The wacky part about Rummy's diatribe there is that he was, is and always will be 100% correct in what he said... people tend to leave that part out, usually because their mind can't parse and process the logic of what he's saying. Sure, he said it in the most convoluted and pedantic way imaginable, which is why it's such a memorable quote, but the gist of the statement was logically accurate... although one could debate whether you ever actually know you know anything, because anything you "know" you may in fact be incorrect about, in which case you could then say there are things you know you know that you don't actually know... hey, I can do it to, can I be SecDef??
Oh yeah, it's also worth noting that when you develop the server-side with DWR, creating a mobile app later becomes a piece of cake... you either write one of the numerous "web apps wrapped in a native app" using something like Phonegap (which might be your ExtJS-based app or a plain old HTML-based app), or if you use the latest version of DWR you'll have the ability to make plain REST calls to your server code without the need for the Javascript client portion, so you can write a true native and and just do plain old HTTP requests, no changes to the server-side should be required (so long as you've done it sessionless). I've done this too (both app approaches) and it works amazingly well and cuts development time tremendously.
You didn't say if you wanted to stick with open-source entirely, so I'm suggesting a 50/50 deal:)
ExtJS is a fantastic front-end development tool. Yes, you'll have to learn Javascript, but (a) that'll be pretty easy given your Java background because syntactically they're very similar and (b) that will remove all the cross-browser concerns... although it WILL require Javascript on the client, but frankly, while some people do run with it off and browsers on feature phones and such sometimes don't have it, Javascript is fairly close to assumed these days in web development. A lot of people talk about non-intrusive JS and progressive enhancement, which is all fine and good but I for one think the time for that has passed. ExtJS is a commercial product, however, there IS an option to use it in a JPL'd application. If that's okay for your application then you can get it for free.
DWR on the server-side, a great OSS project, is a Java-based solution that makes your server code SO incredibly clean and simple to write... you wind up with nothing but POJOs, and you don't (typically) deal with session or state of any kind. Best of all, it's a PERFECT match with ExtJS because what you wind up writing is really a service-oriented facade that the client makes use of, rather than coding the navigation logic of your webapp on the server, as is typical in Java web app development with most frameworks. It makes things incredibly simple and easy, cutting out so much complexity you'll wonder why you haven't been doing this all along.
That's only true if you're of the belief that knowledge in and of itself isn't a commodity worth having for a given price. That's certainly not an interpretation of things I subscribe to.
You're point isn't invalid by any stretch, it is in fact the core of a very good argument. But it's one I'd argue against strenuously. In fact, I'd argue that every step towards a total understanding of our universe, no matter how small the step, is worth virtually any cost placed on it. The toys we may sacrifice as a result of that pursuit is more than a worthy tradeoff to make. The knowing in the end is its own best reward.
I'd also hold that over the long-term all those 1 bit advancements in knowledge pay us back tenfold or better. Think of the relatively minor advances in knowledge that pure science and experimentation had to provide before we could invent the transistor, and then think about all the benefits that invention has led to. I think it'd be nearly impossible to argue that ratio isn't magnificent. Sure, I can't say knowing whether the Higgs is real or not would have a similar outcome, but nor can anyone say for sure it won't. Therefore, the only option is to proceed down the path of discovery and pay the opportunity cost along the way in the hope that a similar situation to the transistor might arise.
I make the same type of argument for human exploration of space. As easy as it is to argue against such ventures on the basis of cost and risk and other things, the benefit we may derive from it, not only on incidental technological invention but in pure knowledge that we can only guess at, is worth it no matter what the cost. At least, it is to me.
"However, I find JavaScript's weak typing and dynamic nature difficult to adapt to because I'm so used to strongly-typed, compiled languages with lots of compile-time error-checking and help from the IDE"
In other words: "Despite my 20 years of experience I've never been a particularly good developer because without my tools doing half the work for me I'd be all but useless to my employer. I can't really think for myself, have poor fundamentals and therefore when confronted with a technology that requires I actually have a clue, it's difficult for me."
Isn't it ironic that it takes something like JavaScript that so many still incorrectly consider a bicycle with training wheels to expose those that don't really know what they're doing?
I have 25+ years of experience and I can get the job done with multiple languages of multiple kinds on multiple platforms equally well. Know why? I actually know what I'm doing! Tools can make me more efficient, sure, but I don't *need* them to work well (and frequently I prefer *not* having an IDE constantly thinking for me). I learned a new language (Lua) in the past few weeks to the point where I'm now developing a highly complex mobile app with it and that's not at all unusual, transitioning to a new technology. Not hard to jump around like that when you're a *real* developer.
(Disclaimer: obviously I don't personally know the OP, so take this more as a condemnation of a far too many developers in general these days, not specifically of this guy... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since I don't know him)
...nor is it (or at least SHOULD it be) different than the code from a management standpoint. For example, when I do estimates, whether its for my own code or for those under me (which I try to avoid anyway- the people that will do the work should at least be involved in the estimates, but I digress) I always count on good, proper documentation being part of the process. It's part of the work to be delivered, plain and simple. Of course, I neglect to tell those above me that:) Fortunately, over the years I've built up a strong reputation and when I tell people it'll take a month to do something they know it'll take a month and the result will be good. Such a reputation certainly helps.
Some people treat documentation as optional. It's not. Not in the slightest. Documentation is as important as the actual code, and often times it is MORE SO. Why? Well, no matter how "self-documenting" the code is (which is an invented BS term anyway most of the time, but I digress) it still doesn't mean you know why the code exists, how it's used, how it's intended to be used, and WHAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER WAS ACTUALLY THINKING WHEN HE WROTE IT. Knowing all those intentions can sometimes be the key information you need to debug something, especially when you didn't write it (or you wrote it more than about six months ago, which for all intents and purposes is the same as code you didn't write yourself).
Fortunately, writing good documentation is actually pretty easy. Simply put, you do it in two general steps:
Step 1: Write an outline of the code in comments that describes the overall structure, the general flow of the code, how you expect it to work and why its designed the way it is. Generally, write one comment block when you expect to have a method, and then each logical block of code within each method, in other words, the steps that you logically need to do to solve the problem at hand.
Step 2: Under each comment, fill in the blanks, so to speak, with the actual code. Of course, make it "self-documenting" code, for what that's worth (it's not a BAD thing at all, it's just not the ONLY thing that matters).
