Discussion
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Caruso said:
As regards to the naming convention for the new thread, if we're being true to our Geek selves we should come up with our own unique convention agreed by some sort of self appointed technical design authority.
We may need a new thread for that, and debate might be so heated that it may need its own continuation thread before this one does. 
If private sector then who ever shouts the loudest...
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Caruso said:
As regards to the naming convention for the new thread, if we're being true to our Geek selves we should come up with our own unique convention agreed by some sort of self appointed technical design authority.
We may need a new thread for that, and debate might be so heated that it may need its own continuation thread before this one does. 
Richyvrlimited said:
10
there are 10 types of people who understand binary, those who do and those who don't.
Volume 10 works for me, followed by Volume 11, followed by Volume 100there are 10 types of people who understand binary, those who do and those who don't.
Either that or Volume 0x02, 0x03, etc.
Frankly using hexadecimal with the 0x prefix would be less confusing for casual readers.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
deckster said:
?
I thought confusing casual readers was the whole point.
LOL. I meant it strikes a good balance between being geeky and not having to constantly explain it. I thought confusing casual readers was the whole point.
droopsnoot said:
I feel that good old Octal is being unfairly overlooked in this discussion. After all, you can prefix it with "O" so that no-one is sure whether you mean Octal or Hexadecimal and have used a letter instead of a number and left out the little x.
I like octal specified with a leading zero. So 10 = 10 but 010 = 8. You can't just decide on a new naming convention. It needs to get through architectural review, security review and conform to the documentation standard, which will change dramatically halfway through you writing it.
Obviously this will be painful so I can offer you a team of 10 for a mere 1500/day each who will help introduce several layers of unnecessary security and you won't be able to get anything achieved in a meaningful timeframe.
Until then you need to stay on volume 1. I don't care if we exceed the standard thread limit, it causes unnecessary load on the servers and PH grinds to a halt. I estimate this to take 12 months, with a possible extension to 2 years.
I also don't care if a few of you lose interest in the project and create new startup threads that outperform this one in 6 months, process must be followed.
Obviously this will be painful so I can offer you a team of 10 for a mere 1500/day each who will help introduce several layers of unnecessary security and you won't be able to get anything achieved in a meaningful timeframe.
Until then you need to stay on volume 1. I don't care if we exceed the standard thread limit, it causes unnecessary load on the servers and PH grinds to a halt. I estimate this to take 12 months, with a possible extension to 2 years.
I also don't care if a few of you lose interest in the project and create new startup threads that outperform this one in 6 months, process must be followed.
strudel said:
You can't just decide on a new naming convention. It needs to get through architectural review, security review and conform to the documentation standard, which will change dramatically halfway through you writing it.
Obviously this will be painful so I can offer you a team of 10 for a mere 1500/day each who will help introduce several layers of unnecessary security and you won't be able to get anything achieved in a meaningful timeframe.
Until then you need to stay on volume 1. I don't care if we exceed the standard thread limit, it causes unnecessary load on the servers and PH grinds to a halt. I estimate this to take 12 months, with a possible extension to 2 years.
I also don't care if a few of you lose interest in the project and create new startup threads that outperform this one in 6 months, process must be followed.
Clearly we will end up forking the thread, so volumes 10, 2, and II will run in parallel, and we can all join our fork of choice and flame the other clearly inferior threads.Obviously this will be painful so I can offer you a team of 10 for a mere 1500/day each who will help introduce several layers of unnecessary security and you won't be able to get anything achieved in a meaningful timeframe.
Until then you need to stay on volume 1. I don't care if we exceed the standard thread limit, it causes unnecessary load on the servers and PH grinds to a halt. I estimate this to take 12 months, with a possible extension to 2 years.
I also don't care if a few of you lose interest in the project and create new startup threads that outperform this one in 6 months, process must be followed.
There's a project which I can't remember the name, which had releases numbered
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
etc.
I'd like to see volumes
2
2.7
2.71
2.718
But it would take years to be obvious.
A quicker series would be
1.4
1.41
1.414
Let's form a standards committee!
AW111 said:
Clearly we will end up forking the thread, so volumes 10, 2, and II will run in parallel, and we can all join our fork of choice and flame the other clearly inferior threads.
There's a project which I can't remember the name, which had releases numbered
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
etc.
AKA the Lancashire versioningThere's a project which I can't remember the name, which had releases numbered
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
etc.
AW111 said:
I'd like to see volumes
2
2.7
2.71
2.718
But it would take years to be obvious.
Obviously the Yorkshire versioning. 2
2.7
2.71
2.718
But it would take years to be obvious.
AW111 said:
A quicker series would be
1.4
1.41
1.414
Which would be the root of F*** all.1.4
1.41
1.414
AW111 said:
Let's form a standards committee!
Yippee
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff