Welcome to the Lounge

GuyThiebaut12-Dec-18 2:33

12-Dec-18 2:33

I think what amazes me more than anything about this sort of attitude to becoming a developer is that back in 1982 when I got my first computer(a 48k ZX Spectrum) there was no world wide web.
You just bought magazines and learnt from the manual and friends, training courses were whatever exercises you could find in books. There was nobody there to motivate you outside of your own thirst for learning.

So now with the huge amount of information out there for free, as well as free IDEs, people still find it difficult to motivate themselves to learn?

I think your final point sums things up fairly well - if you can't even start somewhere, it's probably not the right career path for you.

Maybe I am just a heartless old curmudgeon.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

#realJSOP12-Dec-18 2:41

#realJSOP

12-Dec-18 2:41

Yeah - most younger/newer devs don't know how good they actually have it, because they didn't have to develop in the 80's...

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

Richard MacCutchan12-Dec-18 2:54

Richard MacCutchan

12-Dec-18 2:54

And you lot don't know how good you had it, because you didn't have to develop in the 60s.

GuyThiebaut12-Dec-18 3:09

12-Dec-18 3:09

As I was writing my post I was actually thinking that.
In the 80s were were lucky, we had screens - that said on my first year of my computer science degree we were only allowed around three hours of computer time a week, pretty much everything had to be written on paper.

Before the 80s it was probably switches and lights on a metal box.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

Daniel Pfeffer12-Dec-18 3:33

Daniel Pfeffer

12-Dec-18 3:33

GuyThiebaut wrote:
switches and lights on a metal box.

That would have been an advance! What we actually used were punched cards, invented by Joseph Marie Jaquard in 1804!

(The cards used in computers were invented by Herman Hollerith sometime before 1890; they were used in the 1890 US census.)

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.

Richard MacCutchan12-Dec-18 3:42

Richard MacCutchan

12-Dec-18 3:42

GuyThiebaut wrote:
Before the 80s it was probably switches and lights on a metal box.

Not completely; we did have paper tape and card input, and compilers. But most things were run in batch processing so turnaround was slow. One of the most fun systems I worked on was the 1004, which you programmed by plugging wires into Computer Plug-Board - Univac, Model 1004, circa1965[^] . That was then connected on the side of the computer (which had 1024 bytes of memory) and hey presto, the program would run.

GuyThiebaut12-Dec-18 3:47

12-Dec-18 3:47

Flipin eck!
That's quite something.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

MarkTJohnson12-Dec-18 3:52

MarkTJohnson

12-Dec-18 3:52

It does feel like I was smarter back in the early 90's when I began making a living as a programmer. BRIEF was the editor (hackable editor way before Atom), Btrieve was the database manager and Microsoft C 5.1 was the compiler. I could double indirect pointers no problem. Managed my own damn memory thank you, always calloc, never malloc and free the pointer when you were done. Three hole binder Runtime reference was your help file.

Heck, I could even make sense of the MAKE file.

Nowadays way too much VooDoo in those frameworks I have to use.

Forogar 12-Dec-18 7:22

Forogar

12-Dec-18 7:22

BRIEF and C 5.1... Ah, the good old days when my brain still worked - which was lucky because I actually had to use it to do my job! Sigh | :sigh:

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.

Dan Neely12-Dec-18 2:51

Dan Neely

12-Dec-18 2:51

GuyThiebaut wrote:
I think what amazes me more than anything about this sort of attitude to becoming a developer is that back in 1982 when I got my first computer(a 48k ZX Spectrum) there was no world wide web.
You just bought magazines and learnt from the manual and friends, training courses were whatever exercises you could find in books. There was nobody there to motivate you outside of your own thirst for learning.

So now with the huge amount of information out there for free, as well as free IDEs, people still find it difficult to motivate themselves to learn?

I think it's more the other way around. Computer Programming has become a widely demanded job that pays reasonably well. Unlike the 80s and early 90s when programming was a niche job that you only pursued because you thought it sounded like fun; a lot of today's programmers are only in it for the money. Of course they're not motivated to do anything beyond the laziest possible Elephant | [mastadon]

ing minimum.

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing 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

Rob Philpott12-Dec-18 4:16

Rob Philpott

12-Dec-18 4:16

Nailed it!

Regards,
Rob Philpott.

GuyThiebaut12-Dec-18 4:35

12-Dec-18 4:35

Every young developer I have worked with who was in it for the money has usually had to move to another career.
If I was paid for the number of hours I worked, rather than a salary, I would be a much richer man.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

Dr.Walt Fair, PE13-Dec-18 1:52

Dr.Walt Fair, PE

13-Dec-18 1:52

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If you "don't have not much time to learn", your career as a programmer will be short and chock full of disappointment. Good luck in whatever vocation you choose next.

I think it's a little bit late for JSOP to havea short career!

CQ de W5ALT

Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software

SSMS - version annoyance

maze311-Dec-18 22:39

maze3

11-Dec-18 22:39

Oooo, SSMS wants to update

Installed: 14.0.17285.0
Latest: 14.0.17289.0

Wonder what changes there are.

Web search: SSMS update
Download SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) | Microsoft Docs

Headline: SSMS 17.9.1 is the current General Availability

Wait what? Am I missing 3 major updates? wtf?

scroll:
Release number: 17.9.1
Build number: 14.0.17289.0

Ohh. Well the first update window from SSMS application made no reference to 17.9.1

web search: why SSMS release and build so different?

ssms 2016 - difference between release number and build number in SQl Server Management Studio - Stack Overflow

Quote:
convenient way to reference the official version

Convenient to who? Is this the first auto updating application that Microsoft has worked on? For what I assume to be a critial business enterprise application, the update window is great.
But why missing so much info, at least a link to release notes.

I say this with heart, as someone building an hosted application which in its self should have a more easily accessible release notes navigation and warning.

Mark_Wallace12-Dec-18 1:09

Mark_Wallace

12-Dec-18 1:09

maze3 wrote:
Stack Overflow

Traitor!

We gotta block this caravan of immigrants from SO!

They'll take our Q&A guys' jobs, steal our cars, burgle our houses, and eat our pet chihuahuas!

Vote for us! Vote for the TRUTH!

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

#realJSOP12-Dec-18 1:23

#realJSOP

12-Dec-18 1:23

Mark_Wallace wrote:
and eat our pet chihuahuas

I love dogs, but IMHO, they can eat all the Chihuahuas they want...

Mark_Wallace12-Dec-18 3:24

Mark_Wallace

12-Dec-18 3:24

If it's never been voted Most Annoying Yappy Little PITA, it damned well should have been.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

Dr.Walt Fair, PE13-Dec-18 1:54

Dr.Walt Fair, PE

13-Dec-18 1:54

But pet chihuahuas are tasty!

CQ de W5ALT

Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software

#realJSOP12-Dec-18 1:14

#realJSOP

12-Dec-18 1:14

I can tell what HASN'T been fixed yet (even in 2017.n) - when you add a table or view, SSMS *STILL* thinks the table/view doesn't exist when you start writing a new query without first disconnecting from the sql instance and reconnecting.

It's f*ckin annoying.

However, rest assured that SSMS 2017.n can still connect to any sqk instance from 2008 and up.

pkfox12-Dec-18 1:25

pkfox

12-Dec-18 1:25

It's actually only intellisense that doesn't recognize the new entity, pressing ctrl-shift-r rebuild the intellisense.

We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP

Richard Deeming12-Dec-18 1:42

Richard Deeming

12-Dec-18 1:42

Make sure you don't look at the VS2017 version information! Laugh | :laugh:

Visual Studio 2017 - Version 15.9.4

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer