<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_07_0043215</id>
	<title>Whatever Happened To Programming?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267979160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:slashdot@miketaylor.org.uk" rel="nofollow">Mirk</a> writes <i>"In a recent interview, Don Knuth wrote: 'The way a lot of programming goes today isn't any fun because it's just plugging in magic incantations &mdash; combine somebody else's software and start it up.' The Reinvigorated Programmer laments how much of our 'programming' time is spent <a href="http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/whatever-happened-to-programming/">pasting not-quite-compatible libraries together</a> and patching around the edges."</i> This 3-day-old article has sparked lively discussions <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b8wc8/whatever\_happened\_to\_programming\_today\_i\_mostly/">at Reddit</a> and <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1165623">at Hacker News</a>, and the author has responded with a <a href="http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/whatever-happened-to-programming-redux-it-may-not-be-as-bad-as-all-that/">followup and summation</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirk writes " In a recent interview , Don Knuth wrote : 'The way a lot of programming goes today is n't any fun because it 's just plugging in magic incantations    combine somebody else 's software and start it up .
' The Reinvigorated Programmer laments how much of our 'programming ' time is spent pasting not-quite-compatible libraries together and patching around the edges .
" This 3-day-old article has sparked lively discussions at Reddit and at Hacker News , and the author has responded with a followup and summation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirk writes "In a recent interview, Don Knuth wrote: 'The way a lot of programming goes today isn't any fun because it's just plugging in magic incantations — combine somebody else's software and start it up.
' The Reinvigorated Programmer laments how much of our 'programming' time is spent pasting not-quite-compatible libraries together and patching around the edges.
" This 3-day-old article has sparked lively discussions at Reddit and at Hacker News, and the author has responded with a followup and summation.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387882</id>
	<title>Re:"Good programmers write good code...</title>
	<author>daffmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1267958880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peteris Krumins has a blog called <a href="http://www.catonmat.net/" title="catonmat.net">good coders code, great reuse</a> [catonmat.net], mostly about algorithms, perl, sed and such things. He might have borrowed the idea for the title also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peteris Krumins has a blog called good coders code , great reuse [ catonmat.net ] , mostly about algorithms , perl , sed and such things .
He might have borrowed the idea for the title also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peteris Krumins has a blog called good coders code, great reuse [catonmat.net], mostly about algorithms, perl, sed and such things.
He might have borrowed the idea for the title also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386480</id>
	<title>Frameworks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's still lots of interesting programming going on, and lots of interesting new languages. The ''Magic Incantations' are the same frameworks you used to have to write yourself, and even then you generally only did it once. It's gotten a lot easier to share the common solutions now, and we're free to do the real work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's still lots of interesting programming going on , and lots of interesting new languages .
The ''Magic Incantations ' are the same frameworks you used to have to write yourself , and even then you generally only did it once .
It 's gotten a lot easier to share the common solutions now , and we 're free to do the real work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's still lots of interesting programming going on, and lots of interesting new languages.
The ''Magic Incantations' are the same frameworks you used to have to write yourself, and even then you generally only did it once.
It's gotten a lot easier to share the common solutions now, and we're free to do the real work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31401592</id>
	<title>What the Hell are you arguing about?</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1268069040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not that large amount of software can be developed, and is developed using large amount of pre-existing code. It's not even that large amount of software is excruciatingly boring to develop because the easiest -- and right -- way to do it is to use large libraries and write a very small amount of original code to implement the functionality expected from new software.</p><p>The problem is, software is being developed by incompetent people in incompetent manner, and incompetent people use libraries, frameworks, protocols and programming ideologies as crutches, to develop seemingly working software despite their incompetence. Those people hunt for libraries, protocols and code to cut and paste, so they can implement their software despite having no idea how it is supposed to work. It does not matter if code they use is poorly suited for their purposes. It does not matter if it's pre-alpha quality code going into a safety-critical project. It does not matter if those programmers' assumptions are wrong, and they use libraries in unsafe way, produce countless buffer overflows in supposedly not-buffer-overflow-capable language and create massive mess with allocated and unallocated memory. It doesn't matter that they fundamentally misunderstand data formats and protocol they are using, so their software stops working the moment it leaves the environment it was developed in -- often the developer's desktop. The users and management expect those things to happen, and let those programmers continue for months in their perma-debugging cycle until everything is shoehorned into whatever seems to work well enough that the customer would pay for it. And the next person who will have to reuse THAT code, or merely interact with it, is given the task to write more new crud to keep old crud from breaking.</p><p>The problem is not that people use existing code -- the problem is that stupid, ignorant people who should have never been allowed to write software that will be used by others, use existing code to hide the fact that they are unfit to program. And another related problem is that this is tolerated.</p><p>I am a "real programmer". I was a programmer for  more than two decades, I studied EE and CS, I had to implement algorithms in C because I was writing programs in C when pre-made implementations did not exist, I had to re-implement them again because I had to make those implementations and they had to be more efficient and generalized, and I had to implement them once more when I had to deal with unusual environments where existing implementations did not work.</p><p>I spend most of my time using and adapting other people's work. I develop software for embedded environments that have all kinds of constraints that usually are not taken into account, and most of my effort goes into taking an established piece of software, making it work there, and building on it. I can reimplement it from scratch. My implementation would be likely better suited for my particular purpose. It may not be that much of an effort to create such a thing. However others' implementations are being actively developed by many people, and are portable between multiple platforms. And by using those existing libraries and pieces of infrastructure I can keep this portability and benefit from ongoing development when I have to extend my software. So I would rather use and contribute to those projects than creating yet another thing with identical functionality and completely different implementation and interface.</p><p>However often a time comes when I look at all available options, and see nothing that I want to reuse. Existing implementations are all made with assumptions that are not and can not be met within a system that I am developing. There are frameworks that I would use otherwise, however they are monolithic, require large amounts of resources, introduce unnecessary complexity, have far-reaching effect on the models and style of development, and for that particular application I only need a trivial piece of their functionality. And then t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not that large amount of software can be developed , and is developed using large amount of pre-existing code .
It 's not even that large amount of software is excruciatingly boring to develop because the easiest -- and right -- way to do it is to use large libraries and write a very small amount of original code to implement the functionality expected from new software.The problem is , software is being developed by incompetent people in incompetent manner , and incompetent people use libraries , frameworks , protocols and programming ideologies as crutches , to develop seemingly working software despite their incompetence .
Those people hunt for libraries , protocols and code to cut and paste , so they can implement their software despite having no idea how it is supposed to work .
It does not matter if code they use is poorly suited for their purposes .
It does not matter if it 's pre-alpha quality code going into a safety-critical project .
It does not matter if those programmers ' assumptions are wrong , and they use libraries in unsafe way , produce countless buffer overflows in supposedly not-buffer-overflow-capable language and create massive mess with allocated and unallocated memory .
It does n't matter that they fundamentally misunderstand data formats and protocol they are using , so their software stops working the moment it leaves the environment it was developed in -- often the developer 's desktop .
The users and management expect those things to happen , and let those programmers continue for months in their perma-debugging cycle until everything is shoehorned into whatever seems to work well enough that the customer would pay for it .
And the next person who will have to reuse THAT code , or merely interact with it , is given the task to write more new crud to keep old crud from breaking.The problem is not that people use existing code -- the problem is that stupid , ignorant people who should have never been allowed to write software that will be used by others , use existing code to hide the fact that they are unfit to program .
And another related problem is that this is tolerated.I am a " real programmer " .
I was a programmer for more than two decades , I studied EE and CS , I had to implement algorithms in C because I was writing programs in C when pre-made implementations did not exist , I had to re-implement them again because I had to make those implementations and they had to be more efficient and generalized , and I had to implement them once more when I had to deal with unusual environments where existing implementations did not work.I spend most of my time using and adapting other people 's work .
I develop software for embedded environments that have all kinds of constraints that usually are not taken into account , and most of my effort goes into taking an established piece of software , making it work there , and building on it .
I can reimplement it from scratch .
My implementation would be likely better suited for my particular purpose .
It may not be that much of an effort to create such a thing .
However others ' implementations are being actively developed by many people , and are portable between multiple platforms .
And by using those existing libraries and pieces of infrastructure I can keep this portability and benefit from ongoing development when I have to extend my software .
So I would rather use and contribute to those projects than creating yet another thing with identical functionality and completely different implementation and interface.However often a time comes when I look at all available options , and see nothing that I want to reuse .
Existing implementations are all made with assumptions that are not and can not be met within a system that I am developing .
There are frameworks that I would use otherwise , however they are monolithic , require large amounts of resources , introduce unnecessary complexity , have far-reaching effect on the models and style of development , and for that particular application I only need a trivial piece of their functionality .
And then t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not that large amount of software can be developed, and is developed using large amount of pre-existing code.
It's not even that large amount of software is excruciatingly boring to develop because the easiest -- and right -- way to do it is to use large libraries and write a very small amount of original code to implement the functionality expected from new software.The problem is, software is being developed by incompetent people in incompetent manner, and incompetent people use libraries, frameworks, protocols and programming ideologies as crutches, to develop seemingly working software despite their incompetence.
Those people hunt for libraries, protocols and code to cut and paste, so they can implement their software despite having no idea how it is supposed to work.
It does not matter if code they use is poorly suited for their purposes.
It does not matter if it's pre-alpha quality code going into a safety-critical project.
It does not matter if those programmers' assumptions are wrong, and they use libraries in unsafe way, produce countless buffer overflows in supposedly not-buffer-overflow-capable language and create massive mess with allocated and unallocated memory.
It doesn't matter that they fundamentally misunderstand data formats and protocol they are using, so their software stops working the moment it leaves the environment it was developed in -- often the developer's desktop.
The users and management expect those things to happen, and let those programmers continue for months in their perma-debugging cycle until everything is shoehorned into whatever seems to work well enough that the customer would pay for it.
And the next person who will have to reuse THAT code, or merely interact with it, is given the task to write more new crud to keep old crud from breaking.The problem is not that people use existing code -- the problem is that stupid, ignorant people who should have never been allowed to write software that will be used by others, use existing code to hide the fact that they are unfit to program.
And another related problem is that this is tolerated.I am a "real programmer".
I was a programmer for  more than two decades, I studied EE and CS, I had to implement algorithms in C because I was writing programs in C when pre-made implementations did not exist, I had to re-implement them again because I had to make those implementations and they had to be more efficient and generalized, and I had to implement them once more when I had to deal with unusual environments where existing implementations did not work.I spend most of my time using and adapting other people's work.
I develop software for embedded environments that have all kinds of constraints that usually are not taken into account, and most of my effort goes into taking an established piece of software, making it work there, and building on it.
I can reimplement it from scratch.
My implementation would be likely better suited for my particular purpose.
It may not be that much of an effort to create such a thing.
However others' implementations are being actively developed by many people, and are portable between multiple platforms.
And by using those existing libraries and pieces of infrastructure I can keep this portability and benefit from ongoing development when I have to extend my software.
So I would rather use and contribute to those projects than creating yet another thing with identical functionality and completely different implementation and interface.However often a time comes when I look at all available options, and see nothing that I want to reuse.
Existing implementations are all made with assumptions that are not and can not be met within a system that I am developing.
There are frameworks that I would use otherwise, however they are monolithic, require large amounts of resources, introduce unnecessary complexity, have far-reaching effect on the models and style of development, and for that particular application I only need a trivial piece of their functionality.
And then t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386766</id>
	<title>Moot Issue</title>
	<author>Redlazer</author>
	<datestamp>1267899960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It works just like everything. The simple stuff is simple, but it takes time and understanding. If you free up the mind to concentrate on harder things, while having something else take care of the simple things, we move forward.
<p>
Its about PROGRESS. Why else do we have machines and computers? What are they for? What are doing for us?
</p><p>
Doing things the hard way sucks. I'd much rather develop something that will do it the hard way so I never have to do it the hard way again.
</p><p>
-Red</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works just like everything .
The simple stuff is simple , but it takes time and understanding .
If you free up the mind to concentrate on harder things , while having something else take care of the simple things , we move forward .
Its about PROGRESS .
Why else do we have machines and computers ?
What are they for ?
What are doing for us ?
Doing things the hard way sucks .
I 'd much rather develop something that will do it the hard way so I never have to do it the hard way again .
-Red</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works just like everything.
The simple stuff is simple, but it takes time and understanding.
If you free up the mind to concentrate on harder things, while having something else take care of the simple things, we move forward.
Its about PROGRESS.
Why else do we have machines and computers?
What are they for?
What are doing for us?
Doing things the hard way sucks.
I'd much rather develop something that will do it the hard way so I never have to do it the hard way again.
-Red</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386788</id>
	<title>Re:Next Next Finish Programming</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267900380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time you simplify something you also take away flexibility. You cannot retain the same level of flexibility and raw power with simpler tools, unless the original tool was too complex to begin with. It might be possible to rearrange and document better, it is possible to make it more approachable by offering a cleaner, more appealing, more intuitive or easier to grasp interface, but you cannot "dumb it down" without taking away power from it.</p><p>For reference, see almost every graphical interface for any given Linux CLI program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time you simplify something you also take away flexibility .
You can not retain the same level of flexibility and raw power with simpler tools , unless the original tool was too complex to begin with .
It might be possible to rearrange and document better , it is possible to make it more approachable by offering a cleaner , more appealing , more intuitive or easier to grasp interface , but you can not " dumb it down " without taking away power from it.For reference , see almost every graphical interface for any given Linux CLI program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time you simplify something you also take away flexibility.
You cannot retain the same level of flexibility and raw power with simpler tools, unless the original tool was too complex to begin with.
It might be possible to rearrange and document better, it is possible to make it more approachable by offering a cleaner, more appealing, more intuitive or easier to grasp interface, but you cannot "dumb it down" without taking away power from it.For reference, see almost every graphical interface for any given Linux CLI program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387270</id>
	<title>Wanky Software Titles</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1267992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".</p><p>Programming titles are getting very wanky: Software Developer, Software Engineer, Software Architect, Senior Software Enterprise Architect, etc. The frightening thing is you'll need some of these who have never coded in their life, but feel qualified to design software for others to write.</p><p>At heart, we're all programmers and those designers that know bugger all about software should really choose another career.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It seems everyone wants to be a " software engineer " , but nobody wants to focus on the " hard stuff " , and instead chant " let java/X do it for you " .Programming titles are getting very wanky : Software Developer , Software Engineer , Software Architect , Senior Software Enterprise Architect , etc .
The frightening thing is you 'll need some of these who have never coded in their life , but feel qualified to design software for others to write.At heart , we 're all programmers and those designers that know bugger all about software should really choose another career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".Programming titles are getting very wanky: Software Developer, Software Engineer, Software Architect, Senior Software Enterprise Architect, etc.
The frightening thing is you'll need some of these who have never coded in their life, but feel qualified to design software for others to write.At heart, we're all programmers and those designers that know bugger all about software should really choose another career.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387328</id>
	<title>He laments about writing in C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard this for the past 15+ years.  Funny thing is, the guys that tell this same sad story never say how much they miss the days of writing in Assembly.</p><p>Personally, I don't care to re-implement concatenating two strings regardless of the language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard this for the past 15 + years .
Funny thing is , the guys that tell this same sad story never say how much they miss the days of writing in Assembly.Personally , I do n't care to re-implement concatenating two strings regardless of the language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard this for the past 15+ years.
Funny thing is, the guys that tell this same sad story never say how much they miss the days of writing in Assembly.Personally, I don't care to re-implement concatenating two strings regardless of the language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390998</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy!</title>
	<author>SleeknStealthy</author>
	<datestamp>1267984140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you mean users see the black box perspective</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean users see the black box perspective</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean users see the black box perspective</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387626</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ken: "Programming is hard!"<br>Not intended to be taken personal. However, what do you actually want to do after your tools do everything for you? It seems you want to be a designer, not a programmer....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ken : " Programming is hard !
" Not intended to be taken personal .
However , what do you actually want to do after your tools do everything for you ?
It seems you want to be a designer , not a programmer... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ken: "Programming is hard!
"Not intended to be taken personal.
However, what do you actually want to do after your tools do everything for you?
It seems you want to be a designer, not a programmer....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390838</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy!</title>
	<author>tomtefar</author>
	<datestamp>1267983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Letting 'what' take priority over the 'how' saves you development money for exactly one release.

You will be in deep, deep yoghurt when you start planning on 2.0 of the 'what' project and realise that the previous project team just clobbered together whatever they could find in order to pass the test suite, resulting in the opposite of reusable code.

The life cycle does not end with the initial release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Letting 'what ' take priority over the 'how ' saves you development money for exactly one release .
You will be in deep , deep yoghurt when you start planning on 2.0 of the 'what ' project and realise that the previous project team just clobbered together whatever they could find in order to pass the test suite , resulting in the opposite of reusable code .
The life cycle does not end with the initial release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Letting 'what' take priority over the 'how' saves you development money for exactly one release.
You will be in deep, deep yoghurt when you start planning on 2.0 of the 'what' project and realise that the previous project team just clobbered together whatever they could find in order to pass the test suite, resulting in the opposite of reusable code.
The life cycle does not end with the initial release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386798</id>
	<title>The pictures of meat are really disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267900500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't read the article - there should be a graphic images warning!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't read the article - there should be a graphic images warning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't read the article - there should be a graphic images warning!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31403306</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>renoX</author>
	<datestamp>1268076960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.</p><p>Sure, but the thing is: quite often programs try to be easy for an average person to use but in fact make it more difficult to use, the canonical example of this is Microsoft.<br>One example, in Word: if you select the middle of a word, the programs helpfully selects for you the end of this word, except that this happens only in Word not in other programs making this behaviour inconsistent: thanks a lot for the f#$@# "help".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.Sure , but the thing is : quite often programs try to be easy for an average person to use but in fact make it more difficult to use , the canonical example of this is Microsoft.One example , in Word : if you select the middle of a word , the programs helpfully selects for you the end of this word , except that this happens only in Word not in other programs making this behaviour inconsistent : thanks a lot for the f # $ @ # " help " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.Sure, but the thing is: quite often programs try to be easy for an average person to use but in fact make it more difficult to use, the canonical example of this is Microsoft.One example, in Word: if you select the middle of a word, the programs helpfully selects for you the end of this word, except that this happens only in Word not in other programs making this behaviour inconsistent: thanks a lot for the f#$@# "help".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387222</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267992000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you use the right frameworks but wrong tools...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you use the right frameworks but wrong tools.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you use the right frameworks but wrong tools...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387948</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gave up on existing frameworks for quite some time now, and since I am lazy but have to write lots and lots of code, I started creating my own tool sets to generate CRUD structures, value objects and now also front end code.  It's a pain in the ass to do it, but I force myself doing it that way rather than just doing the same old thing over and over again.  Finally I have developed a set of tools that I use on every project to do the same things that I would have ended up doing by hand anyway and my speed of production output grew by some ridiculous amount, I can't even comprehend, but I can say, that one of the projects I created generation tools that produced code that replaced a system with completely generated code that 3 other people were writing by hand for about 5 months.  To produce the generation tools took about 8 days.  The generators run everything in about 3 minutes.  If I can help it I don't write code anymore, I write code that writes code.</p><p>Tried packaging these tools into some nice form to allow others to use them, but it is difficult, it has been much easier to use these tools by myself and be very productive but it proves very hard to make the tools look and feel nice for other people.  Maintaining a Free version of these tools would be a huge challenge, I know how difficult it is to maintain Free anything, there would be more and more requests for features and nobody would ever be completely satisfied, it would take an enormous effort.  I think that maybe a reason that there are no great generator tools out there that are easy to use and at the same time produce good code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave up on existing frameworks for quite some time now , and since I am lazy but have to write lots and lots of code , I started creating my own tool sets to generate CRUD structures , value objects and now also front end code .
It 's a pain in the ass to do it , but I force myself doing it that way rather than just doing the same old thing over and over again .
Finally I have developed a set of tools that I use on every project to do the same things that I would have ended up doing by hand anyway and my speed of production output grew by some ridiculous amount , I ca n't even comprehend , but I can say , that one of the projects I created generation tools that produced code that replaced a system with completely generated code that 3 other people were writing by hand for about 5 months .
To produce the generation tools took about 8 days .
The generators run everything in about 3 minutes .
If I can help it I do n't write code anymore , I write code that writes code.Tried packaging these tools into some nice form to allow others to use them , but it is difficult , it has been much easier to use these tools by myself and be very productive but it proves very hard to make the tools look and feel nice for other people .
Maintaining a Free version of these tools would be a huge challenge , I know how difficult it is to maintain Free anything , there would be more and more requests for features and nobody would ever be completely satisfied , it would take an enormous effort .
I think that maybe a reason that there are no great generator tools out there that are easy to use and at the same time produce good code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave up on existing frameworks for quite some time now, and since I am lazy but have to write lots and lots of code, I started creating my own tool sets to generate CRUD structures, value objects and now also front end code.
It's a pain in the ass to do it, but I force myself doing it that way rather than just doing the same old thing over and over again.
Finally I have developed a set of tools that I use on every project to do the same things that I would have ended up doing by hand anyway and my speed of production output grew by some ridiculous amount, I can't even comprehend, but I can say, that one of the projects I created generation tools that produced code that replaced a system with completely generated code that 3 other people were writing by hand for about 5 months.
To produce the generation tools took about 8 days.
The generators run everything in about 3 minutes.
If I can help it I don't write code anymore, I write code that writes code.Tried packaging these tools into some nice form to allow others to use them, but it is difficult, it has been much easier to use these tools by myself and be very productive but it proves very hard to make the tools look and feel nice for other people.
Maintaining a Free version of these tools would be a huge challenge, I know how difficult it is to maintain Free anything, there would be more and more requests for features and nobody would ever be completely satisfied, it would take an enormous effort.
I think that maybe a reason that there are no great generator tools out there that are easy to use and at the same time produce good code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391728</id>
	<title>There's a reason Knuth is a professor...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and not a professional programmer.</p><p>Here's a little story:</p><p>Once upon a time, there were 5 friends.  Each was in the cart making business.  Each manufactured every part of his cart from scratch, because that's the way REAL cart makers made their carts back then.  Their carts consisted of wheels, an axle, the body of the cart, the traces, and a yoke.  Each of these friends happened to make one component of their carts better than the rest, and at least one part very poorly.  Making a cart is a time consuming process, so one of the friends decided that he would purchase his worst part, the wheels, from his friend who made wheels the best.  His friend thought that it was wierd that his friend would only want to purchase wheels from him, but because cartmaking is a tedious, low-pay job, he obliged.  He could use the extra money.</p><p>This worked great.  His carts were now that much better because he no longer had the weakness of the wheels to worry about.  AND he got his job done faster since he only had to purchase them.  So he then decided to approach his friend who made the best axles.  While they didn't fit the wheels exactly, they were a good enough fit with a bit of tinkering.  And so he went to each friend, purchasing a bit of a cart until he didn't actually have to build any of the parts himself, he only had to get them to work together.</p><p>People came to him because he built superior carts made with the best products, but he wasn't actually working all that hard because other people were making the parts for him.  Soon, the demand for his carts was so great that his friends quit making carts altogether and simply made their cart parts for him.  They were losing business to his superior carts anyway, and were making parts and subsequently, money much faster than if they were making entire carts by hand.</p><p>And they all lived happily everafter.  Until that bastard Ford came along and wiped them all out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and not a professional programmer.Here 's a little story : Once upon a time , there were 5 friends .
Each was in the cart making business .
Each manufactured every part of his cart from scratch , because that 's the way REAL cart makers made their carts back then .
Their carts consisted of wheels , an axle , the body of the cart , the traces , and a yoke .
Each of these friends happened to make one component of their carts better than the rest , and at least one part very poorly .
Making a cart is a time consuming process , so one of the friends decided that he would purchase his worst part , the wheels , from his friend who made wheels the best .
His friend thought that it was wierd that his friend would only want to purchase wheels from him , but because cartmaking is a tedious , low-pay job , he obliged .
He could use the extra money.This worked great .
His carts were now that much better because he no longer had the weakness of the wheels to worry about .
AND he got his job done faster since he only had to purchase them .
So he then decided to approach his friend who made the best axles .
While they did n't fit the wheels exactly , they were a good enough fit with a bit of tinkering .
And so he went to each friend , purchasing a bit of a cart until he did n't actually have to build any of the parts himself , he only had to get them to work together.People came to him because he built superior carts made with the best products , but he was n't actually working all that hard because other people were making the parts for him .
Soon , the demand for his carts was so great that his friends quit making carts altogether and simply made their cart parts for him .
They were losing business to his superior carts anyway , and were making parts and subsequently , money much faster than if they were making entire carts by hand.And they all lived happily everafter .
Until that bastard Ford came along and wiped them all out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and not a professional programmer.Here's a little story:Once upon a time, there were 5 friends.
Each was in the cart making business.
Each manufactured every part of his cart from scratch, because that's the way REAL cart makers made their carts back then.
Their carts consisted of wheels, an axle, the body of the cart, the traces, and a yoke.
Each of these friends happened to make one component of their carts better than the rest, and at least one part very poorly.
Making a cart is a time consuming process, so one of the friends decided that he would purchase his worst part, the wheels, from his friend who made wheels the best.
His friend thought that it was wierd that his friend would only want to purchase wheels from him, but because cartmaking is a tedious, low-pay job, he obliged.
He could use the extra money.This worked great.
His carts were now that much better because he no longer had the weakness of the wheels to worry about.
AND he got his job done faster since he only had to purchase them.
So he then decided to approach his friend who made the best axles.
While they didn't fit the wheels exactly, they were a good enough fit with a bit of tinkering.
And so he went to each friend, purchasing a bit of a cart until he didn't actually have to build any of the parts himself, he only had to get them to work together.People came to him because he built superior carts made with the best products, but he wasn't actually working all that hard because other people were making the parts for him.
Soon, the demand for his carts was so great that his friends quit making carts altogether and simply made their cart parts for him.
They were losing business to his superior carts anyway, and were making parts and subsequently, money much faster than if they were making entire carts by hand.And they all lived happily everafter.
Until that bastard Ford came along and wiped them all out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393668</id>
	<title>Re:Docs</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1267956600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>
On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation.
</i>
</p><p>
I have.  The Linux kernel comes to mind - the code is sufficiently well designed and architected that reading the source code will tell you what it does.  If you still need further clarification, there's a wealth of books on the subject.
</p><p>
Recently I've been using the FLTK libraries (www.fltk.org).  They're very well documented, come with a graphical designer, and well designed.  I chose them from over a dozen possible contenders, including wxWindows and Qt, largely because of the documentation provided.  In two hours, I had my first fltk program built and running.
</p><p>
I think the trick is to choose your OS software wisely.  You wouldn't buy a vendor's set of libraries without first investigating the documentation; why would OS be any different?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I do n't think I 've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation .
I have .
The Linux kernel comes to mind - the code is sufficiently well designed and architected that reading the source code will tell you what it does .
If you still need further clarification , there 's a wealth of books on the subject .
Recently I 've been using the FLTK libraries ( www.fltk.org ) .
They 're very well documented , come with a graphical designer , and well designed .
I chose them from over a dozen possible contenders , including wxWindows and Qt , largely because of the documentation provided .
In two hours , I had my first fltk program built and running .
I think the trick is to choose your OS software wisely .
You would n't buy a vendor 's set of libraries without first investigating the documentation ; why would OS be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation.
I have.
The Linux kernel comes to mind - the code is sufficiently well designed and architected that reading the source code will tell you what it does.
If you still need further clarification, there's a wealth of books on the subject.
Recently I've been using the FLTK libraries (www.fltk.org).
They're very well documented, come with a graphical designer, and well designed.
I chose them from over a dozen possible contenders, including wxWindows and Qt, largely because of the documentation provided.
In two hours, I had my first fltk program built and running.
I think the trick is to choose your OS software wisely.
You wouldn't buy a vendor's set of libraries without first investigating the documentation; why would OS be any different?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397872</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Doesn't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients. That will give you tastier food, but there's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort."</p><p>But not much after throwing up for days from food poisoning because the manufacturer wanted to save a few cents by reducing the QA staff, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does n't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients .
That will give you tastier food , but there 's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort .
" But not much after throwing up for days from food poisoning because the manufacturer wanted to save a few cents by reducing the QA staff , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Doesn't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients.
That will give you tastier food, but there's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort.
"But not much after throwing up for days from food poisoning because the manufacturer wanted to save a few cents by reducing the QA staff, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391690</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>neural.disruption</author>
	<datestamp>1267987800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if that was true(and it isn't) there is plenty of people that don't know how to use a bow and an arrow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if that was true ( and it is n't ) there is plenty of people that do n't know how to use a bow and an arrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if that was true(and it isn't) there is plenty of people that don't know how to use a bow and an arrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388404</id>
	<title>Everything should be easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Author: Programming was fun, people knew how it worked. Now everyone just glues stuff together. People should love it!<br>You: Elitist jerks like! You forget that these things are tools! Get stuff done! If we could have a black box that magically spit out code when a monkey pressed a button it would be ideal!</p><p>Yes, everyone wants to get stuff done, but that often magically assumes that it comes without a trade off. Sometimes the trade off is cheap, or likely, expensive to someone else, since apparently you wont be around when it bites you in the ass.</p><p>Apparently the author likes coding, you feel that the cost effectiveness of the method justifies the end.<br>Apparently learning how to cook something easy, fun, fresher, and tastier than microwaved crap is a waste of time.<br>May I also suggest finding a different job where you don't feel the to push  for the lowest common denominator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Author : Programming was fun , people knew how it worked .
Now everyone just glues stuff together .
People should love it ! You : Elitist jerks like !
You forget that these things are tools !
Get stuff done !
If we could have a black box that magically spit out code when a monkey pressed a button it would be ideal ! Yes , everyone wants to get stuff done , but that often magically assumes that it comes without a trade off .
Sometimes the trade off is cheap , or likely , expensive to someone else , since apparently you wont be around when it bites you in the ass.Apparently the author likes coding , you feel that the cost effectiveness of the method justifies the end.Apparently learning how to cook something easy , fun , fresher , and tastier than microwaved crap is a waste of time.May I also suggest finding a different job where you do n't feel the to push for the lowest common denominator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Author: Programming was fun, people knew how it worked.
Now everyone just glues stuff together.
People should love it!You: Elitist jerks like!
You forget that these things are tools!
Get stuff done!
If we could have a black box that magically spit out code when a monkey pressed a button it would be ideal!Yes, everyone wants to get stuff done, but that often magically assumes that it comes without a trade off.
Sometimes the trade off is cheap, or likely, expensive to someone else, since apparently you wont be around when it bites you in the ass.Apparently the author likes coding, you feel that the cost effectiveness of the method justifies the end.Apparently learning how to cook something easy, fun, fresher, and tastier than microwaved crap is a waste of time.May I also suggest finding a different job where you don't feel the to push  for the lowest common denominator?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388720</id>
	<title>I wonder if domain specific languages are better</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1267970880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After seing time after time programmers construct their own framework inside  frameworks, their own overloading inside overloading, etc, if it would be better for a task to be delivered to code monkeys to design a domain specific language.<br> <br>
The convoluted programming I have seen sometimes is beyond description<br> <br>

If you have a specific problem in a specific domain that has to be coded by average programmers, maybe better design a language for that specific task and be done with it. With as little overloading, re-encapsulating and re-objecting as possible. <br> <br>

Let that for the real software designers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After seing time after time programmers construct their own framework inside frameworks , their own overloading inside overloading , etc , if it would be better for a task to be delivered to code monkeys to design a domain specific language .
The convoluted programming I have seen sometimes is beyond description If you have a specific problem in a specific domain that has to be coded by average programmers , maybe better design a language for that specific task and be done with it .
With as little overloading , re-encapsulating and re-objecting as possible .
Let that for the real software designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After seing time after time programmers construct their own framework inside  frameworks, their own overloading inside overloading, etc, if it would be better for a task to be delivered to code monkeys to design a domain specific language.
The convoluted programming I have seen sometimes is beyond description 

