By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
429,214 Members | 2,072 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 429,214 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

The Demise of the Art of Programming

P: n/a
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.
Nov 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
42 Replies


P: n/a
Could you give me the code to come up with a good reply?

Anyways, yeah, I agree. Not that I really answer that many questions, but I
try and leave things out of my answers hoping that people will just google
for the missing information because it would be faster than asking for more
info. It never works.

The really sad thing is that it's not just limited to code-monkeys, a lot of
people are asking high level architecture questions and expecting magic
answers.
Nov 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
directions.

Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.),
and not because they are lazy.

As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to do.
Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to me.
So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

Nov 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
Hi Manohar,
Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.),
and not because they are lazy.
Everyone has problems they haven't encountered before, and everyone needs
help from time to time. What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to
ask for a solution, rather than to ask for direction. Direction is basically
pointing someone in the direction they need to look to solve their problem.
IOW, direction is not solving the problem for the individual, but enabling
the individual to solve their own problem. It seems that there are many more
developers out there looking for ready-made solutions than help in solving
their problems. Take a look at many of the longer-running threads in this
newsgroup, and you should see what I'm talking about. People give
directions, and the person who asks is not satisfied, or doesn't understand.
Instead of probing further for themselves, they come back and continue
prodding until someone gives them a ready-made solution, or writes their
code for them. Afterwards, the original person has their solution, but they
have no understanding of it. And they are no better or more independent as a
result. They have learned nothing. The shame of it is, I get the impression
many don't WANT to learn.

God help me if my career should ever become so - mechanical!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
directions.

Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.),
and not because they are lazy.

As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly

simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to

do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all

other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need

to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll

just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And

what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At

least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all

prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average

of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to

me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Nov 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
Hello Kevin,

Very well said.

As with anything, it has to do with the level that the "bar" is at. People
generally tend to reach only as high as that bar is set. In order to build
and grow teams, that bar has to be constantly raised, forcing the individual
to either 1) do what it takes to keep up or 2) leave the organization.

Few people tend to constantly exceed the bar, however those that do are among
the best in the business. They are this way because they take it upon themselves
to learn and improve themselves. As long as people are content to just draw
a paycheck and not further themselves or their craft, we will continue to
see the problem you describe.

--
Matt Berther
http://www.mattberther.com
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to
these programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to
fairly simple programming problems. They either want someone to write
code for them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that
does what they need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's
quite low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own,
whereas I could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important
things. That seems reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the
issue, third-party components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a
form of external dependency, over which you have little or no control.
So, all other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own
problems and build my own solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of
JavaScript... well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development
tools that Microsoft manufactures, there are enough tools and
technology to build your own Operating System. It is as if Microsoft
has given you every tool you could possibly need, and enough lumber to
build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to build a dog house, and you've
never built one before, by golly, you'll just go out and buy one. Now,
how does that make you a better carpenter? And what justifies the
expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the tools and
lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same amount
of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're
all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an
average of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should,
it seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude? Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way
off track here?

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Nov 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
We both spend enough time in here to know that a lot of what you say is
true. Sometimes it's a real downer, sometimes it seems like just a few bad
apples spoiling it for the rest...I'm sure the number of people I've helped
once (and only once) in this newsgroup exceeds the number of people I've
helped more than once. For me, this implies that most people are giving it
an honest go, which (for now) is enough for me to keep helping out. Maybe i
haven't been around long enough, but I imagine this has always been true:
some people are "lazy", some aren't. I don't think there are more lazy
programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder
if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to do.
Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to me.
So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

Nov 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
re:
What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to ask for a solution,
rather than to ask for direction.
That is a direct result of the way these public newsgroups
have bee defined : as a place to get solutions from peers.

"Getting solutions" is interpreted as "hand me
ready-made solutions to the questions I'm asking".

That means asking for code, instead of guidance.

How many times have you seen questions like :

"I want to do the same thing Hotmail does. Send me the code."

My approach :
If it's a simple thing requested, I'll provide sample code.

If understanding the question's anser entails more than that,
pointing the way to online articles which present solutions
to the question will do.

If the question goes beyond what a post can provide,
or an article can provide, I'll point the way to online
documentation or books.

We should strive to have the poster of a question *understand*
why the solution works as it does, instead of just mechanically
cutting and pasting from the sample to his/her code.

And, speaking of his/her, where are the lady programmers ?
I don't think I've seen too many posts by women here.

That's something else we should be concerned with.

;-)

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Hi Manohar,
Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education,
etc.),
and not because they are lazy.


Everyone has problems they haven't encountered before, and everyone needs
help from time to time. What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to
ask for a solution, rather than to ask for direction. Direction is
basically pointing someone in the direction they need to look to solve
their problem. IOW, direction is not solving the problem for the
individual, but enabling the individual to solve their own problem. It
seems that there are many more developers out there looking for ready-made
solutions than help in solving their problems. Take a look at many of the
longer-running threads in this newsgroup, and you should see what I'm
talking about. People give directions, and the person who asks is not
satisfied, or doesn't understand. Instead of probing further for
themselves, they come back and continue prodding until someone gives them
a ready-made solution, or writes their code for them. Afterwards, the
original person has their solution, but they have no understanding of it.
And they are no better or more independent as a result. They have learned
nothing. The shame of it is, I get the impression many don't WANT to
learn.

God help me if my career should ever become so - mechanical!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
directions.

Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education,
etc.),
and not because they are lazy.

As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly

simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them,
or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to

do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all

other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you
need

to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll

just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And

what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all
the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the
same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At

least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all

prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average

of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to

me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track
here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.



Nov 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
Hi Juan,
"Getting solutions" is interpreted as "hand me
ready-made solutions to the questions I'm asking".

That means asking for code, instead of guidance.
That might be true of newsgroups for Windows, Office, or other end-user
software. Who would expect an end-user to understand or care how their
software works? My wife doesn't understand how a car works, but she can
drive one as well as anyone. On the other hand, the engineers who build cars
ought to know both how and why everything in the car works. I'm sure you
wouldn't want to drive in one that was engineereed by someone without
knowledge of what he/she was doing, right?

A programmer is a technician. Therefore, a programmer ought to know how
their software works. And if so, they should not need anything more than a
little guidance, a shove in the right direction, etc. I certainly don't want
or expect more than that when I have a new issue to solve.
We should strive to have the poster of a question *understand*
why the solution works as it does, instead of just mechanically
cutting and pasting from the sample to his/her code.
Absolutely!
And, speaking of his/her, where are the lady programmers ?
I don't think I've seen too many posts by women here.

That's something else we should be concerned with.
That I can't agree with. For one thing, I'm not a woman. So, it's none of my
business what a given woman decides to do with her life. Beyond that, it's
none of my business what ANYONE decides to do with his/her life (except for
my children, and only up to a point). I have known a few female programmers.
The fact that few women decide to become programmers is not relevant, except
to them. I have enough responsibility figuring out what I should do next!

Who knows? Maybe that professor at Harvard had something...

--
Maybe not,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... re:
What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to ask for a solution,
rather than to ask for direction.


That is a direct result of the way these public newsgroups
have bee defined : as a place to get solutions from peers.

"Getting solutions" is interpreted as "hand me
ready-made solutions to the questions I'm asking".

That means asking for code, instead of guidance.

How many times have you seen questions like :

"I want to do the same thing Hotmail does. Send me the code."

My approach :
If it's a simple thing requested, I'll provide sample code.

If understanding the question's anser entails more than that,
pointing the way to online articles which present solutions
to the question will do.

If the question goes beyond what a post can provide,
or an article can provide, I'll point the way to online
documentation or books.

We should strive to have the poster of a question *understand*
why the solution works as it does, instead of just mechanically
cutting and pasting from the sample to his/her code.

And, speaking of his/her, where are the lady programmers ?
I don't think I've seen too many posts by women here.

That's something else we should be concerned with.

;-)

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi Manohar,
Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education,
etc.),
and not because they are lazy.


Everyone has problems they haven't encountered before, and everyone needs
help from time to time. What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy
to ask for a solution, rather than to ask for direction. Direction is
basically pointing someone in the direction they need to look to solve
their problem. IOW, direction is not solving the problem for the
individual, but enabling the individual to solve their own problem. It
seems that there are many more developers out there looking for
ready-made solutions than help in solving their problems. Take a look at
many of the longer-running threads in this newsgroup, and you should see
what I'm talking about. People give directions, and the person who asks
is not satisfied, or doesn't understand. Instead of probing further for
themselves, they come back and continue prodding until someone gives them
a ready-made solution, or writes their code for them. Afterwards, the
original person has their solution, but they have no understanding of it.
And they are no better or more independent as a result. They have learned
nothing. The shame of it is, I get the impression many don't WANT to
learn.

God help me if my career should ever become so - mechanical!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
directions.

Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education,
etc.),
and not because they are lazy.

As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them,
or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need
to
do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That
seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of
JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you
need
to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And
what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all
the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the
same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At
least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all
prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an
average
of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to
me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track
here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.



Nov 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
Hi Karl,
I don't think there are more lazy
programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder
if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...
Interesting observation! I have been fostering high hopes that .Net's harsh
learning curve might turn some of these shade-tree programmers into the real
thing! But of course, only time will tell.

For anyone that thinks I'm being somehow "elitist," you should realize that
much of my frustration comes not from answering questions in newsgroups, but
also from personal experience. I have had to work a few too many times with
legacy code that was nightmarishly bad. About the best that could be said
for it was that it did accomplish its requirements. On the other hand, it
was poorly written, slow, full of hacks, and completely inextensible as it
stood. Unfortunately, programming is one of those businesses where you DO
get what you pay for, in terms of talent. If you hire cheap talent, it will
cost you much more in the long run.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Karl Seguin" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME net>
wrote in message news:uO**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... We both spend enough time in here to know that a lot of what you say is
true. Sometimes it's a real downer, sometimes it seems like just a few
bad
apples spoiling it for the rest...I'm sure the number of people I've
helped
once (and only once) in this newsgroup exceeds the number of people I've
helped more than once. For me, this implies that most people are giving
it
an honest go, which (for now) is enough for me to keep helping out. Maybe
i
haven't been around long enough, but I imagine this has always been true:
some people are "lazy", some aren't. I don't think there are more lazy
programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder
if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly

simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to

do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all

other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need

to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll

just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And

what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At

least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all

prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average

of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to

me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Nov 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
Kevin,
I absolutely 100% agree with you. My frustration is equal to yours, but not
because I have to maintain crappy legacy code, instead because I'm trying to
write brand new code in ASP.Net with people who just don't know fundamental
programming techniques. ASP and ASP.net are so different it's a painful
joke. The last 3 years of my life I've been dealing with people who just
can't make the transition. I've also had the pleasure to work with truly
exceptional programmers, but for the most part we are outnumbered ;)

I've been hoping that .Net's harsh learning cuve might turn some of the
shade-tree programmers onto different career paths :) I help here because I
believe that many of the people asking are truly interested in becoming the
"real thing"

Karl

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi Karl,
I don't think there are more lazy
programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...
Interesting observation! I have been fostering high hopes that .Net's

harsh learning curve might turn some of these shade-tree programmers into the real thing! But of course, only time will tell.

