I'm looking for a framework for agent interaction simulation, where I can deploy some agents and let them interact and watch their evolution.
Until now I found Terrarium 2.0 (http://terrarium2.codeplex.com/). In principle this is what I need: the ability to create some creature/agent and deploy it into a simulation framework where it will interact with other agents. But it seems that Terrarium is no longer under development.
Do you know of any similar frameworks which are worth considering?
Thanks.
I'd like to see Terrarium for VS 2010 myself. It's not under development anymore, but the source is released and is still functional. So I guess it can be updated and expanded if anyone has the time, I would if I had :) The public server is still online, but there are no peers online. Don't know of any similar frameworks, for .Net at least.
Related
We are trying to be forward looking in our architecture choice on some of the new systems we are designing. Pretty much we want to architecture back end system that no matter what interface we decide to use (WinForms, Silverlight, MVC, Webforms, WPF, IOS (IPad/Iphone), ect...) which i believe just screams REST. Our organization generally will only use Microsoft APIs but since i have no idea when WCF-Web-Api will be released and we want to get started soon it looks like we have no other choice.
We want to take baby steps here to increase the chances of buy off. So we don't want to have to set up another server with IIS.
In the foreseeable future we will only be using WinForms & WebForms. What i was thinking we could use Nancy on the local machine but communicate with it in a RESTFul way. That way in the future it should be as simple as setting up a server and redirecting all the clients to that server rather than locally.
I've never used either NancyFX or OpenRasta, but, from what ive heard, it sounded like a good fit.
So the questions are:
Is the way i'm thinking on approaching this a good approach
Does it sound like NancyFX or OpenRasta would be a better fit?
Any reason why we should wait for WCF-Web-API and if so does anyone have an approx release date.
OpenRasta was built for resource-oriented scenarios. You can achieve the same thing with any other frameworks (with more or less pain). OpenRasta gives you a fully-composited, IoC friendly environment that completely decouples handlers and whatever renders them (which makes it different from MVC frameworks like nancy and MVC).
I'd add that we have a very strong community, a stable codebase and we've been in this for quite a few years, we're building 2.1 and 3.0 and our featureset is still above and beyond what you can get from most other systems. Compare this to most of the frameworks you've highlighted, where none have reached 1.0.
Professional support is also available, if that's a deciding factor for your company.
But to answer your question fully, depending on your scenario and what you want to achieve, you can make anything fits, given enough work. I'd suggest reformulating your question in terms of architecture rather than in terms of frameworks.
I'm interested in creating a basic web application (for learning, but I want to finish within a few months), and I've read that using a web framework can make that task much easier.
After reading about different frameworks online, it seems to me that using frameworks would hide a lot of detail on they work. I fear that if I use a framework, I won't really know how my website is running.
Is it important to understand how frameworks do what they do, or am I worrying too much? (eg. I don't know how the Linux kernel works, or the C compiler, etc.)
Even if you don't have a particular interest in web frameworks, I would say it's good to play with a few and then crack them open if only for the exposure to new design patterns and solutions that can be applied anywhere in development. (MVC in particular when talking about most web frameworks)
It is (to some extent) important to understand how frameworks work, but you'll never learn that without using them.
So, start using some framework and you'll get basic understanding of it. And then, if you have interest, you can always dig deeper into it (maybe even submit patches and participate in its development). But not in the opposite order.
Using your analogy, you don't become Linux kernel developer without being Linux user for some time.
I've been looking in to Nintendo DS development on behalf of my agency and begun using the devkitPro/libnds and PAlib, it seems ideal for our needs until we decide if it's a viable route for us and hopefully invest/apply for a development kit and licence.
My main concern is that, while developing and learning PAlib style is it possible to eventually take a project built in this fashion and have it licensed and published? I don't really want to invest a lot of time learning this to have to learn a completely different setup. Essentially I suppose is PAlib just for Homebrew? What do I need to learn for Retail development of DS games?
Many thanks,
Anton
No, PAlib based projects cannot be licensed and published. See also http://wiki.devkitpro.org/index.php/PAlib
Don't waste your time learning or using PAlib.
Unfortunately even just using properly supported homebrew libraries you'll still have a fair bit of work to do moving to commercial development.
To do retail development (i.e. to get paid for your product), you'll need to get a real dev kit from Nintendo. The homebrew dev kits do not necessarily work in the same way as the real one, and (most importantly) they don't have access to the real dev kit's libraries.
Thus, if you develop against the homebrew dev kit, you're going to have to learn an entirely new library (which probably works very differently) when you move to the real thing.
