i agree with you 100%. Just because married people are not necessarily more valuable, it doesn't necessarily follow that single people are either. Married, single, living together, gay, straight, with kids, without kids - there are responsible and irresponsible people of all stripes. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Don't get me wrong - single people have their issues too. (although your comments are also stereotypical). I was just pointing out some reasons why married with children folks are not always superior in the workplace to the single folks. They key is a diverse workforce, and there are star performers/slackers on both sides of the married equation.
Hmmm married workers more valuable? That is, until they have to leave work early to pick up their kids and take them to soccer practice, call of sick because their kids are sick, talk on the phone all day planning their upcoming vacations to disney world, etc. while the single people in the office are left holding the bag. More valuable? I think not. Then again, I did see your smiley so hopefully you are joking and/or a troll!
Actually, the talent pool for VB folks is much larger - thats why most companies I've encountered ( I do consulting, so I encounter quite a few) that go with.NET go with VB.NET, not C#.
Yes, it was impossible to be as productive in 80 hours as 40. Most of the problem was the business folks "writing checks our bodies could not cash" - changing requirments at a moments notice, making deals to promise to have work done in a week that should take a month, etc. When you are presented with a project like that and only have a week to do it, you can either 1. Work crazy hours in an attempt to get it done, 2. slack off (i.e. work 40 hours) and dont get it done and risk getting fired, or 3. Quit your job. Each option was chosen by different people. The phrase I keep hearing repeatedly that if you are productive, plan, etc. you can get away with working a 40 hour work week did not apply.
You hit the nail on the head - mangement was failing it's job. I remember once over thanksgiving they had to call a guy back who flew home because there was a production "emergency" that only he could fix. They paid for his flight, but he wasnt even able to take a long weekend for the holiday, let alone a vacation.
Then again, management was working round the clock too, so they expected everyone else to do the same.
A complete comparison of features is available
here
Having worked in both, I prefer C# due to its cleaner syntax and ability to use XML comments in the code. VB does have a few minor advantages, like the ability to use default parameters. Either one can get the job done, and a decision on which one to use is genrally made based on what the developers have the most experience with/are the most comfortable with.
Re:The Myth of the 80 Hour Week
on
On Point On Slacking
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Since no one modded you down as troll, I'll respond. I'm only working part time right now (hence the time to post on slashdot) but "back in the day" as a developer I routinely worked 60 hour weeks. Some of us worked 80-100. Very little of that was slack - we were in constant "panic mode" most of the time, and many people burned out, quit, lost their marriages, etc. It was impossible to accomplish everything that was needed to with unrealistic deadlines, and new requirments hitting the desk at 5:00 on Friday that absolutely had to be completed by Monday morning because the ad campaign was already going out, etc. Trust me - the 80 hour work week was not a myth.
Wow, I never thought I'd see the day. Glad I "boycotted" the Special Edition DVD release - I'm sure I'll be snapping this version up when it is released. I guess money won out over Lucases claims that that he would never, ever, ever release the original version since the new (crappier) version was now the definitive Star Wars.
Coming from a rust-belt city where most of the people have left for the coasts, I'll paraphrase the most common response to why the left - "Sure, I can have a huge house with a yard in Midwestern City X - but in Big Coastal City Y I can have a life."
Except, the settlement between Apple and Apple back in the 90s didnt prohibit Apple from creating software or hardware to play music, if I recall correctly - they just couldn't become a music publisher/music label. Apple computer already paid millions in their settlement, and as far as I know has not voiltated their agreement.
IANAL, but That's a pretty simplistic view. The iPod and iTunes ARE computing products. They are not a music label; they do not produce their own music. They are merely selling music players, and don't compete directly with Apple Corps, the music company. Also, there is little to no chance that anyone would mistake the two. When Apple Computer starts signing bands, thats when things could get sticky. Then there is the whole issue of the legality of trying to trademark the name of a piece of fruit in the first place...
