid.
  • 03-05-2013 10:57 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

     And then there's the legal definition of "buttocks", from a Palm Beach decency statute:

    Buttocks shall be defined as: The area at the rear of the human body (sometimes referred to as the gluteus maximus) which lies between two (2) imaginary straight lines running parallel to the ground when a person is standing, the first or top such line being one-half (½) inch below the top of the vertical cleavage of the nates (i.e., the prominence formed by the muscles running from the back of the hip to the back of the leg) and the second or bottom such line being one-half (½) inch above the lowest point of the curvature of the fleshy protuberance (sometimes referred to as the gluteal fold), and between two (2) imaginary straight lines, one (1) on each side of the body (the "outside lines"), which outside lines are perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and which perpendicular outside lines pass through the outermost point(s) at which each natis meets the outer side of each leg. Notwithstanding the above, buttocks shall not include the leg, the hamstring muscle below the gluteal fold, the tensor fasciae latea muscle or any of the above-described portion of the human body that is between either (i) the left inside perpendicular line and the left outside perpendicular line or (ii) the right inside perpendicular line and the right outside perpendicular line. For the purpose of the previous sentence the left inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the left side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one-third (1/3) of the distances from the anus to the left outside line, and the right inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the right side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one-third (1/3) of the distance from the anus to the right outside line.

    They apparently thought it was important to distinguish it from the elbow.

  • 03-05-2013 11:19 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    toon:
    Silverlight bashing in 3, 2, aaaaand...

    Silverlight may be TRWTF, but XAML seems pretty decent, I just haven't had a need to learn it yet. (Winforms is what we use at work, and it's enough for a 30-minute personal app I'll use like twice a month.)


    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 03-05-2013 12:54 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    ...people are still using Silverlight?
  • 03-05-2013 1:30 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Mason Wheeler:
    ...people are still using Silverlight?

    It's a "legacy" system now. We're working on a new HTML5/JavaScript version, but I keep having to put out fires in the old one. It seems every time Microsoft releases a batch of Windows Updates something in our Silverlight app quits working and I have to do damage control.

    Three years ago Silverlight was the "future of the Internet." Today it's dead and rotting. Microsoft really screwed us over on it.

    This is a signature. It's not a good one, but it's still a signature.


  • Mon, February 30 2010 2:64 PM

    • Fabulous Darth Vader
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined a long, long time ago
    • In a Glittery galaxy far, far away
    • Posts π x 10-14


    I have cornified this post, pray I don't cornify it further.






  • Filed under:
  • 03-05-2013 1:38 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    mott555:
    Three years ago Silverlight was the "future of the Internet." Today it's dead and rotting. Microsoft really screwed us over on it.
     

    To be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever started doing anything with it.  When it first came out, Flash was a well-established incumbent, and people were already starting to talk about HTML5 and the things it would be able to do.  It was obvious from day 1 that Silverlight would never grow and flourish in that environment...

     

  • 03-05-2013 1:59 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Mason Wheeler:

    mott555:
    Three years ago Silverlight was the "future of the Internet." Today it's dead and rotting. Microsoft really screwed us over on it.
     

    To be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever started doing anything with it.  When it first came out, Flash was a well-established incumbent, and people were already starting to talk about HTML5 and the things it would be able to do.  It was obvious from day 1 that Silverlight would never grow and flourish in that environment...

     

    I called BS on Silverlight and WPF from day one.
  • 03-05-2013 3:52 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    bridget99:
    Mason Wheeler:

    mott555:
    Three years ago Silverlight was the "future of the Internet." Today it's dead and rotting. Microsoft really screwed us over on it.
     

    To be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever started doing anything with it.  When it first came out, Flash was a well-established incumbent, and people were already starting to talk about HTML5 and the things it would be able to do.  It was obvious from day 1 that Silverlight would never grow and flourish in that environment...

    I called BS on Silverlight and WPF from day one.
    Today it is simply a XAML WIndows Store App.  Same difference.

