4 .Net contract positions

Discussion in 'Java' started by luckystarduke, May 19, 2006.

  1. Hello All,

    We have the following requirement.

    Please send me matching Profiles along with the Contact Details,
    Availability and Rate Expectations of the Candidate for the same.

    Job Details:- We have the following 4 .Net contract positions in NYC.
    Location:- NYC.
    Duration:- 6 months +
    Rate:- DOE.

    FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE IS REQUIRED!!!

    Major Responsibilities/Essential Functions:
    Program using C#, ASP.NET and JavaScript.
    Program using T-SQL in SYBASE or MS SQL Server. Must have good
    knowledge of ADO.
    Program for browser using HTML, DHTML, JavaScript, XML, XSL, HTTP. Must
    have a good understanding for DOMs (HTML and XML).

    Let me know if you need more information on the same.

    Many Thanks,

    Renuka
    Technical Recruiter
    KLM Software Services Inc.
    1111 N. Plaza Dr
    Suite 101
    Schaumburg, IL 60173
    Tel : 847-995-9556 Ext 212
    Fax : 847-995-9557
    luckystarduke, May 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. luckystarduke

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "luckystarduke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Job Details:- We have the following 4 .Net contract positions in NYC.
    > Location:- NYC.
    > Duration:- 6 months +
    > Rate:- DOE.


    What's DOE? "Depends on Expertise" or something like that?

    - Oliver
    Oliver Wong, May 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. luckystarduke

    Rhino Guest

    "luckystarduke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello All,
    >
    > We have the following requirement.
    >
    > Please send me matching Profiles along with the Contact Details,
    > Availability and Rate Expectations of the Candidate for the same.
    >
    > Job Details:- We have the following 4 .Net contract positions in NYC.
    > Location:- NYC.
    > Duration:- 6 months +
    > Rate:- DOE.
    >
    > FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE IS REQUIRED!!!
    >
    > Major Responsibilities/Essential Functions:
    > Program using C#, ASP.NET and JavaScript.
    > Program using T-SQL in SYBASE or MS SQL Server. Must have good
    > knowledge of ADO.
    > Program for browser using HTML, DHTML, JavaScript, XML, XSL, HTTP. Must
    > have a good understanding for DOMs (HTML and XML).
    >
    > Let me know if you need more information on the same.
    >


    This is not a very appropriate place to post this ad. You are looking for
    JavaScript talent but this is a Java newsgroup. Java and JavaScript, despite
    the similar names, are completely unrelated.

    A better place to try would be comp.lang.javascript.

    --
    Rhino
    Rhino, May 20, 2006
    #3
  4. luckystarduke

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java? (was: 4 .Net contract positions)

    "Rhino" <> writes:
    >Java and JavaScript, despite the similar names, are completely
    >unrelated.


    Both are trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc.:

    http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/

    And Java includes a JavaScript interpreter:

    public class Main
    { public static void main( final java.lang.String[] args )
    { javax.script.ScriptEngineManager scriptEngineManager =
    new javax.script.ScriptEngineManager();
    javax.script.ScriptEngine scriptEngine =
    scriptEngineManager.getEngineByName( "rhino" );
    try
    { final java.lang.String myJavaScriptExpression = "1 + 10 * 10";
    java.lang.System.out.println
    ( scriptEngine.eval( myJavaScriptExpression )); }
    catch( final javax.script.ScriptException scriptException )
    { throw new java.lang.RuntimeException( scriptException ); }}}

    101.0

    Is that »completely unrelated«?
    Stefan Ram, May 20, 2006
    #4
  5. luckystarduke

    Chris Smith Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java? (was: 4 .Net contract positions)

    Stefan Ram <-berlin.de> wrote:
    > "Rhino" <> writes:
    > >Java and JavaScript, despite the similar names, are completely
    > >unrelated.

    >
    > Both are trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc.:
    >


    Which would be relevant, if the name JavaScript were anything other than
    marketing. However, the language popularly known as JavaScript was
    originally developed by Netscape under the name "LiveScript", and is
    properly standardized under the name "ECMAScript". Two popular
    implementations of that spec are Microsoft's JScript and Netscape's
    LiceScript, which is now called JavaScript. The popular name was
    introduced after the language had been developed independently of Java.

    > And Java includes a JavaScript interpreter:
    >


    Beginning on Java 6, Java WILL be distributed with a JavaScript
    interpreter, as an example of a standard scripting language API. Java
    doesn't include (poresent tense) a JavaScript interpreter. It is also
    certainly not the case that the API will be in any way specific to
    JavaScript; that just happens to be a convenient initial implementation.
    This is similar to the way Java currently "includes" XML, XSLT, and
    XPath implementations. No one could reasonably claim that XML, XPath,
    and XSLT are related to Java because Java provides an API and default
    implementation for using them.

