Re: Sun gets a big win...

[Linux Idiot <geof@abraxis.com>]

Steve Cohen wrote:
> 
> Chris Pall wrote:
> 
> > http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/news/0323/25mfight.html
> >
> 
> Thanks for the link:
> 
> This one paragraph says it all for me:
> 
> "[Sun] doesn't realize that most developers don't have Ph.D.s in
> computer science and don't want to wade through all those lines of code
> and inner classes to build robust, commercial-quality applications,"
> said
> Bill Dunlap, a Microsoft technical product manager.
> 
> Hell, I don't have ANY degree in computer science.  I'm just an
> self-taught programmer.  But I have respect for language standards and
> Microsoft has none.  This typifies Microsoft's approach to a T and it's
> probably the reason I spend chunks of my valuable time reading all this
> griping here.  My interpretation of the above fragment is "Most
> programmers are not smart enough to write in the language the way it was
> designed.  So we have to make it easy for them. The only ones who are
> smart enough are or should be working for us.  The rest are VB coders
> and they'll do what we tell them."

This is so true.  What Microsoft wants to do is enable anyone to program
via a Visual approach. The problem is, Visual tools generally get you
about 80-90% of what you want, then you have to tweek the code to get to
the 100%.  Microsoft wants everyone to program, regardless of skill or
knowledge so they can produce the same crap MS does.  I just recently
took over the responsibility of a web based time reporting system.  When
I asked the original creator why they designed it a certain way, they
told me that that is all the 'language' would let them do. It turns out
that that is all the Visual tool they were using would let them do.  I
sat down, rewrote the whole thing with my visual development tool called
'vi.'  The new package is much more robust and allows the user to do
everything they've been screaming for.

> 
> I don't do java but I have extensive experience with C++.  Those java
> developers who want to see where this is all leading should take a look
> at what Microsoft has done with Visual C++.
> 
> Look what they did in C++:
> 1) Macros all over the place in spite of the fact that macros are
> antithetical to the spirit of C++.
> 
> 2) Liberal use of "public" data members throughout their code, a
> violation of the idea of  encapsulation" which is essential for good OO
> programming.
> 
> 3) Incomplete "thin wrapping" of their own Windows API in MFC.
> 
> 4) Burying the underlying "make" technology in their GUI so that it is
> almost impossible to "make" a project in an automated build script that
> doesn't fit their preconceived notions of the structure of an "app".  I
> have even had failures at running nmake over a makefile that was
> unchanged from one generated by their "generate make file" command.  And
> then replacing it with half-complete VB-based "automation" support.
> "Developers don't want to mess with make files."  No, except when you
> really need to and then it isn't there.
> 
> 5) Dependency checking between source files is buried in the GUI with NO
> way to get at it from the command line.
> 
> 6) "Microsoft-specific" extensions all over the place to support stuff
> like COM.  These are extensions to the core language, not MFC, ATL or
> their other proprietary tools where such stuff obviously belongs.
> 
> 7) No useful allowance for conditional compilation in their resource
> files, which is another abortion, with preprocessor syntax "almost the
> same as" that for C++ source files.
> 
> With cavalier attitudes like these toward good programming practices, NO
> WONDER you get a Windows based on a Registry that is a godawful mess,
> where crashes are impossible to recover from.
> 
> I could go on and on, but the point is clear, I think  Microsoft doesn't
> give a damn about writing tools that enable developers to develop good
> "robust commercial quality" applications efficiently.  There is always
> another agenda, to sell OTHER Microsoft products by making it hard for
> developers to develop applications that don't support these products
> like VB.  The model is not tools that enable the developer to do his or
> her job the best way he/she knows how, it is tools that help the
> developer to quickly develop applications that can cause more Microsoft
> technology to be sold.
> 
> It is for that reason that  to those who would wish to split Microsoft
> into two companies, one for the OS and one for their applications, my
> reply is always that it really needs to be THREE companies.  The
> development tools should be separated as well.  If you've ever read MSJ,
> you can easily see how Microsoft uses developers to funnel them into
> developing apps for Office, COM, etc.
> 
> Java developers, watch out!

-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		geof@abraxis.com

NT is secure.... as long as you don't remove the shrink wrap.
Want to speed up your NT box real cheap?  Replace NT with Linux...