If you have a specific problem in a specific domain that has to be coded by average programmers, maybe better design a language for that specific task and be done with it.
With as little overloading, re-encapsulating and re-objecting as possible.
Let that for the real software designers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388418</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>farmanb</author>
	<datestamp>1267967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whining about "infantilizing" the end user? WTF? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard. They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure the article's qualms with the infantilization of the end user is not about making the system usable, it was the way in which it was done.  Try at least finishing the first paragraph of the article before going on an indignant tirade.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My Computer. My Documents. Baby names. My world, mine, mine, mine. Network Neighborhood, just like Mister Rogers'.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whining about " infantilizing " the end user ?
WTF ? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard .
They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.I 'm pretty sure the article 's qualms with the infantilization of the end user is not about making the system usable , it was the way in which it was done .
Try at least finishing the first paragraph of the article before going on an indignant tirade.My Computer .
My Documents .
Baby names .
My world , mine , mine , mine .
Network Neighborhood , just like Mister Rogers' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whining about "infantilizing" the end user?
WTF? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard.
They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.I'm pretty sure the article's qualms with the infantilization of the end user is not about making the system usable, it was the way in which it was done.
Try at least finishing the first paragraph of the article before going on an indignant tirade.My Computer.
My Documents.
Baby names.
My world, mine, mine, mine.
Network Neighborhood, just like Mister Rogers'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392218</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you are WRONG. using a computer should be easy. programming one should not be easy. the idea that all code is valid is stupid and that more people writing, without caring how it works, is a good idea is idiocy.</p><p>take cars (the eternal metaphor): driving should be easy. building a car? there is a reason that engineers design and build cars: it is hard work. i know people would respond that cars can kill and code tends not to, particularly crappy utilities. that is until it opens up some hole that gives away your personal information and you find everything you worked for being worth spit.</p><p>look, i agree that a computer is a tool, not much else. remember that hammer you designed? the one with the really novel material that absorbs most of the returning shock? no? is that because you are not a mechanical engineer? yeah, don't feel bad, he did not design the cad program he used.</p><p>specialization. division of labor. the building blocks of socety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you are WRONG .
using a computer should be easy .
programming one should not be easy .
the idea that all code is valid is stupid and that more people writing , without caring how it works , is a good idea is idiocy.take cars ( the eternal metaphor ) : driving should be easy .
building a car ?
there is a reason that engineers design and build cars : it is hard work .
i know people would respond that cars can kill and code tends not to , particularly crappy utilities .
that is until it opens up some hole that gives away your personal information and you find everything you worked for being worth spit.look , i agree that a computer is a tool , not much else .
remember that hammer you designed ?
the one with the really novel material that absorbs most of the returning shock ?
no ? is that because you are not a mechanical engineer ?
yeah , do n't feel bad , he did not design the cad program he used.specialization .
division of labor .
the building blocks of socety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you are WRONG.
using a computer should be easy.
programming one should not be easy.
the idea that all code is valid is stupid and that more people writing, without caring how it works, is a good idea is idiocy.take cars (the eternal metaphor): driving should be easy.
building a car?
there is a reason that engineers design and build cars: it is hard work.
i know people would respond that cars can kill and code tends not to, particularly crappy utilities.
that is until it opens up some hole that gives away your personal information and you find everything you worked for being worth spit.look, i agree that a computer is a tool, not much else.
remember that hammer you designed?
the one with the really novel material that absorbs most of the returning shock?
no? is that because you are not a mechanical engineer?
yeah, don't feel bad, he did not design the cad program he used.specialization.
division of labor.
the building blocks of socety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390220</id>
	<title>The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1267979640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the <a href="http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/t/TheStoryofMel.html" title="jargon.net">Story of Mel</a> [jargon.net], all over again, just on a higher level of abstraction?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the Story of Mel [ jargon.net ] , all over again , just on a higher level of abstraction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the Story of Mel [jargon.net], all over again, just on a higher level of abstraction?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392024</id>
	<title>Re:Next Next Finish Programming</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm perfectly happy with applications that have a both graphical and command line interface. The GUI isn't evil, if the underlying software exposes it's API in some way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm perfectly happy with applications that have a both graphical and command line interface .
The GUI is n't evil , if the underlying software exposes it 's API in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm perfectly happy with applications that have a both graphical and command line interface.
The GUI isn't evil, if the underlying software exposes it's API in some way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386710</id>
	<title>what's the deal with don knuth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267899240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So he wants to write a book on compilers, if he ever finishes his series of books on computer programming for people who time travelled back to the early 1960s. Really?  If he knew jack hit about compilers, how does he explain TeX?   TeX isn't a typesetter, it's a poorly thought out programming language.  How poor? "How do I<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." questions on comp.text.tex are invariably answered with "Use perl/python/ruby/awk/sed/etc".   Imagine if the answer to "how do I loop from 1 to 100 in java?" was "write a python script to generate the unrolled loop code."</htmltext>
<tokenext>So he wants to write a book on compilers , if he ever finishes his series of books on computer programming for people who time travelled back to the early 1960s .
Really ? If he knew jack hit about compilers , how does he explain TeX ?
TeX is n't a typesetter , it 's a poorly thought out programming language .
How poor ?
" How do I ... " questions on comp.text.tex are invariably answered with " Use perl/python/ruby/awk/sed/etc " .
Imagine if the answer to " how do I loop from 1 to 100 in java ?
" was " write a python script to generate the unrolled loop code .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he wants to write a book on compilers, if he ever finishes his series of books on computer programming for people who time travelled back to the early 1960s.
Really?  If he knew jack hit about compilers, how does he explain TeX?
TeX isn't a typesetter, it's a poorly thought out programming language.
How poor?
"How do I ..." questions on comp.text.tex are invariably answered with "Use perl/python/ruby/awk/sed/etc".
Imagine if the answer to "how do I loop from 1 to 100 in java?
" was "write a python script to generate the unrolled loop code.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31395616</id>
	<title>Re:"Good programmers write good code...</title>
	<author>FriendlyPrimate</author>
	<datestamp>1267969620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>excellent programmers steal excellent code."!</p></div><p>Where the heck does excellent code come from then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>excellent programmers steal excellent code .
" ! Where the heck does excellent code come from then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excellent programmers steal excellent code.
"!Where the heck does excellent code come from then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386486</id>
	<title>DNRTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sushi in the banner is imitation crab. That's a red flag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sushi in the banner is imitation crab .
That 's a red flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sushi in the banner is imitation crab.
That's a red flag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388504</id>
	<title>Re:You can still program, if you're an engineer</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1267967940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't speak for Java but it certainly isn't (or wasn't anyway) a COBOL thing.  I've got no idea where you got that idea from.  Rather like equating Java with COBOL.  They're not even remotely similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak for Java but it certainly is n't ( or was n't anyway ) a COBOL thing .
I 've got no idea where you got that idea from .
Rather like equating Java with COBOL .
They 're not even remotely similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak for Java but it certainly isn't (or wasn't anyway) a COBOL thing.
I've got no idea where you got that idea from.
Rather like equating Java with COBOL.
They're not even remotely similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31405302</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid you confuse computers with dishwashers.</p><p>Easy and fun have different meanings for idiots and for smart people.</p><p>The industry is today taken by pointy haired concepts; no revolution can come out of them. Nothing good, fun or easy will come out of them. You should stop DEMANDING that someome makes it easy for you, and start taking responsibility for what you want to see, so realize your concept of easy, try to promote it, stop your whining and see if everyone else takes you for an idiot when you tell them about your idea.</p><p>Or, as I'm sure you've already done, buy a Mac. Or several. Is life easy enough in shiny land?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid you confuse computers with dishwashers.Easy and fun have different meanings for idiots and for smart people.The industry is today taken by pointy haired concepts ; no revolution can come out of them .
Nothing good , fun or easy will come out of them .
You should stop DEMANDING that someome makes it easy for you , and start taking responsibility for what you want to see , so realize your concept of easy , try to promote it , stop your whining and see if everyone else takes you for an idiot when you tell them about your idea.Or , as I 'm sure you 've already done , buy a Mac .
Or several .
Is life easy enough in shiny land ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid you confuse computers with dishwashers.Easy and fun have different meanings for idiots and for smart people.The industry is today taken by pointy haired concepts; no revolution can come out of them.
Nothing good, fun or easy will come out of them.
You should stop DEMANDING that someome makes it easy for you, and start taking responsibility for what you want to see, so realize your concept of easy, try to promote it, stop your whining and see if everyone else takes you for an idiot when you tell them about your idea.Or, as I'm sure you've already done, buy a Mac.
Or several.
Is life easy enough in shiny land?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391242</id>
	<title>Re:Docs</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1267985340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Testify Testify Brother!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Testify Testify Brother !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testify Testify Brother!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391496</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1267986780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of the issue is that "programming" is no longer what it used to be, yet everyone still uses the term. <br> <br>It's the difference between BBS and "Web 2.0". It used to be that geeks only could get a modem and some BBS software running which would allow them to connect to the entire world. Now my grandmother can tweet about the birds at her feeder, and someone in Tajikistan can read about them. <br> <br>There is a fundamental split now between "designing and writing code" and "programming applications". You want to "program applications". The author and a number of people posting here want to "design and write code". These are two very different things.<br> <br>I previously worked in a job "programming applications" for customer service reps. I had a stupid-easy gui toolbox, and pre-written database calls. All I did was link the two together, and provide some feedback for the operator. Currently, I'm in scientific computing, writing some bare-bones code to parse an obtuse, undocumented data structure into a usable format. I've got none of the nice easy stuff I had before. It's raw file reads and writes, slowly stepping through lines of output, trying to figure out wtf is going on. No gui, no buttons, nothing but some console output. <br> <br>Based on the article and comments here, it seems that we almost need to split "programming" up into some clearer terms. There's building a car, and there's driving one. There's writing raw code, and there's using pre-made tools to do a job quickly and efficiently. If I wanted one of those things done well, I wouldn't hire someone who was an expert at the other. Right tool for the job and all....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the issue is that " programming " is no longer what it used to be , yet everyone still uses the term .
It 's the difference between BBS and " Web 2.0 " .
It used to be that geeks only could get a modem and some BBS software running which would allow them to connect to the entire world .
Now my grandmother can tweet about the birds at her feeder , and someone in Tajikistan can read about them .
There is a fundamental split now between " designing and writing code " and " programming applications " .
You want to " program applications " .
The author and a number of people posting here want to " design and write code " .
These are two very different things .
I previously worked in a job " programming applications " for customer service reps. I had a stupid-easy gui toolbox , and pre-written database calls .
All I did was link the two together , and provide some feedback for the operator .
Currently , I 'm in scientific computing , writing some bare-bones code to parse an obtuse , undocumented data structure into a usable format .
I 've got none of the nice easy stuff I had before .
It 's raw file reads and writes , slowly stepping through lines of output , trying to figure out wtf is going on .
No gui , no buttons , nothing but some console output .
Based on the article and comments here , it seems that we almost need to split " programming " up into some clearer terms .
There 's building a car , and there 's driving one .
There 's writing raw code , and there 's using pre-made tools to do a job quickly and efficiently .
If I wanted one of those things done well , I would n't hire someone who was an expert at the other .
Right tool for the job and all... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the issue is that "programming" is no longer what it used to be, yet everyone still uses the term.
It's the difference between BBS and "Web 2.0".
It used to be that geeks only could get a modem and some BBS software running which would allow them to connect to the entire world.
Now my grandmother can tweet about the birds at her feeder, and someone in Tajikistan can read about them.
There is a fundamental split now between "designing and writing code" and "programming applications".
You want to "program applications".
The author and a number of people posting here want to "design and write code".
These are two very different things.
I previously worked in a job "programming applications" for customer service reps. I had a stupid-easy gui toolbox, and pre-written database calls.
All I did was link the two together, and provide some feedback for the operator.
Currently, I'm in scientific computing, writing some bare-bones code to parse an obtuse, undocumented data structure into a usable format.
I've got none of the nice easy stuff I had before.
It's raw file reads and writes, slowly stepping through lines of output, trying to figure out wtf is going on.
No gui, no buttons, nothing but some console output.
Based on the article and comments here, it seems that we almost need to split "programming" up into some clearer terms.
There's building a car, and there's driving one.
There's writing raw code, and there's using pre-made tools to do a job quickly and efficiently.
If I wanted one of those things done well, I wouldn't hire someone who was an expert at the other.
Right tool for the job and all....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393126</id>
	<title>Re:You can still program, if you're an engineer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267952940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offence meant, but I find your statements a bit "parochial".</p><p>You create value for your company/customer by applying what you know and produce code. More power to you.</p><p>Please understand that there are projects whose sheer size (let alone complexity) go way beyond the ability of a single man, even you. And that in order to tackle them, you need tools that can be used by a group of people, and most of them may be less good than you, but at least know how to work in group - even if this often means that someone else has to divide the problems in chunks they can digest and deliver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offence meant , but I find your statements a bit " parochial " .You create value for your company/customer by applying what you know and produce code .
More power to you.Please understand that there are projects whose sheer size ( let alone complexity ) go way beyond the ability of a single man , even you .
And that in order to tackle them , you need tools that can be used by a group of people , and most of them may be less good than you , but at least know how to work in group - even if this often means that someone else has to divide the problems in chunks they can digest and deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offence meant, but I find your statements a bit "parochial".You create value for your company/customer by applying what you know and produce code.
More power to you.Please understand that there are projects whose sheer size (let alone complexity) go way beyond the ability of a single man, even you.
And that in order to tackle them, you need tools that can be used by a group of people, and most of them may be less good than you, but at least know how to work in group - even if this often means that someone else has to divide the problems in chunks they can digest and deliver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31451104</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268406420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A hammer is a tool, a very simple one, yet it is still possible to use it incorrectly, you might see the result of that when the nail get bent or you hit your thumb.  Just about everything we do in life needs to be learned (with the exception of breathing).  You just won't be able to take programming down to the level where it can be done well by the average person until we have AI to write the programs for us, at which point the average person still won't be able to program well, they'll just have an artificial slave to do it for them.  I'm not arguing that it should be needlessly complex, just that there is a minimum level of education/training needed for anything if you want good results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A hammer is a tool , a very simple one , yet it is still possible to use it incorrectly , you might see the result of that when the nail get bent or you hit your thumb .
Just about everything we do in life needs to be learned ( with the exception of breathing ) .
You just wo n't be able to take programming down to the level where it can be done well by the average person until we have AI to write the programs for us , at which point the average person still wo n't be able to program well , they 'll just have an artificial slave to do it for them .
I 'm not arguing that it should be needlessly complex , just that there is a minimum level of education/training needed for anything if you want good results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hammer is a tool, a very simple one, yet it is still possible to use it incorrectly, you might see the result of that when the nail get bent or you hit your thumb.
Just about everything we do in life needs to be learned (with the exception of breathing).
You just won't be able to take programming down to the level where it can be done well by the average person until we have AI to write the programs for us, at which point the average person still won't be able to program well, they'll just have an artificial slave to do it for them.
I'm not arguing that it should be needlessly complex, just that there is a minimum level of education/training needed for anything if you want good results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386938</id>
	<title>! Car analogy</title>
	<author>oddaddresstrap</author>
	<datestamp>1267902420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice try, but, at best, a "vehicle" analogy. To be more precise, a truck analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice try , but , at best , a " vehicle " analogy .
To be more precise , a truck analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice try, but, at best, a "vehicle" analogy.
To be more precise, a truck analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391818</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267988520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I have an opinion on whether programming ought to be easy, and... it ought to be. Or at least, people have been imagining that it should be for a long time now. Programs writing themselves? Select portions, maybe. But really, the idea that it should be difficult to tie some libraries together is a silly one. The notion that it will always (i.e. "for the foreseeable future") be difficult to do it well and efficiently is a sound one. But by now we ought to be able to write useful programs by playing with tinkertoys. Without anything more you ought to be able to, say, take a video file and run it through a demuxer, have some stuff done to the video and audio, and have it slapped back together and spit out through a specified codec. You can do it with a shell script in many cases, why should it be hard to have a binary spit out that will do the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I have an opinion on whether programming ought to be easy , and... it ought to be .
Or at least , people have been imagining that it should be for a long time now .
Programs writing themselves ?
Select portions , maybe .
But really , the idea that it should be difficult to tie some libraries together is a silly one .
The notion that it will always ( i.e .
" for the foreseeable future " ) be difficult to do it well and efficiently is a sound one .
But by now we ought to be able to write useful programs by playing with tinkertoys .
Without anything more you ought to be able to , say , take a video file and run it through a demuxer , have some stuff done to the video and audio , and have it slapped back together and spit out through a specified codec .
You can do it with a shell script in many cases , why should it be hard to have a binary spit out that will do the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I have an opinion on whether programming ought to be easy, and... it ought to be.
Or at least, people have been imagining that it should be for a long time now.
Programs writing themselves?
Select portions, maybe.
But really, the idea that it should be difficult to tie some libraries together is a silly one.
The notion that it will always (i.e.
"for the foreseeable future") be difficult to do it well and efficiently is a sound one.
But by now we ought to be able to write useful programs by playing with tinkertoys.
Without anything more you ought to be able to, say, take a video file and run it through a demuxer, have some stuff done to the video and audio, and have it slapped back together and spit out through a specified codec.
You can do it with a shell script in many cases, why should it be hard to have a binary spit out that will do the same thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391198</id>
	<title>FOSS did...</title>
	<author>neural.disruption</author>
	<datestamp>1267985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Source(in general not only as FSF puts it) is a really good concept, but it also have promoted using code that you don't quite understand and patching it up until "it works". The equivalent in physics would be blindly joining equations from others until you make a new theory. </p><p>Most programmers no longer learn in a way that promotes self sufficiency, they have to use library X but they don't need to know how it works, even thought most of the time the resulting software would be better and with a shorter development phase if they did.</p><p>
A good programmer knows what he is doing, he does not expect things to magically work out due to a large amount of binary duct tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source ( in general not only as FSF puts it ) is a really good concept , but it also have promoted using code that you do n't quite understand and patching it up until " it works " .
The equivalent in physics would be blindly joining equations from others until you make a new theory .
Most programmers no longer learn in a way that promotes self sufficiency , they have to use library X but they do n't need to know how it works , even thought most of the time the resulting software would be better and with a shorter development phase if they did .
A good programmer knows what he is doing , he does not expect things to magically work out due to a large amount of binary duct tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source(in general not only as FSF puts it) is a really good concept, but it also have promoted using code that you don't quite understand and patching it up until "it works".
The equivalent in physics would be blindly joining equations from others until you make a new theory.
Most programmers no longer learn in a way that promotes self sufficiency, they have to use library X but they don't need to know how it works, even thought most of the time the resulting software would be better and with a shorter development phase if they did.
A good programmer knows what he is doing, he does not expect things to magically work out due to a large amount of binary duct tape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391612</id>
	<title>Abstraction Physics states there is no issue</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1267987380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php" title="abstractionphysics.net">Abstraction Physics</a> [abstractionphysics.net] clearly shows that programming is a recursive process of creating and using abstractions.</p><p>There is no issue with reuse but only a need to better generate code that is more appropriate for the application under development rather than from some other intended works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Abstraction Physics [ abstractionphysics.net ] clearly shows that programming is a recursive process of creating and using abstractions.There is no issue with reuse but only a need to better generate code that is more appropriate for the application under development rather than from some other intended works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abstraction Physics [abstractionphysics.net] clearly shows that programming is a recursive process of creating and using abstractions.There is no issue with reuse but only a need to better generate code that is more appropriate for the application under development rather than from some other intended works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388610</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>umghhh</author>
	<datestamp>1267969380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sometimes an effort needed to code stuff anew is the same as to lookd for libraries that do stuff you want, find out why the do not do exactly the stuff you want and find the way around. If you are unlucky chances are you may repeat the 'find the stuff' and following steps few times. OC it al depends. Balming all on Java and libraries is just a joke and the whole thread a silly rant. Fact is that majority of us do not work with rocket science. Yet when quality matters we usually rely on very few good sources and write code ourselves only this is not what general customer and your manager think is needed. Then again QA engineers like me have great fun fixing the stuff that has been copy pasted by geniuses that know libraries etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sometimes an effort needed to code stuff anew is the same as to lookd for libraries that do stuff you want , find out why the do not do exactly the stuff you want and find the way around .
If you are unlucky chances are you may repeat the 'find the stuff ' and following steps few times .
OC it al depends .
Balming all on Java and libraries is just a joke and the whole thread a silly rant .
Fact is that majority of us do not work with rocket science .
Yet when quality matters we usually rely on very few good sources and write code ourselves only this is not what general customer and your manager think is needed .
Then again QA engineers like me have great fun fixing the stuff that has been copy pasted by geniuses that know libraries etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sometimes an effort needed to code stuff anew is the same as to lookd for libraries that do stuff you want, find out why the do not do exactly the stuff you want and find the way around.
If you are unlucky chances are you may repeat the 'find the stuff' and following steps few times.
OC it al depends.
Balming all on Java and libraries is just a joke and the whole thread a silly rant.
Fact is that majority of us do not work with rocket science.
Yet when quality matters we usually rely on very few good sources and write code ourselves only this is not what general customer and your manager think is needed.
Then again QA engineers like me have great fun fixing the stuff that has been copy pasted by geniuses that know libraries etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397672</id>
	<title>All these promises...</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1267987200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... in every new language's press release of "ease of code-reuse", but it's actually quite hard to do and requires thought.</p><p>Perhaps if someone ever ACTUALLY comes through on that decades-old promise with real modules that work properly when re-used, we'll stop seeing thousands of buffer-overflow retarded bugs in code every year and software security "experts" (who rarely actually FIX the software, just find the holes in it -- which isn't getting to the root-cause problem, but there's good money in prolonging the solution) will have less to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... in every new language 's press release of " ease of code-reuse " , but it 's actually quite hard to do and requires thought.Perhaps if someone ever ACTUALLY comes through on that decades-old promise with real modules that work properly when re-used , we 'll stop seeing thousands of buffer-overflow retarded bugs in code every year and software security " experts " ( who rarely actually FIX the software , just find the holes in it -- which is n't getting to the root-cause problem , but there 's good money in prolonging the solution ) will have less to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in every new language's press release of "ease of code-reuse", but it's actually quite hard to do and requires thought.Perhaps if someone ever ACTUALLY comes through on that decades-old promise with real modules that work properly when re-used, we'll stop seeing thousands of buffer-overflow retarded bugs in code every year and software security "experts" (who rarely actually FIX the software, just find the holes in it -- which isn't getting to the root-cause problem, but there's good money in prolonging the solution) will have less to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386956</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me...</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1267902600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool, so I'll guess for each problem we'll start with writing the OS...  I'm only half joking.  If need to build a website do I need to start by building a web server or can I use Apache?</p><p>Starting at the appropriate level of abstraction (and understanding the trade offs) is in of itself a skill.  It could be argued that in order to solve more complex problems you HAVE to start at a higher level of abstraction or else you mentally get bogged down in the details (many of which do not matter as long as they just work).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , so I 'll guess for each problem we 'll start with writing the OS... I 'm only half joking .
If need to build a website do I need to start by building a web server or can I use Apache ? Starting at the appropriate level of abstraction ( and understanding the trade offs ) is in of itself a skill .
It could be argued that in order to solve more complex problems you HAVE to start at a higher level of abstraction or else you mentally get bogged down in the details ( many of which do not matter as long as they just work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, so I'll guess for each problem we'll start with writing the OS...  I'm only half joking.
If need to build a website do I need to start by building a web server or can I use Apache?Starting at the appropriate level of abstraction (and understanding the trade offs) is in of itself a skill.
It could be argued that in order to solve more complex problems you HAVE to start at a higher level of abstraction or else you mentally get bogged down in the details (many of which do not matter as long as they just work).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</id>
	<title>Docs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267903860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: "...it&rsquo;s a tedious exercise in impedance-matching, requiring lots of time spent grubbing around in poorly-written manuals that tell you everything the code already told you (because it was generated with JavaDoc or Rdoc or whatever), and none of the high-level stuff that you actually need to be told."</p><p>Ah, <b>so the real problem is poor documentation.</b> </p><p>I work all day in a programming language written by one of the biggest software companies in the world.  The documentation is complete, detailed, and accurate.  For large things, there's an accompanying "concepts" doc.  While I have (very rarely) run into something that needs clarification in some sort of corner case, I've never come across any part of their language, libraries, or objects that wasn't thoroughly documented, with examples.</p><p>On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation.  What does exist is typically out of date (and observations of such are met with "read the changelog!" - lame).  There's certainly nothing that explains the major concepts in the code - at best, there's some guide to functions or objects, and usually that only because it can be autogenerated.  Sometimes there are examples - though more typically, a few mini examples are the only documentation.</p><p>Documentation writing sucks.  Programmers don't enjoy it.  It's highly amusing to me that the two areas that are the least fun for programmers - GUI design and documentation - are the two worst parts of open source projects.</p><p>BTW, in the 80s, programmers were excited about OOP because it promised rich object libraries.  Someone would create objects to do X and we'd never have to code X again - no one, ever!  And now everyone complains programming is just stringing together libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " ...it    s a tedious exercise in impedance-matching , requiring lots of time spent grubbing around in poorly-written manuals that tell you everything the code already told you ( because it was generated with JavaDoc or Rdoc or whatever ) , and none of the high-level stuff that you actually need to be told .
" Ah , so the real problem is poor documentation .
I work all day in a programming language written by one of the biggest software companies in the world .
The documentation is complete , detailed , and accurate .
For large things , there 's an accompanying " concepts " doc .
While I have ( very rarely ) run into something that needs clarification in some sort of corner case , I 've never come across any part of their language , libraries , or objects that was n't thoroughly documented , with examples.On the other hand , I do n't think I 've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation .
What does exist is typically out of date ( and observations of such are met with " read the changelog !
" - lame ) .
There 's certainly nothing that explains the major concepts in the code - at best , there 's some guide to functions or objects , and usually that only because it can be autogenerated .
Sometimes there are examples - though more typically , a few mini examples are the only documentation.Documentation writing sucks .
Programmers do n't enjoy it .
It 's highly amusing to me that the two areas that are the least fun for programmers - GUI design and documentation - are the two worst parts of open source projects.BTW , in the 80s , programmers were excited about OOP because it promised rich object libraries .
Someone would create objects to do X and we 'd never have to code X again - no one , ever !
And now everyone complains programming is just stringing together libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "...it’s a tedious exercise in impedance-matching, requiring lots of time spent grubbing around in poorly-written manuals that tell you everything the code already told you (because it was generated with JavaDoc or Rdoc or whatever), and none of the high-level stuff that you actually need to be told.
"Ah, so the real problem is poor documentation.
I work all day in a programming language written by one of the biggest software companies in the world.
The documentation is complete, detailed, and accurate.
For large things, there's an accompanying "concepts" doc.
While I have (very rarely) run into something that needs clarification in some sort of corner case, I've never come across any part of their language, libraries, or objects that wasn't thoroughly documented, with examples.On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation.
What does exist is typically out of date (and observations of such are met with "read the changelog!
" - lame).
There's certainly nothing that explains the major concepts in the code - at best, there's some guide to functions or objects, and usually that only because it can be autogenerated.
Sometimes there are examples - though more typically, a few mini examples are the only documentation.Documentation writing sucks.
Programmers don't enjoy it.
It's highly amusing to me that the two areas that are the least fun for programmers - GUI design and documentation - are the two worst parts of open source projects.BTW, in the 80s, programmers were excited about OOP because it promised rich object libraries.
Someone would create objects to do X and we'd never have to code X again - no one, ever!
And now everyone complains programming is just stringing together libraries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386942</id>
	<title>Lack of imagination? That's your problem!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267902420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He seems to bitch about not being able to write something fundamentally new... but ignores that you have to think of actually inventing something new beforehand. Maybe he is more of an engineer, and less of an inventor/scientist. (Two types that complement and need each other.)</p><p>I don't do much library gluing, since I chose to concentrate on inventing new things. Revolutionary things.<br>It&rsquo;s just a choice. Nothing is stopping him from doing the same.<br>But I don&rsquo;t even consider the gluing bad. Actually it only shows how far we have come, when we have nearly perfect standard libraries for everything and its dog. Generalizing algorithms and making things reusable are corner stones of programming. And they are great ones!</p><p>If you want to code something new, you need to come up with something revolutionary.</p><p>So: Mr Knuth: How about we team up: I deliver new ideas that nobody came up with yet, and you get something to code that nobody ever coded before. How about that? I bet we would make a great team! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He seems to bitch about not being able to write something fundamentally new... but ignores that you have to think of actually inventing something new beforehand .
Maybe he is more of an engineer , and less of an inventor/scientist .
( Two types that complement and need each other .
) I do n't do much library gluing , since I chose to concentrate on inventing new things .
Revolutionary things.It    s just a choice .
Nothing is stopping him from doing the same.But I don    t even consider the gluing bad .
Actually it only shows how far we have come , when we have nearly perfect standard libraries for everything and its dog .
Generalizing algorithms and making things reusable are corner stones of programming .
And they are great ones ! If you want to code something new , you need to come up with something revolutionary.So : Mr Knuth : How about we team up : I deliver new ideas that nobody came up with yet , and you get something to code that nobody ever coded before .
How about that ?
I bet we would make a great team !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He seems to bitch about not being able to write something fundamentally new... but ignores that you have to think of actually inventing something new beforehand.
Maybe he is more of an engineer, and less of an inventor/scientist.
(Two types that complement and need each other.
)I don't do much library gluing, since I chose to concentrate on inventing new things.
Revolutionary things.It’s just a choice.
Nothing is stopping him from doing the same.But I don’t even consider the gluing bad.
Actually it only shows how far we have come, when we have nearly perfect standard libraries for everything and its dog.
Generalizing algorithms and making things reusable are corner stones of programming.
And they are great ones!If you want to code something new, you need to come up with something revolutionary.So: Mr Knuth: How about we team up: I deliver new ideas that nobody came up with yet, and you get something to code that nobody ever coded before.
How about that?
I bet we would make a great team!
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390132</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267979160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet simple English baffles you?<br>"might not of thought of."??<br>"I have to agreed."?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet simple English baffles you ?
" might not of thought of. " ? ?
" I have to agreed .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet simple English baffles you?
"might not of thought of."??
"I have to agreed.
"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390718</id>
	<title>You know Programming is in trouble</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1267982700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know Programming is in trouble when being "the goto guy" has become a compliment, rather than an insult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know Programming is in trouble when being " the goto guy " has become a compliment , rather than an insult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know Programming is in trouble when being "the goto guy" has become a compliment, rather than an insult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387944</id>
	<title>Re:Docs</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1267959840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Solution. Design an Documentation oriented language. Just write the documentation, and the software will be written automatically.<br> <br>
Or an artificial intelligence system that parses the code and, from a big database of programming design and bibliography, write nice and concise documentation.<br> <br>

