(August 30, 2026 at 9:36 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:(August 30, 2026 at 9:11 pm)Jal Wrote: Ok you would remain silent. I would not. I would speak up, if I felt I had good reason to do so (in fact I HAVE spoken up on the "Customer" code above),and I would expect those who ARE experts in C# to enumerate the flaws, if any, in my position, especially on a debate/discussion forum. If they repeatedly show themselves UNABLE to identify any flaws in my reasoning, I will cling to my (tentative) opinions for now. So it looks like I'll be taking those (tenatative) opinions to my grave, because I've yet to see anyone rebut them.
You are so consistent at missing the point that I'm beginning to think it's intentional. If you show me a page of C# code, I would likely recognize it as a programming language. That's it. I know nothing of the syntax, the structure, or anything else that would make it even remotely possible that I could give any useful input. From the demonstration of ignorance of the sciences you have put forth, that's where you are with them.
That's not true. If you saw settings hardcoded there, you could easily advise to use configuration files for example. Or if you saw the same method duplicated 50 times, you could easily advise to consolidate it to a static method. Don't tell me it's not even "remotely possible" to offer advice on C#. Now it might TURN OUT that your suggestions were misguided, but don't tell me it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to offer useful advice. The only reason you're making this ridiculous assertion is to have an excuse to ignore my arguments, viz, "You're not a PHD in science so I can ignore anything you have to say." It's a copout.
