1. Fiat currency isn't based on debt growth. The US has a debt because we sell treasury bonds (t-bills) to bring more money into the country from foreign sources (largely, lately, China)
2. Adam Smith solved this problem about 300 years ago... Tell me: What is China going to do with that money except buy things from us? Fiat currency is only valuable if you spend it. The doomsday scenarios people here love to espouse where China intentionally devalues the US dollar make absolutely no sense. They simply wouldn't be in Chinas best interest.
3. Fiat currency really works remarkably well. It's based on the potential of an economy, not the potential of the gold supply. Just use right now as an example.
People here lament the weak dollar. But everything pushes and pulls until it's all back in balance... As the dollar weakens, American-produced products are more affordable overseas. So, they purchase more of our products, which puts more Americans to work and increases American GDP. This results in the dollar rising in value. It will continue to rise until American products become too expensive, which depresses demand for American goods, which causes the dollar to stabilize or weaken again, and the cycle continues...
When a mere mortal first becomes a programmer (yes, tongue in cheek...) you can usually notice how your mind has changed. I've seen this in myself and in the guys I went to school with. Like any workout, programming exercises certain parts of your brain and those parts become stronger. In a macro sense, it's largely about breaking down problems into tiny, tiny pieces and having an innate sense of the order of these pieces along a greater timeline. And not just software-related problems. Everything. Driving. Fixing a car, a washing machine, whatever. Mowing grass. Whatever.
After working as developer writing procedural code for a few years I picked up C# and OOP. And wow. It's like, for years, I'd been doing bench presses. And I got good. And I could lift 300 lbs. And then I tried to do curls and I figured, hey, I'm a pro. So I picked up the 300lbs and tried to curl it and it flattened me like a goddamn train.
OOP works out different muscles. I was able to look at a problem and break it down into a procredural program reflexively. Very little effort required. But, approaching it from an OO pov, it was frustrating. I didn't just KNOW how to do it. It required a whole lot of thinking.
Eventually, of course, these muscles become toned and after 6-12 months of OOD I'm now as proficient as I was writing strictly procedural code.
But the difference between an OO mind and a Proc mind is the same as the diff between a Procedural mind and the mind of a non-programmer. It really surprised me that it was that much different.
Anyway, not sure this post has much value to non-devs, but I bet that every OO developer out there was able to shake his head in agreement:)
The whole sentence was a hypothetical. I've used both Flash and Silverlight, although I do have limited experience with the Silverlight 1.1 beta.
I have used ActionScript 3, which I mentioned in my OP. It's the most sophisticated implimentation of ECMA script to date, but, frankly, it can't hold a candle to the myriad of language choices you have with Silverlight, including C++.Net, C#, J#, and Ruby.Net.
Uptake has been slow, but when you're Microsoft, you can afford a slow adoption rate. Especially for a technology like this. Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. This is going to be a major component of their web strategy, I'm sure.
And when it comes down to it, this is just plainly a better technology than Flash. The only advantage flash has is it's adoption rate and mind-share. Eventually these will be neutralized.
The newest version of ActionScript is a HUGE improvement upon its predecessors. It truly is. But when it comes to building full-featured web apps that look and act like native rich-client apps, it's still nearly as hard to do that with AS in Flash as it is to do it with JS/Ajax/HTML.
But with silverlight 1.1 you get the ability to use any CLR-based language-- C#, C++.Net, J#, Python.Net, Ruby.Net, TCL.Net, VB.Net, etc etc. You also get the advantage of the largest framework ever shipped with a language (.Net, of course) and the huge amount of existing code. Not to mention, if you've already got an app -- web based or rich client -- written in.Net, you can port it to silverlight without a terrible amount of work. ESPECIALLY if it was designed using an MVC pattern (or, at least, a 2-tiered approach that would allow you to reuse the model & controller code).
I'm really not a big Microsoft fan. I've spent most the last year developing with PHP on a LAMP stack. But if I was asked to build a large web based app with a rich-client feel and given the choice of Flash and Silverlight, not having ever tried either, I'd feel a lot better about the latter than I do the former.
I'm not knocking flash. It's just that flash wasn't really designed to build large apps. It's just been manipulated into that in the past couple years. Silverlight, OTOH, was designed precisely for this reason.
Your lack of experience is evident. Don't be so full of yourself to think that you could POSSIBLY "annoy" me. I enjoy schooling you. That's why I'm here still.
You have muddled two separate issues.
The first issue is language-agnostic nature provided by the CLR. On any given project you can use any CLR-based language -- VB.Net, C#, J#, C++.Net, TCL.Net, Python.Net, Ruby.Net, etc. Any given.Net project (including silverlight 1.1) can include any or all of these languages. One could even develop their own CLR-based DSL and use that.
It's common and very useful to be able to mix-and-match languages inside a project. It saves a lot of time if you've got existing code in a CLR-based language that you want to use in another project that may be using another CLR-based language as it's primary language.
The whole point of this is that you can let your developers don't all have to know all the languages! If I have a C++ developer and a C# developer, no problem! The C++ dev would create, say, various libraries in C++.Net that that the C# developer will utilize. He doesn't need to know ANYTHING about C++. In fact, the C# developer could create the interfaces that the C++ developer would use in his classes, ensuring they're both on the same page, and then the C# developer wouldn't even have to LOOK at the C++ code.
