... take a look at ENIÄK. It intends to bring a logically structured framework to GUIs such as HTML is to the Web or LaTeX to publishing; granted, it's been stalling for a long time due to the main developer having other things to do, but the concept is fascinating: imagine no longer needing to think about the concrete graphical layout, widget sets etc. when developing the interface for an application. Imagine just defining it in the sense of determining the logical hierarchy of elements: windows, text entry points, buttons, menus -- anything conceptually different from another element. And forget about the layout: the (yet unproven) goal of the architecture is that just as LaTeX automatically positions your document so that it is as readable and good-looking as possible, ENIÄK would automatically position and render the elements of the UI to create an optimal user interface.
Many other advantages can be derived from the user interface not being defined physically but conceptually:
Platform-independence: the architecture relies on a general display server which translates the conceptual elements into a particular interface format, be it Windows, OSX, Gtk or HTML. The application's interface specification, however, remains the same for all platforms. In other words, once a display server exists for a particular platform, all ENIÄK applications will work on it.
I/O format independence: deriving from the previous point, display servers can equally well be created for text-only console displays or PDAs.
Lightweight remote use: since the interface is specified based on its logical structure, very little data needs to be transferred from an application to its display server. After this, the (local) display server takes care of rendering, and all that's transferred between it and the (remote) application are lightweight event descriptions.
OK, enough advocation. Problems do still exist with the concept, mainly a) it's not compatible with any existing application and b) there's no proof of concept until a sufficiently advanced display server is created that actually shows some indication of that the server can adequately automate the process of transformation from a logical, structured interface description into an intuitive, user-friendly physical interface. There's a long way to go, but still, I can't help but to be fascinated by such a concept of abstraction. For more info, read the white paper or complete specification
I know replying to this kind of stuff is the worst kind of procrastination, but I can't resist it.:)
- Running a VB application
- Compiling C# programs
- Developing software with tools like Visual Studio, with features like Intellisense and real time syntax checking
- Looking at your SQL server installation from your MMC snapin, while administrating the rest of the network/applications
Mmhmm. VB and C# are Microsoft's programming languages, which they haven't ported to the Mac. Thank god for that. Of course, this has nothing to do with activity that cannot be performed with a Mac application. Those languages are used to create the application, and the same task can be done with a dozen other languages.
And yes, Visual Studio... do you really think there aren't any software development suites for the Mac? It doesn't need to be made by Microsoft to be useable. (trying to resist from making obvious remarks) I personally haven't ever seen the need for using such software so I can't tell you if the Mac development suites available have "Intellisense", whatever that might be, but I'm pretty sure most of them have real time syntax checking.
Come to think of it, even Apple provide such software (ProjectBuilder) for free with MacOS X on the Developer Tools CD. I don't see Microsoft doing that.
Far as SQL goes, I have absolutely no idea what MMC is -- another Microsoft tool? Rest asure there are graphical front-ends for SQL databases on the Mac, as well as ones for other system administration tasks.
(Should I go on?)
Please do, and try to mention actual activities. You can develop software on a Mac, you can administer databases, applications and networks on a Mac. And I'm betting you can do all of it just as easily and efficiently as on a Windows box.
I don't think there really is any significant segment left that wouldn't be feasible to use a Mac for. Of course, if your company has chosen to develop code with C#, you can't very well use Macs for the development. But then, if it's chosen to develop with Objective C, you will have to use Macs.:) The point is though, the tools for performing tasks within every segment do exist, and any platform dependence issues are only the result of more specific choices, such as that of a specific programming language.
Just about the only relevant area I can think of that Macs don't have the software for is.NET. Sure, it's yet another Microsoft concept and thus it's principally questionable that Macs should be required to support it, but unfortunately Microsoft have the power to push it into such a de-facto standard that other operating systems (not only MacOS though) may be forced to adopt it. However, considering Microsoft's commitment to Macs (what with continuing to port Office and stuff) and the fact that they allowed Mono to be created, it seems doubtful that MacOS wouldn't get some sort of support for.NET as well.
As far as the everlasting MHz war goes, does anybody really care whether an 8xx MHz G4 can outwin an x86 with twice the clock speed? (Though shouldn't it suffice that it outperforms one with the same clock speed?) Or whether, in general, the fastest PPC processor is faster than the fastest P4? Sure, we all want our programs to run smoothly but I really doubt that this has been a processor speed issue for years, apart for maybe games that actually have gotten a lot more complex.
