You certainly can find some niblet that C-pound has implemented such as you mentioned. But it remains just logic. The vast number of disadvantages of having to live in the MS ecosystem far outweigh the alleged advantages of having some obscure feature. It sounds like in the next breath you'll be telling me that "Gandalf has many powers..."
Have you compared the two languages? Java does not look that much like C++ or C. C-pound is a total obvious copy of Java both in syntax and in most of its features. C-pound is Microsoft's Me-too language.
If the iPod were just a flash drive for carrying mp3 songs, it would not have been 1% as popular.
It was the beauty of the device, physically. (So many others looked like hell).
It was the seamless integration with the iTunes store. Not rocket science.
It was the marketing whiz that goes into all Apple products along with obviously superior design.
It was all the things I'm named and the synergistic combination of those things caused Record Labels to agree to license their music.
Microsoft was capable intellectually of making those pieces but--my original point--they lack the initiative to take the risk of being a market leader in anything! Their reluctance to lead in touch is the sine qua non example.
Funny, over the past decade, I watched tons of changes happening to Java. Anything that is wanted by the community will likely find its way in. You see, the Java world runs like a Democracy. People don't like Swing and eventually there's SWT. People don't care for bare JSP so Craig McClanahan wrote Struts. EJB came along and a lot of people disliked Entity Beans and so Gavin King developed Hibernate. Same goes with Spring and a raft of other Java-centric technologies.
In the MS world, you're just plain stuck.
I coded to Microsoft technologies for years until I got sick of that ecosystem. Like it or not, the iPod was an advance. Prior to that, though we had been passing mp3s around for years, there was no official way to buy music legally--and the iPod really made that happen. Did you hear that there will not be a Zune app store--because the Zune is good for nothing better than FM radio. The iPod is iconic. Microsoft and their technologies are for the hausfrau.
The Zune is based on the iPod, clearly. However, you're right. The iPod was a 20-year-later elaboration of the Sony Walkman. That's just the point. Apple came up with a great innovation in the iPod. I understand there were other devices with pieces of the idea but--obviously--they didn't take off and so we don't talk about their iTunes store or iPhone app store.
Once again, we see Microsoft waiting for somebody else to go first and pioneer a new technology--so MS can then jump in front of the pioneers, stealing their best ideas with lame implementations.
Original: Macintosh (based on PARC)
Shoddy MS Copy: Windows
Original: Netscape Navigator
Shoddy MS Copy: IE
Original: iPod
Shoddy MS Copy: Zune
Original: Java (based on C,C++)
Shoddy MS Copy: C-pound
Anymore, I'm betting the developers in Redmond are quiet about where they work.
Certainly not. Macs are made by humans. However, you must have lived on Mars the past decade to not notice the constant stream of viruses and other trojans that are so successful finding new exploits in the MS ecosystem. Though indeed problems do occur in the mac, they are on a vastly smaller scale than on Windows. So, though I did make an exaggeration by making an absolute statement, it does jive with reality. Having been a software developer professionally for 13 years and privately for 20, I stand by my assessment that MS makes crap.
Dude,
How often do you hear of Mac Viruses running rampant? The reason Microsoft has to constantly patch their crap is because it's terrible. Mac is much more solid and the whole issue goes away... You are showing your Microsoft-centric world view. In the Mac world, the need to constantly fix old mistakes just is not a problem. It's a non issue.
This is just another reason to abandon Microsoft. I am so happy with my Mac, open office and a variety of other non-Microsoft technologies. The last time I spent money on one of their "products" was Windows 98. No reason to ever drop a dime again on their crap.
Can you imagine how terribly apps on this combo will perform? I would be waiting with great skepticism.
Anybody With Something To Hide Knows Better
on
A History of Wiretapping
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I always find it amazing when Mafiosas are caught saying provocative stuff on the phone. They had to have known they were being wiretapped.
If you know you're going to do something illegal, you don't do it any way that can be traced. No emails, no cell phones, nothing. Just voices in ears. Take the UNABOMBER. He wrote on a manual typewriter, made his bombs out of wood he himself took out of the forest. Every metal component in his bombs was made from scratch, not derived from some other source. So, every single one of those things were utterly untraceable. (He was only caught because his own brother recognized his writing style.)
Well, standing in the parking lot eating a doughy half-warm microwave chicken sandwich for $2.75 and sitting down at your grandmother's to a table full of turkey, stuffing, potatoes and gravy are both 'eating'.
Reading on a screen is fine but it's not what launched a nearly 600-year-old technology that has still not been equaled--the bound book. The extreme pleasure of reading books is what kept reading high on the list of pasttimes and helped our world to benefit from many educated people, from women who sit in their apartments on Central Park West reading to people in India who squat under a hut in the rain, holding a tattered book. The book is a tremendously successful medium, still readable with READING 1.0, using native wet hardware (the eyes and brain).
You're wrong on all accounts. I live in a tiny New York City apartment and have at least a thousand books.