For anyone that thinks I'm being somehow "elitist," you should realize that much of my frustration comes not from answering questions in newsgroups, but also from personal experience. I have had to work a few too many times with legacy code that was nightmarishly bad. About the best that could be said
for it was that it did accomplish its requirements. On the other hand, it
was poorly written, slow, full of hacks, and completely inextensible as it
stood. Unfortunately, programming is one of those businesses where you DO
get what you pay for, in terms of talent. If you hire cheap talent, it will cost you much more in the long run.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Karl Seguin" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME net>
wrote in message news:uO**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
We both spend enough time in here to know that a lot of what you say is
true. Sometimes it's a real downer, sometimes it seems like just a few
bad
apples spoiling it for the rest...I'm sure the number of people I've
helped
once (and only once) in this newsgroup exceeds the number of people I've
helped more than once. For me, this implies that most people are giving
it
an honest go, which (for now) is enough for me to keep helping out. Maybe i
haven't been around long enough, but I imagine this has always been true: some people are "lazy", some aren't. I don't think there are more lazy
programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly

simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to
do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That
seems reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all

other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript... well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll

just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And

what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all
the tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At

least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all

prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to

me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track

here?
--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.



Nov 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
Juan:
I handle it the same as you, though I offer up a lot of code sometimes
(depends on my mood probably). If you guys have read my stuff, you know
that I try to go far beyond simple answers and actually provide explanations
about why it's like this. Those who want can skip everything and get the
answer, but I hope a majority take the time and try to understand....

Karl

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to ask for a solution,
rather than to ask for direction.


That is a direct result of the way these public newsgroups
have bee defined : as a place to get solutions from peers.

"Getting solutions" is interpreted as "hand me
ready-made solutions to the questions I'm asking".

That means asking for code, instead of guidance.

How many times have you seen questions like :

"I want to do the same thing Hotmail does. Send me the code."

My approach :
If it's a simple thing requested, I'll provide sample code.

If understanding the question's anser entails more than that,
pointing the way to online articles which present solutions
to the question will do.

If the question goes beyond what a post can provide,
or an article can provide, I'll point the way to online
documentation or books.

We should strive to have the poster of a question *understand*
why the solution works as it does, instead of just mechanically
cutting and pasting from the sample to his/her code.

And, speaking of his/her, where are the lady programmers ?
I don't think I've seen too many posts by women here.

That's something else we should be concerned with.

;-)

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi Manohar,
Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education,
etc.),
and not because they are lazy.


Everyone has problems they haven't encountered before, and everyone needs help from time to time. What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to ask for a solution, rather than to ask for direction. Direction is
basically pointing someone in the direction they need to look to solve
their problem. IOW, direction is not solving the problem for the
individual, but enabling the individual to solve their own problem. It
seems that there are many more developers out there looking for ready-made solutions than help in solving their problems. Take a look at many of the longer-running threads in this newsgroup, and you should see what I'm
talking about. People give directions, and the person who asks is not
satisfied, or doesn't understand. Instead of probing further for
themselves, they come back and continue prodding until someone gives them a ready-made solution, or writes their code for them. Afterwards, the
original person has their solution, but they have no understanding of it. And they are no better or more independent as a result. They have learned nothing. The shame of it is, I get the impression many don't WANT to
learn.

God help me if my career should ever become so - mechanical!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
directions.

Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education,
etc.),
and not because they are lazy.

As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them,
or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript... well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you
need
to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all
the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the
same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At
least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all
prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track
here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.



Nov 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
Why did you pay money for a zip library when there's already one built into
the .net framework?
http://www.thescarms.com/dotNet/JavaZip.asp

If you would have come here and asked the question first, you could have
saved your company some money. And maybe the knowledge would have made you
a better carpenter too.

Even if you already knew about the zip library, I hope you see my point, and
I see yours too. What I hate most is when it sounds like somebody is trying
to get me to do their computer class homework for them. Slackers!

I do understand though that there are a lot of people that ask questions in
here and maybe programming is not their usual full time job but they're
trying to find a quick, ready made solution anyway. I don't have a problem
with them.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net


"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for
them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they
need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build
my own solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need
to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter?
And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have
all the tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you
the same amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy
one? At least if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat.
And if you need to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well,
you're all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average
of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to
me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

Nov 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
Kevin,

When a thread goes for more than 4 levels, I am usually out! Because then,
they are making you solve their problem, than ask you for a solution. Also,
generally when people ask for code, they are also happy if you can show them
where you can find it (that's been my experience, anyways).

As Juan mentioned, it is entirely upto people how to respond to questions.
If the persons asks you for a code, you may not be able to help. However, it
does not change the fact that the person is clueless, or outright lazy. You
also can't change the fact that the person will ask similar questions in the
future, or someone is willing to help the person.

Like most things in free economy, the market will choose how to treat
people. If you are a solid "technician" -- chances are you will make good
money. If you ask for code everytime, someday someone will find out.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi Manohar,
Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.), and not because they are lazy.
Everyone has problems they haven't encountered before, and everyone needs
help from time to time. What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy to
ask for a solution, rather than to ask for direction. Direction is

basically pointing someone in the direction they need to look to solve their problem. IOW, direction is not solving the problem for the individual, but enabling
the individual to solve their own problem. It seems that there are many more developers out there looking for ready-made solutions than help in solving
their problems. Take a look at many of the longer-running threads in this
newsgroup, and you should see what I'm talking about. People give
directions, and the person who asks is not satisfied, or doesn't understand. Instead of probing further for themselves, they come back and continue
prodding until someone gives them a ready-made solution, or writes their
code for them. Afterwards, the original person has their solution, but they have no understanding of it. And they are no better or more independent as a result. They have learned nothing. The shame of it is, I get the impression many don't WANT to learn.

God help me if my career should ever become so - mechanical!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
directions.

Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
problem
as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.), and not because they are lazy.

As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly

simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to
do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That
seems reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all

other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript... well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll

just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And

what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all
the tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At

least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all

prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to

me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track

here?
--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.



Nov 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
> I've been hoping that .Net's harsh learning cuve might turn some of the
shade-tree programmers onto different career paths :)
ROFLMAO!

I never had the guts to say it, but I'm with you there!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Karl Seguin" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME net>
wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Kevin,
I absolutely 100% agree with you. My frustration is equal to yours, but
not
because I have to maintain crappy legacy code, instead because I'm trying
to
write brand new code in ASP.Net with people who just don't know
fundamental
programming techniques. ASP and ASP.net are so different it's a painful
joke. The last 3 years of my life I've been dealing with people who just
can't make the transition. I've also had the pleasure to work with truly
exceptional programmers, but for the most part we are outnumbered ;)

I've been hoping that .Net's harsh learning cuve might turn some of the
shade-tree programmers onto different career paths :) I help here because
I
believe that many of the people asking are truly interested in becoming
the
"real thing"

Karl

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi Karl,
> I don't think there are more lazy
> programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder > if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...


Interesting observation! I have been fostering high hopes that .Net's

harsh
learning curve might turn some of these shade-tree programmers into the

real
thing! But of course, only time will tell.

For anyone that thinks I'm being somehow "elitist," you should realize

that
much of my frustration comes not from answering questions in newsgroups,

but
also from personal experience. I have had to work a few too many times

with
legacy code that was nightmarishly bad. About the best that could be said
for it was that it did accomplish its requirements. On the other hand, it
was poorly written, slow, full of hacks, and completely inextensible as
it
stood. Unfortunately, programming is one of those businesses where you DO
get what you pay for, in terms of talent. If you hire cheap talent, it

will
cost you much more in the long run.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Karl Seguin" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME net>
wrote in message news:uO**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> We both spend enough time in here to know that a lot of what you say is
> true. Sometimes it's a real downer, sometimes it seems like just a few
> bad
> apples spoiling it for the rest...I'm sure the number of people I've
> helped
> once (and only once) in this newsgroup exceeds the number of people
> I've
> helped more than once. For me, this implies that most people are
> giving
> it
> an honest go, which (for now) is enough for me to keep helping out. Maybe > i
> haven't been around long enough, but I imagine this has always been true: > some people are "lazy", some aren't. I don't think there are more lazy
> programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder > if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...
>
> --
> MY ASP.Net tutorials
> http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
> annoying)
> http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
> come!)
> "Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
> news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
>> probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:
>>
>> It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to
>> these
>> programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
> simple
>> programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or >> point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to > do.
>>
>> Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
>> programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
>> components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
>> Zip
>> extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
>> low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas
>> I
>> could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems >> reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
>> components are fine.
>>
>> On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
>> designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a
>> form
>> of
>> external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
> other
>> things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
>> own
>> solutions.
>>
>> But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript... >> well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
>> Microsoft
>> manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
>> Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
>> could
>> possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need > to
>> build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
> just
>> go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter?
>> And
> what
>> justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the >> tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same >> amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At
> least
>> if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
>> need
>> to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all
> prepared
>> to do so, since you built it to begin with.
>>
>> I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
>> their
>> trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average > of
>> an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems
>> to
> me.
>>
>> So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
>> attitude?
>> Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here? >>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> What You Seek Is What You Get.
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
hah! Better to help "slacker" kids with their homework than professional
adults with their paychecks :P

Karl

--
MY ASP.Net tutorials
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
annoying)
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
come!)
"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" <St***@Orr.net> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Why did you pay money for a zip library when there's already one built into the .net framework?
http://www.thescarms.com/dotNet/JavaZip.asp

If you would have come here and asked the question first, you could have
saved your company some money. And maybe the knowledge would have made you a better carpenter too.

Even if you already knew about the zip library, I hope you see my point, and I see yours too. What I hate most is when it sounds like somebody is trying to get me to do their computer class homework for them. Slackers!

I do understand though that there are a lot of people that ask questions in here and maybe programming is not their usual full time job but they're
trying to find a quick, ready made solution anyway. I don't have a problem with them.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net


"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for
them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my own solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter?
And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you
the same amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy
one? At least if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat.
And if you need to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well,
you're all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average
of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude? Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?
--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Nov 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
> Why did you pay money for a zip library when there's already one built
into the .net framework?
Because I needed the zip library 3 years ago...

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" <St***@Orr.net> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Why did you pay money for a zip library when there's already one built
into the .net framework?
http://www.thescarms.com/dotNet/JavaZip.asp

If you would have come here and asked the question first, you could have
saved your company some money. And maybe the knowledge would have made
you a better carpenter too.

Even if you already knew about the zip library, I hope you see my point,
and I see yours too. What I hate most is when it sounds like somebody is
trying to get me to do their computer class homework for them. Slackers!

I do understand though that there are a lot of people that ask questions
in here and maybe programming is not their usual full time job but they're
trying to find a quick, ready made solution anyway. I don't have a
problem with them.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net


"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for
them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they
need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build
my own solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build
your own Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool
you could possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but
if you need to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by
golly, you'll just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a
better carpenter? And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house
when you already have all the tools and lumber to build one? Especially
when it would cost you the same amount of money to build one (in
man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least if you build it you've
enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you need to add
air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all prepared to
do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an
average of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it
seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude? Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off
track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Nov 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
Good points Manohar.