    > Is that »completely unrelated«?
    >


    Yes, in all important senses in which the term is meant here. The
    languages are almost as different as two object oriented languages can
    be except for sharing a few grammatical productions and basic operators
    inherited from C.

    If "exists in the same universe as" or "can be used with" count as
    related, to you, then you can claim some kind of empty rhetorical
    victory for this thread... but it won't mean anything.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, May 20, 2006
    #5
  6. luckystarduke

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Chris Smith <> writes:
    >Yes, in all important senses in which the term is meant here.
    >The languages are almost as different as two object oriented
    >languages can be except for sharing a few grammatical
    >productions and basic operators inherited from C.


    Yes, if you ignore or sweep aside all the features they have
    in common, there will be those features left, which they do
    not have in common. They are both imperative languages
    compared to declarative languages such as Prolog or
    functional languages such as Haskell and, thus, belong
    to the same »language family«. Within this family they
    even are in the same »subfamily« with a C-based syntax
    compared to languages with a Pascal-like syntax (»begin«,
    »end«) or with a special syntax (like Lisp or Forth).

    >If "exists in the same universe as" or "can be used with" count
    >as related, to you, then you can claim some kind of empty
    >rhetorical victory for this thread... but it won't mean
    >anything.


    By your above criteria, it seems as if you'd call two languages
    "not completely unrelated" only if they are essentially the
    same language.

    By the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, two things do not
    even have to be similar in any way to relate to each other,
    they just need »to have relationship or connection«.
    Stefan Ram, May 20, 2006
    #6
  7. luckystarduke

    Chris Smith Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Stefan Ram <-berlin.de> wrote:
    > Yes, if you ignore or sweep aside all the features they have
    > in common, there will be those features left, which they do
    > not have in common.


    And quite a few features there are in that set. JavaScript has no types
    at all, while Java provides moderately strong type rules. JavaScript
    has no classes and implements object prototypes for inheritance of
    implementation, while Java requires that everything belongs to a class
    and has no concept of a prototype. JavaScript implements general
    lexical scoping rules with full closure, while Java has more limited and
    irregular rules of scope and accessibility.

    These are fairly deep distinctions between the two languages. Not as
    deep as the distinction between JavaScript and Prolog, to be sure, but
    it makes JavaScript far closer to quite a few other languages than it is
    to Java, and vice versa. The differences between Java and JavaScript
    lead to rather important implications in the way one would accomplish
    even everyday programming tasks.

    So, when regulars on this group say that Java is not JavaScript, it
    isn't just a deflection of a question to which we all know the answer.
    We aren't nitpicking. Java is far closer, for example, to Eiffel than
    it is to JavaScript -- despite the fact that Eiffel looks rather
    radically different, while JavaScript shares both a name and things like
    curly braces to delineate blocks. A persone would be acting more
    reasonably to post questions about Eiffel here than questions about
    JavaScript.

    I don't really care to discuss the exact definition of "related". We
    all know what Rhino meant.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, May 20, 2006
    #7
  8. luckystarduke

    Mickey Segal Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java? (was: 4 .Net contract positions)

    "Chris Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Two popular implementations of that spec are Microsoft's
    > JScript and Netscape's LiceScript, which is now called JavaScript.


    If Netscape's implementation was such that people took to calling it
    "LiceScript", no wonder people were willing to accept the confusing name of
    "JavaScript".
    Mickey Segal, May 20, 2006
    #8
  9. luckystarduke

    Timo Stamm Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Chris Smith schrieb:
    > Stefan Ram <-berlin.de> wrote:
    >> Yes, if you ignore or sweep aside all the features they have
    >> in common, there will be those features left, which they do
    >> not have in common.

    >
    > And quite a few features there are in that set. JavaScript has no types
    > at all, while Java provides moderately strong type rules. JavaScript
    > has no classes and implements object prototypes for inheritance of
    > implementation



    The JavaScript implementation of Mustang is /based/ on Rhino. So we
    don't know which Version of ECMAScript we are going to see.

    If it is ECMAScript-262 Edition 3 (also known as JavaScript 1.5), you
    are right. It has no typing and only prototype inheritance. The edition
    4 however defines strong typing as well as class based inheritance.

    ECMAScript 4 is as much Java as a scripting language could be while
    still being called a scripting language.


