Well, the firebird was one of the previous names of Firefox, and they changed it to avoid confusion with this very database. Guess it didn't work on you:)
C#3 (and equivalent versions in VB, etc), etc, will introduce LINQ, not.NET 3, unfortunately..NET 3 is already out (Windows Workflow Foundation,::DROOLS:: ), but LINQ is still little more than a CTP.
You, sir, are an idiot. Pointing someone's "race", when it is obvious from physical traits, in an attempt to set the scene, has nothing to do with racism. Unless you think I'm doing discrimination if I say "I say this blond guy on the street the other day...".
Oh crap. Is the OP sexist too? Since he mentionned it was a dude, thus refering to the person's gender? Call the cops!
Because even as it is, the price of the PS3 is 80% of the reason its reputation went to hell. Sony sucks, but it doesn't suck that bad. The PS3 doesn't look so good, but it doesn't look that horrible. The Wii looks great, but it doesn't look -that- great (these are all relatively speaking, I'm losing sleep at the thought of a Wii!).
But the pricing of the PS3 made everyone flip out. Can you imagine if they had charged more? They might as well sellout rather than do that. It sucks, but thats the way marketing works.
This bring something interesting. While CS programs usualy justify the way they teach thing in a "technology neutral" manner, that is, the language/platform shouldn't matter, invariably, because of the different cultures behind different environments, it affects it a lot.
For example, for what the parent said about C++/Python. If you look at a university program where most teachers show stuff like ML, raw C, C++, etc, you tend not to see them show testing so much. CS programs where a lot of classes are taught in java (especialy later ones), almost always have extensive examples of JUnit usage.
The cultural (culture as in which technologies they are familiar with) background of those who make the school programs affect this a lot more than what they'd like to admit. It might seem obvious, but it doesn't seem obvious to -them-.
I agree, definately. A huge problem right now, is that -schools- don't even agree on what CS is. So you have schools in camp 1, schools in camp 2, and some everywhere in between.
Thus, employers have to resort to all sorts of tests and experience requirements while recruiting, and (especialy in the case of companies not specialised in IT) it just generaly cause a lot of confusion. Splitting the two would solve a lot of these issues.
Indeed. Well, obviously no amount of classes will make someone straight out of school a senior developer. The idea is that CS programs claim to give the students the "basics" of everything so they can go on their own, yet fail to give them the basics of the software development cycle... Just an analysis/development/testing/deployement cycle is enough. (I have work on multi-year/hundreds of users projects where profiling was kept at a bare minimum... we would analyse SQL queries and thats about it, because performance wasn't an issue, AND CS programs tend to -overdo- the whole optimisation thing, students don't need more, but thats just a side thing).
More likely than not, someone out of school probably won't even touch more than the code given to them bya project manager, at first. The goal of these classes would only be to introduce them to what -OTHERS-around them do, so that they can understand better how to plug their code in the cycle, and be able to pick up the rest of the "real world" faster.
In other words, anything so that students aren't surprised when they realise the actual coding is an insignificant part of software development, is good enough in my book.
If the app is small enough, and the class has enough credits to it to give it some time, 3 months is plenty. Setting up, let say, a small E-Commerce web site, with an analysis, development, testing, deployement, and a bit of in between, should fit in a semester.
Otherwise, split it in two, and have one semester just for the modelisation and approval part, and another for the actual development/testing/deployement.
Thats true. When you try to look for a job in a serious company, they ask for basicaly exactly what you mentionned, so I'll quote instead of copy pasting:
Such a course should include a study of development methodologies, requirements analysis, basic OO, user interface, and database schema design, source control system, basic project management, UML diagrams, etc.
design patterns, unit testing, software architecture, and refactoring
This 2 sets of elements are asked for just about any job worth taking. I do not, however, ever remember any employer asking me to sit down and write a quick sort (since in most newer environments, its probably coded for you somewhere, and its good enough for 90% of the scenarios. For the last 10%, there's google).
Actualy. If you just add one (any!) programming language to your list, you have an almost textual "typical" job advert.
Yes, there is. It is getting critical, in my opinion. Too many colleges/university totally omit teaching at least the basics of the development cycle and integration, thus, you end up with students that are skilled enough to code an operating system kernel, yet have no clue how to deal with a development flow.
From my (albeit short) experience in human ressources for IT firms ( am a software developer, but I worked for several small companies, so I had to extend my reach a bit) is that this is the biggest reason why, when you're looking for a job, most places tend to require significant real world experience to even consider someone: They are used to the fact that, in general, a student fresh out of school is not very useful in a software development environment (where, unless the company deals a lot with R&D, most of the code is trivial, it is just a matter of integrating the ideas right).
1 or two classes dealing with it could give an incredible jump start for graduates on the job market, once the employers catch on on it.
You want a sound that people will love the first time they hear it, but it's a paradox to also say, 'Oh and by the way, we need people to love it the tenth, or the hundredth, or the thousandth time they hear it,' Ball said."
Just make the sound be an autogenerated one, with a person that says something like:
"Thank you for using Windows Vista. We appreciate it so much, that you can call us, and provider the following code to get 15$ check mailed in to you! ", and the the sound says the voice.
I can swear to you people will love it the thousandth time they hear it. Your bottom line might not, though.
Good luck finding any cure for anything even remotly related to female anatomy.
"Hi miss. I currently can't help you diagnose your symptoms right now, as I left my credit card at home and its required to validate that I am old enough to access my.....references...."
Im not quite sure what Microsoft would have to gain from having an implementation of.NET on Linux... Considering Microsoft sells most of the.NEt related tools at a loss compared to its R&D from the articles I saw, and give a large portion of them away, it seems fairly obvious that the only reason for.NET's existance is to sell Windows Servers and SQL Servers, which in turn sells desktop, that in turn sell office, that in turn...you get the drill.
Having an implementation of.NET would be counter productive toward that goal, IMO. Its a bit like how if Microsoft made Direct X for Linux. That would be totally retarded from a business point of view, since a large portion of Windows licenses are sold for gaming alone.
Might be just my area, but I have roughly equal seniority in PHP and in.NET, both being as visible on my resume, and I get contacted for ASP.NET applications about 20 to 1 compared to PHP. It is -highly- possible its just my area... I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of -current- companies running PHP were higher. But the amount of -openings- seem significantly lower. And at first glance (though I have significant java experience, it is a bit old to be quite as relevent, thus I don't get called for that much), Java is still slightly more popular than.NET in terms of openings. Or at least it was until last monday (.NET 3)
Meh, you know, same old same old. I remember 6 years ago we were told "Finally, this is it, the year where Linux is ready to take on the desktop!". And so on every other year. Wake me up when Linux has more marketshare than Apple on the desktop.
Careful, you left yourself open to the typical "all the zombie networks affect me, so I don't want to see anyone using Windows, EVER!" deal. Not that I think its a smart reply, but sooner or later some zealot would have pulled it on you, so might as well be now.
Well, the ADO.NET model was fairly bad, asynchroneous execution support was poor, no generic, no nullable types, VB.NET didn't support automatic documentation. The framework's architecture assumed a lot of generated code, but without a good way to deal with it (partial classes). Lack of 2 way databinding, making all the RAD-like features 95% useless in corporate environments. And so on and so on. A lot of the architecture of the API was also remenecent (spelling?) of the old Microsoft-style MFC/VB6, keeping the same weaknesses. A lot of them have been fixed in.NET 2, but still there's a bunch left (Like how the System.Drawing namespace relies a lot on GDI, and uses Enumerations for configurations, instead of the Strategy pattern to allow us to extend it).
Thats for the language. ASP.NET 1 is really where the garbage was (the above was mostly that the languages weren't mature enough). The page model was horrible in every ways, shape, or forms.
Visual Studio 2002/2003 was a fairly poor and feature-lacking IDE, too (and lets face it: in the microsoft world, the IDE is part of the environment).
I guess the reason I felt that way, was that Java 1.5 came out not that long after.NET 1, and had most of the features above, so when came time to pick a framework, you had on one side a free (not "Free") framework that can run on most relevent platforms, and has all the features you'll want, and on the other side, you have an obviously feature-lacking framework that is -bound- to get a major overhaul, thus crippling your investments, and it only runs on one platform to boot.
If you did.NET 1 in Windows Form or services, its not so bad. It wasn't adequate, but it was to be expected from a version 1. If a company did ASP.NET (not counting web services), I really feel like they wasted a lot of money. Yes, you can upgrade it relatively easily: however, ASP.NET 2 allows for much better and cleaner software architectures, the like that were not possible in 1.1. Adding new components to a large scale apps using 2.0 architecture when the app was started under 1.0/1.1 means that your architecture will be fairly consistant. AKA: You're screwed.
