Are we heading the correct direction??

[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