    Timo
    Timo Stamm, May 20, 2006
    #9
  10. luckystarduke

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Chris Smith <> writes:
    >I don't really care to discuss the exact definition of "related".


    There is no need to discuss it, because nobody has called the
    meaning of »related« into question and the common meaning of
    that word is well established. »related« means »related«, not
    »similar« or »equal«. »completely« means »totally« or »without
    any exception«, so »completely unrelated« means »without any
    relation«.

    When I look at the »Core JavaScript 1.5 Reference«, I can read:

    »These classes allow a Java object to access JavaScript code.«

    http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:LiveConnect

    This is at least one relation that suffices to contradict the
    apodictic assessment »completely unrelated«.
    Stefan Ram, May 20, 2006
    #10
  11. Oliver Wong schrieb:

    > What's DOE? "Depends on Expertise" or something like that?
    >
    > - Oliver


    I guess, that the original poster could answer your question. And I also
    guess, that this will never happen. I consider this and similar posts in
    other groups as spam and act accordingly.

    Frank.

    --
    Geld allein macht nicht glücklich.
    Es kommt auch auf die Menge an...
    Frank Seidinger, May 20, 2006
    #11
  12. luckystarduke

    Chris Smith Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Timo Stamm <> wrote:
    > If it is ECMAScript-262 Edition 3 (also known as JavaScript 1.5), you
    > are right. It has no typing and only prototype inheritance. The edition
    > 4 however defines strong typing as well as class based inheritance.


    That's a shame. Shall all languages become identical, now?

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, May 21, 2006
    #12
  13. luckystarduke

    Chris Uppal Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Chris Smith wrote:

    > > If it is ECMAScript-262 Edition 3 (also known as JavaScript 1.5), you
    > > are right. It has no typing and only prototype inheritance. The edition
    > > 4 however defines strong typing as well as class based inheritance.

    >
    > That's a shame. Shall all languages become identical, now?


    If Microsoft get their way, yes.

    As I understand it, classes were added to ECMAScript at the urging of
    Microsoft -- who's CLR has classes hardwired into it.

    Damn shame.

    -- chris
    Chris Uppal, May 22, 2006
    #13
  14. luckystarduke

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    "Chris Uppal" <-THIS.org> writes:
    >As I understand it, classes were added to ECMAScript at the
    >urging of Microsoft -- who's CLR has classes hardwired into it.


    I believe that the common practice to consider languages as
    changeable is misleading. I.e., I do not oppose that Microsoft
    Corporation implements whatever language they want on their
    platform, but I disapprove it to use the same name as for
    another language. I.e., they should not call it »JavaScript«.

    I also have nothing against languages that do not support
    the commands INPUT, DATA, READ, DEF FN and line numbers.
    But, I think that they should not be called »BASIC«.

    We all would oppose a /change/ of the interface CharSequence
    (for example to an interface for codepoints with 32 bit),
    because it breaks existing code. It would be no problem
    instead, if another interface would be added with /another
    name/.

    Languages are (like) interfaces. So if »classes are added to
    JavaScript (ECMAScript)« existing assertions about it are
    broken. For example, a tutorial claiming that »there are no
    classes in JavaScript (or ECMAScript)« is now wrong (broken).
    So I'd prefer "value semantics" for names of programming
    languages. When the language »changes« in a major or relevant
    way, it should get a new name.

    A partial remedy might be to always use versions when speaking
    of languages. So, one should not say »JavaScript does not have
    classes« but »JavaScript 1.0 does not have classes.«.
    But then, the assertion is too limited. The reader, who wants
    to learn »JavaScript 1.1« does not know whether this still
    applies there. So it should be »JavaScript 1.0-1.3 does not
    have classes.«. But this is complicated and now also needs
    maintanance: When JavaScript 1.4 appears and still does not
    have classes, the sentence does not become false, but should
    be changed to »JavaScript 1.0-1.4 does not have classes.«
    Stefan Ram, May 22, 2006
    #14
  15. luckystarduke

    Chris Smith Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Chris Uppal <-THIS.org> wrote:
    > As I understand it, classes were added to ECMAScript at the urging of
    > Microsoft -- who's CLR has classes hardwired into it.


    Ah. So we've now got at least a mangled Visual Basic, C++, JavaScript,
    and an attempt at mangling Java. Anyone else wish that .NET weren't
    "portable across programming languages"?

