Being able to extend the syntax of the language just means your new constructs look like existing constructs instead of method calls.
This would work great as long as the new contructs were exactly the same thing as the existing constructs, but of course the reason you are using them is that they are different. Suddenly things break and don't work together.
For example, dealing with "identity" in a distributed computing environment is very different from "identity" in a normal environment. A lot of assumptions suddenly break down. Code stops working... joy.
Yup, I missed Forth, but it's another good example. Forth, CLOS, Smalltalk.... all very old languages, and yet this is supposed to be something new. The fact that VB, Java, and C have been more popular suggests there might be a problem here.
I've a feeling that something designed to do this has got to be easier to use.
It might be easier to read, but the fundamental challenges with generic programming are essentially language and type theory problems which exist independantly of the C++ language or it's syntax.
It's kind of funny when you think about it. Smalltalk and CLOS (and for that matter their predicessors) seem quite close to what he's describing (admittedly without the XML side of things). I guess it just follows the "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" mantra.
I'm not sure why he thinks it is important that the meta object protocol stuff be done in XML. I mean, why not just in the language itself? This has been shown to work with both of the above.
The problem he's not seeing of course, is that this approach essentially results in each project having it's own "language", which must be understood before one can participate in it.
Now you can do this in C++, but look at what you need to implement to do it
It would be great, if instead, I could hook into the compiler and tell it exactly how it should handle vectors.
Umm... what makes you think that programming a compiler is going to be more straight forward than doing generic programming? That seems like a huge assumption to me.
The closest thing I've seen to what this article talks about was CLOS's MOP, which was great, but once again, a lot of people had a hard time groking it.
Globalization is applied the wrong way. For it to be ***REALLY*** effective there has to be a **LEVEL PLAYING FIELD** between all countires.
You don't even have a level playing field between two towns a mile apart, and you are asking for a level playing field worldwide? No, the point of globailization is that work will get done where it is most efficient to do so. If it was equally efficient to do it everywhere, then there would be no benefit to it.
What has to be done is simply a system of tariffs...
Your basis for your argument is that there is some direct correlation between standard of living and the price of labor. You have missed my point. Canada, as an example, enjoys higher standard of living than the US, and yet it's labor is cheaper.
Actually, he didn't say that it wouldn't change anything, and it certainly does change things. His point was that even if you did excel, it didn't guarantee you a job. You could still have a hard time finding one in the market place. A US programmer who excelled in school is going to have some of the best odds of getting a job (and at a higher salary) of anyone fresh out of school. Certainly better than someone fresh out of school overseas. What more do you want?
Well, it's actually happening quite rapidly in India. Salaries for programmers are rising so quickly that the cost savings of using an Indian programmer is rapidly disappearing. It's rapidly approaching the point where the only reason to hire one will be because they do their job well.
The third is really hard
Yes, because it involves fixing the education system.;-)
As for the first one... I can only point to other countries which have had steadily declining currencies without going in to a recession.
It's true that the problem is Globalization, however not the way you're describing it. As the article says, Globalization has meant that about 3 billion people have been added to the competitive landscape in the last 10 years. That's making everything more competitive.
But when it comes to things like worker protections, you need to keep in mind that right now the place where US jobs are most likely to go is Canada. Yup, the land with higher minimum wages, better environmental and worker protections, universal health care, etc. Guess what? I can hire a programmer their for less than half the cost of a US programmer. This person will understand US culture and needs almost exactly as well as their US counterpart. They will be as well educated (if not better).
While India (everyone's favorite Globalization fall guy) doesn't have all the same worker protections that the US has, in many cases they have more (remember, most countries are actually far more socialist than the US).
I should think AMD should be even more worried. Their whole 64-bit computing initiative stood to gain a huge boost in the coming year as Windows 2003 finally got 64-bit support and server configuration with >4GB became mainstreamed. Now, folks might be looking at the larger memory requirements for 64-bit systems and try to stertch it a bit with a 32-bit Intel processor for a bit longer.
On an unrelated note: the Mr. Smith reference confused me, I was thinking Mr. Smith goes to Washington. In which case, I'm all for the Mr. Smiths of Linux having their way!
Yeah, I imagine that would be confusing to someone who wasn't aware of Clay's context. I believe I'm Mr. Smith. I believe he was referring to some comments I made about Linux being a tool which exists independent of a political context, but I can't know for sure.
Yeah, this would be true if XSan was actually some kind of a new technology. It's just a licensed and ported package that's available on a wide variety of platforms. Hell, you could set it up on Dell boxes if you wanted to.
It's really not as bad as you think. A relatively naive approach is to build an automaton based on the virus definitions. It's very much like using Perl regexps to search a ton of documents. You'd be amazed how fast you can do these scans once all you do is read a byte, transition to the next state in the automaton, rinse, repeat.
Of course, you can always look at the source to figure it out.
I did read the page quite thoroughly. Perhaps I did not express myself well.
