Why use a car to go 999 miles when you already walked one mile to your destination 1000 miles away? If the tools you are using aren't the best, and you can figure out a way to build the coupling points out so it's not painful, and then do some or most or all of your forward development at a higher productivity, then it's kind of an easy answer. Maybe if you really think you'll be 100% complete at some point, or the existing code base is so ridiculously large it will never make sense to migrate to something new, than it wouldn't. But many, many organizations have enough work to do moving forward that it absolutely makes sense to use more productive tools to do so.
I'd agree. So it really depends on whether you need better client app performance, or programmer productivity. Otherwise, the only languages we'd ever use would be C and Assembler.
Sure. In any case where you can take a working hunk of code and write an interface that's platform agnostic so you can use better tools for things that talk to it, you'd do it. It doesn't necessarily work for everything, but if you've got a Java based data services layer, and you want to make a client layer on top of it, then in those cases you easily could do exactly what you're asking about.
Yeah, so northeast metro tea party people are probably NOT similar to those you'd see in TX or AK - we have a friend in rural NY and I'm guessing that's a lot closer to what you're used to. MSM intentionally ignores the ones who have more interesting things to say, in my opinion.
Agree with AC. I've done a number of different languages, and used a few different IDEs (including Eclipse, Netbeans, and whatever WebObjects used), and VS is the best of those, hands down. I still have to argue with C guys at the office that for application development (not bit slinging) that automatically memory managed languages like C# are superior for productivity to C/C++. I am thrilled that developing in visual studio and deploying to Linux (without limitation) is a realistic option in a couple years.
When my reality doesn't match yours. I'll take the one I experienced, over the assertions by someone I never met. And I'd expect no different from you.
Fair enough. But at the same time you're indicating that others have argued against you the same way I have. That suggests I'm not the only one seeing something different from what you're seeing.
I wonder if geography is related. I presume you're from Alaska, based on what I see of your posts and handle. It really would not surprise me if self-labeled "Tea Party" supporters in rural areas were substantially different in nature (and possibly more uniform) than people labeled similarly from the metropolitan east coast. I can say with certainty that the early Tea Partiers here were pro gold-standard, anti-bank bailout, and somewhat oriented toward Austrian Economics and generally Ron Paul supporters. About a year into the movement, the Kochs started astroturfing, trying to get populist support for Sarah Palin, and the nature of the movement changed and became significantly more heterogeneous. The media fed the changeover, as it was easier to report on Palinite populist nationalism than Paulite economic theory.
Does any of this resonate? Are the Tea Party people you're seeing more of the populist Palinite mold? Because if that's what you're seeing, then I can certainly see why you'd conclude what you have. And it may be strange to you that people described with similar or identical labels in different geographies are pretty radically different.
Is that what I did? No. In fact, I offered sincere advice to the OP, as I got into STEM via technical writing while I was an English Major. Take a look for my other post. And here, I never said it was OK to shit on people with a BA, just that people with BAs or PhDs in humanities are no different from anyone else.
Was that BC Calc? Because if it was, then that's not really a fair comparison because BC Calc is supposed to cover 2 semesters.
Yes, though my high school covered both ab and bc. Nonetheless, not all college courses are alike, either. Do you think MIT physics is covering the same depth and breadth as Lincoln College?
Aren't we talking about a minor change, here? All I'm saying is that a motivated student ought to be able to take a bloody AP class if he or she wants to, even in the absence of a stellar transcript. I mean, really. If a kid is fascinated with history, why shouldn't that kid be allowed to take AP U.S. History instead of standard U.S. History? The kid'll get some exposure to college level work in a class that piques his or her interest instead of being told, "Hey, sorry kid. You're too dumb to handle college work."
Back when I was in school, there was this chick who really wanted to take AP Econ, but she didn't have good grades, and the teacher gave her the boot (it was in front of the whole class, too. Ouch!). All I'm saying is that there were plenty of supposedly qualified kids in that class who never even came close to grasping the material, but I bet this chick would have gotten it because she cared more than they did.
I know it's just an anecdote and I know it's just my opinion not a scientific study, but anyway, that's what I think. Because frankly, who cares if they fail? I'd rather see a motivated kid challenge him or herself and come up short than not to take the challenge at all.
It's a problem because once you start treating students like individuals, you will end up with a line of parents a mile long who want their precious little snowflake in AP everything and then have "extra help" on top of it. I get what you're saying, and in theory if only the legitimately well intended and likely to succeed kids were the ones exceptions were made for asked for exceptions, it could work.