     They also now have the portable class libraries which let you encapsulate a lot of code for Silverlight, Desktop, Windows Store App, and Windows Forms and use the same dll across all platforms.

    All of them are a very powerful way to do business graphics and a really clean and responsive GUI as well as promote code poratability and reusability.  As for the Silverlight runtime itself... yeah, Microsoft short changed the teams.  You could tell early on they were on a short budget.  IF they could have done more bug fixing and control it would have been a much better platform.  It still is fairly good for LOB apps, as long as you don't plan on running on mobile without dveloping a mobile app.

  • 03-05-2013 7:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Netflix thought it had better DRM then Flash. That's the only place I see silverlight in use anymore.

    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 03-05-2013 8:37 PM In reply to

    • Ben L.
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 12-22-2010
    • Inventor of the 186-hour work week
    • Posts 3,607

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Microsoft Idea Man:
    Let's invent a product that has the same purpose as another pre-existing product, but make it accessible to less people!
  • Morbs is the smartest!
  • 03-05-2013 8:58 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Microsoft came up with Git? Huh.

    Edit: on the off-chance you're talking about Silverlight, hey at least it got Adobe to pull their heads out of their asses and finally ditch that ActionScript 2.0 garbage and move on to something half-decent. Competition is good.

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 03-05-2013 9:58 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    blakeyrat:

    Edit: on the off-chance you're talking about Silverlight, hey at least it got Adobe to pull their heads out of their asses and finally ditch that ActionScript 2.0 garbage and move on to something half-decent. Competition is good.

    Maybe someday Adobe will pull their head out of their ass and release Flash as animation software again rather then an IDE for rich web applications... haha just kidding Photoshop and After Effects are the only things keeping them in business.


    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 03-05-2013 11:28 PM In reply to

    • Ben L.
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 12-22-2010
    • Inventor of the 186-hour work week
    • Posts 3,607

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

  • Morbs is the smartest!
  • 03-06-2013 1:26 AM In reply to

    • ekolis
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 01-09-2008
    • Cincinnati, OH, USA
    • Posts 600

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    MiffTheFox:
    Maybe someday Adobe will pull their head out of their ass and release Flash as animation software again rather then an IDE for rich web applications... haha just kidding Photoshop and After Effects are the only things keeping them in business.
    How can they make money on any of it when the vast majority of users are 14 year old internet trolls who couldn't possibly afford to license it?
    I'm Spark Mandrill, and I'll... hey... can I... what, it BOUNCES?... 'kay, I'm splodin' now.
  • 03-06-2013 2:51 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    ekolis:
    MiffTheFox:
    Maybe someday Adobe will pull their head out of their ass and release Flash as animation software again rather then an IDE for rich web applications... haha just kidding Photoshop and After Effects are the only things keeping them in business.
    How can they make money on any of it when the vast majority of users are 14 year old internet trolls who couldn't possibly afford to license it?
    Pretty much by doing that. If they grew up and went into graphics (Which they have a stronger interest via a pirated copy of photoshop), they'll be too tied down to Photoshop and won't want to work with anything else. Probably makes a sizable dent in their userbase, and also explains why competitors look a lot like photoshop.

    Ever see a Linux/Mac devout who hasn't touched Windows in years forced to work in a Windows environment? It's freakin' hilarious.

  • 03-06-2013 1:11 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    blakeyrat:
    Microsoft came up with Git? Huh.

    Edit: on the off-chance you're talking about Silverlight, hey at least it got Adobe to pull their heads out of their asses and finally ditch that ActionScript 2.0 garbage and move on to something half-decent. Competition is good.

    That's funny. I think of Git as "source control for people who really don't want help from other programmers."
  • 03-06-2013 1:12 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    The Bytemaster:
    bridget99:
    Mason Wheeler:

    mott555:
    Three years ago Silverlight was the "future of the Internet." Today it's dead and rotting. Microsoft really screwed us over on it.
     

    To be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever started doing anything with it.  When it first came out, Flash was a well-established incumbent, and people were already starting to talk about HTML5 and the things it would be able to do.  It was obvious from day 1 that Silverlight would never grow and flourish in that environment...

