I'm so sorry, but your analysis amounts to nothing much more than ad hominem attacks on the author.
Firstly, do you really believe that it is possible to make any use of Knuth's work "without having ever taken one college class"? You contradict yourself in that you simultaneously indict the "monkeys" who are under qualified to be programmers, yet you then denigrate the very education system which endeavors to produce that same talent. It is, of course, arguable that coding skills are obtained through real world experience, not in college. However, the fundamental theoretical skills necessary to excel in such are obtained in college. Unless you are some kind of natural-born genius, you need to be taught how to think logically, iteratively, and symbolically. That is the reason you were forced to do so much integration et. al. You use those skills all the time; the fact that you don't recognize it is testament to the success of your higher education, not the failure of it.
As to your other retorts: phenomena such as CDEs, component factories, and other productivity gains are real. You dismiss them as binary "works or don't work". This misses the point. Software is a science as much as a trade, and it is evolving, sometimes in revolutionary fits and starts, but mostly slowly and quietly. Of course there are flaws with EJBs, etc. But the fact that they exist at all, and are improving, and even being evolved out of relevance as better solutions are crafted tells the story. The real world, which you so brazenly invoke, lies somewhere between 0 and 1.
[...]as Nazism was an outgrowth of socialism combined with nationalism. [...] It is worth noting that the full name of the Nazi party was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party."
This is a misrepresentation of the history of the National Socialist German Worker's Party. The inclusion of "Socialist" (Sozialist) in the party's name is a classic example of political Machiavellian tactics. Himmler sought to use the party's name as a mechanism to exploit the often uneducated, highly nationalistic, industrial workers. The party itself specifically sought to discredit and oppose the rise of Socialism and the various, largely un-unified, Socialist movements.
Your connection between Nazi-ism and Socialism is explicitly flawed, misleading, and dishonest. Please either educate yourself more fully on the subject.
I have never got along with the whole object-oriented thing anyway -- I'd rather tell the computer how to process the data, than tell the data how to let the computer process it.
And to think, I've spent all this time working with object paradigms and it was all so easy. I guess the fact that Java is the end result of CLOS, ADA, Actor, Smalltalk, and C++ (among others), along with over three decades of methodology evolution, is irrelevant since I could just 'do it in assembler'.
Are you sure you're not ESR using an alias to agree with yourself?
I wish it were that ESR was unique amongst the./ population. But the sad truth here is that an ever so small percentage of/.er folk understand even the most basic of economics, accounting, or finance. I know this is a geek forum, but come on guys, pick up a basic "Business for Dummies" book or go take BUS101 at your local community college.
You really need to know why the $ price of your options, in and of itself, is irrelevant without knowing the market cap, the exercise price, the iso-qual status, and the post tax impact.
The point is simply that markets are dynamic, including the one which creates the demand for your own professional skills. You can, of course, choose to ride the value curve down. You can even choose to move to a new curve/career altogether. These are qualitative life choices.
But the original thread was arguing for maintence of salary/value. In order to do this, one must adapt to the market in which they locate themselves. This phenom is exagerrated in areas of high technology. I am simply arguing that the professional must continually distinguish themselves, be it technically or otherwise, or else they are simply more expensive than younger counterparts who often have equivalent or greater skills.
Note, I generally agree with your conclusions. However, just to strengthen that position, it is important to point out a few errors:
Point (1) US Software companies do tend to exist in *relatively* higher cost of living zones. This has more to do with the fact that innovative business industries, be it biotech, software, defense, etc., are necessarily located in large urban centers within close proximity to appropriate research-oriented universities.
Point (4) your conclusion is false. Outsourcing from Santa Clara, CA to New Vienna, OH is not equivalent to outsourcing to Mumbai India. Mumbai enjoys the same advantages as stated in Point (1), only at a proportional cost advantage. Note that, within India (or any other foreign geography for that matter), the same dynamics as listed in Point 1 are at work, *relative to that country*.
Point (5) you assume that the sole reason for choosing a city/region/state of residence within the US is economic. Although a leading reason, it is not the only, or even the top reason. The top ranking reasons are consistently measured to be family, "hometown" (birthplace), and marriage.
Further problem with Point (5) is that the US has a very efficient capital market which serves to rapidly erode cost of living advantages. That is, any movement of jobs from Silicon Valley to the Midwest almost immediately results in respective adjustments of the costs of living in those areas. The same dynamic is not present between foreign countries, at least not directly and immediately, for many reasons including inefficiency of capital flow.
Stating that software companies "caused their own problem" [sic] is not enlightening or factual. In fact, this statement is almost so vague as to be useless.
Interest rates are very irrelevant to this argument, unless you wish to make a complicate argument about currency cross rates, balance of debt, and convertibility. You state that value is not equal to price regarding real estate. If this were true, then you could instantly profit by exploiting the difference. Of course, price is the value the market places on the house, so your conclusion is false. Further, as housing prices are regionally driven markets, the *regional house price* is already adjusted for the demand in any area irrespective of interest rates.
The problems with foreign outsourcing--or rather offshoring--are complex, both economically and politically. What I generally explain is the difference in *advantage*. Previously, say from the 1960s through the mid 1990s, foreign markets to which the US offshored (permanently relocated) jobs enjoyed a *comparative advantage*. This simply means that, while perhaps cheaper, the benefit of relocating jobs from the US to the foreign market was only a relative advantage. Although a large percentage of US manufacturing jobs shifted outside our borders, the US benefited from resource reallocation, productivity increases, and innovative advances.
