Are we heading the correct direction??

[Germyan]

I am *He*.

Mike Ellison wrote:

I didn't get that at all. He or she didn't list one specific issue he or she had with how current tools and techniques are being used. He or she just said the *majority* are using them wrong. I still don't have a clue as to what he thinks "wrong" is! And he hasn't offered what he thinks "right" is either.

Don't you see any wrongness in any thing?

Mike Ellison wrote:

My short response is: so what? Are *you* using it appropriately in your projects? I think that's the more appropriate question for each.

I am sorry to say this.. YES YOU TOO THINK INSIDE THE BOX. I am asking a question about the basement of the IT and it's directions of growth.. you are talking about a appropriate way of using some tool and technology. Using the availble tools more appropriate is what something we can do considering the short term goals. But if we can *try* to understand the big picture, to see how we can effeciently/ effectively link all these *descrete* findings together to form a more effecient path (considering from software and hardware point of view), that would well be the ideal senario. If you ask me to propose a method, I would say I don't know as yet.. if you ask me, will you find it in the next twenty years, still I would say, I don't know.. but I do noticed that things are too descrete in IT. G

[Germyan]

It doesn't matter how hard you criticize me, I always take some thing good out of it.. I really appreciate all your postings.. G

[Marc Clifton]

Germyan wrote:

But don't you think that the number of layers inbetween the program and the hardware, as well as the program and the programmer is not properly balanced and also unnecessarily increasing.

Not everyone is capable of programming in assembly language. Nor do I want to spend my time programming for all the different video cards out there. In the DOS days, I supported 8 different video cards, because there was no common API layer. Yuck. As to the program and the programmer, frankly, having experienced the so-called quality of code that most programmers spew out, I actually think that there need to more more layers that enforce abstraction and separation of concerns.

Germyan wrote:

They are trying to make programming/ using the program a easy, isn't that eating up valuable resources?

The simple answer, yes. But the question is itself an oversimplification.

Germyan wrote:

Do you think that the current computer monitor is a good hardware tool?

Along with the keyboard and the mouse, they're all mediocre at best.

Germyan wrote:

What issues/ problems you see there?

It's a poor simulation of reality. And forget even having any connection at all with the spiritual world.

Germyan wrote:

I am asking you all whether my initial thinking is correct... if itself is wrong then I don't have to do any thing about it.

Geez, talk about being stuck inside the box. Since when does someone who criticizes others of being in the box bow to the general consensus of the population? Who cares what we think? If you have some better ideas, then do them! Good grief. Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

[Germyan]

CFog giving me errors, I cannot "Quote selected text" and cannot use other formatting too, when select the "Reply". Not everyone is capable of programming in assembly language. Nor do I want to spend my time programming for all the different video cards out there. In the DOS days, I supported 8 different video cards, because there was no common API layer. Yuck. This is because of the discreteness in-between hardware people and software people, that is exactly what I am trying to say. But I don't think that as you proposed, "increasing of layers" will help any. Geez, talk about being stuck inside the box. [Yes that is based on what you said in your posting] Since when does someone who criticizes others of being in the box bow to the general consensus of the population? [Again,, When I said someone is inside a box, I followed it by giving the reason to say so] Who cares what we think? [I care :-)] If you have some better ideas, then do them! Good grief. [If I had, Do you think that I will wait for you to say this] G -- modified at 8:43 Friday 27th October, 2006

[Marc Clifton]

Germyan wrote:

This is because of the discreteness in-between hardware people and software people

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Germyan wrote:

But I don't think that as you proposed, "increasing of layers" will help any.

Perhaps not. But it's an attempt to address a problem that I've encountered many times working with other developers. It may not be the best solution, or even the right one. But when someone says to me, after working with my way of thinking about programming, that "I don't think I can ever go back to the way I was taught to do programming", well, that's a pretty interesting statement. And yes, I've been told that, many times.

Germyan wrote:

If I had, Do you think that I will wait for you to say this

So, am I write in concluding that you feel we are all heading in the wrong direction, but don't know what to do about it? Frankly, I also feel that there's a lot of "wrong" direction, which is why I started writing articles, wrote MyXaml, Interacx, etc. If you think that my work simply examplifies thinking in the box, then we have a fundamental disagreement. Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

[Germyan]

Reiterating… I said that you think in the box based on what you typed, not based on what you have done (as I explained before, based on the history). You may have thought out of the box some other times, but while you were writing the responses (to me) you were implied, that you are inside the box. Anyway it is nice to see at least one guy feel that there is some thing wrong..

Marc Clifton wrote:

So, am I write in concluding that you feel we are all heading in the wrong direction, but don't know what to do about it?

Yes, you are correct I feel there are lots of wrong things happening, but I *yet* do not know what to do about it. IT is just growing very rapidly but not efficiently.. and also lots of discrete findings (mean you find some thing but does not continue with it). I know there are people, who have invented new concepts, and later they claim that they do not believe on what they have found, but sad thing is that I have seen some people are still using them... G

[Marc Clifton]

Germyan wrote:

I said that you think in the box based on what you typed, not based on what you have done

Ah, I didn't understand that.

Germyan wrote:

IT is just growing very rapidly but not efficiently

That, I think is more a symptom of an environment based on competition rather than cooperation.

Germyan wrote:

I know there are people, who have invented new concepts, and later they claim that they do not believe on what they have found

Interesting. Well, people learn, grow, etc. I can certainly remember some of my ideas regarding programming, that I think now are rather ridiculous. And hopefully nobody else is using them!

Germyan wrote:

but sad thing is that I have seen some people are still using them...

Well, maybe they're appropriate for whatever is trying to be done. Basically, in my experience, one learns more from one's failures than one's successes. Sure, there are a lot of bad ideas, but they do pave the way to better ones. Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

[Mike Ellison]

Germyan wrote:

It doesn't matter how hard you criticize me, I always take some thing good out of it..

Actually, I wasn't criticizing you at all. I was pointing out how you were criticizing others.

[Nirosh]

This is going on and on, Sorry to jump in. I have some thoughts related to this descussion. Let me see whether it make sense to you guys as well. We (I mean the IT world) have developed 8 bits, 16 bits, 32 bits, 64 bits OS, but rather than developing them based on bits, how if we can (or can we) change the whole software architecture/ hardware structure to deal with bytes directly than dealing with bytes through bits. I thought about this from data packet transferring (via network) point of view.. This is my finding.. Earlier we sent raw data through network cables, bit at a time without compression. Gradually it increases the bandwidth of the network cable by introducing from UTP to GB Ethernet to fire-wire to fiber optic (I guess the most powerful). Now the industry is immerging and becoming smart.. Not only the bandwidth is increasing but they are improving the effeciency by compressing the data packets. IIS 6.0 has that option of compressing WebPages before they are being cast to the client machine, and more often than not (with the simplicity of the compression algorithm) receiving browser decompress the files seamlessly and render the page correctly. I heard there are network cards/ modem cards who can compress data packet before casting them, provided the receivers capabilities to decompress it. So this is where we stand today. But how about changing the base architecture (of software / hardware) so that we can directly deal with bytes not bits, what make us stop doing that? Hope I explained it enough, but still If it is a mad idea, ignore it please. -- modified at 23:59 Monday 30th October, 2006

L.W.C. Nirosh, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

[Germyan]

Marc Clifton wrote:

Ah, I didn't understand that.

I said that you are thinking in-the-box, based on what have typed in the forum, not based on what you have done out side. Hope this is clear.. G