Red flags. Red flags everywhere.



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    You should probably clarify what you mean by a sproc, since I think Mr. Kenobi's sproc experience is limited to:

    EXEC sp_executesql @query

    haha no doubt.

    I think his worship of ORMs is just the same old, "I'm a programmer I'm so SCARED of learning SQL! SQL frightens me!" we see so much here as a source of WTFs.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I think his worship of ORMs is just the same old, "I'm a programmer I'm so SCARED of learning SQL! SQL frightens me!" we see so much here as a source of WTFs.

    Possibly. IME, ORMs are in general an improvement over having to hand write SQL. Of course, for lots of things, their performance isn't sufficient, so you still have to know SQL. But for lots of things, it's a lot simpler and helps the developer write correct code more quickly, like many other modern software development tools.



  • You should probably clarify what you mean by a sproc, since I think Mr. Kenobi's sproc experience is limited to:

    EXEC sp_executesql @query

    No, I've worked with real sprocs.  I still prefer ORMs because it lets me apply domain-driven design, design patterns and have sophistocated mapping from SQL to my business objects.  Not trying to be the guy preaching "sprocs are evil" since they aren't, and have their place, just I dislike them for standard CRUD type code for displaying data screens. 

    I know how to write SQL, so I'm not "afraid" of it, just for CRUD scenarios I don't see the point when I can use a tool to make it easier with little performance hit AND not have to waste time building my own business objects with a factory method (although again that's better than returning a DataSet to the clonsuming code).  FWIW I'm a big fan of views, especially for aggregate user screens.

    I tend to follow the "best of the best" .NET developers (e.g. Rob Conery, Ayende Rahien, Jeremy Miller, etc. the guys who write books and give talks about best practices) and the common concensus is that sprocs are outdated; at least in many years I haven't seen anyone suggest sprocs, it's usually NHibernate or the like, or even a document database like Ayende's RavenDB.  At the very least you should be using an abstraction of some kind so you return domain objects or DTOs, not raw DataSets.  So it boils down to somebody with many years more experience says MVC is the way to go, and they give talks and write books and everything, I'm inclined to believe they know better than some random developer working at random e-commerce company for 5 years.

    There's pretty much no redeeming qualities for WebForms though.  Maybe version 4.0 where you can have consistent naming but the prior versions are garbage, meant to hide away how the web really works to attract VB6 drag and drop guys to the web.  Not to mention you can't have automated tests for WebForms without using M-V-P or similar patterns.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lorne Kates said:

    8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?

    This one's not too bad. Except for when anyone's on the phone. Or discussing. Or being yelled at. Or typing. However, I do have ear phones,...

    Or they eating, scraping the last remenents off the crockery for 5 minutes. Or burping afterwards.

    Or on their own ear phones listening to their music and are pretending they're in the band they're listening to and using their desk as a percussive instrument. Loudly.

    Or, knowing the (I'm assuming false) floor reverberates, and they tromp around like a lost heffalump every time they move from their seat. To talk to someone. To go to the toilet to wipe/wash their hands after they've sneezed snot into them because they don't have tissues near by (more than 5 times a week.) To go feeding (see above) and come back etc.

    Oh, and annoying ringtones on their mobiles. And they get called more than once a day. And leave their mobile on their desk when they decide to 'wander off' for 1/2 hour.

    And that's just the bloke who's next to me in the office. There are 6 of us in that little bit of 'open office.' Thankfully the other 4 aren't quite as annoying, though whether that's function of distance or they simply aren't as bad, I'm not sure.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    So it boils down to somebody with many years more experience says MVC is the way to go, and they give talks and write books and everything, I'm inclined to believe they know better than some random developer working at random e-commerce company for 5 years.

    Maybe, but a lot of people with many years experience can't write software worth shit. See: Ray Ozzie for one example.

    I prefer to think for myself and come up with my own opinions. You should try it. It's freeing.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    data screens.

    BTW I love that you don't like sprocs because you think they're "outdated", and then you use crazy 1970s terminology like "data screens". What's up with that?



  •  Most of the web developers I've met have at best a basic understanding of what css is. Most know of ajax as this fancy technology they have heard of.  While I agree these are basic skills at this point that should be expected its actually still rare.  Most of the ajax proficient developers I know are working for software focused companies.

     

    We recently were looking for datawarehouse developers at my company.  It took us months to find a candidate who could join two tables.  Even then they were surprised when I asked what a common table expression (CTE) was.  This has been a basic structure of the t-sql language since SQL Server 2005.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    You should probably clarify what you mean by a sproc, since I think Mr. Kenobi's sproc experience is limited to:

    EXEC sp_executesql @query

    No, I've worked with real sprocs.  I still prefer ORMs because it lets me apply domain-driven design, design patterns and have sophistocated mapping from SQL to my business objects.  Not trying to be the guy preaching "sprocs are evil" since they aren't, and have their place, just I dislike them for standard CRUD type code for displaying data screens. 

    I know how to write SQL, so I'm not "afraid" of it, just for CRUD scenarios I don't see the point when I can use a tool to make it easier with little performance hit AND not have to waste time building my own business objects with a factory method (although again that's better than returning a DataSet to the clonsuming code).  FWIW I'm a big fan of views, especially for aggregate user screens.

    I tend to follow the "best of the best" .NET developers (e.g. Rob Conery, Ayende Rahien, Jeremy Miller, etc. the guys who write books and give talks about best practices) and the common concensus is that sprocs are outdated; at least in many years I haven't seen anyone suggest sprocs, it's usually NHibernate or the like, or even a document database like Ayende's RavenDB.  At the very least you should be using an abstraction of some kind so you return domain objects or DTOs, not raw DataSets.  So it boils down to somebody with many years more experience says MVC is the way to go, and they give talks and write books and everything, I'm inclined to believe they know better than some random developer working at random e-commerce company for 5 years.

    There's pretty much no redeeming qualities for WebForms though.  Maybe version 4.0 where you can have consistent naming but the prior versions are garbage, meant to hide away how the web really works to attract VB6 drag and drop guys to the web.  Not to mention you can't have automated tests for WebForms without using M-V-P or similar patterns.

     

     

    Adam Machanic put it best when he said "TSQL is not code, It's not a set of instructions which the database will follow.  Its a request.  We tell the database engine what we want and the engine figures out a plan to get it".

     Stored Procedures are not outdated.  They can be performance boon or hinderance depending on how they are used and are susceptible to the same issues as ad hoc sql.  If you have more than one application accessing your databases, encapsulating the data logic can make it easier to maintain.

     I'm not against ORMs. I just want to make sure that whoever is creating that layer knows that tool inside out.  I've seen ORMs used in such a way that it brings a server to its knees and I've seen ORMs used with large databases that worked flawlessly.  It all depends on the skill of the developer with that ORM.

    I like MVC.  I've used it to convert old classic asp applications to .net and to build new applications from the ground up.  And I find I can build an application faster with MVC than with webforms.

     




  • The Joel Test was obviously not written with the Real World™ in mind.

    1. Do you use source control?

    Yes. No branching or tagging, though, because no one in the company knows how they work and reading up on them would cost valuable development time.

    2. Can you make a build in one step?

    Builds and packages are unneccessary. We just directly stage to the production server via FTP through our mid-tier consumer DSL line and then connect to phpMyAdmin and modify the database if neccessary.

    3. Do you make daily builds?

    No, and it wouldn't work anyway because our average time between source control checkins is somewhere around three weeks.

    4. Do you have a bug database?

    No. The developers don't have time to set up something like that until the system we're working on is done and bug-free. It would take away valuable coding time, you see, and we can just use text files anyway.

    5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code?

    Only if that code isn't top-priority. We have no priorities other than "top", of course. It's a good week when I can finish one bit of functionality before I have to drop it to start work on something else that needs to be done "right now".

    6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule?

    Yes. That schedule is "I expected your one-man team to write this ERP system with specs known only to me in three months. Why aren't you done yet?".

    7. Do you have a spec?

    The boss knows what he needs. He won't tell me but I'm a developer. I'm supposed to know based on the screenshots of a legacy system he once sent me.

    8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?

    No but at least I have headphones. Of course I can't set them too loud or I can't be interrupted. Which would be bad since in our company "developer" and "tech support" are synonymous.

    9. Do you use the best tools money can buy?

    We have a spending freeze until our system is completly done. The boss has promised everyone a Mac after that, although it's dubious whether actual productivity tools other than Adobe Creative Suite would be greenlit. So... Does the trial version of Sublime Text count?

    10. Do you have testers?

    Why would you need testers? Just insist that the devs get it right the first time. Duh.

    11. Do new candidates write code during their interview?

    Yes, but mainly because in our company developers conduct the hiring interviews and I've heard of the term "FizzBuzz".

    12. Do you do hallway usability testing?

    Hallway what?

    That's two out of ten, which is what my boss would argue is "how every company operates". So obviously the test must be faulty.



  • @j6cubic said:

    That schedule is "I expected your one-man team to write this ERP system with specs known only to me in three months. And we're having this conversation on the 29th day of month 3. Why aren't you done yet?".

    FTFY



  • @j6cubic said:

    That schedule is "I expected your one-man team to write this ERP system with specs known only to me in three months. Why aren't you done yet?".
     

    "The specs are known only to you. The reasons for the delay are known only to us."

    @j6cubic said:

    The boss knows what he needs. He won't tell me but I'm a developer. I'm supposed to know based on the screenshots of a legacy system he once sent me.

    I'd create a prototype (or even an image) that shows a fascade exactly matching the screenshots. Requirements fulfilled, job done.



  • Wow.

    We score 8 on the Joel test.

    We are awesome.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    You should probably clarify what you mean by a sproc, since I think Mr. Kenobi's sproc experience is limited to:

    EXEC sp_executesql @query

    No, I've worked with real sprocs.  I still prefer ORMs because it lets me apply domain-driven design, design patterns and have sophistocated mapping from SQL to my business objects.  Not trying to be the guy preaching "sprocs are evil" since they aren't, and have their place, just I dislike them for standard CRUD type code for displaying data screens. 

    I know how to write SQL, so I'm not "afraid" of it, just for CRUD scenarios I don't see the point when I can use a tool to make it easier with little performance hit AND not have to waste time building my own business objects with a factory method (although again that's better than returning a DataSet to the clonsuming code).  FWIW I'm a big fan of views, especially for aggregate user screens.

    I tend to follow the "best of the best" .NET developers (e.g. Rob Conery, Ayende Rahien, Jeremy Miller, etc. the guys who write books and give talks about best practices) and the common concensus is that sprocs are outdated; at least in many years I haven't seen anyone suggest sprocs, it's usually NHibernate or the like, or even a document database like Ayende's RavenDB.  At the very least you should be using an abstraction of some kind so you return domain objects or DTOs, not raw DataSets.  So it boils down to somebody with many years more experience says MVC is the way to go, and they give talks and write books and everything, I'm inclined to believe they know better than some random developer working at random e-commerce company for 5 years.

    There's pretty much no redeeming qualities for WebForms though.  Maybe version 4.0 where you can have consistent naming but the prior versions are garbage, meant to hide away how the web really works to attract VB6 drag and drop guys to the web.  Not to mention you can't have automated tests for WebForms without using M-V-P or similar patterns.

    I agree that MVC is vastly superior to webforms; however, to say that webforms has no benefits, and then to go as far as to call it a red flag is asinine. Making a complex form, especially with ajax updates, takes half the time in webforms.

    Also, to say that not using a ORM is a redflag is very shortsighted. Yes, I do like a ORM better for simple CRUD. However, sometimes, Linq 2 Entities will just crap out and not work for a very complex data-model. Not to mention, the performance can be abysmal. Also, you seem to be making the assumption that if you don't use an ORM that you are using a DataReader directly in the UI; it is possible to transfer the data from a datareader to a model inside a repository you know...

    Also, you seem to be speaking like sprocs and ORMs are mutually exclusive... in L2E you can form entities off of a sproc; it's very convienent for when you have a complex join that is heavily used!



  • @FrostCat said:

    Or just use the the Joel Test.



    Did you know Joel invented an in house language called Wasabi? He really jumped the shark!



  • Can someone explain to me what advanced stored procs do?  That way I know whether I've used them or not.



  • @dhromed said:

    Wow.

    We score 8 on the Joel test.

    We are awesome.

    Then I guess we are even more awesome: just looking at it straight and honest, without shifty half-thruths, we still score a full 12/12 on 'the Joel test'. Ridiculous, I know. Goes to show that the test by itself can't paint the whole picture.

    Admittedly; it might also be spot on. We really do have a very low level of WTFery going on. Most of what we deal with is documented crap from legacy code that was written over a decade ago and we're regularly authorized to go in and clean part of it up. It's kind of eery that from junior developer up to management everyone seems to just be generally competent at what they do. Even the interns turn out OK. (This would kind of make us the antithesis to Snoofle's employer, wouldn't it?)

    @this_code_sucks said:

    Making a complex form, especially with ajax updates, takes half the time in webforms.

    Making it takes half the time. Maintaining it takes quadruple the time or more.

    Writing actually maintainable Webforms applications is really only possible by forcing yourself into an MVVM/MVP pattern where you bind input and pre-process your model data into view models 'outside' of the Page (at the top level in the Init or Load part of the lifecycle) and just databind all the way down the Page and its Control instances. Congratulations: you've reinvented ASP.NET MVC's binder -> model -> controller -> view workflow in WebForms.



  • @Ragnax said:

    @this_code_sucks said:
    Making a complex form, especially with ajax updates, takes half the time in webforms.

    Making it takes half the time. Maintaining it takes quadruple the time or more.

    Writing actually maintainable Webforms applications is really only possible by forcing yourself into an MVVM/MVP pattern where you bind input and pre-process your model data into view models 'outside' of the Page (at the top level in the Init or Load part of the lifecycle) and just databind all the way down the Page and its Control instances. Congratulations: you've reinvented ASP.NET MVC's binder -> model -> controller -> view workflow in WebForms.

    Can't really argue. Again, I did say MVC was vastly superior. I by that, I mostly meant in an architechture kind of way. It's funny, when I am applying lessons I've learned in the past to the architechture of a webforms app, I always end up recreating a crappy MVC haha. But, like I said, webforms has it's place. A really simple app but with complex forms is great for webforms, especially if your UI-structure is a direct match to your data-structure. Webforms also allows you to enlist the help of some what less skilled developers, or good devs with no web experience. 



  • @Ragnax said:

    @this_code_sucks said:
    Making a complex form, especially with ajax updates, takes half the time in webforms.

    Making it takes half the time. Maintaining it takes quadruple the time or more.

    I'm curious, what about it makes maintaining it take so much longer? Do the bits shuffle around, requiring you to recode the form twice a month? Does the compiling process obfuscate the form, meaning that anyone who wants to read it needs to be able to read base 64?



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    @Ragnax said:
    @this_code_sucks said:
    Making a complex form, especially with ajax updates, takes half the time in webforms.

    Making it takes half the time. Maintaining it takes quadruple the time or more.

    I'm curious, what about it makes maintaining it take so much longer? Do the bits shuffle around, requiring you to recode the form twice a month? Does the compiling process obfuscate the form, meaning that anyone who wants to read it needs to be able to read base 64?

    I think that applies to almost any technology. "Just add one more field to this 100-field form" will always take more than 1/100th of the time to create the original form, unless you already have it open in your editor.



  • As much a fan of MVC that I am, I do believe that WebForms are arguably a better choice for "thick" apps which 10 years ago would be desktop apps i.e. the typical line-of-business CRM or order fulfillment systems with lots of fairly simple data entry screens.  Obviously I'm not talking about crap 1.1 era WebForms with all the logic stuffed into the code-behind, but modern MVVM and pretty URL N-tier applications, with a nice front end using controls such as Telerik's offerings, can still work.  MVC is great, but IMHO it really is more suited for customer-facing type of sites that involve occasional user interaction (e.g. an e-commerce site; people use it frequently but don't spend most of their day using it) rather than an application which business users are meant to spend 8 hours a day working inside.

    Unfortunately, very few companies seem to actually know that A) it is possible to use modern techniques with WebForms and B) Have competent staff that can control the urge to just rely on WebForms' hacky nature (i.e. "Oh I don't need another class for this, I'll just put it in the code behind").

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, we should write a Joel Test for programming environments, since I didn't imagine in a million years how awful the Ruby ecosystem actually is. It should be something like this:

    1) Does your language have automatic memory management?
    2) Can it be used to write portable applications?
    3) Do quality tools exist to make a GUI using native widgets and behavior, with in a WYSIWYG editor?
    4) Does a quality IDE exist for the environment?
    5) Does a quality "auto-format" utility or feature exist for the environment?
    6) Does a quality debugger exist for the environment?
    7) Does a mechanism for automatically downloading/updating dependencies exist for the environment?

    .net hits all 7, now that it has Nuget. Ruby hits maybe 3 or 3.5.

    Excellent list.

    The biggest most gigantic WTF of all is that there are heavily used programming environments that don't hit at leat 6 out of those 7.

     



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    As much a fan of MVC that I am, I do believe that WebForms are arguably a better choice for "thick" apps which 10 years ago would be desktop apps i.e. the typical line-of-business CRM or order fulfillment systems with lots of fairly simple data entry screens.

    Simple data entry screens is what MVC's Html.DisplayFor() and Html.EditorFor() excel at. Need a specific widget for a specific data field? Code up your own template and mark up the relevent property on your model with a [UIHint()] (or name the template directly after the simple name of the property's type and don't even bother).

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Obviously I'm not talking about crap 1.1 era WebForms with all the logic stuffed into the code-behind, but modern MVVM and pretty URL N-tier applications, with a nice front end using controls such as Telerik's offerings, can still work.

    Telerik's offerings are nice because they have lots of fancy JavaScript handling around it client-side (all based on jQuery nowadays; the scripting in the older versions of their UI kit used to suuuu---ck). There's nothing preventing you from having MVC helpers to do pretty much the same. (And call those from aforementioned Editor and Display templates to make sure you have consistent rich data entry everywhere.) The exception is probably the richness of the designers / editors that you'd get with WebForms, but will have to miss out on with MVC. (Nothing a well designed helper API can't cope with though.)

    However, the real power for these modern applications comes from client-side JavaScript or DOM technology that is made simple and accessible through libraries like Angular, Ember, Backbone, Knockout, etc. The 'Model View Whatever', or MV*, stack in the browser itself. A modern rich application will mostly be JavaScript, with a few JSON service calls to a backend. That's where MVC WebAPI shines, ofcourse....



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, we should write a Joel Test for programming environments, since I didn't imagine in a million years how awful the Ruby ecosystem actually is. It should be something like this:

    Excellent list.

    It IS, actually. Blakey - you should consider whacking that up on your blog (or submitting it to some programming site) to invite feedback and further discussion about what features exist and how they're used in IDEs.

    @El_Heffe said:

    The biggest most gigantic WTF of all is that there are heavily used programming environments that don't hit at leat 6 out of those 7.
     

    Are these environments for older languages?

    There's still a school of thought that the skill is not in the tools but in those that wield them. I'm wondering if this has created a culture in which using better tools for improved development is perceived as a sign of weakness, ergo nobody wants to build better IDEs for those languages because there doesn't appear to be a demand for them.

    It is sad that developers with their rich skills in those languages don't think about turning their skills into improving the environment in which they - and others - work, but simply suck it up and get on with it. Cobbler's kids syndrome, I guess.

     



  • Part of the appeal of Ruby is that it DOESN'T have the bloat associated with that. Hell most die-hard Ruby developers use Vim or whatever, because it's all CLI based and you use the CLI an awful lot in Ruby. I wouldn't develop a thick GUI with Ruby, but that's also not what it's specialty is even though it could do it.

    .NET is a great platform though, don't get me wrong (although I would prefer Java only because Java devs seem to at least know WTF design patterns and architecture is, and the Java ecosystem is heavily invested in using open source; .NET guys are more likely to rely on drag and drop and event-driven programming and have zero clue about any third party open source tools that could be useful, at least all the .NET shops I've seen in the Tampa Bay area were like that).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    We have an in-house language. It's... Gnarly. 

    1) Does your language have automatic memory management?

    Yes! More accurately, it doesn't do memory management, because it doesn't compile to machine code, it compiles to an intermediate language that is interpreted into a series of service calls against web services.

    2) Can it be used to write portable applications?

    No, because it is tied inextricably to the interpreter and the aforementioned SOA

    3) Do quality tools exist to make a GUI using native widgets and behavior, with in a WYSIWYG editor?

    Negative. It is not designed to produce anything interactive.

    4) Does a quality IDE exist for the environment?

    It's mostly XML, so Visual Studio with some XSD's loaded does a good enough job.

    5) Does a quality "auto-format" utility or feature exist for the environment?

    Anything that auto-formats XML

    6) Does a quality debugger exist for the environment?

    What debugger? We're to the point that we can inspect values and insert breakpoints now (but only in dev and test, it isn't ready for prod yet), but we can't modify values.

    7) Does a mechanism for automatically downloading/updating dependencies exist for the environment?

    Yes, and his name is.... (That means no)


    I should also add that it doesn't have a complete set of control structures (for ages, we only had For Each loops. If and Else are brand new). And you can't nest control structures.  And exception handling didn't exist until just recently (and isn't in prod yet)



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    .NET is a great platform though, don't get me wrong (although I would prefer Java only because Java devs seem to at least know WTF design patterns and architecture is, and the Java ecosystem is heavily invested in using open source; .NET guys are more likely to rely on drag and drop and event-driven programming and have zero clue about any third party open source tools that could be useful, at least all the .NET shops I've seen in the Tampa Bay area were like that).

    Wait, you prefer Java because developers are almost guaranteed to produce a huge WTFFactoryFactory, but .NET developers will not? What, exactly, is wrong with event driven programming?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Cassidy said:

    There's still a school of thought that the skill is not in the tools but in those that wield them. I'm wondering if this has created a culture in which using better tools for improved development is perceived as a sign of weakness, ergo nobody wants to build better IDEs for those languages because there doesn't appear to be a demand for them.

    It is sad that developers with their rich skills in those languages don't think about turning their skills into improving the environment in which they - and others - work, but simply suck it up and get on with it. Cobbler's kids syndrome, I guess.

     

    If you work in C# or Java, you need an IDE. That doesn't mean that you necessarily need an IDE to work effectively in other languages that have little in common with C# or Java. For example, there is a Haskell plugin for Visual Studio. No one uses it. Similarly, there are IDEs and Eclipse plugins for Common Lisp, but most Lisp programmers use Emacs and find the IDE-like functions available there to be sufficient.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked blakeyrat: There are people who manage to get things done in other languages without a VS-like IDE. Sure, you can say that they have some kind of psychological syndrome, but would you be willing to consider the possibility that they know something you don't?



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:
    .NET is a great platform though, don't get me wrong (although I would prefer Java only because Java devs seem to at least know WTF design patterns and architecture is, and the Java ecosystem is heavily invested in using open source; .NET guys are more likely to rely on drag and drop and event-driven programming and have zero clue about any third party open source tools that could be useful, at least all the .NET shops I've seen in the Tampa Bay area were like that).

    Wait, you prefer Java because developers are almost guaranteed to produce a huge WTFFactoryFactory, but .NET developers will not? What, exactly, is wrong with event driven programming?

    How about the fact that it turns into unmaintainable crap after a short period of time?  I'm not talking about Java WTF HammerFactoryFactoryFactory, but most .NET guys I've met and worked with have barely understood OOP, let alone the notion that you should have some type of repository/DAO classes for data retrieval, or if you really need to construct a complex object a Factory or a Builder class; hell I've met a lot of developers that had no idea what an Interface was, or where it's useful..There's nothing wrong with event-driven programming but (IMHO) the event should do nothing beyond call out to some service/presenter/viewmodel/controller/etc.

    I would take the HammerFactoryFactoryFactory over seeing 500 lines of procedural garbage inside the btnSave_Click method of Default.aspx any day of the week.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Part of the appeal of Ruby is that it DOESN'T have the bloat associated with that.

    Ok, first of all, Ruby is bloated as shit. You type in "ruby myscript.rb" and wait 7 seconds while Ruby searches heaven and hell to ... whatever the fuck it's doing. Just-in-time compile? Some kind of weird interpreted linking process? Who knows. I'm not one to praise PHP, but if you fucking type "php myscript.php" it RUNS THE SCRIPT without the huge delay. So whatever you think "bloat" means is not what I think "bloat" means.