Since the 1990s the advantages have become *absolute advantages*. This is primarily fueled by the massive increases in the efficiencies of global capital markets. Remember that prior to 1989, China was largely a closed capital market, India was a closed consumer market, and the world's third largest trading block heavily restricted its trade with the first and second largest (USSR+, USA, EC). In the subsequent decade we saw the explosion of freely flowing global capital. The net result, in the present, is that emerging markets, once they develop relatively comparative education systems, technology/knowledge labor, and domestic markets which reward innovation, they move from *comparative advantage* to *absolute advantage* status.
It is not possible to compete with a market that enjoys an *absolute advantage*. Of course, there are extrapolative economic arguments that 'all will balance out in the end'. This is flawed, however, as it naively ignores the fact that, even if global capital markets are nearly perfect in efficiency, polit
I couldn't agree more. This has been a peeve of mine all throughout 'the boom'. Too many wannabees who claimed they were "Programmers", "Engineers", "Consultants", etc. when in fact they were tuba players who read a book on How-To-In-21-Days. The ambitious ones actually attended a pay-for course and got a certificate or something equally as unimpressive.
There are jobs for outstanding professionals, with credentials, degrees, and accomplishments. And, isn't that how it's really supposed to work? Just because you say Java on your resume doesn't mean you're entitled to $100K+ a year.
Myself, I'm actually going back to get a MSE (which I'll be 40 by the time if finish, lol), just to solidify my place in the future. I don't need this credential; I already command well in excess of six figures with my experience, but I know that life is not a static model.
I graduated almost 15 years *ago* (1990) with a BS in MIS and made a starting salary of $30K, in Ohio, back then. I know for a fact that CSE, CS, IS, etc. grads are earning in the $40K-$50K starting range with large corporates or large consulting firms in IL, MI, OH, IN, PA today. And, they are underpaid in my opinion.
The problem is the competition for those jobs is fierce. An average undergrad from an average school is at a disadvantage, but an ambitious undergrad from a reasonable school who's exhibited accomplishment (internship, coop, outstanding recognition) will get hired.
You, with 15 years experience, may be at a disadvantage compared with the new crop of kids. I would tend not hire you, even for the same salary, everything else being equal. I want an entry-level person to do an entry-level job. I consider someone with 15 years experience only for senior technical or management positions; and those are few and competitive. For that, again, you have to have a solid accomplishment history on your resume (articles published, major projects with recognized firms, MSE, MSCS, MBA, etc.) to get my attention. I wouldn't hire a 38 year old who just sat in their cube for the past 15 years.
This comment was ranked "Insightful"? [deleted...a long, detailed demonstration in global trade history (refer to my previous comments on this topic for a remedial education)].
Please, I beg of you, review some basic facts regarding net flows of international capital before making such statements. When, exactly, has the global economy been fair to the US, in real terms of net capital flow and relative quantitatively measured trade barriers? I think, my friend, you'll find with some remedial research that the US in fact subsidizes much of the global economy both directly and indirectly.
You can send my job to India, with my blessings, the second you are willing to create a truly level playing field. And I'm talking *truly level*, rules, protections, rights, lawyers, and all. 'Cost of Labor' is not the holy grail of commerce. Were it so, then the other side would have won the US Civil War.
The knees jerk so fast on/. whenever Java is mentioned, in any context, that I'm surprised someone doesn't have their eye put out.
Of course there exist myriad reasons why one would prefer to standardize on a common language for DB SPs. Java, in this regard, is the most mature alternative at present. Even the notoriously skeptical Thomas Kyte and the pontificating Steven Feuerstein see the validity of Java in the database at the SP level.
Of course, *we* can all keep fighting amongst ourselves about such things while Visual Basic and C(flat) become the only languages we have to chose from for everything we endeavor to do.
Great. I'm just curious: how long did it take you to replicate/rewrite/hack Tivo's dynamically updated program guide? After all, the real value-add of Tivo is the manner in which I can program it to automatically record my programs with only minimal intervention on my part.
If you accomplished this for under $150, then you are indeed a genious.
Great debate! I am encouraged [for once] at the level of discourse we engaged in here. The past year or so I have become increasingly apathetic about the/. community. Perhaps my cynicism is unfounded. Thanks for the link.
I agree entirely. Where I disagree with you is that I believe that the "piles of steaming horse dung" are a necessary component in the entire process of innovation. Myself, I prefer the money and lifestyle to be had in the "real-world". But, if not for the academics and all their follies, I do not believe I would enjoy the perhaps skewed life I am so fortunate to lead.
>> detailed requirement specifications are >> difficult to arrive at largely due to >> their importance
>Hm. So they are important because they're hard >to get? By that argument, wouldn't pink >elephants be even more important to the project?
I was merely intending to imply the intrinsic difficulty obtaining upfront specifications bespeaks their complexity. Gathering requirements and factoring specifications for a complex problem domain is a difficult process. I'm sorry if this appears to me a truism. My point is that, because it is hard, it is not without value, rather it hints at the contrary. Example: Pet Rock--not hard to gather specs, also not important; Space Shuttle--very difficult to gather specs, but paramount.
>> for example Schaler-Mellor, present a far >> more rational mechanism
>I accept that this is your opinion, but it'd be >more interesting if you were able to support it.
Sorry if my typo threw you. Google search "shlaer mellor" for any number of resources that might be of use educating you. I am not a Shlaer/Mellor expert, but I have implemented projects using Shlaer, Booch, Unified, SDLC, Method/1, and XP, and I have extensively studied all those methods. Rather than suggesting that I provide evidence for you, which requires your understanding of alternatives to evaluate, I recommend the converse. Remember, the burden is not upon me to prove the negative.
>> are in fact typically comprised of over 90% >> static structure, with a very small >> amount of true variability.
>That begs the question of how we discern those >requirements, and how we (and our code) react >to them when they change.
It begs nothing. By reducing the dynamic problem domain by perhaps up to nine-tenths, the amount of truly invented code which must be produced is reduced proportionately. I won't go into information theory proofs to support everything, but I trust you are familar with the notion that the more variable/complex a system, the more error prone.
Further, you seem to equate a "changing requirement" to a dynamic system component.
>What do you regard as the core problem?
Just that; XP fails to discern the value of engineering process by every crying about changing business function. Of course business function changes, but that does not mean it's dynamic, or that it needs to be coded at all.
>> Although true genius is not necessary to >> conduct solid analysis and design, >> properly schooled education, and >> patiently earned experience are.
>How useful is that upfront "solid analysis and >design" when faced with changing requirements >and implementation details? Does it end up >sitting on the shelf in large white binders? If >so, was it worth the cost?
Firstly, my binders were never white. More importantly, your argument is ultimately circular. The end reduction of that argument is that a business should never implement a system because they can never endevour to document/specify their process. Perhaps the issue with such fickle business is not its approach to developing systems at all?
>> the pervasive lack of solid talent in the >> areas of system architecture, analysis, >> design and engineering
>These skills are important - so important, in >fact, that every developer should continually >develop and refine them. Which is what XP >encourages. Design, architecture, analysis - >all of these are continually examined on an XP >project.
Your turn to provide the evidence on that one. I've read at least three XP tomes, and aside from superficial treatment of the subject, I fail to recall where this is the case.
>> the entire XP cult
>Tsk tsk!
Sometimes, it is necessary to call things out for what they are. I could have said fad, en-vogue style
>Just out of curiosity - when was the last time you saw any "university academic" contribute anything that was useful in the real world?
Of course, that is pure bait. I am not an academic, however, like anyone else in technology, I make use of myriad academic contributions on a daily basis. You surely don't believe that the existing telecom/datacom infrastructure, for example, evolved as some XP hack, do you? Where did the browser itself come from? Microsoft? Netscape?
>What about the planning game? What about user stories? Read this for better information on XP requirements gathering.
The prima facia error in the XP "methodology" insofar as requirements gathering is an assumption of accepting that specifications cannot, or should not be fully described. An equally valid argument is that detailed requirement specifications are difficult to arrive at largely due to their importance as to the quality of the system which will be the outcome of the project.
>Instead, you and the customer work together to develop a system that meets the customer's ever-changing requirements.
Again, it is the failure to determine a set of governing rules--whether algorithmic or heuristic--that results in "ever-changing requirements". A number of great methodologies, for example Schaler-Mellor, present a far more rational mechanism for factoring out dynamic components of business process. It is surprising to find that, in nearly all cases, the "ever-changing" dynamic nature the customer thinks defines their problems are in fact typically comprised of over 90% static structure, with a very small amount of true variability.
What XP does, in essence, is treat the symptoms, not the core problem.
>That's the beauty of XP - it assumes that we aren't geniuses and thus we use unit tests, refactoring, pair programming to keep the code under control.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Although true genius is not necessary to conduct solid analysis and design, properly schooled education, and patiently earned experience are. Put more simply, the answer to the pervasive lack of solid talent in the areas of system architecture, analysis, design and engineering is to cultivate more of it, not to race to the lowest common denominator, which is exactly what XP encourages.
FYI: I saw Kent speak in Erfurt, Germany last year. It was very gratifying to see just how wholly without merit the entire XP cult proved to be when faced with the scrutiny of university academics and industry scientists who spend their entire careers developing better means and methods.
I hate feeling compelled at being the oft lone curmudgeon here, but there's a fundamental flaw with your reasoning. "Shield" laws are made by states, and thusly superseded by federal subpoenas in federal jurisdiction cases. The reason much of this Patriot Act stuff is so disconcerting is because it federalizes just about anything deemed "National Security". There exists myriad precedent for compelling journalists or others to provide "anonymous sources" or other protected data when ordered to do so by a federal court. In fact, this is the reason that the mafia enlisted attorneys so widely in all mundane activities so they could claim client-attorney privilege, which is one of the few truly protected shields under federal law. Even that shield is threatened by the Patriot Act, as demonstrated by the uproar at the last Bar Association meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Greenspun, for [yet again] confirming my decision so many years ago in which I elected to respectfully decline an invitation to MIT. As a contemporary, I am appalled at what seems to pass for academic discourse in our vaunted institutions today. You obviously have, at best, a naive, neophyte's understanding of Java's higher design principles. Of course, no object-based language is flawless, however, Java strikes a reasonable balance between the theoretical and the pragmatic. Further, every single specific point you raise about Java's shortcomings further reveals your 'real-world' ignorance.
