Yes, that's the Single Transferable Vote system that I mentioned. But as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem shows, it has problems of its own. Its critics tend to object on the more pragmatic grounds that it tends to lead to "hung" parliaments, coalition governments and government by negotiation rather than diktat. Personally I am less than convinced that that is a disadvantage.
I agree completely...I think I have a solution for the best of both worlds... each state should award all of it's electorate votes to a single candidate, but that candidate should be selected via instant run-off.
As an honest question is if someone can really find anything wrong with this... it would require no changes to the U.S. constitution (although state constitutions may need to be amended). I submitted this suggestion to my state rep and was completely blown off. It seems to me it simply doesn't suit the people in power to entertain the idea of actually having to compete with more than one other party.
I'm not sure how the US run-off system works, but a problem with having more than one party in a race with a simple first-past-the-post system is that a minority can get their candidate in against a majority. Suppose candidate A is highly polarising. 40% of the active electorate support candidate A, but 60% would rather have pretty much anybody else. Unfortunately, running against candidate A are candidates B and C, who are much alike so they split the remaining vote equally. That gives 40% for candidate A, 30% for candidate B and 30% for candidate C. Candidate A wins even though 60% of the active electorate wanted anybody but candidate A. That's normal everyday political life here in the UK, where it's the norm for govenrments to get in on a minority. There are systems such as single transferable voting that would overcome this, but they have problems of their own. In fact, as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem proves, no voting system is fair if there are more than two candidates, for quite modest meanings of "fair".
I'm doing a philosophy module in the humanities degree that's my present hobby. So yes, but I'm no expert.
you might interpret what I'm saying a little differently, since there's a school of philosophy called Pragmatism
Capitalising the word when you mean the Pragmatism school of philosophy seems to be a pragmatic solution;-)
I got stopped cold by this:
As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true
That's not what you said before. What you said before was "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" (my emphasis), which is a completely different statement.
OK, I recognize that "can be shown to be false" is not the same statement as "is false," although I would stop short of calling them "completely different" statements. What I can't figure out is why they're different, or why they should be interpreted differently.
The relationship between the two statements is assymetric.
"If something is not false then it is true" implies "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true"
"if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" does not imply "If something is not false then it is true" because the left-hand side of the implication says nothing about the case where something is not false but cannot be shown to be not false. And that's the direction the AC tried to take the implication.
That's relevant because one of the objections to evolutionary theory is that aspects of it are alleged to be non-falsifiable. The debate is precisely over cases that we cannot show to be false!
"A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying," and I remember thinking, "Who the hell is RA?" (Yeah, then I noticed the definite article in front of RA. But I still am not sure what RA means in this context. Referenced Article?)
Yep, referenced article. Hey, you've got a six-digit ID, you should have seen it more than me!
What if the consumer had both IE, Firefox, and Opera on their desktop?
"Both"?
Anyway, as soon as the general public discovers that the Microsoft web site kicks them off if they're not using IE, they'll soon learn to ignore the others. What's on the desktop isn't the end of the issue.
Re:Totally off topic now but what the hell
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Two of the Roman Catholic priests in the town I used to live in were Father John Lennon and Father Michael Jackson. To their credit, they never did put on the seemingly inevetable and ultimately disappointing fundraising concert double-bill.
Much of what you say here is well, but I would add the following:
I think the difference between Popper and Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos is that Popper thought that there is a recoverable form of scientific reasoning--hence a "Logik der Forschung" (Logic of Scientific Discovery).
The point I was trying to make, though, is that although Popper thought that there was a recoverable form of scientific reasoning, as you say, he recognised -- as the positivists didn't -- that he couldn't eliminate metaphysics from it, and so he accepted that his "proposed" boundary between metaphysics and science was merely a "convention", that it was contingent rather than synthetic. That doesn't seem to me to be so different from Feyerabend's relativism, because if all we have is a proposed boundary then others are free to reject that proposal. Popper's proposal usually seems to be accepted on small-p pragmatic grounds. Feyerabend accepts the utility of science (although I think he takes a wider definition), he just doesn't accept that it has universal scope; there are metaphysical questions outside the scope of science that are worth discussing. But Popper accepts that too: "I do not care what methods a philosopher (or anybody else) may use so long as he has an interesting problem, and so long as he is sincerely trying to solve it."... "The last thing I wish to do [...] is to advocate another dogma. Even the analysis of science -- the 'philosophy of science' -- is threatening to be come a [...] specialism, and philosophers should not be specialists" (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, preface to the first English edition).
I think we're still on topic here! I think it's important to recognise that although evolution is just about universally accepted within the scientific community, there remains some debate over its precise status, and that debate is tied to a debate about what science actually is. If science tries to hide that debate then any raising of the issues in the debate, such as by the AC above, looks like a more effective assault on science than it really is. And, of course, it makes science seem more certain than it really is, which is just as wrong. How many times did the AC attack science's supposed claim that evolution is "true", whereas science's real claim is that it is the best available theory that matches the evidence so far -- quite a different claim.
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
Carl Popper thoroughly dismantled that idea in his 1935 book "Logic der Forschung". You should try reading it; the English translation of the main text is quite accessible. Looking at the problems you have with logic you may struggle with some of the appendices, but they're not necessary for the main argument. It may help bring your thinking from the 19th to the 20th century. Incidentally, I am aware about the controversy in science regarding falsification, but it doesn't apply here -- I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claim that what Popper described isn't science (isn't to "be taken seriously"); the controversy is whether Popper's method is the only thing science is.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven
A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying. You think the claim that Darwin didn't do it is the same as the claim that it hasn't been done. You think work stopped on the subject 150 years ago.
As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true
That's not what you said before. What you said before was "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" (my emphasis), which is a completely different statement.
The whole issue of what is valid science and what isn't is a fascinating one, and you touch on some important issues, but you bury them in such sloppy logic it's no wonder you've been modded down. If you really care about this stuff -- and it seems you do -- then, seriously, take a philosophy 101 course where they'll teach you the basics of how to put an argument together (and how to take one apart.
For the moment, it might be worth a look at this article, which addresses some of the issues you raise and describes more current thinking on those issues (although it's a bit unfair to Popper: it claims that "One thing [Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos] thought in opposition to Popper - there was no point that could be ruled off as the dividing line between 'rational' science and 'non-rational' non-science." In fact, Popper argued the same thing: "My criterion of demarcation will accordingly have to be regarded as a proposal for an agreement or convention" (Carl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Routledge Classics 2002, p15, author's emphasis) -- in other words Popper doesn't believe the dividing line to be absolute either).
Come back when you can discuss coherently the 21st century questions about the relationship between evolutionary theory and the scientific method, instead of the 19th century questions.
My main problem with C++ is that I have to keep looking over my shoulder for gotchas (actually, I have to keep the CD version of Scott Meyers' books open on my desktop and checking almost everything I do against them). Python gives me far fewer nasty surprises. My choice of favourite languages is pretty much the list of languages that give me fewest nasty surprises.
Granted, I haven't written anything in C# in a couple years, but last time I did, yes, it was very similar to Java. Personally, I think it's better than Java (Generics and Delegates being the two things that stuck out at the time), but I don't really think you can deny the basic similarities in the paradigms of the two.
I think you can now that Linq has added a functional programming paradigm to C# -- it really has changed the flavour of the language.
I think it's time to be a little less set in your ways about what language you use.. Really there isn't that much difference in these languages anyway, mostly syntax.
I tell you that I use C#, Ada, Eiffel and Python, and you think I'm too set in my ways about what language I use? In my time I've also used PDP8 Assembler, Focal, Coral, Pascal, Forth, C, C++ and Java. At the moment I'm learning OCAML. I'm well aware of which differences are syntactic and which are more fundamental.
You might not care about cross-platform support right now, but maybe you will in the future, and with Qt you'll have it.
When I need cross-platform, the availability of appropriate cross-platform libraries is of course a factor. At the moment the cross-platform stuff I do uses Python with wxPython. The superiority of Qt over wxWindows/wxPython is not enough to shift me from Python to C++/Java, although a need for speed or scaleability might. One factor is how many languages I can keep "active" at a time, and my limit seems to be about four (not counting things like SQL. HTML and laTeX as languages) because of course if I don't use them I forget them. If I had to use FORTRAN now I'd pretty much have to learn it from scratch because I've forgotten it all in the 27 years since I wrote anything significant in it (I forgot it as quickly as I could, actually, and once refused a promotion because it would have meant working in FORTRAN. But that's another thread).
Have you actually tried using C#, or are you basing your judgement on reading about its features?
Yes, I have which is exactly why your comment is hilarious.
Then I am genuinely puzzled.
