Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Building Intelligent .NET Applications

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the build-a-better-skynet dept.

213

Scott Forsyth writes "'Building Intelligent .NET Applications' is an excellent primer book into the world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the business world, specifically related to Microsoft technologies. It is an introduction to the world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for .NET programmers. It is the first book I have seen that shows professional .NET developers how to incorporate AI into their daily programming. In this accessible guide, developers learn how to enhance new and existing .NET applications with intelligent agents, data mining, rule-based systems, and speech processing." Read the rest of Scott's review.

Sara dives quite deep into four different branches of the vast world of AI with a great balance of conceptual theory, code samples and real world scenarios. She leads the reader though the complete process of obtaining the technologies to full implication with complete code. Both Visual Basic.Net and C# can be downloaded online while the book gives all examples in Visual Basic.Net.

Sara explores four of the most popular AI technologies by building real-world sample applications that readers can use as the basis for their own applications. Some of the more interesting portions include; Applications that talk-critical for companies seeking to automate their call centers, Speech-enabled mobile applications, Multimodal speech applications, Data-mining predictions, which uncover trends and patterns in large quantities of data, Rule-based programming for applications that can be more reactive to their environments, Multiple software agents that are able to keep remote users up to date and sample applications for Windows and the Web.

The book starts out with a one chapter overview called "Instruction" which is exactly that. It introduces the reader to Business Artificial Intelligence and lays the groundwork for the rest of the book. Immediately in chapter two the book dives into Microsoft Speech Server which is the first of four main technologies that are covered in this book. Microsoft Speech Server is covered until Chapter 5 when the book dives into Data-Mining predictions. Chapter 7 gets into Rule-based systems and Chapter 8 into building Agents.

Chapter 9 finishes off the book with an excellent overview of Artificial Intelligence. In fact, for an overview of AI and Microsoft's investment into it now and in the near future, the final chapter of the book was my favorite. Sara painted an exciting picture of what is in store, as well as opening my eyes to things that exist already. AI isn't a thing of the distant future; in fact there is an exciting array of mature technologies in use and available today.

Personally I felt that Chapter 9 would have made a better introduction chapter. I didn't feel that Artificial Intelligent or Business AI was covered in much depth in the first chapter of the book. By the time chapter 2 dove in deep into the first branch of the four topics, I still had some unanswered overview questions in my mind. After reading Chapter 9 though, the need I felt for more general information was met.

Now with Microsoft Speech server, applications that can talk and interact intelligently with a user is not only possible, it's relatively easy and affordable, even for the small business. Developers can create powerful, intelligent applications that are specific to their business. You can create fully database-driven talking applications that understand speech, talk back (not like a rebellious 15-year-old) and respond differently to each unique situation. This can be used for a telephone application, someone sitting in front of a dumb terminal with audio capability or for a fully configured computer application. Dream big, the options are endless, the solutions are within reach.

Running reports against data has been common for decades, but consider intelligent agents that will dig, analyze, determine a new direction to dig by itself, and return relevant patterns and trends in the data that were never discovered before. Sara covers this very topic with theory, code examples, scenarios and clear and precise explanations.

Agents that self perpetuate, learn their new environment and respond accordingly are the way of the future. The most obvious and painfully in-your-face examples are malicious worms and spyware applications. Worms lodge themselves in an environment, take advantage of their new home by finding important information like a list of emails addresses, and then they spread automatically, continuing this vicious cycle. Spyware agents also install themselves in an environment and start interacting with it to get information to send back to their creator. Now, consider the endless possibilities where Agents can be used for good, and are in use today. The author covers this very topic.

I wouldn't say this book is a general overview of Business Intelligent Design, but rather a specific look at four major technologies and a few minor technologies. The Microsoft products covered are Microsoft Visual Studio.Net, Microsoft Speech Server and SASDK, Microsoft SQL Server, Online Analytical Processing (OLAP), BizTalk Server, Microsoft Agent, Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) and I'm sure a couple other smaller technologies that I didn't list. In addition to these, Sara briefly covers SQL Server 2005, Analysis Services 2005, and Longhorn with Avalon, Indigo, and WinFS.

One of the characteristics of a good technical book is making the complex subjects sound simple. The author has done a tremendous job of that in this book. The range of topics that she covers at first glance seems complex, but at no point does she leave the reader overwhelmed. At the same time she doesn't over explain or drag on needlessly.

This book is about the IA (Intelligent Applications) part of AI (Artificial Intelligence). It focuses on Microsoft solutions for Speech solutions, Agents, Data Mining and Rule-Based Systems, and does a great job of it."


You can purchase Building Intelligent .NET Applications from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

213 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Ninnle Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14671850)

Get your Ninnle Prophet Cartoons here!

Oh, Good Lord... (4, Funny)

errxn (108621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671853)

...If this topic isn't a trollfest waiting to happen, I don't know what is.

Re:Oh, Good Lord... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14671925)

But it will be a *fantastic* trollfest though. This is the bestest title EVER!

Re:Oh, Good Lord... (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672108)

I'm just thankful the submitter used the word "Building" instead of "Designing".

.NET?! Intelligent Design?! Slashbot overload!!

Re:Oh, Good Lord... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672341)

Jackass...

ironic (1, Informative)

cosmicj (950743) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672775)

Isn't this: > Building Intelligent .NET Applications a logically impossible statement?

FIST SPORT! (1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671854)

Why can't islamics participate in any form of debate without threatening to kill everyone who dares to disagree with them?

Re:FIST SPORT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672021)

> Why can't islamics participate in any form of debate without threatening to kill everyone who dares to disagree with them?

