all the local developer jobs are now "Web Developer"
-
HTML, JavaScript, CSS, AJAX, ASP.NET, Postbacks, Callbacks! (web services are not included to this list) Working on algorithms in C that are for web-projects, is not web work. Do any of those PhDs ever have to do any of the above mentioned list?
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)Another thing is that CSS and JavaScript are not even technically needed to form a cohesive, usable web. They are device and user specific; made for humans with nice screens. The web is "meant" to be device neutral. The web is an addressable document/resource store. HTML happens to be the most prevalent resource format. Plenty of non-HTML resources out there though (JPG, GIF, MOV, AVI, XML, JSON, CSV, TXT, XML, SWF.) I wish every developer would embrace the vast web of information out there and use it where appropriate and in an appropriate manner. It is not web vs. desktop. Its desktop using web and web working with desktop/mobile/TV/fridge. And I wish web-developers would stop building websites that make it hard for desktop developers to parse and use.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
modified on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 11:31 AM
-
leppie wrote:
Working on algorithms in C that are for web-projects, is not web work. Do any of those PhDs ever have to do any of the above mentioned list?
You seem to be saying that "web" is a client-side thing when really it is the HTTP and URI layers on the Internet Protocol. You don't have to do anything with HTML, JavaScript or CSS to be doing web work. I spend most of my time working on data sources exposed via web-services to a multitude of clients. Some of those clients use HTML/CSS/JavaScript while others are Cocoa or WPF/.NET powered. I happen to like HTML/CSS/JavaScript clients because they are easy to deploy and update. The PhD guys consider it web work because they are making use of the world wide web. Don't tar and feather "web dev" because you are stuck with debugging IE and Firefox issues in CSS/JavaScript. A lot of us get to do pretty damned cool web dev work.
leppie wrote:
Postbacks
That is ASP.NET shit, not web shit. I detest that style now.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
I agree completely, my first web apps were C via the CGI and occasionaly a shell script. My latest web app at home is a C# driven web control using the HtmlWriter. Javascript is at a minimum, perhaps 4 functions.
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
I get to analyse and decide on the best platform.
But if you 'hate all web work,' how valid can your analysis be?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Just like the impartial and fair MicroSoft bashers? :)
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
-
I've been developing windows applications for 10 years. I've noticed nearly all the local developer jobs are now "Web Developer". I'm starting to wonder if its time I gave up my c++ mfc/c# win forms stuff and got over to web development... Do people also see this trend? Are people on here in the same situation? Some places have referred to backend web developer. A backend web developer is basically a developer isn't it?
Definitely. For enterprises etc. it makes much more sense doing a web app that gives zero-hassle deployment and much easier updates. We are also beginning to see classic desktop apps going to the Web. It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up. Web development doesn't need to be bad. I agree that much of the front end development can be annoying because we need so many disparate technologies to make a great web UI. But the tools are growing and evolving all the time. Also much of the backend development is basically just classic development. Ideally your backend should be able to work with whatever front end you have - be it a web site or desktop app. That way you can also hook up some services to parts of the back end, and consume that from a desktop app if you need that, etc. Also in many places you need to analyze the great amount of data that web sites usually generate - so in some places there's also some work to be done in what might be called collective intelligence which have really taken off thanks to the webs (Amazon is a great example of this). So web dev isn't just web dev.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
leppie wrote:
Working on algorithms in C that are for web-projects, is not web work. Do any of those PhDs ever have to do any of the above mentioned list?
You seem to be saying that "web" is a client-side thing when really it is the HTTP and URI layers on the Internet Protocol. You don't have to do anything with HTML, JavaScript or CSS to be doing web work. I spend most of my time working on data sources exposed via web-services to a multitude of clients. Some of those clients use HTML/CSS/JavaScript while others are Cocoa or WPF/.NET powered. I happen to like HTML/CSS/JavaScript clients because they are easy to deploy and update. The PhD guys consider it web work because they are making use of the world wide web. Don't tar and feather "web dev" because you are stuck with debugging IE and Firefox issues in CSS/JavaScript. A lot of us get to do pretty damned cool web dev work.
leppie wrote:
Postbacks
That is ASP.NET shit, not web shit. I detest that style now.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
I dont care what you call it, I dont wanna do it! I am not a web-developer, then why am I being used to make web front ends?
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)Then get a frikkin job you are happy with. 8 years ago I wasn't complaining "they're making me do desktop apps, I hates it!" I was quitting my desktop app job and starting on web-dev. You are smart enough. The IT job market is spankingly good. There are still 5 people not connected to the internet who need your software...
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Just like the impartial and fair MicroSoft bashers? :)
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
Most of them have used Windows for a decade at least. They bash it cause they have to use it.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
leppie wrote:
Working on algorithms in C that are for web-projects, is not web work. Do any of those PhDs ever have to do any of the above mentioned list?
