"For those who are currently computer programmers/engineers, would you say you really enjoy your job, or does it get extremely old and tedious after awhile?"
It is, in a nutshell, like day to day living. You have your ups and you have your downs. This coming from somebody that still loves the concept, the doing, the statisfaction of programming - it is a bonus that I get paid for it; even when it sucks.
"recently I can no longer sit and watch television, I get anxious sitting there trying to watch it, or I fall asleep."
Heh - I do this too. I have the added bonus of my wife thinking I work too hard as a result. In reality I think I am more anxious about the "stress relief sessions" she gives to help out or I fall asleep waiting for them.
"Sadly most MSVC users I know don't know what makefile is let alone what nmake is"
Wow - you too? I guess you and I are in a minority group.
I am not sure why you got a troll mod - Even with the subjective additions, the majority of your post is simply true. Are there really that many inexperienced people here?
"False, Visual Studio is widely renowned as the singular best programming environment there is, and is a large reason LOTS of programmers stick to Windows."
Now this is truly HILARIOUS! Thanks for the good laugh.
If the AC was being serious I would have to counter with the simple fact that if a programmer was so dependent on Visual Studio* they really are not all that to begin with; better they stick to Windows, eh? Most people I have seen that use VS do not know how to make a simple Makefile much less edit the one the VS creates. Funny stuff really. "I get link errors when I build foo using bar..." because VS hides the fact you do not know what the hell you are doing. Automation is another great feature of VS too, right? And the knowledge gained from learning VS inside and out transfers to other platforms so you get to take it with you as well, true?
*Visual Studio has potential with plugins like vi or emacs - but if you do that why not just dump VS all together? Do not know enough about the tools to use them directly? Need a wizard to build your code? Competent programmers make their own build scripts and wizards. Think about it...
If you want to really troll use something like: "Visual Studio is the de-facto standard for code-monkeys"
"MS is causing real damage to both the open source movement and to the computing industry."
Replace MS with SCO
Replace open source with gcc
What you have is the same scenario that this article brings up back when SCO started their campaign against Linux via lawsuits. The GCC team got involved and cooler heads prevailed because it was determined that in the end it hurts the very people that are supposed to benefit.
I do not disagree with your sentiments however just because the loser wants to fight dirty does not mean that you should too. In effect I feel the same way you do but I do not think it is wise to let your feelings affect how you make decisions and policy - that is why you rely on facts. I am not arguing with you just trying to make an honest observation.
When you are out to achieve something the best thing you can do is keep your goals in mind and make them the priority - not the situation/circumstances. Of course I could be wrong since this is just my subjective opinion on the matter.
"Some of these companies (no one can say how many of course) would have switched to Linux if it was the only way to have reasonably secure web browsing."
I would have to see some facts before I can really accept this statement. This is a pretty bold premise to accept. More reasonably they just block web browsing. Sorry but that is the way it works.
...
"I guess it boils down to whether providing open source to the largest number of people is more important to the movement than upsetting MS's OS dominance and having an open OS to build from."
You nailed it initially. You see OSS is all about freedom - not about battling some behemoth company. Period. While it is a bonus that it is hurting the company everyone loves to hate that is NOT the goal of OSS. It is about empowering you with freedom in the context of software.
Seeing as how I am the one pointing it out - I do not think I am that one that needs to "remember" anything.
Interestingly enough it is for that reason I do not push to install Linux everywhere and on everything that I come into contact with. Now if we are speaking of developement environments - I push Linux for every back-end job I can because it is hands down better than Windows based on my empircal knowledge. Do I try to replace the administrations NT/2000 workstations? No freaking way. Could I? You bet.
As an aside if you set up a Linux desktop (have you by chance?) for some Windows users with zero experience how many times have they utterly dumped it and went back to Windows? I have only done that 19 times* and two of which reverted back. Still though - I do not think that Linux is ready for the desktop -- any more than Windows is ready for the networked world...Notice they both do though?
*for family/friends/co-workers in their homes
and the two that reverted where the self-proclaimed "power users" - but kudos for the attempt I say
"If the user being able to cause problems was a bug..."
So in a way Windows is the VB of the programming world where Linux is C in terms of shooting yourself in the foot, but then proof by analogy is fraud.
