except that he presents it from a completely closed point of view. he misses the point that there are many useful ways to represent data and function in programming languages... all of which are useful somewhere, sometime. oo is one useful paradigm with many tools with which it can implemented. procedural, functional, event-based, locical, are other useful paradigms (there are more, and many combinations). the key is to see the possibilities in all of them. close your mind, stop the learning... open your mind, learn more, there are infinite possibilities!
some things are not free (beer or freedom). this is life. qnx is cool *and* newsworthy despite the fact it doesn't fit the zealot idea that every fsking thing has to be free. i've developed for qnx (and many *nix systems) for many of years... and qnx is easily the coolest of them all.
/. is news for nerds... not news for open source zealots. get off your high horse and appreciate cool geek stuff.
thanks to hemos for rising above the stench of purist crap.
Real is not fun? Along the lines of Bradbury's thoughts on fiction, that sort of thing is better if it is mostly real, as that makes it palatable/imersable. It is the small deviation from a palitable reality that allows a person to escape his own. A reality that is then enhanced by adding some deviance and exageration.
From that, I believe that it is the the deviant parts of a reality and the imersibility that can cause an incredible draw to a game: Quake3 style arena matches mimic a faster variety of a paintball sort of thing. If the universe was not fast, and visually realistic, with simulated and exagerated physics, would the game be as fun? A 2d sprite version of the same is fun, but nowhere near as imersive. Think about the classics: time-bandits, combat, temple of asphi, etc. Good games in their time, but you never really believed you were there. You *only* had the game play to enjoy.
well, Wolfenstein was a rehash of the 2d version and commander keen, albiet in quasi 3d.
but, they have made their game *much* better, if you remember what wolf was like. they have the multi-player arena universe, and have made it much of what it is. sure, there is less innovation when you work on perfecting a concept... but does that make it less of an activity?
I also was raised in a lower-middle class family. We didn't have cable tv until I was well into my teens, and there wasn't money to burn on computer hardware. I was able to earn enough myself, at a young age, to purchase my own hardware... and became member of many 'virtual' communities - first via BBSs, and the larger systems like compu$erve, and then the internet around 1990. My position in the lower earning class didn't limit me in any way. I chose to spend my time and small earning power to learn more about computers, and to fund my time in that particular community. Nearly anyone can sacrifice a small amount of earning power to get online. Almost any hardware will get you there (then and now)... The only elitist element is the small amount of desire and knowlege required to get you there.
These days I earn much more than my parents did, and interact online with a better class of computer... but the experience is no greater than the BBS days on my previous, albiet limited, systems of the past.
On many platforms, yes. However compilers tend to improve. Non-exception-safe code tends to stay non-exception-safe.
Which means that if you want highly portable C++ code now, you employ the subset of implemented standards. Hence, the use of exceptions makes less sense, as it is not feasable when portability is a requirement.
allows for multiple exit paths
They are fire exits.
yup, fire exits that allow for the interuption/confusion of normal program flow...a situation, which in many cases, bypasses memory management (or other resource reference handling) facilities. i agree it can be used effectivly, but the cost on design can be high. this is a consideration becomes more important as component object models are used from languages that support exceptions...resources management becomes a shared entity between threads, processes, and machines. this is merely a complication of exceptions, not an invalidation of the concept.
Exceptions are one of my least favorite language paradigms, something which probably stems from my C/pascal/asm background...regardless of bias, there are a number of good reasons to avoid exceptions:
poor compiler support on all platforms (DEC CC among others).
resembles, almost too closely, the GOTO...which has a place, but not as a regular attraction.
allows for multiple exit paths, which can distort program flow (said so well by B.Kernighan)
C++, as stated by the balanced/sensible gurus of our time is a great and powerful thing...that most of us rabble use to shoot ourselves (and users) in the foot with. exceptions are one great example of a badly used feature.
I find it interesting that so many supporters of the classic Amiga cannot imagine that another group of engineers (under the same name) could innovate again. There is really nothing to hold innovation back in any group...but yet we don't believe?
I am skeptical as well. I've heard too many "We're back" claims from companies who have purchases Amiga...and seen too many revolutionary development systems, OSs, libraries, etc., that ended up as crap. There are good systems, don't get me wrong, but just too many that made great claims that were not fulfilled.