I've worked on a number of large projects (> 5 developers) that mix different CLR-based languages with great success. No one man needs to be able to debug the whole thing.
The second issue is using unmanaged components in C & C++ in the managed code environment of C++.Net. You clearly said this wasn't possible. It's obvious you've never actually USED C++.Net because RCW's are COMMON and EFFECTIVE. If you're using unmanaged components, they're likely legacy. The notion that the parts of the project that would benefit from spawning a separate process are the SAME EXACT PARTS of the project that can be accomplished/assisted by using legacy components is TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
It's absolutely TRIVIAL to create separate process in C# and C++.net. I don't need to socket-into my legacy code to accomplish this.
And finally..
"I decided not to answer your first post because it did not address any of the problems I mentioned, it was just ad-hominem ranting."
Uhh... you CLEARLY said that you can't use unmanaged C++ code in your Visual C++.Net project. EVERY C++.Net developer knows this to be false. It's probably the first question asked by every C++ developer the first time they pick-up C++.Net. RCW's are a very well designed, very elegant solution to the problem. That's not "ad hominem ranting"... It's taking you out to the woodshed and schooling you.
You're clearly out of your depth here, son. Just do yourself a favor and back out of this discussion. I know it'll ding your pride a bit, but not nearly as much as you'll get dinged if you keep it up...
"Let me give you a good advice: even if you can, don't. Split the project into parts and connect the parts via sockets or mmap."
This is an INSANELY stupid idea.
Imagine my team decides to write a silverlight project in, say, C#. Suppose I have some company-specific (biz logic) libraries written in J# that I wrote in a previous project. It's trivially easy to include these in the same project. You get full IDE support and, of course, both the C# and J# code gets compiled down to MSIL anyway. The performance impact of this method vs. using sockets is ENORMOUS. There's absolutely no way to justify it. We're talking, at least an order of magnitude. Perhaps more.
I didn't catch this last night when i schooled-you on RCWs.
It just reinforces my suspicion: You really don't know.net at all, do you?
That's, of course, the beauty of it. All.Net languages are compiled down to MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) (yes, compiled, and the MSIL is JIT'd).
You my call syntax "meaningless" but in my experience as a developer for the past 5 years proves otherwise. I'm much more productive in languages i know than in languages I don't. And even among languages I know well I can be more productive in one than I am in another.
Also, the languages are NOT functionally equivalent. I'm not familiar with most of the.Net languages, but I have used C#, VB.Net and C++.Net, and each of these languages have unique features. For example, in C# you can overload operators and create delegates, in Visual C++.Net you can create a RCW to utilize unmanaged legacy C/C++ code. Etc...
Even if their objective is to "conquer" the country (yeah, right, talk to Napoleon and Hitler about that) they are going to need a lot of fuel (both Coal and Oil) to tide them over during what will be a war lasting many years.
That's simply not viable. They get such a vast amount of fuel from Russia. The rest of the worlds markets just simply could not support that demand.
You do realize that it's very easy to use unmanaged code in any.Net project?
Create a "Runtime Callable Wrapper" in C++.Net that wraps the unmanaged component and, bam, it's equal to native code in the IDE. It really has no a negligible impact on performance.
Do you even know.Net? If not, how are you qualified to even have this conversation?
I personally don't like the term, which is why I used "scare quotes."
But it's also a commonly used term that has a clear meaning.
Economy: The US has the largest economy, by a wide margin. The US GDP is as great as the aggregate of all 27 countries of the European Union, while the EU has 63% more people. China lags the US GDP by over 3 Trillion dollars, despite having a population edge of ONE BILLION PEOPLE. At our current rate of productivity, with China's population the US GDP would be about $57 Trillion-- nearly as much as the 2006 GDP of every nation on Earth.
Military: The US spends more on defense than every other nation on Earth combined. I'm not saying this is smart or just, but it is what it is. Taking China's reported defense spending at face value, they're ranked in 2nd place with $65bn in spending, just 10% of what the US has spent.
Nearly every advancement in the technology and tactics of modern warfare since WWII has come from the US.
I'm against the war in iraq, but, excuse the cliche.. The claims of our armies demise have been grossly exaggerated.
Our navy, air force, marines, infantry, and nuclear arsenal are 2nd to none in terms of preparedness, training, technology and equipment.
Influence: The United States culture has had more influence on the world than any other. In every developed nation the world over people read American books, watch American movies, enjoy American television, listen to American music. We are uniquely able to guilt, cajole, berate, charm, buy-off, scare, and pressure the people and leaders of other countries to work WITH us and not against us.
These three areas, Economic Strength, Military Might and Global Influence are what makes a super power. There are many REGIONAL powers, among them, of course, China, Russia, UK, Germany, etc. But like it or no, we are the last remaining "Super Power."....
I've never bragged about any of this. I wasn't bragging when I mentioned it before, and certainly not now. In many ways the lives of average Americans (like myself) would be better if we weren't so engaged in the issues of the rest of the world. I would much rather have free healthcare and free University than have another ICBM or Stealth Bomber.
You and others have made assumptions about my character, my politics, and my POV that are way off mark.
But I do have 2 eyes and I can see clearly that throughout all of Human history there has been one (or a few) Nations (or tribes, empires, etc) that are clearly more powerful and influential than others. In the 17th century it was Spain, in the 18th & 19th it was England/UK, in the 19th it was (hmm...) and since WWII, it's been the US.
So really, save your criticism. If the US is not the "last super power," then who else is?
You're right, it's not very noticible, but on NPR this week (too busy to find the exact reference, but you can probably find it if you dig) they mentioned that this is the first year in a long time where gasoline usage remained flat compared to the previous year.
Since there were more cars on the road in 07, and more Americans of driving age, that seems to demonstrate some combination of the above (Less Driving, more efficient (slower) driving, or more efficient cars).
Still, the fact that we weren't able to actually REDUCE usage shows that we're not being as prudent as we should be.
What has happened, though, is that people are spending less on dining out, holidays, and other "disposable income" type things. Rather than change their driving habits, they make cuts elsewhere to offset the higher costs. That surprises me. My dad owns a couple Sunoco franchises here in Ohio. One thing he's noticed is that in-store sales have taken a HUGE hit. That's unfortunate because gas stations make most their profit from store-sales and make very little (and sometimes lose money) on gas sales. The gas is just to reel you in. The 300% markup on candy bars and the 1400% mark-up on fountain drinks are where they make most their money.
This is way off target, but it's something I find interesting.
I bought a Volvo S60 a couple years ago. It's the first car I owned that had a readout of the _instantaneous_ gas mileage. It's not uncommon to have the Average MPG readout, which the S60 also has, but you can flip it over to show you your instantaneous MPG at any given time, updated once per second.
Anywho, I was stunned to see how much gas is wasted in city driving. It comes almost exclusively from the first 10-20 seconds after pulling away from a stop. The combination of the rolling-resistance and the fact that 1st is the most inefficient gear blows my mind: I'd press my foot to the gas with medium pressure--not tearing away from the light--and my MPG goes like this, (updated once per second): 12MPG, 8MPG, 5MPG, 5MPG, 5MPG, 5MPG, 8MPG, 10MPG, 12MPG, 16MPG, 20.... etc..
and when you floor it from a light, it literally goes down to 1MPG.
The secret is to go as gentle as possible on the throttle. On the highway, of course, anything over 70MPH and you're killing your MPG. But even if you ALWAYS go 65 and not a mile above, if you don't change driving habits in city-driving, you won't notice a DENT on your MPG.
I shake my head now as I see people racing from stop light to stop light. And even if there's no other light in sight, the racing from 0 to the speed limit is just STUPID and it's KILLING their MPG.
I swear, it's my totally non-scientific belief that if Americans would just change the way we drive, we could probably cut our usage of OPEC oil ENTIRELY. Not to mention, it's easier on your brakes, your cooling system, and your suspension.
Fast driving is not the problem. Quick acceleration is the problem. My car is a turbocharged 5 cylinder engine, but I can still get 30+MPG at 75MPH w/ my cruise set.
I now only need to fill-up 3 times a month instead of 4. That's saving me 18 gallons of gas and $700 a year.
And, of course, the kicker to this argument is that the perception of speed is NOT the same as actually being speedy. Unless you're talking long-haul commutes, accelerating fast from a light might save, what, a couple minutes? And driving 90 on the e-way instead of 60 on your 20-mile commute to work means that you'll be getting there 7 minutes before me, but you used 1.2 gallons of gas, and I used 0.75 gallons.
I never thought about gas mileage until that readout on my dash put it bluntly in my face.
Perhaps the only thing better would be if it actually output how much it's costing in DOLLARS not MPG. Figure that out (maybe a bluetooth connection that tells your car the price of gas as you fill up) and mandate it in every car and I'd bet you'll see a real reduction in gas usage.
How about the fact that it's language agnostic? You're a C++ developer? It's a lot more comfortable to use C++.Net than it is to use ActionScript. Same for Java Developers, Python Developers, etc, ad infinitum..
Or how about the fact that the.Net Framework is the largest library ever shipped? There is surely more "library code" available for, say, Java and Perl, but the.Net libraries share a common format, style, and organization.
Or how about the fact that your.Net code for your Silverlight application is going to be obviously OO (since.Net is an OO framework). That allows you to easily share/reuse code between Silverlight, ASP.Net, and JIT'd GUI apps.
Or how about the fact that you can mix multiple languages in a silverlight project (like ALL.Net projects)? You find useful code in C#.net but you're programming in Visual C++.Net? No problem, just load it in.
Or how about an entire eco-system of tools and generators and add-ons for Visual Studio and the framework?
It's also the benefit of being able to use any.Net language (C#, C++, J#, VB.Net, Python.Net, Ruby.Net, etc etc) to build the application.
Yes, the newest version of ActionScript is a lot better than previous versions--and better than any other derivative of ECMAScript I've seen. But it's still no match for the VisualStudio +.Net environment.
Honestly, I'm not a huge Microsoft fan. Over the last year I've spent more time developing in PHP than any other language.