Agreed. Two years ago I made a pimgrimige to Coney Island to the original Nathans. And I used to live in Chicago, and was an all too frequent customer of Demon Dogs, Gold Coast Dogs, and the Weiners Circle. Can't speak for Jersey or LA, tho. (altho LA has the best burgers. Fatburger, In 'N Out, Mmmm!)
I love Apple's products - have been using them since my grad school bought a bunch of 512K "Fat Macs" (dating myself here). But, customer service was never the reason. In fact, during those 20 years or so I don't think I've ever had to call or deal with Apple customer service once. Of course, maybe THATS the reason I like them so much...
"Everyone" has monstrous high qualtity TVs and sound systems? Why didnt someone mod this down as a troll? I'm perfectly happy with my old 27" TV, and its probably nicer than what most of my friends have. Only the top few percent can afford surround sound big screen home theater systems, and many of those that CAN afford them arent interested in buying them. Personally, I like going to the movies. The popcorn tastes better than at home (just like hot dogs at the ballpark), the stadium-seating chairs are more comfortable than my ratty old couch, and you can't beat the big screen and sound.
All things being equal, physical presence is a good thing. However, given the choice of spending a few hundred dollars on an airplane ticket, plus the cost of a hotel room, vs. the the physical presence of a person, the physical presence loses out every time. Of course, as a small company, we dont have a lot of money to throw around.
OK, I know this is an academic exercise - but why? Personally, I would rather see someone find a way to run Mac OS on cheap PC hardware, not the other way around.
I disagree. I work for a 10 person company that develops web sites (among other things). My closest co-worker is 500 miles away. In fact, everyone in the "office" works out of their house, so it doesn't matter where we are. Some of our coding is outsourceced to India, and we have outsourced graphic design to a firm in another state. Weather you agree or not, physical presence just isn't as highly regarded anymore.
I saw it in college. Although I personally liked the movie (but not enough to see it more than once), I remember it being universally panned as the "Gigli" or "Showgirls" of it's day, even though it was admired for its groundbreaking special effects. I did love the video game, though.
Slashdot Mirror
i agree with you 100%. Just because married people are not necessarily more valuable, it doesn't necessarily follow that single people are either. Married, single, living together, gay, straight, with kids, without kids - there are responsible and irresponsible people of all stripes. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Don't get me wrong - single people have their issues too. (although your comments are also stereotypical). I was just pointing out some reasons why married with children folks are not always superior in the workplace to the single folks. They key is a diverse workforce, and there are star performers/slackers on both sides of the married equation.
Hmmm married workers more valuable? That is, until they have to leave work early to pick up their kids and take them to soccer practice, call of sick because their kids are sick, talk on the phone all day planning their upcoming vacations to disney world, etc. while the single people in the office are left holding the bag. More valuable? I think not. Then again, I did see your smiley so hopefully you are joking and/or a troll!
Actually, the talent pool for VB folks is much larger - thats why most companies I've encountered ( I do consulting, so I encounter quite a few) that go with .NET go with VB.NET, not C#.
Yes, it was impossible to be as productive in 80 hours as 40. Most of the problem was the business folks "writing checks our bodies could not cash" - changing requirments at a moments notice, making deals to promise to have work done in a week that should take a month, etc. When you are presented with a project like that and only have a week to do it, you can either 1. Work crazy hours in an attempt to get it done, 2. slack off (i.e. work 40 hours) and dont get it done and risk getting fired, or 3. Quit your job. Each option was chosen by different people. The phrase I keep hearing repeatedly that if you are productive, plan, etc. you can get away with working a 40 hour work week did not apply.
Then again, management was working round the clock too, so they expected everyone else to do the same.
Having worked in both, I prefer C# due to its cleaner syntax and ability to use XML comments in the code. VB does have a few minor advantages, like the ability to use default parameters. Either one can get the job done, and a decision on which one to use is genrally made based on what the developers have the most experience with/are the most comfortable with.