Maybe it could be achieved with a bunch of reverse engineering documentation monkeys,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution .
Design an Documentation oriented language .
Just write the documentation , and the software will be written automatically .
Or an artificial intelligence system that parses the code and , from a big database of programming design and bibliography , write nice and concise documentation .
Maybe it could be achieved with a bunch of reverse engineering documentation monkeys , ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution.
Design an Documentation oriented language.
Just write the documentation, and the software will be written automatically.
Or an artificial intelligence system that parses the code and, from a big database of programming design and bibliography, write nice and concise documentation.
Maybe it could be achieved with a bunch of reverse engineering documentation monkeys, ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392590</id>
	<title>It's not supposed to be fun</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The way a lot of programming goes today isn't any fun</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's not fun because it's a job.  If it was supposed to be fun, you'd be paying your boss to do it, rather than the other way around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way a lot of programming goes today is n't any fun It 's not fun because it 's a job .
If it was supposed to be fun , you 'd be paying your boss to do it , rather than the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way a lot of programming goes today isn't any fun
It's not fun because it's a job.
If it was supposed to be fun, you'd be paying your boss to do it, rather than the other way around.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393338</id>
	<title>I Do it</title>
	<author>iconic999</author>
	<datestamp>1267954260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I code in C++ 10 hours a day. So I don't know what you're talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I code in C + + 10 hours a day .
So I do n't know what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I code in C++ 10 hours a day.
So I don't know what you're talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389546</id>
	<title>What happened?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267975560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two main things:</p><p>1 - Laziness<br>2 - Unreasonable deadlines</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two main things : 1 - Laziness2 - Unreasonable deadlines</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two main things:1 - Laziness2 - Unreasonable deadlines</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386656</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267898580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that he can't grasp the awesome power of 300 APIs (sorry, "technologies") each with three letter abbreviation names starting with J that make up the resume of a typical Java programmer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that he ca n't grasp the awesome power of 300 APIs ( sorry , " technologies " ) each with three letter abbreviation names starting with J that make up the resume of a typical Java programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that he can't grasp the awesome power of 300 APIs (sorry, "technologies") each with three letter abbreviation names starting with J that make up the resume of a typical Java programmer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386908</id>
	<title>Re:You can still program, if you're an engineer</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267902000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But they see this as a net positive because they have a new acronym to put on their resume.</i></p><p>You need to write a complex framework for that? I was under the impression that 90\% of the Java-related three-letter-thingies are made up anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they see this as a net positive because they have a new acronym to put on their resume.You need to write a complex framework for that ?
I was under the impression that 90 \ % of the Java-related three-letter-thingies are made up anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they see this as a net positive because they have a new acronym to put on their resume.You need to write a complex framework for that?
I was under the impression that 90\% of the Java-related three-letter-thingies are made up anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393208</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1267953540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.</p></div><p>Microsoft has been promoting that attitude for years, and has caused an enormous amount of damage in the process.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it.</p></div><p>Computer programming already <b>is</b> available to anyone.  But computer programming is inherently difficult, and it will <b>never</b> be equally accessible to all even if your AI wet-dream came true.  The bar would just be raised.  There would always be a small segment of the population able to make that AI do vast more impressive stuff than 99.999\% of the general population.  It's the very nature of having the type of mind that lends itself to writing good software.  That mind is always looking for ways to expand the capabilities of the technology, while the general population will be happy with the relatively simple stuff that is prepared for them.</p><p>There is a big difference between learning to use a microwave oven (analogous to clicking a button to launch a pre-written program), and designing and building a quality microwave oven (writing software).  The latter will <b>always</b> be harder than the former.  The moment the general populace learns to design a basic microwave oven, microwave specialists will create something better than what exists at the time -- leaving the general populace far behind.  This pattern will continue until humans are extinct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.Microsoft has been promoting that attitude for years , and has caused an enormous amount of damage in the process.The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it.Computer programming already is available to anyone .
But computer programming is inherently difficult , and it will never be equally accessible to all even if your AI wet-dream came true .
The bar would just be raised .
There would always be a small segment of the population able to make that AI do vast more impressive stuff than 99.999 \ % of the general population .
It 's the very nature of having the type of mind that lends itself to writing good software .
That mind is always looking for ways to expand the capabilities of the technology , while the general population will be happy with the relatively simple stuff that is prepared for them.There is a big difference between learning to use a microwave oven ( analogous to clicking a button to launch a pre-written program ) , and designing and building a quality microwave oven ( writing software ) .
The latter will always be harder than the former .
The moment the general populace learns to design a basic microwave oven , microwave specialists will create something better than what exists at the time -- leaving the general populace far behind .
This pattern will continue until humans are extinct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.Microsoft has been promoting that attitude for years, and has caused an enormous amount of damage in the process.The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it.Computer programming already is available to anyone.
But computer programming is inherently difficult, and it will never be equally accessible to all even if your AI wet-dream came true.
The bar would just be raised.
There would always be a small segment of the population able to make that AI do vast more impressive stuff than 99.999\% of the general population.
It's the very nature of having the type of mind that lends itself to writing good software.
That mind is always looking for ways to expand the capabilities of the technology, while the general population will be happy with the relatively simple stuff that is prepared for them.There is a big difference between learning to use a microwave oven (analogous to clicking a button to launch a pre-written program), and designing and building a quality microwave oven (writing software).
The latter will always be harder than the former.
The moment the general populace learns to design a basic microwave oven, microwave specialists will create something better than what exists at the time -- leaving the general populace far behind.
This pattern will continue until humans are extinct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387368</id>
	<title>Ben Parker?</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1267993800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle\_Ben#.22With\_great\_power\_comes\_great\_responsibility.22" title="wikipedia.org">Spiderman's uncle.</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>That sounds exactly like something he would say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know... Spiderman 's uncle .
[ wikipedia.org ] That sounds exactly like something he would say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know... Spiderman's uncle.
[wikipedia.org]That sounds exactly like something he would say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392270</id>
	<title>Re:As a physicist,</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1267990740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This has been proven mathematically with algorithmic information theory.</p></div><p>I guess you mean statistical learning theory. But it isn't that way: it depends on the complexity of the problem you want to solve. There's an optimal amount of complexity, and if your learning system has more or less complexity it will be suboptimal. (Having too many degrees in a learning system will cause overlearning and lack of generalisation capability.)</p><p>Keywords to google:<br>VC dimension, empirical risk minimisation</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been proven mathematically with algorithmic information theory.I guess you mean statistical learning theory .
But it is n't that way : it depends on the complexity of the problem you want to solve .
There 's an optimal amount of complexity , and if your learning system has more or less complexity it will be suboptimal .
( Having too many degrees in a learning system will cause overlearning and lack of generalisation capability .
) Keywords to google : VC dimension , empirical risk minimisation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been proven mathematically with algorithmic information theory.I guess you mean statistical learning theory.
But it isn't that way: it depends on the complexity of the problem you want to solve.
There's an optimal amount of complexity, and if your learning system has more or less complexity it will be suboptimal.
(Having too many degrees in a learning system will cause overlearning and lack of generalisation capability.
)Keywords to google:VC dimension, empirical risk minimisation
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390968</id>
	<title>Try Embedded Programming</title>
	<author>DCheesi</author>
	<datestamp>1267984020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In embedded programming there's still plenty of opportunity for ground-up design. Eg. writing a new driver for custom or unsupported hardware, creating custom applications to do whatever unique thing your widget does, etc.</p><p>Yes, you tend to get into framework-hell on the GUI side, and occasionally in other areas as well. But even then I get a sense of pride knowing that I made these things work on a platform they were never designed for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In embedded programming there 's still plenty of opportunity for ground-up design .
Eg. writing a new driver for custom or unsupported hardware , creating custom applications to do whatever unique thing your widget does , etc.Yes , you tend to get into framework-hell on the GUI side , and occasionally in other areas as well .
But even then I get a sense of pride knowing that I made these things work on a platform they were never designed for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In embedded programming there's still plenty of opportunity for ground-up design.
Eg. writing a new driver for custom or unsupported hardware, creating custom applications to do whatever unique thing your widget does, etc.Yes, you tend to get into framework-hell on the GUI side, and occasionally in other areas as well.
But even then I get a sense of pride knowing that I made these things work on a platform they were never designed for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391654</id>
	<title>Isn't fun? Did Don forget the last 30 years?</title>
	<author>nicholdraper</author>
	<datestamp>1267987560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm working at a company that has a few very solid products that need to be updated.  I'm throughly enjoying recreating these products with modern tools.  The pathetic old micro-controllers that don't have on-board emulators, serial drivers, and interface logic are replaced by chips that are simple to use and way faster.  I've started a controller project using the Open Embedded framework to provide the base.  I've been able to cross off every standard feature as working in just a week and I am spending my time on just the applications and drivers unique to my companies' project.  In a week I already have more functionality than the original programmers provided after three years of work.  And for all the "but when I wrote everything I knew how everything worked complaint," is it really that hard to read a few howto's about someone else' project.  I've written my own TCP/IP stack, I don't need to do it again, nor do I need to use the version I wrote for a company years ago.  I've written a bunch of Ethernet drivers, writing even one again will bore me to death.  True there was a sense of satisfaction to knowing that everything in a software product was the work of your own.  But, who cares, been there done that in college or before should satisfy that craving.  As bitbake chugged along for eight hours putting over 4,000 packages into my product, I couldn't care less that I wasn't even going to bother to read the names of the packages much less write them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm working at a company that has a few very solid products that need to be updated .
I 'm throughly enjoying recreating these products with modern tools .
The pathetic old micro-controllers that do n't have on-board emulators , serial drivers , and interface logic are replaced by chips that are simple to use and way faster .
I 've started a controller project using the Open Embedded framework to provide the base .
I 've been able to cross off every standard feature as working in just a week and I am spending my time on just the applications and drivers unique to my companies ' project .
In a week I already have more functionality than the original programmers provided after three years of work .
And for all the " but when I wrote everything I knew how everything worked complaint , " is it really that hard to read a few howto 's about someone else ' project .
I 've written my own TCP/IP stack , I do n't need to do it again , nor do I need to use the version I wrote for a company years ago .
I 've written a bunch of Ethernet drivers , writing even one again will bore me to death .
True there was a sense of satisfaction to knowing that everything in a software product was the work of your own .
But , who cares , been there done that in college or before should satisfy that craving .
As bitbake chugged along for eight hours putting over 4,000 packages into my product , I could n't care less that I was n't even going to bother to read the names of the packages much less write them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm working at a company that has a few very solid products that need to be updated.
I'm throughly enjoying recreating these products with modern tools.
The pathetic old micro-controllers that don't have on-board emulators, serial drivers, and interface logic are replaced by chips that are simple to use and way faster.
I've started a controller project using the Open Embedded framework to provide the base.
I've been able to cross off every standard feature as working in just a week and I am spending my time on just the applications and drivers unique to my companies' project.
In a week I already have more functionality than the original programmers provided after three years of work.
And for all the "but when I wrote everything I knew how everything worked complaint," is it really that hard to read a few howto's about someone else' project.
I've written my own TCP/IP stack, I don't need to do it again, nor do I need to use the version I wrote for a company years ago.
I've written a bunch of Ethernet drivers, writing even one again will bore me to death.
True there was a sense of satisfaction to knowing that everything in a software product was the work of your own.
But, who cares, been there done that in college or before should satisfy that craving.
As bitbake chugged along for eight hours putting over 4,000 packages into my product, I couldn't care less that I wasn't even going to bother to read the names of the packages much less write them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1267898400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Knuth had his day."</p><p>Wow. Just wow.</p><p>First, I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP. Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error. Oh, wait, I highly doubt you've done either. It can be how you can express your imagination in ways that are beyond TAOCP if you like.</p><p>Next, write some software at least as useful as TeX.</p><p>Then, and only then, can you call Knuth an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Knuth had his day. " Wow .
Just wow.First , I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP .
Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error .
Oh , wait , I highly doubt you 've done either .
It can be how you can express your imagination in ways that are beyond TAOCP if you like.Next , write some software at least as useful as TeX.Then , and only then , can you call Knuth an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Knuth had his day."Wow.
Just wow.First, I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP.
Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error.
Oh, wait, I highly doubt you've done either.
It can be how you can express your imagination in ways that are beyond TAOCP if you like.Next, write some software at least as useful as TeX.Then, and only then, can you call Knuth an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31405782</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1268044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>BTW, I think there is a lot of skill needed to be able to look at problem, figure out what libraries can/can not help and then pull it all together into a cohesive solution.</p></div><p>Isn't that the skill which makes you an engineer? Engineers don't go into the woods to take down trees, they never weld anything together and generally didn't add a single nail to the bridge which gets to carry their name.<br> <br>
Realistically, most programmers actually aren't the engineer, the are the lumberjacks and the welders. Sadly though, the engineering phase is skipped in most software projects. Thats why the fun and the quality is gone in a lot of software work. Programmers should actually grow up and become proper engineers and architects instead of just implementing the first thing which comes to mind.<br> <br>
The programmers of those libraries should start doing that first though, one of the reasons working with all those libraries is a pain in the butt is because the are largely unintuitive, unclean, incompatible and each in need of their own workarounds. I'm sure any programmer here can list a few libraries he just hates like nothing else, but simply cannot avoid using.<br> <br>
Someday all our software will be the result of proper engineering, although probably not in my lifetime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems everyone wants to be a " software engineer " , but nobody wants to focus on the " hard stuff " , and instead chant " let java/X do it for you " .
.. . BTW , I think there is a lot of skill needed to be able to look at problem , figure out what libraries can/can not help and then pull it all together into a cohesive solution.Is n't that the skill which makes you an engineer ?
Engineers do n't go into the woods to take down trees , they never weld anything together and generally did n't add a single nail to the bridge which gets to carry their name .
Realistically , most programmers actually are n't the engineer , the are the lumberjacks and the welders .
Sadly though , the engineering phase is skipped in most software projects .
Thats why the fun and the quality is gone in a lot of software work .
Programmers should actually grow up and become proper engineers and architects instead of just implementing the first thing which comes to mind .
The programmers of those libraries should start doing that first though , one of the reasons working with all those libraries is a pain in the butt is because the are largely unintuitive , unclean , incompatible and each in need of their own workarounds .
I 'm sure any programmer here can list a few libraries he just hates like nothing else , but simply can not avoid using .
Someday all our software will be the result of proper engineering , although probably not in my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".
...
BTW, I think there is a lot of skill needed to be able to look at problem, figure out what libraries can/can not help and then pull it all together into a cohesive solution.Isn't that the skill which makes you an engineer?
Engineers don't go into the woods to take down trees, they never weld anything together and generally didn't add a single nail to the bridge which gets to carry their name.
Realistically, most programmers actually aren't the engineer, the are the lumberjacks and the welders.
Sadly though, the engineering phase is skipped in most software projects.
Thats why the fun and the quality is gone in a lot of software work.
Programmers should actually grow up and become proper engineers and architects instead of just implementing the first thing which comes to mind.
The programmers of those libraries should start doing that first though, one of the reasons working with all those libraries is a pain in the butt is because the are largely unintuitive, unclean, incompatible and each in need of their own workarounds.
I'm sure any programmer here can list a few libraries he just hates like nothing else, but simply cannot avoid using.
Someday all our software will be the result of proper engineering, although probably not in my lifetime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386918</id>
	<title>Isn't he the guy who defends using goto statements</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1267902060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not think I could trust <a href="http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=356635.356640" title="acm.org" rel="nofollow"> this guy with</a> [acm.org] anything programming related. He surely would not have passed computer science 101 with my instructors. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think I could trust this guy with [ acm.org ] anything programming related .
He surely would not have passed computer science 101 with my instructors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think I could trust  this guy with [acm.org] anything programming related.
He surely would not have passed computer science 101 with my instructors. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31412406</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1268144640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so what did Einstein bring to the table after the mid forties? What about Bohr? Oppenheimer?</p><p>What Knuth delivered was no just a pair of shoulders for computer science to stand on for the next decades, it was a huge scaffolding.</p><p>Granted, we're taking it for granted, just like we do with all the other crap that we don't see put to use every day. Like sanitation. Imagine how quickly civilized society would break down, if all sewers, waste treatment and garbage collection just disappeared. That'd give you an idea of just what Knuth has provided for us.</p><p>Had his day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so what did Einstein bring to the table after the mid forties ?
What about Bohr ?
Oppenheimer ? What Knuth delivered was no just a pair of shoulders for computer science to stand on for the next decades , it was a huge scaffolding.Granted , we 're taking it for granted , just like we do with all the other crap that we do n't see put to use every day .
Like sanitation .
Imagine how quickly civilized society would break down , if all sewers , waste treatment and garbage collection just disappeared .
That 'd give you an idea of just what Knuth has provided for us.Had his day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so what did Einstein bring to the table after the mid forties?
What about Bohr?
Oppenheimer?What Knuth delivered was no just a pair of shoulders for computer science to stand on for the next decades, it was a huge scaffolding.Granted, we're taking it for granted, just like we do with all the other crap that we don't see put to use every day.
Like sanitation.
Imagine how quickly civilized society would break down, if all sewers, waste treatment and garbage collection just disappeared.
That'd give you an idea of just what Knuth has provided for us.Had his day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392030</id>
	<title>Every Programmer Uses Libraries</title>
	<author>A Pressbutton</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use Qt/ Win32/ Perl/ VB/ GCC - well just about anything

You are using libraries written by someone else.

For Perl it is called CPAN and is an advertised strength.

The only person who arguably does not use a third party library is someone who programs FGPA arrays without a macro assembler.

Engineers do not make their own screws and screwdrivers anymore, and whilst it may well be interesting to do so, the industrial revolution tells us that there are better things to do with our time.

The points made on trying to make integration easier are useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Qt/ Win32/ Perl/ VB/ GCC - well just about anything You are using libraries written by someone else .
For Perl it is called CPAN and is an advertised strength .
The only person who arguably does not use a third party library is someone who programs FGPA arrays without a macro assembler .
Engineers do not make their own screws and screwdrivers anymore , and whilst it may well be interesting to do so , the industrial revolution tells us that there are better things to do with our time .
The points made on trying to make integration easier are useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Qt/ Win32/ Perl/ VB/ GCC - well just about anything

You are using libraries written by someone else.
For Perl it is called CPAN and is an advertised strength.
The only person who arguably does not use a third party library is someone who programs FGPA arrays without a macro assembler.
Engineers do not make their own screws and screwdrivers anymore, and whilst it may well be interesting to do so, the industrial revolution tells us that there are better things to do with our time.
The points made on trying to make integration easier are useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31395636</id>
	<title>Nazi fascist</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1267969740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cablevision is a bunch of Nazi fascist.  FiOS and the like isn't even an option in my area and they know this so if I can and threaten they pretty much just laugh in my face.  Cablevision is my ONLY option unless I want something really horrible.</p><p>James Dolan should be deported from the US for being an fucking asshole.  The Knicks would probably actually become a winning franchise again.  How embarrassing was the Knicks losing to the Nets last night. The Nets were 6-55 before beating the Knicks.</p><p>Good job Dolan!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cablevision is a bunch of Nazi fascist .
FiOS and the like is n't even an option in my area and they know this so if I can and threaten they pretty much just laugh in my face .
Cablevision is my ONLY option unless I want something really horrible.James Dolan should be deported from the US for being an fucking asshole .
The Knicks would probably actually become a winning franchise again .
How embarrassing was the Knicks losing to the Nets last night .
The Nets were 6-55 before beating the Knicks.Good job Dolan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cablevision is a bunch of Nazi fascist.
FiOS and the like isn't even an option in my area and they know this so if I can and threaten they pretty much just laugh in my face.
Cablevision is my ONLY option unless I want something really horrible.James Dolan should be deported from the US for being an fucking asshole.
The Knicks would probably actually become a winning franchise again.
How embarrassing was the Knicks losing to the Nets last night.
The Nets were 6-55 before beating the Knicks.Good job Dolan!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386750</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267899720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comparison is pretty apt. It takes some training to hit something with bow and arror. Any moron can pick up a firearm and pull the trigger for effect.</p><p>I'm fairly sure the next gen of dev tools will turn anyone into a programming genius. But that's ok by me, I guess we'll be turned from soldiers into weaponsmiths, to stay in the analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comparison is pretty apt .
It takes some training to hit something with bow and arror .
Any moron can pick up a firearm and pull the trigger for effect.I 'm fairly sure the next gen of dev tools will turn anyone into a programming genius .
But that 's ok by me , I guess we 'll be turned from soldiers into weaponsmiths , to stay in the analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comparison is pretty apt.
It takes some training to hit something with bow and arror.
Any moron can pick up a firearm and pull the trigger for effect.I'm fairly sure the next gen of dev tools will turn anyone into a programming genius.
But that's ok by me, I guess we'll be turned from soldiers into weaponsmiths, to stay in the analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387614</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>EWillieL</author>
	<datestamp>1267954260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not harsh on copying and pasting freely available code from "out there" for your own use -- I'm harsh on copying and pasting code from one part of a system to another, just because somebody didn't have the mental capacity to realize they could tweak the existing code ever so slightly to suit both the old problem and the new problem. I've had to clean up after this more times than I'd care to count.</p><p>I once saw somebody who'd scoped each of the fifteen or so individual case clauses of a switch in braces, because they didn't want to rename the local variables they'd cut'n'pasted into each of the cases. Each case was about fifty lines, with a max of about five lines difference between them. I'm surprised I didn't have an anyeurism right then and there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not harsh on copying and pasting freely available code from " out there " for your own use -- I 'm harsh on copying and pasting code from one part of a system to another , just because somebody did n't have the mental capacity to realize they could tweak the existing code ever so slightly to suit both the old problem and the new problem .
I 've had to clean up after this more times than I 'd care to count.I once saw somebody who 'd scoped each of the fifteen or so individual case clauses of a switch in braces , because they did n't want to rename the local variables they 'd cut'n'pasted into each of the cases .
Each case was about fifty lines , with a max of about five lines difference between them .
I 'm surprised I did n't have an anyeurism right then and there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not harsh on copying and pasting freely available code from "out there" for your own use -- I'm harsh on copying and pasting code from one part of a system to another, just because somebody didn't have the mental capacity to realize they could tweak the existing code ever so slightly to suit both the old problem and the new problem.
I've had to clean up after this more times than I'd care to count.I once saw somebody who'd scoped each of the fifteen or so individual case clauses of a switch in braces, because they didn't want to rename the local variables they'd cut'n'pasted into each of the cases.
Each case was about fifty lines, with a max of about five lines difference between them.
I'm surprised I didn't have an anyeurism right then and there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31407874</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1268053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm currently a J2EE (and C, but predominately Java J2EE) programmer, familiar with Hibernate, Spring, as well as the old school EJB 2 mess.[snip]</p><p>Here's the core of the problem: The web is a horrible platform. I went from Rapid development drag and drop screen design in the late 90s to the abomination that is hand crafted JSP against shitty state based environments. Sure our applications are more scalable now, but I'm still hand crafting code to talk to a database object.</p></div><p>Your problem is that you're trying to rapidly develop web applications in Java.  I took a fairly challenging class in web development that went through the various available tools that the Java world uses, and god, I was wishing to go back to my Django, or even just raw PHP.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then you take a look at the GUI layer. Hand writing CSS and JSP? Really? In 2010? SHIT.</p></div><p>If by "hand writing CSS" you mean "using SASS and blueprint", then sure.  Oh, and JSP?  Yeah, the rest of us have been using good templating systems since, oh, 2005 at least.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And then you have to deal with having to redeploy your application to see simple changes OR using exploded views that don't update properly and leave you debugging a problem for 4 hours that should take 4 minutes.</p></div><p>When I make changes, the development server in whatever framework I'm working with automatically restarts and the changes are visible by the time I can switch desktops over to my browser.  As far as actual deployment, there are several really cool tools that do things like automatically update and reload the server when you push commits to your repository.  Pretty sweet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently a J2EE ( and C , but predominately Java J2EE ) programmer , familiar with Hibernate , Spring , as well as the old school EJB 2 mess .
[ snip ] Here 's the core of the problem : The web is a horrible platform .
I went from Rapid development drag and drop screen design in the late 90s to the abomination that is hand crafted JSP against shitty state based environments .
Sure our applications are more scalable now , but I 'm still hand crafting code to talk to a database object.Your problem is that you 're trying to rapidly develop web applications in Java .
I took a fairly challenging class in web development that went through the various available tools that the Java world uses , and god , I was wishing to go back to my Django , or even just raw PHP.Then you take a look at the GUI layer .
Hand writing CSS and JSP ?
Really ? In 2010 ?
SHIT.If by " hand writing CSS " you mean " using SASS and blueprint " , then sure .
Oh , and JSP ?
Yeah , the rest of us have been using good templating systems since , oh , 2005 at least.And then you have to deal with having to redeploy your application to see simple changes OR using exploded views that do n't update properly and leave you debugging a problem for 4 hours that should take 4 minutes.When I make changes , the development server in whatever framework I 'm working with automatically restarts and the changes are visible by the time I can switch desktops over to my browser .
As far as actual deployment , there are several really cool tools that do things like automatically update and reload the server when you push commits to your repository .
Pretty sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently a J2EE (and C, but predominately Java J2EE) programmer, familiar with Hibernate, Spring, as well as the old school EJB 2 mess.
[snip]Here's the core of the problem: The web is a horrible platform.
I went from Rapid development drag and drop screen design in the late 90s to the abomination that is hand crafted JSP against shitty state based environments.
Sure our applications are more scalable now, but I'm still hand crafting code to talk to a database object.Your problem is that you're trying to rapidly develop web applications in Java.
I took a fairly challenging class in web development that went through the various available tools that the Java world uses, and god, I was wishing to go back to my Django, or even just raw PHP.Then you take a look at the GUI layer.
Hand writing CSS and JSP?
Really? In 2010?
SHIT.If by "hand writing CSS" you mean "using SASS and blueprint", then sure.
Oh, and JSP?
Yeah, the rest of us have been using good templating systems since, oh, 2005 at least.And then you have to deal with having to redeploy your application to see simple changes OR using exploded views that don't update properly and leave you debugging a problem for 4 hours that should take 4 minutes.When I make changes, the development server in whatever framework I'm working with automatically restarts and the changes are visible by the time I can switch desktops over to my browser.
As far as actual deployment, there are several really cool tools that do things like automatically update and reload the server when you push commits to your repository.
Pretty sweet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387694</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome!  What is your Non-GNU userland Linux distro called?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !
What is your Non-GNU userland Linux distro called ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!
What is your Non-GNU userland Linux distro called?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386526</id>
	<title>Surprise surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. As a technology matures less time is spent inventing it and more time implementing it.</p><p>2. Programming, for anyone who pays for it, is not about it being fun; it's about getting shit done, and leveraging the effort of those who beat the path you need to walk usually results in cheaper, more stable, and more secure software than writing it from scratch. Fanatics, please note the word "usually" before taking out your flamethrowers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
As a technology matures less time is spent inventing it and more time implementing it.2 .
Programming , for anyone who pays for it , is not about it being fun ; it 's about getting shit done , and leveraging the effort of those who beat the path you need to walk usually results in cheaper , more stable , and more secure software than writing it from scratch .
Fanatics , please note the word " usually " before taking out your flamethrowers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
As a technology matures less time is spent inventing it and more time implementing it.2.
Programming, for anyone who pays for it, is not about it being fun; it's about getting shit done, and leveraging the effort of those who beat the path you need to walk usually results in cheaper, more stable, and more secure software than writing it from scratch.
Fanatics, please note the word "usually" before taking out your flamethrowers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387200</id>
	<title>Programming is alive and well</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1267905360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given how many crappy programs there are that crash because the author decided to code up buggy versions of library code, I'd say programming is alive and well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how many crappy programs there are that crash because the author decided to code up buggy versions of library code , I 'd say programming is alive and well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how many crappy programs there are that crash because the author decided to code up buggy versions of library code, I'd say programming is alive and well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</id>
	<title>You can still program, if you're an engineer</title>
	<author>Sarusa</author>
	<datestamp>1267900020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've dealt with Chinese and Indian outsourced code before - it's rather interesting. They take fragments of code they find via Google, paste them together, and do the bare minimum of editing to make it compile and say 'okay, we've fulfilled our contract, ship it.' This is what suffices for 'programming'.</p><p>On the other hand, I am still solving interesting problems with real programming at my current company, so I still think it's a lot of fun. The key point is that the programming is part of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/problem solving/. Code pigs have no concept of problem solving, just making the program work (by which they mean compile, or matching the sample screens). Engineers are solving problems, and the program is just a part of that. At my present job they really don't care what language I do things in as long as the job gets done, because solving the problem in the most practical manner is the most important thing. In practice this means I use C for things that actually do require high performance and minimal memory usage (this is still an issue in embedded programming),  Python for everything else that I can, and domain specific languages for things like servo controllers or FGPAs.</p><p>The 'pasting not quite compatible libraries together' approach is a Java/COBOL thing of minimizing the damage incompetent consultants can do. I've seen it time and time again - once an Enterprisey Java programmer encounters sufficient complexity, a hormone kicks in and they create a framework to simplify this complexity. It does so, initially, but eventually ends up being 2-10x as complex as the original problem they were trying to simplify. But they see this as a net positive because they have a new acronym to put on their resume.</p><p>So basically, like every single damn post I've seen on here lamenting the state of programming, and repeating every damn comment I've made again and again, it boils down to 'solve problems as efficiently as you can'. Absolute rules, in programming or religion, are for people who are too simple to handle complexity. This is the difference between an engineer and a code pig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've dealt with Chinese and Indian outsourced code before - it 's rather interesting .
They take fragments of code they find via Google , paste them together , and do the bare minimum of editing to make it compile and say 'okay , we 've fulfilled our contract , ship it .
' This is what suffices for 'programming'.On the other hand , I am still solving interesting problems with real programming at my current company , so I still think it 's a lot of fun .
The key point is that the programming is part of the /problem solving/ .
Code pigs have no concept of problem solving , just making the program work ( by which they mean compile , or matching the sample screens ) .
Engineers are solving problems , and the program is just a part of that .
At my present job they really do n't care what language I do things in as long as the job gets done , because solving the problem in the most practical manner is the most important thing .
In practice this means I use C for things that actually do require high performance and minimal memory usage ( this is still an issue in embedded programming ) , Python for everything else that I can , and domain specific languages for things like servo controllers or FGPAs.The 'pasting not quite compatible libraries together ' approach is a Java/COBOL thing of minimizing the damage incompetent consultants can do .
I 've seen it time and time again - once an Enterprisey Java programmer encounters sufficient complexity , a hormone kicks in and they create a framework to simplify this complexity .
It does so , initially , but eventually ends up being 2-10x as complex as the original problem they were trying to simplify .
But they see this as a net positive because they have a new acronym to put on their resume.So basically , like every single damn post I 've seen on here lamenting the state of programming , and repeating every damn comment I 've made again and again , it boils down to 'solve problems as efficiently as you can' .
Absolute rules , in programming or religion , are for people who are too simple to handle complexity .
This is the difference between an engineer and a code pig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've dealt with Chinese and Indian outsourced code before - it's rather interesting.
They take fragments of code they find via Google, paste them together, and do the bare minimum of editing to make it compile and say 'okay, we've fulfilled our contract, ship it.
' This is what suffices for 'programming'.On the other hand, I am still solving interesting problems with real programming at my current company, so I still think it's a lot of fun.
The key point is that the programming is part of the /problem solving/.
Code pigs have no concept of problem solving, just making the program work (by which they mean compile, or matching the sample screens).
Engineers are solving problems, and the program is just a part of that.
At my present job they really don't care what language I do things in as long as the job gets done, because solving the problem in the most practical manner is the most important thing.
In practice this means I use C for things that actually do require high performance and minimal memory usage (this is still an issue in embedded programming),  Python for everything else that I can, and domain specific languages for things like servo controllers or FGPAs.The 'pasting not quite compatible libraries together' approach is a Java/COBOL thing of minimizing the damage incompetent consultants can do.
I've seen it time and time again - once an Enterprisey Java programmer encounters sufficient complexity, a hormone kicks in and they create a framework to simplify this complexity.
It does so, initially, but eventually ends up being 2-10x as complex as the original problem they were trying to simplify.
But they see this as a net positive because they have a new acronym to put on their resume.So basically, like every single damn post I've seen on here lamenting the state of programming, and repeating every damn comment I've made again and again, it boils down to 'solve problems as efficiently as you can'.
Absolute rules, in programming or religion, are for people who are too simple to handle complexity.
This is the difference between an engineer and a code pig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31427534</id>
	<title>Fly-by</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268242680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just doing a fly-by here.</p><p>Guess what?  The answer is gray.  Some problems require the use of "big libraries" and some problems require the use of "minimal surface area" as I call it.  Programming has become a game of finding out when to use one approach versus the other.  There is no "one size fits all" for any one problem.</p><p>However, my approach to the trade/craft?  Do the simplest thing that could possibly work.  Get a working prototype early and optimize it as needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just doing a fly-by here.Guess what ?
The answer is gray .
Some problems require the use of " big libraries " and some problems require the use of " minimal surface area " as I call it .
Programming has become a game of finding out when to use one approach versus the other .
There is no " one size fits all " for any one problem.However , my approach to the trade/craft ?
Do the simplest thing that could possibly work .
Get a working prototype early and optimize it as needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just doing a fly-by here.Guess what?
The answer is gray.
Some problems require the use of "big libraries" and some problems require the use of "minimal surface area" as I call it.
Programming has become a game of finding out when to use one approach versus the other.
There is no "one size fits all" for any one problem.However, my approach to the trade/craft?
Do the simplest thing that could possibly work.
Get a working prototype early and optimize it as needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</id>
	<title>Car analogy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states that, no matter how important are things like unit tests, they are fundamentally in a supporting role to programming proper.</p><p>As someone who practices test-driven development and programming-by-contract, I fundamentally disagree. Tests, for me, is what defines the requirements and interfaces. The code itself is just the implementation. From the business logic perspective, HOW a program does something is secondary to WHAT it does.</p><p>Car analogy: imagine a programmer as a truck driver, and the project manager as the one who has his goods shipped. The programmer doesn't care much about what he ships (as long as it's not explosives or something like this) -- he cares about the route he's going to take to deliver those goods as fast and efficient as possible. That's all great. But the project manager doesn't care, nor should he. For him, the goods are the primary value, and the route the truck takes is the supporting value. As long as the goods arrive undamaged and on time, nobody other than the driver cares what route they went through.</p><p>We have a basic conflict of perspectives here. Programmers think it's all about how good their code is internally, and think that the coding is the most important part of the application, arguing that without that, the application obviously wouldn't work. But users and payers for that code do not care about those matters, they see a white-box perspective only. Just like the goods shipper, they care more about the goods than how they are delivered. And if the truck driver gets too bitchy about how and what goods he wants to deliver, it's usually easier to get a new truck driver than change your goods or shipping schedule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states that , no matter how important are things like unit tests , they are fundamentally in a supporting role to programming proper.As someone who practices test-driven development and programming-by-contract , I fundamentally disagree .
Tests , for me , is what defines the requirements and interfaces .
The code itself is just the implementation .
From the business logic perspective , HOW a program does something is secondary to WHAT it does.Car analogy : imagine a programmer as a truck driver , and the project manager as the one who has his goods shipped .
The programmer does n't care much about what he ships ( as long as it 's not explosives or something like this ) -- he cares about the route he 's going to take to deliver those goods as fast and efficient as possible .
That 's all great .
But the project manager does n't care , nor should he .
For him , the goods are the primary value , and the route the truck takes is the supporting value .
As long as the goods arrive undamaged and on time , nobody other than the driver cares what route they went through.We have a basic conflict of perspectives here .
Programmers think it 's all about how good their code is internally , and think that the coding is the most important part of the application , arguing that without that , the application obviously would n't work .
But users and payers for that code do not care about those matters , they see a white-box perspective only .
Just like the goods shipper , they care more about the goods than how they are delivered .
And if the truck driver gets too bitchy about how and what goods he wants to deliver , it 's usually easier to get a new truck driver than change your goods or shipping schedule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states that, no matter how important are things like unit tests, they are fundamentally in a supporting role to programming proper.As someone who practices test-driven development and programming-by-contract, I fundamentally disagree.
Tests, for me, is what defines the requirements and interfaces.
The code itself is just the implementation.
From the business logic perspective, HOW a program does something is secondary to WHAT it does.Car analogy: imagine a programmer as a truck driver, and the project manager as the one who has his goods shipped.
The programmer doesn't care much about what he ships (as long as it's not explosives or something like this) -- he cares about the route he's going to take to deliver those goods as fast and efficient as possible.
That's all great.
But the project manager doesn't care, nor should he.
For him, the goods are the primary value, and the route the truck takes is the supporting value.
As long as the goods arrive undamaged and on time, nobody other than the driver cares what route they went through.We have a basic conflict of perspectives here.
Programmers think it's all about how good their code is internally, and think that the coding is the most important part of the application, arguing that without that, the application obviously wouldn't work.
But users and payers for that code do not care about those matters, they see a white-box perspective only.
Just like the goods shipper, they care more about the goods than how they are delivered.
And if the truck driver gets too bitchy about how and what goods he wants to deliver, it's usually easier to get a new truck driver than change your goods or shipping schedule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387724</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267956060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1 troll</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 troll</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388782</id>
	<title>Toyota comes to mind.</title>
	<author>pjwhite</author>
	<datestamp>1267971660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want the software engineer who writes the drive-by-wire code for my car to UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY how the software works.  I sure hope they don't grab some black-box libraries, slap them together and call it done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want the software engineer who writes the drive-by-wire code for my car to UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY how the software works .
I sure hope they do n't grab some black-box libraries , slap them together and call it done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want the software engineer who writes the drive-by-wire code for my car to UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY how the software works.
I sure hope they don't grab some black-box libraries, slap them together and call it done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388012</id>
	<title>Open Source and Documentation</title>
	<author>Mandrel</author>
	<datestamp>1267961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation.  What does exist is typically out of date (and observations of such are met with "read the changelog!" - lame).</p></div><p>
Sometimes this is the case because they believe they owe their users nothing, and don't think or care about the risk to their reputation.
</p><p>
But sometimes it's deliberate to better sell their book, which properly documents the project. Thus it's ironic that FOSS is often paired with documentation that is both proprietary and not open for community editing,
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I do n't think I 've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation .
What does exist is typically out of date ( and observations of such are met with " read the changelog !
" - lame ) .
Sometimes this is the case because they believe they owe their users nothing , and do n't think or care about the risk to their reputation .
But sometimes it 's deliberate to better sell their book , which properly documents the project .
Thus it 's ironic that FOSS is often paired with documentation that is both proprietary and not open for community editing ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I don't think I've ever come across an open source product that had barest minimum of documentation.
What does exist is typically out of date (and observations of such are met with "read the changelog!
" - lame).
Sometimes this is the case because they believe they owe their users nothing, and don't think or care about the risk to their reputation.
But sometimes it's deliberate to better sell their book, which properly documents the project.
Thus it's ironic that FOSS is often paired with documentation that is both proprietary and not open for community editing,

