A cell phone is for convenience. The fact that I can be reached and reach all of my friends from wherever I am (and extremely valuable for emergencies) is an obvious benefit that I find amazing people like you can't see any value in.
I also can't stand those who are obnoxious with their phones (driving with one, talking loudly, etc), but that's more of a function of the user than the tool.
Why is it that basically being guaranteed that you're never going to have dangling pointers and reducing the chance of memory leaks is a bad thing, assuming that I'm not writing a processor-intensive app? If a garbage collector is going to speed up and ease development with a minimal loss of performance for a non-intensive app, why would you not be for it?
I know manual memory management is simple, but what I don't understand is why it must be required, especially when there are languages out there that have clearly demonstrated that it doesn't need to be that way for many projects.
Processing time is cheap, programming time/debugging time is not. I'm sure that having to deal with pointers in order to use Cocoa (excluding Java) has turned more than a few programmers off to coding for OS X.
I don't know... most IDEs support autocomplete/intellisense/whatever which allows you to immediately see what the parameters do. It's not really an issue unless you're editing in Pico. It strikes me as being a waste of time when it must be used for EVERY SINGLE CALL.
Objective C is pretty nice to use, but I think Apple really needs to come up with a language that doesn't require memory management. Not everyone is designing more upscale applications where management is essential. Personally, this is a rather large "fault" of Apple's development platform. Give me something that supports Cocoa (not Java) with managed memory and I'd be much happier.
It would also be nice if they would use something with a more conventional syntax (I'm looking at you, method calls). Wasn't a huge deal, but I think it would make it easier to dive into or attract developers who are more used to the Java/C#/etc way of doing things.
As a side note, much of.NETs attraction seems to be that it is very simple to put together GUI-driven applications (that actually look they're Windows programs) quickly.
Syntactically, C# and Java are extremely similar, so it doesn't matter too much which one you take - you'll be able to pick up the other one fairly quickly.
Syntactically, yes, but that's not the brunt of the work of really knowing a language; it's the APIs. Don't think that you can say that you know Java just because you're fluent with C# and know that the syntax is almost identical. You don't. The APIs are tools that are absolutely essential if you want to be able to truthfully say that you know the language on a resume. Don't downplay them. I know RailGunner wasn't implying that APIs aren't important and agree with everything that he's saying, just pointing out that you cannot really know Java or C#/.NET until you're familiar with the tools that they give you.
I'm reading a lot of comments that say that the two are very syntactically similar (which is very true), but keep in mind that the main battle of being able to say that you actually know a language in the mind of an employer isn't knowing the syntax, it's having a working familiarity with the API. Can you really say that you know Java if you don't know how to change a JTable to look a particular way with checkboxes inside of it? Do you know.NET if you have no idea what something like the Dataset can get you? Know the APIs, my friend! They are what enables you to quickly develop once you can immediately say "TableCellRenderer!" and "Oh, an in-memory database so I never have to write SQL queries!" If you can't really do this, then you can easily get burned on an interview.
I also think a lot of the decision should have to do with what sort of programs you want to develop. If you're looking to do GUI-related application work, I'd go with.NET in a heartbeat. If you want to do lots of server-side or backend stuff, definitely Java.
It just depends on what you want to do, so give some thought on that front. Be weary of what you place importance on; Java portability most likely won't matter if you want to do desktop applications since the majority of business desktops are using Windows. Likewise,.NET's easy GUI-building capabilities are worthless if you're writing back-end code.
If you're not really sure what you'd like to be doing, I'd do Java. I've been developing on C# for a few years now and am learning to really like the API, but I think Java's is a bit "tougher" in some areas (Swing's nuances) and you'll get more out of it. YMMV.
I see a lot of comments like this, lately, but do you think that PS3 and the Revolution aren't going to get a lot of articles as well?
I think it's a decent assumption that many folks are interested in the consoles. This only happens once evert four or so years, and for many a console is a mainstream source of entertainment.
We saw the same thing happen with Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube. It's probably more of a valid argument to say that/. covers too much next-gen consoles in general, but I don't think they're being a blatant commercial for Microsoft. Nintendo and Sony are being rather hush-hush at the momeny, but I'm sure when they start talking to us we'll see plenty of posts by them as well.
