|
It's unfortunate, IMO -- programming languages, like programs themselves, were once carefully crafted and engineered things. Of course, that's just a delusion on my part. But it seems like nowadays, just about anybody can put some pile of syntax together and come out with some custom language. This cruft even affects C#, which I hold in high regard.
The difference though is, years ago, the programming language was the thing. Nowadays, I think the language takes more of a back seat, or at least the passenger seat, to the supporting framework and community.
But the problem, following Rosenberg, is that declaring allegiance to one language tends to block you from others. Developers simply don't have time to master a number of competing development platforms:
And that is exactly where the author steps on his shoe laces and trips, by swapping "language" with "development platform." Certainly, a language like Java is not tied to Android, just as Ruby is not tied to Linux development.
The two are very different. I find that I can pick up a language in a matter of hours or days, but it's the development platform and supporting framework that can take months, if not years to master.
For developers, then, choosing a language is like choosing citizenship in a country. You’re not only buying into syntax and semantics. You’re buying into economics and culture, the rules that shape how you earn your livelihood and the forces that channel your hopes and dreams.
The funny thing is, I don't look at the language first. If I'm going to develop for Android, I look for the best toolset and development platform, the language just comes along for the ride. But that's me.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just had this discussion with the guy who is going to replace me at my current job.
He said he refused to do database work because he was a C# developer.
Personally I think that's pretty narrow minded (and even ridiculous). I can understand you leave the heavy database work to the experts, but refusing because you're a C# dev?
I think every developer should have a basic SQL knowledge (and I know it's actually a problem that many haven't!).
So he asked me if I wanted to be a good C# developer and if I did I couldn't also do SQL (I couldn't be good at both and I needed to make a choice).
Well, there's the point. I think by knowing about other languages and paradigms you become a better programmer in all. You can learn the syntax of any language in a few weeks tops (especially once you've seen a few!). Knowing about memory management, type systems, patterns, data structures, etc. makes you ease into any language fairly easy.
The hard part is getting to know the libraries and environment and we have tons of those and everyone uses different libraries anyway, even in C#.
Well, his 'responsibility' for the software ended with the Entity Framework. And with his lack of SQL knowledge I bet he'll write some pretty horrible LINQ queries 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: He said he refused to do database work because he was a C# developer.
Sander Rossel wrote: if I wanted to be a good C# developer and if I did I couldn't also do SQL (I couldn't be good at both and I needed to make a choice).
Wow, I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, and all that stuff about diversity makes the world go around, but there are times when you just have call it for what it is-- BS!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
And that's the reason that I'm leaving the company... Management probably agrees with this guy.
They probably hate the fact that with one MS SQL certificate I'm more certified than their 'SQL experts' (actually I'm the most certified SQL guy in the company) and that I do my own SQL work as a developer.
And what does it take to become a SQL expert? You only not need to know how to write applications. Seriously, if you're not a programmer you're a SQL specialist (that's why none of our specialists have certificates).
I'll be damned that I walk over to a coworker, explain to him what I need, wait until he is finished, explain it to him again when he delivers something that's just not what I wanted, then wait again and some more because I'm not his top priority anyway and repeat that process every time I need a change if I can do it myself in 15 minutes.
It's so bad that the company is paying for almost every course, study, certificate, training etc. we want (I'm the only one who wants it anyway), but they didn't pay for my SQL certificate (we're talking €90,- here, I did all the recommended training at home with my own resources) and they even tried to talk me out of it.
Well, I wrote two prize-winning SQL articles, got that certificate, let our biggest customer know about my certificate and articles (someone called with a SQL problem, so I casually mentioned my articles  ) and now whenever they have a SQL problem it's me they come to and not my colleague 'SQL experts'.
I think I handled that pretty well 
My new company (starting in two weeks!) only hires programmers (even the marketing and sales people have written code at some point in their life) and they already taught me something about SQL on my application interview
As you can imagine I'm glad to leave the company I'm currently working for 
Mind you that it wasn't always like this. When I started here four years ago everyone did everything and everyone was a (starting) developer. I'm not sure what went wrong...
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm not sure what went wrong...