    Secondly, just because the tools exist doesn't mean you have to use them. Why do I keep seeing this argument? Idiot co-worker said the same thing when I suggested we move to C# for the data processing part of the solution. He uses a Mac (natch) and he said, "well there's no good C# dev tools for Mac." To which I replied: 1) MonoDevelop runs on Mac and it quite good, much better than anything in Rubyland, 2) you've been perfectly satisfied with a shitty text editor and running the program manually on the CLI for the last year, why not just use the same process with C# if you're ok with that process for Ruby? Nothing about C# requires an IDE. To which he replied, "derp". (Actually he got into that whole, "well I consider IDEs a crutch" attitude which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.)

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Hell most die-hard Ruby developers use Vim or whatever, because it's all CLI based and you use the CLI an awful lot in Ruby.

    Yeah but there's no law saying it has to be CLI-based. It's only CLI-based because nobody's fucking bothered to write any decent GUI tools for it. Not because there's something inherent in the design of the language that forces it to be CLI-based.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    .NET is a great platform though, don't get me wrong (although I would prefer Java only because Java devs seem to at least know WTF design patterns and architecture is, and the Java ecosystem is heavily invested in using open source;

    Haha, I'd love to see some evidence to back this up. Snoofle's place uses Java, remember... I guess to you that means they all know what design patterns and architecture is?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    .NET guys are more likely to rely on drag and drop and event-driven programming

    And that is undesirable because...?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    and have zero clue about any third party open source tools that could be useful, at least all the .NET shops I've seen in the Tampa Bay area were like that).

    What tools are you referring to here? What third party open source tool is better than the ones that ship from Microsoft for the .net ecosystem?

    But hell, even the third party open source .net tools (i.e. MonoDevelop and related) are a shit-ton better than anything that comes with Ruby. At least it doesn't fucking use Java. Yeah it uses GTK, which is shit, but it's not fucking Java. It has an integrated debugger, decent code highlighting/folding, a *gasp* actual fucking project file. I'd go as far as to say that MonoDevelop is the best open source IDE in existence right now. And it deals exclusively with .net.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    If you work in C# or Java, you need an IDE.

    Explain.

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    I'll ask you the same question I asked blakeyrat: There are people who manage to get things done in other languages without a VS-like IDE. Sure, you can say that they have some kind of psychological syndrome, but would you be willing to consider the possibility that they know something you don't?

    Believe me, these guys don't know anything I don't... you should see their shitty-ass code. I don't know Ruby or PHP well, but I know awful fucking code when I see it. ("It" being a 4,600 line PHP script that we recently replaced by a 120 line SQL query. Well two queries and a temp table. Speaking of procedural garbage!) Their lead dev (the Ruby guy) had a Facebook import process that took 20 hours because 1) he didn't know how to write threaded code, 2) he didn't know you could send batched requests to the Facebook API, 3) he didn't know how to properly handle errors, so if one API call failed it re-ran the entire process. That's why they brought me in, they were reaching the "point of no return" where collecting data was almost taking longer than a full day. I'm not saying giving them an IDE and debugger would suddenly make them better programmers, but believe me it couldn't possibly make them worse.

    The thing that's different between us has nothing to do with what I know, but it has to do with the capabilities I have. My short-term memory isn't strong enough to use a CLI-type environment-- in that environment I end up spending like 2/3rds of my time looking things up or taking notes and I'm not at all efficient. I can't remember arguments for functions, or what order they go in. Stuff I could get from an IDE just by hovering my mouse in the right spot. I can't keep folder paths in my head, because I navigate my computer spatially (blame my upbringing on Mac Classic, perhaps). I just don't have the kind of brain that's suited for it.

    They do. But they don't have the kind of brain that's suited for designing a back-end data collection and processing process. Demonstrably.

    If Ruby had decent tools, they could work their way and I could work mine and everybody would be happy. As-is, it's a giant cluster-fuck debate where I'm telling them we need to switch the data processing platform to a language that makes sense and has real threads, and them telling me how stupid I am because obviously languages with strong-typing are traps set up Hitler long ago to confuse us all until his Argentinian clone army can invade. Or something.

    I don't know how it'll come out-- but I don't think their lead Ruby guy and me can be on the same team, and I've never been more tempted to just quit the job and take a little sabbatical until after the holidays. Goddamned that idea sounds good to me.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, we should write a Joel Test for programming environments, since I didn't imagine in a million years how awful the Ruby ecosystem actually is. It should be something like this:

    Excellent list.

    It IS, actually. Blakey - you should consider whacking that up on your blog (or submitting it to some programming site) to invite feedback and further discussion about what features exist and how they're used in IDEs.

    It's just forum barf. Anyway the only programming site I read is this one, and by this point I doubt anyone will ever put any of my shit on the front page.



  • I didn't say Ruby was GOOD (although I like it for general scripting.

    What third party tools are better?  Let's see... SVN, Git, Mercurial are better version control systems than TFS and 100% free.  NHibernate beats the pants off of Entity Framework, and thre are also other ORMs like Subsonic and micro-ORMs like Dapper and PetaPoco.  Until ASP.NET MVC was out, MonoRail was better than WebForms.  Ninject, StructureMap and other IoC containers are worlds better than Unity.  NUnit and MbUnit are better than MSTest or whatever the built-in unit testing framework is called, and doesn't require the more expensive version of Visual Studio to get.  Shall I go on?

    As I said, in my experience .NET guys in my locale are useless hacks that don't understand anything about good design, or software quality, or craftsmanship; they only know how to hack out code like monkeys.  That's not to say that Java is better - there are good and bad Java devs BUT I believe that Javaland has a much more ingrained ecosystem in software quality and third party offerings than .NET does, partially because for the longest time Microsoft kept a tight leash on anything it had and it was only the cutting edge and "elite" that knew alternatives.  If you mention Hibernate, JUnit or Spring/Struts/Seam/framework-du-jour in Java, you're much less likely to get a response like "Oh, I've never heard of that before" like you would if you mention NHibernate or NUnit or MVC to the typical Microsoft dev.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    What third party tools are better? Let's see... SVN, Git, Mercurial are better version control systems than TFS and 100% free.

