Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > ASP .Net > Trivial question - Visual C# .Net vs Visual Studio .Net

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alvin Bruney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
> > 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]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> 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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alvin Bruney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
> 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]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> 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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too



 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Pretre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
"Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com > wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alvin Bruney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
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:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_me_not@hotmail_no_spamhotmail.com > wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > 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
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alvin Bruney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
> 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]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> 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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alvin Bruney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2003
> 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]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> 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 - <(E-Mail Removed)>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should I write Visual studio 2005 or Visual studio 2003 MCSD =?Utf-8?B?VmlqYXk=?= Microsoft Certification 14 06-30-2006 09:05 AM
Is Visual Studio Team System and Visual Studio Foundation Server are same?. Thirumalai ASP .Net 0 05-22-2006 08:48 AM
trivial or non-trivial object baibaichen C++ 3 01-12-2006 03:01 PM
visual studio .net 2003 verses visual studio .net 2002 wh ASP .Net 2 01-16-2004 04:54 PM



Advertisments