No .NET programmers, please.
-
Just made me think of the "good old days" when there was Microsoft Systems Journal and it was loaded with native Win32/MFC coding tips/articles/etc. and not 99% .NET or web apps or one of the new MS server products. Not that there's anything wrong with those things... Just saying.
Indeed. I hate it when I'm looking for advice on a C++ system function and even filtering on C++ 19/20 hits are .NET instead! Sometimes it's 20/20 :mad:
-
This one will be popular here at CP: CEO Friday: Why we don’t hire .NET programmers [^] :-D
modified on Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:45 PM
My biggest problem is not his view on C#, but his view as a manager. First off, his whole post is based on a blanket statement or belief, trying to simplify something based on a pattern he thinks exists (C# = bad coders for start ups). Because of this logic I would love to see what other stereotypical beliefs he has. Seriously, he reminds me of a CEO that wouldn't offer me a job because he thought my being able to type with one hand effected my ability to produce code efficiently. To quote from a previous blog entry: "We work long, hard hours doing what we love, and if you’re the kind of person who wants to clock out at 5:00 or spend half the day surfing LOLCats, this isn’t the place for you." "a zest for adventure – everyone on staff is a world traveler, and have what one of our engineers referred to as a “willingness to get into trouble” "constantly looking for a next great project, working on side projects of their own," Something about the first sentence conflicts with the rest. An 80 hour work week is not very conducive to an adventurous lifestyle full of personal side projects. Maybe the author wants people that were adventurous or do side projects, just to give it all up to code expense reports. But my coders will beat up your coders, any day of the week. For example, Mich is barely 5 foot tall, but is a competitive fencer. Witold is a 6’3″ former professional hockey player. Nate practices knife fighting for fun. And they’re pretty decent programmers, too. Send John, myself, and a few others. Nate will learn not to bring a knife to a gunfight.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
The guy is a tool.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997Someone must have misinterpreted the developers' requests for a better tool.
-
I stopped reading at the point he says "Now let me clarify — .NET is a dandy language".
I'm sure he meant MSIL, which is a great productvity booster...
-
That's something I always wondered about. Why do bosses always expect everybody to be euphoric about whatever they want them to do? It usually ia hard work and they have to wave with some money to get somebody to do it day by day. If it were so much fun, they would have a ticket booth in front of their offices and make you pay for admission. In this article, this guy keeps talking about startups. Startups begin from scratch and have a lot of work to do if they are to succeed. Wasting time on writing the boilerplate code lessens their chances. If the boss does not understand this, I would not really be enthusiastic to work in his treadmill.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011It might be that startup's choose open source software and tools because of economic constraints. If you have no money and no revenue stream and you are working for yourself out of your home office, then it seems to make economic sense to avoid paying for tools and licenses and do the extra work yourself. Once you've got a product built on that and a revenue stream and can actually afford to hire someone, you are already committed to a platform. Doesn't have anything to do with what's technically the right thing to do.
-
Wow, a lot of nonsense in there.... I put in my 2¢ in there: "However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t" This sentence alone is enough to prove you have no idea what you're talking about when arguing about .net. Yes, .net related tools (Visual Studio specially) has lots of tools to automate stuff, but these tools are not the framework itself and they generate code automatically that you could write yourself. The so called "wizards" are a bad thing because many people grow dependent on them and don't really know how stuff work and end up limiting themselves and developing bad habits based on wrong premises. But they can be a good thing for productivity, but only if you already know what they are doing. I don't like them myself, because I don't like to loose control. Having said that, the .net framework is more powerful than most frameworks/languages/VMs. Specially if we are talking about windows desktop applications. You CAN DO more than most frameworks/languages. Not only it's not limited to on kind of application, it takes the power on them to the next level. .Net framework allows you to: 1 - Develop Desktop Apps 2 - Web Apps 3 - Embedded Circuits Apps 4 - Games (XNA Studio) 5 - User Mode Windows Drivers 6 - Cloud Apps All of this are pretty much native capabilities of the framework. And the list goes on... What other technology allows that (and very well)? .Net also allows you to work in relatively low levels for those who know how computers work (not like you said) and the people that don't understand it can put that as their own fault, it's their limitation, it's not the fault of the framework. I think before posting nonsense on the web, you should educate yourself about what you're talking about. I'd never want to work for a company that takes such assumptions as truth and miss the opportunities to work with great people. Let's see how your company lasts, I wouldn't invest on it. As I wouldn't in any company that dismisses any other technology in such ways.
Have a look at the binary playhouse response: http://www.binplay.com/2011/03/why-ceos-should-not-be-hired-to-write_28.html[^] So .NET developers are not creating real code? Barnes and Nobles, Walmart, and Target all run on .NET. Are they not running real code? Were they all able to push a magic button to create those websites? Is there a "build massive e-commerce website" button in Visual Studio? Where is it?
-
Have a look at the binary playhouse response: http://www.binplay.com/2011/03/why-ceos-should-not-be-hired-to-write_28.html[^] So .NET developers are not creating real code? Barnes and Nobles, Walmart, and Target all run on .NET. Are they not running real code? Were they all able to push a magic button to create those websites? Is there a "build massive e-commerce website" button in Visual Studio? Where is it?
