The problem with genetic enhancements is that it increases the idea of perfection. Sure strength and immunity are beneficial, but what about when we start curing depression or ADD? When are they not the same person?
Advocates will tell you that it is their "soul" that makes someone who they are, but that is just religious preaching. And when the southern baptists start genetically engineering their followers to be more like Jesus, the rest of us will have to as well in order to compete.
I'm not saying that technology is bad, jus that we need to be careful as it gives more validation for the future Hitlers.
Lets face it, parametric polymorphism was implemented terribly through C++'s templates. How would you design a language that would take full advantage of this concept? You should be able to interact with objects as if they were built in variables, like using the autoincriment funtion. Along the same lines, what improvements would you make to the STL? We've been using the same container paridigms for a while, there must be something new.
Precedural languages like C were a milestone in productivity as were OO languages like C++. What is the next step?
Just as was with C++, we are probaly seeing these techniques now, for instance design patterns. However, what would a language designed for design patterns look like? I think that patterns wouldn't be the only advance in hyper-OOP. There could be features such as multi-directional hierarchy, child to parent and between siblings. Heck, it shouldn 't even always be a tree, what about rings!? There could also be an eval like function to allow objects to create new abstractions or entirely new objects.
But unlike C and OO, C++ can't impliment any of these because it is too rigid and focuses too much on memory allocation. This why languages like Smalltalk, Java, and Python are, quite simply, more foward thinking than C++. Seeing as you obviously disagree with this, what do you think a next generation language would look like?
Object oriented languages like C++ were as much of an advance over precedural ones as they were over assembly. Where do we go from here? What will the "meta-object" languages be like?
I've considered visual coding for this. You could create objects from templates, put them in precedures, etc. You would use only pieces of text to refer to the algorithms themselves. It can give you more control over the object hierarchy.
I've also thought of the possibility of having the abstraction go both ways. You could have an object be able to tell what other objects are encapsulated with it.
You could also have something along the lines of eval that lets lets objects spawn other objects dynamicly.
What do you think of these ideas are there any that you are working on? How do you feel that design patterns fit into this?
It seems like they're just trying to capitalize on the Matrix with this one. It has the same "style" as it, everything is kindof metallic and solid state. And wasn't that song in the Matrix too?
I think it'll be pretty good anyway. Does anyone know who that blue chick is? It's been a while since I've read the comics.
Also, what's with the website wanting my email address. It think Echelon has merged with the Mutant Control Agency:)
So basicly, you want java as some kind of c++ superset? That seems to be what Sun thinks too, and also what is ruining the language. Things like garbage collection are the strength of languages like java. If you're serious about implementing an object oriented structure, then you really need a language with these things. Java is more like what the next generation languages will be, allowing you to talk more about meta-objects and sealing off the lower levels of code. However, what is needed for this is a quality compiler that optomizes your code. Lets try to make java more like perl or python, eliminating the large amounts of time spent on memory management.
People who think coding is engineering favor python. They want a large and structured language where they can talk about larger and larger concepts more efficiently. The example is object oriented lanuages like C++ that brought structure to another level. Soon there will be another generation of languages, probably based around design patterns, kind of like a meta-object language. However, if you're a perl type who considers coding an art form, you believe in small and versatile languages that can express things in multiple ways. This takes more of the approach of mapping the language to the problem space. I personally code far better the perl way. Although it may be called sloppy by computer science types it really is the quickest and most natural way to solve a coding problem, rather than building sealed off layers of code that an engineer just places together like interchangable parts.
This is exactly like the perl vs. python debates. People who think coding is engineering favor python. They want a large and structured language where they can talk about larger and larger concepts more efficiently. The example is object oriented lanuages like C++ that brought structure to another level. Soon there will be another generation of languages, probably based around design patterns, kind of like a meta-object language. However, if you're a perl type who considers coding an art form, you believe in small and versatile languages that can express things in multiple ways. This takes more of the approach of mapping the language to the problem space. I personally code far better the perl way. Although it may be called sloppy by computer science types it really is the quickest and most natural way to solve a coding problem, rather than building sealed off layers of code that an engineer just places together like interchangable parts.