    I called BS on Silverlight and WPF from day one.
    Today it is simply a XAML WIndows Store App.  Same difference.

     They also now have the portable class libraries which let you encapsulate a lot of code for Silverlight, Desktop, Windows Store App, and Windows Forms and use the same dll across all platforms.

    All of them are a very powerful way to do business graphics and a really clean and responsive GUI as well as promote code poratability and reusability.  As for the Silverlight runtime itself... yeah, Microsoft short changed the teams.  You could tell early on they were on a short budget.  IF they could have done more bug fixing and control it would have been a much better platform.  It still is fairly good for LOB apps, as long as you don't plan on running on mobile without dveloping a mobile app.

    Ouch. I won't be using that then, either. I'm no longer accepting new markup languages at this time.
  • 03-06-2013 2:59 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    I thought that WPF was still used and is the new standard for thick Windows forms apps, but Silverlight (i.e. WPF on the web) has been superceded by HTML5 and that crowd.  Did that change?
    The Daily WTF Forums. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
  • 03-06-2013 4:46 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    ekolis:
    How can they make money on any of it when the vast majority of users are 14 year old internet trolls who couldn't possibly afford to license it?

    Don't forget every company that even touches graphic design ever.


    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 03-07-2013 2:13 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    ObiWayneKenobi:
    I thought that WPF was still used and is the new standard for thick Windows forms apps, but Silverlight (i.e. WPF on the web) has been superceded by HTML5 and that crowd.  Did that change?
     

    I would not say "superseded".  That was a bad rumor started that, unfortunately for Silverlight developers, gained a lot of traction and press, and was false.

    The current version of Silverlight (5.1) has full support for 3D compatible with the XNA framework, supports running as a "desktop" app outside of a browser, 64-bit support, full screen and multiple monitor support, vector printing, and really supports the majority of the .Net framework that you would want to use inside a sandboxed application.  At this point there is not a major reason to release a new version until the next version of .Net comes out.  They keep enhancing Silverlight not on the runtime side, but on the tools / compiler side allowing more functionality there.  The latest updates for VS 2012 includes support for the async commands in Silverlight by handling it all compiler side.

    What really happened is Windows 8 and trying to cater to the non-windows people.  Windows store development supports essentially three programming models.  C, XAML/.Net, and HTML5.  When Microsoft first started talking about Windows 8, the really emphasized HTML 5 support and deemphasized Silverlight.  That created the rumors.  The other was the strong anti-Silverlight mentality from people that saw it as a movie player (which 1.0 basically was) and was not needed with HTML 5.

     While you can make full apps in any of them, you can not extend the environment using HTML5 based APIs, so you have to use one of the other two. Because they force you to use asynchronous methods instead of synchronous methods, the XAML APIs for Windows 8 are actually more like Silverlight than WPF.  In fact, the recommendations are that it is easy to port your Silverlight app over, but WPF apps, unless you designed it with async in mind, you are probably going to need to do a lot more work.

    And, everyone forgets that Silverlight is the way to utilize your .NET code on Mac OS. 

    Really, though, HTML 5 and Silverlight are really for two different purposes.  If you are trying to do a lot of client-side processing, HTML 5 is just not the way to go, even if it is more portable, no matter how fast they get the JavaScript engines.  If you are trying to make something that is very accessible to the most amount of devices, than HTML 5 is the best choice.  If it is something that would be better as an app on the device rather than a site, than pick Silverlight for ease of deployment, web based updating, etc.  For LOB apps, Silverlight might also make more sense as you do not have to deal with the differences in different browsers - it will work and render the same in any browser, and does not have that odd sluggish feeling you often get with flash based apps. 

    As usual, pick the tools that are the best for the task at hand.

     

  • 03-07-2013 2:19 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    bridget99:
    Ouch. I won't be using that then, either. I'm no longer accepting new markup languages at this time.
    You can use HTML 5 and JavaScript for Windows Store Apps as well, that is another one of the 3 API sets as they refer to them (the third is C based).