Don't get me wrong, if you look at my posting history, I'm starting to have a reputation to being a Microsoft butt kisser, so I'm definately not biaised against them. I just feel.NET 2.0 should have been the first version, as it is truly a good product (which is why 3.0 is just an extension of 2.0, as it should be), while 1.1 had to go through several major architectural changes.
Well, not quite. ASP is a templating/scripting language, while ASP.NET is a technology framework which has a component that just so happen to be also a templating/scripting language... They don't serve the same purpuse really.
I'll admit my analogy wasn't the best, but ASP.NET is more like ASP + VB6 + DCOM/COM+ put together, so to speak (Not quite, but you get my point).
I agree though that C and C++ is a better analogy to some extent, though.
Makes sense. I felt like they were putting a lot of emphasis on C#, though. The case of methods is indeed a bit confusing. Microsoft tends to make its environments with Visual Studio in mind, so most.NET developers actualy never notice, since Intellisense catches it all. When you have to edit code in VIM though because you're at the customer's site and you realise there's a bug in your code behind (which can be modified without having to recompile manually), and you fight to figure out the case, its a mess, hahaha.
That being said, VB.NET is literally... Casting is done with CType(object,type) instead of (Type)object, conditionals and loops use words instead of brackets, and you have a few syntax sugars that are totally optional, and...thats about it, really. Most.NET programmers tend to be able to switch between the two on the fly without much notice, from my experience. The two languages are really just there for handling different legacy code more than anything, as they are heavily redundant.
VB.NET isn't VB6. Its a totally different architecture, with a (rarely used, aside when porting apps) compatibility layer (not an emulator or anything, just stuff to make syntax work), and similar keywords. The language, constructs and syntax structure is so similar to other languages (especialy C#) that you can use javascript applets on the net to convert between the two
VB6 and previous were shitty. VB.NET is good stuff that looks shitty.
legacy ASP can run on Linux using third party tools. However, Mono, as far as I can tell, is unrelated to it. ASP and ASP.NET are about as close to each other as Java is to Javascript.
The "real".NET framework supports C/C++, but also a total of, at last count, 44 languages (give or take a few since last i checked). Removing any of them really goes against the whole idea.
Ok, before someone wacks me with a stick. Seems like Mono after all does have partial.NET 2 features. They should be careful though...I see on their roadmap ASP.NET 2.0... while C# and such are under ECMA standards (I beleive), ASP.NET technologies are partially patented and not given out as a standard for anyone to play with. Playing with fire there.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the firebird was one of the previous names of Firefox, and they changed it to avoid confusion with this very database. Guess it didn't work on you :)
C#3 (and equivalent versions in VB, etc), etc, will introduce LINQ, not .NET 3, unfortunately. .NET 3 is already out (Windows Workflow Foundation, ::DROOLS:: ), but LINQ is still little more than a CTP.
You, sir, are an idiot. Pointing someone's "race", when it is obvious from physical traits, in an attempt to set the scene, has nothing to do with racism. Unless you think I'm doing discrimination if I say "I say this blond guy on the street the other day...".
Oh crap. Is the OP sexist too? Since he mentionned it was a dude, thus refering to the person's gender? Call the cops!
Because even as it is, the price of the PS3 is 80% of the reason its reputation went to hell. Sony sucks, but it doesn't suck that bad. The PS3 doesn't look so good, but it doesn't look that horrible. The Wii looks great, but it doesn't look -that- great (these are all relatively speaking, I'm losing sleep at the thought of a Wii!).
But the pricing of the PS3 made everyone flip out. Can you imagine if they had charged more? They might as well sellout rather than do that. It sucks, but thats the way marketing works.
QA, no, you're right, Unit/integration testing however, you bet.
This bring something interesting. While CS programs usualy justify the way they teach thing in a "technology neutral" manner, that is, the language/platform shouldn't matter, invariably, because of the different cultures behind different environments, it affects it a lot.
For example, for what the parent said about C++/Python. If you look at a university program where most teachers show stuff like ML, raw C, C++, etc, you tend not to see them show testing so much. CS programs where a lot of classes are taught in java (especialy later ones), almost always have extensive examples of JUnit usage.
The cultural (culture as in which technologies they are familiar with) background of those who make the school programs affect this a lot more than what they'd like to admit. It might seem obvious, but it doesn't seem obvious to -them-.