I take Mr. Greenspun's utterances as the best unpaid advertising for this nation's many great public state universities and their oft superior computer science education.
Although I agree, in principle, that what Verisign has done with SiteFinder (and other) services is a general diservice to the Internet, I fear this is only the beginning. The Internet is becoming, as we all knew it would, a public media. Now I know every geek reading that last sentence immediately reacts 'it is a public media, dufus'.
But wait, I mean big-P Public. The folks who watch Joe Millionaire Public. The folks who think that Iraq caused Sept. 11, and further think that Iraq is located next to Ireland, Public. This is where the Internet is headed.
And to this subject, what does that mean? It means that they don't want an error message if they mistype a URL. A handy search page with advertisements on it gives Joe Q Public a warm feeling that someone is taking care of things.
Look for this, and other wonderful standardizations in the future....now back to your normally scheduled geek-wringing-of-hands ranting...
(if you don't like this outcome, then think Education; we reap what we sow)
I wish that the metamoderating actually worked, and this had been marked as flamebait/troll, where it belongs.
A) You have clearly little to no understanding of Java. A few JDK/Swing app(let)s does not qualify you to speak with authority.
B) Java is widespread within the server side of myriad Enterprise applications.
C) Performance is not purely the result of any language's technology. Java enables a level of design-driven efficiency to well architected/designed applications.
D) Antidoctal: Our company has a number of massive, high performance, mission critical telecom enterprise applications all of which are pure Java J2EE, WebSphere, Struts, etc. They outperform anything on the market in our domain space, and our competitors are based on everything from.NET/VB to PERL/hacky stuff to C++/C-S to even older Cobol/Assembler.
Why was this comment not flagged as flamebait? Is the whole meta-moderation thing working anymore?
For the record, hurling a bunch of anecdotal references about subjective measures of productivity with a swagger and agressive bullying does not an insightful comment make.
You, sir, can go live in your mythical land of utopian libertarianism. One only hopes that you are the happy recipient of your own pronouncements.
Optimistic cynicism is perhaps a good way to categorize this legislation. Likely, some type of "grand government spending" is going to happen over the next couple decades. The alternative is a spiral of deflation (which we once referred to as depression). Not to dwell on doom & gloom; I do not think a depression is coming for the very reason that the US has a large willingness to fund expansion at the cost of deficit.
Given that, we are going to spend an astronomical (pun intended) amount of money on something(s). I would far rather see it spent in an area that will produce scientific discovery and technological progress. I, for one, do not think that overspending on the military or dysfunctional infrastructure and institutions produces anything more than political results.
We will need, of course, to make many of these goals "manned missions". All the arguments that robotic exploration is superior are correct except for one all-important factor: politics. In order to motivate the public at large, and inspire a new generation of scientists, engineers, pilots and explorers, manned-missions are paramount.
>>>No, the H1-B visa allows for a grand total of 6 years only. (Believe me, I have first-hand experience...
Your anecdotal experiences aside, there is no rule/law that prevents indefinite extensions to H1-B visas. We employ one individual for whom our immigration attorney has just procured another H1-B extension. This gentleman has been in the US, on H1-B since 1988. He, like so many here, also started on a student visa in the mid 1980s. In fact, our immigration attorney often is able to entirely reset the "grand total" counter for visa holders through any one of numerous loopholes that exist in immigration law. One example loophole, which was recently closed, allowed for a H1-B visa holder to reset their residency by applying for the equivalent visa in Canada, then applying for a transfer of the Canadian visa back to the US, which is provided for by immigration law.
The behavior of our [actually our parent] corporation, like so many others, is the point of contention here. They are exploiting the H1-B visa holders, depressing salaries for residents--citizens and green card residents alike--and profiting from an intentional misuse of immigration law.
(By the way, there is in INS as a separate congressionally funded agency anymore. It was enveloped by the new DHS. This is actually quite a subtle, but important event, as direct administrative manipulation of immigration law is now much more complicated and politically loaded.)
>>>According to the CIA World Fact Book, India (just like the USA) is a net importer.
Yes, but the point is that the US has a bias towards fewer barriers and less protectionism. India has the opposite bias. This largely yields a flow of wealth into India from the US.
1) India's rules regarding temproary work visas are *significantly* different than in the US or EU.
2) India is largely of a protectionist bias. India has the dubious distinction of receiving a very large number of WTO rules violtation charges.
3) US "H1-B" visas, and related visas, within the US afford much longer than 6 years residency. Our average "H1-B" visa employee has resided in the US for over 14 years. It is very common for "H1-B" visa holders to "reset" their qualification process for "Green Card" application numerous times as they change jobs.
4) Your understanding of how globalized markets work operate is so simplistic that it does not even deserve a USA-Today level of readership. Try applying a little more economic extrapolation to the subject than you learned in freshman economics.
Since the US is a net-importer, and India enjoys numerous protectionist barriers, there is a net flow of wealth from the US into India whereas global trade and commerce are concerned.
Nothing burns the biscuit more than psuedo-insightful statements which, upon closer examination, are really just political reactionims.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm so sorry, but your analysis amounts to nothing much more than ad hominem attacks on the author.
