Skip Navigation

💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱

@ SmartmanApps @programming.dev

Posts
1220
Comments
1145
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Or it was some random teacher

    Yeah, maybe. My Year 7 students, who have come fresh to me from Year 6, use BEDMAS, and I teach BEDMAS for consistency (I also think it's a better acronym anyway - think of a massive 4-poster bed to ingrain the idea of BED-MAS)...

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Like how the 5 in the first image isn’t?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And how exactly do you think they got from 5(17) to 85 without distributing?? 🤣 Spoiler alert, this is what they actually did...

    5(17)=(5x17)=85

    They do that throughout the book, because they think it's so trivial to get from 5(17) to 85, that if you don't know how to do it without writing (5x17) first, then you have deeper problems than just not knowing how to Distribute 😂

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Lmao citing yourself

    Nope! I cite Maths textbooks here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a calculator here, need I go on? 🙄 There's plenty more of them

    assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers,

    That's hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂

    even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia

    As I already stated, everyone knows the complete opposite of that about them. It's hilarious that you're trying to prop up places that give both right and wrong answers to the exact same expression as somehow being "respectable". 😂 And you'll see at the end of that thread - if you decide to read it this time - the poof that academia does not use it (because they know it spits out random answers)

    Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument

    BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂

    repeating them again and again won’t make it different.

    That's right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.

    continuing this is useless

    Well it is when you don't bother reading the links, which you've just proven is the case

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • I tried Wolfram Alpha, Google, and others, and they all return 128

    Yep, all known to give wrong order of operations answers

    So either you’re wrong

    Well, it's not me, so...

    all people who make these tools professionally are wrong

    That's right. Welcome to programmers writing Maths apps without checking that they have their Maths right first. BTW, in some cases it's as bad as one of their calculators saying 2+3x4=20! 😂

    To be clear, the reason you’re wrong is because distribution is not part of the brackets step

    To be clear, I am correct, because Distribution is part of the Brackets step, as we have already established...

    Brackets are solved before exponents,

    Yes

    resulting in 2(8)²

    No, you haven't finished solving the Brackets yet, which you must do before proceeding...

    Remove the brackets and then it’s 2*8²

    Nope! We have already established that you cannot remove the brackets if you haven't Distributed yet...

    So what we actually get is...

    2(8)²=(2x8)²=16²

    and now that I have removed the Brackets, I can now do the exponent,,,

    16²=256

    Welcome to you finding the answer to 2x(3+5)² - where the 2 is separate to the brackets, separated from them by the multiply sign - rather than 2(3+5)², which has no multiply sign, and therefore the 2 must be Distributed

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Sorry, mate, TLDR

    I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then

    I skimmed through it, I’m glad you learned some new concepts

    I've no idea whose comments you skimmed through, but clearly not mine. I've been saying the same thing from start to finish, and you eventually contradicted yourself 😂

    you’re then trying to turn it around and pretend like I didn’t understand something

    says someone trying to pretend he did 😂

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • You incompetent fraud, that’s a different person

    That would be because you are replying to my reply to them and not my reply to you, which makes you the incompetent fraud 😂

    It’s easy to lose track when literally everyone is calling out your bullshit

    says someone who actually lost track and is replying to my reply to someone else 😂

    Here’s you quoting a textbook that says to solve inside the brackets first, even without a mulitply sign.

    In other words, The Distributive Law, as I've been saying all along, yes, and your point is?

    Here’s you quoting a textbook that says you must do the opposite of that.

    Nope! Says the exact same thing - Distribute BEFORE REMOVING BRACKETS which is exactly what the previous one did. I have no idea why you think they contradict each other 😂

    And as a bonus, here’s you getting 2(3+5)2 wrong.

    Nope! Getting it right, Brackets before exponents, as per the order of operations rules, found in Maths textbooks 😂

    I am looking for how to politely contact your instance’s admins about your behavior.

