.NET is killing natural of programming from inside !?
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
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.
-
.NET has lasted ten years now (V1.1 came out with VS2003!) which is pretty good going these days. Yes, it makes MS money - but it's not quite as bad as Office, where you have to update your whole company because one of your customers upgraded and you can't read their documents any more! :mad: Don't get me wrong - I came up through the machine-code/assembler/c/c++ route after starting Uni with COBOL and FORTRAN - it's not the best it could be. But it does cut development and maintenance time considerably by removing the need to recode and retest a linked list every time, and a string class, and a ... It's certainly a shed load better than MFC ever was!
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
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.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
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.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
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.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
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.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
-
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!!
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 !
-
You have been thinking that for 35 years, is this a joke? The first Beta of Microsoft's .NET technology came out in 2000. And I don't think it's 2035 yet.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
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.
-
In the early 90'ies I was over in the land of OS/2 - where we had the IBM Open Class[^] library, MQ Series and DB/2. Returning to the world of MFC & Access was a culture shock - but thanks to Delphi & C++ Builder I didn't run away screaming - I also lucked out and had a number of customers that understood the difference between Access and the Oracle RDBMS - I also had one that didn't, and wanted a 16-bit Access version of the product too - I should have said no, but didn't. :-\
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
Well, anything's possible if you throw enough money at it!
-
Well, anything's possible if you throw enough money at it!
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
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
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".
-
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.
-
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.
From what I gathered from that ridiculous post is that you now nothing about either java or .net.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
-
i just ask a question from experts !
-
No - it's just moving the "grunt work" into a tested, reliable code base. Just as we all used to do ourselves, but with that code base being consistent and shared among a huge number of users instead of different for each company or even programmer. All .NET does is let us concentrate on the application instead of getting bogged down by the details of the low level stuff we have written so many times before.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
You know, I agree with this, but I think that therein lies a problem somewhat. For folks that have coded low level grunt work stuff lots and lots, this is really nice and is a huge help because it lets you spend your valuable time on more productive things. What about, though, people that are just starting out? By not having to do the low level stuff, they miss out on learning the foundational things that the experienced people learned cold through repetition. It seems like there's the potential for newer people to miss out on valuable experience. Before too long you get people that can do quite a bit of things with the language, yet they are confused about the difference between value types and reference types or some other foundational skill. What do you guys think?
-
You know, I agree with this, but I think that therein lies a problem somewhat. For folks that have coded low level grunt work stuff lots and lots, this is really nice and is a huge help because it lets you spend your valuable time on more productive things. What about, though, people that are just starting out? By not having to do the low level stuff, they miss out on learning the foundational things that the experienced people learned cold through repetition. It seems like there's the potential for newer people to miss out on valuable experience. Before too long you get people that can do quite a bit of things with the language, yet they are confused about the difference between value types and reference types or some other foundational skill. What do you guys think?
I can't say that you are wrong: I think people should have to do the basics first, perhaps learn to code in assembler on bare hardware, and work their way up to higher level languages so that they do know the basics. But... Computing is now a relatively "mature" field. If you look at other mature professions, they don't start with first principles either. A car designer doesn't get a blank sheet of paper and have to reinvent the ball bearing before he can start work on thinking up how to get fuel into an engine without using a carb or fuel injection. Instead, they buy in that technology from companies who specialise in that field. Doctors don't mix their own medicines - they let pharmaceutical companies do years of research, then tell them what tablet does what to whom. Bakers don't grow their own wheat, mill it, and make bread - they get farmers to do the mucky bits. I think the problem is that we aren't quite in a mature enough profession - we haven't decided how low everybody needs to know and what we can afford to "farm out" yet. But we are moving into an era when the general "jobbing" programmer knows only the high level stuff, and "experts" who know what is going on beneath that are a rare breed. Pity.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
i just ask a question from experts !
-
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. People are interested in your end-product. How you do it, with how much effort or code, it's mostly irrelevant for them. dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/[^]
but it was a question, wanna say , somthing very useful can be very harmful in long time ! but i just ask a question from experts to know whats their idea about this! i dnt want indict .NET to bad thing! i am debator to .NET !
