Trivial question - Visual C# .Net vs Visual Studio .Net

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by John Timbers, Oct 2, 2003.

  1. John Timbers

    John Timbers Guest

    I'd like to purchase Visual C# .Net for learning purposes only since it's a
    lot cheaper than Visual Studio (note that I'm a very experienced C++
    developer). Can someone simply clarify the basic differences. Ok, Visual
    Studio has C++, VB and J++ thrown in plus some extra bells and whistles (I
    already have some minimal experience) but are both IDE's essentially the
    same (including the same IDE support for creating forms, ADO.NET DataSets,
    etc.). When I eventually move to Visual Studio permanently I don't want to
    face an entirely new learning curve. Thanks.
    John Timbers, Oct 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Timbers

    Dick Grier Guest

    Hi,

    The IDEs are the same. You are limited to C#... It is intended to do just
    what you want, so I'd say, "Go for it." Get the full VS 2003(or X) later.

    --
    Richard Grier (Microsoft Visual Basic MVP)

    See www.hardandsoftware.net for contact information.

    Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, 3rd
    Edition ISBN 1-890422-27-4 (391 pages) published February 2002.
    Dick Grier, Oct 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <eqN2$>,
    says...
    > I'd like to purchase Visual C# .Net for learning purposes only since it's a
    > lot cheaper than Visual Studio (note that I'm a very experienced C++
    > developer). Can someone simply clarify the basic differences. Ok, Visual
    > Studio has C++, VB and J++ thrown in plus some extra bells and whistles (I
    > already have some minimal experience) but are both IDE's essentially the
    > same (including the same IDE support for creating forms, ADO.NET DataSets,
    > etc.). When I eventually move to Visual Studio permanently I don't want to
    > face an entirely new learning curve. Thanks.


    I'd check to make sure that the SQL server stuff is in C#.Net.

    Consider that if you can qualify for an Academic discount, you can get
    the full VS.NET for about $80.

    One class at a local community college (in *anything*) gets you a
    student Id which qualifies you for the Academic discount (even if you
    never go to class <wink>). You can't do production work with an
    Academic edition, but for "learning purposes only" it can't be beat.

    -- Rick
    Guinness Mann, Oct 2, 2003
    #3
  4. John Timbers

    John Timbers Guest

    > The IDEs are the same. You are limited to C#... It is intended to do just
    > what you want, so I'd say, "Go for it." Get the full VS 2003(or X) later.


    I will be. Thanks very much.
    John Timbers, Oct 3, 2003
    #4
  5. John Timbers

    John Timbers Guest

    > I'd check to make sure that the SQL server stuff is in C#.Net.

    I hope so. Access to a DB is no problem but whether the IDE provides the
    same basic DB support as Visual Studio does is another matter.

    > Consider that if you can qualify for an Academic discount, you can get
    > the full VS.NET for about $80.
    >
    > One class at a local community college (in *anything*) gets you a
    > student Id which qualifies you for the Academic discount (even if you
    > never go to class <wink>). You can't do production work with an
    > Academic edition, but for "learning purposes only" it can't be beat.


    I've actually considered it (or purchasing it through a student) but quite
    frankly I don't know if it's ethical. Some still care about that believe it
    or not (to the surprise of many). MS only makes it available to bona fide
    students for a reason but I really only want it for learning purposes. If
    they released it to the general public however there would be a run on the
    product by unscrupulous developers. They're also trying to raise the next
    generation of MS loyalists of course but I have to believe that they really
    don't have a problem with people who are truly purchasing it for learning
    purposes. That may be rationalization but I'd like to hear what MS really
    has to say about it (any reps reading here?). Anyway, thanks for the
    feedback.
    John Timbers, Oct 3, 2003
    #5
  6. John Timbers

    mikeb Guest

    John Timbers wrote:

    > I'd like to purchase Visual C# .Net for learning purposes only since it's a
    > lot cheaper than Visual Studio (note that I'm a very experienced C++
    > developer). Can someone simply clarify the basic differences. Ok, Visual
    > Studio has C++, VB and J++ thrown in plus some extra bells and whistles (I
    > already have some minimal experience) but are both IDE's essentially the
    > same (including the same IDE support for creating forms, ADO.NET DataSets,
    > etc.). When I eventually move to Visual Studio permanently I don't want to
    > face an entirely new learning curve. Thanks.
    >
    >


    I believe that Visual C# Standard edition does not include IDE support
    for database operations.

    The comparison table for the various versions of Visual Studio is at:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/howtobuy/choosing.aspx

    The comparison table between Visual C# Std Edition and Visual Studio
    Professional is at:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/howtobuy/choosing.aspx

    It's not particularly detailed, but it does seem to exclude 'visually
    author powerful data-driven software'.

    --
    mikeb
    mikeb, Oct 3, 2003
    #6
  7. John Timbers

    K. Shier Guest

    i don't see any mention of this in the feature matrices, so i'm not sure if
    it applies to VC#.Net, but back when i bought VB.Net Standard, i was rudely
    surprised to find out it could only connect to MSDE not a full-version SQL
    Server database.

    also interesting to note that VB.Net Std. prohibits you from authoring user
    controls while VC# Std. doesn't seem to have any similar limitation.

    as for the ethics involved - i'm not an M$ rep, but i did give it some
    thought...

    my humble opinion: (ethics withheld) if you register at a school & enroll
    in a class, you are a student by definition. lots of 'students' pay and
    never show up!

    my humble opinion: (ethics interjected, for the conscience that needs a bit
    more massaging) if you register at a school & enroll in a class, you are a
    student by definition. if you one day decide that you can use the
    courseware to teach yourself better than your instructor can, and decide to
    go into self-driven study mode and never return to class, you are still, by
    definition, a student until the end of the semester. (individual
    school's/instructor's attendance policies vary! but, unless the instructor
    has a specific attendance requirement, you could even show up for the final
    to (hopefully) pass it and still get credit. i've seen it done many times &
    even done it once myself!) if you buy the academic version of the software
    with good faith intent to use it only for learning purposes, i don't see an
    ethical conflict.

    i don't know the internal workings of the M$ educational 'sponsorship'
    mechanism, but i don't see how your actions would be depriving anyone. (the
    school still got their tuition money. the bookstore still got the purchase
    price. i don't know exactly what M$ expects out of the deal, but that's
    between the college/bookstore and them. you have already fulfilled your
    part of the contract by paying to enroll in class and purchase the software)
    you have already stated that you have good-faith intentions to use it in a
    non-production setting, so you are not sapping the economy of real
    developers...

    all localized definitions aside, though, my idealist opinion is that the
    mere fact that you state "i want to learn!" makes you a student and entitled
    to the benefits thereof. =) good luck! =)


    "mikeb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > John Timbers wrote:
    >
    > > I'd like to purchase Visual C# .Net for learning purposes only since

    it's a
    > > lot cheaper than Visual Studio (note that I'm a very experienced C++
    > > developer). Can someone simply clarify the basic differences. Ok, Visual
    > > Studio has C++, VB and J++ thrown in plus some extra bells and whistles

    (I
    > > already have some minimal experience) but are both IDE's essentially the
    > > same (including the same IDE support for creating forms, ADO.NET

    DataSets,
    > > etc.). When I eventually move to Visual Studio permanently I don't want

    to
    > > face an entirely new learning curve. Thanks.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I believe that Visual C# Standard edition does not include IDE support
    > for database operations.
    >
    > The comparison table for the various versions of Visual Studio is at:
    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/howtobuy/choosing.aspx
    >
    > The comparison table between Visual C# Std Edition and Visual Studio
    > Professional is at:
    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/howtobuy/choosing.aspx
    >
    > It's not particularly detailed, but it does seem to exclude 'visually
    > author powerful data-driven software'.
    >
    > --
    > mikeb
    >
    K. Shier, Oct 10, 2003
    #7
  8. John Timbers