    Because there's something wrong with fact checking?? 😂 Students usually appreciate finding out where they went wrong, but not you, obviously, and somehow that's an issue for an admin?? 😂

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Calls me a liar, then says exactly what I said they think

    Nope! I never said you get the wrong answer with 3(3) - noted you were unable to show where I supposedly said that - so no, I did not say what you said I think 🙄

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Me: consistently using the Distributive Law throughout the thread.

    Nope. Let's go to the screenshots again...

    I showed you two

    Nope, you showed Wikipedia, which is known to be wrong, as per Maths textbooks

    True, but reading again carefully would change what you thought was written

    Nope. Still says add all positive numbers first! 😂

    You think all maths knowledge only comes from school textbooks!

    Never said anything of the sort liar, which is why you're unable to quote me saying that. I did say to you, repeatedly, that you are unable to cite any Maths textbooks that support you, and so far you have proven that to be true, since you haven't cited any maths textbooks. You really do need to work on that poor comprehension of yours 😂

    Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same

    Nope! That was you! Here we go...

    so you don’t know what “context” is

    Says person who can't even remember what he said, despite me posting screenshots of him saying it 😂

    In which case they will often make mistakes, as shown by the “9 minus whatever plus something” equation I did

    In which you failed that anyone at all has ever done it like that, other than you 😂

    I get that you’re only on your “day two on the Internet” so you’re not aware of it, but these kinds of equations cause people A LOT of trouble

    Says person who can't show anyone having trouble with it, thus revealing himself as the Day 2 person 😂

    I get what you’re saying. That if

    Where you then went on to say something completely unrelated to anything I said, thus proving you don't get what I'm saying 😂

    I hope, you get where this line of thinking fails, right?

    Which would maybe be why I never said anything of the sort 😂

    so you’re saying that a site teaching maths is wrong

    Yep, there's a lot of them. Welcome to what happens when people don't have to have Maths qualifications to write a Maths website. Welcome to the Internet Day 2 person! 😂

    your proof is

    Maths textbooks

    A is not before S

    So, it's not bedmAS and pemdAS?? 😂

    A is equal to S in the order of operations

    Which means you can do them in any order, including doing A BEFORE S, a concept you are having a lot of trouble with 😂 having claimed that led people to get wrong answers, like 9-3+2=4, which so far you've not shown anyone making that mistake other than you 😂

    PEMDAS and BODMAS (where, I’m sure your keen eye will notice, the D and M are flipped)

    and are not written as PE(MD)(AS) and BE(DM)(AS), which you claimed is important to remember, and still haven't backed up with any evidence whatsoever! 😂

    Addition and subtraction also work together. You can do subtraction first, or you can do addition first

    Yep, as I've been telling you all along. So where's this bit about "it's important to remember PE(MD)(AS)" then? Not anywhere in this source 😂

    So, there’s that

    Which doesn't support your argument that it's PE(MD)(AS), so there's that 😂

    I thought you were capable of checking the sources on the bottom of the article.

    Which also weren't Maths textbooks, as I already pointed out to you 😂

    wouldn’t consider actual mathematical research as sources

    Mr. Lack of Comprehension still not understanding the words MATHS TEXTBOOKS 🤣🤣🤣

    I hope the university article links above will be good enough?

    Do you need to get your mum to read this out to you to spot the difference between the phrases "Maths textbooks" and "University article"? 😂

    You have an extremely weird fixation on brackets

    You were the one who made the claim about the brackets. I'm just debunking your rubbish claim about the brackets 😂

    The only thing we’ve debunked is your understanding of mathematical fundamentals and reading skills.

    says someone who can't tell the difference between Maths textbooks, and any one of a dozen other things 😂

    You caught me on misremembering one of the couple of examples I gave you!

    Lying is the word you're looking for, and more than a couple

    So now, again, why did you start talking about 1 + 3 if the examples were 2 - 2 and 2 / 2?

    Take you own advice - go back and read it slowly this time 😂 Still says the same thing as when I first said it

    Awww… You can’t answer these questions?

    No, you can't defend your claim, so you keep deflecting

    And where are the brackets, friend?

