In other words: The implicit assumption in the original question is incorrect: These frameworks are *not* concentrated merely on getting apps running quickly.
Of course the infamous manner of showing off these frameworks is to make a screencast showing how easy it is to make a simple wiki or todo list. These screencasts can be misleading since they often employ simple CRUD scaffolding, which is useless in the real world. However, taken with a grain of salt, they help you get a feel for the framework.
A good MVC framework helps organize your code in a standard manner, and a you get a lot of mileage from leveraging a supported, tighly integrated, full stack like that of Ruby on Rails. (It's really fantastic: handles everything from ORM to script.aculo.us with blissful ease.)
Pardon my fanaticism, but I decided to learn Ruby on Rails last weekend, and I'm quite certain it'll be the main thing I'll be coding my own projects from now on. (Catalyst looks good if you don't wish to abandon good old Perl.)
Not so. The domain name space is stricly limited. But there is an unlimited supply of virtual reality.
Therefore: It's just a pyramid scheme in disguise.
And how much do you think a bonanza of technology would help, say, militaries? Improving technology and making it it more readily available has its good and bad points. It is a little like adding power to the power-grid---you never know how it will be used.
A foundation, on the other hand, focuses energy/money on specific ends---and generally peaceful ones.
I find that answer unsatisfying. The highest federal income tax bracket (from what I've just googled) is 35%. A charitable contribution merely reduces your Adjusted Gross Income, so that means that for every $1 Gates contributes to charity, he saves about $0.35 in federal income taxes.
Not to say that Gates is some great man that deserves a pat on the back for being so righteous. Relatively, as someone has mentioned earlier back, it doesn't cost him a thing... and moreover it is quite possible these actions are motivated more from vanity than from any deep desire to do good.
Perhaps, instead of the usual rant against Microsoft, we should pat ourselves on our backs for our good deeds---that is, struggling with the terrible stuff Microsoft has put out and thereby allowing these contributions to occur?
>Their lawyers typically manage to get them through the courts despite their actions, and their contributions typically provide a sort of "PR shelter," but in the end what they accomplish is built on wrongdoing.
So aren't most things in life? (One could even argue all of it.) There may be a point when a wrong is too gross to ever admit, despite what good deeds it may make possible, but it seems overly-simplistic to compare Microsoft to the Mob and on that basis condemn them.
As for what another company may have or may have not done, we do not know, but we can reasonably suppose that another company would have been like, well, another company (like Sun). And so I think the question remains valid, what good has Microsoft actually done? And specifically (since I believe they've done more to harm technology than advance it), what are the effects of Gates' contributions?
Does anyone know just how much Gates has contributed to charity? Like most sane developers/technicians, I loathe Microsoft, but perhaps there's something good about it after all? Maybe all the pain we've gone through wrestling with this beast is actually for some good in the end? Or is this just a flash of innappropriate optimism? Are the contributions just a drop in the bucket, or do they really amount to something?
Windows beat Unix? Or was it really Linux that beat Unix? After all, what's the point of paying $3000 or so for some random Unix variant, when you can just get a very nice, free, GPL'd version?
Umm... in retrospect, yeah, replied to the wrong post. Or your post didn't say what I meant it to... Got avoid doing things like this late at night. Been working too hard, I guess.
Over and over again I kept hearing that mantra... "its 2005... now we have all these wonderful incredible technologies... ASP, Java Servlets/JSP, PHP, Ruby on Rails..."
Well, I did a lot of research into this world of wonder before programming my site and that made the matter clear: we haven't advanced a damn bit. 2005 is hardly better than 1995, and arguably worse than 1985. Use fastcgi, use mod_perl, use C for goodness sake. Look for persistence, look for agility, look for speed ( gauge that according to the task!), and look for great libraries. But beyond that, it's a fools game.
I'm not saying all the new frameworks and technologies have no place, but they have been grossly over-rated. I believe this modern refrain ("It's 2005") is reflective of a pi in the ski delusion of post-millenial programmers unwilling to come to terms with the unfortunate fact that it is 2005 and yet we are *still* programming, ultimately, nothing more than pages of Hypertext Markup Language. And I believe this because I recently shared, and subsequently got over, the same delusion. But how good it is to simply accept it!
Slashdot Mirror
In other words: The implicit assumption in the original question is incorrect: These frameworks are *not* concentrated merely on getting apps running quickly.