But, that would never happen. Making an exception invites a whole shit ton of people who have no realistic chance of success asking for the same thing and crushing the system by costs and bureaucratic gate keeping. I stand by my assertion that if you want a system that treats you child like an individual, you can't do that via a factory system.
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party, and the Republican Party and attended Teabagger meetings (back when they actually called themselves teabaggers, and so long as they claim they never did, I'll never stop using it), but on Slashdot I'm continually told that I don't "understand" them.
Then maybe you don't understand them. I've been to Tea Party events as well. Yes, there are racists there. There are nationalist populist morons. There are also people who are primarily interested in ending the power of the Federal Reserve. The latter have been squeezed out by the former, but if it fits your needs to oversimplify that out, I can't stop you.
Oh, and I've never been a member of the Democratic Party. And didn't vote for Clinton or Obama (though I never voted for a Bush either).
Likewise. I'd be willing to bet based on that alone, we probably share some significant policy positions. Or, more likely, oppose some of the same policies.
What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude.
I understand what they do. My point is that they should not do that. They should give motivated kids a chance to be challenged. And let's be honest, do AP classes represent an actual challenge? I took a metric assload of them, and I did not find them to be challenging at all. The reason for this should be obvious: they take a semester-long college course and consume a full academic year teaching it. Of course they're dead easy.
That means you're using your anecdotal evidence and generalizing from it. School psychologists use widely gathered and normed statistical data to make their decisions. Most students cannot handle AP coursework. If you think it was easy, you probably had some combination of factors (significantly above average intelligence, outstanding teachers, shit luck) most kids don't have. I can tell you my high school AP Calc class went at the same rate as a typical college Calc class. Maybe a little faster. So right there, my anecdotal evidence in juxtaposition with yours shows you can't generalize from your knowledge. FYI, my locality has some really excellent ratings in terms of academic achievement for most of the suburban districts, so I can definitely say I would NOT expect that all other AP programs would be like the ones I've seen.
Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that.
Well, maybe they should change that.
The school system is a factory system. Factory systems that are tuned to the mean, roughly. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) set up after NCLB are esentially a selection of 7 or 8 learning supports or enrichments that are minor modifications of the base system. If you want something radically different from that (and if it were my kids, I certainly WOULD), then you can't realistically expect to be able to "tune" that factory to your kids' needs. You'd need a pretty radically different system.
You're ignoring the huge infighting in the GOP, for what reason, exactly? Is it something you're not aware of? I don't see why it [political fragmentation in the GOP] would be something you'd know about and deny. Look up the problems knowledge workers in their 20s through 40s are having in church. Look at nominal republicans trying to relax drug laws. I'm not asking you to support these people - I have no idea where you're coming from politically - but it's weird to me that you'd deny there are major structural stresses in the GOP. Here: https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Heck, there were people in the GOP who kicked out Eric Cantor, basically KNOWING their preferred "Teat Party" candidate would lose. The Republican party is a shambles, and I'm thrilled to be part of the element that's doing it.
These people almost all fall into the neocon category. They support candidates who differ in social rhetoric but not actual policy. Hence they support people who agree 100% with Hillary on whom to bomb next.
No, no, no. If you think that's true, please explain to me why I have family members who get visibly enraged when I suggest that while I agree with them about balanced budgets, their policies don't actually support that, and that gays should be allowed to marry, etc., etc., all the stuff that currently makes guys like Boehner and McConnell criticize Amash and Massie. You're oversimplifying. Yes, you are.
I can answer that, as my wife worked as a professional school psychologist for some time. What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude. It's not just IQ, though that's a part of it. Even with a set of objective criteria, parents of kids whose children perform poorly generally and do not show academic aptitude will attempt to lobby for their kids to be in top classes.
Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that. The school system is not designed to be fully customizable for a student who's weak in academics to have access to AP courses. That would be very, very expensive. If you think your kids would benefit from a more customized education, your best choice is probably home schooling. Many students with involved parents can excel with that decision.
I have come to the same conclusion reading what's been made publicly available. What's harder to prove is that Wolfowitz, Cheyney and co. purposefully deceived the UN, et. al.
They won't be happy until 100% of college and advanced degree students are girls. I did my part by dropping out and getting a high-paying job; higher than many women I know with Master's degrees.
Nah, just that there's nothing inherent to humanities courses or students that suggests they'd be any nicer than dicks on/., as about the same percentage of humanities majors are self-important assholes as any other academic concentration.
