Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [altdotnet] A Plan
- Cory, Glenn, Heinrich, anyone:Here's a start:I know several of you participate in local/regional ALT.NET meetings.Set aside some time at those meetings to discuss (timebox it, maybe 15m?) what's wrong with our profession (i.e. why does ALT.NET exist in the first place and why are this list and the gatherings so popular?) and come up with at least 3 bullet-point reasons.Next, set aside some more time (maybe 30m) to come up with a list of 2 strategic things (large, major, expensive/involved) and 2 tactical things (small, quick) that can be done to help correct this situation.Finally, vote/appoint a representative individual or a pair of individuals (no more than 2) from your group(s) to represent your findings to the other groups.The representatives will post their results to a thread here on this list or perhaps we'll set up another list for this purpose to avoid spamming this list. If so, we'll keep it open so others can observe.We'll all compile duplicates/similar topics and come up with a strategic list and a tactical list.Let's start with that. I have some ideas on what to do with the "official" list once it's compiled, but I'll hold off on that for now. Let's get this accomplished and move from there.Seeing as how there's an ALT.NET meeting soon in Seattle, maybe the timeframe for this should be a few weeks AFTER ALT.NET Seattle.For local/regional groups, please try to assemble before then.On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Heinrich Breedt <heinrichbreedt@...> wrote:Me too.
How can I help?On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Glenn Block <glenn.block@...> wrote:
I echo Cory's sentiment.How can i help.On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Cory Foy <usergroup@...> wrote:
Hi Chad,I guess I'm confused why you would have expected a different response. I
Chad Myers wrote:
> Apologies, Casey. But it was, unfortunately, exactly the type of response I
> both hoped wouldn't happen and yet predicted. More questions, more debate,
> more everything except movement. I'm not singling out Casey here, there were
> a dozen after him.
liked the plan, and know from past efforts that if everyone spawns off,
then it becomes a blob. Or, for someone like me who doesn't know you
well, if I spun up and said, "Great idea! I love the documentation idea!
Let's run with it. I'll set up a website, and spin off a group" then
maybe that goes against what your vision was.
You proposed a vision to the group, and really didn't give much else
other than, "Here's a vision". I think had the very end said, "And if
you are interested in building this plan, then contact me" or "Form
groups and start making this happen" then the response would have been
different.The fact that you are using "we" here signifies that someone (perhaps
> All very good questions that need answered ... in due time. If we had it
> all figured out before we started, we wouldn't need to start.
not you, but you were the one proposing it) is an "owner" or otherwise
contributing member, and thus has the context necessary to answer better
In my opinion, the post came across as a proposal needing discussion
more than a call to action. But regardless, (and since I wasn't strong
enough in my initial reply):
HEY! I think it's a great idea! Well, at least the documentation and
samples part. Some of the other ideals are dung (there, someone rejected
part of it ;)). Documentation and samples are a vital way to reach
people in the community, and I think we could have a significant impact.
How can I help?
- +1 for the foundation (in general anyway)+1 for keeping it .NET focussedI have to admit that I've only recently (within 18 months) become aware of the SOLID principles and I *think* I have a decent grasp of the people that this foundation idea is intended to reach. I would say that I have grown as a developer over the last two years orders of magnitude over the previous ten but it has mainly been by trawling the internet for blog posts and code samples that build on each other to form a large, frequently self-contradictory, body of knowledge.I have often wished that there was somewhere that I could go that laid out some kind of curriculum for further improvement. Even if such information is written from several conflicting points of view, consolidating in one place and making it easy to find and consume is a noble goal.If we spread the message out into other languages and programming environments then we'd just be duplicating the efforts of other organizations that have largely gone unheeded to date.Someone on the mailing list mentioned that P & P have a pretty broad audience (2 million I think is the figure) precisely because they are delivering focused material and are taking the time to explain themselves. I think this is the approach that such a foundation should take as well. Small pieces of easily digested (and easily separable) pieces which show specific techniques / tools. Otherwise it's impenetrable.Easily separable is harder than it sounds. I have shown a few videos in my office where the audience is not able to follow the concepts because the presenter assumes too much background information. This can include things like showing Model View Presenter in a TDD style with lots of object mocking and relying too much on tools like ReSharper. What people take away from those sessions is that they don't know enough or they don't have the right tools to succeed.Getting slightly off topic so I'll sign off there :)On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Ian Chamberlain <ian.chamberlain@...> wrote:
Surely the application of good software engineering practices and principles to .Net is .Net specific?
