Toolbox or legacy?
-
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:
You do not change to a new technology just because you feel like learning and using something new.
Speak for yourself! ;P I've been studying WPF for months now, just because I like it. :cool:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
When you're coding for a linux server that doesn't support asp...
If the choice is between ASP and PHP, I'll go for PHP on any platform.
-- Transmitido en Martian en SAP
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
ASP
ASP is a thing of the past. What about ASP.NET?
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico
Not much here: My CP Blog!
-
Actively developed...and very obsolete... :P Listen to what you just said...oxymoron anyone? The fact you suggest PHP is obsolete compared to ASP...or that it's antiquated...IMHO demonstrates your lack of experience in using PHP... For everything you can do in ASP.NET I can do in PHP 100 different ways because of the power in open source software...there are countless PHP frameworks each specializing in one market or another as well as bare bones generic ones like Zend, PEAR and others... Do yourself a favour and google both "PHP" and "ASP" you will see that PHP more than doubles ASP ;) The LAMP stack is the *most* popular configuration on the planet....no question about it...it's power and flexibility in open source...ASP is merely for newbies :P Just kidding of course...but the fact PHP is open source and based on C syntax...it has a tendancy to attract more advanced developers...coming from either years of experience in C/C++ who don't want to follow the path of C#...or those academically trained coming from a Java background... Yes PHP has short falls in some areas, particularly the object model isn't quite up to par yet, but a skilled disciplined developer doesn't absolutely need member access control, etc... I dropped my interest in ASP about 5 years ago...and picked up PERL...lost interest, took up PHP and I have never looked back...PHP does everything I want it to...faster, cleaner and better than any other web technology or language... Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
Hockey wrote:
The fact you suggest PHP is obsolete compared to ASP...or that it's antiquated...IMHO demonstrates your lack of experience in using PHP...
Come on, just because someone does not like PHP does not mean they do not know it, I used it for over a year in the past and it was a thrown together technology at best. IMHO, it does not even fit in the shadow of ASP.NET for any professional development.
Hockey wrote:
I dropped my interest in ASP about 5 years ago...and picked up PERL...lost interest, took up PHP
Actually, my experience was just the reverse, I played with PERL and did not care for it, then moved to PHP and later moved to ASP (even with the yucky VB script - still trying to forget those days), but once ASP.NET hit, there was no reason to look back. Even now, if for some reason I was to develop something on Linux it would be in mono, no sense in going backwards.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
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)
Dario Solera wrote:
This means that they can sell their product to almost any customer, both on Windows and Linux/Unix. Isn't it a great thing?
You could just target it for ASP.NET and sell it on both with the use of Mono. Lots of movement in mono nowadays.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
I am surprised that some people call C++ legacy. COBOL, FORTRAN or PASCAL would have been fine, but C++ is certainly not legacy. I gave a few interviews earlier this year, and everyone expected me to know C++, and sometimes Java as well, but no one talked about C#/.NET. But then I had applied in 'big' companies only.
Well, you do a monster search or other job search sites and you will see that unless you are targeting Linux or video game development, most jobs are .NET. While there are many that want C/C++ experience, it is often to either maintain legacy systems or to convert them. Even without the C/C++ experience, many are jobs only require VB.NET/C#.NET.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
I don't think there is any question that in the world of programming using outdated legacy tools for new projects is just plain silly. I keep up with and use the latest technology. I'm on the toolbox side but to me that means a toolbox full of the latest and greatest, not a toolbox crammed with every tool ever invented.
Yeah, I agree with you. I have a toolbox, but not 20 different technology to do the same type of work. I have tools for web development under ASP.NET and tools for desktop applications under .NET. Other than that, it is just to costly to work older technologies.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
Two observations 1 - adding a new tool to the toolbox, by definition, means the old tool gets used less. I bought a new drill, a chordless one. Being more portable means a lot on an 11 acre property - the powered one gets used a lot less, and I really reach for the new one by instinct now, where the old one always got used, now it gets used ONLY where I need the extra power it has, if both will do, I tend to use the new one. My old C++ days compared to my post C# C++ days work in a similar way 2 - the 'tool in the toolbox' thing is also a cliche. Someone one defended VB6 to me using this terminology ( fair enough ), and when I dug deeper, I found that he regards VB6 the right tool for EVERY job. So, even people who tie themselves to one technology will say this, because they've learned by example that it's the right way to look at the wrong approach :-)
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Very good!