    Robert Lo Guest

    Hi,
    Why not just order the trial VS.net from M$?
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/trial/
    You can even try it on-line.
    As someone points out, this is super depressing that an experienced
    C++ developer can't afford a copy of VS.net.
    May be, your company or your friends have a trail copy of VS.net
    already since M$ mail them out to developers like there is no
    tomorrow.
    Robert
    "K. Shier" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > i don't see any mention of this in the feature matrices, so i'm not sure if
    > it applies to VC#.Net, but back when i bought VB.Net Standard, i was rudely
    > surprised to find out it could only connect to MSDE not a full-version SQL
    > Server database.
    >
    > also interesting to note that VB.Net Std. prohibits you from authoring user
    > controls while VC# Std. doesn't seem to have any similar limitation.
    >
    > as for the ethics involved - i'm not an M$ rep, but i did give it some
    > thought...
    >
    > my humble opinion: (ethics withheld) if you register at a school & enroll
    > in a class, you are a student by definition. lots of 'students' pay and
    > never show up!
    >
    > my humble opinion: (ethics interjected, for the conscience that needs a bit
    > more massaging) if you register at a school & enroll in a class, you are a
    > student by definition. if you one day decide that you can use the
    > courseware to teach yourself better than your instructor can, and decide to
    > go into self-driven study mode and never return to class, you are still, by
    > definition, a student until the end of the semester. (individual
    > school's/instructor's attendance policies vary! but, unless the instructor
    > has a specific attendance requirement, you could even show up for the final
    > to (hopefully) pass it and still get credit. i've seen it done many times &
    > even done it once myself!) if you buy the academic version of the software
    > with good faith intent to use it only for learning purposes, i don't see an
    > ethical conflict.
    >
    > i don't know the internal workings of the M$ educational 'sponsorship'
    > mechanism, but i don't see how your actions would be depriving anyone. (the
    > school still got their tuition money. the bookstore still got the purchase
    > price. i don't know exactly what M$ expects out of the deal, but that's
    > between the college/bookstore and them. you have already fulfilled your
    > part of the contract by paying to enroll in class and purchase the software)
    > you have already stated that you have good-faith intentions to use it in a
    > non-production setting, so you are not sapping the economy of real
    > developers...
    >
    > all localized definitions aside, though, my idealist opinion is that the
    > mere fact that you state "i want to learn!" makes you a student and entitled
    > to the benefits thereof. =) good luck! =)
    >
    >
    > "mikeb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > John Timbers wrote:
    > >
    > > > I'd like to purchase Visual C# .Net for learning purposes only since

    > it's a
    > > > lot cheaper than Visual Studio (note that I'm a very experienced C++
    > > > developer). Can someone simply clarify the basic differences. Ok, Visual
    > > > Studio has C++, VB and J++ thrown in plus some extra bells and whistles

    > (I
    > > > already have some minimal experience) but are both IDE's essentially the
    > > > same (including the same IDE support for creating forms, ADO.NET

    > DataSets,
    > > > etc.). When I eventually move to Visual Studio permanently I don't want

    > to
    > > > face an entirely new learning curve. Thanks.
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > I believe that Visual C# Standard edition does not include IDE support
    > > for database operations.
    > >
    > > The comparison table for the various versions of Visual Studio is at:
    > >
    > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/howtobuy/choosing.aspx
    > >
    > > The comparison table between Visual C# Std Edition and Visual Studio
    > > Professional is at:
    > >
    > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/howtobuy/choosing.aspx
    > >
    > > It's not particularly detailed, but it does seem to exclude 'visually
    > > author powerful data-driven software'.
    > >
    > > --
    > > mikeb
    > >
    Robert Lo, Nov 1, 2003
    #8
  9. John Timbers

    John Tobler Guest

    Robert wrote:
    > As someone points out, this is super depressing that an experienced
    > C++ developer can't afford a copy of VS.net. ....


    I'm a bit tired of seeing threads and chains of posts like this, so I put up
    this weblog entry to deal with it:

    http://weblogs.asp.net/jtobler/posts/35599.aspx

    John Tobler
    John Tobler, Nov 4, 2003
    #9
  10. John Timbers

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    From your blog you wrote:
    >You can use Notepad or any better editor to write the code. In fact, I

    strongly recommend >learning to write .NET code *without* using Visual
    Studio.NET so you *really* learn what's >going on

    That premise is so bogus. How about paraphrasing it like this. To learn to
    drive a car, I'd really suggest you remove the engine so you can learn how
    the car moves. Or how about this: I really recommend you learn HTML to do
    web programming so you understand how things work inside a web page. Nuff
    said. The point of tools like VS is to abstract this tedium out of the
    programmers hands so s/he can concentrate on what matters most - developing
    products.

    The point is this: tools are for a programmer's benefit. At the end of the
    day, your paycheck is based on your productivity, not on how much you know
    about what goes on underneath the hood. How can that knowledge help you be
    more productive if you have to write out boiler plate code for yourself. You
    can't because you are wasting your time re-inventing a finely tuned wheel.
    What's the good of this knowledge if you let the environment write the code
    for you? So you haven't really gained anything for the company who pays you
    your check.

    Now if you are in the business of writing IDE's, then that is an entirely
    different kettle of fish because you wouldn't be a 'learner' in the first
    place. If a tool increases your productivity, you need to learn how to use
    it. VS studio increases programmer productivity. Learn how to use it to
    increase your productivity. I actually have programmers still using notepad
    taking forever to write simple apps on company time. I actually have
    programmers writing html in aspx pages. I actually have these same
    programmers complaining that I make them look bad because I crank out
    projects too fast. Now, that there, aint right. You can tell this is a
    thorny issue for me, can't you?
    --


    -----------
    Got TidBits?
    Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
    "John Tobler" <> wrote in message
    news:eN8H#...
    > Robert wrote:
    > > As someone points out, this is super depressing that an experienced
    > > C++ developer can't afford a copy of VS.net. ....

    >
    > I'm a bit tired of seeing threads and chains of posts like this, so I put

    up
    > this weblog entry to deal with it:
    >
    > http://weblogs.asp.net/jtobler/posts/35599.aspx
    >
    > John Tobler
    >
    >
    Alvin Bruney, Nov 4, 2003
    #10
  11. Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > From your blog you wrote:
    > >You can use Notepad or any better editor to write the code. In fact, I

    > strongly recommend >learning to write .NET code *without* using Visual
    > Studio.NET so you *really* learn what's >going on
    >
    > That premise is so bogus. How about paraphrasing it like this. To learn to
    > drive a car, I'd really suggest you remove the engine so you can learn how
    > the car moves.


    That one's going a bit far, but:

    > Or how about this: I really recommend you learn HTML to do
    > web programming so you understand how things work inside a web page.


    Absolutely! Anyone who tries to develop a web app but doesn't know HTML
    to start with is at a *serious* disadvantage.

    > Nuff
    > said. The point of tools like VS is to abstract this tedium out of the
    > programmers hands so s/he can concentrate on what matters most - developing
    > products.
    >
    > The point is this: tools are for a programmer's benefit. At the end of the
    > day, your paycheck is based on your productivity, not on how much you know
    > about what goes on underneath the hood. How can that knowledge help you be
    > more productive if you have to write out boiler plate code for yourself.


    You write the boiler plate code to start with, then *maybe* you let the
    tool do it at a later date, once you understand what it will be doing
    for you. (You may, like me, choose to end up writing all your GUI code
    by hand anyway, just to get more maintainable code in the long run.)

    > You
    > can't because you are wasting your time re-inventing a finely tuned wheel.
    > What's the good of this knowledge if you let the environment write the code
    > for you? So you haven't really gained anything for the company who pays you
    > your check.


    Again, I couldn't disagree more. If all you know how to do is drag
    things around on the form designer, you're utterly stuck as soon as
    anything goes wrong. People who run before they can walk are the reason
    I wrote this page:

    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/java/learning.html

    Now it's not too bad to use the IDE as a basic editor to give you
    autocompletion etc, but I believe it's well worth at least being *able*
    to write a simple GUI yourself if you're later going to let the IDE do
    that kind of work for you.

