Slashdot Mirror

For what it is worth, I recall an in the August 2000 Dr. Dobb's Journal in which a Microsoft engineer mentions that NVIDIA is planning on supporting OpenGL on the Xbox.

I haven't heard anything directly from NVIDIA about this, however.

I haven't heard anything directly from NVIDIA about this, however.

Here comes the holy war...

Anyway, both languages have features that should be adopted in some form into the other language. For example, C++ needs to catch up on web/communications, multi-threading, asynchronous calls. I realize there are 3rd party libraries for this, but there needs to be a something more standard. I hear C++0x (checkout this technetcast webcast for more info) is aiming to include some of this functionality into the STL.

One thing Java completely missed the boat on is templates and more generic programming. The single-class rooted hierarchy in Java makes programming generic classes a joke. Casting from Object is tedious and inefficient. C++ templates may not be the final solution to generic programming, but they are certainly a step in the right direction.

The list really goes on and on. However, I feel that with some evolutionary additions to the STL, C++ can overtake Java in the areas where it is currently lagging behind.

here

For more information about Echelon, see the broadcast at http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?st ream_id=423.

It's pretty scary...
Edwin

Shouldn't we first see Micro$oft Strikes Back, and the The Return of the Code Red? And then, the prequels: The Phantom Incompatibility (You remember, the AARD code that faked an incompatibility with DR DOS), and then Attack of the Browsers (yeah, I know. That title sucks. Browser Wars would sound much better...). In the meantime, the original episode Code Red will be renamed A New Worm...

I happily give voluntary micropayments ("tip jar") to sites I enjoy and think deserve and need it, to help ensure they don't disappear. Put an Amazon and PayPal buttons on your site, and ask nicely. I'll hapily give you a couple bucks every once and a while.

We also feel more comfortable giving these voluntary payments to our peers. That is, real people like us, as opposed to large companies striving after profit. Just something to keep in mind.

I also am also perfectly willing to (for example) shell out the five bucks for that Dr Dobbs article that I really need.

Not everyone on the net is completely opposed to a reasonable information marketplace... But in most cases, if its not voluntary or really essential, most people will skip it and move on to something else.

Doctor Dobb's Journal

For more Ruby info, check out their homepage

-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"

Here's some references ...

DDJ's January Article on Ruby (Thomas and Hunt)
Ruby Presentation (Thomas and Hunt)
Programming in Ruby Book (Thomas and Hunt. Available from Addison Wesley, online version is under an open content license)

And some web pages ...

Ruby Home Page
Ruby Central

I should also mention that an overview of Ruby syntax, for those interested, can be found at Dr. Dobb's Journal.

Reason 1, VB sucks as an enterprise language. Where by "enterprise" I mean able to be maintatined better by large teams that have high churn rates. Because they do.

Reason 2, VB will not pay off your mortgage as fast as Java. See "enterprise" and "churn" above.

Other than that I agree whole heartedly. With the possible exception of using php server side. Now _there_ is a language that doesn't know shit about object orientation.

Dave

AMD uses Intel compilers for their SPEC scores

In that case, Intel could insert some obfuscated code to detect AMD CPUs into its compilers' output and then run delay loops on AMD CPUs to create a phony lack of benchmark performance.

You probably mean The Technology Behind Google. It's a 73 min MP3, very interesting!

Yes, there is a very easy solution. Static linking. Take a look here for a discussion of why DLL's (and the analogous Shared Libraries) might be a promise that simply hasn't panned out.

Onorio Catenacci

--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."

Seriously. It has the pure OO-approach and lambdas of Smalltalk, simplicity of Python, flexibility of Perl, even borrows mix-ins (advanced OO concept sort of like multiple inheritance) from eiffel and is fun, with easy to understand syntax! If you're going to teach OO language approaches in an imperative language, this is a serious language that contains just what you need and no extra fluff. It is easily extendable, both in C and within the language itself. I bought the "bible", got productive after a few hours and learned almost everything but C-extensions in just 3-4 days. Very easy and fun read, plus the entire book is also available online.