There is nothing better than walking up to a friend at work and just springing a book on them. Just last week I went and handed a project manager I know a biography of Jack Kerouac. His weekend was made. You can't give away your kindle books, can you? Or see them after you close the file, except for a line in a directory, right?
There are many examples of retired technology. I don't use floppies, don't write code in COBOL or VB and don't use CDs. I stopped watching TV a long time ago. I write software for a living and have for a 13 years.
However, I still write the first draft of my fiction on a 1917 Royal manual typewriter, listen to Mozart and Haydn and read hardback books such as the current one I'm reading about the fight to build the Hubble Space Telescope.
There are some things that have not been surpassed.
By the same logic, if you can stand drinking gutter water and eating out of trashcans, you never need to spend money on food. (In other words, that's a pretty big 'if'.)
As I look around my room I see all the books that I have finished or want to read. When I have finished a paper book, I see the pages dwindling as I reach the end. The book has weight and after I've read it I feel that heft and know that I've done something worth while.
I don't have a kindle and doubt I would ever buy one. I love turning physical pages. I like the durability. I like that I can have four books going and open at the same time. I like the book jackets and am very close to getting a novel of my own published.
The paper book is not at all threatened by the kindle. Not in the slightest.
That Microsoft has to beg people to get excited about its products is embarrassing. No matter what--they will be "Bob" while Mac is "cool". I would sooner see Steve Ballmer trying to disco dance than attend one of these pocket-protector parties with the "C-pound" crowd.
Sending multiple missions would work surely but this is a question of cost, since we don't live in a world with infinite budgets.
Your quibble does not change the point: to come back, you need to take or develop (a gamble) your return propellant. Since that's many 'ifs', you are sentencing your lucky voyagers to death, unless they can find resources in situ and convert it into sufficient quantities to get back.
1 way trip = just getting there. (That means the spacecraft arrives at Mars on empty, with no rocket to blast off with.)
2 way trip = getting everything for a later blastoff from Mars there. (That means the spacecraft arrives with a full-tank in the return craft. That means the return craft is along for the ride the entire way there.)
My intention was not to slam the current folks at NASA. I too am proud of their achievements.
But you know that they were twiddling their thumbs. They had nothing to do. The shuttle was a craft looking for a mission. It was a mistake from the start. It never possessed the ability to go anywhere and so it merely soaked up all the dollars that should have been sent to the private sector so that NASA could do something interesting.
The shuttle satisfied our need for blast offs without actually attempting to do anything. Surely it did a great thing in putting up Hubble. No one wants to disparage what the shuttle did--it just was unambitious from the start. It never was a travel-to-mars platform. We should have started a space launch business and then NASA would have done something new.
Slashdot Mirror
You certainly can find some niblet that C-pound has implemented such as you mentioned. But it remains just logic. The vast number of disadvantages of having to live in the MS ecosystem far outweigh the alleged advantages of having some obscure feature. It sounds like in the next breath you'll be telling me that "Gandalf has many powers..."
Have you compared the two languages? Java does not look that much like C++ or C. C-pound is a total obvious copy of Java both in syntax and in most of its features. C-pound is Microsoft's Me-too language.
If the iPod were just a flash drive for carrying mp3 songs, it would not have been 1% as popular.
It was the beauty of the device, physically. (So many others looked like hell).
It was the seamless integration with the iTunes store. Not rocket science.
It was the marketing whiz that goes into all Apple products along with obviously superior design.
It was all the things I'm named and the synergistic combination of those things caused Record Labels to agree to license their music.
Microsoft was capable intellectually of making those pieces but--my original point--they lack the initiative to take the risk of being a market leader in anything! Their reluctance to lead in touch is the sine qua non example.
Funny, over the past decade, I watched tons of changes happening to Java. Anything that is wanted by the community will likely find its way in. You see, the Java world runs like a Democracy. People don't like Swing and eventually there's SWT. People don't care for bare JSP so Craig McClanahan wrote Struts. EJB came along and a lot of people disliked Entity Beans and so Gavin King developed Hibernate. Same goes with Spring and a raft of other Java-centric technologies.
In the MS world, you're just plain stuck.
I coded to Microsoft technologies for years until I got sick of that ecosystem. Like it or not, the iPod was an advance. Prior to that, though we had been passing mp3s around for years, there was no official way to buy music legally--and the iPod really made that happen. Did you hear that there will not be a Zune app store--because the Zune is good for nothing better than FM radio. The iPod is iconic. Microsoft and their technologies are for the hausfrau.
Sorry, I don't give the language that looks 99% the same as Java the dignity of its own "cutsie" name. It's C-pound.
The Zune is based on the iPod, clearly. However, you're right. The iPod was a 20-year-later elaboration of the Sony Walkman. That's just the point. Apple came up with a great innovation in the iPod. I understand there were other devices with pieces of the idea but--obviously--they didn't take off and so we don't talk about their iTunes store or iPhone app store.
"I am at a loss to understand why you didn't just right C# instead of C-pound."
It's called a 'dis'.
I'm sorry--it must be hard for you to work at Microsoft. Maybe when the economy gets better you can get a job someplace less evil.
