Toolbox or legacy?
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
Rocky Moore wrote:
To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use.
that leaves more for the rest of us. thanks.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past.
no SQL, HTML, JScript ? -- modified at 10:47 Sunday 5th November, 2006
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
To me, the dividing line these days is not "new technology or old", it's whether I'm developing a web site or a desktop app. My biggest beef with web development is dealing with a stateless protocol that was never intended to be a software development environment, and the clumsy UI that results. However, if web stuff is what I'm doing then that's the limitations I'm faced with. In such scenarios, C# & .NET shines. It's not a great programming experience, but it definitely sucks less than older web technologies. If I'm writing desktop apps, services, etc. then C++ is my weapon of choice. It's a language that doesn't say no. I have complete control over all aspects of the computer, and I don't have to develop a UI with one hand tied behind my back because of HTTP. I hope that one day the industry will shift to a kind of full powered desktop app that's completely tied in to the web, but one that's not developed within the context of a web browser. We really are working with one hand tied behind our back, and it's not because we don't have the technology to do better. It's because HTTP is "a standard" to which everyone develops, and no one has been successful in promoting a better one. The truth of the matter is that HTTP is "old technology." It was intended as a method of displaying and linking text on the Internet and was fine for its day, but it's really showing its age and limitations today. In other words, you're trying to write programs based on something worse than DOS and about as ancient. However, since many people learned to "program" based on the web browser experience, it's all they know. Consequently, they consider anything which came before to be inferior - the myopia typically associated with the arrogance of youth. Everything new is good. Everything old should be discarded. C++ can be tedious and terribly verbose at times, and it makes no sense at all when developing a web site. So, I'll use whatever weapon I need for the battle at hand but one thing is, to me at least, painfully obvious. We need a new and better Internet enabled development paradigm. Not because new is good and old is bad, but because developing software based on HTTP is a joke.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
Rocky Moore wrote:
Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
I love new technologies and regularly burn bridges to the past, at least related to APIs that integrate into my software. But I have yet to see anything replace C++, or even offer a valid choice. I have access to methods for using OpenGL under C#, just as I have VB, Pascal and even Fortran. But they don't compete at the same level as C++ for the project. Our user interfaces could be written using any number of choices, and there are some valid reasons for choosing other than C++, but for real-time, real-world, high resolution, computationally expensive, and IO saturated, advanced 3D engines?? That leaves C++ a clear winner.
Rocky Moore wrote:
If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use.
Well, I promise we won't come to you for advanced 3D architectures using only the best in modern advanced hardware. :) As long as your applications fit in the new languages, that is fine. Obviously your applications are simple and flexible enough to switch easily. :-D That is great also. When they write Doom4 in C#, let me know. ;)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use.
that leaves more for the rest of us. thanks.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past.
no SQL, HTML, JScript ? -- modified at 10:47 Sunday 5th November, 2006
Chris Losinger wrote:
no SQL, HTML, JScript ?
Didn't think I had to list every technology I use :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
no SQL, HTML, JScript ?
Didn't think I had to list every technology I use :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
all those technologies are old . SQL was created in the early 70s.
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
I was referring to "new development".
Ah, ok, well, given that this is a seriously processor intensive app, if I were given the task today, I would definitely consider writing the core processing engine in C++ and the UI/database elements in C#. And in fact, I'm looking at making that division anyways. But no, I will NOT touch managed C++ or whatever it's called. It's going to be pure C++, pure C#, and PInvoke for the interface between the two.
Rocky Moore wrote:
There is no sense in moving to a new technology for all your work until it adds enough to justify the costs.
Exactly. Which I finally got to when a client asked me to put together a digital video distribution system that required a moderately complicated client/server architecture.
Rocky Moore wrote:
once you are at that point and ready to move on, to not keep dragging up older technology for new development, but move on.
Still though, there has to be an equally objective view of the older technologies and when they might still be appropriate.
Rocky Moore wrote:
This locked our product out of some sales since it would take quite a while to move to the technology with such a late start.
In some ways, I feel that's happening right now. Look at SQL 2005, with table domains, really cool XML support, and a slew of other features that I feel I will need to scramble on to get into Interacx to bring it up to par. Look at WPF and WF (Workflow) and how that's changing the landscape of programming. Microsoft thinks WF is going to revolutionize how applications are written, and that we'll be seeing ISV's offering workflow solutions. A bit pie in the sky, IMO, but the point is, things are changing. And the point is, in Interacx, I have my own workflow engine and now I need to look at the benefits of using Microsoft's WF. Same with WPF. I'm using MyXaml essentially for it, but what about WPF? I may be kicking and screaming about Microsoft, but if I lose sales because a developer doesn't feel comfortable with "Marc Clifton's Roll Your Own Technology", that's NOT a good thing. Decisions, decisions. :-D Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
Marc Clifton wrote:
Look at WPF and WF (Workflow) and how that's changing the landscape of programming. Microsoft thinks WF is going to revolutionize how applications are written, and that we'll be seeing ISV's offering workflow solutions. A bit pie in the sky, IMO, but the point is, things are changing.
Yeah, these are two technology I am not comfortable with yet, but I know I have to explore them. For me, technology shifts seem to happen 7-8 year cycles. Main shift one was from text based apps (MSDOS) to Win 16 then a number years later to Win 32, followed by .NET around 2000 and now a new round of technologies to learn. Figure I should be safe until 2011 or later after this one ;)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
all those technologies are old . SQL was created in the early 70s.
Chris Losinger wrote:
all those technologies are old . SQL was created in the early 70s.