    Speaking of being fixated on brackets 😂

    as I see you’ll just never let go of this misconception of yours, here you are:

    Still not a Maths textbook. Have you noticed yet that you haven't been able to cite any Maths textbook that supports your claims?? 😂

    You can see the exact same notation as I used

    That wasn't from a Maths textbook

    When you read the rest of that Level 1 introductory lesson

    It still won't be a Maths textbook

    it’s OK to have a vivid imagination, but you’re just making yourself look silly when you talk about it with others as if it’s fact

    The proof is in this thread 😂

    Setting pronumerals to 1 is the same as just removing them from the notation completely

    which means it is totally valid to add all positive numbers first, as per the textbook which had an example with pronumerals and did just that😂

    I firmly believe that we can get you to understand the whole thing within a week!

    says person who still doesn't understand what the words "Maths textbooks" MEANS 😂

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Exponents come after brackets

    That's right

    so I’m curious to see how you solve that with your logic

    Ummm, you do the brackets and then the exponent. Not sure what you find unclear about that

    It has an obvious correct solution

    The one where you do the brackets before the exponent

    which is 128

    Nope! You can only get that by doing the exponent before the brackets, which is against the order of operations rules. Or did you wrongly add a multiply sign before the brackets - that also yields a different answer

    you need to distribute in the brackets step

    That's right, so why did you do the exponent first?

    which comes before exponents,

    That's right. So why did you do the exponent first?

    so let’s see what you do with it

    Brackets before exponents, as already established 🙄

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • I know that you finally understood what I was talking about,

    other way around dude, as proven by screenshots

    t’s OK to keep it all to a single thread

    So you want to keep it here, because the other is full of screenshots proving you wrong and you want to ignore them?? 🤣🤣🤣

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Yes, because I finished third grade in primary school

    Which would explain why you don't know The Distributive Law, which is taught in Year 7

    Do you also expect evidence of gravity?

    No, just evidence to back up your claims, but of course you don't have any

    Go back and read the comments again

    You know reading things again doesn't change what's written right?? No, you don't, since you kept asking me to re-read the part about doing all addition first, thinking somehow that was magically going to change if I read it again 😂

    you can find the answers

    Nope! Hard to find when you didn't answer, and notably you've not done a screenshot of them, because they don't exist. Weird how you're the only one not able to back up anything of what you've said 😂

    Yeah, if you ignore what the text says

    which you just did, again, because you know it proves you are wrong 😂 Why are you so afraid to quote it if you think it proves you are right? 😂

    However, if you actually read the letters on the screenshot, you’ll find that it does

    still say, do all addition first

    you’re also incapable of scrolling down to the sources part of the article…?

    Well, apparently you are, since there are no Maths textbooks listed in the sources 😂

    I never said anything like that

    Let's go to the screenshot...

    I said that, in terms of the order of operations, addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are equal, because they can be inverted (subtraction into addition of negative numbers, division into multiplication of fractions) to achieve

    Nope, see screenshot of you saying they are the same

    understand that concept, you can skip subtraction and division from the mnemonics

    Now you're just rehashing the same already-debunked rubbish. The whole point of the mnemonics is for those who don't understand, just follow these steps 🙄

    prove that what I linked to is wrong

    Did that already with the textbooks and worked examples. Maybe you need to read it slowly? 😂

    One more time: welcome to the Internet

    One more time, welcome to you can't debunk what I said, so you deflect

    I like how you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about while still saying I’m incorrect

    Nope. Again let's go to the screenshot...

    quote one example equation I did here that proves I’m not understanding these concepts. :)

    See previous screenshot 😂

    But is not reinforced by the mnemonic itself

    AS doesn't reinforce doing A before S? 😂

    Reading comprehension, remember?

    Yep, you've got none. You thought Wikipedia counted as a Maths textbook 😂

    I’m glad I was able to explain this to you

    I knew it all along - you were the one saying that the brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS), which we've now comprehensively debunked 😂

    See above

    Yep, you finally proved yourself wrong because the mental gymnastics weren't up to proving that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) 😂

    when the examples were 2 + 2 and 2 * 2?

