struggling with Design -Paradigms
in [OOP]
|
Prev: looking for design patterns of interacting state machine
Next: Passing a lot of parameters in constructor?
From: Nick Malik [Microsoft] on 27 Feb 2007 06:05 "Jerry Coffin" <jcoffin(a)taeus.com> wrote in message news:MPG.204d6bba794fd6f7989884(a)news.sunsite.dk... > [ ... ] > >> Go with what works. Given that no one is investing much effort in new >> developments for C++, all those C++ jobs may very well be maintainece >> positions. If that's what you want, go for it. > > Upon what basis do you consider this a given? No valid basis in fact. Rumor and gut only. I respectfully withdraw that comment. -- --- Nick Malik [Microsoft] MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not representative of my employer. I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a programmer helping programmers. --
From: Thomas Gagne on 27 Feb 2007 08:28 Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote: > <snip> > Languages, inasmuch as they express thought, also mold it. "It's interesting that it takes an earth-shaking experience — like becoming test-infected or learning a different kind of language — to cause a re-evaluation of beliefs." -- Bruce Eckel That is why, Nick, I think it's important for people to choose languages carefully and not just work with whatever is most popular. I tend to think of my problems in the languages I know, and the more expressive they are the more expressive my understanding of both the problem and its solution may be. -- Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php> to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.
From: Bjorn Reese on 27 Feb 2007 13:14 Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote: > Go with what works. Given that no one is investing much effort in new > developments for C++, all those C++ jobs may very well be maintainece > positions. If that's what you want, go for it. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why is Microsoft investing much more in C++ than in C# these days? -- mail1dotstofanetdotdk
From: arnuld on 27 Feb 2007 14:45 > On Feb 27, 3:38 pm, "Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <nickma...(a)hotmail.nospam.com> wrote: > Your remarks are offensive and condescending. I'm reacting late at night. > I will keep my temper in check as best I can. I am human. [/OT] please do not get a temper. you came tired from work. you could have ignored my post easily. when i wrote my intentions i was not angry, not even 1%. i say sorry if my words arouse anger in you. [/OT] > First off, I do not believe that it is fair to say that Microsoft is "best > known" for producing "3rd class software." For each software title that you > consider third class, you are welcome to suggest a "first class" example. > However, there are many different measures of what makes software "good." > While the measuring stick used by various Microsoft product teams may not be > the same as yours, it is nearly always competitive and rational. While I > stipulate that Microsoft doesn't often create a cutting edge v1.0 product, > the products we do create are stable, with relatively few defects, and we > rarely walk away from a customer. That is hardly "3rd class software." To > call successful, profitable, well established products "3rd class" is > intentionally insulting. [OT] i wanted to *avoid* any OT thing, but anyway, only 2 lines: go to someone's home who uses Windows (99% he will be using a pirated CD but that is not my point) and ask him how many times Windows hung and went unstable and how much he fears of Viruses. you will get the answer, quite opposite to your "with relatively few defects" 1st, i can explain all the problems but as i said that is going highly OT. i only want to say that i have used Windows for 4 years and using Linux only from last 1 year. i wrote from experience. 2nd, i do not want to you get in temper. Temper kills Common-Sense i want you to read this when you will be carrying a normal-mind [/OT] > Secondly, to say that Mr. Gates "ordered" anyone to do anything is to > demonstrate a massive misunderstanding of how large corporations work. [OT] i think, he is the one who owns Microsoft. i *did* work for 2 MNCs. Corporation are not here to do human or technological development or to help any country and that country's men to grow. they are here to make money, at any cost, whether the cost is employees or human generation. Exactly opposite to how Scientists think. > I > have worked at many, and I've never seen a CEO "order" anyone to do anything > that produced a useful result. In Microsoft, as in most successful > companies in the USA, our corporate leaders believe in leadership, not > command and control. They rarely, if ever, "order". i did not intend *command* and *control*, sorry for being unclear. i meant, you *have* to do what your "pointy-haired boss" says to you, whether it harms the company or profits the company, doesn't matter, otherwise, you will get fired. so what you will call that. it's an order. [/OT] > I have a healthy respect for people who do not use the same software > platforms as I do. I even have respect for people who are willing to make a > rational case for why their measurements of "goodness" are more appropriate > than the ones used by the Microsoft product teams (where I do not work). [OT] i did NOT disrespect you. i do say that majority of Windows users do not possess any Common-Sense when it comes to even understanding how to use an OS effectively according to one's daily needs. [/OT] > Oh, and those products that are not "technically good..." run on about 90% > of all personal computers worldwide. [OT] 99% of Indians also say that "General Dwyer", killed thousands of men, women and children in Jaliawala Bagh" in Amritsar, India. do you believe them ? 95% of Indians and at least 70% of this world believe in ghosts and most of these people have seen ghosts. do you believe them ? [/OT] > I guess that "technically" is not the > only definition of "good" that should be considered in the equation, should it? [/OT] If a software is not sane technically, there could be many reasons but in corporate, most of the times it is because the owner designed it purely for the purpose of "money-generation" and nothing else. i could speak more but NO. it is OT [/OT] > Don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer that we should be able to > trust our software to keep our information safe, secure, and available. yes, these are the characteristics of good software. > But > I don't believe in technical purity for its own sake. BTW: IMHO: Apple is > better at brand development than Microsoft is. [OT] i do not agree with that. Even if today, Microsoft launches Motorcycles with "leak-able petrol tanks" and "worn-out spark-plugs", Microsoft will sell them. You will see those Motorcycles in every home, and 90% of the population will really use those motorcycles. as you may know, success of a product does not depend on its technical- purity, both, reasons and risks, are non-technical. [/OT] > The only word in brackets is the name of my employer. Do you believe that > it is not inflammatory to refer to my employer as a "devil" when you have > demonstrated, proudly, a lack of knowledge or understanding of what it means > to work there? This is another example of intentionally casting insults. > There is no room for this kind of name-calling in a civilized conversation. [OT] i do not want to work for Bill Gates like i do not want to work for SS [1] yes, you are right. i am not impressed with your employer's business practices, for he is obstructing human-development with his business practices, not sure for what reason. [/OT] > This is the last I will say on the topic of your clear and demonstrable > prejudice against one of the leading software and programming tools > companies. [OT] what you *think* or *see* as prejudice, is simply Common-Sense, what 90% of this world never understands. i have a simple philosophy: "Observe the masses and think the opposite". unfortunately it is also known as "Common Sesne" and *logical-thinking* is the *hardest* thing to do. trust me. People still think we Indians, ourselves, with our own effort, removed the British Rule from India. i do not agree with such lies. among those, who speak *that* truth, are those who throw Acids on girl's faces just because they wear Jeans. [/OT] > You can find whatever employment you wish, on or off of the > Microsoft platform. [/OT] Malik, trust me, i really respect you and it does not mean that must respect the persons you respect, without any analysis. [/OT] > I continue to wish you luck in your endeavers. YES, i expected that > However, I do not believe I shall make much effort to provide you with any > more guidance or advice. [/OT] i also expected that and will not comment on that. all i say, that India is a high-tech country, as most people say everyday, and BSNL's broadband connection does not support "24 hour on modem connection" in some regions. 90% of pouplation who boast of high-tech India does not even know of the basic facts. Have you ever tried to think what SS and Jaliawala Bagh and high-tech India have in common with ghosts and Jeans .....think hard, .............after some days, try my BLOG [/OT] > Good Luck. thanks for that :-) -- arnuld http:blogspot.com [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS
From: Jerry Coffin on 28 Feb 2007 01:34
In article <w-ednfJOpcZMknnYnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, nickmalik(a)hotmail.nospam.com says... [ ... ] > I admit to being unclear. It should be clear, now, that our positions are > fairly similar in many respects. (A few key differences, but nothing > diametrically opposite). It does sound that way. I apologize if my original stance sounded militant or denigrating -- I didn't mean it that way, but rereading it, I can see how it could (easily) be taken that way, and if so I do apologize. [ ... ] > Perhaps my experience has simply been different from yours. I've met both > the "proficient" and the "excellent". Desire, passion, motivation are all > key to getting to any level of proficiency. Recognition is usually a major > motivator for these folks, so ego shows up as well. However, in none of the > cases where someone had desire and passion could I reasonably predict > success, nor could I say that a lack of ego was a predictor of failure. You > have to love the code. Loving yourself is tangential at best. Hmmm...it does sound like there are differences in our experience. In my own experience, while it's often fairly difficult to tell the really good from the good, the truly superb seem to show up _very_ quickly. I suppose some may not have known it themselves, but certainly almost everybody around them did. > Therefore, to ask someone with no formal training, and a year and a half of > LISP, if he thinks he can be a good developer, is pointless and potentially > misleading. I can't say I really agree, but I don't really have anything new to add either, so perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. [ ... ] > Two questions come to mind: > 1) when you were exploring, were you working in technology? Some, but mostly not. > 2) How long, after you chose your first technology, before you changed your > mind? That's a bit hard to say -- I've never really had any major "about faces" or anything like that, but certainly my ideas have grown and changed over time. I doubt my whole outlook on development has survived intact for an entire week, but there's still a pretty obvious similarity between what I do now, and hacking I did on the school's Control Data mainframe, all the way back in college... > Most folks choose what they "think" they want, and change their mind within > a year of starting. So, how important, in hindsight, was all that "relative > certainty" to the next set of choices you made? Well, it held up pretty well for me. I know some other people with pretty similar experiences, but I'll openly admit I don't know enough people (in either direction) to claim it's any more than anecdotal evidence. [ ... ] > I certainly have no cause to doubt your experiences. I have heard many > stories like this from others as well. At this point in your career, I'm > sure you have reached the point where you trust yourself, and what you know, That's where my ego probably played a part -- even in my first semester of college, I never really doubted myself. I probably _should_ have, but I didn't. :-) If anything, I probably trust myself less now -- thinking back on some of what I (and my friends) did, it's hard to believe we dove up to our elbows in multi-million dollar machines without a second thought, hacking the hardware as much as the software, soldering away immediately after spending a few hours at the Red Garter Saloon, and all manner of "stuff" I wouldn't even consider today... > because you've likely invested the time and effort needed to truly excell in > some part of your chosen field or technology. Perhaps I'm surprised that > you chose that particular field or technology before you received your first > paycheck. > > If that is the case, you are rare indeed. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I suppose it may be a matter of viewpoint as much as anything else. To anybody else, there's probably no resemblance at all, but to me it's easy to see a thread between some code I wrote this afternoon, and an algorithm I worked out for the Rubik's cube 25 years ago or so... :-) -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination. |