"I play games because they should be fun. I do not play games for profit, nor do I get upset if someone has more achievements, or a greater score than I."
And I don't have fun when the person who I'm playing cheats.
"While I agree that full voiceover should imply care about plot and user experience, sometimes all it does is bake bad writing into the build. Text, at least, gives your writer the flexibility to polish crummy dialog during periods where the rest of the company is bug hunting."
While I agree, both Knights of the Old Republic had voiceovers, and it was a significantly immersive feature. The Old Republic seems to share the same dialog system.
Hell, if The Old Republic is anything like KoTOR, I could never run into a player character and I wouldn't care.
"And you know what they’re most proud of? This is the kicker. They are most proud of the sound. No seriously. Something like a 20Gig installation, and most of it is voiceover work."
Maybe I'm shallow, but this is one of the biggest reasons I'm interested in The Old Republic. Full voiceovers on an MMORPG implies someone was actually interested in the plot and user experience, and is trying to deliver something on par with a single player game.
And 20 gigs of space? C'mon now. That's not much these days. Hell, I remember when I have a 100 meg hard drive, and my full install of Warcraft 2 was 80 of that. I've dealt with worse.
"As it turns out, Sean and Tom are both absolutely correct. Usually, this kind of urban legend stuff turns out to be completely inaccurate, but in this case, they are right on. When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++. So, naturally when I stayed to start the (eventually) Java project, Obj-C had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed from liberally."
For a while, Sun and NeXT were even in an alliance involving OpenStep, which carried on to Apple where for a while the Cocoa API was also available under Java.
"My personal opinion is that Objective C is pretty tedious and annoying. The syntax is ugly and non-intuitive. Again, this is my personal opinion. But having done years of C, C++, C#, I find it bizarre that Objective C syntax is non-obvious. Not that it is particularly complex, but if you know C++, Java and C# seem pretty obvious, whereas Objective C is just very different in syntax."
How is it not obvious? Your complaint seems to be that it is different, while admittedly not complex. Different != not obvious.
Objective C is an old language, and when it came out, it was a possible competitor to the still pretty shiny and new C++. It's an old enough language, that when Java was written, Java took a lot of cues from Obj-C. Apple didn't go out of their way to make a different language because back when Obj-C was created there wasn't a standard syntax for OOP programming.
Obj-C is dead simple, and honestly, not confusing if you take the time to learn it. However, it seems many people these days are afraid of languages that look different and immediately write it off, when it's pretty gosh darn elegant. Every time I ask people why they dislike Obj-C, they can't get any further than the brackets. It just amazes me how many people write off iOS because they think Obj-C is hard (which, alone, is mind numbing, considering the biggest draw of OS X on the desktop for software engineers is how easy Obj-C is compared to C++).
If the ability to learn is dead in software engineering, we're all in a lot of trouble.
The original Mac OS 8 was notoriously unstable, and even less compatible with existing Mac apps than OS X was. It also included a brand new API that Apple was attempting to switch developers to. But it was infamous for breaking tons of existing Mac apps, meaning Apple was struggling to add both a new API and design, while keeping existing software working.
The difference was, Copland even in it's last developers betas could barely even boot, much less attempt to run any existing OS 9 apps, while NeXTStep was proven and working. Yes, Apple had to make same changes to NeXTStep, and port it to PowerPC, but they started with something far more put together than Copland ever was.
iTunes is a Cocoa app now. As of iTunes 10, it now has a NSPrincipalClass, which means it's running under the Cocoa runtime.
No doubt it still has some Carbon calls (It's based on QuickTime which is entirely Carbon, cept for QuickTime X which isn't out for Windows), but it's a Cocoa app now.
I was amazed they've already flown past an older browser (Safari) in version numbers, and they're inching toward IE territory.
Seriously Google. This sounds like a.1, or even a.0.1 release. Don't be afraid of little bumps. It didn't sound like any new significant features were introduced.
Flash Lite was a mobile dedicated version of Flash that isn't necessarily compatible with all content. Flash 10.1, which is what is being talked about, is an effort by Adobe to bring mobile devices to feature parity with the desktop clients.
"Its the OPTION of having flash that makes it so great. If you don't like it, don't use it. But you cannot negate the fact that many users actually enjoy it. Period."
I would say the downside of this is that it allows web developers to be lazy. It's harder to move beyond Flash when Flash is still supported everywhere, even though it's supported very poorly.
It's the same thing that kept IE's stranglehold around for so long, especially when IE was on the Mac, so there wasn't even a cross platform argument.
When Apple decided not to include Flash on iDevices, Flash became no longer a standard, and started a move towards HTML5.
"You'd be surprised what an older G5 desktop sells for on the used market. Any software dev that supports PowerPC apps needs testing machines, and dev boxes. Faster PowerPCs like G5s are in demand out there."
Honestly, as a Mac dev, I can tell you that not many of us test on PowerPC any more... I have a PowerPC machine at home for that purpose, but I don't think I've even once used it. At work, we just decommissioned our last PowerPC's (cept for the one at my desk that we basically keep around as a file server because it contains a bunch of our old projects.) The latest version of XCode won't run on the PowerPC, nor will the latest version of OS X.