That'll usually do the trick. It also has the benefit of forcing you to (a) think through your design up-front and (b) stick to that plan throughout. Naturally you'll find places you need to make adjustments as you go... programming is more a creative process than an engineering process much of the time... but having that initial plan is still better than no plan most of the time. It'll also help keep you from introducing those pointless comments we've all seen (vis a vis: a=a+1;// Add 1 to a)
If you include the time it takes to do this in your work from the start it doesn't even add more time, and I'd argue in my experience actually SAVES time in the long-run because you catch some silly mistakes before you write any real code, when it's still easy to make changes.
Ive been on both sides of the table plenty and have both faced and given brain teasers. To say they are inherently good or bad hiring criteria is thinking of it the wrong way. Its just one tool in the toolbox. A hammer isnt inherently good or bad, you use it when its appropriate and not otherwise.
I personally put little stock in them, except that I love to get a wiseass answer because it shows personality. For example, I got hit with the Google-ish "how many golfballs fit in a schoolbus?" question once. My answer, almost immediate, was: "Come on, thats just silly, everyone knows golfballs do not ride the bus when they go to school... they don't need to, they're balls, they just roll!" The interviewer absolutely loved that answer.
To me, there's far better ways to evaluate a candidate. For a programming job its actually easy: give them a real-world task typical of the position, tell them they have as much time as they need, set them up at a workstation, show them where the bathroom and snack machine is and give them some space. See what they produce in that situation.
At the risk of sounding like a shill for myself, I've actually written about this approach in my books and articles, and have given presentations on it as well (probably not as directly as we're discussing here, but more of a philosophy discussion). Feel free to check it all out at zammetti.com. You can also contact me directly if you want with any questions you might have.
Let me try and answer a few things here though that I've seen in replies...
1. Re: session... it's handled not much differently actually. For the things you would normally put in session you still can (DWR makes it very easy to get at session). You can also store stuff on the client, which frankly is where a lot of things make more sense. And it doesn't automatically mean HTML5-ish answers (of course it can though)... sometimes, in keeping with the simplicity idea, JavaScript variables in memory is a good answer (very much depends on the data, its sensitive, etc., but you get the idea).
2. Re: sockets... no, DWR is in fact implemented as a servlet, and you're still talking HTTP to it as usual... it's just that those details fall away because you're code looks very much like calling methods:
See? Doesn't look much different that calling a regular JavaScript method, or even a Java method, but that's actually JavaScript calling the myMethod() method of an instance of MyServerObject on the server!
3. Re: What you push to the client... basically, DWR creates JavaScript files that mimic the interface to the Java classes you want to execute methods on. You import the JS files, like any other except you're path is the DWR servlet, then you just call methods on those JS proxy objects. That's it!
Like I said, feel free to ping me if you want to know more, I'm always happy to talk about something I think is cool:)
---- Frank W. Zammetti Author of "Practical Palm Pre webOS Projects" and "Practical Ext JS Projects with Gears" and "Practical Dojo Projects" and "Practical DWR 2 Projects" and "Practical JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects" and "Practical Ajax Projects with Java Technology" (For info: apress.com/book/search?searchterm=zammetti&act=search) All you could possibly want is here: zammetti.com
We've gone through a number of options where I work, from a homegrown framework to Struts to various other trials. Eventually, when I managed to pull us into the RIA world, I make a suggestion that got crooked looks initially but which now, a few years on, is seen as ideal: NO FRAMEWORK AT ALL!
We're primarily a Java shop, but this can apply in any shop since there are similar options available for.Net, PHP, whatever else, but I'll describe our model because its very simple: our apps are nothing but POJOs (Plain Old Java Objects for those not in the Java realm) that we talk to via DWR.
That's it.
No Struts, no JSF, no Spring MVC, not even straight servlets! Nothing but pure, simple Java classes with no real tie to any HTTP-related objects (well, usually... some exceptions here and there are required).
The benefits are many: the code is simple and clean... the classes are so easy to unit test that we actually manage to get our developers to do it (sometimes)... configuration doesn't get in the way (no, it's not as simple as some frameworks because there IS configuration, but its so minimal no one minds)... performance is top-notch since there's no extra work being done by a framework first (granted modern frameworks are very efficient and this difference is probably minimal, but still)... and new developers can be brought up to speed in less than a day and no one is ever confused by the code, that's fore sure! There's also been an implied side-benefit: our apps are written in a very stateless fashion since using state becomes unnatural in this architecture (there IS some usage of state used in some places where it's truly necessary, and that's the exceptions I mentioned earlier to not using HTTP-related objects). Yes, this was one of my goals in pushing this approach in the first place, but it's nice that I didn't have to hand down any edicts or anything because it came naturally out of the architecture anyway.
What you wind up with really is a service-oriented design since you're doing more work client-side and the server-side code is a lot thinner... things like navigation and such, transitions between states, are no longer handled by a server-side framework (there's way you still COULD do it server-side, but it becomes pointless). This definitely takes some getting used to and we had our share of paradigm shift-induced ugliness. But we got through it and we're all the better for it.
But, if this isn't the type of application you're looking to develop, if you want the more "classical" web app model, this probably isn't the way to go (although it still can be valuable to mix a technology like DWR in to your, say, Struts-based application... that can be a good first step in fact). You definitely do have to rely on client-side code more (no, NOT at the cost of security, you can be just as robust in that area as you could ever be if you do things smartly). Pair something like DWR with a top-notch front-end library (ExtJS is our choice) and you have yourself a very powerful architecture that you could even call a framework if you want.
My point is simply that you shouldn't get into the mindset that you HAVE to have some big, do-it-all-for-you framework to be productive, and in fact if you go to the opposite extreme and use no framework at all, if you do it wisely, you can find you are more effective then you'd be even with the best framework backing you up. "None of the above" can in fact be a viable and even possibly utopian answer to the original question:)
I started getting my kids into programming at young ages... not 2nd grade, but close: my son was in 3rd grade, my daughter 4th. I tried a couple different approaches... gave him an old Commodore 64 (yes, a real one!) and the original BASIC manual that came with it and let him try to figure it out himself (he's been way beyond his age reading-wise for years now so it really wasn't as bad as it sounded). That didn't work. I tried coding a simple Pong game in JavaScript with him following along... that kinda/sorta worked, he was at least interested and went off and tried some things himself.
In the end though, what kept his interest the best was Scratch and making games. If I was going to do what you're talking about I'd do a simple game with Scratch right in front of them. Be sure to mention that Scratch is free and they can ask their parents to get it on their computers at home to play with. Being a game will keep their interest and make it relate-able because, after all, what kid these days of ANY age doesn't play video games? You can throw in some comments about software development generally, vis a vis, how you'd go through a beta test phase, maybe draw a simple wireframe on the blackboard before you start, explain debugging briefly, etc.
