I'm one of the lucky ones who snagged one of the Powerbook G3/400's at CompUSA about a month ago. This is my first Macintosh (my old Dell served me well), and I picked it up primarily because I've been really impressed with Apple's performance & attitude lately - plus the MacOS has really grown on me, and I can run LinuxPPC on this at blazing PowerPC speeds...
Anyhow, my impression so far is sheer bliss. This laptop is great - huge screen, comfortable keyboard & trackpad, great connectivity & speed. The SCSI connection is a great touch, and the USB 2-button mouse I bought works well (who sez you can't have 2-buttons on a Mac?:)... VirtualPC running Win95 is acceptable performance-wise & I can do some WebObjects development with it when I'm travelling on the plane...
My only problems so far are minimal: there were marks on the screen when I first got the laptop, apparently from the keyboard rubbing against the plastic wrap on the screen during shipping. Windex cleaned that up. I also have a dead pixel on the screen, which is only noticable when the screen is on certain colour-shades... considering that the "bad screen limit" is around 3 to 5 dead pixels, this is an acceptable problem...
the DVD player is great & I'm already watched several movies on it.. the battery life on low-processor speed mode is around 3.5 hours... 2.8 hours otherwise. (which is unfortunately less than Apple's way over stated 5 hours battery life, which I'm sure is possible, but only if I had the laptop just "sitting there" for 5 hours:))
I still have to put LinuxPPC on this thing, but so far, so good...
This seems to be a pervading theme around the OSS community.. if a perfectly great piece of proprietary software is out there, the RMS-led mantra is to re-write it for "ourselves" so it's been cleansed and blessed by the FSF. Until a free alternative is available, it would be immoral to use the proprietary software.
In such a scenario, is co-existence not an option? I think most linux users are also proprietary software users, so this isn't really a complaint, just a question about this ideal we're supposedly heading towards..
Here's my opinion, coming from a former Windows user turned linux user turned Macintosh owner...
I actually like the modal menu idea. I've never had the need to have multiple menus on multiple windows. I do keep lots of windows open at once, too.
Resizing from one corner is annoying for expert users, but nice for people who don't want to have to target the damn border in Windows. Note that one of the most popular X window managers out there is Window Maker, which allows resizing from only two corners (the bottom ones). This is a popular feature.
I also LIKE it when I switch to the finder and all of my windows pop up so I don't have to dig for them.
I don't consider myself all that unique, so I'm not trying to say "my way is the only way" - I'm trying to say that many of the flexibilities you're asking for are things that many people just don't give a damn about. Sure, it'd be nice for them to be there, but WOW do they ever get in the way sometimes (lest we not forget the RedHat X windows backspace key mapping annoyances of yesteryear).
These "glossed over" features of the Mac UI are not trash for many people. I find the Mac to be the most productive interface I've been exposed to thus far, with NeXT/Window Maker and OS/2 tied for a close second. I'm definitely not alone on this.
In the end, we're talking about two extremes: ultimate flexiblity vs. ultimate simplicity. What we need/want is BOTH. Amiga sorta had this... I'm hoping Mac OS X will be a first step down the road to this. Gnome is sorta a baby step, but it's still rather fragile. KDE doesn't really expand the horizons of intuitiveness, even if it is probably the most useful enviro for Linux right now (though I like GMC way-way-way more than KFM)...
Funny that - 21,000 paying developers at this year's JavaOne expo. Quite a cold reception.
What's the problem with session ID's, again?
Since you (or your predecessors) are the people who built the internet, you do realize that they can track you WITHOUT those, through webserver logs.
That would logically mean that there probably was another reason for it. I mean, you're not one to give into silly conspiracy theories, are you?
Oh wait, you forgot also that *SUN* helped build the internet - that Bill Joy pushed the use of TCP/IP commercially in the early 80's and actually WROTE the first UNIX-os that included a TCP/IP stack. Pity.
These grandiose statements that "Sun is faling with Java among the 31337 programmer community" never cease to make me smile.