But c'mon... Silverlight does have some compelling arguments.
Second, I alluded to NEAR CONSTANT PROTEST of the Iraq War since 2002. Millions of people have been involved in these.
Third, It's a bit pedantic of you to assume that I, a mere mortal, was able to name EVERY LARGE PROTEST in our VAST nation over the last 30 years, isn't it? Especially considering I'm 25....
Fourth, what makes you think they didn't accomplish anything?
Fifth, I've heard your former Prime Minister Blair call the US the "last remaining super power" more than once. I'm not bragging, i'm just stating the facts. The measure of a "Super Power" is not how many nukes does one have. That's the measure of a "Nuclear Power."..."Super Power" is about economic power, military might, and global influence. I'm seriously not interested in getting into a pissing match over this. I mentioned it only to illustrate that it's patently ABSURD to assume a country like the US has not had an enormous number of protests. You decided to fix upon those 2 words in my post, probably because you found yourself unable to say much about the crux of my argument.
And finally, most Americans haven't protested fuel prices because it's an inconvenience, not an atrocity. Most of us just drive less, drive slower, and drive more efficient vehicles.
No way. That language is NOT ready for prime-time. A statically-typed Huckabee is bloated. Period. It's certainly not a scalar type. It'll be stored on the heap and that's going to slow things down.
Besides, why waste so much time with that?
You can just declare all your variables as type ROMNEY and they can be implicitly cast as whatever you like.
Furthermore, on the database side, if you're using SQL Server you can use the ROMNEY cursor. It can change positions dynamically. It's quite efficient. And on a personal note, my favorite part of it is the simple execution. Sometimes Romney.execute() is exactly what the situation might call for.
Of course, everyone knows that you shouldn't trust SQL Server when it comes to Integrity. I would only really trust Oracle. What we need now is to make a reall CONNECTION. Todays issues are GLOBAL and we need a President who believes in adLockOptimistic.
The Million Man March was held on the Mall in DC in 1995, with somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people.
This garnered a lot of attention and the "Million * March" naming scheme was borrowed by a number of later groups, such as the:
- Million Mom March, May 2000, about 150,000 - 200,000 women advocating for gun control laws - Million Worker March, 2004, about 10,000 people protesting globalization and free-trade treaties - Million Family March, 2000, tens-of-thousands of people
Furthermore, there have been an enormous amount of anti-war protests against the war in Iraq, starting in 2002 and continuing to today
There was also a lot of coverage for the 1999 Anti-WTO protests in Seattle, WA that brought out an estimated 50,000-100,000 people.
And, of course, there were so many protesters when Bush was inaugurated into Office in 2000 that he was the first President in over a hundred years that couldn't walk from the capitol to the White House after being sworn-in. He had to be taken there in an armored car.
And you'd be surprised about the proximity to the White House. Nearly all marches/protests are held on the Mall in DC, which is a huge expanse that runs between the US Capitol on one end and the Washington Monument on the other end, with the White House right in between. It's set back a couple hundred yards from the mall, but the protests where abutted right against the White House gate.
You know.. I'm so sick of arrogant Europeans talking trash about how ignorant Americans are, when so many show that same ignorance about Americans themselves. I mean, no offense, in a country like America, with 300,000,000 people and, as the only remaining "Super Power", LOTS of things to protest, to assume that we've had no "major" protests in 30 years just shows an alarming bias/ignorance of our culture.
"That was France though, where people actually protest rather than sitting there polishing their shiny, shiny guns."
I'm not anti france or anti social-programs.......But...
The Unemployment rate for young people in France is consistently around 20%. There's an awful lot of twenty-somethings with plenty of free time to stand around protesting.
My mom would've just turned the dishwasher on as she left in the morning, woken me up, and STILL left a note "suggesting" that I get my lazy ass out back and cut the grass:)
"I never heard of a business succeeding over the long term by periodically alienating its audience."
Well, now you have.
But seriously, MTV isn't the only one. By your logic, Playskool should have started out with pre-school toys, then moved into action figures, then video game consoles, then cell phones and laptops. Instead, they alienate their customers by making the same-old preschool crap despite an aging audience.
And that's just one example of many.
What you're opposing is niche marketing. Doing one thing and doing it well. MTV knows how to market to teenagers. It's incorrect to assume they'd be just as good at marketing to 20somethings and beyond. You've laid out a false dichotomy:
The choice is not between staying the same and keeping the same audience. Peoples tastes and needs change as they become older and (usually) more affluent. The choice is between constantly changing to appeal to the teenagers of the day, or constantly changing to adapt to the changing tastes of their existing audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true.
Look at social animals. Those that live in groups. There's always an alpha.
1. Fiat currency isn't based on debt growth. The US has a debt because we sell treasury bonds (t-bills) to bring more money into the country from foreign sources (largely, lately, China)
2. Adam Smith solved this problem about 300 years ago... Tell me: What is China going to do with that money except buy things from us? Fiat currency is only valuable if you spend it. The doomsday scenarios people here love to espouse where China intentionally devalues the US dollar make absolutely no sense. They simply wouldn't be in Chinas best interest.