The newest PowerPC Mac is what... close to 5 years old at this point? Most of us have just given up, unless it's a dead simple app that can recompile without any modifications to PowerPC, and only requires 10.5. And most developers wouldn't even test at that point....
"Microsoft’s pitch will be that these slates will be sanctioned by corporate IT departments, enabling customers to use them at work and at home."
iPad and iPhone have been making massive inroads into IT departments. It's a bit late for Microsoft to be holding out on this selling point. I already know of many major companies that are either field testing iOS gear, or have already implemented deployment strategies.
Someone has officially outdone the iPhone 4. Apple is going to have to work hard to compete with this one. Perhaps hiding the phone dialer entirely until a reboot?
And as a network administrator, I don't have to let you do those things on my network. You are welcome to find a different network if those are things you want to do.
"Well, you just have to provide a networking library, a crypto library, a user interface, a cache, and a few other minor things like that.... How "hard" that is depends on whether you have those easily available and whether they play well with each other."
Hm, are you sure? WebKit is built on top of both CFLite, which includes networking classes. I'm also pretty sure WebKit includes a caching engine too. And in the project there are native views for most major platforms.
I don't blame Flock if they don't want to implement UI stuff like the back/forward button, address bar, menus, preferences, etc. I just feel like if they did so, it would make their offering more unique...
I'm kind of curious... why Chromium and not the base WebKit project? Are they piggybacking off the browser gui as well or something? It's not terribly hard to build your own browser atop WebKit, and performance wise, both the official version and Google's implementation are neck and neck speedwise. I'm not a web browser developer or anything, but every time I've used WebKit I've been able to integrate it easily into my apps with little overhead. Just wondering why Flock opted for several layers of projects over WebKit instead of just using WebKit itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now...
Android: Entirely completely open unless we're not a big fan of how you decide to operate your business.
"I play games because they should be fun. I do not play games for profit, nor do I get upset if someone has more achievements, or a greater score than I."
And I don't have fun when the person who I'm playing cheats.
"While I agree that full voiceover should imply care about plot and user experience, sometimes all it does is bake bad writing into the build. Text, at least, gives your writer the flexibility to polish crummy dialog during periods where the rest of the company is bug hunting."
While I agree, both Knights of the Old Republic had voiceovers, and it was a significantly immersive feature. The Old Republic seems to share the same dialog system.
Hell, if The Old Republic is anything like KoTOR, I could never run into a player character and I wouldn't care.
"And you know what they’re most proud of? This is the kicker. They are most proud of the sound. No seriously. Something like a 20Gig installation, and most of it is voiceover work."
Maybe I'm shallow, but this is one of the biggest reasons I'm interested in The Old Republic. Full voiceovers on an MMORPG implies someone was actually interested in the plot and user experience, and is trying to deliver something on par with a single player game.
And 20 gigs of space? C'mon now. That's not much these days. Hell, I remember when I have a 100 meg hard drive, and my full install of Warcraft 2 was 80 of that. I've dealt with worse.
http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html
"As it turns out, Sean and Tom are both absolutely correct. Usually, this
kind of urban legend stuff turns out to be completely inaccurate, but in
this case, they are right on. When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought
Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++.
So, naturally when I stayed to start the (eventually) Java project, Obj-C
had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had
lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed
from liberally."
For a while, Sun and NeXT were even in an alliance involving OpenStep, which carried on to Apple where for a while the Cocoa API was also available under Java.
"My personal opinion is that Objective C is pretty tedious and annoying. The syntax is ugly and non-intuitive. Again, this is my personal opinion. But having done years of C, C++, C#, I find it bizarre that Objective C syntax is non-obvious. Not that it is particularly complex, but if you know C++, Java and C# seem pretty obvious, whereas Objective C is just very different in syntax."
How is it not obvious? Your complaint seems to be that it is different, while admittedly not complex. Different != not obvious.
Objective C is an old language, and when it came out, it was a possible competitor to the still pretty shiny and new C++. It's an old enough language, that when Java was written, Java took a lot of cues from Obj-C. Apple didn't go out of their way to make a different language because back when Obj-C was created there wasn't a standard syntax for OOP programming.
Obj-C is dead simple, and honestly, not confusing if you take the time to learn it. However, it seems many people these days are afraid of languages that look different and immediately write it off, when it's pretty gosh darn elegant. Every time I ask people why they dislike Obj-C, they can't get any further than the brackets. It just amazes me how many people write off iOS because they think Obj-C is hard (which, alone, is mind numbing, considering the biggest draw of OS X on the desktop for software engineers is how easy Obj-C is compared to C++).
If the ability to learn is dead in software engineering, we're all in a lot of trouble.
The original Mac OS 8 was notoriously unstable, and even less compatible with existing Mac apps than OS X was. It also included a brand new API that Apple was attempting to switch developers to. But it was infamous for breaking tons of existing Mac apps, meaning Apple was struggling to add both a new API and design, while keeping existing software working.