Of course the infamous manner of showing off these frameworks is to make a screencast showing how easy it is to make a simple wiki or todo list. These screencasts can be misleading since they often employ simple CRUD scaffolding, which is useless in the real world. However, taken with a grain of salt, they help you get a feel for the framework.
A good MVC framework helps organize your code in a standard manner, and a you get a lot of mileage from leveraging a supported, tighly integrated, full stack like that of Ruby on Rails. (It's really fantastic: handles everything from ORM to script.aculo.us with blissful ease.)
Pardon my fanaticism, but I decided to learn Ruby on Rails last weekend, and I'm quite certain it'll be the main thing I'll be coding my own projects from now on. (Catalyst looks good if you don't wish to abandon good old Perl.)
Call it "extraordinary rendition" and its no problem. Its not torture if a robot does it.
Not so. The domain name space is stricly limited. But there is an unlimited supply of virtual reality. Therefore: It's just a pyramid scheme in disguise.
iclearly you are no serious vi user:
that extraneous 'o' gives you away.
long live vi!^[yy1000p:wq!
And how much do you think a bonanza of technology would help, say, militaries? Improving technology and making it it more readily available has its good and bad points. It is a little like adding power to the power-grid---you never know how it will be used.
A foundation, on the other hand, focuses energy/money on specific ends---and generally peaceful ones.
I find that answer unsatisfying. The highest federal income tax bracket (from what I've just googled) is 35%. A charitable contribution merely reduces your Adjusted Gross Income, so that means that for every $1 Gates contributes to charity, he saves about $0.35 in federal income taxes.
Not to say that Gates is some great man that deserves a pat on the back for being so righteous. Relatively, as someone has mentioned earlier back, it doesn't cost him a thing... and moreover it is quite possible these actions are motivated more from vanity than from any deep desire to do good.
Nevertheless, the money is real, and it no doubt really helps some people. I read that he pledged about 3 billion to his foundation, and came up with about $627 of that last year.
Perhaps, instead of the usual rant against Microsoft, we should pat ourselves on our backs for our good deeds---that is, struggling with the terrible stuff Microsoft has put out and thereby allowing these contributions to occur?
>Their lawyers typically manage to get them through the courts despite their actions, and their contributions typically provide a sort of "PR shelter," but in the end what they accomplish is built on wrongdoing.
So aren't most things in life? (One could even argue all of it.) There may be a point when a wrong is too gross to ever admit, despite what good deeds it may make possible, but it seems overly-simplistic to compare Microsoft to the Mob and on that basis condemn them.
As for what another company may have or may have not done, we do not know, but we can reasonably suppose that another company would have been like, well, another company (like Sun). And so I think the question remains valid, what good has Microsoft actually done? And specifically (since I believe they've done more to harm technology than advance it), what are the effects of Gates' contributions?
Does anyone know just how much Gates has contributed to charity? Like most sane developers/technicians, I loathe Microsoft, but perhaps there's something good about it after all? Maybe all the pain we've gone through wrestling with this beast is actually for some good in the end? Or is this just a flash of innappropriate optimism? Are the contributions just a drop in the bucket, or do they really amount to something?
Windows beat Unix? Or was it really Linux that beat Unix? After all, what's the point of paying $3000 or so for some random Unix variant, when you can just get a very nice, free, GPL'd version?
Umm... in retrospect, yeah, replied to the wrong post. Or your post didn't say what I meant it to... Got avoid doing things like this late at night. Been working too hard, I guess.
Well, I did a lot of research into this world of wonder before programming my site and that made the matter clear: we haven't advanced a damn bit. 2005 is hardly better than 1995, and arguably worse than 1985. Use fastcgi, use mod_perl, use C for goodness sake. Look for persistence, look for agility, look for speed ( gauge that according to the task!), and look for great libraries. But beyond that, it's a fools game.
I'm not saying all the new frameworks and technologies have no place, but they have been grossly over-rated. I believe this modern refrain ("It's 2005") is reflective of a pi in the ski delusion of post-millenial programmers unwilling to come to terms with the unfortunate fact that it is 2005 and yet we are *still* programming, ultimately, nothing more than pages of Hypertext Markup Language. And I believe this because I recently shared, and subsequently got over, the same delusion. But how good it is to simply accept it!