3. Fiat currency really works remarkably well. It's based on the potential of an economy, not the potential of the gold supply. Just use right now as an example.
People here lament the weak dollar. But everything pushes and pulls until it's all back in balance... As the dollar weakens, American-produced products are more affordable overseas. So, they purchase more of our products, which puts more Americans to work and increases American GDP. This results in the dollar rising in value. It will continue to rise until American products become too expensive, which depresses demand for American goods, which causes the dollar to stabilize or weaken again, and the cycle continues...
Very true.
:)
When a mere mortal first becomes a programmer (yes, tongue in cheek...) you can usually notice how your mind has changed. I've seen this in myself and in the guys I went to school with. Like any workout, programming exercises certain parts of your brain and those parts become stronger. In a macro sense, it's largely about breaking down problems into tiny, tiny pieces and having an innate sense of the order of these pieces along a greater timeline. And not just software-related problems. Everything. Driving. Fixing a car, a washing machine, whatever. Mowing grass. Whatever.
After working as developer writing procedural code for a few years I picked up C# and OOP. And wow. It's like, for years, I'd been doing bench presses. And I got good. And I could lift 300 lbs. And then I tried to do curls and I figured, hey, I'm a pro. So I picked up the 300lbs and tried to curl it and it flattened me like a goddamn train.
OOP works out different muscles. I was able to look at a problem and break it down into a procredural program reflexively. Very little effort required. But, approaching it from an OO pov, it was frustrating. I didn't just KNOW how to do it. It required a whole lot of thinking.
Eventually, of course, these muscles become toned and after 6-12 months of OOD I'm now as proficient as I was writing strictly procedural code.
But the difference between an OO mind and a Proc mind is the same as the diff between a Procedural mind and the mind of a non-programmer. It really surprised me that it was that much different.
Anyway, not sure this post has much value to non-devs, but I bet that every OO developer out there was able to shake his head in agreement
No, you just misunderstood me.
The whole sentence was a hypothetical. I've used both Flash and Silverlight, although I do have limited experience with the Silverlight 1.1 beta.
I have used ActionScript 3, which I mentioned in my OP. It's the most sophisticated implimentation of ECMA script to date, but, frankly, it can't hold a candle to the myriad of language choices you have with Silverlight, including C++.Net, C#, J#, and Ruby.Net.
Uptake has been slow, but when you're Microsoft, you can afford a slow adoption rate. Especially for a technology like this. Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. This is going to be a major component of their web strategy, I'm sure.
.Net, you can port it to silverlight without a terrible amount of work. ESPECIALLY if it was designed using an MVC pattern (or, at least, a 2-tiered approach that would allow you to reuse the model & controller code).
And when it comes down to it, this is just plainly a better technology than Flash. The only advantage flash has is it's adoption rate and mind-share. Eventually these will be neutralized.
The newest version of ActionScript is a HUGE improvement upon its predecessors. It truly is. But when it comes to building full-featured web apps that look and act like native rich-client apps, it's still nearly as hard to do that with AS in Flash as it is to do it with JS/Ajax/HTML.
But with silverlight 1.1 you get the ability to use any CLR-based language-- C#, C++.Net, J#, Python.Net, Ruby.Net, TCL.Net, VB.Net, etc etc. You also get the advantage of the largest framework ever shipped with a language (.Net, of course) and the huge amount of existing code. Not to mention, if you've already got an app -- web based or rich client -- written in
I'm really not a big Microsoft fan. I've spent most the last year developing with PHP on a LAMP stack. But if I was asked to build a large web based app with a rich-client feel and given the choice of Flash and Silverlight, not having ever tried either, I'd feel a lot better about the latter than I do the former.
I'm not knocking flash. It's just that flash wasn't really designed to build large apps. It's just been manipulated into that in the past couple years. Silverlight, OTOH, was designed precisely for this reason.
The most important thing about Operation Northwoods is that IT NEVER HAPPENED.
The system worked.
The fact that not only did it never happen, but that we also heard about the plan, shows GOOD, GOOD things about our country.
Actually, I can:
"You cannot use existing C++ code, you must use "managed C++" which is very different (garbage collected)."
And that is a patently wrong statement. And if you were anywhere near proficient w/ C++.Net, you'd have known that.
Point, Set and Match.
Your lack of experience is evident. Don't be so full of yourself to think that you could POSSIBLY "annoy" me. I enjoy schooling you. That's why I'm here still.
.Net project (including silverlight 1.1) can include any or all of these languages. One could even develop their own CLR-based DSL and use that.
... It's taking you out to the woodshed and schooling you.
You have muddled two separate issues.
The first issue is language-agnostic nature provided by the CLR. On any given project you can use any CLR-based language -- VB.Net, C#, J#, C++.Net, TCL.Net, Python.Net, Ruby.Net, etc. Any given
It's common and very useful to be able to mix-and-match languages inside a project. It saves a lot of time if you've got existing code in a CLR-based language that you want to use in another project that may be using another CLR-based language as it's primary language.
The whole point of this is that you can let your developers don't all have to know all the languages! If I have a C++ developer and a C# developer, no problem! The C++ dev would create, say, various libraries in C++.Net that that the C# developer will utilize. He doesn't need to know ANYTHING about C++. In fact, the C# developer could create the interfaces that the C++ developer would use in his classes, ensuring they're both on the same page, and then the C# developer wouldn't even have to LOOK at the C++ code.
I've worked on a number of large projects (> 5 developers) that mix different CLR-based languages with great success. No one man needs to be able to debug the whole thing.
The second issue is using unmanaged components in C & C++ in the managed code environment of C++.Net. You clearly said this wasn't possible. It's obvious you've never actually USED C++.Net because RCW's are COMMON and EFFECTIVE. If you're using unmanaged components, they're likely legacy. The notion that the parts of the project that would benefit from spawning a separate process are the SAME EXACT PARTS of the project that can be accomplished/assisted by using legacy components is TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
It's absolutely TRIVIAL to create separate process in C# and C++.net. I don't need to socket-into my legacy code to accomplish this.
And finally..
"I decided not to answer your first post because it did not address any of the problems I mentioned, it was just ad-hominem ranting."
Uhh... you CLEARLY said that you can't use unmanaged C++ code in your Visual C++.Net project. EVERY C++.Net developer knows this to be false. It's probably the first question asked by every C++ developer the first time they pick-up C++.Net. RCW's are a very well designed, very elegant solution to the problem. That's not "ad hominem ranting"
You're clearly out of your depth here, son. Just do yourself a favor and back out of this discussion. I know it'll ding your pride a bit, but not nearly as much as you'll get dinged if you keep it up...
"Let me give you a good advice: even if you can, don't. Split the project into parts and connect the parts via sockets or mmap."
.net at all, do you?
This is an INSANELY stupid idea.
Imagine my team decides to write a silverlight project in, say, C#. Suppose I have some company-specific (biz logic) libraries written in J# that I wrote in a previous project. It's trivially easy to include these in the same project. You get full IDE support and, of course, both the C# and J# code gets compiled down to MSIL anyway. The performance impact of this method vs. using sockets is ENORMOUS. There's absolutely no way to justify it. We're talking, at least an order of magnitude. Perhaps more.
I didn't catch this last night when i schooled-you on RCWs.
It just reinforces my suspicion: You really don't know
That's, of course, the beauty of it. All .Net languages are compiled down to MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) (yes, compiled, and the MSIL is JIT'd).
.Net languages, but I have used C#, VB.Net and C++.Net, and each of these languages have unique features. For example, in C# you can overload operators and create delegates, in Visual C++.Net you can create a RCW to utilize unmanaged legacy C/C++ code. Etc...
You my call syntax "meaningless" but in my experience as a developer for the past 5 years proves otherwise. I'm much more productive in languages i know than in languages I don't. And even among languages I know well I can be more productive in one than I am in another.
Also, the languages are NOT functionally equivalent. I'm not familiar with most of the
China needs Russian fuel.
Even if their objective is to "conquer" the country (yeah, right, talk to Napoleon and Hitler about that) they are going to need a lot of fuel (both Coal and Oil) to tide them over during what will be a war lasting many years.
That's simply not viable. They get such a vast amount of fuel from Russia. The rest of the worlds markets just simply could not support that demand.
China needs Russia.
They're not going to fight.
Just follow the money.
You do realize that it's very easy to use unmanaged code in any .Net project?
.Net? If not, how are you qualified to even have this conversation?
Create a "Runtime Callable Wrapper" in C++.Net that wraps the unmanaged component and, bam, it's equal to native code in the IDE. It really has no a negligible impact on performance.
Do you even know
And I would say it's just reality.
....
I personally don't like the term, which is why I used "scare quotes."
But it's also a commonly used term that has a clear meaning.
Economy:
The US has the largest economy, by a wide margin. The US GDP is as great as the aggregate of all 27 countries of the European Union, while the EU has 63% more people. China lags the US GDP by over 3 Trillion dollars, despite having a population edge of ONE BILLION PEOPLE. At our current rate of productivity, with China's population the US GDP would be about $57 Trillion-- nearly as much as the 2006 GDP of every nation on Earth.
Source: 2006 Numbers @ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Military:
The US spends more on defense than every other nation on Earth combined. I'm not saying this is smart or just, but it is what it is. Taking China's reported defense spending at face value, they're ranked in 2nd place with $65bn in spending, just 10% of what the US has spent.
Nearly every advancement in the technology and tactics of modern warfare since WWII has come from the US.
I'm against the war in iraq, but, excuse the cliche.. The claims of our armies demise have been grossly exaggerated.
Our navy, air force, marines, infantry, and nuclear arsenal are 2nd to none in terms of preparedness, training, technology and equipment.
Influence:
The United States culture has had more influence on the world than any other. In every developed nation the world over people read American books, watch American movies, enjoy American television, listen to American music. We are uniquely able to guilt, cajole, berate, charm, buy-off, scare, and pressure the people and leaders of other countries to work WITH us and not against us.
These three areas, Economic Strength, Military Might and Global Influence are what makes a super power. There are many REGIONAL powers, among them, of course, China, Russia, UK, Germany, etc. But like it or no, we are the last remaining "Super Power."
