A bit of fun for programmers

[NotAllThere]

Last year, I wrote a Webservice, generated the WSDL files handed them over to Microsoft Certified .net programmers (who happened to be MS employees). They kept asking for all sorts of other information, spent days on it, and still couldn't get it to work.

I handed the same WSDLs to a C# programmer. A few minutes later, his program was consuming the service.

( FFS, I had bloody SAP consuming the service after only ten minutes work ).

So when the blogger said "Microsoft very intentionally ... created .NET to be as different as possible from everything else out there, keeping the programmer far away from the details such that they’re wholly and utterly dependent on Microsoft’s truly amazing suite of programming tools to do all the thinking for them." - it certainly has the ring of truth.

[doodab]

There seems to be two schools of thought on the meaning of .Net

#1) The .Net is not a language club
#2) People who use ASP and who just refer to this as .Net, which often gets picked up on by the wider population.

It's ironic that it's people that actually work with the technology who are largely responsible for the confusion.

[eek]

Last year, I wrote a Webservice, generated the WSDL files handed them over to Microsoft Certified .net programmers (who happened to be MS employees). They kept asking for all sorts of other information, spent days on it, and still couldn't get it to work.

Lets not go there with Microsoft staff/contractors. I've got a prime example at the moment relating to a SQL Server 2005 database (here's a hint, Hyperthreading is a stupid idea with a 2005 database and a 2 second google search will confirm the issue).

[DimPrawn]

Lets not go there with Microsoft staff/contractors. I've got a prime example at the moment relating to a SQL Server 2005 database (here's a hint, Hyperthreading is a stupid idea with a 2005 database and a 2 second google search will confirm the issue).

Hypertheading is a tulipe idea fullstop. Multicore yes, hyerthreading no. Turn off hyperthreading at the bios level.

[2BIT]

stopped reading half way though, not because I'm a .net evangelist but because it was short-sighted and overall pretty boring, surprised at the amount of comments its generated

[darmstadt]

I didn't know .NET was so mature:

I’ve made a living off of .NET for the past 7 of 13 years as a pro, and 26 as a hobbyist

[doodab]

Hypertheading is a tulipe idea fullstop. Multicore yes, hyerthreading no. Turn off hyperthreading at the bios level.

No it's not. It's a completely sensible approach when you have highly concurrent applications that spend a lot of time waiting on non-CPU resources. That's why some POWER & SPARC chips have it as well and even ARM are looking into it.

[2BIT]

I think the key to what he's saying is his pointer to Joel Spolsky himself laments schools teaching Java, in which Joel says:

I like Joels' stuff and his blog on How MS lost the API sums up perfectly for me why .NET (or insert MS innovation here) is bad when he talks about the MSDN camp...

but that said I've liked what I've done with .NET so far, some of the deployment stuff is a bit cack but no worse than Java (which I know nothing about) - tools for the job, I'm delivery orientated so language evangelism bores me

[d000hg]

I'm wholeheartedly in agreement that a knowledge of computing fundamentals is a good thing, but wholeheartedly in disagreement that you should be using those fundamentals directly in your work in 95% of projects.

Also, hyperthreading does work in some cases, but the problem is they show up as regular cores and are not suitable for general multi-core work, only specialised cases.

[DimPrawn]

No it's not. It's a completely sensible approach when you have highly concurrent applications that spend a lot of time waiting on non-CPU resources. That's why some POWER & SPARC chips have it as well and even ARM are looking into it.

Sorry, I'm from a Windows server background (.NET, BizTalk, SQL Server etc).

Checklist: Configuring Windows Server


Turn off hyperthreading on all computers running BizTalk Server and SQL Server in the BizTalk Server environment.

• It is critical that hyperthreading be turned off for computers running BizTalk Server. This is a BIOS setting, typically found in the Processor settings of the BIOS setup. Hyperthreading makes the server appear to have more processors/processor cores than it actually does; however, hyperthreaded processors typically provide between 20% and 30% of the performance of a physical processor/processor core. When BizTalk Server counts the number of processors to adjust its self-tuning algorithms, the hyperthreaded processors cause these adjustments to be skewed, which is detrimental to overall performance.
• Hyperthreading should be turned off for SQL Server computers because applications that can cause high levels of contention (such as BizTalk Server) can cause decreased performance in a hyper-threaded environment on a SQL Server computer.