The first idea that comes to mind is that it went through many different people in different services. It's not that any individual was retarded beyond all hope, it's that it got passed around between many people, for different distances. One of the intermediaries has a problem with Outlook so they can't open e-mails at the moment. Therefore, the most straightforward way to show them something is to print it out. Then they forward it to someone else who can't be arsed to walk to the other building 2 miles away so they scan it and send it. If the original user wasn't aware that the text box was copyable, he immediately thought of making a screenshot. Or maybe he had prepared his screen so that it was a fullscreen screenshot with useful context, but someone in the middle decided to do you a service a cropped the image. I can totally imagine that error report going through a Rube-Goldberg-worthy adventure into your inbox. Tell me, how many people were involved in the routing of that error report?

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

:thumbsdown:I disagree with the point the OP is trying to make. The original code is easier to read:confused: and debug :(( . The second code has me counting nested parenthesis, :doh: and commas, it takes longer to read and understand when you're not familiar with the code, and it's harder to spot a factual error. X| I reckon that when you're reading the same code over and over :^) , the shorter route works,:cool: but in a professional environment,:suss: readable code is better than clever code.:thumbsup: Except maybe when performance is critical, :) and your compiler is not awesome, ;P like in some embedded systems, or some video games. :|

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

Judah Himango wrote:

Even so, it will eventually overthrow traditional disk-based distribution models for computer games.

It will not because it's better for the users, but because it'll be perceived as a better business model: charge a game for time played, and no problems with piracy anymore!

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

I agree that many projects go from being used by one person to being used company wide. But many more don't. If what you care most is to have your program up and running ASAP, go for it. No need to setup proper security or error handling or input checking. If it turns out that the program is valuable enough to be extended and maintained, rewrite it from scratch right away. I usually write neat code, no matter what, because it always takes way more time to decide what your program is going to do, than it does to write the actual code. I care more about the code being *reusable* and understandable when I come back to it in one month, than about objects, naming conventions, magic numbers, and having the names of servers written in the code. I don't mind having one class with 4 methods, if I deem the code clear and concise.

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

MidwestLimey wrote:

If you're not good at marketing, you're not good at communicating. If you're not good at communicating, you're never going to understand the user. If you can't understand the user, you're not a very good programmer. Ergo, they're not good programmers.

I disagree. The OP said programmer, didn't say software engineer. It doesn't take good communication skills to do grunt work. Your project manager will do that part of the job for you. Disclaimer: I do believe that a programmer who understands the user is always superior to one who doesn't. Being good at marketing your skills is not the same as being good at communication. You can work in a university, understand what they talk about, and their needs, but still feel uncomfortable around people and be bad in a job interview. I'd say that if a good programmer doesn't have a job, it means he's not a good programmer (overestimates himself), or he's not trying hard enough, because there are, in this world, a few competent recruiters, who can recognize good programmers and wouldn't let one run if one crossed his sight.

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

Brady Kelly wrote:

Alan Burkhart wrote: Saw this article and have to wonder how much of it is actually based on facts, and how much is pure speculation. Any thoughts? I had a brownout just moments ago. I wanted to attach a file in GMail, and Firefox hung up for about two minutes when I clicked the link.

You forgot the :) "joke" icon

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

Erm, on your opinion, how many *nix users are proficient enough to the source code, debug it, find the problem, correct it, recompile it, and not break anything else? :^) I hate it when people say "Hey, it's Linux, if there's a bug you just fix it yourself! Ain't it cool?" It supposes that everybody has the skills.:mad: Oops, my sarcasm detector was broken. Sorry about that. :sigh:

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

I totaly agree with #1 (chocolate) the happiness/money ratio is way better than, for instance, #2 (hard cash). To me, money is probably one of the least impressive gifts, because it's common. A 20€ bill? Geesh, I already have, like 3 or 4 of those right here. Whereas chocolate for, say, 10€, takes a few days to eat and you're happier! And you can share without looking awkard. "-Hey, my uncle offered me 100€ and I want to share it with you, dear colleagues. -Dude, WTF? I don't need your money!" against "-Hey, my uncle offered me this box of chocolate. Want some? -Dude, you're the best!" Unless, of course, you really need the cash. Which I assume is not the case, since people are buying presents left and right. The best presents are those that bring the most happiness for the least money (sure, a 1 meter plasma screen always beats any box of chocolate, but that's like bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight). Like the credit card publicity used to put it, you know, the "Priceless" campaign?