You seem to be saying that "web" is a client-side thing when really it is the HTTP and URI layers on the Internet Protocol. You don't have to do anything with HTML, JavaScript or CSS to be doing web work. I spend most of my time working on data sources exposed via web-services to a multitude of clients. Some of those clients use HTML/CSS/JavaScript while others are Cocoa or WPF/.NET powered. I happen to like HTML/CSS/JavaScript clients because they are easy to deploy and update. The PhD guys consider it web work because they are making use of the world wide web. Don't tar and feather "web dev" because you are stuck with debugging IE and Firefox issues in CSS/JavaScript. A lot of us get to do pretty damned cool web dev work.
leppie wrote:
Postbacks
That is ASP.NET shit, not web shit. I detest that style now.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
A lot of us get to do pretty damned cool web dev work.
Being 'forced' to do DotNetNuke module development (and probably skinning and templating too) just do not equate to cool with me... :sigh: I am pretty sure there are cool web work. Even I am thinking of making a little web framework in IronScheme (extending the crude CGI rather).
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008) -
Paul Watson wrote:
A lot of us get to do pretty damned cool web dev work.
Being 'forced' to do DotNetNuke module development (and probably skinning and templating too) just do not equate to cool with me... :sigh: I am pretty sure there are cool web work. Even I am thinking of making a little web framework in IronScheme (extending the crude CGI rather).
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)I wouldn't be so mad with you if you weren't so god damned smart. You are wasted on DotNetNuke and templating/skinning. Go and build a proper web IDE at least or invent the next generation of web-app hosting (like GAE but without the crap bits) or solve the web-identity problem or how to blanket Africa with WiFi or something so kids in Gana can read Wikipedia from their mud huts and build water pumps with water purification filters that also generate electricity... or something. Leave CSS to dumb-arses like me.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Definitely. For enterprises etc. it makes much more sense doing a web app that gives zero-hassle deployment and much easier updates. We are also beginning to see classic desktop apps going to the Web. It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up. Web development doesn't need to be bad. I agree that much of the front end development can be annoying because we need so many disparate technologies to make a great web UI. But the tools are growing and evolving all the time. Also much of the backend development is basically just classic development. Ideally your backend should be able to work with whatever front end you have - be it a web site or desktop app. That way you can also hook up some services to parts of the back end, and consume that from a desktop app if you need that, etc. Also in many places you need to analyze the great amount of data that web sites usually generate - so in some places there's also some work to be done in what might be called collective intelligence which have really taken off thanks to the webs (Amazon is a great example of this). So web dev isn't just web dev.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up.
I disagree entirely. The problem is not bandwidth, it's latency - the time between beginning an action and getting a response. The bandwidth is already fine for most applications. The latency is too great, and it's showing no signs of decreasing. In fact there is a distinct lower limit on the latency you can expect, and it comes from the speed of light through materials. You genuinely cannot do any better than several milliseconds if you're communicating with a computer some distance from where you are. Any intermediate relays, such as routers, switches, gateways, or merely repeaters, will add additional latency as the device buffers the packet, works out where it's going, and forwards it. Compared to even accessing the local hard disk, the latency of network communication is glacial.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
I get to analyse and decide on the best platform.
But if you 'hate all web work,' how valid can your analysis be?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But if you 'hate all web work,' how valid can your analysis be?
I would agree with his opinion on "I hate all Web Work" and had made it my personal choice to avoid all web work if at all possible. However when the time came for me to make an analysis guess what i reccomended based on the requirements... a web interface :) some people are capable of looking past their personal opinions and judge a book based on the content inside.
-
Rohde wrote:
It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up.
I disagree entirely. The problem is not bandwidth, it's latency - the time between beginning an action and getting a response. The bandwidth is already fine for most applications. The latency is too great, and it's showing no signs of decreasing. In fact there is a distinct lower limit on the latency you can expect, and it comes from the speed of light through materials. You genuinely cannot do any better than several milliseconds if you're communicating with a computer some distance from where you are. Any intermediate relays, such as routers, switches, gateways, or merely repeaters, will add additional latency as the device buffers the packet, works out where it's going, and forwards it. Compared to even accessing the local hard disk, the latency of network communication is glacial.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Ok - great post. And I don't disagree entirely. But for a lot of the UI stuff the code will be running on the client (e.g. JavaScript on the browser), so there the latency is not a problem. It's true that there's latency when talking with a computer over a network, but the we just have to be smart about when and how to communicate with these computers.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Rohde wrote:
It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up.
I disagree entirely. The problem is not bandwidth, it's latency - the time between beginning an action and getting a response. The bandwidth is already fine for most applications. The latency is too great, and it's showing no signs of decreasing. In fact there is a distinct lower limit on the latency you can expect, and it comes from the speed of light through materials. You genuinely cannot do any better than several milliseconds if you're communicating with a computer some distance from where you are. Any intermediate relays, such as routers, switches, gateways, or merely repeaters, will add additional latency as the device buffers the packet, works out where it's going, and forwards it. Compared to even accessing the local hard disk, the latency of network communication is glacial.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
This is a big point if you plan on using an application in India hosted in the United States :) (not that managment would EVER think of doing that)
-
Rohde wrote:
It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up.
