This question is like the common cold. Just when you think it's gone, it comes around again.
Folks, LANGUAGE DOESN'T MATTER. It's irrelevant ESEPCIALLY at the beginner stage.
More important is to just find something that provides quick feedback so that they can work on something, then turn around and quickly see the results. Something that encourages exploration.
Far more important than that is a grounding in basic analytical thinking processes, logic, etc... The ability to think in abstracts, to model a concept, and to conceive of a solution. The language then just becomes the means of expression and the developer will be better equipped to choose the right tools for the job, rather than getting bogged down with ideology.
Ultimately it all depends on the end goal of the individual in question. Do they:
a) want to be a good software developer, or
b) hack out an application every so often?
If a then follow my advice above, otherwise sure, VB, VBA, or VB.NET is as good as anything else.
Bar none, the most revolutionary experience I'd ever had playing a computer/video game. It actually approached the pen'n'paper experience in terms of player freedom. So far ahead of its time that we're still playing catchup in many respect.
The others for me, in no particular order are:
- Duke Nukem 3d (I got so bored with Doom, but Duke kept me coming back over and over again)
I cry many times playing any of the Final Fantasy games. Every time I'm just wanting to get from point A to point B and I'm accosted by hundreds of senseless random encounters that I can't avoid (and musn't avoid because I need to "level up") I start bawling.
Then I stop playing.
Fucking Japanese RPGs. Walk, fight, walk, fight, watch 20 minutes of overly saccharine dross that's supposed to evoke a deep "emotional" response (other than derisive laughter?). Give me a break.
They could just call those games, "Spreadsheet: Quest for the holy big number!"
many times you end up working on a project that someone else spec'd and that money has already changed hands on and you have to deliver.
And just to clarify something too (re: other comments in response to my original statement). I was aware that IE had this capability, amongst others, way back when... but that was IE. Please refer to the previous paragraph.
(I know that this is a really late response to the original message)
Hypothetically you could set up a site that had a bunch of frames that interacted independantly and achieve a similar result to Ajax, but who would want to have to handle the cross platform and cross browser problems that arrive when you rely on frames?
I can speak as someone who has in fact done just that and would have killed for an XMLHttpRequest object back in 2001.
Today I'm architecting a significant new web project and my first order of business on the UI side was to specify XMLHttpRequest (buzzword catchphrase, yuck.) as the core around which the client would be developed. It's working fantastically. It simplifies just about everything, imho, once the basics are in place.
It is now possible to do highly-reactive monitoring applications in a browser without applets, plug-ins, or frames+script chicanery. Download the core app, then stream in the rest of the bits behind the scenes. Sweet!
The clients love it, we love to develop using it. Win, win situation - a strange place to be on an IT project.
But without words like Blog or Grafedia where would the inventors of those terms be?
Still working as "barristas" at the local cafe serving skinny double mochachino machiattos that are light on the froth dreaming of that big day when they have an "article" in Wired about their visionary greatness. That's where! Don't you want them to succeed? Stop trying to keep the little-guy down.
So fuck you! Mr. Holier-than-thou corporate sellout language purist./zooms off on Segway
I was saying it in a next-gen consoles thread yesterday and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is feeling this way.
These new consoles just don't have "it". They're incredibly powerful, but what will be done with that power? Exactly the same thing that was done with less power, last generation, only this time it'll be prettier and shinier.
The market has stagnated. There aren't many new game CONCEPTS, that are appealing, that seem to require the horsepower of the new concoles. Think about it:
Katamari Damacy: new concept, but the only difference between it on PS2 and it's (potential) sequel on a next gen console would be graphics. That game is just fine as is on a PS2.
WarioWare: tons of old fashioned idiot-box games with a new package and "theme", but you couldn't make it any better with more horsepower. The appeal has nothing to do with the graphics or the sounds (obviously).
Those are just two examples of relatively new game concepts that really can't be improved by throwing horsepower at them. Heck, we're at a point where even high-speed First Person Shooters can't deliver a noticeably different experience just by throwing horsepower at them; better looking yes, but inherently different? Hardly.
