I think you should give Eclipse another go. I agree with poster above that suggest you download Eclipse directly from the Eclipse Website instead of using distro rep
Eclipse with PyDev has been my choice of Python/HTML IDE for past 3 years or so, on both Linux and Windows.
----
Subject: My thoughts on `topmind@technologist.com` AND his site
From: "Peter" <peter@somewhere.net>
Newsgroups: comp.object
[Submitter's Note: Topmind has been baiting people on comp.object for
years. People not familiar with him try to correct his ignorance, but
invariably become frustrated by his refusal (inability?) to learn.
Occasionally flame-gems are produced.]
Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors (I have just popped an analgesic which is starting to kick it. I hasten to add I reviewed http://www.[deleted].com/SiliconValley/Lab/6888/oo pbad.htm with a clear head.
People usually want to know 'where someone is coming from', what therebackground is so I'll pre-empt any questing on the matter. My commercial experience follows
I have programmed in three xBase langauages.
I am an experienced C systems programmer on numerous flavours of Unix and in Win32/NT. (Most of this stuff doesn't even have a user interface).
I have also programmed in VB.
I am well versed in all of the structured methods (analysis, design and programming).
I have RDBMS (Oracle, Sybase) experience.
I currently relearning OO/VC++/MFC.
Thus I am approaching it all with a critical eye.
Now on to the substance of my post.
Firstly the "OOP Myths Debunked" section.
Myth: OOP is a proven general-purpose technique
Myth: OOP models the real world better
Myth: OOP makes programming more visual
Myth: OOP makes programming easier and faster
Myth: OOP eliminates the complexity of "case" or "switch" statements
Myth: Inheritance increases reuse
Myth: Most things fit nicely into hierarchical taxonomies
Myth: Self-handling nouns are more important than self-handling verbs
Myth: Only OOP has automatic garbage collection
Myth: Components can only be built with OOP
Myth: Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data
Myth: OODBMS are overall faster than RDBMS
Myth: C is the best procedural can get
Myth: Implementation changes significantly more often than interfaces
Myth: Procedural/Relational ties field types and sizes to the code more
Myth: Procedural/Relational programs cannot "factor" as well
Where did these come from ?
Surely these are just "straw men" you are fighting. I mix it with C programmers, C++ programmers, RDBMS programmers, GUI programmers. I have read literally dozens of books on these topics and I read numerous IT journals and periodicals and I have not encountered anyone uttering these alleged myths. Where on earth did they come from ? You are fighting straw men, you have found some fool uttering these remarks and recorded it as 'beliefs held by OO practitioners' for your easy refutation.
I'll comment specifically on the those especially worthy of attention:
"Myth: OOP is a proven general-purpose technique "
Again, this a broad sweeping statement that I have not heard anyone assert. I have read Bjarne Stroustrup argue that C++ is a proven general-pupose language and this is unequivocally true. C++ is used to write literally all kinds of application.
However, the genericity of OO depends on its implementation. This is the same as procedural languages. Not all procedural languages are of general application. So who or what are you arguing against ?
"Myth: OOP models the real world better "
Better than what ? Better than the structured methods ?
Which structured methods ?
"Myth: OOP makes programming more visual "
You are using a misconception that uninformed people have about the relationship about GUI and OO and using this as a criticism of OO ? Lame indeed ?
"Myth: OOP makes programming easier and faster "
Well that depends on which language you are using and whether you are using class libraries, templates and/or frameworks. More straw men.
Myth: OOP eliminates the complexity of "case" or "switch" statements
I think you are referring to the connection between polymorphism and case/switch statements. The idea is not that case/switch statements are complex. The idea is that polymorhism -- implemented correctly -- will eliminate the need for 'mainline' case statements that need to be amended to add new options. This is pretty straightforward.
Myth: Only OOP has automatic garbage collection
I've read heaps of OO material from reputable authors and I have even read a book on AGC algorithms and I have not encountered this assertion. Where did you get it from ? More straw men.
Myth: Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data
Not even OO vendors say such a thing. Another straw man.
Myth: C is the best procedural can get.