I've never bragged about any of this. I wasn't bragging when I mentioned it before, and certainly not now. In many ways the lives of average Americans (like myself) would be better if we weren't so engaged in the issues of the rest of the world. I would much rather have free healthcare and free University than have another ICBM or Stealth Bomber.
You and others have made assumptions about my character, my politics, and my POV that are way off mark.
But I do have 2 eyes and I can see clearly that throughout all of Human history there has been one (or a few) Nations (or tribes, empires, etc) that are clearly more powerful and influential than others. In the 17th century it was Spain, in the 18th & 19th it was England/UK, in the 19th it was (hmm...) and since WWII, it's been the US.
So really, save your criticism. If the US is not the "last super power," then who else is?
You're right, it's not very noticible, but on NPR this week (too busy to find the exact reference, but you can probably find it if you dig) they mentioned that this is the first year in a long time where gasoline usage remained flat compared to the previous year.
Since there were more cars on the road in 07, and more Americans of driving age, that seems to demonstrate some combination of the above (Less Driving, more efficient (slower) driving, or more efficient cars).
Still, the fact that we weren't able to actually REDUCE usage shows that we're not being as prudent as we should be.
What has happened, though, is that people are spending less on dining out, holidays, and other "disposable income" type things. Rather than change their driving habits, they make cuts elsewhere to offset the higher costs. That surprises me. My dad owns a couple Sunoco franchises here in Ohio. One thing he's noticed is that in-store sales have taken a HUGE hit. That's unfortunate because gas stations make most their profit from store-sales and make very little (and sometimes lose money) on gas sales. The gas is just to reel you in. The 300% markup on candy bars and the 1400% mark-up on fountain drinks are where they make most their money.
This is way off target, but it's something I find interesting.
I bought a Volvo S60 a couple years ago. It's the first car I owned that had a readout of the _instantaneous_ gas mileage. It's not uncommon to have the Average MPG readout, which the S60 also has, but you can flip it over to show you your instantaneous MPG at any given time, updated once per second.
Anywho, I was stunned to see how much gas is wasted in city driving. It comes almost exclusively from the first 10-20 seconds after pulling away from a stop. The combination of the rolling-resistance and the fact that 1st is the most inefficient gear blows my mind: I'd press my foot to the gas with medium pressure--not tearing away from the light--and my MPG goes like this, (updated once per second): 12MPG, 8MPG, 5MPG, 5MPG, 5MPG, 5MPG, 8MPG, 10MPG, 12MPG, 16MPG, 20.... etc..
and when you floor it from a light, it literally goes down to 1MPG.
The secret is to go as gentle as possible on the throttle. On the highway, of course, anything over 70MPH and you're killing your MPG. But even if you ALWAYS go 65 and not a mile above, if you don't change driving habits in city-driving, you won't notice a DENT on your MPG.
I shake my head now as I see people racing from stop light to stop light. And even if there's no other light in sight, the racing from 0 to the speed limit is just STUPID and it's KILLING their MPG.
I swear, it's my totally non-scientific belief that if Americans would just change the way we drive, we could probably cut our usage of OPEC oil ENTIRELY. Not to mention, it's easier on your brakes, your cooling system, and your suspension.
Fast driving is not the problem. Quick acceleration is the problem. My car is a turbocharged 5 cylinder engine, but I can still get 30+MPG at 75MPH w/ my cruise set.
I now only need to fill-up 3 times a month instead of 4. That's saving me 18 gallons of gas and $700 a year.
And, of course, the kicker to this argument is that the perception of speed is NOT the same as actually being speedy. Unless you're talking long-haul commutes, accelerating fast from a light might save, what, a couple minutes? And driving 90 on the e-way instead of 60 on your 20-mile commute to work means that you'll be getting there 7 minutes before me, but you used 1.2 gallons of gas, and I used 0.75 gallons.
I never thought about gas mileage until that readout on my dash put it bluntly in my face.
Perhaps the only thing better would be if it actually output how much it's costing in DOLLARS not MPG. Figure that out (maybe a bluetooth connection that tells your car the price of gas as you fill up) and mandate it in every car and I'd bet you'll see a real reduction in gas usage.
How about the fact that it's language agnostic? You're a C++ developer? It's a lot more comfortable to use C++.Net than it is to use ActionScript. Same for Java Developers, Python Developers, etc, ad infinitum..
.Net Framework is the largest library ever shipped? There is surely more "library code" available for, say, Java and Perl, but the .Net libraries share a common format, style, and organization.
.Net code for your Silverlight application is going to be obviously OO (since .Net is an OO framework). That allows you to easily share/reuse code between Silverlight, ASP.Net, and JIT'd GUI apps.
.Net projects)? You find useful code in C#.net but you're programming in Visual C++.Net? No problem, just load it in.
Or how about the fact that the
Or how about the fact that your
Or how about the fact that you can mix multiple languages in a silverlight project (like ALL
Or how about an entire eco-system of tools and generators and add-ons for Visual Studio and the framework?
Of course, with flash, you get...
well...
None of that.
It's not JUST ease.
.Net language (C#, C++, J#, VB.Net, Python.Net, Ruby.Net, etc etc) to build the application.
.Net environment.
It's also the benefit of being able to use any
Yes, the newest version of ActionScript is a lot better than previous versions--and better than any other derivative of ECMAScript I've seen. But it's still no match for the VisualStudio +
Honestly, I'm not a huge Microsoft fan. Over the last year I've spent more time developing in PHP than any other language.
But c'mon... Silverlight does have some compelling arguments.
Your ignorance still astounds me.
..."Super Power" is about economic power, military might, and global influence. I'm seriously not interested in getting into a pissing match over this. I mentioned it only to illustrate that it's patently ABSURD to assume a country like the US has not had an enormous number of protests. You decided to fix upon those 2 words in my post, probably because you found yourself unable to say much about the crux of my argument.
First, I named 6 large protests. Not "4 or 5."
Second, I alluded to NEAR CONSTANT PROTEST of the Iraq War since 2002. Millions of people have been involved in these.
Third, It's a bit pedantic of you to assume that I, a mere mortal, was able to name EVERY LARGE PROTEST in our VAST nation over the last 30 years, isn't it? Especially considering I'm 25....
Fourth, what makes you think they didn't accomplish anything?
Fifth, I've heard your former Prime Minister Blair call the US the "last remaining super power" more than once. I'm not bragging, i'm just stating the facts. The measure of a "Super Power" is not how many nukes does one have. That's the measure of a "Nuclear Power."
And finally, most Americans haven't protested fuel prices because it's an inconvenience, not an atrocity. Most of us just drive less, drive slower, and drive more efficient vehicles.
Actually, I used scare-quotes for a reason...
Ok, i'll bite.
Why?
Why would that be nice?
No way. That language is NOT ready for prime-time. A statically-typed Huckabee is bloated. Period. It's certainly not a scalar type. It'll be stored on the heap and that's going to slow things down.
Besides, why waste so much time with that?
You can just declare all your variables as type ROMNEY and they can be implicitly cast as whatever you like.
Furthermore, on the database side, if you're using SQL Server you can use the ROMNEY cursor. It can change positions dynamically. It's quite efficient. And on a personal note, my favorite part of it is the simple execution. Sometimes Romney.execute() is exactly what the situation might call for.
Of course, everyone knows that you shouldn't trust SQL Server when it comes to Integrity. I would only really trust Oracle. What we need now is to make a reall CONNECTION. Todays issues are GLOBAL and we need a President who believes in adLockOptimistic.
global O;
O->bama();
Yes, you are mistaken.
The Million Man March was held on the Mall in DC in 1995, with somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people.
This garnered a lot of attention and the "Million * March" naming scheme was borrowed by a number of later groups, such as the:
- Million Mom March, May 2000, about 150,000 - 200,000 women advocating for gun control laws
- Million Worker March, 2004, about 10,000 people protesting globalization and free-trade treaties
- Million Family March, 2000, tens-of-thousands of people
Furthermore, there have been an enormous amount of anti-war protests against the war in Iraq, starting in 2002 and continuing to today
There was also a lot of coverage for the 1999 Anti-WTO protests in Seattle, WA that brought out an estimated 50,000-100,000 people.
And, of course, there were so many protesters when Bush was inaugurated into Office in 2000 that he was the first President in over a hundred years that couldn't walk from the capitol to the White House after being sworn-in. He had to be taken there in an armored car.
And you'd be surprised about the proximity to the White House. Nearly all marches/protests are held on the Mall in DC, which is a huge expanse that runs between the US Capitol on one end and the Washington Monument on the other end, with the White House right in between. It's set back a couple hundred yards from the mall, but the protests where abutted right against the White House gate.
You know.. I'm so sick of arrogant Europeans talking trash about how ignorant Americans are, when so many show that same ignorance about Americans themselves. I mean, no offense, in a country like America, with 300,000,000 people and, as the only remaining "Super Power", LOTS of things to protest, to assume that we've had no "major" protests in 30 years just shows an alarming bias/ignorance of our culture.
"That was France though, where people actually protest rather than sitting there polishing their shiny, shiny guns."
...But...
I'm not anti france or anti social-programs....
The Unemployment rate for young people in France is consistently around 20%. There's an awful lot of twenty-somethings with plenty of free time to stand around protesting.
Actually, I'd say that the version that marked the decline of Netscape was Version 5.0....
You're lucky.
:)
My mom would've just turned the dishwasher on as she left in the morning, woken me up, and STILL left a note "suggesting" that I get my lazy ass out back and cut the grass
"I never heard of a business succeeding over the long term by periodically alienating its audience."
Well, now you have.
But seriously, MTV isn't the only one. By your logic, Playskool should have started out with pre-school toys, then moved into action figures, then video game consoles, then cell phones and laptops. Instead, they alienate their customers by making the same-old preschool crap despite an aging audience.
And that's just one example of many.
What you're opposing is niche marketing. Doing one thing and doing it well. MTV knows how to market to teenagers. It's incorrect to assume they'd be just as good at marketing to 20somethings and beyond. You've laid out a false dichotomy:
The choice is not between staying the same and keeping the same audience. Peoples tastes and needs change as they become older and (usually) more affluent. The choice is between constantly changing to appeal to the teenagers of the day, or constantly changing to adapt to the changing tastes of their existing audience.