I guarantee you it was the black leather ankle boots.;)
And gentlemen, please; don't be the guy who wears pink or baby blue if you don't want to be perceived as being gay.
Anyhow, I don't think there's anything wrong with dressing nicely. I'd much rather have employees who you can tell take care of themselves at a reasonable level and care about their image than have the guys who don't take showers or dress terribly.
And no, I'm not saying that your wardrobe should be out of Armani or whatever, but sweatpants and Hawaiian shirts and sandals and lack of regular showers aren't cool, yet that sort of thing isn't uncommon. It sort of sends a message that these people aren't very professional or simply don't care enough. That's a bad thing.
The concept that you don't want to piss your customers off with such an obvious flaw is a very rudimentary one in the business world. Flaws such as that are found with the most basic of testing. Given Apple's problems with class action lawsuits in the past, one would believe that they would be taking care of obvious blunders such as this and put more effort into engineering their iPods thoroughly.
There are other music players out there, ya know.
Right you are, and when it becomes very well known that the iPod Nano scratches this badly, many other people are going to be aware of this as well.
Personally, I don't care if my iPod gets scratched. It's a music player, not a mirror in the Hubble space telescope or something.
The market will very likely not share your apologizing view, which is why so many people find it amazing that Apple could screw something like this up. You should take a look at some of the pictures going around. This isn't a matter the screen not being imune to scratches, it's about displays that are barely readable after a month of carrying around in a pocket.
I'll add that I've been a big Apple fan for a while. However, it's discouraging to see these obvious flaws pop up in Apple's work when I think about how badly I'd like to buy a Yonah Powerbook next year. Something like this isn't excusable from an engineering perspective even if its first generation.
The problem that currently exist with the Starbuck character is that it is very little different from the first Starbuck other than sex. It would be nice to see some creativity in regards to the character.
Once again, Starbuck being a guy and having some of the same general traits of the original is only a "problem" if you can't let go of the original series. This has ZERO negative impact on the enjoyability of the new series to someone who never saw or cared that much about the original that something as small as Starbuck could ruin an excellent series such as this.
BSG has proven to be interesting but the writers are stuck on the idea that changing the sex of known characters constitutes "unique" changes. After the premier that "stunt" loses all meaning.
There is also the possibility that the series is highly rated because it's simply a good show and not because it is completely "unique" from the original.
The fact that Starbuck used to be a guy doesn't have any impact on that unless you're stuck on the original series. Starbuck being a woman has created some interesting plot points, and the "stunt" you were referring to has only been made a big deal by detractors, not the producers. It has never been a major selling point to watch the show.
BSG is doing well because it's simply a good, entertaining, and thoughtful show. The end.
Disclaimer: I have a bachelor's in CS and am working on an MBA, and this post might sound inflammatory, but there is a reality here that the parent poster should be aware of. Call it tough love.
It's not about not being clever; a CS degree doesn't teach you that. With theory, you can do things like jump to a totally different programming language and learn it very quickly because you probably understand what's going on behind the scenes to some extent. You said you know theory, but apparently didn't understand something like Big O, which is an essential tool for algorithm design. Theory teaches you the "whys" of why things like programming are the way that they are. Theory teaches you about rules of computation that determine what sort of problems can be solved and what makes a problem complex. These things may sound abstract, but they are things that I used to use when I was programming every day.
You basically asked why it was that DeVry graduates get bad reputations from computer science majors; it's because they are schooled scientists, and you are a schooled programmer. The sad truth is based solely on degrees and not on personal ability, then yes; a DeVry degree will not look anywhere nearly good compared to an actual CS degree from a decent school. The problem you'll have is that there's a reasonable chance that an employer won't take you for the same rate (or at all) as a CS student because he or she probably won't have a good gauge of what you're actually capable of OUTSIDE of degree work. If they have to go off degrees and you're facing off with a CS major, you're going to lose because they have an in depth SCIENCE degree instead of what is essentially looked at as a programming certification. A degree is basically a quantifiable measure of how much a person knows (or knew at some point) and how dedicated they are to stick it out for n amount of years. On this front, unfortunately you will lose every time when compared SOLELY on degrees with a BS or BA.
Anyway, I'm not going to go on and list every thing I know or every program I've ever worked on, but if you think that one cannot know how to properly develop software without getting a CS degree then maybe I'm just smarter than you.
