- for real, you are asking me 'so what' and that's your argument? My response is simple: I am recreating an application in a browser that my users have used in the past and that is now no longer supported that used to be a stand alone applications. Some of my users think that their 'computer is broken' when somebody re-sizes a window on their desktop, those are not the kind of people who will want to switch paradigms from a desktop application to a web based one that is purely running as HTML/Javascript, so those people need to have the same experience they are used to from a desktop app, however the new app will not be installed locally, it is now a web app for reasons varying from cost of maintenance to security to ease of deployment and availability.
This single argument that you are giving: 'so what' completely dismisses actual reality.
And I bet a Java applet which attempted to render 20,000 lines all at once would perform just as poorly. It really wouldn't take much JavaScript to replicate what Java is probably doing here -- render only the rows which are actually visible, and cache the rest in RAM.
- and you would be wrong and it shows your ignorance on the issue. Rendering done by the Java applet is completely different from what a browser does. Browser needs to parse HTML out, it needs to create some form of a document (DOM) it needs to prepare for quirks, it needs to decide how to display this and then render it and THEN it also changes what it renders on the fly re-rendering it with styles etc.
Java applet has none of those issues, it does not need to parse out any documents, there are no CSSs, no javascripts, it's a layout with a table with data that needs to translation and multiple rendering passes, so as a result it responds immediately. 1 second after I load the 20,000 rows into it I can scroll ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM. At this point a browser rendered maybe 300-400 rows only that can be scrolled through and as you are scrolling you are making it work slower, it will modify the page and re-render what was done already.
Your mention of "constantly calling the server" suggests that would be a bad thing, too. The browser's HTTP cache works with XHR, so I really don't get where that's an issue unless you need the data to be downloaded all at once. - precisely, I do need it to be downloaded all at once so that user can see all of it in a single table by immediate scrolling.
And did you try anything other than GWT? Certainly, if you're going to claim this:
- about 2 months worth of all kinds of things, from plain HTML, to GWT with paginating, incubators, Bulk Renderers, Javascripts, CSS all sorts of things. Absolutely NOTHING beats an applet.
Java, as a language, is verbose as hell
- I can see your bias from this.
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World");
} }
- for a compiled language it is not that much more verbose than C or C++, in fact less so depending on what you are doing.
so I would guess that a Java library that outputs HTML is worse than a Java library
- you have no idea what you are talking about. GWT is not a library. It is a full environment that allows writing CSS/XML (for layouts and configurations) + Java instead of using javascript, a compiler that does NOT include all of the features in Java or in GWT libraries, it creates the most dense code as far as javascripts go, but to your point, if GWT was written in C or C++ or PHP or whatever it still would have been as bad in terms of amount of code as GWT is with Java right now, not because of Java but because of what GWT is doing. GWT architecture requires much more code to be written that will have to be translated into Javascript/HTML
Java in a browser is a much better environment for desktop like applications that need to handle large amounts of data without constantly calling the server than a simple HTML design that requires the browser to render all of that data. HTML + browser is one of the slowest ways of doing it, Java beats that by orders of magnitude.
I know, because I measured it. An HTML page with a table that has 20,000 lines with 8 columns takes just under a minute to render (depends on a machine, but it's a good estimate) and it only takes a second (or less) to render in a Java applet with the same table.
Even that makes a huge difference, forget about the entire desktop like feel for the app, which is hundreds of times easier to do in a Java applet than in HTML, never-mind gwt or any other help you can get from any libraries, Java+Swing is still easier to write than anything in GWT, it takes much less code to get the same functionality as well.
Just what are you talking about? Blaming a language for something that is an architectural decision?
I've been using multiple cores in a 2-quad core processor environment for over a year now, of-course my design allows me to do so and has nothing to do with the language itself.
Under GNU/Linux use taskset to attach a process by Id to a specific core (or to a number of cores) and start more than one JVM and have your application's architecture use that cluster correctly.