    No they weren't! You have such a short memory, no wonder you ended up contradicting yourself! 🤣 Let's go to the screenshot...

    I’m going to ask you a couple of questions so

    you can deflect again 😂

    I understand how brackets work and that was a perfectly valid use

    Nope, we proved it wasn't 😂

    says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4

    Now you’re just inventing things I never said.

    Let's go to the screenshot... 😂

    It wasn’t 2 - 2, tho

    Let's go to the screenshot, again...

    Or did you fail to read that correctly too?

    Not me. See previous screenshot 😂

    Again, I’m glad you’re slowly getting to the point I was making

    Nope. your point that brackets matter in PE(MD)(AS) is still wrong, as proven 😂

    It’s weird how you’re still phrasing it like I was somehow wrong

    says person who proved it was wrong 😂

    Considering that’s exactly what I did

    Nope! You claimed it was entirely different if you did that. Again, let's go to the screenshot...

    You’re so cute when you’re trying to turn this whole argument on its head after realising how silly your initial points were!

    says the person actually trying to do that, as proven by the screenshots 😂

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Ok bro so answer my question

    Deflection is the word you're looking for

    what’s the result of the expression I wrote above?

    So... you're telling me you don't know what comes first out of Brackets and Exponents in order of operations? That's your deflection strategy??

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Whatever makes you feel better about your ignorance.

    Says person who proved themselves wrong, and is now withdrawing from the conversation to hide their ignorance 😂

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • One day you’ll look back at this and think “damn, I really was an idiot back then!”

    Says person who has run out of mental gymnastics that can be applied. I'll take that as an admission of being wrong then

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Parentheses means evaluating the things inside the parentheses you nimrod

    Only if you're still in Elementary school. How old are you anyway? Here's a high school Algebra book, you know, after students have been taught The Distributive Law...

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • I’m falling for the troll here

    Just as well for you I've provided all the necessary evidence to prove them wrong then

    I’m honestly disappointed that you just downvoted and left

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I DIDN'T leave, quite demonstrably.

    Challenging your beliefs with contrary ideas is the only way to improve them and understand the world in a more comprehensive and accurate way

    So how come you won't then?

    I should clarify that I haven’t responded to your “points” because there is nothing worth responding to

    In other words, you have been proven wrong by them

    Your arguments can all be debunked by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

    Wikipedia can be comprehensively debunked by MATHS TEXTBOOKS - you know, those things you refuse to look at because they prove you are wrong 😂

    I didn’t bother doing it myself.

    So in other words, Wikipedia is all you had, and, having been disproven by Maths textbooks, you've got nothing

    I will be blocking you

    An admission of defeat then

    I feel that the deleted post is in itself a very good final word to this disappointment of a “conversation”

    Feel free to unblock me when you're ready to take your own advice

    if it is not entirely accurate

    Just like all your other posts then

    Goodbye

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • Bro directly after what you underlined it says “if you want to remove the brackets”

    Yep, that's right, and removing brackets is the first step in order of operations 😂

    Selective reading much?

    By you apparently.

    “If” means optional

    So... you're telling me that the "B" step in BEDMAS, and the "P" step in PEMDAS, is optional? I don't have to remove Brackets?? 😂 Better go back to school dude

    You are free to solve what’s inside the brackets first, before multiplying it with what’s outside

    Yep, but inside the brackets, as per the text you can see in the screenshot 😂

    5(8-5)=(5x8-5x5)=(40-25)=15

    5(8-5)=5(3)=(5x3)=15 <== Multiplication inside the Brackets, as per The Distributive Law

    same answer both ways 😂

    the link I posted is literally titled “distributive law”, not property

    But has a multiply sign in it, thus proving it is the Property that they are talking about - The Distributive Property of Multiplication over Addition to call it by it's full name

    You realize a law can have conditions, right?

