.NET is killing natural of programming from inside !?

[LabVIEWstuff]

CDP1802 wrote:

like thinking that you become a great engineer by playing with Lego.

Agree 100% - my 5! Andy B

[dusty_dex]

If PC BIOS remains in place, how do these .NET *application programmers* expect to write a boot loader or contribute to the Linux kernel etc? It's dumbing down (squandering the talent ) of a whole generation of coders.

[Tasadit]

No, it's the internet that is killing off programming skills! "Plz give me codez" We're the victims of our own success :-(

[ali_heidari_]

in the end, anything is rely to person, if he/she wanna learn?!? should not use internet or anything else badly, should not copy paste, must read,understand,write by yourself ! products and technologies that provided for developers, are like a knife, you can kill someone(yourself) or make a delicious food and live strongly! :) so use them correctly!

[Member 9167057]

I disagree. The programmer's job is not to crank out code, but to solve problems. And if you can solve a specific problem within 1 line where it normally takes 10, then you're just a better programmer. Picking the most effecive tools is a part of skill in craftsmanship and/or arts. And after solving a problem, the boss is happy that you didn't take long and will just assign you another problem.

[Pablo Ariel]

You simply are not smart enough to write that code properly, then you have to rewrite it so many times again and again. If you were smart enough, you could simply write that code once and you wouldn't need to use .NET, C# or Java or whatever imaginary fancy language or interface is available. If you prefer their code against yours then your code is not good enough and I don't think I could rely in your opinion as you are talking bad things about your own code. .NET only provides a lot of general functionality that is only required when the programmer is inexperienced or simply can't learn more than he already knows. For experienced programmers, .NET it's a pile of creeps as it just adds unnecessary complexity, unacceptable process overhead, portability issues, management issues, higher costs, slower development times for high-end applications and a lot more of inconvenients that you won't have if you work with standard or native languages and write your own functions optimized for the job required. But hey, of course most people will want .NET, because most people is not an expert. If experts were majority among programmers, these kind of discussions wouldn't exist :)

[John Atten]

One of the vaunted goals of OOP is code re-use. It seems to me that this is the dichotomy of advanced frameworks and libraries - once evolved to a certain level, it begins to feel like "programmers" are becoming "API Experts." In addition, people learning to code in these environments (this includes myself, as a self-taught developer) may miss some crucial concepts, unless they pursue lower-level learning on their own (I do). in simplifying the development process through code reuse and frameworks, we also, in a manner of speaking, eliminate the requirement to know and understand lower-level operations. The level of abstraction is sufficiently high that it becomes easy to forget that there is a whole lot going on under the covers. I experience a sense of personal dismay AND relief that I will likely never become fully fluent in pointer arithmetic, and/or assembly. I do seek to learn about such things, as I feel it is important to understand what is happening further down the call stack, near the metal. Will I ever have to write production code using those constructs? Unlikely.

[marc bellario]

a problem with .net is that it's almost a complete duplicate of java from top to toe, with some difference, which of course did reduce the java code out there - but now you have two code bases that are only slightly different. real men only code in lisp or haskell, anyway. and real women always use (obj c?) - well, cobol was developed by a woman. if some one ( like oracle ) developed a vm that ran java and c#, that would be an interesting development/but microsoft would sue for $1,000,000,000.00 or maybe 1.5/!/!/!/ Google could buy microsoft and do it, but they are too busy these days making cell phones and they could never merge that culture which would throw a lot of people back into the job market. intel could build a processor that would run c# or java, but only the defense dept would buy it. However, the sad story is that java guys write java, and c# guys write c# and they hardly ever write to each other. actually i don't think .net will kill i.t. we can still find some paper tape readers if we need, too. what could kill i.t. is really good cheap scotch, but that most likely would end badly.

[Miguel Alfonso Abreu Ortega]

No at all. You can feel free to deep down even in the .Net code using any decompiling tool. I always like to master all things that i use in the framework. But in the moment that you have all the knowledge covered you will be graceful of simply using it instead of coding in all your programs.

[B Clay Shannon]

Were you against digital clocks when they came out, too? I find it odd that somebody would prefer things be more difficult; programming is always challenging enough, no matter how much easier it gets, because there is constant demand to learn new technologies, paradigms, patterns, frameworks, etc.

[patbob]

Depends on what you think programming is all about. I happen to think it's about having a computer solve a problem. The quicker that solution is delivered into the customers' hands, the better. If you're not feeling challenged, then maybe you need to work on solving harder problems... or maybe you're missing something about the ones you are solving.

We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.

[Thornik]

If you're from BDSM, then yes, .NET programming makes not so much pain. :) But .NET(C#) made me free from a biggest headache of development: routine sh*t with memory. I pray to not return ever on a C/C++ development!!

[ali_heidari_]

but i taste simple developing, its nice life , wanna try little hard! maybe C :cool: or maybe assembly :wtf: anyway its good to have a bit more ignition in the life !

[jschell]

Yvar Birx wrote:

You have been thinking that for 35 years, is this a joke?

You missed the point of the response.

[SeattleC]

Nah, .NET is just creating strata of developers. Sometimes all you need is to string together existing tools to make a bigger better add/change/delete screen. .NET is fine for that. Sometimes all you need is a way to log into Facebook so your app can suck off some data. .NET is fine for that. And there are people happy doing that, and making decent money. And yeah, some people willing to do that for a few dollars per hour in some third-world shantytown. But somebody had to *build* .NET. Somebody has to understand the algorithms and build new ones. Somebody has to deal with performance issues, because a mere doubling of performance is the difference between 10,000 servers and 5,000. Somebody has to do the heavy lifting. This gap will become increasingly evident in wages awarded to developers, and experience expected of developers. There used to be two kinds of programmers; analysts drew flowcharts and programmers punched in the FORTRAN or Cobol code. Just like engineers and drafters, directors, managers and secretaries, doctors and nurses. For awhile, automation collapses these skill hierarchies and puts the low-skilled and poorly motivated out of work. But skill hierarchies reappear at higher levels of thought. It happens because not all jobs are difficult, and because not all people are equally smart or equally motivated. When machines can think for themselves, that will kill programming (and everything else humans do). Until then, we'll just move up the abstraction chain, achieving bigger and better things. So study hard; the 21st century is a great place for serious thinkers, and kinda sucks for everyone else.

[James Lonero]

Well, anything's possible if you throw enough money at it!

[Espen Harlinn]

James Lonero wrote:

Well, anything's possible if you throw enough money at it!

Sometimes ... At the time it felt pretty strange. We've come a long way since then - and today most developers wouldn't try to con their customers into believing that it's possible to create a stable multiuser application using shared access to Access, d-base, paradox, etc. files on a shared file server.

Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra

[BC_programming]

I don't think anybody gets paid for 'programming'. They get paid to solve problems, or create things. Programming just happens to be one of the means to an end. If a Language or technology makes a problem easier to solve, or certain things easier to create, there is no reason not to use it. The same argument could be used to say a C programmer should rewrite all the standard library routines, because using the standard library (or STL in C++) makes things "too easy" so somehow it's not "really programming".

[dusty_dex]

The only problem with decompiling the .NET assembly is that it isn't a *real* cpu, and won't help you one bit working with C++ compiled to an x86/ARM or whatever cpu you might need to understand at a later date.

[User 8574296]

From what I gathered from that ridiculous post is that you now nothing about either java or .net.