So why will SOAP succeed where CORBA failed? I find it really hard to
trust anybody in the XML community, so I don't know where to find good
information. In one article,
they basically claimed to of solved the AI problem!
..use tags that say what the information is, not what it looks
like...
The ability to capture and transmit semantic and structural data made
possible by XML...
Computers, of course, are not that smart; they need to be told exactly
what
things are, how they are related and how to deal with them.
Extensible Markup Language (XML for short) is a new language designed to
do just
that, to make information self-describing.
There is a lot of outrageous hype around XML. To be blunt, people who
think that
XML is a brilliant invention don't understand
Lisp. The
people that I know who have looked into stuff like DOM think
that it was designed by people who don't understand basic computer
science.
So is there some steak among all of this sizzle?
(And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that CORBA is brain damaged as well.)
The author lost credibility because he put down your operating system of choice? He must of been talking about your religion. Relative to something like Genera, UNIX is primitive. UNIX just often happens to be the best choice of a bad lot.
P.S. I hope that you use gets() extensively in your C code.
Give me vi and a compiler, and I'll get something done.
vi? vi is nothing but the product of the apostate Berkeley branch of The UNIX Way. You should be using an editor that is even harder to use. I speak of course of the mighty ed(1). Then you should be even more productive.
ed is the true UNIX editor. You can check that our for yourself in "A Quarter Century of UNIX" by Peter H. Salus. On page 140 Ken Thompson is quoted as saying "Yeah, I've seen editors like that, but I don't feel a need for them. I don't want to see the state of the file when I'm editing." when talking about em, an early UNIX screen editor.
ed will not corrupt your precious bodily fluids. ed will make you totally l33t.
To steal a term from alt.sysadmin.recovery, these interfaces spawn thousands of Lusers, not users, not students who are truly interested in computers.
...
Maybe I'm a bit harsh,...
No, you're just another arrogant technophile who's convinced that the world should share his interests.
Ditch ease of use, and get all the lusers off computers around the globe. Technology will increase, and the
cumulative IQ of computer users everywhere will skyrocket.
I hope that you are being sarcastic.
Do you really expect companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and Electronic Arts to simply ditch their profitable businesses to get rid of "Lusers"?
I think Dennis Ritchie said (in the Anti-Forward to the Unix-Haters Handbook) something along the lines of: "the systems you admire are not only out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below."
What a shallow way of judging the technical merit of systems. By this metric, Windows 98 is vastly superior to anything else that has ever been created and Plan 9 was a huge step backwards from UNIX.
People shouldn't worship technology or turn a programming language into a religion, but this isn't what the article was about. I consider myself to be a UNIX-HATER and would much rather be sitting in front of a LispM.
However, I thought that this article was a reasonable introduction to what UNIX was about, It had a positive tone, but there wasn't any attempt to distort history, unlike what Eric Raymond does. Actually, if you read the original Kernighan and Mashey 1981 IEEE Computer paper "The Unix Programming Environment", you can see that the original creators of UNIX were trying to create something like the LispM. K&M talked about writing programs in an extensible environment that the user could use combine components together at run time.
It's just that since the LispM had a much better dynamic programming language than the UNIX shell and a richer variety of types that subprograms could exchange beyond integers and byte streams. This way, the distinction between shell scripts and system programs in C that exists on UNIX was unnecessary and programming on any level of the system was much more pleasant.
There are some lessons to be taken from the history of UNIX. Flexible, open representations of data and system programmability were steps forward for the time. Of course the LispM had this in spades, but the LispM companies didn't pay attention to the critical component of UNIX's success: Running on commodity hardware!
The fact that this incoherent, illiterate, and ignorant rant was marked as insightful is hilarious! All he had to do was imply that GUI users are idiots and the Slashdot crowd ate it up.
MacOS has many problems and it is completely unsuited for many tasks, but the "not suited for real tweaking" issue is a canard. AppleScript is powerful and pervasive part of MacOS.
For example, I can have the system generate an event when a user puts a file into a folder and have an associated script run. I think that this is actually much easier then doing the same thing under UNIX.
Admittedly, Apple does not do a good job of letting people know about Applescript. But please don't spread the myth of the lack of MacOS programmability! It's been there since 1994.
WHOOOSH! That's the sound of the Gene Spafford's point going over your head. He said that a system being "Open Source" does not lead to it being a trusted system. In the INFOSEC community, trusted has a specific meaning that is only related to security, not equivalent. Gene Spafford didn't say anything about the relative security of "Open Source", according to this summary.
Programming languages don't need to be toys for kids to be able to use them. As a matter of fact, it may be that by removing the warts that make other languages hard to use, a language can be more powerful.
People at XEROX PARC during the 70's were doing great research teaching Smalltalk to kids. If you interested in teaching kids how to program, you must see this video. The video shows ten year olds writing useful programs.
Although it's a snap to get started in LISP, and I love the language personally, LISP becomes subtle and arcane quite quickly, at least in my experience with Commmon LISP (Scheme is, I'm sure, much easier). For example, try explaining how
defmacro works to a kid, and see how far you get!