To tell you the truth, I started this thread just so that some of these
people might see themselves and decide to do something about it (for their
own sake). I have helped peopple in Micrsosoft newsgroups for almost 10
years now, and plan to continue for at least 10 more.

:)

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:eO**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Kevin,

When a thread goes for more than 4 levels, I am usually out! Because then,
they are making you solve their problem, than ask you for a solution.
Also,
generally when people ask for code, they are also happy if you can show
them
where you can find it (that's been my experience, anyways).

As Juan mentioned, it is entirely upto people how to respond to questions.
If the persons asks you for a code, you may not be able to help. However,
it
does not change the fact that the person is clueless, or outright lazy.
You
also can't change the fact that the person will ask similar questions in
the
future, or someone is willing to help the person.

Like most things in free economy, the market will choose how to treat
people. If you are a solid "technician" -- chances are you will make good
money. If you ask for code everytime, someday someone will find out.

--
Manohar Kamath
Editor, .netWire
www.dotnetwire.com
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi Manohar,
> Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
> problem
> as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
> continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.), > and not because they are lazy.


Everyone has problems they haven't encountered before, and everyone needs
help from time to time. What I was describing as "lazy" is the tendancy
to
ask for a solution, rather than to ask for direction. Direction is

basically
pointing someone in the direction they need to look to solve their

problem.
IOW, direction is not solving the problem for the individual, but
enabling
the individual to solve their own problem. It seems that there are many

more
developers out there looking for ready-made solutions than help in
solving
their problems. Take a look at many of the longer-running threads in this
newsgroup, and you should see what I'm talking about. People give
directions, and the person who asks is not satisfied, or doesn't

understand.
Instead of probing further for themselves, they come back and continue
prodding until someone gives them a ready-made solution, or writes their
code for them. Afterwards, the original person has their solution, but

they
have no understanding of it. And they are no better or more independent
as

a
result. They have learned nothing. The shame of it is, I get the

impression
many don't WANT to learn.

God help me if my career should ever become so - mechanical!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Manohar Kamath" <mk*****@TAKETHISOUTkamath.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> My take: As long as there are roads, there will be people to ask for
> directions.
>
> Kevin, while I see your point, I guess it is elitist to think of any
> problem
> as small. In my opinion, people ask because they don't have an idea to
> continue (whatever the reason maybe -- pressure, lack of education, etc.), > and not because they are lazy.
>
> As per "programming as trade" -- the problem lies in the fact that most
> developers now learn their trade on the job. I guess people need to
> recognize this trend, and adapt accordingly. If anything, there are
> opportunities here -- for authors of books, web sites, etc.
>
> --
> Manohar Kamath
> Editor, .netWire
> www.dotnetwire.com
>
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
> news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
>> probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:
>>
>> It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to
>> these
>> programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
> simple
>> programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or >> point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to > do.
>>
>> Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
>> programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
>> components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
>> Zip
>> extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
>> low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas
>> I
>> could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems >> reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
>> components are fine.
>>
>> On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
>> designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a
>> form
>> of
>> external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
> other
>> things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
>> own
>> solutions.
>>
>> But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript... >> well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
>> Microsoft
>> manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
>> Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
>> could
>> possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need > to
>> build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
> just
>> go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter?
>> And
> what
>> justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the >> tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same >> amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At
> least
>> if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
>> need
>> to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all
> prepared
>> to do so, since you built it to begin with.
>>
>> I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
>> their
>> trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average > of
>> an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems
>> to
> me.
>>
>> So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
>> attitude?
>> Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here? >>
>> --
>> HTH,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> What You Seek Is What You Get.
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
dgk
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:35:54 -0500, "Kevin Spencer"
<ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:
Hi Juan,
"Getting solutions" is interpreted as "hand me
ready-made solutions to the questions I'm asking".

That means asking for code, instead of guidance.


That might be true of newsgroups for Windows, Office, or other end-user
software. Who would expect an end-user to understand or care how their
software works? My wife doesn't understand how a car works, but she can
drive one as well as anyone. On the other hand, the engineers who build cars
ought to know both how and why everything in the car works. I'm sure you
wouldn't want to drive in one that was engineereed by someone without
knowledge of what he/she was doing, right?

A programmer is a technician. Therefore, a programmer ought to know how
their software works. And if so, they should not need anything more than a
little guidance, a shove in the right direction, etc. I certainly don't want
or expect more than that when I have a new issue to solve.

There are many ways to learn. One that I'm best at is looking at code.
For instance, I'm new at ASP.Net and was wondering how to to set the
focus to a textbox. I was a bit surprised that there was no .Focus
method on a textbox.I found this code on the newsgroup:

Page.RegisterStartupScript("SetFocus", "<script
language=""Jscript"" > document.getElementById(""txtName"").focus();
</Script>")

I now know about RegisterStartupScript and getElementById and can go
from there. It also solved the immediate problem quickly.
Nov 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
> There are many ways to learn. One that I'm best at is looking at code.
For instance, I'm new at ASP.Net and was wondering how to to set the
focus to a textbox. I was a bit surprised that there was no .Focus
method on a textbox.I found this code on the newsgroup:

Page.RegisterStartupScript("SetFocus", "<script
language=""Jscript"" > document.getElementById(""txtName"").focus();
</Script>")
Sure, but on the other hand, if someone had told you to read the SDK on
RegisterStartupScript, you would have learned all about it, such as where in
the page it goes, and why, and you could have learned about
RegisterClientScriptBlock, and the other cross-references as well.

Still, I post a little code here and there too. Sometimes it's the best way
to get the point across. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem
with "professional" developers who don't want to learn.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"dgk" <so******************@hot-nospamp-mail.com> wrote in message
news:2v********************************@4ax.com... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:35:54 -0500, "Kevin Spencer"
<ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:
Hi Juan,
"Getting solutions" is interpreted as "hand me
ready-made solutions to the questions I'm asking".

That means asking for code, instead of guidance.


That might be true of newsgroups for Windows, Office, or other end-user
software. Who would expect an end-user to understand or care how their
software works? My wife doesn't understand how a car works, but she can
drive one as well as anyone. On the other hand, the engineers who build
cars
ought to know both how and why everything in the car works. I'm sure you
wouldn't want to drive in one that was engineereed by someone without
knowledge of what he/she was doing, right?

A programmer is a technician. Therefore, a programmer ought to know how
their software works. And if so, they should not need anything more than a
little guidance, a shove in the right direction, etc. I certainly don't
want
or expect more than that when I have a new issue to solve.

There are many ways to learn. One that I'm best at is looking at code.
For instance, I'm new at ASP.Net and was wondering how to to set the
focus to a textbox. I was a bit surprised that there was no .Focus
method on a textbox.I found this code on the newsgroup:

Page.RegisterStartupScript("SetFocus", "<script
language=""Jscript"" > document.getElementById(""txtName"").focus();
</Script>")

I now know about RegisterStartupScript and getElementById and can go
from there. It also solved the immediate problem quickly.

Nov 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:35:54 -0500, "Kevin Spencer"
<ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:

A programmer is a technician. Therefore, a programmer ought to know how
their software works. And if so, they should not need anything more than a
little guidance, a shove in the right direction, etc. I certainly don't want
or expect more than that when I have a new issue to solve.


I've always been curious what types of people show up here. What % are
programmers, what % are students, what % are accountants trying to
figure out a way to help the business be more productive.

That being said, I have a feeling the worst offenders all have
"developer" in thier titles....

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
Nov 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:25:45 -0500, "Karl Seguin" <karl REMOVE @
REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME net> wrote:
We both spend enough time in here to know that a lot of what you say is
true. Sometimes it's a real downer, sometimes it seems like just a few bad
apples spoiling it for the rest...I'm sure the number of people I've helped
once (and only once) in this newsgroup exceeds the number of people I've
helped more than once. For me, this implies that most people are giving it
an honest go, which (for now) is enough for me to keep helping out. Maybe i
haven't been around long enough, but I imagine this has always been true:
some people are "lazy", some aren't. I don't think there are more lazy
programmes today than there were 5 years ago....and if there are, I wonder
if .Net's harsh learning curve has anything to do with it...


If you think this newsgroup is a downer - you should try the forms on
www.asp.net.

Sigh.

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/
Nov 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
> That being said, I have a feeling the worst offenders all have
"developer" in thier titles....
Unfortunately, I have worked with enough to know that there is a lot of
truth to that statement.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Scott Allen" <sc***@nospam.odetocode.com> wrote in message
news:al********************************@4ax.com... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:35:54 -0500, "Kevin Spencer"
<ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:

A programmer is a technician. Therefore, a programmer ought to know how
their software works. And if so, they should not need anything more than a
little guidance, a shove in the right direction, etc. I certainly don't
want
or expect more than that when I have a new issue to solve.


I've always been curious what types of people show up here. What % are
programmers, what % are students, what % are accountants trying to
figure out a way to help the business be more productive.

That being said, I have a feeling the worst offenders all have
"developer" in thier titles....

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com/blogs/scott/

Nov 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
I agree with you on some counts - but much of it may be the business
constraints required today. It used to be developers took assembly, then C,
and then C++ and OOP. This took enormous investment of time, and the payback
was slow. That's my background and I'm glad I got it. However, in todays
world, you cannot stay in business with such as approach since it doesn't pay
off right away. It took awhile to be productive that way although the result
was a deep understanding of the OS internals many programmers do not have.
Take .Net for instance - a very productive tool which by nature obfiscates
the underlying OS internals like messages passed, memory allocation and
pointers. I can understand much more of .Net since I know the lower level
code - but I could never afford to pay someone to do the same unless we are
developing device drivers or video games. (Although I still am hesitent to
use access control structures in .Net - the Interop is UGLY!) Anyway, my
point is that developers are getting shorted some basics because of business
requirements and that may be why they ask for "solutions" rather than develop
their own - TIME.
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for
them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they
need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build
my own solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build
your own Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool
you could possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but
if you need to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by
golly, you'll just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a
better carpenter? And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house
when you already have all the tools and lumber to build one? Especially
when it would cost you the same amount of money to build one (in
man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least if you build it you've
enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you need to add
air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all prepared to
do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an
average of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it
seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude? Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off
track here?


Nov 19 '05 #23

P: n/a

....and there you have it.

When you have big managers that are clueless technically but want a 5,000
line web application completed, tested, ready-to-go in a *DAY* .... you get
real lazy real fast! >:)


"John P" wrote:
...much of it may be the business constraints required today... developers are getting shorted some basics because of business requirements and that may be why they ask for "solutions" rather than develop their own - TIME.


Nov 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
But it seems to me much more inefficient to be having to ask in newsgroups
for ready-made snippets of code, often for things which are so basic that
they indicate a complete lack of understanding of the basics (or basic
Googling), and which will usually end up being stitched together in some
random manner. I dont see how this type of laziness makes coding or
testing any faster.