Not only there is constantly new Java code written for the back end, not only there are millions if not billions lines of code that are running existing services on the back end, but people are writing front end code in Java, at least for corporate environments.
Microsoft wanted to provide their own extensions and JVM that was not compliant with Sun Java while still calling the environment Java and using Sun Java trademarks and logos. The entire lawsuit was about the Java trademark. Eventually MS released their own language that is partially compatible with Java, you should know about it, it became what's known as J++ and later J#.
MS was forbidden from using the Java Compatibility trademark - the steaming coffee cup logo.
I suppose when Dumbledoor or whatever the name is kicks Hairy Pottar in the nuggets, the young magician's screeching teeth and muttering of some profane spells can create a few elements in the universe unnaturally, probably including some arsenic in the old fool's tea cup.
they have correct that correction some time ago now, you are not citizens, you are consumers - inmates - terrorists - child molesters - unique serial numbers - organ donors.
Why should this be up to an application at all? You either have a secure install or you don't, if you do, then no application would have the authority to run outside of the rules, if you don't, you have to acknowledge it as a user and force the OS not to bother forcing this.
It's FIRST: User's choice. Second: OS enforcement. Distant third: what an individual application is doing.
So if the user says: Enforce, then all calls to OS routines to allocate memory for example must be rerouted by the OS through this memory randomization thing and OS must force certain memory to be for execution and the rest to have the 'no-execution' bit set. OS should be able to make any application into a compliant one, so what's the deal?
A better argument? Sure, how about securely stabilizing oneself in an environment not suited for only 2 legs, how about standing over a small crater? How about distributing weight across more than 2 points (feet) when digging? How about using 2 legs to provide vertical stabilization, while using 4 more to move down/up a steep slope? How about redundancy? How about running quickly, as in galloping if needed? Carrying more weight than a biped can? Please, we have 2 legs as a balance between our nutrition requirements vs. our physical output, we have not evolved to work on a Moon. I am not saying hexapod is the best at everything, I am saying that being a biped on a Moon for a robot may not at all be useful for many situation except as in testing ground for human habitat or because humans and robots should share some habitat/living quarters, which also begs the question: why do that?
Well, first off people are not good at standing up without consuming energy, so a biped, if it really behaves like a human cannot turn off dynamic stabilization. A hexapod on the other hand can, a car doesn't need any dynamic stabilization at all.
Maybe there needs to be a number of different systems: cars to move things around quickly, hexapods to climb difficult terrain, androids to..., I don't know, to test environments for humans?
There is no real reason to make a humanoid robot for sending it to space at least unless the goal is somehow to share or to test living accommodations.
A smarter person yet could imagine a situation where one has a flashlight and batteries in his hands and he/she wasn't the one removing the damn batteries from the device in the first place.
I believe in one thing: duct tape. Place it over the metal antenna on your phone, it'll also gives the phone a more stylish look of a thing that JUST WORKS dammit!
Millennium. Two Ns. From Latin "mille", thousand, and "annus", year. A thousand years. If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
- I am quite certain that Perelman's decision is actually based on the fact, that he thinks those are a thousand assholes, who decide who gets the medals/prizes and those who often unfairly get them.
You are closer to the truth than you think, in Russian there is a saying: each joke has a little bit of a joke in it (which means that jokes often carry a large element of truth and a little bit of a funny side as well.)
If he is a 'true mathmetician', then, obviously you are a true onomatologist, which is false, since Perelman is a mathematician, but it may also be true, if truly mathematicians are mathmeticians.
Since you are both, True and False, you do not really exist.
Bruce, maybe your definition of nobody includes a bunch of 'small people' (in the words of BP chairman), but myself and a bunch of people I know do not buy HP products because we remember.
After watching a disaster after a disaster that is taking place in this human world for the past three decades, I decided that it is time to put forward a proposal for a new form of government that may help to reduce the number of politically caused problems for nations.
Disclaimer: I am not political scientist, the following is an idea not a full recipe.
The entire framework will be based upon 2 seemingly simple laws, here they are:
1. Government must not attempt to control economic outcomes. 2. Government must construct laws only based on scientific evidence.