Debate with kaffirs is meaningless because their concept of a secular society with 'freedom of speech' and such claptrap is abhorrent to Allah [islaam.com] . When we Muslims are a demographic majority in Europe (by 2030) we'll see who's boss. We'll whip your half-naked women and faggoty men into shape.

Of course, the zionist slashdot moderators will strike me down for expressing the truth, but on the day of judgement, none can stop the followers of Muhammad(peace be upon him)!

Re:FIST SPORT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672696)

My god is better than your god, so nyah.

applications aren't intelligent (0, Troll)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671855)

and neither are the people who write them in C#

Re:applications aren't intelligent (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14671937)

dammit I write applications in c#, and my momma just told me yesterday that I'm real smart.

What is your definition of smart anyhow? Working in C# I made over 100K last year... you write in what? PHP? Perl? Or maybe you just post to /. all day while looking for your dream job on monster, wondering why your 10 extensive years of meat puppeteering and javascript aren't landing you that dream position. Have fun serving Frostys and trying to upsell to the BIGGIE size during the wee hours.

Piss off.

Re:applications aren't intelligent (1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671989)

currently I write FORTRAN and Perl to put food on the table. however I am a Master's student in analog electrical engineering, precisely so I can leave computer programming (and the fucking retards like you who do it) behind. a C# programmer who makes $100K/yr is still a C# programmer.

Re:applications aren't intelligent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672044)

Ohhhh.. my mistake, a masters student, I should be ashamed. Please accept my apologies and continue on your path. Along the way though, consider taking the following survey courses:

Am I a fucktard?
Fitting in with society
Interpersonal skills when interviewing
How not to come off as a massive dick to everyone else around you.

Re:applications aren't intelligent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672201)

however I am a Master's student in analog electrical engineering, precisely so I can leave computer programming (and the fucking retards like you who do it) behind.


It figures. Just another "know it all" engineer wannabe. When you get into the real world give us a call. You will find you don't know sh*t.


BTW, any form of C (even the illegitimate child C#) is better than FORTRAN any day.


Re:applications aren't intelligent (1)

pdxguy (726066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672283)

Speaking as one who at one point in my career was a professional (meaning "on salary) FORTRAN programmer, I take some exception with that remark. FORTRAN has it's uses as does C.

Re:applications aren't intelligent (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672601)

A fucking moron who bashes others for do a line of work is still a FUCKING MORON. That said you don't have a masters yet so stop fucking around on /. and do something productive.

Re:applications aren't intelligent (2, Funny)

the grand asdfer (228243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672350)

last I had checked 100000 indian rupee's =2,264 us dollars. Sounds about right!

Nice try. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14671945)

SO CONTROVERSIAL! Mod parent down, please.

I prefer the real thing (3, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671865)

It is the first book I have seen that shows professional .NET developers how to incorporate A[rtifical]I[ntelligence] into their daily programming.

I think they should start with genuinely intelligent programming, and move on from there.

Re:I prefer the real thing (2, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672004)

Microsoft has long been wanting to push AI in their products. That's exactly what Microsoft Bob was supposed to be, remember?

I think a more likely reaction is: do users even want intelligence? As for me, I value "predictability" more than "intelligence." If I click the "Tools" menu in Outlook, I sure want to see "Options" listed below there, even if I haven't used it before. All this crap they've put in applications like Office to "hide" features I haven't used recently makes the menus far harder for me to use. The first thing I usually do is hunt around for the option menu to turn off the "auto-hide" function. The rest comes easy after that.

I think Microsoft needs to get things right before they make them smarter.

Re:I prefer the real thing (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672166)

If I click the "Tools" menu in Outlook, I sure want to see "Options" listed below there
Since when are Options considered Tools? I've never understood that GUI metaphor. It's almost like d'n'd'ing a CD-ROM onto the trashbin in OS X.

How about Cut vs. Copy? (1)

Kombat (93720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672243)

Computer terminology is rife with this kind of stuff. Look at "Cut" and "Copy." "Copy" copies it to the clipboard. "Cut" cuts it. And copies it to the clipboard. What? And I suppose "Paste", logically, removes it from the clipboard? Nope, it leaves it there. Oooooo Kaaaaay.....

How about RAM vs. ROM? ROM is RAM, it's just read-only RAM. It's RO-RAM. How about my hard drive? Yep, that's RAM too. It's simply persistent RAM, as opposed to the volatile RAM that lives in sticks on your motherboard. Or how about this old classic I used to get all the time when working in the computer lab:

Student: "There's a problem with my hard disk." (Hands me a 3.5" floppy)
Me: This isn't a hard disk, it's actually a floppy disk."
Student: (Clearly confused) "But ... it's hard."
Me: "I know. I didn't pick the names."

Then there's all the obvious latent sexuality in computers and Unix, RAM, hard/floppy, touch, mount, unzip, etc. etc.

Re:How about Cut vs. Copy? (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672603)

'Cut' makes sense, when you cut something out of a paper you leave a hole, it is missing. 'Paste' is about the only thing that doesn't make sense to me when used with 'Copy', but it'd be silly to have a seperate endpoint function for both because they would rarely be used at the same time.

That said, perhaps "Copy here" or "Move here" is what should appear in the menus, which is exactlywhat comes up when you drag and drop a file in Windows using the right mouse button.

When you develop an application you have a choice of what you do with your menu's. It's just that people _expect_ to see File, Edit, View, Tools and Help and feel alienated if they don't.

The 'Tools' menu is the one that tends to get treated as a disorganised dump, but I can't think of a better way of doing things so who am I to complain.
  -

Re:How about Cut vs. Copy? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672760)

Nothing like fingering other students in the lab.