Firstly, do you really believe that it is possible to make any use of Knuth's work "without having ever taken one college class"? You contradict yourself in that you simultaneously indict the "monkeys" who are under qualified to be programmers, yet you then denigrate the very education system which endeavors to produce that same talent. It is, of course, arguable that coding skills are obtained through real world experience, not in college. However, the fundamental theoretical skills necessary to excel in such are obtained in college. Unless you are some kind of natural-born genius, you need to be taught how to think logically, iteratively, and symbolically. That is the reason you were forced to do so much integration et. al. You use those skills all the time; the fact that you don't recognize it is testament to the success of your higher education, not the failure of it.
As to your other retorts: phenomena such as CDEs, component factories, and other productivity gains are real. You dismiss them as binary "works or don't work". This misses the point. Software is a science as much as a trade, and it is evolving, sometimes in revolutionary fits and starts, but mostly slowly and quietly. Of course there are flaws with EJBs, etc. But the fact that they exist at all, and are improving, and even being evolved out of relevance as better solutions are crafted tells the story. The real world, which you so brazenly invoke, lies somewhere between 0 and 1.
Just for clarification:
[...]as Nazism was an outgrowth of socialism combined with nationalism. [...] It is worth noting that the full name of the Nazi party was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party."
This is a misrepresentation of the history of the National Socialist German Worker's Party. The inclusion of "Socialist" (Sozialist) in the party's name is a classic example of political Machiavellian tactics. Himmler sought to use the party's name as a mechanism to exploit the often uneducated, highly nationalistic, industrial workers. The party itself specifically sought to discredit and oppose the rise of Socialism and the various, largely un-unified, Socialist movements.
Your connection between Nazi-ism and Socialism is explicitly flawed, misleading, and dishonest. Please either educate yourself more fully on the subject.
I have never got along with the whole object-oriented thing anyway -- I'd rather tell the computer how to process the data, than tell the data how to let the computer process it.
And to think, I've spent all this time working with object paradigms and it was all so easy. I guess the fact that Java is the end result of CLOS, ADA, Actor, Smalltalk, and C++ (among others), along with over three decades of methodology evolution, is irrelevant since I could just 'do it in assembler'.
Are you sure you're not ESR using an alias to agree with yourself?
I wish it were that ESR was unique amongst the ./ population. But the sad truth here is that an ever so small percentage of /.er folk understand even the most basic of economics, accounting, or finance. I know this is a geek forum, but come on guys, pick up a basic "Business for Dummies" book or go take BUS101 at your local community college.
You really need to know why the $ price of your options, in and of itself, is irrelevant without knowing the market cap, the exercise price, the iso-qual status, and the post tax impact.
The point is simply that markets are dynamic, including the one which creates the demand for your own professional skills. You can, of course, choose to ride the value curve down. You can even choose to move to a new curve/career altogether. These are qualitative life choices.
But the original thread was arguing for maintence of salary/value. In order to do this, one must adapt to the market in which they locate themselves. This phenom is exagerrated in areas of high technology. I am simply arguing that the professional must continually distinguish themselves, be it technically or otherwise, or else they are simply more expensive than younger counterparts who often have equivalent or greater skills.
Of course, I simply state an unpopular truism.
Note, I generally agree with your conclusions. However, just to strengthen that position, it is important to point out a few errors:
Point (1) US Software companies do tend to exist in *relatively* higher cost of living zones. This has more to do with the fact that innovative business industries, be it biotech, software, defense, etc., are necessarily located in large urban centers within close proximity to appropriate research-oriented universities.
Point (4) your conclusion is false. Outsourcing from Santa Clara, CA to New Vienna, OH is not equivalent to outsourcing to Mumbai India. Mumbai enjoys the same advantages as stated in Point (1), only at a proportional cost advantage. Note that, within India (or any other foreign geography for that matter), the same dynamics as listed in Point 1 are at work, *relative to that country*.
Point (5) you assume that the sole reason for choosing a city/region/state of residence within the US is economic. Although a leading reason, it is not the only, or even the top reason. The top ranking reasons are consistently measured to be family, "hometown" (birthplace), and marriage.
Further problem with Point (5) is that the US has a very efficient capital market which serves to rapidly erode cost of living advantages. That is, any movement of jobs from Silicon Valley to the Midwest almost immediately results in respective adjustments of the costs of living in those areas. The same dynamic is not present between foreign countries, at least not directly and immediately, for many reasons including inefficiency of capital flow.
Stating that software companies "caused their own problem" [sic] is not enlightening or factual. In fact, this statement is almost so vague as to be useless.
Interest rates are very irrelevant to this argument, unless you wish to make a complicate argument about currency cross rates, balance of debt, and convertibility. You state that value is not equal to price regarding real estate. If this were true, then you could instantly profit by exploiting the difference. Of course, price is the value the market places on the house, so your conclusion is false. Further, as housing prices are regionally driven markets, the *regional house price* is already adjusted for the demand in any area irrespective of interest rates.
The problems with foreign outsourcing--or rather offshoring--are complex, both economically and politically. What I generally explain is the difference in *advantage*. Previously, say from the 1960s through the mid 1990s, foreign markets to which the US offshored (permanently relocated) jobs enjoyed a *comparative advantage*. This simply means that, while perhaps cheaper, the benefit of relocating jobs from the US to the foreign market was only a relative advantage. Although a large percentage of US manufacturing jobs shifted outside our borders, the US benefited from resource reallocation, productivity increases, and innovative advances.
