And yet, the code produced in the world of Java, though maybe crappy and verbose will be much safer than if it was created in many other languages that were used prior for the same work due to at the very minimum the VM doing garbage collection, server containers, limiting any kind of damage and most importantly the number of available libraries and solutions, which, you have to admit, limit the scope of development done for a project. Those people who create 'crappy' code in Java would create code just as crappy in anything else and if this other thing they could be working in did not have quite as many libraries, as many artificial limiting factors - VM, containers, various code generators, the code produced would have been worse and the errors would have been worse.
I know it was a run-on sentence, but hey, I said I use Java in my projects:)
you've been had, it's a troll you are replying to. He takes the parent's sentences, reiterates and adds pointless blubbering to make the comment really long, so you'd spend some time deciphering it.
I am building big systems quickly, my comfort zone is about speed of development, security of the product, speed of response, minimization of errors, ubiquity of the platform so that the development is not cornered by lack of people familiar with it.
I am not about to do something so stupid as change a platform for the sake of changing platform when a business depends on it. Go write a blog or something.
(oh, and getters/setters are not mandatory in the language so I often skip them and use fields directly, it's not a crime, you know.)
Once again, (you are not the first coming up with this), you can chose to view or not to view various things in your IDE, like getters/setters don't need to be visible, however, I am saying that my choice is often not to use them in the first place and just to access a public/protected field directly without any getters/setters, it certainly is NOT FORBIDDEN in the language.
Geez, again with the same excuse: "My IDE generates them automatically". Yes it does, but Java IDE's are not the only one's that can do that, duh.
- 'duh' what? Where do you see me arguing against this point?
Deeper problem is that you later have to use those "fully automatically with just a few special clicks" getters and setters like this in your code: point.setX(point.getX()+1); instead of just writing point.X++;
- again, what? I said I use classes often without getters / setters, so this is exactly what I can do. Do you understand that getters / setters are a choice and are not mandatory? They are not required by the language. I think you do understand that, you just are not understanding what I wrote in my first comment.
First, getters/setters are generated by your IDE of-course, so you never have to write them by hand, however, more to the point, I have avoided many various parts of the 'Java ecosystem', while still using that language to do all sorts of development and really, you don't have to use getters/setters. I use many Java classes as simple data structures, just like C-Gods intended, no getters or setters there, just public or protected fields.
Back in time, the old glory days of Propeller driven aircraft (not the turbo-jet propellers either, just combustion engines with some closed cycle, filtered air and such.)
Even better, time to go back to the Leviathans of Air Space - Zeppelins.
To make certain that your gag reflex will cause you to vomit profusely, consider that Jack Black also may be in the movie and they will have a sex scene: Cruise on Black of-course, while Bullock pigs out on donuts.
You have a problem with the 'large operation' step there. No tax evasion charge will be laid if the operation in question does not do one of the following: 1. Threatens the current power in the country politically. 2. Does not play ball with one or more official representative of the current administration by sharing the wealth. It only takes one of the above two conditions in order for a company to be brought on tax evasion charges.
By the way, what is interesting is that what is normally defined as 'tax avoidance' or 'tax optimization' (any legal ways to minimize taxes) is considered tax evasion there. That means that any corporations or private person can be brought up on tax evasion charges when needed.
So the problems that are presented by the volcano ash to the modern day jet engines should not cause any real trouble for propeller aircraft and even less to balloon or dirigibles.
Of-course we don't have any dirigibles for commercial mass air travel and most propeller aircraft have been out of circulation for decades now.
I imagine that some propeller aircraft could be brought back for this, but what would the tickets cost?
I watched this atrocity in a movie theater, suffice it to say I walked out and this is unheard of for me. It was the worst movie in my opinion ever and I never want even to hear about this again. Thank you/. for bringing the pain back.
This will be another manner, in which government money will be pumped into the pockets of the government officials.
It has been proposed by the government there that in order to 'promote' innovation, the firms, who will be allowed to enter the zone will be selected by government officials. In the zone they will not have to pay taxes I think but the most important aspect of this is that whoever is in the zone will be getting government contracts WITHOUT any competition. So that tells you everything you need to know about what will happen. The firms selected will be the ones close to the government officials selecting them and they will get the contracts for any 'innovations', which in reality will not promote any innovation, except one type of innovation: an easier way to siphon money for the politicians and their friends/relatives/people with the right attitude towards doing business, if you know what I mean.