    > Now if you are in the business of writing IDE's, then that is an entirely
    > different kettle of fish because you wouldn't be a 'learner' in the first
    > place. If a tool increases your productivity, you need to learn how to use
    > it. VS studio increases programmer productivity. Learn how to use it to
    > increase your productivity. I actually have programmers still using notepad
    > taking forever to write simple apps on company time. I actually have
    > programmers writing html in aspx pages. I actually have these same
    > programmers complaining that I make them look bad because I crank out
    > projects too fast. Now, that there, aint right. You can tell this is a
    > thorny issue for me, can't you?


    For a very long time I used a simple text editor (not Notepad, I'm
    pleased to say) when writing Java. I still *do* use it for C# and Java
    when I can't be bothered to fire up VS.NET or Eclipse. I only started
    using Eclipse for its refactoring support, really - and now I've become
    used to autocomplete, organize imports (which I really hope we get in
    the next version of VS.NET) etc. While I'm more productive now than I
    was before, that's in no way due to it writing huge chunks of code for
    me - if I let an IDE do that, I know for sure that I'll spend more time
    trying to get it to do *exactly* what I want than I would if I wrote
    the code in the first place, and it would be harder code to maintain
    afterwards.

    It sounds like you basically have some slow programmers - it's
    perfectly possible to code accurately and fast outside an IDE.

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Nov 4, 2003
    #11
  12. John Timbers

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    > > Or how about this: I really recommend you learn HTML to do
    > > web programming so you understand how things work inside a web page.

    Absolutely not. Learning html is pointless. Absolutely pointless. I don't
    know HTML. I could care less about it, its wasted effort. I do know how to
    introduce a line break and a line feed - basic stuff - that's all you really
    need to know. Why learn dead technology? There is nothing to be gained by
    learning it outside of a mind exercise. It's not a tool you can use to solve
    any problem with so it shouldn't be in your bag of toys. The whole point of
    asp.net is to insulate the programmer from this drudgery. Don't confuse html
    with asp.net. Control writers need to know html because in that case, it can
    be used as a tool to solve performance and optmization bottlenecks which
    occur when rendering objects clientside. A programmer absolutely does not
    need to know it. Can it give an advantage if you know it? I have yet to see
    that because the ASP.NET model abstracts this process. It's a completely
    different ballgame from ASP classic. Different rules apply.

    Let me ask you this: Do you write your own controls before you use what VS
    has to offer because it helps you 'understand' controls properly?
    Rhetorical, because you may indeed have done it, but would you recommend
    that method to a worker bee out there?

    > You write the boiler plate code to start with, then *maybe* you let the
    > tool do it at a later date, once you understand what it will be doing
    > for you. (You may, like me, choose to end up writing all your GUI code
    > by hand anyway, just to get more maintainable code in the long run.)


    That is actually an activity you can do on your own free time. A company
    should not pay you for these services. I don't see how you writing your own
    GUI code makes it more maintainable in the long run.

    > Again, I couldn't disagree more. If all you know how to do is drag
    > things around on the form designer, you're utterly stuck as soon as
    > anything goes wrong.

    why would I be stuck? what good would html knowledge do for me to get me out
    of that sticky situation? The point is, this level of programming is
    obsolete. Do you come from the same school recommending programmers learn
    assembly? I bet a buck you do. Do it on your own time, it doesn't help you
    write more efficient code in the long or the short run and a company
    shouldn't foot that bill. The point of G5 languages is to insulate the
    developer from gutter work, so they can concentrate on implementing business
    logic. Same thing for ASP.NET and HTML. Otherwise we can all go back to
    writing assembler.


    > It sounds like you basically have some slow programmers - it's
    > perfectly possible to code accurately and fast outside an IDE.


    It could well be the case. But the argument thrown at me is 'I own the code.
    I wrote it.' What have you gained from that? It took you took weeks to
    adjust a button on a form because you had to muck with html and styles now
    your project is late. But oh, you still own the code. But you haven't earned
    your paycheck because a company paying for that kind of productivity will
    not be around tomorrow. If you have the knowledge to learn a high level
    language, picking up HTML is a snap. It isn't even considered a language,
    because it lacks control structures. Again, the point of learning stuff is
    that it can help you solve problems later. Show me an example where learning
    HTML can help me solve a problem later, that I could not have otherwise
    figured out or fixed in a timely fashion.

    waiting...

    I don't want to sound hash but this is a painful issue for me. It really is.
    I walk over to a developers desk and she is using Visual Studio as a
    glorified notepad. Now why did that company invest thousands of dollars in a
    product like that when all it is good for is a word editor? You tell me.
    --


    -----------
    Got TidBits?
    Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > From your blog you wrote:
    > > >You can use Notepad or any better editor to write the code. In fact, I

    > > strongly recommend >learning to write .NET code *without* using Visual
    > > Studio.NET so you *really* learn what's >going on
    > >
    > > That premise is so bogus. How about paraphrasing it like this. To learn

    to
    > > drive a car, I'd really suggest you remove the engine so you can learn

    how
    > > the car moves.

    >
    > That one's going a bit far, but:
    >
    > > Or how about this: I really recommend you learn HTML to do
    > > web programming so you understand how things work inside a web page.

    >
    > Absolutely! Anyone who tries to develop a web app but doesn't know HTML
    > to start with is at a *serious* disadvantage.
    >
    > > Nuff
    > > said. The point of tools like VS is to abstract this tedium out of the
    > > programmers hands so s/he can concentrate on what matters most -

    developing
    > > products.
    > >
    > > The point is this: tools are for a programmer's benefit. At the end of

    the
    > > day, your paycheck is based on your productivity, not on how much you

    know
    > > about what goes on underneath the hood. How can that knowledge help you

    be
    > > more productive if you have to write out boiler plate code for yourself.

    >
    > You write the boiler plate code to start with, then *maybe* you let the
    > tool do it at a later date, once you understand what it will be doing
    > for you. (You may, like me, choose to end up writing all your GUI code
    > by hand anyway, just to get more maintainable code in the long run.)
    >
    > > You
    > > can't because you are wasting your time re-inventing a finely tuned

    wheel.
    > > What's the good of this knowledge if you let the environment write the

    code
    > > for you? So you haven't really gained anything for the company who pays

    you
    > > your check.

    >
    > Again, I couldn't disagree more. If all you know how to do is drag
    > things around on the form designer, you're utterly stuck as soon as
    > anything goes wrong. People who run before they can walk are the reason
    > I wrote this page:
    >
    > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/java/learning.html
    >
    > Now it's not too bad to use the IDE as a basic editor to give you
    > autocompletion etc, but I believe it's well worth at least being *able*
    > to write a simple GUI yourself if you're later going to let the IDE do
    > that kind of work for you.
    >
    > > Now if you are in the business of writing IDE's, then that is an

    entirely
    > > different kettle of fish because you wouldn't be a 'learner' in the

    first
    > > place. If a tool increases your productivity, you need to learn how to

    use
    > > it. VS studio increases programmer productivity. Learn how to use it to
    > > increase your productivity. I actually have programmers still using

    notepad
    > > taking forever to write simple apps on company time. I actually have
    > > programmers writing html in aspx pages. I actually have these same
    > > programmers complaining that I make them look bad because I crank out
    > > projects too fast. Now, that there, aint right. You can tell this is a
    > > thorny issue for me, can't you?

    >
    > For a very long time I used a simple text editor (not Notepad, I'm
    > pleased to say) when writing Java. I still *do* use it for C# and Java
    > when I can't be bothered to fire up VS.NET or Eclipse. I only started
    > using Eclipse for its refactoring support, really - and now I've become
    > used to autocomplete, organize imports (which I really hope we get in
    > the next version of VS.NET) etc. While I'm more productive now than I
    > was before, that's in no way due to it writing huge chunks of code for
    > me - if I let an IDE do that, I know for sure that I'll spend more time
    > trying to get it to do *exactly* what I want than I would if I wrote
    > the code in the first place, and it would be harder code to maintain
    > afterwards.
    >
    > It sounds like you basically have some slow programmers - it's
    > perfectly possible to code accurately and fast outside an IDE.
    >
    > --
    > Jon Skeet - <>
    > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Alvin Bruney, Nov 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > Or how about this: I really recommend you learn HTML to do
    > > > web programming so you understand how things work inside a web page.