Its too simple to blame this on "technically clueless big managers". What
about technically clueless "developers"? If someone doesnt have time to
learn the basics then maybe they should try a different profession. That
sounds harsh, but would you represent yourself as an accountant just because
youve used Excel and Turbotax a few times?

I think the original post is really onto something. ie. more and more
"developers" who don't want to read a spec or a KB article because its "too
technical", just write the code for me please. And if your code doesnt work
then I'll post a complaint about how you dont understand what Im trying to
do, instead of me trying to THINK. So i would rename this thread "The
Demise of the Mindset of Programming".
"Slowly" <Sl****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74**********************************@microsof t.com...

...and there you have it.

When you have big managers that are clueless technically but want a 5,000
line web application completed, tested, ready-to-go in a *DAY* .... you
get
real lazy real fast! >:)
"John P" wrote:
...much of it may be the business constraints required today...
developers are getting shorted some basics because of business
requirements and that may be why they ask for "solutions" rather than
develop their own - TIME.

Nov 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
> ...and there you have it.

When you have big managers that are clueless technically but want a 5,000
line web application completed, tested, ready-to-go in a *DAY* .... you
get
real lazy real fast! >:)
I don't. I get OUT fast. That sort of thinking is "short term" thinking. You
get something done in the short term, and maybe you get it done for less
money. But in the long run, you pay much more for maintenance, support, and
upgrades. Personally, I'd rather suffer now, and coast later!

Remember, one has a choice about where one works. No more Dilberts for me!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Slowly" <Sl****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74**********************************@microsof t.com...
...and there you have it.

When you have big managers that are clueless technically but want a 5,000
line web application completed, tested, ready-to-go in a *DAY* .... you
get
real lazy real fast! >:)


"John P" wrote:
...much of it may be the business constraints required today...
developers are getting shorted some basics because of business
requirements and that may be why they ask for "solutions" rather than
develop their own - TIME.

Nov 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
Thank you, JiangZemin, for everything you said. I happen to agree with you.

What is programming, if not problem-solving? If one is not into
problem-solving, one should find a career which doesn't require it.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"JiangZemin" <fo*********@example.com> wrote in message
news:ec**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
But it seems to me much more inefficient to be having to ask in newsgroups
for ready-made snippets of code, often for things which are so basic that
they indicate a complete lack of understanding of the basics (or basic
Googling), and which will usually end up being stitched together in some
random manner. I dont see how this type of laziness makes coding or
testing any faster.

Its too simple to blame this on "technically clueless big managers".
What about technically clueless "developers"? If someone doesnt have
time to learn the basics then maybe they should try a different
profession. That sounds harsh, but would you represent yourself as an
accountant just because youve used Excel and Turbotax a few times?

I think the original post is really onto something. ie. more and more
"developers" who don't want to read a spec or a KB article because its
"too technical", just write the code for me please. And if your code
doesnt work then I'll post a complaint about how you dont understand what
Im trying to do, instead of me trying to THINK. So i would rename this
thread "The Demise of the Mindset of Programming".
"Slowly" <Sl****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74**********************************@microsof t.com...

...and there you have it.

When you have big managers that are clueless technically but want a 5,000
line web application completed, tested, ready-to-go in a *DAY* .... you
get
real lazy real fast! >:)
"John P" wrote:
...much of it may be the business constraints required today...
developers are getting shorted some basics because of business
requirements and that may be why they ask for "solutions" rather than
develop their own - TIME.


Nov 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
Hi there,

Thought I would reply to this particular message in this thread, as it seems
to be a balanced view of the initial thread topic.

I found this thread rather interesting, as I currently am deciding which
programming route to take for a forthcoming project. The original discussion
and questions posed by Kevin appear to fairly accurately sumarise the current
trend in forum questions. That is, it would seem that some people (whether
developers or newbies) appear to be searching for a quick solution to their
problems rather than searching for education. If I may pose some thoughts...

Perhaps we must ask ourselves, is the trend related to changing attitudes of
programmers (i.e. laziness), or due to the fact that the trends in
programming environments themselves foster visual/quick/shortcut approaches
to overall solutions, or due to higher, faster, more demanding expectations
on producing solutions by clients/managers, or just due to some obscure trend
centred around the fact that possibly the current crop of users that tend to
ask questions in 'forums' also tend to be those that don't read
manuals/books/help-files and are therefore not the sort to actually want/need
to understand the solution but would rather just have the solution?

To be honest, I know not the answer, and perhaps it is a combination of all
the above, and then some. However, I find myself now asking what do I want. I
am new to .Net. I look at a piece of code on the screen and wonder 'where has
the art gone from code', if only because the code looks so disjointed and
fuzzy.

I was a beginner programmer from the later seventies, working on Z80 and
other 8-bit processors in assembly language... now, 'that' was art! A big
improvement, to help find 'solutions' was when we all moved not just to
assemblers, but 'macro-assemblers'. Then I moved on to working with other
higher level languages, that eventually allowed me not to just write code,
but to 'design visually'. Then we were given 'components', nice ready made
'object's that provided 'solutions' for me out of the box. Then, we came to
the challenges presented by the 'stateless' web, just to add to the
confusion, and again, better IDEs and components solved these larger problems
for us. Thus, maybe what we have created is a solution-providing
envirionment...

I was doing fine with ASP until I finally decided recently to take a step
into what used to be the future and is now the present, the .Net platform. So
now, where as before I could just string together a few 'increment register,
roll-right bit rotations, etc) in machine code, to using someone's macro to
do some high-level task of 'sending an ascii character to the screen', to
using a set of a few easily understood and remembered commands that allowed
me to build some higher level routines to do this or that to a string or
apply that function to a date, now, and this is what is frightening, it seems
I need to try and remember the 4500 odd 'class' thingies that .Net has for
me. It all looks so complicated, maybe it is no wonder I might have the
necessity, or temptation at least, for someone just to give me a solution, as
the learning curve looks steeper than ever before...

It seems that where as we might have had ten string functions and statements
to do 'all' we had to do with strings, now there are specialised string
classes to do loads of specific things, and now I need to learn each one! How
loveley...

My point, and there is one, is that the environment at the moment has lead
to the language itself being more complicated than before, more powerful, but
certainly it takes a lot more to learn. Plus, we have created tools that
allow for 'bolt-on' solutions', encouraging people to 'buy solutions off the
shelf' And finally, we have the technology available that allows people to
ask 'silly questions', using forums, to try and squeeze out an answer, as
even posing a well-thought-out search phrase in Google is harder than just
asking an expert for an answer, let alone going to the manuals for help.

This is the environment 'we' have created. However, the culture can be
changed, but not be those asking the questions, but by those that are
answering them. Give guidence towards how to 'find' the solution, not give
the 'solution'. Then we will help breed better programmers.

And those that can't get their solutions from a forum anymore may just start
reading books again...

Cheers.

"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" wrote:
Why did you pay money for a zip library when there's already one built into
the .net framework?
http://www.thescarms.com/dotNet/JavaZip.asp

If you would have come here and asked the question first, you could have
saved your company some money. And maybe the knowledge would have made you
a better carpenter too.

Even if you already knew about the zip library, I hope you see my point, and
I see yours too. What I hate most is when it sounds like somebody is trying
to get me to do their computer class homework for them. Slackers!

I do understand though that there are a lot of people that ask questions in
here and maybe programming is not their usual full time job but they're
trying to find a quick, ready made solution anyway. I don't have a problem
with them.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net


"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for
them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they
need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build
my own solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need
to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter?
And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have
all the tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you
the same amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy
one? At least if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat.
And if you need to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well,
you're all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average
of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to
me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Nov 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
I couldn't agree more, Cass!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Cass" <Ca**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E6**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi there,

Thought I would reply to this particular message in this thread, as it
seems
to be a balanced view of the initial thread topic.

I found this thread rather interesting, as I currently am deciding which
programming route to take for a forthcoming project. The original
discussion
and questions posed by Kevin appear to fairly accurately sumarise the
current
trend in forum questions. That is, it would seem that some people (whether
developers or newbies) appear to be searching for a quick solution to
their
problems rather than searching for education. If I may pose some
thoughts...

Perhaps we must ask ourselves, is the trend related to changing attitudes
of
programmers (i.e. laziness), or due to the fact that the trends in
programming environments themselves foster visual/quick/shortcut
approaches
to overall solutions, or due to higher, faster, more demanding
expectations
on producing solutions by clients/managers, or just due to some obscure
trend
centred around the fact that possibly the current crop of users that tend
to
ask questions in 'forums' also tend to be those that don't read
manuals/books/help-files and are therefore not the sort to actually
want/need
to understand the solution but would rather just have the solution?

To be honest, I know not the answer, and perhaps it is a combination of
all
the above, and then some. However, I find myself now asking what do I
want. I
am new to .Net. I look at a piece of code on the screen and wonder 'where
has
the art gone from code', if only because the code looks so disjointed and
fuzzy.

I was a beginner programmer from the later seventies, working on Z80 and
other 8-bit processors in assembly language... now, 'that' was art! A big
improvement, to help find 'solutions' was when we all moved not just to
assemblers, but 'macro-assemblers'. Then I moved on to working with other
higher level languages, that eventually allowed me not to just write code,
but to 'design visually'. Then we were given 'components', nice ready made
'object's that provided 'solutions' for me out of the box. Then, we came
to
the challenges presented by the 'stateless' web, just to add to the
confusion, and again, better IDEs and components solved these larger
problems
for us. Thus, maybe what we have created is a solution-providing
envirionment...

I was doing fine with ASP until I finally decided recently to take a step
into what used to be the future and is now the present, the .Net platform.
So
now, where as before I could just string together a few 'increment
register,
roll-right bit rotations, etc) in machine code, to using someone's macro
to
do some high-level task of 'sending an ascii character to the screen', to
using a set of a few easily understood and remembered commands that
allowed
me to build some higher level routines to do this or that to a string or
apply that function to a date, now, and this is what is frightening, it
seems
I need to try and remember the 4500 odd 'class' thingies that .Net has for
me. It all looks so complicated, maybe it is no wonder I might have the
necessity, or temptation at least, for someone just to give me a solution,
as
the learning curve looks steeper than ever before...

It seems that where as we might have had ten string functions and
statements
to do 'all' we had to do with strings, now there are specialised string
classes to do loads of specific things, and now I need to learn each one!
How
loveley...

My point, and there is one, is that the environment at the moment has lead
to the language itself being more complicated than before, more powerful,
but
certainly it takes a lot more to learn. Plus, we have created tools that
allow for 'bolt-on' solutions', encouraging people to 'buy solutions off
the
shelf' And finally, we have the technology available that allows people to
ask 'silly questions', using forums, to try and squeeze out an answer, as
even posing a well-thought-out search phrase in Google is harder than just
asking an expert for an answer, let alone going to the manuals for help.

This is the environment 'we' have created. However, the culture can be
changed, but not be those asking the questions, but by those that are
answering them. Give guidence towards how to 'find' the solution, not give
the 'solution'. Then we will help breed better programmers.