César Alierta, chairman of Telefónica, said Google should share some of its online advertising revenue with the telecoms groups, so as to compensate the network operators for carrying the technology company's bandwidth-hungry content over their infrastructure.
"These guys [Google] are using the networks and they don't pay anybody," he said.
Mr Alierta said that if no revenue sharing agreement was possible between the internet search engines led by Google and the network operators, regulators should supervise a settlement.
More from France:
Stéphane Richard, France Telecom's new chief executive, said: "Let's see the development of digital society in terms of the winners and the victims. And today, there is a winner who is Google. There are victims that are content providers, and to a certain extent, network operators. We cannot accept this."
From Germany:
René Obermann, Deutsche Telekom's chief executive, said Google and others should pay telecoms groups for carrying content on their networks.
"There is not a single Google service that is not reliant on network service," he said. "We cannot offer our networks for free."
And this common theme:
To increase the pressure on Google, the telecoms groups are interested in finding common cause with content owners such as media companies, which get little or no money from the technology company when it aggregates their content on Google News.
All of the above mentioned people can suck Googles Googly balls and then the balls of the collective of every customer who subscribes to their pathetic services and will immediately switch to another provider and probably will participate in an antitrust lawsuit.
This is why NET NEUTRALITY is important yet once more! This is what the greedy slimy pathetic leechy bloodsucking parasitic vomit-inducing bastards that these corporations are want from you.
These robots do not look like terrorists, they are more like either insane terrorists or a bunch of idiot pervy wankers, however, I say give them guns to shoot back and put bombs on some of them dammit, otherwise what kind of real life simulation is that?
Slashdot Mirror
fail. In Java that wouldn't compile even.
no, but you'd fail because in Java that wouldn't compile even, with assignment being used instead of a comparison. What, did /. eat your '<' ?
why don't you have a cow, not married yet?
And yet, the code produced in the world of Java, though maybe crappy and verbose will be much safer than if it was created in many other languages that were used prior for the same work due to at the very minimum the VM doing garbage collection, server containers, limiting any kind of damage and most importantly the number of available libraries and solutions, which, you have to admit, limit the scope of development done for a project. Those people who create 'crappy' code in Java would create code just as crappy in anything else and if this other thing they could be working in did not have quite as many libraries, as many artificial limiting factors - VM, containers, various code generators, the code produced would have been worse and the errors would have been worse.
I know it was a run-on sentence, but hey, I said I use Java in my projects :)
how is that different for any other language and people without taste working with them?
And by the way, what's with the 1 being used without a proper constant? There should be a JNDI call for the shared environment constant there.
Did you mean
This is Madness?
This is JAVA!!!!
Uncle Fester?
you've been had, it's a troll you are replying to. He takes the parent's sentences, reiterates and adds pointless blubbering to make the comment really long, so you'd spend some time deciphering it.
I am building big systems quickly, my comfort zone is about speed of development, security of the product, speed of response, minimization of errors, ubiquity of the platform so that the development is not cornered by lack of people familiar with it.
I am not about to do something so stupid as change a platform for the sake of changing platform when a business depends on it. Go write a blog or something.
(oh, and getters/setters are not mandatory in the language so I often skip them and use fields directly, it's not a crime, you know.)
Once again, (you are not the first coming up with this), you can chose to view or not to view various things in your IDE, like getters/setters don't need to be visible, however, I am saying that my choice is often not to use them in the first place and just to access a public/protected field directly without any getters/setters, it certainly is NOT FORBIDDEN in the language.
I guess I will have to leave the same comment over and over again. What in the language (Java in this case) makes you do any of that?
This is a dumb point.
x++ works
point.x++ works
point.moveRight(1) works
choose your poison but don't blame a language of the choice of a programmer
point.moveLeft(1) is as valid as point.x-1
Geez, again with the same excuse: "My IDE generates them automatically". Yes it does, but Java IDE's are not the only one's that can do that, duh.
- 'duh' what? Where do you see me arguing against this point?
Deeper problem is that you later have to use those "fully automatically with just a few special clicks" getters and setters like this in your code: point.setX(point.getX()+1); instead of just writing point.X++;
- again, what? I said I use classes often without getters / setters, so this is exactly what I can do. Do you understand that getters / setters are a choice and are not mandatory? They are not required by the language. I think you do understand that, you just are not understanding what I wrote in my first comment.