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702</id>
	<title>"Good programmers write good code...</title>
	<author>fatp</author>
	<datestamp>1267899120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>excellent programmers steal excellent code."<br><br>I stole this, and I don't know where it is stolen from!</htmltext>
<tokenext>excellent programmers steal excellent code .
" I stole this , and I do n't know where it is stolen from !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excellent programmers steal excellent code.
"I stole this, and I don't know where it is stolen from!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390832</id>
	<title>Re:Well what's wrong with that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a tough time dealing with your implicit assumption that the kernel/assembly language programmer is at the pinnacle of programming.  The reality is that often people with this low-level mindset are horrible at writing business logic.  And yes, sometimes there are people that can do both.</p><p>Oftentimes the best programmer is one that isn't a programmer at all.  It's some guy in marketing, QA, or the education department that says "wait, we don't have to make the font size bigger.  Hit control-plus in your browser, or change your resolution, or buy a monitor bigger than 12 inches, or...".  Whereas most programmers would just bump the size of the font with no questions asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a tough time dealing with your implicit assumption that the kernel/assembly language programmer is at the pinnacle of programming .
The reality is that often people with this low-level mindset are horrible at writing business logic .
And yes , sometimes there are people that can do both.Oftentimes the best programmer is one that is n't a programmer at all .
It 's some guy in marketing , QA , or the education department that says " wait , we do n't have to make the font size bigger .
Hit control-plus in your browser , or change your resolution , or buy a monitor bigger than 12 inches , or... " .
Whereas most programmers would just bump the size of the font with no questions asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a tough time dealing with your implicit assumption that the kernel/assembly language programmer is at the pinnacle of programming.
The reality is that often people with this low-level mindset are horrible at writing business logic.
And yes, sometimes there are people that can do both.Oftentimes the best programmer is one that isn't a programmer at all.
It's some guy in marketing, QA, or the education department that says "wait, we don't have to make the font size bigger.
Hit control-plus in your browser, or change your resolution, or buy a monitor bigger than 12 inches, or...".
Whereas most programmers would just bump the size of the font with no questions asked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391294</id>
	<title>Re:Docs</title>
	<author>tyen</author>
	<datestamp>1267985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I work all day in a programming language written by one of the biggest software companies in the world. The documentation is complete, detailed, and accurate.</i> </p><p>What language and company is this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work all day in a programming language written by one of the biggest software companies in the world .
The documentation is complete , detailed , and accurate .
What language and company is this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I work all day in a programming language written by one of the biggest software companies in the world.
The documentation is complete, detailed, and accurate.
What language and company is this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390548</id>
	<title>Re:The Issue</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1267981680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's some truth to that - as time goes on tools become higher level, libraries more advanced, etc.</p><p>However, we are far from the point where everything one might ask for has been written. Look for example at the current state of parallel programming; in the real world, programming in Java, C++ or C#, you're still going to find yourself using low level threading libraries (e.g. Unix pthreads) and synchronization primitives most of the time, because better tools for mainstream languages for the most part just don't exist (notwithstanding things like OpenMP, design patterns like map-reduce). Plenty of scope here for creating your own parallel frameworks, libraries, etc.</p><p>Or how about something as simple and ubiquitous as XML... you could just use the standardized DOM/SAX API's and bemoan that you're having to use someone else's work rather than have the fun of designing it yourself, or you could realize that the productivity of these general-purpose APIs is dismal for any specific task and write your own higher level application libraries (e.g. I wrote one to convert arbitraty XML to/from C/C++ data structures).</p><p>Or what about fun stuff like implementing languages... sure you're unlikely to find justification in creating a new language to write a whole project in, but what about scriptability, testing and configuration... there's plenty of scope for implementing your own mini embedded languages for this sort of thing. Sure you can use languages like Python and Lua for C++ embedding, but wouldn't it be more productive for C++ programmers to use a C-like language instead...</p><p>I just used these three examples as they're things I've implemented myself in recent years, but there must be dozens of areas were customized tools are useful and appropriate.</p><p>I remember back in the early 80's a piece of much-hyped application generator called "The Last One" causing alarmist headlines about "The end of programming?", but the fact is that we're really no closer to that now than we were back then. Sure there are certain rote type of programming jobs that can be accomplished with off the shelf tools and little creativity, but the ever-increasing power of computers is creating ever increasing opportunities, and somehow the tools just never catch up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's some truth to that - as time goes on tools become higher level , libraries more advanced , etc.However , we are far from the point where everything one might ask for has been written .
Look for example at the current state of parallel programming ; in the real world , programming in Java , C + + or C # , you 're still going to find yourself using low level threading libraries ( e.g .
Unix pthreads ) and synchronization primitives most of the time , because better tools for mainstream languages for the most part just do n't exist ( notwithstanding things like OpenMP , design patterns like map-reduce ) .
Plenty of scope here for creating your own parallel frameworks , libraries , etc.Or how about something as simple and ubiquitous as XML... you could just use the standardized DOM/SAX API 's and bemoan that you 're having to use someone else 's work rather than have the fun of designing it yourself , or you could realize that the productivity of these general-purpose APIs is dismal for any specific task and write your own higher level application libraries ( e.g .
I wrote one to convert arbitraty XML to/from C/C + + data structures ) .Or what about fun stuff like implementing languages... sure you 're unlikely to find justification in creating a new language to write a whole project in , but what about scriptability , testing and configuration... there 's plenty of scope for implementing your own mini embedded languages for this sort of thing .
Sure you can use languages like Python and Lua for C + + embedding , but would n't it be more productive for C + + programmers to use a C-like language instead...I just used these three examples as they 're things I 've implemented myself in recent years , but there must be dozens of areas were customized tools are useful and appropriate.I remember back in the early 80 's a piece of much-hyped application generator called " The Last One " causing alarmist headlines about " The end of programming ?
" , but the fact is that we 're really no closer to that now than we were back then .
Sure there are certain rote type of programming jobs that can be accomplished with off the shelf tools and little creativity , but the ever-increasing power of computers is creating ever increasing opportunities , and somehow the tools just never catch up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's some truth to that - as time goes on tools become higher level, libraries more advanced, etc.However, we are far from the point where everything one might ask for has been written.
Look for example at the current state of parallel programming; in the real world, programming in Java, C++ or C#, you're still going to find yourself using low level threading libraries (e.g.
Unix pthreads) and synchronization primitives most of the time, because better tools for mainstream languages for the most part just don't exist (notwithstanding things like OpenMP, design patterns like map-reduce).
Plenty of scope here for creating your own parallel frameworks, libraries, etc.Or how about something as simple and ubiquitous as XML... you could just use the standardized DOM/SAX API's and bemoan that you're having to use someone else's work rather than have the fun of designing it yourself, or you could realize that the productivity of these general-purpose APIs is dismal for any specific task and write your own higher level application libraries (e.g.
I wrote one to convert arbitraty XML to/from C/C++ data structures).Or what about fun stuff like implementing languages... sure you're unlikely to find justification in creating a new language to write a whole project in, but what about scriptability, testing and configuration... there's plenty of scope for implementing your own mini embedded languages for this sort of thing.
Sure you can use languages like Python and Lua for C++ embedding, but wouldn't it be more productive for C++ programmers to use a C-like language instead...I just used these three examples as they're things I've implemented myself in recent years, but there must be dozens of areas were customized tools are useful and appropriate.I remember back in the early 80's a piece of much-hyped application generator called "The Last One" causing alarmist headlines about "The end of programming?
", but the fact is that we're really no closer to that now than we were back then.
Sure there are certain rote type of programming jobs that can be accomplished with off the shelf tools and little creativity, but the ever-increasing power of computers is creating ever increasing opportunities, and somehow the tools just never catch up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386726</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>crazycheetah</author>
	<datestamp>1267899420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't separate that too much. Some of us exist that can do the "hard stuff" and might even find and fix a bug in some of the libraries from time to time. However, when we're just making an app that works and fits in with the environment, a lot of the "hard stuff" has been done and is likely to be less buggy and more consistent with the environment than redoing the whole thing ourselves. Then, if it's open source, we can just fix bugs we find in the "hard stuff" and focus more on what we're actually doing.</p><p>Hell, things like basic sockets and other things that are fairly easy, really--every once in a while I forget to back that up or something stupid and instead of just doing it all from memory and by hand, I just copy and paste it off the internet, then rework it to my liking (by this time, I know the commands, but copy and paste is just faster). Of course, some times I like to do things that have already been done, only try to do it in a new way, just as an exercise (I'm down to programming as a hobby at this point).</p><p>I wouldn't be too harsh on copy and pasting, though. It can be a great learning exercise if you peel it apart and actually understand exactly what is going on and the different ways you can alter it. It's also a great way to get to know an open source library and be able to fix any bugs you find, or even add features to it, if that's your fancy. That's generally how I've done anything in that regard, to be honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't separate that too much .
Some of us exist that can do the " hard stuff " and might even find and fix a bug in some of the libraries from time to time .
However , when we 're just making an app that works and fits in with the environment , a lot of the " hard stuff " has been done and is likely to be less buggy and more consistent with the environment than redoing the whole thing ourselves .
Then , if it 's open source , we can just fix bugs we find in the " hard stuff " and focus more on what we 're actually doing.Hell , things like basic sockets and other things that are fairly easy , really--every once in a while I forget to back that up or something stupid and instead of just doing it all from memory and by hand , I just copy and paste it off the internet , then rework it to my liking ( by this time , I know the commands , but copy and paste is just faster ) .
Of course , some times I like to do things that have already been done , only try to do it in a new way , just as an exercise ( I 'm down to programming as a hobby at this point ) .I would n't be too harsh on copy and pasting , though .
It can be a great learning exercise if you peel it apart and actually understand exactly what is going on and the different ways you can alter it .
It 's also a great way to get to know an open source library and be able to fix any bugs you find , or even add features to it , if that 's your fancy .
That 's generally how I 've done anything in that regard , to be honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't separate that too much.
Some of us exist that can do the "hard stuff" and might even find and fix a bug in some of the libraries from time to time.
However, when we're just making an app that works and fits in with the environment, a lot of the "hard stuff" has been done and is likely to be less buggy and more consistent with the environment than redoing the whole thing ourselves.
Then, if it's open source, we can just fix bugs we find in the "hard stuff" and focus more on what we're actually doing.Hell, things like basic sockets and other things that are fairly easy, really--every once in a while I forget to back that up or something stupid and instead of just doing it all from memory and by hand, I just copy and paste it off the internet, then rework it to my liking (by this time, I know the commands, but copy and paste is just faster).
Of course, some times I like to do things that have already been done, only try to do it in a new way, just as an exercise (I'm down to programming as a hobby at this point).I wouldn't be too harsh on copy and pasting, though.
It can be a great learning exercise if you peel it apart and actually understand exactly what is going on and the different ways you can alter it.
It's also a great way to get to know an open source library and be able to fix any bugs you find, or even add features to it, if that's your fancy.
That's generally how I've done anything in that regard, to be honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391210</id>
	<title>I am apparently evil.</title>
	<author>tomtefar</author>
	<datestamp>1267985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the last year, I've participated/headed our company's effort in replacing our existing python code hell with a transactional framework (in C++ with services in any language) that provides fault tolerance, easy deployment, secured event collection (because they provide billing info),  load balancing, speed and scalability.
<br> <br>

It is well documented, has example code and test cases, and it received good feedback from the rest of the devs.
<br> <br>

I've starting to push it internally for an open source release since I thought that a framework that focuses on fault tolerance, transactional routing and scalability and other ops-oriented problems would be a good thing for the world.
<br> <br>

Ironically enough, one of the main reasons for developing our own framework was that clobbering together ACE + X + Y + whatever would yield a framework hybrid that seemed to messy for us to rely on. We would not know the code base, be (initially) dependent on community provided bug fixes and we would still have to write a ton of glue to get everything off the ground. So after a bit of soul searching regarding Not Invented Here, we decided to strike out on our own.
<br> <br>

However, after reading TFA, I realise that I may actually be Satan himself planning to release a new and improved rider of the apocalypse on the world.
<br> <br>

Why is this wrong? The company is bogged down by a crappy framework with huge performance issues and unclear API boundaries. Our new framework is 20-1000 times faster, provides a clearly defined API, and is asked for by other dev teams.
<br> <br>

Rolling our own framework gave us a single integrated (but not monolithic) codebase where the developer can log, store events, send transactions, do threads, manage signals, access DB backends and read configuration data using one API.
<br> <br>

The framework does take ownership of the main loop, and you do need to write plugins for your services. You can, however, register your own descriptors with the poll dispatcher in order to get a callback whenever traffic happens on it. We provide a basic worker thread model, but you are free to launch as many additional threads as you want.
<br> <br>

What did I do wrong? Should I be shot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the last year , I 've participated/headed our company 's effort in replacing our existing python code hell with a transactional framework ( in C + + with services in any language ) that provides fault tolerance , easy deployment , secured event collection ( because they provide billing info ) , load balancing , speed and scalability .
It is well documented , has example code and test cases , and it received good feedback from the rest of the devs .
I 've starting to push it internally for an open source release since I thought that a framework that focuses on fault tolerance , transactional routing and scalability and other ops-oriented problems would be a good thing for the world .
Ironically enough , one of the main reasons for developing our own framework was that clobbering together ACE + X + Y + whatever would yield a framework hybrid that seemed to messy for us to rely on .
We would not know the code base , be ( initially ) dependent on community provided bug fixes and we would still have to write a ton of glue to get everything off the ground .
So after a bit of soul searching regarding Not Invented Here , we decided to strike out on our own .
However , after reading TFA , I realise that I may actually be Satan himself planning to release a new and improved rider of the apocalypse on the world .
Why is this wrong ?
The company is bogged down by a crappy framework with huge performance issues and unclear API boundaries .
Our new framework is 20-1000 times faster , provides a clearly defined API , and is asked for by other dev teams .
Rolling our own framework gave us a single integrated ( but not monolithic ) codebase where the developer can log , store events , send transactions , do threads , manage signals , access DB backends and read configuration data using one API .
The framework does take ownership of the main loop , and you do need to write plugins for your services .
You can , however , register your own descriptors with the poll dispatcher in order to get a callback whenever traffic happens on it .
We provide a basic worker thread model , but you are free to launch as many additional threads as you want .
What did I do wrong ?
Should I be shot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the last year, I've participated/headed our company's effort in replacing our existing python code hell with a transactional framework (in C++ with services in any language) that provides fault tolerance, easy deployment, secured event collection (because they provide billing info),  load balancing, speed and scalability.
It is well documented, has example code and test cases, and it received good feedback from the rest of the devs.
I've starting to push it internally for an open source release since I thought that a framework that focuses on fault tolerance, transactional routing and scalability and other ops-oriented problems would be a good thing for the world.
Ironically enough, one of the main reasons for developing our own framework was that clobbering together ACE + X + Y + whatever would yield a framework hybrid that seemed to messy for us to rely on.
We would not know the code base, be (initially) dependent on community provided bug fixes and we would still have to write a ton of glue to get everything off the ground.
So after a bit of soul searching regarding Not Invented Here, we decided to strike out on our own.
However, after reading TFA, I realise that I may actually be Satan himself planning to release a new and improved rider of the apocalypse on the world.
Why is this wrong?
The company is bogged down by a crappy framework with huge performance issues and unclear API boundaries.
Our new framework is 20-1000 times faster, provides a clearly defined API, and is asked for by other dev teams.
Rolling our own framework gave us a single integrated (but not monolithic) codebase where the developer can log, store events, send transactions, do threads, manage signals, access DB backends and read configuration data using one API.
The framework does take ownership of the main loop, and you do need to write plugins for your services.
You can, however, register your own descriptors with the poll dispatcher in order to get a callback whenever traffic happens on it.
We provide a basic worker thread model, but you are free to launch as many additional threads as you want.
What did I do wrong?
Should I be shot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389592</id>
	<title>Welcome to the age of software components</title>
	<author>descubes</author>
	<datestamp>1267975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the 1990's, all the rage was about "software components", what was back then a dream. Those who came up with COM and Corba and OpenDoc envisioned a world where software components would be as easy to put together as electronic components.</p><p>Well, that's the world we live in now. Just type "./configure; make" and use it. Why complain? It's a good thing. It makes us more productive. It allows our poor brains to keep up with Moore's law. See <a href="http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept\%20Programming\%20Presentation.pdf" title="sourceforge.net">http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept\%20Programming\%20Presentation.pdf</a> [sourceforge.net] for more...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 1990 's , all the rage was about " software components " , what was back then a dream .
Those who came up with COM and Corba and OpenDoc envisioned a world where software components would be as easy to put together as electronic components.Well , that 's the world we live in now .
Just type " ./configure ; make " and use it .
Why complain ?
It 's a good thing .
It makes us more productive .
It allows our poor brains to keep up with Moore 's law .
See http : //xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept \ % 20Programming \ % 20Presentation.pdf [ sourceforge.net ] for more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 1990's, all the rage was about "software components", what was back then a dream.
Those who came up with COM and Corba and OpenDoc envisioned a world where software components would be as easy to put together as electronic components.Well, that's the world we live in now.
Just type "./configure; make" and use it.
Why complain?
It's a good thing.
It makes us more productive.
It allows our poor brains to keep up with Moore's law.
See http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept\%20Programming\%20Presentation.pdf [sourceforge.net] for more...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387106</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267904160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I found a way to kill Knuth: Create &ldquo;Clippy&rsquo;s &rsquo;Microsoft Visual PHP&rsquo;, Clickwheel Tablet Edition&rdquo;! (A browser game^Wapplication of course.),<br>He will die from a heart attack, and then spin in his grave... round and round and round... wheeee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I found a way to kill Knuth : Create    Clippy    s    Microsoft Visual PHP    , Clickwheel Tablet Edition    !
( A browser game ^ Wapplication of course .
) ,He will die from a heart attack , and then spin in his grave... round and round and round... wheeee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I found a way to kill Knuth: Create “Clippy’s ’Microsoft Visual PHP’, Clickwheel Tablet Edition”!
(A browser game^Wapplication of course.
),He will die from a heart attack, and then spin in his grave... round and round and round... wheeee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386870</id>
	<title>The Issue</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1267901520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many unique programming problems are there? The first guy that designs an efficient steam engine is a great engineer. What about the 100 guys after him that vary on his theme? What about the next 1000 or 10,000? Seems to me this is a complaint about no one inventing something as revolutionary as the wheel. Hey author - you can't, it has been done already! And as someone has already pointed out this is *not* from Knuth. This might as well get the 'Get off my lawn' argument then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many unique programming problems are there ?
The first guy that designs an efficient steam engine is a great engineer .
What about the 100 guys after him that vary on his theme ?
What about the next 1000 or 10,000 ?
Seems to me this is a complaint about no one inventing something as revolutionary as the wheel .
Hey author - you ca n't , it has been done already !
And as someone has already pointed out this is * not * from Knuth .
This might as well get the 'Get off my lawn ' argument then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many unique programming problems are there?
The first guy that designs an efficient steam engine is a great engineer.
What about the 100 guys after him that vary on his theme?
What about the next 1000 or 10,000?
Seems to me this is a complaint about no one inventing something as revolutionary as the wheel.
Hey author - you can't, it has been done already!
And as someone has already pointed out this is *not* from Knuth.
This might as well get the 'Get off my lawn' argument then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386736</id>
	<title>Band-aid approach</title>
	<author>cormander</author>
	<datestamp>1267899540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"pasting not-quite-compatible libraries together and patching around the edges" is quite an acceptable form of programming, and can take some real skill to do well. It's called the band-aid approach, which is effective for small, startup companies looking to get off the ground, and large companies looking to save a buck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" pasting not-quite-compatible libraries together and patching around the edges " is quite an acceptable form of programming , and can take some real skill to do well .
It 's called the band-aid approach , which is effective for small , startup companies looking to get off the ground , and large companies looking to save a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"pasting not-quite-compatible libraries together and patching around the edges" is quite an acceptable form of programming, and can take some real skill to do well.
It's called the band-aid approach, which is effective for small, startup companies looking to get off the ground, and large companies looking to save a buck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387176</id>
	<title>Not even fucking close</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1267905000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Programming is becoming nothing more than cutting and pasting, especially with languages like java, that provide libraries that do "the hard stuff" and let programmers concentrate on "programming".</p></div><p>I really need to worry about opening and closing JDBC connections, parsing SOAP calls by hand or writing socket listeners.  Sure its interesting, the first 4 or 5 times you do it. But I have better things to do with my time that rewriting the wheel for every fucking application. That shit is already there; learn to fucking us it.</p><p>And sure this crap boils down to pushing tokens between multiple apps, and CRUD database apps. The banging out of code is rarely the tough part.</p><p>The tough part squeezing the requirements out some dumb-ass business analyst, who can barely speak the language, much less actually put something in writing and doesn't even know or care about the fucking applications they're writing requirements against.</p><p>Or perhaps you don't care about getting your airline reservations, airfare and seat assignments correct when you book them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming is becoming nothing more than cutting and pasting , especially with languages like java , that provide libraries that do " the hard stuff " and let programmers concentrate on " programming " .I really need to worry about opening and closing JDBC connections , parsing SOAP calls by hand or writing socket listeners .
Sure its interesting , the first 4 or 5 times you do it .
But I have better things to do with my time that rewriting the wheel for every fucking application .
That shit is already there ; learn to fucking us it.And sure this crap boils down to pushing tokens between multiple apps , and CRUD database apps .
The banging out of code is rarely the tough part.The tough part squeezing the requirements out some dumb-ass business analyst , who can barely speak the language , much less actually put something in writing and does n't even know or care about the fucking applications they 're writing requirements against.Or perhaps you do n't care about getting your airline reservations , airfare and seat assignments correct when you book them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming is becoming nothing more than cutting and pasting, especially with languages like java, that provide libraries that do "the hard stuff" and let programmers concentrate on "programming".I really need to worry about opening and closing JDBC connections, parsing SOAP calls by hand or writing socket listeners.
Sure its interesting, the first 4 or 5 times you do it.
But I have better things to do with my time that rewriting the wheel for every fucking application.
That shit is already there; learn to fucking us it.And sure this crap boils down to pushing tokens between multiple apps, and CRUD database apps.
The banging out of code is rarely the tough part.The tough part squeezing the requirements out some dumb-ass business analyst, who can barely speak the language, much less actually put something in writing and doesn't even know or care about the fucking applications they're writing requirements against.Or perhaps you don't care about getting your airline reservations, airfare and seat assignments correct when you book them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31420190</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1268134020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Computers are tools, nothing more. they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily. As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use. Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals. The more we can simplify them, the better. They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.</p><p>Well guess what? Programming is another part of that. Ideally, we'd have computers that could more or less program themselves.</p></div><p>Cars are tools, nothing more.  They exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily.  Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.  Well, guess what?  Driving is another part of that.  Ideally we'd have cars that could more or less drive themselves.  But since we don't, we might as well make it as easy as possible for everyone to drive.</p><p>I for one am sick of all these elitists who insist on a "driver's test" and "driver's ed" before someone can drive a car.  Shouldn't it just be available for all of us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers are tools , nothing more .
they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise ca n't do , or at least ca n't do easily .
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use .
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals .
The more we can simplify them , the better .
They should be adapted to work how we want , we should not have to adapt to them.Well guess what ?
Programming is another part of that .
Ideally , we 'd have computers that could more or less program themselves.Cars are tools , nothing more .
They exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise ca n't do , or at least ca n't do easily .
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals .
Well , guess what ?
Driving is another part of that .
Ideally we 'd have cars that could more or less drive themselves .
But since we do n't , we might as well make it as easy as possible for everyone to drive.I for one am sick of all these elitists who insist on a " driver 's test " and " driver 's ed " before someone can drive a car .
Should n't it just be available for all of us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers are tools, nothing more.
they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily.
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
The more we can simplify them, the better.
They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.Well guess what?
Programming is another part of that.
Ideally, we'd have computers that could more or less program themselves.Cars are tools, nothing more.
They exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily.
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
Well, guess what?
Driving is another part of that.
Ideally we'd have cars that could more or less drive themselves.
But since we don't, we might as well make it as easy as possible for everyone to drive.I for one am sick of all these elitists who insist on a "driver's test" and "driver's ed" before someone can drive a car.
Shouldn't it just be available for all of us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387206</id>
	<title>Well what's wrong with that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267905420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".</i>

</p><p>I don't see the problem there.

</p><p>Not every programmer you're going to run into is going to be a brilliant assembly level kernel hacker.  Some of them (these days anyway) are going to be mediocre.  Using libraries that a lot of people have looked at, found the bugs for, and documented so that the "hard stuff" works reliably gives these people a chance at success.  Not everyone coding these days is some uberhacker.  Code that works is really the bottom line here.

</p><p>Reason being - programming has moved from a small niche position to an industry.  And the demand for programming is large.  And the number of people who can perform difficult tasks like coding in assembly is small.  Wizards are rare and demand is larger than that.  So how do you bridge that gap?  Easy languages and tools and lots of libraries to increase the number of available programmers that can meet the demand.  Let the gurus stick to the heavy stuff and let the mediocre programmers spend their time solving tasks in their ability range.