As noted in my post, normal configs for Tera RamSan's are only specked out to 2 full racks. All I was suggesting was that the config specced out for the government was a slight modification of what was already on that page.
Actually, the article is likely getting it's facts right. Check out the specs of the system.
Each Tera RamSan system can have up to 128 ports and 24 Gbit/s. It also can fill up to 2 full racks. Since the government system takes 3 full racks, I imagine it's a slightly different configuration, so reaching those numbers is not out of the question.
Note that the "aggregate I/O rate" number they are talking about is not the same as the aggregate bandwidth of the Fibre Channel ports. It's probably limited more by the memory subsystems than anything else.
Umm...Well, whether or not the grandparent poster read the article, I can't say for certain. However, it would appear *you* didn't read the article very carefully:
Man, this is getting funny. You aren't even reading the relevant posts, let alone the article. Let me quote it for you, with the salient parts emphasized in bold as you did. I replied to this comment:
Google *does not* take money for higher placement.
My response was:
Yahoo isn't taking money for higher placements either.
Your retort was that I clearly had not read the article carefully because it clearly shows that the results are..... mixed in with the main search results listings?
To clarify in case their is confusion: there is a huge difference between intermingling the results using the same relevance ranking that you normally use and bumping a listing up in the rankings. Indeed, this was highlighted in the article.
So, Yahoo is going to help paying advertisers "optimize" their sites for better rankings (i.e. tell them how to skew the results in their favor by giving the spider what it wants).
I suggest you look at Yahoo's service. All it does is give a site the same kind of reports they could get from an SEO consultant or do by themselves if they know how to get the job done. There is no "our engine would rank you better if you did foo to your site" kind of hints.
Nice troll, and congratulations on using Slashdot to help move your domain up on Google;-). A quick search clearly shows that Yahoo already has you indexed and as the first choice for at least once query.
Google *does not* take money for higher placements. That's (partially why they are revered here on Slashdot. Google's ads are separate, off to the side, and clearly marked.
Congratulations, you have failed to read the article. Yahoo isn't taking money for higher placements either. Their ads are separate, at the top of the page, and clearly marked.
What Yahoo is taking money for is spidering a site more often. That's it. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to extend the syntax of the language just means your new constructs look like existing constructs instead of method calls.
This would work great as long as the new contructs were exactly the same thing as the existing constructs, but of course the reason you are using them is that they are different. Suddenly things break and don't work together.
For example, dealing with "identity" in a distributed computing environment is very different from "identity" in a normal environment. A lot of assumptions suddenly break down. Code stops working... joy.
Yup, I missed Forth, but it's another good example. Forth, CLOS, Smalltalk.... all very old languages, and yet this is supposed to be something new. The fact that VB, Java, and C have been more popular suggests there might be a problem here.
I've a feeling that something designed to do this has got to be easier to use.
It might be easier to read, but the fundamental challenges with generic programming are essentially language and type theory problems which exist independantly of the C++ language or it's syntax.
It's kind of funny when you think about it. Smalltalk and CLOS (and for that matter their predicessors) seem quite close to what he's describing (admittedly without the XML side of things). I guess it just follows the "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" mantra.
I'm not sure why he thinks it is important that the meta object protocol stuff be done in XML. I mean, why not just in the language itself? This has been shown to work with both of the above.
The problem he's not seeing of course, is that this approach essentially results in each project having it's own "language", which must be understood before one can participate in it.
Now you can do this in C++, but look at what you need to implement to do it
It would be great, if instead, I could hook into the compiler and tell it exactly how it should handle vectors.
Umm... what makes you think that programming a compiler is going to be more straight forward than doing generic programming? That seems like a huge assumption to me.
The closest thing I've seen to what this article talks about was CLOS's MOP, which was great, but once again, a lot of people had a hard time groking it.
Globalization is applied the wrong way. For it to be ***REALLY*** effective there has to be a **LEVEL PLAYING FIELD** between all countires.
You don't even have a level playing field between two towns a mile apart, and you are asking for a level playing field worldwide? No, the point of globailization is that work will get done where it is most efficient to do so. If it was equally efficient to do it everywhere, then there would be no benefit to it.
What has to be done is simply a system of tariffs...
Your basis for your argument is that there is some direct correlation between standard of living and the price of labor. You have missed my point. Canada, as an example, enjoys higher standard of living than the US, and yet it's labor is cheaper.
Since when is it the government's job to secure your own employment?
;-)
Since communism.... oh wait....
Actually, he didn't say that it wouldn't change anything, and it certainly does change things. His point was that even if you did excel, it didn't guarantee you a job. You could still have a hard time finding one in the market place. A US programmer who excelled in school is going to have some of the best odds of getting a job (and at a higher salary) of anyone fresh out of school. Certainly better than someone fresh out of school overseas. What more do you want?