The open source community's opinion does not reflect world opinion. I also question that the open source community is "technologically savvy" from a programming perspective. Talent is a rare thing in general, and while OSS is lucky to have several very talented programmers (Linus, Alan, Alfredo, etc.), it seems that those people aren't the type to blow-pipe over "Why XXX sucks", whereas the people who couldn't code themselves out of a box troll Slashdot with their ignorant drivel.
Java is an over-hyped technology that doesn't provide any advancement in the art of programming. It is, however a valiant attempt at doing "objects over again", to make up where C++ and Smalltalk failed. [Not that these languages are failures, but in 1999, C++ is a technological mess, and Smalltalk is a business mess.]
Amazon has given me some of the best customer service I've received *anywhere*. Fatbrain/computer-literacy have screwed up my orders before, have had poor turn-around times, and in general weren't very receptive to me as a customer.
On amazon, I've gotten turn-arounds in a matter of hours, I've never had a screw up, and any order modifications I've made were done with a simple request. I've gotten my regular post packages bumped up to UPS countless times, I've received thank you gifts from them, I can make money from them as an associate, and now I can buy CD's, toys and games from them.
Amazon's only screw up, imho, was their entry into the auction's market. I don't see the benefit in getting in here, given eBay's dominance. Perhaps Jeff Bezos will prove me wrong on this. I'm not holding my breath.
Their electronics section seems fine, though I think they're going to run into problems with providing detailed specs.. a quick search through the site reveals that some products don't come with complete specs, which is something I know I want to see.
In the end, Amazon is not an internet company. They're not a technology company either. They're a retailer. Their business model revolves around *ONE CONCEPT*: customer service.
Early investors in Amazon spotted this key element to Bezos' business plan, and jumped on it. Bezos has repeated the mantra in business magazines across the country: "We are not an internet company. We are in the business of making customer's lives easier. We are a customer service company."
If you don't buy the customer-service-as-business-model line, then you shouldn't invest in Amazon.
I'm not joking. The innards of those boxes are a mess. They're *GREAT* if what you need is basically a cheap server. If you want a reliable server, look elsewhere.
Compare the reliability & performance of one of those to an IBM NetFinity server. I think you'll find the NetFinity's slightly higher price is acceptable.
Q: Which OS is more mature and technologically advanced?
Q: Which OS has a better GUI architecture?
Q: What's more important to me: speed + ease of use, or open source?
Q: If open source is more important to me, is it because I actually contribute to the cause, because I like to spread my religious beliefs around without actually contributing, or I just like to jump on the latest cool bandwagon?
I think you'll find a suitable argument for QNX in there.
Open source works. It is a great cause. In times of technology debate, however, I do not accept the RMS-like argument that "you are being immoral by using proprietary sw". I accept the Linus Torvalds argument: he who writes the code chooses the licence and may the best technology win.
IF the whole point to open source becomes the "community-driven" mandate to use lower-quality (but free!) applications and operating systems, I fear the rapid growth we've seen in our area will come to a screetching halt. Linux has succeeded in the mainstream thus far because it actually HAS surpassed many proprietary OS's in terms of features & overall stability. To believe that ALL oss projects will turn out that way is surely a very naive view.
while many U.S. banks include braile by their ATM machines, there's a really interesting precedent that was recently set: apparently, a large bank (Wells Fargo?) just lost a class action suit over lack of blind-assisted ATM's.
Apparently, adding braile to the location isn't enough - only slightly over 10% of the blind population actually UNDERSTANDS braile!:)
So, an audio-based ATM may be the solution, but I kinda feel disappointed that so few people understand braile.
The company I work for right now is pretty much based upon the business theory that you should hire people primarily for learning capacity & speed - not necessarily skills & experience.
"Traditional" classroom training can be slow - especially when you have people that don't learn well in that sort of an environment. There are many different techniques to training: one-on-one, group, individual study, workshops, seminars, etc. Different topics are suited to different types of training, and different people are better suited to different types of training.