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
That "latest" vs "legacy" dilemma simply makes no sense in my case. I typically work on the code that has a life span of 10+ years, running on various hardware and operating systems. Picking the latest hype is simply not an option. Sure, for the small projects that pop up in the meantime, I like to pick the current fad. Just trying to convince my managers to use Ajax for a little support application :)
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Sure, for the small projects that pop up in the meantime, I like to pick the current fad
Limited to only small apps? ;) I know there are a few times when an applicatin can have a very long lifecycle without upgrade. One applicatino I built many years ago monitored alarms for an security alarm monitoring company. It was written orginally in C++/DOS but a few years down the road moved to a Win32 app, where it functioned until the company was sold this last year. The application worked and thus did not need anything from the new technology, but the requirements never changed either. Of course, this falls into maintaining legacy applications. Also, I am talking about moving to a technology when it is better than what you have and can replace your current means of development. Then and only then, I think it is time to remove that tool from the toolbox, there is not sense in starting new development with an older tool.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
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)
Don't know why you were voted down but I agree 100%. I am currently contracting with an organization producing a 3D real time video game. The team played a bit with managed direct x but we found it lacking both in performance and the seat of the pants feeling from the engine. There was some talk at looking at a managed OpenGl system as well but luckily it was voted down,
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
-
Don't know why you were voted down but I agree 100%. I am currently contracting with an organization producing a 3D real time video game. The team played a bit with managed direct x but we found it lacking both in performance and the seat of the pants feeling from the engine. There was some talk at looking at a managed OpenGl system as well but luckily it was voted down,
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
Chris Austin wrote:
Don't know why you were voted down
A) because it is from me (you never know) B) because they are tired of hearing an example where C++ still wins hands down. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I'd almost prefer Vista over Win 95...
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighistAnd I would prefer Netscape over Telnet, doesn't mean it is a good option.
Brad Australian Save the Glass House (Fill in the complaint form to the ABC) Glass House Home Page (May as well get hooked while you still can)
-
Dario Solera wrote:
This means that they can sell their product to almost any customer, both on Windows and Linux/Unix. Isn't it a great thing?
You could just target it for ASP.NET and sell it on both with the use of Mono. Lots of movement in mono nowadays.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
Do you lose any functionality, performance or classes developing asp.net for mono?
"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 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:
Never ever looked back.
Same here. Asp.net just gives you so much more, and is far more structured IMO. But Visual Studio gives it an extra unfair advantage. Zend's PHP IDE is very slow - I think you need a very beefy PC to be productive in it. But PHP has some advantages over .net 1.1 - e.g. speed (i.e. no need to rebuild and grab a cup of coffee while refreshing the page :))
"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.
-
Hockey wrote:
The fact you suggest PHP is obsolete compared to ASP...or that it's antiquated...IMHO demonstrates your lack of experience in using PHP...
Come on, just because someone does not like PHP does not mean they do not know it, I used it for over a year in the past and it was a thrown together technology at best. IMHO, it does not even fit in the shadow of ASP.NET for any professional development.
Hockey wrote:
I dropped my interest in ASP about 5 years ago...and picked up PERL...lost interest, took up PHP
Actually, my experience was just the reverse, I played with PERL and did not care for it, then moved to PHP and later moved to ASP (even with the yucky VB script - still trying to forget those days), but once ASP.NET hit, there was no reason to look back. Even now, if for some reason I was to develop something on Linux it would be in mono, no sense in going backwards.
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:
Come on, just because someone does not like PHP does not mean they do not know it
You mean kinda like me and C# or asp.net? I know it, but I don't like 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, 10/26/2001 -
It'd suck when the separate thread needs to lock the heap in order to compact it. ;P
Rohde wrote:
It'd suck if the respirator had to crash just because the programmer forgot some deletes.