Now, that's not to say that the homebrew dev kits can't be useful - they are a way to get code running on a real DS. As long as everyone realizes that it's a throwaway prototype, perhaps that could be enough to convince someone to spring for a real dev kit. If you go this route, you'll at least have something of a spec (it should work like the prototype!).
I also would advise not mentioning to Nintendo that you did this. I'm not in the industry, but they are obviously antagonistic toward the homebrew scene - I'm unclear how they'll feel about developers who started out on homebrew.
I have been sold on the fun of using linq in areas other than pure database interaction. (See Calling fellow code nerds - Alternatives to Nested Loops?).
We are stuck on 2.0. I have told the powers that be about the ease of updating to 3.5 (we have already migrated to VS2008) but they are wanting a list of "benefits" for upgrading.
Can those that have experience in 3.5 help provide some talking points for the benefits of updating an existing app to 3.5?
UPDATE: Found an additional reason: Microsoft's inclusion of Charting tools for Asp.Net as a patch on top of 3.5! They get their business value, I get the fun...
Can YOU make a case for it? Sounds like you want it because LINQ is fun. Other people are mentioning features that are fun. I've always had a problem selling fun features to management because they aren't very compelling reasons to potentially disrupt an environment.
Honestly, it really depends on what you are using C# for. Are you a web developer, system admin, something else? Taking a general approach, I would use the following selling points (you will need to do some work to prove these things):
Zero-disruption for end-users when upgrading. Upgrading to the new version will be seamless and we will have a thoroughly reviewed test plan for updating all clients to this version. All of our old applications that require .NET 1.x or .NET 2.0 will still work perfectly.
Programmer Efficiency. You could mention how more of the Windows API is wrapped by .NET classes, thus making programmer more efficient because they don't have to P/Invoke as much. LINQ makes your more productive because of x, y, and z. Lambda expressions make you more productive because of x, y, and z.
Ease pains of future OS migration. Moving to WPF now will prepare us for Vista/Windows 7. We won't have to migrate applications using the now deprecated "Windows Forms" to WPF, because we will already be using it.
More applications purchased from 3rd parties will require it, so we will have to upgrade sooner or later.
In the end, you need to prove that at the very least, this move will not cost you money in terms of increased support or testing costs. If you can show it will make you be more productive and it will be a rather painless switch, then you will get your wish.
Maybe you should talk to some Java developers who are probably still forced to develop using 1.3 or 1.4 despite 1.5 being out for over 3 years and 1.6 for a couple... it appears platform consistency across the business is often of greater importance than the benefits of using the latest and greatest.
Also remember that 3.5 is just additional BCL libraries. You are still running on CLR 2.0. Same is true for 3.0. Usually when people find out that the underlying framework is the same and that you are just adding in new libraries they are more likely to go along with it.
You don't need .NET 3.5 to get LINQ or C# 3.0 features. You can implement your own LINQ for .NET 2.0. I am using C# 3.0 all over the place in my .NET 2.0 application. I don't know the full details on how to start the conversion process because I didn't set it up myself. This might be a good link for you: http://www.danielmoth.com/Blog/2007/05/using-c-30-from-net-20.html.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171868.aspx
Transitioning onto 3.5 would help you reap the benefits/ features of:
LINQ to (Entities/ XML / Objects / Datasets etc ).
WCF, WF and WPF.
ASP.net MVC where MVC is kind of a de facto standard in other
platforms like Ruby/Python which
allow you pure HTML/ Javacript based
development.
ORM options with ADO.net Entity
Framework/ Linq to Sql
4.
With a few addons you can have
support for dynamic languages
like
IronPython/IronRuby.
Oh ya I almost forgot ADO.net Data Services..one of my fav.
These are the few benefits that immediately come to my mind.
In my experience, the addition of LINQ and Extension methods alone have made many previously arduous and/or time consuming tasks much easier and faster. The increased developer productivity from that alone is worth the upgrade effort IMHO.
Lambda expressions are awesome. There is no end to the places where I find that lambda expressions help me out in a very concise and readable way.
Automatic properties, while being a simple concept, really help making the code base smaller and clearer.
Also, I sencond the extension methods.
Before I even opened this question I had my answer: LINQ - it's one of the greatest extensions ever in .NET - I love it. It took me a few days to figure out, but now I've got it, I use it all over the place. The ability to query collections and arrays is worth the upgrade alone in my mind.
Decreased development time (and therefore increased ROI)
Less time wasted finding workarounds for .NET bugs that've been fixed in newer releases.
Extension methods for native types (in a similar fashion to JavaScript prototyping)
LINQ extensions - they take a couple of days to get your head around, but it's awesome!
LINQ to XML makes working with XML so much simpler
LINQ to objects/collections
A nice new 3.5 poster from Microsoft that you can pin up in your cubicle.