I think you won't have much luck with 2nd graders no matter what you do frankly... they just don't have the attention span to get very far... but a game with a visual thing like Scratch might keep them into it for at least a few minutes, might even get one or two of them interested enough to go do it on their own... so long as they don't come trying to take my job the next week!;)
The basic premise seems to be that non-scientists can never hope to understand complex scientific concepts. There seems to me to be an important word missing there: "FULLY", as in "...non-scientists can never hope to FULLY understand...".
I am not a scientist (IANAS?!) but I AM very scientifically-minded and spend A LOT of time reading and trying to comprehend these admittedly complex ideas. I have no illusions about my knowledge: if I was very, very lucky, not tired and fully on my game I *might*, on my best day and he on his worst, be able to have a reasonable conversation about something like quantum mechanics with a real physicist. For a few minutes anyway:)
But that doesn't mean I have to take anything on faith. I can understand the broad strokes enough to be able to come to my own logical conclusion on whether something is right or not. No, I can't write up a formal proof on a chalkboard, nor would I be conversant on every last detail. But I can get the broad strokes, faith need not apply.
It's similar to programming... I'm a Java developer, but I also have some limited experience in.Net. A.Net developer who does it day in and day out could absolutely run circles around me, no question. But I can get the broad strokes and be able to draw a reasonable conclusion about the bigger picture, even if I can't give you ever last detail of the code. Same thing with science.
So no, faith isn't required, certainly not in the same way that it is an absolute necessity in religion where there's never any hope of understanding or proving/disproving anything.
So yeah, I'll still take science any day of the week:)
Ditto. Those two are on my VERY short list of people I'd most like to meet. They probably had more of an impact on my life, albeit indirectly, than any two other people save my parents.
I would very much debate the premise that "As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil."
Microsoft has always been about a singular thing: making money. To this day, that's their primary concern. Now, don't misunderstand me: I'm NOT saying Microsoft hasn't done some truly terrible things, and you point out just a few. But for them, if what they did could ever be considered "evil" (a debatable classification, but one I'm willing to give you for the sake of argument) then it was in the service of improving the bottom line.
Now, when it comes to Apple, I for one do not believe one bit that making money is the main driver. I say this for one reason and one reason only: Steve Jobs. He has gone out of his way to convince me that's not his driving motivation. Some examples?
* No overtly sexual content in the app store. He I believe feels the need to "protect" people from this sort of "smut".
* No "crappy" apps in the app store. That *seems* like a good thing to say on the surface, but ultimately it means he and he alone (ultimately) decide what constitutes a "crappy" app, not you the customer.
* Telling a developer to simply change his app's name. Now Steve (directly this time) even gets to decide what someone calls their app (and yes, I know, he asserted a trademark issue, so it this can't be dismissed as a valid reply out of hand, but come on, doesn't it strike you as a bit much??)
* And now, of course, the ban of the Android magazine app.
All of this, and much more that supports the conclusion, points to a man, and by extension a company, who isn't thinking about profits as the basic motivation. No, they are acting more like thought police in my opinion, deciding what's right, wrong, good and bad for consumers.
Look, I'm not going to deny that some good actually does result from this. I mean, I think it's fairly evident that the overall quality of iOS apps tends to be superior to Android and other more open platforms where anyone can play. The rules and regulations *do* seem to me to result in a better ecosystem of apps and even overall device experience.
But is it worth it? I don't think so. I'd rather have to sift through crap, would rather have to deal with trojans and whatnot, then be told what I can and can't do with a device I purchased. The fact, in my mind, is that nobody at this point purchases an Apple product, they simply rent them, to be used in the manner and at the discretion of Jobs and his minions.
So is Apple more evil than Microsoft? If you view a company trying to usurp your freedom to do what you want with something you purchased than it's hard to argue Apple isn't more evil than Microsoft. I suppose in the new world, where the economy is sputtering along at best and poorer folks want to point at the rich and say they're the cause of all the worlds' ills, in that case Microsoft may be a more attractive target.
But at the end of the day, I am *MUCH* more worried about where Apple is headed than Microsoft. The fact is that Apple produces some really good products that people want to own. But people are often times blinded by the "bling" and don't even notice that Apple is controlling them little by little, more and more. Ironically, Microsoft has been opening up ever so slightly and actually has become *less* controlling then they once were... and you might argue that the legal action taken against them was the proximal cause... you might be right... but if you are, then the same needs to be done to Apple before they even get to where Microsoft was (and some may say they already are) because, as I've said, I find Apple's motivations far more sinister and yes, even evil, than Microsoft's ever were.
Microsoft wanted money. Apple wants control. They are not equal things to give up, and if you think they are, or worse, think it's better to give up control than money, then you deserve the life you get... or lack thereof.
I'm sorry if this all seems melodramatic... I certainly wonder if it is sometimes... but then again, I'm pretty certain I can see one hell of a slippery slope coming up fast, *ESPECIALLY* given our collective experiences with Microsoft. Have we learned nothing?
P.S. to the users of Microsoft products: please any time you can, try to avoid this company, you're not their customer, you're their victim. There are other software vendors that respect you much more than that.
Even if I agree with your characterization of Microsoft (which I'm inclined to do for the most part), I'd *REALLY* like to know who these other vendors are that respect me much more. So far, I've seen none that I'd say respect me worth a damn... ok, respect me *more* than Microsoft, maybe, so your statement is technically true perhaps... but the spirit of it I don't think is. We're all nothing but profit generators to any vendor, some just show their disdain for us a little more freely.
I've always loved that line... it's kind of like saying that I can break a quantum cryptography cipher with a Commodore 64... combined with a form of Deep Thought!
I mean, if I have the immensely-powerful Deep Thought (fusion) to begin with, why do I need the relatively minor power of a C64 (human body) added to it?!?
I know, I know, trick question: the C64, unlike a human body, allows me to play Jumpman Jr., Hover Bover, Space Taxi and Impossible Mission, and that's gotta count for something:)
But this is in large part why Apples' response to Flash is so utterly ridiculous... wouldn't the far easier strategy be to simply let Flash on add an easy, obvious and simple way to disable it? The theory is that Flash is so obnoxious that most people turn it off... you may well be right... so let them! Apple wouldn't have the PR fiasco they have now (at least as far as us technophiles go) and they'd probably wind up killing Flash anyway MORE than they are doing so now... think about it... if Flash runs like crap on everyones' iPhones and they disable it (at the click of a simple, easy-to-find button), it will become irrelevant on mobile devices... moreover, it may help to hasten its demise on the DESKTOP because people may simply get used to no Flash on their mobile and decide its not worth the trouble on the desktop either.