Funny, as a musician I'd say all art is craft, but not all craft is art. I.e., I can lay down a genuinely good cover of a swing tune that would evoke a sense of Sinatra or Dean Martin, rehearsed and refined, but in no way profound or transcendent or relevatory. Craft - in a sense, little different from a well-build handmade cabinet.
John Coltrane can write and perform "A Love Supreme", which people might say is chaotic, self-indulgent, lacking in refinement, poorly structured, and be able to bring to bear some degree of legitimate informed criticism, but regardless it clearly had transformative, profound effects on huge numbers of people.
State sponsored Nazi artists created highly realistic idealized visual art, idolizing the Aryan ideal. Executed as perfect craft, but perhaps quite corrupted as art. The beholder can look at it in context and see the horrors it represented, even if the artist was simply naively enjoying the craft, without any evil intent.
I typically take the neo-platonist view that anything done well is representative of "The Good". It doesn't have to be art to be good craft. But I really don't like people trying to create art who never learned the craft side of it. It feels wrong. Making something truly beautiful (or ugly) that creates a transcendent experience is really, really hard. Are you connecting with the people who are beholding your work? Jazz musicians often slip into self-indulgence, as do a number of other types of artists. Is it OK to fall down a hole of artistic inquiry, if no one comes with you?
Glad to be of service. As a student of classical and jazz music styles, I struggled (as did my current piano teacher) with exploits into jazz being labeled "not legit" by the classical crowd, so I, too, have a taste of the seemingly capricious rejection you speak of. This rejection was often strange, considering I frequently surpassed the same critics when playing in the classical.
I've come to appreciate the finer points of the extraordinary difficulty of raising the performance of classical pieces to an artistic level via interpretive effort after years of study on piano (offering substantially more individual freedom and thus requiring enormously more effort than being an orchestral clarinetist as I was back then), and so I can now see more from their perspective the challenges of interpretive performance, and that they believe the jazz player lacks legitimacy because jazz players aren't forced to jump through the same hoops. Dismissal of the difficulties of jazz performance are a distinct issue, I believe. You likely deal with both these dynamics and more.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they do. We live under an oligarchy, while they live under a (wait for it) .... BANANA REPUBLIC.
Why use a car to go 999 miles when you already walked one mile to your destination 1000 miles away? If the tools you are using aren't the best, and you can figure out a way to build the coupling points out so it's not painful, and then do some or most or all of your forward development at a higher productivity, then it's kind of an easy answer. Maybe if you really think you'll be 100% complete at some point, or the existing code base is so ridiculously large it will never make sense to migrate to something new, than it wouldn't. But many, many organizations have enough work to do moving forward that it absolutely makes sense to use more productive tools to do so.
I'd agree. So it really depends on whether you need better client app performance, or programmer productivity. Otherwise, the only languages we'd ever use would be C and Assembler.
You don't make a wrapper. You make an interface. Like a web service. It's not appropriate everywhere, but it is in many cases, and can be easy.
Sure. In any case where you can take a working hunk of code and write an interface that's platform agnostic so you can use better tools for things that talk to it, you'd do it. It doesn't necessarily work for everything, but if you've got a Java based data services layer, and you want to make a client layer on top of it, then in those cases you easily could do exactly what you're asking about.
Yeah, so northeast metro tea party people are probably NOT similar to those you'd see in TX or AK - we have a friend in rural NY and I'm guessing that's a lot closer to what you're used to. MSM intentionally ignores the ones who have more interesting things to say, in my opinion.
Agree with AC. I've done a number of different languages, and used a few different IDEs (including Eclipse, Netbeans, and whatever WebObjects used), and VS is the best of those, hands down. I still have to argue with C guys at the office that for application development (not bit slinging) that automatically memory managed languages like C# are superior for productivity to C/C++. I am thrilled that developing in visual studio and deploying to Linux (without limitation) is a realistic option in a couple years.
When my reality doesn't match yours. I'll take the one I experienced, over the assertions by someone I never met. And I'd expect no different from you.
Fair enough. But at the same time you're indicating that others have argued against you the same way I have. That suggests I'm not the only one seeing something different from what you're seeing.
I wonder if geography is related. I presume you're from Alaska, based on what I see of your posts and handle. It really would not surprise me if self-labeled "Tea Party" supporters in rural areas were substantially different in nature (and possibly more uniform) than people labeled similarly from the metropolitan east coast. I can say with certainty that the early Tea Partiers here were pro gold-standard, anti-bank bailout, and somewhat oriented toward Austrian Economics and generally Ron Paul supporters. About a year into the movement, the Kochs started astroturfing, trying to get populist support for Sarah Palin, and the nature of the movement changed and became significantly more heterogeneous. The media fed the changeover, as it was easier to report on Palinite populist nationalism than Paulite economic theory.
