I know I'm going to regret posting this, because I know you folks like to take every opportunity you can to bash Microsoft, but I'll ask anyway...
I've been a Java developer for a number of years now, and generally like it, though I agree with a lot that has been said here. It's slow, and what I'd call "clunky".
The APIs are great, and for most things my code will run about the same on Linux, Windows, Solaris, or, in some cases, OSX. Given the project I'm on, this is a good thing. We are able to get cross-platform development done quicker and cheaper. Anything that we need good performance on (such as terrain databases and 3D display) we'll use C/C++ for. So there's this mixing of technologies that brings us the best of both worlds. Portability, ease of use, and speed.
Now it seems that.NET is getting some legs. Delphi has all but given up the ghost, and has pretty much decided that the only way it can survive is to be.NET compliant. My limited knowledge of.NET says that the reason.NET is gaining popularity is that it's easy to mix and match languages. So developers can do portions of this big mammoth project in C++, C#, J#, VisualBasic, or Delphi, and these parts can play together seamlessly.
So, I'm wondering, is C# a good alternative to Java? It gives some of the safety nets of Java while coming closer to C/C++ in terms of speed. You all would know better, but I seem to remember hearing that there's a.NET Framework being developed to work on Linux. If/when this becomes a reality, would that change your perspective on the validity of.NET?
Any thoughts are appreciated, but let's try to keep the Microsoft bashing to a minimum, shall we?
I asked that very question, and of course was told no, they weren't trying to replace me. As a matter of fact, they're paying for 1/2 my college, so that's not a problem.
My boss told me something like, "You may cost more, but you're also worth more. You're more productive, and introduce less bugs." Basically, in his view, keeping the senior developers is just good business. I think virtually any senior-level programmer can out perform a junior-level programmer by much greater than twice. Tell a junior-level programmer to put together a simple FTP client and he could probably do it in a few weeks to a month. Tell a senior-level programmer the same thing and he'll get it done in a few days to a week. And the senior guy's will look better, and, more importantly, work better.
Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that someone making 1/2 the money doesn't necessarily cost the company 1/2 as much. In my company, for example, you get the same benefits whether you're a junior or senior software engineer. They're going to cost the company exactly the same, except where income comes in to play (such as life insurance).
I'm not sure where all that came from. I see what you're saying. I'm just happy to report that this is not the case with me.
Traditionally, careers that require brains get paid a lot better than careers that require brawn.
Sure, anybody can write software that can keep track of a patient's vital signs and moderate their meds, but who would you want doing that? Someone that's getting paid $100k a year because of his or her experience, or some dude in India doing outsourcing?
Anyone can write software, but only a small percentage can do it well. Just as anyone can take out a spleen, but I want mine taken out by someone with some experience.
Is it like being a doctor? It depends on what you're programming. I've programmed medical software, where patient's lives were on the line if what I wrote failed. I've also written software that, if it failed, could mean a quick end to one of our soldiers. In these cases, I think I should get paid the big bucks, sure. If I'm writing games, or something else trivial, probably not. (Though a good game programmer could make or break a company, so they may be worth it.)
I know all about the "Why I Don't Have A Degree" song and dance. It's become something of an art form with me.
I do like turning the tables on them every once in a while and asking them why it's so important to have a degree. They rarely have any answer, let alone a good one. The closest I got to a good answer was that they would be able to market me better, so I could be written into proposals, where they always list degrees.
When I ask, "so how much more would I be making if I had a degree" the answer is "not much...maybe $2,000 more." Doesn't seem worth all the green I have to pump out to finish my degree.
Good point...and that's actually something we're working on. The down-side is that while we all know computers, we don't know business.
I'm working with a friend who DOES know business that is trying to hook me up with the right people. Of course, once that comes around I better have a good bit of liquid assets to get me by while the new business gets off the ground.
But, yep, you're right, that's where I need to be, and will be eventually. In the mean time, I'm working on that degree again as insurance.
I know some of those too. It's been my experience that when things get shaken up, the shit falls to the bottom and gets swept away. The "monkey-boys" usually fall into this category.
Although I've know a lot of people that get by on bullshit alone, and that pisses me off to no end.
Up until recently, I would have argued that you don't need a degree of any sort to be a successful software engineer. Me, and about 5 of my peers are/were living proof of that.
Of the top 10 software engineers in my organization, up until about a year ago, 6 of them had no degree at all. None of the top 5 did. Then suddenly we all hit a brick wall. We were told by our organization that we were pretty much at a standstill in our careers until we got our degrees.
This is an odd thing for someone who's making $80-$100k to hear. You'd think with all of that experience under our belts nobody would care anymore. But as we try to move up by moving out, we're seeing the same thing. Nobody wants to hire software engineers without a degree.
None of us are far from getting them, as we all seemed to have the same story. We were plucked out of college by an up-and-rising dot-com a semester or three before graduating. But basically everything is on hold until we get those degrees. After that, or so I'm told, we can write our own tickets.