Old is not the issue, "better" is the point. You do not change to a new technology just because you feel like learning and using something new. The shift is only based on the benefits you gain from the new technology, minus the learning time/curve and the time it will take to move things forward. Once a person finds themselves comfortable with new technology that obsoletes their old technology, then to me, it is time to break from the old if you can and move on. There will never be a day I write a line of assembler again. Probably never a day I will do a line of C++ unless it is a performance or interace issue. Those tools are nto near as productive to me as the ones I use today, so it would cost me to use the legacy technologies.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
Actually, he's doomed to be not able to repeat it.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Only people who don't know the past think that new technology is automatically better than 'legacy' technology. In fact those are just victims of marketing and fashion.
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
I prefer to focus primarily on one or two technologies (.NET, SQL server), where I can be the most productive. Doing stuff in PHP now and again is not a real issue, but I'm not as productive, and not fully up-to-date on it.
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
My only comment is that I find it odd you refer to PHP as "past" technology... :P
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
-
My only comment is that I find it odd you refer to PHP as "past" technology... :P
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
Hockey wrote:
My only comment is that I find it odd you refer to PHP as "past" technology...
It's an actual technology, but it's really too "basic" in my opinion compared to (obviously) ASP.NET. So, although it is actively developed, it's very obsolete. IMHO.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
-
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP.
Software Zen:
delete this;More for us! :-D
-- Mr. Bender's Wardrobe by ROBOTANY 500
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Some software are built to last for decades, installed on many sites. It is not feasible to make such software make use of the latest and the greatest.
5 Or if it is a man rated system. Do you want to go to a hospital whose systems are solid and proven reliable or do you want to go to one whose systems are upgraded to the latest MS coding options?
It'd suck if the respirator had to take a pause just because the garbage collector had to do a sweep.. :~
-- Please rise for the Futurama theme song
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
Well, I agree with you in most of the points, but I just suggest you a real-world example. Fog Creek Software[^] (Joel Spolsky[^]'s Company), for FogBugz[^] developed their own compiler[^] for a special language, which targets PHP and classic ASP. This means that they can sell their product to almost any customer, both on Windows and Linux/Unix. Isn't it a great thing? Personally, I consider classic ASP way obsolete, I don't like PHP at all, but I think they're making money because they target the customer's needs, regardless of the available modern platforms and technologies.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
-
Hockey wrote:
My only comment is that I find it odd you refer to PHP as "past" technology...
It's an actual technology, but it's really too "basic" in my opinion compared to (obviously) ASP.NET. So, although it is actively developed, it's very obsolete. IMHO.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
all those technologies are old . SQL was created in the early 70s.
Old is not the issue, "better" is the point. You do not change to a new technology just because you feel like learning and using something new. The shift is only based on the benefits you gain from the new technology, minus the learning time/curve and the time it will take to move things forward. Once a person finds themselves comfortable with new technology that obsoletes their old technology, then to me, it is time to break from the old if you can and move on. There will never be a day I write a line of assembler again. Probably never a day I will do a line of C++ unless it is a performance or interace issue. Those tools are nto near as productive to me as the ones I use today, so it would cost me to use the legacy technologies.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
Rocky Moore wrote:
Old is not the issue, "better" is the point. You do not change to a new technology just because you feel like learning and using something new. The shift is only based on the benefits you gain from the new technology, minus the learning time/curve and the time it will take to move things forward.
Which is exactly our point in saying the right tool for the right job. If you are required to write software that is compatible and designed for one technology, then do so. But one technology is not always compatible with another, or at least "efficient". You put it well, a shift based on benefits you gain minus the learning curve. There are some software paths, high performance simulations, detailed and fast 3D graphics, etc. that just aren't compatible with C# "efficiently". Sure I could switch over, I know how to, and I may some day. But right now there would be no benefit, there would be significant loss in efficiency. The right tool for the right job. Your job may be C#, mine is not. That doesn't make my job any less entertaining. You are welcome to challenge me on the hyper-fast frame-rate real-time 3D market using C# vs my C++. I love a good challenge. SimDIS after years of trying to ignore me are finally starting to wake up and pay attention. They have dozens of programmers chasing after my performance achievements. They might actually make it, but I doubt it. Not because they are not good enough, they are, and smart enough, but they started off on the wrong path, the wrong core technology. As they hit the augmented reality alignment issues, the accuracy and speed is just not enough and they will be rewriting to change paths. This is what I mean by the right tool for the right job. When you choose the wrong tool to solve a problem, you run smack into a wall either in performance or level of ability. Not everyone writing "desktop applications" writes an SQL user interface to a database. Some of us are doing much more. http://www.dtc.army.mil/ttr/ttr0505.pdf[^] (page 7) http://www.csc.com/industries/government/casestudies/1649.shtml[^] and that is just the pub
-
I used to develop in PHP three years ago, and I became quite good. Then I discovered ASP.NET. Never ever looked back. :-D In my opinion, there is no reason for using PHP for a new project, even the smallest one. But maybe I'm being too drastic.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
-
I used to develop in PHP three years ago, and I became quite good. Then I discovered ASP.NET. Never ever looked back. :-D In my opinion, there is no reason for using PHP for a new project, even the smallest one. But maybe I'm being too drastic.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
Dario Solera wrote:
there is no reason for using PHP for a new project
When you're coding for a linux server that doesn't support asp... Man, the egos are so thick around here that you can almost hurt yourself when you bump up against one.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Dario Solera wrote:
there is no reason for using PHP for a new project
When you're coding for a linux server that doesn't support asp... Man, the egos are so thick around here that you can almost hurt yourself when you bump up against one.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
coding for a linux server
:wtf: :-D
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
-
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP.
hardly. :) It's all of us in the real-time graphics. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