    > Absolutely not. Learning html is pointless. Absolutely pointless. I don't
    > know HTML. I could care less about it, its wasted effort.


    How do you know it would be wasted? You've got nothing to compare your
    current situation with.

    > I do know how to
    > introduce a line break and a line feed - basic stuff - that's all you really
    > need to know. Why learn dead technology?


    So that you can analyse what's been produced automatically, and improve
    it, debug it etc. It means you have better ideas of the capabilities of
    browsers for layout, etc. It gives you a clearer picture of what's
    possible, so you could then (if you wish) try to express that to
    VS.NET.

    > There is nothing to be gained by
    > learning it outside of a mind exercise. It's not a tool you can use to solve
    > any problem with so it shouldn't be in your bag of toys.


    And yet I use it to solve problems very often. If the page I was
    working on didn't look how I wanted it to look (or only looked correct
    in Mozilla, not IE) then I could look at the HTML and figure out what's
    wrong.

    > The whole point of
    > asp.net is to insulate the programmer from this drudgery.


    The main point of ASP.NET, to my mind, is to enable clear separation of
    presentation from business logic, to allow rich use of the framework in
    both places (although as little as possible in the presentation logic).
    That doesn't mean that the guys developing the presentation shouldn't
    know HTML.

    > Don't confuse html
    > with asp.net. Control writers need to know html because in that case, it can
    > be used as a tool to solve performance and optmization bottlenecks which
    > occur when rendering objects clientside. A programmer absolutely does not
    > need to know it.


    I still couldn't disagree more.

    > Can it give an advantage if you know it? I have yet to see
    > that because the ASP.NET model abstracts this process. It's a completely
    > different ballgame from ASP classic. Different rules apply.


    It's a different ballgame, but that doesn't mean it's useless to know
    HTML.

    > Let me ask you this: Do you write your own controls before you use what VS
    > has to offer because it helps you 'understand' controls properly?


    I haven't written my own controls yet, but I would if .NET didn't
    happen to provide one that I wanted.

    > Rhetorical, because you may indeed have done it, but would you recommend
    > that method to a worker bee out there?


    No - but I'd recommend understanding the event model and the code that
    VS.NET generates.

    > > You write the boiler plate code to start with, then *maybe* you let the
    > > tool do it at a later date, once you understand what it will be doing
    > > for you. (You may, like me, choose to end up writing all your GUI code
    > > by hand anyway, just to get more maintainable code in the long run.)

    >
    > That is actually an activity you can do on your own free time. A company
    > should not pay you for these services.


    Why not? It's improving their product by making it more maintainable. I
    might just as well say that you should go through every line of code in
    a debugger in your own time if you want to do it - it's not something
    *I* need to do, so why should any company pay you to do it?

    > I don't see how you writing your own
    > GUI code makes it more maintainable in the long run.


    The code VS.NET produces is much less readable than hand-written, well-
    commented, well-structured code.

    > > Again, I couldn't disagree more. If all you know how to do is drag
    > > things around on the form designer, you're utterly stuck as soon as
    > > anything goes wrong.


    > why would I be stuck? what good would html knowledge do for me to get me out
    > of that sticky situation?


    It would help you to work out why the presentation wasn't what it
    should be!

    > The point is, this level of programming is obsolete.


    I beg to differ, and I believe that being able to understand what
    VS.NET produces makes me more useful to my company and thus more
    employable too.

    > Do you come from the same school recommending programmers learn
    > assembly? I bet a buck you do.


    You owe me a buck. I think it's beneficial to have *some* idea what
    goes on at a processor level, but there's no need to know any
    particular instruction set unless you're getting down to performance
    details the like of which I haven't required.

    > Do it on your own time, it doesn't help you
    > write more efficient code in the long or the short run and a company
    > shouldn't foot that bill. The point of G5 languages is to insulate the
    > developer from gutter work, so they can concentrate on implementing business
    > logic. Same thing for ASP.NET and HTML. Otherwise we can all go back to
    > writing assembler.


    I've certainly never heard HTML likened to assembly code before now.

    > > It sounds like you basically have some slow programmers - it's
    > > perfectly possible to code accurately and fast outside an IDE.

    >
    > It could well be the case. But the argument thrown at me is 'I own the code.
    > I wrote it.'


    That's another fault, and one which doesn't have anything to whether or
    not using an IDE is absolutely necessary, or whether knowing HTML is
    useful. Being proud of the code you produce is useful, but either
    making it such that no-one else is capable of maintaining it *or* just
    insisting on being the only one to maintain it is bad. That overly
    proud attitude can be held by those who don't know HTML just as well as
    by those who do know HTML though.

    > What have you gained from that? It took you took weeks to
    > adjust a button on a form because you had to muck with html and styles now
    > your project is late.


    Again, that's a straw man.

    > But oh, you still own the code. But you haven't earned
    > your paycheck because a company paying for that kind of productivity will
    > not be around tomorrow. If you have the knowledge to learn a high level
    > language, picking up HTML is a snap. It isn't even considered a language,
    > because it lacks control structures. Again, the point of learning stuff is
    > that it can help you solve problems later. Show me an example where learning
    > HTML can help me solve a problem later, that I could not have otherwise
    > figured out or fixed in a timely fashion.
    >
    > waiting...


    Gosh, you gave me a whole blank line in which to intimately know the
    problems that confront you every day? Thanks... (Fortunately I'd
    already answered it earlier in this post, of course.)

    I'll give you an example where having learned GUI coding from theory
    rather than from dragging and dropping would have helped though - you
    would never have needed to ask the question about threading earlier,
    because you'd have learned that theory when doing the background
    reading in the first place.

    > I don't want to sound hash but this is a painful issue for me. It really is.
    > I walk over to a developers desk and she is using Visual Studio as a
    > glorified notepad. Now why did that company invest thousands of dollars in a
    > product like that when all it is good for is a word editor? You tell me.


    So you've got some bad apples in your team. That's not my problem, nor
    is it a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath-water and claim
    that knowing how to do things by hand is useless. If you had a
    programmer who insisted on doing everything in VB.NET (if the rest of
    you were using C#) and happened to take a long time to do it as well,
    would you claim that VB.NET was obsolete and useless too?

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Nov 4, 2003
    #13
  14. John Timbers

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    > it, debug it etc. It means you have better ideas of the capabilities of
    > browsers for layout, etc. It gives you a clearer picture of what's
    > possible, so you could then (if you wish) try to express that to
    > VS.NET.


    wrong, because asp.net makes it that you don't have to play with this type
    of grunge code anymore. why are you still trying to hold on to it.

    > And yet I use it to solve problems very often. If the page I was
    > working on didn't look how I wanted it to look (or only looked correct
    > in Mozilla, not IE) then I could look at the HTML and figure out what's
    > wrong.


    got a point there. i'll give you that.

    > That doesn't mean that the guys developing the presentation shouldn't
    > know HTML.


    You don't have a good argument here. Knowing it just for knowing it sake is
    not productive.

    > Why not? It's improving their product by making it more maintainable. I

    certainly not. you never have to muck with wizard code most of the time so
    that kills the question of maintainability.

    > You owe me a buck. I think it's beneficial to have *some* idea what
    > goes on at a processor level, but there's no need to know any
    > particular instruction set unless you're getting down to performance
    > details the like of which I haven't required.

    An idea is good. You are pushing the learn HTML completely. Now that aint
    *some* idea is it?


