I base my comments on what is actually stated. I don't have any way to anticipate the excuses that come later.
"How much percent of actual professional VB developers is out there? (that is what I meant by "in the industry")"
Do you know a lot of VB developers writing hobby applications at home that are considered "in the industry"?
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
I have yet to meet a Lisp or Ruby developer who:
Understands what an interface is
Understands what a class method is
Understands inheritance
Really understands the difference between reference and value types
Uses classes instead of modules
Of course, it might have something to do with the fact that I've never met any Lisp or Ruby developer. Who you've met and who I've met doesn't really say anything significant about the value of a particular programming language.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
How do create a top level static class in Java?
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
That can't be true, I didn't die.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
"They will use something anal like Java or C++.Net, spend 80% of the development schedule reinventing features that already exist elsewhere, then bring in consultants to write the actual application logic using the resultant cesspool of code that kind of looks like a Java-based Visual Basic emulator:P"
What is this feature portability you imply?
"The point of all this is that most developers are paid by the hour, so doing their work quickly and efficiently is actually detrimental to their bottom line."
Where do you work? I've been in this business for many years and the only developers I know who paid by the hour are consultants.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"This is exactly the kind of reply I would expect from a VB developer or "non developer". By "quickly create applications to fulfil their requirements" you probably mean "create a horrible unmaintenable mess which not even the original author will touch, and which has is almost certainly going to be rewritten by a developer at some point in future".
There are a number of interesting, unproven, and contradictory assumptions built-in to your statement: 1) All VB code is a mess 2) VB applications are successful enough to justify being maintained 3) Despite the success of the application implemented in VB, it makes sense to rewrite it in another language 4) The orginal developer isn't willing revise it, but somehow some other developer is willing to rewrite it.
"Enabling non developers make production code is *NOT* a good thing, I think most people with some experience in the industry will agree with this."
If by "non developers" you mean VB programmers, and given that a fairly large percentage of people in the industry with some experience are VB programmers than your statement is incorrect.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Who died and left you in charge of figuring out who should or should not be a programmer?
I have a traditional definition of "embedded", a special purpose computing device typically limited in resources. If you can actually do software development on a machine, it's probably just a non-embedded, general purpose device that may possibly have a novel form-factor.
He also played the devil in the 1958 movie "Damn Yankees". As kids we watched it on TV and thought it was pretty cool when the hero was turned back into an old man but foiled the devil's plans by catching the baseball anyway... Er nobody has any idea of what I'm talking about do they?
Yes, I agree with you but apparently you didn't get the point of my post: "the Jedi Master" - "the Gay". Get it? Only a non-native speaker would use "the" when he/she meant "a". Thus as you imply, there is clearly a descrepency and the excuse that Yoda trained everybody is a lame one.
"Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?"
Wow, I missed the part of the movie where Faramir took the ring of power from Frodo and slipped it on his finger.
I don't entirely agree with the change in Faramir's story either, but the point of it wasn't that he couldn't resist the ring, the point was that he was tempted to use it to secure his father's respect but that in the end he resisted that temptation. Like it or not, it gave Faramir's story some arc that was missing in the books.
"You are assuming that the phrase "The Jedi Master who instructed me" means that Ben was Yoda's apprentice. It could mean that Ben attended classes led by Yoda, who was an instructor at the academy."
Perhaps this line was actually written by Margaret Cho's mother:
"My mom used to give me messages like this: "Ummmmmmm... Scott called.... IS HE THE GAY??!!" "Well, God, mom, I don't know if he's the gay... that's a lot of pressure on just one guy. He has to do the parade all by himself! 'I'm here! I'm queer!...I guess I'm the only one.' "
No. In fact, the "different point of view" was the one where Lucas hadn't thought of making Darth Luke's father until he started writing episode 5 sometime after Star Wars became a hit.
"My anecdotal observation is that the majority of you who can not find equivalant work/pay were worthless to start with. This has been confirmed by a recent thread on Slashdot which discussed candidates that can not stand up to a real technical interview. If you work hard, are dependable, and competent within your IT discipline you will not be affected."
Since when has a discussion on Slashdot ever been a reliable way to confirm anything? With all due respect to your worthy CCIE certification, you aren't qualified to judge the competence of "EEs, CompSC, Chemical Engnrs etc". Even if your were, you've only seen a tiny sliver of the technology world and can't reasonably draw broad conclusions about competence from such a small sample.
You can also look at it from an efficiency standpoint. If you want to raise the standard of living of the middle class and the poor, it's far more efficient to see that they get the money directly.
There's a big difference between admitting that you're hiring offshore workers in order to benefit the bottom line and creating propaganda that claims it's not hurting domestic workers.
Your list appears to be of items that make finding or correcting bugs more difficult, not a list of sources of bugs. Source code that was written without regard to human M/U/R doesn't necessarily contain more bugs than code that does take these concerns into consideration.
The issue isn't understanding how AI "works", it's understanding how to make AI work. AI isn't a moving target, we just keep assuming we're closer to it than we really are.
I'm all for a broad interpretation of the marketplace with respect of monopoly issues, but the marketplace was deliberately narrowed in order to make the case for MS to be a monopoly and the same reasoning could be applied to Apple as well. The difference is only a matter of degree.
Slashdot Mirror
No, thanks I'll stay with the 10% and not join you and the others.
I base my comments on what is actually stated. I don't have any way to anticipate the excuses that come later.
"How much percent of actual professional VB developers is out there? (that is what I meant by "in the industry")"
Do you know a lot of VB developers writing hobby applications at home that are considered "in the industry"?
