289 reputation
25
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years
seen Nov 9 '13 at 0:39

Jul
23
comment As a C# developer, would you learn Java to develop for Android or use MonoDroid instead?
@JimG. By Learn the Mono API, I mean that you still need to learn the Android API that Mono replicates, in addition to the parts it doesn't. How much do you need to know? Depends on the app, depends on the person - that wasn't really the gist of the OP. Have I used MonoDroid? No. I have C#, Java and Objective C experience, so no need. I did consider Mono for portability. At the time I answered no-one had mentioned the limits on portability. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but that in itself doesn't make my answer poor.
Aug
28
awarded  Yearling
Feb
8
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
4
comment As a C# developer, would you learn Java to develop for Android or use MonoDroid instead?
@JohnReynolds Ironic then that the fastest growth right now is in mobile and Android, using "the new COBOL". Whatever way you slice it, even if you choose MonoDroid, if you're developing for Android, you are still relying on "the new COBOL".
Dec
6
comment Why did Microsoft make parameters, local variables and private fields have the same name naming convention?
@kekekela and the others who voted up the comment - it is the underscore and _m instance variable naming conventions that are redundant. this is NOT redundant. this always refers to the current instance. It is a keyword that has been there since the start of .NET and it won't be going away. These underscore naming conventions come and go and every shop uses a different one. They are redundant, since you have this (which you can use judiciously).
Dec
6
comment Why did Microsoft make parameters, local variables and private fields have the same name naming convention?
To elaborate a bit on this, I always prefer this, because it definitely refers to the current instance whatever house you're at, so it is precise. The underscore or underscore m conventions are just that - conventions that may or may not refer to instance variables and they are made redundant by this. The only place I see underscore useful is in case-insensitive VB to distinguish object and class names. But that is a whole other story.
Dec
6
comment Why did Microsoft make parameters, local variables and private fields have the same name naming convention?
Nice point about parameter and local variables having the same scope (+1). No-one else mentioned that. The corollary being that if you need a local variable with the same name as the parameter, you can just use the parameter. Personally though I find underscore ugly and imprecise. Whereas this definitely refers to the current object. I don't understand the hatred for this. Is it because it is misunderstood?
Dec
6
comment Why did Microsoft make parameters, local variables and private fields have the same name naming convention?
@kekekela I find underscore ugly, redundant and not exact. It is a convention that could be misused whereas this definitely refers to the current instance.
Dec
5
revised As a C# developer, would you learn Java to develop for Android or use MonoDroid instead?
Removed the presumption that pure 'business logic' code will not be a large amount for 'most' apps
Dec
5
comment As a C# developer, would you learn Java to develop for Android or use MonoDroid instead?
@Iceman Hey thanks for the disclosure. Sorry if I cast any doubt over your integrity. My apologies. Thanks for clarifying your post and recommending my post. It is good to know the points of difference that can help someone decide if it is worth trialling Mono for their situation. Glad it is working for you. Happy programming on Mono!
Dec
2
awarded  Necromancer
Dec
2
revised As a C# developer, would you learn Java to develop for Android or use MonoDroid instead?
added 1583 characters in body
Dec
2
comment As a C# developer, would you learn Java to develop for Android or use MonoDroid instead?
You can edit your answer to clarify. The whole tone and wording of your post and comments makes me wonder if you have any commercial interests related to Mono, since it reads like a sales pitch, not the type of objective advice I come here for. It sounded all to good to be true so I had to search for the details which I posted as a comment. It seems other readers, like @Luciano think from your post that Mono is for mobile what Java is for desktops, when UI and phone control code is not portable in Mono. I would say that makes up "most" of the code in "most" mobile apps.
Nov
4
comment Most “native”/integrated functional language for Mac OS X development?
@YannisRizos Saying "MacOS X is based upon the Mach kernel" is not really any better. It would be more accurate to describe the OS X kernel as based on XNU, the BSD part of which provides the POSIX API, which is probably more relevant to this discussion than Mach, as it provides full POSIX compliance.
Nov
4
comment Most “native”/integrated functional language for Mac OS X development?
@YannisRizos Are you saying Objective C has no OO? Displacing "C with added OO" and replacing it with "C with Smalltalk-style messaging" is no less misleading.
Nov
3
awarded  Commentator
Nov
3
comment How to handle management pushing legacy systems?
@Aaronaught Doing a proper costing may guide the OP because his inclination to re-engineer over maintain may be flawed or not objective. Typically the cost here will be the developer's time, so a costing may force him to look more objectively at what is the most time, and thus cost, effective approach. Of course he will have to factor in the possible benefits to the business and their strategy by a re-engineer. If the OP is to re-engineer, cost (ie time), is probably the biggest factor to consider. This is not cutting corners. It is evaluating whether to maintain or re-engineer based on time.
Nov
3
comment How to handle management pushing legacy systems?
@KevinVermeer Exactly my point in criticism of Feathers definition. Maybe you missed my definition. I didn't say highly coupled code is the definition. I said it could be a contributing factor to the codebase no longer being viable to maintain (amongst a whole list of other factors, including the lack of unit tests etc etc).
Nov
2
comment How to handle management pushing legacy systems?
@KevinVermeer "Lacking unit tests" is also a very debateable definition of "Legacy code". I would define legacy code as code that is no longer viable to maintain, in a cost / benefit way. This could be because of the lack of unit tests but also for many other reasons such as lack of skills in older technologies, missing source, missing documentation, highly coupled code causing high cost for small changes, to name but a few things. To just point to the lack of unit tests is not looking at the whole picture.
Nov
2
comment How to handle management pushing legacy systems?
@James The SRS is technical. If you're dealing directly with management, and software development is not their main business, then you're going to have to put it in business terms. Since there is no existing project documentation and so forth, I'd start with a business case or project plan or an options analysis for reengineering before any SRS. One thing managers and business understand is cost. A complete rewrite can be fraught with difficulty, so beware.