Does any of this resonate? Are the Tea Party people you're seeing more of the populist Palinite mold? Because if that's what you're seeing, then I can certainly see why you'd conclude what you have. And it may be strange to you that people described with similar or identical labels in different geographies are pretty radically different.
Is that what I did? No. In fact, I offered sincere advice to the OP, as I got into STEM via technical writing while I was an English Major. Take a look for my other post. And here, I never said it was OK to shit on people with a BA, just that people with BAs or PhDs in humanities are no different from anyone else.
If the good reason that Climate Change doesn't have confounding factors and can be tested via experimentation?
Was that BC Calc? Because if it was, then that's not really a fair comparison because BC Calc is supposed to cover 2 semesters.
Yes, though my high school covered both ab and bc. Nonetheless, not all college courses are alike, either. Do you think MIT physics is covering the same depth and breadth as Lincoln College?
Aren't we talking about a minor change, here? All I'm saying is that a motivated student ought to be able to take a bloody AP class if he or she wants to, even in the absence of a stellar transcript. I mean, really. If a kid is fascinated with history, why shouldn't that kid be allowed to take AP U.S. History instead of standard U.S. History? The kid'll get some exposure to college level work in a class that piques his or her interest instead of being told, "Hey, sorry kid. You're too dumb to handle college work."
Back when I was in school, there was this chick who really wanted to take AP Econ, but she didn't have good grades, and the teacher gave her the boot (it was in front of the whole class, too. Ouch!). All I'm saying is that there were plenty of supposedly qualified kids in that class who never even came close to grasping the material, but I bet this chick would have gotten it because she cared more than they did.
I know it's just an anecdote and I know it's just my opinion not a scientific study, but anyway, that's what I think. Because frankly, who cares if they fail? I'd rather see a motivated kid challenge him or herself and come up short than not to take the challenge at all.
It's a problem because once you start treating students like individuals, you will end up with a line of parents a mile long who want their precious little snowflake in AP everything and then have "extra help" on top of it. I get what you're saying, and in theory if only the legitimately well intended and likely to succeed kids were the ones exceptions were made for asked for exceptions, it could work.
But, that would never happen. Making an exception invites a whole shit ton of people who have no realistic chance of success asking for the same thing and crushing the system by costs and bureaucratic gate keeping. I stand by my assertion that if you want a system that treats you child like an individual, you can't do that via a factory system.
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party, and the Republican Party and attended Teabagger meetings (back when they actually called themselves teabaggers, and so long as they claim they never did, I'll never stop using it), but on Slashdot I'm continually told that I don't "understand" them.
Then maybe you don't understand them. I've been to Tea Party events as well. Yes, there are racists there. There are nationalist populist morons. There are also people who are primarily interested in ending the power of the Federal Reserve. The latter have been squeezed out by the former, but if it fits your needs to oversimplify that out, I can't stop you.
Oh, and I've never been a member of the Democratic Party. And didn't vote for Clinton or Obama (though I never voted for a Bush either).
Likewise. I'd be willing to bet based on that alone, we probably share some significant policy positions. Or, more likely, oppose some of the same policies.
What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude.
I understand what they do. My point is that they should not do that. They should give motivated kids a chance to be challenged. And let's be honest, do AP classes represent an actual challenge? I took a metric assload of them, and I did not find them to be challenging at all. The reason for this should be obvious: they take a semester-long college course and consume a full academic year teaching it. Of course they're dead easy.
That means you're using your anecdotal evidence and generalizing from it. School psychologists use widely gathered and normed statistical data to make their decisions. Most students cannot handle AP coursework. If you think it was easy, you probably had some combination of factors (significantly above average intelligence, outstanding teachers, shit luck) most kids don't have. I can tell you my high school AP Calc class went at the same rate as a typical college Calc class. Maybe a little faster. So right there, my anecdotal evidence in juxtaposition with yours shows you can't generalize from your knowledge. FYI, my locality has some really excellent ratings in terms of academic achievement for most of the suburban districts, so I can definitely say I would NOT expect that all other AP programs would be like the ones I've seen.
Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that.
Well, maybe they should change that.
The school system is a factory system. Factory systems that are tuned to the mean, roughly. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) set up after NCLB are esentially a selection of 7 or 8 learning supports or enrichments that are minor modifications of the base system. If you want something radically different from that (and if it were my kids, I certainly WOULD), then you can't realistically expect to be able to "tune" that factory to your kids' needs. You'd need a pretty radically different system.
