<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_28_235246</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Top Devs Don't Seem To Like Own Tools</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259416500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ericatcw writes <i>"Through tools such as Visual Basic and Visual Studio, Microsoft may have done more than any other vendor to make drag and drop-style programming mainstream. But its superstar developers seem to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141465/Microsoft\_s\_top\_developers\_prefer\_old\_school\_coding\_methods">prefer old-school modes of crafting code.</a> During the panel at the Professional Developers Conference earlier this month, the devs also revealed why they think writing tight, bare-metal code will come back into fashion, and why parallel programming hasn't caught up with the processors yet."</i> These guys are senior enough that they don't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft's product roadmap. They are also dead funny. Here's Jeffrey Snover on managed code (being pushed by Microsoft through its Common Language Runtime tech): "Managed code is like antilock brakes. You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die. Now you don't have to pump your brakes anymore." Snover also joked that programming is getting so abstract, developers will soon have to use Natal to "write programs through interpretative dance."</htmltext>
<tokenext>ericatcw writes " Through tools such as Visual Basic and Visual Studio , Microsoft may have done more than any other vendor to make drag and drop-style programming mainstream .
But its superstar developers seem to prefer old-school modes of crafting code .
During the panel at the Professional Developers Conference earlier this month , the devs also revealed why they think writing tight , bare-metal code will come back into fashion , and why parallel programming has n't caught up with the processors yet .
" These guys are senior enough that they do n't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft 's product roadmap .
They are also dead funny .
Here 's Jeffrey Snover on managed code ( being pushed by Microsoft through its Common Language Runtime tech ) : " Managed code is like antilock brakes .
You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die .
Now you do n't have to pump your brakes anymore .
" Snover also joked that programming is getting so abstract , developers will soon have to use Natal to " write programs through interpretative dance .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ericatcw writes "Through tools such as Visual Basic and Visual Studio, Microsoft may have done more than any other vendor to make drag and drop-style programming mainstream.
But its superstar developers seem to prefer old-school modes of crafting code.
During the panel at the Professional Developers Conference earlier this month, the devs also revealed why they think writing tight, bare-metal code will come back into fashion, and why parallel programming hasn't caught up with the processors yet.
" These guys are senior enough that they don't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft's product roadmap.
They are also dead funny.
Here's Jeffrey Snover on managed code (being pushed by Microsoft through its Common Language Runtime tech): "Managed code is like antilock brakes.
You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die.
Now you don't have to pump your brakes anymore.
" Snover also joked that programming is getting so abstract, developers will soon have to use Natal to "write programs through interpretative dance.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392</id>
	<title>Why I prefer plain old text editors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I program using gedit, if there's an error I know that the error is somewhere in the written code in front of me. When I program using some IDE and there's an error, it might be hidden deep within 3 layers of menu options. There's much less control over the situation the second way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I program using gedit , if there 's an error I know that the error is somewhere in the written code in front of me .
When I program using some IDE and there 's an error , it might be hidden deep within 3 layers of menu options .
There 's much less control over the situation the second way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I program using gedit, if there's an error I know that the error is somewhere in the written code in front of me.
When I program using some IDE and there's an error, it might be hidden deep within 3 layers of menu options.
There's much less control over the situation the second way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259270</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1259432220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you're both right.  Or I should say, you are right and the OP <i>may</i> be right.  You're right because it is obviously true that there exists at least some non-poser programmers who use Visual Studio and at least some "poser" programmers who use a text editor.  But the OP may be right if it is statistically true (I don't know that it is) that there exists high correlations between "good" programmers preferring a text editor and/or "posers" preferring Visual Studio.<br> <br>

While it is obviously true that such correlation coefficients do not equal 1.0 (since supposedly at least some of us subjectively know of <i>some</i> good programmers who prefer Visual Studio or <i>some</i> poser programmers who prefer a text editor, it is my opinion that there probably does exist a pretty strong correlation on the basis (and assumptions) that programmers who are familiar with a text editor are older and therefore more experienced than those whose only real experience is with an IDE.  If this is true, then the OP is <i>generally</i> correct (and it is obvious that he was generalizing).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 're both right .
Or I should say , you are right and the OP may be right .
You 're right because it is obviously true that there exists at least some non-poser programmers who use Visual Studio and at least some " poser " programmers who use a text editor .
But the OP may be right if it is statistically true ( I do n't know that it is ) that there exists high correlations between " good " programmers preferring a text editor and/or " posers " preferring Visual Studio .
While it is obviously true that such correlation coefficients do not equal 1.0 ( since supposedly at least some of us subjectively know of some good programmers who prefer Visual Studio or some poser programmers who prefer a text editor , it is my opinion that there probably does exist a pretty strong correlation on the basis ( and assumptions ) that programmers who are familiar with a text editor are older and therefore more experienced than those whose only real experience is with an IDE .
If this is true , then the OP is generally correct ( and it is obvious that he was generalizing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you're both right.
Or I should say, you are right and the OP may be right.
You're right because it is obviously true that there exists at least some non-poser programmers who use Visual Studio and at least some "poser" programmers who use a text editor.
But the OP may be right if it is statistically true (I don't know that it is) that there exists high correlations between "good" programmers preferring a text editor and/or "posers" preferring Visual Studio.
While it is obviously true that such correlation coefficients do not equal 1.0 (since supposedly at least some of us subjectively know of some good programmers who prefer Visual Studio or some poser programmers who prefer a text editor, it is my opinion that there probably does exist a pretty strong correlation on the basis (and assumptions) that programmers who are familiar with a text editor are older and therefore more experienced than those whose only real experience is with an IDE.
If this is true, then the OP is generally correct (and it is obvious that he was generalizing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258268</id>
	<title>and this is a good thing</title>
	<author>lapsed</author>
	<datestamp>1259420940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Visual Studio because I couldn't program my way out of a wet paper bag. I'd be a bit concerned if the people writing the application were similarly impaired. <br>
VB.NET and Microsoft's other tools make programing possible. People on slashdot will argue that this leads to bad applications, but the choice is between bad applications and no applications, not bad applications and good applications. Granted, sometimes bad applications are dangerous, but that's not a sufficient rationale to withhold these types of tools.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Visual Studio because I could n't program my way out of a wet paper bag .
I 'd be a bit concerned if the people writing the application were similarly impaired .
VB.NET and Microsoft 's other tools make programing possible .
People on slashdot will argue that this leads to bad applications , but the choice is between bad applications and no applications , not bad applications and good applications .
Granted , sometimes bad applications are dangerous , but that 's not a sufficient rationale to withhold these types of tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Visual Studio because I couldn't program my way out of a wet paper bag.
I'd be a bit concerned if the people writing the application were similarly impaired.
VB.NET and Microsoft's other tools make programing possible.
People on slashdot will argue that this leads to bad applications, but the choice is between bad applications and no applications, not bad applications and good applications.
Granted, sometimes bad applications are dangerous, but that's not a sufficient rationale to withhold these types of tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259898</id>
	<title>Eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259488740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>These guys are senior enough that they don't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft's product roadmap.</i>
<br>
So he thinks the discussion content was not decided beforehand? So naive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys are senior enough that they do n't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft 's product roadmap .
So he thinks the discussion content was not decided beforehand ?
So naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys are senior enough that they don't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft's product roadmap.
So he thinks the discussion content was not decided beforehand?
So naive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261856</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259514960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! Java's had this great library (and I'm sure many others) all this time and \_still\_ manages to suck? LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Java 's had this great library ( and I 'm sure many others ) all this time and \ _still \ _ manages to suck ?
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Java's had this great library (and I'm sure many others) all this time and \_still\_ manages to suck?
LOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258428</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? If you don't want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, don't use a Managed C++ project, use a native C++ project. You can control exactly what libraries are included, and no, it doesn't include<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET libraries by default. I'm not sure how you can claim to know anything about Visual Studio, if you don't know this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
If you do n't want .NET , do n't use a Managed C + + project , use a native C + + project .
You can control exactly what libraries are included , and no , it does n't include .NET libraries by default .
I 'm not sure how you can claim to know anything about Visual Studio , if you do n't know this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
If you don't want .NET, don't use a Managed C++ project, use a native C++ project.
You can control exactly what libraries are included, and no, it doesn't include .NET libraries by default.
I'm not sure how you can claim to know anything about Visual Studio, if you don't know this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258968</id>
	<title>kdawson</title>
	<author>hlt32</author>
	<datestamp>1259428200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another anti-Microsoft "story" with no content from kdawson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another anti-Microsoft " story " with no content from kdawson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another anti-Microsoft "story" with no content from kdawson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261704</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason why they don't use Visual Studi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to take a look at DevDiv Dogfood statistics you can find it here.</p><p>http://blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2009/07/13/july-09-devdiv-dogfood-statistics.aspx</p><p>They have recently hit the 1.000.000 check-in<br>http://blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2009/07/17/a-dogfooding-milestone.aspx</p><p>The DevDiv Dogfood statistics shows the MS internal usage of Microsoft Visual Studio Team Foundation Server which is a replacement for CoreXT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to take a look at DevDiv Dogfood statistics you can find it here.http : //blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2009/07/13/july-09-devdiv-dogfood-statistics.aspxThey have recently hit the 1.000.000 check-inhttp : //blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2009/07/17/a-dogfooding-milestone.aspxThe DevDiv Dogfood statistics shows the MS internal usage of Microsoft Visual Studio Team Foundation Server which is a replacement for CoreXT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to take a look at DevDiv Dogfood statistics you can find it here.http://blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2009/07/13/july-09-devdiv-dogfood-statistics.aspxThey have recently hit the 1.000.000 check-inhttp://blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2009/07/17/a-dogfooding-milestone.aspxThe DevDiv Dogfood statistics shows the MS internal usage of Microsoft Visual Studio Team Foundation Server which is a replacement for CoreXT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258652</id>
	<title>And next week...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we see a article about how Microsoft management decided to demonstrate that, however senior and important, developers DO have to watch what they say and respect the roadmap, at least in public, least they offend the egos of the management and marketiods...  unless their management team is actually aware of how critical such skills are and how hard they are to replace.  Somehow neither seems plausible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we see a article about how Microsoft management decided to demonstrate that , however senior and important , developers DO have to watch what they say and respect the roadmap , at least in public , least they offend the egos of the management and marketiods... unless their management team is actually aware of how critical such skills are and how hard they are to replace .
Somehow neither seems plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we see a article about how Microsoft management decided to demonstrate that, however senior and important, developers DO have to watch what they say and respect the roadmap, at least in public, least they offend the egos of the management and marketiods...  unless their management team is actually aware of how critical such skills are and how hard they are to replace.
Somehow neither seems plausible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260156</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've encountered quite a few crappy programmers who couldn't really use an IDE but could use emacs and makefiles because they had been taught exactly how to copy-paste-modify a makefile. No deep understanding is required for that if you just parrot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've encountered quite a few crappy programmers who could n't really use an IDE but could use emacs and makefiles because they had been taught exactly how to copy-paste-modify a makefile .
No deep understanding is required for that if you just parrot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've encountered quite a few crappy programmers who couldn't really use an IDE but could use emacs and makefiles because they had been taught exactly how to copy-paste-modify a makefile.
No deep understanding is required for that if you just parrot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261944</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259515680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Please don't do that. I will hunt you down and deliver a round-house open-handed slap to your ear; rupturing your eardrum asunder. Consider that next year I might have to maintain your 512 column code.</i></p><p>You've never heard of vertical window splits, I take it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't do that .
I will hunt you down and deliver a round-house open-handed slap to your ear ; rupturing your eardrum asunder .
Consider that next year I might have to maintain your 512 column code.You 've never heard of vertical window splits , I take it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't do that.
I will hunt you down and deliver a round-house open-handed slap to your ear; rupturing your eardrum asunder.
Consider that next year I might have to maintain your 512 column code.You've never heard of vertical window splits, I take it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262576</id>
	<title>Re:Own tools!?</title>
	<author>Gorobei</author>
	<datestamp>1259520540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No real programmer really likes their tools. That is the punchline.</i></p><p>My team started writing an IDE a couple of years ago.  The rules were simple:  we are writing this for our users, so we use it.  We started with an open source product, hacked in the extensions we initially needed, and within a month the developers were using the IDE 90\% of the time.  Today, it's up to about 99\% of the time.</p><p>If a developer ever claimed that he needed to go outside the IDE because XYZ was better, he got to integrate XYZ into the IDE.</p><p>1 million LOC later, you can sit down at anyone's desk and do useful work:  everything is there in the IDE, all apps run out of it,  all data is available.  Pretty much the definition of an "integrated environment."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No real programmer really likes their tools .
That is the punchline.My team started writing an IDE a couple of years ago .
The rules were simple : we are writing this for our users , so we use it .
We started with an open source product , hacked in the extensions we initially needed , and within a month the developers were using the IDE 90 \ % of the time .
Today , it 's up to about 99 \ % of the time.If a developer ever claimed that he needed to go outside the IDE because XYZ was better , he got to integrate XYZ into the IDE.1 million LOC later , you can sit down at anyone 's desk and do useful work : everything is there in the IDE , all apps run out of it , all data is available .
Pretty much the definition of an " integrated environment .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No real programmer really likes their tools.
That is the punchline.My team started writing an IDE a couple of years ago.
The rules were simple:  we are writing this for our users, so we use it.
We started with an open source product, hacked in the extensions we initially needed, and within a month the developers were using the IDE 90\% of the time.
Today, it's up to about 99\% of the time.If a developer ever claimed that he needed to go outside the IDE because XYZ was better, he got to integrate XYZ into the IDE.1 million LOC later, you can sit down at anyone's desk and do useful work:  everything is there in the IDE, all apps run out of it,  all data is available.
Pretty much the definition of an "integrated environment.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264502</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>uwnav</author>
	<datestamp>1259496120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like IDEs <br>
and I think you mean A &gt; (A+X) <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) <br>
Anyway, I think the whole argument against IDEs is incompetent. It would be like "elite" graphics designers saying they'd rather design pixel by pixel in Paint vs. Photoshop.<br> <br>
There is a spectrum of IDEs, from Notepad and vim to Visual Studio and Eclipse. It's a matter of preference, as to what you want to use. There are good and bad developers in the whole spectrum of IDEs</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like IDEs and I think you mean A &gt; ( A + X ) ; ) Anyway , I think the whole argument against IDEs is incompetent .
It would be like " elite " graphics designers saying they 'd rather design pixel by pixel in Paint vs. Photoshop . There is a spectrum of IDEs , from Notepad and vim to Visual Studio and Eclipse .
It 's a matter of preference , as to what you want to use .
There are good and bad developers in the whole spectrum of IDEs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like IDEs 
and I think you mean A &gt; (A+X)  ;) 
Anyway, I think the whole argument against IDEs is incompetent.
It would be like "elite" graphics designers saying they'd rather design pixel by pixel in Paint vs. Photoshop. 
There is a spectrum of IDEs, from Notepad and vim to Visual Studio and Eclipse.
It's a matter of preference, as to what you want to use.
There are good and bad developers in the whole spectrum of IDEs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30265528</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1259507700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmmm, tricky....Can you explain that with a car analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmmm , tricky....Can you explain that with a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmmm, tricky....Can you explain that with a car analogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260566</id>
	<title>LISP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259500800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp\_(programming\_language)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp\_(programming\_language)</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp \ _ ( programming \ _language ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp\_(programming\_language) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264128</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1259493000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You're basically saying A &gt; A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)"</p><p>So.. he hates Microsoft so much he does an infinite recursion of Cantor diagonalisation every time he thinks of them?</p><p>That's a lot of hate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You 're basically saying A &gt; A since this " anyone " includes " you " too .
; ) " So.. he hates Microsoft so much he does an infinite recursion of Cantor diagonalisation every time he thinks of them ? That 's a lot of hate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You're basically saying A &gt; A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.
;)"So.. he hates Microsoft so much he does an infinite recursion of Cantor diagonalisation every time he thinks of them?That's a lot of hate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259846</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259487120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, as something of a low-level "bits and bytes" programmer myself, I see arguments along these lines in proggit comment boards all the time, but it always comes across as a bullshit way for enterprisey business programmers and PHP-slinging web programmers to excuse themselves for their own ignorance regarding the underpinnings of the systems they use every day. Sure, you say "neither should be looked down upon", but that's just what you've done with your description. I don't doubt that you guys work on very complicated systems, and that there's something of a learning curve before you can work on them competently, but I'm less convinced that most of that complexity is really necessary (particularly given that business apps used to be written in COBOL of all things, and I don't think the fundamentals of conducting business have changed unrecognizably in a few decades) versus a product of social issues, network effects, and the compounding of poor technical decisions - particularly when every layer of "abstraction" underneath - essentially being someone's cute (but not perfectly conceived or implemented) idea that you're now dogmatically locked into using as though it were the perfect solution for all situations - serves to multiply the amount of bullshit hoop-jumping separating you from the problem you're trying to solve, and compounding the difficulty of the corner cases where the pieces don't quite fit together. Sometimes I think that most of the advances in computing power and programming languages (these higher-level abstracted languages you mention, some of which I'm quite fond of) in the last twenty years are usually squandered on making the programmers driving them feel clever, rather than directed toward any productive end. I have no objection to solving routine business problems - I want to write software that is useful and appreciated by its users, regardless of type - but if it means working in a cube farm on a team of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net-pushing pinheads with a shitty design and requirements handed down from above, whose idea of design sophistication is how many layers of indirection they can stack and how tall they can make the class hierarchy, I'll stick to my "low-level" work thanks. I've worked on assemblers, compilers, GUI toolkits, friendly desktop apps, network servers and proxies, and the odd web app or two, in everything from assembly language to C++ to Lisp to Python, and any competent programmer can do the same. As Heinlein said, "specialization is for insects" - so stop using your own inferiority complex as an excuse to pigeonhole yourself and others.</p><p>Also, incidentally, the "killer efficient compiler" you mention will probably be algorithmically sophisticated far beyond anything you ever see while implementing your "specific business logic" (seriously, read some books on modern compiler design), rather than what you appear to dismiss as an exercise in making simple code run really fast. Efficient or "low-level" code is a result of thinking clearly and avoiding the tilting at windmills which plagues the industry. That said, it does indeed "take both types", and I salute you for your willingness to wade in feces for a paycheck on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , as something of a low-level " bits and bytes " programmer myself , I see arguments along these lines in proggit comment boards all the time , but it always comes across as a bullshit way for enterprisey business programmers and PHP-slinging web programmers to excuse themselves for their own ignorance regarding the underpinnings of the systems they use every day .
Sure , you say " neither should be looked down upon " , but that 's just what you 've done with your description .
I do n't doubt that you guys work on very complicated systems , and that there 's something of a learning curve before you can work on them competently , but I 'm less convinced that most of that complexity is really necessary ( particularly given that business apps used to be written in COBOL of all things , and I do n't think the fundamentals of conducting business have changed unrecognizably in a few decades ) versus a product of social issues , network effects , and the compounding of poor technical decisions - particularly when every layer of " abstraction " underneath - essentially being someone 's cute ( but not perfectly conceived or implemented ) idea that you 're now dogmatically locked into using as though it were the perfect solution for all situations - serves to multiply the amount of bullshit hoop-jumping separating you from the problem you 're trying to solve , and compounding the difficulty of the corner cases where the pieces do n't quite fit together .
Sometimes I think that most of the advances in computing power and programming languages ( these higher-level abstracted languages you mention , some of which I 'm quite fond of ) in the last twenty years are usually squandered on making the programmers driving them feel clever , rather than directed toward any productive end .
I have no objection to solving routine business problems - I want to write software that is useful and appreciated by its users , regardless of type - but if it means working in a cube farm on a team of .net-pushing pinheads with a shitty design and requirements handed down from above , whose idea of design sophistication is how many layers of indirection they can stack and how tall they can make the class hierarchy , I 'll stick to my " low-level " work thanks .
I 've worked on assemblers , compilers , GUI toolkits , friendly desktop apps , network servers and proxies , and the odd web app or two , in everything from assembly language to C + + to Lisp to Python , and any competent programmer can do the same .
As Heinlein said , " specialization is for insects " - so stop using your own inferiority complex as an excuse to pigeonhole yourself and others.Also , incidentally , the " killer efficient compiler " you mention will probably be algorithmically sophisticated far beyond anything you ever see while implementing your " specific business logic " ( seriously , read some books on modern compiler design ) , rather than what you appear to dismiss as an exercise in making simple code run really fast .
Efficient or " low-level " code is a result of thinking clearly and avoiding the tilting at windmills which plagues the industry .
That said , it does indeed " take both types " , and I salute you for your willingness to wade in feces for a paycheck on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, as something of a low-level "bits and bytes" programmer myself, I see arguments along these lines in proggit comment boards all the time, but it always comes across as a bullshit way for enterprisey business programmers and PHP-slinging web programmers to excuse themselves for their own ignorance regarding the underpinnings of the systems they use every day.
Sure, you say "neither should be looked down upon", but that's just what you've done with your description.
I don't doubt that you guys work on very complicated systems, and that there's something of a learning curve before you can work on them competently, but I'm less convinced that most of that complexity is really necessary (particularly given that business apps used to be written in COBOL of all things, and I don't think the fundamentals of conducting business have changed unrecognizably in a few decades) versus a product of social issues, network effects, and the compounding of poor technical decisions - particularly when every layer of "abstraction" underneath - essentially being someone's cute (but not perfectly conceived or implemented) idea that you're now dogmatically locked into using as though it were the perfect solution for all situations - serves to multiply the amount of bullshit hoop-jumping separating you from the problem you're trying to solve, and compounding the difficulty of the corner cases where the pieces don't quite fit together.
Sometimes I think that most of the advances in computing power and programming languages (these higher-level abstracted languages you mention, some of which I'm quite fond of) in the last twenty years are usually squandered on making the programmers driving them feel clever, rather than directed toward any productive end.
I have no objection to solving routine business problems - I want to write software that is useful and appreciated by its users, regardless of type - but if it means working in a cube farm on a team of .net-pushing pinheads with a shitty design and requirements handed down from above, whose idea of design sophistication is how many layers of indirection they can stack and how tall they can make the class hierarchy, I'll stick to my "low-level" work thanks.
I've worked on assemblers, compilers, GUI toolkits, friendly desktop apps, network servers and proxies, and the odd web app or two, in everything from assembly language to C++ to Lisp to Python, and any competent programmer can do the same.
As Heinlein said, "specialization is for insects" - so stop using your own inferiority complex as an excuse to pigeonhole yourself and others.Also, incidentally, the "killer efficient compiler" you mention will probably be algorithmically sophisticated far beyond anything you ever see while implementing your "specific business logic" (seriously, read some books on modern compiler design), rather than what you appear to dismiss as an exercise in making simple code run really fast.
Efficient or "low-level" code is a result of thinking clearly and avoiding the tilting at windmills which plagues the industry.
That said, it does indeed "take both types", and I salute you for your willingness to wade in feces for a paycheck on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</id>
	<title>Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original article and the summary both come of as rather smug to me.  The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming <i>and</i> high-level programming.  It depends on what you're using it for.</p><p>Think of it this way.  You have people who make pipes.  You know, the kind used in plumbing.  Fittings, too.  And they're very good at it.  If you take your average house builder and try to get him to make a pipe, he'll be hopelessly bad at it.  But you know what those guys who build houses are good at?  Putting the pipes together in meaningful ways to get what they need (i.e. building a house) done.  Take a guy who's brilliant at making pipes and fittings and try to get him to build a house.  Yeah, not such a superstar now.</p><p>It's the same with programmers.  Tell someone who is very good at writing low-level code, "I need a killer efficient compiler."  Give them enough time, and they can churn it out and make it wicked optimized.  Tell them, "I need a new type of control that works in this specific way and with crucial efficiency," and they're your guys.  Tell them, "I need an new application entirely from scratch that can process my specific business logic, it needs to look and feel like a standard Windows application, it needs to be easy for end users to figure out and work with, and we need a working version in a couple of weeks," and they'll probably laugh at you.  Yet that's what those people they're looking down on, the people developing with higher-level abstracted languages, are doing every day.</p><p>In my experience, competence != usefulness.  They're not opposites, mind you, but it takes both types.  It takes the people who work with the low-level nitty-gritty stuff, and it takes the people who use what they churn out to actually accomplish real-world productive things.  One isn't smarter, one isn't better, neither should be looked down upon.  <i>Both</i> are necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original article and the summary both come of as rather smug to me .
The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming and high-level programming .
It depends on what you 're using it for.Think of it this way .
You have people who make pipes .
You know , the kind used in plumbing .
Fittings , too .
And they 're very good at it .
If you take your average house builder and try to get him to make a pipe , he 'll be hopelessly bad at it .
But you know what those guys who build houses are good at ?
Putting the pipes together in meaningful ways to get what they need ( i.e .
building a house ) done .
Take a guy who 's brilliant at making pipes and fittings and try to get him to build a house .
Yeah , not such a superstar now.It 's the same with programmers .
Tell someone who is very good at writing low-level code , " I need a killer efficient compiler .
" Give them enough time , and they can churn it out and make it wicked optimized .
Tell them , " I need a new type of control that works in this specific way and with crucial efficiency , " and they 're your guys .
Tell them , " I need an new application entirely from scratch that can process my specific business logic , it needs to look and feel like a standard Windows application , it needs to be easy for end users to figure out and work with , and we need a working version in a couple of weeks , " and they 'll probably laugh at you .
Yet that 's what those people they 're looking down on , the people developing with higher-level abstracted languages , are doing every day.In my experience , competence ! = usefulness .
They 're not opposites , mind you , but it takes both types .
It takes the people who work with the low-level nitty-gritty stuff , and it takes the people who use what they churn out to actually accomplish real-world productive things .
One is n't smarter , one is n't better , neither should be looked down upon .
Both are necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original article and the summary both come of as rather smug to me.
The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming and high-level programming.
It depends on what you're using it for.Think of it this way.
You have people who make pipes.
You know, the kind used in plumbing.
Fittings, too.
And they're very good at it.
If you take your average house builder and try to get him to make a pipe, he'll be hopelessly bad at it.
But you know what those guys who build houses are good at?
Putting the pipes together in meaningful ways to get what they need (i.e.
building a house) done.
Take a guy who's brilliant at making pipes and fittings and try to get him to build a house.
Yeah, not such a superstar now.It's the same with programmers.
Tell someone who is very good at writing low-level code, "I need a killer efficient compiler.
"  Give them enough time, and they can churn it out and make it wicked optimized.
Tell them, "I need a new type of control that works in this specific way and with crucial efficiency," and they're your guys.
Tell them, "I need an new application entirely from scratch that can process my specific business logic, it needs to look and feel like a standard Windows application, it needs to be easy for end users to figure out and work with, and we need a working version in a couple of weeks," and they'll probably laugh at you.
Yet that's what those people they're looking down on, the people developing with higher-level abstracted languages, are doing every day.In my experience, competence != usefulness.
They're not opposites, mind you, but it takes both types.
It takes the people who work with the low-level nitty-gritty stuff, and it takes the people who use what they churn out to actually accomplish real-world productive things.
One isn't smarter, one isn't better, neither should be looked down upon.
Both are necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258350</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait. Wait. Wait. You're saying that people who "can't" afford a $50 per seat volume license for a new OS <em>can</em> afford to buy new software written for the old OS? And you expect to make a profit off of those people? Let me know how that works out for you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
Wait. Wait .
You 're saying that people who " ca n't " afford a $ 50 per seat volume license for a new OS can afford to buy new software written for the old OS ?
And you expect to make a profit off of those people ?
Let me know how that works out for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
Wait. Wait.
You're saying that people who "can't" afford a $50 per seat volume license for a new OS can afford to buy new software written for the old OS?
And you expect to make a profit off of those people?
Let me know how that works out for you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258226</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MSDN is another way of saying you don't know what you are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MSDN is another way of saying you do n't know what you are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MSDN is another way of saying you don't know what you are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262082</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259516700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder our webapp is so behind- you've got all my developers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder our webapp is so behind- you 've got all my developers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder our webapp is so behind- you've got all my developers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259784</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Sjefsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1259485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah... yes...
<p>
but what happens when the house plumber does not understand the materials and tools he is using?
3 months later... poooooofffff... water all over the place.</p><p>

sizzle, spark, kawoff.... the whole house is in flame from the electrical short circuits caused by all the water on the electric wiring done by the unqualified electricians.</p><p>