This is really the beginning of something. Geeks have always despised Java because of speed difficulties, but its starting to actually go somewhere. It more of a "true" OO language than C++ (more like Smalltalk) and once we see some breakthroughs with runtime compilers for it speed will be a nonissue.
I'm not saying that writing good and efficient code is dead nor is learning about it. It just seems to me that books like this are more about coding "philosophy" then real software engineering. These books are around to create some kind of culture with programmers and I personally want no part in it. We spend too much time with fluff and "this is cool, but that's it" when we need to work more on applying the things we talk about. Yes, I am talking about the open source movement.
I hate when people assualt apple because they don't follow traditional pc guidelines. They are the first company to realize that the look and feel of the computer matters. This is every that is missing from Linux. Linux only cares about the underlying technology and not about the experience, which will be its downfall in the commercial market. Apple supports things that people want: wireless networking, multimedia, and yes- color!
Do we really need another book on software engineering. Its just a way for programmers to go on ego trips by talking about programming all the time, rather than doing it. This is just like those people who insist on an object structure when one really isn't necessary. Technique gets too much focus, if you want to be a better coder just code more!
It has been commented that string theory, unlike most concepts in physics has the equations worked out before it is truly understood. Some people think that like Issac Newton deriving calculus because he needed it for gravity, radicly new mathematical tools will have to be developed to handle string theory. Do you have any ideas to what form this "multidimensional calculus" will take or know of any new ideas being pioneered in this feild?
This makes me wonder what is better motivation for hackers: the garage world, or the IPO world. Sometimes I wish I was born ten years earlier so I could have toyed more with the computer's hardware and coded all the apps myself. But then you can't deny that we also are living in a great age with the hyper economy. Any kid with an idea in the tech fields can get funding. Do any of you have opinions?
For a company that decided not to realease their design specs to third party OS developers they seem to have borrowed a lot from them. I see features that have been clearly taken from Squeak, Beos, and FreeBsd.
I don't think that I'm alone in despising C++ and most other high level languages for the mac. I figure this is because most mac programs were always written in assembly. What do you think of high level languages? Nowadays most programs are written terribly sloppily and cookie cutter and this could be the reason. Do you think that for Yellow Box apple will move more towards languages like C++ and Java in order to attract more third party developers?
All this most important person crap is making me sick. Some say that the ability to reflect and think about oneself defines intelligence, but this proves otherwise. It is impossible to compare people's influence if they are from different points in time since all achievements are based on others. And anyway, I'm not really sure if I can agree on Einstein as influential since the average moron of the nineties doesn't even know what e=mc^2 stand for, let alone understands relativity. "Well... I'm no Alfred Einstein" -Joe Namath
Maybe when microsoft bought 10% of apple they were also changing their ethics. The great thing about apple was always that they were fun and actually acknowledged the hackers working for them. This was a lot like what OSS is now. In my eyes this culminates a series of changes that makes them just like Microsoft. Now they care more about selling their colorful computers than anything else. I think that Jobs was better on acid.
This doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. I bet that most of the people polled only feel optomistic about technology, they don't see themsleves as part of it. Our schools systems need to teach kids to be hackers instead of mindless drones who need a 6 week training course to use Word. Also the poll doesn't consider the way that technology has effected our consciousness. In the areas of pure math and philosophy we have only this century caught up with knowledge before the dark age. When normal Americans start considering Godel's theorum or chaos theory in their everyday reasoning then we will have advanced.
is my ibook's casing an important interface?
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
Before I had my Bar Mitzvah I was required to attend Hebrew School every Wednesday. At the beginning of it we would have a service, reciting all the normal prayers. When it came time to prepare for my Bar Mitzvah it was like I already new all the prayers and suprisingly, could recite them from memory. I can't understand Hebrew and I only know a small amount of it's grammar, but it was like I was wired for the prayers. I didn't have to think about them. This is exactly like how we speak english or move our body. It is very hard to induce, although I suppose it helped that I was that young. It still required a lot of repitition. And yet it is all really so simple. In pinball, all you really have to do is hit the flipper when the ball come towards the hole. Yet no one can keep it up for ever. There seems to be something impeding our minds from performing such a basic task. Some people area able to get around this. That is where tha high comes from. I have always wondered why it feel so good to ski. It is because I am exercising my ability to eliminate all human blocks and become one with the task at hand. This is what the best of us do with programming. They reach a point where they are thinking and dreaming in programming languages. This is what the perl movement is really about. Larry has talked a lot about perl as being a language that is meant to adapt to the programmer and allow him to manipulate it. What a great peice of writin.