Of course, it might have something to do with the fact that I've never met any Lisp or Ruby developer. Who you've met and who I've met doesn't really say anything significant about the value of a particular programming language.
How do create a top level static class in Java?
That can't be true, I didn't die.
"They will use something anal like Java or C++.Net, spend 80% of the development schedule reinventing features that already exist elsewhere, then bring in consultants to write the actual application logic using the resultant cesspool of code that kind of looks like a Java-based Visual Basic emulator :P"
What is this feature portability you imply?
"The point of all this is that most developers are paid by the hour, so doing their work quickly and efficiently is actually detrimental to their bottom line."
Where do you work? I've been in this business for many years and the only developers I know who paid by the hour are consultants.
"This is exactly the kind of reply I would expect from a VB developer or "non developer". By "quickly create applications to fulfil their requirements" you probably mean "create a horrible unmaintenable mess which not even the original author will touch, and which has is almost certainly going to be rewritten by a developer at some point in future".
There are a number of interesting, unproven, and contradictory assumptions built-in to your statement:
1) All VB code is a mess
2) VB applications are successful enough to justify being maintained
3) Despite the success of the application implemented in VB, it makes sense to rewrite it in another language
4) The orginal developer isn't willing revise it, but somehow some other developer is willing to rewrite it.
"Enabling non developers make production code is *NOT* a good thing, I think most people with some experience in the industry will agree with this."
If by "non developers" you mean VB programmers, and given that a fairly large percentage of people in the industry with some experience are VB programmers than your statement is incorrect.
Who died and left you in charge of figuring out who should or should not be a programmer?
I have a traditional definition of "embedded", a special purpose computing device typically limited in resources. If you can actually do software development on a machine, it's probably just a non-embedded, general purpose device that may possibly have a novel form-factor.
He also played the devil in the 1958 movie "Damn Yankees". As kids we watched it on TV and thought it was pretty cool when the hero was turned back into an old man but foiled the devil's plans by catching the baseball anyway... Er nobody has any idea of what I'm talking about do they?
No, it was Kirk who did the outwitting. Shatner was the God in that production.
an embedded OSX isn't really OSX. Just as embedded Linux isn't really linux and Windows CE isn't really Windows. It's mostly a matter of branding.
Yes, I agree with you but apparently you didn't get the point of my post: "the Jedi Master" - "the Gay". Get it? Only a non-native speaker would use "the" when he/she meant "a". Thus as you imply, there is clearly a descrepency and the excuse that Yoda trained everybody is a lame one.
I hate it when I have to explain my jokes.
"Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?"
Wow, I missed the part of the movie where Faramir took the ring of power from Frodo and slipped it on his finger.
I don't entirely agree with the change in Faramir's story either, but the point of it wasn't that he couldn't resist the ring, the point was that he was tempted to use it to secure his father's respect but that in the end he resisted that temptation. Like it or not, it gave Faramir's story some arc that was missing in the books.
"You are assuming that the phrase "The Jedi Master who instructed me" means that Ben was Yoda's apprentice. It could mean that Ben attended classes led by Yoda, who was an instructor at the academy."
...I guess I'm the only one.' "
Perhaps this line was actually written by Margaret Cho's mother:
"My mom used to give me messages like this: "Ummmmmmm... Scott called.... IS HE THE GAY??!!" "Well, God, mom, I don't know if he's the gay... that's a lot of pressure on just one guy. He has to do the parade all by himself! 'I'm here! I'm queer!
"weren't episodes 1-3 written before 4-6?"
No. In fact, the "different point of view" was the one where Lucas hadn't thought of making Darth Luke's father until he started writing episode 5 sometime after Star Wars became a hit.
Cheating is always easier than playing fair, but I'm sure corporations can find good liars for far less than they're paying an average CEO these days.
Well, that flip-side of that is that fewer than 10% of all ads wanted someone with more than 5 years experience.
"My anecdotal observation is that the majority of you who can not find equivalant work/pay were worthless to start with. This has been confirmed by a recent thread on Slashdot which discussed candidates that can not stand up to a real technical interview. If you work hard, are dependable, and competent within your IT discipline you will not be affected."
Since when has a discussion on Slashdot ever been a reliable way to confirm anything? With all due respect to your worthy CCIE certification, you aren't qualified to judge the competence of "EEs, CompSC, Chemical Engnrs etc". Even if your were, you've only seen a tiny sliver of the technology world and can't reasonably draw broad conclusions about competence from such a small sample.
You can also look at it from an efficiency standpoint. If you want to raise the standard of living of the middle class and the poor, it's far more efficient to see that they get the money directly.
There's a big difference between admitting that you're hiring offshore workers in order to benefit the bottom line and creating propaganda that claims it's not hurting domestic workers.
Your list appears to be of items that make finding or correcting bugs more difficult, not a list of sources of bugs. Source code that was written without regard to human M/U/R doesn't necessarily contain more bugs than code that does take these concerns into consideration.
The issue isn't understanding how AI "works", it's understanding how to make AI work. AI isn't a moving target, we just keep assuming we're closer to it than we really are.
"The only legal monopoly by a private interest is one which agrees to have Government monitored policy and price regulation."
Then I guess IBM had an illegal monopoly since their monopoly had no such government intervention.
I'm all for a broad interpretation of the marketplace with respect of monopoly issues, but the marketplace was deliberately narrowed in order to make the case for MS to be a monopoly and the same reasoning could be applied to Apple as well. The difference is only a matter of degree.