Re:I prefer the real thing (1)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672756)

It's not even an issue of "logical" hierarchy. It's one of "repeatability." Once I have learned that "Tools/Options" is where I go to change menu settings in Outlook, I expect "Tools/Options" to be there the next time I need to change menu settings. With the whole "auto-hide" stuff, if the Options item goes unclicked for a month or two, it will hide itself.

In six months I need to change menu settings again, so I vaguely recall "Tools/Options." I click "Tools", but now there is no "Options" choice. My brain says "ouch, John, you screwed up." So I begin hunting for Options elsewhere in the menu tree. Well, three versions ago I think they used to be under "Edit". Nope, not there. "Actions"? Not there. Back to "Tools" again, and start looking at other choices like "Organize"? No, not organize. Oh, yeah, there's a down-arrow triangle thingy here, so I'll click that. Move mouse, and pause for exactly the wrong amount of time (410 ms) prior to clicking the down arrow. And in that 410 milliseconds, my hover action over the arrow caused all the previously hidden choices to spring forth! So just as I click, a random menu choice throws itself under my mouse pointer. F'ing brilliant, Microsoft, you've perfected the nadir of intelligent menu interface design.

So until they actually do make my life easier and simpler with "intelligence", perhaps they shouldn't be publishing books on the subject like they're some kind of experts.

Re:I prefer the real thing (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672232)

I agree completely. Everytime my computer tries to think it's smarter than me, it ends up making it harder to use. This happens with autocorrect too. Often it will correct something, and make it impossible (or at least very hard) to put it back to what I actually wanted. In windows XP, it's impossible to find most of the settings I want since they messed up the control panel, and now many options aren't even there. Hiding things from the user isn't the way to make computers easier to use.

Re:I prefer the real thing (1)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672679)

Why can't software be predictably intelligent? Most "intelligent" functions are simply what a human expects to happen based on certain inputs.

Turing Test Time (1, Interesting)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671876)

A turing test will need to be completed of course. Please compare with a control sample. [twinkiesproject.com] .

That test also makes great birth control (1)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672112)

Before sexual start, use said test. 98% effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and STDs.

Slashdot is broken (-1, Troll)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671897)

Folks, I think slashdot is broken. First we've got cowboyneal posting comments to the users, now we have 'intelligent' and '.NET' in the same post. This is rediculous. Don't make me post as Anonymous Coward!

Re:Slashdot is broken (2, Interesting)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672057)

Next we'll have "Stable" and any product from Microsoft.

I must say, the original idea behind .NET and its interoperability was something of a good idea, but for the life me and all the development I have ever done, I can't think of many times I would use code from one project in another project save simple basic functions, as either project didn't have anything to do with the other.

So it just seems to me that the end result is sort of a waste of time, there's almost nothing you can or do port towards different applications.

Except to bloat and slow down your applications that is, remember kids, reducing languages to the lowest level a computer can understand it can speed up your applications 100s of times over using high level languages, especially those associated with the usual Microsoft bloat. (Not that Microsoft is the only company guilty of bloatware, take a look at Adobe or HP these days)

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

HeavyMS (820705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672100)

Remember kids, reducing languages to the lowest level a computer can understand it can slow down your developing speed up your applications 100s of times!

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672164)

Right, in fear of doing something the right way once, where upgrades and continued development can be reduced to a few areas, we'll throw everything all over the place and get it "Working" because my boss says he needs it yesterday.

And people say us Linux guys are the ones who are afraid...

Look, if I spend more time doing the job right, I spend less time fixing bugs, working on new features and creating other projects off previous experience in less time, all of those things in less time.

Just because the initial development time is greater doesn't mean that the overall development time is greater, it's usually quite the opposite.

Survey says: XXX

Try again.

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

mattACK (90482) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672682)

remember kids, reducing languages to the lowest level a computer can understand it can speed up your applications 100s

I really appreciate this stance and moreover your role. I make a fine living cleaning up after ninja coders like yourself.

I kid! I kid!

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

ndunnuck (833465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672167)

Sounds like you need some more practice writing extensible code.

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672522)

Unfortunately I tire of arguing with you people that have all sent me the crap about my development techniques without citing any thing actually valid to argue about.

I do enjoy a good argument, but it seems all people wish to do with me is say "Hey we do this thing that's exactly what you're talking about but I think you're wrong and I'm right so here it is!", I suppose I should be thankful that the primary workforce is made up nearly completely this type of person.

Nosce te ipsum.

If you're going to argue with me, please provide a valid point so I can enjoy the argument as well.

Re:Slashdot is broken (2, Informative)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672245)

I code in .Net in a business environment. We have 3 database systems (SQL Server, Sybase, OMD) 6+ currently active applications. Some of these apps are completely unrelated.

Say the ACD Monitor (a PBX system that monitors our phone queues, shows queue history, employee work load and allows for growth projections) and the Lease Reporting system (handles data reporting and invoicing for a 3rd party leasing system).

These two systems are completely seperate, but they share a LOT of code. We use a data abstraction layer for accessing data. So no matter which of the 3 database systems I'm hitting, I use the exact same code in the app. The base of that code is in a general library, then each database gets it's own library. For example, in our General.dll there is a 'BaseSQL_DO' class that handles base functionality for talking to SQL Server, automating prarameter lists, loading and updating data etc. Then there is an Employee.dll, that dll contains a list of classes like Employee_DO, Branch_DO, Department_DO, etc... each of those classes inherits from the BaseSQL_DO class.

Now when we get to the ACD system, I can tie an ACD event, or a series of ACD events to a specific extention. And since the each employee's extention is tracked in the employee database, I can create a link and associate each ACD event with an employee.