This round, the console guys had better have something big up their sleeves. I'm not holding my breath for any of them. (even though I feel that Nintendo has been saying all the right things in the press, we'll see if they can actually deliver or if it's just more hype)
Furthermore, what's the deal with the hype around these consoles?
Yes, they're freaking powerful. This generation appears to be a significant leap from the last; much more of an immediately discernable difference in power between generations since 8bit to 16bit. But what are we going to get that will use that power?
The same old song and dance.
First person shooters. Arcade interaction games (DanceDance Revolution, etc...). 3d platformers. 3rd person action/adventure (Metal Gear, etc...). Fighting/brawling. Racing. MMORPGs.
Better graphics. Better sound. More expansive environments. Same old gameplay with a shiny new coating.
For the first time in forever (and I mean since the 2600), I'm just not excited about the next gen.
Wihtout Saft, Safari is the least usable joke of a (current generation) browser I've encountered.
The only issue I have with FireFox on my PowerBook (w/ OSX 10.3.9) is that Java causes it to beachball every third or fourth time it's called from the same browser instance.
I'm not sure why (at the time of my writing this comment) this is modded as funny. Perhaps funny in a "haha, like putting my eyes out with a fork" really sad kind of funny.
I'd think it's more insightful than anything. Getting Things Done has no magical recipe for actually Getting Things Done. A more appropriate title might be Getting Things Organized, or Keeping Your Shit Together. While not a bad book, it doesn't offer any breakthrough advice on actually motivating yourself to get things done.
In fact, I found that the more I read it, the more I obsessed about Getting Things Organized RIGHT. I wasn't even getting organized, just busy trying to figure out how to get organized in the best way possible.
Anyhow, something that I came to realize over the past year where I've been stumbling from one corporate bullshit assignment to the next: It's simply all about giving a shit.
When I actually give a shit about the project, I don't have any trouble getting things done. I'll work 18 hours a day for as long as it takes, or until I stop giving a shit. I don't feel the stress, and I'm happy to be alive... when I believe, when I feel that what I do actually has some relevance and isn't just a make work project.
Huh... I honestly didn't think I'd get a positive reaction to this sentiment, even here on/. which has a large population the thrives on hype. The responses like this blow me away.
Thanks.
I would gladly pay more for all the information I find on the net than the I would for the latest movie.
And yet the information is freely given while the 2 hours of enertainment sold by hollywood continues to go up in price.
So, is there a way to reform that indusrty? Or, are we just screwed.
Are they forcing you to watch their shite? No. Yet you cannot, for whatever reason, seem to look away.
The key: look away.
Don't consume mass media, either free or for a fee. Just look the heck away. They will then reform themselves, or die.
Write your own stories. Make your own movies. Who cares if they're "crap"; share them with friends and give em to strangers. Do anything you can, just don't feed the established media industry.
Start creating. Stop consuming.
I know. Unrealistic hippie talk. Lay off the crack pipe. Blah blah blah...
If you go to the trachcan section of your gmail screen, there is a button in it that reads "Delete Forever". Presumably, it deletes your stuff. Forever.
First of all every government security agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. You cannot call someone a liar if they act on what they believe to be truthful information.
Untrue, most believed exactly what the UN Inspectors were reporting: "No WMDs found here." Furthermore, the CIA had information that specifically stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq; information that was deliberately ignored by your commander in chief.
Want to know why no one (of military significance) but the Brits joined the US in a military? Because no one believed in the reasons for waging the war.
The rest of the world were not being obstinate pricks. They simply couldn't believe the "information" they were being handed.
The US is the possibly the most globally orient country in the world. Just look at the financial relations that exist between the US and everyone else. We have an extremely open market with possibly (though not proven) the lowest tarrif rates of any other country in the world. If we were so anti-global we would create tarrifs on imports that duplicate the tarrifs our good face when exported to other countries. Almost every country in the world has much more severe barriers to foreign competition and foreign ownership or acquisition of companies than the US.