Did you make this assertion up ? You can go on comp.lang.c and will not find anyone asserting in an unqualified fashion that C is the best procedural language. For embedded controller programmer it may be the best procedural language owing to its space/time efficiency. I am a C programmer and I know plenty of them and this idea that you post as a myth -- implying that it is a widely held misconception -- is a load of rubbish. "C is the best procedural can get" in certain domains. A higher-level domain specific 4GL will be better at putting together a General-Ledger system.
It seems what you have done is qulified your position
"SCOPE DISCLAIMER: I have been programming small and medium custom business applications for most of my career. Most of my complaints against OO are related to this rather large niche. Perhaps OO is good for other niches..."
But have put a series of unqualified and lame -- deliberately dogmatic sounding -- statements in the mouths of others and proceeded to argue against them.
Your qualification in your "SCOPE DISCLAIMER" limits your domain of discourse to small-meduim databased applications. You say this is a "rather large niche", but that is not what is relevant. The salient facts are the sizes of the applications and their data oriented nature. You are speaking from the bottom end of the market: small, mainly single-user applications, databased, servicing 1-100 (?) users accessing small databases (~1000s records,..dbf files are limited from what I recall). The size of the market segment is irrelevant, what matters is the type of applications you are developing.
On the basis of this narrow and specialised position you are trying to mount a general critique that OO is a load of rubbish.
It would take about 20 pages to dismantle your site -- and it would be like shooting ducks in a barrel -- but I have better things to do. I deliberatley scrolled up and down really fast and stopped randomly. I arrived somewhere in the "Another Fad?" secion. OO has been around since the late '60s (Simula) and C++ (the most popular OO language in industry) is more than 20 years old.
I can print out your site and throw a dart confident it will land on more
idiocy: "The GUI Link".
The consensus of opionion amongst Windows developers in general is that VB is the best tool for creating GUI, many Windows programmers use a mixed-language model: VB for the interface, C++ for the actual application logic. This was the case even before VB4 when some OO support was introduced.
I could go on and on. But I'd be wasting my time. You are plainly an intellectual fraud.
You say,
'Do you think I am full of horse droppings? I have offered a challenge to produce realistic business examples demonstrating OO's alleged superiority. So far a few attempts have failed. I often like to say to brochurish braggers, "put your code where your mouth is." '
But what is the connection between your vague, ill-expressed allegations presented as myths and your challenge ? What can refute a set of vague claims that no one with any standing or credibility states anyway ?
Horse droppings have use and value. Your ideas, thoughts and web page are without any discernable value or merit.
More dross plucked at random:
"In short, business programming does not get the respect that it deserves. Just because it has failed to produce the aura of "rocket science" that other niches have, does not mean that business programmers should have to put up with technologies and paradigms better tuned for other niches."
Which business programmers exactly ? Those that produce small systems (few users, small database) or those that help develop the large databases that hold motor vehicle registration, census data, national flight reservation systems, stock-exchange transactional data etc ? Are you proposing that the NYSE could throw out Oracle db and replace it with one of your cute Clipper applications (LOL) ? Is it all the same to you ?
You seem to live is a very simple universe. Your categories are broad and monlithic (when it suits).
Your web-site is doing a disservice to business programmers (Incidentally I started my career as one) and you definetly do not deserve any respect. I think you need to actually learn about a topic before criticising it. That is a basic requirement.
Have you actually had any experience with a business system that has several hundred "entities" (in the relational modelling sense of the word). I can tell you -- as can many case studies that you obviously don't nother to read -- that OO greatly aids in the management of the complexity that several hundred interrelated entries presents.
You should take your little Clipper compiler and continue writing POS systems, Video rental systems or whatever the heck other cute little systems you write and just do your thing. If you don't like OO don't use it. No law has been passed that requires its use. Your trying to pass yourself off as someone worth listening to but you are like an old whore in a dimly lit room, attractive from a distance but frightening up close. You are a charlatan.
I too could dredge through Usenet looking for idiotic opinions and arrived at a set of `myths` on any topic. But this is the classical informal logical fallacy of the "straw man". If you want to do a serious critique then go for it. What you have on your site is your parochial and selfish concerns about the future of your skillset and some really lame critique of OO.
