Google Adds Widgets to Homepage

Panaphonix writes "Google announced that their personalized homepage now has an API for developers to add their own modules. Samples are available in this directory."

Comments

Almost there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all we need is Google beer. then i will be happy.

Re:Almost there...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Google would provide the beer for free and include adds in the labels?

Re:Almost there...

[aichpvee]

Well just so long as we have enough warriors to protect the healers from the adds we should be fine.

You have to give Google some props....

[8127972]

..... for how easy creating these apps happens to be. If I were still teaching, I would likely use this as a means to teach basic programming skills. They also have something else going for them excellent documentation that is easily understood by my wife who is a non geek. To top it all off, it's using HTML, XML, and Javascript. Three open and accessible languages that are widely used on a variety of platforms.

Methinks that one of the reasons behind this is that they want to "embrace and extend." Sound familiar?

Re:You have to give Google some props....

[halleluja]

If I were still teaching, I would likely use this as a means to teach basic programming skills. .... To top it all off, it's using HTML, XML, and Javascript.

I would prefer to start learning basic skills using one language at a time.

A small hello world comparison:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<Module>
<ModulePrefs title="hello world example" />
<Content type="html">
<![CDATA[
Hello, world!
]]>
</Content>
</Module>

vs.

print "Hello world!"

Basic skills involve paradigms; in this example (XML/HTML/js) the separation of style and content is not really clear.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet you continue to come here, maybe it's time to get a life?

Finally

[obli]

Finally I can get that exchange rates widget I've been waiting for.

Gosh, I needed that

[masnare]

I'm so glad they put the ubiquitous 'Eyes' up. I hate when I lose track of my pointer. This will really help! Seriously, I think some people are wasting their 20% time up in mountain view.

Re:Gosh, I needed that

[TheWrongIts]

I've now been individually mocked on Slashdot. I've finally made it!

response to konfabulator

[DarkClown]

Wow, didn't take them long to drum up a response to the yahoo konfabulator thing.
hooray for more google toys.

Re:response to konfabulator

[wootest]

They already sort of had that with the panels in the Google Desktop sidebar.

Re:response to konfabulator

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldnt go as far as to say that. I think of this as a web based Konfabulator that only works on one page (google.com/ig). I like them both and will try my hand a making my own widgets.

Re:response to konfabulator

[Baricom]

I don't think this has anything to do with Konfabulator. I think the point is to keep people away from live.com. A good thing, too, because I was just about to force myself to learn Microsoft's strange (and poorly documented) gadgets API.

I switched to My Yahoo! when they opened their portal to RSS. Now, I'll probably switch to Google's portal.

The trick to getting people like me to use your portal is to provide ways of getting my content into your page.

Ooh, ooh, me too!

[BandwidthHog]

Odd to see Google doing the me-too thing. As soon as I saw the clock widget I knew the API was gonna be the now-standard HTML/XML/Javascript format used by Konfabulator/Yahoo, Apple and (I assume) Microsoft. So what does Google bring to the party? I guess these widgets live on web servers rather than users’ hard drives, but that of course ties them into the browser window. Perhaps we can expect them to put out an executable soon that will let them exist outside the browser (and thus be fully useful), but that puts them at merely the same point the others are at.

Why the hell is everybody so hot and bothered about Widgets all of a sudden? I bought a Konfabulator license way back when, and pressing F12 brings up Apple’s Dashboard, yet I still check wunderground.com to see if the weather will be cooperating with my athletic endeavours a few hours into the future. Granted, I was one of those who thought the iPod was no big deal, but Widgets have been with us in their modern incarnation for a few years now, and world+dog still doesn’t seem to give a damn. Makes me think they really are just trying to keep up with the rest of the pack on this one.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[stubear]

"and (I assume) Microsoft."

Not only do you assume correctly, Microsoft is going to allow their widgets to work both online (live.com - gadgets, and start.com - startlets, more (microsoftgadgets.com gadgets here) but on the user's desktop as well once Vista is released. Perhaps these gadgets will even share the same code and can live on both the desktop and live.com simultaneously.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[TheJorge]

Sure, it's nothing new. But to early adopters, a lot of new and exciting stuff has really been around for a long time. The iPod's the perfect example. Many people didn't realize you could carry around more than a CD's worth of music on one of those little portable things everyone had. With some level of market penetration, the masses come to realize what's available.

Google did the same thing with AJAX and Google maps. How long had the XML HTTPRequest been around? And now it's the bees' knees. Google's got a strong userbase (and following) of geeks, making its open-and-extendable products much better immediately. Widgets are just the next idea Google's taking hold of.

I do worry that they'll put search on the back burner once their start pages have all these bells and whistles.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[LDoggg_]

How long had the XML HTTPRequest been around? And now it's the bees' knees.

The question is how long has it been around for browsers other than IE.
Not very long. I know I wasn't about to use something proprietary to micorosoft for any of my sites.

Its picking up steam now that its completely cross platform.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[Iriel]

"Why the hell is everybody so hot and bothered about Widgets all of a sudden? I bought a Konfabulator license way back when..."

You need to remember, that 'back when' and 'bought' are in your logic. Now that Konfabulator is free, widgets have become a more viable way to spruce up your desktop. I checked out Konfabulator a while ago as well, but I didn't want to pony up any sum of money for it. Now that it's free, it's the cat's pajamas. I see the widget craze as a double-edged sword:

Pro: You can put all sorts of cool shit on your desktop and have a lot of infomation without having to go to a page. I use the weather widget all the time as well as the to-do that syncs with my sunbird calendar. RSS reader widgets can tell you if a site is worth visiting right now or if there's no good stories/threads at the minute. Searching on the desktop is keen as well, depending on how much you use things like the PHP documentation search widget for specific things (otherwise, I'd rather use Google Desktop Search).

Con: You need 9GB of RAM to run half of the crap you want.

At some point, the users with lower-end systems will feel the stinging chill of a computer crippled by fancy things to play with on their desktop.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[JohnnyLocust]

I agree. If they're going to do the me too thing, I wish they'd hurry up and finish the Google Calendar.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[aussie_a]

Not only all that, but Microsoft did the online thing before anyone else.

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[moosesocks]

This was one of the "way before its time" features Microsoft introduced in IE 4 in the form of the Active Desktop (remember it back from Win98??)

It was a really cool concept ruined by poor performance, slow processors, slow connections, and poor security.

I was sad to see how it got put on the backburner after IE5. Active Desktop could have been great...

Re:Ooh, ooh, me too!

[Symbiot]

Odd to see Google doing the me-too thing.

Actually when you see similar stuff like this comming out so close together it's not a matter of copying, it's a matter of multiple companies working on the same thing at the same time. The one that appears first is the one that is 'finished' first. Patent fanaticism aside, most of these ideas are "obvious" to practitioners in the field. When one of these companies comes out with something that doesn't show up on other sites for several months then we'll be seeing evidence of an idea being copied. In the meantime we've got a lot of smart minds trying to solve a similar set of problems with a similar set of tools and, not very surprisingly, coming up with a lot of similar solutions.

The copying of ideas will happen, but it will be the best of the details that will be duplicated, not the big ideas. This is a result of competition and is a good thing. The surest way to become a loser in this game is to be too proud to adopt your competitors' best ideas. The winners will be the ones who do the best job of integrating the best ideas. Except if there's just one winner. Then the competition, innovation and fun are all over.

Google platform/portal?

[l2718]

With this Google is continuing to move in the all-the-info-you-need-in-one-place direction, also known as a web portal. They are doing it in their cool and effective ways, but that's where they seem to be going.

Re:Google platform/portal?

[Saxophonist]

I have always kind of wondered if a web portal is really what Google is trying to do, though. OK, yes, they are, but the desire to create a web portal seems to conflict with the desire to keep the main page as simple and small as possible. Though probably not too many people care that the Google home page renders just fine in Lynx, I do like the attempt at not using up so much bandwidth just to present a search box.

Sooner or later, Google is going to have to make a move one direction or the other, or figure out some esoteric way to have both.

Re:Google platform/portal?

[T-Ranger]

Do both?

Google search: http://www.google.com/
Google Portal: http://www.google.com/ig

Doesnt seem all that troublesome to me.

Re:Google platform/portal?

[Milton Waddams]

What's with this 'continuing' talk? They've always been doing this. It's what they initially set out to do.

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

good idea but...

[endrue]

wait until you have better things than a clock and "ColorJunction". Everyone's personalized google homepage will look like a webdesign 101 student who just learned how to cut 'n paste javascript.

Re:good idea but...

[e03179]

Everyone's personalized google homepage will look like a webdesign 101 student who just learned how to cut 'n paste javascript.

Isn't that called MySpace?

Re:good idea but...

[oPless]

you mean like www.myspace.com ?

*argh*

I now have a place...

[Billosaur]

...for that /. dupe eliminator module I've been working on.

This. Is. Evil.

[dada21]

Google's use of the word "widget" is Evil. There are some words that shouldn't be redefined, especially by a megacorp.

I've used widget for years - maybe 15. When making a generic description of a generic item, widget is the placeholder word to use.

Now what do we do? Can they trademark a commonly used nothing-word? Will we see Google Ptooie and Google Grrr next?

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[Nightspark]

Google didn't use the word widget, I don't know why /. keeps posting references to Google Widgets, which don't exist. They're simply personalized homepage modules. Regardless, one use of the word widget has come to be small open applications running on a shared platform. So even if they did use the word widget, they wouldn't be redefining it.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[Potor]

Yahoo uses the word, not Google.

Second, I see no indication that yahoo has tried to copywrite/trademark their use of the word.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[zoomba]

Widget has been used in this context for a while now. Google isn't redefining the term at all.

Stardock's DesktopX has been pushing the idea of desktop widgets for a few years now
http://www.desktopx.net/

Additionally, there's Konfabulator, which was recently purchased by Yahoo and renamed the Yahoo Widget Engine
http://www.konfabulator.com/

Also, Apple introduced widgets into OS X with the Dashboard feature.

So... the use of widget to describe a small mini-app has been around for a while now.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[gstoddart]

Google's use of the word "widget" is Evil. There are some words that shouldn't be redefined, especially by a megacorp.

I've used widget for years - maybe 15. When making a generic description of a generic item, widget is the placeholder word to use.

Well, fortunately for the rest of us, you're not the final arbiter over the usage of the word widget.

According to Webster:

Main Entry: widget
Pronunciation: 'wi-j&t
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of gadget
1 : GADGET
2 : an unnamed article considered for purposes of hypothetical example

Apple uses the term widgets to define the components in it's dashboard application.

Hello, if you go to you personal page here on Slashdot, you'll find:

This is your User Info page. There are thousands more, but this one is yours. You most likely are not so interested in yourself, and probably would be more interested in the Preferences links you see up top there, where you can customize Slashdot, change your password, or just click pretty widgets to kill time.

Over time widget has come to be a placeholder for actual objects (in examples of economics for example), any gadget, and it has also come to mean "small, componentized pieces of code".

Googles use of the word widget is consistent with currently accepted usage of the word. They haven't arbitrarily redefined it. They haven't even used it in a new context.

Get over it. It's not your word exclusively.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[kamikasei]

Co-opting a commonly used word isn't evil. Slashdot giving us false hope that the Google homepage was now going to dispense Guinness - that's evil.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google foo?

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down, Bernice... Sheesh.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[multipartmixed]

Gee, and fifteen years ago (probably more, actually), MIT co-opted that word for X-windows widgets. You know, like, the Athena widgets set?

Try doing a "man -k widget" on a modern OS, you may become very surprised. Especially if you have Tcl/Tk installed.

Re:This. Is. Evil.

[harborpirate]

I think the point of the parent post is that the word "widget" has long been used in the software industry as a very generic term for an item, perhaps of software, or perhaps used or tracked by software.

Now we're talking about Widgets being something very specific, a "small, componentized peice of code", likely on a web page.

I have to agree with the parent that this is an annoying development. When I say, "we need to develop a generic widget tracker" - to me that means we're going to build a piece of software that tracks widgets - some generic nebulous item of some sort.
Now, what am I talking about? You assume that I'm talking about tracking "small, componentized pieces of code", likely ones which are on the web.

The word thus has two separate, differing definitions in the same occupation sphere.

This is critical to understand. When we say "widget", clearly we don't mean definition #1, because that lies outside of the occupation sphere for almost all software development. So clearly we can safely assume the developer meant definition #2, "an unnamed article considered for purposes of hypothetical example". Now, we have no idea which one was meant, and we have to listen for context to pick up the meaning. This detracts from the likely more important task, which is understanding what the other person is trying to convey.

I refuse to use the term "widget" to refer to these small, componentized pieces of code. Couldn't they be called Web Components? Perhaps we could use a term that actually DESCRIBES what the thing is? I can't tell you how irritating this is to me, that we must make up or shoehorn words for things when a simple english phrase would suffice to describe the concept. Its like all these math nerds and their damnable greek alphabet. Take your greek alphabet and stuff it. ...Rant complete.

Yes, but...

[igy]

when is the MSN Search widget going to be released?

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft (and numerous other companies) already has widgets, and had them long before Google. Microsoft calls them Gadgets and you can read about them here.

Re:Yes, but...

[thrillseeker]

when is the MSN Search widget going to be released?

You could google for the answer.

Re:Yes, but...

[dep01]

right after live.com release theirs.

closer to google ecommerce hosting

[ajainy]

1st step free froogle and free listing of products
2nd step widgets
3rd step pool of programmers who can program widgets
4th step services with available pool..
5th step show me money!!

Copying live.com

[badriram]

Oh please, lets stop that praises, and call this what it is, a copy/rip off of Microsoft live.com gadgets.....

Re:Copying live.com

[bhiestand]

Oh please, lets stop that praises, and call this what it is, a copy/rip off of Microsoft live.com gadgets.....

The question isn't "who invented it first?"

The real question is "who holds the patent?"

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[dada21]

FWIW Digg crashes 1 out of 5 times for me on 4 different operating systems. The advertising makes me bonkers.

not as nice as yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

late and not as nice as yahoo's offering. sigh. how are the cheerleaders going to spin this one?

The Platform.

[headkase]

I think Google being nice by allowing really anyone to use their backend data and infrastructure, it seems like the modern day equivalent of the Stone Soup fable. What makes me think Google will succeed is that it's an open platform that anyone can target and being open allows participation that leads to those pesky positive-feedback economic effects whose acknowlegement was resisted even to the very recent past.

Re:The Platform.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is open about Google ? Their main product is their search engine, and yet Amazon's (a retailer) search engine platform (Alexa) is more open than Google. Infact, Google's openness is like a little demo, while Alexa is the real deal, where anyone can create their own search engine.

Google is an out and out content company which has roughly a dozen services, none of which can be reasonably used in any commercial application.

Anyone can compete with Google...all you need is a geek, a computer, a web host and some knowledge about web development.

Re:The Platform.

[headkase]

The API gives you access to a enterprise class web-crawler for one. And we're saying the same thing, you say content I say data and infrastructure. The content needs delivery and Google giving you access to their server farms to build your own custom logic on top of their services/information.

Hotmail?

[ZiakII]

Now that widgets can be made for Google does that mean we will see a Hotmail Widget? Right now I use Google's desktop and its a PITA to check my hotmail account vs. having it displayed in Google's system, with this being now open source will this be possible?

Re:Hotmail?

[Nightspark]

People still use hotmail?

Re:Hotmail?