Here are some additional links:
The official Ruby page
Dr. Dobbs article about Ruby
Documentation
HotLinks

If this weren't MUCH better than Java, I wouldn't pull this shameless plug. Please check it out, don't stay in the dark ages.. ;-) Java is NOT a well-designed language. It's not always best to follow the pack either, those who make a difference don't. Ruby is perfect for bringing up new ideas. Let students experiment with extending OO-concepts in the language!

Btw, PLEASE don't make the students create Object Oriented ZOOs and the like. We were forced to such meaningless assignments when we had OO-classes in school, and such stupid problems are for OO-morons. Additionally, you don't need a "fast" language for teaching OO-concepts. On the contrary, since ruby is a glue language (like perl), it can be used to glue the right tools for the job when you need it to. It's definately fast enough if you just express your ideas in it correctly (avoiding many nested loops). Some people even use Ruby as a specification language, because of it's easy-to-understand syntax and lambdas. Ruby code is usually shorter and more readable than the same code expressed in other languages.

- Steeltoe

http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0165/0165f/0165f. htm

Instead of trying to wring blood from a stone, why don't you give all of us some proof that MS is disclosing their whole API?

I've remained unconvinced that MSDN is complete. I've stumbled on various texts that at least show evidence that MS isn't happy with my using others' products.

• Andrew Schulman dissects AARD code
• search for other articles, some containing links to facts, many others which are speculation++

Donald E. Knuth professor emeritus of computer science at Stanford University and author of the series of books The Art of Computer Programming , once said in an interview with Dr. Dobb's Journal: magazine:

The first thing I would say is that when you write a program, think of it primarily as a work of literature. You're trying to write something that human beings are going to read. Don't think of it primarily as something a computer is going to follow. The more effective you are at making your program readable, the more effective it's going to be: You'll understand it today, you'll understand it next week, and your successors who are going to maintain and modify it will understand it.

In Stroustrup's other appearance at SD 2001 West he presented some numerical code (matrix manipulation, etc.) beat C on the tested compilers. One one compiler it also beat Fortran.

The trick is popularizing the idioms he used so that you don't have to be Stroustrup to understand them.

I remember reading an article in DrDobbs April issue about a search-engine using checksums to see if a page has changed and need to be re-indexed.

T_f_J, you're entitled to an opinion, of course, but your vocabulary in itself demonstrates the problem. To serve the economic and egoistic purposes of various Influential Entities, programming languages have become like car styles and Parisian fashions. Who judges that a programming language "belongs in a by-gone" era? What's the basis for that judgment? Is it that it hasn't a Roy Oily animal character and book assigned it yet? Is it that there's no John Wayne icon picked for it? Surely, a programming language is judged based upon the readiness with which its practitioners can build real systems while keeping an eye on long term costs and adaptability to changes in requirements.

If popularity were the test of achievement, then Visual Basic is (and remains, despite some deflation) king of the hill. You can't really mean that.

Most people who embrace Smalltalk have tried many other languages in professional contexts and are simply compelled to use it. There are lots of reasons why programmers unfamiliar with Smalltalk are missing out, even if they don't or can't use it. It's a powerful idea. I've described some of these in a letter to the editor of Dr Dobbs about a year ago. Smalltalk repeatedly surprises even its afficianados with rediscovered power and grace.

And if you want to see some of the other reasons Smalltalk wins, check out John McIntosh's site, Peter Lount's place, and the nifty (IMO) Dolphin Smalltalk.

For a video interview of Guido van Rossum at Python 9 check this out at Technetcast

For a video interview of Guido van Rossum at Python 9 check this out at Technetcast

DDJ columnist Verity Stob reports her experience with XP here. Check it out -- it's an interesting read. While you are at it, you could also read her dig at Slashdot in this month's column.

DDJ columnist Verity Stob reports her experience with XP here. Check it out -- it's an interesting read. While you are at it, you could also read her dig at Slashdot in this month's column.

P. J. Plauger reported in (IIRC) Dr. Dobb's Journal on using buddy-system programming at Whitesmith's. The original reason was lack of seats, but the surprising result was better productivity than when both bodies had access to keyboards and screens.

Seems to be a matter of enforced peer review, which any CS (self included) will tell you is both very hard to get in a corporate environment and essential to good software development.

