I think M$ tools and frameworks actually make developers dumber
-
TRK3 wrote:
nor am I conviced that time is a limiting factor on the mind itself.
Of course there is. It is physical thus there is a limit. And it cannot absorb information faster than it can be presented - so another limit. And there are limits in all individuals in terms of the ability focus for extended period of times - so another limit.
TRK3 wrote:
There are plenty of exmaples of people who have full recall of everything they have every seen.
There are people that run very fast too. But since there is no gene-engineering at birth, no reasonable expectation that that will be possible in the near future and no explanation at the gene level for remarkable skills that point has nothing to with the current situation.
TRK3 wrote:
As for time? How long does it take to come up with an idea? Ideas are instantaneous.
Not sure what you mean but "ideas" do not spring into existence from nothing. They require previous knowledge. And that is even more true for ideas that can actually lead to something in the real world.
On what basis do you make the statement that the mind is physical? The brain is physical. There is a time limit on how fast electrical impulses travel down nerves and how fast neurons in the brain fire. There seems to some correlation between neurons firing in the brain and a person thinking a thought. However, correlation does not imply causation. I would just as readily concede that the thought caused the neurons to fire as the neurons firing caused the thought. There are profound implications of either theory. The theory that physical phenomenon causes thought implies that free will is an illusion. The theory that thought causes physical phenomenon implies that thought is not a physical process but something outside what we currently understand as physical. The full implications of either theory are a bit staggering.
-
Call me a Puritan, but I think that the MVC framework and the enhanced IDE tools, and LINQ etc actually remove developers from the pure algorithms they need to implement and make developers, on the whole, dumber. Don't get me wrong, these frameworks help make our jobs easier and make it easier to develop more quickly; however, should one have to revert to using a version of the IDE that is prior to the one that introduces novel database use features or hides implementation details and then develop according to the same pattern it makes it more difficult for skillsets to become backward compatible. For example, take the Entity Model framework and the MVC approach to using DbContexts to access the Database Connection etc. This dumbs away and hides connection details from the even the advanced developer behind a closed-source implementation so there is no way to Go To Definition and figure out what is behind the scenes so what if the next project is using, say, the old N-Tier Data Application model with the same data source and same model and now the task is, create an MVC app but using the old stuff. Shops can get pretty retarded at times with their insistance that developers go back to older frameworks and versions of the .NET framework, but sometimes it's necessary if the customer's machine infrastructure won't support the latest and greatest and customers necessarily can't be persuaded to upgrade due to the implementation and rollout logistics and cost limitations. So therefore, a developer who has been using .NET 4 and ASP MVC framework and Entities , may be unable to secure employment at a shop utilizing an earlier version of VS.
Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart
I agree completely. If you have no idea how something works it can make fixing problems exceedingly difficult!
-
It is all about productivity. I agree. But I am at a shop right now that supports factories that make packaging. We write the control software for their machinery and they aren't willing to spend the time and money very often to upgrade their whole plant and to re-train 30-year-veteran-union-worker machine operators on a new system except every 2-3 years. Therefore you are stuck with packaging plants (our customers) some of whom are still using WinXP and .NET 1.1 because their CEO wants more money for their next private jet and less to spend on software upgrading and training. So then when you have a developer who has been using .NET 4 and the latest and greatest, which holds their hands through wizards and does everything for them, they do not qualify for employment at our shop if they don't know how to access a DB the old-fashioned way, i.e., if they don't know what's going on behind the scenes. Then productivity actually DECREASES because there are so many layers of abstraction and hand-holding, now developers have only an idea of what's going on up on the surface as opposed to deep down in the bowels. I had professors in college and grad school who emphasized being intimately knowledgeable about what your computer system is doing on all levels, even if you have to work on the surface for increased productivity. Take for exmaple the statement
var q = list.Where(x => x.Property == true);in LINQ. How are you going to code that in .NET 1.1? Today's devs some of them fresh out of today's budget-cut "computer science" programs, won't know how to implement that with an ArrayList and no LINQ. Maybe that is a bad example, but what aboutvar q = list.Where(x => x.Property == true).GroupBy(x => x.IntegerProperty == 10).Selct(x => x.IntegerProperty).ToList();keep in mind the previous is pseudo-code; I am not going for correctness. There is a loss of productivity if someone has only been taught LINQ in computer science class and then they are at a desk in the 'real world' and they have only .NET 1.1 and ArrayList and have to do the same thing with an algorithm.Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart
Well perhaps some fail to teach the students what the underlying result of linq is. But if they can't figure out to run a foreach loop and do the filter on the inside they won't be productive in .NET 4 either. Then again the flip side of the coin is that to get me to consider even interviewing at place using 1.1 they would have to offer 50% premium on what I make now. And they may as well know up front that I would only stay for 9 months. Beyond that the rate would go up close to double. I realize that some organizations practice false economy. And I am sure that the same stupid people would provide an old slow computer to develop on because after all why spend a grand to make the developer more proficient? And I realize that some will scoff at my take on working there. But in DFW there are more jobs than developers. Further, most of those jobs require knowledge of .NET 4. So the smart thing is to stay current and leave the dinosaurs to die their slow death. My first priority is my career. My second is my employer's longevity. And I consider it foolish to swap those positions.