</p><p>It's simply market pressure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems everyone wants to be a " software engineer " , but nobody wants to focus on the " hard stuff " , and instead chant " let java/X do it for you " .
I do n't see the problem there .
Not every programmer you 're going to run into is going to be a brilliant assembly level kernel hacker .
Some of them ( these days anyway ) are going to be mediocre .
Using libraries that a lot of people have looked at , found the bugs for , and documented so that the " hard stuff " works reliably gives these people a chance at success .
Not everyone coding these days is some uberhacker .
Code that works is really the bottom line here .
Reason being - programming has moved from a small niche position to an industry .
And the demand for programming is large .
And the number of people who can perform difficult tasks like coding in assembly is small .
Wizards are rare and demand is larger than that .
So how do you bridge that gap ?
Easy languages and tools and lots of libraries to increase the number of available programmers that can meet the demand .
Let the gurus stick to the heavy stuff and let the mediocre programmers spend their time solving tasks in their ability range .
It 's simply market pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".
I don't see the problem there.
Not every programmer you're going to run into is going to be a brilliant assembly level kernel hacker.
Some of them (these days anyway) are going to be mediocre.
Using libraries that a lot of people have looked at, found the bugs for, and documented so that the "hard stuff" works reliably gives these people a chance at success.
Not everyone coding these days is some uberhacker.
Code that works is really the bottom line here.
Reason being - programming has moved from a small niche position to an industry.
And the demand for programming is large.
And the number of people who can perform difficult tasks like coding in assembly is small.
Wizards are rare and demand is larger than that.
So how do you bridge that gap?
Easy languages and tools and lots of libraries to increase the number of available programmers that can meet the demand.
Let the gurus stick to the heavy stuff and let the mediocre programmers spend their time solving tasks in their ability range.
It's simply market pressure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560</id>
	<title>Next Next Finish Programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov\_12feature2.html" title="salon.com">THE DUMBING-DOWN OF PROGRAMMING</a> [salon.com] (1998): "My programming tools were full of wizards. Little dialog boxes waiting for me to click "Next" and "Next" and "Finish."...Dumbing-down is trickling down. Not content with infantilizing the end user, the purveyors of point-and-click seem determined to infantilize the programmer as well."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THE DUMBING-DOWN OF PROGRAMMING [ salon.com ] ( 1998 ) : " My programming tools were full of wizards .
Little dialog boxes waiting for me to click " Next " and " Next " and " Finish .
" ...Dumbing-down is trickling down .
Not content with infantilizing the end user , the purveyors of point-and-click seem determined to infantilize the programmer as well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE DUMBING-DOWN OF PROGRAMMING [salon.com] (1998): "My programming tools were full of wizards.
Little dialog boxes waiting for me to click "Next" and "Next" and "Finish.
"...Dumbing-down is trickling down.
Not content with infantilizing the end user, the purveyors of point-and-click seem determined to infantilize the programmer as well.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387422</id>
	<title>Re:"Good programmers write good code...</title>
	<author>yanyan</author>
	<datestamp>1267994580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're an excellent slashdotter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an excellent slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an excellent slashdotter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>convolvatron</author>
	<datestamp>1267897140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>slashdot. where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slashdot .
where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slashdot.
where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386916</id>
	<title>I don't like wizards that much</title>
	<author>rebelscience</author>
	<datestamp>1267902000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like drag and drop better but I think the ultimate goal of programming research is to open up application development to as many people as possible. <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-i-hate-all-computer-programming.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages</a> [blogspot.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like drag and drop better but I think the ultimate goal of programming research is to open up application development to as many people as possible .
Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like drag and drop better but I think the ultimate goal of programming research is to open up application development to as many people as possible.
Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387960</id>
	<title>Re:Specialization is for Ants</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1267960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a side effect of web programming.  I worked for about five years on a pure java application.  The only other language I used in all that time was a little bit of xml to set up the ant build.  The end users loved it and it was easy to maintain.
</p><p>My current project is a web application, and I have to know three or four different languages to get anything to work (depending on what you consider a language).  There's no hope for any kind of end-to-end debugging or performance analysis.  There are a lot more places for things to go wrong than the pure java environment and the final product isn't as smooth.
</p><p>It all seems like a big step backward to me.  But what the hell.  They pay me by the hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a side effect of web programming .
I worked for about five years on a pure java application .
The only other language I used in all that time was a little bit of xml to set up the ant build .
The end users loved it and it was easy to maintain .
My current project is a web application , and I have to know three or four different languages to get anything to work ( depending on what you consider a language ) .
There 's no hope for any kind of end-to-end debugging or performance analysis .
There are a lot more places for things to go wrong than the pure java environment and the final product is n't as smooth .
It all seems like a big step backward to me .
But what the hell .
They pay me by the hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a side effect of web programming.
I worked for about five years on a pure java application.
The only other language I used in all that time was a little bit of xml to set up the ant build.
The end users loved it and it was easy to maintain.
My current project is a web application, and I have to know three or four different languages to get anything to work (depending on what you consider a language).
There's no hope for any kind of end-to-end debugging or performance analysis.
There are a lot more places for things to go wrong than the pure java environment and the final product isn't as smooth.
It all seems like a big step backward to me.
But what the hell.
They pay me by the hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390070</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>salemboot</author>
	<datestamp>1267978800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Resume Pumpers<br>
<br>
Problem: Solve a logistical delima by moving work being entered into an Excel spreadsheet to a SQL Server database.<br>
<br>
Solution 1:  The resume Pumper.<br>
K we gona use a ASP.Net front end with login manager and user maintenance screens.<br>
We're gona implement FAST, CRUD, create at least 70 classes to offload complexity.<br>
<br>
Solution 2: The new hire. <br>
<br>
Just use Sharepoint!<br>
6-weeks later<br>
Having some troubles, need an extension<br>
<br>
Need 6 more weeks.<br>
Hey I found a new job, bye.<br>

<br>
Solution 3: The Unix guy<br>
Well, if we had FOSSL(unix) we'd have this problem licked.<br>
I'm going to get coffee be back Sunday.<br>
<br>

Solution 4: The Engineer<br>
Six months.<br>
Huh?<br>
I need Six months to make this thing work with active directory, SQL Server 2008, and argue with you about the short-comings of ASP.Net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Resume Pumpers Problem : Solve a logistical delima by moving work being entered into an Excel spreadsheet to a SQL Server database .
Solution 1 : The resume Pumper .
K we gona use a ASP.Net front end with login manager and user maintenance screens .
We 're gona implement FAST , CRUD , create at least 70 classes to offload complexity .
Solution 2 : The new hire .
Just use Sharepoint !
6-weeks later Having some troubles , need an extension Need 6 more weeks .
Hey I found a new job , bye .
Solution 3 : The Unix guy Well , if we had FOSSL ( unix ) we 'd have this problem licked .
I 'm going to get coffee be back Sunday .
Solution 4 : The Engineer Six months .
Huh ? I need Six months to make this thing work with active directory , SQL Server 2008 , and argue with you about the short-comings of ASP.Net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resume Pumpers

Problem: Solve a logistical delima by moving work being entered into an Excel spreadsheet to a SQL Server database.
Solution 1:  The resume Pumper.
K we gona use a ASP.Net front end with login manager and user maintenance screens.
We're gona implement FAST, CRUD, create at least 70 classes to offload complexity.
Solution 2: The new hire.
Just use Sharepoint!
6-weeks later
Having some troubles, need an extension

Need 6 more weeks.
Hey I found a new job, bye.
Solution 3: The Unix guy
Well, if we had FOSSL(unix) we'd have this problem licked.
I'm going to get coffee be back Sunday.
Solution 4: The Engineer
Six months.
Huh?
I need Six months to make this thing work with active directory, SQL Server 2008, and argue with you about the short-comings of ASP.Net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31437126</id>
	<title>Dream on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is heart warming to see how some people describe Indians and people in other localities as stupid.</p><p>I am sure most people tha claim to be able to "solve problems" would not last a week in th cut throat environment of the outsourcing shop in Mumbai.</p><p>But keep dreaming. The market for IT skills is telling you clearly where things are going but you hold to the last stone against the overwhelming current of change like if it was real firm land.</p><p>Programing has been difficult because we were in the infancy of the profession, mechanics and other simlar fields have undergone similar transformations, programming is not immune to this trend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is heart warming to see how some people describe Indians and people in other localities as stupid.I am sure most people tha claim to be able to " solve problems " would not last a week in th cut throat environment of the outsourcing shop in Mumbai.But keep dreaming .
The market for IT skills is telling you clearly where things are going but you hold to the last stone against the overwhelming current of change like if it was real firm land.Programing has been difficult because we were in the infancy of the profession , mechanics and other simlar fields have undergone similar transformations , programming is not immune to this trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is heart warming to see how some people describe Indians and people in other localities as stupid.I am sure most people tha claim to be able to "solve problems" would not last a week in th cut throat environment of the outsourcing shop in Mumbai.But keep dreaming.
The market for IT skills is telling you clearly where things are going but you hold to the last stone against the overwhelming current of change like if it was real firm land.Programing has been difficult because we were in the infancy of the profession, mechanics and other simlar fields have undergone similar transformations, programming is not immune to this trend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388604</id>
	<title>Re:"Good programmers write good code...</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1267969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bad artists copy,<br>good artists steal<br>
&nbsp; - pablo\ picasso</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bad artists copy,good artists steal   - pablo \ picasso</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bad artists copy,good artists steal
  - pablo\ picasso</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390578</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1267981860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you work in software development? Most of your tedious diatribe leads me to believe that the answer to that question is 'no'. Spend a few years working as a programmer and software designer and then come back to this subject when you know more; because right now, judging by what you have said, you don't know enough about programming or software design to even have an opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you work in software development ?
Most of your tedious diatribe leads me to believe that the answer to that question is 'no' .
Spend a few years working as a programmer and software designer and then come back to this subject when you know more ; because right now , judging by what you have said , you do n't know enough about programming or software design to even have an opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you work in software development?
Most of your tedious diatribe leads me to believe that the answer to that question is 'no'.
Spend a few years working as a programmer and software designer and then come back to this subject when you know more; because right now, judging by what you have said, you don't know enough about programming or software design to even have an opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387190</id>
	<title>Standards...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to implement code that adheres to a set of standards you can either use a library or implement a solution yourself. I want to watch the blog author explain to management why his application isn't going to make a release date because he has to finish up his SMTP implementation. "Just a few more days and I'll be able to send that confirmation e-mail to a user."

I personally like leveraging the power of frameworks so I can focus more on my specific problem domain. It's also a huge bonus when someone new joins the company and you can point them to some good community based documentation, rather than walking them through the in's-and-out's of some in-house framework.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to implement code that adheres to a set of standards you can either use a library or implement a solution yourself .
I want to watch the blog author explain to management why his application is n't going to make a release date because he has to finish up his SMTP implementation .
" Just a few more days and I 'll be able to send that confirmation e-mail to a user .
" I personally like leveraging the power of frameworks so I can focus more on my specific problem domain .
It 's also a huge bonus when someone new joins the company and you can point them to some good community based documentation , rather than walking them through the in 's-and-out 's of some in-house framework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to implement code that adheres to a set of standards you can either use a library or implement a solution yourself.
I want to watch the blog author explain to management why his application isn't going to make a release date because he has to finish up his SMTP implementation.
"Just a few more days and I'll be able to send that confirmation e-mail to a user.
"

I personally like leveraging the power of frameworks so I can focus more on my specific problem domain.
It's also a huge bonus when someone new joins the company and you can point them to some good community based documentation, rather than walking them through the in's-and-out's of some in-house framework.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1267898940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess it depends on the goal of the programmer/engineer.  If my goal is the solve a problem for a customer (as opposed to doing something to simply learn it) then I'm going to do that in the most efficient way possible.  Should I be writing an entire stack of libraries every time I need to solve a problem?  I hope not.  Libraries that already exist make it possible to focus on and build solutions to even harder problems.</p><p>BTW, I think there is a lot of skill needed to be able to look at problem, figure out what libraries can/can not help and then pull it all together into a cohesive solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems everyone wants to be a " software engineer " , but nobody wants to focus on the " hard stuff " , and instead chant " let java/X do it for you " .I guess it depends on the goal of the programmer/engineer .
If my goal is the solve a problem for a customer ( as opposed to doing something to simply learn it ) then I 'm going to do that in the most efficient way possible .
Should I be writing an entire stack of libraries every time I need to solve a problem ?
I hope not .
Libraries that already exist make it possible to focus on and build solutions to even harder problems.BTW , I think there is a lot of skill needed to be able to look at problem , figure out what libraries can/can not help and then pull it all together into a cohesive solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".I guess it depends on the goal of the programmer/engineer.
If my goal is the solve a problem for a customer (as opposed to doing something to simply learn it) then I'm going to do that in the most efficient way possible.
Should I be writing an entire stack of libraries every time I need to solve a problem?
I hope not.
Libraries that already exist make it possible to focus on and build solutions to even harder problems.BTW, I think there is a lot of skill needed to be able to look at problem, figure out what libraries can/can not help and then pull it all together into a cohesive solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387704</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1267955760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not surprising, the web is an evolved system, stuck with backwards compatibility to ancient browsers. The GUI layers
is even worse than you stated, because these days its AJAX and javascript hand written on top of the CSS. JSP
is actually nice compared to all the other scripting languages.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Java\%20Programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Java Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not surprising , the web is an evolved system , stuck with backwards compatibility to ancient browsers .
The GUI layers is even worse than you stated , because these days its AJAX and javascript hand written on top of the CSS .
JSP is actually nice compared to all the other scripting languages .
--- Java Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not surprising, the web is an evolved system, stuck with backwards compatibility to ancient browsers.
The GUI layers
is even worse than you stated, because these days its AJAX and javascript hand written on top of the CSS.
JSP
is actually nice compared to all the other scripting languages.
---

Java Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386786</id>
	<title>Same thing that happened to the rest of IT....</title>
	<author>MadMorf</author>
	<datestamp>1267900320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, most of us are not "engineers" any more, we're factory workers on a production line...</p><p>Unless you're working for the company making the tools, you're using someone else's wrench to build that "truck".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , most of us are not " engineers " any more , we 're factory workers on a production line...Unless you 're working for the company making the tools , you 're using someone else 's wrench to build that " truck " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, most of us are not "engineers" any more, we're factory workers on a production line...Unless you're working for the company making the tools, you're using someone else's wrench to build that "truck".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388612</id>
	<title>Solution: a high-level programming system</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1267969380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think everyone agrees that writing documentation is not very interesting. Unfortunately, it's a vital part of software engineering. As I a software engineer myself, I had spent some times in the past trying to write good documentation, but it always ended out of date because writing the actual code is always a priority.</p><p>In my opinion, a high-level programming system that allows the programmer to develop a solution without looking at the implementation details is the solution to the problem. The programming system would be used to describe the business logic and the actual functionality of the system. The programming system could then produce a template for the actual implementation in one of the available programming languages. The high level code would be the documentation of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think everyone agrees that writing documentation is not very interesting .
Unfortunately , it 's a vital part of software engineering .
As I a software engineer myself , I had spent some times in the past trying to write good documentation , but it always ended out of date because writing the actual code is always a priority.In my opinion , a high-level programming system that allows the programmer to develop a solution without looking at the implementation details is the solution to the problem .
The programming system would be used to describe the business logic and the actual functionality of the system .
The programming system could then produce a template for the actual implementation in one of the available programming languages .
The high level code would be the documentation of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think everyone agrees that writing documentation is not very interesting.
Unfortunately, it's a vital part of software engineering.
As I a software engineer myself, I had spent some times in the past trying to write good documentation, but it always ended out of date because writing the actual code is always a priority.In my opinion, a high-level programming system that allows the programmer to develop a solution without looking at the implementation details is the solution to the problem.
The programming system would be used to describe the business logic and the actual functionality of the system.
The programming system could then produce a template for the actual implementation in one of the available programming languages.
The high level code would be the documentation of the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386760</id>
	<title>easy</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1267899840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to see what happened to programming: the industry was taken over by people who "wrote space-invader games in BASIC on a VIC-20", "wrote multi-user dungeons in C", and "worked deep down in the guts of a text database system &mdash; still C".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to see what happened to programming : the industry was taken over by people who " wrote space-invader games in BASIC on a VIC-20 " , " wrote multi-user dungeons in C " , and " worked deep down in the guts of a text database system    still C " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to see what happened to programming: the industry was taken over by people who "wrote space-invader games in BASIC on a VIC-20", "wrote multi-user dungeons in C", and "worked deep down in the guts of a text database system — still C".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387236</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1267992180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best engineers, software or otherwise, are often those that can look at a problem and find a way to copy an existing solution with as few changes as possible. Would you rather that your bridges were built by an engineer who "focused on the hard stuff" and invented a totally new bridge design each time, or that he found an existing bridge design that meet the load/span/etc. requirements of the new location and made minor adaptations to the existing, proven design to make it fit the particular application?</p><p>Sometimes there are new problems that must be solved in novel ways. Once in a while it's possible to find a new solution to an already-solved problem that's so much better it would be silly to keep doing things the old way. But the majority of good engineering is finding existing solutions to similar problems and making small adaptations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best engineers , software or otherwise , are often those that can look at a problem and find a way to copy an existing solution with as few changes as possible .
Would you rather that your bridges were built by an engineer who " focused on the hard stuff " and invented a totally new bridge design each time , or that he found an existing bridge design that meet the load/span/etc .
requirements of the new location and made minor adaptations to the existing , proven design to make it fit the particular application ? Sometimes there are new problems that must be solved in novel ways .
Once in a while it 's possible to find a new solution to an already-solved problem that 's so much better it would be silly to keep doing things the old way .
But the majority of good engineering is finding existing solutions to similar problems and making small adaptations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best engineers, software or otherwise, are often those that can look at a problem and find a way to copy an existing solution with as few changes as possible.
Would you rather that your bridges were built by an engineer who "focused on the hard stuff" and invented a totally new bridge design each time, or that he found an existing bridge design that meet the load/span/etc.
requirements of the new location and made minor adaptations to the existing, proven design to make it fit the particular application?Sometimes there are new problems that must be solved in novel ways.
Once in a while it's possible to find a new solution to an already-solved problem that's so much better it would be silly to keep doing things the old way.
But the majority of good engineering is finding existing solutions to similar problems and making small adaptations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387144</id>
	<title>If you don't like copy and paste...</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1267904580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>be the "somebody" who make the libraries...ultimately you might like kernel coding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>be the " somebody " who make the libraries...ultimately you might like kernel coding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be the "somebody" who make the libraries...ultimately you might like kernel coding?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387690</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1267955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agreed. The more libraries you know, the more powerful you are, and a better programmer you
will be. A good library will let you program in ways you simply might not of thought of. A recent example
i found blocking queues in a java.util.concurrent. I wouldn't have thought of building a library to do that,
and previously I was just polling a list. With the queue system suddenly i've saved lots of CPU time
and at the same time, built more robust code.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Java\%20Programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Java Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agreed .
The more libraries you know , the more powerful you are , and a better programmer you will be .
A good library will let you program in ways you simply might not of thought of .
A recent example i found blocking queues in a java.util.concurrent .
I would n't have thought of building a library to do that , and previously I was just polling a list .
With the queue system suddenly i 've saved lots of CPU time and at the same time , built more robust code .
--- Java Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agreed.
The more libraries you know, the more powerful you are, and a better programmer you
will be.
A good library will let you program in ways you simply might not of thought of.
A recent example
i found blocking queues in a java.util.concurrent.
I wouldn't have thought of building a library to do that,
and previously I was just polling a list.
With the queue system suddenly i've saved lots of CPU time
and at the same time, built more robust code.
---

Java Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388544</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>NexusXYZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267968420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are spot on - programming has reached a dead-end and dumping everything off shore to Indians and others to access slave labour rates does not address this issue and if you change the approach it becomes surprisingly easy.

To increase development productivity and to build a new class of applications that can make use of the multi threaded hardware we have and the potential of Internet humans need to be replaced by machines that are better at &lsquo;joining the dots&rsquo;. I&rsquo;d rather manage a single properties file than millions of lines of code that has been cobbled together with varying levels of competence and immediately becomes legacy as soon as it is installed. Code generators were a good idea but failed as they only did part of the job and it was left to humans to try and figure out how to assemble the final application &ndash; you either use humans or machines. You cannot mix both. This was realised in engineering design and manufacturing.

We have just built a large collaborative application that was delivered as a finished installable product. This system has hundreds of screens and not one line of code was written a human &ndash; if you want to change the product you simply change the &lsquo;engineering design&rsquo; and re-generate the complete application &ndash; we were re-generating the complete business logic in less than half an hour and the complete product in under two hours. At the time of generation you can chose the target database, OS, etc, and all the end points are also generated. This changes the focus from manual repetitive tasks and puts a higher premium on domain knowledge and holistic design as opposed to &lsquo;templates&rsquo;. Internalises IPR creation and eliminates the need to use 'artisans' and the need to go off shore which also eliminates the attendant risks of poor quality, IP theft, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are spot on - programming has reached a dead-end and dumping everything off shore to Indians and others to access slave labour rates does not address this issue and if you change the approach it becomes surprisingly easy .
To increase development productivity and to build a new class of applications that can make use of the multi threaded hardware we have and the potential of Internet humans need to be replaced by machines that are better at    joining the dots    .
I    d rather manage a single properties file than millions of lines of code that has been cobbled together with varying levels of competence and immediately becomes legacy as soon as it is installed .
Code generators were a good idea but failed as they only did part of the job and it was left to humans to try and figure out how to assemble the final application    you either use humans or machines .
You can not mix both .
This was realised in engineering design and manufacturing .
We have just built a large collaborative application that was delivered as a finished installable product .
This system has hundreds of screens and not one line of code was written a human    if you want to change the product you simply change the    engineering design    and re-generate the complete application    we were re-generating the complete business logic in less than half an hour and the complete product in under two hours .
At the time of generation you can chose the target database , OS , etc , and all the end points are also generated .
This changes the focus from manual repetitive tasks and puts a higher premium on domain knowledge and holistic design as opposed to    templates    .
Internalises IPR creation and eliminates the need to use 'artisans ' and the need to go off shore which also eliminates the attendant risks of poor quality , IP theft , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are spot on - programming has reached a dead-end and dumping everything off shore to Indians and others to access slave labour rates does not address this issue and if you change the approach it becomes surprisingly easy.
To increase development productivity and to build a new class of applications that can make use of the multi threaded hardware we have and the potential of Internet humans need to be replaced by machines that are better at ‘joining the dots’.
I’d rather manage a single properties file than millions of lines of code that has been cobbled together with varying levels of competence and immediately becomes legacy as soon as it is installed.
Code generators were a good idea but failed as they only did part of the job and it was left to humans to try and figure out how to assemble the final application – you either use humans or machines.
You cannot mix both.
This was realised in engineering design and manufacturing.
We have just built a large collaborative application that was delivered as a finished installable product.
This system has hundreds of screens and not one line of code was written a human – if you want to change the product you simply change the ‘engineering design’ and re-generate the complete application – we were re-generating the complete business logic in less than half an hour and the complete product in under two hours.
At the time of generation you can chose the target database, OS, etc, and all the end points are also generated.
This changes the focus from manual repetitive tasks and puts a higher premium on domain knowledge and holistic design as opposed to ‘templates’.
Internalises IPR creation and eliminates the need to use 'artisans' and the need to go off shore which also eliminates the attendant risks of poor quality, IP theft, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31394018</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I had mod points right now... I totally agree.  Glad to hear from someone who feels the same!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points right now... I totally agree .
Glad to hear from someone who feels the same !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points right now... I totally agree.
Glad to hear from someone who feels the same!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31398256</id>
	<title>Re:Toyota comes to mind.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes - I believe it's mandatory at Toyota for all workers to understand all aspects of the design<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Welcome to the post-enlightenment. We have learned how to store knowledge which has lead to an exponential accumulation. Meanwhile education has improved slightly and our brains have hardly evolved at all. This means goodbye polymaths, goodby Renaissance man. I often think this is the central challenge of our age.</p><p>What do we do now we have hit the buffers of the human brain? We are attempting to manage this through abstraction but it's imperfect because the abstractions are imperfect which requires users to understand superficially how they work. This takes up thinking space and so we can only understand n imperfect abstractions. We can improve this by making the abstractions better but again we will never be able to comprehend many. Where does progress go from here? Someone will answer haskell but I think that's missing the point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes - I believe it 's mandatory at Toyota for all workers to understand all aspects of the design ; - ) Welcome to the post-enlightenment .
We have learned how to store knowledge which has lead to an exponential accumulation .
Meanwhile education has improved slightly and our brains have hardly evolved at all .
This means goodbye polymaths , goodby Renaissance man .
I often think this is the central challenge of our age.What do we do now we have hit the buffers of the human brain ?
We are attempting to manage this through abstraction but it 's imperfect because the abstractions are imperfect which requires users to understand superficially how they work .
This takes up thinking space and so we can only understand n imperfect abstractions .
We can improve this by making the abstractions better but again we will never be able to comprehend many .
Where does progress go from here ?
Someone will answer haskell but I think that 's missing the point ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes - I believe it's mandatory at Toyota for all workers to understand all aspects of the design ;-)Welcome to the post-enlightenment.
We have learned how to store knowledge which has lead to an exponential accumulation.
Meanwhile education has improved slightly and our brains have hardly evolved at all.
This means goodbye polymaths, goodby Renaissance man.
I often think this is the central challenge of our age.What do we do now we have hit the buffers of the human brain?
We are attempting to manage this through abstraction but it's imperfect because the abstractions are imperfect which requires users to understand superficially how they work.
This takes up thinking space and so we can only understand n imperfect abstractions.
We can improve this by making the abstractions better but again we will never be able to comprehend many.
Where does progress go from here?
Someone will answer haskell but I think that's missing the point ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389114</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267973280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Man, you complain well. But you don&rsquo;t seem to do anything against it.<br>It&rsquo;s like my last boss. (Ever!)</p><p>You know what the first thing is, that I do in a new environment?</p></div><p>Man you pontificate well but you don't seem to understand that my boss does not pay me to create programming tools, nor am I stupid enough to lose my job pretending that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Code me a generic CRUD generator (database/persistency, logic, gui). E.g. a tool that renders me a whole application out of the SQL database definition. Or in other words: The difference between SQL and tools like MS Access.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div><p>Fantastic. Since you've build such a wonderful magical tool and since you can convince your boss to let you spend time on that, I'm sure you can convince him to open source it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then I can push out generic software faster than I can write up the data models. Add the little bit that usually is the business logic, and tadaa!</p><p>In my last job, we were at the limits of our capacity. Too much work for too few people. And I offered my boss, to cut our work load by 90\% (realistically!), when he would give me two to five days of free time. He denied with &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t have time for that.&rdquo;<br>And why not? Hm? <strong>Because</strong> you don&rsquo;t take the time for this!<br>It was one of those typical PHB moments.<br>Needless to say: I quit.</p></div><p>Needless to say you weren't missed. Now the truth comes out. Some of us have a family to feed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now I&rsquo;m on to what is basically a completely new OS (Linux kernel, new shell (cli and gui), and legacy interface to GNU) that goes a huge step further, by generalizing it as much as physically possible. (Actually, I can prove that it can&rsquo;t be generalized more, without becoming less efficient again.)</p></div><p>You wrote a whole OS did you? Fantastic. Can't wait to see the source code...and for hell to freeze over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , you complain well .
But you don    t seem to do anything against it.It    s like my last boss .
( Ever ! ) You know what the first thing is , that I do in a new environment ? Man you pontificate well but you do n't seem to understand that my boss does not pay me to create programming tools , nor am I stupid enough to lose my job pretending that.Code me a generic CRUD generator ( database/persistency , logic , gui ) .
E.g. a tool that renders me a whole application out of the SQL database definition .
Or in other words : The difference between SQL and tools like MS Access .
; ) Fantastic. Since you 've build such a wonderful magical tool and since you can convince your boss to let you spend time on that , I 'm sure you can convince him to open source it.Then I can push out generic software faster than I can write up the data models .
Add the little bit that usually is the business logic , and tadaa ! In my last job , we were at the limits of our capacity .
Too much work for too few people .
And I offered my boss , to cut our work load by 90 \ % ( realistically !
) , when he would give me two to five days of free time .
He denied with    We don    t have time for that.    And why not ?
Hm ? Because you don    t take the time for this ! It was one of those typical PHB moments.Needless to say : I quit.Needless to say you were n't missed .
Now the truth comes out .
Some of us have a family to feed.Now I    m on to what is basically a completely new OS ( Linux kernel , new shell ( cli and gui ) , and legacy interface to GNU ) that goes a huge step further , by generalizing it as much as physically possible .
( Actually , I can prove that it can    t be generalized more , without becoming less efficient again .
) You wrote a whole OS did you ?
Fantastic. Ca n't wait to see the source code...and for hell to freeze over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, you complain well.
But you don’t seem to do anything against it.It’s like my last boss.
(Ever!)You know what the first thing is, that I do in a new environment?Man you pontificate well but you don't seem to understand that my boss does not pay me to create programming tools, nor am I stupid enough to lose my job pretending that.Code me a generic CRUD generator (database/persistency, logic, gui).
E.g. a tool that renders me a whole application out of the SQL database definition.
Or in other words: The difference between SQL and tools like MS Access.
;)Fantastic. Since you've build such a wonderful magical tool and since you can convince your boss to let you spend time on that, I'm sure you can convince him to open source it.Then I can push out generic software faster than I can write up the data models.
Add the little bit that usually is the business logic, and tadaa!In my last job, we were at the limits of our capacity.
Too much work for too few people.
And I offered my boss, to cut our work load by 90\% (realistically!
), when he would give me two to five days of free time.
He denied with “We don’t have time for that.”And why not?
Hm? Because you don’t take the time for this!It was one of those typical PHB moments.Needless to say: I quit.Needless to say you weren't missed.
Now the truth comes out.
Some of us have a family to feed.Now I’m on to what is basically a completely new OS (Linux kernel, new shell (cli and gui), and legacy interface to GNU) that goes a huge step further, by generalizing it as much as physically possible.
(Actually, I can prove that it can’t be generalized more, without becoming less efficient again.
)You wrote a whole OS did you?
Fantastic. Can't wait to see the source code...and for hell to freeze over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386806</id>
	<title>Magic incantations you say..</title>
	<author>Zetta Matrix</author>
	<datestamp>1267900560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By analogy, if I invoke several theorems and lemmas to do a mathematical proof rather than killing myself by deriving them again, then I must not be having fun because I'm just plugging into magic incantations.</p><p>Errrr... no.  These "shortcuts" improve productivity for both programmers and mathematicians and that's good.  Getting down to nuts and bolts is also good because it promotes understanding.</p><p>Moving on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By analogy , if I invoke several theorems and lemmas to do a mathematical proof rather than killing myself by deriving them again , then I must not be having fun because I 'm just plugging into magic incantations.Errrr... no. These " shortcuts " improve productivity for both programmers and mathematicians and that 's good .
Getting down to nuts and bolts is also good because it promotes understanding.Moving on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By analogy, if I invoke several theorems and lemmas to do a mathematical proof rather than killing myself by deriving them again, then I must not be having fun because I'm just plugging into magic incantations.Errrr... no.  These "shortcuts" improve productivity for both programmers and mathematicians and that's good.
Getting down to nuts and bolts is also good because it promotes understanding.Moving on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387076</id>
	<title>Dear, Don Knuth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267903920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... maybe the projects you(?) are involved in are shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... maybe the projects you ( ?
) are involved in are shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... maybe the projects you(?
) are involved in are shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</id>
	<title>Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267898280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm currently a J2EE (and C, but predominately Java J2EE) programmer, familiar with Hibernate, Spring, as well as the old school EJB 2 mess. I wasn't always a Java programmer. I've taught C and coded with it commercial. I also have commercially used a variety of other platforms from VB and Delphi, to Smalltalk, to C++.</p><p>Here's the core of the problem: The web is a horrible platform. I went from Rapid development drag and drop screen design in the late 90s to the abomination that is hand crafted JSP against shitty state based environments. Sure our applications are more scalable now, but I'm still hand crafting code to talk to a database object. There are tools out there that spit out mediocre code (hibernate tools come to mind). But nothing that I'm aware of spits out a good set of CRUD classes with corresponding unit tests. Why do we ever have to hand write this shit? (I haven't used Grails and Groovy extensively but I understand scaffolding has similar issues and not being as mature the people I've worked with have had to work around issues with transactionality)</p><p>Then you take a look at the GUI layer. Hand writing CSS and JSP? Really? In 2010? SHIT. Hand writing code for simple controllers. Never mind if you do actually end up doing anything non-standard in which case good luck getting into the guts of the documentation for Spring MVC or Struts or similar. And then you have to deal with having to redeploy your application to see simple changes OR using exploded views that don't update properly and leave you debugging a problem for 4 hours that should take 4 minutes.</p><p>It's a complete mess. It's WAY more complicated than it should be. I should be focused on the business problems - modelling the backend, getting the algorithms right for complex transactions etc. Instead there are people arguing that such simplicity leads to sloppy programming (usually mentioning VB as if the same programmers wouldn't have made a mess with something more complex). Well if you have nothing better to do than some stupid little dance just to get a web page up, that's your issue. For me that is a stupid statement. There's always a genuinely complex issue to solve without inventing one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently a J2EE ( and C , but predominately Java J2EE ) programmer , familiar with Hibernate , Spring , as well as the old school EJB 2 mess .
I was n't always a Java programmer .
I 've taught C and coded with it commercial .
I also have commercially used a variety of other platforms from VB and Delphi , to Smalltalk , to C + + .Here 's the core of the problem : The web is a horrible platform .
I went from Rapid development drag and drop screen design in the late 90s to the abomination that is hand crafted JSP against shitty state based environments .
Sure our applications are more scalable now , but I 'm still hand crafting code to talk to a database object .
There are tools out there that spit out mediocre code ( hibernate tools come to mind ) .
But nothing that I 'm aware of spits out a good set of CRUD classes with corresponding unit tests .
Why do we ever have to hand write this shit ?
( I have n't used Grails and Groovy extensively but I understand scaffolding has similar issues and not being as mature the people I 've worked with have had to work around issues with transactionality ) Then you take a look at the GUI layer .
Hand writing CSS and JSP ?
Really ? In 2010 ?
SHIT. Hand writing code for simple controllers .
Never mind if you do actually end up doing anything non-standard in which case good luck getting into the guts of the documentation for Spring MVC or Struts or similar .
And then you have to deal with having to redeploy your application to see simple changes OR using exploded views that do n't update properly and leave you debugging a problem for 4 hours that should take 4 minutes.It 's a complete mess .
It 's WAY more complicated than it should be .
I should be focused on the business problems - modelling the backend , getting the algorithms right for complex transactions etc .
Instead there are people arguing that such simplicity leads to sloppy programming ( usually mentioning VB as if the same programmers would n't have made a mess with something more complex ) .
Well if you have nothing better to do than some stupid little dance just to get a web page up , that 's your issue .
For me that is a stupid statement .
There 's always a genuinely complex issue to solve without inventing one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently a J2EE (and C, but predominately Java J2EE) programmer, familiar with Hibernate, Spring, as well as the old school EJB 2 mess.
I wasn't always a Java programmer.
I've taught C and coded with it commercial.
I also have commercially used a variety of other platforms from VB and Delphi, to Smalltalk, to C++.Here's the core of the problem: The web is a horrible platform.
I went from Rapid development drag and drop screen design in the late 90s to the abomination that is hand crafted JSP against shitty state based environments.
Sure our applications are more scalable now, but I'm still hand crafting code to talk to a database object.
There are tools out there that spit out mediocre code (hibernate tools come to mind).
But nothing that I'm aware of spits out a good set of CRUD classes with corresponding unit tests.
Why do we ever have to hand write this shit?
(I haven't used Grails and Groovy extensively but I understand scaffolding has similar issues and not being as mature the people I've worked with have had to work around issues with transactionality)Then you take a look at the GUI layer.
Hand writing CSS and JSP?
Really? In 2010?
SHIT. Hand writing code for simple controllers.
Never mind if you do actually end up doing anything non-standard in which case good luck getting into the guts of the documentation for Spring MVC or Struts or similar.
And then you have to deal with having to redeploy your application to see simple changes OR using exploded views that don't update properly and leave you debugging a problem for 4 hours that should take 4 minutes.It's a complete mess.
It's WAY more complicated than it should be.
I should be focused on the business problems - modelling the backend, getting the algorithms right for complex transactions etc.
Instead there are people arguing that such simplicity leads to sloppy programming (usually mentioning VB as if the same programmers wouldn't have made a mess with something more complex).
Well if you have nothing better to do than some stupid little dance just to get a web page up, that's your issue.
For me that is a stupid statement.
There's always a genuinely complex issue to solve without inventing one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392454</id>
	<title>Re:Docs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267991700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm generally enthusiastic about open source, but I agree completely regarding documentation. It's usually fucking terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm generally enthusiastic about open source , but I agree completely regarding documentation .
It 's usually fucking terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm generally enthusiastic about open source, but I agree completely regarding documentation.
It's usually fucking terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386566</id>
	<title>On my first job, my boss said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Don't even try reinventing the wheel. This is not an assignment. Just use whatever code you can find."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do n't even try reinventing the wheel .
This is not an assignment .
Just use whatever code you can find .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Don't even try reinventing the wheel.
This is not an assignment.
Just use whatever code you can find.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386552</id>
	<title>Reminds me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of what Chuck Moore wrote once... that one needs to rewrite things from the start, to be near to the problem -- so near, in fact, that incredible savings in code -- and thinking -- can be accomplished, as well as new horizons discerned...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of what Chuck Moore wrote once... that one needs to rewrite things from the start , to be near to the problem -- so near , in fact , that incredible savings in code -- and thinking -- can be accomplished , as well as new horizons discerned.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of what Chuck Moore wrote once... that one needs to rewrite things from the start, to be near to the problem -- so near, in fact, that incredible savings in code -- and thinking -- can be accomplished, as well as new horizons discerned...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31403792</id>
	<title>Re: not quite</title>
	<author>zigfreed</author>
	<datestamp>1268079180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have a head start since TeX has been around for decades and have known shortcomings and strong points. Your software would also need to have the same penetration, expandability, etc. to qualify.

