1. Have a look at their PDF about the device. Look at the keys. The keyboard uses the Apple keyboard font, and even has a clover-leaf command key. MOST CURIOUS! (not really) 2. Their other model is made out of eMate-like plastic. Translucent and about the same color.
Frankly, this doesn't seem to bMate to me. In a lot of ways, it's inferior to the eMate. Anyone know the speed of the CPU in this? I imagine it's a 33 MHz Dragonball, but would love to find out otherwise. The eMate had a 25 MHz ARM710. Not to mention the bigger screen (480x320) and a much nicer OS.:)
That's all fine and dandy, but Java sucks- everyone knows that. If you want C/C++, use them; if you want something better, you step up to Smalltalk or Lisp.:P I mean, no one uses Java unless they're forced to. Or brainwashed.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those video editors weren't the GIMP equivalent, but more like the xv to Photoshop... Or at least GIMP 0.2.;)
As I read through the comments, I was a little off- it's for 3 DVDs out at any time for that $20 plan, and 8 for the $40. Considering how much my retarded roomate spends at Blockbuster (driving 20 minutes, rather than a 5 minute walk to a cheaper place down the block), I should convince him to sign up.
Sounds like a lot of the collection stations are pretty close... you could always have one new DVD sitting on your player, waiting until you came home, one for each day. Not too shabby, IMO.
As someone pointed out, CMUCL includes a real-live compiler. Other Common Lisp implementations do as well. While my other example, Smalltalk, isn't compiled to native machine code, it is compiled to bytecode where it is then JITed. More or less compiled, at least, it's a lot closer to compilation than interpretation.:)
I can't speak for any other implementation of Smalltalk or Common Lisp, but Squeak Smalltalk does bounds checking at runtime. It does it with in the Smalltalk object-space via regular Smalltalk methods and not in the VM.
It's not for *a* single DVD. With NetFlix, I think the deal is you get 6 out at a time. Which is $3.something per DVD. Cheaper than Blockbuster, which is $4 (!!) aroundh ere, and a about the same as Mr. Movies.
Also... while you may have 6 out at a time, I don't think there's a limit to how many you can borrow total- as long as you return movies you're done with before you check more out.
The fact that REXX is being used isn't the problem. REXX is a fine language for text procesing and such. Converting those pesky "english-like" 4GLs are a pain to convert or even read- this project sounds like a pain in the ass. No other language is going to be a magic bullet for it, unless you find some special one dedicated to conversion between languages.:P
Why are you so keen on their using the OO aspects of REXX? While REXX can (it depends on the implementation) full OO facilities (contrary to what one other poster said), that's not going to make it go any faster either.
Heh. Perl is just a second-rate awk clone with some new and ugly syntax and libraries that almost no one uses.
Re:Perl's had it's day - It's become like COBOL
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
I too prefer the simplicity of Scheme. I've never done any huge projects in either of them, but even when writing scripts, the hugeness of libs in CL payed off. SLIB helps some, but it still is a drop of water in the bucket known as the standard CL library. CL is a bit bloated, but darn, those libs can sure be useful.
Nah, I'm not dissing emacs. Just comparing myself to one of those people that do everything out of emacs. Except Squeak is a little more "normal" as far as UI is concerned. You know, windows, widgets, a mouse and all.
Squeak can be a little hard to get into, especially considering how it doesn't integrate into the host environment much at all. That is, no native widgets, &c. But once you do, it's like the shackles of so-called "modern" operating systems have been taken off, and you're free to change anything in your environment. Sure, you could do so in Linux, but making a comparible change in C/GTK+ would probably take 10 times more time and 15 times more code. And at that point, why bother?
Elisp is ugly (compared to Scheme and CL), but I'd rather have most of my editor written in elisp over C/C++ anyday.
Re:Most languages stick around through inertia
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
Huh? I didn't say CPAN provided security. It's just a little spooky- perl -MCPAN -e 'install SomeGuy::MyPackage'. CPAN doesn't do any rigorous testing to make sure that it's not going to 0wnZ your system. Sure, you should look into that yourself, but people don't do that, it's a pain in the butt.
CPAN is way cool, but it does open new doors for people to waltz right through.
