Making it easier

re: Making it easier

Adam V — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:56:22 GMT

I also find it funny that someone would complain about technology not addressing this specific problem, when there are at least a couple of technical solutions (these are just off the top of my head):

- Your browser can store logins/passwords to websites

- Programs like PasswordSafe (find it on SourceForge) allow you to store your logins/passwords in an encrypted file so that you only have to memorize one password

So choosing this issue to harp on also undercuts the writer's credibility with anyone who's used these features. (And it's hard to miss; every time I type in a password in Firefox, I get the little "Save this password? Yes / Not now / Never" that I have to dismiss.)

re: Making it easier

Matthew Kane — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:20:56 GMT

So how would you score adding a feature to allow:

public string Foo { get; readonly set; }

re: Making it easier

Arne Claassen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:02:11 GMT

BTW, that picture is of the HMS Surprise (from the movie "Master & Commander") currently part of the Maritime Museum in the San Diego Bay. I walk by it every day on my afternoon walk to get away from staring at the screen all day. Gonna head down there right now :)

Indeed, if you mouse over the picture, you'll get a surprise!

I am a big fan of the books and the movie; I recently read all twenty books in a row on the bus on the way to work. And that movie is the perfect movie to test out a new surround sound system! -- Eric

re: Making it easier

Doctor Thingo — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:27:32 GMT

I don't have much to say apart from "That was interesting, thanks."

I assume you've seen video of Guy L. Steele's talk "Growing a Language"? It seems somehow relevant.

re: Making it easier

configurator — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:39:53 GMT

Well I was definitely surprised.

re: Making it easier

George Spofford — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:38:53 GMT

Glad to see you putting technology in perspective. I try to use the same perspective when my flight is delayed for some reason or other- flying still beats walking past about 200 miles or so. :-)

re: Making it easier

Jay Bazuzi — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:34:33 GMT

Such great books. The movie is very good, and I've watched it many times, but the books are better. I plan to read them again, much more carefully, at some point. It's no surprise that the small Port Townsend library has the complete colelction.

Surprise was built as Rose, designed by Phil Bolger, who designed my boat (a Bobcat), and who also died a couple weeks ago. An amazing body of work. I've decided to build one of his boats, maybe in a year.

Another sound bite for you: "Technology only solves new problems, not old ones". For most of human history, everyone you knew was in your tribe. You rarely saw a stranger. You didn't need, say, proof of identification, because who you were was well known. Similarly, it was rare for someone you knew to go so far away, so you didn't, say, a telephone. And so on.

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in relative abundance, if you are only measuring those basic needs.

This seems like a good time to plug http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/text.php, a book of great importance.

re: Making it easier

David Cumps — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:19:20 GMT

Remembering passwords is so passe :)

Use something like KeePass on a portable stick, remember 1 really good master password and then just generate random GUIDs to use as passwords on different sites.

Works great, no 1 password for all your sites, and you're using really strong passwords too.

re: Making it easier

Ian Ringrose — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:13:57 GMT

-> Remembering passwords is so passe

Remembering passwords is so hard… (-:

I have to totally trust the software I use.

I have to be able to access them from anywhere not just my machine

If I need to use a PC to access them (e.g when in an internet café) I should not have to trust the PC (what if it has a key logger installed on it)

I have to be able to back them up encase I loose the device/software they are stored on.

I should be able to access them in a public place without someone being able to see my master password.

Now if all unimportant sites used open-id, then the problem get’s a lot smaller and then maybe my brain could cope.

The same happens with feature in a language, for a given person there is a maximum numbers of features they can learn in a new language before it becomes to hard to learn. But everyone that already knows the languages just says “the new feature is so simple”..

re: Making it easier

chris — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:34:32 GMT

So true Eric! Just as excellent communicators carefully choose there words when giving speeches. Displays of esoteric vocabulary often fall on deaf ears.

re: Making it easier

Greg — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:09:56 GMT

The new features start at -100 is nice given that only selective new technologies should be added to a platform and have the largest effort directed to improving, bug fixing, documenting and optimizing existing technologies.

re: Making it easier

Pavel Minaev [MSFT] — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:13:55 GMT

> So how would you score adding a feature to allow:

> public string Foo { get; readonly set; }

I don't know about Eric, but as given, I'd score it "-10, Incomprehensible".

If I understand your intent correctly (which isn't certain, since you don't explain what the feature should do), given that "set" is already a contextual keyword there, a better option would seem to just add a new, clearer contextual keyword rather than try to combine a bunch of existing ones to get something vaguely resembling what you want. For example:

public string Foo { get; initialize; }

re: Making it easier

TheCPUWizard — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:47:33 GMT

pminaev,

I dont see why

> public string Foo { get; readonly set; }

would be any different than

> public string Foo { get; private set; }

The language already supports having a more restrictive access policy on one of the accessors than the other. Being able to restrict it so that is cal only be called from within the body of the constructor is a natural extension.

Readonly allows for MANY optimizations to be performs [if the current compiler actually performs them is secondary].

Consider a construct such as x = A.Prop1.Prop2.Prop3.Prop4.Prop5

If it is known that the chain of referrences will not be modified, it is theoretically possible to reduce this to a single call to the final target instance rather than having to "follow the chain" at each invocation.

re: Making it easier

Joren — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:10:43 GMT

>public string Foo { get; readonly set; }

I'd rather have "public readonly string Foo { get; set; }" for a property that can only be assigned in a constructor. "readonly set" confuses me. How can a setter be read-only? And how do you even read a setter?

Also, I'd prefer to have symmetry with fields.

re: Making it easier

Pavel Minaev [MSFT] — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:57:41 GMT

TheCPUWizard,

I understand the reason for the feature. However, the syntax you propose - "readonly set" - doesn't make much sense to me. As Joren rightly points out, it's a confusing combination.

re: Making it easier

TheCPUWizard — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:28:32 GMT

Joren, pminaev,

Putting the readonly at the front (Joren's syntax) would be just fine, as would a "different" word (e.g. initonly) on the setter.

Because of the various limitations with automatic properties, I find that in my designs I CAN only use them about 5% of the time, because this is such a low percentage, and because of the benefits of consistancy, the reality is that I do not use them at all in designs where I have architectural control.

If addational capabilities such as this (ideally along with support for laxy evaluation, pre and post set conditioning) then they would have a major benefit.

re: Making it easier

Dominic — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:45:35 GMT

The task of communicating with Australia is now much easier, thanks to improved technology.

Reading this from Australia and can't help but think how much 'smaller' the world is thanks to technology.

re: Making it easier

Denis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:33:53 GMT

>the purpose of technology is to make specific tasks easier

I think the purpose of a specific technology is to make a specific task (or tasks) easier; the purpose of technology in general, as a part of human life and culture, is to free humans from as much routine as possible in order to let humans to do what no machine can do: the CREATIVE WORK.

It's one hell of a debate, about whether or not machines can actually get creative; personally, I don't believe so (although the Matrix, especially the first installment, is still among my favorites - it all makes sense if you think different kind of "machines", like "the bureaucratic machine", or "the corporate machine"). Some Gen Y guys called me a "technological pessimist" for that belief of mine: they are positive that the purpose of technology is to free humans from ANY work, "just to have fun". Well, maybe I am that, I am not Gen Y, after all (just a couple of years too early), but the only way to convince me otherwise is to write a program (in C#, preferably) that will blog INSTEAD of the author. :-)

Or, maybe, a C# compiler that itself develops its own next version - how's that for a challenge to the C# meta-programming champions?

@Dominic, you and me both: I am in Australia, too

re: Making it easier

Marius Bancila — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:13:47 GMT

I would argue that making life easier and making specific tasks easier are the two faces of the same coin. Life is a series of tasks that we do (of course one can do nothing all the time and still not finishing with that). If a technology is able to simplify one task, or maybe several, than we can say it simplifies our life.