But at that point you would realize that you are an idiot to go though such lengths to call someone else one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a head start since TeX has been around for decades and have known shortcomings and strong points .
Your software would also need to have the same penetration , expandability , etc .
to qualify .
But at that point you would realize that you are an idiot to go though such lengths to call someone else one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a head start since TeX has been around for decades and have known shortcomings and strong points.
Your software would also need to have the same penetration, expandability, etc.
to qualify.
But at that point you would realize that you are an idiot to go though such lengths to call someone else one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31400572</id>
	<title>Programmers are all Faggy</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1268063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something reminds me of Idiocracy, where whenever the powers that be couldn't make sense or use of something, instead of deferring to it, they just called it 'Faggy' and ignored it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something reminds me of Idiocracy , where whenever the powers that be could n't make sense or use of something , instead of deferring to it , they just called it 'Faggy ' and ignored it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something reminds me of Idiocracy, where whenever the powers that be couldn't make sense or use of something, instead of deferring to it, they just called it 'Faggy' and ignored it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391990</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267989480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use. Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.</p></div><p>A very fine-sounding sentiment indeed, but would you <i>really</i> want to use an application or system designed for mentally-challenged individuals? An experienced user-interface designer does realize that it is not that easy to accommodate a wide spectrum of computer literacy and/or native intelligence on the part of users, without making said system too hard for the mentally challenged, or offensive and irritating to the more advanced. You really end up with two (or more!) interfaces if you really want to do that. Fact is, to some degree people just have to learn what they're doing around computers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Life is a learning experience: we learn how to tie our shoelaces, look both ways before crossing the street and then move on to more complex tasks. Expecting software developers to write programs starting with the assumption that the user is a moron is just, well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... moronic. Even stupid people learn to drive cars and function in society, they can learn how to handle modern applications too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use .
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.A very fine-sounding sentiment indeed , but would you really want to use an application or system designed for mentally-challenged individuals ?
An experienced user-interface designer does realize that it is not that easy to accommodate a wide spectrum of computer literacy and/or native intelligence on the part of users , without making said system too hard for the mentally challenged , or offensive and irritating to the more advanced .
You really end up with two ( or more !
) interfaces if you really want to do that .
Fact is , to some degree people just have to learn what they 're doing around computers , and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that .
Life is a learning experience : we learn how to tie our shoelaces , look both ways before crossing the street and then move on to more complex tasks .
Expecting software developers to write programs starting with the assumption that the user is a moron is just , well ... moronic. Even stupid people learn to drive cars and function in society , they can learn how to handle modern applications too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.A very fine-sounding sentiment indeed, but would you really want to use an application or system designed for mentally-challenged individuals?
An experienced user-interface designer does realize that it is not that easy to accommodate a wide spectrum of computer literacy and/or native intelligence on the part of users, without making said system too hard for the mentally challenged, or offensive and irritating to the more advanced.
You really end up with two (or more!
) interfaces if you really want to do that.
Fact is, to some degree people just have to learn what they're doing around computers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Life is a learning experience: we learn how to tie our shoelaces, look both ways before crossing the street and then move on to more complex tasks.
Expecting software developers to write programs starting with the assumption that the user is a moron is just, well ... moronic. Even stupid people learn to drive cars and function in society, they can learn how to handle modern applications too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474</id>
	<title>Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programming is becoming nothing more than cutting and pasting, especially with languages like java, that provide libraries that do "the hard stuff" and let programmers concentrate on "programming".</p><p>Programmers are now a dime a dozen. I can find 10 people who can cut and paste available on the internet and modify it to do what they want.</p><p>Good programmers on the other hand, are few and far between.</p><p>It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming is becoming nothing more than cutting and pasting , especially with languages like java , that provide libraries that do " the hard stuff " and let programmers concentrate on " programming " .Programmers are now a dime a dozen .
I can find 10 people who can cut and paste available on the internet and modify it to do what they want.Good programmers on the other hand , are few and far between.It seems everyone wants to be a " software engineer " , but nobody wants to focus on the " hard stuff " , and instead chant " let java/X do it for you " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming is becoming nothing more than cutting and pasting, especially with languages like java, that provide libraries that do "the hard stuff" and let programmers concentrate on "programming".Programmers are now a dime a dozen.
I can find 10 people who can cut and paste available on the internet and modify it to do what they want.Good programmers on the other hand, are few and far between.It seems everyone wants to be a "software engineer", but nobody wants to focus on the "hard stuff", and instead chant "let java/X do it for you".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386838</id>
	<title>Re-use verses Plug'n'Play</title>
	<author>bgibby9</author>
	<datestamp>1267901040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that when we started, we used libraries because we didn't know HOW to do certain things, but as we grew (hopefully) we learned how to do those things and found better more efficient ways to build them.

Then we found out that libraries attempt to be generic enough for any purpose, then saw that life can rarely utilise generic libraries for 100\% of our requirements so we built bloated software.

Then we learned that certain concepts require "from scratch" work, even if it is "re-inventing the wheel" every now and then, to ultimately realise that sometimes you can re-use code and some times you can't!

We all have to go through the hard yards as no-one will ever "just believe" you when you tell them otherwise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that when we started , we used libraries because we did n't know HOW to do certain things , but as we grew ( hopefully ) we learned how to do those things and found better more efficient ways to build them .
Then we found out that libraries attempt to be generic enough for any purpose , then saw that life can rarely utilise generic libraries for 100 \ % of our requirements so we built bloated software .
Then we learned that certain concepts require " from scratch " work , even if it is " re-inventing the wheel " every now and then , to ultimately realise that sometimes you can re-use code and some times you ca n't !
We all have to go through the hard yards as no-one will ever " just believe " you when you tell them otherwise : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that when we started, we used libraries because we didn't know HOW to do certain things, but as we grew (hopefully) we learned how to do those things and found better more efficient ways to build them.
Then we found out that libraries attempt to be generic enough for any purpose, then saw that life can rarely utilise generic libraries for 100\% of our requirements so we built bloated software.
Then we learned that certain concepts require "from scratch" work, even if it is "re-inventing the wheel" every now and then, to ultimately realise that sometimes you can re-use code and some times you can't!
We all have to go through the hard yards as no-one will ever "just believe" you when you tell them otherwise :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387764</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Knuth had his day."</p><p>Wow. Just wow.</p><p>First, I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP. Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error. Oh, wait, I highly doubt you've done either.</p></div><p>I'm betting 0x$5.00 that he <a href="http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/boss.html" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">doesn't have one</a> [stanford.edu].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Knuth had his day. " Wow .
Just wow.First , I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP .
Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error .
Oh , wait , I highly doubt you 've done either.I 'm betting 0x $ 5.00 that he does n't have one [ stanford.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Knuth had his day."Wow.
Just wow.First, I want you to write a work that tops TAOCP.
Or at the very least show your check from Knuth for finding an error.
Oh, wait, I highly doubt you've done either.I'm betting 0x$5.00 that he doesn't have one [stanford.edu].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390334</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would add that knowing and avoiding the bad libraries is as important as finding good ones.  Anyone can find "a" library.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would add that knowing and avoiding the bad libraries is as important as finding good ones .
Anyone can find " a " library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would add that knowing and avoiding the bad libraries is as important as finding good ones.
Anyone can find "a" library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387264</id>
	<title>programming is better off...</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1267992480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>for some people it may seem less fun, if so nobody is stopping you for writing libraries yourself (except for maybe employers who are concerned about something called 'return on investment')

however another take is that programmer's don't get stuck with writing mundane functions that have already been written 1,000s of times. the use of libraries can deliver more reliable applications in less time. library developers can specialize in a particular function and good libraries do functions much better than 'write it yourself' a classic example is encryption libraries...although easy to write your own encryption library, there are so many ways security can be weakened that you may not realize unless you are specializing in this field.

in the end programmers are developing better applications, and delivering them more quickly

use of libraries live on...</htmltext>
<tokenext>for some people it may seem less fun , if so nobody is stopping you for writing libraries yourself ( except for maybe employers who are concerned about something called 'return on investment ' ) however another take is that programmer 's do n't get stuck with writing mundane functions that have already been written 1,000s of times .
the use of libraries can deliver more reliable applications in less time .
library developers can specialize in a particular function and good libraries do functions much better than 'write it yourself ' a classic example is encryption libraries...although easy to write your own encryption library , there are so many ways security can be weakened that you may not realize unless you are specializing in this field .
in the end programmers are developing better applications , and delivering them more quickly use of libraries live on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for some people it may seem less fun, if so nobody is stopping you for writing libraries yourself (except for maybe employers who are concerned about something called 'return on investment')

however another take is that programmer's don't get stuck with writing mundane functions that have already been written 1,000s of times.
the use of libraries can deliver more reliable applications in less time.
library developers can specialize in a particular function and good libraries do functions much better than 'write it yourself' a classic example is encryption libraries...although easy to write your own encryption library, there are so many ways security can be weakened that you may not realize unless you are specializing in this field.
in the end programmers are developing better applications, and delivering them more quickly

use of libraries live on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</id>
	<title>Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knuth had his day. That day is the equivalent of building stone tools and hunting with rocks and sticks.</p><p>Today we are using bows and arrows. We have left the stone tools behind and can now express our imagination in ways that are simply beyond the scope of TAOCP.</p><p>But remember, we are still only using bows and arrows. The next big thing will be gunpowder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knuth had his day .
That day is the equivalent of building stone tools and hunting with rocks and sticks.Today we are using bows and arrows .
We have left the stone tools behind and can now express our imagination in ways that are simply beyond the scope of TAOCP.But remember , we are still only using bows and arrows .
The next big thing will be gunpowder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knuth had his day.
That day is the equivalent of building stone tools and hunting with rocks and sticks.Today we are using bows and arrows.
We have left the stone tools behind and can now express our imagination in ways that are simply beyond the scope of TAOCP.But remember, we are still only using bows and arrows.
The next big thing will be gunpowder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387830</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1267957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the guy's point was that Knuth wrote that in the 70s, and it's now the 10s - a gap of forty years in which he has capitalised off his earlier work but not really brought anything that revolutionary to the table since. His original work stands as a classic, bring together a vast amount of highly relevant information and algorithms for the programmers of the 70s/80s. It has a lot less relevance in this age because most of his work is now part of some standard library or framework.</p><p>I've written plenty of things as useful as TeX but that doesn't mean I'd call Knuth an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the guy 's point was that Knuth wrote that in the 70s , and it 's now the 10s - a gap of forty years in which he has capitalised off his earlier work but not really brought anything that revolutionary to the table since .
His original work stands as a classic , bring together a vast amount of highly relevant information and algorithms for the programmers of the 70s/80s .
It has a lot less relevance in this age because most of his work is now part of some standard library or framework.I 've written plenty of things as useful as TeX but that does n't mean I 'd call Knuth an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the guy's point was that Knuth wrote that in the 70s, and it's now the 10s - a gap of forty years in which he has capitalised off his earlier work but not really brought anything that revolutionary to the table since.
His original work stands as a classic, bring together a vast amount of highly relevant information and algorithms for the programmers of the 70s/80s.
It has a lot less relevance in this age because most of his work is now part of some standard library or framework.I've written plenty of things as useful as TeX but that doesn't mean I'd call Knuth an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392630</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy!</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267992960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The project manager will care a great deal if the driver goes from Texas to Oklahoma via Alaska and expects to be paid for his fuel. He will also care a great deal if one in five shipments are lost.</p><p>He'll care even more next year when he wants to change what he is shipping but can't because of customs issues at the border (when as far as he knows, there are no customs inspections at the Texas-Oklahoma border).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The project manager will care a great deal if the driver goes from Texas to Oklahoma via Alaska and expects to be paid for his fuel .
He will also care a great deal if one in five shipments are lost.He 'll care even more next year when he wants to change what he is shipping but ca n't because of customs issues at the border ( when as far as he knows , there are no customs inspections at the Texas-Oklahoma border ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The project manager will care a great deal if the driver goes from Texas to Oklahoma via Alaska and expects to be paid for his fuel.
He will also care a great deal if one in five shipments are lost.He'll care even more next year when he wants to change what he is shipping but can't because of customs issues at the border (when as far as he knows, there are no customs inspections at the Texas-Oklahoma border).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386986</id>
	<title>Specialization is for Ants</title>
	<author>DeionXxX</author>
	<datestamp>1267902840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Presentation Layer guy I can tell you that I&rsquo;m seeing a shift of the types of successful developers out there in the field. Those developers that can bounce around between different API&rsquo;s and syntaxes are the ones that are in demand and those developers that know one technology or platform well aren&rsquo;t.</p><p>I personally think it&rsquo;s because of the fragmented nature of our target platforms. Programming for one platform is a luxury most programmers don&rsquo;t have nowadays. This is why frameworks came to be and are used so heavily. Just abstracting the differences between platforms is enough for most developers to ditch &ldquo;hand coding&rdquo; and deal with the integration issues. Look at the popularity of Javascript frameworks like jQuery. Nobody coded in the way jQuery works before jQuery (the whole chaining thing, and anonymous functions), yet now more than 50\% of websites (made up number) use jQuery.</p><p>To become a successful developer in the next decade, you must be a generalist. It&rsquo;s a completely different way of thinking. You have to actively try NOT to learn too much of one platform for fear that it&rsquo;ll bias you against all the other languages you&rsquo;ll have to work in. For example, coming from more structured languages, seeing the jQuery chaining and use of anonymous functions would turn off most developers and they&rsquo;d shy away from using it. However, it&rsquo;s the best tool for the job currently, and not using it based on it&rsquo;s weird syntax would be a mistake. Same thing applies to MXML, WPF, LINQ, C#&rsquo;s var, etc and all sorts of new improvements to languages that people don&rsquo;t use because they&rsquo;re &ldquo;different&rdquo; and give you &ldquo;less control&rdquo;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Presentation Layer guy I can tell you that I    m seeing a shift of the types of successful developers out there in the field .
Those developers that can bounce around between different API    s and syntaxes are the ones that are in demand and those developers that know one technology or platform well aren    t.I personally think it    s because of the fragmented nature of our target platforms .
Programming for one platform is a luxury most programmers don    t have nowadays .
This is why frameworks came to be and are used so heavily .
Just abstracting the differences between platforms is enough for most developers to ditch    hand coding    and deal with the integration issues .
Look at the popularity of Javascript frameworks like jQuery .
Nobody coded in the way jQuery works before jQuery ( the whole chaining thing , and anonymous functions ) , yet now more than 50 \ % of websites ( made up number ) use jQuery.To become a successful developer in the next decade , you must be a generalist .
It    s a completely different way of thinking .
You have to actively try NOT to learn too much of one platform for fear that it    ll bias you against all the other languages you    ll have to work in .
For example , coming from more structured languages , seeing the jQuery chaining and use of anonymous functions would turn off most developers and they    d shy away from using it .
However , it    s the best tool for the job currently , and not using it based on it    s weird syntax would be a mistake .
Same thing applies to MXML , WPF , LINQ , C #    s var , etc and all sorts of new improvements to languages that people don    t use because they    re    different    and give you    less control    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Presentation Layer guy I can tell you that I’m seeing a shift of the types of successful developers out there in the field.
Those developers that can bounce around between different API’s and syntaxes are the ones that are in demand and those developers that know one technology or platform well aren’t.I personally think it’s because of the fragmented nature of our target platforms.
Programming for one platform is a luxury most programmers don’t have nowadays.
This is why frameworks came to be and are used so heavily.
Just abstracting the differences between platforms is enough for most developers to ditch “hand coding” and deal with the integration issues.
Look at the popularity of Javascript frameworks like jQuery.
Nobody coded in the way jQuery works before jQuery (the whole chaining thing, and anonymous functions), yet now more than 50\% of websites (made up number) use jQuery.To become a successful developer in the next decade, you must be a generalist.
It’s a completely different way of thinking.
You have to actively try NOT to learn too much of one platform for fear that it’ll bias you against all the other languages you’ll have to work in.
For example, coming from more structured languages, seeing the jQuery chaining and use of anonymous functions would turn off most developers and they’d shy away from using it.
However, it’s the best tool for the job currently, and not using it based on it’s weird syntax would be a mistake.
Same thing applies to MXML, WPF, LINQ, C#’s var, etc and all sorts of new improvements to languages that people don’t use because they’re “different” and give you “less control”.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389382</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>X.25</author>
	<datestamp>1267974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Knuth had his day. That day is the equivalent of building stone tools and hunting with rocks and sticks.</i></p><p><i>Today we are using bows and arrows. We have left the stone tools behind and can now express our imagination in ways that are simply beyond the scope of TAOCP.</i></p><p><i>But remember, we are still only using bows and arrows. The next big thing will be gunpowder.<br></i></p><p>You are a fucking idiot, and you are a perfect example of why everything runs like shit these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knuth had his day .
That day is the equivalent of building stone tools and hunting with rocks and sticks.Today we are using bows and arrows .
We have left the stone tools behind and can now express our imagination in ways that are simply beyond the scope of TAOCP.But remember , we are still only using bows and arrows .
The next big thing will be gunpowder.You are a fucking idiot , and you are a perfect example of why everything runs like shit these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knuth had his day.
That day is the equivalent of building stone tools and hunting with rocks and sticks.Today we are using bows and arrows.
We have left the stone tools behind and can now express our imagination in ways that are simply beyond the scope of TAOCP.But remember, we are still only using bows and arrows.
The next big thing will be gunpowder.You are a fucking idiot, and you are a perfect example of why everything runs like shit these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387788</id>
	<title>Re:As a physicist,</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1267957260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>most people have an instinct for hoarding</p></div><p>I'm curious to know the mechanism by which you, as a physicist, view hoarding as impeding progress.</p><p>I will admit that most people do have an instinct for hoarding.  But I don't believe the vast majority do anywhere close to an effective job of it.  And I don't think that hoarding, per se, should have any negative effect.  Rather the opposite, actually.</p><p>My own view is that consumption, rather than hoarding, has a long-term deleterious effect on living standards.  And that what most people consider "hoarding" is actually consumption.  True hoarding would act to preserve resources for future consumption, which would derive more benefit due to advances in technology than current consumption.  But I'm interested to hear what others think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>most people have an instinct for hoardingI 'm curious to know the mechanism by which you , as a physicist , view hoarding as impeding progress.I will admit that most people do have an instinct for hoarding .
But I do n't believe the vast majority do anywhere close to an effective job of it .
And I do n't think that hoarding , per se , should have any negative effect .
Rather the opposite , actually.My own view is that consumption , rather than hoarding , has a long-term deleterious effect on living standards .
And that what most people consider " hoarding " is actually consumption .
True hoarding would act to preserve resources for future consumption , which would derive more benefit due to advances in technology than current consumption .
But I 'm interested to hear what others think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most people have an instinct for hoardingI'm curious to know the mechanism by which you, as a physicist, view hoarding as impeding progress.I will admit that most people do have an instinct for hoarding.
But I don't believe the vast majority do anywhere close to an effective job of it.
And I don't think that hoarding, per se, should have any negative effect.
Rather the opposite, actually.My own view is that consumption, rather than hoarding, has a long-term deleterious effect on living standards.
And that what most people consider "hoarding" is actually consumption.
True hoarding would act to preserve resources for future consumption, which would derive more benefit due to advances in technology than current consumption.
But I'm interested to hear what others think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387616</id>
	<title>Re:You can still program, if you're an engineer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267954260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are absolutely right.</p><p>I may not be the best software engineer out there, but I'm constantly baffled by guys who's basic solution to everything is to escalate the complexity by creating frameworks instead of actually doing something that's efficient and typically much more readable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely right.I may not be the best software engineer out there , but I 'm constantly baffled by guys who 's basic solution to everything is to escalate the complexity by creating frameworks instead of actually doing something that 's efficient and typically much more readable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely right.I may not be the best software engineer out there, but I'm constantly baffled by guys who's basic solution to everything is to escalate the complexity by creating frameworks instead of actually doing something that's efficient and typically much more readable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389220</id>
	<title>Re:Programming == Cut &amp; Paste</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1267973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, figuring out the problem and how to solve it actually <em>is</em> the engineering part.</p><p>Coding is the craft part.  It plays the same role in relation to software engineering that carpentry places to structural engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , figuring out the problem and how to solve it actually is the engineering part.Coding is the craft part .
It plays the same role in relation to software engineering that carpentry places to structural engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, figuring out the problem and how to solve it actually is the engineering part.Coding is the craft part.
It plays the same role in relation to software engineering that carpentry places to structural engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386528</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1267897320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem here is trying to use those bows and arrows for deep sea fishing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is trying to use those bows and arrows for deep sea fishing : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is trying to use those bows and arrows for deep sea fishing :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386514</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1267897140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm already at the gunpowder stage. My code has been blowing up for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm already at the gunpowder stage .
My code has been blowing up for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm already at the gunpowder stage.
My code has been blowing up for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389820</id>
	<title>Real world example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267977120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a real world example of me stringing together libraries that already exist.</p><p>I'm currently working on a project that requires parsing some HTML, and performing magic on it to transform it into HTML decorated with auto-generated code.</p><p>What I'm interested in writing is the transformational magic.  What I could be writing is the HTML parser.</p><p>Now, while a fun project, why the heck would I want to write my own HTML parser? Well, I have a very specific set of requirements, that it turns out most HTML parsers aren't very good at. (These are more API issues, rather than parsing issues.  It turns out most DOM-oriented parsers, which most HTML parsers are, tend to be horrible at what I want to do, due to HTML having weird rules like implicitly closed elements.)</p><p>Instead of deciding this is a great opportunity to reinvent the wheel, I spend a day and a half looking at a wide range of HTML parsers, writing code and evaluating each one.</p><p>You know what? Eventually, I find someone who wrote a library that solved exactly the problem I wanted to solve.  Someone who had the exact same problem as me, and has spent who knows how many untold man-hours creating a debugged and elegant library.</p><p>Now, someone tell me why it would have been better to have spend that day and a half getting just 10\% of the job done, when I can just use someone else's wonderful library and build just a little bit of glue to my own problem domain on top of it.</p><p>Most of my "programming" time is spent looking for an existing body of code that will help me solve the problem, not actually coding a solution to the problem itself.  90\% of any programming problem has already been solved before, a mantra I constantly repeat to myself every time I feel the least bit tempted to try and solve a problem from scratch.  Do enough research, look hard enough, and most of the time you can find the solution.</p><p>And if you don't, that's a great opportunity to contribute a new library that might become widely used.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I think this shift is more about open source than anything else.  Over the last 10-20 years, we've collectively built up this amazing body of code that anybody can use, without any commercial barriers standing between adopting different technologies.  It's allowed us to push code reuse much further than we could in the past, and there's been a tremendous net benefit from it.  Dismissing that progress as not being "real programming" is just incredibly naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a real world example of me stringing together libraries that already exist.I 'm currently working on a project that requires parsing some HTML , and performing magic on it to transform it into HTML decorated with auto-generated code.What I 'm interested in writing is the transformational magic .
What I could be writing is the HTML parser.Now , while a fun project , why the heck would I want to write my own HTML parser ?
Well , I have a very specific set of requirements , that it turns out most HTML parsers are n't very good at .
( These are more API issues , rather than parsing issues .
It turns out most DOM-oriented parsers , which most HTML parsers are , tend to be horrible at what I want to do , due to HTML having weird rules like implicitly closed elements .
) Instead of deciding this is a great opportunity to reinvent the wheel , I spend a day and a half looking at a wide range of HTML parsers , writing code and evaluating each one.You know what ?
Eventually , I find someone who wrote a library that solved exactly the problem I wanted to solve .
Someone who had the exact same problem as me , and has spent who knows how many untold man-hours creating a debugged and elegant library.Now , someone tell me why it would have been better to have spend that day and a half getting just 10 \ % of the job done , when I can just use someone else 's wonderful library and build just a little bit of glue to my own problem domain on top of it.Most of my " programming " time is spent looking for an existing body of code that will help me solve the problem , not actually coding a solution to the problem itself .
90 \ % of any programming problem has already been solved before , a mantra I constantly repeat to myself every time I feel the least bit tempted to try and solve a problem from scratch .
Do enough research , look hard enough , and most of the time you can find the solution.And if you do n't , that 's a great opportunity to contribute a new library that might become widely used .
: - ) I think this shift is more about open source than anything else .
Over the last 10-20 years , we 've collectively built up this amazing body of code that anybody can use , without any commercial barriers standing between adopting different technologies .
It 's allowed us to push code reuse much further than we could in the past , and there 's been a tremendous net benefit from it .
Dismissing that progress as not being " real programming " is just incredibly naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a real world example of me stringing together libraries that already exist.I'm currently working on a project that requires parsing some HTML, and performing magic on it to transform it into HTML decorated with auto-generated code.What I'm interested in writing is the transformational magic.
What I could be writing is the HTML parser.Now, while a fun project, why the heck would I want to write my own HTML parser?
Well, I have a very specific set of requirements, that it turns out most HTML parsers aren't very good at.
(These are more API issues, rather than parsing issues.
It turns out most DOM-oriented parsers, which most HTML parsers are, tend to be horrible at what I want to do, due to HTML having weird rules like implicitly closed elements.
)Instead of deciding this is a great opportunity to reinvent the wheel, I spend a day and a half looking at a wide range of HTML parsers, writing code and evaluating each one.You know what?
Eventually, I find someone who wrote a library that solved exactly the problem I wanted to solve.
Someone who had the exact same problem as me, and has spent who knows how many untold man-hours creating a debugged and elegant library.Now, someone tell me why it would have been better to have spend that day and a half getting just 10\% of the job done, when I can just use someone else's wonderful library and build just a little bit of glue to my own problem domain on top of it.Most of my "programming" time is spent looking for an existing body of code that will help me solve the problem, not actually coding a solution to the problem itself.
90\% of any programming problem has already been solved before, a mantra I constantly repeat to myself every time I feel the least bit tempted to try and solve a problem from scratch.
Do enough research, look hard enough, and most of the time you can find the solution.And if you don't, that's a great opportunity to contribute a new library that might become widely used.
:-)I think this shift is more about open source than anything else.
Over the last 10-20 years, we've collectively built up this amazing body of code that anybody can use, without any commercial barriers standing between adopting different technologies.
It's allowed us to push code reuse much further than we could in the past, and there's been a tremendous net benefit from it.
Dismissing that progress as not being "real programming" is just incredibly naive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387982</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267960620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You dont have a GF do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You dont have a GF do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You dont have a GF do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386776</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>ooooli</author>
	<datestamp>1267900080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to mention that he can't grasp the awesome power of 300 APIs (sorry, "technologies") each with three letter abbreviation names starting with J that make up the resume of a typical Java programmer.</p></div><p>Agreed, but the problem is that most of those "technologies" are bloated, designed by committee, buzzword-loaded crap. The problem is *not* that we have found better ways to share code than we used to.

I mean, I'm all for crafting beautiful, optimally efficient snippets of code that do one thing perfectly. But have you ever noticed that you can do things in a couple of hours now that 10 years ago would have taken weeks?

