|
So you get to all the things IE complains about your javascript faster than Chrome can say "oh yeah, just do this" and it executes the script?
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking a language fluently is impressive, and speaking many languages is impressive, but ultimately, it’s not about the words. "It's not in the words that you told me"
OK, I'm slapping myself for picking that one now.
|
|
|
|
|
And therefore it is entirely about the words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this, and have made similar claims before myself. Knowing the syntax of a particular language doesn't necessarily make you a good programmer. Understanding core design concepts, loose-coupling, abstraction etc are what makes you a good programmer.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree.
Next time you go to an interview, try speaking non-grammatical English. See how far you get.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
What if you were interviewing someone where English wasn't their first language, so maybe their spoken English was poor. But they had a solid understanding of the underlying principles and could write excellent code.
I work (and have worked with) many developers where their English was poor (we had an offshore Vietnamese team at a previous company) who could write code of a very high quality and could grasp new ideas almost instantly.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
The point that I was making was that good human language skills are an essential part of the package.
Yes, I would make allowances for a person whose native language was not English (or whatever language is used by the team). However, if his/her English is so poor that communication is impossible, his/her programming skills are irrelevant.
A software engineer must be able to work with the team, and that includes facility in a human language.
(BTW, I have found that in many cases the English skills of foreigners have been better than those of some so-called "native speakers".)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: (BTW, I have found that in many cases the English skills of foreigners have been better than those of some so-called "native speakers".)
We have to think to every word and how to put it in a sentence before saying it out loud, while a native speaker has little-to-zero problems blurting out whatever passes in its mind.
It is true in every language.
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
|
|
|
|
|
I agree to a point, but some languages (Haskell and Smalltalk spring to mind) will permanently change the way you look at problems.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: but some languages (Haskell and Smalltalk spring to mind) will permanently change the way you look at problems.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? I've used LISP and Haskell previously, and having done so gives me a bigger view of possibilities to work with.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's a good thing, but it does indicate that languages do matter, because some will change the way you program forever (for the better).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, whenever I had a problem with Haskell I liked to curl up in a corner and cry, never crossed my mind in .NET 
Seriously though, pure FP can be a bitch. Getting into that mindset is really difficult if all you do is OOP.
|
|
|
|
|
Funnily, I suspect that's because of C++'s (ultimately Simula's) influence on mainstream languages.
Smalltalk (the first OOP language, as opposed to Simula which supported OOP), was heavily influenced by LISP, and frequently encourages an approach much more similar to functional programming. Its blocks are like closures, no control structures (conditionals and iterations are just messages).
Quote: I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind
-- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst that's all very well (though not everything, certainly), without a good understanding of the business you can be the best developer in the world and it won't help you at all.
|
|
|
|
|
The Visual Studio team developed Visual Rust to allow easier entry into programming against the C-like Rust programming language. Here’s a primer. Rust in Visual Studio? Is it April 1 already?
|
|
|
|
|
time to explore
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not completely shocked, they already had support in Visual Studio Code.
I've been learning Rust, so this is welcome, with some caveats...
Rust has its own package management system, Cargo, that integrates well with the language. If this forces you to use VS's project system for builds, I can foresee issues.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Rust has its own package management system
I doubt that's actally a language feature. Just as Intellisense and such are not features of C#.
(But maybe I'll take a look at Rust.)
|
|
|
|
|
Its not a language feature, but Cargo is part of the default install, and heavily integrated into the development process.
To start a project, for example, you typically enter (on the command line):
>cargo new MyProject
and it will build the standard project structure. The Cargo.toml file lists all the project's dependencies, which will automatically get downloaded as part of a build. The "cargo test" command executes Unit tests, etc.
If Visual Studio's build system gets in the way of that process, then it won't be a good thing for rust development.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: part of the default install
... of one particular compiler/development toolset. Which still has nothing at all to do with the language, which exists separately from any particular implementation.
Visual Studio gets in the way of my development process in C#, so I don't use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: let exampleStringText = "Welcome to Visual Studio Magazine.";
Let? Let?
You know how long it's been since I used an explicit LET?
|
|
|
|
|
By Grabthar's Hammer! let exampleStringText = "Welcome to Visual Studio Magazine.";
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was due to the introduction of the iPhone and Microsoft missing the shift to mobile, or maybe it was because of the proliferation of open source projects, but things changed, and today those same companies need to be persuaded that going with Microsoft is a good idea. Bonus #9: Most of the alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
Businesses still running Windows server 2003 are vulnerable to attack from hackers looking to exploit security holes. "It's dangerous to go alone"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
