I'm thinking about implementation because I am talking about the implementation. When I hear 'list' I would prefer to have it refer either to the abstract concept of a list (so the IList interface is ok in my book) or to an implementation that involves a single or double linked list.
ArrayList also has the word 'Array' in it as you might have noticed, so there it is immediately clear that we are dealing with an array implementation of a list.
I can bet you $1000 that System.Collections.Generic.List<int> will significantly outperform std::list<int> on indexed access on lists of significant size, for example, simply because the former is array-backed, and the latter is a doubly linked list.
So it seems that Microsoft named their implementation of a dynamic array a 'List'. They must have known beforehand that this would confuse many people. So why still use that name? It is an implementation and not an interface after all.
A good first step would probably be killing the monopoly element in patents and copyrights so that everyone would be able to use the technology as long as they pay a fixed fee.
LOL. You really don't understand the patent system. Who determines your "fixed fee"?
Well, trail and error remember. Maybe the interested parties involved like now sometimes happens with patent pools, maybe independent experts, maybe some fixed formula taking several factors in account. Perfect will never happen but doing better than the current fail system should be easy.
The whole point is that we have accepted the fact that government is really bad at valuing inventions
LOL. You really don't understand the patent system. Who determines what counts as an "invention"? Exactly, the government you trust so much. And this is just one of the reasons that the current situation is total FAIL.
it is time to wipe out patent and copyright or rewrite it from the scratch to help evolve and not involve
I don't suppose your proposal has any more detail to it?
This is of course the hard part which will involve a lot of trail and error. A good first step would probably be killing the monopoly element in patents and copyrights so that everyone would be able to use the technology as long as they pay a fixed fee. Currently the IP situation is preventing whole industries from developing. We have been lucky that the IP lobby was asleep and/or less developed when the internet developed and that things like linking to other sites and searching the web now don't involve fees.
Anyway the fact that the number of patents granted is exploding at the same time that fundamental R&D is apparently declining is a sure indication that something has to change.
This should be modded -1, Racist. It's not a culture thing.
Culture is by definition something you learn, not something that is in your genes (like race). It is passed from one generation to the next and each generation can 'decide' what to keep, what to throw away and what to add.
There's a big difference between 16th century firearms and an AK-47.
A successful culture will adapt when new technology arrives. Japan dit it. China is doing it. Europe itself dit it, gunpowder after all isn't a western invention. Technology only gives a very temporary advantage, it is culture that matters.
"How much money is lost when people download music?"
Wrong example. Copying music, whether done by a record company or its illegal competitor the music pirate, is always producing value. No money is lost. Money is lost when you are not downloading while you want to.
"Whatever they are willing to pay."
This is wrong too. What we are willing to pay depends on what else is on the market and the price of these alternatives are related.
Without Linux there is a good chance that Unix would have died and Windows would have even less competition. How do you account for that?
On top of that it is far too limited. Open products like Linux have huge synergies that can make small scale & high cost industries into low cost mass producing industries. The best example here is the internet itself.
The lesson must be that trying to quantify this kind of thing is an excercise in futility.
The physicality of the item is indeed unimportant. They are still very different crimes however. Piracy is productive, _you make a copy_ and end up with two products so more people can enjoy it. In the case of stealing there is just one product that changes hands.
This is an extremely important difference when you want to seriously analyse the problem from an economic point of view. Different things should have different names.
If something is bad, just say it's bad. Don't call it stealing because you are too lazy to argue it's bad.
Re:Redundent -- read selectively.
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
Interesting, these two lingo's. I have to say I prefer the C++ way since the difference between a realized interface and an inherited class can be purely cosmetic. The tools seem to have taken over the concepts here.
Re:Redundent -- read selectively.
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
No the confusion arises because in C# the OO concept of interface inheritance can be implemented either with a class or with an interface and therefore people think they always must mean very different things even when they don't.
Re:Redundent -- read selectively.
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure what you think they are missing. Seems to me they just have another definition of inheritance then you do.
In C++ they were using (mostly) abstract classes to do interface inheritance. In C# they are using, depending on the situation, either abstract classes or interfaces to do interface inheritance en when they next programming language du jour comes along they'll no doubt adapt again.
The fact that there are core differences between classes and interfaces in C# doesn't mean they can't be used to implement essentially the same thing (i.e. interface inheritance).
No that is classic anti-competitive behaviour. The whole idea of a free market is that there are many suppliers and many buyers. It refers to the balance of power in the market and the resulting quality of choice, not just to the fact that people can chose.
In both a free competitive market and a (non-free) non-competitive market you will be able to chose and not be forced to buy anything (well strictly speaking). What is different is the quality of the options to chose from. Apple presents us with 2 bad options.
The fact that it's a luxury product that only addicted people will buy doesn't change the fact that it sets a bad precedent and I don't see why we should allow this kind of anti-competitive behaviour.
No need to determine the facts. They just exist. Strictly speaking we can never be sure of any facts or truths. In practice however you can come very close to the truth: if you jump into a lake you will get wet. Not 100% certain but close enough;-) The difference between 100% and 99.9% is actually so uninteresting that you can define it away. When we can't get close to the truth the real problem is usually lack of evidence, not our failing perceptions.
Truth should by definition not depend on perception. If it does you have messed up the definition. Remember that words are just tools and you get to pick their definition.
Since they also got the source code this is a perfectly logical way of doing things. Getting ownership would have cost taxpayers a lot more money without giving any benefit to NASA or the taxpayers likely. Not sure how you come to this conclusion. Surely NASA would profit when the software is used and worked on by other companies and individuals. That would likely lead to more features, better quality and less bugs. Furthermore this software could be used as a half-fabricate in many which will lead to new products being developed and marketed and existing products becoming better and/or cheaper. All very good for basically everybody except direct competitors.
This kind of middleware software is perfect for opensourcing. Much more so than software endproducts.
The copyright industry can finance media campaigns etc to impress their lingo upon you and make it mainstream. You cannot. So when you use the term "terrorism" for their tactics you might be qualifying their actions, but mostly you are disqualifying yourself as a serious person. You will be merely a radical that can be ignored. Hell, members of the copyright industry might even quote you just as to show how insane the "opponents of copyrights" have become.
Idealism is brow-beating people into changing project names that you have no part of in order to increase the visibility of your cause. Since when is Linux vs GNU/Linux anything other than about idealism and the struggle to remain relevant? Where's the pragmatism there? Oh dear.
So RMS trying to hijack the Linux movement (which considered him to be a demi-god at the time) was actually an act of pure self-sacrifice. You have some weird ideas dude. If RMS is really _only_ about idealism than he would be much better served with keeping his mouth shut and following the pragmatist Linus, for it's because of pragmatists like him that Open Source (including Free Software) is as relevant as it is today. They have made the movement big by giving people what they want instead of trying to brow-beat them with counter-productive results. You don't need to be an idealist to realize ideals.
Humans don't fear change, where did you get that silly idea. It's more the opposite: we all want change. We just don't want to change ourselves, as long as others do the changing it's perfectly ok.
If C++ is gonna be faster than C# there has to be a reason. If you are going the write the same program in C++ and C# there won't be much speed difference (3%-5%, 30%-50%, whatever). If you want C++ to be faster you have to write a different program using the features that sets C++ apart from languages like C# or Java. When you can avoid allocations on the heap and allocate on the stack instead, when you can give the compiler extra information by using the template system where C# generics can't or when you can get closer to the metal and avoid that extra copy, that's were you will see the real performance differences. Expect them to be massive.
He wasn't "fixing" anything. He was setting it up. There wasn't something broken in the first place.
Indeed, I was talking about the attitude you find out there.
To you and I these things don't involve any skills, but to a newbie, they are skills.
O but to me it _is_ a skill. That is the whole point. Once I get a newbie to accept that it is a skill and it is his responsibility to learn it most of my problems are over as I am now teaching someone who _wants_ to learn. In my experience a lot of people aren't interested in learning, they just want you to solve their problems for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, that beats any explanation that I had come up with so far.
I'm thinking about implementation because I am talking about the implementation. When I hear 'list' I would prefer to have it refer either to the abstract concept of a list (so the IList interface is ok in my book) or to an implementation that involves a single or double linked list.
ArrayList also has the word 'Array' in it as you might have noticed, so there it is immediately clear that we are dealing with an array implementation of a list.
I can bet you $1000 that System.Collections.Generic.List<int> will significantly outperform std::list<int> on indexed access on lists of significant size, for example, simply because the former is array-backed, and the latter is a doubly linked list.
So it seems that Microsoft named their implementation of a dynamic array a 'List'. They must have known beforehand that this would confuse many people. So why still use that name? It is an implementation and not an interface after all.
LOL. You really don't understand the patent system. Who determines your "fixed fee"?
Well, trail and error remember. Maybe the interested parties involved like now sometimes happens with patent pools, maybe independent experts, maybe some fixed formula taking several factors in account. Perfect will never happen but doing better than the current fail system should be easy.
The whole point is that we have accepted the fact that government is really bad at valuing inventions
LOL. You really don't understand the patent system. Who determines what counts as an "invention"? Exactly, the government you trust so much. And this is just one of the reasons that the current situation is total FAIL.
I don't suppose your proposal has any more detail to it?
This is of course the hard part which will involve a lot of trail and error. A good first step would probably be killing the monopoly element in patents and copyrights so that everyone would be able to use the technology as long as they pay a fixed fee. Currently the IP situation is preventing whole industries from developing. We have been lucky that the IP lobby was asleep and/or less developed when the internet developed and that things like linking to other sites and searching the web now don't involve fees.
Anyway the fact that the number of patents granted is exploding at the same time that fundamental R&D is apparently declining is a sure indication that something has to change.
Creators and inventors see a hostile environment for profiting off their works, so they stop investing in creating and inventing. Film at 11.
Following your logic it seems they didn't, look at the patent statistics since 1790: http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/h_counts.htm
This should be modded -1, Racist. It's not a culture thing.
Culture is by definition something you learn, not something that is in your genes (like race). It is passed from one generation to the next and each generation can 'decide' what to keep, what to throw away and what to add.