[Anonymous Coward]

In North Korea hotmail abuses old people.

Re:Hotmail?

[Woldry]

You can view your hotmail on Microsoft's Windows Live beta, displayed pretty similarly to the way that Gmail is displayed on your personalized Google homepage. Not quite the same as Google Desktop's version, but not bad, and much nicer than the bloated, ugly, and badly organized Hotmail.com web page.

Re:Hotmail?

[dmdb]

They have just released a beta of what they belive will be an "Enhanced and improved" Hotmail. Looks pretty horrible but here it is anyway Mailbeta

Good, finally

[brunes69]

Maybe now I can add some of the mor euseful widgets at My Yahoo! to the Google homepage... lik a stock ticker that does more than just US exchange, or a TV listings mondule for more than just US listings.

My Yahoo! has been way ahead of Google on this for some time, hopefully this will allow Google to catch up quicker by leveraging third-party developers.

my experience

[adpowers]

I've been up all night writing a widget. Let me tell you this: the development environment is a pain in the arse. Using their developer widget, it gives you the option of not caching the various widgets. I tried using this tool to not cache mine (so I could reload easily and see changes to the code), but it didn't work reliably. Whenever you moved the widget around to a different spot, it would go to a new revision of the code... and it was almost never the latest revision. This was so frustrating. What I ended up doing was renaming my widget every revision (also a huge pain in the arse). I ended up renaming it over 40 times during the course of the night. Then you have to add the widget back to your personalized home and go through all the steps again. Blast. I'm not bitter :).

If you want to see the culmination of my night's work, plug this into the widget manager: http://andrewhitchcock.org/musicmobs/w.xml

My widget pulls data from musicmobs. You can look at similar artists or find interesting playlists. If you visit that page, you can upload your iTunes library to make the recommendations more accurate, and it gives you the ability to upload your own playlists (which then become visible in the widget). Check it out!

Andrew

Re:my experience

[cavemanf16]

Pretty good, although you need to add a "thinking" graphic so that I don't keep clicking the 'recommend' button hoping to get something back.

Re:my experience

[adpowers]

Hmm, good idea. When I was developing it, traffic was low. Now they are being hammered and their redirect thingy is really slow. I was punching in some artists a few minutes ago, and then it'd be a minute before I saw Google requesting the appropriate file from my server.

Re:my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

You should see about submitting this to their page (www.google.com/ig/submit) if you haven't already. I showed it to some folks around my office and they really liked it.

Re:my experience

[adpowers]

Hey, thanks, I'm glad you liked it. I submitted it to Google about 07:00 this morning, after testing it and making sure I had all the required metadata (like screenshot). I just checked and they haven't added any new widgets to the directory yet.

I was thinking about the widget more after I got some sleep. It doesn't do amazing Javascript trickery or anything, but it matches the page design well and provides somewhat useful information. Hopefully you and others find it useful :)

Re:my experience

[dr34mc0d3r]

Great - i was waiting for someone to lead by example - there is more information coming out about this API every hour. I think im going to try one....

Teaching basic programming

[l2718]

\begin{rant}

Call me an old-fashioned nit-picker, but I still think that for people who will need to write serious programs, writing 20-line programs in C is the right way to learn basic programming skills. User-interface design etc can wait until people understand how to interate over a table, how to do arithmetic, and most importantly how to convert ideas about solutions to computer code. I've seen CS students who were started on OOP in Java (or C++). Of course the Profs found OOP cool and important, but this meant the students had to deal with software design issues (which is what OOP is all about) before they understood how to write a function that accomplished something. Once you've learned how to program (in C, Fortran, or LOGO for that matter), you can start thinking about user-interface issues, program design issues, efficiency of algorithms, etc. But the bottom-up approach to learning how to programming works better than the top-down style.

\end{rant}

Re:Teaching basic programming

[MullerMn]

How beautifully appropriate that your rant about old school programming is marked up in LaTeX rant tags.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

C is a bad way to start - you need to learn how to do such grungy programming at some stage, but it can wait until you've done something nicer. Also, it's good to be able to introduce OO without switching languages. I recommend python for learning to program - simple syntax, enforced good indent style, language doesn't get in your way when you're doing simple things, but the advanced things including both OO and functional concepts are there for when you want or need to learn them. Only downside is many other languages are horrible by comparison - one advantage for learning C first is it makes you appreciate what you have with a modern language.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[/ASCII]

I think it's the other way around. OO is an advanced concept, one that shouldn't be introduced at once. I think that a struggling programer has his/her hands full just learning the language syntax. It's a much better idea to start using a language witha small, simple syntax like C or MATLAB.

And yes, writing any non-trivial program is a chore in C because it is so low level. But it really is a simple language.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

I think it's the other way around. OO is an advanced concept, one that shouldn't be introduced at once. I think that a struggling programer has his/her hands full just learning the language syntax. It's a much better idea to start using a language witha small, simple syntax like C or MATLAB.

But with python you can learn the rest of the language and completely ignore the OO stuff until you've learnt the core language, and that's how I teach it. And yet, when you come to use it, the OO is in there at a very deep level. That's what's so great about it.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[D-Cypell]

Quite often, I am asked by non-programmers which language they should use to get started. My answer is always the same... 'get yourself some BASIC training' (man, I love that pun!). Most people reject my suggestion because they want to write games in their first four minutes or because other people respond with 'YEEECH BASIC?? You should learn to code with an exposed processor core and a soldering iron!'.

The fact of the matter is, there is a language out there specifically designed for people new to programming to dip their toe in the water and learn some of the basic concepts like loops, conditions and variables without having to worry about memory models, pointers and header files.

After spending a few months writing the standard "Hello World", "Im thinking of a number.." style programs, then you can branch out almost anywhere.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Triple Click]

The common consensus among us students in college (back then) was that if you had a choice between teaching an introductory class in Java or C/C++, you do C/C++. The reason is that Java is relatively simple to pick up after C/C++, but C/C++ is very difficult to grasp if you haven't had to touch the low-level details of memory management.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[hey!]

There's only one important skill in programming, which is this: minimizing what you need to know in order to know everything you need to know in any given context.

However, it occurs in many levels of organization, in infinite combinations, from crafting expressions (reorganizing conditionals using DeMorgan's law) to functional decomposition to object oriented design and beyond.

User interface design is not a good thing to mix up with basic programming skills when teaching, simply because it is a complex subject in itself. Doing so defies the above principle on a meta-level: you're asking your students to master two subjects at once. However, I'm not against GUI programming provided problems are sufficiently simple, and scale in programming difficulty as the student acquires mastery. How many kids learned to program because they wanted to create games?

Mathematics is still a good field to get beginning programming problems because you can assume that the students (at least at a U level) have basic algebra, and it provides a rich field of problems to solve. However variety is the spice of life, and it doesn't hurt to have a little fun too. Sometimes when I'm coaching an athlete, I will recommend a change in his program because he's not getting enough stimulation to achieve his best. In athletics, you have to trade of repetition of a program, which builds a base of skills, with a bit of novelty, which motivates him to try harder. Learning anything else is no different.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is somewhere in between...

Far too man CS graduates can't do anything but sort and follow a link list and far too many have no concept of what different data structures are and what they can be used for and even more lack a basic concept of data structures and algorithms AND have no idea what objects are or how good OOP design works.