Sometimes its better to give people EXACTLY what they want in order to get EXACTLY what you want.
You're assuming here that the legal system is the be-all, end-all of things. You're 100% right, in a *LEGAL* sense, no one else can (greatly) influence THIS case... that doesn't mean they can't influence THIS case:)
What I mean is simply that things happen in dark back-rooms of industry all the time that impact court cases... maybe a group of large companies quietly tells Apple "you either throw this case or we're going to do X, Y and Z, which will be A LOT worse for you". Now, I'm not smart enough to dream up all the various scenarios that could be outlined, but you get the gist: you can influence any court case in underhanded ways... ways that will, to the untrained eye, seem completely unrelated.
Just because novelists and screenplay writers dream up things like this for a living doesn't mean that they don't happen in real life too:)
Err, except that Palm doesn't at all limit what you can run on your device. They have flat-out said that they are OK with the homebrew scene (it's fair to say they simply tolerate it, but that's all you really need). You don't have to jailbreak your phone, there's no hacking involved, etc.
Yes, you need to install a desktop application, at least once, to install an app (QuickInstall... after that you can install FileCoaster and do it completely over the air from then on). This is no different than MS requiring ActiveSync to install (most) software on WinMo, and few people bitch about that.
What Palm is doing is no different than WalMart saying they won't sell this music CD or that one... it's THEIR store, they can sell what THEY want to sell, not what you want them to sell... you can always not shop at WalMart, just like you can install from the homebrew scene and not bother with Palm's App Catalog. They can make it as annoying as they want to get your merchandise in their store too (and from what I've heard, they're considerably better at this than others in the space, this one developers' experience notwithstanding).
Yes, Palm COULD turn into assholes and lock out homebrew... yes, Palm COULD become Apple and arbitrarily deny all sorts of apps... yes, Palm COULD do a lot of nasty things. I hope they don't, and if they do I'll use a different phone in a heartbeat. But until they do, you've got to look at the reality of the situation:
1. It's their store, they can do what they want with it, whether it's stupid or not 2. You can quite easily, 98% as easily as using the App Catalog, install homebrew apps
So long as #2 always is true, I don't have a problem with #1... their sales may ultimately, but they aren't destroying our freedom or anything like that.
What, you never heard of Whoppix*?? It's a great distro! I like the fact that I can take off the pickels, lettuce, tomatoes and even the special sauce if I want... trying doing THAT with Windows!!
I suspect we've all been there... even right now, I have a project I'm very passionate about, yet I find myself watching movies I've TiVo'd or just playing Rock Band or whatever.
The key for more is late nights... it seems like I can't really do much coding any more until the clock strikes midnight (my own projects I mean... I'm just fine during the day on the job). For me, some nice, cool summer air coming through the window, some Pepsi Max at my side and some tunes cranked as loud as possible that time of night and I can usually get started.
The good news, for me at least, is that once I get started I find I have to force myself to stop! I'm very much a "groove" code monkey, momentum is a big part of it, which is another reason the late-night sessions are great: no distractions to stop me until I WANT to stop (or until my eyes are bleeding from being way too tired).
The best advice I have is just site down and start typing. Don't over-plan, don't over-reach, just pick a relatively small part of your project that offers at least some challenge, even if you have no idea how you're going to pull it off, and start... if you're anything like me, after about five minutes, even if the results aren't quite right, you'll be chugging along and will have broken through your lethargy.
Speaking as someone who has four books published and a fifth hitting shelves in the next month or two (http://www.zammetti.com/) I certainly have an opinion on the matter. Before I give that opinion I'll state the one qualification to my comments, which is that writing books is not my primary source of income. I have a regular, full-time job, I write books on the side. It's nice supplemental income to be sure, but I couldn't live off of it, and if I lost the income it wouldn't hurt my family terribly (maybe a few less trips to Applebees is all!)
Anyway, I for one don't get all up in arms over piracy. My books are out there and easy for anyone to get, I've looked. I don't think there's much of anything I could do to stop it. I have to admit I even felt a certain amount of pride when I first saw them pirated because at least someone thought they were worth the time and effort to pirate in the first place:) I had the same feeling the first time I found out my Windows Mobile software was pirated too. Of course, that feeling goes away pretty quickly:)
I believe most people still like a good, physical book in their hands. I'm about as tech-savvy as anyone, and I read a lot of books in digital form, but I still greatly prefer a stack of bound paper in my hand, and I don't think I'm alone in that. So, I don't suspect piracy is really hurting anyone in a really significant way (I also suspect my publisher would beg to differ quite strenuously!).
What can you do about it? Probably not a whole lot, just as with software, music and movies. Probably the best you can do is produce the best product you can and make people WANT to buy it. At the end of the day, I believe most people are good and honest and are willing to pay reasonable amounts for good products.
So, make great movies that are best experienced on a huge screen with great sound and with a crowd. Make music that is actually good and not the boilerplate crap most groups churn out these days and cell the CDs for a lot less than they go for now. Write software that is truly useful and solid and then don't charge ridiculous amounts for it. Write books that are useful, entertaining and that look really good. That's how you curb piracy: make people want the real, original item and make them not feeling like you're asking for a kidney in return for the privilege!
A big theme here is price. Many entities simply charge too much for a given product. You know, I actually like Windows, and I would have been more than willing to buy Vista, whatever warts it may have, but when I saw a $200 price tag attached I said "nah, XP will continue to be just fine, thank you very much". Had Vista been, say, $59 or so , I'd have bought it in a heartbeat. When I see a book for $49.99, I hesitate a bit and make sure I really feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Often times I don't reach that conclusion and I'll look for a cheaper book. And let's not even get started on CDs, which are probably on average $10 more than they should ever be!
Granted, as an author there's only so much I can do... my publisher sets the price and they, by and large, are responsible for how the book ultimately looks. Fortunately, my publisher does a really good job on the later (and the former is I think debatable, although I find their prices to generally be reasonable). I do what I can to make the material as engaging and useful as I can, but that's about as far as I can take it. I think however that's the best solution available to us anyway.
And at the end of the day, don't go nuts about piracy. Like I said, I'm not trying to make a living as an author, and maybe my opinion would differ a bit if I was, but intellectually I hope not because the facts would really change, just my stake in them... I think the sales you lose are likely sales you weren't going to have in the first place and the majority of people will buy legitimately. That's my hunch anyway. In the end, people have been trying to beat piracy for
Slashdot Mirror
...you should take about 20 paces AWAY from his workstation whenever he starts his "learning".
