Agreed. You simply can't model something you don't understand. I highly doubt there will be full comprehension of the human brain within the next 20 years. If software development has taught us anything it is that your delivery estimation is wrong. Always.
I think this is a fantastic idea. Someone needs to show the government what open source software is all about. They aren't going to figure it out for themselves. Just like the Canadian government. We seem to really be falling behind in the information technology department.
This may not necessarily be the ideal approach, and, I don't think there actually is one when it comes to learning how to develop software. First, learn C. This will give you a fundamental understanding of low-level programming concepts while at the same time using a language that is still important in industry. Second, learn C++. C++ is a natural progression from C in order to introduce object-oriented concepts. Lastly, learn Python. This will give you a good understanding of higher-level languages. If it turns out that Python is your lifetime language of choice, all is not lost with your C training. Obviously, the concepts learned remain but Python and C are highly interoperable.
Not necessarily related to the Ubuntu + Gnome topic, but in TFA, Shuttleworth makes a good point in noting that the developers hold the most sway in terms of release management. Also, developers aren't necessarily in touch with how their code is functional across all potential systems. Double-edged sword that I see quite often.
What most open source applications lack is the overall successful user experience. The open source application may shine in all areas while lacking in some seemingly small component of the application. But what does this tiny component matter, it is small and irrelevant. This is what can be learned from Apple. Nothing in the user experience can be deemed irrelevant, no matter how small.
I agree. The mouse is more efficient for certain tasks such as text selection and manipulation. Given that this is in the context of a programming environment, any plain old mouse with two buttons will suffice.
I think Python is indeed much more popular on Linux desktop distros. From a deployment standpoint, as opposed to comparing the languages themselves, which is easier to do on a large scale?
Another interesting activity one can attempt is to figure out what would be useful to the open source community as a whole but does not yet exist. Start by exploring already existing open source projects and the common problems they share. This valuable for three purposes. First, you end up learning by exploring. Second, you might find a way to join one of these projects instead of starting your own. Lastly, if you were to start your own open source project based on what you feel troubles the project you explore, it will be all the more rewarding in the end.
Our design team is a fraction of that size and can easily handle a project of half that size, including all the back-end logic. If our team were twice the size, we could realistically take on a project like this for half alloted grant amount.
Life is too short to do something that isn't personally rewarding. If having to keep myself up-to-date on everything tech and re-inventing myself with each Web.x release to stay on top isn't exciting any more, it is time to move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Why add convolution to an already convoluted language?
Agreed. You simply can't model something you don't understand. I highly doubt there will be full comprehension of the human brain within the next 20 years. If software development has taught us anything it is that your delivery estimation is wrong. Always.
I think this is a fantastic idea. Someone needs to show the government what open source software is all about. They aren't going to figure it out for themselves. Just like the Canadian government. We seem to really be falling behind in the information technology department.
This may not necessarily be the ideal approach, and, I don't think there actually is one when it comes to learning how to develop software. First, learn C. This will give you a fundamental understanding of low-level programming concepts while at the same time using a language that is still important in industry. Second, learn C++. C++ is a natural progression from C in order to introduce object-oriented concepts. Lastly, learn Python. This will give you a good understanding of higher-level languages. If it turns out that Python is your lifetime language of choice, all is not lost with your C training. Obviously, the concepts learned remain but Python and C are highly interoperable.
Not necessarily related to the Ubuntu + Gnome topic, but in TFA, Shuttleworth makes a good point in noting that the developers hold the most sway in terms of release management. Also, developers aren't necessarily in touch with how their code is functional across all potential systems. Double-edged sword that I see quite often.
What most open source applications lack is the overall successful user experience. The open source application may shine in all areas while lacking in some seemingly small component of the application. But what does this tiny component matter, it is small and irrelevant. This is what can be learned from Apple. Nothing in the user experience can be deemed irrelevant, no matter how small.
I agree. The mouse is more efficient for certain tasks such as text selection and manipulation. Given that this is in the context of a programming environment, any plain old mouse with two buttons will suffice.
I think Python is indeed much more popular on Linux desktop distros. From a deployment standpoint, as opposed to comparing the languages themselves, which is easier to do on a large scale?
Another interesting activity one can attempt is to figure out what would be useful to the open source community as a whole but does not yet exist. Start by exploring already existing open source projects and the common problems they share. This valuable for three purposes. First, you end up learning by exploring. Second, you might find a way to join one of these projects instead of starting your own. Lastly, if you were to start your own open source project based on what you feel troubles the project you explore, it will be all the more rewarding in the end.
Our design team is a fraction of that size and can easily handle a project of half that size, including all the back-end logic. If our team were twice the size, we could realistically take on a project like this for half alloted grant amount.
Life is too short to do something that isn't personally rewarding. If having to keep myself up-to-date on everything tech and re-inventing myself with each Web.x release to stay on top isn't exciting any more, it is time to move on.