|
I had a friend at Microsoft who I've known for years recommend me, both for my contributions to a site where we met (DevHood - no longer up) and here, not to mention some help I gave him regarding CCWs for an InfoPath project he was working on at Microsoft.
Several other CP'ers are MVPs as well, including Marc Clifton who sometimes graces the C# forum, Chris Maunder (the site adminisrator and founder of CP), and Nishant.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
My Articles
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,Thanks. 
Heath Stewart wrote:
including Marc Clifton who sometimes graces the C# forum, Chris Maunder (the site adminisrator and founder of CP), and Nishant.
Oh, Heath , I'm an old guy here, I know them. 
Mazy
You're face to face,
With the man who sold the world - David Bowie
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations Heath. ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote:
and a testament of helping out the community (mostly the C# forum[^]).
Actually I think
Heath Stewart wrote:
and supports multiple front-ends (such as a legacy Java interface on PDM)
swung it for you 
Regards,
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
Back in December, '03, the chief editor of DevX (http://www.devx.com[^]) commissioned me to write an article based on information discussed on my local article, Embedding .NET Controls in Java[^]. You can find the recently published article at http://www.devx.com/interop/Article/19845[^]. It's part of a whole series on .NET and Java interoperability, indexed at http://www.devx.com/interop/Door/18896[^]. There's several excellent articles if you're interesting in bridging the gap between two or more seemingly disparate technologies.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Nice article Heath, it would be interesting to see how many companies will pursue such integrations. I think we would find it more common than not; obviously depending on the abilities of their development staff or the size of their pocketbook to pay for consultants. Good job, another great one!
- Nick Parker
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
What's the deal with certification anyway? I've been contemplating this for years but am so torn about whether or not I should take the time and spend the money. My company has even offered to pay for certification tests (like they give me the time) and I still don't really care too much.
I have worked for and with many people that brag about their certifications (like MCSD, MCSE, etc.) and, frankly, know little or nothing at all. I've also worked with a number of truly bright and talented people that aren't certified. Is it just that we spend too much time actually developing code to study? Heck, look at my posting record and profile. I know what I'm doing yet newbies with questions like, "What does method X do?" are getting certified.
Studying is also necessary. After taking a few of these practice exams for fun and curiosity, I realize that it's full of nit-picky stuff that no one cares about. For example, "what do you call the process of putting X, Y, and Z togther?" I don't care what it's called, I only care about the problem I'm trying to solve by doing so and with the solution that results from said operation. Isn't that what's important?
The only real reason I can see to get certified is that too many managers care about such things. They think that because someone is certified they know what they're doing. Yeah, right. I can give them hundreds of counter examples from both perspectives. Test applicants by having them solve a problem instead of answering text book questions and the truth will come out.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are similar comments made about getting a college degree, but I think they still hold a similar basis for their reasoning. Determination, yet with a certificate or a degree you add measurable determination. While there are people out there that do not have a formal education; there are many which are extremely bright in their area. Certifications provide a quicker mechanism than a typical degree and this is one reason I feel they have grown exponentially in recent years.
Given that, management must use certain determinates to select a new hire, these are typically an easy mechanism to use. You may not believe in them, however if this is what it may take to get a position your looking for, it maybe a good path to travel.
- Nick Parker
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose you have a point there. Man, you leave Proplanner and get smart all of a sudden! I can't image what that might infer!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote:
I can't image what that might infer!
Hmm, me either, guess you never noticed it between all those M.I.S. joke you made while I was there! Well, off to put all my code behind the click event handler....  Just kidding!
- Nick Parker
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Noticed what?
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote:
Noticed what?
Heath Stewart wrote:
Man, you leave Proplanner and get smart all of a sudden! I can't image what that might infer!
You were implying that I got smart after I left Proplanner! Anyway, I just got my software installed today, that was fun. Visual Studio, MSDN (2001 version  ), Rational Rose, Crystal Reports, etc.... I didn't mention they had to reimage my machine on Tuesday, that was fun, I didn't get on it until 4:30 in the afternoon! Ah well, tomorrow is jean day. 
- Nick Parker
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote:
Need me to come down and show you how it works?
Yeah, sure, I haven't quite yet figured out how to turn the thing on yet....
Heath Stewart wrote:
Seriously, though, I'm guessing you have Visual Studio 6.0?
You got it, but we are using a product called Visual Enabler for source control (instead of SourceSafe), it's actually pretty good (so far). Maybe it's because we have a mix of C/C++, Java and VB stuff out there, I'm not sure if SourceSafe can handle Java or not (I guess it can at least do J++).
Heath Stewart wrote:
And you won't find newer versions of MSDN because they're all Help 2 now and VS6 has no idea what that is or how to use it. Bummer.
Double bummer, I guess that's why it is always handy to bookmark Google and MSDN for quick searches.
- Nick Parker
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Parker wrote:
Maybe it's because we have a mix of C/C++, Java and VB stuff out there, I'm not sure if SourceSafe can handle Java or not (I guess it can at least do J++).
SourceSafe - like CVS - is not tied to any one language, project type, or even development projects. Even the integration with Visual Studio isn't specific to Microsoft development projects. Any MSSCCI client - like FrontPage, Access, even SQL Server - can use it to store whatever it wants, and there is even a couple good MSSCCI providers for CVS. I've seen one or two other non-Microsoft products that are MSSCCI clients, but I can't remember what they were.