    (On the other hand, .NET really no longer has nothing to do with
    bytecode or the CLR or such things any longer. According to Microsoft
    at http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics.mspx, .NET is now just another
    word for web services. :)

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, May 22, 2006
    #15
  16. luckystarduke

    Chris Uppal Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Chris Smith wrote:

    > Ah. So we've now got at least a mangled Visual Basic, C++, JavaScript,
    > and an attempt at mangling Java. Anyone else wish that .NET weren't
    > "portable across programming languages"?


    ....or that it was in fact programming-language agnostic.


    > (On the other hand, .NET really no longer has nothing to do with
    > bytecode or the CLR or such things any longer. According to Microsoft
    > at http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics.mspx, .NET is now just another
    > word for web services. :)


    Nice link. Very informative. I even went to the trouble of clicking the "Rate
    this article" button[*].

    -- chris

    [*] I choose "Poor", but only for the lack of "Insultingly bad".
    Chris Uppal, May 23, 2006
    #16
  17. luckystarduke

    Chris Uppal Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    Stefan Ram wrote:

    > Languages are (like) interfaces. So if »classes are added to
    > JavaScript (ECMAScript)« existing assertions about it are
    > broken.


    Interesting idea. A more general approach to the problem would be for people
    to stop making assertions of temporally contingent truths as if they were
    absolutes. So we get:

    JavaScript is (in 1997) a classless language.

    I don't kow how often one could use such dates without the message getting lost
    in qualifications, but I think we (humans) could do better than we do[*].

    But in this case the real issue (IMO) isn't that JavaScript has /changed/ but
    that it been /spoiled/.

    -- chris

    [*] In 2006 ;-)
    Chris Uppal, May 23, 2006
    #17
  18. luckystarduke

    Oliver Wong Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    "Chris Uppal" <-THIS.org> wrote in message
    news:44730623$0$17149$...
    > Stefan Ram wrote:
    >
    >> Languages are (like) interfaces. So if »classes are added to
    >> JavaScript (ECMAScript)« existing assertions about it are
    >> broken.

    >
    > Interesting idea. A more general approach to the problem would be for
    > people
    > to stop making assertions of temporally contingent truths as if they were
    > absolutes. So we get:
    >
    > JavaScript is (in 1997) a classless language.


    I think using version numbers is safer. As Stefan pointed out, if you
    say "JavaScript 1.0 to 1.3 is classless", and then 1.4 comes out and is also
    classless, you'd have to maintain/update your old assertion. But you'd have
    to always updated your old assertion anyway, because you never know whether
    the next version will have classes or not.

    The advantage of version numbers over years is that when a change
    happens (e.g. classes are added to JavaScript), it's difficult to refer to
    exactly when the change occured in terms of time, but relatively easy to
    refer to it in terms of version number (contrast "JavaScript was classless
    up to and including May 26th, 2006, 8:43.23.8299 AM, but has classes
    immediately after that" with "JavaScript was classless up to 1.4. In 1.5, it
    has classes.")

    - Oliver
    Oliver Wong, May 23, 2006
    #18
  19. luckystarduke

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    "Oliver Wong" <> writes:
    >up to and including May 26th, 2006, 8:43.23.8299 AM, but has classes


    Such points of time also have the drawback that they are not
    Lorentz invariant, i.e., they can not be extended to the whole
    spacetime unless a specific frame of reference is chosen.

    For a long text about JavaScript, it might be tedious to
    repeat the version number over an over, so the text might
    declare initially that »JavaScript« in the text is to be
    understood as a certain version or range of versions.
    Stefan Ram, May 23, 2006
    #19
  20. luckystarduke

    Oliver Wong Guest

    Re: Is JavaScript "completely unrelated" to Java?

    "Stefan Ram" <-berlin.de> wrote in message
    news:-berlin.de...
    > "Oliver Wong" <> writes:
    >>up to and including May 26th, 2006, 8:43.23.8299 AM, but has classes

    >
    > Such points of time also have the drawback that they are not
    > Lorentz invariant, i.e., they can not be extended to the whole
    > spacetime unless a specific frame of reference is chosen.


    I had assumed the frame of reference would be of that of the person who
    is releasing the (new version of the) language.

    - Oliver
    Oliver Wong, May 23, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom Gugger
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    Tom Gugger
    Mar 23, 2005
  2. Tom Gugger
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    Tom Gugger
    Mar 23, 2005
  3. Tom Gugger

    PORTAL POSITIONS/ J2EE/ CONTRACT

    Tom Gugger, Mar 23, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Tom Gugger
    Mar 23, 2005
  4. Knut Krueger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    429
    Knut Krueger
    May 21, 2007
  5. Navi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    347
Loading...

Share This Page