Archives
-
Talk on Windows Services in .NET
I will be in Huntsville, AL on Tuesday night to talk about writing Windows Services in .NET at the Hunstville User Group. If you are in the area, come on out.
-
What in the world is going on?
What is going on with learnasp.com?
-
High level info on File System Storage in Yukon
-
More on the "I am tired of being marketed to thought"
I read the responses to my post about I am tired of being marketed to when I got home on Friday night from Washington, DC.
-
I am tired of being marketed to...............
I saw where someone posted a mention of the MS article “A Guide to Building Enterprise Applications on the .NET Framework.” This article is horrible. It provides no value what so ever to developers. I, as a developer and someone that builds applications that have large numbers of users and millions of transactions each day, sees ZERO value in this article. It tells me nothing of value. It has no code within it. It is nothing more than marketing drivel. This article is not a guide to building enterprise applications but a sales pitch on using their technologies. There is no code. No specific situations addressed. No performance implications of doing anything. Basically, there is nothing that provides value to me as a developer. Halfway through the article, I felt like the child that had been given a lump of coal for Christmas as a joke.
-
Interesting, I am WinXP
-
Scoble in the USAToday
2nd page of the USAToday Money Section. Scoble talks about his blog and the issues of having a blog while working at Microsoft.
-
Interesting info on Sql Server 2k
I have taken over another application, separate from my complaints of Tuesday, where I have found something very interesting. There are a couple of places where Classic ADO recordsets are used for inserting and updating data. A couple of the fields that are being updated have fields where a time value is stored in the datatime field, but with no associated date. When I converted this to a SQL based insert / update, I was now getting the “1/1/1900” placed into these fields that were only suppossed to be storing the time, as I had assumed I would be getting with just the recordsets insert / update. Well, it appears that if you place “Dec 30, 1899” infront of the time entry, you will only have the time entry stored in the field. Found this by using Sql Profiler and seeing what has done with a recordset based insert. Pretty interesting piece of info. Why these folks have decided to separate the date and the time of the operation into separate fields, I have no idea.
