3 ms·
There is a difference between not knowing the latest and greatest, and not keeping yourself updated with the evolution of your tool of choice. Most people will
by hvidgaard 10y ago
There is a difference between not knowing the latest and greatest, and not keeping yourself updated with the evolution of your tool of choice. Most people will do the former after a while. It's too much time spend with too little gain. The latter however is not acceptable. I want my developers to know about the latest version of .net, and if they're not using linq they're doing it wrong.
- cm2187 10y agoBut if they are not using WCF they are doing it right! Not all evolutions of the tool should be followed blindly.
- pjc50 10y agoIndeed. Pioneers are the people with arrows in their backs. For a stable system it's reasonable to wait before adopting change; especially if large areas of the existing system are built with a previous technology. Moving to new changes results in internal inconsistency, and possibly problems at the boundaries.
- hvidgaard 10y agoI never stated all evolution should be followed blindly. But once the evolution becomes established as best practice, there is very few reasons to not do it.
- cm2187 10y agoBut 8y ago WCF was marketed by Microsoft as the future of web services. It was clear to me from the outset that it was a mightmare to configure and unecessary complex. Now I think it is the generally accepted view. But if we have to wait 8 years for each new technology...
- 72deluxe 10y ago8 years for each new technology indeed.... MFC anyone? With the push to Universal Apps (that nobody appears to be heeding), what is Microsoft's recommended toolkit for C++ in Windows now eh? Here we are with > 2 million lines of C++, entirely MFC and COM.