    You realise it literally must be obeyed, right? The condition that The Distributive Law has, is "A number or letter next to a Bracket", direct quote from the textbook, hence a(b+c)=(ab+ac), and not ax(b+c) since the a is not next to the bracket in that case

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • I’m not wrong.

    says person who has no evidence whatsoever to show that they are correct, so as I said, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are still wrong 😂

    You never asked for citations.

    And the questions I did ask you didn't answer anyway, because you know in both cases it proves you wrong. Notice how I didn't need you to ask me for evidence to produce it? That's what people who are backed up by facts can do 😂

    you did it for me with your screenshot

    Which proved you were wrong 😂

    But here you go

    Well, here you go proving you have a severe comprehension problem anyway... 😂

    Multiplying by a number is the same as dividing by its reciprocal and vice versa

    Yep, gives the same result, but does not say that the number and it's inverse are the same thing 😂

    Here’s another source if you’re allergic to Wikipedia

    Which also wasn't a Maths textbook 😂 So far you're only proving my point that you can't cite any Maths textbooks that agree with you

    Again, the mnemonics, when taught without appropriate context

    Which they never are

    cause people to think that 9-3+2 is 4

    Nope, no-one thinks that. Addition first for 9-3+2 is +(9+2)-3=+11-3=8 same correct answer as left to right, which is why the textbook teaches you to do it that way 😂

    If you understand what is multiplication and what is addition

    Which you're demonstrated repeatedly that you don't, and here we are

    who think that the order of operations is set to: Multiplication → Division → Addition → Subtraction

    Which is a totally valid thing to do, as is taught by the textbook 🙄

    instead of being (M or D, start from the left) → (A or S, start from the left)

    Which is also a valid thing to do. That's the whole point, it does not matter which order you do addition and subtraction 😂

    when the actual result is 8, because they think that they have to calculate the addition first

    And when they do calculate the addition first, they get an answer of 8, as I just proved a few comments back 😂 Add all the positive numbers, then subtract the total of all the negative numbers. This is so not complicated, and yet you seem to have trouble understanding it

    Where did you get the 1 and 3 from?

    From an example of how 2+2 and 1+3 aren't the same thing, even though they equal the same value, which you are now trying to avoid addressing because you know it proves you are wrong 😂

    Do you not know what fractions are…?

    I'm starting to wonder if you do, given you think 2/2 is the same thing as 2x½ - one has a fraction, the other doesn't, but you think they are the same thing 🙄

    You’re so very, very confused by all of this

    says person not remembering that they brought it up to begin with... 😂

    you have absolutely fundamental lacks in understanding of maths

    says person who thinks doing addition first for 9-3+2 is 4 😂

    maths textbooks all over the world use brackets all the time

    Not for 2-2 they don't. Go ahead and cite one. I'll wait

    you can write 2 - 2 as -2 + 2, or - a slightly less legible version - as 2 + -2. You’ll get the same result, and this inversion is a perfectly “legal” mathematical operation. Which shows you how addition and subtraction are equal

    Which proves my point that you can do addition and subtraction in any order, given you just admitted that 2-2 and -2+2 give the same result 😂

    One more time, let me

    deflect from the point, yet again

    We were not talking about monomials

    No, we were talking about textbooks teaching to do addition first, and you then deflected into talking about monomials, because you knew it proved you were wrong 😂

    If you set the pronumerals in addition/subtraction problems to 1, you would have

    The exact same thing as an expression written without pronumerals 😂 I see you're still not understanding how pronumerals work then

    difference between -2 + 2 and 2 - 2 is the same, proving - again - that subtraction is equal to addition of a negative

    and thus proving again that they can be done in any order 😂 It's so hilarious watching you prove yourself wrong

    Which is my point. Which you are proving

    No, you're actually proving my point 🤣

    I didn’t have to, you did it for me.

    I only posted things that prove you wrong, but apparently I don't need to because you are proving yourself wrong 🤣

    Now do -(2+4) + (1+3) and guess what you have?

    The exact same answer, -2, again proving you can do them in any order 🤣

    I already suggested this: read it again, but slower.

    It still says add all positive numbers first, then subtract the total of the negative numbers. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen - are you expecting the words to magically change if you read it slowly? 🤣

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump

  • it’s actually a kind of “mental exercise” for me

    Yep, mental gymnastics left, right, and centre 😂

  • Windows Development @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev
    XAML

    Modern Adorners by michael-hawker · Pull Request #760 · CommunityToolkit/Labs-Windows

    github.com /CommunityToolkit/Labs-Windows/pull/760
  • C Sharp @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Property-Based Testing in C#: FsCheck + xUnit for Robust, Law-Driven Test Suites

    developersvoice.com /blog/csharp/csharp-property-based-testing-fscheck-xunit/
  • C Sharp @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Enterprise Patterns, Real Code: Implementing Fowler’s Ideas in C# - Chris Woody Woodruff | Fractional Architect

    www.woodruff.dev /enterprise-patterns-real-code-implementing-fowlers-ideas-in-c/
  • Windows Development @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Automatically Signing a Windows EXE with Azure Trusted Signing, dotnet sign, and GitHub Actions

    www.hanselman.com /blog/automatically-signing-a-windows-exe-with-azure-trusted-signing-dotnet-sign-and-github-actions
  • Windows Development @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    INotifyPodcastChanged | Episode 13: UWP Apps with Daniel Paulino

    inotifypodcastchanged.com /13
  • .NET MAUI @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Amazing Free Popup Controls for MAUI by UXDivers: Toast, Forms, Custom

  • Windows Development @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    How to Create an MSI Installer with Visual Studio 2026

    www.advancedinstaller.com /create-msi-installer-with-visual-studio-2026.html
  • Visual Studio @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    How to Create an MSI Installer with Visual Studio 2026

    www.advancedinstaller.com /create-msi-installer-with-visual-studio-2026.html
  • .NET MAUI @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Explore .NET MAUI 10 Features with Updated Template Pack

    egvijayanand.in /2025/11/28/what-is-new-in-the-all-in-one-dotnet-maui-templates-pack-v8-0/
  • C Sharp @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    The Notable Difference in Dictionary Initialisation in C# - Improve & Repeat

    improveandrepeat.com /2025/11/the-notable-difference-in-dictionary-initialisation-in-c-sharp/
  • .NET MAUI @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    GitHub - matthewrdev/maude: Maude is a plugin for .NET MAUI to monitor app memory at runtime and view it via live-rendered chart.

    github.com /matthewrdev/maude
  • C Sharp @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Fetching GitHub content from C#

    blog.elmah.io /fetching-github-content-from-c/
  • Visual Studio @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Visual Studio 2026 18.0.2 Release Notes

    learn.microsoft.com /en-gb/visualstudio/releases/2026/release-notes
  • Windows Development @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Why does XAML break down when I have an element that is half a billion pixels tall? - The Old New Thing

    devblogs.microsoft.com /oldnewthing/20251124-00/
  • .NET MAUI @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Visualize Monthly Weather Forecasts with .NET MAUI Scheduler

    www.syncfusion.com /blogs/post/dotnet-maui-weather-forecast-calendar
  • Visual Studio @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Visual Studio – Built for the Speed of Modern Development - Visual Studio Blog

    devblogs.microsoft.com /visualstudio/visual-studio-built-for-the-speed-of-modern-development/
  • .NET MAUI @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Streamline MAUI Development with the Aspire integration

  • Visual Studio @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Visual Studio 2026 18.0.1 Release Notes

    learn.microsoft.com /en-gb/visualstudio/releases/2026/release-notes
  • Visual Studio @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Visual Studio 2022 version 17.14.21 Release Notes

    learn.microsoft.com /en-gb/visualstudio/releases/2022/release-notes
  • Windows Development @programming.dev
    💡𝚂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝙰𝗉𝗉𝗌📱 @programming.dev

    Improving Issue discoverability and triage clarity · microsoft WindowsAppSDK · Discussion #6029

    github.com /microsoft/WindowsAppSDK/discussions/6029