I hate learning new technologies.
-
You can start to re-learn JavaScript asap, that should calm you down !!!
Caveat Emptor. "Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
That's next on the line. This and typescript; I've done a little bit of it 2 years ago, but I forgot all about it.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
-
Centuries of evolution are turning on their head. Imagine where we would have been if Newton would not have written Principia thinking Einstein will make it obsolete. Our whole civilization relied on writing down stuff that becomes obsolete. Now even writing as a whole take a step backwards: one of the most profound human inventions, the alphabetic writing (as opposed to hieroglyphic writing) is reversed by the use of emojis. Why write when we can draw a face? Back to the cave wall! :rolleyes: I sound like an old curmudgeon... wait, maybe that's what I am.
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
I sound like an old curmudgeon... wait, maybe that's what I am.
I am not as old as you (I think), but I totally agree with you.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
That's next on the line. This and typescript; I've done a little bit of it 2 years ago, but I forgot all about it.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
Maximilien wrote:
a little bit of it 2 years ago, but I forgot all about it.
That's normal, the brain just flushes away the crap... as you in the toilette :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Disclaimer: I am not saying Typescript is sh1t, but it was an easy joke
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Centuries of evolution are turning on their head. Imagine where we would have been if Newton would not have written Principia thinking Einstein will make it obsolete. Our whole civilization relied on writing down stuff that becomes obsolete. Now even writing as a whole take a step backwards: one of the most profound human inventions, the alphabetic writing (as opposed to hieroglyphic writing) is reversed by the use of emojis. Why write when we can draw a face? Back to the cave wall! :rolleyes: I sound like an old curmudgeon... wait, maybe that's what I am.
Mircea
-
Centuries of evolution are turning on their head. Imagine where we would have been if Newton would not have written Principia thinking Einstein will make it obsolete. Our whole civilization relied on writing down stuff that becomes obsolete. Now even writing as a whole take a step backwards: one of the most profound human inventions, the alphabetic writing (as opposed to hieroglyphic writing) is reversed by the use of emojis. Why write when we can draw a face? Back to the cave wall! :rolleyes: I sound like an old curmudgeon... wait, maybe that's what I am.
Mircea
There's a bit of a furore here about the publisher "re-wording" much/most of Roald Dahl's childrens' books, to remove "offensive or discriminatory" language. On a morning TV news discussion today, a supporter of the move said "But the essence of the story remains the same". Sadly, "the essence" is not what makes a great book. The "essence" of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory is that boy from deprived background wins ticket to chocolate factory, has a great time. "He was an enormously fat boy" is not equivalent in meaning to "He was enormous". These "essences" do not do justice to their originals. "Essence" is not what makes great writing. If the words and attitudes expressed cause offence, then take that as learning about the past; if you don't like it, don't read it. One of the participants this morning was complaining about the James Bond novels, which I think most of us would agree include some rather racist and sexist views and language. She was up in arms about it, how it would affect younger readers and present these as acceptable attitudes. Then she shot herself in the foot by saying her teenage daughters read one of the books, and were falling about in hysterical laughter at the attitudes presented. They knew it described views that no-one can take seriously these days, and certainly didn't feel "objectified" by the words. [Sorry, gone a bit off-topic here, but it did annoy me. Apparently the Roald Dahl publishers have now agreed to continue publishing the original version, along with an edited "PC" edition.]
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
There's a bit of a furore here about the publisher "re-wording" much/most of Roald Dahl's childrens' books, to remove "offensive or discriminatory" language. On a morning TV news discussion today, a supporter of the move said "But the essence of the story remains the same". Sadly, "the essence" is not what makes a great book. The "essence" of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory is that boy from deprived background wins ticket to chocolate factory, has a great time. "He was an enormously fat boy" is not equivalent in meaning to "He was enormous". These "essences" do not do justice to their originals. "Essence" is not what makes great writing. If the words and attitudes expressed cause offence, then take that as learning about the past; if you don't like it, don't read it. One of the participants this morning was complaining about the James Bond novels, which I think most of us would agree include some rather racist and sexist views and language. She was up in arms about it, how it would affect younger readers and present these as acceptable attitudes. Then she shot herself in the foot by saying her teenage daughters read one of the books, and were falling about in hysterical laughter at the attitudes presented. They knew it described views that no-one can take seriously these days, and certainly didn't feel "objectified" by the words. [Sorry, gone a bit off-topic here, but it did annoy me. Apparently the Roald Dahl publishers have now agreed to continue publishing the original version, along with an edited "PC" edition.]
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
The "essence" is the action. What happens, what this and that person (or whatever) is doing. Any "idea", any thought (beyond the level of "good vs. evil", which is anyway reflected in the actions) is inessential. (An aside: Was your post really meant as a follow up to Mircea Neacsu's post? I do not see the connection. Did you intend it for another thread?)
