<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Selling The Dream</title>
	<atom:link href="http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2004/06/selling-the-dream/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2004/06/selling-the-dream/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:41:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2004/06/selling-the-dream/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/?p=10#comment-6</guid>
		<description>you people have too much free time on your hands.  Meet a girl or rent porn.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you people have too much free time on your hands.  Meet a girl or rent porn.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2004/06/selling-the-dream/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/?p=10#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Well there is a whole other direction in increasing programmers productivity .... if you are too young to remember APL, take a look at http://kx.com ... a good article about programming language design (interview with K designer Arthur Whitney)  ...   http://kx.com/press_releases/arthur_interview.htm

The point: chatty languages like Java and complicated overblown frameworks like .NET are not the only thing out there ... 

Greg Wdowiak &#124; http://eaiblueprint.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well there is a whole other direction in increasing programmers productivity &#8230;. if you are too young to remember APL, take a look at <a href="http://kx.com" rel="nofollow">http://kx.com</a> &#8230; a good article about programming language design (interview with K designer Arthur Whitney)  &#8230;   <a href="http://kx.com/press_releases/arthur_interview.htm" rel="nofollow">http://kx.com/press_releases/arthur_interview.htm</a></p>
<p>The point: chatty languages like Java and complicated overblown frameworks like .NET are not the only thing out there &#8230; </p>
<p>Greg Wdowiak | <a href="http://eaiblueprint.com" rel="nofollow">http://eaiblueprint.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Finkle</title>
		<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2004/06/selling-the-dream/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Finkle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/?p=10#comment-4</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s no doubt that frameworks have advantages. I have never programmed entirely in raw Win32. But there are also disadvantages. Too many levels of abstractions can be a &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joelonsoftware.com%2Farticles%2FLeakyAbstractions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;bad thing&lt;/A&gt;. I also have problems with frameworks that try to handle everything, instead of doing fewer things better. The surface area of .NET is already huge. It&#039;s a lot for developers to learn. It also opens the door to architecture problems and overlapping API&#039;s (and that&#039;s just in the XML area).
I have also used enough 3rd party frameworks to know that I&#039;d never blindly put all my &quot;eggs in one basket.&quot; There are risks and if your building shrinkwrapped software you have to be aware of the risks and try to mitigate them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s no doubt that frameworks have advantages. I have never programmed entirely in raw Win32. But there are also disadvantages. Too many levels of abstractions can be a <a HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joelonsoftware.com%2Farticles%2FLeakyAbstractions.html" rel="nofollow">bad thing</a>. I also have problems with frameworks that try to handle everything, instead of doing fewer things better. The surface area of .NET is already huge. It&#8217;s a lot for developers to learn. It also opens the door to architecture problems and overlapping API&#8217;s (and that&#8217;s just in the XML area).<br />
I have also used enough 3rd party frameworks to know that I&#8217;d never blindly put all my &#8220;eggs in one basket.&#8221; There are risks and if your building shrinkwrapped software you have to be aware of the risks and try to mitigate them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Hill</title>
		<link>http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2004/06/selling-the-dream/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/?p=10#comment-3</guid>
		<description>I disagree. The language issue so far in .NET is minimal. All the mainstream languages in use and with the largest number of examples are the procedural ones - *just like in the real world*, the syntactic difference in C#, VB and JS are annoysome at best.

The thing I take larger issue with is the Framework. The first taste of mainstream Framework goodness was the Taligent/ScriptX stuff back in the mid 1990&#039;s. It was shallow and spotty, but it meant I could abstract my understanding away from the underlying HW. I started thinking OO messages and moving away from &#039;this block of memory&#039; and toward &#039;this object&#039;

The next dose of the Framework Twinkies I got was Java. For my employer I got an applet up and modeling a piece of HW with behaviors *in a browser* in a few days. It was an enlightening experience. The Framework let me learn just enough about each subsystem, to complete my task and it ran on &#039;multiple computers&#039;. Big win :)

So .NET is just the 3rd evolution in all encompassing Frameworks. Network protocols and web standards are complex beasts and I would not want to have to (re)know the intricacies of TCP/IP packets to send a web page or parse an XML file and validate it. The programming world is becoming too complex for not having abstractions.

I for one welcome our New Framework Overlords.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree. The language issue so far in .NET is minimal. All the mainstream languages in use and with the largest number of examples are the procedural ones &#8211; *just like in the real world*, the syntactic difference in C#, VB and JS are annoysome at best.</p>
<p>The thing I take larger issue with is the Framework. The first taste of mainstream Framework goodness was the Taligent/ScriptX stuff back in the mid 1990&#8217;s. It was shallow and spotty, but it meant I could abstract my understanding away from the underlying HW. I started thinking OO messages and moving away from &#8216;this block of memory&#8217; and toward &#8216;this object&#8217;</p>
<p>The next dose of the Framework Twinkies I got was Java. For my employer I got an applet up and modeling a piece of HW with behaviors *in a browser* in a few days. It was an enlightening experience. The Framework let me learn just enough about each subsystem, to complete my task and it ran on &#8216;multiple computers&#8217;. Big win <img src='http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>So .NET is just the 3rd evolution in all encompassing Frameworks. Network protocols and web standards are complex beasts and I would not want to have to (re)know the intricacies of TCP/IP packets to send a web page or parse an XML file and validate it. The programming world is becoming too complex for not having abstractions.</p>
<p>I for one welcome our New Framework Overlords.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