I think the reason is that profs (and anyone else for that matter) get entranced by "the right way to do something" (both in programming and teaching methods). CS is an ever expanding field and while all the things you mention are important so is the other. The fact that we're failing to provide CS students with an practical knowlege is just as big a failure as the fact that we're failing to provide them with a good theoretical base.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the +2 Python modifier is in effect.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

Much as I loathe Java, I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, manual memory management takes some learning - which is precisely why it's better to learn to program first and learn to manage your memory after. Yes, it's easier to learn Java after C than C after Java - but you don't do any less learning, you'll just spend more time learning C from scratch than you would with Java. Best to learn a language you can actually use and then more than doing a load of learning before you can write anything real.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[waxwing]

Yes, I agree completely, except that C is a horrible language. Your arguments work perfectly, however, if you substitute "Oberon" for "C". "Ask me about my cellular raytracer"

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to disagree. All my early programming experiences were in languages without OO (or where OO was added as an afterthought) like BASIC, C, FORTRAN, Perl, MATLAB. I still feel uncomfortable with a lot of OO concepts because I was exposed to them so late as compared to a lot of other programming concepts. I like to think that I would have grasped OO a lot better if I had been exposed to it before I got any bad habits.

I've been using javascript a lot recently due to it's resurgance in AJAX and I must say, it's just been a pleasure to work with.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[La Fortezza]

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students
that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they
are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

--Edsger Dijkstra's Evaluations of Programming Languages (c. 1982)

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

The fact of the matter is, there is a language out there specifically designed for people new to programming to dip their toe in the water and learn some of the basic concepts like loops, conditions and variables without having to worry about memory models, pointers and header files.

Python allows you to do all that. If you want a teaching-oriented language by all means go for pascal or something, but honestly, Python is better for teaching than anything I've seen designed for it.

I've seen too many people get into a "goto mentality" if they learn programming from basic. You have to do goto in basic and you end up thinking in terms of goto, and your control flow when you move on to real programs will be designed around gotos rather than the usual set of control structures. You do things like putting a block around code that has no logical relationship so you can use break to get to the end of it from a certain point.

After spending a few months writing the standard "Hello World", "Im thinking of a number.." style programs, then you can branch out almost anywhere.

Basic may be ok for that, but once you start learning about control flow you really need a language with the normal looping constructs. Rather than switching, especially at such an early stage, it's better to go for a language with them in from the start.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[EvilSS]

I've always liked Pascal for a first intro teaching language. Its OO and the structure is closer to more common programming languages but its strict enough to keep people from learning sloppy habits. BASIC is just too loose with the rules. I like it over C because the syntax is more verbose, making it easier to understand for people new to programming. Another nice thing is that since it is not really used in the real world much anymore, at some point they have to learn another language. Being forced to transition to a new language should hopefully enforce the fact that programming is really a language independent discipline. I've seen more than one programmer that learned one language and that is all they have ever used because they are literally afraid to try another language. That's fine and dandy for them but it causes me headaches when in 2005 they are still writing apps in VB6 or some other ancient language.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

Hardly. This site runs on perl, remember? But love it or hate it, it's hard to deny that python is a very good first language.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[starwindsurfer]

old-fashioned? you said C, not Assembler or 8086 Machine code.

If what you want is to learn, Assembler is what you want to use.

Then after you have learned, use whats convienient. There isnt anything you cant do with javascript, php, perl, and C++. :-D

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Anonymous Coward]

What's grungy about simple C programs? Aside from initialization, you don't need to do any memory management to use arrays, strings, and the like. Pointers are what makes C so great, but you don't need to use them if you don't want to.

#include
int main(void) { printf("Hello, world!\n"); return 0;}
#include
int main(void) {int foo[5]; int i=0; for( ; foo[i] = i; i++); return 0; }

What's grungy about that stuff?

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops...

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {int foo[5]; int i=0; for( ; i<5; i++){ foo[i]=i; }; return 0; }

You'll be happy to know I'm no longer working in airport traffic control systems design :)

Re:Teaching basic programming

[trygstad]

I think Perl works just as well or maybe better because it at least uses a contemporary programming language syntax (i.e. C++/Java). I learned with BASIC but that was in 1973; we do have better tools now.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[greenhybrid]

That's how I started. Granted, I was in elementary school. And if you don't call "I'm thinking of a number..." a game, I don't know WHAT you call fun.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

The braces get in the way, and the fact you have to manually code the loop through the array rather than having a control structure to do that with.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Slime-dogg]

The fact of the matter is, there is a language out there specifically designed for people new to programming to dip their toe in the water and learn some of the basic concepts like loops, conditions and variables without having to worry about memory models, pointers and header files.

Yes. That language is called PASCAL.

In all seriousness, BASIC is not the language that you want to instruct students with. More viable languages are ones that get a programmer accustomed to the syntax and flow of one of the more serious languages, or are those languages themselves. I learned to program in C++. You don't have to touch pointers in order to learn how to progam. They can be introduced later on, as an extension or feature of the language.

Better yet, teach the students to program using Java or C#. One of the best features of those languages is the simplicity, the verbosity of the compiler errors, and the immediate satisfaction of having something substantial when it is all said and done.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[jinxidoru]

The language I recommend for people to learn is PHP. It's quite easy to learn. Since it's interpreted, it's quick and easy to hack around with. It gives you the power of a real programming language (unlike Basic). And it's immediately useful. It always surprises me how college CS programs largely ignore scripting languages. I would venture to say the majority of programmers in the world program using scripting languages. The internet is run on scripting languages for the most part. Also, from a teaching perspective, you can do anything in a scripting language that you can do in C (ie. Linked Lists, Sorting Algorithms, etc.)

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. I had several years of pascal in high school. By the time I was done, I had made good use of pointers and OO design, created record types that unioned mutually exclusive fields over each other to bring it's memory footprint down from over 1k to 290ish bytes (It had a lot of mutually exclusive details depending on how certain flag values were set, but all needed to be passed to the same functions/procedures), I even used the ability to assign a variable an absolute position in memory to write my own VGA graphics lib (because Graph sucked). Hell, I started using Borland Pascal's option for inline assembly to write my own IPX network code at one point (wrote a chat program as a project in class once).

Out of those classes I learned the following:
1. Presuming they are the same general type of language (Logical/Functional/etc), programming is really language independant. Once you cross those lines (like going to Prolog or LISP from just about anything else) you have to switch gears in your thinking.

2. The best way to teach courses (especially at the junior high/high school level where the class takes place in a computer lab), is to throw as many people from as many different leevls in one room as possible, and have the ones in higher classes assist those in the lower in addition to their own assignments. In fact, the teacher in question I learned this one from even stratified the highest end class she had in the same room to have any "star students" do the same for members of their class level, as well as giving them more advanced assignments if they were completing things successfully in well under the alloted time.

3. The best way to do programming assignments is to set minimum requirements for the project, and bell curve around the assumption that a project that exactly meets those minimum requirements is a "C". Missing features pull you down, more advanced or unique features pull you up. I had a professor in college who did this, and it put a sort of competitive edge to working on assignments. I was generally producing things like say parser for a C-like programming language in 8 hours or less, but I started projects for this professor within the first 24 hours, and kept coding till either I ran out of ideas or time.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[mrbooze]

Thank you! I'm glad someone else remembers Pascal. It was my first real language training as well, as the community college I went to required it as the Introduction to Programming course.

The fact that you pretty much *have* to move on to other languages afterwards is a great point. It makes it practically impossible to get the kind of people who think whatever language they learned first is the proper solution to every problem. (When all you have is a hammer, etc.)

Re:Teaching basic programming

[Zhe Mappel]

Once you've learned how to program (in C, Fortran, or LOGO for that matter), you can start thinking about user-interface issues, program design issues, efficiency of algorithms, etc.

This is a big reason why so much software is clunky and nonintuitive. It's an engineering solution for programmers--not a user solution for humans.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[jericho4.0]

I'll bite.

OMGWTF!? BASIC!? I would have agreed with you in 1975, but we've come a long way since then. Python, Ruby, or even Pascal are all better choices for a first language, IMO. Yes, they might all have a bit more of a learning curve than BASIC, for the purposes of writing 'Hello World' (and that's arguble), but it's worth the extra effort for the sudent.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[drinkypoo]

Yes. That language is called PASCAL.