It could be the fact that most Amiga (Atari, AppleII) lovers have grown older and jaded against the claims of innovation from many $oftware and hardware companie$. We found something amazing in our first systems (Atari800 for me), and have never really been able to find that same passion since. I, for one, am still looking for a language as cool as STOS (an ST compiled Basic language with bitchin' libraries) or as easy as Turbo Pascal (x86), and games like those European ST games (weird & wonderful stuff).
Could this latest Amiga claim be true? I dunno. It sounds too-good-to-be-true, but so was the orriginal Amiga platform...and it was one of the most amazing consumer platforms in history (IMO).
it seems a lot of people are seeing the impossibility of complete and perfect NL processing. remember, there are many levels from here to the nirvana of interfaces...and NL is only one dimension of improvement to the user interface paradigm. there is some value to more NL interfacing, the question is where and how?
improving the syntax, reducing rigidity, and making the learning of the CLI better may be a step to improving the incredible usefulness of the CLI:
> remember as "slash-leech" > get slashdot.org and clip headlines to slash.html > remove all "hardware" topics from slash.html > sort topics by newest in slash.html > archive slash.html to "/slash_history" > read from slash.html > done remember
a few aliases to existing commands, and a few creative uses of CLs yields a more NL feel to a CLI. is it better? probably not, but it may be easier to remember for people without the extensive background in unixes and other great systems.
what about the variation of input? does a NL interface require that it allow infinite variation of input? i really doubt it would be entirely sensible...though the basic principle to allow a user to customize his environment would suggest that providing the ability to learn new ways (aliases) for CL tools.
i've actually always wondered why CLIs haven't been innovated at the same rate as window managers and widget sets have been on unix flavoured systems (namely linux/bsd). many window managers (etc) allow an insane amount of flexibility, which is really cool. users are allowed to express their different ways of understanding visual layout and aesthetics...which translates into at least a minor improvement in how many users use their applications. CLIs are not yet nearly as flexible.
it is funny actually how componentisation, GUI flexibility, etc., have left CLI innovation behind. while componentisation and flexible/cool GUIs are nice, they really don't go to solve user-mundane and slow-interfacing problems. a seasoned CL guru is productive and skirts the mundane. the seasoned GUI user is very good at clicking + dragging...but performs the mundane ad nauseam. pity.
windows, as an example, provides a passable GUI system without much flexibility...and a component-object model that is survivable. a CLI is also available, but the os-packaged tools are crap. the component object model also ok, and has a means to be strung together, but without a useful (CLI - daily use) interface what is the point? windows, like many unix-like systems provide GUIs, CLIs, and component models (sometimes many)...but really do not tie them together well. the newer component models (non-CLI) do not have a daily-use, encompassing interface like the CLI component interface did. my questions to the innovators here is:
how can this generation of flexible GUI systems and component models be brought together like the old-school CLI and CL component model?
more NL like interfaces are a good thing. more important, it would seem to me, would be to find a way to tie some of the newer-flexible software technologies together like the all-powerful and encompassing CL...something that is used daily (like CLs), something which is scriptable (like CLs shell scripting)...something which becomes an encompassing way to do things without having to beat the hell out of your mouse buttons. tedium sucks. NL is only one piece of the puzzle.
I agree, natural language on top of CLI is not an entirely useful solution. A means of the NL-CLI to learn the user is really key...that and better ways of it determining how the users uses language.
I've been working on a few designs for a partially NL-CLI for a while now, and realized that the NL understanding needs to be able to learn what the user intends. This ranges from simple aliases for commands, variables, and params, to things like how the user switches thinking contexts. As well, remember how something was done properly before can go a long way to being able to reproduce it again (feedback loops). Complex things should never really be complex the second time around...the interpreter should remember (with positive feedback) what was done. Even things like identifying what can change (ie., the variables) between a number of like actions can be done.
I shudder to think that MS is attempting another NL interface, not because I hate them, but more because none of the learning would be opened to the rest of the development world to learn from their mistakes and/or successes.
While skinning can at first be quite anti-newbie, in the long run it supports advanced users with the ability to optimise positioning (and look/feel) of the things they use all the time. I don't think the fad of skinning everthing is the mantra of UI, but flexibility is good. I greatly dislike applications that force a single view on things, even the browser...there are many things I would move here or there, depending on how I use it. In fact, I can fathom wanting different looking browsers (or any app) for different problems...one for reading news, another for doing research (etc.).