You were modded insightful but here is something to think about: Linux was not written for end users with Windows mentality. Everything about it is different from that kind of cultural thinking. It was written by programmers for programmers - Windows was not.
I think people tend to forget this more and more. Sure the codebase for Linux and its design lead the way for it being extensible to suit a variety of problems but that was never its main goal.
Windows on the other hand was.
"Lots of bugs maybe, but you can't say the entire codebase is badly written."
Now that you have been given a very tiny history lesson into how each of the OS's came to be - I find it a little ironic that Linux is doing a better job* than Windows was designed to solve. People are stepping up to improve Linux in the area that Linux was never designed for to begin with - making it usable for non-programmers. Windows response? Instead of improving their codebase they want to lock out competition by any means necessary. Innovation indeed.
*Which runs on more hardware as a simple example? Think "putting in the hands of users"
Hmm, I got the joke just fine. Why don't you and TopShelf check the original post and grandparent post moderation totals and see who missed what;)
I see everything was eventually modded +funny which was my point. I merely burned some Karma to get it noticed: Mods should try to focus on modding up rather than down - because they almost always fsck it up otherwise.
The truly sad part is that the Anonymous Coward is 100% correct*.
While I burn my karma here and take massive metamod hits for good measure, think about the front page "question" and then think about the OP response.
Seriously. Maybe the delivery was poor but the point is still valid.
*Instead of modding my response down as flaimbait/troll why don't you educate both myself and the OP response was anything but factual with an equally factual reply.
" Not to troll, this is just out of curiosity... Why do you say it's better?"
Maybe some people think that mozilla provides better integration between browsing, mail, news, organization, and even HTML page creation as opposed to having different apps like Firefox and Thunderfox to do the same thing.
Choice of course - some people may prefer links/w3m/lynx/surfraw, vim, tin/slrn, and mutt to do the same thing as well.
Perceived benefits are what makes the determination of what makes something better because their needs are the one being addressed.
My original question though was based upon the fact that if it is not broke - do not fix it.
Granted I am speaking from a forest view rather than a satelite view at the moment but you do not know how many times I have helped people with linux, kernel compiling, etc. only to hear about things like X works but Y quit. If you need X then yes - you have a problem. If X and Y work but you have a severe* exploit - then yes you have a problem. If X works but Y quit and you don't even use, much less need, X then why the upgrade? "Umm, because." seems to be the answer more times than not, and that was the source of my original question.
I see no reason for people to be up in arms and "pissed off" about things. This comment is not directed to the OP or any of you that responded to my post - it is to the mentality of people that think like this in general. Who knows, maybe I am the one missing the bigger picture.
*By severe I am referring to a rational look at the tradeoff of that which you speak. To take a page from the trolls here on/. - If you are a geek living alone and your parents basement and your kernel flavor of the day has a local exploit but the fix breaks your video card to play Doom3 versus running a high traffic consumer website with actual transations that could incur a remote exploit, which actually warrants a needed upgrade/patch? Perspective I suppose because with every generalization comes exceptions.
I am not trolling nor do I disagree with the majority of your post. I am however a bit curious about this statement:
"It pisses me off that I can no longer use my webcam because the driver maintainer can't keep up with every variation of the kernel..."
Since this is a webcam I am making an assumption that this is more of a personal/desktop/workstation type role. With that in mind, is there any compelling reason that you must upgrade to the latest greatest kernel as opposed to sticking with a previous kernel that has worked along with your "webcam" driver that worked as well?
I am under the assumption that there are a lot of users that upgrade/acquire the latest greatest software and that in and of itself is not a bad thing but not always the smart thing. I'm referring to a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line of thinking.
Can you or someone else inform me what the other part of this issue is I seem to completely miss?
Re:Meanwhile, C++ goes nowhere
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wow. I am amazed at your opinion and wish to understand it but I have to admit I reserved to just think that you do not know what you are talking about.
[snip] "This problem is the primary reason that C# exists. If the C++ committee had fixed their language, we wouldn't need C#." [snip]
First, this is not why C# exists. For real reason as to why it is search the net. Enough info out there without me reiterating it.
Second, there is "nothing really wrong with C++" and the reason the committee buys that is because it is true. The language specification spells out, as a single example, that if you index beyond the end of an array or dereference a null pointer BOOM! Undefined behavior, as in may work with some sort of reasonable expectation or may unleash flying monkey demons from your spouses nose with the sole purpose of ruining your computer career.