You're ignoring the huge infighting in the GOP, for what reason, exactly? Is it something you're not aware of? I don't see why it [political fragmentation in the GOP] would be something you'd know about and deny. Look up the problems knowledge workers in their 20s through 40s are having in church. Look at nominal republicans trying to relax drug laws. I'm not asking you to support these people - I have no idea where you're coming from politically - but it's weird to me that you'd deny there are major structural stresses in the GOP. Here: https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Heck, there were people in the GOP who kicked out Eric Cantor, basically KNOWING their preferred "Teat Party" candidate would lose. The Republican party is a shambles, and I'm thrilled to be part of the element that's doing it.
These people almost all fall into the neocon category. They support candidates who differ in social rhetoric but not actual policy. Hence they support people who agree 100% with Hillary on whom to bomb next.
No, no, no. If you think that's true, please explain to me why I have family members who get visibly enraged when I suggest that while I agree with them about balanced budgets, their policies don't actually support that, and that gays should be allowed to marry, etc., etc., all the stuff that currently makes guys like Boehner and McConnell criticize Amash and Massie. You're oversimplifying. Yes, you are.
You left out people with an opinion on climate change.
I can answer that, as my wife worked as a professional school psychologist for some time. What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude. It's not just IQ, though that's a part of it. Even with a set of objective criteria, parents of kids whose children perform poorly generally and do not show academic aptitude will attempt to lobby for their kids to be in top classes.
Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that. The school system is not designed to be fully customizable for a student who's weak in academics to have access to AP courses. That would be very, very expensive. If you think your kids would benefit from a more customized education, your best choice is probably home schooling. Many students with involved parents can excel with that decision.
I have come to the same conclusion reading what's been made publicly available. What's harder to prove is that Wolfowitz, Cheyney and co. purposefully deceived the UN, et. al.
Is this just an elaborate scheme to build a more convincing shark than the stuffed animal from Jaws 3-D?
They won't be happy until 100% of college and advanced degree students are girls. I did my part by dropping out and getting a high-paying job; higher than many women I know with Master's degrees.
Can you explain in more detail? Are AP courses not offered at your school, or are your kids not permitted to enroll?
Nah, just that there's nothing inherent to humanities courses or students that suggests they'd be any nicer than dicks on /., as about the same percentage of humanities majors are self-important assholes as any other academic concentration.
Funny, as a musician I'd say all art is craft, but not all craft is art. I.e., I can lay down a genuinely good cover of a swing tune that would evoke a sense of Sinatra or Dean Martin, rehearsed and refined, but in no way profound or transcendent or relevatory. Craft - in a sense, little different from a well-build handmade cabinet.
John Coltrane can write and perform "A Love Supreme", which people might say is chaotic, self-indulgent, lacking in refinement, poorly structured, and be able to bring to bear some degree of legitimate informed criticism, but regardless it clearly had transformative, profound effects on huge numbers of people.
State sponsored Nazi artists created highly realistic idealized visual art, idolizing the Aryan ideal. Executed as perfect craft, but perhaps quite corrupted as art. The beholder can look at it in context and see the horrors it represented, even if the artist was simply naively enjoying the craft, without any evil intent.
I typically take the neo-platonist view that anything done well is representative of "The Good". It doesn't have to be art to be good craft. But I really don't like people trying to create art who never learned the craft side of it. It feels wrong. Making something truly beautiful (or ugly) that creates a transcendent experience is really, really hard. Are you connecting with the people who are beholding your work? Jazz musicians often slip into self-indulgence, as do a number of other types of artists. Is it OK to fall down a hole of artistic inquiry, if no one comes with you?
Glad to be of service. As a student of classical and jazz music styles, I struggled (as did my current piano teacher) with exploits into jazz being labeled "not legit" by the classical crowd, so I, too, have a taste of the seemingly capricious rejection you speak of. This rejection was often strange, considering I frequently surpassed the same critics when playing in the classical.
I've come to appreciate the finer points of the extraordinary difficulty of raising the performance of classical pieces to an artistic level via interpretive effort after years of study on piano (offering substantially more individual freedom and thus requiring enormously more effort than being an orchestral clarinetist as I was back then), and so I can now see more from their perspective the challenges of interpretive performance, and that they believe the jazz player lacks legitimacy because jazz players aren't forced to jump through the same hoops. Dismissal of the difficulties of jazz performance are a distinct issue, I believe. You likely deal with both these dynamics and more.