And, somtimes I wish I could move interface elements around in my car...
In the end, skinning is one of a few flexibilities that users deserve, though it certainly isn't the most important (it just happens to be something that looks cool). The whole agent concept, with partial-natural=language constructs with better scripting (not VB, not shell scripting in their current forms) could be quite amazing.
Visual Studio stable? 6.0 is better than a number of previous releases, but developers here crash it at least once a week. And annoying?? Damn, MSVC's docking bastard tool-windows and MDI-ness are almost impossible to work around. Make settings can be set in the environment and in the bastardized prj (mak) files. Try to structure a set of project sources/binaries different than MS likes?? Pain in the ass...and not completely possibly (pdbs have a fixed name). Then there is VSS...another proprietary 'innovation', crap most of the way through.
All I ask for are quality, flexible, open-standard tools...which abound mostly appart from Microsoft.
Run very far away from the dated MS-provided STL libraries (from Dinkumware). They are horrendously out of date, buggy, and poorly documented. Use one of the standard implementations, either from SGI or the great STLPort (based on the SGI STL). SGI even has a decent implementation of iostreams which outperform native iostream libraries on almost any platform.
I evaluated xml for use in a product recently (for configuration data and inter-app communications), but was swayed by a number of really good arguments. The most convincing was the readability factor.
Maybe this is true in America, but not so much in Canada.
Highly trained, intelligent, passionite, hard-working individuals are all that most companies require. Some companies in Canada still get hung up on education, but in my experience this is improving.
Education is important, but only as long as it is quality education. I attended college and university for 5 years, tech school for 1, and quit both for job offers. The experience at all of the institutions was laughable (the state of education in Canada is generally poor, IMO).
For me, I was able to learn more in my first 2 years of working than in my 6 years of college level education. I would consider my education $$ poorly spent.
Learning is always important. The more time that learning can be carried out well, appart from the needs of business (which often can hinder learning due to business needs), the better...sometimes traditional channels are not the best learning mediums.
Consider life as the learning experience. Make it part of every day...at work, school, or while drinking beer in a pub (probably the least effective location).
Location v.s. Salaries v.s. taxes v.s. cost of living
Vancouver, BC - CA$40-90k - 50% - high
Calgary, AB - CA$40-90k - 42% - medium
Saskatoon, SK - CA$25-60k - 48% - low
Toronto, ON - CA$53-90k - 50% - high
(CA$40k is about US$28k, CA$90k is about US$65k)
A few cost of living examples...
Vancouver (high), 2 bedroom appt $1600+/month
Calgary (medium), 2 bedroom appt $700+/month
Saskatoon (low), 2 bedroom appt $400+/month
Toronto (high), 2 bedroom appt $1600+/month
I am lucky, as I am a software architect/developer/team lead living close to Vancouver (on Vancouver Island). We have a low cost of living here, and salaries are similar to Vancouver...and the joy of island life (Vancouver is nice, but traffic really bites).
Crazy talk! There are many ways to develop screamin code with ansi/c++ (as with many other languages). Most of the slow+bigass OO C++ is due to bastard designs, not to the language. OO != horrific over-use of polymorphism constructs, etc., etc.
C++ is a good tool when used properly. It sounds like C may be 'easier' in this case though, as the current sources reside there...unless the architectural change is needed.
I would agree, look for alternatives. I know two people who had surgery for CTS, and one of them was unable use their wrists in a normal way for close to 6 months! The other was back up in 6 weeks or so, but both found the experience quite painful.
I use good wrist supports combined with good posture and less than 90hrs/week of typing related work. This has done me well in my 16+ years of programming.
this thread of discussion blows me away. the world, IT in particular, is full of morons. morons pulling FUD out of the darkest of bodily orifices. morons making policy based on imbicilic status ("I am managment, hear me!"). morons being, well, morons.
a generally useful solution, based on the premise of the moronic majority, is to anti-fud the fud miesters. people, even morons, will respond to effective solutions. solve a problem, using some form of creative license in describing your actions...and let the solution speak for itself. i think the/. readership are a more creative bunch. bow to the ruling class? not in my lifetime.
in terms of support options, linux (and other oss stuff) has a growing base of quality support available. now your boss justify solutions with expenditures!