The wacky part about Rummy's diatribe there is that he was, is and always will be 100% correct in what he said... people tend to leave that part out, usually because their mind can't parse and process the logic of what he's saying. Sure, he said it in the most convoluted and pedantic way imaginable, which is why it's such a memorable quote, but the gist of the statement was logically accurate... although one could debate whether you ever actually know you know anything, because anything you "know" you may in fact be incorrect about, in which case you could then say there are things you know you know that you don't actually know... hey, I can do it to, can I be SecDef??
Oh yeah, it's also worth noting that when you develop the server-side with DWR, creating a mobile app later becomes a piece of cake... you either write one of the numerous "web apps wrapped in a native app" using something like Phonegap (which might be your ExtJS-based app or a plain old HTML-based app), or if you use the latest version of DWR you'll have the ability to make plain REST calls to your server code without the need for the Javascript client portion, so you can write a true native and and just do plain old HTTP requests, no changes to the server-side should be required (so long as you've done it sessionless). I've done this too (both app approaches) and it works amazingly well and cuts development time tremendously.
You didn't say if you wanted to stick with open-source entirely, so I'm suggesting a 50/50 deal :)
ExtJS is a fantastic front-end development tool. Yes, you'll have to learn Javascript, but (a) that'll be pretty easy given your Java background because syntactically they're very similar and (b) that will remove all the cross-browser concerns... although it WILL require Javascript on the client, but frankly, while some people do run with it off and browsers on feature phones and such sometimes don't have it, Javascript is fairly close to assumed these days in web development. A lot of people talk about non-intrusive JS and progressive enhancement, which is all fine and good but I for one think the time for that has passed. ExtJS is a commercial product, however, there IS an option to use it in a JPL'd application. If that's okay for your application then you can get it for free.
DWR on the server-side, a great OSS project, is a Java-based solution that makes your server code SO incredibly clean and simple to write... you wind up with nothing but POJOs, and you don't (typically) deal with session or state of any kind. Best of all, it's a PERFECT match with ExtJS because what you wind up writing is really a service-oriented facade that the client makes use of, rather than coding the navigation logic of your webapp on the server, as is typical in Java web app development with most frameworks. It makes things incredibly simple and easy, cutting out so much complexity you'll wonder why you haven't been doing this all along.
That's only true if you're of the belief that knowledge in and of itself isn't a commodity worth having for a given price. That's certainly not an interpretation of things I subscribe to.
You're point isn't invalid by any stretch, it is in fact the core of a very good argument. But it's one I'd argue against strenuously. In fact, I'd argue that every step towards a total understanding of our universe, no matter how small the step, is worth virtually any cost placed on it. The toys we may sacrifice as a result of that pursuit is more than a worthy tradeoff to make. The knowing in the end is its own best reward.
I'd also hold that over the long-term all those 1 bit advancements in knowledge pay us back tenfold or better. Think of the relatively minor advances in knowledge that pure science and experimentation had to provide before we could invent the transistor, and then think about all the benefits that invention has led to. I think it'd be nearly impossible to argue that ratio isn't magnificent. Sure, I can't say knowing whether the Higgs is real or not would have a similar outcome, but nor can anyone say for sure it won't. Therefore, the only option is to proceed down the path of discovery and pay the opportunity cost along the way in the hope that a similar situation to the transistor might arise.
I make the same type of argument for human exploration of space. As easy as it is to argue against such ventures on the basis of cost and risk and other things, the benefit we may derive from it, not only on incidental technological invention but in pure knowledge that we can only guess at, is worth it no matter what the cost. At least, it is to me.
"However, I find JavaScript's weak typing and dynamic nature difficult to adapt to because I'm so used to strongly-typed, compiled languages with lots of compile-time error-checking and help from the IDE"
In other words: "Despite my 20 years of experience I've never been a particularly good developer because without my tools doing half the work for me I'd be all but useless to my employer. I can't really think for myself, have poor fundamentals and therefore when confronted with a technology that requires I actually have a clue, it's difficult for me."
Isn't it ironic that it takes something like JavaScript that so many still incorrectly consider a bicycle with training wheels to expose those that don't really know what they're doing?
I have 25+ years of experience and I can get the job done with multiple languages of multiple kinds on multiple platforms equally well. Know why? I actually know what I'm doing! Tools can make me more efficient, sure, but I don't *need* them to work well (and frequently I prefer *not* having an IDE constantly thinking for me). I learned a new language (Lua) in the past few weeks to the point where I'm now developing a highly complex mobile app with it and that's not at all unusual, transitioning to a new technology. Not hard to jump around like that when you're a *real* developer.
(Disclaimer: obviously I don't personally know the OP, so take this more as a condemnation of a far too many developers in general these days, not specifically of this guy... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since I don't know him)
...nor is it (or at least SHOULD it be) different than the code from a management standpoint. For example, when I do estimates, whether its for my own code or for those under me (which I try to avoid anyway- the people that will do the work should at least be involved in the estimates, but I digress) I always count on good, proper documentation being part of the process. It's part of the work to be delivered, plain and simple. Of course, I neglect to tell those above me that :) Fortunately, over the years I've built up a strong reputation and when I tell people it'll take a month to do something they know it'll take a month and the result will be good. Such a reputation certainly helps.
Some people treat documentation as optional. It's not. Not in the slightest. Documentation is as important as the actual code, and often times it is MORE SO. Why? Well, no matter how "self-documenting" the code is (which is an invented BS term anyway most of the time, but I digress) it still doesn't mean you know why the code exists, how it's used, how it's intended to be used, and WHAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER WAS ACTUALLY THINKING WHEN HE WROTE IT. Knowing all those intentions can sometimes be the key information you need to debug something, especially when you didn't write it (or you wrote it more than about six months ago, which for all intents and purposes is the same as code you didn't write yourself).
Fortunately, writing good documentation is actually pretty easy. Simply put, you do it in two general steps:
Step 1: Write an outline of the code in comments that describes the overall structure, the general flow of the code, how you expect it to work and why its designed the way it is. Generally, write one comment block when you expect to have a method, and then each logical block of code within each method, in other words, the steps that you logically need to do to solve the problem at hand.
Step 2: Under each comment, fill in the blanks, so to speak, with the actual code. Of course, make it "self-documenting" code, for what that's worth (it's not a BAD thing at all, it's just not the ONLY thing that matters).
That'll usually do the trick. It also has the benefit of forcing you to (a) think through your design up-front and (b) stick to that plan throughout. Naturally you'll find places you need to make adjustments as you go... programming is more a creative process than an engineering process much of the time... but having that initial plan is still better than no plan most of the time. It'll also help keep you from introducing those pointless comments we've all seen (vis a vis: a=a+1; // Add 1 to a)
If you include the time it takes to do this in your work from the start it doesn't even add more time, and I'd argue in my experience actually SAVES time in the long-run because you catch some silly mistakes before you write any real code, when it's still easy to make changes.