With no pulse, I'd be afraid to take a nap in the park. "God damn it! I'm in the morgue again!"
What would be worse though...I imagine most of the people getting these will be rather up in years. And, as old people and dads do, they will inevitably fall asleep in front of the TV.
The first 6 or 7 times they do this, their family will think they're dead and will start going through his pockets. But then it becomes a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, and they think he's just sleeping when he's actually dead. Next thing you know, ol' grandpa has funked up the Lazy Boy, and they have to take him out in a bucket.
I don't see a whole lot of point in manned missions into space if there's nothing important for them to do. With the dangers involved, it makes much more sense to me to let the machines do the work.
If, however, we come up with something important to look into, say, on Mars, then by all means, we should send a dude in a spacesuit there. Because, yes, there are some things that people can do better in person than they can remotely...though not much.
Also, I would be fully in favor of coming up with a way to send a couple hundred (or even a couple thousand) people off in search of another world to colonize. Well, with as long as this would take, I guess you could start with 2 people, or 4 to keep things fun. But why not waste our time, effort, and money on building some kind of self-sustaining big-ass space ship, with a way to grow food, and sustain people for generations as they search for a planet to call home.
I see your point. We're working with what we have. I guess it's better than the alternative of hopping from planet to planet and seeing if anyone is home.
I've been wondering this...and all of you people that think you're smart might be able to figure this out for me.
SETI uses radio telescopes to search for E.T., right? Now, I understand that these radio telescopes don't just search for AM/FM radio signals, but basically waves within the full broadcast spectrum. So they're looking for AM/FM, TV, CB, Wi-Fi, wide band, short, wave, cell phones, etc.
So I guess the basic thinking is that any intelligent race will use radio signals of some sort.
How long have humans been using some kind of radio signals? In the general scheme of things, a very brief time. How much longer will we be using them? Is this something that will be with us forever, or will it die out as our technology advances?
Assuming our technology will advance, somehow, to exclude broadcast signals, our planet, from space, will become rather quiet.
Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time. But somehow we're assuming that that time will somehow coincide with our own.
It makes finding a needle in a haystack even harder when the damned needle keeps moving around.
Enlighten me. How can SETI possibly work? (That said, I do have the SETI@Home software running on all of my machines...so I'm hopeful.)
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'm going to regret posting this, because I know you folks like to take every opportunity you can to bash Microsoft, but I'll ask anyway...
.NET is getting some legs. Delphi has all but given up the ghost, and has pretty much decided that the only way it can survive is to be .NET compliant. My limited knowledge of .NET says that the reason .NET is gaining popularity is that it's easy to mix and match languages. So developers can do portions of this big mammoth project in C++, C#, J#, VisualBasic, or Delphi, and these parts can play together seamlessly.
.NET Framework being developed to work on Linux. If/when this becomes a reality, would that change your perspective on the validity of .NET?
I've been a Java developer for a number of years now, and generally like it, though I agree with a lot that has been said here. It's slow, and what I'd call "clunky".
The APIs are great, and for most things my code will run about the same on Linux, Windows, Solaris, or, in some cases, OSX. Given the project I'm on, this is a good thing. We are able to get cross-platform development done quicker and cheaper. Anything that we need good performance on (such as terrain databases and 3D display) we'll use C/C++ for. So there's this mixing of technologies that brings us the best of both worlds. Portability, ease of use, and speed.
Now it seems that
So, I'm wondering, is C# a good alternative to Java? It gives some of the safety nets of Java while coming closer to C/C++ in terms of speed. You all would know better, but I seem to remember hearing that there's a
Any thoughts are appreciated, but let's try to keep the Microsoft bashing to a minimum, shall we?
Good point. I don't think enough people are looking at the productivity differences. In the long run, not a whole lot will be saved.
I asked that very question, and of course was told no, they weren't trying to replace me. As a matter of fact, they're paying for 1/2 my college, so that's not a problem. My boss told me something like, "You may cost more, but you're also worth more. You're more productive, and introduce less bugs." Basically, in his view, keeping the senior developers is just good business. I think virtually any senior-level programmer can out perform a junior-level programmer by much greater than twice. Tell a junior-level programmer to put together a simple FTP client and he could probably do it in a few weeks to a month. Tell a senior-level programmer the same thing and he'll get it done in a few days to a week. And the senior guy's will look better, and, more importantly, work better. Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that someone making 1/2 the money doesn't necessarily cost the company 1/2 as much. In my company, for example, you get the same benefits whether you're a junior or senior software engineer. They're going to cost the company exactly the same, except where income comes in to play (such as life insurance). I'm not sure where all that came from. I see what you're saying. I'm just happy to report that this is not the case with me.
Traditionally, careers that require brains get paid a lot better than careers that require brawn.
Sure, anybody can write software that can keep track of a patient's vital signs and moderate their meds, but who would you want doing that? Someone that's getting paid $100k a year because of his or her experience, or some dude in India doing outsourcing?