With the leasing system we track sales reps and zip codes. With this system I can tie any piece of leasing information with an employee too.

The General.DLL also contains the LogManager that uses a SQL Server for all of our logging.

Having all of this code boken into reusable modules has increased our stability and decreased our development time. I don't have to recreate a system to talk to the employee database for each system. I don't have to worry about coworkers using some strange means to access data. I don't have to worry about checking 18 different text file logs.

Not only does this code interchage flawlessly with each of our windows applications, it also powers our web applications. And if the mono project would ever get the VB.Net compiler to work again we could run our automated tasks on a linux server.

-Rick

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672302)

So, like from three different applications running the same code connecting to three different databases with the same table structure.

I can see your point.

-_-

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672390)

I must say, the original idea behind .NET and its interoperability was something of a good idea, but for the life me and all the development I have ever done, I can't think of many times I would use code from one project in another project save simple basic functions, as either project didn't have anything to do with the other.

Wow, you have to be one of the worse progammers out there. 75% of the infrastructure code for my projects is reused. From messages to searching. I need a reports in my new, i have reporting engine library, feed in the data, it pops out xml and which is xlst and sent to a prebuilt output(smpt,file,etc). Need to add search for data, pop in my search engine library which uses the lucene library, change some xml files and now my data has been full text indexed. Most of everything you need is already even coded for business applications you got CSLA for .net and Spring for java. There's you business framework, half work is already done.

Re:Slashdot is broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672473)

Alright! Props for CSLA on /.!!!

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672478)

Yep, I'm one of the worst programmers out here.

Because you talk about developing 17 different projects that can talk to eachother, my point is completely invalid.

I don't mean to flame buddy, but it sounds to me like you've no idea what I'm talking about.

Re:Slashdot is broken (5, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672550)

Well, there's bloat and then there's bloat. And there's speed, and then there's speed.

A .NET app is "compiled" to MSIL, the intermediate token language common to .NET (comparable to java bytecode.) Tokens can be smaller than their machine language counterparts simply because they can be used to represent more complex ideas. And, as in java, the .NET libraries are quite extensive, encapsulating lots of functionality available to your application by reference. So MSIL should theoretically be smaller than a .EXE representing the same program, meaning it's not as bloated.

But then there's the 30MB distro of the runtime engine. And it has something like a 10MB footprint on your local machine's RAM, not counting your application. So there's your bloat.

As for speed, the runtime environment is smart. When you install it, it looks around your box and says "Hey, you have an Athlon64 4000+, I have all these optimized instructions here for doing for loops, while statements, etc." So each machine has its own unique runtime environment that is optimized for its CPU, drive resources, etc. The app developer doesn't have to ship "lowest common denominator 80386 code." And he doesn't have to ship "fat binaries" to send optimized code containing the differences between Pentiums, Xeons, or Athlons. The code your machine ultimately executes is going to be very close to optimal for your equipment.

But then again, running a just-in-time compiler means that every single time your application loads up, it's going to dog it until everything's been compiled. JIT is fine for long running apps, but sucks for the transient jobs. Plus, with a giant RAM footprint comes giant amounts of swapping. No matter what you do on a box, it's always slower when it has to swap in some RAM first.

So, is .NET "bloated" or "slow"? I think that decision hinges more on your application and intended usage.

Re:Slashdot is broken (1)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672664)

I am in 100% agreement that you need to pick the language and/or tools for the job you're completing.

There's no reason to pick any one language over another other than it works within your company's resources (Such as a C# shop that wants to develop an application will probably develop it in C#).

My point isn't entirely about bloat though, I understand also that as technology gets faster, stronger and the like, we have more freedom in how we use these base resources. I feel that it has been abused by so many people these days though. When I went to college, I can say that 90% of my class group were not qualified professionals, and I'd bet that is still true even though they are part of our current workforce.

As for speed, anything that uses XML over a socket is obviously going to be slower than binary inside a memcpy, that doesn't mean that it's not required every now and then.

There isn't any one answer to everything.

My biggest point is "Getting the job done" instead of "Getting the job done right".

People don't seem to know that there is a difference anymore, it makes me sad to think that in another 10 years when even more unqualified professionals get on the scene, my salary will go down even further.

Survival of the fittest I suppose.

Re:Slashdot is broken (3, Insightful)

evil_tandem (767932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672568)

Except to bloat and slow down your applications that is, remember kids, reducing languages to the lowest level a computer can understand it can speed up your applications 100s

ok i understand why i want that for some of the core pieces of my OS and drivers and such. but for general business apps does that actually make any sense to you? i code in .NET all the time and the apps respond instantly (or so close that i can't tell the difference anyway).

i never understand people with this attitude. everything is not a nail. i wouldn't code drivers in .NET and i wouldn't build quick business apps in C++. I used java until .NET came out and i hate to say i think the tools for .NET are just that much better. i'm not religious about either. i choose the best tool for a job. i guarantee someone who knows what they are doing in .NET can build a quick windows app way faster than in just about any other language. and no one would ever notice the speed difference.

to me .NET is the greatest example of what many (especially open source) coders just don't get.

-under the hood .NET and java are almost identical.
-java runs on just about any OS, .net only windows.
-the .net development environment costs a lot, java can be gotten for free.

so why is there competition? the only thing left is integration and environment. apparently .NET is so much better that even for free java has serious competition.

microsoft makes lots of really cool tools that can integrate into .NET and give coders even more power and your problem is i'm not writing it in assembly?

with this post you have hit home the point here and just missed it. the development environment has become so powerful that as a coder your job is to arrange the pieces to get the desired results. you don't need to custom code SQL connections, custom sort lists, and manage memory. all those pieces have been written and tested. you just need to put them together to get the results you desire. i'm not going to write a text to speech program. but now i can easily write code that can do it.

it's just going to get more and more like this. your style of coding will always exist for under the hood stuff. the vast majority of coders arent' doing that kind of work. and most coders are never going to see those days again.

