"I'm a programmer with 3 years of experience in C, C++, and Java. With the current low economic trends in the software sector, the small software company I've been working for since I graduated is going out of business. Since it's so hard to get a job at another software company with so little experience.."
Three years of experience is the sweet spot of programming opportunities. Compare the number of jobs available to programmers with 10-20 years experience to 3 and you'll see you have it easy. Employers love you because you're cheap and you probably know less than they do. The last thing they want is someone with too much experience explaining why their pet idea won't work.
The problem is that the military doesn't take full advantage of DAMA. Big shots still prefer dedicated channels that are rarely used. As usual, technology can't solve cultural problems.
I was too absolute in my comment. ASP.NET can return javascript if the designer requires it, but it doesn't have to.
By saying that ASP.NET returns javascript without further explanation, you implied (unintentionally I guess) that scripting must be enabled on a browser in order to properly view or interact with an.aspx page, which is not true in general. That was why I made my prior comment.
"The result is javascript that is supposed to be browser-independent, and allows developers to write a heck of a lot less code."
If what you mean by "the result is javascript" is that javascript runs on the client, then that's incorrect. ASP.NET returns html. On the server side the logic can be written in any.NET language including jscript (javascript), VB.NET, C++ or C#.
"Most of those people were getting a trip to Orlando at someone else's expense.I probably wouldn't mind doing that whether or not I was interested in.NET."
July in Orlando? No thanks!
In any case, if their company sent them, that still indicates an interest in adopting.NET. It doesn't really refute my argument.
I guess everyone has their own way of looking at it. Most of my Windows development has been using the raw API from C++ and (unfortunately) Ada. Perhaps if I had invested a lot of time in VB6 and MFC I might look at it differently. We also didn't do any library development, so that's not a roadblock.
"Personally, I don't think there are many Windows programmers using.NET for new development"
Well, I can't prove that there are, but there were about 5000 programmers who traveled to Orlando back in July of 2000 to learn about.NET (and paid a lot of money to be there). So, I think there is some evidence of interest.
I can't imagine why anyone writing a new Windows only application would not at least consider.NET.
I wouldn't assume that an update to MFC would imply a lot of new development. The update is useful for legacy MFC applications many of which are unlikely to be ported to.NET.
I guess if a SW team has lots of experience in MFC and likes it, they might use it for new projects, but I think most Windows developers would prefer to use.NET since that's where future Windows development is going.
I don't think there are many Windows programmers using MFC for new development. A comparison of Qt and.NET would be more relevant.
Re:Why would you use Qt?
on
Qt vs MFC
·
· Score: 1
"Writing a new application to support both UNIX and Windows, for example, not only results in a better application architecture (abstracted for portability) but also distributes risk (so what if either Microsoft or Apple or Linux falls by the wayside; I'm covered)."
I think your second point is valid, but your first, not always. If portability is not a requirement, the architecture is not improved by the introduction of an abstraction that doesn't model the problem. In addition, comprehensive compatibility would require that the application be portable to other operating systems in addition to those based on Windows or Unix.
"If the IS/IT department wants to put together a linux package for people to use, then that's what will be used."
Ouch. Back to the days when IS/IT were the gatekeepers rather than providing a service. God forbid that anyone else in the company might have their own ideas about what technology to use.
There is no client-side scripting using ASP.NET so it doesn't matter how IE or Mozilla handles Javascript. The whole point is to return only HTML.
From a developer's point of view, the only purpose ASP.NET serves is to be platform and browser independent on the client side. If it doesn't deliver that, no one will use it. There are much better solutions than using a browser if one wants a Windows-only application.
Well, if the question was directed to a forum, a response of RTFM is just a further waste of everyone's time. If you don't have the answer or don't want to answer, then don't answer.
"We all know they're using.NET as a way to lock people into Windows servers and desktops."
Lock people into Windows servers, maybe, but not into Windows desktops. Although MS only supports running ASP.NET on a Windows server, the client receives pure HTML that can be viewed in any browser on any platform. Most of.NET is platform independent on the client side.
Re:Absolutely, cross-platform is worth a lot.
on
wxWindows vs. MFC
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
"Within two years, after governments evaluate the security risk of using U.S. software, they will pass laws that government workers must use Linux or BSD. That will cause the movement away from Windows to accelerate"
Given the government's history of making poor decisions about software (ADA and JTRS come to mind), this sounds almost plausible. But I think they realize that the average government worker is not ready for Linux or BSD in its present form.
"Of course they are. What more blatant example is there? Patents and copyrights are explicit state monopoly grants."
Well, usually intervention implies that something special is done in a specific situation or for a particular entity. If, for example, Congress passed a bill that allowed MS to use open source software without following the GPL, that would be government intervention. Since patents and copyrights are available to everyone, I don't see it as intervention.
"If you think the government is going to do anything useful about MS I have a big section of seaside property in Oklahoma to sell you."
I didn't say that. The point was that government intervention specifically targeted at MS has been the most effective at causing changes in its business practices. This is evidence in contradiction to the original claim that government intervention is required for a monopoly to persist.
"Monopolies rarely appear and never persist without government intervention."
Well, if the granting of patents is considered "government intervention" then I guess you have a point. What other government intervention was invovled in Xerox's monopoly on copiers? In the case of MS, it would seem that government intervention might be the only way its monopoly will NOT persist.
Perhaps. Sometimes patches have to be made after installation. For example, in Windows NT 4 if you install Service Pack 6 and then install networking, you must reinstall Service Pack 6 to correct problems with the default installation of networking. I don't know if Windows 2000 and IIS work like that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
IIS is not installed by default under win2k. So you can start without IIS, connect to the internet and download patches. Disconnect from the internet, install IIS, install the patches and then reconnect to the internet. You don't need a second machine.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm a programmer with 3 years of experience in C, C++, and Java. With the current low economic trends in the software sector, the small software company I've been working for since I graduated is going out of business. Since it's so hard to get a job at another software company with so little experience .."
Three years of experience is the sweet spot of programming opportunities. Compare the number of jobs available to programmers with 10-20 years experience to 3 and you'll see you have it easy. Employers love you because you're cheap and you probably know less than they do. The last thing they want is someone with too much experience explaining why their pet idea won't work.
"MS Word always has a format incompatible with the previous version."
No. Not always.
"Think along the lines of those PDA-Phone combos, which obviously do not compete for the same market as normal cell phones."
Expensive products like cell phones have more room for different price points than cheaper items do.
The problem is that the military doesn't take full advantage of DAMA. Big shots still prefer dedicated channels that are rarely used. As usual, technology can't solve cultural problems.
I was too absolute in my comment. ASP.NET can return javascript if the designer requires it, but it doesn't have to.
.aspx page, which is not true in general. That was why I made my prior comment.
By saying that ASP.NET returns javascript without further explanation, you implied (unintentionally I guess) that scripting must be enabled on a browser in order to properly view or interact with an
"The result is javascript that is supposed to be browser-independent, and allows developers to write a heck of a lot less code."
.NET language including jscript (javascript), VB.NET, C++ or C#.
If what you mean by "the result is javascript" is that javascript runs on the client, then that's incorrect. ASP.NET returns html. On the server side the logic can be written in any
"Most of those people were getting a trip to Orlando at someone else's expense.I probably wouldn't mind doing that whether or not I was interested in .NET."
.NET. It doesn't really refute my argument.
July in Orlando? No thanks!
In any case, if their company sent them, that still indicates an interest in adopting
I guess everyone has their own way of looking at it. Most of my Windows development has been using the raw API from C++ and (unfortunately) Ada. Perhaps if I had invested a lot of time in VB6 and MFC I might look at it differently. We also didn't do any library development, so that's not a roadblock.
"Personally, I don't think there are many Windows programmers using .NET for new development"
.NET (and paid a lot of money to be there). So, I think there is some evidence of interest.
.NET.