Since no one modded you down as troll, I'll respond. I'm only working part time right now (hence the time to post on slashdot) but "back in the day" as a developer I routinely worked 60 hour weeks. Some of us worked 80-100. Very little of that was slack - we were in constant "panic mode" most of the time, and many people burned out, quit, lost their marriages, etc. It was impossible to accomplish everything that was needed to with unrealistic deadlines, and new requirments hitting the desk at 5:00 on Friday that absolutely had to be completed by Monday morning because the ad campaign was already going out, etc. Trust me - the 80 hour work week was not a myth.
I thought it was kinda funny. Maybe not +5 funny, but at least +1 or +2.
you kid, but i always liked the yub yub song. And best of all, no Hayden Christianson at the end! The real Darth Vader is back!
Wow, I never thought I'd see the day. Glad I "boycotted" the Special Edition DVD release - I'm sure I'll be snapping this version up when it is released. I guess money won out over Lucases claims that that he would never, ever, ever release the original version since the new (crappier) version was now the definitive Star Wars.
Coming from a rust-belt city where most of the people have left for the coasts, I'll paraphrase the most common response to why the left - "Sure, I can have a huge house with a yard in Midwestern City X - but in Big Coastal City Y I can have a life."
1. Drop off computer at Apple store
2. Pick up a few days later
Except, the settlement between Apple and Apple back in the 90s didnt prohibit Apple from creating software or hardware to play music, if I recall correctly - they just couldn't become a music publisher/music label. Apple computer already paid millions in their settlement, and as far as I know has not voiltated their agreement.
IANAL, but That's a pretty simplistic view. The iPod and iTunes ARE computing products. They are not a music label; they do not produce their own music. They are merely selling music players, and don't compete directly with Apple Corps, the music company. Also, there is little to no chance that anyone would mistake the two. When Apple Computer starts signing bands, thats when things could get sticky. Then there is the whole issue of the legality of trying to trademark the name of a piece of fruit in the first place...
Agreed. Two years ago I made a pimgrimige to Coney Island to the original Nathans. And I used to live in Chicago, and was an all too frequent customer of Demon Dogs, Gold Coast Dogs, and the Weiners Circle. Can't speak for Jersey or LA, tho. (altho LA has the best burgers. Fatburger, In 'N Out, Mmmm!)
I love Apple's products - have been using them since my grad school bought a bunch of 512K "Fat Macs" (dating myself here). But, customer service was never the reason. In fact, during those 20 years or so I don't think I've ever had to call or deal with Apple customer service once. Of course, maybe THATS the reason I like them so much...
"Everyone" has monstrous high qualtity TVs and sound systems? Why didnt someone mod this down as a troll? I'm perfectly happy with my old 27" TV, and its probably nicer than what most of my friends have. Only the top few percent can afford surround sound big screen home theater systems, and many of those that CAN afford them arent interested in buying them. Personally, I like going to the movies. The popcorn tastes better than at home (just like hot dogs at the ballpark), the stadium-seating chairs are more comfortable than my ratty old couch, and you can't beat the big screen and sound.
All things being equal, physical presence is a good thing. However, given the choice of spending a few hundred dollars on an airplane ticket, plus the cost of a hotel room, vs. the the physical presence of a person, the physical presence loses out every time. Of course, as a small company, we dont have a lot of money to throw around.
not first post, first post asking "why" - at least the first I saw.
OK, I know this is an academic exercise - but why? Personally, I would rather see someone find a way to run Mac OS on cheap PC hardware, not the other way around.
I disagree. I work for a 10 person company that develops web sites (among other things). My closest co-worker is 500 miles away. In fact, everyone in the "office" works out of their house, so it doesn't matter where we are. Some of our coding is outsourceced to India, and we have outsourced graphic design to a firm in another state. Weather you agree or not, physical presence just isn't as highly regarded anymore.
I saw it in college. Although I personally liked the movie (but not enough to see it more than once), I remember it being universally panned as the "Gigli" or "Showgirls" of it's day, even though it was admired for its groundbreaking special effects. I did love the video game, though.
Yes, since I've never heard of him until now.
Actually its from the Bible