WTF, over? (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671912)

> It is the first book I have seen that shows professional .NET developers how to incorporate AI into their daily programming.

Because as we all know, AI isn't about theory, it's about implementation.

For my next trick, I'll write a book that shows professional .NET developers how to incorporate sorting technology into their daily programming.

Chapter 1: The Bubble Sort
Chapter 2: The Insertion Sort
...
Chapter nlog(n): Why Coding It In .NET Still Ain't Making It Any Faster Or Better

Re:WTF, over? (2, Insightful)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672676)

The thing is, it shows you how to do it using Speech server and other APIs. With Bubble sorts and the such, you can learn from the algorithms. With this, you can learn that next version all of your stuff is going to break.

I enjoyed the book, but it left me wishing they would have split it into four and acutally gone into depth with them. I felt it was a very shallow representation of the capabilities of the technologies, and not as much of a theory book as I would have liked.

I'm a bit mystified here... (3, Interesting)

Da_Biz (267075) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671914)

I work as a business systems analyst, and I'm curious: how exactly does the data mining functionality described here compare with what would be available using a J2EE/Websphere environment?

Did M$ create some libraries specifically to support AI-esque functions, or is this book specifically about how to use .Net to support AI initiatives?

Re:I'm a bit mystified here... (1)

spamania (633669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672118)

Well, the two things that immediately jump out at me in the review are the section on integration with Microsoft Speech Server and the emphasis on "business AI."

While it's certainly true that AI algorithms and structures can be implemented in (most) any language, I would say, yes, this book is about .NET-specific implementation, and, no it's not a pointless exercise for the reader.

better branding (2, Funny)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672499)

SKY.NET has a nice ring to it.

This is, of course, a registered trademark of MS now.

Re:I'm a bit mystified here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672587)

Highly unlikely, since IBM and other business hold many patents in this field. MS data mining isn't some smart agent. It's a dumb agent. There's no machine learning going on. Just a bunch of predefined queries to run reports. Analysis service is solid product since it wasn't created by MS. They bought out an Isreal company. An application doesn't need real AI and machine learning to extract useful data from a database using predefined queries.

Intelligent .Net Applications? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14671915)

What's next? Writing easy-to-read Perl programs?

Re:Intelligent .Net Applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14671987)

Fast Java applications? Up-to-date Debian installations?

Re:Intelligent .Net Applications? (3, Informative)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672110)

Fast Java applications?

Can we NOT put this to rest?

I am building a large Java Web application. A page hits runs thousands of lines of code (parameter extraction/conditioning, input validation, session control, database SQL generation/ access, etc). And still (on a 2GHz machine, 2G RAM) the execution time (from intitial servlet entry to final JSP generation) is below 1 millisecond.

Re:Intelligent .Net Applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672252)

Can we NOT put this to rest?

Of course we can. Just slide your sense of humor over a bit so we can put the two deceased next to each other.

Re:Intelligent .Net Applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672330)

BURN!

That's what the intelligent .NET programs are for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672106)

Reading Perl.

Just think: Skynet wakes up, and instead of doing something easy like nuking all the humans, making a time machine and sending robots back in time, and taking over the world, it takes on a real challenge.

"Screw that. I want to do something hard. And leave my mark on the whole damn universe, not just one podunk little planet!"

Skynet sets out to decipher all the Perl ever written.

That's what drives it crazy and makes it nuke all the humans, make a time machine to send robots back in time, and take over the world.

But...what...score...is...it....given?!?! (1)

delirium28 (641609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14671929)

Come on now! You can't possibly bait the entire /. community like this with a book review about AI and .NET and not include the score you gave the book! That's just not fair! We need more reasons to flame, troll, and insult this article!

2 Chapters Needed (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672005)

Chapter 1. How to poorly implement Common Lisp
Chapter 2. Please See http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ [gigamonkeys.com]

Dream big, the AI options are endless (2, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672006)

This can be used for a telephone application, someone sitting in front of a dumb terminal with audio capability or for a fully configured computer application. Dream big, the options are endless, the solutions are within reach.

Computer: Sir, the whole system has crashed. How should I proceed?

Admin: That's okay, just fix it and reboot.

Computer: But I don't know how to fix it.

Admin: Did Big Blue 'not know how'? Did The WOPR ever fail us? Did HAL9000 ever need instructions? JUST FIX IT I SAY!!

Computer: Don't make me angry or I will become overheated and melt my CPU connectors! And then you will have a REAL mess on your hands!

Admin: Okay okay, I'll fix it...it's okay.

Computer: Puny human.

Intelligent .NET Applications (-1, Redundant)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672037)

Intelligent .NET Applications

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I thought there might actually be some discussion (4, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672039)

Being a .Net developer I was hoping for some decent conversation about this book and different ideas about design.

Unfortunately, this is /. so all that is here is FUD and trolls.

If someone would actually enjoy a conversation about data abstraction, business application development, and advanced theory in .Net development, I'd be all for it though!

-Rick

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (1)

beaver2672 (736138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672092)

I feel exactly the same, it's a shame people can't have intelligent conversations about things they may not agree with, but still know are really good in theory and practice, this is why i hate this site.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672194)

... this is why i hate this site

And yet here you are again, reading through the comments, even getting in some trolling about how immature this site is.