Lisp unreadable? Once you learn the syntax - (function arg1 arg2... argN) - it seems pretty damn simple to me. Unless you write your Lisp programs all on one line, like those Obscuf-perl people, it's quite readable. In fact, that's what emacs is for. Indenting Lisp code.
Personally, I like having 1 main syntax rule over having 200 little annoying ones. It means I have to learn less to get the same amount of work done. Some people like a fruitless challenge like learning an obese syntax, and that's fine. Not me, though.
Don't look at me, I never said it was write-only. I was making a joke about Wall's presumption that perl is more natural than other languges. Perhaps you mean to reply to my parent?
Of course not. They just have to put a lot of extra effort in to deal with Java's immaturity and spend more on a the solution than they'd have to. They could write everything in INTERCAL such that it worked and was very robust. It'd just be a pain in the ass.
Re:Most languages stick around through inertia
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
CPAN-style modularity comes at the price of security.
ajm isn't talking about dumping perl to use C/C++/Java. You're right in your comparison of perl to them, but I say dump all but C, which you use to write the better languages until said better languages are completely self-hosting.:P
Re:Perl's had it's day - It's become like COBOL
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
Indeed, I use Smalltalk for almost everything, including scripting. I could do it in fewer lines in perl no doubt, but it'll take me 5 times as long to write. But then again, Squeak is basically my OS. I'm like one of those emacs people who have emacs as their OS- only smarter. (only because Squeak does more than emacs as far as end-user stuff! )
I like Scheme because it's consistent. But it's so spartan, which can be a pain for real work. Common Lisp all the way.
Still, there's not much of a difference between perl, ruby and python. Some syntax, even less semantics. Ruby seems definately the nicest out of them, but if you know perl, why bother learning it for almost no benefit? Rather, you'd take a hit in functionality, due to fewer libs Ruby has compared to perl.
While I'm a Mac user, I find this funny. It's like when a retail joint marks everything up 30%, and then has a "massive!! one time!!" sale, everyting 20% off. Consumers, not knowing better, rejoice. Apple gives us a slow OS, and then makes it a little faster, and everyone sings praises.
Last week, OS 9 ate my HD. So I've been using my NeXT cube- 25 MHz 68040, 24 MB RAM, running NeXTSTEP 3.3. The sad thing is, it feels as fast as my iBook 500 MHz running OS X 10.1.4 most of the times, sometimes faster. So, no, it didn't have to be this way. Alas, it's still good that they're improving it!
Re:Perl's had it's day - It's become like COBOL
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
Java's regexes seem evil to you for a good reason. Java isn't extensible, so you can't add lovely syntax for regexes, which do much better with a special syntax to accomodate them.
For example, I was reading some Java2 1.4 docs, where they were gushing over the new regex libs.
In perl, you'd say something like: $s = "howdy partner"; if ($s =~/howdy/) { print "yay!\n"; }
In Java: String s = String new("howdy partner"); Regex r = r new; r.compile("/howdy/"); if ( r.match(s) ) {
System.out.print("nay to java!"); }
Christ, that's ugly.
I'm not a Java or perl programmer, so this won't compile, but the gist of it is there.
Re:Perl's had it's day - It's become like COBOL
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
Learning from previous perls is exactly what Perl 6 is doing.
Why should everyone put up with Python or PHP just because you've deamed perl old news? How do python, ruby or php do what perl does better? They don't. They do a few things differently, but they're all very similar and very much in the same mindspace. If you're going to abandon perl, you're not going to find anything revolutionary in those languages. Useful like perl they are, but they're nothing new.
Frankly, I'm not much of a perl fan, and I only use it when I have to do so to keep from being forced to use something like C, C++, Java, Pascal, Python, or PHP. But it still can be quite useful, still has it's place and fans. So does COBOL, which is a good thing, because there are 6-million-odd lines of COBOL still running businesses, and it'd be a shame if at least some of those those stuck maintaining it didn't enjoy it.
If you ask Wall, he says that it looks like garbage because it's more "natural," and in alignment with "how we think." If perl is the most efficient way to express the way Wall thinks- be afraid. Be very afraid.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Two other eMate-a-likities...
