Those of you who've seen me speak on Java 7 at various conferences have heard me lament (in a small way) the fact that Sun decided last year (Dec 2008) to forgo the idea of including closures in the Java language. Imagine my surprise, then, to check my Twitter feed and discover that, to everyone's surprise, closures are back in as a consideration for the Java7 release. Several thoughts come to mind: "WTF?!?!?
Phil Haack wrote a thoughtful, insightful and absolutely correct response to my earlier blog post. But he's still missing the point. The short version: Phil's right when he says, "Agile is less about managing the complexity of an application itself and more about managing the complexity of building an application." Agile is by far the best approach to take when building complex software. But that's not where I'm going with this.
The above quote was tossed off by Billy Hollis at the patterns&practices Summit this week in Redmond. I passed the quote out to the Twitter masses, along with my +1, and predictably, the comments started coming in shortly thereafter. Rather than limit the thoughts to the 120 or so characters that Twitter limits us to, I thought this subject deserved some greater expansion. But before I do, let me try (badly) to paraphrase the lightning talk that Billy gave here, which sets context for the discussion: Keeping track of all the stuff Microsoft is releasing is hard work: LINQ, EF, Silverlight, ASP.NET MVC, Enterprise Library, Azure, Prism, Sparkle, MEF, WCF, WF, WPF, InfoCard, CardSpace, the list goes on and on, and frankly, nobody (and I mean nobody) can track it all.
Jon Skeet, noted C# MVP, has been asked by his employer to reject his MVP award this year. I have two reactions: I think it's an awkward situation when an employer hires somebody who is as deeply involved in a technology space as Jon is, then asks them to take actions that will deliberately distance them from that technology space. It strikes me as a waste of Jon's investment into the space, and a poor choice of actions.
Recently I've had the pleasure to make the acquaintance of Walter Bright, one of the heavyweights of compiler construction, and the creator of the D language (among other things), and he's been great in giving me some hand-holding on some compiler-related topics and ideas. Thus, it seems appropriate to point out that Walter's willing to give lots of other people the same kind of attention and focus, in exchange for your presence in gorgeous Astoria, OR.
As the title implies, as of July 31, ThoughtWorks and I have decided that the grand experiment that was my employment with them has not turned out the way we both wanted it to, and so I’m now once again an independent. This isn’t to suggest that ThoughtWorks and I didn’t get along—quite the opposite. During my eleven months with the company, I found some amazing people and had some great times, enough that I still thoroughly recommend them as a company, both to people looking for a great place to work, and to people looking for a company to execute on a project.
Recently, an email crossed my Inbox from a friend who was concerned about some questionable practices involving my content (as well as a few others'); apparently, I have been listed as an "author" for SysCon, I have a "domain" with them, and that I've been writing for them since 10 January, 2003, including two articles, "Effective Enterprise Java" and "Java/.NET Interoperability". Given that both of those "articles" are summaries from presentations I've done at conferences past, I'm a touch skeptical.
This post from TechCrunch crossed my attention inbox today, and I find myself quite flummoxed on the subject of how I think I should react. Assume you have managed, through no overt work on your part (meaning, you didn't explicitly solicit, ask, or otherwise endeavor to obtain), to get ownership of "hundreds of confidential corporate and personal documents" for a company. Assume further that these documents are genuine—there is little to no chance that they could have been forged or fabricated.
Google made the announcement on Tuesday: Chrome OS, a "open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks." Huh? I'm sorry, but from a number of perspectives, this move makes no sense to me. Don't get me wrong—on a number of levels, the operating system needs a little shaking up. Windows7 looks good, granted, Mac OS is a strong contender, and both are clearly popular with the consuming public, but innovation in the operating system seems pretty limited right now, to eye candy graphical window-opening/window-closing effects, different window decorations (title bars and minimize/maximize buttons), and areas along the edges of the screen to store icons.
OK, OK, I admit it. Maybe significant whitespace isn't all bad. (But don't let me ever catch you quoting me say that.) The reason for my (maybe) shift in thinking? Manning Publications sent me a copy of Iron Python in Action, and I have to say, I like the book and its approach. Getting me to like Python as a primary language for development will probably take more than just one book can give, but...