I never said anything about "loosing a job" (it's "losing"). If you're going to quote me, at least don't misspell it, lest someone think that was my typo.
Secondly, if I seem defensive, then that's your perception. I simply think it's a shame when someone with depth won't even take the time to gain just a little breadth. To be able to competently evaluate something like Ruby before declaring it inferior. That's all. *Remember, the original poster of this sub-thread was referring to the inevitable flame-wars over whether Ruby or Java is superior.*
So my problem with guys who have depth isn't that they have depth in and of itself. As I said in another post, every organization needs those guys. However, I believe it's in the best interest of the organization and the individual to also invest in some breadth. What I find silly is when someone becomes a Java expert then spends their time on message boards, blogs, Usenet groups, etc. railing against technologies, platforms, etc. that they know nothing about. That's my beef. I care not a whit that there are people in this world that know more about Java than I do. In fact, many of these individuals have been excellent mentors to me as I transitioned into Java. However, what I do care about is that these individuals don't discount other technologies simply to save their job or because they don't have any interest in learning new technologies.
My point being that if you don't know Ruby how can you have an opinion on it that's educated?. And if you don't know Java how can you have an opinion on it that's educated?
So no, I don't believe I'm being defensive. I just find it to be poor form when someone is an expert in a given technology and then completely discounts other technologies.
But we're not talking about companies here. The original poster in this sub-thread was talking about the inevitable flamewars between Java and Ruby proponents. I would be the first to agree that the long-term and short-term (while often at odds with each other) interests of the organization will dictate what technology is used. But that shouldn't dictate what technology the developers learn and what technologies they advocate for or whether they advocate for a technology at all. I think that's the point. Of course a company heavily invested in Java will stick with Java for some time. It would be insane to switch. Heck, there are companies out there running Visual Basic and Access with Access Forms, because in order to keep operational from day to day that's what they have in place and they don't have the funding to change the wheels on the plan in mid-flight.
However, that doesn't mean that the developers should be willing (time permitting) to give other technologies a look and maybe even be open-minded to them being superior to what they're currently forced to use.
The original poster was referring to these silly flame-wars that break out over whose platform is the best. When in reality the correct answer is to try to learn how to use screwdrivers and hammers so you don't end up taking hammers to everything.
I think there's a good chance this is part of the problem. I assume you meant universities switched from C++ to Java, right? They did locally where I live. I think that's a shame. I'd rather learn something more challenging like C++ as my first language (my first language was C) so that that way I can understand basic concepts of programming at a lower level before moving on to Java, etc.
I think part of this also is what you pointed out, people who went into CS because that's where the money was. For my part I studied English in college. I wrote a lot. I read a large chunk of the classics of post-modern, modern and earlier literature. And then somewhere halfway through college I fell in love with computing. So I bought "Teach Yourself C on the Macintosh" (I think because it was the book in the store that came with a compiler, whereas the Pascal book didn't).
Then when I graduated from college, being a former landscaper, I applied for a couple different jobs. One was as a landscaper. One was for $10 an hour doing HTML, JavaScript, CSS, Photoshop, etc. I got the web job first, so I became a programmer. I didn't seek it out, but rather fell into it and enjoy it enough to keep learning new things.
I think you're right that there is a distinct difference in mindset there. I wasn't looking for a career. I was looking for a job I enjoyed. And all the same I won't fight against new technologies to cling to my newfound career. I could easily be happy doing landscaping if for some reason all the world needs is Java experts. But if they need generalists who love what they do, then I won't be planting trees again for a while.
I agree. I'm not being defensive. I'm just arguing that if there are Java (or Ruby) "fanboys" out there who argue the case for their chosen platform purely for the sake of job security, then they are doing it for the wrong reasons. There is nothing wrong with depth. And obviously depth and breadth are often at odds with each other unless you have tons of time on your hands. However, I'm just proposing that for those programmers out there (Java or Ruby) that are siloed into their given technology, the depth of knowledge they have is wonderful. In fact, as a junior level developer in everything with breadth, I will likely call on their expertise and my team will need a few of them around as architects. So I'm by no means demeaning depth. I'm simply saying that while depth and breadth are often at odds with each other, I know people that won't go broad, not because they don't have time, but because they refuse to. I've met many highly intelligent software developers that can't install Windows. Or don't know how to use the Linux command line. I've had to install Windows for many of said developers while also being their peer as a developer. So my point is that while depth may be a virtue, depth for the sake of protecting yourself is not. You owe it to yourself and your organization to gain more breadth...