Here are a couple of lines from a textbook example (I can't work out how to format the whole example so that/. will accept it):
var nums = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
var result = from n in nums group n by n % 2;
The first of those lines is not so unlike Java, but the second? How do you write a query on an array in Java? How do you pass lambdas to such queries? Maybe Java has come on since I last used it, but I didn't think Java had those features, and they very much give modern C# its flavour.
Even if it were the language I could count on when all else failed, it wouldn't make me like it. If I liked it, I wouldn't wait until it was a last resort, would I?
Sorry, you don't strike me as a competent programmer.
Then help bring me up to your exalted standard.
If you were speaking about the platform, why didn't you just write "Mono"? Java does seem to suggest a particular language.
I infact DID write Mono and Java is a language and a platform. Hence you should know when I compare Mono and Java, I'm speaking of Java the platform vs Mono the plaform. Java the language vs Mono the plaform doesn't make any sense.
I agree that Java the language vs. Mono the platform doesn't make any sense, but I'm not sure what you mean by Java the Platform. If you're referring to the Java bytecode then it still doesn't make sense to compare it with.NET (with which I am more familiar than mono): the comparison would be to the CLR, not to the whole.NET framework. Is that not the case with mono?
I greatly prefer C# to Java, and see very little similarity between them.
LOL... that's all I can really say about that.
Have you actually tried using C#, or are you basing your judgement on reading about its features?
No, I hate C with a vengance. It doesn't mean I think C is no good, any more than I think Java is no good -- I just find they don't suit my style.
I don't know how anyone can hate C, its the language you can count on when everything else fails/doesn't work. But given your track record thus far, I'm not surprised.
Even if it were the language I could count on when all else failed, it wouldn't make me like it. If I liked it, I wouldn't wait until it was a last resort, would I?
Anybody who thinks one language is good for all jobs has very narrow programming experience. Every language involves compromises, and the compromises that are great for one project can be terrible on another.
Well, I was speaking more about the platforms in this case, hence the mentioning of Java-Mono.
If you were speaking about the platform, why didn't you just write "Mono"? Java does seem to suggest a particular language.
Heck, I'd be happy to give Mono a try. How does it run under Windows XP and does it support the same range of languages as.NET?
I have tried Qt. It would be my preferred choice if.NET were not available (I still prefer.NET), except it is completely useless to me because I don't use C++ or Java.
As I said, a big advantage of.NET is that it doesn't tie you to a language.
But let me guess, you'll program in Java's clone-with-a-beard C# right?
I greatly prefer C# to Java, and see very little similarity between them. I also use Ada, Python and Eiffel with.NET.
Is it the letter C that makes all the difference here?
No, I hate C with a vengance. It doesn't mean I think C is no good, any more than I think Java is no good -- I just find they don't suit my style.
Seriously, with Java being open source, there's no real need for Mono anymore.
Anybody who thinks one language is good for all jobs has very narrow programming experience. Every language involves compromises, and the compromises that are great for one project can be terrible on another.
I still honestly don't see what the supposed benefit of Mono is supposed to be. If you want to write nice graphical applications, there's plenty of toolkits available for C, C++, Python, etc. Many of them are even cross-platform, so making a version for a different OS only requires a recompile.
I've yet to find one as comprehensive and easy to use as.NET, though. Does Tk/Tcl help with i8n, for example? Cross-platform isn't an issue for everybody. I've used.NET to integrate with a third-party Windows only vertical application -- easy porting to a platform where the software I was integrating with doesn't exist was hardly a high design priority.
If you want truly compile-once, run-anywhere code, there's already Java. What's the point of Mono?
Not everybody wants to program in Java -- I certainly don't.
The UN did not invade Iraq; it appears to have opposed the invasion but the hawks slipped through an ambiguity in the wording of the resolution. Iraq was a sovereign nation. Iraq did allow the weapons inspectors in. Other than that, you're pretty much on the ball.
because people are illegally downloading music they don't like?
Yep, alomg with the stuff they do like. The stuff they really like they are then likely to go out and buy. The stuff they find they don't like they delete.
Slashdot Mirror
Or there's the One Man, One Vote system in Terry Pratchett's Ankh Morpork: The Patrician is the one man, and he has the one vote.
Yes, that's the Single Transferable Vote system that I mentioned. But as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem shows, it has problems of its own. Its critics tend to object on the more pragmatic grounds that it tends to lead to "hung" parliaments, coalition governments and government by negotiation rather than diktat. Personally I am less than convinced that that is a disadvantage.