Anymore, I'm betting the developers in Redmond are quiet about where they work.
Certainly not. Macs are made by humans. However, you must have lived on Mars the past decade to not notice the constant stream of viruses and other trojans that are so successful finding new exploits in the MS ecosystem. Though indeed problems do occur in the mac, they are on a vastly smaller scale than on Windows. So, though I did make an exaggeration by making an absolute statement, it does jive with reality. Having been a software developer professionally for 13 years and privately for 20, I stand by my assessment that MS makes crap.
Dude, How often do you hear of Mac Viruses running rampant? The reason Microsoft has to constantly patch their crap is because it's terrible. Mac is much more solid and the whole issue goes away... You are showing your Microsoft-centric world view. In the Mac world, the need to constantly fix old mistakes just is not a problem. It's a non issue.
This is just another reason to abandon Microsoft. I am so happy with my Mac, open office and a variety of other non-Microsoft technologies. The last time I spent money on one of their "products" was Windows 98. No reason to ever drop a dime again on their crap.
Can you imagine how terribly apps on this combo will perform? I would be waiting with great skepticism.
I always find it amazing when Mafiosas are caught saying provocative stuff on the phone. They had to have known they were being wiretapped. If you know you're going to do something illegal, you don't do it any way that can be traced. No emails, no cell phones, nothing. Just voices in ears. Take the UNABOMBER. He wrote on a manual typewriter, made his bombs out of wood he himself took out of the forest. Every metal component in his bombs was made from scratch, not derived from some other source. So, every single one of those things were utterly untraceable. (He was only caught because his own brother recognized his writing style.)
Well, standing in the parking lot eating a doughy half-warm microwave chicken sandwich for $2.75 and sitting down at your grandmother's to a table full of turkey, stuffing, potatoes and gravy are both 'eating'. Reading on a screen is fine but it's not what launched a nearly 600-year-old technology that has still not been equaled--the bound book. The extreme pleasure of reading books is what kept reading high on the list of pasttimes and helped our world to benefit from many educated people, from women who sit in their apartments on Central Park West reading to people in India who squat under a hut in the rain, holding a tattered book. The book is a tremendously successful medium, still readable with READING 1.0, using native wet hardware (the eyes and brain).
Bravo!
You're wrong on all accounts. I live in a tiny New York City apartment and have at least a thousand books.
There is nothing better than walking up to a friend at work and just springing a book on them. Just last week I went and handed a project manager I know a biography of Jack Kerouac. His weekend was made. You can't give away your kindle books, can you? Or see them after you close the file, except for a line in a directory, right?
There are many examples of retired technology. I don't use floppies, don't write code in COBOL or VB and don't use CDs. I stopped watching TV a long time ago. I write software for a living and have for a 13 years.
However, I still write the first draft of my fiction on a 1917 Royal manual typewriter, listen to Mozart and Haydn and read hardback books such as the current one I'm reading about the fight to build the Hubble Space Telescope.
There are some things that have not been surpassed.
By the same logic, if you can stand drinking gutter water and eating out of trashcans, you never need to spend money on food. (In other words, that's a pretty big 'if'.)
As I look around my room I see all the books that I have finished or want to read. When I have finished a paper book, I see the pages dwindling as I reach the end. The book has weight and after I've read it I feel that heft and know that I've done something worth while.
I don't have a kindle and doubt I would ever buy one. I love turning physical pages. I like the durability. I like that I can have four books going and open at the same time. I like the book jackets and am very close to getting a novel of my own published.
The paper book is not at all threatened by the kindle. Not in the slightest.
That Microsoft has to beg people to get excited about its products is embarrassing. No matter what--they will be "Bob" while Mac is "cool". I would sooner see Steve Ballmer trying to disco dance than attend one of these pocket-protector parties with the "C-pound" crowd.
Sending multiple missions would work surely but this is a question of cost, since we don't live in a world with infinite budgets. Your quibble does not change the point: to come back, you need to take or develop (a gamble) your return propellant. Since that's many 'ifs', you are sentencing your lucky voyagers to death, unless they can find resources in situ and convert it into sufficient quantities to get back.
I think you misunderstood.
1 way trip = just getting there. (That means the spacecraft arrives at Mars on empty, with no rocket to blast off with.)
2 way trip = getting everything for a later blastoff from Mars there. (That means the spacecraft arrives with a full-tank in the return craft. That means the return craft is along for the ride the entire way there.)
My intention was not to slam the current folks at NASA. I too am proud of their achievements.
But you know that they were twiddling their thumbs. They had nothing to do. The shuttle was a craft looking for a mission. It was a mistake from the start. It never possessed the ability to go anywhere and so it merely soaked up all the dollars that should have been sent to the private sector so that NASA could do something interesting.
The shuttle satisfied our need for blast offs without actually attempting to do anything. Surely it did a great thing in putting up Hubble. No one wants to disparage what the shuttle did--it just was unambitious from the start. It never was a travel-to-mars platform. We should have started a space launch business and then NASA would have done something new.