The nasty truth is that you will never design the underlying stuff well without having a decent knowledge of how it is used, and you can never use things well without having a decent understanding of how things works (with some limitations of course, I don't expect you to know assembly code of the windows bootstrap to be able to use Word well).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah... yes.. . but what happens when the house plumber does not understand the materials and tools he is using ?
3 months later... poooooofffff... water all over the place .
sizzle , spark , kawoff.... the whole house is in flame from the electrical short circuits caused by all the water on the electric wiring done by the unqualified electricians .
The nasty truth is that you will never design the underlying stuff well without having a decent knowledge of how it is used , and you can never use things well without having a decent understanding of how things works ( with some limitations of course , I do n't expect you to know assembly code of the windows bootstrap to be able to use Word well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah... yes...

but what happens when the house plumber does not understand the materials and tools he is using?
3 months later... poooooofffff... water all over the place.
sizzle, spark, kawoff.... the whole house is in flame from the electrical short circuits caused by all the water on the electric wiring done by the unqualified electricians.
The nasty truth is that you will never design the underlying stuff well without having a decent knowledge of how it is used, and you can never use things well without having a decent understanding of how things works (with some limitations of course, I don't expect you to know assembly code of the windows bootstrap to be able to use Word well).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259590</id>
	<title>Re:pros and cons</title>
	<author>wwahammy</author>
	<datestamp>1259438280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Managed code takes some control away from the developer but is the developer having that control for the best? <br> <br>For example, think of the type of errors leading to security bugs. A lot of them have to do with buffer overflows primarily in the area of string manipulation. These are easy mistakes to make in C or C++. Hell Microsoft and others have tried to modify the C runtime library to have "safer" versions of string manipulation functions because these errors continue to happen. Now consider a managed language like Java or C#. It's not possible to overflow buffers provided the buffer management code is sound. Instead of each mostly average programmer going through the process to manage buffers and reinventing the wheel, we have a few particularly talented people develop the code who specialize in that type of work.<br> <br>

Also think about memory leaks. Firefox is a prime example of a great open source program developed in an unmanaged language. Probably thousands of people have looked at the code and still some of the most common complaints are memory leaks. My feeling as for why that would be is that C++ makes it so easy to forget to deallocate memory that with a million line program, its just too difficult to find every possible leak. A managed language never has that problem. We have a group of particularly talented people develop a garbage collector and memory management system and the average developer will never have to worry about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Managed code takes some control away from the developer but is the developer having that control for the best ?
For example , think of the type of errors leading to security bugs .
A lot of them have to do with buffer overflows primarily in the area of string manipulation .
These are easy mistakes to make in C or C + + .
Hell Microsoft and others have tried to modify the C runtime library to have " safer " versions of string manipulation functions because these errors continue to happen .
Now consider a managed language like Java or C # .
It 's not possible to overflow buffers provided the buffer management code is sound .
Instead of each mostly average programmer going through the process to manage buffers and reinventing the wheel , we have a few particularly talented people develop the code who specialize in that type of work .
Also think about memory leaks .
Firefox is a prime example of a great open source program developed in an unmanaged language .
Probably thousands of people have looked at the code and still some of the most common complaints are memory leaks .
My feeling as for why that would be is that C + + makes it so easy to forget to deallocate memory that with a million line program , its just too difficult to find every possible leak .
A managed language never has that problem .
We have a group of particularly talented people develop a garbage collector and memory management system and the average developer will never have to worry about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managed code takes some control away from the developer but is the developer having that control for the best?
For example, think of the type of errors leading to security bugs.
A lot of them have to do with buffer overflows primarily in the area of string manipulation.
These are easy mistakes to make in C or C++.
Hell Microsoft and others have tried to modify the C runtime library to have "safer" versions of string manipulation functions because these errors continue to happen.
Now consider a managed language like Java or C#.
It's not possible to overflow buffers provided the buffer management code is sound.
Instead of each mostly average programmer going through the process to manage buffers and reinventing the wheel, we have a few particularly talented people develop the code who specialize in that type of work.
Also think about memory leaks.
Firefox is a prime example of a great open source program developed in an unmanaged language.
Probably thousands of people have looked at the code and still some of the most common complaints are memory leaks.
My feeling as for why that would be is that C++ makes it so easy to forget to deallocate memory that with a million line program, its just too difficult to find every possible leak.
A managed language never has that problem.
We have a group of particularly talented people develop a garbage collector and memory management system and the average developer will never have to worry about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30272972</id>
	<title>Re:The big problem is "builds".</title>
	<author>fred fleenblat</author>
	<datestamp>1259612340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you exit from your text editor with the proper command (ZZ for vi users) the file's timestamp won't be changed.  Even if it did change, it shouldn't take that long to recompile one or two that you touched but didn't change.  If you make a habit of stomping on timestamps all day long, the problem is not with make or gcc.</p><p>Personally, I've had more grief the other direction--a file that needed to be recompiled but wasn't.  When this happens in the middle of a session of bug hunting, it's easy to chase a bug for 20 minutes that you've already fixed.  Very annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you exit from your text editor with the proper command ( ZZ for vi users ) the file 's timestamp wo n't be changed .
Even if it did change , it should n't take that long to recompile one or two that you touched but did n't change .
If you make a habit of stomping on timestamps all day long , the problem is not with make or gcc.Personally , I 've had more grief the other direction--a file that needed to be recompiled but was n't .
When this happens in the middle of a session of bug hunting , it 's easy to chase a bug for 20 minutes that you 've already fixed .
Very annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you exit from your text editor with the proper command (ZZ for vi users) the file's timestamp won't be changed.
Even if it did change, it shouldn't take that long to recompile one or two that you touched but didn't change.
If you make a habit of stomping on timestamps all day long, the problem is not with make or gcc.Personally, I've had more grief the other direction--a file that needed to be recompiled but wasn't.
When this happens in the middle of a session of bug hunting, it's easy to chase a bug for 20 minutes that you've already fixed.
Very annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258452</id>
	<title>Not a surprise at all</title>
	<author>Pharago</author>
	<datestamp>1259422800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point its easy to spot, which language is used to code kernel libraries? core operating system parts? drivers? big name applications?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net? i dont think so.