Since the 1990s the advantages have become *absolute advantages*. This is primarily fueled by the massive increases in the efficiencies of global capital markets. Remember that prior to 1989, China was largely a closed capital market, India was a closed consumer market, and the world's third largest trading block heavily restricted its trade with the first and second largest (USSR+, USA, EC). In the subsequent decade we saw the explosion of freely flowing global capital. The net result, in the present, is that emerging markets, once they develop relatively comparative education systems, technology/knowledge labor, and domestic markets which reward innovation, they move from *comparative advantage* to *absolute advantage* status.
It is not possible to compete with a market that enjoys an *absolute advantage*. Of course, there are extrapolative economic arguments that 'all will balance out in the end'. This is flawed, however, as it naively ignores the fact that, even if global capital markets are nearly perfect in efficiency, polit
I couldn't agree more. This has been a peeve of mine all throughout 'the boom'. Too many wannabees who claimed they were "Programmers", "Engineers", "Consultants", etc. when in fact they were tuba players who read a book on How-To-In-21-Days. The ambitious ones actually attended a pay-for course and got a certificate or something equally as unimpressive.
There are jobs for outstanding professionals, with credentials, degrees, and accomplishments. And, isn't that how it's really supposed to work? Just because you say Java on your resume doesn't mean you're entitled to $100K+ a year.
Myself, I'm actually going back to get a MSE (which I'll be 40 by the time if finish, lol), just to solidify my place in the future. I don't need this credential; I already command well in excess of six figures with my experience, but I know that life is not a static model.
I graduated almost 15 years *ago* (1990) with a BS in MIS and made a starting salary of $30K, in Ohio, back then. I know for a fact that CSE, CS, IS, etc. grads are earning in the $40K-$50K starting range with large corporates or large consulting firms in IL, MI, OH, IN, PA today. And, they are underpaid in my opinion.
The problem is the competition for those jobs is fierce. An average undergrad from an average school is at a disadvantage, but an ambitious undergrad from a reasonable school who's exhibited accomplishment (internship, coop, outstanding recognition) will get hired.
You, with 15 years experience, may be at a disadvantage compared with the new crop of kids. I would tend not hire you, even for the same salary, everything else being equal. I want an entry-level person to do an entry-level job. I consider someone with 15 years experience only for senior technical or management positions; and those are few and competitive. For that, again, you have to have a solid accomplishment history on your resume (articles published, major projects with recognized firms, MSE, MSCS, MBA, etc.) to get my attention. I wouldn't hire a 38 year old who just sat in their cube for the past 15 years.
This comment was ranked "Insightful"? [deleted...a long, detailed demonstration in global trade history (refer to my previous comments on this topic for a remedial education)].
Please, I beg of you, review some basic facts regarding net flows of international capital before making such statements. When, exactly, has the global economy been fair to the US, in real terms of net capital flow and relative quantitatively measured trade barriers? I think, my friend, you'll find with some remedial research that the US in fact subsidizes much of the global economy both directly and indirectly.
You can send my job to India, with my blessings, the second you are willing to create a truly level playing field. And I'm talking *truly level*, rules, protections, rights, lawyers, and all. 'Cost of Labor' is not the holy grail of commerce. Were it so, then the other side would have won the US Civil War.
The knees jerk so fast on /. whenever Java is mentioned, in any context, that I'm surprised someone doesn't have their eye put out.
Of course there exist myriad reasons why one would prefer to standardize on a common language for DB SPs. Java, in this regard, is the most mature alternative at present. Even the notoriously skeptical Thomas Kyte and the pontificating Steven Feuerstein see the validity of Java in the database at the SP level.
Of course, *we* can all keep fighting amongst ourselves about such things while Visual Basic and C(flat) become the only languages we have to chose from for everything we endeavor to do.
Great. I'm just curious: how long did it take you to replicate/rewrite/hack Tivo's dynamically updated program guide? After all, the real value-add of Tivo is the manner in which I can program it to automatically record my programs with only minimal intervention on my part.
If you accomplished this for under $150, then you are indeed a genious.
Great debate! I am encouraged [for once] at the level of discourse we engaged in here. The past year or so I have become increasingly apathetic about the /. community. Perhaps my cynicism is unfounded. Thanks for the link.
I agree entirely. Where I disagree with you is that I believe that the "piles of steaming horse dung" are a necessary component in the entire process of innovation. Myself, I prefer the money and lifestyle to be had in the "real-world". But, if not for the academics and all their follies, I do not believe I would enjoy the perhaps skewed life I am so fortunate to lead.
>> detailed requirement specifications are
>> difficult to arrive at largely due to
>> their importance
>Hm. So they are important because they're hard >to get? By that argument, wouldn't pink >elephants be even more important to the project?
I was merely intending to imply the intrinsic difficulty obtaining upfront specifications bespeaks their complexity. Gathering requirements and factoring specifications for a complex problem domain is a difficult process. I'm sorry if this appears to me a truism. My point is that, because it is hard, it is not without value, rather it hints at the contrary. Example: Pet Rock--not hard to gather specs, also not important; Space Shuttle--very difficult to gather specs, but paramount.
>> for example Schaler-Mellor, present a far
>> more rational mechanism
>I accept that this is your opinion, but it'd be >more interesting if you were able to support it.