Don't criticize people for not knowing what they are saying when your own cranium is severly cracked.
There are numerous compatibility problems between the bastards of windows versions. I have been privlege to hundreds of them. Many features have subtle or complete differences between releases/versions/service packs, enough so that there are tonnes applications that require different builds for NT4/NT3.51/95/3.1. Add to this the library and component library version differences, and you have a situation of chaos for platform version management.
A few projects I have been slave to have required significant architecture changes to support some odd behaviour on one of the Win32 api implimentations. As well, we have had to make many changes to support incompatible versions of system libraries and components.
I would agree, the VC IDE is quite fine to develop in...it has a decent feature set...but it is tough to manage larger projects with it, especially in the areas of path flexibility, components, etc.
The libraries with VC suck for the most part. MFC is a pigdog, ATL lacks features (and neither are really portable)...and STL support is crippled with the stream libs.
One old borland feature I do miss is syntax highlighted printouts...something which ms has left out of vc for too long.
Ah, yes...c/c++ are rather bare, and c standard libraries are marginal (c++ are much better), but the close(r) mapping of language to hardware is quite handy for a large segment of power software applications. It's a language with 'incredible cosmic powers... and an itty-bitty living space.'
Lots of languages, lots of uses...don't knock it until you've learned it, and learned to hate it.
Re:I've been waiting 12 years...
on
35mm Handbook
·
· Score: 1
> Film is okay, but it is very limiting. Digital allows the photographer >to shoot under a much wider variety of lighting conditions, and there's >a lot more that can be done with the color balance and contrast, not to >mention retouching after the damage is done.
Digital camera CCDs are themselves quite limiting (and in other aspects just different than film), though not as bad as older camcorder CCDs. I am not sure of all the interesting effects that CCDs can introduce into a picture's colour/clarity/etc mix, but there are a few. Colour bleeding is quite a problem with many CCDs, as is even saturation between all colours.
Digital video (or probably video compression), as well, results in a different motion-picture experience than film does...watch panned shots especially. Not a bad thing, but different.
Digital technology is not bad, neither is film. In the artistic sense, their differences are quite useful.
Why not have skin ads? Unless it were to turn into something hideous, like the flashing- animated-banners-from-hell, it could provide a revenue stream to struggling software developers.
Product placement advertising hasn't killed the movie industry. Who remembers the placements of Coke and Atari in Bladerunner? The placements have not killed the industry, but have provided an alternate source of income. It didn't violate the integrity of the plot, or get in the way. In fact, I thought the advertising was kinda cool (I was an Atari freak at the time).
In the end, someone has to pay for the stuff. If it is me paying less, and the stuff is still cool, then I'm there.
Slashdot Mirror
except that he presents it from a completely closed point of view. he misses the point that there are many useful ways to represent data and function in programming languages ... all of which are useful somewhere, sometime. oo is one useful paradigm with many tools with which it can implemented. procedural, functional, event-based, locical, are other useful paradigms (there are more, and many combinations). the key is to see the possibilities in all of them. close your mind, stop the learning ... open your mind, learn more, there are infinite possibilities!
some things are not free (beer or freedom). this is life. qnx is cool *and* newsworthy despite the fact it doesn't fit the zealot idea that every fsking thing has to be free. i've developed for qnx (and many *nix systems) for many of years ... and qnx is easily the coolest of them all.
/. is news for nerds ... not news for open source zealots. get off your high horse and appreciate cool geek stuff.
thanks to hemos for rising above the stench of purist crap.
Real is not fun? Along the lines of Bradbury's thoughts on fiction, that sort of thing is better if it is mostly real, as that makes it palatable/imersable. It is the small deviation from a palitable reality that allows a person to escape his own. A reality that is then enhanced by adding some deviance and exageration.
From that, I believe that it is the the deviant parts of a reality and the imersibility that can cause an incredible draw to a game: Quake3 style arena matches mimic a faster variety of a paintball sort of thing. If the universe was not fast, and visually realistic, with simulated and exagerated physics, would the game be as fun? A 2d sprite version of the same is fun, but nowhere near as imersive. Think about the classics: time-bandits, combat, temple of asphi, etc. Good games in their time, but you never really believed you were there. You *only* had the game play to enjoy.
well, Wolfenstein was a rehash of the 2d version and commander keen, albiet in quasi 3d.