I agree, definately. A huge problem right now, is that -schools- don't even agree on what CS is. So you have schools in camp 1, schools in camp 2, and some everywhere in between.
Thus, employers have to resort to all sorts of tests and experience requirements while recruiting, and (especialy in the case of companies not specialised in IT) it just generaly cause a lot of confusion. Splitting the two would solve a lot of these issues.
Indeed. Well, obviously no amount of classes will make someone straight out of school a senior developer. The idea is that CS programs claim to give the students the "basics" of everything so they can go on their own, yet fail to give them the basics of the software development cycle... Just an analysis/development/testing/deployement cycle is enough. (I have work on multi-year/hundreds of users projects where profiling was kept at a bare minimum... we would analyse SQL queries and thats about it, because performance wasn't an issue, AND CS programs tend to -overdo- the whole optimisation thing, students don't need more, but thats just a side thing).
More likely than not, someone out of school probably won't even touch more than the code given to them bya project manager, at first. The goal of these classes would only be to introduce them to what -OTHERS-around them do, so that they can understand better how to plug their code in the cycle, and be able to pick up the rest of the "real world" faster.
In other words, anything so that students aren't surprised when they realise the actual coding is an insignificant part of software development, is good enough in my book.
If the app is small enough, and the class has enough credits to it to give it some time, 3 months is plenty. Setting up, let say, a small E-Commerce web site, with an analysis, development, testing, deployement, and a bit of in between, should fit in a semester.
Otherwise, split it in two, and have one semester just for the modelisation and approval part, and another for the actual development/testing/deployement.
This 2 sets of elements are asked for just about any job worth taking. I do not, however, ever remember any employer asking me to sit down and write a quick sort (since in most newer environments, its probably coded for you somewhere, and its good enough for 90% of the scenarios. For the last 10%, there's google).
Actualy. If you just add one (any!) programming language to your list, you have an almost textual "typical" job advert.
From my (albeit short) experience in human ressources for IT firms ( am a software developer, but I worked for several small companies, so I had to extend my reach a bit) is that this is the biggest reason why, when you're looking for a job, most places tend to require significant real world experience to even consider someone: They are used to the fact that, in general, a student fresh out of school is not very useful in a software development environment (where, unless the company deals a lot with R&D, most of the code is trivial, it is just a matter of integrating the ideas right).
1 or two classes dealing with it could give an incredible jump start for graduates on the job market, once the employers catch on on it.
Stupidest...headline...ever. Am I the only one who's reminded of the VG Cats comic about this?
Man, who would have thought that japanese would buy out 80000 consoles. No way!
Good luck finding any cure for anything even remotly related to female anatomy. "Hi miss. I currently can't help you diagnose your symptoms right now, as I left my credit card at home and its required to validate that I am old enough to access my.....references...."
Im not quite sure what Microsoft would have to gain from having an implementation of .NET on Linux... Considering Microsoft sells most of the .NEt related tools at a loss compared to its R&D from the articles I saw, and give a large portion of them away, it seems fairly obvious that the only reason for .NET's existance is to sell Windows Servers and SQL Servers, which in turn sells desktop, that in turn sell office, that in turn...you get the drill.
.NET would be counter productive toward that goal, IMO. Its a bit like how if Microsoft made Direct X for Linux. That would be totally retarded from a business point of view, since a large portion of Windows licenses are sold for gaming alone.
Having an implementation of
Might be just my area, but I have roughly equal seniority in PHP and in .NET, both being as visible on my resume, and I get contacted for ASP.NET applications about 20 to 1 compared to PHP. It is -highly- possible its just my area... I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of -current- companies running PHP were higher. But the amount of -openings- seem significantly lower. And at first glance (though I have significant java experience, it is a bit old to be quite as relevent, thus I don't get called for that much), Java is still slightly more popular than .NET in terms of openings. Or at least it was until last monday (.NET 3)
Meh, you know, same old same old. I remember 6 years ago we were told "Finally, this is it, the year where Linux is ready to take on the desktop!". And so on every other year. Wake me up when Linux has more marketshare than Apple on the desktop.
Careful, you left yourself open to the typical "all the zombie networks affect me, so I don't want to see anyone using Windows, EVER!" deal. Not that I think its a smart reply, but sooner or later some zealot would have pulled it on you, so might as well be now.
Well, the ADO.NET model was fairly bad, asynchroneous execution support was poor, no generic, no nullable types, VB.NET didn't support automatic documentation. The framework's architecture assumed a lot of generated code, but without a good way to deal with it (partial classes). Lack of 2 way databinding, making all the RAD-like features 95% useless in corporate environments. And so on and so on. A lot of the architecture of the API was also remenecent (spelling?) of the old Microsoft-style MFC/VB6, keeping the same weaknesses. A lot of them have been fixed in .NET 2, but still there's a bunch left (Like how the System.Drawing namespace relies a lot on GDI, and uses Enumerations for configurations, instead of the Strategy pattern to allow us to extend it).
.NET 1, and had most of the features above, so when came time to pick a framework, you had on one side a free (not "Free") framework that can run on most relevent platforms, and has all the features you'll want, and on the other side, you have an obviously feature-lacking framework that is -bound- to get a major overhaul, thus crippling your investments, and it only runs on one platform to boot.
.NET 1 in Windows Form or services, its not so bad. It wasn't adequate, but it was to be expected from a version 1. If a company did ASP.NET (not counting web services), I really feel like they wasted a lot of money. Yes, you can upgrade it relatively easily: however, ASP.NET 2 allows for much better and cleaner software architectures, the like that were not possible in 1.1. Adding new components to a large scale apps using 2.0 architecture when the app was started under 1.0/1.1 means that your architecture will be fairly consistant. AKA: You're screwed.
.NET 2.0 should have been the first version, as it is truly a good product (which is why 3.0 is just an extension of 2.0, as it should be), while 1.1 had to go through several major architectural changes.
Thats for the language. ASP.NET 1 is really where the garbage was (the above was mostly that the languages weren't mature enough). The page model was horrible in every ways, shape, or forms.
Visual Studio 2002/2003 was a fairly poor and feature-lacking IDE, too (and lets face it: in the microsoft world, the IDE is part of the environment).
I guess the reason I felt that way, was that Java 1.5 came out not that long after
If you did
Don't get me wrong, if you look at my posting history, I'm starting to have a reputation to being a Microsoft butt kisser, so I'm definately not biaised against them. I just feel
Well, not quite. ASP is a templating/scripting language, while ASP.NET is a technology framework which has a component that just so happen to be also a templating/scripting language... They don't serve the same purpuse really.
I'll admit my analogy wasn't the best, but ASP.NET is more like ASP + VB6 + DCOM/COM+ put together, so to speak (Not quite, but you get my point).
I agree though that C and C++ is a better analogy to some extent, though.
Makes sense. I felt like they were putting a lot of emphasis on C#, though. The case of methods is indeed a bit confusing. Microsoft tends to make its environments with Visual Studio in mind, so most .NET developers actualy never notice, since Intellisense catches it all. When you have to edit code in VIM though because you're at the customer's site and you realise there's a bug in your code behind (which can be modified without having to recompile manually), and you fight to figure out the case, its a mess, hahaha.
.NET programmers tend to be able to switch between the two on the fly without much notice, from my experience. The two languages are really just there for handling different legacy code more than anything, as they are heavily redundant.
That being said, VB.NET is literally... Casting is done with CType(object,type) instead of (Type)object, conditionals and loops use words instead of brackets, and you have a few syntax sugars that are totally optional, and...thats about it, really. Most
VB.NET isn't VB6. Its a totally different architecture, with a (rarely used, aside when porting apps) compatibility layer (not an emulator or anything, just stuff to make syntax work), and similar keywords. The language, constructs and syntax structure is so similar to other languages (especialy C#) that you can use javascript applets on the net to convert between the two
VB6 and previous were shitty. VB.NET is good stuff that looks shitty.
legacy ASP can run on Linux using third party tools. However, Mono, as far as I can tell, is unrelated to it. ASP and ASP.NET are about as close to each other as Java is to Javascript.
The "real" .NET framework supports C/C++, but also a total of, at last count, 44 languages (give or take a few since last i checked). Removing any of them really goes against the whole idea.
Ok, before someone wacks me with a stick. Seems like Mono after all does have partial .NET 2 features. They should be careful though...I see on their roadmap ASP.NET 2.0... while C# and such are under ECMA standards (I beleive), ASP.NET technologies are partially patented and not given out as a standard for anyone to play with. Playing with fire there.