I disagree entirely. The problem is not bandwidth, it's latency - the time between beginning an action and getting a response. The bandwidth is already fine for most applications. The latency is too great, and it's showing no signs of decreasing. In fact there is a distinct lower limit on the latency you can expect, and it comes from the speed of light through materials. You genuinely cannot do any better than several milliseconds if you're communicating with a computer some distance from where you are. Any intermediate relays, such as routers, switches, gateways, or merely repeaters, will add additional latency as the device buffers the packet, works out where it's going, and forwards it. Compared to even accessing the local hard disk, the latency of network communication is glacial.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Compared to even accessing the local hard disk, the latency of network communication is glacial.
Especially if you're condemned to a Satellite based internet service by the absence of any other local broadband or dial up provider. The bandwidth is ok, but that 2s round trip is a killer.
-
I've been developing windows applications for 10 years. I've noticed nearly all the local developer jobs are now "Web Developer". I'm starting to wonder if its time I gave up my c++ mfc/c# win forms stuff and got over to web development... Do people also see this trend? Are people on here in the same situation? Some places have referred to backend web developer. A backend web developer is basically a developer isn't it?
I suppose that's a WebService.
-
Ok - great post. And I don't disagree entirely. But for a lot of the UI stuff the code will be running on the client (e.g. JavaScript on the browser), so there the latency is not a problem. It's true that there's latency when talking with a computer over a network, but the we just have to be smart about when and how to communicate with these computers.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
But for a lot of the UI stuff the code will be running on the client (e.g. JavaScript on the browser
In that case, you're not a web developer. You're a desktop/client-side developer, using an interpreted language with the source code delivered over HTTP.
-
Oakman wrote:
But if you 'hate all web work,' how valid can your analysis be?
I would agree with his opinion on "I hate all Web Work" and had made it my personal choice to avoid all web work if at all possible. However when the time came for me to make an analysis guess what i reccomended based on the requirements... a web interface :) some people are capable of looking past their personal opinions and judge a book based on the content inside.
StevenWalsh wrote:
some people are capable of looking past their personal opinions and judge a book based on the content inside.
Absolutely, but folks likely to make objective decisions don't immediately announce that they 'hate all web work.' They might say they prefered another approach, or tended to think there are serious difficulties with web solutions, but they are unlikely to say 'hate.'
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Paul Watson wrote:
A lot of us get to do pretty damned cool web dev work.
Being 'forced' to do DotNetNuke module development (and probably skinning and templating too) just do not equate to cool with me... :sigh: I am pretty sure there are cool web work. Even I am thinking of making a little web framework in IronScheme (extending the crude CGI rather).
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)leppie wrote:
Being 'forced' to do DotNetNuke module development
Blech, life is too short for that crap.
leppie wrote:
I am pretty sure there are cool web work. Even I am thinking of making a little web framework in IronScheme (extending the crude CGI rather).
If you are thinking about that, look at the ASP.NET MVC stuff. It's the web framework they should have build 5 years ago, instead of trying to cram web pages into a desktop form application designer.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Rohde wrote:
It'll all pretty much end up on the net - we're just waiting for a true coherent web development paradigm that can take it to the new level completely, and also for better bandwidth for the masses. But it's where it is gonna end up.
I disagree entirely. The problem is not bandwidth, it's latency - the time between beginning an action and getting a response. The bandwidth is already fine for most applications. The latency is too great, and it's showing no signs of decreasing. In fact there is a distinct lower limit on the latency you can expect, and it comes from the speed of light through materials. You genuinely cannot do any better than several milliseconds if you're communicating with a computer some distance from where you are. Any intermediate relays, such as routers, switches, gateways, or merely repeaters, will add additional latency as the device buffers the packet, works out where it's going, and forwards it. Compared to even accessing the local hard disk, the latency of network communication is glacial.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
The US is in the dark ages compared to places like Korea when it comes to bandwidth. Bandwidth is and will continue to be a big issue here since the US is so spread out. I think I read a few days ago that 50% of users still use dial-up and have no desire to upgrade.
Todd Smith
-
leppie wrote:
Being 'forced' to do DotNetNuke module development
Blech, life is too short for that crap.
leppie wrote:
I am pretty sure there are cool web work. Even I am thinking of making a little web framework in IronScheme (extending the crude CGI rather).
If you are thinking about that, look at the ASP.NET MVC stuff. It's the web framework they should have build 5 years ago, instead of trying to cram web pages into a desktop form application designer.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Andy Brummer wrote:
If you are thinking about that, look at the ASP.NET MVC stuff. It's the web framework they should have build 5 years ago, instead of trying to cram web pages into a desktop form application designer.
Thats exactly what I am thinking about! No designers for me :) I am just trying to think how I will be doing it (MVC).
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)