Anyone can write software, but only a small percentage can do it well. Just as anyone can take out a spleen, but I want mine taken out by someone with some experience.
Is it like being a doctor? It depends on what you're programming. I've programmed medical software, where patient's lives were on the line if what I wrote failed. I've also written software that, if it failed, could mean a quick end to one of our soldiers. In these cases, I think I should get paid the big bucks, sure. If I'm writing games, or something else trivial, probably not. (Though a good game programmer could make or break a company, so they may be worth it.)
I know all about the "Why I Don't Have A Degree" song and dance. It's become something of an art form with me. I do like turning the tables on them every once in a while and asking them why it's so important to have a degree. They rarely have any answer, let alone a good one. The closest I got to a good answer was that they would be able to market me better, so I could be written into proposals, where they always list degrees. When I ask, "so how much more would I be making if I had a degree" the answer is "not much...maybe $2,000 more." Doesn't seem worth all the green I have to pump out to finish my degree.
Good point...and that's actually something we're working on. The down-side is that while we all know computers, we don't know business.
I'm working with a friend who DOES know business that is trying to hook me up with the right people. Of course, once that comes around I better have a good bit of liquid assets to get me by while the new business gets off the ground.
But, yep, you're right, that's where I need to be, and will be eventually. In the mean time, I'm working on that degree again as insurance.
I know some of those too. It's been my experience that when things get shaken up, the shit falls to the bottom and gets swept away. The "monkey-boys" usually fall into this category.
Although I've know a lot of people that get by on bullshit alone, and that pisses me off to no end.
Up until recently, I would have argued that you don't need a degree of any sort to be a successful software engineer. Me, and about 5 of my peers are/were living proof of that.
Of the top 10 software engineers in my organization, up until about a year ago, 6 of them had no degree at all. None of the top 5 did. Then suddenly we all hit a brick wall. We were told by our organization that we were pretty much at a standstill in our careers until we got our degrees.
This is an odd thing for someone who's making $80-$100k to hear. You'd think with all of that experience under our belts nobody would care anymore. But as we try to move up by moving out, we're seeing the same thing. Nobody wants to hire software engineers without a degree.
None of us are far from getting them, as we all seemed to have the same story. We were plucked out of college by an up-and-rising dot-com a semester or three before graduating. But basically everything is on hold until we get those degrees. After that, or so I'm told, we can write our own tickets.
You'd think they could come up with a way to give us a constant orgasm instead of the inefficient pump thing.
Ewww...now I have visions of fire hoses dancing in my head.
When they listen to your heart, what would they hear? A whirrrrrrr?
"What that? I believe this man has a Segway in his chest."
With no pulse, I'd be afraid to take a nap in the park. "God damn it! I'm in the morgue again!"
What would be worse though...I imagine most of the people getting these will be rather up in years. And, as old people and dads do, they will inevitably fall asleep in front of the TV.
The first 6 or 7 times they do this, their family will think they're dead and will start going through his pockets. But then it becomes a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, and they think he's just sleeping when he's actually dead. Next thing you know, ol' grandpa has funked up the Lazy Boy, and they have to take him out in a bucket.
I don't see a whole lot of point in manned missions into space if there's nothing important for them to do. With the dangers involved, it makes much more sense to me to let the machines do the work.
If, however, we come up with something important to look into, say, on Mars, then by all means, we should send a dude in a spacesuit there. Because, yes, there are some things that people can do better in person than they can remotely...though not much.
Also, I would be fully in favor of coming up with a way to send a couple hundred (or even a couple thousand) people off in search of another world to colonize. Well, with as long as this would take, I guess you could start with 2 people, or 4 to keep things fun. But why not waste our time, effort, and money on building some kind of self-sustaining big-ass space ship, with a way to grow food, and sustain people for generations as they search for a planet to call home.
I see your point. We're working with what we have. I guess it's better than the alternative of hopping from planet to planet and seeing if anyone is home.
I've been wondering this...and all of you people that think you're smart might be able to figure this out for me. SETI uses radio telescopes to search for E.T., right? Now, I understand that these radio telescopes don't just search for AM/FM radio signals, but basically waves within the full broadcast spectrum. So they're looking for AM/FM, TV, CB, Wi-Fi, wide band, short, wave, cell phones, etc. So I guess the basic thinking is that any intelligent race will use radio signals of some sort. How long have humans been using some kind of radio signals? In the general scheme of things, a very brief time. How much longer will we be using them? Is this something that will be with us forever, or will it die out as our technology advances? Assuming our technology will advance, somehow, to exclude broadcast signals, our planet, from space, will become rather quiet. Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time. But somehow we're assuming that that time will somehow coincide with our own. It makes finding a needle in a haystack even harder when the damned needle keeps moving around. Enlighten me. How can SETI possibly work? (That said, I do have the SETI@Home software running on all of my machines...so I'm hopeful.)