The US government sends more aid to other countries than any other country in the world. They probably (unsubstantiated) send more aid to other countries than the entire EU combined. The American people also donate more to charities foreign and domestic than any other country in the world (and that includes as percent of GDP and GNP)
Your government misrepresented its reasons for going to war. In fact, the correct expression is, "it LIED".
Saddam Hussein has/had no proven connections to Al Quaeda. No secret relationships with Osama Bin Laden. No Weapons of Mass destruction. No ability to threaten America or American citizens (except those who wandered into Iraq) directly.
Was he a "bad man"? Oh, probably. But so is Kim Jong Il.
The reason why there is so much anti-american sentiment is that America (through its governmental representation) is so anti-global-community. So blatantly false in its motivations. And has proven to be very untrustworthy.
The war was NEVER about terror, Weapons of Mass Destruction, regime change, or making the world a safer place. It was always about securing oil resources and securing a military foothold in the middle-east.
The rest of the world knew this immediately (except for the UK government). We didn't swallow anything hook-line-and-sinker. We called a spade a spade, and are frankly quite disgusted by the lack of respect that America has demonstrated to the international community.
At the very least, if the American government would've said, "uh, we're going into Iraq because the instability of the area threatens our Oil supply." At least they would've been honest.
Are Americans evil? Hardly. My wife is American. I visit my inlaws regularly and they are fantastic folks. So are all of the people I've met on a face-to-face basis. However, the American government is NOT a good representation of its people. All that the rest of the world is saying with these fake votes and inconsequential opinion polls is that we'd like your government to give you the international representation that the good people of America deserve.
Actually, this is very close to something that's been baking my brain.
Corporations, for all intents and purposes (legally), are physically immortal "people". They don't age or get sick in the same way. And barring death by legal action (see: Enron), one of the only ways a corp can die is when it cannot generate enough revenue to meet basic expenses of operation.
If a corp depends on the enforcement of copyright of it's IP to generate revenue, and (barring legal death) the generated revenue is sufficient to maintain, at the minimum, the basic health of the corp, and copyright does not expire unless the copyright holder dies, then the corp can never die. Because the copyright will only expire if the corp dies, which it won't, because the copyright will never expire thus ensuring a healthy revenue stream.
Self sustaining feedback loop (again, barring external forces, such as the legal system getting in the way; but there are already hundreds of defences against that).
Furthermore, the above scenario assumes a small, core set of copyrighted IP. However, as we know, corps also merge into larger and larger entities, thus becoming more and more diversified. At some point, they become impossible to kill because they have innumerable, perpetual revenue streams.
Now of course, this all just theoretical clean-room navel gazing, but self-sustaining feedback is cool.
Oh, I know it's a memory problem. Only 256M. I just joined the development team on this project and they re-puposed an older machine (still P4 1.8, or something) for me. Apparently I'm scheduled for an upgrade to 1G in the next couple of weeks, but until then, it's hellish.
The solution is pretty big. A rebuild-all takes about 20 minutes under the current scheme. The disk just thrashes as the system looks for swap-space.
There's an informative link at the bottom of the article for those requiring a bit more insight into the effect of 64-bit computing./wishes he had exa-bytes of memory right now... VS.NET on WinXP is a PIG!
You know it's funny, but I more or less typed out exactly what you said. Then I deleted it and went with what I actually posted. In short though, I do agree that it doesn't get any simpler than that.
They are not designed to kill. They are designed to enable humans to kill with greater ease.
If guns were designed with some sort of AI that automatically aquires hostile targets and is directd to use lethal force against them, then yes, I would then say guns would be designed to kill.
I agree that the intent of Univesity is to teach people how to learn, and then perhaps to be able to teach others how to learn. However, I would say that in practice, they fall far short of the mark. I work with enough University educated fools to know this.
Furthermore, I've found it quite obvious that individuals who are predisposed to learn how to learn, will do so regardless of whether or not they went to University. Of course, this is a self-referential comment, but it is also a general observation that regardless off education type, learners will always be learners. Perhaps Universities help transform people who are on the cusp, but I do not believe that they can create them whole cloth and in fact I believe that they can have a very negative effect on those who are already well beyond what most Univesities can offer in terms of learning skills.