    > That's another fault, and one which doesn't have anything to whether or
    > not using an IDE is absolutely necessary, or whether knowing HTML is
    > useful. Being proud of the code you produce is useful, but either
    > making it such that no-one else is capable of maintaining it *or* just
    > insisting on being the only one to maintain it is bad. That overly
    > proud attitude can be held by those who don't know HTML just as well as
    > by those who do know HTML though.

    You lost me on that left turn here.

    > Gosh, you gave me a whole blank line in which to intimately know the
    > problems that confront you every day? Thanks... (Fortunately I'd
    > already answered it earlier in this post, of course.)


    well I'm sorry that I had to spill my beans but this stuff is really
    frustrating to me and it doesn't help to see those same attitudes being
    pushed by you either. It causes problems, problems that I have to deal with,
    problems of productivity and wasted effort.


    > I'll give you an example where having learned GUI coding from theory
    > rather than from dragging and dropping would have helped though - you
    > would never have needed to ask the question about threading earlier,
    > because you'd have learned that theory when doing the background
    > reading in the first place.


    Is that a cheap shot? a sucker punch? It sure feels like that to me. I ask
    the questions I do...oh well, I'm letting this one go. It aint worth it.

    > So you've got some bad apples in your team.

    I don't. I won't admit to it.

    > that knowing how to do things by hand is useless. If you had a
    > programmer who insisted on doing everything in VB.NET (if the rest of
    > you were using C#) and happened to take a long time to do it as well,
    > would you claim that VB.NET was obsolete and useless too?


    As a manager I would. It is saying to me you need to try a different
    environment to get productivity up.
    You know it is about profit and loss at the end of the day. Nothing else
    matters to the business but that.

    > Again, that's a straw man.

    It's not a straw, I suffere thru it everyday. How can it be a straw?

    > might just as well say that you should go through every line of code in
    > a debugger in your own time if you want to do it


    THAT"S A CHEAP SHOT!!!
    We already dealt with that thread already. Why bring it up now. I've learned
    GUnit and made repairs to my approach to debugging. You don't need to rub it
    in.

    --


    -----------
    Got TidBits?
    Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > Or how about this: I really recommend you learn HTML to do
    > > > > web programming so you understand how things work inside a web page.

    >
    > > Absolutely not. Learning html is pointless. Absolutely pointless. I

    don't
    > > know HTML. I could care less about it, its wasted effort.

    >
    > How do you know it would be wasted? You've got nothing to compare your
    > current situation with.
    >
    > > I do know how to
    > > introduce a line break and a line feed - basic stuff - that's all you

    really
    > > need to know. Why learn dead technology?

    >
    > So that you can analyse what's been produced automatically, and improve
    > it, debug it etc. It means you have better ideas of the capabilities of
    > browsers for layout, etc. It gives you a clearer picture of what's
    > possible, so you could then (if you wish) try to express that to
    > VS.NET.
    >
    > > There is nothing to be gained by
    > > learning it outside of a mind exercise. It's not a tool you can use to

    solve
    > > any problem with so it shouldn't be in your bag of toys.

    >
    > And yet I use it to solve problems very often. If the page I was
    > working on didn't look how I wanted it to look (or only looked correct
    > in Mozilla, not IE) then I could look at the HTML and figure out what's
    > wrong.
    >
    > > The whole point of
    > > asp.net is to insulate the programmer from this drudgery.

    >
    > The main point of ASP.NET, to my mind, is to enable clear separation of
    > presentation from business logic, to allow rich use of the framework in
    > both places (although as little as possible in the presentation logic).
    > That doesn't mean that the guys developing the presentation shouldn't
    > know HTML.
    >
    > > Don't confuse html
    > > with asp.net. Control writers need to know html because in that case, it

    can
    > > be used as a tool to solve performance and optmization bottlenecks which
    > > occur when rendering objects clientside. A programmer absolutely does

    not
    > > need to know it.

    >
    > I still couldn't disagree more.
    >
    > > Can it give an advantage if you know it? I have yet to see
    > > that because the ASP.NET model abstracts this process. It's a completely
    > > different ballgame from ASP classic. Different rules apply.

    >
    > It's a different ballgame, but that doesn't mean it's useless to know
    > HTML.
    >
    > > Let me ask you this: Do you write your own controls before you use what

    VS
    > > has to offer because it helps you 'understand' controls properly?

    >
    > I haven't written my own controls yet, but I would if .NET didn't
    > happen to provide one that I wanted.
    >
    > > Rhetorical, because you may indeed have done it, but would you recommend
    > > that method to a worker bee out there?

    >
    > No - but I'd recommend understanding the event model and the code that
    > VS.NET generates.
    >
    > > > You write the boiler plate code to start with, then *maybe* you let

    the
    > > > tool do it at a later date, once you understand what it will be doing
    > > > for you. (You may, like me, choose to end up writing all your GUI code
    > > > by hand anyway, just to get more maintainable code in the long run.)

    > >
    > > That is actually an activity you can do on your own free time. A company
    > > should not pay you for these services.

    >
    > Why not? It's improving their product by making it more maintainable. I
    > might just as well say that you should go through every line of code in
    > a debugger in your own time if you want to do it - it's not something
    > *I* need to do, so why should any company pay you to do it?
    >
    > > I don't see how you writing your own
    > > GUI code makes it more maintainable in the long run.

    >
    > The code VS.NET produces is much less readable than hand-written, well-
    > commented, well-structured code.
    >
    > > > Again, I couldn't disagree more. If all you know how to do is drag
    > > > things around on the form designer, you're utterly stuck as soon as
    > > > anything goes wrong.

    >
    > > why would I be stuck? what good would html knowledge do for me to get me

    out
    > > of that sticky situation?

    >
    > It would help you to work out why the presentation wasn't what it
    > should be!
    >
    > > The point is, this level of programming is obsolete.

    >
    > I beg to differ, and I believe that being able to understand what
    > VS.NET produces makes me more useful to my company and thus more
    > employable too.
    >
    > > Do you come from the same school recommending programmers learn
    > > assembly? I bet a buck you do.

    >
    > You owe me a buck. I think it's beneficial to have *some* idea what
    > goes on at a processor level, but there's no need to know any
    > particular instruction set unless you're getting down to performance
    > details the like of which I haven't required.
    >
    > > Do it on your own time, it doesn't help you
    > > write more efficient code in the long or the short run and a company
    > > shouldn't foot that bill. The point of G5 languages is to insulate the
    > > developer from gutter work, so they can concentrate on implementing

    business
    > > logic. Same thing for ASP.NET and HTML. Otherwise we can all go back to
    > > writing assembler.

    >
    > I've certainly never heard HTML likened to assembly code before now.
    >
    > > > It sounds like you basically have some slow programmers - it's
    > > > perfectly possible to code accurately and fast outside an IDE.

    > >
    > > It could well be the case. But the argument thrown at me is 'I own the

    code.
    > > I wrote it.'

    >
    > That's another fault, and one which doesn't have anything to whether or
    > not using an IDE is absolutely necessary, or whether knowing HTML is
    > useful. Being proud of the code you produce is useful, but either
    > making it such that no-one else is capable of maintaining it *or* just
    > insisting on being the only one to maintain it is bad. That overly
    > proud attitude can be held by those who don't know HTML just as well as
    > by those who do know HTML though.
    >
    > > What have you gained from that? It took you took weeks to
    > > adjust a button on a form because you had to muck with html and styles

    now
    > > your project is late.

    >
    > Again, that's a straw man.
    >
    > > But oh, you still own the code. But you haven't earned
    > > your paycheck because a company paying for that kind of productivity

    will
    > > not be around tomorrow. If you have the knowledge to learn a high level
    > > language, picking up HTML is a snap. It isn't even considered a

    language,
    > > because it lacks control structures. Again, the point of learning stuff

    is
    > > that it can help you solve problems later. Show me an example where

    learning
    > > HTML can help me solve a problem later, that I could not have otherwise
    > > figured out or fixed in a timely fashion.
    > >
    > > waiting...