Well, defmacro provides fewer traps and much more expressive power than the C macro facility. defmacro may not be suitable for a child's first exposure to programming, but you can do a lot in Lisp without it.
Like it or not, your "leaders" have defined modern feminism exactly as I stated it.
References please.
(And please find some that are relatively influential. By finding some nutcases, I could "prove" that Christians want to turn America into a version of Iran.)
(Sorry about the previous AC post. I thought that I was logged in.)
You've obviously bought deeply into the victimology of women created by the self-appointed leaders of the feminist movement. I've got news for you: Their only purpose is to enhance their power at your expense.
Wow, that's a staggeringly broad statement. Do you have some references to back that up?
Nobody but boys in junior high school and yourself would go by the name "Rageboy". From a middle-aged man, that's just pathetic. You and the Cluetrain are the perfect example of smug platitudes covering up a lack of substance. No wonder you're so popular with PHB's.
Slashdot Mirror
So is there some steak among all of this sizzle?
(And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that CORBA is brain damaged as well.)
P.S. I hope that you use gets() extensively in your C code.
ed is the true UNIX editor. You can check that our for yourself in "A Quarter Century of UNIX" by Peter H. Salus. On page 140 Ken Thompson is quoted as saying "Yeah, I've seen editors like that, but I don't feel a need for them. I don't want to see the state of the file when I'm editing." when talking about em, an early UNIX screen editor.
ed will not corrupt your precious bodily fluids. ed will make you totally l33t.
No, you're just another arrogant technophile who's convinced that the world should share his interests.
I hope that you are being sarcastic. Do you really expect companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and Electronic Arts to simply ditch their profitable businesses to get rid of "Lusers"?
I can't find this article at deja.com. It looks like something I'd like to read. How would you suggest that I get a hold of it?
You were joking about using gets(), one of the most brain-damaged things in the C library, right?
Jef Raskin's account of his dealings with you indicate the latter.
What a shallow way of judging the technical merit of systems. By this metric, Windows 98 is vastly superior to anything else that has ever been created and Plan 9 was a huge step backwards from UNIX.
However, I thought that this article was a reasonable introduction to what UNIX was about, It had a positive tone, but there wasn't any attempt to distort history, unlike what Eric Raymond does. Actually, if you read the original Kernighan and Mashey 1981 IEEE Computer paper "The Unix Programming Environment", you can see that the original creators of UNIX were trying to create something like the LispM. K&M talked about writing programs in an extensible environment that the user could use combine components together at run time.
It's just that since the LispM had a much better dynamic programming language than the UNIX shell and a richer variety of types that subprograms could exchange beyond integers and byte streams. This way, the distinction between shell scripts and system programs in C that exists on UNIX was unnecessary and programming on any level of the system was much more pleasant.
There are some lessons to be taken from the history of UNIX. Flexible, open representations of data and system programmability were steps forward for the time. Of course the LispM had this in spades, but the LispM companies didn't pay attention to the critical component of UNIX's success: Running on commodity hardware!
The fact that this incoherent, illiterate, and ignorant rant was marked as insightful is hilarious! All he had to do was imply that GUI users are idiots and the Slashdot crowd ate it up.
Applescript has been a part of MacOS since 1994.
Have a look at its command console here.
For example, I can have the system generate an event when a user puts a file into a folder and have an associated script run. I think that this is actually much easier then doing the same thing under UNIX.
Admittedly, Apple does not do a good job of letting people know about Applescript. But please don't spread the myth of the lack of MacOS programmability! It's been there since 1994.
WHOOOSH!
That's the sound of the Gene Spafford's point going over your head. He said that a system being "Open Source" does not lead to it being a trusted system. In the INFOSEC community, trusted has a specific meaning that is only related to security, not equivalent. Gene Spafford didn't say anything about the relative security of "Open Source", according to this summary.
People at XEROX PARC during the 70's were doing great research teaching Smalltalk to kids. If you interested in teaching kids how to program, you must see this video. The video shows ten year olds writing useful programs.
The Apple Advanced Technology Group did impressive work with Common Lisp in education during the 90's.
Well, defmacro provides fewer traps and much more expressive power than the C macro facility. defmacro may not be suitable for a child's first exposure to programming, but you can do a lot in Lisp without it.
The Apple R&D department had a lot of luck using Lisp to teach programming to kids.
References please.
(And please find some that are relatively influential. By finding some nutcases, I could "prove" that Christians want to turn America into a version of Iran.)
You've obviously bought deeply into the victimology of women created by the self-appointed leaders of the feminist movement. I've got news for you: Their only purpose is to enhance their power at your expense.
Wow, that's a staggeringly broad statement. Do you have some references to back that up?
Nobody but boys in junior high school and yourself would go by the name "Rageboy". From a middle-aged man, that's just pathetic. You and the Cluetrain are the perfect example of smug platitudes covering up a lack of substance. No wonder you're so popular with PHB's.