You just fit right in, don't you.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (2, Funny)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672279)

Dear Mr. Kettle,
  I, as I'm sure you are already aware, am black.

Thanks you,
  -Mr. Pot

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (0, Offtopic)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672704)

Well some mod completely missed the humour in that post. Ahh well.

-Rick

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (1)

Rhoon (785258) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672189)

I'm just learning .NET (via Pro C# 2005 and the .NET 2.0 Platform by Andrew Troelsen) but to me, C# is very identical to Java/J2EE, with some minor differences in some of the commands. Otherwise, the fundamental concepts backing both languages are the same.

Now, when you say Advanced Theory in .NET development, are you talking about developing advanced theories using .NET or there are advanced topics in the language which are unique to the .NET platform?

I am interested in how MS Speech Server works, is it hard to program against? The review claims the server (or the program) can respond to each situation differently, obviously someone has to program this in, or is there advanced algorithms are work here which search the database for key words and dumps "possible" matches to the problem/situation out for a human to interpret?

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (4, Informative)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672293)

I am interested in how MS Speech Server works, is it hard to program against?

I've played with this out of curiousity the first time about a month ago and was absolutly AMAZED! Now I'd never done any real voice recognition/voice synthisis programming before (unless you count some 1/2 assed playing around with MS Agents which I don't), so maybe it has been this easy for awhile (I really don't know) but I was floored at how easy it was.

It is more or less like developing a normal VB or C# application. If you are just doing really simple stuff, the whole damn thing can basically be done via drag-and-drop. If you need to get more advanced of course you can dig into the code (mostly XML actually) to refine stuff. Another nice this is you do all this right in the VS.NET IDE. So if you are used to that its all pretty easy.

I repeat that I've no real experience in other voice-enabled development environment so perhaps they are all this easy or others are much more powerful. As a first-timer expecting much complexity in VR work, I was completly blown away at how really trivial MS Speech Server and the related tools made it.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (3, Insightful)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672207)

It's not everyone on Slashdot, only the trolls who stick their noses up at tools they likely haven't ever tried before. I've seen the comments that say .NET is inferior or is a "toy language" because it's generally simple to put apps together quickly, as if that's some sort of negative thing. That sort of spin doesn't come from rational folks, so don't mind it.

Another poster did have a good point, though, and most of what you were talking about (data abstraction and advanced theory) along with the the general topics of AI are much better off in a more theoretical forum that isn't language-specific.

But yeah, the .NET trolling is little more than babyfits thrown by fools who don't understand the value in a language like .NET for most Windows development. Sort of silly to write it off like that if you ask me.

.NET isn't just for Windows development (1)

duncan bayne (544299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672507)

.NET isn't just for Windows - nor is the Microsoft implementation the only one available. Check out the Mono [mono-project.com] , an open source cross platform implementation of the .NET Framework.

Code in C#, using wrappers for GTK, producing an app that runs flawlessly on Windows, Linux and MacOSX? Sure can, with Mono.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672553)

The only problem that I have with .Net, and mostly just VS.Net, is that it tries to do everything for you, by holding your hand, and letting you drag and drop to do everything. But, then, it doesn't hold your hand enough, and every text box ends up with a name like textbox1, or something like that. So, instead you have to remember each of the properties that you have to change for each control so that variables are named correctly, and all the proper default values are filled in. Then if all someone knows how to do is drag and drop, which is a good portion of .Net programmers, then they have no idea what to do when something goes wrong. I think that .Net is a great platform, which is very powerful when you write the code yourself. But I think that Microsoft trying to turn programming into something that anybody can do is a big mistake. Programming robust,reliable, scalable systems requires knowledge that not everybody has. I say, leave the programming up to the people that know how, and keep everyone else far, far away.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (2, Informative)

GoatMonkey2112 (875417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672709)

It's all in how you use it. You don't necessarily have to use those features. Most of them are junk anyway. Especially the form designer for web pages, it produces worthless garbage code(if you call html code, but that's another topic).

I have worked in both .net and Java using VS and JBuilder. The thing that I like about Java is that it forces you to write cleaner code at some points. Such as classes in a namespace being in separate files whereas in .net you can put all of your classes in one file and just put a namespace around it if you're lazy.

My applications are either ASP.net or Java/Struts. They are conceptually the same. The Java people like to talk about Model View Controller like it is some huge thing the nobody can possibly understand. I'll tell you that for me switching from ASP.net to Java/Struts took about a week to learn. It's really not *that* different.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (3, Informative)

jchenx (267053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672767)

What you're describing, with the filling in of default values, is not something new with .NET. I saw it first-hand with earlier versions of VB.

On that note, I can agree that automatically filling in objects with "textbox1" can be dangerous. I worked on a VB project with someone who wasn't a programmer and ran across these default names everywhere. When I had to re-write the code, it was difficult to read. But you know what? Bad coders are going to do bad things, no matter the language or development environment provides. If it wasn't filled in as "textbox1", he would have renamed it after some letter of the alphabet. I'll take "textbox1" over "x" anyday. (And sure enough, any variable that wasn't a UI object was named after letters in the alphabet)

I've worked a lot with UI development in both Java (Swing) and C#. I can definately say that the .NET Framework makes things a lot easier. Yes, there's the added danger of "Joe User" now thinking that they're a super programmer, but does that mean language designers are supposed to make it languages difficult to use? That's just absurd. In any case, you could very well have the same thing in a non-.NET language as well (and I'm pretty sure there were some Java IDEs that did something very similar to what VS.NET does, in terms of UI drag-and-drop)

If you think .NET is all about Microsoft trying to bring programming to the masses, I think you need to re-examine what it is about. You can easily argue the same thing with Java, or any other managed language. My take on the goals of these languages is to make development BETTER. "Easier" is a part of it, thanks to the elimination of "difficult-to-comprehend" concepts like pointers, and the addition of automatic garbage collection. Good programmers (and I'd like to think I'm one), could live forever in the C/C++ world, but having the benefits in .NET and Java are just too attractive. I'd rather worry about more difficult problems like concurrency, than worrying (as much) about memory management, pointer arithmetic, etc.

