131–140 of 221 posts
"Real open source isn’t submitting a patch and waiting/hoping that one day it might be accepted and merged into the main line." So the Linux kernel isn't REAL open source then?
My buddy and I are starting a web project (a Q&A site for translations) and have chosen ASP.NET MVC. It doesn't abstract away the innards of the web like WebForms did. It has no more magic than RoR. Why are we using .NET instead of something like RoR or (my framework of choice) Grails? Because my buddy knows it inside and out, the tools are great, and we'd like to minimize the number of unknowns in our project. We're…
Are you participating in BizSpark to get the tools?
My buddy and I are starting a web project (a Q&A site for translations) and have chosen ASP.NET MVC. It doesn't abstract away the innards of the web like WebForms did. It has no more magic than RoR. Why are we using .NET instead of something like RoR or (my framework of choice) Grails? Because my buddy knows it inside and out, the tools are great, and we'd like to minimize the number of unknowns in our project. We're…
Are you participating in BizSpark to get the tools?
I can't agree more with the observations on MVC. It's really a symptom of .Net and Microsoft locking in the vast majority of inexperienced users with overly abstract components. Developers fresh out of college who were taught .Net in school and get a job in it become experts at Partial PostBacks and Code Behinds and binding data to the latest whiz-bang GridDataAwesomeControlForTheWin. The problem I've seen time and a…
Lets get this straight. The key is not to have no abstractions. That's just stupid. It's to pick the right abstraction to build on.
"The problem I've seen time and again is that they have no idea how this is implemented. Ask a green .Net developer about the ViewState lifecycle and see if they know how that really works."
There are lots of stuff I use that I have no idea how it works. And in fact, that's the way it should be. If I'm only using things that I fully understand, I'm probably not moving fast enough.
Ask your RoR dev who is using an OS relational store how queries are processed. Nine times out of ten they won't know, despite the fact that they could have looked at the code anytime in the past decade. Actually even give them an hour to go look it up, and you'll still probably get a wrong answer. But you know what, who cares?
There were already open source MVC web frameworks and an army of .net developers who could have collaborated to make them great but nothing much happened. He is lamenting that the .NET community didn't embrace the pioneering MVC frameworks from the OS community, but waited for Microsoft to deliver its own "blessed" framework. Here is what he is forgetting: Economics. A good chunk of .NET developers are not using the…
I agree, but would add this. Microsoft's (development) tools have never had any underlying principles other than: enabling people with minimal knowledge to get stuff done. Thinking back through MFC, COM, VB v1-6, Access, SharePoint, WebForms and ADO.NET, none of them were characterised by any particular architectural purity or design aesthetic. But they enabled a generation of corporate developers to hack stuff toget…
Although I really enjoyed C#, everything else about the community and ecosystem will eventually be a killjoy if you value your work over your resume.
A sizeable chunk of .NET development happens in the corporate/enterprise world. That sort of environment isn't interested in collaboration, open source, etc.--they're interested in the guaranteed support the MS stack provides, and the idiot-proof web basics provided by ASP/webforms/MVC. If shit hits the fan in the .NET stack for a big enough corporate project, someone in the office can phone/email MS and get support…
> If a bug is found in the stack itself, it won't languish unsolved in bug trackers for years, like many OSS bugs do. MS will probably fix it in their next cycle You also have the option of paying Microsoft for a QFE (quick fix engineering). With a QFE, the team fixes the bug as an immediate priority and provides you with a patch for it. All QFEs eventually get rolled up into cumulative updates and/or service packs.
Call me crazy, but if I have the option of cracking open the stack and having a go at fixing the bug myself I'll do it. At least that way I'm not dependent on anyone else for the fix...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If a bug is found in the stack itself, it won't languish unsolved in bug trackers for years, like many OSS bugs do. Oh, please... Over the years, I've personally fixed bugs. And sent in fixes. (Stop complaining -- I promise to send tests too, next time!) If I run into one that I am unable to grok in a reasonable time, there are always job boards and money. Bugs -- not to be confused with full sized features -- are…
>>Over the years, I've personally fixed bugs. And sent in fixes. (Stop complaining -- I promise to send tests too, next time!) >>If I run into one that I am unable to grok in a reasonable time, there are always job boards and money. That's fine for a smaller shop, or even a medium-sized shop. But when you enter a true corporate behemoth type company, you don't have the option of posting an ad on the 37signals job boa…
At some point something in that box is not going to work how you expect it to, regardless of who makes it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a bug is found in the stack itself, it won't languish unsolved in bug trackers for years, like many OSS bugs do. MS will probably fix it in their next cycle You also have the option of paying Microsoft for a QFE (quick fix engineering). With a QFE, the team fixes the bug as an immediate priority and provides you with a patch for it. All QFEs eventually get rolled up into cumulative updates and/or service packs.
So I'm paying to fix a bug in their software that I've already paid for? Call me crazy, but if I have the option of cracking open the stack and having a go at fixing the bug myself I'll do it. At least that way I'm not dependent on anyone else for the fix...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) - I don't see the problem here. Somehow old DOS stuff still works in Windows 7. You need new features? They're coming with the newer OS, but your old features rarely go away. Contrast this with upgrades from PHP 3 to 4 or 5, stillborn Perl 6, great divide between Python 2 and 3. (2) - Please... Your old frameworks are still there. You are discouraged to use them, but they didn't go away. I seriously don't underst…
I worked in a different era than yours. Today, you can pick and choose the microsoft stack you want to use, if any at all, because you have choice and they don't. Then, you sold software based on polish and integration in UI look and feel. You have to choose your tools very carefully, because of the realities of software publishing and distribution. You don't know how long it takes from the moment you press the CD-RO…
You are completely pushing the philosophy of technology needs to remain the same and consistant through all of time. Not possible, ever. Technology HAS to evolve or we all sit at a standstill. If you don't want to learn new things and stay modern in technology, then you need to sign up for truck driving, not software development.
They (MS) didn't just sit around trying to find ways to piss you off by coming out with new technology. They released one, found a way to improve, and released that next. Quite blaming the vendors and put the blame squarely where it belongs, with people who refuse to learn and evolve with the technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" There are probably a lot of 9-5ers who could have that switch flipped and go from code monkey to craftsmen, but they are stuck doing WebForms and have never really got bitten by the curiosity bug " That's disingenuous bullshit. Hackers start a lot earlier than "fresh out of college". Disinterested coders aren't lost souls led astray by the ways of .Net, they're disinterested coders; they'd write Ruby with just as l…
LINQ to SQL was killed. IronRuby is terrible. Constantly evolving C# syntax is not inherently a good thing.
An example of non-L2S use of Linq to sort an array of objects:
//array of dogs
var dogs = new[]{
new Dog{Name = "Bowser", Age = 1, Gender = "M"},
new Dog{Name = "Yoshi", Age = 2, Gender = "M"},
new Dog{Name = "Molly", Age = 2, Gender = "F"}
};
//get all male dogs ordered from oldest to youngest
var dogs2 = dogs.Where(dog=> dog.Gender == "M").OrderByDescending(dog=> dog.Age);