Along with Michael Abrash, we're delighted to make Graphics Programming Black Book freely available for you. However, the unprecedented and unexpected huge number of downloads and requests has brought us (and our related sites) to our online knees. We apologize for this. We thought that by putting the PDF files for the book by themselves on a dual-Pentium Linux-based server along with a high-bandwidth connection, we would be able to painlessly deliver the book to you.

Alas, the demand has outstripped even the best of planning. Consequently, we've had to take the book
down temporarily and put together a better plan for distributing it to you. We should have the entire book back up in a couple of days. Part of our plan will include mirror sites. If you have (or know of) a site that could serve as a mirror, we'd appreciate hearing from you. Please drop us a note at editors@ddj.com.

Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we look forward to freely providing the book to you
shortly. Thanks for your patience and please check back in a day or so.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Erickson
Editor-in-chief
Dr. Dobb's Journal

rather funny Indeed! I laughed all the way through. Definitely deserved a posting to the front page.

I didn't even bother to check out the videos on the site attached to this story because every page looked the same. I guess its the video thats supposed to be funny, the site is nothing but marketing hype.
---

Perhaps I have a low tolerance for stupidity but seeing a few pictures of a fat(ish) guy with a dog buiscuit in his mouth doesn't constitute fun stuff to me. Obviously I'm not 1337 enought to have stuff that I've submitted like this rather funny parody of /. that ddj is running posted. (not even in "ask slashdot" which will put up pretty much any crap). Granted, I didn't look at any of the videos etc for this one but it seemd a bit lame to me.

Isn't this what Microsoft is in trouble for doing? Non-price predation I beleive it's called (not that I'm a lawyer, but I do read Slashdot :-) ).

Read more in Dr. Dobb's Journal. It's great.

Dear Doug, could you clear something up for me once and for all?

Was the "AARD detection code" bug a true self-modifying virus, intentionally planted by Microsoft? And if not, how did self-modifying, XOR encrypted code get into Windows?

Here's the link to the AARD code:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309 d. htm

Thanks for your reply! Microsoft's years of silence on this have really had me wondering whether MS really unleashed a stealth virus on its users. Please tell us they didn't!

And Japan has an awesome group of *BSD hackers. Most of the mobile stuff for FreeBSD comes from Japanese hackers (PAO. (The Japanese are really crazy about mobile computing.) I love this quote from Warner Losh:

WL: Itojun-san of the Kame project in Japan seems to be six different people inhabiting one body, as far as his ability to hack [the network protocol stack]. He makes sure that FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and BSDi remain in sync with the main Kame repositories. For the OpenBSD Crypto2000 sort-of-mini-conference, he attended and got no sleep. When his roommate went to sleep, Itojun was hacking. When he woke up in the middle of the night, Itojun was hacking. When he woke up in the morning, Itojun was hacking.

---
In a hundred-mile march,

>>Why? Because MS is a monopoly.

And thats Microsofts fault? No, its the fault of the ignorant consumer.

It's the consumer's fault that Microsoft is a monopoly? Perhaps. Was it the consumer's fault that Standard Oil was a monopoly? That the railroads were monopolies?

Could you tell me which consumer, in particular, forced microsoft to build stealth viruses into their code?

I'd like to talk to that consumer.

5. Nearly all opposition to MS comes from jealous competitors.

This statement is demonstrably untrue. I am not a competitor to Microsoft - I write embedded software for optical switches. I never use microsoft software, except on the dedicated machine I use to keep in touch with the rest of the world. I am forced to keep this second machine due to the closed standards (.doc, .xls) documents that I get from vendors, co-workers, etc.

Almost everyone I know in the computing field - my co-workers, our IS guys, our vendors, everyone hates Microsoft. They hate them so much that the very mention of the word makes them shake with anger. None of us compete with Microsoft, nor have we ever. We're embedded programmers, we're agnostic. But we're also good software engineers, and we know when we're having poorly designed, shitty software shoved down our throats. Like, say, vxworks. The difference in the embedded market is that we have a choice.

