Speaking of strings... - Page 4


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 247

Thread: Speaking of strings...

  1. #46
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:47:11 -0400, Patrick Steele [MVP]
    ><patrick@mvps.org> wrote:
    >>IIRC, Zane Thomas pointed out a number of times (directly to you, I
    >>believe) about the increased productivity he found when developing .NET


    >>versions of his components.

    >
    >Subjective.
    >
    >MM


    Hmmm. Can you really be this big of an idiot? Measurements of productivity
    in software are almost always subjective. Why is that? Because when you
    impose quantitative measurements, the programmers focus on the benchmark,
    not the software, and that hurts development.

    Back when COBOL was the big thing, counting line numbers came into vogue.
    Programmers would take a 500 iteration loop and write the body 500 times
    to get their line count up. Programmers are smart that way. Want to count
    function points? If I get my pick, I will pick all the easy ones so I can
    get the big raise.

    Mike, if everyone using .NET seems to think it is a good thing, and everyone
    not using .NET seems to think it is a bad thing, then who is more likely
    to be right?

    Let's go over that again.

    Some people are using .NET and think it makes them more productive.

    Some people refuse to use .NET, throw little tantrums regularly, and say
    it must be bad because...because...well, just because no one can PROVE it
    is better. Testimonials don't count because they are "subjective."

    I mean, come on, Mike. It seems to me, subjectively, that you are denser
    than a pile of lead fish sinkers. I mean, you write well, but that seems
    to be the extent of your ability to think.

  2. #47
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:09:29 -0400, Patrick Steele [MVP]
    <patrick@mvps.org> wrote:

    >In article <nis5qu8t03n56068m61ir9qj7skl1i7obc@4ax.com> (from Mike
    >Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
    >> >IIRC, Zane Thomas pointed out a number of times (directly to you, I
    >> >believe) about the increased productivity he found when developing .NET
    >> >versions of his components.

    >>
    >> Subjective.

    >
    >Um, yeah... What did you expect when you asked someone to quantify
    >"productivity"? It varies from person to person -- company to company.


    Subjective measurement is pointless. How can one thus compare
    different projects or the tools that went to develop them by different
    teams or companies? I have to know whether developing in .Net is, say,
    20% more productive than Java, 38% more productive than plain C++, -5%
    less productive than Delphi, and so on. If there is no way of knowing,
    all my 'guesstimation' is just that, guesswork.

    MM

  3. #48
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 8 Oct 2002 12:10:49 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Oh, give it up, Mike. You haven't tried VB.NET, so you have no idea what
    >you are talking about. As usual.


    <yawn>

    MM

  4. #49
    elliferg Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >Oh? Does it work differently now in VB.Net? Because in VB6 when I type
    >the dot and Intellisense kicks in and I carry on typing as you
    >suggest, the menu doesn't disappear - it stays there and my typing
    >causes the focus to move to the word I've typed, e.g. Dim conn As
    >ADODB.Connection. I find this behaviour irritiating and intrusive
    >after the first few goes. Sure, when I want to find out about and use,
    >say, PersistFormatEnum, the first few times I use that, it's going to
    >be a bit hard to keep in mind, so Intellisense is great to begin with,
    >but later turns into one of those night-nurses that keeps coming back
    >and asking you whether you're okay and did you take your pills yet.
    >YES, GODDAMMIT! NOW BUGGER OFF! (That was to the virtual night-nurse,
    >not your very good self!)
    >
    >MM


    mike,

    just do like i do. look at the keyboard for most of your typing. only look
    at the screen when you need the intellisense to give you a hint.

    elli

  5. #50
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:22:59 -0500, Paul Clement
    <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:

    >If you're admitting that you have never consulted the documentation, then I guess you're simply
    >better than the rest of us. It refreshing to know that there's actually someone out there who has
    >memorized all the string functions and associated syntax.


    I certainly did memorise all the string functions and associated
    syntax! Don't forget that I have been programming in B.A.S.I.C. since
    1978. In over two decades one gets to confront most keywords at least
    once, and all the important ones thousands of times. It sticks like
    glue to a blanket (though what one would be doing with glue in the
    bed, beats me). However, yes, of course I consulted the documentation!
    Man, I have close on 300 computer books here! You think I'm not
    serious? Ha!

    >BTW, since you apparently haven't really done any work with VB.NET then I guess you're really not
    >aware of the rather extensive list of String class operations, several of which accept several
    >different sets of parameters. But I guess that wouldn't concern you because I'm sure you could
    >remember every one of them. ;-)


    This is all very fine, but still doesn't get to the nub of my
    question, which was: why change strings to objects? If I can consult
    documentation about methods in VB.Net, I can equally as well consult
    documentation about functions in classic VB. Intellisense is only a
    memory jogger, not a replacement for online help.

    > >Because Strings are implemented as objects in .NET, programmers can simply type
    > >the variable name followed by a period (.), and IntelliSense presents them with
    > >a list of the available properties and methods, with popup descriptions of their
    > >usage and parameters. Saves typing, and makes learning much faster!
    >
    > I think (as I already pointed out once) that Intellisense is often a
    > pain in the rear. If I have already (in VB.Net, say) typed
    > MyString.Left umpteen times and each time when I get to the dot it
    > pops up a menu of all the methods available, I should think this can
    > get very irritating after a while and not a help at all, especially
    > because I'd need to scroll down the menu, then select the keyword I
    > want, and so on.
    >
    >Well I know you're just a tad bit brighter than that Mike. If you can remember all those functions
    >and syntax as you imply, you just keep on typing. The Intellisense dropdown is only there if you
    >actually need to look through the list.


    Oh? Does it work differently now in VB.Net? Because in VB6 when I type
    the dot and Intellisense kicks in and I carry on typing as you
    suggest, the menu doesn't disappear - it stays there and my typing
    causes the focus to move to the word I've typed, e.g. Dim conn As
    ADODB.Connection. I find this behaviour irritiating and intrusive
    after the first few goes. Sure, when I want to find out about and use,
    say, PersistFormatEnum, the first few times I use that, it's going to
    be a bit hard to keep in mind, so Intellisense is great to begin with,
    but later turns into one of those night-nurses that keeps coming back
    and asking you whether you're okay and did you take your pills yet.
    YES, GODDAMMIT! NOW BUGGER OFF! (That was to the virtual night-nurse,
    not your very good self!)

    >Are you really trying to convince me that you get confused so easily or is this just a bunch of B.S.
    >I would for your sake that it's the latter.


    None of what I write is BS; neither do I get confused easily. Whether
    this is your problem, or mine, I dunno. You've confused me now.

    > What would be nice is a configurable feature to Intellisense popups,
    > so that I could switch it off for words I already know. Also, I
    > dispute your claim about saving typing. When I am typing code with
    > some fluency and the code is just falling on to the page, I can type,
    > for example, MyString = Left$(MyString,10) without thinking about it,
    > just like we hardly think about the individual letters when we're
    > typing a report or writing a novel. It's practically an unconscious
    > act. But the way Intellisense pops up (or mouse-over popups, or other
    > popups), one's train of thought is interrupted.
    >
    >Doesn't bother me. Even if I know the syntax I just keep on typing. The tool is there when I need it
    >and I can ignore it if I don't need it.


    Okay. Horses for courses.

    > Yes, it certainly does
    > aid learning, that's true. But afterwards? And again, is that *all*
    > there is about the transition to objects? I could understand the
    > option for objects, as in VB6, but a mandatory requirement?
    >
    >Well, that's the architecture. I guess I'm still stumped as to why you find this so challenging and
    >Intellisense so intrusive.


    See above.

    MM

  6. #51
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 8 Oct 2002 12:40:21 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Try to think of VB.NET as a different product.


    Ha ha ha! I don't need to try!

    MM

  7. #52
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 8 Oct 2002 12:32:41 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >You miss the point of MM's arguments. It doesn't matter if it makes sense,
    >or if it is better, or cleaner. His sole argument is that it is changed,
    >and change is bad because it breaks his code.


    Ah, you're beginning to understand at last! Another couple of years
    and you'll probably be asking ME why they screwed us over.

    >MM does not understand why things need to change, and he does not want to
    >understand. By his own admission, he has yet to try .NET, does not want
    >to learn .NET, and hates .NET. The reason he hates it is simply because
    >it will not run his VB6 code. No other reason.


    Yes, I see how that understanding is becoming stronger by the minute!

    >He also hates Notepad because it will not run his VB6 code, but that is for
    >another post.


    Eh? I never mentioned hating Notepad! You're just putting words into
    my mouth now for effect, you bad boy!

    MM

  8. #53
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 8 Oct 2002 12:40:21 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Try to think of VB.NET as a different product.

    >
    >Ha ha ha! I don't need to try!
    >
    >MM


    Well, if you think of VB.NET as a different product, then does that mean
    you can stop *****ing because VB.NET does not run your VB6 code? I would
    appreciate it ever so much.

  9. #54
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >Eh? I never mentioned hating Notepad! You're just putting words into
    >my mouth now for effect, you bad boy!
    >
    >MM


    But you may as well hate notepad. It does not claim to run VB6 code either.


    I understand what you are saying. I understand your gripe. Now try to understand
    this: your gripe is baseless. VB.NET is not VB6. VB6 does not fit the
    .NET architecture. If Microsoft had somehow come to the conclusion that
    VB.NET had to be completely backward compatible with VB6, you would be sitting
    here by yourself complaining how many new bugs it introduced. There would
    be no one else here to read your posts because everyone would have given
    up the language.

    The thing that drew me to VB in the first place was the ease of making Windows
    applications. The language was, at the time, the closest thing we had to
    a solid RAD language. Not great, but good enough for the moment. Better
    by far than C++.

    Now I can make Windows applications, only it is even easier. You wouldn't
    know about that, since you haven't tried .NET, and you certainly won't take
    my word for it, since you don't believe that "subjective" opinions count,
    but it's true.

    And now I am not tied to VB.

    If J++ had matured a little more, and Microsoft had not been forced to abandon
    it, it would have been as easy to create apps in J++ as in VB, but the language
    and framework would have been more suited to production programs. That alone
    would have wiped out new development in VB.

    .NET is so far beyond J++ already, it's hard to even compare the two. This
    is a platform that is designed for big, distributed apps of all kinds. I
    can choose the easier language (VB.NET), the slightly more capable language
    (C#) or a scripting language (JavaScript), or even J#. It does not matter.
    It all uses the same framework, so I don't have to learn a bunch of stuff
    all over again (once I learn the framework once).

    Now Mike, you like VB. You REALLY like it. You have shown undying, fanatic
    loyalty to the language and the IDE.

    It's not VB.NET.

    So quit *****ing that it's not VB.NET.

    You would do better to spend your time trying to get Microsoft to revive
    the VB6 platform (so it remains as relevant as possible). Microsoft could
    do this as a separate product line, sort of the way they kept FoxPro around
    all these years.

    But VB6 is not VB.NET.

    VB6 would not, could not, does not fit into the .NET architecture. Why?
    Well, I would try to explain it to you, AGAIN, but you didn't seem to understand
    the last 10 or so times.

    Don't try to migrate. Don't think about doing it. It can't be done. That
    was just some Microsoft marketing guys who got drunk one night and made some
    promises...you know how it is.

    Just stick with VB6 and don't worry about the rest of the world. The rest
    of the world will use whatever gets the job done best for them, and in many
    cases it will be .NET. In many cases, it will be VB6.

    But in no case will VB.NET ever be VB6.

  10. #55
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    Mike Mitchell wrote:

    > Subjective measurement is pointless. How can one thus compare
    > different projects or the tools that went to develop them by different
    > teams or companies?


    Normalization. You compare measurements from the same environment using two
    different tools/paradigms/methodologies.

    > I have to know whether developing in .Net is, say,
    > 20% more productive than Java, 38% more productive than plain C++, -5%
    > less productive than Delphi, and so on. If there is no way of knowing,
    > all my 'guesstimation' is just that, guesswork.


    Just like all your hot-air^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcomments to date isn't it?

    Kunle


  11. #56
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    Jason wrote:

    > He also hates Notepad because it will not run his VB6 code, but that
    > is for another post.


    ROFLMAO! - looking forward to said other post ;-)

    Kunle


  12. #57
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <Xns92A13B8AD03Arunebivrincom@209.1.14.29>,
    Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
    > news:3DA1F8EE.377497A5@netzero.net:


    > [...]


    > > Which you missed the significance of (big surprise). Coggins went
    > > on to become one of the advocates of The Next Big Thing In
    > > Computer Science: Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP). And since you
    > > are so found of posting searches:


    > > http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=aop&...Documents&cs=1


    > > ALL from "reputable sources" by your apparent standards. It is
    > > clear that OOP is now going through exactly the same process that
    > > destroyed the prominence of Strict Structured Programming. As is
    > > so often the case, history is repeating itself. And to cite an old
    > > saw: those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to
    > > repeat them. Your precious OOP is not "here to stay" - it is
    > > already on its way out. What are you doing to leave that outdated
    > > fad behind and move on to the more modern AOP? Do you even have
    > > any concept what AOP is? How much time are you spending toward the
    > > mastery of the newer AO languages?