Nick Parker wrote:
I guess that's why it is always handy to bookmark Google and MSDN for quick searches.
I still can't effectively use MSDN Library at work.  I've reinstalled MSXML3 and 4 (both with latest service packs) every way I can think of and that is both documented and undocumented. No joy. I can't see the TOC and now I can't update my Platform SDK installation because it uses MSXML, too! I can't even consistently replicate the problem. 
I guess I'll keep trying what I can. We have some licenses for Office 2K3 for us developers and I'm hoping that when I install that it'll fix the problems with MSXML (since it uses it, figured it'd install / fix it perhaps, too). Knowing my luck, however, the cool XML features of Office won't work because of the problems. I guess it's time for a rebuild, if I ever get the chance. 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote:
I still can't effectively use MSDN Library at work. I've reinstalled MSXML3 and 4 (both with latest service packs) every way I can think of and that is both documented and undocumented. No joy. I can't see the TOC and now I can't update my Platform SDK installation because it uses MSXML, too! I can't even consistently replicate the problem.
The only other thing I could suggest is trying to run a Norton WinDoctor (part of Norton SystemWorks), this will scan the whole hard drive for various problems (you would be surprised at the number of problems it will find on a system you think is working properly) including the registry for invalid COM entries and "correct" them (I think it does more than just a regsvr32 command on the missing CLSID, more like resolving the correct path to the COM Server if unknown). It is actually very handy. If you don't have it I believe I have a copy at home and could stop by sometime next week if you'd like to give it a go (its always worth a shot).
- Nick Parker
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Certification is for those who want a pretty piece of paper on their wall.
I know alot of people who are certifiably stupid
Self-Taught-Programmer = "Logic"
College-Taught-Programmer = "Standards"
------------------
I'm naked under my clothes...
|
|
|
|
|
obelisk29 wrote:
College-Taught-Programmer = "Standards"
Actually, this breaks up into a couple different clauses as well (in most cases from what I've observed). If you consider most trade schools that promote their college by telling people they can make more money and dump that dead-end job, they teach people "how to do". If you consider universities and other higher-level colleges, they teach people "how to research". This isn't absolute, of course, and people coming out of either can be just as good or bad, but in either case people must understand that they have to put their heart in soul into it - like with practically anything else - and do the actual learning outside of class, based on what they've learned or didn't learn. I noticed that many people didn't grasp this concept while attending a Uni to get that other pretty piece of paper!
For instance, I knew of this girl that was probably near or at the top of our department. She knew her books but couldn't implement any real problems without a lot of help.
So I definitely agree with Self-Taught-Programmer = "Logic", although a college education can help with other areas and with how to deal with people a little better, which people in our field are typically not known to do very well!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah you're are always right aren't you...
LOL
------------------
I'm naked under my clothes...
|
|
|
|
|
Judging by the number of posts you answer each day the certification would be a snap to you. Besides each exam is like $125 (Your company would paying for it anyway). I'd take it for fun if I were you.
ps. For you its of little importance because you hold a nice job already.
>> I know what I'm doing yet newbies with questions like, "What does method X do?" are getting certified.
For some reason a certification means a lot to an employer.
|
|
|
|
|
AK wrote:
Besides each exam is like $125 (Your company would paying for it anyway). I'd take it for fun if I were you.
ps. For you its of little importance because you hold a nice job already.
They offered before, but have never given me the time. There's several nit-picky things about the certification exams that I want to be sure I read through the books which they've already bought me. Times are tough now, though, so consider what that implies for that second statement!
AK wrote:
For some reason a certification means a lot to an employer.
As someone explained earlier in this thread, it's because many employers that actually do the hiring don't know 1) an object from a class, and 2) don't know you as well as you're friends. Certification - much like a college degree (which also doesn't always prove anything) - is a way to catagorize the applicants and decrease the pool of potential hires. As much as this make suck at times, I do understand.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't waste my time on certification. I want to spend my time learning and exploring new areas, not matching a "profile".
I can roughly divide my colleges at work into two groups: People like me, who have such a strong natural interest in programming, that they spend off-work hours doing it too. They don't have certifications. People know their skills anyway. And people who take programming as a way of earning money. They are usually certified, because they can't prove their skills any other way.
I used to be a professional musician. And I take some pride in that I am self taught. Or taught as I expressed music together with fellows in various bands, I might say. This is very similar to how I develop as a programmer. I would never take a programming class or certificate. My programming fellows are some people at work, numerous programming books and the Internet.
Regards,
/Björn Morén
|
|
|
|
|
I also see this as a real, growing problem.
It's a wizard's wheel, I think. In order to get more easily employed, you should have a certificate. In order to pay for the studying and the exams on the road to that certification, you'd need to have a job
I haven't obtained a certificate for myself, and it shows. In every work opportunity or interview I get, I'm usually asked if I have any of them. Answering no always drops my shares. There have been instances, however, when I have been able to convince the employer that the certificates don't make a programmer. They just make it easier for managers to categorize people :I
P.S. Congratulations for the MVP nomination, I'm sure it was an earned one
-Antti Keskinen
----------------------------------------------
The definition of impossible is strictly dependant
on what we think is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Hehe.