The difference was, Copland even in it's last developers betas could barely even boot, much less attempt to run any existing OS 9 apps, while NeXTStep was proven and working. Yes, Apple had to make same changes to NeXTStep, and port it to PowerPC, but they started with something far more put together than Copland ever was.
Er, iTunes music is not drm'd. If you have old tracks that are drm'd, you can upgrade them to DRM free versions.
http://gizmodo.com/5124588/itunes-gets-drm-free-new-prices-purchase-over-3g
iTunes is a Cocoa app now. As of iTunes 10, it now has a NSPrincipalClass, which means it's running under the Cocoa runtime.
No doubt it still has some Carbon calls (It's based on QuickTime which is entirely Carbon, cept for QuickTime X which isn't out for Windows), but it's a Cocoa app now.
I was amazed they've already flown past an older browser (Safari) in version numbers, and they're inching toward IE territory.
Seriously Google. This sounds like a .1, or even a .0.1 release. Don't be afraid of little bumps. It didn't sound like any new significant features were introduced.
"Use a Nokia."
But that's Flash Lite, correct? Not Flash 10.1?
Flash Lite was a mobile dedicated version of Flash that isn't necessarily compatible with all content. Flash 10.1, which is what is being talked about, is an effort by Adobe to bring mobile devices to feature parity with the desktop clients.
"Its the OPTION of having flash that makes it so great. If you don't like it, don't use it. But you cannot negate the fact that many users actually enjoy it. Period."
I would say the downside of this is that it allows web developers to be lazy. It's harder to move beyond Flash when Flash is still supported everywhere, even though it's supported very poorly.
It's the same thing that kept IE's stranglehold around for so long, especially when IE was on the Mac, so there wasn't even a cross platform argument.
When Apple decided not to include Flash on iDevices, Flash became no longer a standard, and started a move towards HTML5.
Screw Software Engineering. I'm going to Hollywood to become a movie exec.
"The Stooges were in their prime in 1940. The Borg made their first appearance in Star Trek:TNG in 1989. Cowboy Bebop aired in 1998.
Slashdot could stand to look a little less adolescent and a little more trend-forward."
At the rate Hollywood is going, they'll probably do a Three Stooges reboot within the next five years. Then'll it'll be brand new again.
"I can't imagine what you'd use for Microsoft though."
I thought the three stooges sounded pretty good as an icon for Microsoft.
"You'd be surprised what an older G5 desktop sells for on the used market. Any software dev that supports PowerPC apps needs testing machines, and dev boxes. Faster PowerPCs like G5s are in demand out there."
Honestly, as a Mac dev, I can tell you that not many of us test on PowerPC any more... I have a PowerPC machine at home for that purpose, but I don't think I've even once used it. At work, we just decommissioned our last PowerPC's (cept for the one at my desk that we basically keep around as a file server because it contains a bunch of our old projects.) The latest version of XCode won't run on the PowerPC, nor will the latest version of OS X.
The newest PowerPC Mac is what... close to 5 years old at this point? Most of us have just given up, unless it's a dead simple app that can recompile without any modifications to PowerPC, and only requires 10.5. And most developers wouldn't even test at that point....
"Microsoft’s pitch will be that these slates will be sanctioned by corporate IT departments, enabling customers to use them at work and at home."
iPad and iPhone have been making massive inroads into IT departments. It's a bit late for Microsoft to be holding out on this selling point. I already know of many major companies that are either field testing iOS gear, or have already implemented deployment strategies.
Someone has officially outdone the iPhone 4. Apple is going to have to work hard to compete with this one. Perhaps hiding the phone dialer entirely until a reboot?
How useful is an open source house when it's not up to the average building code?
Any bets? Sounds like there were suddenly a bunch of phished accounts that got "activated."
It goes by the NT version numbers (which started at 3...)
NT3, NT4, NT5 (Windows 2000), NT 5.1 (XP), NT6 (Vista)...
But actually, it does derail at Windows 7. Windows 7 is really NT6.1.
And as a network administrator, I don't have to let you do those things on my network. You are welcome to find a different network if those are things you want to do.
Everybody wins!
I was on an IT staff that used the nuclear option to take care of issues like this. A white list.
"Well, you just have to provide a networking library, a crypto library, a user interface, a cache, and a few other minor things like that.... How "hard" that is depends on whether you have those easily available and whether they play well with each other."
Hm, are you sure? WebKit is built on top of both CFLite, which includes networking classes. I'm also pretty sure WebKit includes a caching engine too. And in the project there are native views for most major platforms.
In fact, I see a lot of tutorial's like this around the net the implement none of the things you say need to be implemented:
http://www.gtkforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3057
I don't blame Flock if they don't want to implement UI stuff like the back/forward button, address bar, menus, preferences, etc. I just feel like if they did so, it would make their offering more unique...
I'm kind of curious... why Chromium and not the base WebKit project? Are they piggybacking off the browser gui as well or something? It's not terribly hard to build your own browser atop WebKit, and performance wise, both the official version and Google's implementation are neck and neck speedwise. I'm not a web browser developer or anything, but every time I've used WebKit I've been able to integrate it easily into my apps with little overhead. Just wondering why Flock opted for several layers of projects over WebKit instead of just using WebKit itself.