The first principle is important so that the new form of government would not find itself corrupted by the financial interests.
The second principle is important to attempt and avoid meaningless policies that are created for any wrong reasons, be it political expedience, some fight over power, attempt at imposing any sort of personal moral ideas upon the population, etc.
--
This is relevant to the article, for the general public to accept science, science must be closer to home, if policies are based upon science then general acceptance of science would be increased (just like the status quo of the current political system is basically accepted.)
Without a change in politics there would be no resolve to the problem raised in TFA.
In Baden Baden there are plenty of crows, there are a couple that from time to time sit on a house across from ours and they kiss. Seriously, they sit there and then do what looks like kissing with their beaks.
Pffft, please, your plan is to have emphatically expressed dissatisfied consumers realize that your gross gains within the closing juncture exceed your long-term sustainability goals for all viability imperatives, which will allow the move to cloud-based monetization of the human-media dynamic? It is but a futile attempt, you may as well give up right now, no matter how much time your customer experience champions waste on a single call.
Here, at GOD Industries, we know better than to rely on such clearly misguided attempts of human-human interactions.
We simply induce meditative sublimation of continuous exasperation through excitation of vernacular instinctual continuum within the subject's predisposition to acceptance of the delirium through faith chakra. There is no possible manner in which the subject can abjugate oneself from the excited forces of undifferentiated love, and that is what we, at GOD Industries are specializing in: Love.
If you think your business plan can compete with ours, it is only because we haven't descended our super-existential love upon you person just yet.
Slashdot Mirror
So what?
- for real, you are asking me 'so what' and that's your argument? My response is simple: I am recreating an application in a browser that my users have used in the past and that is now no longer supported that used to be a stand alone applications. Some of my users think that their 'computer is broken' when somebody re-sizes a window on their desktop, those are not the kind of people who will want to switch paradigms from a desktop application to a web based one that is purely running as HTML/Javascript, so those people need to have the same experience they are used to from a desktop app, however the new app will not be installed locally, it is now a web app for reasons varying from cost of maintenance to security to ease of deployment and availability.
This single argument that you are giving: 'so what' completely dismisses actual reality.
And I bet a Java applet which attempted to render 20,000 lines all at once would perform just as poorly. It really wouldn't take much JavaScript to replicate what Java is probably doing here -- render only the rows which are actually visible, and cache the rest in RAM.
- and you would be wrong and it shows your ignorance on the issue. Rendering done by the Java applet is completely different from what a browser does. Browser needs to parse HTML out, it needs to create some form of a document (DOM) it needs to prepare for quirks, it needs to decide how to display this and then render it and THEN it also changes what it renders on the fly re-rendering it with styles etc.
Java applet has none of those issues, it does not need to parse out any documents, there are no CSSs, no javascripts, it's a layout with a table with data that needs to translation and multiple rendering passes, so as a result it responds immediately. 1 second after I load the 20,000 rows into it I can scroll ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM. At this point a browser rendered maybe 300-400 rows only that can be scrolled through and as you are scrolling you are making it work slower, it will modify the page and re-render what was done already.
Your mention of "constantly calling the server" suggests that would be a bad thing, too. The browser's HTTP cache works with XHR, so I really don't get where that's an issue unless you need the data to be downloaded all at once. - precisely, I do need it to be downloaded all at once so that user can see all of it in a single table by immediate scrolling.
And did you try anything other than GWT? Certainly, if you're going to claim this:
- about 2 months worth of all kinds of things, from plain HTML, to GWT with paginating, incubators, Bulk Renderers, Javascripts, CSS all sorts of things. Absolutely NOTHING beats an applet.
Java, as a language, is verbose as hell
- I can see your bias from this.
- for a compiled language it is not that much more verbose than C or C++, in fact less so depending on what you are doing.
so I would guess that a Java library that outputs HTML is worse than a Java library
- you have no idea what you are talking about. GWT is not a library. It is a full environment that allows writing CSS/XML (for layouts and configurations) + Java instead of using javascript, a compiler that does NOT include all of the features in Java or in GWT libraries, it creates the most dense code as far as javascripts go, but to your point, if GWT was written in C or C++ or PHP or whatever it still would have been as bad in terms of amount of code as GWT is with Java right now, not because of Java but because of what GWT is doing. GWT architecture requires much more code to be written that will have to be translated into Javascript/HTML
Whatever AC.
Java in a browser is a much better environment for desktop like applications that need to handle large amounts of data without constantly calling the server than a simple HTML design that requires the browser to render all of that data. HTML + browser is one of the slowest ways of doing it, Java beats that by orders of magnitude.
I know, because I measured it. An HTML page with a table that has 20,000 lines with 8 columns takes just under a minute to render (depends on a machine, but it's a good estimate) and it only takes a second (or less) to render in a Java applet with the same table.
Even that makes a huge difference, forget about the entire desktop like feel for the app, which is hundreds of times easier to do in a Java applet than in HTML, never-mind gwt or any other help you can get from any libraries, Java+Swing is still easier to write than anything in GWT, it takes much less code to get the same functionality as well.
Just what are you talking about? Blaming a language for something that is an architectural decision?
I've been using multiple cores in a 2-quad core processor environment for over a year now, of-course my design allows me to do so and has nothing to do with the language itself.
Under GNU/Linux use taskset to attach a process by Id to a specific core (or to a number of cores) and start more than one JVM and have your application's architecture use that cluster correctly.
You are insane.
Not only there is constantly new Java code written for the back end, not only there are millions if not billions lines of code that are running existing services on the back end, but people are writing front end code in Java, at least for corporate environments.
How do I know? I am writing some of it.
You are wrong.
Microsoft wanted to provide their own extensions and JVM that was not compliant with Sun Java while still calling the environment Java and using Sun Java trademarks and logos. The entire lawsuit was about the Java trademark. Eventually MS released their own language that is partially compatible with Java, you should know about it, it became what's known as J++ and later J#.
MS was forbidden from using the Java Compatibility trademark - the steaming coffee cup logo.
I suppose when Dumbledoor or whatever the name is kicks Hairy Pottar in the nuggets, the young magician's screeching teeth and muttering of some profane spells can create a few elements in the universe unnaturally, probably including some arsenic in the old fool's tea cup.
Everything else is occurring naturally.
No I didn't, or did you misread it as "voluntary organ donors"?
they have correct that correction some time ago now, you are not citizens, you are consumers - inmates - terrorists - child molesters - unique serial numbers - organ donors.
Why should this be up to an application at all? You either have a secure install or you don't, if you do, then no application would have the authority to run outside of the rules, if you don't, you have to acknowledge it as a user and force the OS not to bother forcing this.
It's FIRST: User's choice. Second: OS enforcement. Distant third: what an individual application is doing.
So if the user says: Enforce, then all calls to OS routines to allocate memory for example must be rerouted by the OS through this memory randomization thing and OS must force certain memory to be for execution and the rest to have the 'no-execution' bit set. OS should be able to make any application into a compliant one, so what's the deal?
A better argument? Sure, how about securely stabilizing oneself in an environment not suited for only 2 legs, how about standing over a small crater? How about distributing weight across more than 2 points (feet) when digging? How about using 2 legs to provide vertical stabilization, while using 4 more to move down/up a steep slope? How about redundancy? How about running quickly, as in galloping if needed? Carrying more weight than a biped can? Please, we have 2 legs as a balance between our nutrition requirements vs. our physical output, we have not evolved to work on a Moon. I am not saying hexapod is the best at everything, I am saying that being a biped on a Moon for a robot may not at all be useful for many situation except as in testing ground for human habitat or because humans and robots should share some habitat/living quarters, which also begs the question: why do that?
Well, first off people are not good at standing up without consuming energy, so a biped, if it really behaves like a human cannot turn off dynamic stabilization. A hexapod on the other hand can, a car doesn't need any dynamic stabilization at all.