Sorry if my typo threw you. Google search "shlaer mellor" for any number of resources that might be of use educating you. I am not a Shlaer/Mellor expert, but I have implemented projects using Shlaer, Booch, Unified, SDLC, Method/1, and XP, and I have extensively studied all those methods. Rather than suggesting that I provide evidence for you, which requires your understanding of alternatives to evaluate, I recommend the converse. Remember, the burden is not upon me to prove the negative.
>> are in fact typically comprised of over 90%
>> static structure, with a very small
>> amount of true variability.
>That begs the question of how we discern those >requirements, and how we (and our code) react >to them when they change.
It begs nothing. By reducing the dynamic problem domain by perhaps up to nine-tenths, the amount of truly invented code which must be produced is reduced proportionately. I won't go into information theory proofs to support everything, but I trust you are familar with the notion that the more variable/complex a system, the more error prone.
Further, you seem to equate a "changing requirement" to a dynamic system component.
>What do you regard as the core problem?
Just that; XP fails to discern the value of engineering process by every crying about changing business function. Of course business function changes, but that does not mean it's dynamic, or that it needs to be coded at all.
>> Although true genius is not necessary to
>> conduct solid analysis and design,
>> properly schooled education, and
>> patiently earned experience are.
>How useful is that upfront "solid analysis and
>design" when faced with changing requirements
>and implementation details? Does it end up
>sitting on the shelf in large white binders? If
>so, was it worth the cost?
Firstly, my binders were never white. More importantly, your argument is ultimately circular. The end reduction of that argument is that a business should never implement a system because they can never endevour to document/specify their process. Perhaps the issue with such fickle business is not its approach to developing systems at all?
>> the pervasive lack of solid talent in the
>> areas of system architecture, analysis,
>> design and engineering
>These skills are important - so important, in
>fact, that every developer should continually
>develop and refine them. Which is what XP
>encourages. Design, architecture, analysis -
>all of these are continually examined on an XP
>project.
Your turn to provide the evidence on that one. I've read at least three XP tomes, and aside from superficial treatment of the subject, I fail to recall where this is the case.
>> the entire XP cult
>Tsk tsk!
Sometimes, it is necessary to call things out for what they are. I could have said fad, en-vogue style
>Just out of curiosity - when was the last time you saw any "university academic" contribute anything that was useful in the real world?
Of course, that is pure bait. I am not an academic, however, like anyone else in technology, I make use of myriad academic contributions on a daily basis. You surely don't believe that the existing telecom/datacom infrastructure, for example, evolved as some XP hack, do you? Where did the browser itself come from? Microsoft? Netscape?
>What about the planning game? What about user stories? Read this for better information on XP requirements gathering.
The prima facia error in the XP "methodology" insofar as requirements gathering is an assumption of accepting that specifications cannot, or should not be fully described. An equally valid argument is that detailed requirement specifications are difficult to arrive at largely due to their importance as to the quality of the system which will be the outcome of the project.
>Instead, you and the customer work together to develop a system that meets the customer's ever-changing requirements.
Again, it is the failure to determine a set of governing rules--whether algorithmic or heuristic--that results in "ever-changing requirements". A number of great methodologies, for example Schaler-Mellor, present a far more rational mechanism for factoring out dynamic components of business process. It is surprising to find that, in nearly all cases, the "ever-changing" dynamic nature the customer thinks defines their problems are in fact typically comprised of over 90% static structure, with a very small amount of true variability.
What XP does, in essence, is treat the symptoms, not the core problem.
>That's the beauty of XP - it assumes that we aren't geniuses and thus we use unit tests, refactoring, pair programming to keep the code under control.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Although true genius is not necessary to conduct solid analysis and design, properly schooled education, and patiently earned experience are. Put more simply, the answer to the pervasive lack of solid talent in the areas of system architecture, analysis, design and engineering is to cultivate more of it, not to race to the lowest common denominator, which is exactly what XP encourages.
FYI: I saw Kent speak in Erfurt, Germany last year. It was very gratifying to see just how wholly without merit the entire XP cult proved to be when faced with the scrutiny of university academics and industry scientists who spend their entire careers developing better means and methods.
I hate feeling compelled at being the oft lone curmudgeon here, but there's a fundamental flaw with your reasoning. "Shield" laws are made by states, and thusly superseded by federal subpoenas in federal jurisdiction cases. The reason much of this Patriot Act stuff is so disconcerting is because it federalizes just about anything deemed "National Security". There exists myriad precedent for compelling journalists or others to provide "anonymous sources" or other protected data when ordered to do so by a federal court. In fact, this is the reason that the mafia enlisted attorneys so widely in all mundane activities so they could claim client-attorney privilege, which is one of the few truly protected shields under federal law. Even that shield is threatened by the Patriot Act, as demonstrated by the uproar at the last Bar Association meeting.
...and his subject header is not? I am guilty of being hooked by a troll, as all of Mr. Greenspun's articles ultimately are, not starting one.
Thank you, Mr. Greenspun, for [yet again] confirming my decision so many years ago in which I elected to respectfully decline an invitation to MIT. As a contemporary, I am appalled at what seems to pass for academic discourse in our vaunted institutions today. You obviously have, at best, a naive, neophyte's understanding of Java's higher design principles. Of course, no object-based language is flawless, however, Java strikes a reasonable balance between the theoretical and the pragmatic. Further, every single specific point you raise about Java's shortcomings further reveals your 'real-world' ignorance.