If you look, I bet you'll find a trail that leads back to management thinking that compartmentalizing work processes and knowledge in the name of "efficiency" (not realizing that the current process was the most efficient and resilient) was what initiated the isolationist thinking.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Probably because they had to keep their SQL experts busy
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Good technical practices are what we have to do to make good software – this is the engineering part of software engineering. Design. Coding. Testing and Reviews. Make it mauve. I hear that's the best.
|
|
|
|
|
See sig. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, simple black-and-white uses fewer bits -- less memory, less storage, quicker through the pipes.
Similarly, values of 00 and 01 require hardly any effort by a monitor.
modified 11-Dec-14 19:03pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Allocate adequate time to build a good product. IMHO, commercial software is almost always rushed out the door with insufficient requirements in order to meet a business goal. If commercial software companies made cars or planes, most would be laughed out (and sued) to extinction.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize, I didn't finish reading this article because my continuous integration's drain got clogged when one of the kids put one of the other kid's shoes in it, and the sequential waterfall delivery overflowed the scrum before we were even agile to wade out of it.
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
|
|
|
|
|
I want it to be more webby but not too webbish.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Based on evidence of the comet’s water, Rosetta scientists announced this week that it adds evidence that, contrary to prevailing theory, comets didn’t supply Earth with its water. The new findings instead suggest that asteroids were the likely bearers of life-giving H2O on our planet. Now we know (and knowing is half the battle)
|
|
|
|
|
A study sponsored and released by mobile enterprise app development platform Kony today indicates that if users hate your app, it's probably more about the look and feel than it is about functionality. Sorry, thought you should know
|
|
|
|
|
Appearance is everything, content is nothing. Welcome to the 21st century, the age of Celebrity ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if an app provides just a few functionalities but works flawlessly it is a good app indeed. On the other hand it may have all the functions in the world but if it causes massive amounts of swearing, threats to the phone and so on then it is not. It is mainly the philosophy behind the standard microtools of Unix, like grep, sort, uniq... they do 1 thing and they do it well.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
It's all great if your app can do everything the user needs to do, but if a user can't find which buttons to press to make it work the app is as useful as a bucket full of lemurs on the Eiffel tower (yes, that's not very useful indeed).
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: a bucket full of lemurs on the Eiffel tower
I don't know. If I was up high enough and could see below me, I might find quite a few uses for a bucket full of lemurs up there.
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. Not the same issue.
Usability seems to be the last concern of a great many developers, and it's apparent in the absolute crap they produce.
|
|
|
|
|
It is very easy to fix...
On the first presentation remind the audience that the UX design by the best designer studio (name one distant)...In my experience that improves the feedback a hundred times...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
All too sadly true. The 'expert' from another city is always much more clever than your own developers. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I did a demo on a new application I developed a while back.
The customer needed to use it in an environment where mouse and keyboard are available, but not very practical (due to dirty work/dirty hands) and so the entire application was build for a touch screen, big buttons, big textboxes, everything big to support a dirty- and fat-fingered, touch, factory environment.
I gave the demo in a room where I didn't have a touch screen.
The user hated it, said the application looked as if we went 10 years back in time!
Of course I wasn't thrilled to hear that! So this is kind of how the conversation went.
Customer: "I don't like how this application looks. Everything works with touch nowadays, phones and tables, and you're still using a mouse, its as if we go back 10 years in time!"
Me: "But you'll have a touch screen in production environment..."
Customer: "And will that work?"
Me: "Yes."
Customer: "In that case it looks very nice, I was just afraid I had to use a mouse!"
Apparently the big UI (which looked like other applications they were already using) didn't ring a bell. Also, using a mouse is so 2004...
Users...
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
My situation exactly - in food manifacturing plants you must have resistive touchscreen to cope with gloves, and BIG buttons to accept gloves designed for industrial freezers. Also we must account for daltonism so the choice of colours is reduced. Furthermore, due to the first designs dating 1996 we are stuck, for stock compatibility, to 1024x768 pixel.
Hellish, but every customer praise us for the ease of use - much less for the setup which is almost arcane 
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