1. Have a look at their PDF about the device. Look at the keys. The keyboard uses the Apple keyboard font, and even has a clover-leaf command key. MOST CURIOUS! (not really)
2. Their other model is made out of eMate-like plastic. Translucent and about the same color.
But don't say that around here! You'll get called an "Amiga-loving faggot," [sic] or worse. :)
Frankly, this doesn't seem to bMate to me. In a lot of ways, it's inferior to the eMate. Anyone know the speed of the CPU in this? I imagine it's a 33 MHz Dragonball, but would love to find out otherwise. The eMate had a 25 MHz ARM710. Not to mention the bigger screen (480x320) and a much nicer OS. :)
That's all fine and dandy, but Java sucks- everyone knows that. If you want C/C++, use them; if you want something better, you step up to Smalltalk or Lisp. :P I mean, no one uses Java unless they're forced to. Or brainwashed.
<duck>
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those video editors weren't the GIMP equivalent, but more like the xv to Photoshop... Or at least GIMP 0.2. ;)
As I read through the comments, I was a little off- it's for 3 DVDs out at any time for that $20 plan, and 8 for the $40. Considering how much my retarded roomate spends at Blockbuster (driving 20 minutes, rather than a 5 minute walk to a cheaper place down the block), I should convince him to sign up.
Sounds like a lot of the collection stations are pretty close... you could always have one new DVD sitting on your player, waiting until you came home, one for each day. Not too shabby, IMO.
As someone pointed out, CMUCL includes a real-live compiler. Other Common Lisp implementations do as well. While my other example, Smalltalk, isn't compiled to native machine code, it is compiled to bytecode where it is then JITed. More or less compiled, at least, it's a lot closer to compilation than interpretation. :)
I can't speak for any other implementation of Smalltalk or Common Lisp, but Squeak Smalltalk does bounds checking at runtime. It does it with in the Smalltalk object-space via regular Smalltalk methods and not in the VM.
Flamebait my rear end. He'd get exactly what he was asking for, and a helluva lot more. (in a good way) :)
Need bounds checking for Linux? May I suggest the CMU Common Lisp interpreter and compiler (to machine code) or perhaps Smalltalk. :)
It's not for *a* single DVD. With NetFlix, I think the deal is you get 6 out at a time. Which is $3.something per DVD. Cheaper than Blockbuster, which is $4 (!!) aroundh ere, and a about the same as Mr. Movies.
Also... while you may have 6 out at a time, I don't think there's a limit to how many you can borrow total- as long as you return movies you're done with before you check more out.
The fact that REXX is being used isn't the problem. REXX is a fine language for text procesing and such. Converting those pesky "english-like" 4GLs are a pain to convert or even read- this project sounds like a pain in the ass. No other language is going to be a magic bullet for it, unless you find some special one dedicated to conversion between languages. :P
Why are you so keen on their using the OO aspects of REXX? While REXX can (it depends on the implementation) full OO facilities (contrary to what one other poster said), that's not going to make it go any faster either.
Indeed on that one, roger roger. I'm from MN too- represent! :)
:)
Also, if I may ask... what the hell does "ChristTrekker" mean? Hiking for Jesus? Or that you're trekking away from Yeshua?
Heh. Perl is just a second-rate awk clone with some new and ugly syntax and libraries that almost no one uses.
I too prefer the simplicity of Scheme. I've never done any huge projects in either of them, but even when writing scripts, the hugeness of libs in CL payed off. SLIB helps some, but it still is a drop of water in the bucket known as the standard CL library. CL is a bit bloated, but darn, those libs can sure be useful.
Nah, I'm not dissing emacs. Just comparing myself to one of those people that do everything out of emacs. Except Squeak is a little more "normal" as far as UI is concerned. You know, windows, widgets, a mouse and all.
Squeak can be a little hard to get into, especially considering how it doesn't integrate into the host environment much at all. That is, no native widgets, &c. But once you do, it's like the shackles of so-called "modern" operating systems have been taken off, and you're free to change anything in your environment. Sure, you could do so in Linux, but making a comparible change in C/GTK+ would probably take 10 times more time and 15 times more code. And at that point, why bother?
Elisp is ugly (compared to Scheme and CL), but I'd rather have most of my editor written in elisp over C/C++ anyday.
Huh? I didn't say CPAN provided security. It's just a little spooky- perl -MCPAN -e 'install SomeGuy::MyPackage'. CPAN doesn't do any rigorous testing to make sure that it's not going to 0wnZ your system. Sure, you should look into that yourself, but people don't do that, it's a pain in the butt.
