Toolbox or legacy?
-
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The fact you suggest PHP is obsolete compared to ASP...or that it's antiquated...IMHO demonstrates your lack of experience in using PHP...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!
-
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
brucerchapman wrote:
Old programmers don't die, they just start locking up with out-of-memory errors...
Been there.. Done that... :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
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!
I tried an earlier version (but not too long ago), your post prompted me to take another look. While I'm impressed that they're making headway with the windows forms stuff, I still don't think I'd be comfortable specifically targetting mono. When I first heard about the project, I thought it looked great, but looking at it more closely I realised that in order to write a truly cross-platform app with it, without unnecessarily introducing windows users to GTK#, was still a bit of a leap. The way they're currently attempting to manage the System.Windows.Forms stuff is encouraging and should hopefully provide a better route for cross-platform development. I'd like to see mono actually *be* the .NET solution for other platforms, rather than something that looks a lot like it, but doesn't quite work the same. That said, I'm going to go home and install it on my web server in order to test just how good the ASP.NET implementation is. That's one area where it might just be mature enough for prime time. Don't get me wrong, the above isn't meant to be a criticism of the mono project. I think it's a great idea and I think they've made phenomenal progress, I just don't think I'd want to build a full-blown application with it just yet.
-
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP.
Software Zen:
delete this;You are not alone. I've been a C'er since '88. Our entire cutting-edge ;) web app suite is in C++!
onwards and upwards...
-
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 miss the point, it is not that everyone should use C#/.NET
and you miss the point of what we are saying about the right tool for the right job. I do toss away things when they are obsolete, the issue is a large group of people demanding we all give up the "good" tools simply because of the production productivity factors of C# and/or other technologies. And this is important, I don't make light of the importance, it is just in my business, product performance is what makes or breaks a product. Thus the right tool for the right job. In my business that "right tool" is C++, it may be something else later. In your business it is C# and may be something else later. Each of us has a different job, thus the right tool for the right job is not the same. :)
_________________________ 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 tried an earlier version (but not too long ago), your post prompted me to take another look. While I'm impressed that they're making headway with the windows forms stuff, I still don't think I'd be comfortable specifically targetting mono. When I first heard about the project, I thought it looked great, but looking at it more closely I realised that in order to write a truly cross-platform app with it, without unnecessarily introducing windows users to GTK#, was still a bit of a leap. The way they're currently attempting to manage the System.Windows.Forms stuff is encouraging and should hopefully provide a better route for cross-platform development. I'd like to see mono actually *be* the .NET solution for other platforms, rather than something that looks a lot like it, but doesn't quite work the same. That said, I'm going to go home and install it on my web server in order to test just how good the ASP.NET implementation is. That's one area where it might just be mature enough for prime time. Don't get me wrong, the above isn't meant to be a criticism of the mono project. I think it's a great idea and I think they've made phenomenal progress, I just don't think I'd want to build a full-blown application with it just yet.
orinoco77 wrote:
I'd like to see mono actually *be* the .NET solution for other platforms,
Yeah, I agree! Would be nice to have a full .NET distro for Linux and actually OS-X. I would imagine though, apps would require a little change on the different platforms just to make them more native to the platforms.
orinoco77 wrote:
That said, I'm going to go home and install it on my web server in order to test just how good the ASP.NET implementation is. That's one area where it might just be mature enough for prime time.
Drop a post on here or if you find the time, pop me an email and let me know how it goes on the ASP.NET side of things. While I doubt I would ever use Linux as a hosting for any of my sites due to my lack of knowledge of security on Linux, it would always be nice to have the option or to use for Intranets.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
-
orinoco77 wrote:
I'd like to see mono actually *be* the .NET solution for other platforms,
Yeah, I agree! Would be nice to have a full .NET distro for Linux and actually OS-X. I would imagine though, apps would require a little change on the different platforms just to make them more native to the platforms.
orinoco77 wrote:
That said, I'm going to go home and install it on my web server in order to test just how good the ASP.NET implementation is. That's one area where it might just be mature enough for prime time.
Drop a post on here or if you find the time, pop me an email and let me know how it goes on the ASP.NET side of things. While I doubt I would ever use Linux as a hosting for any of my sites due to my lack of knowledge of security on Linux, it would always be nice to have the option or to use for Intranets.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Replacing Vista System HD & New things learned!
The work they're currently doing on System.Windows.Forms should sort out the current issue with having to create multiple GUIs (or use GTK... *shudder*). As I understand it, they're reimplementing System.Windows.Forms by using System.Drawing, so the .NET app actually draws its own forms, regardless of what platform it's on. At least I hope that's what they mean. I'll have a play with the ASP.NET stuff in mono. I didn't manage to download it last night. I fell asleep practically as soon as I got in, which makes me feel horribly old.