-
(I've probably rant about this before, I have some time to learn new things) Not the act of learning new technologies, that's always fun. But I hate trying to find good and up to date (modern) documentation and tutorials, or tutorials that go from uber simple things to WTF did you just show ... there are missing steps that should probably be obvious, but no. I also hate installing tools (yes, I'm talking to you SQL Server Express), that does not install. Or downloading code that does not compile or use deprecated or obsolete frameworks Also, I have no clue what the new technologies are, what is "cool" or what is in need right now; I know it depends on what I want to do and what the company wants me to do. I'm many years in technical debts and I have a lot of catch up to do; Thank you for attending my anti-TED talk.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
Tell us how you really feel. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
The "essence" is the action. What happens, what this and that person (or whatever) is doing. Any "idea", any thought (beyond the level of "good vs. evil", which is anyway reflected in the actions) is inessential. (An aside: Was your post really meant as a follow up to Mircea Neacsu's post? I do not see the connection. Did you intend it for another thread?)
Yes, I was going a little off-topic, but reacting to "Now even writing as a whole take a step backwards". There's a difference between being "politically correct" and dumbing down writing to the point that whilst it may still describe the action (as you put it) it does so blandly and without personality. It's depressing when even publishers don't seem to "get" that deleting words from a text also deletes not only a lot of meaning but a lot of the pleasure too.
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
(I've probably rant about this before, I have some time to learn new things) Not the act of learning new technologies, that's always fun. But I hate trying to find good and up to date (modern) documentation and tutorials, or tutorials that go from uber simple things to WTF did you just show ... there are missing steps that should probably be obvious, but no. I also hate installing tools (yes, I'm talking to you SQL Server Express), that does not install. Or downloading code that does not compile or use deprecated or obsolete frameworks Also, I have no clue what the new technologies are, what is "cool" or what is in need right now; I know it depends on what I want to do and what the company wants me to do. I'm many years in technical debts and I have a lot of catch up to do; Thank you for attending my anti-TED talk.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
Maximilien wrote:
new technologies...there are missing steps that should probably be obvious, but no.
But that of course is how it works. The evangelists either do not know or do not want to tell about the problems that those 'new' technologies will introduce.
Maximilien wrote:
or use deprecated or obsolete frameworks
Of course but not sure if that fits into 'new' technologies.
Maximilien wrote:
Also, I have no clue what the new technologies are, what is "cool" or what is in need right now
Very, very few. Hype does not equal use. And definitely does not equate to wide spread use. Following is what I use for languages. Been using it for more than ten years. TIOBE Index - TIOBE[^]
-
Maximilien wrote:
But I hate trying to find good and up to date (modern) documentation and tutorials, or tutorials that go from uber simple things to WTF did you just show ... there are missing steps that should probably be obvious, but no.
Yes, indeed! Quality of documentation went down the drain some time ago and it doesn't seem to have any uptrend. Maybe the CEOs fired all the technical writers in anticipation of ChatGPT doing the work for free. Open-source projects never had any technical writers and real programmers never write documentation. Blah!
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
Quality of documentation went down the drain some time ago
Could you put a date on that? I know in the 90s that I only ever found one library that had good documentation. In the 80's I learned C++ using exactly 3 books. One was the Stroustrup which was a specification. Other was not even C++ but rather Object C (or whatever it was called). Third was by a woman (very rare then) and it seemed rather effective. In the 70's the only thing that existed for Fortran and Pascal were the functional reference manuals. And really expensive. I think I got one of those by pulling an old version out of the trash.
-
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
Quality of documentation went down the drain some time ago
Could you put a date on that? I know in the 90s that I only ever found one library that had good documentation. In the 80's I learned C++ using exactly 3 books. One was the Stroustrup which was a specification. Other was not even C++ but rather Object C (or whatever it was called). Third was by a woman (very rare then) and it seemed rather effective. In the 70's the only thing that existed for Fortran and Pascal were the functional reference manuals. And really expensive. I think I got one of those by pulling an old version out of the trash.
jschell wrote:
Could you put a date on that?
I would go for mid to late '90-es.
jschell wrote:
One was the Stroustrup which was a specification.
I've used the ARM (Annotated Reference Manual) by Stroustoup and Ellis. Btw, if the woman you are talking about is Margret Ellis, she is very effective author. The number of manuals was smaller but their quality was much better (me thinks). That depends also on the style of documentation you like. Me, I'm a fan of dry, terse and complete manuals.
Mircea
-
jschell wrote:
Could you put a date on that?
I would go for mid to late '90-es.
jschell wrote:
One was the Stroustrup which was a specification.
I've used the ARM (Annotated Reference Manual) by Stroustoup and Ellis. Btw, if the woman you are talking about is Margret Ellis, she is very effective author. The number of manuals was smaller but their quality was much better (me thinks). That depends also on the style of documentation you like. Me, I'm a fan of dry, terse and complete manuals.
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
I would go for mid to late '90-es....I've used the ARM (Annotated Reference Manual) by Stroustoup and Elli
However the 90s was when libraries for C/C++ started to become available. But Stroustrup was documenting the language and nothing else. And the Ellis book (80s) did the same but more on using it rather than what it was. So as I already mentioned in the 90s of the many libraries I used I found only one that had good documentation. There were more good books published in the 90s (Meyers and Ellis) but those were still on using C++. So they expanded what what already there but the additional stuff was not documented.
