The slot in one of the screws on my iPhone 3G is perfectly round. The phone has never been apart, but perhaps was stripped during manufacturing. Apple could always adopt that screw design in the future.
We'll have exactly what we have now. Browser vendors were already adding draft features into their product before the specification was finalized. Just look at how many browsers support HTML5 features, even though HTML5 does not exist as a standard yet.
Browsers were already adding support for draft features as they happened. I believe his point is that there is no use in waiting until the spec is finalized; add the features they become available and let people start using them now.
I purposely used the web browser example earlier because I am the author of a "web browser" that parses HTML and displays the output, but does so in a way that is completely unlike Firefox, Chrome, etc.
If you asked Joe Sixpack on the street if my program is a web browser, he would most certainly say no, despite the fact that it uses all of the same technologies every other web browser does. To me, it is a web browser because I am acutely aware of the technologies that are in use.
The designer thinks graphics because shiny graphics were necessary for the newfangled AJAX-full-application-experience services that became possible with Web 2.0.
The Flash programmer thinks ActionScript because ActionScript is the way to pull Web 2.0 content into Flash.
The businessman thinks investors because investors saw ways to make money with this new, at the time, way to use the web.
The average person thinks social networking because all of the popular social networking sites rely on Web 2.0 content heavily to function.
The point to my web browser example is that no technical jargon is complete and well defined, and interpretations are bound to differ from person to person. However, everyone's idea of what Web 2.0 is all go straight back to the concept of data being served without presentation.
Web 2.0 is not a standard or specification and almost nobody claims that it is. It the term used to refer to a collection of similar technologies, which do generally happen to have defined standards.
I define Web 2.0 to have begun once XMLHttpRequest was added to most major browsers.
Exactly. XMLHttpRequest requires Web 2.0 services (XML, JSON, etc.) to function. It is the place where most people were first exposed to: a) the need to provide data in non-presentation form, and b) the desire to consume content in non-presentation form.
XMLHttpRequest itself is Web 1.0 technology, however.
There is no standards body that defines the term "web browser", but it is a generally accepted term used by most everybody. Not all names have to be trademarked and held by an organization.
Most computer terminology is jaron. "Web 2.0" is a lot easier to say than XML, JSON, CSV, RSS, ATOM, and Podcasts. It is the term given to the collection of technologies, not a standard. Maybe XJCRAP would have been a better name, but Web 2.0 is the one that stuck.
The poster above me says that XHR is the defining moment of Web 2.0. I agree because XHR consumes Web 2.0 content and was the place where most normal people (read: non-geeks) started using Web 2.0 services. XHR itself is Web 1.0 though.
Web 1.0 is the usage of HTTP to serve files like HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG, Flash, etc.. Content that is designed to be viewed, but not very good at providing data to machines.
Web 2.0 is the usage of HTTP to serve files like RSS, ATOM, JSON, XML, CSV, etc. Content that is designed to be processed, but gives no information about how the content should be displayed.
It is the second iteration of the web because it is a change in how the public retrieves information over it. Yes, people (geeks) were occasionally serving those formats before the label was given, but the general public was not consuming it. Web 2.0 marks the time when the masses started providing and consuming the content formatted for machines.
I will agree that the names are poor, but to say they are meaningless completely misses the major shift in the usage of the web by the general public that happened. I suppose one could potentially argue that the semantic web is Web 3.0. It combines formats over HTTP that are designed for processing and display. However, nobody is really using those formats, so I feel it is way too early to label it Web 3.0.
Web 2.0 marked the change in usage of the HTTP protocol by the masses. A lot of progression on the Web 1.0 front happened at the same time and were incorrectly lumped under Web 2.0, but serving HTTP requests on a remote cluster of computers is not a change in the way the protocol is used.
Yeah, the names are dumb, but they do have real meaning; even if that meaning has been severely clouded by those who missed what really happened.
If only there was an edit button. You are right that licensing was the wrong term to use here. The spirit of what I was trying to convey is that accreditation can be used as one way to build your reputation.
You don't show Apple any code at all, unless you call a compiled binary code. However, Objective-C compilation does leave a lot of symbol information around. They could likely make some educated guesses in many cases, like how they can automatically detect if you are using private APIs.
Anyway, it's a moot point now since you are welcome to use any language you like, as of several months ago.
