Reply to: FFS Microsoft

[TheMonkey]

No mankyboy - the point of writing commercial software *is* to get rich - after all it's not rocket science or an art form - really its just putting together lego bricks.

Yeah at the cost of the end users...

[AtW]

Can anyone, and I mean anyone, who does not think that Jabber is a retard post any words to that effect? ta.

[Jabberwocky]

Well a lot of people know better than Microsoft. Microsoft know how to get rich - not how to write software. Here are some fine examples:

Microsoft Windows 95-ME
Microsoft Commerce Server
Microsoft Content Management Server

Microsoft don't have any error checking and have some over-generic abstraction on half of their products. The abstraction is why we need a Quad Xeon to get something decent out of SQL Server 2005 integration services whereas a P75/32Mb with Perl/DBI has about the same throughput!

No mankyboy - the point of writing commercial software *is* to get rich - after all it's not rocket science or an art form - really its just putting together lego bricks.

[AtW]

That's why Generics are good - they still allow for abstraction, yet they give chance for compiler to generate better code: not sure how well they did it though but indications seem that Microsoft did a good job on those. Looking at IL code generated by C# compiler for one very tight loop and its like

Prepping it to be rewritten in hand optimised assembly - will be interesting to see if I get more than 3 times speed up.

[TheMonkey]

.NET is only good for one thing.


Making contractors rich.

I thank you.

This is true. I'm slowly getting rich.

I contract out .Net because it pays better. I use UNIX scripting languages on MySQL when I do my own stuff because the productivity is better therefore costing me less.

[TheMonkey]

So AtW knows better than Microsoft. One the one hand we have the largest company in the world which has made multi-billonaires of its founders and on the other we have AtW who has made fu*k all.

Hey AtW have you thought of going through all of MS software and removing all their error checking and abstraction. You will really speed things up in places and you could submit the changes as bug reports to MS.

Well a lot of people know better than Microsoft. Microsoft know how to get rich - not how to write software. Here are some fine examples:

Microsoft Windows 95-ME
Microsoft Commerce Server
Microsoft Content Management Server

Microsoft don't have any error checking and have some over-generic abstraction on half of their products. The abstraction is why we need a Quad Xeon to get something decent out of SQL Server 2005 integration services whereas a P75/32Mb with Perl/DBI has about the same throughput!

[DimPrawn]

.NET is only good for one thing.


Making contractors rich.

I thank you.

[mcquiggd]

I agree with Alexei

[AtW]

Wocky - go look at something shiny for a moment.

[Jabberwocky]

1.1 is stable enough, and 2.0 had some subtle garbage collector changes that I ranted about some months ago. But VS 2005 is much nice IDE

So AtW knows better than Microsoft. One the one hand we have the largest company in the world which has made multi-billonaires of its founders and on the other we have AtW who has made fu*k all.

Hey AtW have you thought of going through all of MS software and removing all their error checking and abstraction. You will really speed things up in places and you could submit the changes as bug reports to MS.

[AtW]

1.1 is stable enough, and 2.0 had some subtle garbage collector changes that I ranted about some months ago. But VS 2005 is much nice IDE

[TheMonkey]

Not tried profiling in 2.0 - still using legacy crap

[AtW]

I want to avoid explicit 2.0, even though my main build is done for 2.0, but 1.1 build is needed for profiler to work well - for some reasons it hungs in one place when build is 2.0.

YAWN. Shouldn't this be in technical?

No, because its a rant

[DimPrawn]

The whole of .NET was written by one guy named Rashish in India.

If you have anything to say, you can contact him on [email protected]

HTH

[The Lone Gunman]

YAWN. Shouldn't this be in technical?