I take Mr. Greenspun's utterances as the best unpaid advertising for this nation's many great public state universities and their oft superior computer science education.
Although I agree, in principle, that what Verisign has done with SiteFinder (and other) services is a general diservice to the Internet, I fear this is only the beginning. The Internet is becoming, as we all knew it would, a public media. Now I know every geek reading that last sentence immediately reacts 'it is a public media, dufus'.
...now back to your normally scheduled geek-wringing-of-hands ranting...
But wait, I mean big-P Public. The folks who watch Joe Millionaire Public. The folks who think that Iraq caused Sept. 11, and further think that Iraq is located next to Ireland, Public. This is where the Internet is headed.
And to this subject, what does that mean? It means that they don't want an error message if they mistype a URL. A handy search page with advertisements on it gives Joe Q Public a warm feeling that someone is taking care of things.
Look for this, and other wonderful standardizations in the future.
(if you don't like this outcome, then think Education; we reap what we sow)
I wish that the metamoderating actually worked, and this had been marked as flamebait/troll, where it belongs.
.NET/VB to PERL/hacky stuff to C++/C-S to even older Cobol/Assembler.
A) You have clearly little to no understanding of Java. A few JDK/Swing app(let)s does not qualify you to speak with authority.
B) Java is widespread within the server side of myriad Enterprise applications.
C) Performance is not purely the result of any language's technology. Java enables a level of design-driven efficiency to well architected/designed applications.
D) Antidoctal: Our company has a number of massive, high performance, mission critical telecom enterprise applications all of which are pure Java J2EE, WebSphere, Struts, etc. They outperform anything on the market in our domain space, and our competitors are based on everything from
Why was this comment not flagged as flamebait? Is the whole meta-moderation thing working anymore?
For the record, hurling a bunch of anecdotal references about subjective measures of productivity with a swagger and agressive bullying does not an insightful comment make.
You, sir, can go live in your mythical land of utopian libertarianism. One only hopes that you are the happy recipient of your own pronouncements.
Optimistic cynicism is perhaps a good way to categorize this legislation. Likely, some type of "grand government spending" is going to happen over the next couple decades. The alternative is a spiral of deflation (which we once referred to as depression). Not to dwell on doom & gloom; I do not think a depression is coming for the very reason that the US has a large willingness to fund expansion at the cost of deficit.
Given that, we are going to spend an astronomical (pun intended) amount of money on something(s). I would far rather see it spent in an area that will produce scientific discovery and technological progress. I, for one, do not think that overspending on the military or dysfunctional infrastructure and institutions produces anything more than political results.
We will need, of course, to make many of these goals "manned missions". All the arguments that robotic exploration is superior are correct except for one all-important factor: politics. In order to motivate the public at large, and inspire a new generation of scientists, engineers, pilots and explorers, manned-missions are paramount.
>>>No, the H1-B visa allows for a grand total of 6 years only. (Believe me, I have first-hand experience...
Your anecdotal experiences aside, there is no rule/law that prevents indefinite extensions to H1-B visas. We employ one individual for whom our immigration attorney has just procured another H1-B extension. This gentleman has been in the US, on H1-B since 1988. He, like so many here, also started on a student visa in the mid 1980s. In fact, our immigration attorney often is able to entirely reset the "grand total" counter for visa holders through any one of numerous loopholes that exist in immigration law. One example loophole, which was recently closed, allowed for a H1-B visa holder to reset their residency by applying for the equivalent visa in Canada, then applying for a transfer of the Canadian visa back to the US, which is provided for by immigration law.
The behavior of our [actually our parent] corporation, like so many others, is the point of contention here. They are exploiting the H1-B visa holders, depressing salaries for residents--citizens and green card residents alike--and profiting from an intentional misuse of immigration law.
(By the way, there is in INS as a separate congressionally funded agency anymore. It was enveloped by the new DHS. This is actually quite a subtle, but important event, as direct administrative manipulation of immigration law is now much more complicated and politically loaded.)
>>>According to the CIA World Fact Book, India (just like the USA) is a net importer.
Yes, but the point is that the US has a bias towards fewer barriers and less protectionism. India has the opposite bias. This largely yields a flow of wealth into India from the US.
I cannnot allow this to pass unchallenged.
1) India's rules regarding temproary work visas are *significantly* different than in the US or EU.
2) India is largely of a protectionist bias. India has the dubious distinction of receiving a very large number of WTO rules violtation charges.
3) US "H1-B" visas, and related visas, within the US afford much longer than 6 years residency. Our average "H1-B" visa employee has resided in the US for over 14 years. It is very common for "H1-B" visa holders to "reset" their qualification process for "Green Card" application numerous times as they change jobs.
4) Your understanding of how globalized markets work operate is so simplistic that it does not even deserve a USA-Today level of readership. Try applying a little more economic extrapolation to the subject than you learned in freshman economics.
Since the US is a net-importer, and India enjoys numerous protectionist barriers, there is a net flow of wealth from the US into India whereas global trade and commerce are concerned.
Nothing burns the biscuit more than psuedo-insightful statements which, upon closer examination, are really just political reactionims.