    And, really, XAML is a way to initialize objects using XML.  It works really well for describing user interfaces... at least in concept.  Complex forms can get, well, complex.  Then again, if your screen is that complex, you should probably be breaking it into smaller components anyway.  Definitely a learning curve, but it is easier to learn if you understand other web development tools, such as ASP.NET, etc than trying to come at it with a traditional Windows based application background/mentality.

    Though I don't blame you -- too many markup languages.

  • 03-07-2013 3:15 AM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    The Bytemaster:
    The current version of Silverlight (5.1) has full support for 3D compatible with the XNA framework,
    WebGL.
    supports running as a "desktop" app outside of a browser
    Chrome App Shortcuts.
    64-bit support
    So do Webkit and Gecko.
    full screen
    requestFullScreen
    and multiple monitor support,
    Ah, hmm there's no direct HTML5 suite equivalent to that. However, seeing as I've seen absolutely zero applications in the wild with real multiple monitor support that weren't dedicated to multiple monitors, meh.
    vector printing,
    Hmm something useful. I'm sure Google will add it eventaully.
    and really supports the majority of the .Net framework that you would want to use inside a sandboxed application. 
    Yeah, .NET framework is really nice. Probably makes it the main reason to use Silverlight vs HTML5 is getting to program in a language with generics, inheritance, and strong typing. (99% of PHP language complaints also apply to Javascript btw.)

    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 03-07-2013 3:31 AM In reply to

    • toon
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 01-07-2012
    • The Netherlands
    • Posts 378

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    MiffTheFox:
    vector printing,
    Hmm something useful. I'm sure Google will add it eventaully.
    SVG
  • 03-07-2013 2:20 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    toon:
    MiffTheFox:
    vector printing,
    Hmm something useful. I'm sure Google will add it eventaully.
    SVG
     Oh sure... write an entirely different process from the one you use for your interface, rebuilding all text/fonts, etc in their new position, and then do this all in yet another markup language.

    Seems like a much better solution.

  • 03-07-2013 4:13 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    Wait if we're just printing the existing interface, then HTML is vector already.


    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

  • 03-07-2013 4:19 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    The Bytemaster:

    toon:
    MiffTheFox:
    vector printing,
    Hmm something useful. I'm sure Google will add it eventaully.
    SVG
     Oh sure... write an entirely different process from the one you use for your interface, rebuilding all text/fonts, etc in their new position, and then do this all in yet another markup language.

    Seems like a much better solution.

    Not to mention SVG has bloat above and beyond an image format. I actually wrote a (small) game embedded in an SVG; but it had a scoreboard, interactive pieces, etc. It's a good thing PDFs aren't encumbered by needless features like that!

    Signatures are stupid.
  • 03-07-2013 4:28 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    MiffTheFox:
    Wait if we're just printing the existing interface, then HTML is vector already.
    OR! Just print on a dot matrix! So the screen resolution is actually HIGHER than the printer resolution and then the vector doesn't matter!! I WIN ALL
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 03-07-2013 6:44 PM In reply to

    Re: Odd definition of "Bottom"

    blakeyrat:
    OR! Just print on a dot matrix! So the screen resolution is actually HIGHER than the printer resolution and then the vector doesn't matter!! I WIN ALL

    Why the hell not? Modern consumer printers are just really high dpi displays. All we need is to improve bitmap transfer speed over the wire, which is entirely a driver issue.

    I mean, it's the solution Apple and Google took to high dpi LCDs, to the point where the Android SDK has tools that take a svg and spit out the pngs that Android wants. Of course let's use 1024x1024 PNG icons in OSX. I mean, they're so tiny compared to an equivalent SVG or DPS and it's not like Quartz is vector internally (it is).

    Bonus WTF: Chrome has no clue that equivilant is a misspelling of equivalent, even though it's only two letters off and both of them are vowels. Probably using a language-agnostic algorithm instead of one optimized for English.


    Information technology not available until further notice. The political trolls won. Wake me up when the discussion is more interesting then YouTube comments.

Page 1 of 1 (35 items)
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems