Re: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- From: "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 03:33:05 -0400
re:
> Microsoft is making a tacit admission that they have
> a problem when they have to announce a lite version
> of the stuff for people to learn before they move on to
> the rest of the framework.
Which "lite version" is that ?
Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================
"Electroniclaim" <Electroniclaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3660734A-2F24-47FB-9D60-A7873D9C19C1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I think that the large number of requests for chunks of code that work and
> solve a specific problem is indicative of a larger problem. That is the
> learning curve associated with dot net. Microsoft is making a tacit
> admission that they have a problem when they have to announce a lite
> version
> of the stuff for people to learn before they move on to the rest of the
> framework. Strict object oriented programming is difficult to learn. I
> have
> been a VFP developer for a number of years with products under my belt
> that
> have sold in the thousands of installations. Making the jump to dot net
> is
> daunting in that you have to think like microsoft to use the help and find
> the answers you need. If you know what you are looking for you can find
> it.
> If you dont' think like MS and use the correct terms you are lost. imho
> Bob
> Thickens
>
>
> "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
>
>> Hi Brice,
>>
>> I'm not a frustrated idealist. I'm an idealist. Not sure what I should be
>> frustrated about! ;-)
>>
>> If you think I'm frustrated with all the shade-tree developers out there,
>> I'm not. Less competition. However, my compassion moves me to help them
>> in
>> some fashion. Hence, this (and other similar) thread. The original post
>> was
>> intended to make people think, examine themselves, and see if they could
>> or
>> should be doing better. Whether anyone DOES or not is not my
>> responsibility,
>> and I happily recuse myself from it!
>>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> ..Net Developer
>> What You Seek Is What You Get.
>>
>> "Brice Richard" <Brice Richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message
>> news:6A72820C-0DD4-4BBF-BD51-1059863110CF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Kevin:::
>> >
>> > I read your initial post and have to weigh in on this issue. Don't be
>> > such
>> > a
>> > frustrated idealist! Let me off another perception here for you to
>> > consider.
>> >
>> > I believe Microsoft is slowly redefining what it means to be a software
>> > engineer today. The evolutionary move in software engineering from
>> > writing
>> > pure syntactical code to integrating UIs with logic code substantially
>> > redefined what it meant to be a programmer and it will happen again
>> > with
>> > the
>> > continued improvements of the .Net framework, namely, by increased
>> > managed
>> > code and incorporation of new and improved classes, objects, etc.
>> >
>> > I believe that today's programming technology paradigm represents a
>> > parabolic curve of sorts. While memory management, addresses,
>> > multi-threading
>> > and the like are becoming easier to program against, understanding and
>> > programming against the complexity of abstruse relationships among and
>> > between the objects in an OOP world is becoming much more challenging
>> > today.
>> > (Yes, I believe that multi-threading will eventually become obsolete
>> > [by
>> > advances made to processors either through biotechnology,
>> > nanotechnology
>> > or
>> > both], and therefore unnecessary to achieve FUTURE optimal application
>> > performance.)
>> >
>> > This challenge is due in part to the colossal number of options,
>> > methods,
>> > functions, objects, procedures, etc. which today's programmer has
>> > immediate
>> > access. I suspect that these capabilities will continue to increase in
>> > complexity as Microsoft advances its .Net technology. It is within this
>> > deep
>> > divide that will ostensibly distinguish the "average" programmer from
>> > the
>> > gifted one.
>> >
>> > You can ask for and apply "canned" code all day to your application but
>> > if
>> > you don't understand the SPECIFIC logic relationships that function
>> > among
>> > and
>> > between ALL of your objects within a particular application, you will
>> > NEVER
>> > rise to the level of programming talent that I believe will be required
>> > to
>> > survive as a programmer in the next 15 years.
>> >
>> > In many respects, computer programming today is limited only by the
>> > creative
>> > potential of a human mind (that understands logic processes). Given
>> > this
>> > belief, computer programming that achieves the highest levels of
>> > computational functionality will always be more endemic of an art than
>> > a
>> > science.
>> >
>> > My 2 cents worth.
>> >
>> > Brice Richard
>> >
>>
>>
>>
.
- References:
- RE: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- From: Brice Richard
- Re: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- From: Kevin Spencer
- Re: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- From: Electroniclaim
- RE: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: RSS online aggregator
- Next by Date: Re: Updating Label on a WebControl
- Previous by thread: Re: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- Next by thread: Re: The Demise of the Art of Programming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