    > > I watched Strict Structured Programming - and its obnoxiously self
    > > righteous acolytes - go down the same drain that yawns before OOP
    > > (and its similar supporters). Your sad little claim that "OOP is
    > > here to stay" would seem to tell us a lot about how you think, and
    > > where you are headed.


    > > And throughout all the fads, the time honored principles of
    > > modular programming have (when applied) lead to code which is
    > > more secure, more readable and maintainable, and generally more
    > > efficient and effective than that of the fad approaches.


    > Then what evidence is there to contradict that both AOP and MP
    > are not just fads too, albeit in different phases of fad-ness and
    > with varying fad longevity?


    Did you really intend that double negative? Or were you just lost in
    your own rhetoric?

    AOP is most certainly another Academic Fad, in the mold of SSP and
    OOP. It is following all the same patterns. But MP has never reached
    that status. Instead, it has simply been a collection of time tested
    "best practices" elements which, taken together, have certain specific
    benefits with a great degree of consistency. Unlike SSP, OOP, and AOP,
    it has never even had its own languages. It has never been a Movement
    in Academic Politics. It does not owe any of its "claimed" benefits to
    such things as "forcing a longer and more formal design phase" or the
    like. In fact, all three of those Academic fads owe a great deal of
    their claimed benefits to the extent to which they incorporate the
    principles of modular programming.

    > Indeed, what reason is there to apply any kind of methodology or
    > programming modality at all, if all you can be sure of is the
    > demise of the principles?


    Interesting, if poor, attempt at spin. But the issue is more one of
    becoming involved in a faddish movement to the extent that you are
    unable to remember there are differences between programming and
    "doing <fad>", much less what those differences are. Look at all the
    claims in this group that amount to "X is good because it makes it
    easier to do OO". Look at Larry's pronouncement that "OOP is here to
    stay. If you want to learn the advantages, then I suggest you take
    it upon yourself to get educated." Look at all the heated attempts to
    avoid any real recognition of the disadvantages of various OOP
    constructs. That kind of blind zealotry is a major indicator of the
    difference between an Academic fad and a pragmatic methodology such
    as MP.

    What reason is there to immerse yourself in an Academic fad at all,
    if all you can be sure of is the demise of its popularity? None,
    really - unless you are a student whose grades depend on some career
    advocate(s) of that fad. And even then it is wise to remember the
    difference between the pragmatism of Academic Kissing Up and the
    pragmatism of Software Engineering.

    One of the major differences between the Academic Fads and the more
    pragmatic methodologies is one of threshold. At what point to you
    decide that it is appropriate to ignore/abandon some or all of the
    practices of the modality for a particular project (or some part(s)
    thereof)? For the pragmatic approaches, the threshold is fairly low:
    it will likely work better, be easier to understand and/or maintain,
    the whole project is too small to make it worthwhile, etc. For the
    Academic Fads it is very high - little short of Orders From Above or
    practical impossibility would be sufficient. The first-pass tendency
    for the pragmatic methodologies is to adapt the approach to the
    problem, but it is not uncommon for the followers of an Academic fad
    to try changing the problem to fit the fad. The fad has become an
    end unto itself rather than a means to the end defined by the problem.

    > I can't but hear faint echoes of the criticism raised by Newtonian
    > physicists against the theory of relativity. Or the criticism
    > raised by Einstein against quantum physics.


    Such auditory hallucinations can be symptoms of the onset of severe
    psychosis, such as Schizophrenia. You should see someone about it.

    But since you bring it up, such comparisons are another common
    indicator of an Academic fad. Programming is not a science, it is at
    best a form of engineering. And to use your own analogy, it is
    relevant to note that few engineering projects make any use of
    Relativistic physics. And outside of Electronics, few make any use
    of quantum physics (and even in Electronics its use is limited).
    Instead, they use Newtonian physics while retaining a consciousness
    of the boundary conditions which would make a transition to
    Relativistic physics or Quantum physics necessary. They will even do
    such things as using calculations of "centrifugal force", even though
    they know perfectly well that it is an illusion created by two other
    forces. They do so because practical utility is more important to
    engineering than Academic Correctness is.

    > Yet all three of them represent views of nature that are valid for
    > solving a certain domain of problems, but inappropriate for others.


    While those three areas of theoretical physics do represent "views of
    nature" to some extent, the Academic Fads in programming do not in
    any meaningful sense.