    >
    > Gosh, you gave me a whole blank line in which to intimately know the
    > problems that confront you every day? Thanks... (Fortunately I'd
    > already answered it earlier in this post, of course.)
    >
    > I'll give you an example where having learned GUI coding from theory
    > rather than from dragging and dropping would have helped though - you
    > would never have needed to ask the question about threading earlier,
    > because you'd have learned that theory when doing the background
    > reading in the first place.
    >
    > > I don't want to sound hash but this is a painful issue for me. It really

    is.
    > > I walk over to a developers desk and she is using Visual Studio as a
    > > glorified notepad. Now why did that company invest thousands of dollars

    in a
    > > product like that when all it is good for is a word editor? You tell me.

    >
    > So you've got some bad apples in your team. That's not my problem, nor
    > is it a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath-water and claim
    > that knowing how to do things by hand is useless. If you had a
    > programmer who insisted on doing everything in VB.NET (if the rest of
    > you were using C#) and happened to take a long time to do it as well,
    > would you claim that VB.NET was obsolete and useless too?
    >
    > --
    > Jon Skeet - <>
    > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Alvin Bruney, Nov 4, 2003
    #14
  15. John Timbers

    Alan Pretre Guest

    "Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:...
    > Learning html is pointless. Absolutely pointless. I don't
    > know HTML. I could care less about it, its wasted effort. I do know how to
    > introduce a line break and a line feed - basic stuff - that's all you

    really
    > need to know. Why learn dead technology?


    Well for example how are you going to set focus to a control in ASP.NET?
    Fiddling with HTML and jscript on the client side is the only way right
    now...

    And just try to nest a table into a cell of another table in VS.NET's web
    designer.

    -- Alan
    Alan Pretre, Nov 4, 2003
    #15
  16. John Timbers

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    No, you don't need html for that. You need javascript. You absolutely need
    to learn Javascript. Javascript knows how to talk html so you don't have to.

    > And just try to nest a table into a cell of another table in VS.NET's web
    > designer.


    You can do this from the itemdatabound in codebehind.

    Sure you can do it with html, but you don't need to now because .net has
    provided more options which are easier and require less programming effort.
    I'd rather use attributes and server side event handles to impose my will on
    the browser than having to muck with HTML clientside to do it. There are
    solid reasons why microsoft is scraping the HTML standard.

    regards
    --


    -----------
    Got TidBits?
    Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
    "Alan Pretre" <no@spam> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote in
    > message news:...
    > > Learning html is pointless. Absolutely pointless. I don't
    > > know HTML. I could care less about it, its wasted effort. I do know how

    to
    > > introduce a line break and a line feed - basic stuff - that's all you

    > really
    > > need to know. Why learn dead technology?

    >
    > Well for example how are you going to set focus to a control in ASP.NET?
    > Fiddling with HTML and jscript on the client side is the only way right
    > now...
    >
    > And just try to nest a table into a cell of another table in VS.NET's web
    > designer.
    >
    > -- Alan
    >
    >
    Alvin Bruney, Nov 4, 2003
    #16
  17. Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > it, debug it etc. It means you have better ideas of the capabilities of
    > > browsers for layout, etc. It gives you a clearer picture of what's
    > > possible, so you could then (if you wish) try to express that to
    > > VS.NET.

    >
    > wrong, because asp.net makes it that you don't have to play with this type
    > of grunge code anymore. why are you still trying to hold on to it.


    It's still producing HTML. If you have no idea of what HTML is capable
    of, you're at a disadvantage to those who *do* know what it can do.

    > > And yet I use it to solve problems very often. If the page I was
    > > working on didn't look how I wanted it to look (or only looked correct
    > > in Mozilla, not IE) then I could look at the HTML and figure out what's
    > > wrong.

    >
    > got a point there. i'll give you that.
    >
    > > That doesn't mean that the guys developing the presentation shouldn't
    > > know HTML.

    >
    > You don't have a good argument here. Knowing it just for knowing it sake is
    > not productive.


    I never said it was just for the sake of knowing it though, did I? I
    presented what I believe the benefits to be.

    > > Why not? It's improving their product by making it more maintainable. I

    > certainly not. you never have to muck with wizard code most of the time so
    > that kills the question of maintainability.


    In my experience, most wizard code needs fixing up eventually, and you
    have a much better chance of that if you've got well-documented,
    readable code - which you don't get from the wizard.

    > > You owe me a buck. I think it's beneficial to have *some* idea what
    > > goes on at a processor level, but there's no need to know any
    > > particular instruction set unless you're getting down to performance
    > > details the like of which I haven't required.


    > An idea is good. You are pushing the learn HTML completely. Now that aint
    > *some* idea is it?


    You're the first one to mention "completely" here, AFAICR. I'm not
    saying you need to know every last bit - but being able to code up
    reasonable pages with some tables etc helps.

    > > That's another fault, and one which doesn't have anything to whether or
    > > not using an IDE is absolutely necessary, or whether knowing HTML is
    > > useful. Being proud of the code you produce is useful, but either
    > > making it such that no-one else is capable of maintaining it *or* just
    > > insisting on being the only one to maintain it is bad. That overly
    > > proud attitude can be held by those who don't know HTML just as well as
    > > by those who do know HTML though.


    > You lost me on that left turn here.


    I'm saying that you're placing the blame for excessive code pride on
    the doorstep of something unrelated.

    > > Gosh, you gave me a whole blank line in which to intimately know the
    > > problems that confront you every day? Thanks... (Fortunately I'd
    > > already answered it earlier in this post, of course.)

    >
    > well I'm sorry that I had to spill my beans but this stuff is really
    > frustrating to me and it doesn't help to see those same attitudes being
    > pushed by you either. It causes problems, problems that I have to deal with,
    > problems of productivity and wasted effort.


    No, the attitude I'm pushing doesn't cause problems. Having more
    knowledge doesn't cause problems. Just because the people you're having
    problems share some of my attitudes but are *also* causing problems
    doesn't mean it's the attitude that's at fault.

    > > I'll give you an example where having learned GUI coding from theory
    > > rather than from dragging and dropping would have helped though - you
    > > would never have needed to ask the question about threading earlier,
    > > because you'd have learned that theory when doing the background
    > > reading in the first place.

    >
    > Is that a cheap shot? a sucker punch? It sure feels like that to me. I ask
    > the questions I do...oh well, I'm letting this one go. It aint worth it.


    No, it's not a cheap shot at all - it's just an example of an advantage
    you might have had if you'd learned GUI coding from the basics rather
    than from a wizard.

    > > So you've got some bad apples in your team.

    > I don't. I won't admit to it.


    Well, I'd call someone who "took weeks to adjust a button on a form
    because you had to muck with html and styles" a bad apple on a
    development team. There's no need for that whatever tool they're using.

    > > that knowing how to do things by hand is useless. If you had a
    > > programmer who insisted on doing everything in VB.NET (if the rest of
    > > you were using C#) and happened to take a long time to do it as well,
    > > would you claim that VB.NET was obsolete and useless too?

    >
    > As a manager I would. It is saying to me you need to try a different
    > environment to get productivity up.
    > You know it is about profit and loss at the end of the day. Nothing else
    > matters to the business but that.


    But don't you see that VB.NET wouldn't be made obsolete by that
    decision? It wouldn't be appropriate for that particular environment,
    but it certainly wouldn't make it obsolete.

    > > Again, that's a straw man.

    > It's not a straw, I suffere thru it everyday. How can it be a straw?


    It's a straw man in the same manner as your earlier argument - you're
    claiming that it's the knowledge of HTML that made someone take weeks
    to move a button. That's a bogus link, IMO.

    > > might just as well say that you should go through every line of code in
    > > a debugger in your own time if you want to do it

    >
    > THAT"S A CHEAP SHOT!!!


    It really wasn't intended to be.

    > We already dealt with that thread already. Why bring it up now. I've learned
    > GUnit and made repairs to my approach to debugging. You don't need to rub it
    > in.


