Brain the size of a planet, and working with MC Hammer



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I knew I hated Ruby as soon as I saw you could put the conditional test AFTER the statement.

    You're not a big fan of Perl either, I suppose.

    Perl has the 'unless' statement. You can write an entire block of statements and at the very end write 'unless ( expr )'.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    All I can think of is do {} while ();

    People ought to listen to Blakey!



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I knew I hated Ruby as soon as I saw you could put the conditional test AFTER the statement.
     

    lol


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Severity One said:

    @CodeNinja said:
    Probably the same thing that's keeping me at my job, an intense desire to not be homeless.
    Why would you become homeless if you lose your job?

    Not that I think I should be stating the obvious, but inability to pay the rent/mortgage due to lack of savings?



  • I will explain my post above in more detail now. I was in a bit of a bad mood when I posted it.

    "Brain the size of a planet" comes from Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, and is generally a reference to someone who feels their ability to use their brain is being undermined by being given only menial tasks. Marvin the Android complained about this.

    "working with MC Hammer" is a sort of lol term for a team-lead or project manager who says "you can't touch this" all the time.

    Essentially, if I am put in charge of something to maintain, I want to be given the responsibility and ability to change "as I see fit", which means being able to rewrite parts if I have time to and if it will be beneficial in the long run, i.e. far more maintainable.

    Of course people should work "in a team" and therefore if you plan to rewrite something or redo something, this should be discussed in a sensible way about what benefit (and risk) the change would bring, and how best such a change would be best implemented.

    In my own current situation, I have actually now moved to another team within the company where we are designing a new system.

     



  • @Severity One said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    I knew I hated Ruby as soon as I saw you could put the conditional test AFTER the statement.
    You're not a big fan of Perl either, I suppose.

    Perl has the 'unless' statement. You can write an entire block of statements and at the very end write 'unless ( expr )'.

     

    Saying you dislike Perl because of it allowing you to put conditionals at the end of statements is like saying you disliked Osama bin Laden because he had his hair unkempt.

     

    Or drawing a simile between a programming language and a terrorist.

     



  •  @Zecc said:

    Or drawing a simile between a programming language and a terrorist.

    No, no, no, it's like when Hitler is driving his nazi car in reverse, and.... wait


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    That's only when you have to deal with something noticeably different from what you're used to,

    Not different; worse. If Ruby had tools as good as C# I wouldn't complain about it. In fact I kind of like its syntax. But the tools suck, so I call them out for sucking, and why shouldn't I.


    The fact that you expect to work with Ruby the same way as you would with C# is exactly what I was getting at in the part of my post that you for some reason snipped out:

    and only because you'd rather complain about it being different than learn something that would help you operate efficiently

    Look, people somehow manage to get things to work in Ruby without a VS-style debugger. So the question is: what do they know that you don't?



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    That's only when you have to deal with something noticeably different from what you're used to,
    Not different; worse. If Ruby had tools as good as C# I wouldn't complain about it. In fact I kind of like its syntax. But the tools suck, so I call them out for sucking, and why shouldn't I.
    The fact that you expect to work with Ruby the same way as you would with C# is exactly what I was getting at in the part of my post that you for some reason snipped out:
    and only because you'd rather complain about it being different than learn something that would help you operate efficiently
    Look, people somehow manage to get things to work in Ruby without a VS-style debugger. So the question is: what do they know that you don't?

    I think it's more like "they just don't know any better".  Or maybe it's a stockholm syndrome kind of thing...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Yes, because there isn't anyone on the entire planet who has used both Ruby and C#.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    Look, people somehow manage to get things to work in Ruby without a VS-style debugger.

    Nobody's denying that. Same applies to PHP, many large and complex apps are written in it and work.

    But that data point alone says nothing. Maybe the team that built the app in Ruby took three times longer to do so than they would have if they'd built it in C# or Java. We don't know.

    Oh and BTW, there's a part I forgot to mention: not only does Ruby not have a single decent code debugger, the Windows interpreter is buggy and ignores Windows' proxy settings, meaning you can't even use an HTTP debugger (like Fiddler) with it. Surely you consider that a WTF.

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    So the question is: what do they know that you don't?

    If you honestly have an answer to this, I'd like to know what it is. I'm inclined to go with the already-posted "they don't know any better".

    I can tell you this for sure: while there might be teams out there that "know something that I don't" and are writing excellent bug-free Ruby without the use of a debugger, the team I've been working with most certainly does not know anything I don't.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    Yes, because there isn't anyone on the entire planet who has used both Ruby and C#.

    If they come from the Ruby world, they'd probably see no value to the C# debugger (not knowing any better) and ignore it, no harm done. If they come from the C# world like me, they'd probably just complain about how shitty Ruby development tools are.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I'm sure you could find out pretty quickly by posting a question on a Ruby forum instead of complaining here.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    Yes, because there isn't anyone on the entire planet who has used both Ruby and C#.

    If they come from the Ruby world, they'd probably see no value to the C# debugger (not knowing any better) and ignore it, no harm done. If they come from the C# world like me, they'd probably just complain about how shitty Ruby development tools are.

    Apparently approaching a new language by asking people who are good at it how they work with it is out of the question.



  • I doubt it; I've already read the threads on Stack Overflow. There's two IDEs with integrated debuggers, Ruby-In-Steel which is a Visual Studio plug-in to support Ruby (where the debugger craps out if the set of locals contains more than 1 MB of data) and RubyMine where the debugger is generously described as "very buggy".

    Good development tools in Ruby simply do not exist. Unless you have new evidence to provide, this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    Apparently approaching a new language by asking people who are good at it how they work with it is out of the question.

    It doesn't matter how they work on it. It matters how I want to work on it. And I do everything, everything in development in the debugger. If you hand me a large project, thousands of lines of code, and I have no debugger, I don't have the only tool that would help me work-out how the code actually works and what it actually does. Maybe someone can do that without a debugger, but I'm not that person.

    I don't have the kind of brain it takes to remember thousands of CLI commands or weird keyboard shortcuts in Vim. I just don't. My dyslexia is too bad for that. There's nothing wrong with my brain otherwise. C# is accessible to the way I need to work. Ruby is not. Ruby is written by unthinking and uncaring jerks who don't care about me or how I prefer to work. It's not for me.

    And if Ruby doesn't care about me, then I don't care about it. Fuck it.

    ... but even all that aside, remember you can't even use an HTTP debugger with Ruby. If you have a simple question like, "is this Facebook library throwing because Facebook's returning 500 statuses, or is it sending incorrect URLs to Facebook?" You literally have no tool to answer that simple question. And yes this is a real-life example that came up just a week ago-- the "solution" was guess-and-check. You have to admit that's a WTF that has nothing to do with my preferred way of working.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I doubt it; I've already read the threads on Stack Overflow. There's two IDEs with integrated debuggers, Ruby-In-Steel which is a Visual Studio plug-in to support Ruby (where the debugger craps out if the set of locals contains more than 1 MB of data) and RubyMine where the debugger is generously described as "very buggy".

    Your answers here indicate that you may be asking the wrong question. It appears that Ruby has a builtin debugger. Of course, because it's a command-line debugger I'm sure you won't like it.

    Good development tools in Ruby simply do not exist.

    If by "good development tools" you mean tools that work like Visual Studio, that's part of the point you're working exceedingly hard to keep missing.

    Unless you have new evidence to provide, this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.

    No amount of evidence changes something from a matter of opinion to a matter of fact.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't have the kind of brain it takes to remember thousands of CLI commands or weird keyboard shortcuts in Vim. I just don't. My dyslexia is too bad for that. There's nothing wrong with my brain otherwise. C# is accessible to the way I need to work. Ruby is not. Ruby is written by unthinking and uncaring jerks who don't care about me or how I prefer to work. It's not for me.

    I'm glad you finally got my point, but you're still missing a distinction: bad for me (subjective) vs. bad for everyone (objective). "Ruby is written by unthinking and uncaring jerks" (aside from being a good example of the hyperbole that everyone so likes to hear from you) is a statement of the objectively bad variety. "Ruby does not have good development tools" is another.

    Had you restricted your rants to statements like "It's not for me" or "It doesn't fit the way I work," we wouldn't have wasted time establishing that this wasn't just another case of you not being willing to learn anything, and we could have moved on to complaining about what people who complain about Ruby should be complaining about: it's dog slow, it encourages monkey-patching, and dynamic languages make it too hard to keep track of types as programs get larger.



  • What the fuck do you want from me? Are you Boomzilla's baby brother? Fuck.

    You don't seem to have any particular interest in Ruby yourself, so what's the point? I feel like you think you're a prosecuting attorney and you're trying to trick me into saying something, but I don't know what it is you expect me to say. You're just randomly grilling me over and over and over again for no end purpose. Again, like Boomzilla used to do. What do you want exactly? Just tell me. Christ.

    Fuck you. I'm not responding to you anymore.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    I'm glad you finally got my point, but you're still missing a distinction: bad for me (subjective) vs. bad for everyone (objective).

    If that's what you were very very very very slooooooooooooooowly getting at, why the fuck didn't you just post it 5423457234 posts ago instead of spamming up the fucking forum, you ass?

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    and we could have moved on to complaining about what people who complain about Ruby should be complaining about: it's dog slow, it encourages monkey-patching, and dynamic languages make it too hard to keep track of types as programs get larger.

    You don't even fucking LIKE RUBY!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR DISEASED MIND!!!!! Where the fuck do people like you come from!? Jesus. Fuck off. Fuck off and die.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You don't even fucking LIKE RUBY!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR DISEASED MIND!!!!! Where the fuck do people like you come from!? Jesus. Fuck off. Fuck off and die.

    Do coworkers ever poke and prod you until you erupt like this, just for their own sick amusement? I totally would.



  • Today I Learned: blakeyrat is a point-and-drool guy


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @Zecc said:

    @Severity One said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    I knew I hated Ruby as soon as I saw you could put the conditional test AFTER the statement.
    You're not a big fan of Perl either, I suppose.

    Perl has the 'unless' statement. You can write an entire block of statements and at the very end write 'unless ( expr )'.

     

    Saying you dislike Perl because of it allowing you to put conditionals at the end of statements is like saying you disliked Osama bin Laden because he had his hair unkempt.

     

    Or drawing a simile between a programming language and a terrorist.

     

    Yes, I would probably hate Perl as well. Write-only language and all that.

    Blakey's workflow is to watch the debugger and see what happens. I read code like a narrative, running statement by statement in my head and updating state accordingly. If I read ten (or worse, 50+) lines of code and at the very end I see " } unless( foo )" I feel like the code just shouted "HA! TRICKED YOU!" It's like finding out the last 10 chapters of a novel were really just a bad dream sequence. It just totally fucks my mental interpreter. Even with a single line, I'll have to read it and then see the condition and undo the changes to the registers in my mental VM. I'm capable of doing this, but it basically feels like stubbing my toe.

    If the language allows it, I know someone will use it, and then I'll end up having to support it. When I write code, my number one priority is making sure it won't be painful for me to go back and maintain, fix, update, or debug. This "feature" goes against the spirit of that goal.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    If the language allows it, I know someone will use it, and then I'll end up having to support it. When I write code, my number one priority is making sure it won't be painful for me to go back and maintain, fix, update, or debug. This "feature" goes against the spirit of that goal.
     

    Then we should forbid 50+ lines per block, not unless statements.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Blakey's workflow is to watch the debugger and see what happens. I read code like a narrative, running statement by statement in my head and updating state accordingly.

    The debugger is doing the same thing you're doing mentally, but showing you exactly what the state is. I would think you'd appreciate the debugger as much as I do, if that's your technique. If you don't have to keep a mental inventory of all the locals and stuff, you have more room in your brain to focus on the actual problem you're trying to solve.

    In any case, I'm never going to support a programming environment that excludes people like me (duh), and I'm always going to believe that a programming environment that excludes people like me is inferior to one that does not. So I stand by everything I've said about Ruby and its shitty programming environment.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @dhromed said:

    Then we should forbid 50+ lines per block, not unless statements.

    As I understand Ruby allows unless either before or after; if it's before, then I have no problem with unless.

    I cannot for the life of me think of a scenario where putting either if or unless after the statement would make things easier to read or understand.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    I'm glad you finally got my point, but you're still missing a distinction: bad for me (subjective) vs. bad for everyone (objective).

    If that's what you were very very very very slooooooooooooooowly getting at, why the fuck didn't you just post it 5423457234 posts ago instead of spamming up the fucking forum, you ass?


    The subjective/objective distinction wasn't the point I've been trying to get through your thick skull, it was this:

    You expect to work with Ruby the same way as you would with C#. This is not a reasonable expectation.

    and I mentioned that at least twice.

    By the way, I don't dislike Ruby. It's good for small scripts and applications, but it doesn't scale up very well.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @jamesn said:

    Today I Learned: blakeyrat is a point-and-drool guy

    Yeah, I don't think any of us knew.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @blakeyrat said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    Blakey's workflow is to watch the debugger and see what happens. I read code like a narrative, running statement by statement in my head and updating state accordingly.

    The debugger is doing the same thing you're doing mentally, but showing you exactly what the state is. I would think you'd appreciate the debugger as much as I do, if that's your technique. If you don't have to keep a mental inventory of all the locals and stuff, you have more room in your brain to focus on the actual problem you're trying to solve.

    You're probably right. I don't dispute that debuggers make the task of debugging easy. The main problem at the moment is I have a project that takes five minutes to run a build, and then I have to attach a debugger to it, and there's no edit-and-continue support for 64-bit processes in Visual Studio. So every time I want to make a change, I would have to recompile, reattach the debugger, and get it back to that state. It's too time-consuming for me to work like that.

    I also feel like if I lean too heavily on the IDE, I'll become dependent on it, and then lose the ability to work with languages that don't have such tools.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    The main problem at the moment is I have a project that takes five minutes to run a build, and then I have to attach a debugger to it, and there's no edit-and-continue support for 64-bit processes in Visual Studio.

    You can't just build the one tiny component you're actually working on? Or is it a giant mess of spaghetti where everything depends on everything else?

    Fair complaint, but it's one of those, "if that complaint comes up, you're doing something very wrong elsewhere" things. Like a co-worker who complained to me that his OS started choking once he put 44k+ files in a single directory.

    @joe.edwards said:

    I also feel like if I lean too heavily on the IDE, I'll become dependent on it, and then lose the ability to work with languages that don't have such tools.

    Wow. That is the most backwards way of thinking I have ever heard.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I also feel like if I lean too heavily on the IDE, I'll become dependent on it, and then lose the ability to work with languages that don't have such tools.

    This is an excellent point that I think a lot of people will miss the truth of.

    I love C# as much as anyone on here (it's my favorite language, mostly due to the tools), but I don't like that if you want to use the best set of GUI programming tools available, you have to lock yourself in to the Microsoft ecosystem. That system won't be around forever. However, if you can teach yourself to code productively using other toolsets, then you'll be better adapted for the future. vim is a good example - it has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful at the end of the curve, and it's not going away any time soon.

    To me it's a similar concept to diversifying an investment portfolio. Pick several languages and learn them and their toolsets as well as you can, that way when one falls out of favor you still have a couple of other good ways of getting things done.



  • @jamesn said:

    but I don't like that if you want to use the best set of GUI programming tools available, you have to lock yourself in to the Microsoft ecosystem. That system won't be around forever.

    Microsoft development tools are going away?  Somebody better tell Microsoft...

    @jamesn said:

    if you can teach yourself to code productively using other toolsets, then you'll be better adapted for the future. vim is a good example - it has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful at the end of the curve, and it's not going away any time soon.

    To me it's a similar concept to diversifying an investment portfolio. Pick several languages and learn them and their toolsets as well as you can, that way when one falls out of favor you still have a couple of other good ways of getting things done.

    Jack of all trades, master of none...

    Sorry, I just don't buy this.  I'm going to use 3 or 4 or more different tools instead of one to work with the same programming language?  Why?  It's not like VS is all of a sudden going to vanish...



  • @jamesn said:

    Today I Learned: blakeyrat is a point-and-drool guy

    Let me ask you a question. Say I had a physical disability, like I was missing a hand. Would you endorse a programming language that required the use of both hands? (And yes I realize that's ridiculously hypothetical, but I'm trying to make a point here.)

    If I don't have the rote memory skills to effectively use a CLI or to effectively use an editor without things things like Intellisense, should I be excluded from coding in Ruby?

    Usability isn't just about about making the software usable by the average person; it's also about accessibility, making the software accessible to everybody regardless of their capabilities (physical or mental). Not that anybody involved in the Ruby ecosystem ever gave two shits about usability. This shit is important to me. I think it should be important to you.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @blakeyrat said:

    You can't just build the one tiny component you're actually working on? Or is it a giant mess of spaghetti where everything depends on everything else?

    The very expensive enterprisey CMS platform it's built for demands this architecture, and if you deviate from it they will basically disown you and refuse to support it.

    Really, I had to complete a time-consuming and expensive certification process before they even granted me access to the extranet where they keep the documentation, and to remain a part of their "developer network" I have to abide by their rules and guidelines. (Which is part of why I don't want to name names.)



  • @jamesn said:

    I love C# as much as anyone on here (it's my favorite language, mostly due to the tools), but I don't like that if you want to use the best set of GUI programming tools available, you have to lock yourself in to the Microsoft ecosystem. That system won't be around forever. However, if you can teach yourself to code productively using other toolsets, then you'll be better adapted for the future. vim is a good example - it has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful at the end of the curve, and it's not going away any time soon.

    To me it's a similar concept to diversifying an investment portfolio. Pick several languages and learn them and their toolsets as well as you can, that way when one falls out of favor you still have a couple of other good ways of getting things done.

    So basically you're saying that you've just accepted the fact that non-Microsoft development tools are shit, and you should wallow around in the shit to advance your career instead of, say, calling out the Ruby community for having shit tools that don't hold a candle to Microsoft tools. (They don't dare to; they might ignite the methane there in the shit-pipe.)



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    Jack of all trades, master of none...

    I never claimed to be a master. Hell, my job is mostly spreadsheets and VBA.

    Still, it is very important to me to acquire and maintain technological skills that will remain somewhat relevant even when significant platform changes occur, which is a question of when, not if.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    So basically you're saying that you've just accepted the fact that non-Microsoft development tools are shit, and you should wallow around in the shit to advance your career instead of, say, calling out the Ruby community for having shit tools that don't hold a candle to Microsoft tools. (They don't dare to; they might ignite the methane there in the shit-pipe.)

    I never said they were shit. That's you projecting your (uninformed|closed-minded) opinion onto me.

    You have to choose between the following:

    1. A set of tools that you can download and immediately become productive in. However, when you try to do really complex and interesting things that are outside the realm of the designers' imagination, then it becomes apparent that they are bloated and full of edge cases that don't work properly. They also cost a crapload of money.
       
    2. A set of tools that is complicated, difficult to use at first, and not suited for everyone. However, you have the ability to really dig in to the code behind the tools and change them to suit your workflow, thereby making them your own. This does take a crapload of time, which I hear is roughly equivalent to a similar measure of money.

    I say, why not both? Recognize the various tools available for what they are, along with their strengths and weaknesses.



  • @jamesn said:

    A set of tools that you can download and immediately become productive in. However, when you try to do really complex and interesting things that are outside the realm of the designers' imagination, then it becomes apparent that they are bloated and full of edge cases that don't work properly. They also cost a crapload of money.

    And this is supposed to be... C#/.net?

    Oh and BTW, the instant someone mentions that the tools cost a "crapload of money" I instantly put them in my "pennywise, pound foolish" bucket. Look up how much your payroll costs sometime! Even the most expensive programming tool possible (and Visual Studio is quite reasonably priced if your company buys MSDN subscriptions) is a drop in the bucket compared to payroll costs. If MS SQL saves you ONE DAY A YEAR over using Postgres, you've come out even. The instant someone says "proprietary development tools are too expensive!" I instantly know who to NEVER consult when determine whether/what tools to buy. Kind of an unrelated rant, but I think it has to be said because so many developers simply do not know what things are worth and that is a huge WTF.

    @jamesn said:

    A set of tools that is complicated, difficult to use at first, and not suited for everyone. However, you have the ability to really dig in to the code behind the tools and change them to suit your workflow, thereby making them your own. This does take time, which I hear is roughly equivalent to money.

    And this one is supposed to be... Ruby?

    Neither of your bulletpoints there corresponds in any way with my experience. On the contrary; I found Ruby quite easy to learn, it just has really shitty tools. And .net bloated? Maybe slightly, but compared to Ruby? Hah! "Outside the realm of the designer's imagination": you realize you don't have to use the designer, right?

    Also "not suited for everyone" is one of those exact things I'm complaining about. Well, why not? It's not inherent in Ruby's syntax that it can't be used with debuggers! (Hell, JavaScript has good debuggers and it's MUCH weirder and harder to follow than Ruby.) It's just because the Ruby community doesn't give a shit.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @blakeyrat said:

    So basically you're saying that you've just accepted the fact that non-Microsoft development tools are shit, and you should wallow around in the shit to advance your career instead of, say, calling out the Ruby community for having shit tools that don't hold a candle to Microsoft tools.

    I do what the clients ask me to do, using the most appropriate tools for the situation. At this job I've had to learn and work with Java, XSLT 2.0, four different CMS platforms, two different RDBMSs, and administrate Solaris, Linux, Windows, and Mac boxes. I don't mind the diversity, I like learning new things, and solving and thinking about problems in new ways. Even if I think a language is shit because of its tools or its conventions or its syntax, it's useful knowledge that makes me more employable as it accumulates.

    This client's main problem is that they have a huge patchwork of unrelated systems and platforms (see above) that have formed a gross living organism that passes data across many servers/platforms/languages/protocols/business units. Over the past two and half years I've managed to retire many legacy systems and servers, making things more modern, easier to maintain, less expensive, more reliable, and less confusing; but I couldn't have migrated away from the crap if I couldn't first understand how it worked.

    So, even if everything else sucks, there are still valid reasons to learn to work with it.



  • I didn't make that very clear. I think ruby sucks pretty hard too. vim and git used for coding python is probably a better example.

    As far as cost and value of development tools... let's say that providing me with a copy of Visual Studio costs my company $3000 per year. (I think it is probably more like $7000 per dev per year, when you take into account the costs of maintaining licenses and support personnel.) Anyway, assuming that I make somewhere in between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, that means that I can spend between 3% and 6% of my time (somewhere between 1.5 and 3 full work-weeks) dealing with SharpDevelop* and setting it up to work well enough for my environment. I think the total time I've actually spent working on SharpDevelop is within the low end of that range, if not below it entirely.

    Using extremely conservative estimates, I've tried to establish that SharpDevelop is comparable in cost to Visual Studio for me, in part because I am willing and able to diagnose, fix, and document subtle compatibility issues that may occur. I think you can make a similar comparison for e.g. SQL Server vs. MySQL (for simple projects) or PostgreSQL (for more complex projects).

    *I would certainly use Visual Studio at work if it were available to me. Unfortunately, it's not.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I don't mind the diversity, I like learning new things, and solving and thinking about problems in new ways.


    This.

    @joe.edwards said:

    Even if I think a language is shit because of its tools or its conventions or its syntax, it's useful knowledge that makes me more employable as it accumulates.


    Unfortunately, this too.

    @joe.edwards said:

    So, even if everything else sucks, there are still valid reasons to learn to work with it.


    All operating systems and tools suck, just in different ways.



  • @jamesn said:

    let's say that providing me with a copy of Visual Studio costs my company $3000 per year.

    $1200. And that's the "random homeless guy comes in off the street" price... your company could probably negotiate much better.

    Edit: and you forgot to include your benefits; you can't compare to your salary, you have to compare to what your company pays for your time in total.



  • Read about half the thread.  I don't know about all this Ruby shit and I'm no programming professional.  I do enjoy coding as a hobby.  I've always used Visual Studio since version 5.  I'm wondering how freetards consider vim and emacs and developing with 20 other programs and a command line debugger to be better than using something like Visual Studio?

    It's like the idiot on slashdot the other week on the Valve/Linux bullshit.  I said Linux has no good development tools and no good gaming APIs compared to Windows.  Why would a company spend the money to fuck around with all of that?  I was baiscally given a list of random APIs like OpenGL, OpenAL, etc. and that is considered by their community to be equivalent in both features and ease of use to DirectX.  Apparently the same concept applies to shitty, fragmented development tools that run without a GUI.

    I think it's a combination of stockholm syndrome (as someone said before I stopped reading the thread), ignorance, and something else I don't have a word for...  When I was a child, I refused to use a WYSIWYG tool to make my childish website.  I used notepad.  Made me feel superior and smarter than the guy making better websites faster using a WYSIWYG editor.  What's the word for that kind of person?

    Not talking about "freetard" here.  A freetard is someone acting like a retard making their life difficult using FOSS, right?

    I guess some of us learn from our mistakes as children and others just keep smashing their face into the wall for no good reason other than not knowing any better.



  • @jamesn said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    I also feel like if I lean too heavily on the IDE, I'll become dependent on it, and then lose the ability to work with languages that don't have such tools.

    This is an excellent point that I think a lot of people will miss the truth of.

    I love C# as much as anyone on here (it's my favorite language, mostly due to the tools), but I don't like that if you want to use the best set of GUI programming tools available, you have to lock yourself in to the Microsoft ecosystem. That system won't be around forever. However, if you can teach yourself to code productively using other toolsets, then you'll be better adapted for the future. vim is a good example - it has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful at the end of the curve, and it's not going away any time soon.

    To me it's a similar concept to diversifying an investment portfolio. Pick several languages and learn them and their toolsets as well as you can, that way when one falls out of favor you still have a couple of other good ways of getting things done.

     

    I think before Microsoft goes away, we'll have a new and set of tools and languages available (probably good enough to push Microsoft out of business, hence better).  I don't think vim is going to be one of them.

     



  • @jamesn said:

    As far as cost and value of development tools... let's say that providing me with a copy of Visual Studio costs my company $3000 per year. (I think it is probably more like $7000 per dev per year, when you take into account the costs of maintaining licenses and support personnel.)

    MSDN Ultimate subscription is around $13000 for the first year, and $4000 for subsequent years (this includes VS Ultimate, Office Professional Plus [for production use] and development licenses for pretty much every other Microsoft product). Premium is around half that price, and still includes nearly everything I listed.



  • @ender said:

    MSDN Ultimate subscription is around $13000 for the first year, and $4000 for subsequent years (this includes VS Ultimate, Office Professional Plus [for production use] and development licenses for pretty much every other Microsoft product). Premium is around half that price, and still includes nearly everything I listed.

    Ultimate is way way way way way overkill. "Professional" is all you need for serious software development, and it's $1200 "homeless guy off the street" price.

    Of course you know that, you're just posting the most expensive possible option to scare people away from the scaaaaary Microsoft proprietary tools, oooOOOooOOOO so scaaaaary.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ender said:
    MSDN Ultimate subscription is around $13000 for the first year, and $4000 for subsequent years (this includes VS Ultimate, Office Professional Plus [for production use] and development licenses for pretty much every other Microsoft product). Premium is around half that price, and still includes nearly everything I listed.
    Ultimate is way way way way way overkill. "Professional" is all you need for serious software development, and it's $1200 "homeless guy off the street" price.

    Of course you know that, you're just posting the most expensive possible option to scare people away from the scaaaaary Microsoft proprietary tools, oooOOOooOOOO so scaaaaary.

    No, I think he's agreeing with you, and saying that even at the most expensive packaged price, it's still not as much as jamesn was claiming it would cost...



  • Oh. Well I liked typing oooOOOoooOOoooOOo so there.



  • @dhromed said:

     @Zecc said:

    Or drawing a simile between a programming language and a terrorist.

    No, no, no, it's like when Hitler is driving his nazi car in reverse, and.... wait

    Jeez, this is worse than that time on Family Guy when Peter made an obscure reference and they cut to a four-minute scene of something that had nothing to do with the storyline!

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @pauly said:

    shillin and trollin

    Yeah, but you really haven't said anything that blakeyrat and C-Octothorpe didn't also say. Oh...that's the joke... Never mind.


Log in to reply

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