And now for something completely different...

[maniacx]

...Jason complains about Microsoft!

Apologies in advance for the over-use of confusing technical terms. I feel the need to vent, but don't have the time to properly explain myself. I hope nobody gets tiredhead.

As some (most? all?) of you know, I'm working on a new purchasing portal at work. To increase usability, I added in a TreeView object (

Comments

[roq]

I don't know if you read slashdot, but you may want to see this: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/15/152213&art_pos=7

[maniacx]

I read a few of the comments and the article seems to indicate that they added in a new function requiring as destination buffer size. Considering it's just a part of their secure development cycle (which is a push that I support overall), it doesn't really bother me that much.

I grew up programming in the "cowboy developer" world where my professors at UNT frequently reiterated that you really weren't worth a damn as a developer unless you could prevent the sorts of errors that unsafe memory copying could lead to. However, the longer I've worked in a business environment, the more I've come to feel that the tasks that truly require a developer's mind are complex enough that it's okay to let a framework take care of the little stuff. Not to say that you can't learn things from the cowboy developer mentality (such as code optimization and overall efficiency), but I guess I've just switched over to the side of "there are more important things than runtime".