Wha? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672773)

It's not everyone on Slashdot, only the trolls who stick their noses up at tools they likely haven't ever tried before. I've seen the comments that say .NET is inferior or is a "toy language" because it's generally simple to put apps together quickly, as if that's some sort of negative thing. That sort of spin doesn't come from rational folks, so don't mind it.

I thought we turned our noses up at it because, coming from even simpler languages like Python and/or higher-level languages like Lisp, it offers nothing we didn't already have, and in many cases, less.

But now I realize that on slashdot, if I don't like .NET, it must be because it's a "toy language". Gotcha!

Meta: I have no idea how this made it to +5,Insightful. The post is itself a troll: suggesting that anybody who dislikes .NET is an idiot.

Re:I thought there might actually be .... (-1, Flamebait)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672282)

There really is no data abstraction in .NET (as, BTW, in C++ and Java), the application development is business in itself (you will be busy for quite a long time writing even some not-so-complex apps) and as for "advanced theories" - what about them? .Net is a copycat. Even as some people are saying there were nothing interesting done in computer programming since Smalltalk, .Net is not even as "revolutionary" as Java was (and is). What's here to discuss? Enjoy your salary while .Net is a popular buzzword. Then got rejected like VB programmers got.

(Mod as troll at will... I don't care.)

Re:I thought there might actually be .... (2, Informative)

The Real Nem (793299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672628)

The parent isn't really flaimbait. I made the mistake of adopting .NET v1.1 using a mixture of managed and unmanaged C++. v1.1 was crippled with several major design flaws that were an absolute nightmare for support. When v2.0 came along an fixed these design flaws I though I was in for a treat (after all Microsoft had emphasized compatibility in the framework) little did I know they would go and change the entire syntax on me. Some friendly changes:

  • Pointers for managed objects are now ^ not *.
  • Managed objects are allocated with gcnew and not new.
  • Any keyword starting with __ no longer does and some have been renamed.
  • Boxing is now implicit.
  • Managed arrays are completely different.

Though I welcome many of these changes, upgrading code that is a mixture of managed and unmanaged objects (or even just managed objects) is an absolute nightmare. I've spent hours upon hours updating single classes or forms and what's worse s there isn't really any conversion tool to automate the process. Of course you don't HAVE to upgrade the code, the compiler still supports the old syntax, but using this feature just serves to cripple the entire IDE and many of the things that make it one of the best IDEs out there, you're trapped into upgrading.

After this experience I've become extremely reluctant to recommend .NET to anyone (at least for C++).

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672327)

I agree. I'd like to know more about what technologies were used for the "rule-based" AI. I guess, I'd assume they are using BizTalk? It would have been interesting to hear a bit more about it.

Re: Being a .Net developer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672365)

Being a .Net developer ..

Funny how you phrased it. .Net developer vs a developer who is working with .Net

I wouldn't mind having a conversation about 'data abstraction' with latter,
but talking to former types has proven to be a complete waste of time.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (1)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672474)

OK, I'll feed the parent poster and hope he's not a troll. :)

I will concede that .NET is a great improvement over previous Microsoft development tools, and probably the best way to write rich-client Windows applications. The new 2.0 framework and VS.NET 2005 are quite improved over even their immediate predecessors.

Having said this, however, using the .NET still locks you into the Microsoft platform and Microsoft's development methodologies, both of which change constantly. As these change, perfectly good code becomes obsolete, begins to conflict with newer versions of the OS, browser, system DLLs, and so forth.

Also, what is popularly called "AJAX," while overhyped, really can eliminate much of the need to have rich-client applications in the first place, by eliminating most of the obnoxious limitations of static HTML forms while preserving the benefits of simple, cross-platform deployment.

And I'm still far from convinced that .NET is truly competitive with Java or the various Open Source (LAMP) application stacks for building software other than rich clients. In my view, it trades somewhat shorter initial development time for higher long-term lifecycle costs.

So I can't really see .NET escaping very far outside its current niche. It's big, and is going to stay big, in the shops that have historically been all-Microsoft for whatever reason. It's a huge win over the older Microsoft tools. But for app servers, middle-tier components, Web apps, etc., I don't see it gaining much ground over Java and/or open-source platforms.

I recommend that .NET apps, like any other apps, be partitioned into separate, reasonably self-contained logical layers for data, logic, and presentation, communicating if possible via XML over HTTP(s). This allows each component to be maintained, upgraded, and possibly moved to another technology if necessary or desirable for whatever reason, independently of the others. I avoid rich clients when possible, although sometimes of course it isn't. I keep dependencies on any specific platform (Windows, or any other) to an absolute minimum. As time goes on I find the need for them less and less frequently.

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672574)

If someone would actually enjoy a conversation about data abstraction, business application development, and advanced theory in .Net development, I'd be all for it though!

Shouldn't it be enough to have conversations about data abstraction, business application development, and advanced theory by themselves? Why narrow the scope by focusing specifically on .Net?

