You should have listened to all of it. I found it very interesting especially his comparison of different platforms: C, C++, COM, .NET
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Aaron Bull <[email protected]> wrote: > Dotnetrocks has a pretty low real content density compared to other > podcasts, which is a shame. They do excel at audio quality, I wish there > were more podcasts with this level of quality. > > There are good podcasts out there though. I also listen to podcasts at > double speed which improves the content signal to noise ratio. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] on behalf of David Connors > Sent: Fri 12/02/2010 11:13 AM > To: ausDotNet > Subject: Re: OT - wondering; c# direction > > > That podcast robbed me of thirty minutes of my life (I couldn't handle the > entire 60 minutes) and reaffirmed my belief in podcasts. I thought I might > be in trouble when the cheesy music started with a voice over > "Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nooww... the man who went to the drug store to get his > wife a box of eye pads .... caaaarrrrrrrrrrrllll franklin". I'm sure that > was amusing/made sense to someone. > > On 12 February 2010 08:42, Jonathan Parker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Maybe it's time for an entire overhaul of .NET and the CLR? > > > Why? > > > This is a very interesting podcast where Juval Lowy tries to explain > why every class (including .NET classes) > > "should" be WCF services. > http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=520 > > > Just because you can, does not mean you should. The guy was on the show to > peddle/plug his book on WCF so his conclusion was perhaps fairly > unsurprising. > > His argument is based on a false dichotomy that developers spend all their > time doing a) worthless plumbing or b) value added business logic that > managers like. From that he said something along the lines of "WCF > implements every conceivable piece of plumbing". Also, apparently, > developers are not experts in synchronisation and other basic fundamentals > of computing science (NFI why I went to unit for three years then). > > Sorry to sound so harsh but this guy just sounds like yet another blogger > dude with a barrow to push promising a silver bullet for all our woes. Maybe > he can team up with the dynamic language crowd and merge WCF with ruby, > javascript and rails and then we can all write expressive code while singing > kumbaya and never have to write anything except value added business logic. > > I am getting so tired of people offering silver bullets for all our woes by > some idiot with a blog doing crazy man hand waiving that "YOU'RE DOING IT > ALL WRONG" and we need to throw out everything and go back to re-education > camp to learn the new thing that is going to fix everything. > > [ ... ] > > David. > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM, David Connors <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 11 February 2010 18:19, silky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that > C# is (possibly) > going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice > that it is tending > to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with > less compile-time > checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with > features that you > could argue are "generally" harmful, and only > "sometimes" useful > (Extension Methods being the primary example, > anonymous classes being > another). > > > > I've not looked closely enough at the dynamic features in C# > 4 to comment, but .NET has strong fundamentals and I appreciate Nick > Wienholt's comments re Hejlsberg. He has produced environments with > incredible pedigree in both his Borland and Microsoft days - I think he is a > genius and a true asset to MS more so than most other people who are held up > as MS 'rockstars'. I just hope MS are not spooked into doing something > completely insane with .NET on the basis of the apparent popularity of > dynamic languages in the freetard community. > > From following the dynamic crowd for the past year and a > half or so, I have concluded that it is a religious movement; at least that > is the only reason I can figure out why anyone would endure a Steve Yegge > talk or blog post. The same people probably believe Erlang propaganda. > Their bossman needs to give them more work to do so they can stop trying to > figure out how to invent 1995. > > -- > David Connors ([email protected]) > Software Engineer > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com <http://www.codify.com/> > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | > Mobile: +61 417 189 363 > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact > > > > > > > > -- > David Connors ([email protected]) > Software Engineer > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com <http://www.codify.com/> > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 > 189 363 > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact > > >
