Are we heading the correct direction??

Germyan

Yes I have seen and noticed some.. Let me tell you something. There are two ways a missiles use to hit a fighter jet.. one is base on the history (missile is droped on to the heat path of the jet and base on that missile find the jet and attack) of the jet and other is evaluating its current movement and predicting the future (missile always targeting at a predicted location and never take its way based on the history of the jet).. I do judge people by using the second way.. and according to that I only read what you just said and I do *not* care about your history, is that unfair?? so based on what you said you are not thinking out of the box.. Finally,, I just went to http://www.myxaml.com/ and read it. It just proved me how good you are... That also proved me that you are still inside the box, but the bad thing about it is, that you don't know about it. You want more info....? you wouldn't like it G

Marc Clifton

Germyan wrote:

You want more info....?

Sure. Enlighten me. :) 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

Dan Neely

Mine means something, does yours?

Germyan

While appreciating the effort

Marc Clifton wrote (at http://www.myxaml.com):

The wealth of possibilities that a developer now has with MyXaml is truly amazing. And the best part is, with MyXaml there's no need to wait for Longhorn's release in 2005 6 7 ??? to take advantage of the XAML technology. Give your development team a jumpstart into the future of Windows programming and your customers a more rewarding experience today!

This it self prove that where you are going, aren't you going after microsoft here.. is this what you called think out of the box.. G

Marc Clifton

Germyan wrote:

This it self prove that where you are going, aren't you going after microsoft here.. is this what you called think out of the box..

:laugh: You fell right into that one. First off, I didn't write that, a friend of mine did, and I enjoyed the way he spin-doctored the whole thing so much that I just left it as it was. You're looking at the surface. Look here[^]. So, I have a question for you. Why do say we are all heading in the wrong direction. Surely some people are not. For example, since you're so enlightened, I would assume you are trying to do something in a different direction. So, what would you describe as being the "right" direction? What are doing about it? 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

J4amieC

The only bit I got was Cthulhu :laugh:

--- How to get answers to your questions[^]

Mike Ellison

You only quoted me writing "few bad programmers". The actual quote was "Perhaps you find yourself among a few bad programmers". You sounded very depressed in your post, and throwing out a generalization without any specifics to back it up (the tiny bit about XML wasn't specific - you didn't mention specifically how you think it is being misused). In my experience, when someone starts throwing out depressed generalizations without any specifics to back it up, he or she is usually feeling trapped in their own situation. There was nothing in your original post that backs up the statement "the *majority* is doing it wrong". I haven't seen anything you've written since to back that up with specifics. I responded based on my experience - the people I'm working with are using XML quite well, and very appropriately.

Germyan wrote:

hahaha.... this is where I called people does not think out of the box.. why is that *more*, have you ever thought what would have done if you have much much faster systems..

I'm trying to understand what you are saying - I realize there may be a language barrier, so forgive me - this makes no sense at all. I have no idea what you are getting at. As far as having faster systems - they've gotten faster every year as far as I can tell.

Mike Ellison

Nirosh wrote:

I think "G" is talking about the tools and techniques but not the way we are using them.. and he or she is asking whether the way, we build these tool and techiniques are correct...

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.

Nirosh wrote:

I think the base system architecture (hardware as well as software) seems to have their limitations

You're right, but it always does, doesn't it? But aren't there also all kinds of people working to improve base system architecture? When quantum computing is out is mass, it too will have its own limitations (once we reach them)... but then, I'm sure there will be researchers working on the next advances. I'm supposed to agree that everyone is going in the wrong direction, with someone who won't say what the right direction is?

Nirosh wrote:

XML is invented by some one with a purpose, but at the other end of the world some one else (descretely) is using it for something else

My short response is: so what? Are *you* using it appropriately in your projects? I think that's the more appropriate question for each. XML was invented by several groups of people, and I'm sure as they did they recognized many areas of applicability. In your opinion (or the original poster's, for that matter) how is the someone you're referring to at the other end of the world misusing it? I think a discussion on specific misuses of XML is likely to be more productive, and get better responses, than pining that "the *majority* of developers" are doing it wrong.

Nirosh wrote:

I think what initial poster is telling have much more depth than most of the repliers think

That may well be true. I can only respond to what he or she has written, not what's in his or her head. What he or she wrote lacked specifics and made depressed generalizations that run counter to my own experience. -- modified at 10:16 Thursday 26th October, 2006

Dan Neely

from wikipedia. Cthulhu is depicted as having a worldwide cult centered in Arabia, with followers in regions as far-flung as Greenland, Louisiana, and New Zealand.[10] Cthulhu is described by some of these cultists as the "great priest" of "the Great Old Ones who lived ages before there were any men, and who came to the young world out of the sky."[11] The cult is noted for chanting its "horrid phrase or ritual: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", which translates as "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."[12] This is often shortened to "Cthulhu fhtagn", which appears to mean "Cthulhu waits".[13]

Mike Ellison

Germyan wrote:

think out of the box..

Like what, for example? I find that the people who truly think "outside the box" are usually off doing productive things, and not telling everyone else in public chat forums to think outside the box. Do you have any specific ideas to offer, or are you simply content to babble "think outside the box" on and on? Wait - let me anticipate your response: "Mike, you are too narrow minded. You have to learn to think outside the box." There. I just saved you about 45 seconds of typing. Now you're free to go off and do "outside the box" kinds of things.

Germyan

Yes I meant something.. that is I didn't understand you.. But I think You WIN.. G

Germyan

Mike Ellison wrote:

You only quoted me writing "few bad programmers". The actual quote was "Perhaps you find yourself among a few bad programmers". You sounded very depressed in your post, and throwing out a generalization without any specifics to back it up (the tiny bit about XML wasn't specific - you didn't mention specifically how you think it is being misused). In my experience, when someone starts throwing out depressed generalizations without any specifics to back it up, he or she is usually feeling trapped in their own situation.

I am not depressed .. just think about it, why I should be depressed. I have asked a question and you all are helping me to figure my thinking.. I feel great, and also I feel like all of you are my friends. Please don't try to make me a one who is not me.

Mike Ellison wrote:

I'm trying to understand what you are saying - I realize there may be a language barrier, so forgive me - this makes no sense at all. I have no idea what you are getting at. As far as having faster systems - they've gotten faster every year as far as I can tell.

Yes, I am not a natural English speaker, my mother language is some thing else. Let me try.. In your initial posting you said I'm building real software applications that solve real problems, making the office and institution I work for tangibly more efficient. Many others are doing the same. Is that what you mean by "fool"? When you say MORE EFFICIENT that it self mean that there are more to do but probably due to some issue (may be time, may be money, may be new ideas, may be technology, may be hardware ....) you have not done it. Again if you are to understand me, then you have to think like me. As you said above "I realize there may be a language barrier", this mean that a one who cannot write in english will not be able to make you understand any thing.. Now, let me see.. how I can make you understand my point with that simple issue we just faced.. According to that.. the box is the language, and if I am a master of English then I will use it to pass my message to you correctly. But what are the problems we faced with the language, I have to learn the language, and spend time upon typing it here. Then I have to wait till you read it. Have to come back again to see the answers. But the problem is that language is invented by people for direct communiation. We are here using a web sit

Germyan

Mike Ellison wrote:

Do you have any specific ideas to offer, or are you simply content to babble "think outside the box" on and on?

Yes, But I won't share it with you :-) No, sir I don't, but does this mean that I cannot I ask a question to see what you all think about it. G

Germyan

Marc Clifton wrote:

First off, I didn't write that, a friend of mine did, and I enjoyed the way he spin-doctored the whole thing so much that I just left it as it was.

But what I see is only your name.. The interface you have used (I mean available to use) is not strong enough to show me that your friend wrote that. let's see... if you wanted to show that to me.. will the current tools, technology, and hardware can support you to do that??

Marc Clifton wrote:

You're looking at the surface. Look here[^].

I saw this a while back and I am in touch with XAML as it was initially out.. 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. They are trying to make programming/ using the program a easy, isn't that eating up valuable resources? (This is just a one very broad question, I am sorry, I don't have any other way to ask it). Let me ask you a another question.. Do you think that the current computer monitor is a good hardware tool? What issues/ problems you see there? G

Marc Clifton wrote:

So, what would you describe as being the "right" direction? What are doing about it?

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. G

Mike Ellison

Germyan wrote:

When you say MORE EFFICIENT that it self mean that there are more to do but probably due to some issue (may be time, may be money, may be new ideas, may be technology, may be hardware ....) you have not done it.

Nope - we accomplished exactly what we set out to do.

Mike Ellison

Germyan wrote:

No, sir I don't, but does this mean that I cannot I ask a question to see what you all think about it.

Sorry, friend. You seem like a nice person, but you have repeatedly criticized several other people on this thread for not "thinking outside the box". Now you admit to having no thoughts yourself to move forward. I'm not surprised at all by the responses you've received. It is fine to pose a question - but if you're going to criticize others and claim they are thinking "wrong", without you ever indicating what you think "right" is, you should expect the kind of response you've gotten here.

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