It quite obvious that our view of the future is extremely distorted, just from looking at what people 50 years ago thought of today. Computers are in the small and in the home and we don't travel to the moon everyday. I for one don't think that this technology will catch on for non patients because there is no reason for it. Like the author says, we can manipulate a normal interface so why would we need this. I'd much rather have a wearable computer with an eyepeice and voice recognition. And also, I don't want to sound like a technophove, but I don't think that this will have all too kind ramifications. I don't remember who introduced this thought, but it has been said that no peice of electronics is secure because it is part of a network that contains nodes that aren't secure. Do we really want to introduce our consciousness to this network. I think it would just be the beginning of us turning into the Borg. If children are raised with these and taught to base their mind around Windows ECG or whatever they'll call it then this could happen. We can complain about geeks being persecuted in our day, but in this kind of future there may be no hellmouth kids.
This is a very interesting conversation because it deals with how communication networks actually effect our social environments. With bbs' you had to search around for a good one, which was usually physically located close to you. All this meant that you would almost immediately find like minded people in an intelligent forum. Maybe this was also because not everyone had a computer then. It was mostly geeks who were on bbs', but now everyone is on the internet. You are flooded with information. With usenet, mailing lists, and websites you can find millions of communities about a subject; but it is very hard to find a good one where the people are interested in quality conversation and you can form real relationships. It also has to do a lot with the people involved. Most of the people on the bbs' back in the eighties were teenagers and now they've grown up and moved ont o other things. They've been replaced with a different generation of teenagers. It is usally around this age that people adapt best to technology. I'm 14 and me and I have a lot of friends who I communicate solely with through email and chat (mostly java- irc isn't "cutting edge"). So if we as a wired society are moving away from sociality, then it is sure to be back when the next generation comes of hacking age.
Slashdot Mirror
Advocates will tell you that it is their "soul" that makes someone who they are, but that is just religious preaching. And when the southern baptists start genetically engineering their followers to be more like Jesus, the rest of us will have to as well in order to compete.
I'm not saying that technology is bad, jus that we need to be careful as it gives more validation for the future Hitlers.
Lets face it, parametric polymorphism was implemented terribly through C++'s templates. How would you design a language that would take full advantage of this concept? You should be able to interact with objects as if they were built in variables, like using the autoincriment funtion. Along the same lines, what improvements would you make to the STL? We've been using the same container paridigms for a while, there must be something new.
Just as was with C++, we are probaly seeing these techniques now, for instance design patterns. However, what would a language designed for design patterns look like? I think that patterns wouldn't be the only advance in hyper-OOP. There could be features such as multi-directional hierarchy, child to parent and between siblings. Heck, it shouldn 't even always be a tree, what about rings!? There could also be an eval like function to allow objects to create new abstractions or entirely new objects.
But unlike C and OO, C++ can't impliment any of these because it is too rigid and focuses too much on memory allocation. This why languages like Smalltalk, Java, and Python are, quite simply, more foward thinking than C++. Seeing as you obviously disagree with this, what do you think a next generation language would look like?
I've considered visual coding for this. You could create objects from templates, put them in precedures, etc. You would use only pieces of text to refer to the algorithms themselves. It can give you more control over the object hierarchy.
I've also thought of the possibility of having the abstraction go both ways. You could have an object be able to tell what other objects are encapsulated with it.
You could also have something along the lines of eval that lets lets objects spawn other objects dynamicly.
What do you think of these ideas are there any that you are working on? How do you feel that design patterns fit into this?
It seems like they're just trying to capitalize on the Matrix with this one. It has the same "style" as it, everything is kindof metallic and solid state. And wasn't that song in the Matrix too?
I think it'll be pretty good anyway. Does anyone know who that blue chick is? It's been a while since I've read the comics.