Real programmers don't forget to delete. ;P
-- When you see the robot, drink!
Real programmers know they have to, and know when they have to... C# programmers never know when it's going to happen.
"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 -
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
Hey I started out cutting COBOL code with one of them new-fangled relational database thingys called DB/2. But I couldn't w400-program my way out of a wet cobol bag these days. But I still use my SQL skills, cut on a mainframe dumb terminal editor every single day. People always ask me why I lay out my SQL in such a blocky way - it's a result of a time when computer keyboards had 4 arrow keys and an execute button for getting around the screen. Personally, while the C++ guys are right in that often what they do can't be replaced, anyone doing a file->new on a VB6 app puzzles me when things have improved so much in recent years. Change is a fact of life and should be embraced in my book. But as my brain stack has a finite capacity, I've had to permanently shift a lot of old skills off to tape backup to make way for the new ones. Old programmers don't die, they just start locking up with out-of-memory errors...:confused:
Bruce Chapman iFinity.com.au - Websites and Software Development Plithy remark available in Beta 2
-
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 can see the point of this approach, providing you're only talking about developing for one platform. The minute you're looking to provide something either for a platform for which your shiny new language isn't available or for multiple platforms, that falls down. If I'm writing an app for a windows environment, I'll almost certainly use C#/.NET, if I'm writing an app for Linux or Solaris or Mac OS, I'll have to do a bit more thinking. Alright, so it's possible to code C# for Linux (and other targets) with mono, but it's not really at a point where I'd be happy doing so, so that leaves me with other options. If it's a quick and dirty job (as most of mine tend to be, requests generally coming in the form "I want $foo and I want it yesterday!") I'll most likely go for something like Tcl/Tk. If it has to be a bit more robust, my skillset is likely to lead to me hunting around for my C books. If shiny new coding options were available across the board then it'd be different, and I'd most likely standardise on the intersection between what's most current and what I know best. As it is, they're not, and I have to keep a few odd bits and bobs floating around in my brain, just in case they're ever called upon for an odd situation.
-
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
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
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 miss the point, it is not that everyone should use C#/.NET, it is when you have a technology that is obsolete, why keep it in your tool box or use it for new projects. It only makes sense to use the more advanced technology than waste you time trying to make old technologies jump through hoops.
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:
You do not change to a new technology just because you feel like learning and using something new.
Speak for yourself! ;P I've been studying WPF for months now, just because I like it. :cool:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
:)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
I can see the point of this approach, providing you're only talking about developing for one platform. The minute you're looking to provide something either for a platform for which your shiny new language isn't available or for multiple platforms, that falls down. If I'm writing an app for a windows environment, I'll almost certainly use C#/.NET, if I'm writing an app for Linux or Solaris or Mac OS, I'll have to do a bit more thinking. Alright, so it's possible to code C# for Linux (and other targets) with mono, but it's not really at a point where I'd be happy doing so, so that leaves me with other options. If it's a quick and dirty job (as most of mine tend to be, requests generally coming in the form "I want $foo and I want it yesterday!") I'll most likely go for something like Tcl/Tk. If it has to be a bit more robust, my skillset is likely to lead to me hunting around for my C books. If shiny new coding options were available across the board then it'd be different, and I'd most likely standardise on the intersection between what's most current and what I know best. As it is, they're not, and I have to keep a few odd bits and bobs floating around in my brain, just in case they're ever called upon for an odd situation.
orinoco77 wrote:
Alright, so it's possible to code C# for Linux (and other targets) with mono, but it's not really at a point where I'd be happy doing so
Have you tried it yet? One of the new Linux distros (do not remember at the moment) has a number of built in applications made with Mono, which kind of surprised me, I knew the Mono site looked like people were moving on Mono, but did not expect applications built with Mono to be distributed with the distro. Oh well, glad they keep moving, it helps to make .NET more of a multiple platform technology which it deserves. Actually, I was not advacating that everyone use a specific langange to technologies, it was more of a question of why some seem to hold on to obseleted technologies under the "tool for the right job" mantra. If a new tool does what the old tool could do but does it better, to me it is time to dump the old tool and move on.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