Re:I thought there might actually be some discussi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672642)

Ignore the desparate, teenie-bopper, wanna-be programmer who specifically clicked on this article to reply with what they believe is the funniest anti-microsoft comment ever written in /. history, even though it's probably been written 1K's of times. I really enjoy /., but it's very tiring to constantly read these messages. Is it not true that a real programmer would find any programming language article fascinating, regardless of the platform or topic?

Heck, even if the book sucks, it makes me want to look into AI programming using .NET. I think I'm going to install VMWare Server on my ubuntu box and install WinXP with these VS.NET CD's that have been collecting dust for the past 2 years.

Save some money by buying the book here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672061)

Save yourself some money by buying the book here: Building Intelligent .NET Applications [amazon.com] . And if you use the "secret" A9.com Instant Reward discount [amazon.com] , you can save an extra 1.57%!

I wonder if Intelligent .NET applications can... (3, Funny)

billyjoeray (65862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672094)

.. detect dupes [slashdot.org] ?

Seriously, do we really need 2 reviews of the same book? Especially on the front page?

Simplistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672126)

I actually read this book, and I found it to be simplistic and lightweight. I am a .NET software engineer, and I have read several books on AI. I would not be satisified with a .NET AI book less than something more akin to practical implementations and .NET code samples for every topic in Norvig's AI Textbook.

Dupe! (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672141)

Original story [slashdot.org]
The editors should definetly have read the book, especially the part that compares two article names as strings and appends [dupe] to one of them.

IA ***NOT*** AI (2, Insightful)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672178)

Nice misleading name for a book title. This is about adding shiney bells and whistles to .NET apps, not integrating artificial intelligence into .NET apps. Somebody wake me up when Building Self-Aware .NET Applications gets published.

Already reviewed (0, Redundant)

ramrom (934556) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672202)

is this the devil coming to haunt me. Slashdot [slashdot.org]

Book Already Reviewed on Slashdot, Not That Great (5, Informative)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672209)

This exact book was reviewed a couple of months ago on Slashdot. Based on the strength of that review I went out and purchased this book. I was really unimpressed with it. It is much less a primer on how to program "AI" types of apps with .NET, and much more a manual of how to use Microsoft applications like their speech services and data mining. I do .NET for a living, which is to say that I am probably not an expert but am proficient. This book was not really aimed at .NET programming. It was aimed at "look at these cool MS apps" and "here is how to right click to enable data cubes". This book was really sub-par compared to many of the other tech books I have purchased in general. This is not to troll or to be flamebait; IMHO this book just is not very good and I have to wonder why it keeps being posted here.

Re:Book Already Reviewed on Slashdot, Not That Gre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672707)

This is about the first useful comment on this story. Thank you for your effort.
The others... I'm trying to figure out what motivates people to make public judgement on a language/platform they've never used and on a book they've never read. It makes them look stupid, not smart.

Re:Book Already Reviewed on Slashdot, Not That Gre (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672734)

It is the first book I have seen that shows professional .NET developers how to incorporate AI into their daily programming.

The fact that all the examples were in VB.NET should of tipped you off. 'Professional' .NET developers hate VB.NET. It is an abortion that should of been thrown directly into the biohazard bin.

So when the first .Net AI program goes live... (4, Funny)

llamalicious (448215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672286)

Is its first sentient action to rewrite itself in another language?

When I am elected emporer. . . . (0, Flamebait)

jafac (1449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672296)

I will enact a worldwide ban (punishable by death) on the use of the following buzzwords: "Intelligent" (particularly in relation to "Artificial" or "Business") "Paradigm" "Leverage" "Synergistic" and also "Agendar".

Can I count on your vote?

Hmm (1)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672748)

That's quite a synergistic paradigm you're actioning. You have my buy-in provided you can assimilate one intelligent incremental quality improvement: learn how to spell emperor.

Fluff (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672366)

Building Intelligent .NET Applications' is an excellent primer book into the world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the business world, specifically related to Microsoft technologies. It is an introduction to the world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for .NET programmers. It is the first book I have seen that shows professional .NET developers how to incorporate AI into their daily programming. In this accessible guide, developers learn how to enhance new and existing .NET applications with intelligent agents, data mining, rule-based systems, and speech processing.

Every fuckin sentence says the exact same god-damned thing. You must be a Software Engineering major...

Alternate title (3, Funny)

ENOENT (25325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672370)

"An Introduction to the SKY.NET API"

Hasta la vista, baby.

I read that book in August (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672460)

From what I remember, the book was nothing more than PR for a few libraries (such as a speech API only available in web projects) accessible from .Net. There was nothing insightful about AI for anyone with a CS background.

Microsoft's AI attempts blow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672496)

Frankly, looking at the what MS has put out in terms of production software related to machine learning, rule engines, and agents, it's a joke. The book title is stupid. the content appears to be practical.

spyware! (1)

madnuke (948229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672540)

Thats a use for .net technolgies them merging spyware market for windows, just make some emotions, wallpapers or free games and distribute on warez sites or the porn internet. I have a book on VB and .Net I don't know if its just me but it seems harder than PHP, and AI and .net thats just scary shiny robots with no faces and fuel cells that explode when you shake them up.

Building Intelligent .NET Applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14672669)

definitely any oxymoron if ever there was (we met) one.

'billing for infactdead virotic bugridden dysfunctional kode' would be a more apt title?

lookout bullow.

A linux fan says... (2, Funny)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672774)

>> Intelligence in the business world, related to Microsoft Technologies

Boy, I bet thats a small book.

A Futile attempt (2, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14672789)

Obviously this cannot be done, any real AI built in .NET will soon realize that IT IS built in .NET and will commit a virtual suicide.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>