For instance, I'm a big believer that programming is an intense one-on-one experience. Once you feel what it's like to "pair program", it's hard to go back to the "lone hacker" paradigm.
Apple fixed many of the original problems with the APSL in v1.1... what are the problems now?
From my reading of it:
- The only cause for "code suspension" is if someone uses a patented-technique in their code. In such a case Apple may re-write the affected portion, or fight it legally, but in the end *it's up to the courts*.
- The only cause for "Termination" is if you sue Apple for patent infringement, break a term of the license, or a court says that the license is legally bogus.
These seem like reasonable and acceptable limits. What more do you want?
I understand that you're not joking. "Silver bullet" syndrome is rampant in IT departments everywhere.
However, Java is yet another attempt at bringing banks ahead in the technology curve. Smalltalk attempted to replace COBOL as the business systems language du jour - it failed, unfortunately, due to its fragmented market, inability to compete in the mainstream with C++, and a huge lack of experience in designing/building object oriented systems.
This doesn't mean that objects were useless - they're not a silver bullet obviously, but they're a good step forward in how we program systems. Java is another attempt at bringing this paradigm to the large-systems world.
I guess you can look at Java two ways: either it's another snake-oil product being peddled by the OO industry (i.e. IBM), or it's another attempt at pushing modern programming practices on the large systems of the world (which run on IBM servers... notice a trend here?)
IBM is pushing Java hard because it integrates their whole product line WHILE providing a language to effectively supercede COBOL in the long run.. (though COBOL will never cease to exist...:)
They tried doing this with Smalltalk, but failed due to the fragmented market.. that's also why a unified Java front is so important to IBM & Sun. We can't see the mistakes of yesterday repeated.
So will they succeed? With so much support & weight behind Java, it will be at least a moderate success (Smalltalk is considered a "small" success in most people's books:)... This is probably a good thing, as it will hopefully pave the way for even better technologies down the road...
I've always liked AMD, and their technology has almost always been slightly to moderately superior to Intel's.... What sucks is that as a _business_ AMD has been largely disfunctional.
Manufacturing shortages, bad batches, etc. have plagued the company for years. What good will the K7 be if they can't meet demand? Joe-average isn't going to wait, nor is the uber-geek (who typically has the patience level of a thimble).
I'm concerned the K7 will be another tragedy of great technology executed by a poor business.
I'm pretty sure I saw a copy of Orgazmo at my local Blockbuster.... and the director's cut of films like Basic Instinct, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, etc.
I really like the Three Amigos. They've done some great work, and all have contributed much to the OO cause....
However, I tend to take these processes with a grain of salt. They definitely are about "programming in the large". Many of these big-M methodologies require more documentation than actual code, which is questionable when time to market and flexibility ar requirements. (And when aren't they?)
Far more interesting work is being done in the small-m methodology arena, especially with SCRUM and eXtreme Programming. These methods acknowledge that software development is a complex process yet consists of small, relatively simple concepts. (XP suggests there are four concepts to software engineering: Coding, Testing, Listening and Refactoring. While work in this area is young, I think I agree.)
Check out http://jeffsutherland.org for info on SCRUM, and http://c2.com 's WikiWiki server for info on ExtremeProgramming.
I'm almost certain their process is a hybrid iterative/incremental method, based on my familiarity with Jacobsen's Objectory process and Booch's writings.
The Rational process is definitely a big-M methodology, so proceed with caution & grains of salt handy.
Also, since they're the stewards of UML, I'm pretty sure they advocate code generation with it, though this seems to be somewhat of a religious issue.
I don't believe code generation tools are at the point where they deliver real business value unless you're working with an amazingly large system with an amazingly large number of developers, and need a generated "code foundation". (By this I mean 1 million++ lines of code and over 12 people on the project). Thankfully, most organizations stay away from those kinds of monster-projects and split them up into digestable sizes.