A) So people like me don't have to install your OS or teach you how not to destroy it when you're supposed to be productive.
B) If something like RoR comes along you can give it a fair evaluation. And even if Hibernate is your technology of choice, at least you've made an informed decision.
Actually what you just pointed out is that you won't or *can't* "admin a huge corporate dynamic website". A good technologist could make RoR or Java work just as well as your "stack" of Pico, PHP and MySQL (which, as we all know is inherintly easier to maintain than a Java app).
Are you serious? I would argue that if there is such a thing as a J2EE "fanboy" (to use a gaming term) then that is an individual who cares only about job security and not about being a good technologist. I'm a developer with 10 years of experience. My experience is in everything from ASP with VB/JScript to PHP to Java. I use whatever the company deems best at the time or whatever I feel is the best solution at the time. I think there is a virtue in being agile and being able to pick up new technologies. The downside is that you don't go as deep. So I don't have 5 years of J2EE on my resume. The upside is that I'm not a J2EE fanboy and if next week my company decides that Ruby is the way to go then I pick up a Ruby book, start poking through the documentation and learn Ruby.
I think J2EE "fanboys" are either too lazy to learn something new, too philosophically rigid to allow for the possibility that there are other ways to accomplish the task at hand or don't, or they're worried that RoR becoming popular would invalidate their 5 years of J2EE experience.
I know people that probably fit this bill in some manner. I would hope for their sake and the sake of their organizations, however, that they'd be willing to pragmatically look at the problem being presented and make a decision based on what's best for the organization, be it Java or Ruby. At the end of the day I believe being a good technologist and a good communicator, being eager to learn and willing to try new things is more valuable than just being a Java wonk. Flexibility is a virtue. I imagine most Java developers are more flexible than you give them credit for. Although I know there are exceptions.
I agree. I have anxiety, actually. And light OCPD. So I know all about this stuff. And my personal experience was that the first doctor who ever raised the issue (my general practitioner) wanted to give me a 14-day sample pack of Paxil (I was having pretty severe panic attacks at the time). I refused to take it, though. Instead I eventually saw a psychiatrist and have been through a couple years of therapy. And boy am I glad I have. That's not to say there isn't a place for medication. There definitely is. But when I referred to mental health being the ghetto of medical care in the US, this is exactly what I meant. Throw a pill at the problem, instead of sending people to therapy, which they often need and which will often end up being helpful. Assuming you find the right person. I did.
I think the key to remember, though, is that you said yourself "obsessive/compulsive". Obsessive/compulsive behaviors aren't always healthy either. I wouldn't call the need to play softball OC in a clinical sense. However, one could possibly argue that *some* individuals who play online games do have OCD in a real sense and that an online game isn't the most healthy way to deal with the underlying problem.
So while I agree with what you said, that the term "addiction" is far overused. I'm not sure I agree that obsessive/compulsive behaviors are something to just brush aside as if they're no big deal. They are a big deal. And if someone is knee-deep in them, that person needs to be treated.
Of course, in the US, mental healthy is the getto of healthcare. It doesn't get nearly the respect nor funding that it deserves. Everyone just pops a pill and calls it good, without realizing that for many people therapy is necessary and helpful.
Hey, I use pine. And pico too. I get crap at work for it, but what works works. I use IDEs (Idea, etc.) when doing programming, but when doing editing use pico. I just never learned vi very well.
The most interesting part to me is that he uses a Mac running Linux now. For a long time the story was that he ran SuSE (I'm assuming on x86). I'm a SuSE user, and some of the enthusiasts in SuSE-land used to use this as proof of why SuSE was "the best". I just laughed. I wonder what distro he runs now.
Isn't this the idiot that tried like 40 times to go around the world in a balloon? Why would I want to track him? He's rich. He has nothing better to do with his life. He's got indurance. He can pee in a can. Yeah for him.
I disagree. I really wanted to see how Vader turned bad. I mean, not "wanted" in the sense that I couldn't live without it. Any good story involves a bit of mystery that is never explained. And that's good. But once the movies were announced I was excited to see how they showed his rise and fall. Instead we got one full episode where he was a freaking infant. One where his biggest problem was Obi-Wan always trying to hold him back or some nonesense. That's a problem. The story could have been told. Imagine Vader went evil because he wanted to free his mother from slavery. That's motivation. Imagine Vader went evil because there was some menace he didn't think the Jedis were taking seriously enough and so he kept taking successively bigger risks and butting heads with Obi-Wan, etc. That could have been an interesting route to take. Instead the first two movies are all bad acting, a poli-sci lesson on the Old Republic, tons of Jar Jar Binks and Midichlorians.
My story is indeed true. I mean, it was a typical opening for Episode 1, I imagine. There were plenty of people dressed like Princess Leia, Boba Fett, Darth Maul, etc. And then this one dude gets up and gives this speach about how grateful we should be for Lucas gracing us with his wonderous creation. And yeah, then it was downhill from there.
I can't tell you how intelligent it makes our nations leaders look to call French Fries, Freedom Fries.
I can't tell you how little of an impact calling French Fries, Freedom Fries has made. Last time I checked American still ate them. Even if they're called French Fries.
Oh geez. When I saw Episode 1, someone stood on a railing and yelled to the crowd. "Everyone prepare for the greatest moment in your lives. George Lucas, the genius, is bringing back, the greatest movie series of all time."
Um....
Needless to say... never have such incorrectly words been chosen.
Episode 2 the reaction was a little clapping. I think at that point it was kind of like clapping for a kid who wears a crash helmet when he manages to tie his shoes. It was more for the effort, given the first one.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said anything about "loosing a job" (it's "losing"). If you're going to quote me, at least don't misspell it, lest someone think that was my typo.
Secondly, if I seem defensive, then that's your perception. I simply think it's a shame when someone with depth won't even take the time to gain just a little breadth. To be able to competently evaluate something like Ruby before declaring it inferior. That's all. *Remember, the original poster of this sub-thread was referring to the inevitable flame-wars over whether Ruby or Java is superior.*
So my problem with guys who have depth isn't that they have depth in and of itself. As I said in another post, every organization needs those guys. However, I believe it's in the best interest of the organization and the individual to also invest in some breadth. What I find silly is when someone becomes a Java expert then spends their time on message boards, blogs, Usenet groups, etc. railing against technologies, platforms, etc. that they know nothing about. That's my beef. I care not a whit that there are people in this world that know more about Java than I do. In fact, many of these individuals have been excellent mentors to me as I transitioned into Java. However, what I do care about is that these individuals don't discount other technologies simply to save their job or because they don't have any interest in learning new technologies.
My point being that if you don't know Ruby how can you have an opinion on it that's educated?. And if you don't know Java how can you have an opinion on it that's educated?
So no, I don't believe I'm being defensive. I just find it to be poor form when someone is an expert in a given technology and then completely discounts other technologies.
But we're not talking about companies here. The original poster in this sub-thread was talking about the inevitable flamewars between Java and Ruby proponents. I would be the first to agree that the long-term and short-term (while often at odds with each other) interests of the organization will dictate what technology is used. But that shouldn't dictate what technology the developers learn and what technologies they advocate for or whether they advocate for a technology at all. I think that's the point. Of course a company heavily invested in Java will stick with Java for some time. It would be insane to switch. Heck, there are companies out there running Visual Basic and Access with Access Forms, because in order to keep operational from day to day that's what they have in place and they don't have the funding to change the wheels on the plan in mid-flight.
However, that doesn't mean that the developers should be willing (time permitting) to give other technologies a look and maybe even be open-minded to them being superior to what they're currently forced to use.
The original poster was referring to these silly flame-wars that break out over whose platform is the best. When in reality the correct answer is to try to learn how to use screwdrivers and hammers so you don't end up taking hammers to everything.
I think there's a good chance this is part of the problem. I assume you meant universities switched from C++ to Java, right? They did locally where I live. I think that's a shame. I'd rather learn something more challenging like C++ as my first language (my first language was C) so that that way I can understand basic concepts of programming at a lower level before moving on to Java, etc.
I think part of this also is what you pointed out, people who went into CS because that's where the money was. For my part I studied English in college. I wrote a lot. I read a large chunk of the classics of post-modern, modern and earlier literature. And then somewhere halfway through college I fell in love with computing. So I bought "Teach Yourself C on the Macintosh" (I think because it was the book in the store that came with a compiler, whereas the Pascal book didn't).
Then when I graduated from college, being a former landscaper, I applied for a couple different jobs. One was as a landscaper. One was for $10 an hour doing HTML, JavaScript, CSS, Photoshop, etc. I got the web job first, so I became a programmer. I didn't seek it out, but rather fell into it and enjoy it enough to keep learning new things.
I think you're right that there is a distinct difference in mindset there. I wasn't looking for a career. I was looking for a job I enjoyed. And all the same I won't fight against new technologies to cling to my newfound career. I could easily be happy doing landscaping if for some reason all the world needs is Java experts. But if they need generalists who love what they do, then I won't be planting trees again for a while.
That's how I look at it.
I agree. I'm not being defensive. I'm just arguing that if there are Java (or Ruby) "fanboys" out there who argue the case for their chosen platform purely for the sake of job security, then they are doing it for the wrong reasons. There is nothing wrong with depth. And obviously depth and breadth are often at odds with each other unless you have tons of time on your hands. However, I'm just proposing that for those programmers out there (Java or Ruby) that are siloed into their given technology, the depth of knowledge they have is wonderful. In fact, as a junior level developer in everything with breadth, I will likely call on their expertise and my team will need a few of them around as architects. So I'm by no means demeaning depth. I'm simply saying that while depth and breadth are often at odds with each other, I know people that won't go broad, not because they don't have time, but because they refuse to. I've met many highly intelligent software developers that can't install Windows. Or don't know how to use the Linux command line. I've had to install Windows for many of said developers while also being their peer as a developer. So my point is that while depth may be a virtue, depth for the sake of protecting yourself is not. You owe it to yourself and your organization to gain more breadth...
A) So people like me don't have to install your OS or teach you how not to destroy it when you're supposed to be productive.
B) If something like RoR comes along you can give it a fair evaluation. And even if Hibernate is your technology of choice, at least you've made an informed decision.
I think that's fair, isn't it?
There could be *some* truth to this. I think some cheap hosts are loathe to allow Java development because of memory issues.
Actually what you just pointed out is that you won't or *can't* "admin a huge corporate dynamic website". A good technologist could make RoR or Java work just as well as your "stack" of Pico, PHP and MySQL (which, as we all know is inherintly easier to maintain than a Java app).
Me thinks someone is a J2EE developer who doesn't want to have to learn something new down the road. :-)
Are you serious? I would argue that if there is such a thing as a J2EE "fanboy" (to use a gaming term) then that is an individual who cares only about job security and not about being a good technologist. I'm a developer with 10 years of experience. My experience is in everything from ASP with VB/JScript to PHP to Java. I use whatever the company deems best at the time or whatever I feel is the best solution at the time. I think there is a virtue in being agile and being able to pick up new technologies. The downside is that you don't go as deep. So I don't have 5 years of J2EE on my resume. The upside is that I'm not a J2EE fanboy and if next week my company decides that Ruby is the way to go then I pick up a Ruby book, start poking through the documentation and learn Ruby.
I think J2EE "fanboys" are either too lazy to learn something new, too philosophically rigid to allow for the possibility that there are other ways to accomplish the task at hand or don't, or they're worried that RoR becoming popular would invalidate their 5 years of J2EE experience.
I know people that probably fit this bill in some manner. I would hope for their sake and the sake of their organizations, however, that they'd be willing to pragmatically look at the problem being presented and make a decision based on what's best for the organization, be it Java or Ruby. At the end of the day I believe being a good technologist and a good communicator, being eager to learn and willing to try new things is more valuable than just being a Java wonk. Flexibility is a virtue. I imagine most Java developers are more flexible than you give them credit for. Although I know there are exceptions.
Doh!!! I got a typo in my typo correction. When will it end?
Thanks.
I agree. I have anxiety, actually. And light OCPD. So I know all about this stuff. And my personal experience was that the first doctor who ever raised the issue (my general practitioner) wanted to give me a 14-day sample pack of Paxil (I was having pretty severe panic attacks at the time). I refused to take it, though. Instead I eventually saw a psychiatrist and have been through a couple years of therapy. And boy am I glad I have. That's not to say there isn't a place for medication. There definitely is. But when I referred to mental health being the ghetto of medical care in the US, this is exactly what I meant. Throw a pill at the problem, instead of sending people to therapy, which they often need and which will often end up being helpful. Assuming you find the right person. I did.