Ive been on both sides of the table plenty and have both faced and given brain teasers. To say they are inherently good or bad hiring criteria is thinking of it the wrong way. Its just one tool in the toolbox. A hammer isnt inherently good or bad, you use it when its appropriate and not otherwise.
I personally put little stock in them, except that I love to get a wiseass answer because it shows personality. For example, I got hit with the Google-ish "how many golfballs fit in a schoolbus?" question once. My answer, almost immediate, was: "Come on, thats just silly, everyone knows golfballs do not ride the bus when they go to school... they don't need to, they're balls, they just roll!" The interviewer absolutely loved that answer.
To me, there's far better ways to evaluate a candidate. For a programming job its actually easy: give them a real-world task typical of the position, tell them they have as much time as they need, set them up at a workstation, show them where the bathroom and snack machine is and give them some space. See what they produce in that situation.
At the risk of sounding like a shill for myself, I've actually written about this approach in my books and articles, and have given presentations on it as well (probably not as directly as we're discussing here, but more of a philosophy discussion). Feel free to check it all out at zammetti.com. You can also contact me directly if you want with any questions you might have.
Let me try and answer a few things here though that I've seen in replies...
1. Re: session... it's handled not much differently actually. For the things you would normally put in session you still can (DWR makes it very easy to get at session). You can also store stuff on the client, which frankly is where a lot of things make more sense. And it doesn't automatically mean HTML5-ish answers (of course it can though)... sometimes, in keeping with the simplicity idea, JavaScript variables in memory is a good answer (very much depends on the data, its sensitive, etc., but you get the idea).
2. Re: sockets... no, DWR is in fact implemented as a servlet, and you're still talking HTTP to it as usual... it's just that those details fall away because you're code looks very much like calling methods:
MyServerObject.myMethod("abc", {
errorHandler : function() { alert("Bad!"); },
callback : function(response) { alert(response); }
});
See? Doesn't look much different that calling a regular JavaScript method, or even a Java method, but that's actually JavaScript calling the myMethod() method of an instance of MyServerObject on the server!
3. Re: What you push to the client... basically, DWR creates JavaScript files that mimic the interface to the Java classes you want to execute methods on. You import the JS files, like any other except you're path is the DWR servlet, then you just call methods on those JS proxy objects. That's it!
Like I said, feel free to ping me if you want to know more, I'm always happy to talk about something I think is cool :)
----
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Palm Pre webOS Projects"
and "Practical Ext JS Projects with Gears"
and "Practical Dojo Projects"
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
and "Practical JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
and "Practical Ajax Projects with Java Technology"
(For info: apress.com/book/search?searchterm=zammetti&act=search)
All you could possibly want is here: zammetti.com
We've gone through a number of options where I work, from a homegrown framework to Struts to various other trials. Eventually, when I managed to pull us into the RIA world, I make a suggestion that got crooked looks initially but which now, a few years on, is seen as ideal: NO FRAMEWORK AT ALL!
We're primarily a Java shop, but this can apply in any shop since there are similar options available for .Net, PHP, whatever else, but I'll describe our model because its very simple: our apps are nothing but POJOs (Plain Old Java Objects for those not in the Java realm) that we talk to via DWR.
That's it.
No Struts, no JSF, no Spring MVC, not even straight servlets! Nothing but pure, simple Java classes with no real tie to any HTTP-related objects (well, usually... some exceptions here and there are required).
The benefits are many: the code is simple and clean... the classes are so easy to unit test that we actually manage to get our developers to do it (sometimes)... configuration doesn't get in the way (no, it's not as simple as some frameworks because there IS configuration, but its so minimal no one minds)... performance is top-notch since there's no extra work being done by a framework first (granted modern frameworks are very efficient and this difference is probably minimal, but still)... and new developers can be brought up to speed in less than a day and no one is ever confused by the code, that's fore sure! There's also been an implied side-benefit: our apps are written in a very stateless fashion since using state becomes unnatural in this architecture (there IS some usage of state used in some places where it's truly necessary, and that's the exceptions I mentioned earlier to not using HTTP-related objects). Yes, this was one of my goals in pushing this approach in the first place, but it's nice that I didn't have to hand down any edicts or anything because it came naturally out of the architecture anyway.
What you wind up with really is a service-oriented design since you're doing more work client-side and the server-side code is a lot thinner... things like navigation and such, transitions between states, are no longer handled by a server-side framework (there's way you still COULD do it server-side, but it becomes pointless). This definitely takes some getting used to and we had our share of paradigm shift-induced ugliness. But we got through it and we're all the better for it.
But, if this isn't the type of application you're looking to develop, if you want the more "classical" web app model, this probably isn't the way to go (although it still can be valuable to mix a technology like DWR in to your, say, Struts-based application... that can be a good first step in fact). You definitely do have to rely on client-side code more (no, NOT at the cost of security, you can be just as robust in that area as you could ever be if you do things smartly). Pair something like DWR with a top-notch front-end library (ExtJS is our choice) and you have yourself a very powerful architecture that you could even call a framework if you want.
My point is simply that you shouldn't get into the mindset that you HAVE to have some big, do-it-all-for-you framework to be productive, and in fact if you go to the opposite extreme and use no framework at all, if you do it wisely, you can find you are more effective then you'd be even with the best framework backing you up. "None of the above" can in fact be a viable and even possibly utopian answer to the original question :)
I started getting my kids into programming at young ages... not 2nd grade, but close: my son was in 3rd grade, my daughter 4th. I tried a couple different approaches... gave him an old Commodore 64 (yes, a real one!) and the original BASIC manual that came with it and let him try to figure it out himself (he's been way beyond his age reading-wise for years now so it really wasn't as bad as it sounded). That didn't work. I tried coding a simple Pong game in JavaScript with him following along... that kinda/sorta worked, he was at least interested and went off and tried some things himself.
In the end though, what kept his interest the best was Scratch and making games. If I was going to do what you're talking about I'd do a simple game with Scratch right in front of them. Be sure to mention that Scratch is free and they can ask their parents to get it on their computers at home to play with. Being a game will keep their interest and make it relate-able because, after all, what kid these days of ANY age doesn't play video games? You can throw in some comments about software development generally, vis a vis, how you'd go through a beta test phase, maybe draw a simple wireframe on the blackboard before you start, explain debugging briefly, etc.