    They're significantly worse for me, since none integrate with VS. SVN at least has TortoiseSVN, which is a decent interface, but it doesn't do what TFS does (there's no linkage between your bug database and TortoiseSVN), and it still doesn't integrate with VS. (Yes, yes, I know there are VS extensions, yadda yadda.) Why should I have to leave my IDE to get a quick diff? Why should I have to open up my web browser to see what bug entry was associated with a code check-in? (Assuming my co-worker actually bothered to annotate that. TFS can be set to force-- er "strongly encourage"-- it.)

    Git is what we're using now. It's certainly not superior to TFS. The only GUI that actually fucking installs (TortoiseGit doesn't, I should write up a post about it because it's a fucking retarded error) is awful. It still doesn't integrate with my IDE. It does integrate with a bug tracker, but there's no linkage (as far as I am aware) that lets you look at a particular commit and click a link to find out what bug/issue it resolved. There's no insistence that developers actually upload their commits to the server, nor is there any way to set it to do that... so every fucking dev status meeting starts with "hey guys upload your code so we can review it".) (TFS and SVN require commits to be uploaded right away, a much better design.)

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    NHibernate beats the pants off of Entity Framework, and thre are also other ORMs like Subsonic and micro-ORMs like Dapper and PetaPoco.

    I don't generally use ORMs. Where does LINQ rank, in your opinion?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Until ASP.NET MVC was out, MonoRail was better than WebForms.

    Oh the open source time machine! Let's assume this argument takes place in the present, and not go with the retarded, "well if you go back in time 12 years Linux is better because it had blah first." Because nobody fucking cares.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Ninject, StructureMap and other IoC containers are worlds better than Unity.

    Unity is a game development framework. So... I have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and frankly I'm fuzzy on the concept of a "IoC container". It sounds like your open source tools are sure buzzword-compliant though.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    NUnit and MbUnit are better than MSTest or whatever the built-in unit testing framework is called, and doesn't require the more expensive version of Visual Studio to get.

    I'm pretty-sure NUnit is the built-in unit testing framework. Another time machine? Or am I the WTF?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Shall I go on?

    Knock yourself out.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    As I said, in my experience .NET guys in my locale are useless hacks that don't understand anything about good design, or software quality, or craftsmanship; they only know how to hack out code like monkeys.

    Ok.@ObiWayneKenobi said:

    That's not to say that Java is better

    B-but you did say that...

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    - there are good and bad Java devs BUT I believe that Javaland has a much more ingrained ecosystem in software quality and third party offerings than .NET does,

    I'm sorry, I've been exposed to the Java ecosystem and you're flat-out wrong. There are entire classes of tools that Java has literally nothing even half-decent-- take GUI designers. The Maven build system is arcane, complex, and seems to run in a non-deterministic fashion. The Tomcat web server is too fucking stupid to automatically serve up new versions of files without being rebooted 27 times. The IDEs are godawful, although! they are better than Ruby IDEs.

    Oh and that's not to mention the JVM bugs that make it literally impossible to write a correct Windows application in the language. (Well, you can fudge by going outside the JVM and making native calls, but why the fuck should you have to?)

    Maybe for a specific type of app, Java is better than .net. I can't think of what app that would be unless you cheat and include Java-only platforms like Android... but hey benefit of the doubt.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    partially because for the longest time Microsoft kept a tight leash on anything it had and it was only the cutting edge and "elite" that knew alternatives.

    The ENTIRE FUCKING LANGUAGE AND FRAMEWORK IS OPEN SOURCE. What "tight leash"? What the holy fuck are you talking about?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    If you mention Hibernate, JUnit or Spring/Struts/Seam/framework-du-jour in Java, you're much less likely to get a response like "Oh, I've never heard of that before" like you would if you mention NHibernate or NUnit or MVC to the typical Microsoft dev.

    Possibly, but that doesn't mean the .net dev is worse at writing software. That means they don't subscribe to the same philosophies you do, or that they consider the Microsoft-provided tools good enough to not bother looking for potentially inferior replacements.



  • Maybe Unity is the wrong name, I forget but it's an Inversion of Control container Microsoft came out with; the general concensus was that, like most things Microsoft reinvents it was okay but not as great as the open-source alternatives that people had already been using for years while there was no MS version.  Also, unless they changed something in 2012 NUnit wasn't the built-in test framework, they wrote their own since it's slightly different than NUnit's syntax.  LINQ to SQL is nice but still fairly primitive (but in it's defense it was meant to be a placeholder since EF wasn't ready; the other rumor I heard is that LINQ to SQL was made by the C# team, EF was made by the DB team, and the DB team won); LINQ itself is amazingly great and I love it, but the kinda-sorta-but-not-really ORM version isn't that great (however it's better than using DataSets and DataReaders).

    I'm a big proponent of the "Alt.NET" movement where you DON'T rely only on Microsoft technologies, so yes I am biased.  After one too many jobs with clueless devs that didn't bother to keep even abreast of new and better things in their own space (not saying they had to be bandwagon jumpers, but at least be fucking aware of what the "pros" in your field swear by), I've gotten very jaded.  Being fired from a job for being the only guy on the dev team to actually give a shit about quality and writing maintainable code (you know, so we don't have it crashing 5+ times a day) will do that to you, especially when you've had common sense ideas like "Let's have standard naming conventions" and "Let's avoid 5000 line methods" be shot down.

    I have a vested interest in .NET since it is/was my primary platform, so it pains me to go for interviews and whatnot and discover that I'm the only one who reads blogs and watches screencasts and plays around with new(er) things so I can write better code.  Feeling like the smartest person on the team, if not in the entire company, every single time you find something that might possibly be interesting wears thin after a while. Some of it aren't big deals (e.g. which ORM or IoC container; I have my preference but it's not a big deal) while others are (e.g. if you rely 100% on code-behind, don't do testing, use DataSets and DataReaders everywhere, etc.)



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    After one too many jobs with clueless devs that didn't bother to keep even abreast of new and better things in their own space (not saying they had to be bandwagon jumpers, but at least be fucking aware of what the "pros" in your field swear by), I've gotten very jaded.  Being fired from a job for being the only guy on the dev team to actually give a shit about quality and writing maintainable code (you know, so we don't have it crashing 5+ times a day) will do that to you, especially when you've had common sense ideas like "Let's have standard naming conventions" and "Let's avoid 5000 line methods" be shot down.

    This is certainly a .NET issue. I hear they're going to fix it in .NET 5.



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    After one too many jobs with clueless devs that didn't bother to keep even abreast of new and better things in their own space (not saying they had to be bandwagon jumpers, but at least be fucking aware of what the "pros" in your field swear by), I've gotten very jaded.  Being fired from a job for being the only guy on the dev team to actually give a shit about quality and writing maintainable code (you know, so we don't have it crashing 5+ times a day) will do that to you, especially when you've had common sense ideas like "Let's have standard naming conventions" and "Let's avoid 5000 line methods" be shot down.

    This is certainly a .NET issue. I hear they're going to fix it in .NET 5.

     

    LOL.  Seriously though I'm fully aware it's not an issue with .NET, but I do find the mentality a LOT more frequent in .NET devs; the few Java guys I've talked to (and Ruby and Python devs) seem a lot more interested in craftsmanship and quality than their .NET counterparts.  Same like how you're more likely to find WTFs in VB or PHP, but despite the running joke here that doesn't mean VB or PHP are bad languages (well okay, PHP is a bad language, but it can be used in a good way).

     



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Seriously though I'm fully aware it's not an issue with .NET

    Then shut the fuck up. Why is this hard?



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Inversion of Control container

    Oh yeah I think I saw that episode, the Daleks found it in a time warp and were going to use it to swap places with the Cybermen in the alternate zeppelin reality and the Doctor had to stop them with the power of love.

    What the fuck are you talking about? I've been writing code for a good number of years, and I've never perceived a need for a "Inversion of Control container", but then again I don't even know what the holy shit that is.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    I'm a big proponent of the "Alt.NET" movement where you DON'T rely only on Microsoft technologies,

    Why? What is the point of that?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    After one too many jobs with clueless devs that didn't bother to keep even abreast of new and better things in their own space (not saying they had to be bandwagon jumpers, but at least be fucking aware of what the "pros" in your field swear by),

    The pros in my field swear by "Inversion of Control containers?" News to me.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    I have a vested interest in .NET since it is/was my primary platform, so it pains me to go for interviews and whatnot and discover that I'm the only one who reads blogs and watches screencasts and plays around with new(er) things so I can write better code.

    My code must be so awful, I don't have a single "Inversion of Control container" in it.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Feeling like the smartest person on the team, if not in the entire company, every single time you find something that might possibly be interesting wears thin after a while.

    Well fortunately it's just a feeling and there's no truth to it. In fact, since it'll help you feel better, from reading your posts here I think you're a complete moron who has no idea how to build software. (Hint: using technologies you fully understand the other people on your team aren't familiar with is a pretty big WTF.)

    And I still don't get what your obsession with DataReaders and DataSets is. What the hell man?



  • No offense, but you seem to be the same (although +1 for a Doctor Who reference).  Go read some blogs by people like Ayende Rahien, Jeremy Miller, Jimmy Bogard, Rob Conery, and the like, or even Robert C. "Uncle Bob" Martin (he's a Java guy but started most of the "software craftsmanship" movement).  Go to codebetter.com and devlicio.us and lostechies.com.  Those people are who I consider to be the "pros" in the field; the guys who write books and create open-source tools and give presentations on code quality.  Those are the developers I try to emulate.

    I think you and I just need to agree to disagree.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    What third party tools are better?  Let's see... SVN, Git, Mercurial are better version control systems than TFS and 100% free. 

    What?  You think those are better than TFS?  Especially GIT?!

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    NHibernate beats the pants off of Entity Framework, and thre are also other ORMs like Subsonic and micro-ORMs like Dapper and PetaPoco.

    I've used Hibernate, not NHibernate, but didn't have a problem with it or EF, but you think that Dapper is better than EF??!

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Ninject, StructureMap and other IoC containers are worlds better than Unity. 

    Ninject seems good.... but STRUCTUREMAP? REALLY? 

    Is it: "If it's Microsoft everything else is automatically better"?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    I'm a big proponent of the "Alt.NET" movement where you DON'T rely only on Microsoft technologies, so yes I am biased. 

    Oh, well ok then.



  • Blakey, I'm honestly surprised you don't even know what an IOC container is.  I'd be interested in seeing how you manage dependencies (if the code you're working on has proper DI).



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    I'll ask you the same question I asked blakeyrat: There are people who manage to get things done in other languages without a VS-like IDE. Sure, you can say that they have some kind of psychological syndrome

    Firstly... I wouldn't say that. They have reasons for not using an IDE, some of which could be internal (don't like them, not used them, never been shown how to use them) or external (choice of IDE forbidden by corporate policy, integration issues, support issues, peer pressure). I write code without an IDE but in my case I'm not involved in large-scale development - more small hackery scripts - and I favour a simple editor plus other windows showing logfiles.

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    but would you be willing to consider the possibility that they know something you don't?
     

    I'd say it's an absolute certainty. They know the reasons why they do/don't use an IDE (or one specific IDE over another).

    I'm simply questioning if the situation is the other way around: are they not using an IDE - or their choice of IDE - because they don't know something other people do?



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    No offense, but you seem to be the same

    Same as...?

    Ok, if I have to read years worth of blogs, then you have to answer some of the questions we've been queuing up during this thread:

    1) Do you have any evidence that Java developers (in general) are more aware of design patterns and architecture than .net developers?

    2) Why is using drag & drop and event-driven programming undesirable?

    3) What "tight leash" is Microsoft keeping on the .net environment, considering .net, C#, and associated libraries are all open source?

    4) What's the point of the "alt.NET" movement, which is apparently against relying only on Microsoft technologies?

    5) What's wrong with DataReaders and DataSets?



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Blakey, I'm honestly surprised you don't even know what an IOC container is. I'd be interested in seeing how you manage dependencies (if the code you're working on has proper DI).

    I think people are using the word "dependencies" in a way I've never been exposed to. When I hear "dependencies" I think things like, "well this app is WebForms so a dependency is IIS and IIS has a dependency on Windows Server and Windows Server has a dependency on an Intel-based hardware platform".