Now, back to the thread topic... I do believe that a program such as what is offered by Northface can be very beneficial to the right type of people, namely those who are natural learners who will round out their knowledge regardless of circumstance. Unfortunately, it will also attract many who are not of this type and thus has the potential to create yet more hyper-specialized, completely inflexible, educate idiots of which there were so many in the dotcom boom times, and that helped hasten the dotcom crash. I'd really like to avoid both situations once again.
Slashdot Mirror
:sigh:
This question is like the common cold. Just when you think it's gone, it comes around again.
Folks, LANGUAGE DOESN'T MATTER. It's irrelevant ESEPCIALLY at the beginner stage.
More important is to just find something that provides quick feedback so that they can work on something, then turn around and quickly see the results. Something that encourages exploration.
Far more important than that is a grounding in basic analytical thinking processes, logic, etc... The ability to think in abstracts, to model a concept, and to conceive of a solution. The language then just becomes the means of expression and the developer will be better equipped to choose the right tools for the job, rather than getting bogged down with ideology.
Ultimately it all depends on the end goal of the individual in question. Do they:
a) want to be a good software developer, or
b) hack out an application every so often?
If a then follow my advice above, otherwise sure, VB, VBA, or VB.NET is as good as anything else.
Bar none, the most revolutionary experience I'd ever had playing a computer/video game. It actually approached the pen'n'paper experience in terms of player freedom. So far ahead of its time that we're still playing catchup in many respect.
The others for me, in no particular order are:
- Duke Nukem 3d (I got so bored with Doom, but Duke kept me coming back over and over again)
- Civ (just one more click...)
- Sega Genesis Shadowrun
I cry many times playing any of the Final Fantasy games. Every time I'm just wanting to get from point A to point B and I'm accosted by hundreds of senseless random encounters that I can't avoid (and musn't avoid because I need to "level up") I start bawling.
Then I stop playing.
Fucking Japanese RPGs. Walk, fight, walk, fight, watch 20 minutes of overly saccharine dross that's supposed to evoke a deep "emotional" response (other than derisive laughter?). Give me a break.
They could just call those games, "Spreadsheet: Quest for the holy big number!"
Just like putting "-gate" after something makes one look like a mainstream media hack who can't use the word "Scandal".
I know!
How about, "Digeratigate". A scandal of blogospheric proportions!
Hey, you're right. No argument from me. But...
many times you end up working on a project that someone else spec'd and that money has already changed hands on and you have to deliver.
And just to clarify something too (re: other comments in response to my original statement). I was aware that IE had this capability, amongst others, way back when... but that was IE. Please refer to the previous paragraph.
(I know that this is a really late response to the original message)
Today I'm architecting a significant new web project and my first order of business on the UI side was to specify XMLHttpRequest (buzzword catchphrase, yuck.) as the core around which the client would be developed. It's working fantastically. It simplifies just about everything, imho, once the basics are in place.
It is now possible to do highly-reactive monitoring applications in a browser without applets, plug-ins, or frames+script chicanery. Download the core app, then stream in the rest of the bits behind the scenes. Sweet!
The clients love it, we love to develop using it. Win, win situation - a strange place to be on an IT project.
But without words like Blog or Grafedia where would the inventors of those terms be?
/zooms off on Segway
Still working as "barristas" at the local cafe serving skinny double mochachino machiattos that are light on the froth dreaming of that big day when they have an "article" in Wired about their visionary greatness. That's where! Don't you want them to succeed? Stop trying to keep the little-guy down.
So fuck you! Mr. Holier-than-thou corporate sellout language purist.
I was saying it in a next-gen consoles thread yesterday and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is feeling this way.
These new consoles just don't have "it". They're incredibly powerful, but what will be done with that power? Exactly the same thing that was done with less power, last generation, only this time it'll be prettier and shinier.
The market has stagnated. There aren't many new game CONCEPTS, that are appealing, that seem to require the horsepower of the new concoles. Think about it:
Katamari Damacy: new concept, but the only difference between it on PS2 and it's (potential) sequel on a next gen console would be graphics. That game is just fine as is on a PS2.
WarioWare: tons of old fashioned idiot-box games with a new package and "theme", but you couldn't make it any better with more horsepower. The appeal has nothing to do with the graphics or the sounds (obviously).
Those are just two examples of relatively new game concepts that really can't be improved by throwing horsepower at them. Heck, we're at a point where even high-speed First Person Shooters can't deliver a noticeably different experience just by throwing horsepower at them; better looking yes, but inherently different? Hardly.
This round, the console guys had better have something big up their sleeves. I'm not holding my breath for any of them. (even though I feel that Nintendo has been saying all the right things in the press, we'll see if they can actually deliver or if it's just more hype)
No doubt.
Furthermore, what's the deal with the hype around these consoles?
Yes, they're freaking powerful. This generation appears to be a significant leap from the last; much more of an immediately discernable difference in power between generations since 8bit to 16bit. But what are we going to get that will use that power?
The same old song and dance.
First person shooters. Arcade interaction games (DanceDance Revolution, etc...). 3d platformers. 3rd person action/adventure (Metal Gear, etc...). Fighting/brawling. Racing. MMORPGs.
Better graphics. Better sound. More expansive environments. Same old gameplay with a shiny new coating.
For the first time in forever (and I mean since the 2600), I'm just not excited about the next gen.
Safari? You've got to be kidding me.
Wihtout Saft, Safari is the least usable joke of a (current generation) browser I've encountered.
The only issue I have with FireFox on my PowerBook (w/ OSX 10.3.9) is that Java causes it to beachball every third or fourth time it's called from the same browser instance.
I'm not sure why (at the time of my writing this comment) this is modded as funny. Perhaps funny in a "haha, like putting my eyes out with a fork" really sad kind of funny.
I'd think it's more insightful than anything. Getting Things Done has no magical recipe for actually Getting Things Done. A more appropriate title might be Getting Things Organized, or Keeping Your Shit Together. While not a bad book, it doesn't offer any breakthrough advice on actually motivating yourself to get things done.
In fact, I found that the more I read it, the more I obsessed about Getting Things Organized RIGHT. I wasn't even getting organized, just busy trying to figure out how to get organized in the best way possible.
Anyhow, something that I came to realize over the past year where I've been stumbling from one corporate bullshit assignment to the next: It's simply all about giving a shit.
When I actually give a shit about the project, I don't have any trouble getting things done. I'll work 18 hours a day for as long as it takes, or until I stop giving a shit. I don't feel the stress, and I'm happy to be alive... when I believe, when I feel that what I do actually has some relevance and isn't just a make work project.
Thanks.I couldn't say it better.
The key: look away.
Don't consume mass media, either free or for a fee. Just look the heck away. They will then reform themselves, or die.
Write your own stories. Make your own movies. Who cares if they're "crap"; share them with friends and give em to strangers. Do anything you can, just don't feed the established media industry.
Start creating. Stop consuming.
I know. Unrealistic hippie talk. Lay off the crack pipe. Blah blah blah...
From Yesterday's Slashdot front page
The short answer: money. Lots and lots of money.
Just cause I pick nits...
If you go to the trachcan section of your gmail screen, there is a button in it that reads "Delete Forever". Presumably, it deletes your stuff. Forever.
Wish I had some mod points. +1 funny.
/I amuse me :-/
Little goth bees suffering severe ennui induced malaise. But lo' they cling desperately to life, even though tis not worth the living anymore.
Buzzzz... buzzz... buzz killer.
Want to know why no one (of military significance) but the Brits joined the US in a military? Because no one believed in the reasons for waging the war.
The rest of the world were not being obstinate pricks. They simply couldn't believe the "information" they were being handed.
Uh... Strawman fallacy
Your government misrepresented its reasons for going to war. In fact, the correct expression is, "it LIED".
Saddam Hussein has/had no proven connections to Al Quaeda. No secret relationships with Osama Bin Laden. No Weapons of Mass destruction. No ability to threaten America or American citizens (except those who wandered into Iraq) directly.
Was he a "bad man"? Oh, probably. But so is Kim Jong Il.