I think you won't have much luck with 2nd graders no matter what you do frankly... they just don't have the attention span to get very far... but a game with a visual thing like Scratch might keep them into it for at least a few minutes, might even get one or two of them interested enough to go do it on their own... so long as they don't come trying to take my job the next week! ;)
The basic premise seems to be that non-scientists can never hope to understand complex scientific concepts. There seems to me to be an important word missing there: "FULLY", as in "...non-scientists can never hope to FULLY understand...".
I am not a scientist (IANAS?!) but I AM very scientifically-minded and spend A LOT of time reading and trying to comprehend these admittedly complex ideas. I have no illusions about my knowledge: if I was very, very lucky, not tired and fully on my game I *might*, on my best day and he on his worst, be able to have a reasonable conversation about something like quantum mechanics with a real physicist. For a few minutes anyway :)
But that doesn't mean I have to take anything on faith. I can understand the broad strokes enough to be able to come to my own logical conclusion on whether something is right or not. No, I can't write up a formal proof on a chalkboard, nor would I be conversant on every last detail. But I can get the broad strokes, faith need not apply.
It's similar to programming... I'm a Java developer, but I also have some limited experience in .Net. A .Net developer who does it day in and day out could absolutely run circles around me, no question. But I can get the broad strokes and be able to draw a reasonable conclusion about the bigger picture, even if I can't give you ever last detail of the code. Same thing with science.
So no, faith isn't required, certainly not in the same way that it is an absolute necessity in religion where there's never any hope of understanding or proving/disproving anything.
So yeah, I'll still take science any day of the week :)
Ditto. Those two are on my VERY short list of people I'd most like to meet. They probably had more of an impact on my life, albeit indirectly, than any two other people save my parents.
I would very much debate the premise that "As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil."
Microsoft has always been about a singular thing: making money. To this day, that's their primary concern. Now, don't misunderstand me: I'm NOT saying Microsoft hasn't done some truly terrible things, and you point out just a few. But for them, if what they did could ever be considered "evil" (a debatable classification, but one I'm willing to give you for the sake of argument) then it was in the service of improving the bottom line.
Now, when it comes to Apple, I for one do not believe one bit that making money is the main driver. I say this for one reason and one reason only: Steve Jobs. He has gone out of his way to convince me that's not his driving motivation. Some examples?
* No overtly sexual content in the app store. He I believe feels the need to "protect" people from this sort of "smut".
* No "crappy" apps in the app store. That *seems* like a good thing to say on the surface, but ultimately it means he and he alone (ultimately) decide what constitutes a "crappy" app, not you the customer.
* Telling a developer to simply change his app's name. Now Steve (directly this time) even gets to decide what someone calls their app (and yes, I know, he asserted a trademark issue, so it this can't be dismissed as a valid reply out of hand, but come on, doesn't it strike you as a bit much??)
* And now, of course, the ban of the Android magazine app.
All of this, and much more that supports the conclusion, points to a man, and by extension a company, who isn't thinking about profits as the basic motivation. No, they are acting more like thought police in my opinion, deciding what's right, wrong, good and bad for consumers.
Look, I'm not going to deny that some good actually does result from this. I mean, I think it's fairly evident that the overall quality of iOS apps tends to be superior to Android and other more open platforms where anyone can play. The rules and regulations *do* seem to me to result in a better ecosystem of apps and even overall device experience.
But is it worth it? I don't think so. I'd rather have to sift through crap, would rather have to deal with trojans and whatnot, then be told what I can and can't do with a device I purchased. The fact, in my mind, is that nobody at this point purchases an Apple product, they simply rent them, to be used in the manner and at the discretion of Jobs and his minions.
So is Apple more evil than Microsoft? If you view a company trying to usurp your freedom to do what you want with something you purchased than it's hard to argue Apple isn't more evil than Microsoft. I suppose in the new world, where the economy is sputtering along at best and poorer folks want to point at the rich and say they're the cause of all the worlds' ills, in that case Microsoft may be a more attractive target.
But at the end of the day, I am *MUCH* more worried about where Apple is headed than Microsoft. The fact is that Apple produces some really good products that people want to own. But people are often times blinded by the "bling" and don't even notice that Apple is controlling them little by little, more and more. Ironically, Microsoft has been opening up ever so slightly and actually has become *less* controlling then they once were... and you might argue that the legal action taken against them was the proximal cause... you might be right... but if you are, then the same needs to be done to Apple before they even get to where Microsoft was (and some may say they already are) because, as I've said, I find Apple's motivations far more sinister and yes, even evil, than Microsoft's ever were.
Microsoft wanted money. Apple wants control. They are not equal things to give up, and if you think they are, or worse, think it's better to give up control than money, then you deserve the life you get... or lack thereof.
I'm sorry if this all seems melodramatic... I certainly wonder if it is sometimes... but then again, I'm pretty certain I can see one hell of a slippery slope coming up fast, *ESPECIALLY* given our collective experiences with Microsoft. Have we learned nothing?
P.S. to the users of Microsoft products: please any time you can, try to avoid this company, you're not their customer, you're their victim. There are other software vendors that respect you much more than that.
Even if I agree with your characterization of Microsoft (which I'm inclined to do for the most part), I'd *REALLY* like to know who these other vendors are that respect me much more. So far, I've seen none that I'd say respect me worth a damn... ok, respect me *more* than Microsoft, maybe, so your statement is technically true perhaps... but the spirit of it I don't think is. We're all nothing but profit generators to any vendor, some just show their disdain for us a little more freely.
I've always loved that line... it's kind of like saying that I can break a quantum cryptography cipher with a Commodore 64... combined with a form of Deep Thought!
I mean, if I have the immensely-powerful Deep Thought (fusion) to begin with, why do I need the relatively minor power of a C64 (human body) added to it?!?
I know, I know, trick question: the C64, unlike a human body, allows me to play Jumpman Jr., Hover Bover, Space Taxi and Impossible Mission, and that's gotta count for something :)
But this is in large part why Apples' response to Flash is so utterly ridiculous... wouldn't the far easier strategy be to simply let Flash on add an easy, obvious and simple way to disable it? The theory is that Flash is so obnoxious that most people turn it off... you may well be right... so let them! Apple wouldn't have the PR fiasco they have now (at least as far as us technophiles go) and they'd probably wind up killing Flash anyway MORE than they are doing so now... think about it... if Flash runs like crap on everyones' iPhones and they disable it (at the click of a simple, easy-to-find button), it will become irrelevant on mobile devices... moreover, it may help to hasten its demise on the DESKTOP because people may simply get used to no Flash on their mobile and decide its not worth the trouble on the desktop either.
Sometimes its better to give people EXACTLY what they want in order to get EXACTLY what you want.