That may be the case (and I wholeheartedly agree with you as long as by "developing software" you only mean "writing code"), but I pity you if you believe you're going to be viewed as being neck and neck with CS students from an employer's view. You may (and probably are) more qualified then some CS students, but in the end, they went to a 4 year program and got a science degree, you got an associates; if you want to talk about about being smarter than a CS student who went to a four year school, then why would you either not be aware of this handicap (when compared to a BA/BS) or why would did you choose to take the handicap and not go for the science degree? Taking a step further backwards, isn't it commonly known at this point that a bachelor's degree in almost any discipline is essentially entry level for a career?
The good news is that once you find a job, after racking up a few years' worth of experience your degree will matter less and less, as you're in an experience-oriented field. Unfortunately from my experience, it is also a limiting factor when it comes time to determine who moves up the ladder. But if you all that you really want to do is program, this isn't a downfall.
Gabe Newell and his crew also brought forth two of the best FPS games ever made, released a game for free (TFC classic, which was incredible), brought great support to the modding community, etc. And come on, you and I both know that you can get Counterstrike for free. At the same time, you can buy it and then the developers of the most popular mod EVAR are making money for their effort. What's so wrong with that?
And yeah, there are lots of people who actually find steam convenient or don't care that they have to be connected to the internet to do it. The only place I've really seen it railed on is/. I also enjoy that the money from HL2 is actually going to the developers instead of Vivendi and that I don't have to worry about losing CDs or keeping up with updates. Good for them.
I agree he isn't a gaming god, but I do credit Valve with making some top notch stuff and being so mod-friendly. Used to love them before the damn stuttering bug and the 04 Christmas release shenannigans, but they're still a company that's worth giving money to.
I'm not saying that Linux and company should be completely ignored, just that you cannot compare the two huge gaming markets (PCs and consoles) directly to Windows and Linux (where Linux essentially has no market share).
Gabe Newell - the guy who's company has chosen to make their games NOT portable to any thing other than Windows, is criticizing Sony for making their games hard to port?
Which do you think is actually the bigger factor, the ability to port from the mainstream crowd of consoles to the mainstream crowd of PCs, or the ability to port from a PC to Mac/Linux (which, for gaming, are niche markets)? Newell's talking about the big picture. I don't think it's fair to take his comments and then try to apply them to MUCH smaller markets. There's a huge difference there.
The same Gabe Newell who took a relatively portable game framework (Quake) and made it NOT portable (Half-Life)?
It's pretty widely known that Valve basically gutted the Quake engine and you can barely say that it's based off of it. HL wasn't a mod, it was essentially an entirely new engine with bits of Quake code in it.
The same Gabe Newell who chose to use a non-portable graphics framework (Direct-3D) rather than a portable graphics framework (OpenGL) for Half-Life II?
Direct 3D runs on Xbox and PC. It covers the two mainstream markets (PCs and consoles). Granted, HL2 won't work with Linux or whatnot, but the brutal truth is that business-wise, the markets are basically insignificant. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see more Linux and OS X games, but I can't blame these guys for not developing when your market is so small. Hopefully this changes, but for now the sad reality seems to be that if I see a game that I want on Linux, it's more like a "wow, that company's pretty cool for supporting such a small market" thing rather than a "wow, given the high potential market for both of these mediums, it seems ridiculous that the ability to easily port between the two is being ignored!" Newell is arguing the latter.
Then you'd probably laugh if you saw all of the yuppies and soccer moms who drive them up north who probably never have actually USED them, they merely purchase them as some sort of suburban status symbol or whatnot.
Slashdot Mirror
A cell phone is for convenience. The fact that I can be reached and reach all of my friends from wherever I am (and extremely valuable for emergencies) is an obvious benefit that I find amazing people like you can't see any value in.
I also can't stand those who are obnoxious with their phones (driving with one, talking loudly, etc), but that's more of a function of the user than the tool.
Your post screams of bitterness. Get over it.
Are you kidding? .NET?
Why is it that basically being guaranteed that you're never going to have dangling pointers and reducing the chance of memory leaks is a bad thing, assuming that I'm not writing a processor-intensive app? If a garbage collector is going to speed up and ease development with a minimal loss of performance for a non-intensive app, why would you not be for it?