I agree completely...I think I have a solution for the best of both worlds... each state should award all of it's electorate votes to a single candidate, but that candidate should be selected via instant run-off.
As an honest question is if someone can really find anything wrong with this... it would require no changes to the U.S. constitution (although state constitutions may need to be amended). I submitted this suggestion to my state rep and was completely blown off. It seems to me it simply doesn't suit the people in power to entertain the idea of actually having to compete with more than one other party.
I'm not sure how the US run-off system works, but a problem with having more than one party in a race with a simple first-past-the-post system is that a minority can get their candidate in against a majority. Suppose candidate A is highly polarising. 40% of the active electorate support candidate A, but 60% would rather have pretty much anybody else. Unfortunately, running against candidate A are candidates B and C, who are much alike so they split the remaining vote equally. That gives 40% for candidate A, 30% for candidate B and 30% for candidate C. Candidate A wins even though 60% of the active electorate wanted anybody but candidate A. That's normal everyday political life here in the UK, where it's the norm for govenrments to get in on a minority. There are systems such as single transferable voting that would overcome this, but they have problems of their own. In fact, as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem proves, no voting system is fair if there are more than two candidates, for quite modest meanings of "fair".
You mean STD.
"Subscriber Trunk Dialling"? Who uses dial-up for Facebook?
Since you do seem philosophically inclined
I'm doing a philosophy module in the humanities degree that's my present hobby. So yes, but I'm no expert.
you might interpret what I'm saying a little differently, since there's a school of philosophy called Pragmatism
Capitalising the word when you mean the Pragmatism school of philosophy seems to be a pragmatic solution ;-)
I got stopped cold by this:
OK, I recognize that "can be shown to be false" is not the same statement as "is false," although I would stop short of calling them "completely different" statements. What I can't figure out is why they're different, or why they should be interpreted differently.
The relationship between the two statements is assymetric.
"If something is not false then it is true" implies "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true"
"if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" does not imply "If something is not false then it is true" because the left-hand side of the implication says nothing about the case where something is not false but cannot be shown to be not false. And that's the direction the AC tried to take the implication.
That's relevant because one of the objections to evolutionary theory is that aspects of it are alleged to be non-falsifiable. The debate is precisely over cases that we cannot show to be false!
"A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying," and I remember thinking, "Who the hell is RA?" (Yeah, then I noticed the definite article in front of RA. But I still am not sure what RA means in this context. Referenced Article?)
Yep, referenced article. Hey, you've got a six-digit ID, you should have seen it more than me!
What if the consumer had both IE, Firefox, and Opera on their desktop?
"Both"?
Anyway, as soon as the general public discovers that the Microsoft web site kicks them off if they're not using IE, they'll soon learn to ignore the others. What's on the desktop isn't the end of the issue.
Two of the Roman Catholic priests in the town I used to live in were Father John Lennon and Father Michael Jackson. To their credit, they never did put on the seemingly inevetable and ultimately disappointing fundraising concert double-bill.
Much of what you say here is well, but I would add the following:
I think the difference between Popper and Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos is that Popper thought that there is a recoverable form of scientific reasoning--hence a "Logik der Forschung" (Logic of Scientific Discovery).
The point I was trying to make, though, is that although Popper thought that there was a recoverable form of scientific reasoning, as you say, he recognised -- as the positivists didn't -- that he couldn't eliminate metaphysics from it, and so he accepted that his "proposed" boundary between metaphysics and science was merely a "convention", that it was contingent rather than synthetic. That doesn't seem to me to be so different from Feyerabend's relativism, because if all we have is a proposed boundary then others are free to reject that proposal. Popper's proposal usually seems to be accepted on small-p pragmatic grounds. Feyerabend accepts the utility of science (although I think he takes a wider definition), he just doesn't accept that it has universal scope; there are metaphysical questions outside the scope of science that are worth discussing. But Popper accepts that too: "I do not care what methods a philosopher (or anybody else) may use so long as he has an interesting problem, and so long as he is sincerely trying to solve it." ... "The last thing I wish to do [...] is to advocate another dogma. Even the analysis of science -- the 'philosophy of science' -- is threatening to be come a [...] specialism, and philosophers should not be specialists" (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, preface to the first English edition).