You're assuming here that the legal system is the be-all, end-all of things. You're 100% right, in a *LEGAL* sense, no one else can (greatly) influence THIS case... that doesn't mean they can't influence THIS case :)
What I mean is simply that things happen in dark back-rooms of industry all the time that impact court cases... maybe a group of large companies quietly tells Apple "you either throw this case or we're going to do X, Y and Z, which will be A LOT worse for you". Now, I'm not smart enough to dream up all the various scenarios that could be outlined, but you get the gist: you can influence any court case in underhanded ways... ways that will, to the untrained eye, seem completely unrelated.
Just because novelists and screenplay writers dream up things like this for a living doesn't mean that they don't happen in real life too :)
You, sir, are my hero!
...the human race declares war on an alien civilization by accidentally killing thousands of its microscopic citizens!
And I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't point out "Practical Ext JS Projects with Gears" from Apress:
http://apress.com/book/search?searchterm=zammetti&act=search&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Yes, I'm the author... I have kids to feed too :)
Err, except that Palm doesn't at all limit what you can run on your device. They have flat-out said that they are OK with the homebrew scene (it's fair to say they simply tolerate it, but that's all you really need). You don't have to jailbreak your phone, there's no hacking involved, etc.
Yes, you need to install a desktop application, at least once, to install an app (QuickInstall... after that you can install FileCoaster and do it completely over the air from then on). This is no different than MS requiring ActiveSync to install (most) software on WinMo, and few people bitch about that.
What Palm is doing is no different than WalMart saying they won't sell this music CD or that one... it's THEIR store, they can sell what THEY want to sell, not what you want them to sell... you can always not shop at WalMart, just like you can install from the homebrew scene and not bother with Palm's App Catalog. They can make it as annoying as they want to get your merchandise in their store too (and from what I've heard, they're considerably better at this than others in the space, this one developers' experience notwithstanding).
Yes, Palm COULD turn into assholes and lock out homebrew... yes, Palm COULD become Apple and arbitrarily deny all sorts of apps... yes, Palm COULD do a lot of nasty things. I hope they don't, and if they do I'll use a different phone in a heartbeat. But until they do, you've got to look at the reality of the situation:
1. It's their store, they can do what they want with it, whether it's stupid or not
2. You can quite easily, 98% as easily as using the App Catalog, install homebrew apps
So long as #2 always is true, I don't have a problem with #1... their sales may ultimately, but they aren't destroying our freedom or anything like that.
What, you never heard of Whoppix*?? It's a great distro! I like the fact that I can take off the pickels, lettuce, tomatoes and even the special sauce if I want... trying doing THAT with Windows!!
* Need reference
I suspect we've all been there... even right now, I have a project I'm very passionate about, yet I find myself watching movies I've TiVo'd or just playing Rock Band or whatever.
The key for more is late nights... it seems like I can't really do much coding any more until the clock strikes midnight (my own projects I mean... I'm just fine during the day on the job). For me, some nice, cool summer air coming through the window, some Pepsi Max at my side and some tunes cranked as loud as possible that time of night and I can usually get started.
The good news, for me at least, is that once I get started I find I have to force myself to stop! I'm very much a "groove" code monkey, momentum is a big part of it, which is another reason the late-night sessions are great: no distractions to stop me until I WANT to stop (or until my eyes are bleeding from being way too tired).
The best advice I have is just site down and start typing. Don't over-plan, don't over-reach, just pick a relatively small part of your project that offers at least some challenge, even if you have no idea how you're going to pull it off, and start... if you're anything like me, after about five minutes, even if the results aren't quite right, you'll be chugging along and will have broken through your lethargy.
Speaking as someone who has four books published and a fifth hitting shelves in the next month or two (http://www.zammetti.com/) I certainly have an opinion on the matter. Before I give that opinion I'll state the one qualification to my comments, which is that writing books is not my primary source of income. I have a regular, full-time job, I write books on the side. It's nice supplemental income to be sure, but I couldn't live off of it, and if I lost the income it wouldn't hurt my family terribly (maybe a few less trips to Applebees is all!)
Anyway, I for one don't get all up in arms over piracy. My books are out there and easy for anyone to get, I've looked. I don't think there's much of anything I could do to stop it. I have to admit I even felt a certain amount of pride when I first saw them pirated because at least someone thought they were worth the time and effort to pirate in the first place :) I had the same feeling the first time I found out my Windows Mobile software was pirated too. Of course, that feeling goes away pretty quickly :)
I believe most people still like a good, physical book in their hands. I'm about as tech-savvy as anyone, and I read a lot of books in digital form, but I still greatly prefer a stack of bound paper in my hand, and I don't think I'm alone in that. So, I don't suspect piracy is really hurting anyone in a really significant way (I also suspect my publisher would beg to differ quite strenuously!).
What can you do about it? Probably not a whole lot, just as with software, music and movies. Probably the best you can do is produce the best product you can and make people WANT to buy it. At the end of the day, I believe most people are good and honest and are willing to pay reasonable amounts for good products.
So, make great movies that are best experienced on a huge screen with great sound and with a crowd. Make music that is actually good and not the boilerplate crap most groups churn out these days and cell the CDs for a lot less than they go for now. Write software that is truly useful and solid and then don't charge ridiculous amounts for it. Write books that are useful, entertaining and that look really good. That's how you curb piracy: make people want the real, original item and make them not feeling like you're asking for a kidney in return for the privilege!
A big theme here is price. Many entities simply charge too much for a given product. You know, I actually like Windows, and I would have been more than willing to buy Vista, whatever warts it may have, but when I saw a $200 price tag attached I said "nah, XP will continue to be just fine, thank you very much". Had Vista been, say, $59 or so , I'd have bought it in a heartbeat. When I see a book for $49.99, I hesitate a bit and make sure I really feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Often times I don't reach that conclusion and I'll look for a cheaper book. And let's not even get started on CDs, which are probably on average $10 more than they should ever be!
Granted, as an author there's only so much I can do... my publisher sets the price and they, by and large, are responsible for how the book ultimately looks. Fortunately, my publisher does a really good job on the later (and the former is I think debatable, although I find their prices to generally be reasonable). I do what I can to make the material as engaging and useful as I can, but that's about as far as I can take it. I think however that's the best solution available to us anyway.
And at the end of the day, don't go nuts about piracy. Like I said, I'm not trying to make a living as an author, and maybe my opinion would differ a bit if I was, but intellectually I hope not because the facts would really change, just my stake in them... I think the sales you lose are likely sales you weren't going to have in the first place and the majority of people will buy legitimately. That's my hunch anyway. In the end, people have been trying to beat piracy for