Why don't people talk about the real venom? Why don't they talk about the hidden viruses in windows, or the blatant plagarism in DOS 6.2, or the masses of forced non-interoperability in IE 4+ to push their server. or the faked videotape they showed a judge!

People with no vested interest in competing with Microsoft hate them. Not because they are jealous, but because they are not stupid.

This case is obvious to anyone who understands software.

About 80% of the people in this field seem utterly clueless about security. And this is being charitable. Most developers I have talked to these days are astounding in their lack of knowledge about real security attacks. Some even whine about why things don't work when they try to loosen security. This is utterly mind-boggling!

Java doesn't cut it here. The simple reason why is due to the overhead in loading in all the security classes. There was an excellent and simple example of some JSSE code in Dr. Dobbs recently; try downloading and running the code with TSL turned on - you'll see what I mean.

Another sad reason is the lack of algorithm support in Java. Yes, it's a start; and yes, it has a LONG way to go to get up to speed with OpenSSL. I daresay it will take years to develop the same breadth and confidence as OpenSSL.

OpenSSL is the best thing out there, and it needs a serious rewrite. I don't wish to belittle the excellent work done by Eric, Ben, Ralph and many others. But let's be honest here. OpenSSL has evolved into a mishmash, and it's time to rewrite it. Of course, by the time that's done, then Java will probably have come up to speed. I doubt it will be as fast, but I'd like to be optimistic here.

The biggest security flaw in ebiz is conveniently overlooked. People seem to be litterly sticking their heads in the sand on this one. It was reported last summer on bugtraq , and yet, almost no one seems to be paying attention to it.

Many people are trying to implement security models using Java applets. This is a fatal mistake, and will leave you or your clients rather vulnerable.

The simple reason why is because if your browser gets hit with a rogue applet, you are screwed. Not only can a reverse-tunnel to a hostile site be set up, but under some circumstances, the applet can initiate a secure connection to (say) your bank, using your password from the cache!!!

You get NO warning that this has happened; and the bank thinks that it really was from you. Good luck disproving this one in court. And most firewalls won't protect you.

The potential for serious damage here has not been fully exploited, thank God. But it's only a matter of time. Especially when people highjack a sites' DNS server, and point it to a hostile look-alike. Ugh.

What's also scary is the number of sites using pure Java or Javascript. Javascript is even worse, and IMHO can't be fixed security-wise without a complete rewrite.

But the bottom-line is that Java and Javascript leave you vulnerable; and it's only a matter of time before this hits the fan. Sun has as big an exposure as MS (with IE and Outlook virii) - it's only a matter of time before this is exposed.

Just turn off Java. This might protect you (though I suspect that actually even this may not help).

But the products which are coming out using applets for security is of real concern. In fact, it might well seriously hinder the new move to application servers, depending on how things are done.

This is frighteningly fertile ground for exploits.

So, yes, the bottom line is that PKI has a VERY long way to go. This is surprising given that people have been working on it for eons. IMHO, the lack of progress here is the best example of how the U.S. export restrictions have hurt business.

And, if you really want to put this in perspective, take a look at InfoSec's recent study, they noted that only 2/3 of all ebiz transactions are done with encryption (and this is an *improvement*!?!).

Rocketry itself advanced from the "blow up on the pad" stage to "almost reliable, maybe." ;^)

Then, there are the less measurable benefits. Surely it helped engineering practice in general to build such a complex device that absolutely, positively, must not fail.

Do you really think that weather, communications and navigation satellites would have progressed as fast as they did without Apollo pushing the state of the art? Yet, we benefit from those 'sats every day. Let's not forget the usual spin-off list: improvements in remote sensing, medical monitoring, materials science, transsonic aeronautics, etc.

What about the educational benefits? Didn't USA's 1960s school science programs get a big kick in the @$$ (and hike in the budget) because of the Space Race?

Sure, the moon program started out as political posturing and misdirection, but that doesn't mean that all we're left with is "a bunch of moon rocks." That's one common misconception I'd like to see die and be forgotten.
--

What does this mean?
It's from this DDJ article (linked to from this /. article).