I know manual memory management is simple, but what I don't understand is why it must be required, especially when there are languages out there that have clearly demonstrated that it doesn't need to be that way for many projects.
Processing time is cheap, programming time/debugging time is not. I'm sure that having to deal with pointers in order to use Cocoa (excluding Java) has turned more than a few programmers off to coding for OS X.
I don't know... most IDEs support autocomplete/intellisense/whatever which allows you to immediately see what the parameters do. It's not really an issue unless you're editing in Pico. It strikes me as being a waste of time when it must be used for EVERY SINGLE CALL.
Making it optional, however...
There's things that can be taken away, however; being forced to manage memory being a key one if you want to attract Java/.NET developers.
Objective C is pretty nice to use, but I think Apple really needs to come up with a language that doesn't require memory management. Not everyone is designing more upscale applications where management is essential. Personally, this is a rather large "fault" of Apple's development platform. Give me something that supports Cocoa (not Java) with managed memory and I'd be much happier.
.NETs attraction seems to be that it is very simple to put together GUI-driven applications (that actually look they're Windows programs) quickly.
It would also be nice if they would use something with a more conventional syntax (I'm looking at you, method calls). Wasn't a huge deal, but I think it would make it easier to dive into or attract developers who are more used to the Java/C#/etc way of doing things.
As a side note, much of
Syntactically, C# and Java are extremely similar, so it doesn't matter too much which one you take - you'll be able to pick up the other one fairly quickly.
Syntactically, yes, but that's not the brunt of the work of really knowing a language; it's the APIs. Don't think that you can say that you know Java just because you're fluent with C# and know that the syntax is almost identical. You don't. The APIs are tools that are absolutely essential if you want to be able to truthfully say that you know the language on a resume. Don't downplay them. I know RailGunner wasn't implying that APIs aren't important and agree with everything that he's saying, just pointing out that you cannot really know Java or C#/.NET until you're familiar with the tools that they give you.
I'm reading a lot of comments that say that the two are very syntactically similar (which is very true), but keep in mind that the main battle of being able to say that you actually know a language in the mind of an employer isn't knowing the syntax, it's having a working familiarity with the API. Can you really say that you know Java if you don't know how to change a JTable to look a particular way with checkboxes inside of it? Do you know .NET if you have no idea what something like the Dataset can get you? Know the APIs, my friend! They are what enables you to quickly develop once you can immediately say "TableCellRenderer!" and "Oh, an in-memory database so I never have to write SQL queries!" If you can't really do this, then you can easily get burned on an interview.
.NET in a heartbeat. If you want to do lots of server-side or backend stuff, definitely Java.
.NET's easy GUI-building capabilities are worthless if you're writing back-end code.
I also think a lot of the decision should have to do with what sort of programs you want to develop. If you're looking to do GUI-related application work, I'd go with
It just depends on what you want to do, so give some thought on that front. Be weary of what you place importance on; Java portability most likely won't matter if you want to do desktop applications since the majority of business desktops are using Windows. Likewise,
If you're not really sure what you'd like to be doing, I'd do Java. I've been developing on C# for a few years now and am learning to really like the API, but I think Java's is a bit "tougher" in some areas (Swing's nuances) and you'll get more out of it. YMMV.
Dice.com returns 10115 results for the search ".NET", 13356 results for "java", and 7145 results for "c++".
.net development going on. I'm surprised so many people think that noone is using it.
So yes, there's a lot of
To the best of my knowledge there is still no crack for the Xbox that doesn't involve hardware modification.
Done and done.
It involves getting in through a savegame. I had this done to my XBox; it has something to do with FTPing in and replacing boot files.
Hopefully the new system gets cracked quickly; an XBox with XBox Media Center is very useful!
Tragically Hip? Yuck. Come on, you guys had Skinny Puppy! Flaunt it!
I can't seem to hire 4-year college grads in any of my IT businesses -- they won't work for the base salary we offer.
Something seems odd here. How much were you offering?
I see a lot of comments like this, lately, but do you think that PS3 and the Revolution aren't going to get a lot of articles as well?
/. covers too much next-gen consoles in general, but I don't think they're being a blatant commercial for Microsoft. Nintendo and Sony are being rather hush-hush at the momeny, but I'm sure when they start talking to us we'll see plenty of posts by them as well.
