This is why Brooks wrote "Mythical Man Month", basically. The more you need to "collaborate", the slower you move. If this tech causes an explosion of context switches for people who try to do "real, actual work" (such as myself), then you can bet those people will resist this technology.
Where I work, all work is done behind closed doors with "email only" post-it note underneath the name tag. Otherwise you can bet your ass you will see ten PMs and fifteen testers come by because they have nothing better to do than distract me. Sometimes, when people stop reading the post-it note, I simply grab my laptop and go work somewhere so that no one can find me. Yeah, it's that bad.
And this, not "lack of collaboration" is a BIG problem in large orgs. Collaboration needs to be succinct, adequate and preferably asynchronous (so that people who do work don't get distracted), but making an emphasis on it and making it unnecessarily easy is shooting oneself in the foot.
>> Python frameworks are now catching up to things like ASP and PHP
That's wrong on so many levels. For starters, ASP (assuming you mean ASP.NET) is lightyears ahead of anything python simply because it gets compiled into machine code before it's executed and runs "closer to the iron" (and therefore blows the doors off anything interpreted). I could name five dozen other reasons why ASP.NET and similar Java based frameworks are better, but I don't want to waste time. There's google, you can find it yourself.
Second, what this particular Python framework is really catching up with is Ruby on Rails. And quite frankly, anyone who likes the sort of thing that RoR implements should just use RoR, not imitations.
But that's true, at least for extensive vulnerabilities that can require a lot of effort to fix and/or test!
Let's see, you're a development manager and you have a crazy schedule forced on you from above by some idiotic VP. Now this guy from product support comes along and tells you about this horrible flaw that will require you to shut down all development for two weeks, slip the schedule and have your best people fix it. Then you shut down testing for a month and have your best testers test it. Then there's a pain of pushing out a patch and notifying the customers and bad PR associated with that.
I can easily see how some of the less obvious vulnerabilities would be simply brushed off using "no one is ever going to find out" line of reasoning. Now if you know that someone has already found out and he will make it public in about a month, sure as heck you're going to issue a patch, even if this means slipping the schedule by a month (or in case of Windows by two years). Because if you don't, script kiddies will rape your customer and he will never give you another dollar.
I just said that they ain't gonna go out of business because of a few scamsters here and there, even if they claim they will.
They buy freaking lettuce for $0.17 and sell it for $1.70. Where does the money go? How come retailers can offer up to 40% off on most things when they _really_ need to sell stuff. Do you think they're losing money in this case?
The typical upcharge just for going though a retailer (whether online or brick-and-mortar) is sometimes close to 50% of the original price, even more if we're talking about groceries. So a few scammers here and there aren't going to break that particular bank.
I love what they do with Dev Tools,.NET Framework and Server operating systems (W2K3 rocks). SQL Server is pretty good, too, as are some other server products. XP is finally usable after so many years of patching holes.
But Office division and MSN need a good hard kick in the ass. I'm not even beginning to talk about Business Solutions and some other divisions whose purpose of existence is unknown.
So I guess you can love Microsoft if you learn to not see a few large, cancerous pimples on its face.
First of all, a good dev is not necessarily faster than a bad one. The bad one will do just enough to get by, badly. The good one will make a fucking work of art out of the features he owns and it will be a pleasure to maintain and extend his code. This usually takes more time than "just enough to get by" approach, but this pays off time and time again over the years.
Second of all, if you're five levels deep in the nested function, that's a good indicator that you're not good enough at software design.
However, I'd rather have them specify the _real_ data throughput instead of some arbitrary number that can not be measured. If it's 30Mbps, I'm fine with that as long as it's reasonably close to that in the real life.
Comparing it to google's is like comparing an airplane to a kite. How about some RSS feeds on Google's page? MS page is a lot more dynamic, too, and has better design. Finally, it has _zero_ branding on it which is something I've grown to appreciate.