Whether you like it or not OO is here to stay. C++ is most definitely here for decades to come. Its too early to say for Java. Irresepective of specific languages, OO is most definitely here to stay as per structured methods.
Give us a break with the
"Programming Wisdom Center"
"By the Galileo of Programming (the only dude with enough arrogance and smarts to fix the computer world!) Death to Unproven Fads!"
stuff.
There are websites by those that are literally geniuses that have made substantial contributions to IS and CS that don't self-proclaim their genuine brilliance. Their work speaks for them.
Your website distinguishes you as not only ignorant but meta-ignorant. Your understanding of OO is poor -- this establishes you as ignorant. You are not even cognisant of the things in IT that you know nothing about, hence you meta-ignorance. Ponder this, it is meta-ignorance that is the more dangerous of the two. Ponder.
On the topic of your self-proclaimations: xBase is flat in complexity. It's a crappy procedural 4GL, conceptually simpler than MS-Access. I haven't seen anything on your web-site or posts that indicates anything other than mediocrity and priggishness. Smarts ? Where were they ?
I could be more hostile -- and you would deserve it -- but there is a whole NG full of people like you (that I occassionally follow for the same reasons people watch wildlife documentaries) , see comp.databases.pick. These guys aren't even familiar with structured programming. They are convinced that `Pick` a late 60s vitage DBMS is flawless, was the best, is the best, will remain the best. I know better than to waste my time on people like you. Perhaps you could subscribe to comp.database.pick and try convince them that xBase is the way to go. This would be redolent of the asylum scene in '12 Monkeys'.
--
Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria posted
in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the responsibility
of the submitter. Submit articles to ahbou-sub@duke.edu. To write to the
moderators, send mail to ahbou-mod@duke.edu.
There are large classes of interesting problems which are incomputable. And that's not just because some PhD said "I tried for four years to solve this problem, and I couldn't figure out how to do it, so it must be incomputable."
The term computable can be defined as "solvable by applying an algorithm". An algorithm is a description of how to solve a problem, as in a series of ordered steps that provides a mechanical, reproducible way of solving a problem. If you apply the algorithm to the problem, you will always get the same results (unless the problem changes of course). In other words: there is a well defined set of mechanical operations that can be applied to get the desired results.
Key here are mechanical and reproducible. These are what set the theoretical limitations.
Apart from any book covering basic First Order Logic, I can recommend the following books as well:
"Computability and Logic", by George S. Boolos and Richard C. Jeffrey (Cambridge University Press) and
"Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation" by John E. Hoproft and Jeffrey D. Ullman (Addison-Wesley).
But most importantly is to get a good book on First Order Logic, because you will need to learn the logical notation, symbols and stuff (which were what kept me from understanding this stuff for a long time).
(jeez... how many fucking jackass idiot zealot dumbfuck linux "pseudo-defenders" who have minimal experience with non-linux/non-windows stuff are there on slashdot anyway? linux would be far more popular without the damage you no-brain pimplefaced morons cause the community when you mindlessly bash stuff you *really* know nothing about... open your fucking minds, morons... sometimes methinks that the majority of the linux zealots are ex-windows lamers that just changed os's to be more "in"...)
"Uh, hello? Windows NT (despite its many other flaws) has pretty good memory protection. Even Windows 95 has memory protection, or at least *some* memory is protected, better than the no memory protection of the Mac."
Yes that's true. A friend of mine, developing high-tech analysis software, switched from NT to 98 for development environment because NT allowed for more memory relateds bugs to go undetected. On Win98, the whole machine freezes when there's a bug. That way he gets more bug-free software.
I develop on NT, and I find the system almost never crashes. Too bad though the apps and development tools crash indefinitely, forcing me to reboot anyway. But the system is stable. almost all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should give Eclipse another go. I agree with poster above that suggest you download Eclipse directly from the Eclipse Website instead of using distro rep
Eclipse with PyDev has been my choice of Python/HTML IDE for past 3 years or so, on both Linux and Windows.
Damn... this is bad news - as if struggling to be a good, well behaved boy wasn't hard enough as it already is...
So what am I missing?
Humour and a sense of what is geeky cool?It's fun, man. Nothing more, nothing less. Enjoy
leet, dude, leet!
----
o pbad.htm with a clear head.
..dbf files are limited from what I recall). The size of the market segment is irrelevant, what matters is the type of applications you are developing.
Subject: My thoughts on `topmind@technologist.com` AND his site
From: "Peter" <peter@somewhere.net>
Newsgroups: comp.object
[Submitter's Note: Topmind has been baiting people on comp.object for
years. People not familiar with him try to correct his ignorance, but
invariably become frustrated by his refusal (inability?) to learn.
Occasionally flame-gems are produced.]
Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors (I have just popped an analgesic which is starting to kick it. I hasten to add I reviewed http://www.[deleted].com/SiliconValley/Lab/6888/o
People usually want to know 'where someone is coming from', what therebackground is so I'll pre-empt any questing on the matter. My commercial experience follows
I have programmed in three xBase langauages.
I am an experienced C systems programmer on numerous flavours of Unix and in Win32/NT. (Most of this stuff doesn't even have a user interface).
I have also programmed in VB.
I am well versed in all of the structured methods (analysis, design and programming).
I have RDBMS (Oracle, Sybase) experience.
I currently relearning OO/VC++/MFC.
Thus I am approaching it all with a critical eye.
Now on to the substance of my post.
Firstly the "OOP Myths Debunked" section.
Myth: OOP is a proven general-purpose technique
Myth: OOP models the real world better
Myth: OOP makes programming more visual
Myth: OOP makes programming easier and faster
Myth: OOP eliminates the complexity of "case" or "switch" statements
Myth: Inheritance increases reuse
Myth: Most things fit nicely into hierarchical taxonomies
Myth: Self-handling nouns are more important than self-handling verbs
Myth: Only OOP has automatic garbage collection
Myth: Components can only be built with OOP
Myth: Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data
Myth: OODBMS are overall faster than RDBMS
Myth: C is the best procedural can get
Myth: Implementation changes significantly more often than interfaces
Myth: Procedural/Relational ties field types and sizes to the code more
Myth: Procedural/Relational programs cannot "factor" as well
Where did these come from ?
Surely these are just "straw men" you are fighting. I mix it with C programmers, C++ programmers, RDBMS programmers, GUI programmers. I have read literally dozens of books on these topics and I read numerous IT journals and periodicals and I have not encountered anyone uttering these alleged myths. Where on earth did they come from ? You are fighting straw men, you have found some fool uttering these remarks and recorded it as 'beliefs held by OO practitioners' for your easy refutation.
I'll comment specifically on the those especially worthy of attention:
"Myth: OOP is a proven general-purpose technique "
Again, this a broad sweeping statement that I have not heard anyone assert. I have read Bjarne Stroustrup argue that C++ is a proven general-pupose language and this is unequivocally true. C++ is used to write literally all kinds of application.
However, the genericity of OO depends on its implementation. This is the same as procedural languages. Not all procedural languages are of general application. So who or what are you arguing against ?
"Myth: OOP models the real world better "
Better than what ? Better than the structured methods ?
Which structured methods ?
"Myth: OOP makes programming more visual "
You are using a misconception that uninformed people have about the relationship about GUI and OO and using this as a criticism of OO ? Lame indeed ?
"Myth: OOP makes programming easier and faster "
Well that depends on which language you are using and whether you are using class libraries, templates and/or frameworks. More straw men.
Myth: OOP eliminates the complexity of "case" or "switch" statements
I think you are referring to the connection between polymorphism and case/switch statements. The idea is not that case/switch statements are complex. The idea is that polymorhism -- implemented correctly -- will eliminate the need for 'mainline' case statements that need to be amended to add new options. This is pretty straightforward.
Myth: Only OOP has automatic garbage collection
I've read heaps of OO material from reputable authors and I have even read a book on AGC algorithms and I have not encountered this assertion. Where did you get it from ? More straw men.
Myth: Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data
Not even OO vendors say such a thing. Another straw man.
Myth: C is the best procedural can get.
Did you make this assertion up ? You can go on comp.lang.c and will not find anyone asserting in an unqualified fashion that C is the best procedural language. For embedded controller programmer it may be the best procedural language owing to its space/time efficiency. I am a C programmer and I know plenty of them and this idea that you post as a myth -- implying that it is a widely held misconception -- is a load of rubbish. "C is the best procedural can get" in certain domains. A higher-level domain specific 4GL will be better at putting together a General-Ledger system.
It seems what you have done is qulified your position
"SCOPE DISCLAIMER: I have been programming small and medium custom business applications for most of my career. Most of my complaints against OO are related to this rather large niche. Perhaps OO is good for other niches..."
But have put a series of unqualified and lame -- deliberately dogmatic sounding -- statements in the mouths of others and proceeded to argue against them.
Your qualification in your "SCOPE DISCLAIMER" limits your domain of discourse to small-meduim databased applications. You say this is a "rather large niche", but that is not what is relevant. The salient facts are the sizes of the applications and their data oriented nature. You are speaking from the bottom end of the market: small, mainly single-user applications, databased, servicing 1-100 (?) users accessing small databases (~1000s records,
On the basis of this narrow and specialised position you are trying to mount a general critique that OO is a load of rubbish.
It would take about 20 pages to dismantle your site -- and it would be like shooting ducks in a barrel -- but I have better things to do. I deliberatley scrolled up and down really fast and stopped randomly. I arrived somewhere in the "Another Fad?" secion. OO has been around since the late '60s (Simula) and C++ (the most popular OO language in industry) is more than 20 years old.
I can print out your site and throw a dart confident it will land on more
idiocy: "The GUI Link".
The consensus of opionion amongst Windows developers in general is that VB is the best tool for creating GUI, many Windows programmers use a mixed-language model: VB for the interface, C++ for the actual application logic. This was the case even before VB4 when some OO support was introduced.
I could go on and on. But I'd be wasting my time. You are plainly an intellectual fraud.
You say,
'Do you think I am full of horse droppings? I have offered a challenge to produce realistic business examples demonstrating OO's alleged superiority. So far a few attempts have failed. I often like to say to brochurish braggers, "put your code where your mouth is." '
But what is the connection between your vague, ill-expressed allegations presented as myths and your challenge ? What can refute a set of vague claims that no one with any standing or credibility states anyway ?
Horse droppings have use and value. Your ideas, thoughts and web page are without any discernable value or merit.
More dross plucked at random:
"In short, business programming does not get the respect that it deserves. Just because it has failed to produce the aura of "rocket science" that other niches have, does not mean that business programmers should have to put up with technologies and paradigms better tuned for other niches."
Which business programmers exactly ? Those that produce small systems (few users, small database) or those that help develop the large databases that hold motor vehicle registration, census data, national flight reservation systems, stock-exchange transactional data etc ? Are you proposing that the NYSE could throw out Oracle db and replace it with one of your cute Clipper applications (LOL) ? Is it all the same to you ?
You seem to live is a very simple universe. Your categories are broad and monlithic (when it suits).
Your web-site is doing a disservice to business programmers (Incidentally I started my career as one) and you definetly do not deserve any respect. I think you need to actually learn about a topic before criticising it. That is a basic requirement.
Have you actually had any experience with a business system that has several hundred "entities" (in the relational modelling sense of the word). I can tell you -- as can many case studies that you obviously don't nother to read -- that OO greatly aids in the management of the complexity that several hundred interrelated entries presents.
You should take your little Clipper compiler and continue writing POS systems, Video rental systems or whatever the heck other cute little systems you write and just do your thing. If you don't like OO don't use it. No law has been passed that requires its use. Your trying to pass yourself off as someone worth listening to but you are like an old whore in a dimly lit room, attractive from a distance but frightening up close. You are a charlatan.