And those that can't get their solutions from a forum anymore may just
start
reading books again...

Cheers.

"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" wrote:
Why did you pay money for a zip library when there's already one built
into
the .net framework?
http://www.thescarms.com/dotNet/JavaZip.asp

If you would have come here and asked the question first, you could have
saved your company some money. And maybe the knowledge would have made
you
a better carpenter too.

Even if you already knew about the zip library, I hope you see my point,
and
I see yours too. What I hate most is when it sounds like somebody is
trying
to get me to do their computer class homework for them. Slackers!

I do understand though that there are a lot of people that ask questions
in
here and maybe programming is not their usual full time job but they're
trying to find a quick, ready made solution anyway. I don't have a
problem
with them.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net


"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
> probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:
>
> It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
> programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
> simple programming problems. They either want someone to write code for
> them, or point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what
> they
> need to do.
>
> Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
> programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
> components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
> Zip
> extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
> low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
> could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That
> seems
> reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
> components are fine.
>
> On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
> designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
> of
> external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
> other things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and
> build
> my own solutions.
>
> But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of
> JavaScript...
> well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
> Microsoft
> manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
> Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
> could
> possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you
> need
> to build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly,
> you'll
> just go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better
> carpenter?
> And what justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already
> have
> all the tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost
> you
> the same amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy
> one? At least if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites
> somewhat.
> And if you need to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house,
> well,
> you're all prepared to do so, since you built it to begin with.
>
> I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
> their
> trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an
> average
> of an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems
> to
> me.
>
> So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
> attitude?
> Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track
> here?
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> What You Seek Is What You Get.
>
>


Nov 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
Ma'am, Sir,

There is so much to sort through in life already and our work as programmers
of the world's computer programs is only one of the many interesting things
to do in life.

When a new programmer arrives on the scene the human soul inside the shell
of socio-economic-materialistic person must look deep (deeper than that)
within themselves and decide what is and is not art to them. Everyone sees
art in a different way much as Mr. Henry David Thorreau described us all as
'stepping to the beat of a different drummer'. Perhaps we should all just
wait and see where time and the future really takes each of us and just look
at all the different kinds of art along the way deciding each for ourselves.

Mr. Charles Moore in his brilliance set the world, especially Intel on a
path of excellence that is nearly unbridaled. Every single day all over the
earth many (more than that) computer hardware engineers work with a very
strong (stronger than that) sense of motivation, dedication and purpose.
Their hard work is what makes Mr. Moore's law a reality. If they were lazy,
the demise of computer programming could perhaps take place, but they are not
and for that I love them dearly.

Think of this: today, it is the 25th day of the month of March in the year
2005 and the fastest Dell PC in the catalog on my desk that was mailed to me
from Dell.com states that a 3.2GHZ CPU is the fastest machine sold by
Dell.com. Now think that is the year 2007, Moore's law states that we can
expect 6.4GHZ. Again, it is now 2009 and we are at 12.8GHZ. Keep going on
your own and discover like I did that every 20 years we add three zeros to
the cycles-per-second HERTZ measurement-number meaning that in the year 2025
3,200,000,000,000 will have replaced the 3,200,000,000 which is to say that
3,200GHZ will exist in the year 2025 and 3.2GHZ exists today in the year
2005. That means that in the year 2065 which will be three years away from
my 100th birthday since I was born in 1968, the fastest CPU on earth may very
well be 3,200,000,000,000,000,000 or 3,200,000,000GHZ which means that we
ancient programmers way back in the year 2005 will hardly be thought out or
remembered anymore than the ASSEMBLY language programmers of the 1960s are
thought of by C programmers or C++ programmers or Java programmers or C#
programmers or BASIC programmers today. Time changes everything. It is no
one's fault, it is simply the progress of human kind observed by us mere
mortal human beings. I like quoting movies to make points so I ask you to
remember the movie "THE LION KING" remember the line ..."The Circle of Life"
so it is for us too.

If Moore's Law holds true which is as likely as it is not likely for the
sake of history supporting Moore's original observations, consider then that
programming and the nature of programming or rather the art of programming
computers will also change. Already the nature of code has really changed
incredibly since the early days of Altair BASIC and Q-DOS. Back then very
few people worried about anything other than MACHINE or ASSEMBLY languages
because CPU speeds were very, very, very, very slow compared to today speeds.
Consider that an Intel 486/25mhz or 25,000,000 cycles per second existed in
about 1991 and that Intel released 286 and 386 slower machines than the 486
only years earlier. RAM was very expensive and was very limited and very
expensive at about $100 for a stick of good 8mb memory or perhaps a deal at
16mb for $129.99. Today, 512mb of RAM in one stick where four slots usually
exists only costs about $79.99 on average in a retail store like COMP-USA.
Programmers in the 1950s and 1960s before had to really work hard to do
anything. The most clever text-graphic-creating COBOL programmers were
looked up to as they printed very long banners on dot matrix printers for our
offices at work. I remember how it really was. FLOPPY DISKS were humongous
and very flimsy. Today, CD-RWs and DVD-RWs and SD/MMC has greatly changed
non-volatile data storage.

In 1970, Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernigham produced the first C language
compiler while working at Bell Laboratories. Since then, religious-like
stances on the art of programming have introduced themselves as sects or
divisions amongst the world's programmers. It is as sad as the Muslim vs
Christian vs Hindu vs Judaism vs Buddhism warring on earth today. We all
share voltage or no-voltage states of mind should we not celebrate that? Or
should we be devoutly C or devoutly UNIX or devoutly BASIC or devoutly JAVA
or devoutly C-SHARP? We should respect each other's opinions and celebrate
each other's accomplishments and try with every fiber of our being to
forgive/overlook each other's shortcomings. A pat on the back is worth
$1,000,000,000,000.00, a trillion dollars, to a working-class man or woman on
earth. Remember that, Mr. and Mrs. Corporate Executive! Remember that Mr.
and Mrs. Admiral/General/Military Officers! Remember that Mr. and Mrs.
Elected Official/Judge. Remember to pat your folks on their backs. Speaking
of, my wife just called and made sure that I end this shortly and return to
pat her on her back for all she does for me and my children. See what I
mean...folks, we need each other.

So, before I go, given a CPU's speed constantly increases over time while
also becoming less expensive over time, volatile-storage RAM increases in
capacity and speed over time while also becoming less expensive over time,
and that non-volatile-storage EIDE/SCSI/CD-RW/DVD-RW/SD-MMC, etc. increases
in capacity and speed over time while also becoming less expensive over time,
it is clear that we, the computer-software-engineers, PROGRAMMERS, have only
good things to look forward to with regard to the ART OF PROGRAMMING as the
future unfolds...that is, if we do destroy our wonderful planet, EARTH, by
any means.

All that I have said has not even mentioned the issues of the day which are
TCP/IPv4/IPv6/HTTP/HTTPS, XML, HTML, XHTML, TXT, CSV, TSV, CHTML, FELICA,
WML, AES, HDML, ASCII, UNICODE, UTF-7, UTF-8, UTF-16LE, UTF-16LE, BMP, GIF,
JPEG, PNG, SVG, MP3, WAV, WMA, MPEG, MOV, WMV, ASPX, MMIT_ASPX, ASMX, ASCX,
C, H, CPP, DLL, JS, CS, VB, EXE, CE_EXE, DIRECTX, ACTIVEX, COM, OLE, SOAP,
WSDL, DISCO, UDDI, and on and on the list of important file types, standards,
technologies, acronyms goes on into time.

I believe that their is something preciously primitive about the acronym
BLIDSSS which is to say:

B oolean
L ong
I nteger
D ecimal
D ouble
S ingle
S hort
S tring

meaning that BLIDDSSS is a way to say that in the year 2065 when central
processing units or CPUs are going 1 million times faster than they are today
that those fast little brains will still be dealing with BLIDDSSS primitive
data types which by the say are defined by the Microsoft .NET Framework and
not by me.

I did purchase BLIDDSSS.com intending to illustrate what exactly I mean and
will do so to the best of my ability.

I have said what I came to say as honestly and intelligently as I can. I
rest in peace.

Thank you for your time and to all of the people who have written books or
helped me along the way I thank you all.

Respectfully,

SmartWebAgent
John Flaherty
sm***********@hotmail.com
http://www.smartwebagent.com

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)" attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

Nov 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
Wow man, .... the colors!....

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"smartwebagent" <sm***********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60**********************************@microsof t.com...
Ma'am, Sir,

There is so much to sort through in life already and our work as
programmers
of the world's computer programs is only one of the many interesting
things
to do in life.

When a new programmer arrives on the scene the human soul inside the shell
of socio-economic-materialistic person must look deep (deeper than that)
within themselves and decide what is and is not art to them. Everyone
sees
art in a different way much as Mr. Henry David Thorreau described us all
as
'stepping to the beat of a different drummer'. Perhaps we should all just
wait and see where time and the future really takes each of us and just
look
at all the different kinds of art along the way deciding each for
ourselves.

Mr. Charles Moore in his brilliance set the world, especially Intel on a
path of excellence that is nearly unbridaled. Every single day all over
the
earth many (more than that) computer hardware engineers work with a very
strong (stronger than that) sense of motivation, dedication and purpose.
Their hard work is what makes Mr. Moore's law a reality. If they were
lazy,
the demise of computer programming could perhaps take place, but they are
not
and for that I love them dearly.

Think of this: today, it is the 25th day of the month of March in the year
2005 and the fastest Dell PC in the catalog on my desk that was mailed to
me
from Dell.com states that a 3.2GHZ CPU is the fastest machine sold by
Dell.com. Now think that is the year 2007, Moore's law states that we can
expect 6.4GHZ. Again, it is now 2009 and we are at 12.8GHZ. Keep going
on
your own and discover like I did that every 20 years we add three zeros to
the cycles-per-second HERTZ measurement-number meaning that in the year
2025
3,200,000,000,000 will have replaced the 3,200,000,000 which is to say
that
3,200GHZ will exist in the year 2025 and 3.2GHZ exists today in the year
2005. That means that in the year 2065 which will be three years away
from
my 100th birthday since I was born in 1968, the fastest CPU on earth may
very
well be 3,200,000,000,000,000,000 or 3,200,000,000GHZ which means that we
ancient programmers way back in the year 2005 will hardly be thought out
or
remembered anymore than the ASSEMBLY language programmers of the 1960s are
thought of by C programmers or C++ programmers or Java programmers or C#
programmers or BASIC programmers today. Time changes everything. It is
no
one's fault, it is simply the progress of human kind observed by us mere
mortal human beings. I like quoting movies to make points so I ask you to
remember the movie "THE LION KING" remember the line ..."The Circle of
Life"
so it is for us too.