To me there are three deal killers in Web Dev
on
DHTML Utopia
·
· Score: 1
1. You need to maintain state (and re-parse it on every request, or execute dozens of SQL queries to fetch it from the DB). 2. Any user action that alters state (and often even those that do not) require a round-trip to the sever, including #1. 3. Creating a quality UI has become a voodoo-like thing where you have to rely on all kinds of unwritten laws because CSS2 is not flexible enough beyond simple document formatting. Place a login UI in the center of the screen in XHTML1.1 Strict without using Javascript. You can't! I could come up with three dozen more examples of what you should be able and can not do. I kind of can even understand Microsoft who said CSS2 is a fucked up standard and it's better to wait for CSS3.
Is this the same definition of "mbps" as in the current standard? Because if it is, you'll be lucky to get 54 mbps out of this gizmo, just like right now you often get only about 12 mbps out of a "54 mbps" wireless connection (as in 1MB/sec).
It's still just stupid hackery
on
DHTML Utopia
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Granted, the reach is good and for some tasks there's nothing better than web UI, but as soon as you find yourself in need of building something more than just a bunch of web pages with links it all turns into mind-boggligly weir hackery. You start using javascript for layout. You need to manage state. The most trivial UI things become a fucking mess of JS and CSS "hacks", etc., etc. It's also a pain to turn all this crap into components for future reuse, so chances are next time you do something similar you'll have to reinvent the wheel.
The web was originally invented for publishing hyperlinked documents. It's nice to see it come this far, but web as it is is not designed for writing _applications_.
As far as I'm concerned XAML and XUL are the way of the future. Do as much as you can on the client, communicate only what you need to the server, don't re-render everything every time the user needs to change something, concentrate rendering on the client as well.
Remember these simple mantras if you plan on doing a lot of web development in the coming years.
The primary purpose of Cisco routers is routing network packets and providing network security. The meaning of "network security" is up to the customer purchasing the equipment.
You could say that the primary purpose of matches is burning stuff, and you'd be right. It all just depends on the kind of stuff you burn with them.
Cisco does not engage in censorship. They simply make equipment which can be used to engage in censorship. Similarly to a company that makes matches that can be used for arson, or Proctor and Gamble whose Clorox bleach can be used as poison.
There is no way to tell Chinese government what they can and can not do at this point. It would be nearly fatal to impose stiff tariffs, too. So bend over and hand the Chinese that bottle of vaseline.
The only way to hire a good architect is by poaching. We had a tester on our team, and he was lazy, clueless motherfucker. He left the company and joined a startup which his drinking buddies founded. Guess what's his title now? Yup, he's a Software Architect, no less.
If you want to hire one of those smooth-talking fellows, go ahead do it. I wouldn't hire an architect if I was starting a company. I'd hire a few good developers and then see which one of them is the best (as in "writes the best code") and promote him to an architect.
I'd rather see tech companies compete for quality engineers again and offer increasing salaries, perks and interesting work to those who know what the heck they're doing.
Departure of a high-quality engineer hurts an org that needs to get things done A LOT. This means employers will be willing to pay more, because quality engineering is not something you can trust to a bunch of Indian dudes in Bangalore.
The guy is in fucking China, where US (not to mention Washington State) laws don't apply. The company that hired him is in fucking California, where they don't apply either.
So pray tell, why shouldn't have mr. Lee gone to Google?
My cell phone probably caused less damage than four pints of Guinness and six shots of Vodka I've downed last Saturday. And I'm not even beginning to mention the harm caused by the food I ate this week.
It's like saying "obese people run a higher risk of having high blood pressure and heart disease" and not mentioning their usually sedentary lifestyle, that, you know, may in itself cause higher blood pressure and heart disease.
Same here - OMG cell phone will fry your blinkers, while at the same time disregarding that these very blinkers are used to look at the computer screen for hours on end, and they weren't designed for that. How do you tell exactly what damages one's eyes when there are so many variables at play?
Slashdot Mirror
This is why Brooks wrote "Mythical Man Month", basically. The more you need to "collaborate", the slower you move. If this tech causes an explosion of context switches for people who try to do "real, actual work" (such as myself), then you can bet those people will resist this technology.
