The worst is over I'm finally MCSD certified and as Microsoft Certified
Solution Developer uncle Bill 'guarantees that I'm able to :
Quote
Analyze and design leading-edge enterprise solutions with Microsoft
development tools, technologies, and platforms.
(Ok you may stop applauding , .... please stop there's more to come )
My certified skills are :
a Developing and Implementing Web Applications with Microsoft Visual
C# .NET and Microsoft Visual Studio .NET
b Developing and Implementing Windows-based Applications with Microsoft
Visual C# .NET and Microsoft Visual Studio .NET
c Developing XML Web Services and Server Components with Microsoft
Visual C# and the Microsoft .NET Framework
d Analyzing Requirements and Defining Microsoft .NET Solution
Architectures
e Implementing Security for Applications with Microsoft Visual C# .NET
The question is why instead of jumping in the air that i gathered so
much knowledge ,that was generously supported by my employer , and
unbelievable 30% discount for purchase of Visual Studio 2005
Professional i feel so low ?
How it is possible that I'm unable to appreciate the power of .net
platform
combined with the cutting-edge strength of the newest and the most
modern language in the world , blessed by the almighty Microsoft
c-sharp that will boost your performance so much that combined with
Visual Studio 2005 and SQL server you will be able to write your
applications so fast that only limit will be speed of your typing .
I'm totally out of clues ,or maybe Lisp is so contagious that I become
hard to impress ?
You got a hint that you gonna lose the job
if you don't get certified , rught ?
But cheer up at least they payed you for the courses,
i had to pay from my own pocket .
>blessed by the almighty Microsoft
>c-sharp that will boost your performance so much that combined with
>Visual Studio 2005 and SQL server you will be able to write your
>applications so fast that only limit will be speed of your typing .
I could say the same thing for C++ (in the highly OOP style I have
become accustomed to programming in), but I don't consider it a good
thing. If typing is the bottleneck in your development cycle then
either you are a slow typer or you have a verbose language (love those
design patterns :-) ... much better to have a language where you are
limitted only by your thinking speed, preferably with that thinking
going mostly into algorithms.
basqi schrieb:
>
> The worst is over I'm finally MCSD certified and as Microsoft Certified
> Solution Developer uncle Bill 'guarantees that I'm able to :
Great.
Now, what I missed: Why do not one of the commercial Lisp Vendors have
such a nice (sell-able) certificate? Not that this is a nice feature in
printed publicity, more, one can certificate what a business-man want to
see (I'm sure, Lisp can do that). At least, there is some money ...
stefan
out of sight = out of mind
lin8080 wrote:
> basqi schrieb:
> >
> > The worst is over I'm finally MCSD certified and as Microsoft Certified
> > Solution Developer uncle Bill 'guarantees that I'm able to :
>
> Great.
>
> Now, what I missed: Why do not one of the commercial Lisp Vendors have
> such a nice (sell-able) certificate? Not that this is a nice feature in
> printed publicity, more, one can certificate what a business-man want to
> see (I'm sure, Lisp can do that). At least, there is some money ...
>
> stefan
>
> out of sight = out of mind
Franz offers something about Allegro but i don't know
anybody gone through ?
http://www.franz.com/services/classes/index.lhtml
·········@gmail.com writes:
> One thing I could never understand about .NET is why Microsoft is so
> focused on bytecode.
They want to get away from their dependence on the Intel monopoly.
--
My .sig file sucks. Can anyone recommend a better one?
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> ·········@gmail.com writes:
>
> > One thing I could never understand about .NET is why Microsoft is so
> > focused on bytecode.
>
> They want to get away from their dependence on the Intel monopoly.
>
They were doing that when they had NT for PowerPC and MIPS. They're
obsessed with bytecode because they can control (and presumably license)
every aspect of the virtual machine. The PPC and MIPS ports for NT
weren't giving them that.
Remember, the primary problem that .NET is intended to solve is keeping
the monopoly intact. Its step 2 in their reponse to Java.
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
> Remember, the primary problem that .NET is intended to solve is keeping
> the monopoly intact. Its step 2 in their reponse to Java.
>
> Gregm
The only problems that .Net is trying to solve are ones
that are made by .Net itself.
Why making VM when you don't want it to run on multiple platforms ?
Portability between the Windows crup .
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> One thing I could never understand about .NET is why Microsoft is so
> focused on bytecode.
Because the bytecode is standardized, it's more portable than, um, fasls?
I think having a machine-independent standard format is a good idea, and
implementations can do what they want with it, interpret, or even create
exe files and store those somewhere, put everything into an image, etc.
--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> > One thing I could never understand about .NET is why Microsoft is so
> > focused on bytecode.
>
> Because the bytecode is standardized, it's more portable than, um, fasls?
Try to look at it from Microsoft's point of view.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>>> One thing I could never understand about .NET is why Microsoft is so
>>> focused on bytecode.
>> Because the bytecode is standardized, it's more portable than, um, fasls?
>
> Try to look at it from Microsoft's point of view.
Well, MS is patenting APIs so the libraries only exist for Windows.
Other than that the CLR seems quite portable.
I don't see a real advantage for MS in the bytecode standard, other than
that their platform gives users the advantage of mutually compatible
bytecode files (something Lisp doesn't have). It's easy to mix
components from different parties that way, even without source.
--
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it.
Dogbert
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> I don't see a real advantage for MS in the bytecode standard, other than
> that their platform gives users the advantage of mutually compatible
> bytecode files (something Lisp doesn't have).
Switching processor architectures becomes easier. Even if that's only a
theoretical advantage, it gives Microsoft a better position in
negotiations with Intel. (Just guessing.)
Pascal
--
OOPSLA'05 tutorial on generic functions & the CLOS Metaobject Protocol
++++ see http://p-cos.net/oopsla05-tutorial.html for more details ++++
·········@gmail.com schrieb:
> One thing I could never understand about .NET is why Microsoft is so
> focused on bytecode.
As I have read, the same people/developer who did ms-java in early days
now do .net. Maybe this is one of the main reason?
stefan
bytecode is not that bad and I guess VMs have a great future.