Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Too slow! (Score 1) 168

I evaluated a few, not for very long admittedly, but found all of them to be too slow.

Fundamentally, doing this stuff professionally means your workstation and tooling (ide or editor or whatever) needs to be an extension of you for you to be able to function efficiently and keep a good flow going. Some of this is muscle memory on keyboard layout and shortcuts, most of it (imo) is responsiveness and ui latency. If the ui cant respond faster than you notice it then it just hurts too much to create stuff effectively.

Hence, for me at least, native ide is important. Even if it syncs to a remote host on save for compile/preview/run (so long as it consistently does that quicker than i can alt+tab).

I love that integrated environments are available online, and i love the portability of that. But i just dont think it can be fast enough for serious development.

(Nb, by fast although ive not really done any benchmarking, the bottleneck so far as i can tell is the ide in javascript locally, even on a decent pc, rather than network latency)

Comment Re:TFA, TFS (Score 5, Informative) 323

What fraud? The car performed as advertised, right?

Actually it didn't. Emissions are part of advertised specs. In the UK at least, this is an important figure because it determines how much annual road tax you have to pay to drive the thing - i.e. its important to consumers making the decision....and its really important to the UK government who have arguably been defrauded out of a whole bunch of tax revenue.

Comment Re:TALK to them (Score 1) 467

As an employer yourself, would you be willing to sign-off on that if that meant you might eventually lose him as a result? Actually, don't answer that. Even if you agree to that, because you're a reasonable manager, a better question would be, do you think your HR department and legal in-house counsel (assuming your company is big enough to have those) would agree to something like that with an existing employee (when unlike you, they don't have a relationship with the employee in question, they probably don't even know him all that well, except for the fact that he's probably a valuable employee and that it may cost the company money down the road if they were to agree to such an exclusion)??

I'll be frank - but these are my opinions only.

Yes I would employ them with those caveats in place (and yes signoff can be sought from the other depts involved) - but I do see that as the employee saying "I'll work for you, but only until something else comes along" and to be honest that is a negative. If an employee is borderline at the hiring stage, this would not count in their favour for being hired.

We want people to be committed to us and for us to be their career, for as long as they choose to remain with us. The perception this gives is that they can/will leave at any time, and while they are with us they won't put in the effort to make it work anyway because they'll also be focusing on their home projects. Some people can make this work, keep the two separate and still give 100% in the day job. Many can't.

probably a valuable employee

This is the key bit. On hiring them it is very "probably". Taking on someone new is a risk for the employer as much as it is a big step for the employee, especially for small business.

The honesty of being clear that they want to do side projects is appreciated (and important!), but to be frank it is a negative. Sorry.

You may also be right that many employers probably wouldn't...I can only speak from my experience.

Comment Re:TALK to them (Score 1) 467

They aren't intended to own your soul. I believe (again IANAL) they are intended to start from a position of legal clarity regarding the ownership of software produced by the employee that *may* make its way into company software products.

Obviously the company has to be clear that it does actually own what it thinks it owns (including its software). The clause prevents cases where the employee may write a nifty library at home, and use it at work as well, before subsequently deciding to sell it to someone else and denying the employer any legal right to use it - or even the choice of whether to use the '3rd party' code.

I agree there should be processes and people in place to avoid this happening in the first place (not least of which is a code signoff process) - but the 'default' position, as reflected by the contract, is for legal clarity. A reasonable employer should be able to exclude you from it, on the proviso that there are clear ownership rules around what employees write in their own time (plus no-compete rules).

I would like to reiterate; these clauses are - at least as far as my organisation is concerned - NOT about "we own your soul". Any reasonable employer should be able to come to a mutually agreeable agreement with you if you TALK to them. If they won't....well they probably aren't people you want to work for anyway...

Comment Re:ask a lawyer (Score 3, Insightful) 467

Oh no, not another "ask a lawyer" question.

As a general rule, this is mostly unenforceable and/or is trivially worked around.

That may be, but life is a lot simpler for everyone if we can all work by mutual prior agreement.

*all* contracts start in the favour of the people who wrote them. It's a game to make it mutually fair as much as it is to do a decent tax return or haggle for goods at the market. You may not like that it's a game (I don't!), but it is one.

Comment TALK to them (Score 5, Informative) 467

Yes - explain why you don't like this, and what you intend to do in your spare time that you wish to retain ownership of.

These clauses usually come from a desire that employees don't misappropriate company IP and use it to write something competing. Or for a competitor (where the 'who owns what' question becomes murkier).

Any reasonable employer will write you an exclusion, but likely with a no-compete clause, which is fair enough.

IANAL, but I write the above as an employer, running a tech team of 21.

Comment Re:Wow, what a stupid post (Score 1) 417


Some policies are lame yes, and some in charge of them are stupid, but for the most part these 'enemies' are just trying to protect the bigger picture.

Probably the biggest part of this is security. All the things quoted in TFA are a nightmare to ensure are secure, and to support!

Comment Re:The problem for UK IT graduates (Score 1) 349

For what its worth, as an employer I'm equally put off by candidates who list a massive long list of things they are "expert" in. Nobody can be expert in all those things.

Especially "equivalent" technologies like PHP / Java / VB.net / ASP (yes I know they are different - but nobody can actually be expert in all of them!)

Edit: transferrable skills are important, and understanding the underlying principles is important and leads to it being much easier to learn other platforms/languages. Nevertheless they all have their own idiosyncracies and 'right' ways of doing things.

Comment Re:Companies bring in foreign secondees (Score 1) 349

Actually its not quite as straightforward as that....to have staff in India counts as having a commercial presence in India. That renders you liable to Corporation tax in India, as well as in the UK.

Ofc there are ways people get around that by having *contractors* in India through umbrella agencies, or by straight outsourcing, but its not quite as simple as "get the Indians in".

Slashdot Top Deals

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.