|
If he's not available we could cast from the Lounge.
Snarks on a plane
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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: If he's not available we could cast from the Lounge.
You called?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: I can't possibly go flying without my therapeutic Tiger
Why fly with the tiger, when you can
Ride the tiger
You can see his stripes
But you know he's clean
Oh don't you see what I mean?
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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
 for the RJD reference! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I see you're always on the LOOK OUT!
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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
Well that was fun, a good 10 mins standing in the cold and they didn't even use the alarm. Worst still I grabbed my coat a left my fresh coffee (mutter, mutter)... Thankfully I clocked in this am... 
Also Elon Musk Bond villan potential?...
modified 7-Feb-18 5:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: Also Elon Musk Bond villa potential?...
Why not? There sure is a lot of space on mars..
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Which books would you recommend to someone who is novice to programming and have interest to dive in to the world of software development. I am specifically asking for .NET Technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Sajjad wrote: I am specifically asking for .NET Technologies.
Too bad. I would have recommended the Harry Potter books, but wizardry is more useful in the javascript/jquery area... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I like the Terry Pratchett "Disc World" books better. Harry Potter series is good but comes in fourth behind any of the Douglas Adams books (2nd), or William Gibson books (3).
"Newer" is not automatically better, just different.
|
|
|
|
|
Any of the Addison Wesley / Wrox / Microsoft Press C# books - they start simply, and build up to the complex stuff.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
This is not an answer, it is just a reflection...
Is it this person that wants .NET or is it your idea? Personally I would recommend building programming knowledge on a solid foundation from the ground up. With a language that does not need specific frameworks and IDEs. I have seen even experienced Java coders with very vague understand of what a stack is, makes me a tad sad. But maybe that is just me. 
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: what a stack is
A plate of pancakes?
|
|
|
|
|
Don{t mind if I do!
Please pass the syrup
Regards,
Walt
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh lemon juice and a light sprinkling of white sugar; never syrup.
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: This is not an answer, it is just a reflection...
He's a novice. I don't think he should START OUT with reflection. Surely, that can come later... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: I have seen even experienced Java coders with very vague understand of what a stack is
FFY. 
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: have seen even experienced Java coders with very vague understand of what a stack is, makes me a tad sad.
I belong to the generation knowing what a stack is. An interrupt handler. How a virtual function is (or rather: ways that it can be) implemented. What microdoce is.
And then I know car drivers who can't explain how a combustion engine works. They can't explain a gear box. Or why a car is packed with relays while you home isn't. Yet they can make use of a car for getting work done, even though the inner mechanics are unknown to them.
Sometimes, knowing the inner workings can be a barrier. There are certain aspects of C#/WPF dependency properties and bindings that I do not know how are (or might be) impelemented, and that takes a lot of my attention: I am not capable of just using it without knowing the workings, as the younger generation does, but spend significant energy on trying to deduce from the behaviour how it is done. (No, I have not gone into the source code. Maybe I should.)
There will always be a far more things that you do not know how works than those you understand. Try to always understand the workings one layer down from what you "have to" understand, but not ten levels down. You don't have to understand the theoretical models of P/N-junctions to program C#. You may not even need to know the static and dynamic link locations of a stack, whether stack frames are allocated continously or on a heap, whether or not threads stacks link back to the stack frame from which it was started, differences in stack allocation for processes vs. threads. What you need to know is at a far more elementary level. Like the gearbox in you car: You need to know to use a higher gear at higher speeds, lower gear at lower speeds. And if you have an automatic gearbox, you don't even have to know that.
megaadam wrote: With a language that does not need specific frameworks and IDEs.
Like, "I would recommend learning to drive a car that doesn't have a synchronized gearbox, but requires you to double-clutch, to make you understand how the real thing is". ... I guess that I disagree. Both with cars and IDEs.
|
|
|
|
|
It almost seems you "want" to misunderstand what I am saying. So please let me try again.
I am saying if you learn WPF and WPF only you can of course become a great WPF coder. But I think there is some risk that you will be conceptually be stuck in "WPF is programming" which will hurt you outside that bubble. And I have observed this phenomenon. You have observed the flipside of it. Both exist. I think the first is worse, that's all.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
I have observed the same thing, but much stronger, in networking. 9 out of 10 Comp.Sci graduates believe that TCP/IP is networking. If you try to introduce them to e.g. connect ID (rather than the full IP address and TCP port no), to end-to-end routing at the physical layer, out-of-band signalling or different addressing schemes, they give you a blank stare: That's not the way it is done!
You see it in all sorts of software: Whatever concept or abstraction you try to introduce, a farir share of programmes will answer "Oh, but we don't need that, we will just so so-and-so using our old tools".
People will always be stuck in their old habits, at least until they have been forced to work with five or six alternate ways of doing things. But one way must be the first!
It is far better to make C# and Visual Studio your first, much better than assembly language (or even K&R C), vi and gcc. The major disadvantage is that if you are later forced to work in K&R C using vi as you "IDE", it feels like moving from a modern apartment into a stone age cave.
The first language / environment you learn is like your first sweetheart - you'll carry joyful memories from that time for the rest of your life. I started (serious) progrmming in Pascal, and 30+ years later, I still miss some of its features in today's languages. Similarly, you must expect people who start out with WPF / VS to have sweet memories of that when they are forced to switch to vi (and I won't blame them ). I don't think that is a good enough reason for making a poorer choice for a beginner's toolset.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The first language / environment you learn is like your first sweetheart - you'll carry joyful memories from that time for the rest of your life.
My 'first' was BASIC and no, I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that you mention it... I should have qualified it: The first serious language...
(I started with BASIC, too, when the language was so basic that variables were named A - Z, A0 - Z0 up to A9 - Z9. 286 numeric variables maximum, and 26 string varibables A$ - Z$. You are right: That doesn't bring up any joyful memories. In fact, I had suppressed that memory entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say I have many fond memories of the languages I subsequently worked with: Fortran, Coral and Pascal. It was only when I got to use C, fairly late in my career, that I started to feel at home.
|
|
|
|
|
A car driver is an operator, i.e the END USER. A programmer is an engineer, if a car gets in the market and it's realized by someone who dind't know what he was doing bad things are bound to happen.
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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
The world is not split in two: End users and builders/developers/engineers. You find end users at all levels.
A programmer is the end user of a compiler. Or an operating system. Or an IDE. This holds particularly true for a novice programmer. An engineer / developer creating an IDE, or a new compiler, is an end user of some of his tools. He definitiely is an end user of the CPU. The CPU architect is an end user of logic gates. ... And so on.
An end user is anyone that uses any technology without being involved in the creation or modification of that technology.
When you play the role of an end user, you don't have to know anything about how things are implemented, but sometimes it is of great help. The question is where to draw the line: As a car end user you should know the difference between an electric motor and a combustion motor, but you need not know the details of different kinds of suspension. A programmer needs to know the difference between source code, a compiled library and an executable, but will a novice programmer need to know the details of a stack frame?
Lots of things that mattered thirty years ago to "end users" doesn't matter today. Then, you certainly should know how to replace the spark plugs and headlight bulbs. With electric cars and LED headlights, that knowledge is about as useful as knowing how to shoe a horse. When did you last experience a flat tire? When was the last time the cooling agent in your engine was boiling and you should know that you must let it cool down before you remove the lid to add some cold water from that mountain creek runnning along the road? (That wasn't uncommon when I was a boy, but I haven't seen it for at least thirty years now.)
There are similar things in programming. As a student, I learned about 1- and 2-complement, about normalised and un-normalised and hidden bit floating point. What use is there of that knowledge today? Even that stack frame static link is more or less of historic interest only. RS232 pinouts are history. Rotary dial analog phones are history. But once upon a time, even end users would have to know lots of these things.
I think that the "semi-old guys" tend to be ones being most insistent on recently-abandoned technology being essential for the upcoming crop of engineers / developers / programmers. Those old enough to have seen four or five generations of technology pass by, are more relaxed and can more easily accept that yet another technology is turning into obsolence.
Sometimes, all we wait for is an excuse  . Lots of Linux fans insist that the only efficient way of solving a problem is through a 1970s style command line interface (not just for developers - there are lots of end user Linux tools with a CLI). When Windows Phone failed, and *nix solutions took nearly 100% of the phone market, noone ever asked for a CLI on their Androids or iPhones. A GUI is perfectly fine in a phone context, but lots of Linux fans still detest it on the desktop, refusing to use a GUI themselves, and usually very reluctant to develop good GUI end user tools.
So while some semi-oldtimers say "OK, we'll tolerate fullscreen editors like vi, but no more - no VS-type IDEs!", I think that their days are counted. Android proves that even in the Linux world, CLI is dead and GUIs have come to stay. Right now, most people belive that the Android or iPhone (they are not that different!) UI is the way a phone is; there are virtually no alternatives. For software development, there most certainly are alternatives to VS / WPF. It seems more like those who frown at VS / WPF do so because they see VS / WPF as a too strong competitor to their own favorite IDE. If users still stick to it after ten years, there may be reasons for it. After ten years as a developer, you cannot possibly have overlooked the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