Third, C++ is not an OOPL like Java or C#. It is a multi-paradigm langauge with support for any type of construct you want to throw at it - including shitty code regardless of paradigm.
Again, I am trying to understand where you are coming from but I just do not see your point - or more directly that your point is valid.
C++ as a language is not really lacking at this ponit. Now standardized libs, like the inclusion of the STL was to the standard, are welcome. Things like concurrency, threading, gc, GUI, etc. Yes there are plenty out there but none of them "officially" standard yet. I think this argument would support your point better, if I was understanding what you meant rather than what you typed.
Rewrite - yes; too extreme "five line patch" - too simple
There are companies that have to research, document, code, document, test, document, release from development to production, document, etc...
A better description lies somewhere between "rewrite" and "five line patch". Proprietary or OSS will have bugs; this release cycle still has to be done if it is a "rewrite" or a "patch".
"couldn't a corporation hold microsoft liable for damages incurred to an unpatched system"
Don't get me wrong I would love someone to try it, but I don't see that happening.
Since this is/. I can assume your general feelings regarding this subject but please do not forget the law of unintended consequences resulting from such a move. [HINT: Think beyond Microsoft being sued here] It would be a two way street instead of situational ethics.
Just as Java developers hate hearing, "Java is too slow" C++ developers hate hearing, "memory managment, lack of garbage collector."
A legitimate complaint about C++ is its [in my opinion] less than exceptional exception mechanism. But then again all industrial strength tools have warts on them right? I think they are also known as 'weaknesses' and more popularly referred to in langauge flames as 'cons'.
Slashdot Mirror
"For those who are currently computer programmers/engineers, would you say you really enjoy your job, or does it get extremely old and tedious after awhile?"
It is, in a nutshell, like day to day living. You have your ups and you have your downs. This coming from somebody that still loves the concept, the doing, the statisfaction of programming - it is a bonus that I get paid for it; even when it sucks.
For starters, you should not anthropomorphize computers. They do not like it.
"recently I can no longer sit and watch television, I get anxious sitting there trying to watch it, or I fall asleep."
Heh - I do this too. I have the added bonus of my wife thinking I work too hard as a result. In reality I think I am more anxious about the "stress relief sessions" she gives to help out or I fall asleep waiting for them.
Man I hate to rock the boat on this gig.
"Sadly most MSVC users I know don't know what makefile is let alone what nmake is"
Wow - you too?
I guess you and I are in a minority group.
I am not sure why you got a troll mod - Even with the subjective additions, the majority of your post is simply true. Are there really that many inexperienced people here?
" Because most Open Source software is a pain in the ass to use thats why."
Well then you should be thankful we do not force down it your fucking throat - with OSS you do retain that right of choice.
"That just shows the incompetence of the competition. And it always goes back to "Microsoft stole Mac's code". Uhh sure, that was like 10 years ago"
I'm not sure if you should be modded +1 interesting or -1 redundant.
I am going to assume that you are a) young or b) not a veteran in the software industry to make such a statement. This is not an ad-hominem attack.
Well off the top of my head:
Patent free open standards.
"False, Visual Studio is widely renowned as the singular best programming environment there is, and is a large reason LOTS of programmers stick to Windows."
Now this is truly HILARIOUS!
Thanks for the good laugh.
If the AC was being serious I would have to counter with the simple fact that if a programmer was so dependent on Visual Studio* they really are not all that to begin with; better they stick to Windows, eh? Most people I have seen that use VS do not know how to make a simple Makefile much less edit the one the VS creates. Funny stuff really. "I get link errors when I build foo using bar..." because VS hides the fact you do not know what the hell you are doing. Automation is another great feature of VS too, right? And the knowledge gained from learning VS inside and out transfers to other platforms so you get to take it with you as well, true?
*Visual Studio has potential with plugins like vi or emacs - but if you do that why not just dump VS all together? Do not know enough about the tools to use them directly? Need a wizard to build your code? Competent programmers make their own build scripts and wizards. Think about it...
If you want to really troll use something like:
"Visual Studio is the de-facto standard for code-monkeys"
Nice
What you have is the same scenario that this article brings up back when SCO started their campaign against Linux via lawsuits. The GCC team got involved and cooler heads prevailed because it was determined that in the end it hurts the very people that are supposed to benefit.