-
Call me a Puritan, but I think that the MVC framework and the enhanced IDE tools, and LINQ etc actually remove developers from the pure algorithms they need to implement and make developers, on the whole, dumber. Don't get me wrong, these frameworks help make our jobs easier and make it easier to develop more quickly; however, should one have to revert to using a version of the IDE that is prior to the one that introduces novel database use features or hides implementation details and then develop according to the same pattern it makes it more difficult for skillsets to become backward compatible. For example, take the Entity Model framework and the MVC approach to using DbContexts to access the Database Connection etc. This dumbs away and hides connection details from the even the advanced developer behind a closed-source implementation so there is no way to Go To Definition and figure out what is behind the scenes so what if the next project is using, say, the old N-Tier Data Application model with the same data source and same model and now the task is, create an MVC app but using the old stuff. Shops can get pretty retarded at times with their insistance that developers go back to older frameworks and versions of the .NET framework, but sometimes it's necessary if the customer's machine infrastructure won't support the latest and greatest and customers necessarily can't be persuaded to upgrade due to the implementation and rollout logistics and cost limitations. So therefore, a developer who has been using .NET 4 and ASP MVC framework and Entities , may be unable to secure employment at a shop utilizing an earlier version of VS.
Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart
I think the .Net4 and higher like(EF,MVC3) not good way for new developers
-
Call me a Puritan, but I think that the MVC framework and the enhanced IDE tools, and LINQ etc actually remove developers from the pure algorithms they need to implement and make developers, on the whole, dumber. Don't get me wrong, these frameworks help make our jobs easier and make it easier to develop more quickly; however, should one have to revert to using a version of the IDE that is prior to the one that introduces novel database use features or hides implementation details and then develop according to the same pattern it makes it more difficult for skillsets to become backward compatible. For example, take the Entity Model framework and the MVC approach to using DbContexts to access the Database Connection etc. This dumbs away and hides connection details from the even the advanced developer behind a closed-source implementation so there is no way to Go To Definition and figure out what is behind the scenes so what if the next project is using, say, the old N-Tier Data Application model with the same data source and same model and now the task is, create an MVC app but using the old stuff. Shops can get pretty retarded at times with their insistance that developers go back to older frameworks and versions of the .NET framework, but sometimes it's necessary if the customer's machine infrastructure won't support the latest and greatest and customers necessarily can't be persuaded to upgrade due to the implementation and rollout logistics and cost limitations. So therefore, a developer who has been using .NET 4 and ASP MVC framework and Entities , may be unable to secure employment at a shop utilizing an earlier version of VS.
Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart
Good points. However, it's not so much that the various app frameworks make us dumber, it's that they take away opportunities for us to exercise our intelligence to create solutions. Concerning backwards compatibility: well, you know, it's about Microsoft pushing all of us - developers, managers, clients, users - into the bright new worlds they create, not about establishing continuity for their subjects. Just turn off part of your brain, submit, go with the flow, and everything will be fine. Don't worry, those backwards shops using old technologies will eventually drag themselves into line.
-
On what basis do you make the statement that the mind is physical? The brain is physical. There is a time limit on how fast electrical impulses travel down nerves and how fast neurons in the brain fire. There seems to some correlation between neurons firing in the brain and a person thinking a thought. However, correlation does not imply causation. I would just as readily concede that the thought caused the neurons to fire as the neurons firing caused the thought. There are profound implications of either theory. The theory that physical phenomenon causes thought implies that free will is an illusion. The theory that thought causes physical phenomenon implies that thought is not a physical process but something outside what we currently understand as physical. The full implications of either theory are a bit staggering.
TRK3 wrote:
On what basis do you make the statement that the mind is physical?
On the basis that if it isn't there is no way to logically discuss it in the real universe, for example meaning that there woud be no way to measure it. (That statement is merely a restatement of classical philosphopy problem of which a philosphopy forum is best to undertake it.)
TRK3 wrote:
There are profound implications of either theory....
Of which a philosphopy forum would be the place to delve into your new insight.
TRK3 wrote:
The full implications of either theory are a bit staggering.