The reason why there is so much anti-american sentiment is that America (through its governmental representation) is so anti-global-community. So blatantly false in its motivations. And has proven to be very untrustworthy.
The war was NEVER about terror, Weapons of Mass Destruction, regime change, or making the world a safer place. It was always about securing oil resources and securing a military foothold in the middle-east.
The rest of the world knew this immediately (except for the UK government). We didn't swallow anything hook-line-and-sinker. We called a spade a spade, and are frankly quite disgusted by the lack of respect that America has demonstrated to the international community.
At the very least, if the American government would've said, "uh, we're going into Iraq because the instability of the area threatens our Oil supply." At least they would've been honest.
Are Americans evil? Hardly. My wife is American. I visit my inlaws regularly and they are fantastic folks. So are all of the people I've met on a face-to-face basis. However, the American government is NOT a good representation of its people. All that the rest of the world is saying with these fake votes and inconsequential opinion polls is that we'd like your government to give you the international representation that the good people of America deserve.
Actually, this is very close to something that's been baking my brain.
Corporations, for all intents and purposes (legally), are physically immortal "people". They don't age or get sick in the same way. And barring death by legal action (see: Enron), one of the only ways a corp can die is when it cannot generate enough revenue to meet basic expenses of operation.
If a corp depends on the enforcement of copyright of it's IP to generate revenue, and (barring legal death) the generated revenue is sufficient to maintain, at the minimum, the basic health of the corp, and copyright does not expire unless the copyright holder dies, then the corp can never die. Because the copyright will only expire if the corp dies, which it won't, because the copyright will never expire thus ensuring a healthy revenue stream.
Self sustaining feedback loop (again, barring external forces, such as the legal system getting in the way; but there are already hundreds of defences against that).
Furthermore, the above scenario assumes a small, core set of copyrighted IP. However, as we know, corps also merge into larger and larger entities, thus becoming more and more diversified. At some point, they become impossible to kill because they have innumerable, perpetual revenue streams.
Now of course, this all just theoretical clean-room navel gazing, but self-sustaining feedback is cool.
Oh, I know it's a memory problem. Only 256M. I just joined the development team on this project and they re-puposed an older machine (still P4 1.8, or something) for me. Apparently I'm scheduled for an upgrade to 1G in the next couple of weeks, but until then, it's hellish.
The solution is pretty big. A rebuild-all takes about 20 minutes under the current scheme. The disk just thrashes as the system looks for swap-space.
Ah well. That's life.
Introduction to 64-bit computing
/wishes he had exa-bytes of memory right now... VS.NET on WinXP is a PIG!
There's an informative link at the bottom of the article for those requiring a bit more insight into the effect of 64-bit computing.
You know it's funny, but I more or less typed out exactly what you said. Then I deleted it and went with what I actually posted. In short though, I do agree that it doesn't get any simpler than that.
They are not designed to kill. They are designed to enable humans to kill with greater ease.
If guns were designed with some sort of AI that automatically aquires hostile targets and is directd to use lethal force against them, then yes, I would then say guns would be designed to kill.
I agree that the intent of Univesity is to teach people how to learn, and then perhaps to be able to teach others how to learn. However, I would say that in practice, they fall far short of the mark. I work with enough University educated fools to know this.
Furthermore, I've found it quite obvious that individuals who are predisposed to learn how to learn, will do so regardless of whether or not they went to University. Of course, this is a self-referential comment, but it is also a general observation that regardless off education type, learners will always be learners. Perhaps Universities help transform people who are on the cusp, but I do not believe that they can create them whole cloth and in fact I believe that they can have a very negative effect on those who are already well beyond what most Univesities can offer in terms of learning skills.
Now, back to the thread topic... I do believe that a program such as what is offered by Northface can be very beneficial to the right type of people, namely those who are natural learners who will round out their knowledge regardless of circumstance. Unfortunately, it will also attract many who are not of this type and thus has the potential to create yet more hyper-specialized, completely inflexible, educate idiots of which there were so many in the dotcom boom times, and that helped hasten the dotcom crash. I'd really like to avoid both situations once again.