The second will happen extremely slowly
;-)
Well, it's actually happening quite rapidly in India. Salaries for programmers are rising so quickly that the cost savings of using an Indian programmer is rapidly disappearing. It's rapidly approaching the point where the only reason to hire one will be because they do their job well.
The third is really hard
Yes, because it involves fixing the education system.
As for the first one... I can only point to other countries which have had steadily declining currencies without going in to a recession.
It's true that the problem is Globalization, however not the way you're describing it. As the article says, Globalization has meant that about 3 billion people have been added to the competitive landscape in the last 10 years. That's making everything more competitive.
But when it comes to things like worker protections, you need to keep in mind that right now the place where US jobs are most likely to go is Canada. Yup, the land with higher minimum wages, better environmental and worker protections, universal health care, etc. Guess what? I can hire a programmer their for less than half the cost of a US programmer. This person will understand US culture and needs almost exactly as well as their US counterpart. They will be as well educated (if not better).
While India (everyone's favorite Globalization fall guy) doesn't have all the same worker protections that the US has, in many cases they have more (remember, most countries are actually far more socialist than the US).
I should think AMD should be even more worried. Their whole 64-bit computing initiative stood to gain a huge boost in the coming year as Windows 2003 finally got 64-bit support and server configuration with >4GB became mainstreamed. Now, folks might be looking at the larger memory requirements for 64-bit systems and try to stertch it a bit with a 32-bit Intel processor for a bit longer.
On an unrelated note: the Mr. Smith reference confused me, I was thinking Mr. Smith goes to Washington. In which case, I'm all for the Mr. Smiths of Linux having their way!
Yeah, I imagine that would be confusing to someone who wasn't aware of Clay's context. I believe I'm Mr. Smith. I believe he was referring to some comments I made about Linux being a tool which exists independent of a political context, but I can't know for sure.
The full text of the resignation e-mail can be found here.
Yeah, this would be true if XSan was actually some kind of a new technology. It's just a licensed and ported package that's available on a wide variety of platforms. Hell, you could set it up on Dell boxes if you wanted to.
It's really not as bad as you think. A relatively naive approach is to build an automaton based on the virus definitions. It's very much like using Perl regexps to search a ton of documents. You'd be amazed how fast you can do these scans once all you do is read a byte, transition to the next state in the automaton, rinse, repeat.
Of course, you can always look at the source to figure it out.
How does it cope with several source packages having different dependencies?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is the conflict you are imagining this would create?
It's not paid placement. It's paid inclusion. Very different concept. It's much harder to see the paid inclusion entries as being "ads".
I did read the page quite thoroughly. Perhaps I did not express myself well.
As noted in my post, normal configs for Tera RamSan's are only specked out to 2 full racks. All I was suggesting was that the config specced out for the government was a slight modification of what was already on that page.
Actually, the article is likely getting it's facts right. Check out the specs of the system.
Each Tera RamSan system can have up to 128 ports and 24 Gbit/s. It also can fill up to 2 full racks. Since the government system takes 3 full racks, I imagine it's a slightly different configuration, so reaching those numbers is not out of the question.
Note that the "aggregate I/O rate" number they are talking about is not the same as the aggregate bandwidth of the Fibre Channel ports. It's probably limited more by the memory subsystems than anything else.
Umm...Well, whether or not the grandparent poster read the article, I can't say for certain. However, it would appear *you* didn't read the article very carefully:
Man, this is getting funny. You aren't even reading the relevant posts, let alone the article. Let me quote it for you, with the salient parts emphasized in bold as you did. I replied to this comment:
Google *does not* take money for higher placement.
My response was:
Yahoo isn't taking money for higher placements either.
Your retort was that I clearly had not read the article carefully because it clearly shows that the results are..... mixed in with the main search results listings?
To clarify in case their is confusion: there is a huge difference between intermingling the results using the same relevance ranking that you normally use and bumping a listing up in the rankings. Indeed, this was highlighted in the article.
If anyone complains, tell them this is the email version of "Are you sure you want to delete that file?"
Great, the "Are you sure" thing has been proven to be very poor UI.
So, Yahoo is going to help paying advertisers "optimize" their sites for better rankings (i.e. tell them how to skew the results in their favor by giving the spider what it wants).
I suggest you look at Yahoo's service. All it does is give a site the same kind of reports they could get from an SEO consultant or do by themselves if they know how to get the job done. There is no "our engine would rank you better if you did foo to your site" kind of hints.
Nice troll, and congratulations on using Slashdot to help move your domain up on Google ;-). A quick search clearly shows that Yahoo already has you indexed and as the first choice for at least once query.
Google *does not* take money for higher placements. That's (partially why they are revered here on Slashdot. Google's ads are separate, off to the side, and clearly marked.
Congratulations, you have failed to read the article. Yahoo isn't taking money for higher placements either. Their ads are separate, at the top of the page, and clearly marked.
What Yahoo is taking money for is spidering a site more often. That's it. End of story.