I'm not implying that business systems SHOULDN'T be developed in emacs/vi - I know some that have - it's just that I wonder how often it is done, and how effective it really is versus VisualAge.
While I really like emacs, vi, gcc & gdb, can someone please tell me if a large business Java or C++ system has been developed with these tools?
I hear lots of "all Java IDEs suck, use emacs or vi", but I don't know if this is C-programmer machismo or not. Maybe you have to appreciate Smalltalk to understand why VisualAge is the way it is, and why so many people are effective in it.
Sure, it's not a great GUI designer, but I don't think Symantec Cafe generates clean GUI code either.
When not using VAJ, I use Emacs (in Viper mode:) for my Java development because it IS a great editor - however, I still find I miss the packages/classes/methods interface (and the one for Emacs wasn't very usable), as well as the incremental compile and automatic method-level version control.
I guess what I'm saying is - the typical VisualAge user probably comes from a different world from the Linux C hacker. But, they both have one thing in common: most hate Microsoft.:) VisualAger's are going to be VERY happy to use VisualAge on something other than OS/2 or AIX...
So, I think it's going to be interesting to see hordes of experienced OO developers flocking to Linux because their tool of choice has freed them from Windows. (Since object oriented design is often shied away from in the community at large..)
Actually, VisualAge for Java is partially Java (the GUI interface is in some areas.) The back-end engine is Smalltalk, and some of the utilities (like Data Access Builder) are in C++.
(I know some people who worked on the VisualAge team)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm one of the lucky ones who snagged one of the Powerbook G3/400's at CompUSA about a month ago. This is my first Macintosh (my old Dell served me well), and I picked it up primarily because I've been really impressed with Apple's performance & attitude lately - plus the MacOS has really grown on me, and I can run LinuxPPC on this at blazing PowerPC speeds...
:)... VirtualPC running Win95 is acceptable performance-wise & I can do some WebObjects development with it when I'm travelling on the plane...
.. the battery life on low-processor speed mode is around 3.5 hours... 2.8 hours otherwise. (which is unfortunately less than Apple's way over stated 5 hours battery life, which I'm sure is possible, but only if I had the laptop just "sitting there" for 5 hours :))
Anyhow, my impression so far is sheer bliss. This laptop is great - huge screen, comfortable keyboard & trackpad, great connectivity & speed. The SCSI connection is a great touch, and the USB 2-button mouse I bought works well (who sez you can't have 2-buttons on a Mac?
My only problems so far are minimal: there were marks on the screen when I first got the laptop, apparently from the keyboard rubbing against the plastic wrap on the screen during shipping. Windex cleaned that up. I also have a dead pixel on the screen, which is only noticable when the screen is on certain colour-shades... considering that the "bad screen limit" is around 3 to 5 dead pixels, this is an acceptable problem...
the DVD player is great & I'm already watched several movies on it
I still have to put LinuxPPC on this thing, but so far, so good...
the "I write software for myself" argument?
(this is devil's advocate, not a flame)
This seems to be a pervading theme around the OSS community.. if a perfectly great piece of proprietary software is out there, the RMS-led mantra is to re-write it for "ourselves" so it's been cleansed and blessed by the FSF. Until a free alternative is available, it would be immoral to use the proprietary software.
In such a scenario, is co-existence not an option?
I think most linux users are also proprietary software users, so this isn't really a complaint, just a question about this ideal we're supposedly heading towards..
Here's my opinion, coming from a former Windows user turned linux user turned Macintosh owner...
I actually like the modal menu idea. I've never had the need to have multiple menus on multiple windows. I do keep lots of windows open at once, too.
Resizing from one corner is annoying for expert users, but nice for people who don't want to have to target the damn border in Windows. Note that one of the most popular X window managers out there is Window Maker, which allows resizing from only two corners (the bottom ones). This is a popular feature.
I also LIKE it when I switch to the finder and all of my windows pop up so I don't have to dig for them.