There's a big difference between 16th century firearms and an AK-47.
Yes, what is your point?
Funny but wrong.
A successful culture will adapt when new technology arrives. Japan dit it. China is doing it. Europe itself dit it, gunpowder after all isn't a western invention. Technology only gives a very temporary advantage, it is culture that matters.
"How much money is lost when people download music?"
Wrong example. Copying music, whether done by a record company or its illegal competitor the music pirate, is always producing value. No money is lost. Money is lost when you are not downloading while you want to.
"Whatever they are willing to pay."
This is wrong too. What we are willing to pay depends on what else is on the market and the price of these alternatives are related.
Without Linux there is a good chance that Unix would have died and Windows would have even less competition. How do you account for that?
On top of that it is far too limited. Open products like Linux have huge synergies that can make small scale & high cost industries into low cost mass producing industries. The best example here is the internet itself.
The lesson must be that trying to quantify this kind of thing is an excercise in futility.
The physicality of the item is indeed unimportant. They are still very different crimes however. Piracy is productive, _you make a copy_ and end up with two products so more people can enjoy it. In the case of stealing there is just one product that changes hands.
This is an extremely important difference when you want to seriously analyse the problem from an economic point of view. Different things should have different names.
If something is bad, just say it's bad. Don't call it stealing because you are too lazy to argue it's bad.
Interesting, these two lingo's. I have to say I prefer the C++ way since the difference between a realized interface and an inherited class can be purely cosmetic. The tools seem to have taken over the concepts here.
No the confusion arises because in C# the OO concept of interface inheritance can be implemented either with a class or with an interface and therefore people think they always must mean very different things even when they don't.
I'm not sure what you think they are missing. Seems to me they just have another definition of inheritance then you do.
In C++ they were using (mostly) abstract classes to do interface inheritance. In C# they are using, depending on the situation, either abstract classes or interfaces to do interface inheritance en when they next programming language du jour comes along they'll no doubt adapt again.
The fact that there are core differences between classes and interfaces in C# doesn't mean they can't be used to implement essentially the same thing (i.e. interface inheritance).
Apparently Alan Likes Schumpeter. Creative destruction is central to his work.
No that is classic anti-competitive behaviour. The whole idea of a free market is that there are many suppliers and many buyers. It refers to the balance of power in the market and the resulting quality of choice, not just to the fact that people can chose.
In both a free competitive market and a (non-free) non-competitive market you will be able to chose and not be forced to buy anything (well strictly speaking). What is different is the quality of the options to chose from. Apple presents us with 2 bad options.
The fact that it's a luxury product that only addicted people will buy doesn't change the fact that it sets a bad precedent and I don't see why we should allow this kind of anti-competitive behaviour.
No need to determine the facts. They just exist. Strictly speaking we can never be sure of any facts or truths. In practice however you can come very close to the truth: if you jump into a lake you will get wet. Not 100% certain but close enough ;-) The difference between 100% and 99.9% is actually so uninteresting that you can define it away. When we can't get close to the truth the real problem is usually lack of evidence, not our failing perceptions.
Truth should by definition not depend on perception. If it does you have messed up the definition. Remember that words are just tools and you get to pick their definition.
This kind of middleware software is perfect for opensourcing. Much more so than software endproducts.
The copyright industry can finance media campaigns etc to impress their lingo upon you and make it mainstream. You cannot. So when you use the term "terrorism" for their tactics you might be qualifying their actions, but mostly you are disqualifying yourself as a serious person. You will be merely a radical that can be ignored. Hell, members of the copyright industry might even quote you just as to show how insane the "opponents of copyrights" have become.
So RMS trying to hijack the Linux movement (which considered him to be a demi-god at the time) was actually an act of pure self-sacrifice. You have some weird ideas dude. If RMS is really _only_ about idealism than he would be much better served with keeping his mouth shut and following the pragmatist Linus, for it's because of pragmatists like him that Open Source (including Free Software) is as relevant as it is today. They have made the movement big by giving people what they want instead of trying to brow-beat them with counter-productive results. You don't need to be an idealist to realize ideals.
Humans don't fear change, where did you get that silly idea. It's more the opposite: we all want change. We just don't want to change ourselves, as long as others do the changing it's perfectly ok.
If C++ is gonna be faster than C# there has to be a reason. If you are going the write the same program in C++ and C# there won't be much speed difference (3%-5%, 30%-50%, whatever). If you want C++ to be faster you have to write a different program using the features that sets C++ apart from languages like C# or Java. When you can avoid allocations on the heap and allocate on the stack instead, when you can give the compiler extra information by using the template system where C# generics can't or when you can get closer to the metal and avoid that extra copy, that's were you will see the real performance differences. Expect them to be massive.
Which is of course the point. They don't want you to change it.
Dude, try to read more than once sentence before you react. You are totally offtopic.
Indeed, I was talking about the attitude you find out there.
O but to me it _is_ a skill. That is the whole point. Once I get a newbie to accept that it is a skill and it is his responsibility to learn it most of my problems are over as I am now teaching someone who _wants_ to learn. In my experience a lot of people aren't interested in learning, they just want you to solve their problems for them.