Professional licensing can still remain in a free market. I imagine people would flock to those who are licensed, but it should be the consumer's choice.
I recall a story on this very site from a few years ago about a very talented and successful lawyer who was punished for practising without having passed the bar. Why should I be prevented from hiring the services of a really good lawyer just because he is not properly accredited?
Pretending to be accredited when you are not is fraud, but as long as no false claims are being made, what is the harm in letting the free market decide? If people really value accreditation, those who are not will be out of business quickly.
There is no such thing as a qualified college grad
That's a little presumptuous. While college itself will not give you the qualifications, someone who is fresh out of college could have several years of programming experience under their belt. I was programming before high school.
Ah, but if Senior Dev busted his ass to learn the new technology and succeeded in his mission, would he have received a raise to do the job, or would management expected him to take on the new work at his current wage?
Engineer is defined as someone who designs, builds, and maintains.
It has nothing to do with licensing, government accountability, code of ethics, accreditation, or anything else.
It is not a cheap title, it is a description of the job. When they say Facebook engineer, we get a sense of what those employees are required to do; which extends beyond the role of just programming.
Cassandra did not support said indexes until this very release. Even with secondary indexes, storing data in columns is still a reasonable design choice for many requirements. A column in Cassandra is not like a column in a relational database.
I am sure that this is welcome news for big Cassandra users, but I do agree that it is a strange choice for the front page of Slashdot. Then again, with the number of comments asking why you would need so many columns, it seems that Slashdot needs to talk about Cassandra a little more.
Comparing it to a join was, of course, an oversimplification. Cassandra is not relational, so it is difficult to directly compare features with a relational database.
Cassandra utilizes ideas from column-oriented databases to store its data, so it is not wrong to call them columns. They are just not columns in the relational database sense.
A column in Cassandra is sort of, if you have to make a comparison, like a join in SQL. Using Slashdot as an example, the topic would be the row, and each comment within that topic would be a column. Wanting to store more than 2GB of column data doesn't seem mental at all.
Whether or not it is worthy of the front page is another question.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has reached Web 3.0! But seriously, Web 2.0 has nothing to do with HTML or design.
The slot in one of the screws on my iPhone 3G is perfectly round. The phone has never been apart, but perhaps was stripped during manufacturing. Apple could always adopt that screw design in the future.
We'll have exactly what we have now. Browser vendors were already adding draft features into their product before the specification was finalized. Just look at how many browsers support HTML5 features, even though HTML5 does not exist as a standard yet.
Browsers were already adding support for draft features as they happened. I believe his point is that there is no use in waiting until the spec is finalized; add the features they become available and let people start using them now.
I purposely used the web browser example earlier because I am the author of a "web browser" that parses HTML and displays the output, but does so in a way that is completely unlike Firefox, Chrome, etc.
If you asked Joe Sixpack on the street if my program is a web browser, he would most certainly say no, despite the fact that it uses all of the same technologies every other web browser does. To me, it is a web browser because I am acutely aware of the technologies that are in use.
The point to my web browser example is that no technical jargon is complete and well defined, and interpretations are bound to differ from person to person. However, everyone's idea of what Web 2.0 is all go straight back to the concept of data being served without presentation.
Web 2.0 is not a standard or specification and almost nobody claims that it is. It the term used to refer to a collection of similar technologies, which do generally happen to have defined standards.
Exactly. XMLHttpRequest requires Web 2.0 services (XML, JSON, etc.) to function. It is the place where most people were first exposed to: a) the need to provide data in non-presentation form, and b) the desire to consume content in non-presentation form.
XMLHttpRequest itself is Web 1.0 technology, however.
There is no standards body that defines the term "web browser", but it is a generally accepted term used by most everybody. Not all names have to be trademarked and held by an organization.
Most computer terminology is jaron. "Web 2.0" is a lot easier to say than XML, JSON, CSV, RSS, ATOM, and Podcasts. It is the term given to the collection of technologies, not a standard. Maybe XJCRAP would have been a better name, but Web 2.0 is the one that stuck.
The poster above me says that XHR is the defining moment of Web 2.0. I agree because XHR consumes Web 2.0 content and was the place where most normal people (read: non-geeks) started using Web 2.0 services. XHR itself is Web 1.0 though.
I disagree.
