Several people have asked me how the launch of our baking soda / vinegar rocket went (see my previous post, How I Spent My Day Off).
I have no good pictures of the rocket in air; however, it worked quite well. My son was really excited about it. We launched it three times and got it up to about 50 or 60 feet. I’ll bet we’ll get it higher on the next launch.
After we repair the fuselage tube, that is.
Tags: Model_Rockets
IEEE just published an article introducing SSDL: Asynchronous Messaging between Web Services using SSDL written by Savas Parastatidas, Simon Woodman, Jim Webber, Dean Kuo, and Paul Greenfield. You can find it here. You can also find much of the content (and more, I think) at ssdl.org, though on Jim Webber’s blog, he says that the IEEE version is:
all in ruthlessly clear IEEE edited prose
while Savas points out that it is heavily cut — so, choose your poison ;).
They did a great job of describing their approach to a WSDL replacement. SSDL allows for complex contracts between services far beyond what WSDL can support and does it in a straightforward way.
They even created an SSDL parser and code generator for .NET on top of WSE2.
SSDL’s message orientation fits perfectly with the description of MEST — my guess is we’ll see lots of SSDL in the coming book.
It will be interesting to see how SSDL progresses. Can we suppose that this is one thing Savas is doing at Microsoft?
I spent some time last week looking at what it will take to move my product, the Digipede Network, from WSE2 to WSE3.
The motivation to move to WSE3 is
Unfortunately, therein lies the rub. Not only doesn’t WCF support DIME, which is too be expected, but neither does WSE3. The last two items (MTOM + WCF interop) basically imply this, but I was hoping WSE3 would offer a migration step combining DIME and MTOM.
This decision can make it much more complicated for developers to migrate their production apps to WSE3. It is even more complicated for those of shipping product based on WSE2 & DIME. Let me highlight one example (that is near and dear to my heart):
Imagine you have smart-clients (or agents) that use WSE2 and DIME. These clients periodically “check-in” with the WSE2 Web service. Among other things, they find out whether an updated client is required and perform their own self-update. Now imagine you want to upgrade the entire system (i.e., the Web services and clients) to WSE3. You need to:
This is a real hassle. I think it isn’t too bad for developers with control over a public Web site or corporate intranet; however, it introduces a lot of complexity for those of us who create shipping product. Complexity around installations and upgrades increases support costs for both the developer and the user. Necessarily.
I would have appreciated it if DIME was supported in WSE3 even though not in WCF. That way we would have the opportunity to migrate our customers with a single WSE3 site release supporting both DIME and MTOM.
This reminds me a bit of the Visual Studio 2005 Web Projects in the RTM. The ASP.NET project model changed significantly from Visual Studio 2003. These changes were focused on making the tool better for building public Web sites and corporate intranet sites. In the process they missed the fact that they broke Web projects for companies that ship product based on ASP.NET. Luckily for many, they fixed this with an add-on the week VS2005 shipped (I solved the problem myself two weeks earlier and didn’t make it into a plugin because I knew Microsoft was working on a solution).
Is Microsoft forgetting about those of us building installed software?
On Thursday, January 12th, Kim Greenlee will be presenting at eBig. She’ll be talking about OOP-G and introduce the Digipede Network. I understand she’ll be giving away Developer Editions too!
Details on eBig’s site, here.
Joel Spolsky recently wrote about what he calls The Perils of Java Schools.
His main point is that Computer Science departments have dumbed-down their curriculum to increase their enrollment and graduation rates. One way this has been done, he argues, is by replacing the teaching of multiple languages with Java. Instead of teaching functional languages (think Lisp) and using a low-level languages (like C or C++), the student does all coursework in a managed object-oriented language. Not only does this mean that students aren’t as well educated, but that is harder to interview new graduates to find the really good ones.
Some people have bridled at the article because they see it as slamming Java. Others suggest that he should update his interviewing style because he says it is harder to evaluate people. These comments miss the point of his article.
I agree with him fundamentally that learning with a high-level language is just not enough. Kang Su Gatlin has a post about this as well: What Should Change in Comp Sci Education. I agree with him too (though would like to hear more from him regarding MapReduce).
I went to UC Berkeley when Computer Science departments were primarily interested in training Computer Scientists. No language courses were included as a part of the required curriculum — it was expected that we would learn the required languages on our own time (note: I’m sure the teachers-assistants must of helped students with languages and environments, but I either skipped those sections or have blocked it out because it was no help to me). In our classes, we used Scheme (to learn functional programming), assembly, and primarily C.
One of Mr. Spolsky’s main points is that routinely using a low-level language (like C) provides the student with critical experience. C is closer to the machine than Java or C# and forces the programmer to work harder. C forces the programmer to use pointers. Programming and debugging pointer-based programs develop and hone debugging skills. The experience of using these over my years in school was quite beneficial. Better to learn that at school than in industry.
So without fully condemning nor claiming to even grok what is motivating the universities to this end, I will say this:
I have heard from many people over my life that “pointers are hard.” If you have a Computer Science degree and you think pointers are hard then one thing is for sure: your Computer Science program failed you.
Tags: c#, Computer_Science, Java, JavaSchools
My son and I built a rocket fueled on baking soda & vinegar.
We haven’t fired it yet — we missed the weekend launch window due to weather.
Tags: Model_Rockets
Happy New Year and a warm welcome to the year 2006. Time does have a tendency to fly.
Here is an uncomprehensive list of some things I’m looking forward to this year:
I’m sure there are some other things that I’m not thinking about today.
This will be an exciting year for Digipede and for me and my family as well as for the greater tech industry at large.
Happy New Year!
Tags: Digipede
A couple of weeks ago Robert Scoble announced a geek dinner on Friday, 12/30. He posted details here.
I won’t be able to make it to this one — have a beer for me. Or some cheesecake.
Tags: blog
Nathan just updated the Digipede News and Announcements feed to use FeedBurner. If you are interested in getting news about our product and company, subscribe to: http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigipedeNewsAndAnnouncements.
This is not news to those who subscribe to Software Development Magazine, but they reviewed the Digipede Network in their January, 2006 issue. You normally would need to sign up for their online content to read it, but we purchased a reprint link which you can find here. Two things I’m happy about:
The reviewer, Mr. Rick Wayne, pointed out a couple of issues. Some of these we have already addressed and others are in our plans.
Thanks, Mr. Wayne — yes, we are listening).
FriendFeed Status
About me
Main feed
Email subscriptions