No! Pascal actually has operators that were chosen because they were different from other languages! Just to be different! Piss on that. BASIC is not so bad, because it is so different from anything sane (esp. if you use line numbers.)

Logo is, IMO, a much better language to use when teaching programming concepts than either one, because it's so visual. You can SEE what you're doing. That's very useful. Granted, you can't do as much with it as you can even with BASIC in some ways, because it's so slow, but you're not trying to do much at that level anyway. Because it's procedural, it's a much better primer than a basic BASIC.

And, of course, no one should ever use Visual Basic for anything :D

Re:Teaching basic programming

[drinkypoo]

Seems to me that Perl is the same way, yet your code isn't broken if you use an editor or IDE that mishandles your whitespace :)

On the other hand, learning programming != learning a language. I don't see a problem with going from one language and not using OO to another language and using OO. In addition, I've found that grasping the idea of object-oriented programming became much easier when I stopped listening to people try to explain what an object is to me, and when I just started using an OO language, which is to say Javascript. Like, there's an object! And you create one! And it has methods and properties, whee.

In that moment, the student was enlightened.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[m50d]

Seems to me that Perl is the same way, yet your code isn't broken if you use an editor or IDE that mishandles your whitespace :)

No it's not. I like perl in the right place, but the perl OO system is bolted-on and very loosely fitting.

On the other hand, learning programming != learning a language. I don't see a problem with going from one language and not using OO to another language and using OO.

It means you have to learn OO at the same time as learning the new language, which makes things harder. Better if you can learn OO in a language you already know.

In addition, I've found that grasping the idea of object-oriented programming became much easier when I stopped listening to people try to explain what an object is to me, and when I just started using an OO language, which is to say Javascript. Like, there's an object! And you create one! And it has methods and properties, whee. In that moment, the student was enlightened.

That's directly contrary to my experience of how most people learn it.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[daddyrief]

Totally agree with you. I started on QBasic.

Re:Teaching basic programming

[drinkypoo]

I've just never had anyone be able to explain objects to me concisely. Or, for that matter, accurately. Anyway, people all learn in different ways...

Copying Dashboard

[adpowers]

Come on now. Don't go the Microsoft route. Microsoft blatantly ripped of Apple's Dashboard. Anyone in their right mind would know that Apple was the One True inventor of widgets. ;)

Re:Copying Dashboard

[badriram]

Apple did not use gadgets online, sure, we could say konfabulator was there first, then someone else will say apple had small applications like clock.....

However we are not talking you desktop here, we are talking hosting a small web widget on one server, and loading it on another webpage.... IMHO a much better concept than just desktop widgets.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[adpowers]

Well, I was just trying to copy the trend. I was hoping someone would rebuttal me with Konfabulator. (hence the winking)

I must admit, there are a bunch of advantages of having these hosted on a server. First, Google gives you a method to easily request webpages (so you don't have to worry about the quirks of every browser). Also, they forward all requests through their server, which has the added advantage of caching the requests. The script I wrote is pretty slow because it has to bounce around a few servers and compile a bunch of data, but Google caches it, so it'll last for a few hours, reducing traffic and making users happier.

When playing around with it, I came to admire the system they have in place to make sure the widgets don't interfere and there are no namespace issues. Each widget is assigned an ID, so you just put some code in there which is replaced at load time with a number. You put this in every id and function name, and then there are no problems. In my other post I wail on them, but it is actually quite clever.

Andrew

Re:Copying Dashboard

[peragrin]

I think apple called it deskbar, or something simlar for Mac OS 7.5. Whatever the case I was using similar toys with fvwm back in 1996. Konfabulator was hardly an orginal idea. Maybe a new implenetation, utilizing new tech but not orginial.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>IMHO a much better concept than just desktop widgets

yes because who wants to just press a button and have all their widgets instantly fade in? we want to have to open a compatible web browser, load the page, look up all the widgets, download the data...

can someone give me an example of a widget that is better in this way because being used to Apple's Dashboard widgets and using them many times every day it's hard for me to imagine why you would want them to be "...on the internet" except for their obviously patentable new nature.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[tigersha]

Yeah and Konfabulator was a blatant ripoff of the widgets in NextStep.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[k_187]

portability. This way you can get your widgets on whichever platform you're using, even if its not your normal one.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[Buzz_Litebeer]

And Samurize came out before Konfabulator!

www.samurize.com

Re:Copying Dashboard

[artemis67]

Mac OS was actually the first, with the Desk Accessories that go back to Macintosh System 1.0 in 1984.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[k31bang]

Please give me a break. Its common knowledge that Apple Xeroxed....Xerox.


*ducks*

Re:Copying Dashboard

[J2000_ca]

Most of the google module are inside iframes so they can be refreshed without refreshing the entire page.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Desktop Accessories.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[Eccles]

There's also portability in that it works on your home computer, office computer, laptop, etc.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[tuatara222]

Weren't there DAs (Desk Accessories) prior to OS 7.5? I believe I recall using them on my first little SE back in 1990; MMMV (My Memory May Vary)- but it was within a year or two, tops...

Re:Copying Dashboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, don't forget XMLHttpRequest(). Oooh, aah. /me is writing a google widget right now.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[muffdivr]

Because, moron, there are people who work from different computers and would like to take their widgets with them when they travel :-) yes because who wants to just press a button and have all their widgets instantly fade in? we want to have to open a compatible web browser, load the page, look up all the widgets, download the data... can someone give me an example of a widget that is better in this way because being used to Apple's Dashboard widgets and using them many times every day it's hard for me to imagine why you would want them to be "...on the internet" except for their obviously patentable new nature.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[bmh129]

Let's see... We have Apple widgets, MS gadgets, konfabulator, SuperKaramba, KDE, GNOME, whatever Yahoo has, blah, blah, blah.

I don't see how you can call any of these "blatant rip offs" of each other anymore, given that they are such common parts of any modern operating system. But if you want to get technical, the first modern GUI came from Xerox, and they didn't even want it so they literally gave it to Apple. So get over it, people; the idea of a GUI, in general, is de facto public domain.

What you should really be debating is trademark infringement, and if that can even apply to a word like "widget," which my electrical engineering professors were using in lectures as a hypothetical device produced by the proverbial "Company X." Try to enforce that trademark in court.

Re:Copying Dashboard

[shmlco]

Desk Accessories (Calculator, Puzzle, Note Pad, Key Caps, etc.) existed on the very first Macintosh (the 128K 1984 version).

Re:Copying Dashboard

[hackstraw]

can someone give me an example of a widget that is better in this way because being used to Apple's Dashboard widgets and using them many times every day it's hard for me to imagine why you would want them to be "...on the internet" except for their obviously patentable new nature

I'd like to know the inverse. What do the Apple widgets get you?

I have Tiger on a machine for about 6 months now, and I have used the widgets maybe a dozen times, most of which were trying to figure out what good they were, and I have yet to of seen their benefit.

A clock. A weather app (I personally use http://www.bainsware.com/sonofgrok/ because its just as fast and works on older releases of OS X), a calculator that I believe you cannot cut and paste the answers into another application (or easily see the application), etc.

I'm happy with many of Apple's innovations, but I don't see this as one of them. The dashboard thing is merely a bunch of applications that can be launched at one time via a mouse click or a keyboard key that are in some kind of weird MDI that does not interface with the rest of the OS, it runs all the time (does not appear to use too many resources though), and most all of the widgets are available as separate applications that do interface with the rest of the OS.

I'm not trying to complain just to complain, I'm just interested in what someone finds useful with dashboard. I personally don't know of anyone that is particularly impressed with it.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[resprung]

At least the Slashdot editors post consistently wrong grammar...

it's != its
they're != theyre

I guess I've read this site for 6 years now, no change... :-)

Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and it must be free as in free beer beer.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[nitemayr]

I've had success with a firefox based browser and adblock plus (for those ads on digg) you might want to check that out.

i hope this doesn't slow down the search engine...