Also, what's with the website wanting my email address. It think Echelon has merged with the Mutant Control Agency :)
So basicly, you want java as some kind of c++ superset? That seems to be what Sun thinks too, and also what is ruining the language. Things like garbage collection are the strength of languages like java. If you're serious about implementing an object oriented structure, then you really need a language with these things. Java is more like what the next generation languages will be, allowing you to talk more about meta-objects and sealing off the lower levels of code. However, what is needed for this is a quality compiler that optomizes your code. Lets try to make java more like perl or python, eliminating the large amounts of time spent on memory management.
People who think coding is engineering favor python. They want a large and structured language where they can talk about larger and larger concepts more efficiently. The example is object oriented lanuages like C++ that brought structure to another level. Soon there will be another generation of languages, probably based around design patterns, kind of like a meta-object language. However, if you're a perl type who considers coding an art form, you believe in small and versatile languages that can express things in multiple ways. This takes more of the approach of mapping the language to the problem space. I personally code far better the perl way. Although it may be called sloppy by computer science types it really is the quickest and most natural way to solve a coding problem, rather than building sealed off layers of code that an engineer just places together like interchangable parts.
This is exactly like the perl vs. python debates. People who think coding is engineering favor python. They want a large and structured language where they can talk about larger and larger concepts more efficiently. The example is object oriented lanuages like C++ that brought structure to another level. Soon there will be another generation of languages, probably based around design patterns, kind of like a meta-object language. However, if you're a perl type who considers coding an art form, you believe in small and versatile languages that can express things in multiple ways. This takes more of the approach of mapping the language to the problem space. I personally code far better the perl way. Although it may be called sloppy by computer science types it really is the quickest and most natural way to solve a coding problem, rather than building sealed off layers of code that an engineer just places together like interchangable parts.
This is really the beginning of something. Geeks have always despised Java because of speed difficulties, but its starting to actually go somewhere. It more of a "true" OO language than C++ (more like Smalltalk) and once we see some breakthroughs with runtime compilers for it speed will be a nonissue.
I'm not saying that writing good and efficient code is dead nor is learning about it. It just seems to me that books like this are more about coding "philosophy" then real software engineering. These books are around to create some kind of culture with programmers and I personally want no part in it. We spend too much time with fluff and "this is cool, but that's it" when we need to work more on applying the things we talk about. Yes, I am talking about the open source movement.
I hate when people assualt apple because they don't follow traditional pc guidelines. They are the first company to realize that the look and feel of the computer matters. This is every that is missing from Linux. Linux only cares about the underlying technology and not about the experience, which will be its downfall in the commercial market. Apple supports things that people want: wireless networking, multimedia, and yes- color!
Do we really need another book on software engineering. Its just a way for programmers to go on ego trips by talking about programming all the time, rather than doing it. This is just like those people who insist on an object structure when one really isn't necessary. Technique gets too much focus, if you want to be a better coder just code more!
Have they thought of naming a Perl Poet Laureate?
It has been commented that string theory, unlike most concepts in physics has the equations worked out before it is truly understood. Some people think that like Issac Newton deriving calculus because he needed it for gravity, radicly new mathematical tools will have to be developed to handle string theory. Do you have any ideas to what form this "multidimensional calculus" will take or know of any new ideas being pioneered in this feild?
This makes me wonder what is better motivation for hackers: the garage world, or the IPO world. Sometimes I wish I was born ten years earlier so I could have toyed more with the computer's hardware and coded all the apps myself. But then you can't deny that we also are living in a great age with the hyper economy. Any kid with an idea in the tech fields can get funding. Do any of you have opinions?
For a company that decided not to realease their design specs to third party OS developers they seem to have borrowed a lot from them. I see features that have been clearly taken from Squeak, Beos, and FreeBsd.
I don't think that I'm alone in despising C++ and most other high level languages for the mac. I figure this is because most mac programs were always written in assembly. What do you think of high level languages? Nowadays most programs are written terribly sloppily and cookie cutter and this could be the reason. Do you think that for Yellow Box apple will move more towards languages like C++ and Java in order to attract more third party developers?