    The point is that the faddists keep trying to push their fad as The
    Way for virtually all programming projects, rather than limiting it
    to the very narrow domains to which it is suited (such as AI and
    other dynamic simulations). And react with excessive emotion to any
    perceived threat to that attempt.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  13. #58
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    > ... Look at all the heated attempts to
    >avoid any real recognition of the disadvantages of various OOP
    >constructs. That kind of blind zealotry is a major indicator of the
    >difference between an Academic fad and a pragmatic methodology such
    >as MP.


    It seems to me, Bill, that you have a blind zealotry AGAINST object-oriented
    programming. You seem to be incapable of concluding that a good OO methodology
    might have some advantages.

    If you throw ANY problem and ANY methodology at a bad group of programmers,
    you are going to get crap. If you throw ANY problem and ANY methodology
    at a bunch of theorist architects who are "above" coding, you are going to
    get really well designed crap.

    There just happens to be a whole lot of people who are on the theorist side
    in OO circles, so it makes the rest of us look bad. On the other hand, you
    have historically had the majority of bad or novice programmers using VB
    because it was easy to create a form with buttons on it. That also makes
    the rest of us look bad.

    The problems you are describing are not OO problems. They are problems when
    OO is used incorrectly, or parts of OO are applied to problems indiscriminately,
    "because that is the way you do OO."

    >One of the major differences between the Academic Fads and the more
    >pragmatic methodologies is one of threshold. At what point to you
    >decide that it is appropriate to ignore/abandon some or all of the
    >practices of the modality for a particular project (or some part(s)
    >thereof)? For the pragmatic approaches, the threshold is fairly low:
    >it will likely work better, be easier to understand and/or maintain,
    >the whole project is too small to make it worthwhile, etc. For the
    >Academic Fads it is very high - little short of Orders From Above or
    >practical impossibility would be sufficient. The first-pass tendency
    >for the pragmatic methodologies is to adapt the approach to the
    >problem, but it is not uncommon for the followers of an Academic fad
    >to try changing the problem to fit the fad. The fad has become an
    >end unto itself rather than a means to the end defined by the problem.


    Bill, you know, you could try to say this in fewer words. Like "Academics
    tend to adopt a methodology and stick with it to the point of absurdity."
    That sounds good, and it gets the point across. Concise, Bill. Concise.

    >While those three areas of theoretical physics do represent "views of
    >nature" to some extent, the Academic Fads in programming do not in
    >any meaningful sense.
    >
    >The point is that the faddists keep trying to push their fad as The
    >Way for virtually all programming projects, rather than limiting it
    >to the very narrow domains to which it is suited (such as AI and
    >other dynamic simulations). And react with excessive emotion to any
    >perceived threat to that attempt.


    I have seen this zealotry in a number of places.
    "Why can't we just do all our GUI programming in Java?"
    "We must use a waterfall model for development."
    "The industry is moving towards thin-client using HTML, so you have to make
    your GUI-heavy client/server application run that way."
    "UML is the greatest thing since sliced bread."
    "WORA is more important than being able to run well on any particular platform."

    Heh.

    So, Bill, I still don't see why you are so anti OO. It's a good toolset
    in the right hands, and if used correctly, applies to almost any programming
    problem you can think of. That is, it makes most programming problems easier
    to organize and modularize.

    >
    >--
    >
    >Jason (Jason), MSCS
    >
    >*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    >* CHANGE YOUR OWN OIL * http://www.valvoline.com *
    >* * *
    >* Without Costly * *
    >* Repairs or Tools * *
    >* * *
    >* * *
    >*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*



  14. #59
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

    > I think (as I already pointed out once) that Intellisense is often a
    > pain in the rear. If I have already (in VB.Net, say) typed
    > MyString.Left umpteen times and each time when I get to the dot it
    > pops up a menu of all the methods available, I should think this can
    > get very irritating after a while and not a help at all, especially

    ............................
    > because I'd need to scroll down the menu, then select the keyword I
    > want, and so on.

    .............................

    It kinda makes me wonder if he's actually ever used it?

    I'll agree that between the tooltip type function declarations and the
    Intellisense popping up, I am sometimes hindered in getting to the
    next line, but because I am still a rookie at the .Net framework, I'll
    keep them around for while.

    FYI, Left has been replaced by SubString, and if you type the dot
    and the first few letters followed by the open parentheses, VB will
    fill in the rest of the matching list entry (SubString) for you. The
    only time you might need to scroll down the list is when you are not
    sure what it is you'll need.

    LFS





  15. #60
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

    > This is all very fine, but still doesn't get to the nub of my
    > question, which was: why change strings to objects?


    Because it is more consistant with the rest of the (new) language.


    LFS




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