I don't consider myself all that unique, so I'm not trying to say "my way is the only way" - I'm trying to say that many of the flexibilities you're asking for are things that many people just don't give a damn about. Sure, it'd be nice for them to be there, but WOW do they ever get in the way sometimes (lest we not forget the RedHat X windows backspace key mapping annoyances of yesteryear).
These "glossed over" features of the Mac UI are not trash for many people. I find the Mac to be the most productive interface I've been exposed to thus far, with NeXT/Window Maker and OS/2 tied for a close second. I'm definitely not alone on this.
In the end, we're talking about two extremes: ultimate flexiblity vs. ultimate simplicity. What we need/want is BOTH. Amiga sorta had this... I'm hoping Mac OS X will be a first step down the road to this. Gnome is sorta a baby step, but it's still rather fragile. KDE doesn't really expand the horizons of intuitiveness, even if it is probably the most useful enviro for Linux right now (though I like GMC way-way-way more than KFM)...
Funny that - 21,000 paying developers at this year's JavaOne expo. Quite a cold reception.
What's the problem with session ID's, again?
Since you (or your predecessors) are the people who built the internet, you do realize that they can track you WITHOUT those, through webserver logs.
That would logically mean that there probably was another reason for it. I mean, you're not one to give into silly conspiracy theories, are you?
Oh wait, you forgot also that *SUN* helped build the internet - that Bill Joy pushed the use of TCP/IP commercially in the early 80's and actually WROTE the first UNIX-os that included a TCP/IP stack. Pity.
These grandiose statements that "Sun is faling with Java among the 31337 programmer community" never cease to make me smile.
The open source community's opinion does not reflect world opinion. I also question that the open source community is "technologically savvy" from a programming perspective. Talent is a rare thing in general, and while OSS is lucky to have several very talented programmers (Linus, Alan, Alfredo, etc.), it seems that those people aren't the type to blow-pipe over "Why XXX sucks", whereas the people who couldn't code themselves out of a box troll Slashdot with their ignorant drivel.
Java is an over-hyped technology that doesn't provide any advancement in the art of programming. It is, however a valiant attempt at doing "objects over again", to make up where C++ and Smalltalk failed. [Not that these languages are failures, but in 1999, C++ is a technological mess, and Smalltalk is a business mess.]
Yahoo is dying?
That's a new one.
I disagree with your view vehemenently, Jon.
Amazon has given me some of the best customer service I've received *anywhere*. Fatbrain/computer-literacy have screwed up my orders before, have had poor turn-around times, and in general weren't very receptive to me as a customer.
On amazon, I've gotten turn-arounds in a matter of hours, I've never had a screw up, and any order modifications I've made were done with a simple request. I've gotten my regular post packages bumped up to UPS countless times, I've received thank you gifts from them, I can make money from them as an associate, and now I can buy CD's, toys and games from them.
Amazon's only screw up, imho, was their entry into the auction's market. I don't see the benefit in getting in here, given eBay's dominance. Perhaps Jeff Bezos will prove me wrong on this. I'm not holding my breath.
Their electronics section seems fine, though I think they're going to run into problems with providing detailed specs.. a quick search through the site reveals that some products don't come with complete specs, which is something I know I want to see.
In the end, Amazon is not an internet company. They're not a technology company either. They're a retailer. Their business model revolves around *ONE CONCEPT*: customer service.
Early investors in Amazon spotted this key element to Bezos' business plan, and jumped on it. Bezos has repeated the mantra in business magazines across the country: "We are not an internet company. We are in the business of making customer's lives easier. We are a customer service company."
If you don't buy the customer-service-as-business-model line, then you shouldn't invest in Amazon.
I'm not joking. The innards of those boxes are a mess. They're *GREAT* if what you need is basically a cheap server. If you want a reliable server, look elsewhere.
Compare the reliability & performance of one of those to an IBM NetFinity server. I think you'll find the NetFinity's slightly higher price is acceptable.
Ask yourself...
Q: Which OS is more mature and technologically advanced?
Q: Which OS has a better GUI architecture?