How is TDD, DDD, etc, etc done in .Net?
What are good techniques for applying SOLID principles to C# or VB code?
The majority of .Net developers I have encountered over the last few years have never heard of the SOLID principles. I find that very worrying and believe it needs to be addressed.
I like the idea. I think the new foundation should first decide how
.net specific it wants to be. If it wants to be .net specific, it
should not concentrate on things that are relevant outside the .net
world, and instead focus on things that really are only of interest to
.net developers, such a tools and technologies (but I think the
current alt.net does this just fine). However, if it does not intend
on being .net specific, and prefers to concentrate on principles and
practices that are just as valid and useful outside of .net, then
that's a whole other idea, albeit a very worthy one. Such a foundation
could still attract the interest of .net developers, but not
Are there any principles and values that are truely .net specific?
Further comments inline.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Chad Myers <chad.myers@...> wrote:
> The Mission: Establish a culture of professionalism, engineering-like
> discipline, continuous learning and improvement in the .NET arena of
In what way is professionalism, discipline, continuous learning and
improvement in .net different to how they are in software development
in general? Specific tools perhaps, but I think the principles and
values are not .net specific.
> The Vision: .NET Developers will have a standard to aspire to and a
> guidepost against which to compare themselves along their journey. They will
> be respected among the rest of the development community for their real
> products and the products of their academic efforts will be renowned,
> respected, copied and emulated by other communities.
Are such standards different for .net than for software development in general?
> Provide significant monetary support to a major open source project. I
> propose NHibernate or a new ORM based on NHibernate that will serve as a
> model achievement that can be produced by this movement when desired
Good idea, this is .net specific. A .net specific foundation should do this.
> Establish a council of experts from various fields of study within software
> development to go through the process of defining a concise set of
> principles and characteristics of "Master" level software design and
> production which would then go through a comment and ratification by the
> larger community (define: community? contributors to the foundation?)
This is not .net specific. A non-.net specific foundation could
address this nicely. If a .net specific foundation tried to set up
their own council of experts that would just separate .net from the
software development world rather than unite it.
> Fund significant investment into research and production of a series of
> Guidance and Sample packages for study and reference by novice and expert
> alike. Each package will be focused on explaining a core principle (or
> several at once) and will guide novices and apprentices along their learning
If we are talking about explaining core principles, this is not .net
specific. If we are explaining specific tools then this is .net
specific and could be addressed by a foundation (or probably better by
the existing alt.net)
> Establish a list of tools (both open source and commercial) which facilitate
> the good practice and usage of the principles
> Develop a package deployment system (similar to gem from Ruby) which
> facilitates the quick and easy usage of these tools and helps bootstrap
> projects using them
That is an excellent idea, something that would be cool to see coming
out of the alt.net community.
> (this one I'm not sure about, but I think there's something of value here):
> Set up an official process for making statements, open letters, public
> opinions on various happenings in the .NET space. For example, I consider
> the handling of the EF Vote of No Confidence and the reaction to Oxite to be
> big embarrassments. They were each necessary, but that there is no
> coordinated, "official" or consistent way for making voices known to
> Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) that something is really good,
> really bad, helpful, harmful, etc is a travesty. There should be a clear
> voice of the community supported by the community and subservient to it.
Hmm I am not sure about this. I think things happened they way they
did because that is how they were supposed to happen. If the community
has a variety of opinions, trying to standardize on a single opinion
that through a central clique sounds a bit off-putting.
Ok when it comes to facts, sure, there's no argument there, a central
commity can provide information in that area, but when it comes to
opinions, I prefer to let the diverse community viewpoints fight it
out, so people can make up their own minds.
My conclusion: alt.net handles the .net specific aspects such as
specific tools and technologies useful for implementing non alt.net
specific principles and values already pretty well.
A different foundation could be useful, but should not be .net
specific, unless there really are certain principles and values that
are truely .net specific.
No virus found in this incoming message.Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 04/01/2009 16:32
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Michael M. Minutillo
Indiscriminate Information Sponge