if you dont mind, ill stick to my c/c++ coding practices for the time being, and btw me thinks vc9 is the new vc6, just saying</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point its easy to spot , which language is used to code kernel libraries ?
core operating system parts ?
drivers ? big name applications ?
.net ? i dont think so .
if you dont mind , ill stick to my c/c + + coding practices for the time being , and btw me thinks vc9 is the new vc6 , just saying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point its easy to spot, which language is used to code kernel libraries?
core operating system parts?
drivers? big name applications?
.net? i dont think so.
if you dont mind, ill stick to my c/c++ coding practices for the time being, and btw me thinks vc9 is the new vc6, just saying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259466</id>
	<title>Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, eat all of our shirts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , eat all of our shirts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, eat all of our shirts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262420</id>
	<title>Quote's out of context</title>
	<author>A Guy From Ottawa</author>
	<datestamp>1259519520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was at the talk, and yes Don Box said "I will fight you if you try to take away my text editor" but it was after having being asked a leading question by Eric Meijer. Something along the lines of "will we ever write software entirely without writting text?"
</p><p>However, what was Don doing for the rest of the PDC? He was hawking Entity Framework and M, both of which allow users to model data access using rich graphical tools!
</p><p>The talk is here: <a href="http://microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/FT52" title="microsoftpdc.com">http://microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/FT52</a> [microsoftpdc.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at the talk , and yes Don Box said " I will fight you if you try to take away my text editor " but it was after having being asked a leading question by Eric Meijer .
Something along the lines of " will we ever write software entirely without writting text ?
" However , what was Don doing for the rest of the PDC ?
He was hawking Entity Framework and M , both of which allow users to model data access using rich graphical tools !
The talk is here : http : //microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/FT52 [ microsoftpdc.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at the talk, and yes Don Box said "I will fight you if you try to take away my text editor" but it was after having being asked a leading question by Eric Meijer.
Something along the lines of "will we ever write software entirely without writting text?
"
However, what was Don doing for the rest of the PDC?
He was hawking Entity Framework and M, both of which allow users to model data access using rich graphical tools!
The talk is here: http://microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/FT52 [microsoftpdc.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259092</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>Lord Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1259429640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...  97\% of today's coders don't have any idea what they've missed out on and just accept what they've got.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>My apologies for snipping such a large portion of your reply, but that one sentence from your post nicely sums up so many of the problems with new coders it deserves calling out.
<br> <br>
Disclaimer:  I'm an old fart when it comes to programming.  I admit it.  I like bare metal programming, high-performance applications with minimal footprint, and elegant solutions to non-trivial problems.  I don't avoid kernel-level threads; they're a useful tool.
<br> <br>
The company I work for has hired a large number of programmers over the last year in order to replace a number of aging systems.  I've interviewed a lot of these people, and I've worked with most of the ones that have we've hired on various parts of the overall project.  The newer programmers know quite a lot about available frameworks and their general capabilities.  They've been taught the 80/20 rule early on, and they embraced it:  When faced with a new task, these people find something that already exists and set about modifying it.  All that is fine for applications that are of a certain size.  A size that, apparently, is about the size of school projects and therefore succeeds admirably when graded.
<br> <br>
So what I've seen coming through the door are people who can put Lego blocks together.  They're used to that type of problem solving.  They've been taught to download 80\% of the solution, then "fix it" so it also does the other 20\%.  This type of problem solving works well when you're building Lego-block-shaped solutions.  That fails to happen much of the time, however.  Most real-world solutions -- you know, the kind that are complex enough that someone is willing to pay an actual salary to solve -- don't look like a collection of Lego blocks.  The amount of custom code grows and grows as more and more Lego blocks are added.  Interoperability problems between the Lego blocks start encompassing the majority of coding effort.  The overall system gains complexity at an alarming rate.  Things start to suck, both from the programmer's perspective as well as from a systems perspective.
<br> <br>
The bad part of this, and to bring things back to my original point, is that these newer programmers <i>expect it to be that way.</i>  What's worse, at least from my point of view, is that this entire mentality has been around long enough for these programmers to stop coding and start managing other programmers.  So now we have people who build things that suck, and managers who expect it to suck.  Expectations are lowered and, unfortunately, met.
<br> <br>
Google and Apple seem unafraid to break this cycle, albeit in different ways.  So hope is not entirely lost.  Maybe that's the 3\% you alluded to in your original post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... 97 \ % of today 's coders do n't have any idea what they 've missed out on and just accept what they 've got .
...My apologies for snipping such a large portion of your reply , but that one sentence from your post nicely sums up so many of the problems with new coders it deserves calling out .
Disclaimer : I 'm an old fart when it comes to programming .
I admit it .
I like bare metal programming , high-performance applications with minimal footprint , and elegant solutions to non-trivial problems .
I do n't avoid kernel-level threads ; they 're a useful tool .
The company I work for has hired a large number of programmers over the last year in order to replace a number of aging systems .
I 've interviewed a lot of these people , and I 've worked with most of the ones that have we 've hired on various parts of the overall project .
The newer programmers know quite a lot about available frameworks and their general capabilities .
They 've been taught the 80/20 rule early on , and they embraced it : When faced with a new task , these people find something that already exists and set about modifying it .
All that is fine for applications that are of a certain size .
A size that , apparently , is about the size of school projects and therefore succeeds admirably when graded .
So what I 've seen coming through the door are people who can put Lego blocks together .
They 're used to that type of problem solving .
They 've been taught to download 80 \ % of the solution , then " fix it " so it also does the other 20 \ % .
This type of problem solving works well when you 're building Lego-block-shaped solutions .
That fails to happen much of the time , however .
Most real-world solutions -- you know , the kind that are complex enough that someone is willing to pay an actual salary to solve -- do n't look like a collection of Lego blocks .
The amount of custom code grows and grows as more and more Lego blocks are added .
Interoperability problems between the Lego blocks start encompassing the majority of coding effort .
The overall system gains complexity at an alarming rate .
Things start to suck , both from the programmer 's perspective as well as from a systems perspective .
The bad part of this , and to bring things back to my original point , is that these newer programmers expect it to be that way .
What 's worse , at least from my point of view , is that this entire mentality has been around long enough for these programmers to stop coding and start managing other programmers .
So now we have people who build things that suck , and managers who expect it to suck .
Expectations are lowered and , unfortunately , met .
Google and Apple seem unafraid to break this cycle , albeit in different ways .
So hope is not entirely lost .
Maybe that 's the 3 \ % you alluded to in your original post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  97\% of today's coders don't have any idea what they've missed out on and just accept what they've got.
...My apologies for snipping such a large portion of your reply, but that one sentence from your post nicely sums up so many of the problems with new coders it deserves calling out.
Disclaimer:  I'm an old fart when it comes to programming.
I admit it.
I like bare metal programming, high-performance applications with minimal footprint, and elegant solutions to non-trivial problems.
I don't avoid kernel-level threads; they're a useful tool.
The company I work for has hired a large number of programmers over the last year in order to replace a number of aging systems.
I've interviewed a lot of these people, and I've worked with most of the ones that have we've hired on various parts of the overall project.
The newer programmers know quite a lot about available frameworks and their general capabilities.
They've been taught the 80/20 rule early on, and they embraced it:  When faced with a new task, these people find something that already exists and set about modifying it.
All that is fine for applications that are of a certain size.
A size that, apparently, is about the size of school projects and therefore succeeds admirably when graded.
So what I've seen coming through the door are people who can put Lego blocks together.
They're used to that type of problem solving.
They've been taught to download 80\% of the solution, then "fix it" so it also does the other 20\%.
This type of problem solving works well when you're building Lego-block-shaped solutions.
That fails to happen much of the time, however.
Most real-world solutions -- you know, the kind that are complex enough that someone is willing to pay an actual salary to solve -- don't look like a collection of Lego blocks.
The amount of custom code grows and grows as more and more Lego blocks are added.
Interoperability problems between the Lego blocks start encompassing the majority of coding effort.
The overall system gains complexity at an alarming rate.
Things start to suck, both from the programmer's perspective as well as from a systems perspective.
The bad part of this, and to bring things back to my original point, is that these newer programmers expect it to be that way.
What's worse, at least from my point of view, is that this entire mentality has been around long enough for these programmers to stop coding and start managing other programmers.
So now we have people who build things that suck, and managers who expect it to suck.
Expectations are lowered and, unfortunately, met.
Google and Apple seem unafraid to break this cycle, albeit in different ways.
So hope is not entirely lost.
Maybe that's the 3\% you alluded to in your original post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262870</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259523420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya. Smugness is rampant in IT in general. This is the tired old "I keep it real" crap. I once met a guy who told me that he  surfed the web using only Lynx...unless it was pr0n, seriously. But I agree with what you're saying. We need the old wizard in the cave who creates incredibly great code using vi on his/her ancient Sun Ultra, but we also need the programmer who wouldn't think of even writing hello world w/out his/her GUI IDE. We have both here at work and neither one can do what the other does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya .
Smugness is rampant in IT in general .
This is the tired old " I keep it real " crap .
I once met a guy who told me that he surfed the web using only Lynx...unless it was pr0n , seriously .
But I agree with what you 're saying .
We need the old wizard in the cave who creates incredibly great code using vi on his/her ancient Sun Ultra , but we also need the programmer who would n't think of even writing hello world w/out his/her GUI IDE .
We have both here at work and neither one can do what the other does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya.
Smugness is rampant in IT in general.
This is the tired old "I keep it real" crap.
I once met a guy who told me that he  surfed the web using only Lynx...unless it was pr0n, seriously.
But I agree with what you're saying.
We need the old wizard in the cave who creates incredibly great code using vi on his/her ancient Sun Ultra, but we also need the programmer who wouldn't think of even writing hello world w/out his/her GUI IDE.
We have both here at work and neither one can do what the other does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258700</id>
	<title>Snap</title>
	<author>Vamman</author>
	<datestamp>1259425020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean this intellisense IDE I use almost everyday makes me a weenie? I rarely read something on slashdot that makes me irritated but this does. I started with C then moved to C++ then I learned BASIC then Visual Basic then Perl then more C++ then PHP then C#. I'm sure theres a bzillion C like languages I've learned in between learning the languages that make me money. Sometimes I find myself writing bare bones stuff, usually on *nix platforms. It takes me twice as long to write the same routines in that type of minimal environment then without a full featured IDE. I write win32 C++ using the latest VS and even mix mode libraries where I've bridged unmanaged code to work with managed code - no com required. When I want high performance I will switch back to the bare bones approach but when I need to get a job done quickly I am very thankful for modem advancements in programming sciences. These Microsoft programmers might very well be the elite of the elite but for the rest of us not writing operating systems - we don't really care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean this intellisense IDE I use almost everyday makes me a weenie ?
I rarely read something on slashdot that makes me irritated but this does .
I started with C then moved to C + + then I learned BASIC then Visual Basic then Perl then more C + + then PHP then C # .
I 'm sure theres a bzillion C like languages I 've learned in between learning the languages that make me money .
Sometimes I find myself writing bare bones stuff , usually on * nix platforms .
It takes me twice as long to write the same routines in that type of minimal environment then without a full featured IDE .
I write win32 C + + using the latest VS and even mix mode libraries where I 've bridged unmanaged code to work with managed code - no com required .
When I want high performance I will switch back to the bare bones approach but when I need to get a job done quickly I am very thankful for modem advancements in programming sciences .
These Microsoft programmers might very well be the elite of the elite but for the rest of us not writing operating systems - we do n't really care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean this intellisense IDE I use almost everyday makes me a weenie?
I rarely read something on slashdot that makes me irritated but this does.
I started with C then moved to C++ then I learned BASIC then Visual Basic then Perl then more C++ then PHP then C#.
I'm sure theres a bzillion C like languages I've learned in between learning the languages that make me money.
Sometimes I find myself writing bare bones stuff, usually on *nix platforms.
It takes me twice as long to write the same routines in that type of minimal environment then without a full featured IDE.
I write win32 C++ using the latest VS and even mix mode libraries where I've bridged unmanaged code to work with managed code - no com required.
When I want high performance I will switch back to the bare bones approach but when I need to get a job done quickly I am very thankful for modem advancements in programming sciences.
These Microsoft programmers might very well be the elite of the elite but for the rest of us not writing operating systems - we don't really care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258828</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1259426460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, anti-lock brakes aren't designed for Nascar. I wonder if a version could be developed that would help in those situations. It's designed for people without a ton of training, who are likely to panic in rare situations, on normal roads at normal speeds. You can't say "airplanes are terrible because you can't go under 5mph." They aren't meant for that.
</p><p>But the analogy holds. If you know what you're doing, you can use managed code, or you can go unmanaged. Using managed code can be easier for routine things (like driving around town) even if you are a Nascar driver.
</p><p>It also allows people to get farther than they would have before with mistakes and bad design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , anti-lock brakes are n't designed for Nascar .
I wonder if a version could be developed that would help in those situations .
It 's designed for people without a ton of training , who are likely to panic in rare situations , on normal roads at normal speeds .
You ca n't say " airplanes are terrible because you ca n't go under 5mph .
" They are n't meant for that .
But the analogy holds .
If you know what you 're doing , you can use managed code , or you can go unmanaged .
Using managed code can be easier for routine things ( like driving around town ) even if you are a Nascar driver .
It also allows people to get farther than they would have before with mistakes and bad design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, anti-lock brakes aren't designed for Nascar.
I wonder if a version could be developed that would help in those situations.
It's designed for people without a ton of training, who are likely to panic in rare situations, on normal roads at normal speeds.
You can't say "airplanes are terrible because you can't go under 5mph.
" They aren't meant for that.
But the analogy holds.
If you know what you're doing, you can use managed code, or you can go unmanaged.
Using managed code can be easier for routine things (like driving around town) even if you are a Nascar driver.
It also allows people to get farther than they would have before with mistakes and bad design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262894</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1259523600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand. (you lose your "feel for the road")</p></div> </blockquote><p>And just like most drivers aren't NASCAR material and need all the aid they can get, despite their delusions to the contrary, most programmers aren't John Carmack and need spoonfeeding, handholding and garbage collection, despite their vastly overinflated opinion about their l33t sk1llz.</p><p>I <em>like</em> that analogy !-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena ( nascar ) do n't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand .
( you lose your " feel for the road " ) And just like most drivers are n't NASCAR material and need all the aid they can get , despite their delusions to the contrary , most programmers are n't John Carmack and need spoonfeeding , handholding and garbage collection , despite their vastly overinflated opinion about their l33t sk1llz.I like that analogy ! - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand.
(you lose your "feel for the road") And just like most drivers aren't NASCAR material and need all the aid they can get, despite their delusions to the contrary, most programmers aren't John Carmack and need spoonfeeding, handholding and garbage collection, despite their vastly overinflated opinion about their l33t sk1llz.I like that analogy !-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260032</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1259492940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>OTOH, people who judge others based on their choice of IDE? Those people *are* tools...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Obviously someone who uses Visual Studio isn't necessarily an idiot. But maybe the parent has noticed a correlation (not causation) that extends beyond the anecdote. Someone who uses vim or (and I'll be charitable - it is a powerful editor) emacs almost by definition has to be intelligent enough to see that putting up with the learning curve in the short term is an investment that pays for itself many times over in time saved. And when you use an editor that can edit at the pace of your thinking, you find that you can concentrate better - your train of thought doesn't derail - which will give additional speed and ability. And maybe, a vim/emacs user also needs the intelligence to learn at a fast enough rate that the learning curve does not seem onerous.
<br> <br>
You're also going to need some intelligence to even think that a decision on a text editor is something you should research. Someone smart could do a "site:slashdot.org text editor" search on google, find a poll and probably choose vim or emacs or something similar on that basis. If they are that smart, they are probably going to do that for other aspects of coding and it is going to show up in their coding ability. Someone stupid is going to stick with the default, or prioritize immediate ease of use over long term time saved.
<br> <br>
In short: dumb users get filtered by the learning curve, smart users have incentive to learn the editor. Because of that the average vim/emacs user is going to be smarter than average, and also a better programmer. However, if someone uses another editor I am not going to make an assumption about their intelligence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , people who judge others based on their choice of IDE ?
Those people * are * tools.. . Obviously someone who uses Visual Studio is n't necessarily an idiot .
But maybe the parent has noticed a correlation ( not causation ) that extends beyond the anecdote .
Someone who uses vim or ( and I 'll be charitable - it is a powerful editor ) emacs almost by definition has to be intelligent enough to see that putting up with the learning curve in the short term is an investment that pays for itself many times over in time saved .
And when you use an editor that can edit at the pace of your thinking , you find that you can concentrate better - your train of thought does n't derail - which will give additional speed and ability .
And maybe , a vim/emacs user also needs the intelligence to learn at a fast enough rate that the learning curve does not seem onerous .
You 're also going to need some intelligence to even think that a decision on a text editor is something you should research .
Someone smart could do a " site : slashdot.org text editor " search on google , find a poll and probably choose vim or emacs or something similar on that basis .
If they are that smart , they are probably going to do that for other aspects of coding and it is going to show up in their coding ability .
Someone stupid is going to stick with the default , or prioritize immediate ease of use over long term time saved .
In short : dumb users get filtered by the learning curve , smart users have incentive to learn the editor .
Because of that the average vim/emacs user is going to be smarter than average , and also a better programmer .
However , if someone uses another editor I am not going to make an assumption about their intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, people who judge others based on their choice of IDE?
Those people *are* tools...
Obviously someone who uses Visual Studio isn't necessarily an idiot.
But maybe the parent has noticed a correlation (not causation) that extends beyond the anecdote.
Someone who uses vim or (and I'll be charitable - it is a powerful editor) emacs almost by definition has to be intelligent enough to see that putting up with the learning curve in the short term is an investment that pays for itself many times over in time saved.
And when you use an editor that can edit at the pace of your thinking, you find that you can concentrate better - your train of thought doesn't derail - which will give additional speed and ability.
And maybe, a vim/emacs user also needs the intelligence to learn at a fast enough rate that the learning curve does not seem onerous.
You're also going to need some intelligence to even think that a decision on a text editor is something you should research.
Someone smart could do a "site:slashdot.org text editor" search on google, find a poll and probably choose vim or emacs or something similar on that basis.
If they are that smart, they are probably going to do that for other aspects of coding and it is going to show up in their coding ability.
Someone stupid is going to stick with the default, or prioritize immediate ease of use over long term time saved.
In short: dumb users get filtered by the learning curve, smart users have incentive to learn the editor.
Because of that the average vim/emacs user is going to be smarter than average, and also a better programmer.
However, if someone uses another editor I am not going to make an assumption about their intelligence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs don't feel the need to use tools that are meant to let low level developers produce functional GUI applications without having to dedicate tons of hours.<br> <br>News at 11!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs do n't feel the need to use tools that are meant to let low level developers produce functional GUI applications without having to dedicate tons of hours .
News at 11 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs don't feel the need to use tools that are meant to let low level developers produce functional GUI applications without having to dedicate tons of hours.
News at 11!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263672</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>abarrieris5eV</author>
	<datestamp>1259488440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet, somehow I suspect that the metallurgist working for the stainless steel pipe and fitting company might object to being called a "plumbing guy".</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , somehow I suspect that the metallurgist working for the stainless steel pipe and fitting company might object to being called a " plumbing guy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, somehow I suspect that the metallurgist working for the stainless steel pipe and fitting company might object to being called a "plumbing guy".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258810</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>David Jao</author>
	<datestamp>1259426280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed. One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly.</p></div><p>
Did you try Aaron Stebner's<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archive/2006/05/30/611355.aspx" title="msdn.com">.NET cleanup tool</a> [msdn.com]? It's not an official MS product but it's written by an MS dev. I had a system with the same problem, and the cleanup tool fixed it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework ' which ca n't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system : even Microsoft 's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing ' uninstaller is n't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly .
Did you try Aaron Stebner 's .NET cleanup tool [ msdn.com ] ?
It 's not an official MS product but it 's written by an MS dev .
I had a system with the same problem , and the cleanup tool fixed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly.
Did you try Aaron Stebner's .NET cleanup tool [msdn.com]?
It's not an official MS product but it's written by an MS dev.
I had a system with the same problem, and the cleanup tool fixed it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.</p><p>So instead of Visual C++ use GNU C++ or Borland C++ to write the Windows code to do what you want because it does not depend on the Dotnet libraries.</p><p>Also when you use the alternative development tools, you can write code for older versions of Windows like Windows 95 and Windows 98. Yeah I know Microsoft doesn't want to support them, but people still use them in mass numbers because they cannot afford to upgrade.</p><p>I still get job offers for Visual BASIC 6.0 and under, due to "Legacy Software" on "Legacy Windows Systems" because the Dotnet versions of Visual BASIC don't work to well on older systems. I could even write books on the subject.</p><p>When I researched the Visual BASIC.Net 2002 development tools in beta I noticed those problems and my employer thought I was crazy. They moved on to Dotnet without me, having fired me for getting sick on the job and I eventually ended up so sick from the stress that I ended up disabled. I went on short-term disability for a while, tried a few more jobs, but ended up on disability. But the Visual BASIC.Net 2002 was full of bugs and I saw the dependence on Dotnet to be a liability. I knew this from when we used the WANG ImageBASIC controls and with IE 5.0 they stopped working and with MS-Office upgrades they broke the ImageBASIC Controls. We replaced them with Leadtools later. But Dotnet is huge and bloated and full of stuff most developers don't need but is loaded anyway. In creating Dotnet, Microsoft put many of the OCX and library control people and companies out of business as Dotnet replaced their controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.So instead of Visual C + + use GNU C + + or Borland C + + to write the Windows code to do what you want because it does not depend on the Dotnet libraries.Also when you use the alternative development tools , you can write code for older versions of Windows like Windows 95 and Windows 98 .
Yeah I know Microsoft does n't want to support them , but people still use them in mass numbers because they can not afford to upgrade.I still get job offers for Visual BASIC 6.0 and under , due to " Legacy Software " on " Legacy Windows Systems " because the Dotnet versions of Visual BASIC do n't work to well on older systems .
I could even write books on the subject.When I researched the Visual BASIC.Net 2002 development tools in beta I noticed those problems and my employer thought I was crazy .
They moved on to Dotnet without me , having fired me for getting sick on the job and I eventually ended up so sick from the stress that I ended up disabled .
I went on short-term disability for a while , tried a few more jobs , but ended up on disability .
But the Visual BASIC.Net 2002 was full of bugs and I saw the dependence on Dotnet to be a liability .
I knew this from when we used the WANG ImageBASIC controls and with IE 5.0 they stopped working and with MS-Office upgrades they broke the ImageBASIC Controls .
We replaced them with Leadtools later .
But Dotnet is huge and bloated and full of stuff most developers do n't need but is loaded anyway .
In creating Dotnet , Microsoft put many of the OCX and library control people and companies out of business as Dotnet replaced their controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.So instead of Visual C++ use GNU C++ or Borland C++ to write the Windows code to do what you want because it does not depend on the Dotnet libraries.Also when you use the alternative development tools, you can write code for older versions of Windows like Windows 95 and Windows 98.
Yeah I know Microsoft doesn't want to support them, but people still use them in mass numbers because they cannot afford to upgrade.I still get job offers for Visual BASIC 6.0 and under, due to "Legacy Software" on "Legacy Windows Systems" because the Dotnet versions of Visual BASIC don't work to well on older systems.
I could even write books on the subject.When I researched the Visual BASIC.Net 2002 development tools in beta I noticed those problems and my employer thought I was crazy.
They moved on to Dotnet without me, having fired me for getting sick on the job and I eventually ended up so sick from the stress that I ended up disabled.
I went on short-term disability for a while, tried a few more jobs, but ended up on disability.
But the Visual BASIC.Net 2002 was full of bugs and I saw the dependence on Dotnet to be a liability.
I knew this from when we used the WANG ImageBASIC controls and with IE 5.0 they stopped working and with MS-Office upgrades they broke the ImageBASIC Controls.
We replaced them with Leadtools later.
But Dotnet is huge and bloated and full of stuff most developers don't need but is loaded anyway.
In creating Dotnet, Microsoft put many of the OCX and library control people and companies out of business as Dotnet replaced their controls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224</id>
	<title>The real reason why they don't use Visual Studio</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1259431500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real reason why they don't use Visual Studio is far more prosaic -- the build environment of most of Microsoft products does not support the Visual Studio project files. Their products are built using a system called CoreXT -- basically a set of binary tools and scripts cobbled together by build engineers and developers over the past decade or so. CoreXT uses a lot of different crap, make, perl, compilers, etc, etc., and <i>all tools and SDKs</i> are checked in and versioned. The upside is that you can roll back your Source Depot (Microsoft's own flavor of Perforce) enlistment to an earlier date and be sure things will build exactly the same way, and once you enlist, you get repeatable, isolated build environment where you can guarantee the correctness of versions for all tools, compilers and libraries (Java developer's wet dream, even though they don't know it). The downside is that you have to maintain the makefiles by hand, and you can't use Visual Studio, because there are no project files checked in, and even if there are, most people don't use them and they are not updated, so you can count on them being broken.</p><p>I did a lot of my coding in either Notepad2, or in a separate project in Visual Studio against a test harness emulating the rest of the project (what Enterprise Java types call a "mock"). Some folks used Ultra Edit or vi, or EMACS. For some just a bare Notepad did the trick. Some stuck with Visual Studio, which in their case was just a glorified Notepad with autoindent since it doesn't support build or Intellisense if you don't have a project file.</p><p>Yes, it's an enormous waste of time, and yes, it was painful. But CoreXT is so integrated into the rest of the dev pipeline that replacing it with something else in a large product is a major, destabilizing endeavor that is bound to undo at least some of the work around gated check-in infrastructure, test infrastructure, automated deployment infrastructure and god knows what else, so few teams ever attempt it. Now naturally, DevDiv eats their own dogfood, so they were one of the first teams to switch completely to MSBuild. It took something like a year in their case, they did it gradually, from the leaves down the tree. I'm sure if they had a choice, they would be using CoreXT to this day though, and fighting with incremental build issues.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Recently, a few more teams have adopted MSBuild. They can actually open their entire projects in Visual Studio and rebuild them. If they have test infrastructure deployed on the side, some of them can even test the product without waiting for it to deploy. So I predict that as more and more teams adopt MSBuild (this in itself could take another decade easily), these "senior" folks will come around to appreciate its benefits. It's awfully handy when you can set a conditional breakpoint on your local box and step through things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real reason why they do n't use Visual Studio is far more prosaic -- the build environment of most of Microsoft products does not support the Visual Studio project files .
Their products are built using a system called CoreXT -- basically a set of binary tools and scripts cobbled together by build engineers and developers over the past decade or so .
CoreXT uses a lot of different crap , make , perl , compilers , etc , etc. , and all tools and SDKs are checked in and versioned .
The upside is that you can roll back your Source Depot ( Microsoft 's own flavor of Perforce ) enlistment to an earlier date and be sure things will build exactly the same way , and once you enlist , you get repeatable , isolated build environment where you can guarantee the correctness of versions for all tools , compilers and libraries ( Java developer 's wet dream , even though they do n't know it ) .
The downside is that you have to maintain the makefiles by hand , and you ca n't use Visual Studio , because there are no project files checked in , and even if there are , most people do n't use them and they are not updated , so you can count on them being broken.I did a lot of my coding in either Notepad2 , or in a separate project in Visual Studio against a test harness emulating the rest of the project ( what Enterprise Java types call a " mock " ) .
Some folks used Ultra Edit or vi , or EMACS .
For some just a bare Notepad did the trick .
Some stuck with Visual Studio , which in their case was just a glorified Notepad with autoindent since it does n't support build or Intellisense if you do n't have a project file.Yes , it 's an enormous waste of time , and yes , it was painful .
But CoreXT is so integrated into the rest of the dev pipeline that replacing it with something else in a large product is a major , destabilizing endeavor that is bound to undo at least some of the work around gated check-in infrastructure , test infrastructure , automated deployment infrastructure and god knows what else , so few teams ever attempt it .
Now naturally , DevDiv eats their own dogfood , so they were one of the first teams to switch completely to MSBuild .
It took something like a year in their case , they did it gradually , from the leaves down the tree .
I 'm sure if they had a choice , they would be using CoreXT to this day though , and fighting with incremental build issues .
: - ) Recently , a few more teams have adopted MSBuild .
They can actually open their entire projects in Visual Studio and rebuild them .
If they have test infrastructure deployed on the side , some of them can even test the product without waiting for it to deploy .
So I predict that as more and more teams adopt MSBuild ( this in itself could take another decade easily ) , these " senior " folks will come around to appreciate its benefits .
It 's awfully handy when you can set a conditional breakpoint on your local box and step through things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real reason why they don't use Visual Studio is far more prosaic -- the build environment of most of Microsoft products does not support the Visual Studio project files.
Their products are built using a system called CoreXT -- basically a set of binary tools and scripts cobbled together by build engineers and developers over the past decade or so.
CoreXT uses a lot of different crap, make, perl, compilers, etc, etc., and all tools and SDKs are checked in and versioned.
The upside is that you can roll back your Source Depot (Microsoft's own flavor of Perforce) enlistment to an earlier date and be sure things will build exactly the same way, and once you enlist, you get repeatable, isolated build environment where you can guarantee the correctness of versions for all tools, compilers and libraries (Java developer's wet dream, even though they don't know it).
The downside is that you have to maintain the makefiles by hand, and you can't use Visual Studio, because there are no project files checked in, and even if there are, most people don't use them and they are not updated, so you can count on them being broken.I did a lot of my coding in either Notepad2, or in a separate project in Visual Studio against a test harness emulating the rest of the project (what Enterprise Java types call a "mock").
Some folks used Ultra Edit or vi, or EMACS.
For some just a bare Notepad did the trick.
Some stuck with Visual Studio, which in their case was just a glorified Notepad with autoindent since it doesn't support build or Intellisense if you don't have a project file.Yes, it's an enormous waste of time, and yes, it was painful.
But CoreXT is so integrated into the rest of the dev pipeline that replacing it with something else in a large product is a major, destabilizing endeavor that is bound to undo at least some of the work around gated check-in infrastructure, test infrastructure, automated deployment infrastructure and god knows what else, so few teams ever attempt it.
Now naturally, DevDiv eats their own dogfood, so they were one of the first teams to switch completely to MSBuild.
It took something like a year in their case, they did it gradually, from the leaves down the tree.
I'm sure if they had a choice, they would be using CoreXT to this day though, and fighting with incremental build issues.
:-)Recently, a few more teams have adopted MSBuild.
They can actually open their entire projects in Visual Studio and rebuild them.
If they have test infrastructure deployed on the side, some of them can even test the product without waiting for it to deploy.
So I predict that as more and more teams adopt MSBuild (this in itself could take another decade easily), these "senior" folks will come around to appreciate its benefits.
It's awfully handy when you can set a conditional breakpoint on your local box and step through things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259400</id>
	<title>Re:No, it's just "old dogs - new tricks"</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1259434440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, a lot of these "tools that are perfect for new programmers because they don't have to learn so much" really mean that you spend a lot of time learning the tool, and \_then\_ have to still learn what's really happening if you ever want to make it to the level of the "old programmers", and dog forbid you are ever required to use a different tool.</p><p>To add insult to injury, the focus on the tool usually means there is so much boilerplate before you actually get to understanding the programs you write that it gets \_harder\_ to figure out what's really happening; you end up with "programmers" to whom programming remains some kind of black magic; they can only program things if there is a tutorial that tells them how to do it, a wizard that generates the code for them, or some sample code that they can copy paste. At best, they'll be able to glue together ready made code to make something that more or less works, but you won't find these people coming up with innovative solutions themselves, and you really don't want to let them anywhere \_near\_ code that requires an understanding of concurrent programming or security.</p><p>Now, I am not saying that people who start by learning a tool will never make great programmers or that people who start with a text editor and an assembler will always make great programmers. I just think that the idea that the former have an advantage over the latter is mistaken. At it's core, programming is actually not that hard. So why not let people start out by giving them a good understanding of the core, and then let them focus their energy on the hard part: translating Real World requirements to units that are trivial to implement and test?</p><p>In my opinion, a good tool is one that helps you do things you already know how to do, while not getting in the way if - for whatever reason - you want to do them yourself. No significant learning curve (you don't \_have\_ to use the tool's facilities), no black magic, and no breakage if you mix in code that isn't from the tool. A bad tool is one that gets in the way: requires significant effort to learn, does things you don't understand, chokes on code that doesn't fit its model, etc. A good tool doesn't make you a better programmer, just a more productive one. A bad tool doesn't make you a better programmer, either; it just provides a boost to bad programmers and cripples good programmers so both seem about equally bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , a lot of these " tools that are perfect for new programmers because they do n't have to learn so much " really mean that you spend a lot of time learning the tool , and \ _then \ _ have to still learn what 's really happening if you ever want to make it to the level of the " old programmers " , and dog forbid you are ever required to use a different tool.To add insult to injury , the focus on the tool usually means there is so much boilerplate before you actually get to understanding the programs you write that it gets \ _harder \ _ to figure out what 's really happening ; you end up with " programmers " to whom programming remains some kind of black magic ; they can only program things if there is a tutorial that tells them how to do it , a wizard that generates the code for them , or some sample code that they can copy paste .
At best , they 'll be able to glue together ready made code to make something that more or less works , but you wo n't find these people coming up with innovative solutions themselves , and you really do n't want to let them anywhere \ _near \ _ code that requires an understanding of concurrent programming or security.Now , I am not saying that people who start by learning a tool will never make great programmers or that people who start with a text editor and an assembler will always make great programmers .
I just think that the idea that the former have an advantage over the latter is mistaken .
At it 's core , programming is actually not that hard .
So why not let people start out by giving them a good understanding of the core , and then let them focus their energy on the hard part : translating Real World requirements to units that are trivial to implement and test ? In my opinion , a good tool is one that helps you do things you already know how to do , while not getting in the way if - for whatever reason - you want to do them yourself .
No significant learning curve ( you do n't \ _have \ _ to use the tool 's facilities ) , no black magic , and no breakage if you mix in code that is n't from the tool .
A bad tool is one that gets in the way : requires significant effort to learn , does things you do n't understand , chokes on code that does n't fit its model , etc .
A good tool does n't make you a better programmer , just a more productive one .
A bad tool does n't make you a better programmer , either ; it just provides a boost to bad programmers and cripples good programmers so both seem about equally bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, a lot of these "tools that are perfect for new programmers because they don't have to learn so much" really mean that you spend a lot of time learning the tool, and \_then\_ have to still learn what's really happening if you ever want to make it to the level of the "old programmers", and dog forbid you are ever required to use a different tool.To add insult to injury, the focus on the tool usually means there is so much boilerplate before you actually get to understanding the programs you write that it gets \_harder\_ to figure out what's really happening; you end up with "programmers" to whom programming remains some kind of black magic; they can only program things if there is a tutorial that tells them how to do it, a wizard that generates the code for them, or some sample code that they can copy paste.
At best, they'll be able to glue together ready made code to make something that more or less works, but you won't find these people coming up with innovative solutions themselves, and you really don't want to let them anywhere \_near\_ code that requires an understanding of concurrent programming or security.Now, I am not saying that people who start by learning a tool will never make great programmers or that people who start with a text editor and an assembler will always make great programmers.
I just think that the idea that the former have an advantage over the latter is mistaken.
At it's core, programming is actually not that hard.
So why not let people start out by giving them a good understanding of the core, and then let them focus their energy on the hard part: translating Real World requirements to units that are trivial to implement and test?In my opinion, a good tool is one that helps you do things you already know how to do, while not getting in the way if - for whatever reason - you want to do them yourself.
No significant learning curve (you don't \_have\_ to use the tool's facilities), no black magic, and no breakage if you mix in code that isn't from the tool.
A bad tool is one that gets in the way: requires significant effort to learn, does things you don't understand, chokes on code that doesn't fit its model, etc.
A good tool doesn't make you a better programmer, just a more productive one.
A bad tool doesn't make you a better programmer, either; it just provides a boost to bad programmers and cripples good programmers so both seem about equally bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262290</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259518560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proof that A &gt; A:</p><p>A &gt; A<br>A &gt; 10A / 10</p><p>Let: A = 1.7</p><p>1.7 &gt; 17/10<br>1.7 &gt; 1.69999999848</p><p>QED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof that A &gt; A : A &gt; AA &gt; 10A / 10Let : A = 1.71.7 &gt; 17/101.7 &gt; 1.69999999848QED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof that A &gt; A:A &gt; AA &gt; 10A / 10Let: A = 1.71.7 &gt; 17/101.7 &gt; 1.69999999848QED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267416</id>
	<title>Re: So what? Okay, here's "what".</title>
	<author>dsmall</author>
	<datestamp>1259523600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... The discussion is wobbling around Microsoft's coders and tools and why machine code isn't necessary anymore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And here we were just discussing yet-another-chip-bug in an Intel chip which affects, as they say, 'three guesses and two don't count', yes, a Microsoft product. (Remember? Something about timer interrupts which can get stepped on by other timers, hanging the system. It's a known bug. In fact, there's 69 pages of known bugs in the i7 chip "errata" sheet.)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I would (gently) ask this: Which programmer is more likely to make the mistake of relying on this timer:</p><p>Programmer A, who learned C++ in college and is wizard at high level abstraction, or,</p><p>Programmer B, who has gone down to the bare metal and programmed chips?</p><p>Who is more likely to actually read the errata sheet that says, 'Don't use this frickin' timer'?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; My answer is that people who have read chip datasheets (and errata sheets!) before are far more likely to read them again before trying to use that (broken) timer on the i7 chip.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Something else which really troubles me is how hard this bug may have been to find. Windows crashed? And the processor hung, not "leaving any tracks" in memory? I will just mention that this has happened to me a time or two (*cough, cough*). Just realizing it was a seperate and new bug was probably awful.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now imagine you're the poor slob at Redmond who has to fix this! You're told: "Windows Server crashes. Fix it." What are you gonna do? If you don't have an in-circuit emulator that can "watch" the crash, you are in for some real debugging hell. I've been there.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Someone had to fix this problem and make a "hot patch". What language do you think they used, APL?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Someone still has to read the datasheets that chip manufacturers put out, in particular the North/Southbridge chipsets. The Linux people are getting really good at it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; People overclock RAM. They have to understand enough about SDRAM to do that. That's machine level clock-cycle stuff. They also overclock CPU's and use amazing cooling systems (anyone for liquid nitrogen?).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Back When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth and I was in college, I was told that assembly was on its way out and a High Level Language, PASCAL, was going to be the standard. This was 1976-1980.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's been awhile since I've even seen a PASCAL compiler, but the Visual C debugger shows me RAM, disassembly of opcodes, and all the Intel registers step-by-step<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and man, does it ever help to know what the hell each assembly instruction does.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There's a time and place for high level abstraction. And there's a time and place for talking to the chips. I suspect that people's opinions about this are something like the C "brace wars" (the "proper" placement of "{}".)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Enjoy --</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dave Small</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... The discussion is wobbling around Microsoft 's coders and tools and why machine code is n't necessary anymore .. .       And here we were just discussing yet-another-chip-bug in an Intel chip which affects , as they say , 'three guesses and two do n't count ' , yes , a Microsoft product .
( Remember ? Something about timer interrupts which can get stepped on by other timers , hanging the system .
It 's a known bug .
In fact , there 's 69 pages of known bugs in the i7 chip " errata " sheet .
)           I would ( gently ) ask this : Which programmer is more likely to make the mistake of relying on this timer : Programmer A , who learned C + + in college and is wizard at high level abstraction , or,Programmer B , who has gone down to the bare metal and programmed chips ? Who is more likely to actually read the errata sheet that says , 'Do n't use this frickin ' timer ' ?
          My answer is that people who have read chip datasheets ( and errata sheets !
) before are far more likely to read them again before trying to use that ( broken ) timer on the i7 chip .
          Something else which really troubles me is how hard this bug may have been to find .
Windows crashed ?
And the processor hung , not " leaving any tracks " in memory ?
I will just mention that this has happened to me a time or two ( * cough , cough * ) .
Just realizing it was a seperate and new bug was probably awful .
          Now imagine you 're the poor slob at Redmond who has to fix this !
You 're told : " Windows Server crashes .
Fix it .
" What are you gon na do ?
If you do n't have an in-circuit emulator that can " watch " the crash , you are in for some real debugging hell .
I 've been there .
          Someone had to fix this problem and make a " hot patch " .
What language do you think they used , APL ?
          Someone still has to read the datasheets that chip manufacturers put out , in particular the North/Southbridge chipsets .
The Linux people are getting really good at it .
          People overclock RAM .
They have to understand enough about SDRAM to do that .
That 's machine level clock-cycle stuff .
They also overclock CPU 's and use amazing cooling systems ( anyone for liquid nitrogen ? ) .
          Back When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth and I was in college , I was told that assembly was on its way out and a High Level Language , PASCAL , was going to be the standard .
This was 1976-1980 .
          It 's been awhile since I 've even seen a PASCAL compiler , but the Visual C debugger shows me RAM , disassembly of opcodes , and all the Intel registers step-by-step ... and man , does it ever help to know what the hell each assembly instruction does .
          There 's a time and place for high level abstraction .
And there 's a time and place for talking to the chips .
I suspect that people 's opinions about this are something like the C " brace wars " ( the " proper " placement of " { } " .
)           Enjoy --           Dave Small</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... The discussion is wobbling around Microsoft's coders and tools and why machine code isn't necessary anymore ...
      And here we were just discussing yet-another-chip-bug in an Intel chip which affects, as they say, 'three guesses and two don't count', yes, a Microsoft product.
(Remember? Something about timer interrupts which can get stepped on by other timers, hanging the system.
It's a known bug.
In fact, there's 69 pages of known bugs in the i7 chip "errata" sheet.
)
          I would (gently) ask this: Which programmer is more likely to make the mistake of relying on this timer:Programmer A, who learned C++ in college and is wizard at high level abstraction, or,Programmer B, who has gone down to the bare metal and programmed chips?Who is more likely to actually read the errata sheet that says, 'Don't use this frickin' timer'?
          My answer is that people who have read chip datasheets (and errata sheets!
) before are far more likely to read them again before trying to use that (broken) timer on the i7 chip.
          Something else which really troubles me is how hard this bug may have been to find.
Windows crashed?
And the processor hung, not "leaving any tracks" in memory?
I will just mention that this has happened to me a time or two (*cough, cough*).
Just realizing it was a seperate and new bug was probably awful.
          Now imagine you're the poor slob at Redmond who has to fix this!
You're told: "Windows Server crashes.
Fix it.
" What are you gonna do?
If you don't have an in-circuit emulator that can "watch" the crash, you are in for some real debugging hell.
I've been there.
          Someone had to fix this problem and make a "hot patch".
What language do you think they used, APL?
          Someone still has to read the datasheets that chip manufacturers put out, in particular the North/Southbridge chipsets.
The Linux people are getting really good at it.
          People overclock RAM.
They have to understand enough about SDRAM to do that.
That's machine level clock-cycle stuff.
They also overclock CPU's and use amazing cooling systems (anyone for liquid nitrogen?).
          Back When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth and I was in college, I was told that assembly was on its way out and a High Level Language, PASCAL, was going to be the standard.
This was 1976-1980.
          It's been awhile since I've even seen a PASCAL compiler, but the Visual C debugger shows me RAM, disassembly of opcodes, and all the Intel registers step-by-step ... and man, does it ever help to know what the hell each assembly instruction does.
          There's a time and place for high level abstraction.
And there's a time and place for talking to the chips.
I suspect that people's opinions about this are something like the C "brace wars" (the "proper" placement of "{}".
)
          Enjoy --
          Dave Small</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259396</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259434380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand. (you lose your "feel for the road")</i>
</p><p>I always laugh when I read this sort of thing.
</p><p>In *real* high performance racing - Formula 1 - ABS (along with traction control, launch control, active suspension, and a whole bunch of other fancy electronics that basically turned the cars into a ludicrously fast go-karts) was used very successfully and then banned because it could do a far, far better job than any human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena ( nascar ) do n't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand .
( you lose your " feel for the road " ) I always laugh when I read this sort of thing .
In * real * high performance racing - Formula 1 - ABS ( along with traction control , launch control , active suspension , and a whole bunch of other fancy electronics that basically turned the cars into a ludicrously fast go-karts ) was used very successfully and then banned because it could do a far , far better job than any human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand.
(you lose your "feel for the road")
I always laugh when I read this sort of thing.
In *real* high performance racing - Formula 1 - ABS (along with traction control, launch control, active suspension, and a whole bunch of other fancy electronics that basically turned the cars into a ludicrously fast go-karts) was used very successfully and then banned because it could do a far, far better job than any human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258898</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259427240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several <i>thousand</i>-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things.</i> </p></div><p>Yeah, I did the same thing with some 3D image volume reading code - their version took 60 seconds to read and parse a 512x512x176 volume, mine made it efficient and took all of about 1/2 second. So my version was a mere ~100 times faster. Then crunch time came and *I* was the one laid off. Fucking politics. (and no I hadn't punched the boss, screwed his wife, etc., though now I can think of good reason to do so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ).</p><p>Maybe I can code this stuff 3x faster and have it run 100x faster because I used to write tons of assembly code?  And no I never ran around like an arrogant prick either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall taking someone 's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things .
Yeah , I did the same thing with some 3D image volume reading code - their version took 60 seconds to read and parse a 512x512x176 volume , mine made it efficient and took all of about 1/2 second .
So my version was a mere ~ 100 times faster .
Then crunch time came and * I * was the one laid off .
Fucking politics .
( and no I had n't punched the boss , screwed his wife , etc. , though now I can think of good reason to do so ; ) ) .Maybe I can code this stuff 3x faster and have it run 100x faster because I used to write tons of assembly code ?
And no I never ran around like an arrogant prick either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things.
Yeah, I did the same thing with some 3D image volume reading code - their version took 60 seconds to read and parse a 512x512x176 volume, mine made it efficient and took all of about 1/2 second.
So my version was a mere ~100 times faster.
Then crunch time came and *I* was the one laid off.
Fucking politics.
(and no I hadn't punched the boss, screwed his wife, etc., though now I can think of good reason to do so ;) ).Maybe I can code this stuff 3x faster and have it run 100x faster because I used to write tons of assembly code?
And no I never ran around like an arrogant prick either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30268738</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1259585160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you. The big, fat, ugly problem with the actual MS Studio is the STUPID<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework. Bloated, installs files on all the system, the installer is a FUCKING MESS unable to deal with any single error. And if the damn thing looses some obscure file or registry entry, you are doomed... Because the dammed thing do not uninstall, cannot "repair" and reinstall never works because the ridiculous installer. Is a hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
The big , fat , ugly problem with the actual MS Studio is the STUPID .NET framework .
Bloated , installs files on all the system , the installer is a FUCKING MESS unable to deal with any single error .
And if the damn thing looses some obscure file or registry entry , you are doomed... Because the dammed thing do not uninstall , can not " repair " and reinstall never works because the ridiculous installer .
Is a hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
The big, fat, ugly problem with the actual MS Studio is the STUPID .NET framework.
Bloated, installs files on all the system, the installer is a FUCKING MESS unable to deal with any single error.
And if the damn thing looses some obscure file or registry entry, you are doomed... Because the dammed thing do not uninstall, cannot "repair" and reinstall never works because the ridiculous installer.
Is a hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258964</id>
	<title>Kissing Disease .NET</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259428140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system [...] Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal</p></div><p>Have you tried these apps under Mono?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework ' which ca n't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system [ ... ] Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big dealHave you tried these apps under Mono ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system [...] Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big dealHave you tried these apps under Mono?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258596</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1259424000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've got a crew of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developers writing us an updated replacement to an existing VB app.  I keep calling the new interface Fisher-Price, but actually it's Hasbro.  I was mistaken, but an easy mistake to make.</p><p>Where it should absolutely take two clicks to make something happen, they found a way to make it five.  Where you should enter a date, they found a way to not allow special characters, like '/'.  Where you should enter an address, well, no spaces allowed.  Basic functionality is lacking for several features, but the interface is there.</p><p>And no help files yet, despite beta release pending in a few days.  In fact, though we have well over 1,000 pages of documentation, there seems to be no functional install that preserves the users' data in case they need to reinstall.  I'm told that the next build introduces that.</p><p>For all the fancy IDEs, tools, etc, these guys are still not getting it done.  I dare not say how far behind schedule this is, nor what the actual platform is, or someone will guess and raise hell over how anyone could be so insensitive as to speak the truth.</p><p>Your tools mean crap, if you're incapable.  Just as your plumber would probably suck at actually making the pipe, your developers will suck if they don't 'get' what your users actually do.</p><p>Of course, it would help if they asked what the users actually do.</p><p>But I'm not bitter.  I get to support this.  Plenty of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've got a crew of .NET developers writing us an updated replacement to an existing VB app .
I keep calling the new interface Fisher-Price , but actually it 's Hasbro .
I was mistaken , but an easy mistake to make.Where it should absolutely take two clicks to make something happen , they found a way to make it five .
Where you should enter a date , they found a way to not allow special characters , like '/' .
Where you should enter an address , well , no spaces allowed .
Basic functionality is lacking for several features , but the interface is there.And no help files yet , despite beta release pending in a few days .
In fact , though we have well over 1,000 pages of documentation , there seems to be no functional install that preserves the users ' data in case they need to reinstall .
I 'm told that the next build introduces that.For all the fancy IDEs , tools , etc , these guys are still not getting it done .
I dare not say how far behind schedule this is , nor what the actual platform is , or someone will guess and raise hell over how anyone could be so insensitive as to speak the truth.Your tools mean crap , if you 're incapable .
Just as your plumber would probably suck at actually making the pipe , your developers will suck if they do n't 'get ' what your users actually do.Of course , it would help if they asked what the users actually do.But I 'm not bitter .
I get to support this .
Plenty of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've got a crew of .NET developers writing us an updated replacement to an existing VB app.
I keep calling the new interface Fisher-Price, but actually it's Hasbro.
I was mistaken, but an easy mistake to make.Where it should absolutely take two clicks to make something happen, they found a way to make it five.
Where you should enter a date, they found a way to not allow special characters, like '/'.
Where you should enter an address, well, no spaces allowed.
Basic functionality is lacking for several features, but the interface is there.And no help files yet, despite beta release pending in a few days.
In fact, though we have well over 1,000 pages of documentation, there seems to be no functional install that preserves the users' data in case they need to reinstall.
I'm told that the next build introduces that.For all the fancy IDEs, tools, etc, these guys are still not getting it done.
I dare not say how far behind schedule this is, nor what the actual platform is, or someone will guess and raise hell over how anyone could be so insensitive as to speak the truth.Your tools mean crap, if you're incapable.
Just as your plumber would probably suck at actually making the pipe, your developers will suck if they don't 'get' what your users actually do.Of course, it would help if they asked what the users actually do.But I'm not bitter.
I get to support this.
Plenty of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259050</id>
	<title>Own tools!?</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1259428980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No real programmer really likes their tools. That is the punchline.</p><p>And dead funny? I mean, they seem like fun loving people, but I'd stop at "funny."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No real programmer really likes their tools .
That is the punchline.And dead funny ?
I mean , they seem like fun loving people , but I 'd stop at " funny .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No real programmer really likes their tools.
That is the punchline.And dead funny?
I mean, they seem like fun loving people, but I'd stop at "funny.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263556</id>
	<title>Crikies.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1259486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are reading a lot into this that isn't there.  These people use Visual Studio, and I don't think they'd claim that using a GUI to design a...GUI is a bad thing.  They're referring largely to the new modeling tools MS is pushing with VS2010, and they're saying sometimes it's quicker to just write the code than design the model.  And indeed it is.</p><p>It's a tradeoff.  For example, they already have some modeling tools (web service factory) for developing a web service.  You layout interfaces, data contracts, message contracts, etc... and associate them visually.  I think this sucks, personally, and I still just do it the old school (and much quicker, more powerful) method by creating an interface and data contracts.  But for some scenarios designing the model might pay off in terms of self-documentation and allowing some standards to be followed by multiple developers working on a web service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are reading a lot into this that is n't there .
These people use Visual Studio , and I do n't think they 'd claim that using a GUI to design a...GUI is a bad thing .
They 're referring largely to the new modeling tools MS is pushing with VS2010 , and they 're saying sometimes it 's quicker to just write the code than design the model .
And indeed it is.It 's a tradeoff .
For example , they already have some modeling tools ( web service factory ) for developing a web service .
You layout interfaces , data contracts , message contracts , etc... and associate them visually .
I think this sucks , personally , and I still just do it the old school ( and much quicker , more powerful ) method by creating an interface and data contracts .
But for some scenarios designing the model might pay off in terms of self-documentation and allowing some standards to be followed by multiple developers working on a web service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are reading a lot into this that isn't there.
These people use Visual Studio, and I don't think they'd claim that using a GUI to design a...GUI is a bad thing.
They're referring largely to the new modeling tools MS is pushing with VS2010, and they're saying sometimes it's quicker to just write the code than design the model.
And indeed it is.It's a tradeoff.
For example, they already have some modeling tools (web service factory) for developing a web service.
You layout interfaces, data contracts, message contracts, etc... and associate them visually.
I think this sucks, personally, and I still just do it the old school (and much quicker, more powerful) method by creating an interface and data contracts.
But for some scenarios designing the model might pay off in terms of self-documentation and allowing some standards to be followed by multiple developers working on a web service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260256</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>'bare metal'</htmltext>
<tokenext>'bare metal'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'bare metal'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259502</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259436540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, no. I've never met a low level guy that couldn't mash his way through a high level language to process business logic. A better analogy would be to compare a low level guy with a javascript interface guru. That voodoo is crazy enough to require one to have some mad skills to tame without a library.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , no .
I 've never met a low level guy that could n't mash his way through a high level language to process business logic .
A better analogy would be to compare a low level guy with a javascript interface guru .
That voodoo is crazy enough to require one to have some mad skills to tame without a library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, no.
I've never met a low level guy that couldn't mash his way through a high level language to process business logic.
A better analogy would be to compare a low level guy with a javascript interface guru.
That voodoo is crazy enough to require one to have some mad skills to tame without a library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259004</id>
	<title>wow Microsoft tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow Microsoft tools are for tools what a surprise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:X<br>please tell me what else is new? what coconuts don't kill people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow Microsoft tools are for tools what a surprise : Xplease tell me what else is new ?
what coconuts do n't kill people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow Microsoft tools are for tools what a surprise :Xplease tell me what else is new?
what coconuts don't kill people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258444</id>
	<title>Good debugger</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259422740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intellisense is pretty slick, but overall if I'm doing development on Windows I'd rather use an emacs as my text editor.</p><p>Of course, Visual C++ makes a fantastic debugger. It's almost good enough to forgive Windows for its lack of valgrind. Almost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intellisense is pretty slick , but overall if I 'm doing development on Windows I 'd rather use an emacs as my text editor.Of course , Visual C + + makes a fantastic debugger .
It 's almost good enough to forgive Windows for its lack of valgrind .
Almost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intellisense is pretty slick, but overall if I'm doing development on Windows I'd rather use an emacs as my text editor.Of course, Visual C++ makes a fantastic debugger.
It's almost good enough to forgive Windows for its lack of valgrind.
Almost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259098</id>
	<title>I've come to hate VS</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1259429760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Visual Studio, specifically VC++6, rocked in the days of writing Windows apps. I'm not talking about any specific library or technology (the C++ compiler had incomplete template support, for example), but the editor itself was just awesome. It was solid, never crashed (though I could get the compiler to crash if I just looked at it funny), and was fast fast fast. I may be a weenie, but I actually like the suggestion popups, tool-tips over the code, etc., as I can barely remember my kids names on a good day, let alone the parameters to BitBlt(). The only thing though is that it has to be fast...any delay over 1/2 a second and I'm stopping to look it up on msdn. With VC6, that almost never happened.</p><p>Later versions, though, got seriously sluggish, and yes, ultimately it's just a glorified text editor, so why are all these windows sliding in and out at odd times, they rearranged all the project settings (why put the most important line for compiling (include header files) at the top, and then stick the same thing for linking somewhere near the bottom (not even *at* the bottom!)? Plus everything up to VS2008 has just been slow for me...from constant annoyingly-slow to wait-did-it-freeze-up-on-me-oh-no-it-just-came-back slow. Plus I've been able to crash pretty easily all of them to the point where, yes, I really do write a good amount of code in vim, then switch over to VS2008 when I want to compile or check something. It's just that painful.</p><p>I have the beta of VS2010 and I actually like it...it feels more solid than all the previous versions, and I dare say it's kind of close to VC6 reliability. I'll be following that development cycle more closely...it'd be nice to have a decent windows dev tool again (well, one that speaks MFC and ATL natively....if I were doing straight or platform-neutral C++, I'd go with Eclipse, which I find rock solid).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Visual Studio , specifically VC + + 6 , rocked in the days of writing Windows apps .
I 'm not talking about any specific library or technology ( the C + + compiler had incomplete template support , for example ) , but the editor itself was just awesome .
It was solid , never crashed ( though I could get the compiler to crash if I just looked at it funny ) , and was fast fast fast .
I may be a weenie , but I actually like the suggestion popups , tool-tips over the code , etc. , as I can barely remember my kids names on a good day , let alone the parameters to BitBlt ( ) .
The only thing though is that it has to be fast...any delay over 1/2 a second and I 'm stopping to look it up on msdn .
With VC6 , that almost never happened.Later versions , though , got seriously sluggish , and yes , ultimately it 's just a glorified text editor , so why are all these windows sliding in and out at odd times , they rearranged all the project settings ( why put the most important line for compiling ( include header files ) at the top , and then stick the same thing for linking somewhere near the bottom ( not even * at * the bottom ! ) ?
Plus everything up to VS2008 has just been slow for me...from constant annoyingly-slow to wait-did-it-freeze-up-on-me-oh-no-it-just-came-back slow .
Plus I 've been able to crash pretty easily all of them to the point where , yes , I really do write a good amount of code in vim , then switch over to VS2008 when I want to compile or check something .
It 's just that painful.I have the beta of VS2010 and I actually like it...it feels more solid than all the previous versions , and I dare say it 's kind of close to VC6 reliability .
I 'll be following that development cycle more closely...it 'd be nice to have a decent windows dev tool again ( well , one that speaks MFC and ATL natively....if I were doing straight or platform-neutral C + + , I 'd go with Eclipse , which I find rock solid ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visual Studio, specifically VC++6, rocked in the days of writing Windows apps.
I'm not talking about any specific library or technology (the C++ compiler had incomplete template support, for example), but the editor itself was just awesome.
It was solid, never crashed (though I could get the compiler to crash if I just looked at it funny), and was fast fast fast.
I may be a weenie, but I actually like the suggestion popups, tool-tips over the code, etc., as I can barely remember my kids names on a good day, let alone the parameters to BitBlt().
The only thing though is that it has to be fast...any delay over 1/2 a second and I'm stopping to look it up on msdn.
With VC6, that almost never happened.Later versions, though, got seriously sluggish, and yes, ultimately it's just a glorified text editor, so why are all these windows sliding in and out at odd times, they rearranged all the project settings (why put the most important line for compiling (include header files) at the top, and then stick the same thing for linking somewhere near the bottom (not even *at* the bottom!)?
Plus everything up to VS2008 has just been slow for me...from constant annoyingly-slow to wait-did-it-freeze-up-on-me-oh-no-it-just-came-back slow.
Plus I've been able to crash pretty easily all of them to the point where, yes, I really do write a good amount of code in vim, then switch over to VS2008 when I want to compile or check something.
It's just that painful.I have the beta of VS2010 and I actually like it...it feels more solid than all the previous versions, and I dare say it's kind of close to VC6 reliability.
I'll be following that development cycle more closely...it'd be nice to have a decent windows dev tool again (well, one that speaks MFC and ATL natively....if I were doing straight or platform-neutral C++, I'd go with Eclipse, which I find rock solid).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258614</id>
	<title>Leaks like a sieve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be frustrated too trying to write code with tools that generate memory leaks for days and sucks at returning free'd memory to the system.  I remember one version of Word you could start it up and just let it sit, within and hour or so Windows would crash. Then the version of Excel that shipped with debug code because the stripped version would never pass QA.  Aw fine tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be frustrated too trying to write code with tools that generate memory leaks for days and sucks at returning free 'd memory to the system .
I remember one version of Word you could start it up and just let it sit , within and hour or so Windows would crash .
Then the version of Excel that shipped with debug code because the stripped version would never pass QA .
Aw fine tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be frustrated too trying to write code with tools that generate memory leaks for days and sucks at returning free'd memory to the system.
I remember one version of Word you could start it up and just let it sit, within and hour or so Windows would crash.
Then the version of Excel that shipped with debug code because the stripped version would never pass QA.
Aw fine tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259014</id>
	<title>99.99\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's safe to say that at least 99.99\% of drivers *should* have ABS. And similarly, 99.99\% of programmers should *not* be doing their own memory management.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's safe to say that at least 99.99 \ % of drivers * should * have ABS .
And similarly , 99.99 \ % of programmers should * not * be doing their own memory management.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's safe to say that at least 99.99\% of drivers *should* have ABS.
And similarly, 99.99\% of programmers should *not* be doing their own memory management.dom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259344</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio.</p> </div><p>The biggest posers nowadays use Google, but so does everyone else.  I guess it's a matter of degree, and whether one crosses a fine legal line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio .
The biggest posers nowadays use Google , but so does everyone else .
I guess it 's a matter of degree , and whether one crosses a fine legal line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio.
The biggest posers nowadays use Google, but so does everyone else.
I guess it's a matter of degree, and whether one crosses a fine legal line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258774</id>
	<title>Ummm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are these some of the guys responsible for the sorry state of Windows security?</p><p>In which case, why should I be listening to them?</p><p>Or do they just blame management for their design mistakes... like I usually do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are these some of the guys responsible for the sorry state of Windows security ? In which case , why should I be listening to them ? Or do they just blame management for their design mistakes... like I usually do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are these some of the guys responsible for the sorry state of Windows security?In which case, why should I be listening to them?Or do they just blame management for their design mistakes... like I usually do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262582</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259520600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding.</p><p>I suggest an alternate headline: "Old dogs have trouble learning new tricks!"</p><p>Or maybe: "Members of the 'High Priesthood of Technology' hate it when programming becomes easier!"</p><p>What really bugs me about old-school programmers saying this is it influences some of the younger guys, and they're frankly wrong. Except for the small amount of programmer doing kernel or embeddeded code, tools that manage their own memory are simply superior to those that don't. Tools that allow you to lay-out a GUI visually are superior to those that don't.</p><p>In short, if you're a programmer at Microsoft, and one of these codgers is trying to talk you into giving up C# and going back to C++, you tell him to get off YOUR lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding.I suggest an alternate headline : " Old dogs have trouble learning new tricks !
" Or maybe : " Members of the 'High Priesthood of Technology ' hate it when programming becomes easier !
" What really bugs me about old-school programmers saying this is it influences some of the younger guys , and they 're frankly wrong .
Except for the small amount of programmer doing kernel or embeddeded code , tools that manage their own memory are simply superior to those that do n't .
Tools that allow you to lay-out a GUI visually are superior to those that do n't.In short , if you 're a programmer at Microsoft , and one of these codgers is trying to talk you into giving up C # and going back to C + + , you tell him to get off YOUR lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.I suggest an alternate headline: "Old dogs have trouble learning new tricks!
"Or maybe: "Members of the 'High Priesthood of Technology' hate it when programming becomes easier!
"What really bugs me about old-school programmers saying this is it influences some of the younger guys, and they're frankly wrong.
Except for the small amount of programmer doing kernel or embeddeded code, tools that manage their own memory are simply superior to those that don't.
Tools that allow you to lay-out a GUI visually are superior to those that don't.In short, if you're a programmer at Microsoft, and one of these codgers is trying to talk you into giving up C# and going back to C++, you tell him to get off YOUR lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258236</id>
	<title>pros and cons</title>
	<author>gcnaddict</author>
	<datestamp>1259420460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only pro: anyone can probably learn to write some sort of simple application through Microsoft's tools via managed code.<br> <br>The cons: managed code doesn't give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you. This is basically a catch-all for every con anyone can think of for managed code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only pro : anyone can probably learn to write some sort of simple application through Microsoft 's tools via managed code .
The cons : managed code does n't give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you .
This is basically a catch-all for every con anyone can think of for managed code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only pro: anyone can probably learn to write some sort of simple application through Microsoft's tools via managed code.
The cons: managed code doesn't give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you.
This is basically a catch-all for every con anyone can think of for managed code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260208</id>
	<title>Shocked</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1259495400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft's Top Devs Don't Seem To Like Own Tools</p></div><p>No, really? I'm shocked.</p><p>It does make me think that these tools were not written by these people though but by some team headed by a PHB.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's Top Devs Do n't Seem To Like Own ToolsNo , really ?
I 'm shocked.It does make me think that these tools were not written by these people though but by some team headed by a PHB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's Top Devs Don't Seem To Like Own ToolsNo, really?
I'm shocked.It does make me think that these tools were not written by these people though but by some team headed by a PHB.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258304</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Visual C++ 2008 does not require you to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, it can use the plain old Win32 API just like every version before it. For C++, at least,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is optional.</p><p>Visual C#, however, requires<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because it was created specifically to be the premier language for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET development, and VB was forced over to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because VB was always a bit of a baby language and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET makes things even simpler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Visual C + + 2008 does not require you to use .NET , it can use the plain old Win32 API just like every version before it .
For C + + , at least , .NET is optional.Visual C # , however , requires .NET because it was created specifically to be the premier language for .NET development , and VB was forced over to .NET because VB was always a bit of a baby language and .NET makes things even simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visual C++ 2008 does not require you to use .NET, it can use the plain old Win32 API just like every version before it.
For C++, at least, .NET is optional.Visual C#, however, requires .NET because it was created specifically to be the premier language for .NET development, and VB was forced over to .NET because VB was always a bit of a baby language and .NET makes things even simpler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260094</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259493720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why was anybody implementing crypto/hashing in pure VB?  Wouldn't it have been tonnes easier to just drop a dll in and have VB call that?  (Or look for platform libraries like CryptoAPI?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was anybody implementing crypto/hashing in pure VB ?
Would n't it have been tonnes easier to just drop a dll in and have VB call that ?
( Or look for platform libraries like CryptoAPI ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why was anybody implementing crypto/hashing in pure VB?
Wouldn't it have been tonnes easier to just drop a dll in and have VB call that?
(Or look for platform libraries like CryptoAPI?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259770</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the quoted people are not against using IDEs in general, but are rather against using UML modeling and especially VPL:<br>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb483088.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the quoted people are not against using IDEs in general , but are rather against using UML modeling and especially VPL : http : //msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb483088.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the quoted people are not against using IDEs in general, but are rather against using UML modeling and especially VPL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb483088.aspx</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30269870</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>unclepauly</author>
	<datestamp>1259596200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs"