... but does that make it less of an activity?
but, they have made their game *much* better, if you remember what wolf was like. they have the multi-player arena universe, and have made it much of what it is. sure, there is less innovation when you work on perfecting a concept
I also was raised in a lower-middle class family. We didn't have cable tv until I was well into my teens, and there wasn't money to burn on computer hardware. I was able to earn enough myself, at a young age, to purchase my own hardware ... and became member of many 'virtual' communities - first via BBSs, and the larger systems like compu$erve, and then the internet around 1990. My position in the lower earning class didn't limit me in any way. I chose to spend my time and small earning power to learn more about computers, and to fund my time in that particular community. Nearly anyone can sacrifice a small amount of earning power to get online. Almost any hardware will get you there (then and now) ... The only elitist element is the small amount of desire and knowlege required to get you there.
... but the experience is no greater than the BBS days on my previous, albiet limited, systems of the past.
These days I earn much more than my parents did, and interact online with a better class of computer
Which means that if you want highly portable C++ code now, you employ the subset of implemented standards. Hence, the use of exceptions makes less sense, as it is not feasable when portability is a requirement.
yup, fire exits that allow for the interuption/confusion of normal program flow...a situation, which in many cases, bypasses memory management (or other resource reference handling) facilities. i agree it can be used effectivly, but the cost on design can be high. this is a consideration becomes more important as component object models are used from languages that support exceptions...resources management becomes a shared entity between threads, processes, and machines. this is merely a complication of exceptions, not an invalidation of the concept.
Exceptions are one of my least favorite language paradigms, something which probably stems from my C/pascal/asm background...regardless of bias, there are a number of good reasons to avoid exceptions:
C++, as stated by the balanced/sensible gurus of our time is a great and powerful thing...that most of us rabble use to shoot ourselves (and users) in the foot with. exceptions are one great example of a badly used feature.
I find it interesting that so many supporters of the classic Amiga cannot imagine that another group of engineers (under the same name) could innovate again. There is really nothing to hold innovation back in any group...but yet we don't believe?
I am skeptical as well. I've heard too many "We're back" claims from companies who have purchases Amiga...and seen too many revolutionary development systems, OSs, libraries, etc., that ended up as crap. There are good systems, don't get me wrong, but just too many that made great claims that were not fulfilled.
It could be the fact that most Amiga (Atari, AppleII) lovers have grown older and jaded against the claims of innovation from many $oftware and hardware companie$. We found something amazing in our first systems (Atari800 for me), and have never really been able to find that same passion since. I, for one, am still looking for a language as cool as STOS (an ST compiled Basic language with bitchin' libraries) or as easy as Turbo Pascal (x86), and games like those European ST games (weird & wonderful stuff).
Could this latest Amiga claim be true? I dunno. It sounds too-good-to-be-true, but so was the orriginal Amiga platform...and it was one of the most amazing consumer platforms in history (IMO).
improving the syntax, reducing rigidity, and making the learning of the CLI better may be a step to improving the incredible usefulness of the CLI:
> remember as "slash-leech"
> get slashdot.org and clip headlines to slash.html
> remove all "hardware" topics from slash.html
> sort topics by newest in slash.html
> archive slash.html to "/slash_history"
> read from slash.html
> done remember
a few aliases to existing commands, and a few creative uses of CLs yields a more NL feel to a CLI. is it better? probably not, but it may be easier to remember for people without the extensive background in unixes and other great systems.
what about the variation of input? does a NL interface require that it allow infinite variation of input? i really doubt it would be entirely sensible...though the basic principle to allow a user to customize his environment would suggest that providing the ability to learn new ways (aliases) for CL tools.
i've actually always wondered why CLIs haven't been innovated at the same rate as window managers and widget sets have been on unix flavoured systems (namely linux/bsd). many window managers (etc) allow an insane amount of flexibility, which is really cool. users are allowed to express their different ways of understanding visual layout and aesthetics...which translates into at least a minor improvement in how many users use their applications. CLIs are not yet nearly as flexible.
it is funny actually how componentisation, GUI flexibility, etc., have left CLI innovation behind. while componentisation and flexible/cool GUIs are nice, they really don't go to solve user-mundane and slow-interfacing problems. a seasoned CL guru is productive and skirts the mundane. the seasoned GUI user is very good at clicking + dragging...but performs the mundane ad nauseam. pity.