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

Oh, cool. Is there anything in .NET 2.0, though? (I forgot to mention that, sorry)

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

One thing I like in Java is that their UI elements can all be interconnected around an Action object. You create an AbstractAction with an Icon and a description string, and then you can associate it with any controls, which will all have the same action when activated (click a button, select a menu item, click a toolbar button, etc...), have the same description, and are all enabled and disabled together, all that through the Action object. I haven't tested to see if changing the icon and the description also cascades. Is there a similar functionality in C# 2.0? Did someone write some class with this functionality? I realize that it's not very hard to code by oneself, but if I can use a proven implementation, or work with someone else, all the better. EDIT : precised that I want .NET 2.0 This has been added to the framework in C# 3.0, but I must use .NET 2.0

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

modified on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:01 PM

Ok, I think I get it. So, I would be able to call methods and get properties and fields, but forbidden from setting fields and properties. Well, there are still the methods to change the data, so I guess that optimization-wise, this doesn't help. So, it's mostly syntactic sugar, a contract constraint. I'd put it in the same category as varargs, in terms of usefulness. You say that VB.NET has this feature today? How does it work when you import a VB.NET library to another language, like C#?

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

Christian Graus wrote:

I can use const to tell a user when they can trust my code not to change their stuff.

erm, I don't see how that would work. I thought that const was more of a promise to yourself, or to implementors, not to users. Nothing prevents you from calling methods and setting fields, right? Ok, let me start it again. What is the const keyword supposed to do in parameters that has an effect outside the method?

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

:(It takes time to rewrite an implementation. For example, if I found this great article about yet another ORM framework, wouldn't it defeat the purpose if I went to write my own ORM framework based on the ideas of that article?:doh: I understand it's an exercice with some academic value,:^) but when you're being paid 12€ per hour, or when you have an actual application to finish in time,:rose: it's so much more convenient to download the source code and add it to your project: instead of spending a couple days to a couple weeks coding something, I just spend three hours reading the article and the example project to understand how I'm going to use that code.:rolleyes: Of course, some people are actually going to write their own ORM framework, and those people will read the code, take inspiration, and write their own implementation.:-D I too think that developpers releasing code samples under GPL don't know what GPL is. They probably think that since every open source app is released under GPL, he should the same so his source code can be used by everyone!:~

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

I also think that the GPL kinda misses the objective of this website. I understand that when you're building a system, you don't want to put those tens of thousands of lines of code and coffee cups in the public domain, but for a small article in a site intended to share code with other people, the GPL is too much. Those articles should default to Public Domain or some other permissive Creative Commons license. Some articles however aren't explaining just detailing a couple classes, they're actually explaining a larger framework or library, and for such complex frameworks, a license could be more carefully chosen. How about LGPL? If I recall correctly, you're allowed to use LGPL code in your project without tainting the rest of the project, right?

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

1. create a new VC#2005 solution where your VC#2008 poject is, but with a different name 4) solve compilation errors 5) you're good to go What I do is, I have both solution files on the same folder, using different names, for instance MyProject.sln and MyProject2008.sln, and I can use either, with the same source files and all and all. I don't know what would happen to the project settings, though, like post-build events and other compilation settings. All in all, you'll find less problems than you think. Oh, and when you use VC#2008, make sure that "Target Framework" is .Net 2.0, and not 3.5 or 3.0. VC#2005 doesn't have the same support for the lattest versions. And there may be some syntactic sugar added in 2008, but you probably stumbled upon it and will recognize it when the compile errors come up.

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

I could have been * a maths teacher * a foreign languages teacher/translator/interpreter, or something in that domain * musician * accountant/computer

"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra