Good Editorial by Russell Jones - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

  1. #16
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    > Goodness, I shall have to Come To America, if you have such very nice
    > things like cinnamon-sugar and maple frosting on your do(ugh)nuts!


    Get in line for the Krispy Kreme!

    (Won't see me there... maybe I'm still to European)



  2. #17
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:41:43 -0800, "Sjoerd Verweij"
    <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote:

    >> Being more productive means being lazy.

    >
    >A-freaking-men. For example, I put just about every query that took me more
    >than ten minutes to write in a stored procedure. People constantly tell me
    >"oh, I never do that... I'm too lazy for that".


    Now there's a thinkin' man. As it should be. Are you an Engineer by
    any chance? Job requirement.

    >NO, IDIOT, you're _not_lazy_enough_! You're the sap that'll sit there at 7PM
    >in about a month writing it all over again!


    Bingo. Only now I've gotta rewrite a boatload 'o stuff I thought I
    had down. I hope they don't change the way they handle stored
    procedures on you!

    Dan
    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)

  3. #18
    Daniel Anderson Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Joe,
    In essence I agree with you about the migration effort that will be
    required. BUT, (knew that was coming, huh?) at the same time, VB developers
    need to quit treating VB7 like it is an upgrade from VB6, which it never has
    been intended to be. VB7 represents a total rethink of the language, which
    was sorely needed, as opposed to previous versions, which did nothing more
    than offer kludges to known issues mixed with a sprinkling of new features.
    One of the best (and funniest) examples of this was that Microsoft finally
    stopped supporting the GOSUB statement. Uhhh...HELLO. Shouldn't developers
    have stopped using that back in VB1, as Microsoft said?
    Until VB7, every version of VB has done nothing more than "fix" what was
    broken or missing before. But this was like a boat anchor around the
    language, and prevented it from becoming a first class language. Now, VB7
    is truly a "real" language in its own right, with enormous capabilities that
    the development community is only beginning to see.
    I don't like having to spend as much time learning a "new" language any more
    than the next guy, but if the tradeoff is that by doing so I will be able to
    produce more scalable, robust applications, so be it. It is a price worth
    paying IMHO.
    To me, what VS.NET means overall is that it will require developers to truly
    know what they're doing, rather than supporting sloppy, poorly written code,
    as VB has tended to allow in versions past. Developers will have to think
    "outside the box" now, which isn't entirely a bad thing. And maybe now we
    can focus on writing applications rather than lamenting on how limited the
    language is.



    "Joe Goodman" <goodmanja@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3a702fef@news.devx.com...
    >
    > You have a good point Robert, we all have to re-train constantly, but this
    >
    > release is a huge paradigm shift for some. It's going to require more
    > code retooling than it should to bring the old stuff forward, ut that's

    life.
    > I like to tell myself that if this job was easy, anyone could do it.

    Still,
    > Mr. Jones
    > editorial that bothers me just a little. He makes light of valid

    developer
    > concerns and then "moves on". He sounds remarkably like a

    bought-and-paid-for
    > Microsoft mouthpiece. I find that a little troubling. I can get the

    company
    > line
    > straight from Microsoft. I joined DevX to get more...
    >
    >
    > "Robert G" <robpg@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >I thought the editorial was right on the money. If you are a programmer

    > and
    > >you don't want to learn new technologies, it is probably time to start

    looking
    > >for a new profession. Once you get down the learning curve, the .NET

    platform
    > >actually simplifies things for developers.
    > >
    > >Some people are just too lazy to learn...

    >




  4. #19
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Hi Daniel --

    > One of the best (and funniest) examples of this was that Microsoft finally
    > stopped supporting the GOSUB statement. Uhhh...HELLO. Shouldn't developers
    > have stopped using that back in VB1, as Microsoft said?


    Hello? Couldn't have characterized an opinion as *utterly* uninformed faster than
    making a silly-*** statement like that. Do you understand how programs work? Under
    the hood? Wow.

    Bonus points for finding the statement that would make Microsoft look equally asinine
    "back in VB1" timeframe.

    Later... Karl
    --
    http://www.mvps.org/vb



  5. #20
    Daniel Anderson Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Karl,
    I was merely pointing out the fact that through VB6, Microsoft continued to
    support some functionality that should have died long ago, but it was done
    for the sake of allowing relatively simple migration to the next version,
    and because there were many VB developers who argued for its inclusion. The
    point is that VB7, good or bad, represents a major departure from
    Microsoft's support of prior VB versions. Personally, I do not see this as
    a necessarily bad thing. Microsoft has tried to create in VB7 everything
    its critics said has been wrong with prior versions that many felt have kept
    VB from becoming what would be considered a "first class" language like C++.
    Could this have been accomplished without a major rethink of the language?
    Maybe, maybe not. I can understand the point that people are making about
    the difficulty of migration, and it will make many companies think twice
    about making the move to .NET. Within our own organization we are debating
    the merits of moving to .NET with our existing apps, as opposed to leaving
    them alone ("If it aint broke don't fix it") and evaluating the use of .NET
    in future projects. Some companies prefer to live on the "bleeding edge" in
    order to maintain what they see as a competitive edge, while others, like
    ours, are more conservative, only moving to newer technologies when the time
    is more appropriate. Better to wait and see what the experience of others
    is than to risk serious repercussions of unstable apps. But for companies
    willing to spend the money, time, and effort to make the migration, I
    believe that in the long run the benefits of .NET will outweigh those costs.
    Yes, it will be an enormously difficult undertaking to justify the move to
    ..NET if you have applications that you spent a large amount of money
    developing. Many companies may choose to wait until they can no longer
    stave off the inevitable (i.e. Microsoft stops supporting prior versions of
    VB, but that will be a LONG Time down the road), and it might be the best
    decision for them. But for companies which have not yet invested much in
    their development efforts, or who feel that they must make the move to
    remain competitive, the move might be easier to make.

    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3a71ffd3$1@news.devx.com...
    > Hi Daniel --
    >
    > > One of the best (and funniest) examples of this was that Microsoft

    finally
    > > stopped supporting the GOSUB statement. Uhhh...HELLO. Shouldn't

    developers
    > > have stopped using that back in VB1, as Microsoft said?

    >
    > Hello? Couldn't have characterized an opinion as *utterly* uninformed

    faster than
    > making a silly-*** statement like that. Do you understand how programs

    work? Under
    > the hood? Wow.
    >
    > Bonus points for finding the statement that would make Microsoft look

    equally asinine
    > "back in VB1" timeframe.
    >
    > Later... Karl
    > --
    > http://www.mvps.org/vb
    >
    >




  6. #21
    Randy Birch Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Funniest thing I've seen in a movie for a while ...

    guys standing with a half dozen jelly doughnuts clutched in his hand and
    fitted between his fingers. Sticking up out of the jelly-fill hole on each
    doughnut is a straw. A bunch of other guys are talking ... he speaks up: "If
    anyone wants a doughnut without jelly, they're ready now".

    Wish I could remember the movie title.

    --

    Randy Birch
    MVP Visual Basic

    Take the vb.net poll at:
    http://www.mvps.org/vbnet/
    http://www.mvps.org/ccrp/

    Please respond only to the newsgroups so all can benefit.



    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3a71d35c.36322050@news.devx.com...
    : On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:04:06 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >> shaddup and pass me a donut!....no, not that one, one of those
    : >> cinnamon-sugar ones...<g>
    : >
    : >Yeah, that one, with maple frosting...!
    : >
    :
    : Goodness, I shall have to Come To America, if you have such very nice
    : things like cinnamon-sugar and maple frosting on your do(ugh)nuts!
    : (There's no ugh in front of *your* nuts?)
    :
    : We only ever get jam in the middle and a bit of granulated round the
    : outside. Still pretty nice, though.
    :
    : MM



  7. #22
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Hi Daniel --

    > I was merely pointing out the fact that through VB6, Microsoft continued to
    > support some functionality that should have died long ago,


    Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be the best
    answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

    Thanks... Karl
    --
    http://www.mvps.org/vb



  8. #23
    Patrick Troughton Patrick Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones


    Hi Karl,

    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be

    the best
    >answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.


    Always critical, rarely helpful....

    /Pat


  9. #24
    Patrick Troughton Patrick Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones


    I take that back. Condescending is much more appropriate word.

    /Pat

    "Patrick Troughton" Patrick wrote:
    >
    >Hi Karl,
    >
    >"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be

    >the best
    >>answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

    >
    >Always critical, rarely helpful....
    >
    >/Pat
    >



  10. #25
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Path: news.devx.com!news.devx.com!208.186.167.65
    Xref: news.devx.com vb.dotnet.discussion:16205

    Only towards those who ~earn~ it. :-)
    --
    http://www.mvps.org/vb


    <Patrick Troughton Patrick> wrote in message news:3a7225df$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > I take that back. Condescending is much more appropriate word.
    >
    > /Pat
    >
    > "Patrick Troughton" Patrick wrote:
    > >
    > >Hi Karl,
    > >
    > >"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be

    > >the best
    > >>answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

    > >
    > >Always critical, rarely helpful....
    > >
    > >/Pat
    > >

    >



  11. #26
    Steve Dee Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    > Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
    the best
    > answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.


    Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
    situation? I'm really curious....



  12. #27
    Steve Dee Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    > NO, IDIOT, you're _not_lazy_enough_! You're the sap that'll sit there at
    7PM
    > in about a month writing it all over again!


    Then again...you could use something like SourceSafe and write a reusable
    object and NOT do it all over again!

    "Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
    news:3a71b5b0$1@news.devx.com...
    > > Being more productive means being lazy.

    >
    > A-freaking-men. For example, I put just about every query that took me

    more
    > than ten minutes to write in a stored procedure. People constantly tell me
    > "oh, I never do that... I'm too lazy for that".
    >
    > NO, IDIOT, you're _not_lazy_enough_! You're the sap that'll sit there at

    7PM
    > in about a month writing it all over again!
    >
    >
    >




  13. #28
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:10:33 -0500, "Steve Dee"
    <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote:

    >> Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be

    >the best
    >> answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

    >
    >Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
    >situation? I'm really curious....
    >

    You can stop being curious. because I have the answer! Suppose you
    have a subroutine (Function or Sub, and by the way, I'm talking
    Classic VB here; none of that VB.NET OOP bloat stuff). In the
    subroutine you have some inline code duplicated in various places
    throughout the sub. You have a choice. You can either call out to a
    new subroutine/function to execute the code and pass several
    arguments, or you can place the code at the bottom of your routine and
    call it with GoSub. That way, instead of executing the same code in,
    say, a dozen different places in the main bofy of the subroutine, you
    only need the code once, in the GoSub block, thus having only one
    place to change if changes become necessary, and also enjoying the
    added benefit of a more compact main body of the subroutine, which is
    thereby rendered easier to read, debug and enhance.

    And, actually, there is no downside to this. If you decide to leave
    all those dozen executions in the main body, well, you haven't made
    the change anyway. If you *do* decide to go for a GoSub, then if
    anything the code is simplified since it is reduced to just one
    instance. And if the code fragment in question does not need any
    passed-in arguments, a new routine is likely to be the better choice.

    You have to weigh up the pros and cons of doing it the embedded way,
    the GoSub way, or the new routine way, but weighing up pros and cons
    is what programmers do all the time, given the choice.

    However, now Microsoft have taken one more choice away. So, let's hear
    it with one almighty cheer...

    "Thanks a bunch, Microsoft!"

    MM


  14. #29
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    "Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote in message
    news:3a7257aa$1@news.devx.com...
    > > Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be

    > the best
    > > answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

    >
    > Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
    > situation? I'm really curious....


    Jeeez, I can't believe I'm saying this, but "What Mike said", (in a nutshell). It
    was a good option, when used appropriately. Unfortunately, they hosed it in VB4, and
    it never really did recover fully. This made the potential pay-off much less, and
    the justification requirements much more rigorous. But if you (generic "you") don't
    know *why* it might be useful, then you obviously shouldn't be commenting on whether
    this is a construct that's outlived its usefulness.

    Later... Karl
    --
    http://www.mvps.org/vb



  15. #30
    James D. Foxall Guest

    Re: Good Editorial by Russell Jones

    Karl and Mike are right, but I'd like to point out that the biggest payoff
    is when that shared piece of code has LOTS of data elements that would have
    to be passed as parameters. For instance, a dozen field values from a
    table...

    I avoid GoSubs as much as I possibly can, but there are a few cases where
    they are simply the best option for the situation. I agree that choice is
    the best. Anyone who thinks that bad developers will write better code
    because of language restrictions is slightly misguided. It may help, but
    people will still write lots of bad code.

    --

    James D. Foxall
    Microsoft Certified Solution Developer

    "Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote in message
    news:3a7257aa$1@news.devx.com...
    > > Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be

    > the best
    > > answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

    >
    > Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
    > situation? I'm really curious....
    >
    >




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center