I think it's a decent assumption that many folks are interested in the consoles. This only happens once evert four or so years, and for many a console is a mainstream source of entertainment.
We saw the same thing happen with Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube. It's probably more of a valid argument to say that
I guarantee you it was the black leather ankle boots. ;)
And gentlemen, please; don't be the guy who wears pink or baby blue if you don't want to be perceived as being gay.
Anyhow, I don't think there's anything wrong with dressing nicely. I'd much rather have employees who you can tell take care of themselves at a reasonable level and care about their image than have the guys who don't take showers or dress terribly.
And no, I'm not saying that your wardrobe should be out of Armani or whatever, but sweatpants and Hawaiian shirts and sandals and lack of regular showers aren't cool, yet that sort of thing isn't uncommon. It sort of sends a message that these people aren't very professional or simply don't care enough. That's a bad thing.
Correction, I meant to say it's not the mugs phoning the bar.
Before a whole bunch of us scream "dupe," yes, we've seen this before, but this time it's the mugs that are phoning the bar. Let's see 'em!
Another Beer Please
Beer Stein Goes Hi Tech
The concept that you don't want to piss your customers off with such an obvious flaw is a very rudimentary one in the business world. Flaws such as that are found with the most basic of testing. Given Apple's problems with class action lawsuits in the past, one would believe that they would be taking care of obvious blunders such as this and put more effort into engineering their iPods thoroughly.
There are other music players out there, ya know.
Right you are, and when it becomes very well known that the iPod Nano scratches this badly, many other people are going to be aware of this as well.
Personally, I don't care if my iPod gets scratched. It's a music player, not a mirror in the Hubble space telescope or something.
The market will very likely not share your apologizing view, which is why so many people find it amazing that Apple could screw something like this up. You should take a look at some of the pictures going around. This isn't a matter the screen not being imune to scratches, it's about displays that are barely readable after a month of carrying around in a pocket.
I'll add that I've been a big Apple fan for a while. However, it's discouraging to see these obvious flaws pop up in Apple's work when I think about how badly I'd like to buy a Yonah Powerbook next year. Something like this isn't excusable from an engineering perspective even if its first generation.
The problem that currently exist with the Starbuck character is that it is very little different from the first Starbuck other than sex. It would be nice to see some creativity in regards to the character.
Once again, Starbuck being a guy and having some of the same general traits of the original is only a "problem" if you can't let go of the original series. This has ZERO negative impact on the enjoyability of the new series to someone who never saw or cared that much about the original that something as small as Starbuck could ruin an excellent series such as this.
BSG has proven to be interesting but the writers are stuck on the idea that changing the sex of known characters constitutes "unique" changes. After the premier that "stunt" loses all meaning.
There is also the possibility that the series is highly rated because it's simply a good show and not because it is completely "unique" from the original.
The fact that Starbuck used to be a guy doesn't have any impact on that unless you're stuck on the original series. Starbuck being a woman has created some interesting plot points, and the "stunt" you were referring to has only been made a big deal by detractors, not the producers. It has never been a major selling point to watch the show.
BSG is doing well because it's simply a good, entertaining, and thoughtful show. The end.
Disclaimer: I have a bachelor's in CS and am working on an MBA, and this post might sound inflammatory, but there is a reality here that the parent poster should be aware of. Call it tough love.
It's not about not being clever; a CS degree doesn't teach you that. With theory, you can do things like jump to a totally different programming language and learn it very quickly because you probably understand what's going on behind the scenes to some extent. You said you know theory, but apparently didn't understand something like Big O, which is an essential tool for algorithm design. Theory teaches you the "whys" of why things like programming are the way that they are. Theory teaches you about rules of computation that determine what sort of problems can be solved and what makes a problem complex. These things may sound abstract, but they are things that I used to use when I was programming every day.
You basically asked why it was that DeVry graduates get bad reputations from computer science majors; it's because they are schooled scientists, and you are a schooled programmer. The sad truth is based solely on degrees and not on personal ability, then yes; a DeVry degree will not look anywhere nearly good compared to an actual CS degree from a decent school. The problem you'll have is that there's a reasonable chance that an employer won't take you for the same rate (or at all) as a CS student because he or she probably won't have a good gauge of what you're actually capable of OUTSIDE of degree work. If they have to go off degrees and you're facing off with a CS major, you're going to lose because they have an in depth SCIENCE degree instead of what is essentially looked at as a programming certification. A degree is basically a quantifiable measure of how much a person knows (or knew at some point) and how dedicated they are to stick it out for n amount of years. On this front, unfortunately you will lose every time when compared SOLELY on degrees with a BS or BA.