CPAN is way cool, but it does open new doors for people to waltz right through.
Lisp unreadable? Once you learn the syntax - (function arg1 arg2 ... argN) - it seems pretty damn simple to me. Unless you write your Lisp programs all on one line, like those Obscuf-perl people, it's quite readable. In fact, that's what emacs is for. Indenting Lisp code.
Personally, I like having 1 main syntax rule over having 200 little annoying ones. It means I have to learn less to get the same amount of work done. Some people like a fruitless challenge like learning an obese syntax, and that's fine. Not me, though.
Don't look at me, I never said it was write-only. I was making a joke about Wall's presumption that perl is more natural than other languges. Perhaps you mean to reply to my parent?
Of course not. They just have to put a lot of extra effort in to deal with Java's immaturity and spend more on a the solution than they'd have to. They could write everything in INTERCAL such that it worked and was very robust. It'd just be a pain in the ass.
CPAN-style modularity comes at the price of security.
:P
ajm isn't talking about dumping perl to use C/C++/Java. You're right in your comparison of perl to them, but I say dump all but C, which you use to write the better languages until said better languages are completely self-hosting.
Indeed, I use Smalltalk for almost everything, including scripting. I could do it in fewer lines in perl no doubt, but it'll take me 5 times as long to write. But then again, Squeak is basically my OS. I'm like one of those emacs people who have emacs as their OS- only smarter. (only because Squeak does more than emacs as far as end-user stuff! )
I like Scheme because it's consistent. But it's so spartan, which can be a pain for real work. Common Lisp all the way.
Still, there's not much of a difference between perl, ruby and python. Some syntax, even less semantics. Ruby seems definately the nicest out of them, but if you know perl, why bother learning it for almost no benefit? Rather, you'd take a hit in functionality, due to fewer libs Ruby has compared to perl.
"Thank You apple"
While I'm a Mac user, I find this funny. It's like when a retail joint marks everything up 30%, and then has a "massive!! one time!!" sale, everyting 20% off. Consumers, not knowing better, rejoice. Apple gives us a slow OS, and then makes it a little faster, and everyone sings praises.
Last week, OS 9 ate my HD. So I've been using my NeXT cube- 25 MHz 68040, 24 MB RAM, running NeXTSTEP 3.3. The sad thing is, it feels as fast as my iBook 500 MHz running OS X 10.1.4 most of the times, sometimes faster. So, no, it didn't have to be this way. Alas, it's still good that they're improving it!
Java's regexes seem evil to you for a good reason. Java isn't extensible, so you can't add lovely syntax for regexes, which do much better with a special syntax to accomodate them.
/howdy/) { print "yay!\n"; }
For example, I was reading some Java2 1.4 docs, where they were gushing over the new regex libs.
In perl, you'd say something like:
$s = "howdy partner";
if ($s =~
In Java:
String s = String new("howdy partner");
Regex r = r new;
r.compile("/howdy/");
if ( r.match(s) ) {
System.out.print("nay to java!");
}
Christ, that's ugly.
I'm not a Java or perl programmer, so this won't compile, but the gist of it is there.
Learning from previous perls is exactly what Perl 6 is doing.
Why should everyone put up with Python or PHP just because you've deamed perl old news? How do python, ruby or php do what perl does better? They don't. They do a few things differently, but they're all very similar and very much in the same mindspace. If you're going to abandon perl, you're not going to find anything revolutionary in those languages. Useful like perl they are, but they're nothing new.
Frankly, I'm not much of a perl fan, and I only use it when I have to do so to keep from being forced to use something like C, C++, Java, Pascal, Python, or PHP. But it still can be quite useful, still has it's place and fans. So does COBOL, which is a good thing, because there are 6-million-odd lines of COBOL still running businesses, and it'd be a shame if at least some of those those stuck maintaining it didn't enjoy it.
If you ask Wall, he says that it looks like garbage because it's more "natural," and in alignment with "how we think." If perl is the most efficient way to express the way Wall thinks- be afraid. Be very afraid. :)
Someone mod this up- there are a lot of cornfused slashkiddiez in the house, and this may be just what they need!