I too could dredge through Usenet looking for idiotic opinions and arrived at a set of `myths` on any topic. But this is the classical informal logical fallacy of the "straw man". If you want to do a serious critique then go for it. What you have on your site is your parochial and selfish concerns about the future of your skillset and some really lame critique of OO.
Whether you like it or not OO is here to stay. C++ is most definitely here for decades to come. Its too early to say for Java. Irresepective of specific languages, OO is most definitely here to stay as per structured methods.
Give us a break with the
"Programming Wisdom Center"
"By the Galileo of Programming (the only dude with enough arrogance and smarts to fix the computer world!) Death to Unproven Fads!"
stuff.
There are websites by those that are literally geniuses that have made substantial contributions to IS and CS that don't self-proclaim their genuine brilliance. Their work speaks for them.
Your website distinguishes you as not only ignorant but meta-ignorant. Your understanding of OO is poor -- this establishes you as ignorant. You are not even cognisant of the things in IT that you know nothing about, hence you meta-ignorance. Ponder this, it is meta-ignorance that is the more dangerous of the two. Ponder.
On the topic of your self-proclaimations: xBase is flat in complexity. It's a crappy procedural 4GL, conceptually simpler than MS-Access. I haven't seen anything on your web-site or posts that indicates anything other than mediocrity and priggishness. Smarts ? Where were they ?
I could be more hostile -- and you would deserve it -- but there is a whole NG full of people like you (that I occassionally follow for the same reasons people watch wildlife documentaries) , see comp.databases.pick. These guys aren't even familiar with structured programming. They are convinced that `Pick` a late 60s vitage DBMS is flawless, was the best, is the best, will remain the best. I know better than to waste my time on people like you. Perhaps you could subscribe to comp.database.pick and try convince them that xBase is the way to go. This would be redolent of the asylum scene in '12 Monkeys'.
--
Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria posted
in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the responsibility
of the submitter. Submit articles to ahbou-sub@duke.edu. To write to the
moderators, send mail to ahbou-mod@duke.edu.
--<end quote>--
A little (perhaps unnecesary) clarification:
The term computable can be defined as "solvable by applying an algorithm". An algorithm is a description of how to solve a problem, as in a series of ordered steps that provides a mechanical, reproducible way of solving a problem. If you apply the algorithm to the problem, you will always get the same results (unless the problem changes of course). In other words: there is a well defined set of mechanical operations that can be applied to get the desired results.
Key here are mechanical and reproducible. These are what set the theoretical limitations.
Apart from any book covering basic First Order Logic, I can recommend the following books as well:
- "Computability and Logic", by George S. Boolos and Richard C. Jeffrey (Cambridge University Press) and
- "Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation" by John E. Hoproft and Jeffrey D. Ullman (Addison-Wesley).
But most importantly is to get a good book on First Order Logic, because you will need to learn the logical notation, symbols and stuff (which were what kept me from understanding this stuff for a long time).don't worry. I won't.
sorenson is better.
Do you believe now?
(jeez... how many fucking jackass idiot zealot dumbfuck linux "pseudo-defenders" who have minimal experience with non-linux/non-windows stuff are there on slashdot anyway? linux would be far more popular without the damage you no-brain pimplefaced morons cause the community when you mindlessly bash stuff you *really* know nothing about... open your fucking minds, morons... sometimes methinks that the majority of the linux zealots are ex-windows lamers that just changed os's to be more "in"...)
tnt -- somewhat annoyed...
btw: "death to all fanatics"/sl
IIRC quicktime embeds MPEG just as i embeds any other format. btw, I don't know shit about mpeg 4; I've just worked with QT and MPEG1
"Uh, hello? Windows NT (despite its many other flaws) has pretty good memory protection. Even Windows 95 has memory protection, or at least *some* memory is protected, better than the no memory protection of the Mac."
Yes that's true. A friend of mine, developing high-tech analysis software, switched from NT to 98 for development environment because NT allowed for more memory relateds bugs to go undetected. On Win98, the whole machine freezes when there's a bug. That way he gets more bug-free software.
I develop on NT, and I find the system almost never crashes. Too bad though the apps and development tools crash indefinitely, forcing me to reboot anyway. But the system is stable. almost all the time.