Anyway, I'm not going to go on and list every thing I know or every program I've ever worked on, but if you think that one cannot know how to properly develop software without getting a CS degree then maybe I'm just smarter than you.
That may be the case (and I wholeheartedly agree with you as long as by "developing software" you only mean "writing code"), but I pity you if you believe you're going to be viewed as being neck and neck with CS students from an employer's view. You may (and probably are) more qualified then some CS students, but in the end, they went to a 4 year program and got a science degree, you got an associates; if you want to talk about about being smarter than a CS student who went to a four year school, then why would you either not be aware of this handicap (when compared to a BA/BS) or why would did you choose to take the handicap and not go for the science degree? Taking a step further backwards, isn't it commonly known at this point that a bachelor's degree in almost any discipline is essentially entry level for a career?
The good news is that once you find a job, after racking up a few years' worth of experience your degree will matter less and less, as you're in an experience-oriented field. Unfortunately from my experience, it is also a limiting factor when it comes time to determine who moves up the ladder. But if you all that you really want to do is program, this isn't a downfall.
Gabe Newell and his crew also brought forth two of the best FPS games ever made, released a game for free (TFC classic, which was incredible), brought great support to the modding community, etc. And come on, you and I both know that you can get Counterstrike for free. At the same time, you can buy it and then the developers of the most popular mod EVAR are making money for their effort. What's so wrong with that?
/. I also enjoy that the money from HL2 is actually going to the developers instead of Vivendi and that I don't have to worry about losing CDs or keeping up with updates. Good for them.
And yeah, there are lots of people who actually find steam convenient or don't care that they have to be connected to the internet to do it. The only place I've really seen it railed on is
I agree he isn't a gaming god, but I do credit Valve with making some top notch stuff and being so mod-friendly. Used to love them before the damn stuttering bug and the 04 Christmas release shenannigans, but they're still a company that's worth giving money to.
I'm not saying that Linux and company should be completely ignored, just that you cannot compare the two huge gaming markets (PCs and consoles) directly to Windows and Linux (where Linux essentially has no market share).
Gabe Newell - the guy who's company has chosen to make their games NOT portable to any thing other than Windows, is criticizing Sony for making their games hard to port?
Which do you think is actually the bigger factor, the ability to port from the mainstream crowd of consoles to the mainstream crowd of PCs, or the ability to port from a PC to Mac/Linux (which, for gaming, are niche markets)? Newell's talking about the big picture. I don't think it's fair to take his comments and then try to apply them to MUCH smaller markets. There's a huge difference there.
The same Gabe Newell who took a relatively portable game framework (Quake) and made it NOT portable (Half-Life)?
It's pretty widely known that Valve basically gutted the Quake engine and you can barely say that it's based off of it. HL wasn't a mod, it was essentially an entirely new engine with bits of Quake code in it.
The same Gabe Newell who chose to use a non-portable graphics framework (Direct-3D) rather than a portable graphics framework (OpenGL) for Half-Life II?
Direct 3D runs on Xbox and PC. It covers the two mainstream markets (PCs and consoles). Granted, HL2 won't work with Linux or whatnot, but the brutal truth is that business-wise, the markets are basically insignificant. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see more Linux and OS X games, but I can't blame these guys for not developing when your market is so small. Hopefully this changes, but for now the sad reality seems to be that if I see a game that I want on Linux, it's more like a "wow, that company's pretty cool for supporting such a small market" thing rather than a "wow, given the high potential market for both of these mediums, it seems ridiculous that the ability to easily port between the two is being ignored!" Newell is arguing the latter.
Then you'd probably laugh if you saw all of the yuppies and soccer moms who drive them up north who probably never have actually USED them, they merely purchase them as some sort of suburban status symbol or whatnot.
Uhm, I don't own an SUV. I'm so anti-SUV (in the context of wastefulness, not those who use them) it's not even funny; my car gets about 30 MPG.
I agree with absolutely everything else you said.