4 .Net contract positions

L

luckystarduke

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
 
O

Oliver Wong

luckystarduke said:
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
 
R

Rhino

luckystarduke said:
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.
 
S

Stefan Ram

Rhino said:
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«?
 
C

Chris Smith

Stefan Ram said:
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
 
S

Stefan Ram

Chris Smith said:
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«.
 
C

Chris Smith

Stefan Ram said:
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
 
M

Mickey Segal

Chris Smith said:
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".
 
T

Timo Stamm

Chris said:
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
 
S

Stefan Ram

Chris Smith said:
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«.
 
F

Frank Seidinger

Oliver said:
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.
 
C

Chris Smith

Timo Stamm said:
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
 
C

Chris Uppal

Chris said:
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
 
S

Stefan Ram

Chris Uppal said:
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.«
 
C

Chris Smith

Chris Uppal said:
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
 
C

Chris Uppal

Chris said:
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".
 
C

Chris Uppal

Stefan said:
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 ;-)
 
O

Oliver Wong

Chris Uppal said:
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
 
S

Stefan Ram

Oliver Wong said:
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.
 
O

Oliver Wong

Stefan Ram said:
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
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top