All this most important person crap is making me sick. Some say that the ability to reflect and think about oneself defines intelligence, but this proves otherwise. It is impossible to compare people's influence if they are from different points in time since all achievements are based on others. And anyway, I'm not really sure if I can agree on Einstein as influential since the average moron of the nineties doesn't even know what e=mc^2 stand for, let alone understands relativity. "Well... I'm no Alfred Einstein" -Joe Namath
We all know that Australia is the best continent to control in Risk. .
This article was proved false by the fact that everyone who thought it would be funny to try its tricks were moderated down.
Maybe when microsoft bought 10% of apple they were also changing their ethics. The great thing about apple was always that they were fun and actually acknowledged the hackers working for them. This was a lot like what OSS is now. In my eyes this culminates a series of changes that makes them just like Microsoft. Now they care more about selling their colorful computers than anything else. I think that Jobs was better on acid.
This doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. I bet that most of the people polled only feel optomistic about technology, they don't see themsleves as part of it. Our schools systems need to teach kids to be hackers instead of mindless drones who need a 6 week training course to use Word. Also the poll doesn't consider the way that technology has effected our consciousness. In the areas of pure math and philosophy we have only this century caught up with knowledge before the dark age. When normal Americans start considering Godel's theorum or chaos theory in their everyday reasoning then we will have advanced.
Before I had my Bar Mitzvah I was required to attend Hebrew School every Wednesday. At the beginning of it we would have a service, reciting all the normal prayers. When it came time to prepare for my Bar Mitzvah it was like I already new all the prayers and suprisingly, could recite them from memory. I can't understand Hebrew and I only know a small amount of it's grammar, but it was like I was wired for the prayers. I didn't have to think about them. This is exactly like how we speak english or move our body. It is very hard to induce, although I suppose it helped that I was that young. It still required a lot of repitition. And yet it is all really so simple. In pinball, all you really have to do is hit the flipper when the ball come towards the hole. Yet no one can keep it up for ever. There seems to be something impeding our minds from performing such a basic task. Some people area able to get around this. That is where tha high comes from. I have always wondered why it feel so good to ski. It is because I am exercising my ability to eliminate all human blocks and become one with the task at hand. This is what the best of us do with programming. They reach a point where they are thinking and dreaming in programming languages. This is what the perl movement is really about. Larry has talked a lot about perl as being a language that is meant to adapt to the programmer and allow him to manipulate it. What a great peice of writin.
It quite obvious that our view of the future is extremely distorted, just from looking at what people 50 years ago thought of today. Computers are in the small and in the home and we don't travel to the moon everyday. I for one don't think that this technology will catch on for non patients because there is no reason for it. Like the author says, we can manipulate a normal interface so why would we need this. I'd much rather have a wearable computer with an eyepeice and voice recognition. And also, I don't want to sound like a technophove, but I don't think that this will have all too kind ramifications. I don't remember who introduced this thought, but it has been said that no peice of electronics is secure because it is part of a network that contains nodes that aren't secure. Do we really want to introduce our consciousness to this network. I think it would just be the beginning of us turning into the Borg. If children are raised with these and taught to base their mind around Windows ECG or whatever they'll call it then this could happen. We can complain about geeks being persecuted in our day, but in this kind of future there may be no hellmouth kids.
This is a very interesting conversation because it deals with how communication networks actually effect our social environments. With bbs' you had to search around for a good one, which was usually physically located close to you. All this meant that you would almost immediately find like minded people in an intelligent forum. Maybe this was also because not everyone had a computer then. It was mostly geeks who were on bbs', but now everyone is on the internet. You are flooded with information. With usenet, mailing lists, and websites you can find millions of communities about a subject; but it is very hard to find a good one where the people are interested in quality conversation and you can form real relationships. It also has to do a lot with the people involved. Most of the people on the bbs' back in the eighties were teenagers and now they've grown up and moved ont o other things. They've been replaced with a different generation of teenagers. It is usally around this age that people adapt best to technology. I'm 14 and me and I have a lot of friends who I communicate solely with through email and chat (mostly java- irc isn't "cutting edge"). So if we as a wired society are moving away from sociality, then it is sure to be back when the next generation comes of hacking age.