Where I work, all work is done behind closed doors with "email only" post-it note underneath the name tag. Otherwise you can bet your ass you will see ten PMs and fifteen testers come by because they have nothing better to do than distract me. Sometimes, when people stop reading the post-it note, I simply grab my laptop and go work somewhere so that no one can find me. Yeah, it's that bad.
And this, not "lack of collaboration" is a BIG problem in large orgs. Collaboration needs to be succinct, adequate and preferably asynchronous (so that people who do work don't get distracted), but making an emphasis on it and making it unnecessarily easy is shooting oneself in the foot.
>> Python frameworks are now catching up to things like ASP and PHP
That's wrong on so many levels. For starters, ASP (assuming you mean ASP.NET) is lightyears ahead of anything python simply because it gets compiled into machine code before it's executed and runs "closer to the iron" (and therefore blows the doors off anything interpreted). I could name five dozen other reasons why ASP.NET and similar Java based frameworks are better, but I don't want to waste time. There's google, you can find it yourself.
Second, what this particular Python framework is really catching up with is Ruby on Rails. And quite frankly, anyone who likes the sort of thing that RoR implements should just use RoR, not imitations.
But that's true, at least for extensive vulnerabilities that can require a lot of effort to fix and/or test!
Let's see, you're a development manager and you have a crazy schedule forced on you from above by some idiotic VP. Now this guy from product support comes along and tells you about this horrible flaw that will require you to shut down all development for two weeks, slip the schedule and have your best people fix it. Then you shut down testing for a month and have your best testers test it. Then there's a pain of pushing out a patch and notifying the customers and bad PR associated with that.
I can easily see how some of the less obvious vulnerabilities would be simply brushed off using "no one is ever going to find out" line of reasoning. Now if you know that someone has already found out and he will make it public in about a month, sure as heck you're going to issue a patch, even if this means slipping the schedule by a month (or in case of Windows by two years). Because if you don't, script kiddies will rape your customer and he will never give you another dollar.
I just said that they ain't gonna go out of business because of a few scamsters here and there, even if they claim they will.
They buy freaking lettuce for $0.17 and sell it for $1.70. Where does the money go? How come retailers can offer up to 40% off on most things when they _really_ need to sell stuff. Do you think they're losing money in this case?
The typical upcharge just for going though a retailer (whether online or brick-and-mortar) is sometimes close to 50% of the original price, even more if we're talking about groceries. So a few scammers here and there aren't going to break that particular bank.
I love what they do with Dev Tools, .NET Framework and Server operating systems (W2K3 rocks). SQL Server is pretty good, too, as are some other server products. XP is finally usable after so many years of patching holes.
But Office division and MSN need a good hard kick in the ass. I'm not even beginning to talk about Business Solutions and some other divisions whose purpose of existence is unknown.
So I guess you can love Microsoft if you learn to not see a few large, cancerous pimples on its face.
That's why I can only get 1MB/s out of my wireless connection instead of 6.75MB/s. That's quite a bit of "overhead", don't you think?
First of all, a good dev is not necessarily faster than a bad one. The bad one will do just enough to get by, badly. The good one will make a fucking work of art out of the features he owns and it will be a pleasure to maintain and extend his code. This usually takes more time than "just enough to get by" approach, but this pays off time and time again over the years.
Second of all, if you're five levels deep in the nested function, that's a good indicator that you're not good enough at software design.
And after all this, they will have to actually re-enter the atmostphere on this piece of suicidal garbage. Man, I wish I had this kind of courage.
However, I'd rather have them specify the _real_ data throughput instead of some arbitrary number that can not be measured. If it's 30Mbps, I'm fine with that as long as it's reasonably close to that in the real life.
Comparing it to google's is like comparing an airplane to a kite. How about some RSS feeds on Google's page? MS page is a lot more dynamic, too, and has better design. Finally, it has _zero_ branding on it which is something I've grown to appreciate.
1. You need to maintain state (and re-parse it on every request, or execute dozens of SQL queries to fetch it from the DB).