I think we're still on topic here! I think it's important to recognise that although evolution is just about universally accepted within the scientific community, there remains some debate over its precise status, and that debate is tied to a debate about what science actually is. If science tries to hide that debate then any raising of the issues in the debate, such as by the AC above, looks like a more effective assault on science than it really is. And, of course, it makes science seem more certain than it really is, which is just as wrong. How many times did the AC attack science's supposed claim that evolution is "true", whereas science's real claim is that it is the best available theory that matches the evidence so far -- quite a different claim.
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
Carl Popper thoroughly dismantled that idea in his 1935 book "Logic der Forschung". You should try reading it; the English translation of the main text is quite accessible. Looking at the problems you have with logic you may struggle with some of the appendices, but they're not necessary for the main argument. It may help bring your thinking from the 19th to the 20th century. Incidentally, I am aware about the controversy in science regarding falsification, but it doesn't apply here -- I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claim that what Popper described isn't science (isn't to "be taken seriously"); the controversy is whether Popper's method is the only thing science is.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven
A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying. You think the claim that Darwin didn't do it is the same as the claim that it hasn't been done. You think work stopped on the subject 150 years ago.
As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true
That's not what you said before. What you said before was "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" (my emphasis), which is a completely different statement.
The whole issue of what is valid science and what isn't is a fascinating one, and you touch on some important issues, but you bury them in such sloppy logic it's no wonder you've been modded down. If you really care about this stuff -- and it seems you do -- then, seriously, take a philosophy 101 course where they'll teach you the basics of how to put an argument together (and how to take one apart.
For the moment, it might be worth a look at this article, which addresses some of the issues you raise and describes more current thinking on those issues (although it's a bit unfair to Popper: it claims that "One thing [Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos] thought in opposition to Popper - there was no point that could be ruled off as the dividing line between 'rational' science and 'non-rational' non-science." In fact, Popper argued the same thing: "My criterion of demarcation will accordingly have to be regarded as a proposal for an agreement or convention" (Carl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Routledge Classics 2002, p15, author's emphasis) -- in other words Popper doesn't believe the dividing line to be absolute either).
Come back when you can discuss coherently the 21st century questions about the relationship between evolutionary theory and the scientific method, instead of the 19th century questions.
My main problem with C++ is that I have to keep looking over my shoulder for gotchas (actually, I have to keep the CD version of Scott Meyers' books open on my desktop and checking almost everything I do against them). Python gives me far fewer nasty surprises. My choice of favourite languages is pretty much the list of languages that give me fewest nasty surprises.
I thought the person getting executed wore a blindfold for that reason?
I think I'd notice that, then!
The last ever pigeon on earth, roasted.
Hmm, interesting choice.
Have you any idea how long it would take them to prepare? ;-)
But you're not afraid of a volley of bullets flying towards you?
With the bullets it's over before you realize what's happened.
I think I'd notice the firing squad lining up, which would make me pretty nervous.
Since I've started this morbid discussion let's take it another level: What would you want for your last meal? ;)
The last ever pigeon on earth, roasted.
Granted, I haven't written anything in C# in a couple years, but last time I did, yes, it was very similar to Java. Personally, I think it's better than Java (Generics and Delegates being the two things that stuck out at the time), but I don't really think you can deny the basic similarities in the paradigms of the two.
I think you can now that Linq has added a functional programming paradigm to C# -- it really has changed the flavour of the language.
Hell, I'd actually prefer the firing squad myself -- I'm afraid of needles.
But you're not afraid of a volley of bullets flying towards you?
I think it's time to be a little less set in your ways about what language you use.. Really there isn't that much difference in these languages anyway, mostly syntax.
I tell you that I use C#, Ada, Eiffel and Python, and you think I'm too set in my ways about what language I use? In my time I've also used PDP8 Assembler, Focal, Coral, Pascal, Forth, C, C++ and Java. At the moment I'm learning OCAML. I'm well aware of which differences are syntactic and which are more fundamental.
You might not care about cross-platform support right now, but maybe you will in the future, and with Qt you'll have it.
When I need cross-platform, the availability of appropriate cross-platform libraries is of course a factor. At the moment the cross-platform stuff I do uses Python with wxPython. The superiority of Qt over wxWindows/wxPython is not enough to shift me from Python to C++/Java, although a need for speed or scaleability might. One factor is how many languages I can keep "active" at a time, and my limit seems to be about four (not counting things like SQL. HTML and laTeX as languages) because of course if I don't use them I forget them. If I had to use FORTRAN now I'd pretty much have to learn it from scratch because I've forgotten it all in the 27 years since I wrote anything significant in it (I forgot it as quickly as I could, actually, and once refused a promotion because it would have meant working in FORTRAN. But that's another thread).
Have you actually tried using C#, or are you basing your judgement on reading about its features?
Yes, I have which is exactly why your comment is hilarious.
Then I am genuinely puzzled. Here are a couple of lines from a textbook example (I can't work out how to format the whole example so that /. will accept it):
var nums = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
var result = from n in nums group n by n % 2;
The first of those lines is not so unlike Java, but the second? How do you write a query on an array in Java? How do you pass lambdas to such queries? Maybe Java has come on since I last used it, but I didn't think Java had those features, and they very much give modern C# its flavour.
Even if it were the language I could count on when all else failed, it wouldn't make me like it. If I liked it, I wouldn't wait until it was a last resort, would I?
Sorry, you don't strike me as a competent programmer.
Then help bring me up to your exalted standard.
If you were speaking about the platform, why didn't you just write "Mono"? Java does seem to suggest a particular language.
I infact DID write Mono and Java is a language and a platform. Hence you should know when I compare Mono and Java, I'm speaking of Java the platform vs Mono the plaform. Java the language vs Mono the plaform doesn't make any sense.
I agree that Java the language vs. Mono the platform doesn't make any sense, but I'm not sure what you mean by Java the Platform. If you're referring to the Java bytecode then it still doesn't make sense to compare it with .NET (with which I am more familiar than mono): the comparison would be to the CLR, not to the whole .NET framework. Is that not the case with mono?
I greatly prefer C# to Java, and see very little similarity between them.
LOL... that's all I can really say about that.
Have you actually tried using C#, or are you basing your judgement on reading about its features?
No, I hate C with a vengance. It doesn't mean I think C is no good, any more than I think Java is no good -- I just find they don't suit my style.
I don't know how anyone can hate C, its the language you can count on when everything else fails/doesn't work. But given your track record thus far, I'm not surprised.
Even if it were the language I could count on when all else failed, it wouldn't make me like it. If I liked it, I wouldn't wait until it was a last resort, would I?
Anybody who thinks one language is good for all jobs has very narrow programming experience. Every language involves compromises, and the compromises that are great for one project can be terrible on another.
Well, I was speaking more about the platforms in this case, hence the mentioning of Java-Mono.
If you were speaking about the platform, why didn't you just write "Mono"? Java does seem to suggest a particular language.
Heck, I'd be happy to give Mono a try. How does it run under Windows XP and does it support the same range of languages as .NET?
I have tried Qt. It would be my preferred choice if .NET were not available (I still prefer .NET), except it is completely useless to me because I don't use C++ or Java.
As I said, a big advantage of .NET is that it doesn't tie you to a language.
But let me guess, you'll program in Java's clone-with-a-beard C# right?
I greatly prefer C# to Java, and see very little similarity between them. I also use Ada, Python and Eiffel with .NET.
Is it the letter C that makes all the difference here?
No, I hate C with a vengance. It doesn't mean I think C is no good, any more than I think Java is no good -- I just find they don't suit my style.
Seriously, with Java being open source, there's no real need for Mono anymore.
Anybody who thinks one language is good for all jobs has very narrow programming experience. Every language involves compromises, and the compromises that are great for one project can be terrible on another.
I still honestly don't see what the supposed benefit of Mono is supposed to be. If you want to write nice graphical applications, there's plenty of toolkits available for C, C++, Python, etc. Many of them are even cross-platform, so making a version for a different OS only requires a recompile.
I've yet to find one as comprehensive and easy to use as .NET, though. Does Tk/Tcl help with i8n, for example? Cross-platform isn't an issue for everybody. I've used .NET to integrate with a third-party Windows only vertical application -- easy porting to a platform where the software I was integrating with doesn't exist was hardly a high design priority.
If you want truly compile-once, run-anywhere code, there's already Java. What's the point of Mono?
Not everybody wants to program in Java -- I certainly don't.
The UN did not invade Iraq; it appears to have opposed the invasion but the hawks slipped through an ambiguity in the wording of the resolution. Iraq was a sovereign nation. Iraq did allow the weapons inspectors in. Other than that, you're pretty much on the ball.
Maybe, but we were talking about eating it.
So, eat 'frites' then?
Happily -- but mayo on them?
because people are illegally downloading music they don't like?
Yep, alomg with the stuff they do like. The stuff they really like they are then likely to go out and buy. The stuff they find they don't like they delete.