Q: What's more important to me: speed + ease of use, or open source?
Q: If open source is more important to me, is it because I actually contribute to the cause, because I like to spread my religious beliefs around without actually contributing, or I just like to jump on the latest cool bandwagon?
I think you'll find a suitable argument for QNX in there.
Open source works. It is a great cause. In times of technology debate, however, I do not accept the RMS-like argument that "you are being immoral by using proprietary sw". I accept the Linus Torvalds argument: he who writes the code chooses the licence and may the best technology win.
IF the whole point to open source becomes the "community-driven" mandate to use lower-quality (but free!) applications and operating systems, I fear the rapid growth we've seen in our area will come to a screetching halt. Linux has succeeded in the mainstream thus far because it actually HAS surpassed many proprietary OS's in terms of features & overall stability. To believe that ALL oss projects will turn out that way is surely a very naive view.
while many U.S. banks include braile by their ATM machines, there's a really interesting precedent that was recently set: apparently, a large bank (Wells Fargo?) just lost a class action suit over lack of blind-assisted ATM's.
:)
Apparently, adding braile to the location isn't enough - only slightly over 10% of the blind population actually UNDERSTANDS braile!
So, an audio-based ATM may be the solution, but I kinda feel disappointed that so few people understand braile.
See http://www.qnx.com/amiga/wherewestand.html
They're going to truck ahead and keep making their OS for the Amiga.
Yeah.. that kind of lifestyle could work well, granted that your family is flexibile enough to understand why you do it.
The company I work for right now is pretty much based upon the business theory that you should hire people primarily for learning capacity & speed - not necessarily skills & experience.
"Traditional" classroom training can be slow - especially when you have people that don't learn well in that sort of an environment. There are many different techniques to training: one-on-one, group, individual study, workshops, seminars, etc. Different topics are suited to different types of training, and different people are better suited to different types of training.
For instance, I'm a big believer that programming is an intense one-on-one experience. Once you feel what it's like to "pair program", it's hard to go back to the "lone hacker" paradigm.
Apple fixed many of the original problems with the APSL in v1.1 ... what are the problems now?
From my reading of it:
- The only cause for "code suspension" is if someone uses a patented-technique in their code. In such a case Apple may re-write the affected portion, or fight it legally, but in the end *it's up to the courts*.
- The only cause for "Termination" is if you sue Apple for patent infringement, break a term of the license, or a court says that the license is legally bogus.
These seem like reasonable and acceptable limits. What more do you want?
I understand that you're not joking. "Silver bullet" syndrome is rampant in IT departments everywhere.
:)... This is probably a good thing, as it will hopefully pave the way for even better technologies down the road ...
However, Java is yet another attempt at bringing banks ahead in the technology curve. Smalltalk attempted to replace COBOL as the business systems language du jour - it failed, unfortunately, due to its fragmented market, inability to compete in the mainstream with C++, and a huge lack of experience in designing/building object oriented systems.
This doesn't mean that objects were useless - they're not a silver bullet obviously, but they're a good step forward in how we program systems. Java is another attempt at bringing this paradigm to the large-systems world.
I guess you can look at Java two ways: either it's another snake-oil product being peddled by the OO industry (i.e. IBM), or it's another attempt at pushing modern programming practices on the large systems of the world (which run on IBM servers... notice a trend here?)
IBM is pushing Java hard because it integrates their whole product line WHILE providing a language to effectively supercede COBOL in the long run.. (though COBOL will never cease to exist...:)
They tried doing this with Smalltalk, but failed due to the fragmented market.. that's also why a unified Java front is so important to IBM & Sun. We can't see the mistakes of yesterday repeated.
So will they succeed? With so much support & weight behind Java, it will be at least a moderate success (Smalltalk is considered a "small" success in most people's books
I've always liked AMD, and their technology has almost always been slightly to moderately superior to Intel's.... What sucks is that as a _business_ AMD has been largely disfunctional.