Not for me they are not. I was introduce to the concepts many years ago. And the basics (even if the details differ) have existed for thousands of years.
-
TRK3 wrote:
On what basis do you make the statement that the mind is physical?
On the basis that if it isn't there is no way to logically discuss it in the real universe, for example meaning that there woud be no way to measure it. (That statement is merely a restatement of classical philosphopy problem of which a philosphopy forum is best to undertake it.)
TRK3 wrote:
There are profound implications of either theory....
Of which a philosphopy forum would be the place to delve into your new insight.
TRK3 wrote:
The full implications of either theory are a bit staggering.
Not for me they are not. I was introduce to the concepts many years ago. And the basics (even if the details differ) have existed for thousands of years.
It clearly has an effect on the physical universe and you can observe and measure those effects, so you can at least indirectly observe and measure it whether or not it itself is physical. So, you can still logically discuss it even if it isn't physical. Any philosophy (classic or not) that says otherwise is flawed. But I guess I'll have to go find a philosophy forum if I want to debate that.
-
It clearly has an effect on the physical universe and you can observe and measure those effects, so you can at least indirectly observe and measure it whether or not it itself is physical. So, you can still logically discuss it even if it isn't physical. Any philosophy (classic or not) that says otherwise is flawed. But I guess I'll have to go find a philosophy forum if I want to debate that.
TRK3 wrote:
It clearly has an effect on the physical universe and you can observe and measure those effects, so you can at least indirectly observe and measure it whether or not it itself is physical.
So, you can still logically discuss it even if it isn't physical.Errr...no. AGAIN that is a classical philosophy problem - one that was formulated thousands of years ago.
TRK3 wrote:
But I guess I'll have to go find a philosophy forum if I want to debate that.
I suggest you start by researching the 'mind body problem'.
-
TRK3 wrote:
It clearly has an effect on the physical universe and you can observe and measure those effects, so you can at least indirectly observe and measure it whether or not it itself is physical.
So, you can still logically discuss it even if it isn't physical.Errr...no. AGAIN that is a classical philosophy problem - one that was formulated thousands of years ago.
TRK3 wrote:
But I guess I'll have to go find a philosophy forum if I want to debate that.
I suggest you start by researching the 'mind body problem'.
If the "greatest minds" of classic philosophy never agreed on whether the mind was physical or not, then why would you suggest that I study it as proof of your arguement that the mind is physical? I fail to understand the logic in that. You are pointing me at what you consider to be an authoritative source on the question, and that source says the question is unresolved. I am only questioning your assertion that the mind is physical. I am not necessarily asserting that it isn't. You are perfectly free to say "I have no proof that the mind is physical, however if I assume that it is, then..." In fact, starting from that assumption it is perfectly plausible that you will be able to build a great body of usable work. And if the results are useful, then it isn't important whether the original assumption is correct or not.
-
If the "greatest minds" of classic philosophy never agreed on whether the mind was physical or not, then why would you suggest that I study it as proof of your arguement that the mind is physical? I fail to understand the logic in that. You are pointing me at what you consider to be an authoritative source on the question, and that source says the question is unresolved. I am only questioning your assertion that the mind is physical. I am not necessarily asserting that it isn't. You are perfectly free to say "I have no proof that the mind is physical, however if I assume that it is, then..." In fact, starting from that assumption it is perfectly plausible that you will be able to build a great body of usable work. And if the results are useful, then it isn't important whether the original assumption is correct or not.
TRK3 wrote:
If the "greatest minds" of classic philosophy never agreed on whether the mind was physical or not, then why would you suggest that I study it as proof of your arguement that the mind is physical?
I believe that I was clear in that the argument itself belong in a forum with a different focus than this one.
TRK3 wrote:
You are pointing me at what you consider to be an authoritative source on the question, and that source says the question is unresolved.
I am very aware of the nature of the argument.
TRK3 wrote:
I am only questioning your assertion that the mind is physical.
And I made it quite clear that that argument belongs in a different forum. And certainly not this thread given that this thread is based on building intelligence from physical constructs.
-
TRK3 wrote:
If the "greatest minds" of classic philosophy never agreed on whether the mind was physical or not, then why would you suggest that I study it as proof of your arguement that the mind is physical?
I believe that I was clear in that the argument itself belong in a forum with a different focus than this one.
TRK3 wrote:
You are pointing me at what you consider to be an authoritative source on the question, and that source says the question is unresolved.
I am very aware of the nature of the argument.
TRK3 wrote:
I am only questioning your assertion that the mind is physical.
And I made it quite clear that that argument belongs in a different forum. And certainly not this thread given that this thread is based on building intelligence from physical constructs.