Being able to cobble together a prototype fast is *hugely* useful and important. Now who was it again who said that premature optimization is the root of all evil? Hmmm...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that he ca n't grasp the awesome power of 300 APIs ( sorry , " technologies " ) each with three letter abbreviation names starting with J that make up the resume of a typical Java programmer.Agreed , but the problem is that most of those " technologies " are bloated , designed by committee , buzzword-loaded crap .
The problem is * not * that we have found better ways to share code than we used to .
I mean , I 'm all for crafting beautiful , optimally efficient snippets of code that do one thing perfectly .
But have you ever noticed that you can do things in a couple of hours now that 10 years ago would have taken weeks ?
Being able to cobble together a prototype fast is * hugely * useful and important .
Now who was it again who said that premature optimization is the root of all evil ?
Hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that he can't grasp the awesome power of 300 APIs (sorry, "technologies") each with three letter abbreviation names starting with J that make up the resume of a typical Java programmer.Agreed, but the problem is that most of those "technologies" are bloated, designed by committee, buzzword-loaded crap.
The problem is *not* that we have found better ways to share code than we used to.
I mean, I'm all for crafting beautiful, optimally efficient snippets of code that do one thing perfectly.
But have you ever noticed that you can do things in a couple of hours now that 10 years ago would have taken weeks?
Being able to cobble together a prototype fast is *hugely* useful and important.
Now who was it again who said that premature optimization is the root of all evil?
Hmmm...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392810</id>
	<title>Sometimes you just have to write it yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had a lot of fun in the past year precisely because I have had to implement some of the common lower-level facilities myself.</p><p>Some examples:</p><p>1: I failed to find a super-ultra lightweight library for navigating XML and extracting its data, so I wrote my own.  Now I have XML processing with the small memory footprint I need for my embedded applications.</p><p>2: I failed to find a very-low-overhead state-machine framework with modern conveniences, so I wrote my own.  I can now write state-machines in a framework with OO-inspired features (such as inheritance of event handlers, and "ctor/dtor" events (automatically-fired enter-state/exit-state events)) that has a very small memory footprint necessary for embedded applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had a lot of fun in the past year precisely because I have had to implement some of the common lower-level facilities myself.Some examples : 1 : I failed to find a super-ultra lightweight library for navigating XML and extracting its data , so I wrote my own .
Now I have XML processing with the small memory footprint I need for my embedded applications.2 : I failed to find a very-low-overhead state-machine framework with modern conveniences , so I wrote my own .
I can now write state-machines in a framework with OO-inspired features ( such as inheritance of event handlers , and " ctor/dtor " events ( automatically-fired enter-state/exit-state events ) ) that has a very small memory footprint necessary for embedded applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had a lot of fun in the past year precisely because I have had to implement some of the common lower-level facilities myself.Some examples:1: I failed to find a super-ultra lightweight library for navigating XML and extracting its data, so I wrote my own.
Now I have XML processing with the small memory footprint I need for my embedded applications.2: I failed to find a very-low-overhead state-machine framework with modern conveniences, so I wrote my own.
I can now write state-machines in a framework with OO-inspired features (such as inheritance of event handlers, and "ctor/dtor" events (automatically-fired enter-state/exit-state events)) that has a very small memory footprint necessary for embedded applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387212</id>
	<title>Really</title>
	<author>Broken scope</author>
	<datestamp>1267905480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> My systems software professor had a massive hard on for java, and thus all the C/C++ we needed for Computer Architecture was no where to be found for 90\% of my 20 person class. My comp arc professor told us to learn it the weekend before the first lab. Three people did, I already knew enough to write our very simple code.</p><p>
&nbsp; Professor wanted us to annotate and explain assembly generated by a rather simple C program. He also wanted us to watch registers and make note of the changes in registers and stack and base pointers as we stepped through the program. After lab was over all but two students complained about having to even think about assembly code.</p><p>
&nbsp; Next lab we played around with a special vector library the prof had made so we could see the difference between vector and scalar math. Me and another guy did the lab and started looking at the assembly and noticed that about a third of the assembly generated in a series of successive adds could be removed. No one else looked at the structure of the assembly, they just complained about having to annotate it again.</p><p>It's not the programming, it's the programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My systems software professor had a massive hard on for java , and thus all the C/C + + we needed for Computer Architecture was no where to be found for 90 \ % of my 20 person class .
My comp arc professor told us to learn it the weekend before the first lab .
Three people did , I already knew enough to write our very simple code .
  Professor wanted us to annotate and explain assembly generated by a rather simple C program .
He also wanted us to watch registers and make note of the changes in registers and stack and base pointers as we stepped through the program .
After lab was over all but two students complained about having to even think about assembly code .
  Next lab we played around with a special vector library the prof had made so we could see the difference between vector and scalar math .
Me and another guy did the lab and started looking at the assembly and noticed that about a third of the assembly generated in a series of successive adds could be removed .
No one else looked at the structure of the assembly , they just complained about having to annotate it again.It 's not the programming , it 's the programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My systems software professor had a massive hard on for java, and thus all the C/C++ we needed for Computer Architecture was no where to be found for 90\% of my 20 person class.
My comp arc professor told us to learn it the weekend before the first lab.
Three people did, I already knew enough to write our very simple code.
  Professor wanted us to annotate and explain assembly generated by a rather simple C program.
He also wanted us to watch registers and make note of the changes in registers and stack and base pointers as we stepped through the program.
After lab was over all but two students complained about having to even think about assembly code.
  Next lab we played around with a special vector library the prof had made so we could see the difference between vector and scalar math.
Me and another guy did the lab and started looking at the assembly and noticed that about a third of the assembly generated in a series of successive adds could be removed.
No one else looked at the structure of the assembly, they just complained about having to annotate it again.It's not the programming, it's the programmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31399392</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals. The more we can simplify them, the better. They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.</p><p>No.</p><p>I don't want my life to be affected in any way whatsoever by some fellow operating some device that he really has no business operating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals .
The more we can simplify them , the better .
They should be adapted to work how we want , we should not have to adapt to them.No.I do n't want my life to be affected in any way whatsoever by some fellow operating some device that he really has no business operating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
The more we can simplify them, the better.
They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.No.I don't want my life to be affected in any way whatsoever by some fellow operating some device that he really has no business operating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy frameworks, tools and web standards</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267903680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, you complain well. But you don&rsquo;t seem to do anything against it.<br>It&rsquo;s like my last boss. (Ever!)</p><p>You know what the first thing is, that I do in a new environment?<br>Code me a generic CRUD generator (database/persistency, logic, gui). E.g. a tool that renders me a whole application out of the SQL database definition. Or in other words: The difference between SQL and tools like MS Access.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>Then I can push out generic software faster than I can write up the data models. Add the little bit that usually is the business logic, and tadaa!</p><p>In my last job, we were at the limits of our capacity. Too much work for too few people. And I offered my boss, to cut our work load by 90\% (realistically!), when he would give me two to five days of free time. He denied with &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t have time for that.&rdquo;<br>And why not? Hm? <strong>Because</strong> you don&rsquo;t take the time for this!<br>It was one of those typical PHB moments.<br>Needless to say: I quit.</p><p>Now I&rsquo;m on to what is basically a completely new OS (Linux kernel, new shell (cli and gui), and legacy interface to GNU) that goes a huge step further, by generalizing it as much as physically possible. (Actually, I can prove that it can&rsquo;t be generalized more, without becoming less efficient again.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , you complain well .
But you don    t seem to do anything against it.It    s like my last boss .
( Ever ! ) You know what the first thing is , that I do in a new environment ? Code me a generic CRUD generator ( database/persistency , logic , gui ) .
E.g. a tool that renders me a whole application out of the SQL database definition .
Or in other words : The difference between SQL and tools like MS Access .
; ) Then I can push out generic software faster than I can write up the data models .
Add the little bit that usually is the business logic , and tadaa ! In my last job , we were at the limits of our capacity .
Too much work for too few people .
And I offered my boss , to cut our work load by 90 \ % ( realistically !
) , when he would give me two to five days of free time .
He denied with    We don    t have time for that.    And why not ?
Hm ? Because you don    t take the time for this ! It was one of those typical PHB moments.Needless to say : I quit.Now I    m on to what is basically a completely new OS ( Linux kernel , new shell ( cli and gui ) , and legacy interface to GNU ) that goes a huge step further , by generalizing it as much as physically possible .
( Actually , I can prove that it can    t be generalized more , without becoming less efficient again .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, you complain well.
But you don’t seem to do anything against it.It’s like my last boss.
(Ever!)You know what the first thing is, that I do in a new environment?Code me a generic CRUD generator (database/persistency, logic, gui).
E.g. a tool that renders me a whole application out of the SQL database definition.
Or in other words: The difference between SQL and tools like MS Access.
;)Then I can push out generic software faster than I can write up the data models.
Add the little bit that usually is the business logic, and tadaa!In my last job, we were at the limits of our capacity.
Too much work for too few people.
And I offered my boss, to cut our work load by 90\% (realistically!
), when he would give me two to five days of free time.
He denied with “We don’t have time for that.”And why not?
Hm? Because you don’t take the time for this!It was one of those typical PHB moments.Needless to say: I quit.Now I’m on to what is basically a completely new OS (Linux kernel, new shell (cli and gui), and legacy interface to GNU) that goes a huge step further, by generalizing it as much as physically possible.
(Actually, I can prove that it can’t be generalized more, without becoming less efficient again.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387030</id>
	<title>knuth is right... and wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267903380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I had this long diatribe all written and ready to post. It was about how it's terrible that web applications really suck to develop because there are a minimum of 5 different technologies that you have to know just to get off the ground and that every "innovation" has been a kludge on top of other kludges meant to twist a static content delivery platform into an interactive applications platform. But I scrapped it since that's a dead horse and I'm just some random jerk anyway.</p><p>Then I actually RTFA and decided I'd rather respond to Knuth's quoted sentiment:</p><blockquote><div><p>"The problem is that coding isn't fun if all you can do is call things out of a library, if you can't write the library yourself.  If the job of coding is just to be finding the right combination of parameters, that does fairly obvious things, then who'd want to go into that as a career?" (page 581)</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, I wouldn't want to go into it as a career, but programming is a hobby of mine. I like to make applications, but I have neither the patience nor time to design even a trivial application that doesn't blatantly steal 90\% of its code from other (open source) sources. The only way <i>I</i> know how to program is basically what Knuth said: I paste other people's frameworks, libraries, classes, and functions together into an application of my own. I don't want to spend months refining logic and algorithms. Although I do take the time to research The Right Way to do something, I don't particularly care if my code is elegant, I just want it to work and then get to the business of actually <i>using</i> the application.</p><p>And what's wrong with that, anyway? Isn't the point of modern programming paradigms to reuse whatever existing components you can, to save yourself time and headaches from re-inventing the wheel? If I need AES-256, there's no way in hell I'm writing it myself when there are dozens of existing implementations out there for nearly every language by people who are much smarter than me, and which are packaged up into nice little bundles that I can wget into my source tree and use right away. How is that anything but a good thing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I had this long diatribe all written and ready to post .
It was about how it 's terrible that web applications really suck to develop because there are a minimum of 5 different technologies that you have to know just to get off the ground and that every " innovation " has been a kludge on top of other kludges meant to twist a static content delivery platform into an interactive applications platform .
But I scrapped it since that 's a dead horse and I 'm just some random jerk anyway.Then I actually RTFA and decided I 'd rather respond to Knuth 's quoted sentiment : " The problem is that coding is n't fun if all you can do is call things out of a library , if you ca n't write the library yourself .
If the job of coding is just to be finding the right combination of parameters , that does fairly obvious things , then who 'd want to go into that as a career ?
" ( page 581 ) Well , I would n't want to go into it as a career , but programming is a hobby of mine .
I like to make applications , but I have neither the patience nor time to design even a trivial application that does n't blatantly steal 90 \ % of its code from other ( open source ) sources .
The only way I know how to program is basically what Knuth said : I paste other people 's frameworks , libraries , classes , and functions together into an application of my own .
I do n't want to spend months refining logic and algorithms .
Although I do take the time to research The Right Way to do something , I do n't particularly care if my code is elegant , I just want it to work and then get to the business of actually using the application.And what 's wrong with that , anyway ?
Is n't the point of modern programming paradigms to reuse whatever existing components you can , to save yourself time and headaches from re-inventing the wheel ?
If I need AES-256 , there 's no way in hell I 'm writing it myself when there are dozens of existing implementations out there for nearly every language by people who are much smarter than me , and which are packaged up into nice little bundles that I can wget into my source tree and use right away .
How is that anything but a good thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I had this long diatribe all written and ready to post.
It was about how it's terrible that web applications really suck to develop because there are a minimum of 5 different technologies that you have to know just to get off the ground and that every "innovation" has been a kludge on top of other kludges meant to twist a static content delivery platform into an interactive applications platform.
But I scrapped it since that's a dead horse and I'm just some random jerk anyway.Then I actually RTFA and decided I'd rather respond to Knuth's quoted sentiment:"The problem is that coding isn't fun if all you can do is call things out of a library, if you can't write the library yourself.
If the job of coding is just to be finding the right combination of parameters, that does fairly obvious things, then who'd want to go into that as a career?
" (page 581)Well, I wouldn't want to go into it as a career, but programming is a hobby of mine.
I like to make applications, but I have neither the patience nor time to design even a trivial application that doesn't blatantly steal 90\% of its code from other (open source) sources.
The only way I know how to program is basically what Knuth said: I paste other people's frameworks, libraries, classes, and functions together into an application of my own.
I don't want to spend months refining logic and algorithms.
Although I do take the time to research The Right Way to do something, I don't particularly care if my code is elegant, I just want it to work and then get to the business of actually using the application.And what's wrong with that, anyway?
Isn't the point of modern programming paradigms to reuse whatever existing components you can, to save yourself time and headaches from re-inventing the wheel?
If I need AES-256, there's no way in hell I'm writing it myself when there are dozens of existing implementations out there for nearly every language by people who are much smarter than me, and which are packaged up into nice little bundles that I can wget into my source tree and use right away.
How is that anything but a good thing?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387806</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't he the guy who defends using goto stateme</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1267957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that paper where he argues for a well-balanced viewpoint that gotos should be eliminated in some cases but not others couldn't have passed computer science 101 with your instructors because he wrote that in 1974, most likely before your CS department existed and your instructors were still learning their times tables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that paper where he argues for a well-balanced viewpoint that gotos should be eliminated in some cases but not others could n't have passed computer science 101 with your instructors because he wrote that in 1974 , most likely before your CS department existed and your instructors were still learning their times tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that paper where he argues for a well-balanced viewpoint that gotos should be eliminated in some cases but not others couldn't have passed computer science 101 with your instructors because he wrote that in 1974, most likely before your CS department existed and your instructors were still learning their times tables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392660</id>
	<title>A single word answer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267993140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Java.<br>Sorry, but the whole programming experience started to go downhill when the enterprise and corporates bought into the whole Java way of life, and the Java ecosystem.<br>Let me describe three development teams in the investment bank where I work:<br>Team A uses Perl, Python and Ruby - their apps get released regularly, mostly work well, are serviced by a smaller team, and the users overall are happy.<br>Team B uses C/++ across Windows and Unix - their apps have slightly longer release windows, work very well, have a similiar sized team, and the users remain happy.<br>Team C uses Java - their apps always seen to have broken releases (wrong version of that JAR?), require a larger team, and the users are not too happy.</p><p>Having sat in on the code reviews, development and architecture reviews with the three teams, it was very interesting:</p><p>Team A uses at most one framework, and a few libs per project. Code is easy to read, production restarts are quick, and the overall designs simple, clean and well thought out.<br>Team B uses QT, Boost and a few in house libs per project. Code again is well laid out, production layout well maintained, and there is very little cruft in there.<br>Team C uses J2EE, Weblogic, Hibernate, Hessian, Spring (and a thousand other bits), the meetings are a disaster, each piece of code seems to have a prerequisite three minimum design patterns squeezed in, littered with annotations, and is quite a nightmare to follow. Production management of their apps is a disaster. Architecture seems to be standard Java J2EE practise of a thousand three letter acronyms, and lots and lots of frameworks.</p><p>Sadly, I do have to work with all three teams, and it seems as the IT organisation has a permanent hard-on for everything Java (as the offshore outsourcers promise a thousand coders at bottom dollar rates), guess which way we are going.</p><p>If you love programming, avoid Java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Java.Sorry , but the whole programming experience started to go downhill when the enterprise and corporates bought into the whole Java way of life , and the Java ecosystem.Let me describe three development teams in the investment bank where I work : Team A uses Perl , Python and Ruby - their apps get released regularly , mostly work well , are serviced by a smaller team , and the users overall are happy.Team B uses C/ + + across Windows and Unix - their apps have slightly longer release windows , work very well , have a similiar sized team , and the users remain happy.Team C uses Java - their apps always seen to have broken releases ( wrong version of that JAR ?
) , require a larger team , and the users are not too happy.Having sat in on the code reviews , development and architecture reviews with the three teams , it was very interesting : Team A uses at most one framework , and a few libs per project .
Code is easy to read , production restarts are quick , and the overall designs simple , clean and well thought out.Team B uses QT , Boost and a few in house libs per project .
Code again is well laid out , production layout well maintained , and there is very little cruft in there.Team C uses J2EE , Weblogic , Hibernate , Hessian , Spring ( and a thousand other bits ) , the meetings are a disaster , each piece of code seems to have a prerequisite three minimum design patterns squeezed in , littered with annotations , and is quite a nightmare to follow .
Production management of their apps is a disaster .
Architecture seems to be standard Java J2EE practise of a thousand three letter acronyms , and lots and lots of frameworks.Sadly , I do have to work with all three teams , and it seems as the IT organisation has a permanent hard-on for everything Java ( as the offshore outsourcers promise a thousand coders at bottom dollar rates ) , guess which way we are going.If you love programming , avoid Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Java.Sorry, but the whole programming experience started to go downhill when the enterprise and corporates bought into the whole Java way of life, and the Java ecosystem.Let me describe three development teams in the investment bank where I work:Team A uses Perl, Python and Ruby - their apps get released regularly, mostly work well, are serviced by a smaller team, and the users overall are happy.Team B uses C/++ across Windows and Unix - their apps have slightly longer release windows, work very well, have a similiar sized team, and the users remain happy.Team C uses Java - their apps always seen to have broken releases (wrong version of that JAR?
), require a larger team, and the users are not too happy.Having sat in on the code reviews, development and architecture reviews with the three teams, it was very interesting:Team A uses at most one framework, and a few libs per project.
Code is easy to read, production restarts are quick, and the overall designs simple, clean and well thought out.Team B uses QT, Boost and a few in house libs per project.
Code again is well laid out, production layout well maintained, and there is very little cruft in there.Team C uses J2EE, Weblogic, Hibernate, Hessian, Spring (and a thousand other bits), the meetings are a disaster, each piece of code seems to have a prerequisite three minimum design patterns squeezed in, littered with annotations, and is quite a nightmare to follow.
Production management of their apps is a disaster.
Architecture seems to be standard Java J2EE practise of a thousand three letter acronyms, and lots and lots of frameworks.Sadly, I do have to work with all three teams, and it seems as the IT organisation has a permanent hard-on for everything Java (as the offshore outsourcers promise a thousand coders at bottom dollar rates), guess which way we are going.If you love programming, avoid Java.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386590</id>
	<title>too much resources available</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>back in the day you only had 3583bytes available to code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Now we have way too much RAM / CPU / whatnot, so streamlined code is not needed anymore, most of the time at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>back in the day you only had 3583bytes available to code ... : ) Now we have way too much RAM / CPU / whatnot , so streamlined code is not needed anymore , most of the time at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in the day you only had 3583bytes available to code ... :)Now we have way too much RAM / CPU / whatnot, so streamlined code is not needed anymore, most of the time at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390492</id>
	<title>Re:Next Next Finish Programming</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1267981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what happens when you woo corporate bigwigs who then turn around and thunder the slick crap down on the techies from on high.</p><p>The bosses love it because it looks cool, the techies hate it because they have to fight a crap-filled pretty package, and the vendor loves it because they've got the bosses paying them for the privilege of torturing their underlings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what happens when you woo corporate bigwigs who then turn around and thunder the slick crap down on the techies from on high.The bosses love it because it looks cool , the techies hate it because they have to fight a crap-filled pretty package , and the vendor loves it because they 've got the bosses paying them for the privilege of torturing their underlings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what happens when you woo corporate bigwigs who then turn around and thunder the slick crap down on the techies from on high.The bosses love it because it looks cool, the techies hate it because they have to fight a crap-filled pretty package, and the vendor loves it because they've got the bosses paying them for the privilege of torturing their underlings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386558</id>
	<title>Welcome To The Real World</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1267897500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So your job sucks.  Welcome to the club.  Just about everyone's job sucks.   Do you think your geekdom exempts you from this?  Suck up and deal, Nancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So your job sucks .
Welcome to the club .
Just about everyone 's job sucks .
Do you think your geekdom exempts you from this ?
Suck up and deal , Nancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your job sucks.
Welcome to the club.
Just about everyone's job sucks.
Do you think your geekdom exempts you from this?
Suck up and deal, Nancy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387130</id>
	<title>No need to reinvent the wheel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We now live in a connected world.   There is no longer a need to keep re-inventing the wheel.    When it comes to the building blocks of a program, chances are someone has already implemented what you want to do, has done it better than you can, and their solution has been time-tested.    There's just no need to implement your own Malloc routine.

I think of it more like graduating from basic Lego bricks to the more exciting "Expert Builder" series with a greater palette of modules that can make more interesting creations quickly.

What does scare me is that a new generation of programmers might take all of this for granted, and never try and understand things at a machine level.   High level languages are great, but there's a lot to be said for understanding what's going on behind the scenes.   When things go wrong, being able to "think like the machine" enables you to solve things quickly</htmltext>
<tokenext>We now live in a connected world .
There is no longer a need to keep re-inventing the wheel .
When it comes to the building blocks of a program , chances are someone has already implemented what you want to do , has done it better than you can , and their solution has been time-tested .
There 's just no need to implement your own Malloc routine .
I think of it more like graduating from basic Lego bricks to the more exciting " Expert Builder " series with a greater palette of modules that can make more interesting creations quickly .
What does scare me is that a new generation of programmers might take all of this for granted , and never try and understand things at a machine level .
High level languages are great , but there 's a lot to be said for understanding what 's going on behind the scenes .
When things go wrong , being able to " think like the machine " enables you to solve things quickly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We now live in a connected world.
There is no longer a need to keep re-inventing the wheel.
When it comes to the building blocks of a program, chances are someone has already implemented what you want to do, has done it better than you can, and their solution has been time-tested.
There's just no need to implement your own Malloc routine.
I think of it more like graduating from basic Lego bricks to the more exciting "Expert Builder" series with a greater palette of modules that can make more interesting creations quickly.
What does scare me is that a new generation of programmers might take all of this for granted, and never try and understand things at a machine level.
High level languages are great, but there's a lot to be said for understanding what's going on behind the scenes.
When things go wrong, being able to "think like the machine" enables you to solve things quickly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397920</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267990980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whining about "infantilizing" the end user? WTF? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard.</p> </div><p>Wow.  You do realize that you are arguing for infantilizing the end user, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.</p></div><p>I really don't see a Programming Mafia out there that's intent on breaking your fingers, should you suddenly cross them by "not showing your respects".  Really, I'm quite happy to see people learning about the complex piece of technology that sits in front of them, although the vast majority really don't give a shit about programming.  And maybe that's why there are programmers - people who are willing to put up with the existing complexity so that other people can get shit done.</p><p>I think you're blaming the symptom instead of the disease.  Learning programming takes moments, but doing it well is something that does take <i>years</i>, and that's a function of experience, not priesthood.  If you really think there's some kind of magical mystic voodoo bullshit priesthood that is "keeping you down, just like The Man", then I suggest you really get out more often.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bullshit.  Computers are tools, nothing more. they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily. As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.</p> </div><p>Pretty big assumption right off the bat.  So, if I know nothing about carpentry, but I want to build a house, I should just run out and get a multi-angle table saw, and start carving up blocks of wood?  After all, the saw is a tool, and by your logic "they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use."  Of course, I might cut off several digits, or even a hand, during the process, but hey, like you said - "accessible".</p><p>I don't disagree that computers are just "tools".  But I think you're omitting a teensy-tiny keyword here: complexity.  The basis of the technology is complicated to begin with; if you want to replace what we have today with something else, then stop your whining and fussing, go for it!  Make it happen!  Show us your ideas, show us something that we can at least discuss, instead of "well, it's not supposed to be complicated, but it is, so it must be *evil*".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.</p></div><p> Ah, so you want a box that can approach the capability of thinking for you?  What comes next, AI that works?  I mean, it's not like we haven't tried for, oh, several <i>decades</i> to get that working...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The more we can simplify them, the better. They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.</p></div><p>Wow.  Let's apply this to a practical use that is common for several American households: pornography.  So instead of using a web browser for porn, <a href="http://www.realtouch.com/" title="realtouch.com" rel="nofollow">I should get a device that I can stick my dick into and - if it's designed well enough not to shred my penis - give me a blow job?</a> [realtouch.com]  That's really keen logic - tell ya what, you go first, try it out... I'll wait for the verdict from you before committing to something that uses motors, friction, and <i>no feedback loop or emergency sensors</i> to massage my pecker.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Well guess what? Programming is another part of that. Ideally, we'd have computers that could more or less program themselves. People would tell the computer what they wanted it to do in plain English (or other natural language) and it would figure out how to make that happen. Obviously we are a very long way away from this, but the easier we can make it, the better.</p></div><p>It's been tried, and people didn't like it too much.  See, there was this really complicated computer called "a human being", but for some period of time, alot of people would rebrand them as just "slaves" and make them do whatever they wanted.  They were just sentient enough to understand complex orders, and if you really liked, you could abuse them for amusement.  Most of the time this was frowned on, as beating your slave usually was a good indication that you couldn't control them adequately; although some slave owners simply fucked their slaves when they felt like it, so I guess it all balances out.</p><p>A computer that programs itself implies sentience.  Constraining sentience against its free will is a feasible definition of slavery.  Good job, you have now made a feasible argument for creating electronic slaves.  What comes next, take the mentally challenged and scoop their brains out, and replace it with a computer?  It's not like they were using that grey matter, right?  I mean, if the rest of the body is alive, by your apparent standards it must be just peachy to do this...</p><p>Do you ever thing through this stuff, or do you just agree because "everyone else is saying it"?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even as it stands currently, where you do need training/practice to be a good programmer, there's a lot to be said for easy tools to make parts of development quicker and more robust. The user interface would be a good example. If all UI elements have to be coded in C++ and then compiled to see how it works, it is going to take a long time to develop and change. Goes double if others (like artists usability experts) are working on it as well. You write it, compile it, send it to them, they test it, write up problems, send it back, etc.</p></div><p>C++?  You like giving loaded guns to monkeys?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Much better to have a simple GUI interface for laying out the GUI. You can make changes much quicker and easier, and see what you are doing to confirm it is what you want. Also, should the design change, a redesign is much faster and easier.</p></div><p>one word: facepalm.</p><p>GUI designers are not a panacea.  I've dealt with them in various products and languages for over a decade.  Yes, they make layout a snap.  But they also allow you to do really stupid things like hook a crapload of business logic into the layout (can we say "broken MVC model" boys and girls?  You can?  I knew you could!), so that your design changes become increasingly brittle.  Even when you go to extreme lengths to make your forms "pure" and not hook logic into them, sooner or later you'll run into some horrid wart in how the GUI designer was implemented that absolutely requires that you expose some portion of the business logic to the layout, leading again to a semi-broken design.  They also don't scale well with complex forms, especially when it's the user demanding a complicated form to begin with instead of two smaller, maintainable forms - all for the sake of reducing "complexity" (where complexity is the user whining about having to click between two forms, and they really <i>really</i> want it all in one form).  Re-arranging something with over 250 fields becomes a nightmare in bad layout design, and yes, all fucking 250 fields are required, forget about "but but but that's evil, reduce the number of fields".  If I could reduce the number of fields, I fucking would.  I would also be looking for new work as hordes of angry users demand my head on a plate for making such a change.</p><p>Specification, meet my good friend, implementation.  He's a little rough about the edges, and you can overlook that little assault charge from last year, I assure you he's perfectly housebroken.  Just feed him some raw steak every so often if he growls and you'll be fine.</p><p>See, it's not as easy as it looks, eh?  There's these pesky implementation issues called "users", who are very demanding about what they think is "right", even when you can show a much improved version of what they are trying to accomplish.  Part of programming isn't about being a code monkey, and if it is, you're really not programming.  Part of programming is about helping the end user achieve their goals - just like you appear to be want to do - but often, you'll find that the end user has some magical notion of what that goal is, despite it being based on the latest in special effects from last night's episode of CSI:palookavillle.  Expectation of the user frequently has nothing to do with the ability of the machines or programmers around them - it often has alot to do with the load of Hollywood crap that's been spoonfed to them since birth.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I really get tired of this idea that computers and programming should be hard, that we don't want it accessible. Bullshit.</p></div><p>That's right, we (the "we" being the evil cabal of programmers) <i>don't</i> want it to be hard.  I agree 1000\%.  I would love it if my job was much, much easier.  But you know what?</p><p>It is what it is.  There isn't a magical wand that gives us prancing rainbow ponies, and just like there are no rainbow ponies, there are no expressive means of programming that allow you to reduce <i>all</i> forms of complexity without semantic loss.  That last sentence breaks down into:</p><p>You can't get there from here, but if you can, let me know, 'cause I'm going that way.  Say, you're not from around these parts, are ya mister?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You should want that in general, because it makes it available to more people, and even for you, because the ease of use can save you time. Yes, it allows for people to write programs that don't understand it. Deal with it. The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it. Doesn't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients. That will give you tastier food, but there's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort.</p></div><p>Microwave ovens are horrid devices.  They are never used properly, they often burn food, can catch things on fire (try overheating popcorn unattended sometime), require special handling so that kids don't place metal inside the chamber, and after several years they can even develop leakage that is, uh, unhealthy...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whining about " infantilizing " the end user ?
WTF ? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard .
Wow. You do realize that you are arguing for infantilizing the end user , right ? They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.I really do n't see a Programming Mafia out there that 's intent on breaking your fingers , should you suddenly cross them by " not showing your respects " .
Really , I 'm quite happy to see people learning about the complex piece of technology that sits in front of them , although the vast majority really do n't give a shit about programming .
And maybe that 's why there are programmers - people who are willing to put up with the existing complexity so that other people can get shit done.I think you 're blaming the symptom instead of the disease .
Learning programming takes moments , but doing it well is something that does take years , and that 's a function of experience , not priesthood .
If you really think there 's some kind of magical mystic voodoo bullshit priesthood that is " keeping you down , just like The Man " , then I suggest you really get out more often.Bullshit .
Computers are tools , nothing more .
they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise ca n't do , or at least ca n't do easily .
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use .
Pretty big assumption right off the bat .
So , if I know nothing about carpentry , but I want to build a house , I should just run out and get a multi-angle table saw , and start carving up blocks of wood ?
After all , the saw is a tool , and by your logic " they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use .
" Of course , I might cut off several digits , or even a hand , during the process , but hey , like you said - " accessible " .I do n't disagree that computers are just " tools " .
But I think you 're omitting a teensy-tiny keyword here : complexity .
The basis of the technology is complicated to begin with ; if you want to replace what we have today with something else , then stop your whining and fussing , go for it !
Make it happen !
Show us your ideas , show us something that we can at least discuss , instead of " well , it 's not supposed to be complicated , but it is , so it must be * evil * " .Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals .
Ah , so you want a box that can approach the capability of thinking for you ?
What comes next , AI that works ?
I mean , it 's not like we have n't tried for , oh , several decades to get that working...The more we can simplify them , the better .
They should be adapted to work how we want , we should not have to adapt to them.Wow .
Let 's apply this to a practical use that is common for several American households : pornography .
So instead of using a web browser for porn , I should get a device that I can stick my dick into and - if it 's designed well enough not to shred my penis - give me a blow job ?
[ realtouch.com ] That 's really keen logic - tell ya what , you go first , try it out... I 'll wait for the verdict from you before committing to something that uses motors , friction , and no feedback loop or emergency sensors to massage my pecker.Well guess what ?
Programming is another part of that .
Ideally , we 'd have computers that could more or less program themselves .
People would tell the computer what they wanted it to do in plain English ( or other natural language ) and it would figure out how to make that happen .
Obviously we are a very long way away from this , but the easier we can make it , the better.It 's been tried , and people did n't like it too much .
See , there was this really complicated computer called " a human being " , but for some period of time , alot of people would rebrand them as just " slaves " and make them do whatever they wanted .
They were just sentient enough to understand complex orders , and if you really liked , you could abuse them for amusement .
Most of the time this was frowned on , as beating your slave usually was a good indication that you could n't control them adequately ; although some slave owners simply fucked their slaves when they felt like it , so I guess it all balances out.A computer that programs itself implies sentience .
Constraining sentience against its free will is a feasible definition of slavery .
Good job , you have now made a feasible argument for creating electronic slaves .
What comes next , take the mentally challenged and scoop their brains out , and replace it with a computer ?
It 's not like they were using that grey matter , right ?
I mean , if the rest of the body is alive , by your apparent standards it must be just peachy to do this...Do you ever thing through this stuff , or do you just agree because " everyone else is saying it " ? Even as it stands currently , where you do need training/practice to be a good programmer , there 's a lot to be said for easy tools to make parts of development quicker and more robust .
The user interface would be a good example .
If all UI elements have to be coded in C + + and then compiled to see how it works , it is going to take a long time to develop and change .
Goes double if others ( like artists usability experts ) are working on it as well .
You write it , compile it , send it to them , they test it , write up problems , send it back , etc.C + + ?
You like giving loaded guns to monkeys ? Much better to have a simple GUI interface for laying out the GUI .
You can make changes much quicker and easier , and see what you are doing to confirm it is what you want .
Also , should the design change , a redesign is much faster and easier.one word : facepalm.GUI designers are not a panacea .
I 've dealt with them in various products and languages for over a decade .
Yes , they make layout a snap .
But they also allow you to do really stupid things like hook a crapload of business logic into the layout ( can we say " broken MVC model " boys and girls ?
You can ?
I knew you could !
) , so that your design changes become increasingly brittle .
Even when you go to extreme lengths to make your forms " pure " and not hook logic into them , sooner or later you 'll run into some horrid wart in how the GUI designer was implemented that absolutely requires that you expose some portion of the business logic to the layout , leading again to a semi-broken design .
They also do n't scale well with complex forms , especially when it 's the user demanding a complicated form to begin with instead of two smaller , maintainable forms - all for the sake of reducing " complexity " ( where complexity is the user whining about having to click between two forms , and they really really want it all in one form ) .
Re-arranging something with over 250 fields becomes a nightmare in bad layout design , and yes , all fucking 250 fields are required , forget about " but but but that 's evil , reduce the number of fields " .
If I could reduce the number of fields , I fucking would .
I would also be looking for new work as hordes of angry users demand my head on a plate for making such a change.Specification , meet my good friend , implementation .
He 's a little rough about the edges , and you can overlook that little assault charge from last year , I assure you he 's perfectly housebroken .
Just feed him some raw steak every so often if he growls and you 'll be fine.See , it 's not as easy as it looks , eh ?
There 's these pesky implementation issues called " users " , who are very demanding about what they think is " right " , even when you can show a much improved version of what they are trying to accomplish .
Part of programming is n't about being a code monkey , and if it is , you 're really not programming .
Part of programming is about helping the end user achieve their goals - just like you appear to be want to do - but often , you 'll find that the end user has some magical notion of what that goal is , despite it being based on the latest in special effects from last night 's episode of CSI : palookavillle .
Expectation of the user frequently has nothing to do with the ability of the machines or programmers around them - it often has alot to do with the load of Hollywood crap that 's been spoonfed to them since birth.I really get tired of this idea that computers and programming should be hard , that we do n't want it accessible .
Bullshit.That 's right , we ( the " we " being the evil cabal of programmers ) do n't want it to be hard .
I agree 1000 \ % .
I would love it if my job was much , much easier .
But you know what ? It is what it is .
There is n't a magical wand that gives us prancing rainbow ponies , and just like there are no rainbow ponies , there are no expressive means of programming that allow you to reduce all forms of complexity without semantic loss .
That last sentence breaks down into : You ca n't get there from here , but if you can , let me know , 'cause I 'm going that way .
Say , you 're not from around these parts , are ya mister ? You should want that in general , because it makes it available to more people , and even for you , because the ease of use can save you time .
Yes , it allows for people to write programs that do n't understand it .
Deal with it .
The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it .
Does n't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients .
That will give you tastier food , but there 's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort.Microwave ovens are horrid devices .
They are never used properly , they often burn food , can catch things on fire ( try overheating popcorn unattended sometime ) , require special handling so that kids do n't place metal inside the chamber , and after several years they can even develop leakage that is , uh , unhealthy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whining about "infantilizing" the end user?
WTF? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard.
Wow.  You do realize that you are arguing for infantilizing the end user, right?They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.I really don't see a Programming Mafia out there that's intent on breaking your fingers, should you suddenly cross them by "not showing your respects".
Really, I'm quite happy to see people learning about the complex piece of technology that sits in front of them, although the vast majority really don't give a shit about programming.
And maybe that's why there are programmers - people who are willing to put up with the existing complexity so that other people can get shit done.I think you're blaming the symptom instead of the disease.
Learning programming takes moments, but doing it well is something that does take years, and that's a function of experience, not priesthood.
If you really think there's some kind of magical mystic voodoo bullshit priesthood that is "keeping you down, just like The Man", then I suggest you really get out more often.Bullshit.
Computers are tools, nothing more.
they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily.
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.
Pretty big assumption right off the bat.
So, if I know nothing about carpentry, but I want to build a house, I should just run out and get a multi-angle table saw, and start carving up blocks of wood?
After all, the saw is a tool, and by your logic "they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.
"  Of course, I might cut off several digits, or even a hand, during the process, but hey, like you said - "accessible".I don't disagree that computers are just "tools".
But I think you're omitting a teensy-tiny keyword here: complexity.
The basis of the technology is complicated to begin with; if you want to replace what we have today with something else, then stop your whining and fussing, go for it!
Make it happen!
Show us your ideas, show us something that we can at least discuss, instead of "well, it's not supposed to be complicated, but it is, so it must be *evil*".Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
Ah, so you want a box that can approach the capability of thinking for you?
What comes next, AI that works?
I mean, it's not like we haven't tried for, oh, several decades to get that working...The more we can simplify them, the better.
They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.Wow.
Let's apply this to a practical use that is common for several American households: pornography.
So instead of using a web browser for porn, I should get a device that I can stick my dick into and - if it's designed well enough not to shred my penis - give me a blow job?
[realtouch.com]  That's really keen logic - tell ya what, you go first, try it out... I'll wait for the verdict from you before committing to something that uses motors, friction, and no feedback loop or emergency sensors to massage my pecker.Well guess what?
Programming is another part of that.
Ideally, we'd have computers that could more or less program themselves.
People would tell the computer what they wanted it to do in plain English (or other natural language) and it would figure out how to make that happen.
Obviously we are a very long way away from this, but the easier we can make it, the better.It's been tried, and people didn't like it too much.
See, there was this really complicated computer called "a human being", but for some period of time, alot of people would rebrand them as just "slaves" and make them do whatever they wanted.
They were just sentient enough to understand complex orders, and if you really liked, you could abuse them for amusement.
Most of the time this was frowned on, as beating your slave usually was a good indication that you couldn't control them adequately; although some slave owners simply fucked their slaves when they felt like it, so I guess it all balances out.A computer that programs itself implies sentience.
Constraining sentience against its free will is a feasible definition of slavery.
Good job, you have now made a feasible argument for creating electronic slaves.
What comes next, take the mentally challenged and scoop their brains out, and replace it with a computer?
It's not like they were using that grey matter, right?
I mean, if the rest of the body is alive, by your apparent standards it must be just peachy to do this...Do you ever thing through this stuff, or do you just agree because "everyone else is saying it"?Even as it stands currently, where you do need training/practice to be a good programmer, there's a lot to be said for easy tools to make parts of development quicker and more robust.
The user interface would be a good example.
If all UI elements have to be coded in C++ and then compiled to see how it works, it is going to take a long time to develop and change.
Goes double if others (like artists usability experts) are working on it as well.
You write it, compile it, send it to them, they test it, write up problems, send it back, etc.C++?
You like giving loaded guns to monkeys?Much better to have a simple GUI interface for laying out the GUI.
You can make changes much quicker and easier, and see what you are doing to confirm it is what you want.
Also, should the design change, a redesign is much faster and easier.one word: facepalm.GUI designers are not a panacea.
I've dealt with them in various products and languages for over a decade.
Yes, they make layout a snap.
But they also allow you to do really stupid things like hook a crapload of business logic into the layout (can we say "broken MVC model" boys and girls?
You can?
I knew you could!
), so that your design changes become increasingly brittle.
Even when you go to extreme lengths to make your forms "pure" and not hook logic into them, sooner or later you'll run into some horrid wart in how the GUI designer was implemented that absolutely requires that you expose some portion of the business logic to the layout, leading again to a semi-broken design.
They also don't scale well with complex forms, especially when it's the user demanding a complicated form to begin with instead of two smaller, maintainable forms - all for the sake of reducing "complexity" (where complexity is the user whining about having to click between two forms, and they really really want it all in one form).
Re-arranging something with over 250 fields becomes a nightmare in bad layout design, and yes, all fucking 250 fields are required, forget about "but but but that's evil, reduce the number of fields".
If I could reduce the number of fields, I fucking would.
I would also be looking for new work as hordes of angry users demand my head on a plate for making such a change.Specification, meet my good friend, implementation.
He's a little rough about the edges, and you can overlook that little assault charge from last year, I assure you he's perfectly housebroken.
Just feed him some raw steak every so often if he growls and you'll be fine.See, it's not as easy as it looks, eh?
There's these pesky implementation issues called "users", who are very demanding about what they think is "right", even when you can show a much improved version of what they are trying to accomplish.
Part of programming isn't about being a code monkey, and if it is, you're really not programming.
Part of programming is about helping the end user achieve their goals - just like you appear to be want to do - but often, you'll find that the end user has some magical notion of what that goal is, despite it being based on the latest in special effects from last night's episode of CSI:palookavillle.
Expectation of the user frequently has nothing to do with the ability of the machines or programmers around them - it often has alot to do with the load of Hollywood crap that's been spoonfed to them since birth.I really get tired of this idea that computers and programming should be hard, that we don't want it accessible.
Bullshit.That's right, we (the "we" being the evil cabal of programmers) don't want it to be hard.
I agree 1000\%.
I would love it if my job was much, much easier.
But you know what?It is what it is.
There isn't a magical wand that gives us prancing rainbow ponies, and just like there are no rainbow ponies, there are no expressive means of programming that allow you to reduce all forms of complexity without semantic loss.
That last sentence breaks down into:You can't get there from here, but if you can, let me know, 'cause I'm going that way.
Say, you're not from around these parts, are ya mister?You should want that in general, because it makes it available to more people, and even for you, because the ease of use can save you time.
Yes, it allows for people to write programs that don't understand it.
Deal with it.
The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it.
Doesn't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients.
That will give you tastier food, but there's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort.Microwave ovens are horrid devices.
They are never used properly, they often burn food, can catch things on fire (try overheating popcorn unattended sometime), require special handling so that kids don't place metal inside the chamber, and after several years they can even develop leakage that is, uh, unhealthy...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389494</id>
	<title>Glad I'm writing embedded stuff</title>
	<author>slashbart</author>
	<datestamp>1267975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello World.
<p>
I've spent most of my career on embedded projects, and I'm still doing real programming, from bit banging an I2C or Dallas onewire bus, writing a custom assembly routine to provide a uC-OS-II task switch on an ethernet chip interrupt, or interfacing with some higher level Tcl stuff. To get the whole thing working mix in some shell, awk, python xslt, stir well, and get space qualified software. Oh and when all that starts to get boring, throw in some FPGA programming for a completely new way of doing things.
<b>I love my jobs! </b>
<br>
Really, I think embedded software is often more interesting than most web-, gui- or server apps. The disadvantage is that you pretty much need an electronics degree (which I do), to be able to do it effectively.
<br>
Last but not least, it often pays pretty good, and the quality requirements are high, which means that there is time allocated to make something good. Google for 'Declic' on linuxjournal.com if you want to see what I'm talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello World .
I 've spent most of my career on embedded projects , and I 'm still doing real programming , from bit banging an I2C or Dallas onewire bus , writing a custom assembly routine to provide a uC-OS-II task switch on an ethernet chip interrupt , or interfacing with some higher level Tcl stuff .
To get the whole thing working mix in some shell , awk , python xslt , stir well , and get space qualified software .
Oh and when all that starts to get boring , throw in some FPGA programming for a completely new way of doing things .
I love my jobs !
Really , I think embedded software is often more interesting than most web- , gui- or server apps .
The disadvantage is that you pretty much need an electronics degree ( which I do ) , to be able to do it effectively .
Last but not least , it often pays pretty good , and the quality requirements are high , which means that there is time allocated to make something good .
Google for 'Declic ' on linuxjournal.com if you want to see what I 'm talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello World.
I've spent most of my career on embedded projects, and I'm still doing real programming, from bit banging an I2C or Dallas onewire bus, writing a custom assembly routine to provide a uC-OS-II task switch on an ethernet chip interrupt, or interfacing with some higher level Tcl stuff.
To get the whole thing working mix in some shell, awk, python xslt, stir well, and get space qualified software.
Oh and when all that starts to get boring, throw in some FPGA programming for a completely new way of doing things.
I love my jobs!
Really, I think embedded software is often more interesting than most web-, gui- or server apps.
The disadvantage is that you pretty much need an electronics degree (which I do), to be able to do it effectively.
Last but not least, it often pays pretty good, and the quality requirements are high, which means that there is time allocated to make something good.
Google for 'Declic' on linuxjournal.com if you want to see what I'm talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386852</id>
	<title>Re:Car analogy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unit tests are a tool, a good tool, but only one tool.  They have a place where they are useful, and a place where they are worse than useless. People who think they are good for everything are usually the kind of people who only do specific types of code.<br> <br>
Unit tests are <i>awesome</i> in compilers. It's software that has the exact same output every time, doesn't have a changing spec, and doesn't change very much. They also tend to work nicely for business logic.<br> <br>
They are horrible for dealing with GUIs. This should be obvious.  They are not as good at dealing with systems that have lots of complexity. The reason for this is because the number of tests required to make sure something works can increase exponentially, and of course so does the amount of code you have to write.  I also haven't had much luck with them in embedded systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unit tests are a tool , a good tool , but only one tool .
They have a place where they are useful , and a place where they are worse than useless .
People who think they are good for everything are usually the kind of people who only do specific types of code .
Unit tests are awesome in compilers .
It 's software that has the exact same output every time , does n't have a changing spec , and does n't change very much .
They also tend to work nicely for business logic .
They are horrible for dealing with GUIs .
This should be obvious .
They are not as good at dealing with systems that have lots of complexity .
The reason for this is because the number of tests required to make sure something works can increase exponentially , and of course so does the amount of code you have to write .
I also have n't had much luck with them in embedded systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unit tests are a tool, a good tool, but only one tool.
They have a place where they are useful, and a place where they are worse than useless.
People who think they are good for everything are usually the kind of people who only do specific types of code.
Unit tests are awesome in compilers.
It's software that has the exact same output every time, doesn't have a changing spec, and doesn't change very much.
They also tend to work nicely for business logic.
They are horrible for dealing with GUIs.
This should be obvious.
They are not as good at dealing with systems that have lots of complexity.
The reason for this is because the number of tests required to make sure something works can increase exponentially, and of course so does the amount of code you have to write.
I also haven't had much luck with them in embedded systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</id>
	<title>I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1267904520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whining about "infantilizing" the end user? WTF? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard. They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.</p><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Computers are tools, nothing more. they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily. As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use. Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals. The more we can simplify them, the better. They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.</p><p>Well guess what? Programming is another part of that. Ideally, we'd have computers that could more or less program themselves. People would tell the computer what they wanted it to do in plain English (or other natural language) and it would figure out how to make that happen. Obviously we are a very long way away from this, but the easier we can make it, the better.</p><p>Even as it stands currently, where you do need training/practice to be a good programmer, there's a lot to be said for easy tools to make parts of development quicker and more robust. The user interface would be a good example. If all UI elements have to be coded in C++ and then compiled to see how it works, it is going to take a long time to develop and change. Goes double if others (like artists usability experts) are working on it as well. You write it, compile it, send it to them, they test it, write up problems, send it back, etc.</p><p>Much better to have a simple GUI interface for laying out the GUI. You can make changes much quicker and easier, and see what you are doing to confirm it is what you want. Also, should the design change, a redesign is much faster and easier.</p><p>I really get tired of this idea that computers and programming should be hard, that we don't want it accessible. Bullshit. You should want that in general, because it makes it available to more people, and even for you, because the ease of use can save you time. Yes, it allows for people to write programs that don't understand it. Deal with it. The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it. Doesn't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients. That will give you tastier food, but there's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whining about " infantilizing " the end user ?
WTF ? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard .
They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.Bullshit.Computers are tools , nothing more .
they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise ca n't do , or at least ca n't do easily .
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use .
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals .
The more we can simplify them , the better .
They should be adapted to work how we want , we should not have to adapt to them.Well guess what ?
Programming is another part of that .
Ideally , we 'd have computers that could more or less program themselves .
People would tell the computer what they wanted it to do in plain English ( or other natural language ) and it would figure out how to make that happen .
Obviously we are a very long way away from this , but the easier we can make it , the better.Even as it stands currently , where you do need training/practice to be a good programmer , there 's a lot to be said for easy tools to make parts of development quicker and more robust .
The user interface would be a good example .
If all UI elements have to be coded in C + + and then compiled to see how it works , it is going to take a long time to develop and change .
Goes double if others ( like artists usability experts ) are working on it as well .
You write it , compile it , send it to them , they test it , write up problems , send it back , etc.Much better to have a simple GUI interface for laying out the GUI .
You can make changes much quicker and easier , and see what you are doing to confirm it is what you want .
Also , should the design change , a redesign is much faster and easier.I really get tired of this idea that computers and programming should be hard , that we do n't want it accessible .
Bullshit. You should want that in general , because it makes it available to more people , and even for you , because the ease of use can save you time .
Yes , it allows for people to write programs that do n't understand it .
Deal with it .
The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it .
Does n't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients .
That will give you tastier food , but there 's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whining about "infantilizing" the end user?
WTF? I get really tired of the elitist attitude that some computer types have that computers should be hard.
They seem to think it should be some sort of almost mystical priesthood that you have to work at for many years to be allowed in.Bullshit.Computers are tools, nothing more.
they exist to allow humans to do tasks that we otherwise can't do, or at least can't do easily.
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use.
Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
The more we can simplify them, the better.
They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.Well guess what?
Programming is another part of that.
Ideally, we'd have computers that could more or less program themselves.
People would tell the computer what they wanted it to do in plain English (or other natural language) and it would figure out how to make that happen.
Obviously we are a very long way away from this, but the easier we can make it, the better.Even as it stands currently, where you do need training/practice to be a good programmer, there's a lot to be said for easy tools to make parts of development quicker and more robust.
The user interface would be a good example.
If all UI elements have to be coded in C++ and then compiled to see how it works, it is going to take a long time to develop and change.
Goes double if others (like artists usability experts) are working on it as well.
You write it, compile it, send it to them, they test it, write up problems, send it back, etc.Much better to have a simple GUI interface for laying out the GUI.
You can make changes much quicker and easier, and see what you are doing to confirm it is what you want.
Also, should the design change, a redesign is much faster and easier.I really get tired of this idea that computers and programming should be hard, that we don't want it accessible.
Bullshit. You should want that in general, because it makes it available to more people, and even for you, because the ease of use can save you time.
Yes, it allows for people to write programs that don't understand it.
Deal with it.
The microwave allows geeks everywhere to easily prepare food without understanding how to do it.
Doesn't mean we should demand everyone become a master chef and cook all their food from only elementary ingredients.
That will give you tastier food, but there's something to be said for having a meal ready in 5 minutes with 0 effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387576</id>
	<title>Re:The Issue</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1267953540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The code I write mostly doesn't involve "frameworks" or extensive libraries.  It's nice to have a library for networking or OS (if they both come with source), but for embedded systems quite a lot is built from scratch.  There are libraries, but often they take up a lot of space and cpu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The code I write mostly does n't involve " frameworks " or extensive libraries .
It 's nice to have a library for networking or OS ( if they both come with source ) , but for embedded systems quite a lot is built from scratch .
There are libraries , but often they take up a lot of space and cpu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code I write mostly doesn't involve "frameworks" or extensive libraries.
It's nice to have a library for networking or OS (if they both come with source), but for embedded systems quite a lot is built from scratch.
There are libraries, but often they take up a lot of space and cpu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393924</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>jasno</author>
	<datestamp>1267958340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTW dude.. FTW.</p><p>Why won't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. give me modpoints anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTW dude.. FTW.Why wo n't / .
give me modpoints anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTW dude.. FTW.Why won't /.
give me modpoints anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390772</id>
	<title>Re:Idiot. Seriously.</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1267983000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is beautiful. If you don't use it as a sig (seeing as you don't have one set) then I'll definitely be stealing it to use as mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is beautiful .
If you do n't use it as a sig ( seeing as you do n't have one set ) then I 'll definitely be stealing it to use as mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is beautiful.
If you don't use it as a sig (seeing as you don't have one set) then I'll definitely be stealing it to use as mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387002</id>
	<title>I couldn't agree more</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1267902960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should take this revised approach in a number of areas, not just programming.  We shouldn't be just grabbing bolts and nuts out of a bin.  We should be hand machining each one that way you know they will work correctly and that they will go together.  You can't trust that any old bolt you might buy will necessarily work.  If this approach was good enough for the 19th century, it should be good enough for the 21st.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should take this revised approach in a number of areas , not just programming .
We should n't be just grabbing bolts and nuts out of a bin .
We should be hand machining each one that way you know they will work correctly and that they will go together .
You ca n't trust that any old bolt you might buy will necessarily work .
If this approach was good enough for the 19th century , it should be good enough for the 21st .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should take this revised approach in a number of areas, not just programming.
We shouldn't be just grabbing bolts and nuts out of a bin.
We should be hand machining each one that way you know they will work correctly and that they will go together.
You can't trust that any old bolt you might buy will necessarily work.
If this approach was good enough for the 19th century, it should be good enough for the 21st.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31408670</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1268058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you work in software development? Most of your tedious diatribe leads me to believe that the answer to that question is 'no'. Spend a few years working as a programmer and software designer and then come back to this subject when you know more; because right now, judging by what you have said, you don't know enough about programming or software design to even have an opinion.</p></div><p>I work in software development (C and C++) and I will support the grandparent. I don't know what you do, but I interpret designs into code.</p><p>I have even at some points written code to interpret designs into code because it was more efficient. I remember spending days designing GUIs in a legacy framework before I was moved to a project that used GTK, where I could throw together a GUI and a seperate test gui with secret features in half the time.</p><p>If you work in an area where you need to be at the assembly level and anything else might get screwed up in interpretation, then yes, it has to hard, but from what I've experienced, the more tools you can fire off to let the computer program itself the faster you can get to an end product. Also the  more direct control you can pass up to the system engineers who might not code as well, the closer your product will be to their designs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you work in software development ?
Most of your tedious diatribe leads me to believe that the answer to that question is 'no' .
Spend a few years working as a programmer and software designer and then come back to this subject when you know more ; because right now , judging by what you have said , you do n't know enough about programming or software design to even have an opinion.I work in software development ( C and C + + ) and I will support the grandparent .
I do n't know what you do , but I interpret designs into code.I have even at some points written code to interpret designs into code because it was more efficient .
I remember spending days designing GUIs in a legacy framework before I was moved to a project that used GTK , where I could throw together a GUI and a seperate test gui with secret features in half the time.If you work in an area where you need to be at the assembly level and anything else might get screwed up in interpretation , then yes , it has to hard , but from what I 've experienced , the more tools you can fire off to let the computer program itself the faster you can get to an end product .
Also the more direct control you can pass up to the system engineers who might not code as well , the closer your product will be to their designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you work in software development?
Most of your tedious diatribe leads me to believe that the answer to that question is 'no'.
Spend a few years working as a programmer and software designer and then come back to this subject when you know more; because right now, judging by what you have said, you don't know enough about programming or software design to even have an opinion.I work in software development (C and C++) and I will support the grandparent.
I don't know what you do, but I interpret designs into code.I have even at some points written code to interpret designs into code because it was more efficient.
I remember spending days designing GUIs in a legacy framework before I was moved to a project that used GTK, where I could throw together a GUI and a seperate test gui with secret features in half the time.If you work in an area where you need to be at the assembly level and anything else might get screwed up in interpretation, then yes, it has to hard, but from what I've experienced, the more tools you can fire off to let the computer program itself the faster you can get to an end product.
Also the  more direct control you can pass up to the system engineers who might not code as well, the closer your product will be to their designs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391566</id>
	<title>Re:too much resources available</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267987140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>back in the day you only had 3583bytes available to code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div></blockquote><p>And we liked it that way!</p><p>Give me a POKE statement, 6502 reference card, and a cup of coffee any day and fear my leet character graphics skillz, bitches!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>back in the day you only had 3583bytes available to code ... : ) And we liked it that way ! Give me a POKE statement , 6502 reference card , and a cup of coffee any day and fear my leet character graphics skillz , bitches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in the day you only had 3583bytes available to code ... :)And we liked it that way!Give me a POKE statement, 6502 reference card, and a cup of coffee any day and fear my leet character graphics skillz, bitches!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390888</id>
	<title>Effects on getting a job</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1267983480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think an important side effect of all this pasting a bunch of different libraries/frameworks together is the difficulty of finding a job.</p><p>20 years ago if you knew C you probably were qualified for most jobs. Now you have to know several different languages not to mention whichever frameworks de jour are popular at the company you wish to join.</p><p>If this trend increases we may get to the point that there will be jobs posted that nobody qualifies for except those who already work at the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think an important side effect of all this pasting a bunch of different libraries/frameworks together is the difficulty of finding a job.20 years ago if you knew C you probably were qualified for most jobs .
Now you have to know several different languages not to mention whichever frameworks de jour are popular at the company you wish to join.If this trend increases we may get to the point that there will be jobs posted that nobody qualifies for except those who already work at the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think an important side effect of all this pasting a bunch of different libraries/frameworks together is the difficulty of finding a job.20 years ago if you knew C you probably were qualified for most jobs.
Now you have to know several different languages not to mention whichever frameworks de jour are popular at the company you wish to join.If this trend increases we may get to the point that there will be jobs posted that nobody qualifies for except those who already work at the company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387026</id>
	<title>Knuth is just procrastinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267903380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knuth should stop whining about the state of programming and going finish writing his books with his fonts and his text formatting system written in his language making use of his assemble language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knuth should stop whining about the state of programming and going finish writing his books with his fonts and his text formatting system written in his language making use of his assemble language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knuth should stop whining about the state of programming and going finish writing his books with his fonts and his text formatting system written in his language making use of his assemble language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387012</id>
	<title>Re:You can still program, if you're an engineer</title>
	<author>psych0munky</author>
	<datestamp>1267903140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At my present job they really don't care what language I do things in as long as the job gets done</p></div><p>Hrm...maybe I am reading into things from your post a bit here, but there is a lot to be said for standardization when everyone is doing things differently...lack of standardization is only sustainable in small teams or small quantities.</p><p>Just take a look at what Henry Ford did...most people think his big contribution was the ubiquitness automobile...I disagree, the ubiquitness of the car today was only a result of Ford's contributions.  By <b>standardization</b> was he able to achieve this ubiquitness.  He standardized the parts different vehicles were made out of, this made them cheap, reliable and easily maintainable.  He standardized worker relations (8 hour work day, switching people to do different jobs to prevent boredom, etc), to make people more productive.</p><p>To quote Men in Black, "a person is smart, people are dumb panicky animals", well guess what?  Corporations are made up of people, not a single person...if you want to make it in a capitalist society, you better learn to deal with it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The 'pasting not quite compatible libraries together' approach is a Java/COBOL thing of minimizing the damage incompetent consultants can do</p></div><p>I am hearing that you think that corporations that are hiring these jobs out are specifically asking people to do this so that the impact of mediocrity isn't so painful.  I respectfully disagree.  In the company I work for, we have hired out many jobs to contractors (both on and off-shore), and the results are pretty much the same.  I honestly don't think that my bosses go out and ask them to write crappy code...in fact I was in a meeting with consultants that my bosses crashed, stating efectively, the order of priorities are On time, Maintainable and on budget.</p><p>Nay, to me the problem we are facing is one of the ugly sides of a capitalist society: <b>greed</b>.  The consultants want to make more money.  My company wants to spend less money so they can keep it for themselves or to acquire more stuff to make more money.  It seems that the "trinity" of a decent capitalist society, greed/quality/freedom, has taken an unbalancing shift towards the first item: greed.  As a result, product quality suffers.  As a further result, the greed drives a desire of the corporations providing good and services to restrict consumers freedoms.  Somehow we need to get the balance back in order.  I am just not sure how to do that, beyond a revolt (which I am sure won't happen because most people are both producers and consumers.  Because of that, logically, I would think that the system should right it self...but then I remember the system consists of people, not a person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At my present job they really do n't care what language I do things in as long as the job gets doneHrm...maybe I am reading into things from your post a bit here , but there is a lot to be said for standardization when everyone is doing things differently...lack of standardization is only sustainable in small teams or small quantities.Just take a look at what Henry Ford did...most people think his big contribution was the ubiquitness automobile...I disagree , the ubiquitness of the car today was only a result of Ford 's contributions .
By standardization was he able to achieve this ubiquitness .
He standardized the parts different vehicles were made out of , this made them cheap , reliable and easily maintainable .
He standardized worker relations ( 8 hour work day , switching people to do different jobs to prevent boredom , etc ) , to make people more productive.To quote Men in Black , " a person is smart , people are dumb panicky animals " , well guess what ?
Corporations are made up of people , not a single person...if you want to make it in a capitalist society , you better learn to deal with it.The 'pasting not quite compatible libraries together ' approach is a Java/COBOL thing of minimizing the damage incompetent consultants can doI am hearing that you think that corporations that are hiring these jobs out are specifically asking people to do this so that the impact of mediocrity is n't so painful .
I respectfully disagree .
In the company I work for , we have hired out many jobs to contractors ( both on and off-shore ) , and the results are pretty much the same .
I honestly do n't think that my bosses go out and ask them to write crappy code...in fact I was in a meeting with consultants that my bosses crashed , stating efectively , the order of priorities are On time , Maintainable and on budget.Nay , to me the problem we are facing is one of the ugly sides of a capitalist society : greed .
The consultants want to make more money .
My company wants to spend less money so they can keep it for themselves or to acquire more stuff to make more money .
It seems that the " trinity " of a decent capitalist society , greed/quality/freedom , has taken an unbalancing shift towards the first item : greed .
As a result , product quality suffers .
As a further result , the greed drives a desire of the corporations providing good and services to restrict consumers freedoms .
Somehow we need to get the balance back in order .
I am just not sure how to do that , beyond a revolt ( which I am sure wo n't happen because most people are both producers and consumers .
Because of that , logically , I would think that the system should right it self...but then I remember the system consists of people , not a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my present job they really don't care what language I do things in as long as the job gets doneHrm...maybe I am reading into things from your post a bit here, but there is a lot to be said for standardization when everyone is doing things differently...lack of standardization is only sustainable in small teams or small quantities.Just take a look at what Henry Ford did...most people think his big contribution was the ubiquitness automobile...I disagree, the ubiquitness of the car today was only a result of Ford's contributions.
By standardization was he able to achieve this ubiquitness.
He standardized the parts different vehicles were made out of, this made them cheap, reliable and easily maintainable.
He standardized worker relations (8 hour work day, switching people to do different jobs to prevent boredom, etc), to make people more productive.To quote Men in Black, "a person is smart, people are dumb panicky animals", well guess what?
Corporations are made up of people, not a single person...if you want to make it in a capitalist society, you better learn to deal with it.The 'pasting not quite compatible libraries together' approach is a Java/COBOL thing of minimizing the damage incompetent consultants can doI am hearing that you think that corporations that are hiring these jobs out are specifically asking people to do this so that the impact of mediocrity isn't so painful.
I respectfully disagree.
In the company I work for, we have hired out many jobs to contractors (both on and off-shore), and the results are pretty much the same.
I honestly don't think that my bosses go out and ask them to write crappy code...in fact I was in a meeting with consultants that my bosses crashed, stating efectively, the order of priorities are On time, Maintainable and on budget.Nay, to me the problem we are facing is one of the ugly sides of a capitalist society: greed.
The consultants want to make more money.
My company wants to spend less money so they can keep it for themselves or to acquire more stuff to make more money.
It seems that the "trinity" of a decent capitalist society, greed/quality/freedom, has taken an unbalancing shift towards the first item: greed.
As a result, product quality suffers.
As a further result, the greed drives a desire of the corporations providing good and services to restrict consumers freedoms.
Somehow we need to get the balance back in order.
I am just not sure how to do that, beyond a revolt (which I am sure won't happen because most people are both producers and consumers.
Because of that, logically, I would think that the system should right it self...but then I remember the system consists of people, not a person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31398440</id>
	<title>Re:I want to slap the author</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268041500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.</p></div><p>This goes both ways, though--I <b>want</b> my computer to be terse and to-the-point, with no silly wizards hiding the nature of the settings I am changing, and no second-guessing of what I told it to do.  I want it to do exactly what I say and only what I say and I want to be burned by that when I fail to give it the proper instructions.</p><p>That's a bit of hyperbole, I think, but the point is this: I learned computers back in the DOS days, when they were hard and unforgiving.  That's the kind of computer I like.  Fast forward to now, and people like you are saying things like the quote above (which is a noble goal, to be sure), and <i>completely ignoring</i> the fact that you are deliberately dumping on some people to achieve that goal.</p><p>I don't really have the answer for how to strike the balance, but I think this is why the issue strikes such a nerve with many people like me.  Make the computer using experience better for people that struggle with them, by all means, but don't make it worse for me while you're at it.  I think I'm quite justified in having a problem with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be adapted to work how we want , we should not have to adapt to them.This goes both ways , though--I want my computer to be terse and to-the-point , with no silly wizards hiding the nature of the settings I am changing , and no second-guessing of what I told it to do .
I want it to do exactly what I say and only what I say and I want to be burned by that when I fail to give it the proper instructions.That 's a bit of hyperbole , I think , but the point is this : I learned computers back in the DOS days , when they were hard and unforgiving .
That 's the kind of computer I like .
Fast forward to now , and people like you are saying things like the quote above ( which is a noble goal , to be sure ) , and completely ignoring the fact that you are deliberately dumping on some people to achieve that goal.I do n't really have the answer for how to strike the balance , but I think this is why the issue strikes such a nerve with many people like me .
Make the computer using experience better for people that struggle with them , by all means , but do n't make it worse for me while you 're at it .
I think I 'm quite justified in having a problem with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be adapted to work how we want, we should not have to adapt to them.This goes both ways, though--I want my computer to be terse and to-the-point, with no silly wizards hiding the nature of the settings I am changing, and no second-guessing of what I told it to do.
I want it to do exactly what I say and only what I say and I want to be burned by that when I fail to give it the proper instructions.That's a bit of hyperbole, I think, but the point is this: I learned computers back in the DOS days, when they were hard and unforgiving.
That's the kind of computer I like.
Fast forward to now, and people like you are saying things like the quote above (which is a noble goal, to be sure), and completely ignoring the fact that you are deliberately dumping on some people to achieve that goal.I don't really have the answer for how to strike the balance, but I think this is why the issue strikes such a nerve with many people like me.
Make the computer using experience better for people that struggle with them, by all means, but don't make it worse for me while you're at it.
I think I'm quite justified in having a problem with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388078</id>
	<title>You can learn a lot from libraries</title>
	<author>drewhk</author>
	<datestamp>1267962180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, using libraries is a great learning experience. Sometimes you can learn a lot about a problem if you implement the solution yourself. But your coding style will improve most when you see how others implement the same. It helps you to be more open minded.</p><p>Of course one has to be extremely careful whether to use a library at all, and which one to pick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , using libraries is a great learning experience .
Sometimes you can learn a lot about a problem if you implement the solution yourself .
But your coding style will improve most when you see how others implement the same .
It helps you to be more open minded.Of course one has to be extremely careful whether to use a library at all , and which one to pick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, using libraries is a great learning experience.
Sometimes you can learn a lot about a problem if you implement the solution yourself.
But your coding style will improve most when you see how others implement the same.
It helps you to be more open minded.Of course one has to be extremely careful whether to use a library at all, and which one to pick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387350</id>
	<title>As a physicist,</title>
	<author>Kim0</author>
	<datestamp>1267993620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can tell that the problem is a lack of Ockhams Razor:<p>

The probability that a theory predicts correctly, gets higher when the theory gets simpler.<br>
The probability that a program is useful in new situations, gets higher when the program gets smaller.</p><p>

This has been proven mathematically with algorithmic information theory.</p><p>

However, Keeping It Simple, Stupid, is very hard and costly, and most people have an instinct for hoarding that gets in the way.</p><p>

Kim0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell that the problem is a lack of Ockhams Razor : The probability that a theory predicts correctly , gets higher when the theory gets simpler .
The probability that a program is useful in new situations , gets higher when the program gets smaller .
This has been proven mathematically with algorithmic information theory .
However , Keeping It Simple , Stupid , is very hard and costly , and most people have an instinct for hoarding that gets in the way .
Kim0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell that the problem is a lack of Ockhams Razor:

The probability that a theory predicts correctly, gets higher when the theory gets simpler.
The probability that a program is useful in new situations, gets higher when the program gets smaller.
This has been proven mathematically with algorithmic information theory.
However, Keeping It Simple, Stupid, is very hard and costly, and most people have an instinct for hoarding that gets in the way.
Kim0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31405782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31451104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31408670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31412406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31398440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31407874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31437126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31399392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31403792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31405302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31395616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31420190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31398256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31403306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31394018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_07_0043215_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31394018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31407874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31405782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31398256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31403792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387830
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31412406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31398440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31403306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31397920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31420190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391818
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31408670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31399392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31451104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31405302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31390492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31437126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31393126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31388604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31395616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31391728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31389820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31386486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31392270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_07_0043215.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_07_0043215.31387212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