windows, as an example, provides a passable GUI system without much flexibility...and a component-object model that is survivable. a CLI is also available, but the os-packaged tools are crap. the component object model also ok, and has a means to be strung together, but without a useful (CLI - daily use) interface what is the point? windows, like many unix-like systems provide GUIs, CLIs, and component models (sometimes many)...but really do not tie them together well. the newer component models (non-CLI) do not have a daily-use, encompassing interface like the CLI component interface did. my questions to the innovators here is:
more NL like interfaces are a good thing. more important, it would seem to me, would be to find a way to tie some of the newer-flexible software technologies together like the all-powerful and encompassing CL...something that is used daily (like CLs), something which is scriptable (like CLs shell scripting)...something which becomes an encompassing way to do things without having to beat the hell out of your mouse buttons. tedium sucks. NL is only one piece of the puzzle.
I agree, natural language on top of CLI is not an entirely useful solution. A means of the NL-CLI to learn the user is really key...that and better ways of it determining how the users uses language.
I've been working on a few designs for a partially NL-CLI for a while now, and realized that the NL understanding needs to be able to learn what the user intends. This ranges from simple aliases for commands, variables, and params, to things like how the user switches thinking contexts. As well, remember how something was done properly before can go a long way to being able to reproduce it again (feedback loops). Complex things should never really be complex the second time around...the interpreter should remember (with positive feedback) what was done. Even things like identifying what can change (ie., the variables) between a number of like actions can be done.
I shudder to think that MS is attempting another NL interface, not because I hate them, but more because none of the learning would be opened to the rest of the development world to learn from their mistakes and/or successes.
While skinning can at first be quite anti-newbie, in the long run it supports advanced users with the ability to optimise positioning (and look/feel) of the things they use all the time. I don't think the fad of skinning everthing is the mantra of UI, but flexibility is good. I greatly dislike applications that force a single view on things, even the browser...there are many things I would move here or there, depending on how I use it. In fact, I can fathom wanting different looking browsers (or any app) for different problems...one for reading news, another for doing research (etc.).
And, somtimes I wish I could move interface elements around in my car...
In the end, skinning is one of a few flexibilities that users deserve, though it certainly isn't the most important (it just happens to be something that looks cool). The whole agent concept, with partial-natural=language constructs with better scripting (not VB, not shell scripting in their current forms) could be quite amazing.
i have a few tunes from the last few years that had similar advertising embedded in the song. a waste of bandwidth imo...as spam + mp3 = crap.
Visual Studio stable? 6.0 is better than a number of previous releases, but developers here crash it at least once a week. And annoying?? Damn, MSVC's docking bastard tool-windows and MDI-ness are almost impossible to work around. Make settings can be set in the environment and in the bastardized prj (mak) files. Try to structure a set of project sources/binaries different than MS likes?? Pain in the ass...and not completely possibly (pdbs have a fixed name). Then there is VSS...another proprietary 'innovation', crap most of the way through.
All I ask for are quality, flexible, open-standard tools...which abound mostly appart from Microsoft.
Run very far away from the dated MS-provided STL libraries (from Dinkumware). They are horrendously out of date, buggy, and poorly documented. Use one of the standard implementations, either from SGI or the great STLPort (based on the SGI STL). SGI even has a decent implementation of iostreams which outperform native iostream libraries on almost any platform.
I evaluated xml for use in a product recently (for configuration data and inter-app communications), but was swayed by a number of really good arguments. The most convincing was the readability factor.
Maybe this is true in America, but not so much in Canada.
Highly trained, intelligent, passionite, hard-working individuals are all that most companies require. Some companies in Canada still get hung up on education, but in my experience this is improving.
Education is important, but only as long as it is quality education. I attended college and university for 5 years, tech school for 1, and quit both for job offers. The experience at all of the institutions was laughable (the state of education in Canada is generally poor, IMO).
For me, I was able to learn more in my first 2 years of working than in my 6 years of college level education. I would consider my education $$ poorly spent.
Learning is always important. The more time that learning can be carried out well, appart from the needs of business (which often can hinder learning due to business needs), the better...sometimes traditional channels are not the best learning mediums.
Consider life as the learning experience. Make it part of every day...at work, school, or while drinking beer in a pub (probably the least effective location).