Manufacturing shortages, bad batches, etc. have plagued the company for years. What good will the K7 be if they can't meet demand? Joe-average isn't going to wait, nor is the uber-geek (who typically has the patience level of a thimble).
I'm concerned the K7 will be another tragedy of great technology executed by a poor business.
Did it ever occur to you that some of the largest banks are developing their backoffice systems with Java?
Java currently handles large-scale systems for Nike, FedEx, JCPenny, the Home Depot, VISA International, and several North American banks.
I think you really need to take a closer look at what is being done with Java *today*.
I'm pretty sure I saw a copy of Orgazmo at my local Blockbuster.... and the director's cut of films like Basic Instinct, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, etc.
I really like the Three Amigos. They've done some great work, and all have contributed much to the OO cause....
However, I tend to take these processes with a grain of salt. They definitely are about "programming in the large". Many of these big-M methodologies require more documentation than actual code, which is questionable when time to market and flexibility ar requirements. (And when aren't they?)
Far more interesting work is being done in the small-m methodology arena, especially with SCRUM and eXtreme Programming. These methods acknowledge that software development is a complex process yet consists of small, relatively simple concepts. (XP suggests there are four concepts to software engineering: Coding, Testing, Listening and Refactoring. While work in this area is young, I think I agree.)
Check out http://jeffsutherland.org for info on SCRUM, and http://c2.com 's WikiWiki server for info on ExtremeProgramming.
I'm almost certain their process is a hybrid iterative/incremental method, based on my familiarity with Jacobsen's Objectory process and Booch's writings.
The Rational process is definitely a big-M methodology, so proceed with caution & grains of salt handy.
Also, since they're the stewards of UML, I'm pretty sure they advocate code generation with it, though this seems to be somewhat of a religious issue.
I don't believe code generation tools are at the point where they deliver real business value unless you're working with an amazingly large system with an amazingly large number of developers, and need a generated "code foundation". (By this I mean 1 million++ lines of code and over 12 people on the project). Thankfully, most organizations stay away from those kinds of monster-projects and split them up into digestable sizes.
Actually, the coaxial version of ethernet was pretty much only Metcalfe's baby. He also founded 3Com.
Pick up a non-commercial copy of VisualWorks from www.objectshare.com and join the cult.. :)
SmallTalk *is* cool. And the guru's that program business systems with it still to this day get obscene salaries ($150k +)
People in the community seem to ignore Smalltalk because it's not optimized C code. All else is irrelevant.
Figure it out... I can't.
I'm not implying that business systems SHOULDN'T be developed in emacs/vi - I know some that have - it's just that I wonder how often it is done, and how effective it really is versus VisualAge.
While I really like emacs, vi, gcc & gdb, can someone please tell me if a large business Java or C++ system has been developed with these tools?
:) for my Java development because it IS a great editor - however, I still find I miss the packages/classes/methods interface (and the one for Emacs wasn't very usable), as well as the incremental compile and automatic method-level version control.
:) VisualAger's are going to be VERY happy to use VisualAge on something other than OS/2 or AIX...
I hear lots of "all Java IDEs suck, use emacs or vi", but I don't know if this is C-programmer machismo or not. Maybe you have to appreciate Smalltalk to understand why VisualAge is the way it is, and why so many people are effective in it.
Sure, it's not a great GUI designer, but I don't think Symantec Cafe generates clean GUI code either.
When not using VAJ, I use Emacs (in Viper mode
I guess what I'm saying is - the typical VisualAge user probably comes from a different world from the Linux C hacker. But, they both have one thing in common: most hate Microsoft.
So, I think it's going to be interesting to see hordes of experienced OO developers flocking to Linux because their tool of choice has freed them from Windows. (Since object oriented design is often shied away from in the community at large..)
my 2 cents
Actually, VisualAge for Java is partially Java (the GUI interface is in some areas.) The back-end engine is Smalltalk, and some of the utilities (like Data Access Builder) are in C++.
(I know some people who worked on the VisualAge team)