Maybe there needs to be a number of different systems: cars to move things around quickly, hexapods to climb difficult terrain, androids to..., I don't know, to test environments for humans?
There is no real reason to make a humanoid robot for sending it to space at least unless the goal is somehow to share or to test living accommodations.
arrange
on a range
on a ranch
on a wrench
ore rearrange
A smarter person yet could imagine a situation where one has a flashlight and batteries in his hands and he/she wasn't the one removing the damn batteries from the device in the first place.
I believe in one thing: duct tape. Place it over the metal antenna on your phone, it'll also gives the phone a more stylish look of a thing that JUST WORKS dammit!
Millennium. Two Ns. From Latin "mille", thousand, and "annus", year. A thousand years.
If you write it with only one N, it would be derived from mille and anus, which would be "a thousand assholes".
- I am quite certain that Perelman's decision is actually based on the fact, that he thinks those are a thousand assholes, who decide who gets the medals/prizes and those who often unfairly get them.
You are closer to the truth than you think, in Russian there is a saying: each joke has a little bit of a joke in it (which means that jokes often carry a large element of truth and a little bit of a funny side as well.)
Good work.
If he is a 'true mathmetician', then, obviously you are a true onomatologist, which is false, since Perelman is a mathematician, but it may also be true, if truly mathematicians are mathmeticians.
Since you are both, True and False, you do not really exist.
There, I am a true phlosifar.
Bruce, maybe your definition of nobody includes a bunch of 'small people' (in the words of BP chairman), but myself and a bunch of people I know do not buy HP products because we remember.
Proposal for a New Form of Government
After watching a disaster after a disaster that is taking place in this human world for the past three decades, I decided that it is time to put forward a proposal for a new form of government that may help to reduce the number of politically caused problems for nations.
Disclaimer: I am not political scientist, the following is an idea not a full recipe.
The entire framework will be based upon 2 seemingly simple laws, here they are:
1. Government must not attempt to control economic outcomes.
2. Government must construct laws only based on scientific evidence.
The first principle is important so that the new form of government would not find itself corrupted by the financial interests.
The second principle is important to attempt and avoid meaningless policies that are created for any wrong reasons, be it political expedience, some fight over power, attempt at imposing any sort of personal moral ideas upon the population, etc.
--
This is relevant to the article, for the general public to accept science, science must be closer to home, if policies are based upon science then general acceptance of science would be increased (just like the status quo of the current political system is basically accepted.)
Without a change in politics there would be no resolve to the problem raised in TFA.
sure, enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but if they take some ground from underneath each other it only helps the cause.
I am just sitting back, enjoying the show: religion versus state, no matter who loses, I win.
Are those European or African Walruses? Or the kind that BP advices to watch out for in the Gulf of Mexico?
I can buy a gun in US without any ID, why wouldn't I be able to buy a prepaid phone without one?
In Baden Baden there are plenty of crows, there are a couple that from time to time sit on a house across from ours and they kiss. Seriously, they sit there and then do what looks like kissing with their beaks.
Pffft, please, your plan is to have emphatically expressed dissatisfied consumers realize that your gross gains within the closing juncture exceed your long-term sustainability goals for all viability imperatives, which will allow the move to cloud-based monetization of the human-media dynamic? It is but a futile attempt, you may as well give up right now, no matter how much time your customer experience champions waste on a single call.
Here, at GOD Industries, we know better than to rely on such clearly misguided attempts of human-human interactions.
We simply induce meditative sublimation of continuous exasperation through excitation of vernacular instinctual continuum within the subject's predisposition to acceptance of the delirium through faith chakra. There is no possible manner in which the subject can abjugate oneself from the excited forces of undifferentiated love, and that is what we, at GOD Industries are specializing in: Love.
If you think your business plan can compete with ours, it is only because we haven't descended our super-existential love upon you person just yet.
In the face of overwhelming evidence you refuse to accept the fact, I might as well be talking to a republican.