And my posts are the ghetto of typos.
Of course I meant to say "mental (minus the y) health is the g*h*etto of healthcare".
Very true. Good post. Mod Up!!
I think the key to remember, though, is that you said yourself "obsessive/compulsive". Obsessive/compulsive behaviors aren't always healthy either. I wouldn't call the need to play softball OC in a clinical sense. However, one could possibly argue that *some* individuals who play online games do have OCD in a real sense and that an online game isn't the most healthy way to deal with the underlying problem.
So while I agree with what you said, that the term "addiction" is far overused. I'm not sure I agree that obsessive/compulsive behaviors are something to just brush aside as if they're no big deal. They are a big deal. And if someone is knee-deep in them, that person needs to be treated.
Of course, in the US, mental healthy is the getto of healthcare. It doesn't get nearly the respect nor funding that it deserves. Everyone just pops a pill and calls it good, without realizing that for many people therapy is necessary and helpful.
That's what I figured. Last time I checked the PPC version of SuSE was a bit long in the tooth.
Hey, I use pine. And pico too. I get crap at work for it, but what works works. I use IDEs (Idea, etc.) when doing programming, but when doing editing use pico. I just never learned vi very well.
That's interesting. Thanks for the link!
The most interesting part to me is that he uses a Mac running Linux now. For a long time the story was that he ran SuSE (I'm assuming on x86). I'm a SuSE user, and some of the enthusiasts in SuSE-land used to use this as proof of why SuSE was "the best". I just laughed. I wonder what distro he runs now.
Isn't this the idiot that tried like 40 times to go around the world in a balloon? Why would I want to track him? He's rich. He has nothing better to do with his life. He's got indurance. He can pee in a can. Yeah for him.
I disagree. I really wanted to see how Vader turned bad. I mean, not "wanted" in the sense that I couldn't live without it. Any good story involves a bit of mystery that is never explained. And that's good. But once the movies were announced I was excited to see how they showed his rise and fall. Instead we got one full episode where he was a freaking infant. One where his biggest problem was Obi-Wan always trying to hold him back or some nonesense. That's a problem. The story could have been told. Imagine Vader went evil because he wanted to free his mother from slavery. That's motivation. Imagine Vader went evil because there was some menace he didn't think the Jedis were taking seriously enough and so he kept taking successively bigger risks and butting heads with Obi-Wan, etc. That could have been an interesting route to take. Instead the first two movies are all bad acting, a poli-sci lesson on the Old Republic, tons of Jar Jar Binks and Midichlorians.
That's funny. Mod this up!!!
My story is indeed true. I mean, it was a typical opening for Episode 1, I imagine. There were plenty of people dressed like Princess Leia, Boba Fett, Darth Maul, etc. And then this one dude gets up and gives this speach about how grateful we should be for Lucas gracing us with his wonderous creation. And yeah, then it was downhill from there.
Camping out for Empire Strikes Back is excusable. Camping out for any of the latest trilogy is not. So don't worry, my friend.
Now don't you know better than that. They hate us because of our freedoms. Sheesh. Didn't you get the memo?
I can't tell you how intelligent it makes our nations leaders look to call French Fries, Freedom Fries.
I can't tell you how little of an impact calling French Fries, Freedom Fries has made. Last time I checked American still ate them. Even if they're called French Fries.
Ooops. I meant to say "needless to say... never have such incorrectly chosen words been spoken."
That's what I get for being a smart ass.
Oh geez. When I saw Episode 1, someone stood on a railing and yelled to the crowd. "Everyone prepare for the greatest moment in your lives. George Lucas, the genius, is bringing back, the greatest movie series of all time."
Um....
Needless to say... never have such incorrectly words been chosen.
Episode 2 the reaction was a little clapping. I think at that point it was kind of like clapping for a kid who wears a crash helmet when he manages to tie his shoes. It was more for the effort, given the first one.
Yeah, this is like the Backstreet Boys being the opening act for Yanni.... ....for those of us who like Yanni....
*slinks away*