Anyone who learned to code on an IDE has no right to call themselves a developer let alone an advanced developer.

If however, you learned to code using BRIEF or notepad.exe as your editor then you are entitled.

I do agree though that bloat is finally being seen as a curse.

<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136280/Opinion\_The\_end\_of\_bloatware\_The\_return\_of\_programming\_s\_golden\_age\_" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136280/Opinion\_The\_end\_of\_bloatware\_The\_return\_of\_programming\_s\_golden\_age\_</a> [computerworld.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs " Anyone who learned to code on an IDE has no right to call themselves a developer let alone an advanced developer .
If however , you learned to code using BRIEF or notepad.exe as your editor then you are entitled .
I do agree though that bloat is finally being seen as a curse .
http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136280/Opinion \ _The \ _end \ _of \ _bloatware \ _The \ _return \ _of \ _programming \ _s \ _golden \ _age \ _ [ computerworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs"


Anyone who learned to code on an IDE has no right to call themselves a developer let alone an advanced developer.
If however, you learned to code using BRIEF or notepad.exe as your editor then you are entitled.
I do agree though that bloat is finally being seen as a curse.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136280/Opinion\_The\_end\_of\_bloatware\_The\_return\_of\_programming\_s\_golden\_age\_ [computerworld.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267306</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please...</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259522400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For years afterwards, the whole entirety of multi-threading in both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and C++ were "threads" and "locks".</p></div></blockquote><p>
<b>+1</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For years afterwards , the whole entirety of multi-threading in both .NET and C + + were " threads " and " locks " .
+ 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years afterwards, the whole entirety of multi-threading in both .NET and C++ were "threads" and "locks".
+1
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258540</id>
	<title>Danger: Watch for rocks.</title>
	<author>asackett</author>
	<datestamp>1259423520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, with all due respect: To say that "the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition" merely proves that you've never understood the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , with all due respect : To say that " the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition " merely proves that you 've never understood the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, with all due respect: To say that "the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition" merely proves that you've never understood the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261436</id>
	<title>Re:Why I prefer plain old text editors</title>
	<author>PmanAce</author>
	<datestamp>1259510640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the life of me, I can't beleive the stuff I am reading! I can't imagine not using Visual Studio for my job. And no, I do not use drag-and-drop.