As long as this is my project, everything will work without getters/setters where I choose not to use them.
First, getters/setters are generated by your IDE of-course, so you never have to write them by hand, however, more to the point, I have avoided many various parts of the 'Java ecosystem', while still using that language to do all sorts of development and really, you don't have to use getters/setters. I use many Java classes as simple data structures, just like C-Gods intended, no getters or setters there, just public or protected fields.
Back in time, the old glory days of Propeller driven aircraft (not the turbo-jet propellers either, just combustion engines with some closed cycle, filtered air and such.)
Even better, time to go back to the Leviathans of Air Space - Zeppelins.
All aboard!
To make certain that your gag reflex will cause you to vomit profusely, consider that Jack Black also may be in the movie and they will have a sex scene: Cruise on Black of-course, while Bullock pigs out on donuts.
You have a problem with the 'large operation' step there. No tax evasion charge will be laid if the operation in question does not do one of the following: 1. Threatens the current power in the country politically. 2. Does not play ball with one or more official representative of the current administration by sharing the wealth. It only takes one of the above two conditions in order for a company to be brought on tax evasion charges.
By the way, what is interesting is that what is normally defined as 'tax avoidance' or 'tax optimization' (any legal ways to minimize taxes) is considered tax evasion there. That means that any corporations or private person can be brought up on tax evasion charges when needed.
So the problems that are presented by the volcano ash to the modern day jet engines should not cause any real trouble for propeller aircraft and even less to balloon or dirigibles.
Of-course we don't have any dirigibles for commercial mass air travel and most propeller aircraft have been out of circulation for decades now.
I imagine that some propeller aircraft could be brought back for this, but what would the tickets cost?
I watched this atrocity in a movie theater, suffice it to say I walked out and this is unheard of for me. It was the worst movie in my opinion ever and I never want even to hear about this again. Thank you /. for bringing the pain back.
Ve know who you are, roman_mir, and ve are comink for you. It is not long now, I tink.
- oh, shit. Oh, shit. Someone's knocking on the door. Now they are at the window! Breaking in! Hold on, there is sometthhh^%$#^%%^&
NO CARRIER
This will be another manner, in which government money will be pumped into the pockets of the government officials.
It has been proposed by the government there that in order to 'promote' innovation, the firms, who will be allowed to enter the zone will be selected by government officials. In the zone they will not have to pay taxes I think but the most important aspect of this is that whoever is in the zone will be getting government contracts WITHOUT any competition. So that tells you everything you need to know about what will happen. The firms selected will be the ones close to the government officials selecting them and they will get the contracts for any 'innovations', which in reality will not promote any innovation, except one type of innovation: an easier way to siphon money for the politicians and their friends/relatives/people with the right attitude towards doing business, if you know what I mean.
From France:
César Alierta, chairman of Telefónica, said Google should share some of its online advertising revenue with the telecoms groups, so as to compensate the network operators for carrying the technology company's bandwidth-hungry content over their infrastructure.
"These guys [Google] are using the networks and they don't pay anybody," he said.
Mr Alierta said that if no revenue sharing agreement was possible between the internet search engines led by Google and the network operators, regulators should supervise a settlement.
More from France:
Stéphane Richard, France Telecom's new chief executive, said: "Let's see the development of digital society in terms of the winners and the victims. And today, there is a winner who is Google. There are victims that are content providers, and to a certain extent, network operators. We cannot accept this."
From Germany:
René Obermann, Deutsche Telekom's chief executive, said Google and others should pay telecoms groups for carrying content on their networks.
"There is not a single Google service that is not reliant on network service," he said. "We cannot offer our networks for free."
And this common theme:
To increase the pressure on Google, the telecoms groups are interested in finding common cause with content owners such as media companies, which get little or no money from the technology company when it aggregates their content on Google News.
All of the above mentioned people can suck Googles Googly balls and then the balls of the collective of every customer who subscribes to their pathetic services and will immediately switch to another provider and probably will participate in an antitrust lawsuit.
This is why NET NEUTRALITY is important yet once more! This is what the greedy slimy pathetic leechy bloodsucking parasitic vomit-inducing bastards that these corporations are want from you.
These robots do not look like terrorists, they are more like either insane terrorists or a bunch of idiot pervy wankers, however, I say give them guns to shoot back and put bombs on some of them dammit, otherwise what kind of real life simulation is that?