<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Solo software development</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/07/16/solo-software-development/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/07/16/solo-software-development/</link>
	<description>The blog of John D. Cook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:10:06 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/07/16/solo-software-development/comment-page-1/#comment-21283</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=2670#comment-21283</guid>
		<description>We do have to be competent in more languages than are comfortable to master.  I just had a reminder of that yesterday when I took a skills test as a part of an interview for a job at a small company.  It required knowledge of seven languages plus the ability to set up and administer several environments and servers.  The test was extremely well-written, and it brought me to realize how weak I really am in a couple of those areas --- areas where I had thought I was getting fairly strong; I definitely found some places where I &quot;don&#039;t entirely understand what [I&#039;m] doing.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We do have to be competent in more languages than are comfortable to master.  I just had a reminder of that yesterday when I took a skills test as a part of an interview for a job at a small company.  It required knowledge of seven languages plus the ability to set up and administer several environments and servers.  The test was extremely well-written, and it brought me to realize how weak I really am in a couple of those areas &#8212; areas where I had thought I was getting fairly strong; I definitely found some places where I &#8220;don&#8217;t entirely understand what [I'm] doing.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yoav</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/07/16/solo-software-development/comment-page-1/#comment-21276</link>
		<dc:creator>Yoav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=2670#comment-21276</guid>
		<description>For software developers, learning new programming language is not a difficult process, still, what the difficulties are in understanding what these languages should provide - HTML + CSS should result not just in an application, but in a usable and accessible piece of software. Server-side languages should be blended in with a proper server architecture, like REST, they should be optimized  and understand multiple threading and processing (which does not exist with JavaScript). Basically, it is not difficult to learn a language&#039;s syntax, the problem relies in understanding the language&#039;s semantics</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For software developers, learning new programming language is not a difficult process, still, what the difficulties are in understanding what these languages should provide &#8211; HTML + CSS should result not just in an application, but in a usable and accessible piece of software. Server-side languages should be blended in with a proper server architecture, like REST, they should be optimized  and understand multiple threading and processing (which does not exist with JavaScript). Basically, it is not difficult to learn a language&#8217;s syntax, the problem relies in understanding the language&#8217;s semantics</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Carpenter</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/07/16/solo-software-development/comment-page-1/#comment-21274</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Carpenter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/?p=2670#comment-21274</guid>
		<description>Programming&#039;s gotten easier, but I&#039;m not sure that expectation inflation hasn&#039;t actually made writing 2009 apps with 2009 tools harder than 1999 apps with 1999 tools.  1999 doesn&#039;t seem that long ago -- the real difference I feel is when considering 1989 apps, with 1989 tools (about when I first started distributing software).  And your mileage may vary -- what I write commercially now, which is statistical natural language processing software, is definitely easier now than it was 10 years ago.  

I don&#039;t know that learning CSS+HTML is any harder than learning, say, Swing, even though Swing is part of the standard Java libs, or learning X windows graphics, which could be called from C.   These whole secondeary languages, like Javascript, aren&#039;t much harder than a complex library that you&#039;d call from C.  And back in the day, I either had to write platform specific code for X11, Mac, or Windows or NeXT, or learn another language, like Tcl/Tk.

When I do threading now, it&#039;s a whole lot easier to use Java&#039;s util.concurrent than it was to try to throw together my own Posix thread implementations in C.   But that&#039;s just a lib issue.  Ditto with socket and HTTP code, which is way easier to deal with now.    Double so with clustering from tools like Hadoop and Amazon EC2/S3; it&#039;s way easier to do that way than to figure out how to install your own hardware and software.   

Back in the day, it was sed/awk/grep and unix command lines, and then it became Perl, and now Python.  You always had to know a mix of this stuff to be productive.

Take XML as another example.  Back in 1999, we had to write parsers for specialized languages by hand.   I&#039;d use lex and YACC, which I&#039;d argue were no easier to use and/or learn than SAX or DOM for XML.  And the advantage of the latter is that the character encodings and escaping and DTDs are all uniform, so you only have to learn them once.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Programming&#8217;s gotten easier, but I&#8217;m not sure that expectation inflation hasn&#8217;t actually made writing 2009 apps with 2009 tools harder than 1999 apps with 1999 tools.  1999 doesn&#8217;t seem that long ago &#8212; the real difference I feel is when considering 1989 apps, with 1989 tools (about when I first started distributing software).  And your mileage may vary &#8212; what I write commercially now, which is statistical natural language processing software, is definitely easier now than it was 10 years ago.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know that learning CSS+HTML is any harder than learning, say, Swing, even though Swing is part of the standard Java libs, or learning X windows graphics, which could be called from C.   These whole secondeary languages, like Javascript, aren&#8217;t much harder than a complex library that you&#8217;d call from C.  And back in the day, I either had to write platform specific code for X11, Mac, or Windows or NeXT, or learn another language, like Tcl/Tk.</p>
<p>When I do threading now, it&#8217;s a whole lot easier to use Java&#8217;s util.concurrent than it was to try to throw together my own Posix thread implementations in C.   But that&#8217;s just a lib issue.  Ditto with socket and HTTP code, which is way easier to deal with now.    Double so with clustering from tools like Hadoop and Amazon EC2/S3; it&#8217;s way easier to do that way than to figure out how to install your own hardware and software.   </p>
<p>Back in the day, it was sed/awk/grep and unix command lines, and then it became Perl, and now Python.  You always had to know a mix of this stuff to be productive.</p>
<p>Take XML as another example.  Back in 1999, we had to write parsers for specialized languages by hand.   I&#8217;d use lex and YACC, which I&#8217;d argue were no easier to use and/or learn than SAX or DOM for XML.  And the advantage of the latter is that the character encodings and escaping and DTDs are all uniform, so you only have to learn them once.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.350 seconds -->