    I brought it up to demonstrate that what is valued by one person isn't
    always valued by another. I value learning new skills by dealing with
    simple situations first and learning a reasonable amount about the
    underlying technology; you value (or at least *did* value) much more
    intensive debugging than I do. I don't see why either shouldn't be done
    on the company time.

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Nov 4, 2003
    #17
  18. John Timbers

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    > It's still producing HTML. If you have no idea of what HTML is capable
    > of, you're at a disadvantage to those who *do* know what it can do.


    That's the point I am making, you gain no advantages. Ok, so they know HTML
    and I don't. Big deal. If you are still coding HTML you are wasting your
    time. My tidbits website was done in html by the way from red core to black
    sky. Guess who wrote the code? Microsoft Office. Have I mucked with the
    code? No. Did I look at it? Yes, to put a scroll on a div tag. Did I need to
    know HTML for that? No, I only needed to know what a div tag is and how to
    attach scrolling which I know from javascript. Do I understand what is going
    on under the hood. No. It works. I could care less if it was written in
    greek. Office takes care of that so I can concentrate on presenting my
    ideas. That is the whole point of productivity. Your entire shift is that
    knowing HTML would have made it easier or more productive for me to put up
    this website. You're grasping here. Seriously, you are grasping and it aint
    looking good.

    > It's a straw man in the same manner as your earlier argument - you're
    > claiming that it's the knowledge of HTML that made someone take weeks
    > to move a button. That's a bogus link, IMO.


    It's not a straw. You are dead wrong. Can't you see that the knowledge of
    HTML is interferring with productivity. Can't you see that without that
    knowledge, a better decision would have been made. It's pretty clear here.

    --


    -----------
    Got TidBits?
    Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > it, debug it etc. It means you have better ideas of the capabilities

    of
    > > > browsers for layout, etc. It gives you a clearer picture of what's
    > > > possible, so you could then (if you wish) try to express that to
    > > > VS.NET.

    > >
    > > wrong, because asp.net makes it that you don't have to play with this

    type
    > > of grunge code anymore. why are you still trying to hold on to it.

    >
    > It's still producing HTML. If you have no idea of what HTML is capable
    > of, you're at a disadvantage to those who *do* know what it can do.
    >
    > > > And yet I use it to solve problems very often. If the page I was
    > > > working on didn't look how I wanted it to look (or only looked correct
    > > > in Mozilla, not IE) then I could look at the HTML and figure out

    what's
    > > > wrong.

    > >
    > > got a point there. i'll give you that.
    > >
    > > > That doesn't mean that the guys developing the presentation shouldn't
    > > > know HTML.

    > >
    > > You don't have a good argument here. Knowing it just for knowing it sake

    is
    > > not productive.

    >
    > I never said it was just for the sake of knowing it though, did I? I
    > presented what I believe the benefits to be.
    >
    > > > Why not? It's improving their product by making it more maintainable.

    I
    > > certainly not. you never have to muck with wizard code most of the time

    so
    > > that kills the question of maintainability.

    >
    > In my experience, most wizard code needs fixing up eventually, and you
    > have a much better chance of that if you've got well-documented,
    > readable code - which you don't get from the wizard.
    >
    > > > You owe me a buck. I think it's beneficial to have *some* idea what
    > > > goes on at a processor level, but there's no need to know any
    > > > particular instruction set unless you're getting down to performance
    > > > details the like of which I haven't required.

    >
    > > An idea is good. You are pushing the learn HTML completely. Now that

    aint
    > > *some* idea is it?

    >
    > You're the first one to mention "completely" here, AFAICR. I'm not
    > saying you need to know every last bit - but being able to code up
    > reasonable pages with some tables etc helps.
    >
    > > > That's another fault, and one which doesn't have anything to whether

    or
    > > > not using an IDE is absolutely necessary, or whether knowing HTML is
    > > > useful. Being proud of the code you produce is useful, but either
    > > > making it such that no-one else is capable of maintaining it *or* just
    > > > insisting on being the only one to maintain it is bad. That overly
    > > > proud attitude can be held by those who don't know HTML just as well

    as
    > > > by those who do know HTML though.

    >
    > > You lost me on that left turn here.

    >
    > I'm saying that you're placing the blame for excessive code pride on
    > the doorstep of something unrelated.
    >
    > > > Gosh, you gave me a whole blank line in which to intimately know the
    > > > problems that confront you every day? Thanks... (Fortunately I'd
    > > > already answered it earlier in this post, of course.)

    > >
    > > well I'm sorry that I had to spill my beans but this stuff is really
    > > frustrating to me and it doesn't help to see those same attitudes being
    > > pushed by you either. It causes problems, problems that I have to deal

    with,
    > > problems of productivity and wasted effort.

    >
    > No, the attitude I'm pushing doesn't cause problems. Having more
    > knowledge doesn't cause problems. Just because the people you're having
    > problems share some of my attitudes but are *also* causing problems
    > doesn't mean it's the attitude that's at fault.
    >
    > > > I'll give you an example where having learned GUI coding from theory
    > > > rather than from dragging and dropping would have helped though - you
    > > > would never have needed to ask the question about threading earlier,
    > > > because you'd have learned that theory when doing the background
    > > > reading in the first place.

    > >
    > > Is that a cheap shot? a sucker punch? It sure feels like that to me. I

    ask
    > > the questions I do...oh well, I'm letting this one go. It aint worth it.

    >
    > No, it's not a cheap shot at all - it's just an example of an advantage
    > you might have had if you'd learned GUI coding from the basics rather
    > than from a wizard.
    >
    > > > So you've got some bad apples in your team.

    > > I don't. I won't admit to it.

    >
    > Well, I'd call someone who "took weeks to adjust a button on a form
    > because you had to muck with html and styles" a bad apple on a
    > development team. There's no need for that whatever tool they're using.
    >
    > > > that knowing how to do things by hand is useless. If you had a
    > > > programmer who insisted on doing everything in VB.NET (if the rest of
    > > > you were using C#) and happened to take a long time to do it as well,
    > > > would you claim that VB.NET was obsolete and useless too?

    > >
    > > As a manager I would. It is saying to me you need to try a different
    > > environment to get productivity up.
    > > You know it is about profit and loss at the end of the day. Nothing else
    > > matters to the business but that.

    >
    > But don't you see that VB.NET wouldn't be made obsolete by that
    > decision? It wouldn't be appropriate for that particular environment,
    > but it certainly wouldn't make it obsolete.
    >
    > > > Again, that's a straw man.

    > > It's not a straw, I suffere thru it everyday. How can it be a straw?

    >
    > It's a straw man in the same manner as your earlier argument - you're
    > claiming that it's the knowledge of HTML that made someone take weeks
    > to move a button. That's a bogus link, IMO.
    >
    > > > might just as well say that you should go through every line of code

    in
    > > > a debugger in your own time if you want to do it

    > >
    > > THAT"S A CHEAP SHOT!!!

    >
    > It really wasn't intended to be.
    >
    > > We already dealt with that thread already. Why bring it up now. I've

    learned
    > > GUnit and made repairs to my approach to debugging. You don't need to

    rub it
    > > in.

    >
    > I brought it up to demonstrate that what is valued by one person isn't
    > always valued by another. I value learning new skills by dealing with
    > simple situations first and learning a reasonable amount about the
    > underlying technology; you value (or at least *did* value) much more
    > intensive debugging than I do. I don't see why either shouldn't be done
    > on the company time.
    >
    > --
    > Jon Skeet - <>
    > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Alvin Bruney, Nov 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > It's still producing HTML. If you have no idea of what HTML is capable
    > > of, you're at a disadvantage to those who *do* know what it can do.

    >
    > That's the point I am making, you gain no advantages. Ok, so they know HTML
    > and I don't.


    They know what it can *do*, not just what it is in itself.

    > Big deal. If you are still coding HTML you are wasting your
    > time. My tidbits website was done in html by the way from red core to black
    > sky. Guess who wrote the code? Microsoft Office. Have I mucked with the
    > code? No. Did I look at it? Yes, to put a scroll on a div tag.