Using a coin to screw a screw is not better than using a screwdriver. Use the right tools folks to make your job easier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the life of me , I ca n't beleive the stuff I am reading !
I ca n't imagine not using Visual Studio for my job .
And no , I do not use drag-and-drop .
Using a coin to screw a screw is not better than using a screwdriver .
Use the right tools folks to make your job easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the life of me, I can't beleive the stuff I am reading!
I can't imagine not using Visual Studio for my job.
And no, I do not use drag-and-drop.
Using a coin to screw a screw is not better than using a screwdriver.
Use the right tools folks to make your job easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258568</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1259423760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supposedly through either Vimplugin or Eclim you could get the advantages of both, but I couldn't get them to work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposedly through either Vimplugin or Eclim you could get the advantages of both , but I could n't get them to work : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposedly through either Vimplugin or Eclim you could get the advantages of both, but I couldn't get them to work :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258630</id>
	<title>Don Box is a tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If ever there was a sign that Microsoft was on its way to circling the drain, it's Don Box being made a Distinguished Engineer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ever there was a sign that Microsoft was on its way to circling the drain , it 's Don Box being made a Distinguished Engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ever there was a sign that Microsoft was on its way to circling the drain, it's Don Box being made a Distinguished Engineer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261592</id>
	<title>Re:elitist morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"so MS has elitist <b>geniuses</b> in their ranks as well, how is this news?"</i></p><p>There, fixed that for you.<br>Credit where credit is due<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" so MS has elitist geniuses in their ranks as well , how is this news ?
" There , fixed that for you.Credit where credit is due ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so MS has elitist geniuses in their ranks as well, how is this news?
"There, fixed that for you.Credit where credit is due ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263176</id>
	<title>There's nothing wrong with versioning your tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259526240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a game developer.  We do exactly the same thing when it comes to versioning the tools (although we do use Visual Studio solutions to drive our builds, even the automated ones; but we also use an in-house tool to take the projects and solutions for one platform and generate modified versions of them for each target platform, because that's easier than trying to make Microsoft's idea of targets and platforms fit properly into our build story).</p><p>Ironically, the ONLY build tools we don't check into source control as part of our versioned build environment, is Visual Studio and the MS C++ compiler it comes with.  But for the console platforms, all of the compilers, libraries, SDKs etc. that we use are all versioned in our source control system.  There are several reasons to do this.  A big one is making it easy to bring up a complete and correct build environment on a new machine, regardless of what tools you need installed to make it work (Perl, Python, some specific flavor of Make tool, some custom stamper.. whatever).  Relative paths are used for everything.  When a new guy joins the project, all we need to do is get him some accounts for source control etc., pull everything out of source control, and run a "build everything" batch file.  Any tools that were not already compiled in source control, are compiled for him during that build, and then he's ready to go.  Another useful effect of checking in all of the tools is that 5 or 10 years from now, if we decide to revisit this codebase (perhaps to re-release the game for a new platform or something), we will still have all of the needed binaries to build it, collected and archived in one place.</p><p>Another reason is that, as the project progresses, we may upgrade compilers or build tools to new versions.  The new tool may be incompatible with old code, or vice versa.  (For example, this sometimes happens with 3D code when we upgrade to a new Xbox360 or DirectX SDK).  By putting it all in source control, you can go back in time (say, to a particular milestone or demo branch) and get not only the source code, but the *same tools you were using back then* which are known to be compatible with it.  That is a major convenience.</p><p>After working like this on several projects, I would never go back to the bad old way!  I don't care what installer crap an application comes with, if we can't figure out how to put the whole thing in our source control system then I would not dare to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a game developer .
We do exactly the same thing when it comes to versioning the tools ( although we do use Visual Studio solutions to drive our builds , even the automated ones ; but we also use an in-house tool to take the projects and solutions for one platform and generate modified versions of them for each target platform , because that 's easier than trying to make Microsoft 's idea of targets and platforms fit properly into our build story ) .Ironically , the ONLY build tools we do n't check into source control as part of our versioned build environment , is Visual Studio and the MS C + + compiler it comes with .
But for the console platforms , all of the compilers , libraries , SDKs etc .
that we use are all versioned in our source control system .
There are several reasons to do this .
A big one is making it easy to bring up a complete and correct build environment on a new machine , regardless of what tools you need installed to make it work ( Perl , Python , some specific flavor of Make tool , some custom stamper.. whatever ) . Relative paths are used for everything .
When a new guy joins the project , all we need to do is get him some accounts for source control etc. , pull everything out of source control , and run a " build everything " batch file .
Any tools that were not already compiled in source control , are compiled for him during that build , and then he 's ready to go .
Another useful effect of checking in all of the tools is that 5 or 10 years from now , if we decide to revisit this codebase ( perhaps to re-release the game for a new platform or something ) , we will still have all of the needed binaries to build it , collected and archived in one place.Another reason is that , as the project progresses , we may upgrade compilers or build tools to new versions .
The new tool may be incompatible with old code , or vice versa .
( For example , this sometimes happens with 3D code when we upgrade to a new Xbox360 or DirectX SDK ) .
By putting it all in source control , you can go back in time ( say , to a particular milestone or demo branch ) and get not only the source code , but the * same tools you were using back then * which are known to be compatible with it .
That is a major convenience.After working like this on several projects , I would never go back to the bad old way !
I do n't care what installer crap an application comes with , if we ca n't figure out how to put the whole thing in our source control system then I would not dare to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a game developer.
We do exactly the same thing when it comes to versioning the tools (although we do use Visual Studio solutions to drive our builds, even the automated ones; but we also use an in-house tool to take the projects and solutions for one platform and generate modified versions of them for each target platform, because that's easier than trying to make Microsoft's idea of targets and platforms fit properly into our build story).Ironically, the ONLY build tools we don't check into source control as part of our versioned build environment, is Visual Studio and the MS C++ compiler it comes with.
But for the console platforms, all of the compilers, libraries, SDKs etc.
that we use are all versioned in our source control system.
There are several reasons to do this.
A big one is making it easy to bring up a complete and correct build environment on a new machine, regardless of what tools you need installed to make it work (Perl, Python, some specific flavor of Make tool, some custom stamper.. whatever).  Relative paths are used for everything.
When a new guy joins the project, all we need to do is get him some accounts for source control etc., pull everything out of source control, and run a "build everything" batch file.
Any tools that were not already compiled in source control, are compiled for him during that build, and then he's ready to go.
Another useful effect of checking in all of the tools is that 5 or 10 years from now, if we decide to revisit this codebase (perhaps to re-release the game for a new platform or something), we will still have all of the needed binaries to build it, collected and archived in one place.Another reason is that, as the project progresses, we may upgrade compilers or build tools to new versions.
The new tool may be incompatible with old code, or vice versa.
(For example, this sometimes happens with 3D code when we upgrade to a new Xbox360 or DirectX SDK).
By putting it all in source control, you can go back in time (say, to a particular milestone or demo branch) and get not only the source code, but the *same tools you were using back then* which are known to be compatible with it.
That is a major convenience.After working like this on several projects, I would never go back to the bad old way!
I don't care what installer crap an application comes with, if we can't figure out how to put the whole thing in our source control system then I would not dare to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262610</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1259520780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eclipse? That's for <em>poseurs</em>.</p><p>But seriously, you're going to make up crazy stereotypes to support your own irrational beliefs about VS? Personally I have no use for VS, but I'm not going to create a fantasy around Microsoft tools to justify my own Vi-using habits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eclipse ?
That 's for poseurs.But seriously , you 're going to make up crazy stereotypes to support your own irrational beliefs about VS ?
Personally I have no use for VS , but I 'm not going to create a fantasy around Microsoft tools to justify my own Vi-using habits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eclipse?
That's for poseurs.But seriously, you're going to make up crazy stereotypes to support your own irrational beliefs about VS?
Personally I have no use for VS, but I'm not going to create a fantasy around Microsoft tools to justify my own Vi-using habits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260318</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259497260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Main problem here is simply you should do your build process on the command line not having it done by the IDE.<br>Period, you can use ides. I nowadays in the java domain use mostly maven and have maven generating the project files for my preferred tools to use.<br>But yet I would never dismiss high level tools. The Microsoft world however is completely different, the entire install, dll, OLE/ActiveX, Registry mess is a mess which should have been cleaned up 10 years ago. But heck 10 years ago Microsoft also recommended to use Visual Sourcesafe while they themselve shunned away from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Main problem here is simply you should do your build process on the command line not having it done by the IDE.Period , you can use ides .
I nowadays in the java domain use mostly maven and have maven generating the project files for my preferred tools to use.But yet I would never dismiss high level tools .
The Microsoft world however is completely different , the entire install , dll , OLE/ActiveX , Registry mess is a mess which should have been cleaned up 10 years ago .
But heck 10 years ago Microsoft also recommended to use Visual Sourcesafe while they themselve shunned away from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Main problem here is simply you should do your build process on the command line not having it done by the IDE.Period, you can use ides.
I nowadays in the java domain use mostly maven and have maven generating the project files for my preferred tools to use.But yet I would never dismiss high level tools.
The Microsoft world however is completely different, the entire install, dll, OLE/ActiveX, Registry mess is a mess which should have been cleaned up 10 years ago.
But heck 10 years ago Microsoft also recommended to use Visual Sourcesafe while they themselve shunned away from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258588</id>
	<title>Those silly Rascals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of the article title, "Microsoft's Top Devs Don't Seem To Like Own Tools," the devs at Microsoft don't even use a publicly released version of Visual Studio. They use a special stripped down version called Rascal with most of the "features" removed, because the public version is too much of a system behemoth for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of the article title , " Microsoft 's Top Devs Do n't Seem To Like Own Tools , " the devs at Microsoft do n't even use a publicly released version of Visual Studio .
They use a special stripped down version called Rascal with most of the " features " removed , because the public version is too much of a system behemoth for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of the article title, "Microsoft's Top Devs Don't Seem To Like Own Tools," the devs at Microsoft don't even use a publicly released version of Visual Studio.
They use a special stripped down version called Rascal with most of the "features" removed, because the public version is too much of a system behemoth for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259302</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259432640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, it would help if they asked what the users actually do.</p></div><p>
Bingo.
</p><p>
We had the advantage of a small business owner wanting our software developed because he thought "It should work like this".  So we made it work like that and a lot of other small business owners found it to make sense and relatively easy to use.  There were a couple quirks, but that's not good enough.  Not for me.
</p><p>
And this is where so many others fails.  After the phase 1 deployment of our product (about 100 installs), I drove/flew around to our customers 6 months later, stopped by in person and asked as the first question: "What doesn't work?"  followed by "How can it work better?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it would help if they asked what the users actually do .
Bingo . We had the advantage of a small business owner wanting our software developed because he thought " It should work like this " .
So we made it work like that and a lot of other small business owners found it to make sense and relatively easy to use .
There were a couple quirks , but that 's not good enough .
Not for me .
And this is where so many others fails .
After the phase 1 deployment of our product ( about 100 installs ) , I drove/flew around to our customers 6 months later , stopped by in person and asked as the first question : " What does n't work ?
" followed by " How can it work better ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it would help if they asked what the users actually do.
Bingo.

We had the advantage of a small business owner wanting our software developed because he thought "It should work like this".
So we made it work like that and a lot of other small business owners found it to make sense and relatively easy to use.
There were a couple quirks, but that's not good enough.
Not for me.
And this is where so many others fails.
After the phase 1 deployment of our product (about 100 installs), I drove/flew around to our customers 6 months later, stopped by in person and asked as the first question: "What doesn't work?
"  followed by "How can it work better?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260520</id>
	<title>Great tools, rough practices...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1259500440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only Microsoft's architecture and best practices groups actually worked to leverage the efficiency of the tools, rather than just drain it.  The thing about Microsoft is that the tools are good, yes, but then they sell them with these practices and recommendations that just drain innovation and drags all developers down to a lowest common denominator.</p><p>It's really, Taylor all over again but applied to computer programming.  The problem is, Taylor is what GM and Ford and Chrysler do, and the unions are locked in with. Just like we have pipefitters and machinist titles of varying kind on the shop floor at an old style manufacturing plant, we have guys that are being pushed into the database, u/i design, or middle tier roles, and really, 90\% of all projects could be done with one guy putting together a half way decent screen in a craftsmen like fashion.</p><p>At this point, Microsoft is headed out just like GM - recruiting a lot of the best engineers, then just killing them in red tape, and delivering products that increasingly fail to captivate their market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only Microsoft 's architecture and best practices groups actually worked to leverage the efficiency of the tools , rather than just drain it .
The thing about Microsoft is that the tools are good , yes , but then they sell them with these practices and recommendations that just drain innovation and drags all developers down to a lowest common denominator.It 's really , Taylor all over again but applied to computer programming .
The problem is , Taylor is what GM and Ford and Chrysler do , and the unions are locked in with .
Just like we have pipefitters and machinist titles of varying kind on the shop floor at an old style manufacturing plant , we have guys that are being pushed into the database , u/i design , or middle tier roles , and really , 90 \ % of all projects could be done with one guy putting together a half way decent screen in a craftsmen like fashion.At this point , Microsoft is headed out just like GM - recruiting a lot of the best engineers , then just killing them in red tape , and delivering products that increasingly fail to captivate their market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only Microsoft's architecture and best practices groups actually worked to leverage the efficiency of the tools, rather than just drain it.
The thing about Microsoft is that the tools are good, yes, but then they sell them with these practices and recommendations that just drain innovation and drags all developers down to a lowest common denominator.It's really, Taylor all over again but applied to computer programming.
The problem is, Taylor is what GM and Ford and Chrysler do, and the unions are locked in with.
Just like we have pipefitters and machinist titles of varying kind on the shop floor at an old style manufacturing plant, we have guys that are being pushed into the database, u/i design, or middle tier roles, and really, 90\% of all projects could be done with one guy putting together a half way decent screen in a craftsmen like fashion.At this point, Microsoft is headed out just like GM - recruiting a lot of the best engineers, then just killing them in red tape, and delivering products that increasingly fail to captivate their market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258650</id>
	<title>Should have been in the original article.</title>
	<author>elamdaly</author>
	<datestamp>1259424540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/FT52" title="microsoftpdc.com" rel="nofollow">Here's the actual roundtable</a> [microsoftpdc.com] for your viewing pleasure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the actual roundtable [ microsoftpdc.com ] for your viewing pleasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the actual roundtable [microsoftpdc.com] for your viewing pleasure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1259424720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I like some of those guys but as someone who has been closer to the bare medal than they have (I'm a former Atari 2600 programmer), I'd say that the habits of old pros say little about the quality of today's tools.</p><p>We used 6502 cross-compilers on a PDPxx and VAX, not because we thought the command-line was better but because that was the best we had at the time.</p><p>BTW, I'm not trying to say that I'm better or smarter than those other guys, I just have written very low-level, real-time code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I like some of those guys but as someone who has been closer to the bare medal than they have ( I 'm a former Atari 2600 programmer ) , I 'd say that the habits of old pros say little about the quality of today 's tools.We used 6502 cross-compilers on a PDPxx and VAX , not because we thought the command-line was better but because that was the best we had at the time.BTW , I 'm not trying to say that I 'm better or smarter than those other guys , I just have written very low-level , real-time code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I like some of those guys but as someone who has been closer to the bare medal than they have (I'm a former Atari 2600 programmer), I'd say that the habits of old pros say little about the quality of today's tools.We used 6502 cross-compilers on a PDPxx and VAX, not because we thought the command-line was better but because that was the best we had at the time.BTW, I'm not trying to say that I'm better or smarter than those other guys, I just have written very low-level, real-time code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258342</id>
	<title>Abstraction vs Managed</title>
	<author>minsk</author>
	<datestamp>1259421720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems a good place to point out one of the chronic errors of people talking about software development...</p><p>Abstract does not mean slow, bloated, inefficient, or incomprehensible.</p><p>Having the wrong abstraction for the task at hand, however, often does. And blindly questing after "managed" "portable" and "high-level" is a good way to get abstractions which work poorly for *any* task. At best, you get Java/.Net/Javascript... tolerable for many tasks, and completely useless for others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems a good place to point out one of the chronic errors of people talking about software development...Abstract does not mean slow , bloated , inefficient , or incomprehensible.Having the wrong abstraction for the task at hand , however , often does .
And blindly questing after " managed " " portable " and " high-level " is a good way to get abstractions which work poorly for * any * task .
At best , you get Java/.Net/Javascript... tolerable for many tasks , and completely useless for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems a good place to point out one of the chronic errors of people talking about software development...Abstract does not mean slow, bloated, inefficient, or incomprehensible.Having the wrong abstraction for the task at hand, however, often does.
And blindly questing after "managed" "portable" and "high-level" is a good way to get abstractions which work poorly for *any* task.
At best, you get Java/.Net/Javascript... tolerable for many tasks, and completely useless for others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hate Microsoft more than anyone</p></div><p>See, being subjected to IDEs has lowered your ability of detecting faulty code. You're basically saying A &gt; A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Microsoft more than anyoneSee , being subjected to IDEs has lowered your ability of detecting faulty code .
You 're basically saying A &gt; A since this " anyone " includes " you " too .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Microsoft more than anyoneSee, being subjected to IDEs has lowered your ability of detecting faulty code.
You're basically saying A &gt; A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258410</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Visual C++ 2008 does not require you to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, it can use the plain old Win32 API just like every version before it. For C++, at least,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is optional.</p><p>Visual C#, however, requires<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because it was created specifically to be the premier language for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET development, and VB was forced over to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because VB was always a bit of a baby language and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET makes things even simpler.</p></div><p>I Knew there was a reason i wanted to upgrade from vs2003 to 2008.</p><p>Against the grain, I don't develop professionally.  I use what bit of programming skills i have to slap together widgets and apps for my own use, and have found<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net to be "somewhat useful"  in the same sense that java's swing is.  Bloated and huge, and a bit of a pain to remember all the crap it can do/does  but bits of it are handy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visual C + + 2008 does not require you to use .NET , it can use the plain old Win32 API just like every version before it .
For C + + , at least , .NET is optional.Visual C # , however , requires .NET because it was created specifically to be the premier language for .NET development , and VB was forced over to .NET because VB was always a bit of a baby language and .NET makes things even simpler.I Knew there was a reason i wanted to upgrade from vs2003 to 2008.Against the grain , I do n't develop professionally .
I use what bit of programming skills i have to slap together widgets and apps for my own use , and have found .net to be " somewhat useful " in the same sense that java 's swing is .
Bloated and huge , and a bit of a pain to remember all the crap it can do/does but bits of it are handy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visual C++ 2008 does not require you to use .NET, it can use the plain old Win32 API just like every version before it.
For C++, at least, .NET is optional.Visual C#, however, requires .NET because it was created specifically to be the premier language for .NET development, and VB was forced over to .NET because VB was always a bit of a baby language and .NET makes things even simpler.I Knew there was a reason i wanted to upgrade from vs2003 to 2008.Against the grain, I don't develop professionally.
I use what bit of programming skills i have to slap together widgets and apps for my own use, and have found .net to be "somewhat useful"  in the same sense that java's swing is.
Bloated and huge, and a bit of a pain to remember all the crap it can do/does  but bits of it are handy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258366</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.</p></div><p>Yeah, really.  Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy and prefer to keep things simple.  That isn't newsworthy -- that's a Dilbert strip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.Yeah , really .
Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy and prefer to keep things simple .
That is n't newsworthy -- that 's a Dilbert strip ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.Yeah, really.
Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy and prefer to keep things simple.
That isn't newsworthy -- that's a Dilbert strip ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258618</id>
	<title>Writing windows GUIs</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259424180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I have to write a Windows GUI app, C# rocks! I can design the UI whip off the code and be done with it. It's better than MFC and after writing countless message loops in win32 and OS/2 for that matter, I don't think writing more GUI boiler plate code, using the APIs to match resource IDs, and all that mindless coding will do any good - especially when I need the time to figure out an algorithm or other problems. And I can still do low level stuff (really low level) with P/Invokes, so the only thing I'm really missing out is busy work. And if there's a time when I DO need the control and abilities of unmanaged code, well there's the C++ stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I have to write a Windows GUI app , C # rocks !
I can design the UI whip off the code and be done with it .
It 's better than MFC and after writing countless message loops in win32 and OS/2 for that matter , I do n't think writing more GUI boiler plate code , using the APIs to match resource IDs , and all that mindless coding will do any good - especially when I need the time to figure out an algorithm or other problems .
And I can still do low level stuff ( really low level ) with P/Invokes , so the only thing I 'm really missing out is busy work .
And if there 's a time when I DO need the control and abilities of unmanaged code , well there 's the C + + stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I have to write a Windows GUI app, C# rocks!
I can design the UI whip off the code and be done with it.
It's better than MFC and after writing countless message loops in win32 and OS/2 for that matter, I don't think writing more GUI boiler plate code, using the APIs to match resource IDs, and all that mindless coding will do any good - especially when I need the time to figure out an algorithm or other problems.
And I can still do low level stuff (really low level) with P/Invokes, so the only thing I'm really missing out is busy work.
And if there's a time when I DO need the control and abilities of unmanaged code, well there's the C++ stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261724</id>
	<title>Re:Why I prefer plain old text editors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah, changing an option with clicking on it is totally different from changing an option by using a text editor. How can I possibly know what I am doing if I don't touch the keyboard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , changing an option with clicking on it is totally different from changing an option by using a text editor .
How can I possibly know what I am doing if I do n't touch the keyboard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, changing an option with clicking on it is totally different from changing an option by using a text editor.
How can I possibly know what I am doing if I don't touch the keyboard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258894</id>
	<title>Re:The most important question however is</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259427180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don Box and Jeffrey Snover both work on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET projects (Oslo and PowerShell, respectively), so I'm virtually certain they use Visual Studio.</p><p>Butler Lampson is a researcher in Microsoft Research. I don't know what his present project is, so hard to say.</p><p>Also, I've heard that a lot of people who have to deal with really large amounts of C++ code like Source Insight - apparently its symbol indexing blows everything out of the water performance-wise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Don Box and Jeffrey Snover both work on .NET projects ( Oslo and PowerShell , respectively ) , so I 'm virtually certain they use Visual Studio.Butler Lampson is a researcher in Microsoft Research .
I do n't know what his present project is , so hard to say.Also , I 've heard that a lot of people who have to deal with really large amounts of C + + code like Source Insight - apparently its symbol indexing blows everything out of the water performance-wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don Box and Jeffrey Snover both work on .NET projects (Oslo and PowerShell, respectively), so I'm virtually certain they use Visual Studio.Butler Lampson is a researcher in Microsoft Research.
I don't know what his present project is, so hard to say.Also, I've heard that a lot of people who have to deal with really large amounts of C++ code like Source Insight - apparently its symbol indexing blows everything out of the water performance-wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259268</id>
	<title>Re:Leaks like a sieve</title>
	<author>Edgewize</author>
	<datestamp>1259432220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excel and Word are practically their own operating systems.  You can't blame their problems on anything other than the insane legacy of backwards compatibility with a sprawling 20-year codebase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excel and Word are practically their own operating systems .
You ca n't blame their problems on anything other than the insane legacy of backwards compatibility with a sprawling 20-year codebase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excel and Word are practically their own operating systems.
You can't blame their problems on anything other than the insane legacy of backwards compatibility with a sprawling 20-year codebase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30385320</id>
	<title>Re:The most important question however is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably <a href="http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">ed</a> [gnu.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably ed [ gnu.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably ed [gnu.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261550</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1259511720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why stop at using text editors and commandline C/C++? Take the whole damn argument to its logical conclusion, and use this to do your coding:</p><p><a href="http://dougbarton.us/images/supercoder.jpg" title="dougbarton.us">http://dougbarton.us/images/supercoder.jpg</a> [dougbarton.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop at using text editors and commandline C/C + + ?
Take the whole damn argument to its logical conclusion , and use this to do your coding : http : //dougbarton.us/images/supercoder.jpg [ dougbarton.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop at using text editors and commandline C/C++?
Take the whole damn argument to its logical conclusion, and use this to do your coding:http://dougbarton.us/images/supercoder.jpg [dougbarton.us]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267244</id>
	<title>Curious</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259521860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there any IDEs for <b>Kernel Programming?</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any IDEs for Kernel Programming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any IDEs for Kernel Programming?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260344</id>
	<title>I can't beleive....... I agree with MS programmers</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1259497980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't stand the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET invasion. I keep being told by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET people it's really not that heavy and it much more productive etc etc. Most admit it would be a problem if every app was written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, but it ok for their app. BUT the very same people blame<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET when their applications are fat and slow! It gets worse when you have multiple of these apps running, each written basically on the assumption it's the only thing to run. Apps should be written to be a good citizen, i.e. take as little as they can, and give as much as they can. Don't get me wrong, it's not just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, this seamed to happen before with JAVA, which didn't take over either. Now I don't know if it's an environment thing, or programmer skill level thing, but JAVA applications don't seam to be as bad as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. <br> <br>
Then worse of all, things written badly as web apps. I was in the doctors and they had been computerize. The register for your appointment system was really slow, but what blew me away was the slide show of information. It couldn't even scroll large text across the screen properly. I could see this was a web thing because some of it was broken and the page was a IE page not found page. Here we are in 2009 with crazy powerful computers from the future, and we have such bad choices of technology, so much abstraction in the way, and bad "professionals", that it's worse then I did as a kid in BASIC on a computer with 2MHz. It makes me soo angry. It feels like we are going backwards. The fact these crap systems always seam to be running on Windows doesn't help. I'm sure it would be as easy and faster+ cheaper on a stripped down Linux with just X, the required libs and python!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stand the .NET invasion .
I keep being told by .NET people it 's really not that heavy and it much more productive etc etc .
Most admit it would be a problem if every app was written in .NET , but it ok for their app .
BUT the very same people blame .NET when their applications are fat and slow !
It gets worse when you have multiple of these apps running , each written basically on the assumption it 's the only thing to run .
Apps should be written to be a good citizen , i.e .
take as little as they can , and give as much as they can .
Do n't get me wrong , it 's not just .NET , this seamed to happen before with JAVA , which did n't take over either .
Now I do n't know if it 's an environment thing , or programmer skill level thing , but JAVA applications do n't seam to be as bad as .NET .
Then worse of all , things written badly as web apps .
I was in the doctors and they had been computerize .
The register for your appointment system was really slow , but what blew me away was the slide show of information .
It could n't even scroll large text across the screen properly .
I could see this was a web thing because some of it was broken and the page was a IE page not found page .
Here we are in 2009 with crazy powerful computers from the future , and we have such bad choices of technology , so much abstraction in the way , and bad " professionals " , that it 's worse then I did as a kid in BASIC on a computer with 2MHz .
It makes me soo angry .
It feels like we are going backwards .
The fact these crap systems always seam to be running on Windows does n't help .
I 'm sure it would be as easy and faster + cheaper on a stripped down Linux with just X , the required libs and python !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stand the .NET invasion.
I keep being told by .NET people it's really not that heavy and it much more productive etc etc.
Most admit it would be a problem if every app was written in .NET, but it ok for their app.
BUT the very same people blame .NET when their applications are fat and slow!
It gets worse when you have multiple of these apps running, each written basically on the assumption it's the only thing to run.
Apps should be written to be a good citizen, i.e.
take as little as they can, and give as much as they can.
Don't get me wrong, it's not just .NET, this seamed to happen before with JAVA, which didn't take over either.
Now I don't know if it's an environment thing, or programmer skill level thing, but JAVA applications don't seam to be as bad as .NET.
Then worse of all, things written badly as web apps.
I was in the doctors and they had been computerize.
The register for your appointment system was really slow, but what blew me away was the slide show of information.
It couldn't even scroll large text across the screen properly.
I could see this was a web thing because some of it was broken and the page was a IE page not found page.
Here we are in 2009 with crazy powerful computers from the future, and we have such bad choices of technology, so much abstraction in the way, and bad "professionals", that it's worse then I did as a kid in BASIC on a computer with 2MHz.
It makes me soo angry.
It feels like we are going backwards.
The fact these crap systems always seam to be running on Windows doesn't help.
I'm sure it would be as easy and faster+ cheaper on a stripped down Linux with just X, the required libs and python!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260608</id>
	<title>Re:Good debugger</title>
	<author>Pharago</author>
	<datestamp>1259501280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the debugger is the best ive ever seen, and ive seen them all (gnu ones too), and the main reason i switched from vc6 to vc9, for those linux acolytes vc9 is the one inside VS2008</htmltext>
<tokenext>the debugger is the best ive ever seen , and ive seen them all ( gnu ones too ) , and the main reason i switched from vc6 to vc9 , for those linux acolytes vc9 is the one inside VS2008</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the debugger is the best ive ever seen, and ive seen them all (gnu ones too), and the main reason i switched from vc6 to vc9, for those linux acolytes vc9 is the one inside VS2008</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258900</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1259427240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why programming became easier is that it was really hard to teach college graduates and other people how to manage their own code, do software maintenance, garbage collection, memory management, error trapping, management of pointers, etc. So the programming languages evolved to support the lowest common denominator programmers that the colleges kept producing.</p><p>In the 1980's when I first went to college for Computer Science, we got taught a whole lot of techniques and methods, that they don't teach in modern Computer Science classes. Back then RAM was expensive, so you tried to stay within a 64K limit and not reach beyond a megabyte with bank switching and other segmented memory systems. These days with 4G RAM systems, memory management is not even an issue and bloated code can run fast even on dual core processors. Back in the old days people would get fired, for what modern developers do in writing sloppy code, bloated code, and stuff that barely even passes QA testing.</p><p>Part of the reason was that they offshored the work to third world nations, and took non-programmers and taught them programming so that they would work for the lowest labor costs. People that used to work in manufacturing plants and wanted a better paying job for their local economy, so $100 a month for factory work, and $200 to $300 a month for programming work. No way can the EU, USA, Canadian, etc programmer compete with that low a labor cost.</p><p>After development of Windows, Macintosh, and basically the GUI became standard, easy to use became so wide spread that it developed to programming languages as well. BASIC was so easy for the non-programmer to learn that Visual BASIC caught on more than C++ and Pascal for Windows, and even managers can learn it, write code in it, and read what their employees wrote. The managers are but one set of non-programmers that the easier to use programming languages are made for. Yeah yeah I know Python, Smalltalk, and others are easy to use and easy to learn as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why programming became easier is that it was really hard to teach college graduates and other people how to manage their own code , do software maintenance , garbage collection , memory management , error trapping , management of pointers , etc .
So the programming languages evolved to support the lowest common denominator programmers that the colleges kept producing.In the 1980 's when I first went to college for Computer Science , we got taught a whole lot of techniques and methods , that they do n't teach in modern Computer Science classes .
Back then RAM was expensive , so you tried to stay within a 64K limit and not reach beyond a megabyte with bank switching and other segmented memory systems .
These days with 4G RAM systems , memory management is not even an issue and bloated code can run fast even on dual core processors .
Back in the old days people would get fired , for what modern developers do in writing sloppy code , bloated code , and stuff that barely even passes QA testing.Part of the reason was that they offshored the work to third world nations , and took non-programmers and taught them programming so that they would work for the lowest labor costs .
People that used to work in manufacturing plants and wanted a better paying job for their local economy , so $ 100 a month for factory work , and $ 200 to $ 300 a month for programming work .
No way can the EU , USA , Canadian , etc programmer compete with that low a labor cost.After development of Windows , Macintosh , and basically the GUI became standard , easy to use became so wide spread that it developed to programming languages as well .
BASIC was so easy for the non-programmer to learn that Visual BASIC caught on more than C + + and Pascal for Windows , and even managers can learn it , write code in it , and read what their employees wrote .
The managers are but one set of non-programmers that the easier to use programming languages are made for .
Yeah yeah I know Python , Smalltalk , and others are easy to use and easy to learn as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why programming became easier is that it was really hard to teach college graduates and other people how to manage their own code, do software maintenance, garbage collection, memory management, error trapping, management of pointers, etc.
So the programming languages evolved to support the lowest common denominator programmers that the colleges kept producing.In the 1980's when I first went to college for Computer Science, we got taught a whole lot of techniques and methods, that they don't teach in modern Computer Science classes.
Back then RAM was expensive, so you tried to stay within a 64K limit and not reach beyond a megabyte with bank switching and other segmented memory systems.
These days with 4G RAM systems, memory management is not even an issue and bloated code can run fast even on dual core processors.
Back in the old days people would get fired, for what modern developers do in writing sloppy code, bloated code, and stuff that barely even passes QA testing.Part of the reason was that they offshored the work to third world nations, and took non-programmers and taught them programming so that they would work for the lowest labor costs.
People that used to work in manufacturing plants and wanted a better paying job for their local economy, so $100 a month for factory work, and $200 to $300 a month for programming work.
No way can the EU, USA, Canadian, etc programmer compete with that low a labor cost.After development of Windows, Macintosh, and basically the GUI became standard, easy to use became so wide spread that it developed to programming languages as well.
BASIC was so easy for the non-programmer to learn that Visual BASIC caught on more than C++ and Pascal for Windows, and even managers can learn it, write code in it, and read what their employees wrote.
The managers are but one set of non-programmers that the easier to use programming languages are made for.
Yeah yeah I know Python, Smalltalk, and others are easy to use and easy to learn as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259454</id>
	<title>Re:Don Box is a tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of me agrees with this offhand statement. As someone who used to write C++ COM objects for banking risk management, I can honestly say COM is short for COMplex and COMplicated rather than Component Object Model. Table of vectors for function calls? Simple idea, terrible implementation. I spent more time doing the stupid COM plumbing then actually writing code that benefited the customer.  And Don Box waxing lyrical about how wonderful and cool COM was in his book(s) just made me want to smack him in the face with a half-rotten tomato. At least one of the good things about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is that is works very well with legacy MS code, COM objects included.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of me agrees with this offhand statement .
As someone who used to write C + + COM objects for banking risk management , I can honestly say COM is short for COMplex and COMplicated rather than Component Object Model .
Table of vectors for function calls ?
Simple idea , terrible implementation .
I spent more time doing the stupid COM plumbing then actually writing code that benefited the customer .
And Don Box waxing lyrical about how wonderful and cool COM was in his book ( s ) just made me want to smack him in the face with a half-rotten tomato .
At least one of the good things about .NET is that is works very well with legacy MS code , COM objects included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of me agrees with this offhand statement.
As someone who used to write C++ COM objects for banking risk management, I can honestly say COM is short for COMplex and COMplicated rather than Component Object Model.
Table of vectors for function calls?
Simple idea, terrible implementation.
I spent more time doing the stupid COM plumbing then actually writing code that benefited the customer.
And Don Box waxing lyrical about how wonderful and cool COM was in his book(s) just made me want to smack him in the face with a half-rotten tomato.
At least one of the good things about .NET is that is works very well with legacy MS code, COM objects included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</id>
	<title>Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1259421300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio.  The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor.  That group could code rings around VS.  The best of the best of them used vi.

</p><p>I use text editor and Eclipse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio .
The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor .
That group could code rings around VS. The best of the best of them used vi .
I use text editor and Eclipse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio.
The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor.
That group could code rings around VS.  The best of the best of them used vi.
I use text editor and Eclipse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259094</id>
	<title>Microsoft's own apps aren't managed code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real story here is that Microsoft's own big commercial apps - MS Office, SQL Server, Exchange, Visual Studio, Visio - aren't coded in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net (except perhaps for a few plugins and utility apps, an insignificant percentage of the codebase), and there have been no announced plans to port any of them from unmanaged C++.  This is eight years after the introduction of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net 1.0.</p><p>Why not?  I think commercial app developers need to throw this question in the faces of the "developers, developers, developers" marketing guys at MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real story here is that Microsoft 's own big commercial apps - MS Office , SQL Server , Exchange , Visual Studio , Visio - are n't coded in .Net ( except perhaps for a few plugins and utility apps , an insignificant percentage of the codebase ) , and there have been no announced plans to port any of them from unmanaged C + + .
This is eight years after the introduction of .Net 1.0.Why not ?
I think commercial app developers need to throw this question in the faces of the " developers , developers , developers " marketing guys at MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real story here is that Microsoft's own big commercial apps - MS Office, SQL Server, Exchange, Visual Studio, Visio - aren't coded in .Net (except perhaps for a few plugins and utility apps, an insignificant percentage of the codebase), and there have been no announced plans to port any of them from unmanaged C++.
This is eight years after the introduction of .Net 1.0.Why not?
I think commercial app developers need to throw this question in the faces of the "developers, developers, developers" marketing guys at MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258924</id>
	<title>What's wrong with anti-lock breaks?</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1259427600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most drivers consider themselves good drivers.  But most drivers are bad drivers.  Anti-lock breaks save lives.  Managed code saves billions in lost revenue every year.  How many of you have seen a situation in which an in-house developer brewed their own solution, with disastrous results?  Most I'll bet.  Anti-lock breaks could have prevented that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most drivers consider themselves good drivers .
But most drivers are bad drivers .
Anti-lock breaks save lives .
Managed code saves billions in lost revenue every year .
How many of you have seen a situation in which an in-house developer brewed their own solution , with disastrous results ?
Most I 'll bet .
Anti-lock breaks could have prevented that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most drivers consider themselves good drivers.
But most drivers are bad drivers.
Anti-lock breaks save lives.
Managed code saves billions in lost revenue every year.
How many of you have seen a situation in which an in-house developer brewed their own solution, with disastrous results?
Most I'll bet.
Anti-lock breaks could have prevented that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258610</id>
	<title>If not DotNet, do they prefer the MFC Cruftorama?</title>
	<author>Latent Heat</author>
	<datestamp>1259424060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If these guys don't like developing to DotNet, what do they use to develop for Win32?
<p>
Do they use MFC, with its cruftology of C++ classes, templates, macros and You-Can't-Touch-This "wizard" generated code?
</p><p>
Or do they use MFC with out the "wizard" code from an IDE?
</p><p>
Or do they have their own C++ object library for Win32/COM/ActiveX that is not "out in the wild?"
</p><p>
Or are they writing the Big-Fine-Case-Statement of Win32 programming under C?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these guys do n't like developing to DotNet , what do they use to develop for Win32 ?
Do they use MFC , with its cruftology of C + + classes , templates , macros and You-Ca n't-Touch-This " wizard " generated code ?
Or do they use MFC with out the " wizard " code from an IDE ?
Or do they have their own C + + object library for Win32/COM/ActiveX that is not " out in the wild ?
" Or are they writing the Big-Fine-Case-Statement of Win32 programming under C ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these guys don't like developing to DotNet, what do they use to develop for Win32?
Do they use MFC, with its cruftology of C++ classes, templates, macros and You-Can't-Touch-This "wizard" generated code?
Or do they use MFC with out the "wizard" code from an IDE?
Or do they have their own C++ object library for Win32/COM/ActiveX that is not "out in the wild?
"

Or are they writing the Big-Fine-Case-Statement of Win32 programming under C?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258738</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>cupantae</author>
	<datestamp>1259425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the <b>navel</b> very useful.</p></div><p>There. Fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the navel very useful.There .
Fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the navel very useful.There.
Fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263606</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259487600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oswego University"?  It's SUNY Oswego.  (State University of New York at Oswego.)  The guy you mention is Doug Lea, who also wrote one of the world's most popular malloc()s, which among other places is used in glibc.  Nice guy, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oswego University " ?
It 's SUNY Oswego .
( State University of New York at Oswego .
) The guy you mention is Doug Lea , who also wrote one of the world 's most popular malloc ( ) s , which among other places is used in glibc .
Nice guy , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oswego University"?
It's SUNY Oswego.
(State University of New York at Oswego.
)  The guy you mention is Doug Lea, who also wrote one of the world's most popular malloc()s, which among other places is used in glibc.
Nice guy, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259908</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1259488920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the old days people would get fired, for what modern developers do in writing sloppy code, bloated code, and stuff that barely even passes QA testing.</p></div><p>Back in the old days, businesses hired a dozen experienced professionals to write stuff that today is given as an assignment to first-year software engineering students.</p><p>Its not that new programmers do the same things with less work, its that they do more for the same amount of work. They're not lazy, its just the "old ways" are inefficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the old days people would get fired , for what modern developers do in writing sloppy code , bloated code , and stuff that barely even passes QA testing.Back in the old days , businesses hired a dozen experienced professionals to write stuff that today is given as an assignment to first-year software engineering students.Its not that new programmers do the same things with less work , its that they do more for the same amount of work .
They 're not lazy , its just the " old ways " are inefficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the old days people would get fired, for what modern developers do in writing sloppy code, bloated code, and stuff that barely even passes QA testing.Back in the old days, businesses hired a dozen experienced professionals to write stuff that today is given as an assignment to first-year software engineering students.Its not that new programmers do the same things with less work, its that they do more for the same amount of work.
They're not lazy, its just the "old ways" are inefficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258812</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1259426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Researchers have found Italians that don't like Spaghetti!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers have found Italians that do n't like Spaghetti !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers have found Italians that don't like Spaghetti!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258348</id>
	<title>No, it's just "old dogs - new tricks"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could write a lengthy essay about how old programmers don't like to use new tools that offer them little because they already know all the tricks and gadgets for their old, "inferior" and more complicated tools, while new tools are perfect for new programmers because they don't have to learn so much to achive the same results because those tools are easier to use and the learning curve isn't so steep until you have a result, but I think I can sum it up in a single word:</p><p>Emacs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could write a lengthy essay about how old programmers do n't like to use new tools that offer them little because they already know all the tricks and gadgets for their old , " inferior " and more complicated tools , while new tools are perfect for new programmers because they do n't have to learn so much to achive the same results because those tools are easier to use and the learning curve is n't so steep until you have a result , but I think I can sum it up in a single word : Emacs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could write a lengthy essay about how old programmers don't like to use new tools that offer them little because they already know all the tricks and gadgets for their old, "inferior" and more complicated tools, while new tools are perfect for new programmers because they don't have to learn so much to achive the same results because those tools are easier to use and the learning curve isn't so steep until you have a result, but I think I can sum it up in a single word:Emacs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262702</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259521620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful.</i></p><p>Apologies to the poster in the previous thread whose idea I'm stealing...</p><p>But considering how much use there is of motion capture technology for movies, TV shows, and video games, there most certainly are computers being programmed right now this instant via "interpretive dance."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful.Apologies to the poster in the previous thread whose idea I 'm stealing...But considering how much use there is of motion capture technology for movies , TV shows , and video games , there most certainly are computers being programmed right now this instant via " interpretive dance .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful.Apologies to the poster in the previous thread whose idea I'm stealing...But considering how much use there is of motion capture technology for movies, TV shows, and video games, there most certainly are computers being programmed right now this instant via "interpretive dance.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259282</id>
	<title>Re:Why I prefer plain old text editors</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1259432400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're overgeneralizing. Not all IDEs separate the code in menus and popdown lists. Unfortunately, some of Microsoft's tools don't give you access to the full source code and it's a royal pain in the ass to refactor code.</p><p>This is the problem that perhaps the article is talking about: When the source code is tied to the IDE, everything becomes impossible to maintain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're overgeneralizing .
Not all IDEs separate the code in menus and popdown lists .
Unfortunately , some of Microsoft 's tools do n't give you access to the full source code and it 's a royal pain in the ass to refactor code.This is the problem that perhaps the article is talking about : When the source code is tied to the IDE , everything becomes impossible to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're overgeneralizing.
Not all IDEs separate the code in menus and popdown lists.
Unfortunately, some of Microsoft's tools don't give you access to the full source code and it's a royal pain in the ass to refactor code.This is the problem that perhaps the article is talking about: When the source code is tied to the IDE, everything becomes impossible to maintain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258402</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1259422320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user, the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.</p></div><p>Well said.</p><p>Nobody does accounting better than an accountant.</p><p>But its not always the best Idea to hand data system development to an accountant and hope for the best.  Some one has to guide that guy doing the data editing, manipulation, and storage just like that guy has to guide the programmer how to keep his company books, file taxes, etc.</p><p>And this is where the current crop of tools fail.  They let you build things that can go horribly wrong, because of simple errors that a professional programmer might have caught.  They are like a bag of wrenches being a substitute for a good auto mechanic. (Obligatory car analogy).</p><p>We probably need better design tools, that can capture what it is the accountant wants in terms of inputs, outputs, retention, and quality assurance.  Then the code cutting can be done by specialists, or generated code, as the situation dictates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user , the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.Well said.Nobody does accounting better than an accountant.But its not always the best Idea to hand data system development to an accountant and hope for the best .
Some one has to guide that guy doing the data editing , manipulation , and storage just like that guy has to guide the programmer how to keep his company books , file taxes , etc.And this is where the current crop of tools fail .
They let you build things that can go horribly wrong , because of simple errors that a professional programmer might have caught .
They are like a bag of wrenches being a substitute for a good auto mechanic .
( Obligatory car analogy ) .We probably need better design tools , that can capture what it is the accountant wants in terms of inputs , outputs , retention , and quality assurance .
Then the code cutting can be done by specialists , or generated code , as the situation dictates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user, the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.Well said.Nobody does accounting better than an accountant.But its not always the best Idea to hand data system development to an accountant and hope for the best.
Some one has to guide that guy doing the data editing, manipulation, and storage just like that guy has to guide the programmer how to keep his company books, file taxes, etc.And this is where the current crop of tools fail.
They let you build things that can go horribly wrong, because of simple errors that a professional programmer might have caught.
They are like a bag of wrenches being a substitute for a good auto mechanic.
(Obligatory car analogy).We probably need better design tools, that can capture what it is the accountant wants in terms of inputs, outputs, retention, and quality assurance.
Then the code cutting can be done by specialists, or generated code, as the situation dictates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259550</id>
	<title>Perhaps they should</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259437500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they should start using the modern tools.  Then windows might not be such a piece of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should start using the modern tools .
Then windows might not be such a piece of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should start using the modern tools.
Then windows might not be such a piece of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259066</id>
	<title>notepad and vi are my main editors</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1259429100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for the most part I don't use development environments if I do not have to as I can work a lot faster without them.  (then build with unit test, good to go).</htmltext>
<tokenext>for the most part I do n't use development environments if I do not have to as I can work a lot faster without them .
( then build with unit test , good to go ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the most part I don't use development environments if I do not have to as I can work a lot faster without them.
(then build with unit test, good to go).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259052</id>
	<title>As it is , as it has always been</title>
	<author>tuomoks</author>
	<datestamp>1259428980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS has probably / arguably more good designers  and developers for software than any other company - IBM, Google, HP, Sun, etc and not counting the Japanese and Chines companies - Hitachi, Sony, Fujitsu - don't know the name of Chines companies but I know the people! The difference is - at BG time the (good/clever) people had at least some saying what, how, where, when - now, sorry, this is a corporate - you follow the rules and don't think! Let's see how long that lasts - if no changes I will give at most ten years (based on 35+ experience) - a side note, I loved Univac, Burroughs, Honeywell, some Wang ideas, DEC was superb, Prime before Cray, real object oriented at end of 60's way before it came a fad with technology not really supporting OO (always hilarious!),</p><p>Actually - this has been the way forever(?) or at least since 70's - talk to the company and talk to the developers, you will often get a totally different picture! Guess which one I have always trusted and which one has always later one proven to be the correct one? I wonder why companies still go with the all bs. - and I always wonder why some / most customer management buys to that? Maybe some of Dilbert makes sense - well, maybe more than some.</p><p>Back to topic - MS tools are not bad, actually (very) nice but geared to public, not real, hardcore developers. When you are "under the gun" - get something, working right, out - you either know what you are doing or you don't, there are no shortcuts! All and any (at least in last 35+ years)  help tools, defaults, wizards, best practices, corporate standards, industry standards (of course commercial!), etc will not help - maybe that's why the MS developers don't like their own tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS has probably / arguably more good designers and developers for software than any other company - IBM , Google , HP , Sun , etc and not counting the Japanese and Chines companies - Hitachi , Sony , Fujitsu - do n't know the name of Chines companies but I know the people !
The difference is - at BG time the ( good/clever ) people had at least some saying what , how , where , when - now , sorry , this is a corporate - you follow the rules and do n't think !
Let 's see how long that lasts - if no changes I will give at most ten years ( based on 35 + experience ) - a side note , I loved Univac , Burroughs , Honeywell , some Wang ideas , DEC was superb , Prime before Cray , real object oriented at end of 60 's way before it came a fad with technology not really supporting OO ( always hilarious !
) ,Actually - this has been the way forever ( ?
) or at least since 70 's - talk to the company and talk to the developers , you will often get a totally different picture !
Guess which one I have always trusted and which one has always later one proven to be the correct one ?
I wonder why companies still go with the all bs .
- and I always wonder why some / most customer management buys to that ?
Maybe some of Dilbert makes sense - well , maybe more than some.Back to topic - MS tools are not bad , actually ( very ) nice but geared to public , not real , hardcore developers .
When you are " under the gun " - get something , working right , out - you either know what you are doing or you do n't , there are no shortcuts !
All and any ( at least in last 35 + years ) help tools , defaults , wizards , best practices , corporate standards , industry standards ( of course commercial !
) , etc will not help - maybe that 's why the MS developers do n't like their own tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS has probably / arguably more good designers  and developers for software than any other company - IBM, Google, HP, Sun, etc and not counting the Japanese and Chines companies - Hitachi, Sony, Fujitsu - don't know the name of Chines companies but I know the people!
The difference is - at BG time the (good/clever) people had at least some saying what, how, where, when - now, sorry, this is a corporate - you follow the rules and don't think!
Let's see how long that lasts - if no changes I will give at most ten years (based on 35+ experience) - a side note, I loved Univac, Burroughs, Honeywell, some Wang ideas, DEC was superb, Prime before Cray, real object oriented at end of 60's way before it came a fad with technology not really supporting OO (always hilarious!
),Actually - this has been the way forever(?
) or at least since 70's - talk to the company and talk to the developers, you will often get a totally different picture!
Guess which one I have always trusted and which one has always later one proven to be the correct one?
I wonder why companies still go with the all bs.
- and I always wonder why some / most customer management buys to that?
Maybe some of Dilbert makes sense - well, maybe more than some.Back to topic - MS tools are not bad, actually (very) nice but geared to public, not real, hardcore developers.
When you are "under the gun" - get something, working right, out - you either know what you are doing or you don't, there are no shortcuts!
All and any (at least in last 35+ years)  help tools, defaults, wizards, best practices, corporate standards, industry standards (of course commercial!
), etc will not help - maybe that's why the MS developers don't like their own tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262844</id>
	<title>Re:No, it's just "old dogs - new tricks"</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259523120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...</p><p>You're saying that Vi and EMACS have *less* of a learning curve than Visual Studio!? Seriously?</p><p>You're smoking some high quality stuff there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...You 're saying that Vi and EMACS have * less * of a learning curve than Visual Studio ! ?
Seriously ? You 're smoking some high quality stuff there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...You're saying that Vi and EMACS have *less* of a learning curve than Visual Studio!?
Seriously?You're smoking some high quality stuff there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261060</id>
	<title>Re:Don Box is a tool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259506920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>COM had some good ideas, but unfortunately it got derailed by the one-two punch of OLE/Active-X and Visual Basic.  The former was responsible for phone books worth of APIs that nobody could understand, let alone implement in a robust manner, and after reading Kraig Brockschmidt's infamous MS Press book they understood even less.  The latter gave COM IDispatch, dispinterfaces and dual interfaces, BSTR,  SAFEARRAY, and VARIANT, and all manner of kludgy things.  And, as Ted Pattison helpfully explained, once you've bought into writing apps that support all of that, COM's interface negotiation model became useless because VB 6 didn't support multiple dual interfaces from a single object.</p><p>I think Don Box's part was to point out there was actually some decent architecture beneath all the layers of hackery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>COM had some good ideas , but unfortunately it got derailed by the one-two punch of OLE/Active-X and Visual Basic .
The former was responsible for phone books worth of APIs that nobody could understand , let alone implement in a robust manner , and after reading Kraig Brockschmidt 's infamous MS Press book they understood even less .
The latter gave COM IDispatch , dispinterfaces and dual interfaces , BSTR , SAFEARRAY , and VARIANT , and all manner of kludgy things .
And , as Ted Pattison helpfully explained , once you 've bought into writing apps that support all of that , COM 's interface negotiation model became useless because VB 6 did n't support multiple dual interfaces from a single object.I think Don Box 's part was to point out there was actually some decent architecture beneath all the layers of hackery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COM had some good ideas, but unfortunately it got derailed by the one-two punch of OLE/Active-X and Visual Basic.
The former was responsible for phone books worth of APIs that nobody could understand, let alone implement in a robust manner, and after reading Kraig Brockschmidt's infamous MS Press book they understood even less.
The latter gave COM IDispatch, dispinterfaces and dual interfaces, BSTR,  SAFEARRAY, and VARIANT, and all manner of kludgy things.
And, as Ted Pattison helpfully explained, once you've bought into writing apps that support all of that, COM's interface negotiation model became useless because VB 6 didn't support multiple dual interfaces from a single object.I think Don Box's part was to point out there was actually some decent architecture beneath all the layers of hackery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260300</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259497080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I wont say that, I use low level tools most of the times, but if it comes to certain domains like simply db centric uis with some input masks I long for visual tools.<br>Also I would never ever touch a tool again if I wont get refactoring support to some degree, software systems nowadays are so big that having built in refactoring is almost a must.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I wont say that , I use low level tools most of the times , but if it comes to certain domains like simply db centric uis with some input masks I long for visual tools.Also I would never ever touch a tool again if I wont get refactoring support to some degree , software systems nowadays are so big that having built in refactoring is almost a must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I wont say that, I use low level tools most of the times, but if it comes to certain domains like simply db centric uis with some input masks I long for visual tools.Also I would never ever touch a tool again if I wont get refactoring support to some degree, software systems nowadays are so big that having built in refactoring is almost a must.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259584</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1259438100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.</p></div><p>Indeed. One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly. As a result, a lot of new software simply will not run.</p><p>Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal, but '.Net' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell' look good in comparison; if even Microsoft can't fix it when it breaks, what chance do users have?</p></div><p>A lot of that comes from badly written fragile apps doing stupid things like writing entries into the "machine.config" file, or depending on things that aren't guaranteed. Oracle and any apps that depend on their client come to mind, it does horrible things to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework config files. I see the same all the time with Java apps as well, it's not unusual to see even a "point release" of the JRE break apps.</p><p>On the other hand I have written (and seen third party) apps for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET that have worked consistently well across 3 operating system releases (2003/XP, 2008/Vista, 2008 R2/Windows 7), and 3 major<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET revisions (2, 3.x, 4), AND a change from 32-bit to 64-bit without any significant changes. That's not bad. Meanwhile, there are traditional C++ apps that will fall over if you look at them the wrong way.</p><p>Then again, Windows 7 actually contains a "stealth" release of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET: 3.5.<b>1</b>. It's not the same as 3.5 on Vista or earlier. Developer tools target "3.5" as if it was a single platform, but it's not, there are two slightly different point releases. It broke VMware's vCenter client, among other things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.Indeed .
One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework ' which ca n't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system : even Microsoft 's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing ' uninstaller is n't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly .
As a result , a lot of new software simply will not run.Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal , but '.Net ' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell ' look good in comparison ; if even Microsoft ca n't fix it when it breaks , what chance do users have ? A lot of that comes from badly written fragile apps doing stupid things like writing entries into the " machine.config " file , or depending on things that are n't guaranteed .
Oracle and any apps that depend on their client come to mind , it does horrible things to the .NET framework config files .
I see the same all the time with Java apps as well , it 's not unusual to see even a " point release " of the JRE break apps.On the other hand I have written ( and seen third party ) apps for .NET that have worked consistently well across 3 operating system releases ( 2003/XP , 2008/Vista , 2008 R2/Windows 7 ) , and 3 major .NET revisions ( 2 , 3.x , 4 ) , AND a change from 32-bit to 64-bit without any significant changes .
That 's not bad .
Meanwhile , there are traditional C + + apps that will fall over if you look at them the wrong way.Then again , Windows 7 actually contains a " stealth " release of .NET : 3.5.1 .
It 's not the same as 3.5 on Vista or earlier .
Developer tools target " 3.5 " as if it was a single platform , but it 's not , there are two slightly different point releases .
It broke VMware 's vCenter client , among other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.Indeed.
One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly.
As a result, a lot of new software simply will not run.Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal, but '.Net' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell' look good in comparison; if even Microsoft can't fix it when it breaks, what chance do users have?A lot of that comes from badly written fragile apps doing stupid things like writing entries into the "machine.config" file, or depending on things that aren't guaranteed.
Oracle and any apps that depend on their client come to mind, it does horrible things to the .NET framework config files.
I see the same all the time with Java apps as well, it's not unusual to see even a "point release" of the JRE break apps.On the other hand I have written (and seen third party) apps for .NET that have worked consistently well across 3 operating system releases (2003/XP, 2008/Vista, 2008 R2/Windows 7), and 3 major .NET revisions (2, 3.x, 4), AND a change from 32-bit to 64-bit without any significant changes.
That's not bad.
Meanwhile, there are traditional C++ apps that will fall over if you look at them the wrong way.Then again, Windows 7 actually contains a "stealth" release of .NET: 3.5.1.
It's not the same as 3.5 on Vista or earlier.
Developer tools target "3.5" as if it was a single platform, but it's not, there are two slightly different point releases.
It broke VMware's vCenter client, among other things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263540</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?</p><p>You don't know what these guys did.  How can you say you have more experience in some area if you don't know everything they've done?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? You do n't know what these guys did .
How can you say you have more experience in some area if you do n't know everything they 've done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?You don't know what these guys did.
How can you say you have more experience in some area if you don't know everything they've done?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259140</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259430360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I've joined a gigantic project involving Classic ASP and SQL Server.</p><p>Te lead developer only knows to program using Dreamweaver.</p><p>When I looked at the code, this is what I saw:</p><ul><li>Tons of replicated files using dreamweaver templates.</li><li>All the javascript for more than 400 asp files (I'm not kidding!) is stored in only three different<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.js files.</li><li>All the asp files are in the same friggin' directory.</li><li>The javascript validations included which file to submit the form to (yes, they changed the action attribute!)</li><li>No sign of OOP or even modular programming.</li><li>The code for validating roman numerals using regexps used a different regexp like "([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])" for length-1 strings, "([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])" for length-2, "([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])" for length 3, and so on. The whole code took over 30 lines of javascript code</li><li>Javascript comments in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.js files started with &lt;!-- and SOMETIMES closed with --&gt; (other times they're not closed at all! Imagine my dismay when the app broke after I searched-replaced them with decent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* and */ comments.</li></ul><p>I tried to make an automated dependency table on their giant blob monster attempt of a project by using grep and a graph-visualizing tool, but there were dozens of orphan files and isolated clusters which lead to absolutely nowhere (it was by analyzing them by hand that I realized lots of validation functions were in one same javascript file).</p><p>When I asked the lead developer why he stored all the javascript in a single file instead of putting it in the same asps (they were all spaghetti anyway. It would've been much better to not mix them up with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.js files) he almost called me an idiot for not being able to "click" on the button on dreamweaver, read the function name, open the javascript and pressing ctrl-f for searching the function.</p><p>The only reason I didn't lecture him on multi-tier programming and advanced grep tools was because he's the manager's star developer, and since the company hired our company for consulting, they're still above us in hierarchy and these matters need to be handled with tweezers. Had I been hired before, I'd have recommended my boss to ask twice the money.</p><p>Anyway - If you want my opinion on automated GUI tools (at least for web projects), they only procreate idiots and promote short-term productivity. Of course, when something breaks, it won't be the idiot's fault. It'll be the guy in turn who happened to write perfectly-well-designed code that somehow triggered a hidden bug in the sacred-cow spaghetti code.</p><p>BTW, if you want to know the idiot's name, his name is Josh. I won't mention his surname to protect the "innocent" (rofl), but at least his name will be preserved for posterity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I 've joined a gigantic project involving Classic ASP and SQL Server.Te lead developer only knows to program using Dreamweaver.When I looked at the code , this is what I saw : Tons of replicated files using dreamweaver templates.All the javascript for more than 400 asp files ( I 'm not kidding !
) is stored in only three different .js files.All the asp files are in the same friggin ' directory.The javascript validations included which file to submit the form to ( yes , they changed the action attribute !
) No sign of OOP or even modular programming.The code for validating roman numerals using regexps used a different regexp like " ( [ X ] | [ I ] | [ V ] | [ L ] | [ C ] | [ D ] | [ M ] ) " for length-1 strings , " ( [ X ] | [ I ] | [ V ] | [ L ] | [ C ] | [ D ] | [ M ] ) ( [ X ] | [ I ] | [ V ] | [ L ] | [ C ] | [ D ] | [ M ] ) " for length-2 , " ( [ X ] | [ I ] | [ V ] | [ L ] | [ C ] | [ D ] | [ M ] ) ( [ X ] | [ I ] | [ V ] | [ L ] | [ C ] | [ D ] | [ M ] ) ( [ X ] | [ I ] | [ V ] | [ L ] | [ C ] | [ D ] | [ M ] ) " for length 3 , and so on .
The whole code took over 30 lines of javascript codeJavascript comments in the .js files started with ( other times they 're not closed at all !
Imagine my dismay when the app broke after I searched-replaced them with decent / * and * / comments.I tried to make an automated dependency table on their giant blob monster attempt of a project by using grep and a graph-visualizing tool , but there were dozens of orphan files and isolated clusters which lead to absolutely nowhere ( it was by analyzing them by hand that I realized lots of validation functions were in one same javascript file ) .When I asked the lead developer why he stored all the javascript in a single file instead of putting it in the same asps ( they were all spaghetti anyway .
It would 've been much better to not mix them up with the .js files ) he almost called me an idiot for not being able to " click " on the button on dreamweaver , read the function name , open the javascript and pressing ctrl-f for searching the function.The only reason I did n't lecture him on multi-tier programming and advanced grep tools was because he 's the manager 's star developer , and since the company hired our company for consulting , they 're still above us in hierarchy and these matters need to be handled with tweezers .
Had I been hired before , I 'd have recommended my boss to ask twice the money.Anyway - If you want my opinion on automated GUI tools ( at least for web projects ) , they only procreate idiots and promote short-term productivity .
Of course , when something breaks , it wo n't be the idiot 's fault .
It 'll be the guy in turn who happened to write perfectly-well-designed code that somehow triggered a hidden bug in the sacred-cow spaghetti code.BTW , if you want to know the idiot 's name , his name is Josh .
I wo n't mention his surname to protect the " innocent " ( rofl ) , but at least his name will be preserved for posterity : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I've joined a gigantic project involving Classic ASP and SQL Server.Te lead developer only knows to program using Dreamweaver.When I looked at the code, this is what I saw:Tons of replicated files using dreamweaver templates.All the javascript for more than 400 asp files (I'm not kidding!
) is stored in only three different .js files.All the asp files are in the same friggin' directory.The javascript validations included which file to submit the form to (yes, they changed the action attribute!
)No sign of OOP or even modular programming.The code for validating roman numerals using regexps used a different regexp like "([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])" for length-1 strings, "([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])" for length-2, "([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])([X]|[I]|[V]|[L]|[C]|[D]|[M])" for length 3, and so on.
The whole code took over 30 lines of javascript codeJavascript comments in the .js files started with  (other times they're not closed at all!
Imagine my dismay when the app broke after I searched-replaced them with decent /* and */ comments.I tried to make an automated dependency table on their giant blob monster attempt of a project by using grep and a graph-visualizing tool, but there were dozens of orphan files and isolated clusters which lead to absolutely nowhere (it was by analyzing them by hand that I realized lots of validation functions were in one same javascript file).When I asked the lead developer why he stored all the javascript in a single file instead of putting it in the same asps (they were all spaghetti anyway.
It would've been much better to not mix them up with the .js files) he almost called me an idiot for not being able to "click" on the button on dreamweaver, read the function name, open the javascript and pressing ctrl-f for searching the function.The only reason I didn't lecture him on multi-tier programming and advanced grep tools was because he's the manager's star developer, and since the company hired our company for consulting, they're still above us in hierarchy and these matters need to be handled with tweezers.
Had I been hired before, I'd have recommended my boss to ask twice the money.Anyway - If you want my opinion on automated GUI tools (at least for web projects), they only procreate idiots and promote short-term productivity.
Of course, when something breaks, it won't be the idiot's fault.
It'll be the guy in turn who happened to write perfectly-well-designed code that somehow triggered a hidden bug in the sacred-cow spaghetti code.BTW, if you want to know the idiot's name, his name is Josh.
I won't mention his surname to protect the "innocent" (rofl), but at least his name will be preserved for posterity :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260496</id>
	<title>interpretative dance</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259500020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>developers will soon have to use Natal to "write programs through interpretative dance.</p></div></blockquote><p>