[legalize.ganja.now.]

...because i'm not going to use it. i mean, when i type google.com, i want to do websearch and i don't need toys like rolling eyes for that.
google's succes is based on it's simplicity, hope they don't ruin it...

Imageshack Hosting Widget

[Grimmthething]

I created a quick imageshack hosting widget. To give it a try add this link to the "Create a Section" spot. It is a really simple one, but for me is very useful. Imageshack hosting widget http://base.google.com/base/a/16800097909005850654

Weather

[jefu]

If you are in the US, you might try the (occasionally threatened) weather site run by the National Weather Service. I've found it much nicer than the commercial sites - clean pages, little extraneous junk, set to do hourly refreshes. One of my mozilla/firefox tabs is almost always set to the local page.

Darn

[cluening]

Now I'm torn - do I keep using the headlines page I wrote a few years ago, or do I start playing with Google's stuff? I know I will always have control of the first case, but the second case is so much cooler...

closer to my.yahoo? sports scores and TV listings?

[edmicman]

Will we see sports scores for individual teams and focused TV listings? Those are the two things I miss most since leaving my.yahoo, but everything else seems to work well. Maybe I'm just missing where they are on google....

Forgot the url...

[jefu]

Should have included the URL for the site :
weather.gov

Glad you weren't my teacher

[Viol8]

When exactly did XML become a programming language? Its a data structuring language you idiot. As for the javascript side of the API, its naturally very heavily biased towards manipulating a web browser. I'm not sure exactly how loading documents into frames and the like is relevant or even a good enviroment to learning basic coding skills such as looping , variables , function calling etc.

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[ArikTheRed]

XML code, you say? Ever hear of Jelly? http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jelly/

In any case, I hate to paraphrase Larry Wall, but programming languages are indeed just data structures. XML is a formatting specification, and if you reformatted C code into XML, it would work just the same (assuming you had a compiler). In the case of the example above, I assume he had such a processor.

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[borgboy]

1. Programming languages, and programs written in those languages, are data. Further, OP said language, not programming language.
2. Ad hominem attacks suck, and so do you.

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[potHead42]

1. Programming languages, and programs written in those languages, are data.

Just because A is part of B doesn't imply B = A.

2. Ad hominem attacks suck, and so do you.
*Very* funny ;-)

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[borgboy]

Just because A is part of B doesn't imply B = A.
Yes. But if A has a is-a relationship with B, then A is a B (Duh, yes, thats a tautology.) More of a semantic modeling exercise than a set operation.

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[Viol8]

Sorry, not interested in anything larry wall has to say given the mess he created.
Programming languages are NOT just data structures, they're ideas converted into
sequenced logic operations AND data. If you don't understand the difference I'd
suggest you go find yourself a different career to work in.

As for Jelly , on question - whats the point? With hacked add ons you could turn
Wordstar markup tags into a language that can mimick proper coding languages. Doesn't
mean that it actually is one in its normal form. Same goes for XML.

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[Viol8]

1. No they're not. Get a clue. Further OP said "I would likely use this as a means to teach basic programming skills." RTFP first.

2. Ah , Latin 101 plus schoolyard insults. How very slashdot :)

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[ArikTheRed]

Hey, for the record, I don't even like Perl. But right is right. Its interesting you have such a limited view of programming, yet are lecturing me on its subtleties. "sequenced logic operations"? Ever hear of declarative programming? That's QBE, that's XML. In the end they're all just data structures. You can ruffle your feathers about it all you want, but I'd be interested to see the compiler that does not compile code into them. The programming languages you speak of are just a shorthand method of creating them, but not the only way.

And as for the point about Jelly: It is XML. Just like the example the last guy gave. Jelly has an interpreter which runs the logic (declarative or sequential, however it may be) defined within. The example he gave is run on an interpreter--which just so happens to be a web browser.

Sheesh.

Re:Glad you weren't my teacher

[Viol8]

XML is not declarative. It does not define something you want done. It defines data.
It does not ensure the parser does anything except load it in a certain internal format.
Examples of declarative programming languages are SQL and Prolog. Go look them up.

Re:i hope this doesn't slow down the search engine

[infinityxi]

The keyword here is optional. For anyone who has setup and checked out the personalized google page, they will notice that nothing on these page is forced upon the user. You have the preference to put as much or as little as you want on the personalized portal. I've been hearing the same concerns and exaggerated worry since google started implementing this feature. Doesn't seem like much has changed and while I agree with your sentiment that a lot of google's appeal is in the simplicity of their search page, as http://search.yahoo.com/ and http://search.msn.com/ have thankfully modeled, I don't believe this will be the turning point of seeing a flood of html and javascript on google's page forced upon anyone.

So easy

[GweeDo]

This was amazingly easy. I setup a Widget at: http://witendofi.com/widgets/witendoficard.xml

It is a Google IG version of the WiFi Cards we let users have (see grebowiec.net for an example, it is in the right sidebar).

I had this thing working in under 10 minutes. I like. I will be expanding this. The timing was perfect, I actually started on a Konfabulator widget for this just last night!

Re:Not Newsworthy At All

[diegocgteleline.es]

Agreed - the "personalized homepage" at google seems to be a very poor competitor WRT live.com. For example, adding or closing a "widget" in google.com/ig triggers a RELOAD of the page. live.com adds and removes them without reloading anything. Clicking in the "more content" in the content sidebar opens another web page. THe add buttons in that same side bar are ugly buttons not nice text links. live.com had a javascript RSS reader which supports images and google.com/ig added it later and it doesn't support images. Also, live.com is already translated to spanish

It's somewhat weird that being google the "ajax leader" microsoft has beaten google in this field.

Good move

[Elixon]

At least somebody realized that the web technologies are great integration platform.
(I regret that this technology that we use in our administration of our CMS was announced first by google and not us :-))

Wic Wac Woe

[panthro]

Try this:

http://www.mavrinac.com/projects/wicwacwoe/google. xml

Quite possibly the most useless Google Homepage module available.

I love it

[n8myton]

I agree that a Konfabulator like thing is not far away Keep it up Google!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hrmph

[coyote4til7]

At least one fundamental problem remains with google's personalized home/start/foo page: a very small limit (it appears to be 10) on the number of items shown in one feed. netvibes.com allows up to 30. A online newreader doesn't do me much good when I have to wake up multiple times during the night if I want to keep up with the feed.

"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[morgan_greywolf]

Most people who think that C is low level, grungy programming language haven't written a lick of C code and couldn't write anything significant in C if their life depended on it.

C has very simple syntax. The language doesn't get in your way, and once you want to start doing OO, you can pick up C++ fairly easily once you know C.

One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

Scripting languages like Python are nice, but you'll never learn anything about systems-level programming writing things in Python, so, for example, your hands will be tied when new hardware comes along until us C programmers come along and write a library for you to access its driver.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[m50d]

Most people who think that C is low level, grungy programming language haven't written a lick of C code and couldn't write anything significant in C if their life depended on it.

I've written C and still do, far more often than I'd like. Heck, it's not like I haven't done any lower stuff, reading a memory address repeatedly with a delay loop to play a sound in 6502 assembler, that was low level. But compared to a modern language it is grungy and low level.

C has very simple syntax. The language doesn't get in your way,

No, but the only language that really gets in the way (IME) is Java. C may not get in your way but it doesn't do much to help you either.

and once you want to start doing OO, you can pick up C++ fairly easily once you know C.

Not really. You can write C and call it C++, and add classes and exceptions and templates and call it C++, but to learn true C++ will take a lot of effort. C++ from C is better than starting completely afresh, but being able to learn OO in the same language is better still.