On working in Canada...
Software development, mid level++
Location v.s. Salaries v.s. taxes v.s. cost of living
(CA$40k is about US$28k, CA$90k is about US$65k)
A few cost of living examples...
I am lucky, as I am a software architect/developer/team lead living close to Vancouver (on Vancouver Island). We have a low cost of living here, and salaries are similar to Vancouver...and the joy of island life (Vancouver is nice, but traffic really bites).
-madmaxx
Crazy talk! There are many ways to develop screamin code with ansi/c++ (as with many other languages). Most of the slow+bigass OO C++ is due to bastard designs, not to the language. OO != horrific over-use of polymorphism constructs, etc., etc.
C++ is a good tool when used properly. It sounds like C may be 'easier' in this case though, as the current sources reside there...unless the architectural change is needed.
I would agree, look for alternatives. I know two people who had surgery for CTS, and one of them was unable use their wrists in a normal way for close to 6 months! The other was back up in 6 weeks or so, but both found the experience quite painful.
I use good wrist supports combined with good posture and less than 90hrs/week of typing related work. This has done me well in my 16+ years of programming.
this thread of discussion blows me away. the world, IT in particular, is full of morons. morons pulling FUD out of the darkest of bodily orifices. morons making policy based on imbicilic status ("I am managment, hear me!"). morons being, well, morons.
/. readership are a more creative bunch. bow to the ruling class? not in my lifetime.
a generally useful solution, based on the premise of the moronic majority, is to anti-fud the fud miesters. people, even morons, will respond to effective solutions. solve a problem, using some form of creative license in describing your actions...and let the solution speak for itself. i think the
in terms of support options, linux (and other oss stuff) has a growing base of quality support available. now your boss justify solutions with expenditures!
Don't criticize people for not knowing what they are saying when your own cranium is severly cracked.
There are numerous compatibility problems between the bastards of windows versions. I have been privlege to hundreds of them. Many features have subtle or complete differences between releases/versions/service packs, enough so that there are tonnes applications that require different builds for NT4/NT3.51/95/3.1. Add to this the library and component library version differences, and you have a situation of chaos for platform version management.
A few projects I have been slave to have required significant architecture changes to support some odd behaviour on one of the Win32 api implimentations. As well, we have had to make many changes to support incompatible versions of system libraries and components.
I would agree, the VC IDE is quite fine to develop in...it has a decent feature set...but it is tough to manage larger projects with it, especially in the areas of path flexibility, components, etc.
The libraries with VC suck for the most part. MFC is a pigdog, ATL lacks features (and neither are really portable)...and STL support is crippled with the stream libs.
One old borland feature I do miss is syntax highlighted printouts...something which ms has left out of vc for too long.
Ah, yes...c/c++ are rather bare, and c standard libraries are marginal (c++ are much better), but the close(r) mapping of language to hardware is quite handy for a large segment of power software applications. It's a language with 'incredible cosmic powers... and an itty-bitty living space.'
Lots of languages, lots of uses...don't knock it until you've learned it, and learned to hate it.
> Film is okay, but it is very limiting. Digital allows the photographer
>to shoot under a much wider variety of lighting conditions, and there's
>a lot more that can be done with the color balance and contrast, not to
>mention retouching after the damage is done.
Digital camera CCDs are themselves quite limiting (and in other aspects just different than film), though not as bad as older camcorder CCDs. I am not sure of all the interesting effects that CCDs can introduce into a picture's colour/clarity/etc mix, but there are a few. Colour bleeding is quite a problem with many CCDs, as is even saturation between all colours.
Digital video (or probably video compression), as well, results in a different motion-picture experience than film does...watch panned shots especially. Not a bad thing, but different.
Digital technology is not bad, neither is film. In the artistic sense, their differences are quite useful.
Why not have skin ads? Unless it were to turn into something hideous, like the flashing- animated-banners-from-hell, it could provide a revenue stream to struggling software developers.
Product placement advertising hasn't killed the movie industry. Who remembers the placements of Coke and Atari in Bladerunner? The placements have not killed the industry, but have provided an alternate source of income. It didn't violate the integrity of the plot, or get in the way. In fact, I thought the advertising was kinda cool (I was an Atari freak at the time).
In the end, someone has to pay for the stuff. If it is me paying less, and the stuff is still cool, then I'm there.