IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I don't think its the PHBs
There are a lot of otherwise smart people running down this blind alley. Go join the XMLDev list and watch it for awhile. I've done my time there.

[link|http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200210/msg01514.html|http://lists.xml.org...210/msg01514.html]

Personally, I think they're nuts.



Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations.
--AndyBower
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:45:28 PM EDT
New Another possibility...
Some of them are what I call "sold out".

What I mean by that is that they are chasing that the money-holders want simply because they need a check. It happens frequently in tough times.

Tough times are a refining fire that test what you really believe. Watch people during these times, because you find out what they're really made of. People who don't believe in a particular language strongly will "sell out" to the new thing, even if it violates their prior strongly held beliefs.

Now, I'll admit that I switch languages, because I don't worship a particular language. But, I'm not claiming to be an expert in C++ or Java, either (like Bruce Eckel). I use them as tools to do work. I bitch about what doesn't work in them, and try to propose better alternatives, when given the chance.

I'll probably take a look at Squeak, when I have time. Because, from an OO perspective, I think SmallTalk makes sense, especially now that interpreted environments are taking over from "compiled" executables.

I think Java was the key language to make it over the hump, from compiled to interpreted. Our "new technology" group looked at Smalltalk in the early 1990's and machines were simply not powerful enough, then, to use an interpreted language. That, and many of the powerful algorithms were probably not built into the language at the time.

I'll be honest, I think that Oracle and IBM give Java a bad name, still, because of the bloated products they have put out using Java. But, I think it's more because of programming by committee, than because Java is a bad language. I'll admit I haven't gone very deep into Java Swing classes, and from what I have done, they seem difficult and clunky to me. For GUI programming, there probably is a better way.

However, I worked on Java multi-threaded server application for a pharmacy claims company. The tools for writing good threaded/sockets code which parsed messages were definitely there. And I think with the addition of Jython and the use of the SAX/DOM, and some of the parsing infrastructure that is there, Java could become the lingua franca of the transaction processing industry.
     XML Mania is driving me crazy - (bluke) - (29)
         AAAAHHH!! Make it stop! -NT - (deSitter)
         AAAAHHH!! Make it stop! -NT - (deSitter) - (2)
             Bug!? - (deSitter) - (1)
                 Uh huh. - (pwhysall)
         There are only two reasons to use XML: - (admin) - (15)
             Re: There are only two reasons to use XML: - (deSitter)
             Does our situation fit your criteria? - (drewk) - (9)
                 That's part of what Scott meant by "loose coupling". - (FuManChu)
                 Only you are using the data - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                     Got a link for PLists? (google give too many to dig through) -NT - (drewk) - (3)
                         Explain it right here - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                             How about multi-dimensional arrays? -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                                 Lists of lists -NT - (tuberculosis)
                     Re: Only you are using the data - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                         Too complicated -NT - (tuberculosis)
                     Was just reminded that's not always going to be true - (drewk)
             Re: There are only two reasons to use XML: - (neelk) - (3)
                 Agreed. - (admin) - (2)
                     An effort to make this constructive and educational - (FuManChu) - (1)
                         PLists on sockets - (tuberculosis)
         Luddite standing in the way of progress! :) - (a6l6e6x)
         XML - Some Thoughts - (gdaustin)
         Winnah! of the Lucid Post of the Month award! - (jb4)
         Let's promote a relational alternative - (tablizer) - (5)
             But... - (gdaustin)
             Spitting - (tuberculosis) - (3)
                 But you see, Todd? - (gdaustin) - (2)
                     I don't think its the PHBs - (tuberculosis) - (1)
                         Another possibility... - (gdaustin)

This looks like the output of a Markov bot that's been fed bus timetables from a city where the buses crash constantly.
110 ms