    I've just had a look at the front page. It's *really* messy HTML (as
    office tends to produce). Someone with fairly basic HTML and maybe CSS
    skilils could have written the same page in a way which took a lot less
    bandwidth and was more easily maintainable. This is nothing you've done
    wrong in Office, by the way - it just doesn't create nice HTML.

    I often need to update my website with small changes. I tend to do that
    directly, by using SSH to go in and edit the file in situ. This is
    significantly quicker than having to FTP it over to the Unix box, etc.

    I do larger amounts of work in Eclipse, using its scp plugin to upload
    it and generally synchronize, but just launching Eclipse (or Office)
    takes longer than some of the changes I need to make. Would I be able
    to do that as quickly if I had masses of autogenerated HTML to wade
    through? Not a chance.

    > Did I need to
    > know HTML for that? No, I only needed to know what a div tag is and how to
    > attach scrolling which I know from javascript. Do I understand what is going
    > on under the hood. No. It works. I could care less if it was written in
    > greek. Office takes care of that so I can concentrate on presenting my
    > ideas. That is the whole point of productivity. Your entire shift is that
    > knowing HTML would have made it easier or more productive for me to put up
    > this website. You're grasping here. Seriously, you are grasping and it aint
    > looking good.


    I care about bandwidth - I care about people on narrow-band
    connections. Your front page must take about 8 seconds to load on a
    dial-up connection, when it really, really didn't have to - you've just
    lost users. Now, that may not matter for a site like tidbits, but I'd
    *certainly* care about it if that were my company's front page. I'd
    also care if my company website were sucking up large amounts of
    unnecessary bandwidth - admittedly most websites' bandwidth
    requirements will be dominated by large downloads and pictures, but
    pages which are much larger than they need to be really don't help.

    > > It's a straw man in the same manner as your earlier argument - you're
    > > claiming that it's the knowledge of HTML that made someone take weeks
    > > to move a button. That's a bogus link, IMO.

    >
    > It's not a straw. You are dead wrong. Can't you see that the knowledge of
    > HTML is interferring with productivity. Can't you see that without that
    > knowledge, a better decision would have been made. It's pretty clear here.


    I really don't think it is. Having more knowledge should never be a
    disadvantage. Are you seriously suggesting that you'd rather have
    someone with *less* experience rather than more? That doesn't make
    sense to me - unless that means they have other faults which make that
    knowledge a problem (e.g. they insist on doing things a particular way
    which harms the business). That's not the fault of the extra knowledge,
    it's the fault of the person abusing that knowledge.

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Nov 4, 2003
    #19
  20. John Timbers

    Alvin Bruney Guest

    > I've just had a look at the front page. It's *really* messy HTML (as
    > office tends to produce). Someone with fairly basic HTML and maybe CSS
    > skilils could have written the same page in a way which took a lot less
    > bandwidth and was more easily maintainable. This is nothing you've done
    > wrong in Office, by the way - it just doesn't create nice HTML.


    Yes you have a very good point there. very good indeed. best thing i heard
    all week. It's messy. Hell, it scared me and then i blamed it on HTML. :)
    The bandwidth point is good in a class room but it's pointless in a
    practical world. There's dsl and cable and satellite. These things are
    non-issues. But I suppose it's still an academic point and i'll give it to
    you.

    > dial-up connection, when it really, really didn't have to - you've just
    > lost users.

    It's time to get dsl, is what i say to them. if all you can afford is dial
    up, then you aren't part of my target audience.

    That's not the fault of the extra knowledge,
    > it's the fault of the person abusing that knowledge.

    well said. it's abuse of knowledge and i need to be careful here with what i
    say but it drives me up a wall and straight to the toilet to puke when i see
    developers using and swearing by primitive tools all because they 'own the
    code'. That's using knowledge in the reverse. Its rather obvious now that i
    have issues with this because i keep having to fight with 'developers' about
    going the more productive way. it's not right. and i've largely given up. i
    let them do what they want to do and have late projects. I swear i am
    telling the truth when this developer decides to build a button control
    using GDI instead of dragging and dropping a button on a form. I'm not
    making this up. It probably doesn't happen in your world, but it's rotten
    here. and you need to be sympathetic to it.
    --


    -----------
    Got TidBits?
    Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alvin Bruney <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com> wrote:
    > > > It's still producing HTML. If you have no idea of what HTML is capable
    > > > of, you're at a disadvantage to those who *do* know what it can do.

    > >
    > > That's the point I am making, you gain no advantages. Ok, so they know

    HTML
    > > and I don't.

    >
    > They know what it can *do*, not just what it is in itself.
    >
    > > Big deal. If you are still coding HTML you are wasting your
    > > time. My tidbits website was done in html by the way from red core to

    black
    > > sky. Guess who wrote the code? Microsoft Office. Have I mucked with the
    > > code? No. Did I look at it? Yes, to put a scroll on a div tag.

    >
    > I've just had a look at the front page. It's *really* messy HTML (as
    > office tends to produce). Someone with fairly basic HTML and maybe CSS
    > skilils could have written the same page in a way which took a lot less
    > bandwidth and was more easily maintainable. This is nothing you've done
    > wrong in Office, by the way - it just doesn't create nice HTML.
    >
    > I often need to update my website with small changes. I tend to do that
    > directly, by using SSH to go in and edit the file in situ. This is
    > significantly quicker than having to FTP it over to the Unix box, etc.
    >
    > I do larger amounts of work in Eclipse, using its scp plugin to upload
    > it and generally synchronize, but just launching Eclipse (or Office)
    > takes longer than some of the changes I need to make. Would I be able
    > to do that as quickly if I had masses of autogenerated HTML to wade
    > through? Not a chance.
    >
    > > Did I need to
    > > know HTML for that? No, I only needed to know what a div tag is and how

    to
    > > attach scrolling which I know from javascript. Do I understand what is

    going
    > > on under the hood. No. It works. I could care less if it was written in
    > > greek. Office takes care of that so I can concentrate on presenting my
    > > ideas. That is the whole point of productivity. Your entire shift is

    that
    > > knowing HTML would have made it easier or more productive for me to put

    up
    > > this website. You're grasping here. Seriously, you are grasping and it

    aint
    > > looking good.

    >
    > I care about bandwidth - I care about people on narrow-band
    > connections. Your front page must take about 8 seconds to load on a
    > dial-up connection, when it really, really didn't have to - you've just
    > lost users. Now, that may not matter for a site like tidbits, but I'd
    > *certainly* care about it if that were my company's front page. I'd
    > also care if my company website were sucking up large amounts of
    > unnecessary bandwidth - admittedly most websites' bandwidth
    > requirements will be dominated by large downloads and pictures, but
    > pages which are much larger than they need to be really don't help.
    >
    > > > It's a straw man in the same manner as your earlier argument - you're
    > > > claiming that it's the knowledge of HTML that made someone take weeks
    > > > to move a button. That's a bogus link, IMO.

    > >
    > > It's not a straw. You are dead wrong. Can't you see that the knowledge

    of
    > > HTML is interferring with productivity. Can't you see that without that
    > > knowledge, a better decision would have been made. It's pretty clear

    here.
    >
    > I really don't think it is. Having more knowledge should never be a
    > disadvantage. Are you seriously suggesting that you'd rather have
    > someone with *less* experience rather than more? That doesn't make
    > sense to me - unless that means they have other faults which make that
    > knowledge a problem (e.g. they insist on doing things a particular way
    > which harms the business). That's not the fault of the extra knowledge,
    > it's the fault of the person abusing that knowledge.
    >
    > --
    > Jon Skeet - <>
    > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
    Alvin Bruney, Nov 4, 2003
    #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. wh
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    484
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Jan 16, 2004
  2. Thirumalai
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    624
    Thirumalai
    May 22, 2006
  3. xman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
  4. xman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    553
    Victor Bazarov
    Aug 17, 2005
  5. baibaichen

    trivial or non-trivial object

    baibaichen, Jan 12, 2006, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    878
    osmium
    Jan 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page