Web 1.0 is the usage of HTTP to serve files like HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG, Flash, etc.. Content that is designed to be viewed, but not very good at providing data to machines.
Web 2.0 is the usage of HTTP to serve files like RSS, ATOM, JSON, XML, CSV, etc. Content that is designed to be processed, but gives no information about how the content should be displayed.
It is the second iteration of the web because it is a change in how the public retrieves information over it. Yes, people (geeks) were occasionally serving those formats before the label was given, but the general public was not consuming it. Web 2.0 marks the time when the masses started providing and consuming the content formatted for machines.
I will agree that the names are poor, but to say they are meaningless completely misses the major shift in the usage of the web by the general public that happened. I suppose one could potentially argue that the semantic web is Web 3.0. It combines formats over HTTP that are designed for processing and display. However, nobody is really using those formats, so I feel it is way too early to label it Web 3.0.
Web 2.0 marked the change in usage of the HTTP protocol by the masses. A lot of progression on the Web 1.0 front happened at the same time and were incorrectly lumped under Web 2.0, but serving HTTP requests on a remote cluster of computers is not a change in the way the protocol is used.
Yeah, the names are dumb, but they do have real meaning; even if that meaning has been severely clouded by those who missed what really happened.
Blender was a commercial product for quite some time. The change to the open source license did not suddenly make it an unusable mess.
There is software that meets your needs and there is software that does not. The license is irrelevant in that fact.
If only there was an edit button. You are right that licensing was the wrong term to use here. The spirit of what I was trying to convey is that accreditation can be used as one way to build your reputation.
You don't show Apple any code at all, unless you call a compiled binary code. However, Objective-C compilation does leave a lot of symbol information around. They could likely make some educated guesses in many cases, like how they can automatically detect if you are using private APIs.
Anyway, it's a moot point now since you are welcome to use any language you like, as of several months ago.
What do you call someone who is performing acts as defined by the english word engineer, but without accreditation?
Professional licensing can still remain in a free market. I imagine people would flock to those who are licensed, but it should be the consumer's choice.
I recall a story on this very site from a few years ago about a very talented and successful lawyer who was punished for practising without having passed the bar. Why should I be prevented from hiring the services of a really good lawyer just because he is not properly accredited?
Pretending to be accredited when you are not is fraud, but as long as no false claims are being made, what is the harm in letting the free market decide? If people really value accreditation, those who are not will be out of business quickly.
That's a little presumptuous. While college itself will not give you the qualifications, someone who is fresh out of college could have several years of programming experience under their belt. I was programming before high school.
Ah, but if Senior Dev busted his ass to learn the new technology and succeeded in his mission, would he have received a raise to do the job, or would management expected him to take on the new work at his current wage?
I seriously have my doubts that 3-4 engineers could completely redesign the website every six months on top of regular maintenance.
Engineer is defined as someone who designs, builds, and maintains.
It has nothing to do with licensing, government accountability, code of ethics, accreditation, or anything else.
It is not a cheap title, it is a description of the job. When they say Facebook engineer, we get a sense of what those employees are required to do; which extends beyond the role of just programming.
Engineer is defined as: A person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works.
A web developer is someone who designs, builds, or maintains software.
I suppose you could argue that software is not an engine, machine, or public work. However, the first half of the definition is quite applicable.
Cassandra did not support said indexes until this very release. Even with secondary indexes, storing data in columns is still a reasonable design choice for many requirements. A column in Cassandra is not like a column in a relational database.
I am sure that this is welcome news for big Cassandra users, but I do agree that it is a strange choice for the front page of Slashdot. Then again, with the number of comments asking why you would need so many columns, it seems that Slashdot needs to talk about Cassandra a little more.
Comparing it to a join was, of course, an oversimplification. Cassandra is not relational, so it is difficult to directly compare features with a relational database.
Cassandra utilizes ideas from column-oriented databases to store its data, so it is not wrong to call them columns. They are just not columns in the relational database sense.
A column in Cassandra is sort of, if you have to make a comparison, like a join in SQL. Using Slashdot as an example, the topic would be the row, and each comment within that topic would be a column. Wanting to store more than 2GB of column data doesn't seem mental at all.
Whether or not it is worthy of the front page is another question.
If you are writing SQL, maybe. Cassandra is not a relational database.