Scots Taffer on 1/3/2008 at 04:33
I don't know about the contents but the site looks like shit.
I'm not a bloody web designer and I've produced something (
http://www.dininginbrisbane.com/) better looking just last month. Do what I did and leverage off existing resources if you're no good at design.
Tocky on 1/3/2008 at 04:38
You are an ugly and stupid portfolio and your children will grow up to be degenerate rapists.
There you go.
dvrabel on 1/3/2008 at 15:18
Recruiters for technical positions don't care too much about website design and would be more concerned by the rather weak (poorly designed) 'Config_t' example.
st.patrick on 1/3/2008 at 17:41
Is that Comic Sans MS I see? Christ, you need to take web design lessons from someone who isn't a 14 year old girl with issues.
Ko0K on 1/3/2008 at 21:33
I see that you're trying to provide original content, but using your mug for bullets may be a little too much. Well, at least use a shot with your mouth closed or something.
Yakoob on 2/3/2008 at 02:35
Quote Posted by dvrabel
Recruiters for technical positions don't care too much about website design and would be more concerned by the rather weak (poorly designed) 'Config_t' example.
And what exactly is weak about it?
dvrabel on 2/3/2008 at 04:56
Regarding the design the main points are:
CAny::CData and CAny::CDataT should be private not public.
Using a tree for configuration variables seems less useful than a simple set indexed by their name.
Having an operator() for something that isn't a functor is poor practice.
As for the actual implementation:
Your comments are far too verbose and seem to be written to show of your knowledge of C++ rather than making them useful documentation for a user of the class or the maintainer of the code.
The CAny operator=(const CAny&) fails to handle self-assignment and leaks memory. Some of the other classes probably have similar problems.
Yakoob on 2/3/2008 at 06:34
Thanks for the repply dvrabel, appreciated (my snarky remarks aside) :)
Quote Posted by dvrabel
Regarding the design the main points are:
CAny::CData and CAny::CDataT should be private not public.
Good point, but I left them public for reasons of reusability. But you have a fair point.
Quote:
Using a tree for configuration variables seems less useful than a simple set indexed by their name.
Using nested namespaces for .NET framework seems less useful than global variables.
(see what I did there?)
Quote:
Having an operator() for something that isn't a functor is poor practice.
Arguable.
Quote:
Your comments are far too verbose and seem to be written to show of your knowledge of C++
Almost as if they were a part of someone's job application; o wai-
Quote:
The CAny operator=(const CAny&) fails to handle self-assignment and leaks memory. Some of the other classes probably have similar problems.
It appears I forgot to put the Clear() call in it (which is in the other = operator) - an oversight on my part, you got me there.
dvrabel on 2/3/2008 at 10:52
Most users would probably use it like so:
level = configdb["engine]["video]("detail_level");
which is just a bit of syntactic sugar when compared to the much simpler to implement flat DB.
level = configdb.get("engine.video.detail_level");
There's too much potential for confusion between operator[] and operator() to make using operator() in an unusual way sensible.
Writing maintainable code (including decent comments) is an important skill and you would be better of demonstrating that, rather than that you know about 'polymorphism'.
See the section on (
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/assignment-operators.html) assignment operators in the (
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/index.html) C++ FAQ Lite before you make the bug worse. If you're not familiar with a term it's better to ask than to guess.
One of the important skills for a programmer (particularly a junior one) is to be able to take on board advice and help from more experienced colleagues. I considered your resume and portfolio to be good enough for an initial telephone interview but if you responded during that interview as you did above you wouldn't be invited for a face-to-face.
Martin Karne on 2/3/2008 at 17:52
Can't wait for P.S.!
:thumb: