Of all the types of spam comments I hate, those actually deliberately posted by actual human beings, as apposed to spam bots, are the ones I hate the most.
That is, posting nonsense links about your very own c# scheduling components in response to my post about a custom TaskScheduler, or similar such posts, are not welcome here.
Btw, that was just intended as an example above, but I’ll explain further anyway… a TaskScheduler is part of the framework’s way of scheduling how it runs asynchronous threads. It’s something you don’t generally need to change, but understanding how it works and when it is invoked, particularly the relationship between a TaskFactory and the scheduler, is something I find useful – in that it provides some insight into how the various parts of the async machinery work with one-another. As such, mine is designed specifically for offloaded tasks running in parallel. You can only really understand how useful my code really is (or IS NOT) once you understand how all the parts of the framework work with one-another… at which point it no longer matters how good or bad my code actually is – the lesson learned in this case is more important than the code involved. But all this has bugger-all to do with a custom scheduling component! An idiot programmer just used the name of the classes involved to hijack the post and post advertising links to his or her own rubbish code. And besides, writing your own scheduler component, which is presumably what the fool was trying to advertise, is not so difficult. Any junior programmer should be able to do so with relative ease.
My code might not be the greatest, but it’s my code, and I have shared it proudly. This is not a place to advertise your code, however clever or stupid it may be. Any such comments will be deleted. That’s fair, isn’t it?
While we’re here, a note on what this blog is, and what it is not
I happen to have a member on my Scrum team whose attitude to programming differs utterly to mine… He downloads code, then refactors it to do what his requirements are. (He often does this without understanding either the code he downloads or his requirements, and as dev lead, it becomes my problem to get him to “rewrite” his code so that it actually works, or just code it myself. I prefer to code it myself in his case, because I know and trust my own code whereas what comes from him is completely random. But as each sprint draws to an end, if there are bugs, and if I wrote his code for him, the inherent learning curve implies that I have to cover more code in terms of possible bug-fixes. So far I’m coping, due to some combination of luck and skill where I suspect the former has greater weight than the latter. As a result, I have no respect or patience for the Lesters of this world.) This blog is not intended for “coders” like Lester, who does not so much refactor code as he molests it.
The code I share is code that is useful to me, but is not necessarily an end to end solution for anything at all. We, as programmers, use the tools at our disposal, including samples that solve parts of the problems we address, to create code deliverables for our specific needs. Thus, when I write an article about importing paradox data to SQL server, don’t expect a solution that is an application doing everything you need. Rather expect a sample of code that arms you technically to be able to do what is required. (It generates a temporary SQL database using an example simple code-generating algorithm; yet somebody complained about the performance of the SQL database.)
In short, my blog has some shared code for programmers like myself, people who can think for themselves, and use the samples to help fill gaps in their code domains. If you are a copy-and-paste monkey like Lester, fuck off – this blog is not for you.