One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

No. But there is time to learn these afterwards. Learning programming is hard enough by itself for many people - you don't want to clutter it with anything unnecessary. Yes, you need to learn C - but it's easier to learn programming in a language where you don't have to worry about such things and then learn the things you need to worry about in C.

Scripting languages like Python are nice, but you'll never learn anything about systems-level programming writing things in Python, so, for example, your hands will be tied when new hardware comes along until us C programmers come along and write a library for you to access its driver.

Again, systems programming is something you need to learn, but you don't have to learn it at the same time you learn programming. Postponing it a bit makes it easier for you to learn how to program.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[Pryon]

One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

One person's problem is another's blessing. Who are these people that know about proper dynamic memory allocation? Surely you're not talking about the people writing the code responsible for all stack-smashing bugs out there. Not having to worry about dynamic memory allocation and pointers is a Good Thing. I like C as much as the next person but it has its place. The domain of C is not nearly as wide as its use would suggest.

Languages like Python are great for jobs that are not CPU-bound. Memory allocation and OS APIs should be neatly abstracted away if you're doing anything other than systems programming.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[Anonymous Coward]

ow, I have written quite a bit of C for embedded systems and C++ for desktop applications. Anyone who says they're NOT low level and grungy, not to begin with their wicked syntax, probably hasn't used *anything else*. If you really want to learn a lot about programming, a powerful language that does not get in your way and has really simple syntax is lisp.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[Eccles]

One of the problems of learning a language like python first, is that it doens't teach you anything about proper dynamic memory allocation, the use of pointers, the use of operating system APIs, etc.

But that's precisely the reason why you might teach it first. I see that as almost like saying "The problem with teaching kids arithmetic first is it doesn't teach you anything about integrals." First you want to teach the concept of instructions, looping, conditions, and branching, and get those established before you get into more esoteric issues.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[m50d]

Agreed, but people tend to see lisp and think a) pure functional b) lots of brackets everywhere. Not that the brackety syntax is bad, but it's dramatically different from most programming languages, as is most of the syntax for nonfunctional things. Python is, imo, pretty similar for learning but syntactically much closer to C and friends, which makes it less intimidating to learn another language afterwards. I'd certainly say lisp is a far better choice than C and indeed most languages though.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[tjstork]

The knock on C is strings.

sprintf( buffer, "hello %s\n", somevariable );

is less intuitive than

mystring = "hello " + somevariable;

And from there, one can further infer that the knock on C is any arbitrarily complex collection.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[morgan_greywolf]

You're just concatenating two styrings. So what's wrong with:

strcpy(buffer,"hello"); strcat(buffer,somevariable);

(providing you've done the proper memory allocations)

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[tjstork]

That's my point exactly.

To really do this right, you would have to, in C, do something like:

char *addstrings( char *src, char *src2 )
{
int l1;
buffer = malloc( (l1 = strlen( src )) + strlen( src2 ) );
strcpy( buffer, src );
strcpy( buffer + l1, src2 );
return buffer;
}

And, you would still have to remember to free buffer.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[morgan_greywolf]

You'd like Pascal, I think:


buffer := string1 + string2;


But the programmer in this case has NO IDEA how this REALLY works. In reality, the machine doesn't know anything about strings. A string is just a bunch of bytes starting a particular position in memory and ending in 0x00 (for C string representation. Most Pascal compilers actually represent strings with the first byte of the string being set to the length, limiting Pascal strings to 255 chars).

SO if you need to concatenate two strings, you need a buffer to hold the new string, and you need to copy the bytes from each of the two src strings into the buffer.

That's how it really works, and you won't understand that if you just do like the above.

Re:"Grungy programming"? "Low level"?

[tjstork]

No, I actually like the C approach, because the devilish detail is where is the buffer. If you are using a memory managed language, fine for most dumb LOB applications, then, the string = string1 + string2 is fine. C# and Java work much the same way. But, if you are doing something performance critical, you have to do the C route. Or C++.

Joke

[Hrothgar The Great]

He meant to ask when an MSN Search widget would be available in Google's widget directory.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[KingVance]

Anyone nit-picking enough to write a letter of correction to an editor doubtless deserves the error that provoked it.

        Alvin Toffler

If it honestly gets you that worked up that they missed an apostraophe...maybe it's time for YOU to move on.

It is only a true grammatical error if the meaning gets lost or confused because of the error.

Circular Reference

[RadiomanLaughs]

Maybe only I find this the more amusing that the set of follow-the-cursor eyes, but i found out about the widgets by: 1. Opening my Google ig 2. Following the Slashdot article link on google ig 3. Following the Google widget link on slashdot 4. Adding a widget, ending up back at google 5. Following the Slashdot article link on google again, so i could read comments... yeah, dizziness rapidly set in...

Assuming a career.

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Geeks, geeks, geeks.

Your first mistake is *assuming* that people who program want to be programmers. The people who are going to be creating Google widgets DO NOT want to be programmers. They want to create something cool for themselves. Everybodies language suggestion revolves around the user ending up as a career programmers (sooner or later).

Re:Assuming a career.

[m50d]

No I'm not. The easiest general-purpose programming language to learn is Python. If you're sure you only want to program in one specialised area then you may well find an easier language for that area, there's some areas like very low-level systems programming that you can't do at all in python, but if you want to learn a single language that will let you do the programming you want to do easily then Python is almost certainly the best choice.

Re:But consider this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops! "Bleeding."

Security?

[eurleif]

These widgets apparently allow the developer to use any HTML or JavaScript they want. Couldn't they be used for cross-site scripting (XSS)?

Re:Security?

[Dorceon]

Not if it loads them in iframes.

It's so easy! Here's one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating a widget is so incredibly easy! Has anyone tried creating widgets for Microsoft live or Yahoo Konfabulator? I wonder how easy it is in comparison.

I whipped together a widget for Globalspec's Engineering Web search in 2 seconds. Check it out on my blog post on "Google Active Homepage"

Who shall win, "Windows Live" Widgets vs. Google widgets... It's like .Net vs. Java all over again.

Welcome back to 1997

[Devil]

I never use Google/ig, because the precise reason I started using Google (in addition to their better search) was that I was sick of "portals", where every square inch of screen space had to be taken up with something. From the moment I first visited Google, I knew I was looking at something better, because the Google folks decided that they didn't need to tart their site up to look like all those awful circa-1997 portals. Go look at http://www.excite.com/, because that's where we're all headed...*again*. The only difference is that now it's customizable with JavaScript instead of lots of server-side stuff.

No, thank you; I'll stick with regular old google.com or better yet, the Google search bar built into Firefox.

The best interface is no interface.

Re:Not Newsworthy At All

[ArikTheRed]

In all fairness, Google just got into this Ajax game coming up on 2 years here next April 1st. MS has been playing with this technology for 8 or 9. Smart is smart, but it's hard to beat a solid team with experience. Also: how many browsers does live.com support? I have no idea.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[AlvySinger]

Depends. You might read "it's" as meaning possessive but others will infer that if the author can't handle basic grammar then the content of their expression is somewhat lacking too.

It's not difficult. After all if this is a techical group discussing fairly technical issue with some accuracy a simple grammar rule should be manageable. "its" is possesive; "his" and "hers" do not have apostrophes. "It's" like "don't" is an abbreviation and does.

It can be awkward subject because a pedant is a person who can apply one simple rule more than you can. Using preprepositions at the end of sentences, misusing "which" and "that", etc. follows. However, "it's" versus "its" is trivial. Make an effort guys.

Note: I'm more than open to amusing criticisms of any spelling, grammatical or spelling errors in the above. I'll read replies and try to avoid similar errors in future. Like many here I'm write code every day. I'd hope I'd learn something doing this to improve. Why must basic grammar be something that you leave behind when your basic education finishes?

Re:Not Newsworthy At All

[everphilski]

They support Firefox (they've said it explicitly in the past)... I've personally been on live.com with firefox and IE. Can't speak for whatever you apple people use...

-everphilski-

You're an old-fashioned nit-picker

[nobodyman]

Call me an old-fashioned nit-picker

Hey, you asked for it ;-)

I disagree that C is the ideal learning language, but I agree that the primary importance of learning programming is learning how to think. I'm not even talking necessisarily about OOP concepts, but more generally how to define, approach, and break down problems.

On the other hand, I think the worst thing you could do to a completely green student is to sit them down with a text editor and and compiler. This will only attract people who want to program in the first place and are willing to "tough it out". A good teacher/tool should be able to engage people who wouldn't consider themselves programmers. The first language I learned was LOGO for the TRS-80 and I was instantly hooked - me and my brother tried to one-up each other's spirographs

LOGO is my favorite example of a teaching language. The syntax vocabulary is small and your feedback is entirely visual (at least starting out). At first you're just moving a turtle around and drawing spirograph-like patterns... the programming methodology is almost a passive, secondary experience.

That said, with computers and the net you have many exciting opportunities to teach programming. "Widgets" programming seems like it has promise (maybe not for 5-10 year olds, but probably jr. high and up), but even a campaign editor for Starcraft is basically a turing-complete "language" -- You still get to learn the concepts of a conditional statement, with the added bonus of blowing up aliens. Why not learn that way?

Assuming a career-Ends to a mean.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well see, the fact that the discussion has side-tracked into a C-Python-Basic-whatever language, even though the only tools that a Google Widget designer will have is the ones provided by the browser. Simply shows the difference between geeks and everyone else. Geeks aren't primarily interested in the ends, but the means. And in fact will forget there ever was an ends, lost in all the detours they are. Everyone else are interested primarily in the ends, and the means as something they grudgingly have to learn, to accomplish them.

Since this is primarily a geek site, one can expect all these detours when a technical discussion comes up. But for those aiming for the ends, it's a rather empty discussion. What good are these Google widgets? What can you create with them? Ends people, ends.

Re:Assuming a career-Ends to a mean.

[m50d]

The ends are unlikely to be "to use google widgets". Rather they are "to display cool things on a web page". So it makes sense to discuss alternative ways of accomplishing this.

Re:Assuming a career-Ends to a mean.

[Anonymous Coward]

And just how does python fit into this "display cool things on a web page? Especially considering Google is the one in control on the server side. I can see this discussion being a fruitful one were the poster controls the server. And on that front there's more than two fistfuls of technology to emit browser compatiable code. As far as client-side the discussion is basically wishful-thinking.*

*At the least you can write a Mozilla plugin that interprets python, much as there are Flash, "ticklets", curl, and even squeak. But you'll still have the adoption battle that all plugins face.

Re:Assuming a career-Ends to a mean.

[m50d]

I can see this discussion being a fruitful one were the poster controls the server.

The poster might be able to do run their own server as another means to the end.

And on that front there's more than two fistfuls of technology to emit browser compatiable code.

Indeed. And here we are discussing it.

Beware "Active Desktop"

[big-shoulders]

Ohhh, yeah, the last time Microsoft embedded "web" content into the desktop it worked out so well, let's do it again!.

I don't look forward to the return of "Active Desktop" and predict it will be just as popular this time around as it was last time.

Re:Beware "Active Desktop"

[shird]

Except this time around many more people have 'always on' broadband connections, much faster computers, a wider selection of rss feeds, IE7 with rss feeds support built in, broader selection and more practical streamable media, exposure to 'everything on the net' by google and the ilk etc. There will be quite a difference me thinks.

Broken

[n8myton]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it crashes consistently for me. I am using Firefox 1.5 and can think of no reason for it to crash. The formatting is really messed up, and the delete button for the "widgets" doesn't work. I am very dissappointed with this product.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[hobbit]

if this is a technical group
discussing fairly technical issues
with some accuracy,
"Its" is possessive
"It's," like "don't," is an abbreviation
It can be an awkward subject
one more simple rule than you can OR one simple rule better than you can
Misusing "which" and "that," etc., follows.
Like many here I write code every day

Hope this helps. Not sure it'll help the credibility of the "content of your expression" ;)

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[AlvySinger]

And I've no problem with this. Why should I? ;)

On a related subject, there's a story about a newspaper columist who sets a competition. There are a few deliberate grammatical errors in the column and a prize for anyone spotting them all. Lots of entries are received detailing a greater number of unintentional errors.

Anyway, it'd be nice if at least /. editors used "its" correctly. And contributors used paragraphs. And I'd learn to type...

Dump the OS

[mindpixel]

Wadda mean load a browser...dump the os, boot the browser and never leave it.

Re:Dump the OS

[nofx_3]

A browser cannot:
 
handle process queues (Process Scheduling)
Handle disk I/O
Handle user inputs(keyboard/mouse)
Interface directly with hardware
Amongst other things
 
You would need a least some sort of US kernel to handle this stuff. Yes, a browser could be the only user interface that loads, but you WILLstill need an OS.

Re:Not Newsworthy At All

[dantheman82]

Google is hardly innovating in the AJAX-space. Except for their Google Maps image load feature, there's not all that much that's interesting. Gmail has gone in a dissapointing direction - RSS newsfeeds (??), no real AJAX innovation with drag/drop or right-click or anything. Oh, and Microsoft's Birds-eye view totally kicked the pants off the standalone Google Earth. However, I fail to see the whole excitement in creating an AJAX portal...talk about a has-been concept with some new window-dressing. Why either MS or Google are wasting their time on that is still rather unclear...unless if they take it to the next level somehow.

Man what

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google releases a "personalized homepage" feature.
2. A year or something passes.
3. Microsoft releases the new live.com which is a blatant ripoff of the google, but adds one feature (user-created boxes) which Google lacked.
4. A couple months pass.
5. Google adds the one feature live.com had that they didn't.
6. Slashdot's consensus: Google rips off Microsoft!

In the meantime, as far as I'm aware very few people are actually using either live.com or google personalized homepage. This entire thing is mostly only useful as a dick-measuring contest between Microsoft and Google on slashdot and similar message boards. Portals are a dead end.

Dashboard

[mcc]

So how hard would it be to write something that automatically converts Dashboard widgets to Google widgets, so you could use the same widgets on both? It's all just javascript, so this doesn't sound like it could possibly be that difficult.

Re:Dashboard

[saddino]

Actually, only the simplest of Dashboard widgets are "just javascript." Most Dashboard widgets either make UNIX system calls (including calls to Apple-only command line tools like oascript) or utilize a Cocoa plugin to do the heavy lifting.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[KingVance]

If you cannot figure out which version of its/it's truthfully belongs by using the context clues they taught us in 3rd grade, then you definitely need to find a new line of work.

I understand theres a certain level of expectations in formal writings, but when were all pounding out text on teh intarweb as fast as possible, then we are all bound to skip the occasional apostraphe...and if we do miss it on accident, I can assure you, you will get no apologies from me.

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[AlvySinger]

It's possible to parse malformed English quite easily. There's a Steven Pinker book that (Language Instinct) that describes hxw xts pxssxblx tx rxxd wxthxxt vxwxls.

There's certainly lots of pounding but it's a simple rule that's usually applied incorrectly. As for missing apostrophes, it's more a case of adding them where they don't belong.

I just think it's odd that if you make a small technical error around here you'll get picked up on it. Suggest there's a need for reasonable grammar and you're a grammar nazi. What gives?

Anyway, not a criticisms of the editors in particular - but they could proof for this stuff when they check the story's not a dupe. Oh....

Re:I read this on Digg.com 2 days ago

[AlvySinger]

You're Mrs. Jameson, my former English teacher, aren't you?

Ahhhh

[zopf]

Calendar! Please!