If Moore's Law holds true which is as likely as it is not likely for the
sake of history supporting Moore's original observations, consider then
that
programming and the nature of programming or rather the art of programming
computers will also change. Already the nature of code has really changed
incredibly since the early days of Altair BASIC and Q-DOS. Back then very
few people worried about anything other than MACHINE or ASSEMBLY languages
because CPU speeds were very, very, very, very slow compared to today
speeds.
Consider that an Intel 486/25mhz or 25,000,000 cycles per second existed
in
about 1991 and that Intel released 286 and 386 slower machines than the
486
only years earlier. RAM was very expensive and was very limited and very
expensive at about $100 for a stick of good 8mb memory or perhaps a deal
at
16mb for $129.99. Today, 512mb of RAM in one stick where four slots
usually
exists only costs about $79.99 on average in a retail store like COMP-USA.
Programmers in the 1950s and 1960s before had to really work hard to do
anything. The most clever text-graphic-creating COBOL programmers were
looked up to as they printed very long banners on dot matrix printers for
our
offices at work. I remember how it really was. FLOPPY DISKS were
humongous
and very flimsy. Today, CD-RWs and DVD-RWs and SD/MMC has greatly changed
non-volatile data storage.

In 1970, Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernigham produced the first C language
compiler while working at Bell Laboratories. Since then, religious-like
stances on the art of programming have introduced themselves as sects or
divisions amongst the world's programmers. It is as sad as the Muslim vs
Christian vs Hindu vs Judaism vs Buddhism warring on earth today. We all
share voltage or no-voltage states of mind should we not celebrate that?
Or
should we be devoutly C or devoutly UNIX or devoutly BASIC or devoutly
JAVA
or devoutly C-SHARP? We should respect each other's opinions and
celebrate
each other's accomplishments and try with every fiber of our being to
forgive/overlook each other's shortcomings. A pat on the back is worth
$1,000,000,000,000.00, a trillion dollars, to a working-class man or woman
on
earth. Remember that, Mr. and Mrs. Corporate Executive! Remember that
Mr.
and Mrs. Admiral/General/Military Officers! Remember that Mr. and Mrs.
Elected Official/Judge. Remember to pat your folks on their backs.
Speaking
of, my wife just called and made sure that I end this shortly and return
to
pat her on her back for all she does for me and my children. See what I
mean...folks, we need each other.

So, before I go, given a CPU's speed constantly increases over time while
also becoming less expensive over time, volatile-storage RAM increases in
capacity and speed over time while also becoming less expensive over time,
and that non-volatile-storage EIDE/SCSI/CD-RW/DVD-RW/SD-MMC, etc.
increases
in capacity and speed over time while also becoming less expensive over
time,
it is clear that we, the computer-software-engineers, PROGRAMMERS, have
only
good things to look forward to with regard to the ART OF PROGRAMMING as
the
future unfolds...that is, if we do destroy our wonderful planet, EARTH, by
any means.

All that I have said has not even mentioned the issues of the day which
are
TCP/IPv4/IPv6/HTTP/HTTPS, XML, HTML, XHTML, TXT, CSV, TSV, CHTML, FELICA,
WML, AES, HDML, ASCII, UNICODE, UTF-7, UTF-8, UTF-16LE, UTF-16LE, BMP,
GIF,
JPEG, PNG, SVG, MP3, WAV, WMA, MPEG, MOV, WMV, ASPX, MMIT_ASPX, ASMX,
ASCX,
C, H, CPP, DLL, JS, CS, VB, EXE, CE_EXE, DIRECTX, ACTIVEX, COM, OLE, SOAP,
WSDL, DISCO, UDDI, and on and on the list of important file types,
standards,
technologies, acronyms goes on into time.

I believe that their is something preciously primitive about the acronym
BLIDSSS which is to say:

B oolean
L ong
I nteger
D ecimal
D ouble
S ingle
S hort
S tring

meaning that BLIDDSSS is a way to say that in the year 2065 when central
processing units or CPUs are going 1 million times faster than they are
today
that those fast little brains will still be dealing with BLIDDSSS
primitive
data types which by the say are defined by the Microsoft .NET Framework
and
not by me.

I did purchase BLIDDSSS.com intending to illustrate what exactly I mean
and
will do so to the best of my ability.

I have said what I came to say as honestly and intelligently as I can. I
rest in peace.

Thank you for your time and to all of the people who have written books or
helped me along the way I thank you all.

Respectfully,

SmartWebAgent
John Flaherty
sm***********@hotmail.com
http://www.smartwebagent.com

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:
Is it just me, or am I really observing a trend away from analysis and
probem-solving amongst programmers? Let me be more specific:

It seems that every day, in greater numbers, people are coming to these
programming newsgroups and asking for ready-made solutions to fairly
simple
programming problems. They either want someone to write code for them, or
point them to a ready-made chunk of software that does what they need to
do.

Now, I'm all for productivity, and have all the latest and greatest
programming productivity tools. From time to time I do buy third-party
components, such as a managed Zip extractor. Yes, I could build my own
Zip
extractor. The WinZip site publishes their algorithms. But it's quite
low-level stuff, and it would take me a week to write my own, whereas I
could buy one for $50.00 and get on to more important things. That seems
reasonable to me. If it is cost that is truly the issue, third-party
components are fine.

On the other hand, third-party components are only as good as their
designers. When you use a third-party component you are creating a form
of
external dependency, over which you have little or no control. So, all
other
things being equal, I would tend to solve my own problems and build my
own
solutions.

But, for example, asking for someone to write a snippet of JavaScript...
well, that's just plain lazy IMHO. In the development tools that
Microsoft
manufactures, there are enough tools and technology to build your own
Operating System. It is as if Microsoft has given you every tool you
could
possibly need, and enough lumber to build the Hoover Dam, but if you need
to
build a dog house, and you've never built one before, by golly, you'll
just
go out and buy one. Now, how does that make you a better carpenter? And
what
justifies the expense of buying a dog house when you already have all the
tools and lumber to build one? Especially when it would cost you the same
amount of money to build one (in man-hours) as it takes to buy one? At
least
if you build it you've enhanced your capabilites somewhat. And if you
need
to add air-conditioning to the existing dog house, well, you're all
prepared
to do so, since you built it to begin with.

I mean, whatever happened to the ethic that programmers should study
their
trade every day with diligence? I know I do. I probably spend an average
of
an hour a day studying my trade. Any good developer should, it seems to
me.

So, what's up with all this "just give me the codes (and stuff)"
attitude?
Is it just me, or does this bother anybody else? Am I way off track here?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

Nov 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in
news:#T**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
Sure, but on the other hand, if someone had told you to read the SDK
on RegisterStartupScript, you would have learned all about it, such as
where in the page it goes, and why, and you could have learned about
RegisterClientScriptBlock, and the other cross-references as well.


True, but the connection between setFocus and RegisterClientScriptBlock may
not be there, because the OP might not of had javascript experience.

--
Lucas Tam (RE********@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Nov 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
Alas, I see three other trends that are helping to fuel this trend.

1) Tools are promoted as solving the problems of application development,
and making it easy for anyone to produce working systems rapidly. So when the
tool doesn't take care of everything, there is a feeling that its not
necessarily your fault.

I remember looking at Oracle Designer several years back. I noticed that
books on it had a similar structure. Half of the book showed how to use the
diagrams and dialog boxes to build 90% of you database application in 10% of
the time. The other half of the book covered PL/SQL programming, which is
what you needed to use when you couldn't just drag a field from the database
schema onto a form, but needed some real edits or business logic. The .NET
framework, tools and application blocks tend to have the same problem. When
you get past the simple dialog box mapped to a basic table, you hit the high
learning curve.

2) As Bertrand Russell observed, part of the purpose of technology is to
push technical details below the level of consciousness. We turn the ignition
switch on our cars to "start" and don't worry about the technical details of
the engine. In the same way, very few of us are worried about CPU register
assignments nowadays--the compilers (and now the CLR/CLS or JVM) pushes this
below the radar screen.

However, as technicians, we are expected to be able to drop below the radar
screen and solve technical problems. Unfortunately, the environments also
fail to hide some of the low-level details, such as the need to differentiate
between String and StringBuilder in .NET.

Also, we get some false hype about how the technology solves problems, when
it may just shift them around. Garbage collection comes to mind here; it
prevents you from getting a "invalid address exception", but only because you
end up using an object that should have been deleted. Also, G.C. doesn't
prevent certain types of memory leaks.

3) The emphasis of education and training programs has shifted to
"practice"--specific technology, procedures and the mechanical use of the
tools. This is mainly a response to pressure from businesses on the
educational institutions to produce "better graduates" who can hit the ground
running.

I went through a Computer Science program 20+ years ago, and found that it
provided some theoretical background but left me little prepared for
professional work. Luckily I survived and learned. Unfortunately, the
pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme where many programs have gone the
other route, leaving people without any conceptual or theoretical background
and understanding, only a very brittle understanding of the basics.

Instead of teaching people to fish, we're teaching them how to assemble a
specific rod and reel, attach a specific lure, and cast for a specific type
of fish. Then when that species is all fished out of that location, they're
no better off than if we'ld just given them a fish in the first place. They
just cannot adapt to new conditions.

I suppose the only thing to do is try to make up for this in our responses
to postings. Try to enlighten them that they need to learn the basics of
programming.

Also, lets make sure our resumes make it clear that we know how to actually
program, and why it matters.
Nov 19 '05 #33

P: n/a
Excellent points all, David!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"David Lathrop" <David La*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09**********************************@microsof t.com...
Alas, I see three other trends that are helping to fuel this trend.

1) Tools are promoted as solving the problems of application development,
and making it easy for anyone to produce working systems rapidly. So when
the
tool doesn't take care of everything, there is a feeling that its not
necessarily your fault.

I remember looking at Oracle Designer several years back. I noticed that
books on it had a similar structure. Half of the book showed how to use
the
diagrams and dialog boxes to build 90% of you database application in 10%
of
the time. The other half of the book covered PL/SQL programming, which is
what you needed to use when you couldn't just drag a field from the
database
schema onto a form, but needed some real edits or business logic. The .NET
framework, tools and application blocks tend to have the same problem.
When
you get past the simple dialog box mapped to a basic table, you hit the
high
learning curve.

2) As Bertrand Russell observed, part of the purpose of technology is to
push technical details below the level of consciousness. We turn the
ignition
switch on our cars to "start" and don't worry about the technical details
of
the engine. In the same way, very few of us are worried about CPU register
assignments nowadays--the compilers (and now the CLR/CLS or JVM) pushes
this
below the radar screen.

However, as technicians, we are expected to be able to drop below the
radar
screen and solve technical problems. Unfortunately, the environments also
fail to hide some of the low-level details, such as the need to
differentiate
between String and StringBuilder in .NET.

Also, we get some false hype about how the technology solves problems,
when
it may just shift them around. Garbage collection comes to mind here; it
prevents you from getting a "invalid address exception", but only because
you
end up using an object that should have been deleted. Also, G.C. doesn't
prevent certain types of memory leaks.

3) The emphasis of education and training programs has shifted to
"practice"--specific technology, procedures and the mechanical use of the
tools. This is mainly a response to pressure from businesses on the
educational institutions to produce "better graduates" who can hit the
ground
running.

I went through a Computer Science program 20+ years ago, and found that it
provided some theoretical background but left me little prepared for
professional work. Luckily I survived and learned. Unfortunately, the
pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme where many programs have gone
the
other route, leaving people without any conceptual or theoretical
background
and understanding, only a very brittle understanding of the basics.

Instead of teaching people to fish, we're teaching them how to assemble a
specific rod and reel, attach a specific lure, and cast for a specific
type
of fish. Then when that species is all fished out of that location,
they're
no better off than if we'ld just given them a fish in the first place.
They
just cannot adapt to new conditions.

I suppose the only thing to do is try to make up for this in our responses
to postings. Try to enlighten them that they need to learn the basics of
programming.

Also, lets make sure our resumes make it clear that we know how to
actually
program, and why it matters.

Nov 19 '05 #34

P: n/a
I completed my CS degree 7 years ago - C++ / Java was the go back then, C# is
my arena now. My boss's did a course for 6 months. I am always hand feeding
them solutions - simple ones at that - on how to solve relatively simple
problems.

I have to admit that C++ was the best thing I ever did as it taught me what
things cost, and with that what to do and what NOT to do at a higher level.
A lot of programmers these days (like my boss) have learnt their progamming
skills from a short course - got a certificate - and the rest is history -
well they don't even know what a GPF is (or how it is caused).

With my degree - we actually where tought about bubble sort algorithms,
addressing, pointers, heaps and stacks, etc. If I popped any of the
algorithms to my boss he would say 'wy do I want to know'. Well I would want
to know how a computer worked before I actually started using it? Would you?

Programming is an art - but I think also that the tools are also to blame
for this demise as they are isolating the developer from the real processes.
Not the .net is sheilding the developer - its actually lower level the VB6.0
- but things like the Visual Component Designer do hide internal workings.

Again, with my degree, it was communication / problem solving / logical
analysis, that actually counted towards my passing, not learning a particular
language, and due to this I can pick up most languages very quickly.

Kevin, you are correct in that there is a demise in programming 'skill' out
there - but hey - these days there are 2 types of developers:

1. A Developer.

2. Solution Architect

I class myself as a (2) Solution Architect, as I try to create a solution to
the problem - not just a code monkey developer.

Buzza

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:
Excellent points all, David!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"David Lathrop" <David La*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09**********************************@microsof t.com...
Alas, I see three other trends that are helping to fuel this trend.

1) Tools are promoted as solving the problems of application development,
and making it easy for anyone to produce working systems rapidly. So when
the
tool doesn't take care of everything, there is a feeling that its not
necessarily your fault.

I remember looking at Oracle Designer several years back. I noticed that
books on it had a similar structure. Half of the book showed how to use
the
diagrams and dialog boxes to build 90% of you database application in 10%
of
the time. The other half of the book covered PL/SQL programming, which is
what you needed to use when you couldn't just drag a field from the
database
schema onto a form, but needed some real edits or business logic. The .NET
framework, tools and application blocks tend to have the same problem.
When
you get past the simple dialog box mapped to a basic table, you hit the
high
learning curve.

2) As Bertrand Russell observed, part of the purpose of technology is to
push technical details below the level of consciousness. We turn the
ignition
switch on our cars to "start" and don't worry about the technical details
of
the engine. In the same way, very few of us are worried about CPU register
assignments nowadays--the compilers (and now the CLR/CLS or JVM) pushes
this
below the radar screen.

However, as technicians, we are expected to be able to drop below the
radar
screen and solve technical problems. Unfortunately, the environments also
fail to hide some of the low-level details, such as the need to
differentiate
between String and StringBuilder in .NET.

Also, we get some false hype about how the technology solves problems,
when
it may just shift them around. Garbage collection comes to mind here; it
prevents you from getting a "invalid address exception", but only because
you
end up using an object that should have been deleted. Also, G.C. doesn't
prevent certain types of memory leaks.

3) The emphasis of education and training programs has shifted to
"practice"--specific technology, procedures and the mechanical use of the
tools. This is mainly a response to pressure from businesses on the
educational institutions to produce "better graduates" who can hit the
ground
running.

I went through a Computer Science program 20+ years ago, and found that it
provided some theoretical background but left me little prepared for
professional work. Luckily I survived and learned. Unfortunately, the
pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme where many programs have gone
the
other route, leaving people without any conceptual or theoretical
background
and understanding, only a very brittle understanding of the basics.

Instead of teaching people to fish, we're teaching them how to assemble a
specific rod and reel, attach a specific lure, and cast for a specific
type
of fish. Then when that species is all fished out of that location,
they're
no better off than if we'ld just given them a fish in the first place.
They
just cannot adapt to new conditions.

I suppose the only thing to do is try to make up for this in our responses
to postings. Try to enlighten them that they need to learn the basics of
programming.

Also, lets make sure our resumes make it clear that we know how to
actually
program, and why it matters.


Nov 19 '05 #35

P: n/a
BTW smartwebagent,

CPU speeds are starting to flatten out - i.e. Not Going to get that much
faster, instead, core technology (Hyper Threading) is being used to
compensate for this more core's will be added to the processor (I think 3 is
coming out soon) - so if you have never needed to do multithreading due -
better get out the books as this is how you are going to have to make your
apps run faster in the future ;)

"Buzza" wrote:
I completed my CS degree 7 years ago - C++ / Java was the go back then, C# is
my arena now. My boss's did a course for 6 months. I am always hand feeding
them solutions - simple ones at that - on how to solve relatively simple
problems.

I have to admit that C++ was the best thing I ever did as it taught me what
things cost, and with that what to do and what NOT to do at a higher level.
A lot of programmers these days (like my boss) have learnt their progamming
skills from a short course - got a certificate - and the rest is history -
well they don't even know what a GPF is (or how it is caused).

With my degree - we actually where tought about bubble sort algorithms,
addressing, pointers, heaps and stacks, etc. If I popped any of the
algorithms to my boss he would say 'wy do I want to know'. Well I would want
to know how a computer worked before I actually started using it? Would you?

Programming is an art - but I think also that the tools are also to blame
for this demise as they are isolating the developer from the real processes.
Not the .net is sheilding the developer - its actually lower level the VB6.0
- but things like the Visual Component Designer do hide internal workings.

Again, with my degree, it was communication / problem solving / logical
analysis, that actually counted towards my passing, not learning a particular
language, and due to this I can pick up most languages very quickly.

Kevin, you are correct in that there is a demise in programming 'skill' out
there - but hey - these days there are 2 types of developers:

1. A Developer.

2. Solution Architect

I class myself as a (2) Solution Architect, as I try to create a solution to
the problem - not just a code monkey developer.

Buzza

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:
Excellent points all, David!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"David Lathrop" <David La*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09**********************************@microsof t.com...
Alas, I see three other trends that are helping to fuel this trend.

1) Tools are promoted as solving the problems of application development,
and making it easy for anyone to produce working systems rapidly. So when
the
tool doesn't take care of everything, there is a feeling that its not
necessarily your fault.

I remember looking at Oracle Designer several years back. I noticed that
books on it had a similar structure. Half of the book showed how to use
the
diagrams and dialog boxes to build 90% of you database application in 10%
of
the time. The other half of the book covered PL/SQL programming, which is
what you needed to use when you couldn't just drag a field from the
database
schema onto a form, but needed some real edits or business logic. The .NET
framework, tools and application blocks tend to have the same problem.
When
you get past the simple dialog box mapped to a basic table, you hit the
high
learning curve.

2) As Bertrand Russell observed, part of the purpose of technology is to
push technical details below the level of consciousness. We turn the
ignition
switch on our cars to "start" and don't worry about the technical details
of
the engine. In the same way, very few of us are worried about CPU register
assignments nowadays--the compilers (and now the CLR/CLS or JVM) pushes
this
below the radar screen.

However, as technicians, we are expected to be able to drop below the
radar
screen and solve technical problems. Unfortunately, the environments also
fail to hide some of the low-level details, such as the need to
differentiate
between String and StringBuilder in .NET.

Also, we get some false hype about how the technology solves problems,
when
it may just shift them around. Garbage collection comes to mind here; it
prevents you from getting a "invalid address exception", but only because
you
end up using an object that should have been deleted. Also, G.C. doesn't
prevent certain types of memory leaks.

3) The emphasis of education and training programs has shifted to
"practice"--specific technology, procedures and the mechanical use of the
tools. This is mainly a response to pressure from businesses on the
educational institutions to produce "better graduates" who can hit the
ground
running.

I went through a Computer Science program 20+ years ago, and found that it
provided some theoretical background but left me little prepared for
professional work. Luckily I survived and learned. Unfortunately, the
pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme where many programs have gone
the
other route, leaving people without any conceptual or theoretical
background
and understanding, only a very brittle understanding of the basics.

Instead of teaching people to fish, we're teaching them how to assemble a
specific rod and reel, attach a specific lure, and cast for a specific
type
of fish. Then when that species is all fished out of that location,
they're
no better off than if we'ld just given them a fish in the first place.
They
just cannot adapt to new conditions.

I suppose the only thing to do is try to make up for this in our responses
to postings. Try to enlighten them that they need to learn the basics of
programming.

Also, lets make sure our resumes make it clear that we know how to
actually
program, and why it matters.


Nov 19 '05 #36

P: n/a
> coming out soon) - so if you have never needed to do multithreading due -
better get out the books as this is how you are going to have to make your
apps run faster in the future ;)


And the instant you wander into multi-anything, boy does it get a *lot*
harder. Quality control/test ramps up as well.

Rob.
Nov 19 '05 #37

P: n/a
Kevin:::

I read your initial post and have to weigh in on this issue. Don't be such a
frustrated idealist! Let me off another perception here for you to consider.

I believe Microsoft is slowly redefining what it means to be a software
engineer today. The evolutionary move in software engineering from writing
pure syntactical code to integrating UIs with logic code substantially
redefined what it meant to be a programmer and it will happen again with the
continued improvements of the .Net framework, namely, by increased managed
code and incorporation of new and improved classes, objects, etc.

I believe that today's programming technology paradigm represents a
parabolic curve of sorts. While memory management, addresses, multi-threading
and the like are becoming easier to program against, understanding and
programming against the complexity of abstruse relationships among and
between the objects in an OOP world is becoming much more challenging today.
(Yes, I believe that multi-threading will eventually become obsolete [by
advances made to processors either through biotechnology, nanotechnology or
both], and therefore unnecessary to achieve FUTURE optimal application
performance.)

This challenge is due in part to the colossal number of options, methods,
functions, objects, procedures, etc. which today's programmer has immediate
access. I suspect that these capabilities will continue to increase in
complexity as Microsoft advances its .Net technology. It is within this deep
divide that will ostensibly distinguish the "average" programmer from the
gifted one.

You can ask for and apply "canned" code all day to your application but if
you don't understand the SPECIFIC logic relationships that function among and
between ALL of your objects within a particular application, you will NEVER
rise to the level of programming talent that I believe will be required to
survive as a programmer in the next 15 years.

In many respects, computer programming today is limited only by the creative
potential of a human mind (that understands logic processes). Given this
belief, computer programming that achieves the highest levels of
computational functionality will always be more endemic of an art than a
science.

My 2 cents worth.

Brice Richard

Nov 19 '05 #38

P: n/a
Hi Brice,

I'm not a frustrated idealist. I'm an idealist. Not sure what I should be
frustrated about! ;-)

If you think I'm frustrated with all the shade-tree developers out there,
I'm not. Less competition. However, my compassion moves me to help them in
some fashion. Hence, this (and other similar) thread. The original post was
intended to make people think, examine themselves, and see if they could or
should be doing better. Whether anyone DOES or not is not my responsibility,
and I happily recuse myself from it!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Brice Richard" <Brice Ri*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6A**********************************@microsof t.com...
Kevin:::

I read your initial post and have to weigh in on this issue. Don't be such
a
frustrated idealist! Let me off another perception here for you to
consider.

I believe Microsoft is slowly redefining what it means to be a software
engineer today. The evolutionary move in software engineering from writing
pure syntactical code to integrating UIs with logic code substantially
redefined what it meant to be a programmer and it will happen again with
the
continued improvements of the .Net framework, namely, by increased managed
code and incorporation of new and improved classes, objects, etc.

I believe that today's programming technology paradigm represents a
parabolic curve of sorts. While memory management, addresses,
multi-threading
and the like are becoming easier to program against, understanding and
programming against the complexity of abstruse relationships among and
between the objects in an OOP world is becoming much more challenging
today.
(Yes, I believe that multi-threading will eventually become obsolete [by
advances made to processors either through biotechnology, nanotechnology
or
both], and therefore unnecessary to achieve FUTURE optimal application
performance.)

This challenge is due in part to the colossal number of options, methods,
functions, objects, procedures, etc. which today's programmer has
immediate
access. I suspect that these capabilities will continue to increase in
complexity as Microsoft advances its .Net technology. It is within this
deep
divide that will ostensibly distinguish the "average" programmer from the
gifted one.

You can ask for and apply "canned" code all day to your application but if
you don't understand the SPECIFIC logic relationships that function among
and
between ALL of your objects within a particular application, you will
NEVER
rise to the level of programming talent that I believe will be required to
survive as a programmer in the next 15 years.

In many respects, computer programming today is limited only by the
creative
potential of a human mind (that understands logic processes). Given this
belief, computer programming that achieves the highest levels of
computational functionality will always be more endemic of an art than a
science.

My 2 cents worth.

Brice Richard

Nov 19 '05 #39

P: n/a
I have found that the biggest problem with "clueless" management setting
unreasonable deadlines is not a problem with management. It's a problem with
the developer. Yes, I am saying developers are also responsible for their
own management. If a project's deadline is wrong, say so, whether it's
during the initial project discussion or during the course of development.

Doing so keeps your manager informed of the reality of development and
teaches them where to set their expectations. It also teaches them to adjust
fire where needed. We have all worked with that whiz kid developer who put
out a six-month team database project alone in two, only to quit later from a
rendering project in frustration. The first project set the bar that
couldn't be followed in the second.

I disagree with Kevin's solution of quitting. The solution should be to
talk with management. Become involved from day one, to include demanding to
sit in on meetings where your projects are planned. Developers need to
furnish that clue to clueless management...though I'll admit that demanding
5,000 lines of code ready-to-go in one day might indicate an incurable
condition.

Sorry, Slowly, I have to agree that there really is no excuse for asking for
someone else to figure it out for you. If you can't afford to buy the book,
look into all of the free APIs and other published information. If you're
asking for code, it's YOU who don't have a clue. Not your manager.
Nov 19 '05 #40

P: n/a
Martin Luther didn't quit the Catholic Church. Look where it got HIM! ;-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Robert Dillon" <Robert Di****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71**********************************@microsof t.com...
I have found that the biggest problem with "clueless" management setting
unreasonable deadlines is not a problem with management. It's a problem
with
the developer. Yes, I am saying developers are also responsible for their
own management. If a project's deadline is wrong, say so, whether it's
during the initial project discussion or during the course of development.

Doing so keeps your manager informed of the reality of development and
teaches them where to set their expectations. It also teaches them to
adjust
fire where needed. We have all worked with that whiz kid developer who
put
out a six-month team database project alone in two, only to quit later
from a
rendering project in frustration. The first project set the bar that
couldn't be followed in the second.

I disagree with Kevin's solution of quitting. The solution should be to
talk with management. Become involved from day one, to include demanding
to
sit in on meetings where your projects are planned. Developers need to
furnish that clue to clueless management...though I'll admit that
demanding
5,000 lines of code ready-to-go in one day might indicate an incurable
condition.

Sorry, Slowly, I have to agree that there really is no excuse for asking
for
someone else to figure it out for you. If you can't afford to buy the
book,
look into all of the free APIs and other published information. If you're
asking for code, it's YOU who don't have a clue. Not your manager.

Nov 19 '05 #41

P: n/a
I think that the large number of requests for chunks of code that work and
solve a specific problem is indicative of a larger problem. That is the
learning curve associated with dot net. Microsoft is making a tacit
admission that they have a problem when they have to announce a lite version
of the stuff for people to learn before they move on to the rest of the
framework. Strict object oriented programming is difficult to learn. I have
been a VFP developer for a number of years with products under my belt that
have sold in the thousands of installations. Making the jump to dot net is
daunting in that you have to think like microsoft to use the help and find
the answers you need. If you know what you are looking for you can find it.
If you dont' think like MS and use the correct terms you are lost. imho Bob
Thickens
"Kevin Spencer" wrote:
Hi Brice,

I'm not a frustrated idealist. I'm an idealist. Not sure what I should be
frustrated about! ;-)

If you think I'm frustrated with all the shade-tree developers out there,
I'm not. Less competition. However, my compassion moves me to help them in
some fashion. Hence, this (and other similar) thread. The original post was
intended to make people think, examine themselves, and see if they could or
should be doing better. Whether anyone DOES or not is not my responsibility,
and I happily recuse myself from it!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Brice Richard" <Brice Ri*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6A**********************************@microsof t.com...
Kevin:::

I read your initial post and have to weigh in on this issue. Don't be such
a
frustrated idealist! Let me off another perception here for you to
consider.

I believe Microsoft is slowly redefining what it means to be a software
engineer today. The evolutionary move in software engineering from writing
pure syntactical code to integrating UIs with logic code substantially
redefined what it meant to be a programmer and it will happen again with
the
continued improvements of the .Net framework, namely, by increased managed
code and incorporation of new and improved classes, objects, etc.

I believe that today's programming technology paradigm represents a
parabolic curve of sorts. While memory management, addresses,
multi-threading
and the like are becoming easier to program against, understanding and
programming against the complexity of abstruse relationships among and
between the objects in an OOP world is becoming much more challenging
today.
(Yes, I believe that multi-threading will eventually become obsolete [by
advances made to processors either through biotechnology, nanotechnology
or
both], and therefore unnecessary to achieve FUTURE optimal application
performance.)

This challenge is due in part to the colossal number of options, methods,
functions, objects, procedures, etc. which today's programmer has
immediate
access. I suspect that these capabilities will continue to increase in
complexity as Microsoft advances its .Net technology. It is within this
deep
divide that will ostensibly distinguish the "average" programmer from the
gifted one.

You can ask for and apply "canned" code all day to your application but if
you don't understand the SPECIFIC logic relationships that function among
and
between ALL of your objects within a particular application, you will
NEVER
rise to the level of programming talent that I believe will be required to
survive as a programmer in the next 15 years.

In many respects, computer programming today is limited only by the
creative
potential of a human mind (that understands logic processes). Given this
belief, computer programming that achieves the highest levels of
computational functionality will always be more endemic of an art than a
science.

My 2 cents worth.

Brice Richard


Nov 19 '05 #42

P: n/a
re:
Microsoft is making a tacit admission that they have
a problem when they have to announce a lite version
of the stuff for people to learn before they move on to
the rest of the framework.
Which "lite version" is that ?


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Electroniclaim" <El************@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36**********************************@microsof t.com...I think that the large number of requests for chunks of code that work and
solve a specific problem is indicative of a larger problem. That is the
learning curve associated with dot net. Microsoft is making a tacit
admission that they have a problem when they have to announce a lite
version
of the stuff for people to learn before they move on to the rest of the
framework. Strict object oriented programming is difficult to learn. I
have
been a VFP developer for a number of years with products under my belt
that
have sold in the thousands of installations. Making the jump to dot net
is
daunting in that you have to think like microsoft to use the help and find
the answers you need. If you know what you are looking for you can find
it.
If you dont' think like MS and use the correct terms you are lost. imho
Bob
Thickens
"Kevin Spencer" wrote:
Hi Brice,

I'm not a frustrated idealist. I'm an idealist. Not sure what I should be
frustrated about! ;-)

If you think I'm frustrated with all the shade-tree developers out there,
I'm not. Less competition. However, my compassion moves me to help them
in
some fashion. Hence, this (and other similar) thread. The original post
was
intended to make people think, examine themselves, and see if they could
or
should be doing better. Whether anyone DOES or not is not my
responsibility,
and I happily recuse myself from it!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Brice Richard" <Brice Ri*****@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
news:6A**********************************@microsof t.com...
> Kevin:::
>
> I read your initial post and have to weigh in on this issue. Don't be
> such
> a
> frustrated idealist! Let me off another perception here for you to
> consider.
>
> I believe Microsoft is slowly redefining what it means to be a software
> engineer today. The evolutionary move in software engineering from
> writing
> pure syntactical code to integrating UIs with logic code substantially
> redefined what it meant to be a programmer and it will happen again
> with
> the
> continued improvements of the .Net framework, namely, by increased
> managed
> code and incorporation of new and improved classes, objects, etc.
>
> I believe that today's programming technology paradigm represents a
> parabolic curve of sorts. While memory management, addresses,
> multi-threading
> and the like are becoming easier to program against, understanding and
> programming against the complexity of abstruse relationships among and
> between the objects in an OOP world is becoming much more challenging
> today.
> (Yes, I believe that multi-threading will eventually become obsolete
> [by
> advances made to processors either through biotechnology,
> nanotechnology
> or
> both], and therefore unnecessary to achieve FUTURE optimal application
> performance.)
>
> This challenge is due in part to the colossal number of options,
> methods,
> functions, objects, procedures, etc. which today's programmer has
> immediate
> access. I suspect that these capabilities will continue to increase in
> complexity as Microsoft advances its .Net technology. It is within this
> deep
> divide that will ostensibly distinguish the "average" programmer from
> the
> gifted one.
>
> You can ask for and apply "canned" code all day to your application but
> if
> you don't understand the SPECIFIC logic relationships that function
> among
> and
> between ALL of your objects within a particular application, you will
> NEVER
> rise to the level of programming talent that I believe will be required
> to
> survive as a programmer in the next 15 years.
>
> In many respects, computer programming today is limited only by the
> creative
> potential of a human mind (that understands logic processes). Given
> this
> belief, computer programming that achieves the highest levels of
> computational functionality will always be more endemic of an art than
> a
> science.
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
> Brice Richard
>


Nov 19 '05 #43

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.