that's a funny image, but after I've seen programming languages like brainfuck, whitespace, shakespeare or piet, I'm pretty sure that some day there really will be a programming language like that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>developers will soon have to use Natal to " write programs through interpretative dance .
that 's a funny image , but after I 've seen programming languages like brainfuck , whitespace , shakespeare or piet , I 'm pretty sure that some day there really will be a programming language like that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>developers will soon have to use Natal to "write programs through interpretative dance.
that's a funny image, but after I've seen programming languages like brainfuck, whitespace, shakespeare or piet, I'm pretty sure that some day there really will be a programming language like that...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258270</id>
	<title>elitist morons</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1259421000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>so MS has elitist morons in their ranks as well, how is this news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so MS has elitist morons in their ranks as well , how is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so MS has elitist morons in their ranks as well, how is this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258228</id>
	<title>eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my shorts slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260172</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know our coders drag controls into our applications without understanding them, and without thinking about gui design or user experience.<br>Elegant integrated code has been replaced with scrappy code written discretely for each click of the mouse.<br>Similar functions on different forms has also encouraged our coders to duplicate code (and between different versions of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net).<br>Size, speed and optimization are unheard of (especially when we get our SQL out of a book of syntax).<br>I wish some of our guys would go on a course on how to programme, and not a course on how to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know our coders drag controls into our applications without understanding them , and without thinking about gui design or user experience.Elegant integrated code has been replaced with scrappy code written discretely for each click of the mouse.Similar functions on different forms has also encouraged our coders to duplicate code ( and between different versions of .net ) .Size , speed and optimization are unheard of ( especially when we get our SQL out of a book of syntax ) .I wish some of our guys would go on a course on how to programme , and not a course on how to use .net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know our coders drag controls into our applications without understanding them, and without thinking about gui design or user experience.Elegant integrated code has been replaced with scrappy code written discretely for each click of the mouse.Similar functions on different forms has also encouraged our coders to duplicate code (and between different versions of .net).Size, speed and optimization are unheard of (especially when we get our SQL out of a book of syntax).I wish some of our guys would go on a course on how to programme, and not a course on how to use .net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258372</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1259421960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?</p><p>VisualStudio supports plain old C++. In fact, the new MSVS it's THE BEST editor for plain old C++, with the best autocomplete and refactoring support for C++ which exists in this Universe. I routinely write kernel-mode code in it, for example.</p><p>Some features like online C++ error checking are simply unique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ? VisualStudio supports plain old C + + .
In fact , the new MSVS it 's THE BEST editor for plain old C + + , with the best autocomplete and refactoring support for C + + which exists in this Universe .
I routinely write kernel-mode code in it , for example.Some features like online C + + error checking are simply unique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?VisualStudio supports plain old C++.
In fact, the new MSVS it's THE BEST editor for plain old C++, with the best autocomplete and refactoring support for C++ which exists in this Universe.
I routinely write kernel-mode code in it, for example.Some features like online C++ error checking are simply unique.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262752</id>
	<title>Did anyone actually read the article?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259522400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone actually read the article?  The microsoft developers quoted were not talking about IDE's vs text editors, they were stating that graphical programming environments (writing programs by making line &amp; box diagrams, etc) would not overtake programming languages based on text. The responses take this so far out of context it has become comical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone actually read the article ?
The microsoft developers quoted were not talking about IDE 's vs text editors , they were stating that graphical programming environments ( writing programs by making line &amp; box diagrams , etc ) would not overtake programming languages based on text .
The responses take this so far out of context it has become comical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone actually read the article?
The microsoft developers quoted were not talking about IDE's vs text editors, they were stating that graphical programming environments (writing programs by making line &amp; box diagrams, etc) would not overtake programming languages based on text.
The responses take this so far out of context it has become comical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248</id>
	<title>Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259420580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, in some respects, programming is becoming easier and more unqualified people are able to do it.</p><p>But I think that these guys are really missing the boat. The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user, the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.</p><p>In addition, content these days is a form of programming. Whether it is HTML/CSS or word processing or spreadsheets, the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition. So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , in some respects , programming is becoming easier and more unqualified people are able to do it.But I think that these guys are really missing the boat .
The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user , the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.In addition , content these days is a form of programming .
Whether it is HTML/CSS or word processing or spreadsheets , the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition .
So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, in some respects, programming is becoming easier and more unqualified people are able to do it.But I think that these guys are really missing the boat.
The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user, the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.In addition, content these days is a form of programming.
Whether it is HTML/CSS or word processing or spreadsheets, the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition.
So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260932</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1259505420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you really should try and use 80 columns only</i></p><p>Hi. The Time travel tourist board called, they said your "work in the future" visa was about to expire and could you make your way back to 1978 please.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you really should try and use 80 columns onlyHi .
The Time travel tourist board called , they said your " work in the future " visa was about to expire and could you make your way back to 1978 please .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you really should try and use 80 columns onlyHi.
The Time travel tourist board called, they said your "work in the future" visa was about to expire and could you make your way back to 1978 please.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259422920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio. The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor. That group could code rings around VS. The best of the best of them used vi. </i></p><p>This is absurd.  Visual Studio, Eclipse, Vim, these are fucking *tools*.  People use tools, not because the people are better, but because they find the tools useful.</p><p>Me, if I'm writing code for Unix or my DS, yeah, I prefer a maximized xterm, GNU Screen, and Vim.  But if I'm writing a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application, I'm gonna use Visual Studio, as it's a very powerful development environment (doubly so when coupled with ViEmu).</p><p>OTOH, people who judge others based on their choice of IDE?  Those people *are* tools...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio .
The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor .
That group could code rings around VS. The best of the best of them used vi .
This is absurd .
Visual Studio , Eclipse , Vim , these are fucking * tools * .
People use tools , not because the people are better , but because they find the tools useful.Me , if I 'm writing code for Unix or my DS , yeah , I prefer a maximized xterm , GNU Screen , and Vim .
But if I 'm writing a .NET application , I 'm gon na use Visual Studio , as it 's a very powerful development environment ( doubly so when coupled with ViEmu ) .OTOH , people who judge others based on their choice of IDE ?
Those people * are * tools.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio.
The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor.
That group could code rings around VS. The best of the best of them used vi.
This is absurd.
Visual Studio, Eclipse, Vim, these are fucking *tools*.
People use tools, not because the people are better, but because they find the tools useful.Me, if I'm writing code for Unix or my DS, yeah, I prefer a maximized xterm, GNU Screen, and Vim.
But if I'm writing a .NET application, I'm gonna use Visual Studio, as it's a very powerful development environment (doubly so when coupled with ViEmu).OTOH, people who judge others based on their choice of IDE?
Those people *are* tools...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258874</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Duhavid</author>
	<datestamp>1259426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, think critically.</p><p>Their product offerings imply you should do things graphically, in CLR, etc, etc.  Their internal experience is that these things are not all they are advertised as.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , think critically.Their product offerings imply you should do things graphically , in CLR , etc , etc .
Their internal experience is that these things are not all they are advertised as .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, think critically.Their product offerings imply you should do things graphically, in CLR, etc, etc.
Their internal experience is that these things are not all they are advertised as.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263412</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1259485320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming and high-level programming. It depends on what you're using it for.</p></div></blockquote><p>One time I wrote a Python program to generate assembly code.  Combined the two in a way that I don't think they were supposed to be combined.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming and high-level programming .
It depends on what you 're using it for.One time I wrote a Python program to generate assembly code .
Combined the two in a way that I do n't think they were supposed to be combined .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming and high-level programming.
It depends on what you're using it for.One time I wrote a Python program to generate assembly code.
Combined the two in a way that I don't think they were supposed to be combined.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258542</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who let a VB coder implement a cryptosystem?  I can't imagine that there's a lot of overlap between VB coders and people qualified to write a production cryptosystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who let a VB coder implement a cryptosystem ?
I ca n't imagine that there 's a lot of overlap between VB coders and people qualified to write a production cryptosystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who let a VB coder implement a cryptosystem?
I can't imagine that there's a lot of overlap between VB coders and people qualified to write a production cryptosystem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542</id>
	<title>Oh please...</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1259437320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't stand it when Microsoft developers talk about multi-threaded programming when the entire corporation has done that absolute bare minimum to make developer's lives easier. No wonder that they don't like using their own tools, because their tools are <i>terrible</i>.</p><p>Many years ago, a brilliant <a href="http://g.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro.html" title="oswego.edu">third-party multi-threaded library</a> [oswego.edu] was released for Java, by a professor at Oswego university. I used it in several large production apps, and it absolutely rocked. You could build up safe, reliable, scalable multi-threaded applications by simply snapping together flexible pieces like Lego. It was so good that it became a part of the SUN Java standard library, and it's now called "util.concurrent". Compared to having to "hand craft" multi-threaded code in C++, it was wonderful. It's as if the lights had just turned on, and everything had become clear to me.</p><p>Now that I'm a C# dev, it's been a huge step backwards, doubly so because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET was developed after the Oswego library was already popular, so Microsoft <i>must</i> have seen it and just flat out ignored it. For years afterwards, the whole entirety of multi-threading in both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and C++ were "threads" and "locks". The one nicety they included was an anemic thread pool in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET which was just usable enough for the most basic tasks, but couldn't handle any real load. Even the locks were heavyweight inter-process kernel locks that are unusably slow for many tasks.</p><p>It's only now in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 4 (which won't be final until 2010) that they are adding a small set of very basic lock-free containers, light-weight locks, and actual interfaces that one can implement in order to customize behavior. It's all still very basic, and nowhere near as flexible, powerful, or comprehensive as the Java APIs that are years old now.</p><p>Microsoft's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance. Reading articles evangelizing "modern multithreaded programming to better utilize new multi core processors" somehow feels like a religious zealot harping on about their appreciation of pure rational logic and science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stand it when Microsoft developers talk about multi-threaded programming when the entire corporation has done that absolute bare minimum to make developer 's lives easier .
No wonder that they do n't like using their own tools , because their tools are terrible.Many years ago , a brilliant third-party multi-threaded library [ oswego.edu ] was released for Java , by a professor at Oswego university .
I used it in several large production apps , and it absolutely rocked .
You could build up safe , reliable , scalable multi-threaded applications by simply snapping together flexible pieces like Lego .
It was so good that it became a part of the SUN Java standard library , and it 's now called " util.concurrent " .
Compared to having to " hand craft " multi-threaded code in C + + , it was wonderful .
It 's as if the lights had just turned on , and everything had become clear to me.Now that I 'm a C # dev , it 's been a huge step backwards , doubly so because .NET was developed after the Oswego library was already popular , so Microsoft must have seen it and just flat out ignored it .
For years afterwards , the whole entirety of multi-threading in both .NET and C + + were " threads " and " locks " .
The one nicety they included was an anemic thread pool in .NET which was just usable enough for the most basic tasks , but could n't handle any real load .
Even the locks were heavyweight inter-process kernel locks that are unusably slow for many tasks.It 's only now in .NET 4 ( which wo n't be final until 2010 ) that they are adding a small set of very basic lock-free containers , light-weight locks , and actual interfaces that one can implement in order to customize behavior .
It 's all still very basic , and nowhere near as flexible , powerful , or comprehensive as the Java APIs that are years old now.Microsoft 's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance .
Reading articles evangelizing " modern multithreaded programming to better utilize new multi core processors " somehow feels like a religious zealot harping on about their appreciation of pure rational logic and science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stand it when Microsoft developers talk about multi-threaded programming when the entire corporation has done that absolute bare minimum to make developer's lives easier.
No wonder that they don't like using their own tools, because their tools are terrible.Many years ago, a brilliant third-party multi-threaded library [oswego.edu] was released for Java, by a professor at Oswego university.
I used it in several large production apps, and it absolutely rocked.
You could build up safe, reliable, scalable multi-threaded applications by simply snapping together flexible pieces like Lego.
It was so good that it became a part of the SUN Java standard library, and it's now called "util.concurrent".
Compared to having to "hand craft" multi-threaded code in C++, it was wonderful.
It's as if the lights had just turned on, and everything had become clear to me.Now that I'm a C# dev, it's been a huge step backwards, doubly so because .NET was developed after the Oswego library was already popular, so Microsoft must have seen it and just flat out ignored it.
For years afterwards, the whole entirety of multi-threading in both .NET and C++ were "threads" and "locks".
The one nicety they included was an anemic thread pool in .NET which was just usable enough for the most basic tasks, but couldn't handle any real load.
Even the locks were heavyweight inter-process kernel locks that are unusably slow for many tasks.It's only now in .NET 4 (which won't be final until 2010) that they are adding a small set of very basic lock-free containers, light-weight locks, and actual interfaces that one can implement in order to customize behavior.
It's all still very basic, and nowhere near as flexible, powerful, or comprehensive as the Java APIs that are years old now.Microsoft's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance.
Reading articles evangelizing "modern multithreaded programming to better utilize new multi core processors" somehow feels like a religious zealot harping on about their appreciation of pure rational logic and science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259814</id>
	<title>Re:Danger: Watch for rocks.</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1259486520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How so? And what *is* the difference, then, between a program and pure data - also, of course, with all due respect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How so ?
And what * is * the difference , then , between a program and pure data - also , of course , with all due respect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How so?
And what *is* the difference, then, between a program and pure data - also, of course, with all due respect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260270</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1259496420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance.</i></p><p>That's always been the case. They honestly don't believe that it matters whether an API is well designed, let alone beautiful. What's worse, they've managed to infect better designed systems with their half-baked APIs through imitation and even deliberate reimplementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance.That 's always been the case .
They honestly do n't believe that it matters whether an API is well designed , let alone beautiful .
What 's worse , they 've managed to infect better designed systems with their half-baked APIs through imitation and even deliberate reimplementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance.That's always been the case.
They honestly don't believe that it matters whether an API is well designed, let alone beautiful.
What's worse, they've managed to infect better designed systems with their half-baked APIs through imitation and even deliberate reimplementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261310</id>
	<title>Re:modify that analogy</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259509440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several <i>thousand</i>-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things.  They didn't know what to say, they'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow.  (and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis)</p></div><p>Don't worry, Intel will just come out with another chip set next month<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>( ya, its a spiraling deathtrap )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall taking someone 's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things .
They did n't know what to say , they 'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow .
( and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis ) Do n't worry , Intel will just come out with another chip set next month : ) ( ya , its a spiraling deathtrap )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things.
They didn't know what to say, they'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow.
(and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis)Don't worry, Intel will just come out with another chip set next month :)( ya, its a spiraling deathtrap )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258666</id>
	<title>Wizards and bad APIs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My biggest complaint about Visual Studio is the horrible API designs that it fosters.  Since the APIs is so difficult to use, and so poorly documented (I'm thinking ATL, and to a lesser extent MFC) the only effective way to use them is to take advantage of the hand-holding that VS provides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My biggest complaint about Visual Studio is the horrible API designs that it fosters .
Since the APIs is so difficult to use , and so poorly documented ( I 'm thinking ATL , and to a lesser extent MFC ) the only effective way to use them is to take advantage of the hand-holding that VS provides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My biggest complaint about Visual Studio is the horrible API designs that it fosters.
Since the APIs is so difficult to use, and so poorly documented (I'm thinking ATL, and to a lesser extent MFC) the only effective way to use them is to take advantage of the hand-holding that VS provides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262690</id>
	<title>The big problem is "builds".</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259521500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ask yourself why we have "builds", where everything gets rebuilt.  Do I have to have my ICs re-fabbed when I change the PC board design?  No.  We're still not doing components right.
</p><p>
Historically, the big problem came from C include files.  Everything but the kitchen sink is in there. There's no language-enforced separation between interface (the parts clients of the module see and may have to recompile if changed) and implementation (the part the implementations see).  Also, you can include files inside include files, even conditionally.  So developing the dependency graph of the program is hard.
</p><p>
C++ made things worse, not better.  The private methods of a C++ class have to appear in the header file, which exposes more of the internals than is really necessary.  Every time you add a new private method, the clients, who can never see or use that private method, have to be recompiled.  This not only produces cascading builds, it discourages programmers from adding new private methods rather than bloating existing ones.  That's bad for code readability and reliability.
</p><p>
Ada explicitly dealt with this. Ada has a hard separation between interface and implementation.  This was considered a headache when Ada came out, but now that everyone has bigger monitors, it's less of an issue.
</p><p>
Java, despite having interfaces, seems to have build and packaging systems of grossly excessive complexity. I'm not really sure why.
</p><p>
The next problem is the "make" mindset, which is built on timestamps.  "make" doesn't check what changed; it checks was was "touched".  If "make" decided what had changed based on hashes, rather than timestamps, many unnecessary recompiles would be avoided. Something could run "autoconf", produce exactly the same result as last time, and not trigger vast numbers of recompiles.
</p><p>
There's also the tendency to treat "make" as a macro language rather than a dependency graph.  This results in makefiles that always recompile, rather than only recompile what's needed.
</p><p>
It would be useful if compilers output, in the object file, a list of every file they read during the compile, with a crypto grade hash (MD5, etc.) of each.  A hash of the compile options and the compiler version would also be included. Then you could tell, reliably, if you really needed to rebuild something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself why we have " builds " , where everything gets rebuilt .
Do I have to have my ICs re-fabbed when I change the PC board design ?
No. We 're still not doing components right .
Historically , the big problem came from C include files .
Everything but the kitchen sink is in there .
There 's no language-enforced separation between interface ( the parts clients of the module see and may have to recompile if changed ) and implementation ( the part the implementations see ) .
Also , you can include files inside include files , even conditionally .
So developing the dependency graph of the program is hard .
C + + made things worse , not better .
The private methods of a C + + class have to appear in the header file , which exposes more of the internals than is really necessary .
Every time you add a new private method , the clients , who can never see or use that private method , have to be recompiled .
This not only produces cascading builds , it discourages programmers from adding new private methods rather than bloating existing ones .
That 's bad for code readability and reliability .
Ada explicitly dealt with this .
Ada has a hard separation between interface and implementation .
This was considered a headache when Ada came out , but now that everyone has bigger monitors , it 's less of an issue .
Java , despite having interfaces , seems to have build and packaging systems of grossly excessive complexity .
I 'm not really sure why .
The next problem is the " make " mindset , which is built on timestamps .
" make " does n't check what changed ; it checks was was " touched " .
If " make " decided what had changed based on hashes , rather than timestamps , many unnecessary recompiles would be avoided .
Something could run " autoconf " , produce exactly the same result as last time , and not trigger vast numbers of recompiles .
There 's also the tendency to treat " make " as a macro language rather than a dependency graph .
This results in makefiles that always recompile , rather than only recompile what 's needed .
It would be useful if compilers output , in the object file , a list of every file they read during the compile , with a crypto grade hash ( MD5 , etc .
) of each .
A hash of the compile options and the compiler version would also be included .
Then you could tell , reliably , if you really needed to rebuild something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ask yourself why we have "builds", where everything gets rebuilt.
Do I have to have my ICs re-fabbed when I change the PC board design?
No.  We're still not doing components right.
Historically, the big problem came from C include files.
Everything but the kitchen sink is in there.
There's no language-enforced separation between interface (the parts clients of the module see and may have to recompile if changed) and implementation (the part the implementations see).
Also, you can include files inside include files, even conditionally.
So developing the dependency graph of the program is hard.
C++ made things worse, not better.
The private methods of a C++ class have to appear in the header file, which exposes more of the internals than is really necessary.
Every time you add a new private method, the clients, who can never see or use that private method, have to be recompiled.
This not only produces cascading builds, it discourages programmers from adding new private methods rather than bloating existing ones.
That's bad for code readability and reliability.
Ada explicitly dealt with this.
Ada has a hard separation between interface and implementation.
This was considered a headache when Ada came out, but now that everyone has bigger monitors, it's less of an issue.
Java, despite having interfaces, seems to have build and packaging systems of grossly excessive complexity.
I'm not really sure why.
The next problem is the "make" mindset, which is built on timestamps.
"make" doesn't check what changed; it checks was was "touched".
If "make" decided what had changed based on hashes, rather than timestamps, many unnecessary recompiles would be avoided.
Something could run "autoconf", produce exactly the same result as last time, and not trigger vast numbers of recompiles.
There's also the tendency to treat "make" as a macro language rather than a dependency graph.
This results in makefiles that always recompile, rather than only recompile what's needed.
It would be useful if compilers output, in the object file, a list of every file they read during the compile, with a crypto grade hash (MD5, etc.
) of each.
A hash of the compile options and the compiler version would also be included.
Then you could tell, reliably, if you really needed to rebuild something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259974</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1259490960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>maximized xterm</p></div><p> <i>Please</i> don't do that.  I will hunt you down and deliver a round-house open-handed slap to your ear; rupturing your eardrum asunder.  Consider that next year I might have to maintain your 512 column code.  There is nothing more nauseating than opening someone's code in a standard xterm and seeing single lines fucking wrap around the fuck around the fucking terminal.</p><p>Just as a function should ideally be as small as possible (not always possible, I know) without too much scrolling, you really should try and use 80 columns only.  As with most poetry which employs constraints such as stanzas, etc, you can also achieve beauty (and better code) in 80 cols.  <i>And</i> you won't piss off other devs who have to look at your code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>maximized xterm Please do n't do that .
I will hunt you down and deliver a round-house open-handed slap to your ear ; rupturing your eardrum asunder .
Consider that next year I might have to maintain your 512 column code .
There is nothing more nauseating than opening someone 's code in a standard xterm and seeing single lines fucking wrap around the fuck around the fucking terminal.Just as a function should ideally be as small as possible ( not always possible , I know ) without too much scrolling , you really should try and use 80 columns only .
As with most poetry which employs constraints such as stanzas , etc , you can also achieve beauty ( and better code ) in 80 cols .
And you wo n't piss off other devs who have to look at your code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maximized xterm Please don't do that.
I will hunt you down and deliver a round-house open-handed slap to your ear; rupturing your eardrum asunder.
Consider that next year I might have to maintain your 512 column code.
There is nothing more nauseating than opening someone's code in a standard xterm and seeing single lines fucking wrap around the fuck around the fucking terminal.Just as a function should ideally be as small as possible (not always possible, I know) without too much scrolling, you really should try and use 80 columns only.
As with most poetry which employs constraints such as stanzas, etc, you can also achieve beauty (and better code) in 80 cols.
And you won't piss off other devs who have to look at your code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258276</id>
	<title>I don't care what the MS Developers use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does not affect my decisions at all.<br>Businesses aren't in business to push programming ideology.  They are in business to make money. If I need an application I'm going to get the application that does the job for the least amount of money (all the caveats about it not being poorly written and being moderately open to possible future expansion, etc.. apply).  If I need bare-metal code then I'll get a guy to do that.  If VB will do the job then I'm going to get a guy to do that and probably a bit cheaper.  I don't care what the language is.  I care that the problem is solved adequately for the least amount of overhead possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not affect my decisions at all.Businesses are n't in business to push programming ideology .
They are in business to make money .
If I need an application I 'm going to get the application that does the job for the least amount of money ( all the caveats about it not being poorly written and being moderately open to possible future expansion , etc.. apply ) . If I need bare-metal code then I 'll get a guy to do that .
If VB will do the job then I 'm going to get a guy to do that and probably a bit cheaper .
I do n't care what the language is .
I care that the problem is solved adequately for the least amount of overhead possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not affect my decisions at all.Businesses aren't in business to push programming ideology.
They are in business to make money.
If I need an application I'm going to get the application that does the job for the least amount of money (all the caveats about it not being poorly written and being moderately open to possible future expansion, etc.. apply).  If I need bare-metal code then I'll get a guy to do that.
If VB will do the job then I'm going to get a guy to do that and probably a bit cheaper.
I don't care what the language is.
I care that the problem is solved adequately for the least amount of overhead possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258354</id>
	<title>Uh, sure...</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1259421780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>let me know when they start writing "writing tight, bare-metal code" (i.e. assembler). C isn't that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>let me know when they start writing " writing tight , bare-metal code " ( i.e .
assembler ) . C is n't that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let me know when they start writing "writing tight, bare-metal code" (i.e.
assembler). C isn't that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436</id>
	<title>The most important question however is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>do they use vim or emacs now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do they use vim or emacs now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do they use vim or emacs now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258514</id>
	<title>Dear Computerworld...</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1259423280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our programmers are getting a bad rep because of our coding-for-weenies tradition. Can you please run an article that makes Microsoft programmers look like total badasses?<br> <br>XOXOXO<br>-Steve B.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our programmers are getting a bad rep because of our coding-for-weenies tradition .
Can you please run an article that makes Microsoft programmers look like total badasses ?
XOXOXO-Steve B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our programmers are getting a bad rep because of our coding-for-weenies tradition.
Can you please run an article that makes Microsoft programmers look like total badasses?
XOXOXO-Steve B.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259764</id>
	<title>Re:Why I prefer plain old text editors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I program using gedit, if there's an error I know that the error is somewhere in the written code in front of me. When I program using some IDE and there's an error, it might be hidden deep within 3 layers of menu options. There's much less control over the situation the second way.</p></div><p>That is assuming you are using the IDE for automatic code-generation.  That isn't always the case.  For instance, I've seen increasing numbers of Java projects with Maven (rather than ant) as the build / makefile that are edited in NetBeans, precisely because although it is an IDE, it just lets Maven and the plain old java compiler get on with the build.  All the benefits of code completion, support for common operations ("rename this package and all the references to it"), but if there is an error it is in code that the programmer has typed.  And you can tell because you can see it running the same commands you would run at the command line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I program using gedit , if there 's an error I know that the error is somewhere in the written code in front of me .
When I program using some IDE and there 's an error , it might be hidden deep within 3 layers of menu options .
There 's much less control over the situation the second way.That is assuming you are using the IDE for automatic code-generation .
That is n't always the case .
For instance , I 've seen increasing numbers of Java projects with Maven ( rather than ant ) as the build / makefile that are edited in NetBeans , precisely because although it is an IDE , it just lets Maven and the plain old java compiler get on with the build .
All the benefits of code completion , support for common operations ( " rename this package and all the references to it " ) , but if there is an error it is in code that the programmer has typed .
And you can tell because you can see it running the same commands you would run at the command line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I program using gedit, if there's an error I know that the error is somewhere in the written code in front of me.
When I program using some IDE and there's an error, it might be hidden deep within 3 layers of menu options.
There's much less control over the situation the second way.That is assuming you are using the IDE for automatic code-generation.
That isn't always the case.
For instance, I've seen increasing numbers of Java projects with Maven (rather than ant) as the build / makefile that are edited in NetBeans, precisely because although it is an IDE, it just lets Maven and the plain old java compiler get on with the build.
All the benefits of code completion, support for common operations ("rename this package and all the references to it"), but if there is an error it is in code that the programmer has typed.
And you can tell because you can see it running the same commands you would run at the command line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263384</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Top Developers?</title>
	<author>CountBrass</author>
	<datestamp>1259528340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So these are the guys responsible for Windows (all versions), Internet Explorer, Excel right? So why should we take any notice of these guys? Unless of course we wanted to learn how to develop slow, buggy, insecure applications that suffer from chronic feature bloat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So these are the guys responsible for Windows ( all versions ) , Internet Explorer , Excel right ?
So why should we take any notice of these guys ?
Unless of course we wanted to learn how to develop slow , buggy , insecure applications that suffer from chronic feature bloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So these are the guys responsible for Windows (all versions), Internet Explorer, Excel right?
So why should we take any notice of these guys?
Unless of course we wanted to learn how to develop slow, buggy, insecure applications that suffer from chronic feature bloat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262330</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the developers are saying MS IDE sucks or that visual studio sucks.  There are two main arguments being made:</p><p>1. UML models (Graphical model based design) is useless<br>2. Managed code lowers barriers to entry (No free lunch)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the developers are saying MS IDE sucks or that visual studio sucks .
There are two main arguments being made : 1 .
UML models ( Graphical model based design ) is useless2 .
Managed code lowers barriers to entry ( No free lunch )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the developers are saying MS IDE sucks or that visual studio sucks.
There are two main arguments being made:1.
UML models (Graphical model based design) is useless2.
Managed code lowers barriers to entry (No free lunch)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258914</id>
	<title>Re:Programmers I've worked with</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1259427360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thats funny, because people using vi are usually doing it just to prove how l33t their skills are, and hence are the biggest posers of them all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thats funny , because people using vi are usually doing it just to prove how l33t their skills are , and hence are the biggest posers of them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thats funny, because people using vi are usually doing it just to prove how l33t their skills are, and hence are the biggest posers of them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30266928</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're basically saying A &gt; A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div></blockquote><p>Ah, but he's ACTUALLY saying A&gt;[A+B], where B is "anyone else". Which makes sense if you use a negative value of B (which would be the opposite of hate - ie, love).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're basically saying A &gt; A since this " anyone " includes " you " too .
; ) Ah , but he 's ACTUALLY saying A &gt; [ A + B ] , where B is " anyone else " .
Which makes sense if you use a negative value of B ( which would be the opposite of hate - ie , love ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're basically saying A &gt; A since this "anyone" includes "you" too.
;)Ah, but he's ACTUALLY saying A&gt;[A+B], where B is "anyone else".
Which makes sense if you use a negative value of B (which would be the opposite of hate - ie, love).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260572</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259500920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, I agree it may be preferable to not bother with an IDE for some stuff, but if you don't use Visual Studio for developing say as an example, ASP.NET MVC apps then you're just being a waste of space basically. There's no real advantage to not using it for that type of app and you'll see a massive productivity decrease if you don't.</p><p>It really depends on the apps being built.</p><p>I agree with your last paragraph also but I don't think competence is the right word, there's this idea that assembly programmers are somehow better and more competent than again, say, high level web devs, but really, having done both there's no less complexity in building a scalable distributed web application that requires proficiency in technologies and standards (HTTP, XML, WSDL, UDDI, SQL etc.). You've then got to understand the way the web server in question handles concurrency, you've got to understand higher level security threats (SQL injection, XSS).</p><p>The fact is nowadays, whilst things have become more abstract, the amount of abstract technologies that good developers need to understand is so vast, there's certainly no more complexity, level of skill and knowledge required at the high end than there is at the low end. Realistically, if someone is competent enough to get their head around all the high end abstracted layers and technologies that are needed for modern large scale apps, then there's no reason they couldn't also get their head around low level assembly development as well and vice versa.</p><p>Whilst there are many web developers who wouldn't touch assembly, I have also encountered quite a few lower level developers (ASM, C etc.) that have this attitude that because they work at low level are awesome, but have then had some reason to build a web application that they've hacked together in PHP and it's the most god awful insecure, unmaintainable piece of crap you'll ever see, often with the wheel reinvented multiple times within.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I agree it may be preferable to not bother with an IDE for some stuff , but if you do n't use Visual Studio for developing say as an example , ASP.NET MVC apps then you 're just being a waste of space basically .
There 's no real advantage to not using it for that type of app and you 'll see a massive productivity decrease if you do n't.It really depends on the apps being built.I agree with your last paragraph also but I do n't think competence is the right word , there 's this idea that assembly programmers are somehow better and more competent than again , say , high level web devs , but really , having done both there 's no less complexity in building a scalable distributed web application that requires proficiency in technologies and standards ( HTTP , XML , WSDL , UDDI , SQL etc. ) .
You 've then got to understand the way the web server in question handles concurrency , you 've got to understand higher level security threats ( SQL injection , XSS ) .The fact is nowadays , whilst things have become more abstract , the amount of abstract technologies that good developers need to understand is so vast , there 's certainly no more complexity , level of skill and knowledge required at the high end than there is at the low end .
Realistically , if someone is competent enough to get their head around all the high end abstracted layers and technologies that are needed for modern large scale apps , then there 's no reason they could n't also get their head around low level assembly development as well and vice versa.Whilst there are many web developers who would n't touch assembly , I have also encountered quite a few lower level developers ( ASM , C etc .
) that have this attitude that because they work at low level are awesome , but have then had some reason to build a web application that they 've hacked together in PHP and it 's the most god awful insecure , unmaintainable piece of crap you 'll ever see , often with the wheel reinvented multiple times within .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I agree it may be preferable to not bother with an IDE for some stuff, but if you don't use Visual Studio for developing say as an example, ASP.NET MVC apps then you're just being a waste of space basically.
There's no real advantage to not using it for that type of app and you'll see a massive productivity decrease if you don't.It really depends on the apps being built.I agree with your last paragraph also but I don't think competence is the right word, there's this idea that assembly programmers are somehow better and more competent than again, say, high level web devs, but really, having done both there's no less complexity in building a scalable distributed web application that requires proficiency in technologies and standards (HTTP, XML, WSDL, UDDI, SQL etc.).
You've then got to understand the way the web server in question handles concurrency, you've got to understand higher level security threats (SQL injection, XSS).The fact is nowadays, whilst things have become more abstract, the amount of abstract technologies that good developers need to understand is so vast, there's certainly no more complexity, level of skill and knowledge required at the high end than there is at the low end.
Realistically, if someone is competent enough to get their head around all the high end abstracted layers and technologies that are needed for modern large scale apps, then there's no reason they couldn't also get their head around low level assembly development as well and vice versa.Whilst there are many web developers who wouldn't touch assembly, I have also encountered quite a few lower level developers (ASM, C etc.
) that have this attitude that because they work at low level are awesome, but have then had some reason to build a web application that they've hacked together in PHP and it's the most god awful insecure, unmaintainable piece of crap you'll ever see, often with the wheel reinvented multiple times within.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296</id>
	<title>modify that analogy</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1259421300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Managed code is like antilock brakes. You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die. Now you don't have to pump your brakes anymore."</i></p><p>Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand. (you lose your "feel for the road")</p><p>Tho I'm a little strangely biased, I miss the days of assembly, when 10k was a LOT of code to write to solve a problem, thing ran at blindingly fast speed with almost no disk or memory footprint.  Nowadays, Hello World is a huge production in itself.  97\% of today's coders don't have any idea what they've missed out on and just accept what they've got.  Even someone that understands the nerf tools like VB at a lower level can get sooo much more out of them.  I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several <i>thousand</i>-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things.  They didn't know what to say, they'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow.  (and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Managed code is like antilock brakes .
You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die .
Now you do n't have to pump your brakes anymore .
" Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena ( nascar ) do n't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand .
( you lose your " feel for the road " ) Tho I 'm a little strangely biased , I miss the days of assembly , when 10k was a LOT of code to write to solve a problem , thing ran at blindingly fast speed with almost no disk or memory footprint .
Nowadays , Hello World is a huge production in itself .
97 \ % of today 's coders do n't have any idea what they 've missed out on and just accept what they 've got .
Even someone that understands the nerf tools like VB at a lower level can get sooo much more out of them .
I recall taking someone 's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things .
They did n't know what to say , they 'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow .
( and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Managed code is like antilock brakes.
You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die.
Now you don't have to pump your brakes anymore.
"Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand.
(you lose your "feel for the road")Tho I'm a little strangely biased, I miss the days of assembly, when 10k was a LOT of code to write to solve a problem, thing ran at blindingly fast speed with almost no disk or memory footprint.
Nowadays, Hello World is a huge production in itself.
97\% of today's coders don't have any idea what they've missed out on and just accept what they've got.
Even someone that understands the nerf tools like VB at a lower level can get sooo much more out of them.
I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things.
They didn't know what to say, they'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow.
(and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262742</id>
	<title>Re:Those onion belts are going bad</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259522280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you're saying is "bad programmers can make a spaghetti mess in an IDE." Since we already know that bad programmers can make a spaghetti mess using plain editors, I guess all that leaves is:</p><p>"bad programmers make a spaghetti mess."</p><p>You've said nothing about IDEs. Except that they have search features, I guess, but it you couldn't search using your plain editor, it sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you 're saying is " bad programmers can make a spaghetti mess in an IDE .
" Since we already know that bad programmers can make a spaghetti mess using plain editors , I guess all that leaves is : " bad programmers make a spaghetti mess .
" You 've said nothing about IDEs .
Except that they have search features , I guess , but it you could n't search using your plain editor , it sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you're saying is "bad programmers can make a spaghetti mess in an IDE.
" Since we already know that bad programmers can make a spaghetti mess using plain editors, I guess all that leaves is:"bad programmers make a spaghetti mess.
"You've said nothing about IDEs.
Except that they have search features, I guess, but it you couldn't search using your plain editor, it sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260252</id>
	<title>Re:No, it's just "old dogs - new tricks"</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1259496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I take it you mean "the same results" to not include speed, memory and disk imprint ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it you mean " the same results " to not include speed , memory and disk imprint ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it you mean "the same results" to not include speed, memory and disk imprint ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264148</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason why they don't use Visual Studi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259493360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's actually no reason why you can't set a conditional breakpoint on your local system. You just need to have windbg installed and the appropriate sources and symbols. There's nothing magical about using Visual Studio for debugging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's actually no reason why you ca n't set a conditional breakpoint on your local system .
You just need to have windbg installed and the appropriate sources and symbols .
There 's nothing magical about using Visual Studio for debugging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's actually no reason why you can't set a conditional breakpoint on your local system.
You just need to have windbg installed and the appropriate sources and symbols.
There's nothing magical about using Visual Studio for debugging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30266158</id>
	<title>Re:Rather smug, I think.</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1259512080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you haven't met these guys.</p><p>Most of them actually do eat their own dog food for breakfast, lunch and dinner.  The language authors are actively writing application code using their own languages.  The tool builders are building their projects in their own tools.</p><p>Whenever I've met with any of them, they've been universally polite and friendly.  They're not condescending, they're just genuinely interested in getting you as excited about their work as they are.</p><p>I'd say these people are confident of their skills, not smug, and that they have absolutely every right in the world to be confident.</p><p>Your analogy of "people who make pipes" vs. "house plumbers" is close, but flawed.  These guys were indeed the "house plumber" kinds of people, and they are masters of the house plumbing trade.  After years in the business, they've invented new tools and new fittings to solve real-world problems they've encountered.  And they're smart enough to realize the need for a "generic" design that helps everyone plumb better, and to not settle for a specific solution to a one-off problem.  So they design and create a new solution, and it is so useful it is adopted by plumbers everywhere.  But to think that they couldn't still go back and plumb a house better than 99\% of the tradesmen in the business is a mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you have n't met these guys.Most of them actually do eat their own dog food for breakfast , lunch and dinner .
The language authors are actively writing application code using their own languages .
The tool builders are building their projects in their own tools.Whenever I 've met with any of them , they 've been universally polite and friendly .
They 're not condescending , they 're just genuinely interested in getting you as excited about their work as they are.I 'd say these people are confident of their skills , not smug , and that they have absolutely every right in the world to be confident.Your analogy of " people who make pipes " vs. " house plumbers " is close , but flawed .
These guys were indeed the " house plumber " kinds of people , and they are masters of the house plumbing trade .
After years in the business , they 've invented new tools and new fittings to solve real-world problems they 've encountered .
And they 're smart enough to realize the need for a " generic " design that helps everyone plumb better , and to not settle for a specific solution to a one-off problem .
So they design and create a new solution , and it is so useful it is adopted by plumbers everywhere .
But to think that they could n't still go back and plumb a house better than 99 \ % of the tradesmen in the business is a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you haven't met these guys.Most of them actually do eat their own dog food for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
The language authors are actively writing application code using their own languages.
The tool builders are building their projects in their own tools.Whenever I've met with any of them, they've been universally polite and friendly.
They're not condescending, they're just genuinely interested in getting you as excited about their work as they are.I'd say these people are confident of their skills, not smug, and that they have absolutely every right in the world to be confident.Your analogy of "people who make pipes" vs. "house plumbers" is close, but flawed.
These guys were indeed the "house plumber" kinds of people, and they are masters of the house plumbing trade.
After years in the business, they've invented new tools and new fittings to solve real-world problems they've encountered.
And they're smart enough to realize the need for a "generic" design that helps everyone plumb better, and to not settle for a specific solution to a one-off problem.
So they design and create a new solution, and it is so useful it is adopted by plumbers everywhere.
But to think that they couldn't still go back and plumb a house better than 99\% of the tradesmen in the business is a mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260106</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell, this applies to any profession, and even hobbies.  Many times the "new thing" tends to sacrifice raw power for ease of use.  Anyone who knows what they're doing is naturally going to shy away from anything like that meanwhile the newbies will love the shit out of it.  It's just the way things work.<br>Hell, I still pine for the good ole DOS days where if you knew your command line, you could get a computer to do whatever you wanted faster than your average person with a point and click interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , this applies to any profession , and even hobbies .
Many times the " new thing " tends to sacrifice raw power for ease of use .
Anyone who knows what they 're doing is naturally going to shy away from anything like that meanwhile the newbies will love the shit out of it .
It 's just the way things work.Hell , I still pine for the good ole DOS days where if you knew your command line , you could get a computer to do whatever you wanted faster than your average person with a point and click interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, this applies to any profession, and even hobbies.
Many times the "new thing" tends to sacrifice raw power for ease of use.
Anyone who knows what they're doing is naturally going to shy away from anything like that meanwhile the newbies will love the shit out of it.
It's just the way things work.Hell, I still pine for the good ole DOS days where if you knew your command line, you could get a computer to do whatever you wanted faster than your average person with a point and click interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258714</id>
	<title>Interpretive dance?</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1259425140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know about interpretive dance, but I'm guessing that the MFC was written in <a href="http://www.kinsaleceramics.com/images/image/DSCN1761.JPG" title="kinsaleceramics.com">abstract pottery</a> [kinsaleceramics.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about interpretive dance , but I 'm guessing that the MFC was written in abstract pottery [ kinsaleceramics.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about interpretive dance, but I'm guessing that the MFC was written in abstract pottery [kinsaleceramics.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate Microsoft more than anyone, but... I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Microsoft more than anyone , but... I really do n't see an issue or any hypocrisy here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Microsoft more than anyone, but... I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.</p></div><p>Indeed. One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly. As a result, a lot of new software simply will not run.</p><p>Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal, but '.Net' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell' look good in comparison; if even Microsoft can't fix it when it breaks, what chance do users have?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.Indeed .
One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework ' which ca n't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system : even Microsoft 's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing ' uninstaller is n't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly .
As a result , a lot of new software simply will not run.Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal , but '.Net ' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell ' look good in comparison ; if even Microsoft ca n't fix it when it breaks , what chance do users have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.Indeed.
One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly.
As a result, a lot of new software simply will not run.Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal, but '.Net' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell' look good in comparison; if even Microsoft can't fix it when it breaks, what chance do users have?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258258</id>
	<title>On the other hand</title>
	<author>earnest murderer</author>
	<datestamp>1259420700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to be a crack programmer or have a team of them to publish great software on a deadline.</p><p>Yes, it helps. A lot. And in a serious large scale development effort you want as many as you can get...</p><p>But it's good to be able to be useful without having to be elite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to be a crack programmer or have a team of them to publish great software on a deadline.Yes , it helps .
A lot .
And in a serious large scale development effort you want as many as you can get...But it 's good to be able to be useful without having to be elite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to be a crack programmer or have a team of them to publish great software on a deadline.Yes, it helps.
A lot.
And in a serious large scale development effort you want as many as you can get...But it's good to be able to be useful without having to be elite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267702</id>
	<title>Re:Leaks like a sieve</title>
	<author>jchillerup</author>
	<datestamp>1259613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect the bug here is that <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795" title="kuro5hin.org" rel="nofollow">Word95 would free a random pointer when started from a desktop shortcut</a> [kuro5hin.org].

From the leaked Win2K source code, in private\ntos\rtl\heap.c,<blockquote><div><p>// The specific idiot in this case is Office95, which likes<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// to free a random pointer when you start Word95 from a desktop<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// shortcut.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Sigh...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the bug here is that Word95 would free a random pointer when started from a desktop shortcut [ kuro5hin.org ] .
From the leaked Win2K source code , in private \ ntos \ rtl \ heap.c,// The specific idiot in this case is Office95 , which likes // to free a random pointer when you start Word95 from a desktop // shortcut .
Sigh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the bug here is that Word95 would free a random pointer when started from a desktop shortcut [kuro5hin.org].
From the leaked Win2K source code, in private\ntos\rtl\heap.c,// The specific idiot in this case is Office95, which likes // to free a random pointer when you start Word95 from a desktop // shortcut.
Sigh...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258614</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30268738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30385320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30265528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30266158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30266928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30269870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30272972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_235246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30385320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30265528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30268738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30264502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30266928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30269870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30266158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30261550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30263672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30267702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30272972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_235246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30258348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30260252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30259400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_235246.30262844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