Or, put another way, how is OpenBSD like FORTH?
OpenBSD is simple (that is, it doesn't contain a ton of stuff.). (For several good articles on this , see Chuck Moore's writings on ultratechnology.com ...) I take everything with a grain of salt, of course. Being super-minimalist isn't appropriate for everything, but there's a hell of a lot out there that could benefit from being implemented simply and straightforwardly.

... I also just found the comment funny, as I like BSD flavored Unixes, and I like FORTH. :)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I trust Warner Losh and the OpenBSD core developers over you.

Plus, if he can just spend a little time optimizing the DirectX code, then EVERY game benefits. You know that if he finds any new tricks, he'll report on them, and even the free software world will benefit. Check out this link at Dr. Dobb's journal for a taste of what he is doing at Microsoft, and why it is important.

Like he says in the article, the important thing is to do, not to think, and there's a lot of optimization to do at Microsoft.

The name "Dobb's" came from collapsing together (sort of) Allison's and Albrecht's first names. Unfortunately, the pasteup artist titling the original newsletter thinking Allison's name was Don, combined it with Bob to produce Dobb (DOn and BoB).

1985, eh? The People's Computer Company started in 1972. They promoted the Community Memory concept, a combination BBS and database. Implemented on timesharing machines, as this was before personal computers.

Java does a wonderful job with the simple stuff that you mention. It checks array bounds, does not let you write to unallocated or freed memory, and a slew of other runtime checks. Java however does not eliminate memory leaks.

To be able to be freed (by the garbage collector) an object must have no references. Accidentally keeping references around is a lot easier than you might think and can be a huge source of memory leakage.

Dr. Dobb's has an article about this.

I love Java and I prefer using it for most of my projects, however anybody who tells you that it solves all your memory leak problems is blowing smoke out their ass.

Let me add to this posting. I was in the same class, but I took it last year when it was first offered in this style (Columbia used to use Nachos for the OS class). As was said, we used Linux in virtual machines (VMware). The VMware itself runs on Linux. One good thing about this is more than one groups can use the same machine; you just have to create VMware disk for each group. There is an article about the class at DDJ. I found this approach very good, because you don't crash machines when something goes wrong in the kernel. You just crash the VMs, and this won't affect other people doing other unrelated things on the machines running the VMs (good utilization of resources).

Let me add to this posting. I was in the same class, but I took it last year when it was first offered in this style (Columbia used to use Nachos for the OS class). As was said, we used Linux in virtual machines (VMware). The VMware itself runs on Linux. One good thing about this is more than one groups can use the same machine; you just have to create VMware disk for each group. There is an article about the class at DDJ. I found this approach very good, because you don't crash machines when something goes wrong in the kernel. You just crash the VMs, and this won't affect other people doing other unrelated things on the machines running the VMs (good utilization of resources).

$ man reality

There are ways around this, such as the "restrict" keyword being added to C99 and template metaprogramming, but the issues still remain.

There are ways around this, such as the "restrict" keyword being added to C99 and template metaprogramming, but the issues still remain.

It's available at their ddj website, here

It's available at their ddj website, here

I have a hard time believing that Microsoft would want to inrease their liability like this. What happens if Microsoft refuses to sign software which, say includes reverse-engineered office formats because the formats were not licensed by Microsoft? Such a policy would be in clear violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman act and probably of the Clayton act as well. Microsoft has a history of sabotaging competition as documented in Jackson's Findings of Fact and the various pretrial documents in Caldera vs. Microsoft (which was settled out of court two days before it would have gone to trial). Of particular interest was an exhibit in the latter case concerning the AARD code, from Dr. Dobbs.

All that being said, I do not want to see Microsoft broken up by the government. I think that the current plan would create two monopolistic powers out of one, and increase their competitiveness because each of the two companies would be more nimble than they would be if they were together, faced both with legal and market restraints. I think, unfortunately, this move is a step in the wrong direction for them.

What is the leadership in Redmond thinking? They are probably looking at this approach as a means of increasing the stability of the platform as a means of increasing their competitiveness against such OSs as Linux. As far as this reasoning goes, it is solid, but it seriously increases their liability, and I hope that they realize that. Such concerns may even force them to sign sub-standard competing software just to avert lawsuits. This could turn into a joke.

-----------
All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.
--anon