:laugh: That was a good one ;P
-
This one will be popular here at CP: CEO Friday: Why we don’t hire .NET programmers [^] :-D
modified on Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:45 PM
-
It might be that startup's choose open source software and tools because of economic constraints. If you have no money and no revenue stream and you are working for yourself out of your home office, then it seems to make economic sense to avoid paying for tools and licenses and do the extra work yourself. Once you've got a product built on that and a revenue stream and can actually afford to hire someone, you are already committed to a platform. Doesn't have anything to do with what's technically the right thing to do.
I'm building a start-up right now. I chose to invest some $$ in my development tools so I could be sure the results are consistent: and they are. Despite what some may think it's not always a bad thing to have to pay for your tools. When my product is ready (it's 80% finished now) it will be based on a good sustainable platform. (VS2008, ActiveReports 6). Yeah, had to invest. Glad I didn't go "open source". -Max :D
-
Well he assumes people who use .NET only use .NET. He's gotta open his eyes wider I think. Or maybe he's just frustrated at not being able to hire good devs (not surprising given his generally narrow-minded attitude).
Regards, Nish
Most recent article : Adding data-bindable attributes to C# enums using the dynamic runtime My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
I'm building a start-up right now. I chose to invest some $$ in my development tools so I could be sure the results are consistent: and they are. Despite what some may think it's not always a bad thing to have to pay for your tools. When my product is ready (it's 80% finished now) it will be based on a good sustainable platform. (VS2008, ActiveReports 6). Yeah, had to invest. Glad I didn't go "open source". -Max :D
Sounds like you are a bit smarter than your average wantabee enterpreneur. Sometimes when you have no revenue stream you don't think you can afford to invest in development tools. (Especially if you aren't really confident that you are actually going to make money at it.) That's generally the wrong reason to make that choice. The right environment and tools up front are worth whatever you have to do to scrape up the money for them.
-
Sounds like you are a bit smarter than your average wantabee enterpreneur. Sometimes when you have no revenue stream you don't think you can afford to invest in development tools. (Especially if you aren't really confident that you are actually going to make money at it.) That's generally the wrong reason to make that choice. The right environment and tools up front are worth whatever you have to do to scrape up the money for them.
We seem to think alike in this. Personally, I don't consider $2,500-$4,000 (or thereabouts) to be too huge an investment to develop something that's going to be really quality. In the software field you can get away with a price tag that low and set up a pretty good set of operational tools. Try that with a body shop! So far I've invested about 14 months in the development of the product itself after spending the initial cost on equipment and software tools. Once I take it to market I think I'll be able to compete pretty well on a cost basis because, well, there isn't much in the way of cost. The biggest investment is really my time and labor. I've also got a couple of partners that are willing to invest also, in advertising and expert installation and deployment so between all that and the 12 years of industry experience I have with this I think we at-least have a shot. If it doesn't fly I haven't really lost anything. And I find the .Net platform to be excellent to the task. If nothing else, I've become proficient with something I was not proficient with 14 months ago! -Max :D
-
It might be that startup's choose open source software and tools because of economic constraints. If you have no money and no revenue stream and you are working for yourself out of your home office, then it seems to make economic sense to avoid paying for tools and licenses and do the extra work yourself. Once you've got a product built on that and a revenue stream and can actually afford to hire someone, you are already committed to a platform. Doesn't have anything to do with what's technically the right thing to do.
You can already get quite far with a VS Express. And a single license for a standard Visual Studio also should still be affordable. And you can always write your own little tools. I have made myself a little program that generates the skeleton of an entity or data object from a database table. Nothing fancy, but it saves me lots of absolutely uninteresting typing and time. Elevating the tedious parts to a matter of principle does not sound like a produktive way to work.
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011 -
WTF Just WFT Using all those fancy schmancy newfangled things in .NET is not required - you can still do low level coding in almost any .NET language (but hey I don't know all of them), and it's in fact harder because things like the GC get in your way and you have to work around that.
-
We seem to think alike in this. Personally, I don't consider $2,500-$4,000 (or thereabouts) to be too huge an investment to develop something that's going to be really quality. In the software field you can get away with a price tag that low and set up a pretty good set of operational tools. Try that with a body shop! So far I've invested about 14 months in the development of the product itself after spending the initial cost on equipment and software tools. Once I take it to market I think I'll be able to compete pretty well on a cost basis because, well, there isn't much in the way of cost. The biggest investment is really my time and labor. I've also got a couple of partners that are willing to invest also, in advertising and expert installation and deployment so between all that and the 12 years of industry experience I have with this I think we at-least have a shot. If it doesn't fly I haven't really lost anything. And I find the .Net platform to be excellent to the task. If nothing else, I've become proficient with something I was not proficient with 14 months ago! -Max :D
I agree with you. If I want to start a new company and want to sell my products to the corporations that will really pay for high quality products, I can't bring them open source tools, free databases, unknown tools,... I work in Spain in US corportation, locations worldwide. If you want to sell us a product, or work with us as external contractor (developer), these are the requisites: VB.NET / C#, SQL Server, Business Objects/Crystal Reports... If you can't afford this... :((