I do not disagree with your sentiments however just because the loser wants to fight dirty does not mean that you should too. In effect I feel the same way you do but I do not think it is wise to let your feelings affect how you make decisions and policy - that is why you rely on facts. I am not arguing with you just trying to make an honest observation.
When you are out to achieve something the best thing you can do is keep your goals in mind and make them the priority - not the situation/circumstances. Of course I could be wrong since this is just my subjective opinion on the matter.
"Some of these companies (no one can say how many of course) would have switched to Linux if it was the only way to have reasonably secure web browsing."
...
I would have to see some facts before I can really accept this statement. This is a pretty bold premise to accept. More reasonably they just block web browsing. Sorry but that is the way it works.
"I guess it boils down to whether providing open source to the largest number of people is more important to the movement than upsetting MS's OS dominance and having an open OS to build from."
You nailed it initially. You see OSS is all about freedom - not about battling some behemoth company. Period. While it is a bonus that it is hurting the company everyone loves to hate that is NOT the goal of OSS. It is about empowering you with freedom in the context of software.
Seeing as how I am the one pointing it out - I do not think I am that one that needs to "remember" anything.
Interestingly enough it is for that reason I do not push to install Linux everywhere and on everything that I come into contact with. Now if we are speaking of developement environments - I push Linux for every back-end job I can because it is hands down better than Windows based on my empircal knowledge. Do I try to replace the administrations NT/2000 workstations? No freaking way. Could I? You bet.
As an aside if you set up a Linux desktop (have you by chance?) for some Windows users with zero experience how many times have they utterly dumped it and went back to Windows? I have only done that 19 times* and two of which reverted back. Still though - I do not think that Linux is ready for the desktop -- any more than Windows is ready for the networked world...Notice they both do though?
*for family/friends/co-workers in their homes
and the two that reverted where the self-proclaimed "power users" - but kudos for the attempt I say
"If the user being able to cause problems was a bug..."
So in a way Windows is the VB of the programming world where Linux is C in terms of shooting yourself in the foot, but then proof by analogy is fraud.
You were modded insightful but here is something to think about: Linux was not written for end users with Windows mentality. Everything about it is different from that kind of cultural thinking. It was written by programmers for programmers - Windows was not.
I think people tend to forget this more and more. Sure the codebase for Linux and its design lead the way for it being extensible to suit a variety of problems but that was never its main goal.
Windows on the other hand was.
"Lots of bugs maybe, but you can't say the entire codebase is badly written."
Now that you have been given a very tiny history lesson into how each of the OS's came to be - I find it a little ironic that Linux is doing a better job* than Windows was designed to solve. People are stepping up to improve Linux in the area that Linux was never designed for to begin with - making it usable for non-programmers. Windows response? Instead of improving their codebase they want to lock out competition by any means necessary. Innovation indeed.
*Which runs on more hardware as a simple example? Think "putting in the hands of users"
" I'm 100% serious. All this Copeland guy does is plug his rubyforge site or InfoEther.
Do you actually do any work on Ruby or do you just spend your time trolling message boards and mailing lists?"
The sad part is that I know you are serious as well as telling the truth.
I think the same thing virtually everytime I see him post.
Hmm, I got the joke just fine. Why don't you and TopShelf check the original post and grandparent post moderation totals and see who missed what ;)
I see everything was eventually modded +funny which was my point. I merely burned some Karma to get it noticed: Mods should try to focus on modding up rather than down - because they almost always fsck it up otherwise.
WTF? Just because you don't get a joke doesn't make it a troll. The grandparent and the OP manage to make a somewhat amusing thread.
OK.
I can live with that. Your response will be worth the hits I am sure I will take.
The truly sad part is that the Anonymous Coward is 100% correct*.
While I burn my karma here and take massive metamod hits for good measure, think about the front page "question" and then think about the OP response.
Seriously. Maybe the delivery was poor but the point is still valid.
*Instead of modding my response down as flaimbait/troll why don't you educate both myself and the OP response was anything but factual with an equally factual reply.
" Not to troll, this is just out of curiosity ... Why do you say it's better?"
Maybe some people think that mozilla provides better integration between browsing, mail, news, organization, and even HTML page creation as opposed to having different apps like Firefox and Thunderfox to do the same thing.
Choice of course - some people may prefer links/w3m/lynx/surfraw, vim, tin/slrn, and mutt to do the same thing as well.
Perceived benefits are what makes the determination of what makes something better because their needs are the one being addressed.
And I do not question this logic.
/. - If you are a geek living alone and your parents basement and your kernel flavor of the day has a local exploit but the fix breaks your video card to play Doom3 versus running a high traffic consumer website with actual transations that could incur a remote exploit, which actually warrants a needed upgrade/patch? Perspective I suppose because with every generalization comes exceptions.
My original question though was based upon the fact that if it is not broke - do not fix it.
Granted I am speaking from a forest view rather than a satelite view at the moment but you do not know how many times I have helped people with linux, kernel compiling, etc. only to hear about things like X works but Y quit. If you need X then yes - you have a problem. If X and Y work but you have a severe * exploit - then yes you have a problem. If X works but Y quit and you don't even use, much less need, X then why the upgrade? "Umm, because." seems to be the answer more times than not, and that was the source of my original question.
I see no reason for people to be up in arms and "pissed off" about things. This comment is not directed to the OP or any of you that responded to my post - it is to the mentality of people that think like this in general. Who knows, maybe I am the one missing the bigger picture.
*By severe I am referring to a rational look at the tradeoff of that which you speak. To take a page from the trolls here on
I am not trolling nor do I disagree with the majority of your post. I am however a bit curious about this statement:
"It pisses me off that I can no longer use my webcam because the driver maintainer can't keep up with every variation of the kernel..."
Since this is a webcam I am making an assumption that this is more of a personal/desktop/workstation type role. With that in mind, is there any compelling reason that you must upgrade to the latest greatest kernel as opposed to sticking with a previous kernel that has worked along with your "webcam" driver that worked as well?
I am under the assumption that there are a lot of users that upgrade/acquire the latest greatest software and that in and of itself is not a bad thing but not always the smart thing. I'm referring to a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line of thinking.
Can you or someone else inform me what the other part of this issue is I seem to completely miss?
Wow. I am amazed at your opinion and wish to understand it but I have to admit I reserved to just think that you do not know what you are talking about.
[snip]
"This problem is the primary reason that C# exists. If the C++ committee had fixed their language, we wouldn't need C#."
[snip]
First, this is not why C# exists. For real reason as to why it is search the net. Enough info out there without me reiterating it.
Second, there is "nothing really wrong with C++" and the reason the committee buys that is because it is true. The language specification spells out, as a single example, that if you index beyond the end of an array or dereference a null pointer BOOM! Undefined behavior, as in may work with some sort of reasonable expectation or may unleash flying monkey demons from your spouses nose with the sole purpose of ruining your computer career.
Third, C++ is not an OOPL like Java or C#. It is a multi-paradigm langauge with support for any type of construct you want to throw at it - including shitty code regardless of paradigm.
Again, I am trying to understand where you are coming from but I just do not see your point - or more directly that your point is valid.
C++ as a language is not really lacking at this ponit. Now standardized libs, like the inclusion of the STL was to the standard, are welcome. Things like concurrency, threading, gc, GUI, etc. Yes there are plenty out there but none of them "officially" standard yet. I think this argument would support your point better, if I was understanding what you meant rather than what you typed.
Rewrite - yes; too extreme
"five line patch" - too simple
There are companies that have to research, document, code, document, test, document, release from development to production, document, etc...
A better description lies somewhere between "rewrite" and "five line patch". Proprietary or OSS will have bugs; this release cycle still has to be done if it is a "rewrite" or a "patch".
Just something to think about.
"couldn't a corporation hold microsoft liable for damages incurred to an unpatched system"
/. I can assume your general feelings regarding this subject but please do not forget the law of unintended consequences resulting from such a move. [HINT: Think beyond Microsoft being sued here] It would be a two way street instead of situational ethics.
Don't get me wrong I would love someone to try it, but I don't see that happening.
Since this is
That is, in a nutshell, my point.
Just as Java developers hate hearing, "Java is too slow" C++ developers hate hearing, "memory managment, lack of garbage collector."
A legitimate complaint about C++ is its [in my opinion] less than exceptional exception mechanism. But then again all industrial strength tools have warts on them right? I think they are also known as 'weaknesses' and more popularly referred to in langauge flames as 'cons'.