    However I skimmed one of ObiWayne's blogs when I was on the bus (the devlicio.us one, which he didn't bother to link because he's a jerk) and it had an article on, supposedly, IoC containers. Which started by quoting a programmer saying that implementing a IoC container was a huge disaster for his product. Then it spent roughly 3 Moby Dicks talking about pretty much everything except what the holy shit an IoC container actually does. I gave up before he got to the actual explanation of what the shit it was, naively assuming he ever got there. I firmly believe that, as a general rule, if you can't explain something in 500 words or less, you don't understand it yourself.

    I get the distinct sense it's something that (another Joel reference here:) architecture astronauts use to make their code somewhat manageable when they have abstractions stacked on abstractions stacked on abstractions stacked on abstractions. Fuck that.

    My philosophy is and has always been KISS-- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

    If you need things like dependency injection (which I assume is what you mean by DI) and inversion of control containers (which apparently can't even be explained in less than 50,000 words) then your code is Too. Fucking. Complicated. Back away, take a deep breath, and spend some time actually breaking down the problem into smaller, simpler, manageable chunks.

    And for the record, all of ObiWayne's discussion of code quality is bullshit for two reasons:

    1) Filling up your code with all this complex bullshit doesn't increase its quality; in fact it's pretty much guaranteed to decrease its quality as soon as it's maintained by someone who doesn't understand the complex bullshit. Because he'll fuck it up.

    2) The whole fucking point of the exercise is program quality, but code quality. Git could have the cleanest, most dependency injected, most inversion of control contained, code in the fucking universe, and the product still soundly sucks shit compared to TFS which is probably a mess of spaghetti C++.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    If you work in C# or Java, you need an IDE.

    Explain.

    To the person who's convinced that he can't use Ruby because it doesn't have a GUI debugger that works the same way as Visual Studio? If anything, you should be explaining that to me.

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    I'll ask you the same question I asked blakeyrat: There are people who manage to get things done in other languages without a VS-like IDE. Sure, you can say that they have some kind of psychological syndrome, but would you be willing to consider the possibility that they know something you don't?

    Believe me, these guys don't know anything I don't... you should see their shitty-ass code.

    We've gone over this before. Ask people who actually know what they're doing instead of the fuckwits you work with.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    To the person who's convinced that he can't use Ruby because it doesn't have a GUI debugger that works the same way as Visual Studio?

    Who's that? It doesn't resemble anything I've ever said.

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    If anything, you should be explaining that to me.

    Sorry that's not how it works. You broached the topic, so you're responsible for explaining it. I can't explain it because (strangely) I'm not able to read your mind.

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    We've gone over this before. Ask people who actually know what they're doing instead of the fuckwits you work with.

    If ObiWayne gets to judge .net based on fuckwits, then I get to judge Ruby based on fuckwits.

    But since you're obviously so much better than the fuckwits I work with, why don't you point me to the well-hidden, super-secret, quality Ruby IDE & debugger?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    However I skimmed one of ObiWayne's blogs when I was on the bus (the devlicio.us one, which he didn't bother to link because he's a jerk) and it had an article on, supposedly, IoC containers. Which started by quoting a programmer saying that implementing a IoC container was a huge disaster for his product. Then it spent roughly 3 Moby Dicks talking about pretty much everything except what the holy shit an IoC container actually does. I gave up before he got to the actual explanation of what the shit it was, naively assuming he ever got there. I firmly believe that, as a general rule, if you can't explain something in 500 words or less, you don't understand it yourself.

    I noticed he used "UI" and didn't explain what that was, either. The nerve.

    @blakeyrat said:

    If you need things like dependency injection (which I assume is what you mean by DI) and inversion of control containers (which apparently can't even be explained in less than 50,000 words) then your code is Too. Fucking. Complicated. Back away, take a deep breath, and spend some time actually breaking down the problem into smaller, simpler, manageable chunks.

    And obviously you can't appreciate the irony of your statement saying to break things into little chunks while ranting about a concept designed to help you do exactly that.

    Ignorance is OK. Except when you work so hard to cultivate it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    To the person who's convinced that he can't use Ruby because it doesn't have a GUI debugger that works the same way as Visual Studio?

    Who's that? It doesn't resemble anything I've ever said.

    This must have been your twin brother then:<br/ >


    http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/26781/306339.aspx#306339
    @blakeyrat said:

    I just don't like them (and where does this "not bothering to learn anything" shit come from anyway?) Did it ever occur to you that the reason I don't like those technologies is because they're all stuff that was obsolete 25 years ago? I'm not a Tech Luddite, I'm a "Tech Modernist". Which is pretty much the exact opposite.



    Look. Microsoft Basic 1.0 on my Mac in 1986 had a GUI debugger with breakpoints, conditional breakpoints, setting breakpoints while executing, an inspector, etc. In 1986. Ruby, in 2012, does not have a [GUI] debugger that good. This is fucking ridiculous. Fucking. Ridiculous.



  • @PJH said:

    This must have been your twin brother then:


    http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/26781/306339.aspx#306339
    @blakeyrat said:
    I just don't like them (and where does this "not bothering to learn anything" shit come from anyway?) Did it ever occur to you that the reason I don't like those technologies is because they're all stuff that was obsolete 25 years ago? I'm not a Tech Luddite, I'm a "Tech Modernist". Which is pretty much the exact opposite.



    Look. Microsoft Basic 1.0 on my Mac in 1986 had a GUI debugger with breakpoints, conditional breakpoints, setting breakpoints while executing, an inspector, etc. In 1986. Ruby, in 2012, does not have a [GUI] debugger that good. This is fucking ridiculous. Fucking. Ridiculous.

    Did you read your own post? Did you read the text you quoted?

    I specifically say I don't like it not that I can't use it. Do you understand that those are two different things? Do you understand that I've posted here multiple times that not only can I used Ruby, but I did use Ruby to de-WTF their code?

    Fuck man.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Cassidy said:

    I'm simply questioning if the situation is the other way around: are they not using an IDE - or their choice of IDE - because they don't know something other people do?

    Most people who use Haskell and Lisp (this may also be true of Ruby and Python) also have experience with either C# or Java, so probably not.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.