Coffeehouse Thread

152 posts

Microsoft have outdone Apple. Period!

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bass

    "The multiple, closed fiefdoms, inventing and reinventing their own wheels to sell keep people employed, and that's a GOOD thing considering how software and information technology may very well have been responsible for a considerable amount of job loss over the years."

    No it is not. This seems to reek of the broken window fallacy. The point of a job is do something productive, not to keep people employed.

  • User profile image
    Craig_​Matthews

    ,cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Who says anything about being hard-locked?

    To be fair, you did (emphasis mine):

    @Bass: As far as I can tell, most of the posters here are developers whoselivelihoods depend on Microsoft products. This is more about protecting one's source of income. That's why many of posters here will lash out at Microsoft if they feel that Microsoft is jeopardizing its own future, thereby putting all developers in Microsoft's ecosystem at risk of losing their livelihoods.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    ,Craig_​Matthews wrote

    *snip*

    To be fair, you did (emphasis mine):

    *snip*

    Having one's CURRENT position being dependent on Microsoft's products does not constitute being "hard-locked". If Microsoft dropped .NET tomorrow, I would venture to guess that most people on this forum are sharp enough to learn Java and get another job within a few months. Sure, it would suck donkey b@lls to have to do so, but that's no more "hard-locked" than a Java developer having to learn C# to get a job if Oracle decided to kill Java tomorrow or a PHP developer having to learn RoR because Ruby is all of a sudden flavor of the month (again).

    Nowadays, it's less about the language and more about the framework anyway. You can be just as "locked" into an open source framework than .NET or Cocoa or anything else. I'm sure people doing web development using Ext JS would just as rabidly defend Sencha as anybody defends Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    ,Bass wrote

    @ScanIAm @cbae

    I don't really have sympathy for people who hard-lock their career to a specific company's products. That's also something that is very unhealthy in the computer industry. I don't see doctors who specialized in "Pfizer" or "AstraZeneca". I don't see why it is acceptable to be specialized in "Microsoft" or "Apple".

    Ignoring the fact that doctors regularly favour one brand of medicine over another, this is still a bizarre analogy, if I may say so. Medicine is not the same as software development, so why pretend it is?

    Here's a better analogy for you:

    I used to work for a nephrologist. Nice bloke, totally believe the internet was the future of medical research. Anyway, I always thought that kidneys was a very narrow sort of specialism, and mentioned this to him over lunch. 

    'Yes, lots of people say that,' he said, and showed me the books from his specialism courses. 

    There is a set of books that is required reading for nephrology students that is about the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just on kidneys. And much of this is for diagnosis. To actually tackle the problem would probably need a specialist in surgery, or chemotherapy, or both. Perhaps the patient would rather try a holistic approach, or maybe the problem can be fixed with a change of diet, in which case a dietician would probably be the order of the day.

    You can be really good at a handful of technologies, or mediocre in lots of them. If I decided to go Java then I would hire someone who knows Java inside out, and not a .NET bod who does a bit of Java once in a while. If I want to go .NET, then I would look for a Microsoft technology specialist.

    Or would you happy to have your appendix removed by an acupuncturist who did a bit of surgery on the side? Personally, I'd rather have it done by someone who removes appendix day in, day out.

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    ,Bass wrote

    That is the essence of why I support FOSS. It is collaboration at it's finest. Without all the software companies that resemble closed medieval guilds or fiefdoms, we'd be so far ahead.

    Can you name any FOSS technologies that are not rehashes of commercial offerings?

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    You are trying to reason with someone who is implacable. I have given up as all you get is intransigence. Excellent analogy by the way

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    ,Ray7 wrote

    *snip*

    Ignoring the fact that doctors regularly favour one brand of medicine over another, this is still a bizarre analogy, if I may say so. Medicine is not the same as software development, so why pretend it is?

    More to the point:

    Most doctors work in some sort of bureaucracy, whether its a government bureaucracy like NHS or an HMO like Kaiser Permanente. They also deal with agencies that have influence across these bureaucracies, like the AMA.

    The API system you're working with is the equivalent of a bureaucracy, whether its a cross-platform standards-body approved API like AJAX, or a proprietary API like Win32. An API isn't the science -- its not equivalent to the medical science, its the equivalent to the medical bureaucracy.

    Computer languages aren't the science either, they're the tools you use. Once you know one computer language expertly, its pretty easy to move to another one, because they aren't incredibly different. The most learning you'll do is when moving to a high-level language to a low-level language. But if you understand basic programming concepts, that shouldn't be that hard either.

    Many university programs keep this in mind and focus students on the concepts and abstract nature of programming, rather than on the business-end ( the toolsets ). 

  • User profile image
    contextfree`

    Great analogy. Some languages and APIs though do embody new concepts, e.g. Haskell or Prolog, or to a lesser extent something like WPF if you're not familiar with data binding and such. When learning concepts it can be helpful to also have something concrete to attach to them, as long as you remember that the concept is (usually) more than what the tool is.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.