Well, I can't prove that there are, but there were about 5000 programmers who traveled to Orlando back in July of 2000 to learn about
I can't imagine why anyone writing a new Windows only application would not at least consider
I wouldn't assume that an update to MFC would imply a lot of new development. The update is useful for legacy MFC applications many of which are unlikely to be ported to .NET.
.NET since that's where future Windows development is going.
I guess if a SW team has lots of experience in MFC and likes it, they might use it for new projects, but I think most Windows developers would prefer to use
I don't think there are many Windows programmers using MFC for new development. A comparison of Qt and .NET would be more relevant.
"Writing a new application to support both UNIX and Windows, for example, not only results in a better application architecture (abstracted for portability) but also distributes risk (so what if either Microsoft or Apple or Linux falls by the wayside; I'm covered)."
I think your second point is valid, but your first, not always. If portability is not a requirement, the architecture is not improved by the introduction of an abstraction that doesn't model the problem. In addition, comprehensive compatibility would require that the application be portable to other operating systems in addition to those based on Windows or Unix.
"If the IS/IT department wants to put together a linux package for people to use, then that's what will be used."
Ouch. Back to the days when IS/IT were the gatekeepers rather than providing a service. God forbid that anyone else in the company might have their own ideas about what technology to use.
There is no client-side scripting using ASP.NET so it doesn't matter how IE or Mozilla handles Javascript. The whole point is to return only HTML.
From a developer's point of view, the only purpose ASP.NET serves is to be platform and browser independent on the client side. If it doesn't deliver that, no one will use it. There are much better solutions than using a browser if one wants a Windows-only application.
So you are claiming that the HTML returned returned by ASP.NET is not compatible with Mozilla. Any evidence to back that claim up?
Well, if the question was directed to a forum, a response of RTFM is just a further waste of everyone's time. If you don't have the answer or don't want to answer, then don't answer.
By all means enlighten us.
"We all know they're using .NET as a way to lock people into Windows servers and desktops."
.NET is platform independent on the client side.
Lock people into Windows servers, maybe, but not into Windows desktops. Although MS only supports running ASP.NET on a Windows server, the client receives pure HTML that can be viewed in any browser on any platform. Most of
"Within two years, after governments evaluate the security risk of using U.S. software, they will pass laws that government workers must use Linux or BSD. That will cause the movement away from Windows to accelerate"
Given the government's history of making poor decisions about software (ADA and JTRS come to mind), this sounds almost plausible. But I think they realize that the average government worker is not ready for Linux or BSD in its present form.
"Of course they are. What more blatant example is there? Patents and copyrights are explicit state monopoly grants."
Well, usually intervention implies that something special is done in a specific situation or for a particular entity. If, for example, Congress passed a bill that allowed MS to use open source software without following the GPL, that would be government intervention. Since patents and copyrights are available to everyone, I don't see it as intervention.
"If you think the government is going to do anything useful about MS I have a big section of seaside property in Oklahoma to sell you."
I didn't say that. The point was that government intervention specifically targeted at MS has been the most effective at causing changes in its business practices. This is evidence in contradiction to the original claim that government intervention is required for a monopoly to persist.
"Linux, like UNIX, was designed to be easy for the casual user, and powerfull for the advanced one."
What? There were no casual computer users at the time UNIX was designed.
"Monopolies rarely appear and never persist without government intervention."
Well, if the granting of patents is considered "government intervention" then I guess you have a point. What other government intervention was invovled in Xerox's monopoly on copiers? In the case of MS, it would seem that government intervention might be the only way its monopoly will NOT persist.
Of course, using any desktop OS on an embedded system seems excessive to me, but I'm old fashioned.
Perhaps. Sometimes patches have to be made after installation. For example, in Windows NT 4 if you install Service Pack 6 and then install networking, you must reinstall Service Pack 6 to correct problems with the default installation of networking. I don't know if Windows 2000 and IIS work like that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
IIS is not installed by default under win2k. So you can start without IIS, connect to the internet and download patches. Disconnect from the internet, install IIS, install the patches and then reconnect to the internet. You don't need a second machine.