2. Any user action that alters state (and often even those that do not) require a round-trip to the sever, including #1.
3. Creating a quality UI has become a voodoo-like thing where you have to rely on all kinds of unwritten laws because CSS2 is not flexible enough beyond simple document formatting. Place a login UI in the center of the screen in XHTML1.1 Strict without using Javascript. You can't! I could come up with three dozen more examples of what you should be able and can not do. I kind of can even understand Microsoft who said CSS2 is a fucked up standard and it's better to wait for CSS3.
Is this the same definition of "mbps" as in the current standard? Because if it is, you'll be lucky to get 54 mbps out of this gizmo, just like right now you often get only about 12 mbps out of a "54 mbps" wireless connection (as in 1MB/sec).
Granted, the reach is good and for some tasks there's nothing better than web UI, but as soon as you find yourself in need of building something more than just a bunch of web pages with links it all turns into mind-boggligly weir hackery. You start using javascript for layout. You need to manage state. The most trivial UI things become a fucking mess of JS and CSS "hacks", etc., etc. It's also a pain to turn all this crap into components for future reuse, so chances are next time you do something similar you'll have to reinvent the wheel.
The web was originally invented for publishing hyperlinked documents. It's nice to see it come this far, but web as it is is not designed for writing _applications_.
As far as I'm concerned XAML and XUL are the way of the future. Do as much as you can on the client, communicate only what you need to the server, don't re-render everything every time the user needs to change something, concentrate rendering on the client as well.
Remember these simple mantras if you plan on doing a lot of web development in the coming years.
I've been looking for all this stuff for a looong time. Most other places sell it at three times the price.
Proper management can help time-stressed teams. Everything else is just extra maintenance.
The primary purpose of Cisco routers is routing network packets and providing network security. The meaning of "network security" is up to the customer purchasing the equipment.
You could say that the primary purpose of matches is burning stuff, and you'd be right. It all just depends on the kind of stuff you burn with them.
Cisco does not engage in censorship. They simply make equipment which can be used to engage in censorship. Similarly to a company that makes matches that can be used for arson, or Proctor and Gamble whose Clorox bleach can be used as poison.
There is no way to tell Chinese government what they can and can not do at this point. It would be nearly fatal to impose stiff tariffs, too. So bend over and hand the Chinese that bottle of vaseline.
The only way to hire a good architect is by poaching. We had a tester on our team, and he was lazy, clueless motherfucker. He left the company and joined a startup which his drinking buddies founded. Guess what's his title now? Yup, he's a Software Architect, no less.
If you want to hire one of those smooth-talking fellows, go ahead do it. I wouldn't hire an architect if I was starting a company. I'd hire a few good developers and then see which one of them is the best (as in "writes the best code") and promote him to an architect.
I'd rather see tech companies compete for quality engineers again and offer increasing salaries, perks and interesting work to those who know what the heck they're doing.
Departure of a high-quality engineer hurts an org that needs to get things done A LOT. This means employers will be willing to pay more, because quality engineering is not something you can trust to a bunch of Indian dudes in Bangalore.
Microsoft is not about "shine and polish". It's about "just do a good enough job to get by and sell". They'd be too embarrassed to open up the code.
The average cost of filing and maintaining a patent is $40K _per patent_, and they can't hire more patent examiners?
The guy is in fucking China, where US (not to mention Washington State) laws don't apply. The company that hired him is in fucking California, where they don't apply either.
So pray tell, why shouldn't have mr. Lee gone to Google?
Good thing all four of your car's tires already contain RFID chips.
9 /1/1/
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/26
Enjoy your so-called "freedom".
My cell phone probably caused less damage than four pints of Guinness and six shots of Vodka I've downed last Saturday. And I'm not even beginning to mention the harm caused by the food I ate this week.
It's like saying "obese people run a higher risk of having high blood pressure and heart disease" and not mentioning their usually sedentary lifestyle, that, you know, may in itself cause higher blood pressure and heart disease.
Same here - OMG cell phone will fry your blinkers, while at the same time disregarding that these very blinkers are used to look at the computer screen for hours on end, and they weren't designed for that. How do you tell exactly what damages one's eyes when there are so many variables at play?