As a manager if I have a happier more productive team that is producing more in less time, then its a no brainer.
Ask yourself this: Will the developers be more effective and will their increased productivity actually increase benefit to the company or reduce corporate costs once you've considered the upgrade/transition/installation on the servers/additional testing etc? If the answer is truly yes, then do the upgrade and quit arguing about it.
Is there anyone who has used or looked into using Jitterbit as well as BizTalk? If so, what are some pros and cons of each, and which one did you go with as your final solution?
Specifically, I'm looking for SAP integration, but any input would be appreciated.
Like Rob I have not heard about JitterBit until reading your question (thanks!), I have, however, been working with BizTalk, almost exclusively, for the past 9 years; for that reason I wasn't sure I should be responding, but as Rob did, and nobody else has, I figured it's worth a couple of cents....
From the little reading I've done it seems to me that JitterBit, apart from being an open source, which has it's pros and cons, is trying to lower the entry barrier by offering a relative simple solution with the promise of rapid development and drag-n-drop approach "with no custom code".
I'll take their promise at face value, as I know nothing about it, although I have my doubts, so let's assume developing with JitterBit is really easy, there's one thing I can clearly state - developing with BizTalk isn't.
But, and that's a bit but in my view, developing with BizTalk is somewhat difficult not because Microsoft did a bad job at it, on the contrary - developing with BizTalk is somewhat difficult because Microsoft wanted to create a tool that could realistically allow enterprises to solve their BPM and integration needs well, and, in my experience, these problems are almost never simple, so Microsoft had built a server that has many capabilities, is very strong and very flexible, at the cost of complexity.
So, while any experienced technical sales guy can give you a demo of an integration scenario that is very simple, and is developed in a few minutes using a lot of drag and drop and configuration, even in BizTalk, but is this a realistic enterprise-level solution? was it a realistic scenario that was demonstrated? from my experience the answer is almost exclusively no; the problems tend to be complex, and their require a more robust solution.
So, I guess the bottom line would be - if you're looking for a one off solution, and open source is something you guys work with - JitterBit is definitely worth looking at, seeing if it's capable of helping out and has, indeed, a short learning curve (it would be important to look at maintenance, monitoring, trouble shooting, instance management etc)
If, however, you believe, as is often the case, that your solution would grow to become a BPM/integration platform in your organisation, and you need something more robust - I would put my money on BizTalk being a better candidate.
I've done a fair bit of integration with SAP, starting with the old SAP DCOM connector. More recently I've been involved in the selection of an integration platform to serve in an Enterprise Service Bus pattern.
We did web service samples to connect to SAP on a number of platforms, including BizTalk, Mule, Netweaver, Webmethods and Tibco. Webmethods won out based on licensing and capability, though BizTalk and Netweaver both had very high marks.
Jitterbit was not part of the evaluation - in fact I had to look it up to be sure I understood your question.
If your goal is just to be able to call an RFC, the .NET SAP connector works well.
If your goal is to expose a web service to wrapper a process in SAP, then BizTalk is good, but I recommend you see if your organization already has netweaver licensed as there are many web services available directly from SAP with no coding.
My recommendation is to avoid Jitterbug and Mule for the enterprise for now - unless Open Source is actually a popular thing at your place of employment. Netweaver and BizTalk are very robust, polished products.
If you are looking for something you can ship easily, then Jitterbug may make more sense. Though generally I'd recommend you define it as a web service call, and look to your customers technology stack for the most appropriate integration technique.
More context of what you are looking to achieve will enable a more accurate answer.
Michael,
We use Jitterbit in our organization and we've been very successful with it in various projects. Our SAP projects use XI and Jitterbit has dramatically simplified the ability to integrate web service interfaces with the various protocols it supports.
In addition to an excellent price (and we now subscribe to Jitterbit for support) we realize great value out of the support service. If we have any questions during our implementations they seem to provide all the subject matter expertise included in the support cost, so we're quite self sufficient.
We still have many other integration solutions in our company including VB and Java programs; it's a mess, but we don't believe that any one platform will meet all of our different divisions' needs. We have been using open source, specifically Linux and Apache for many years now, although IBM and Microsoft are also prevalent here.
We went with Jitterbit as it supports protocols needed to integrate any modern system and with SOA / Web Services being our stated direction Jitterbit was a great fit for what we needed.
Given that Jitterbit is Open Source, I would encourage you to download it and try it out.
I will say it simply, I have been using biztalk and was one of the people that helped validate the 2006 training course. Biztalk by far one the best server applications for Business process that is available today. You do also have to factor in the price point is ridiculously low compared to what else is out there.