Theme choices and dismissals
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Living in Finland, I won't be seeing the season finale before the end of this year or so, so I won't comment on that issue. What does seem a bit questionable to me, however, is DiBona's choices of dismissable episode themes. Let me break them down here a bit:
Time travel: umm, what about "All good things"? "Yesterday's Enterprise"? "Time's Arrow"? "Trials and tribble-ations"? OK, so there are many rather silly eps that revolve around the subject as well, but considering what great potential it has for plots, I'd definitely not dismiss it altogether. It's perhaps the all-time scifi theme, certainly not to be missed out on one of the all-time scifi series.
The Holodeck: Episodes set mostly on the holodeck have a greater-than-usual chance of being, if nothing else, at least funny: we've seen Data play Sherlock Holmes in "Elementary, dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle" (which actually had a very thoughtful plot as well), we've seen Tom Paris play Captain Proton in "Bride of Chaotica!" , in what is arguably the only enjoyable episode of Voyager (ironically a fill-in for the original concept for that episode never filmed due to damage to the props). Again, as with time travel, this is a theme that allows for a variety of intriguing, intelligent and humorous plots, and cuts off many restrictions imposed by the usual Trek settings.
The Doctor: OK, I'll admit, I haven't seen the episodes where he gets reprogrammed, but in general I'm sure most would agree that without Robert Picardo in it, Voyager would be even more of a drag than it already is (or was). But then, maybe DiBona subscribes to that too.
Another good theme bet is whenever Q is involved:) (ok, they're usually just funny, not very intellectually stimulating). As to what themes to actually avoid? Well, DiBona's right about the smart/psychic characters bit. Some others spring to mind:
Especially anything involving babies, or generally putting children in a prominent role of the theme. Kids are, well, kids, they only provide for mushy "oh gosh, what a moral dilemma" episodes like the horrid one where Torres tries to alter the looks of her unborn child (I'm not even going to bother to look up the ep name). Want more examples? Let's see now, pick just about any Wesley or Jake and Nog ep. Tell me it's got something even remotely reminiscent of an intellectual plot.
Anything involving the characters having to make tough moral choices or seeing things through someone else's perspective and realising they've been/acted wrong/improper/whatever. The characters don't really evolve through these experiences anyway, and there's nothing intellectually challenging about Worf showing his stubbornness by wanting to die rather than live crippled, doctors performing unethical procedures or save-one-person-or-a-thousand choices -- especially when it's all usually presented in the overly cheesy Paramount fashion.
Rescue missions. Overused, and just too restricted to form anything more than yet another how-to-get-the-crewmen-out dilemma.
Slashdot Mirror
... take a look at ENIÄK. It intends to bring a logically structured framework to GUIs such as HTML is to the Web or LaTeX to publishing; granted, it's been stalling for a long time due to the main developer having other things to do, but the concept is fascinating: imagine no longer needing to think about the concrete graphical layout, widget sets etc. when developing the interface for an application. Imagine just defining it in the sense of determining the logical hierarchy of elements: windows, text entry points, buttons, menus -- anything conceptually different from another element. And forget about the layout: the (yet unproven) goal of the architecture is that just as LaTeX automatically positions your document so that it is as readable and good-looking as possible, ENIÄK would automatically position and render the elements of the UI to create an optimal user interface.
Many other advantages can be derived from the user interface not being defined physically but conceptually:
OK, enough advocation. Problems do still exist with the concept, mainly a) it's not compatible with any existing application and b) there's no proof of concept until a sufficiently advanced display server is created that actually shows some indication of that the server can adequately automate the process of transformation from a logical, structured interface description into an intuitive, user-friendly physical interface. There's a long way to go, but still, I can't help but to be fascinated by such a concept of abstraction. For more info, read the white paper or complete specification
I know replying to this kind of stuff is the worst kind of procrastination, but I can't resist it. :)
:) The point is though, the tools for performing tasks within every segment do exist, and any platform dependence issues are only the result of more specific choices, such as that of a specific programming language.
.NET. Sure, it's yet another Microsoft concept and thus it's principally questionable that Macs should be required to support it, but unfortunately Microsoft have the power to push it into such a de-facto standard that other operating systems (not only MacOS though) may be forced to adopt it. However, considering Microsoft's commitment to Macs (what with continuing to port Office and stuff) and the fact that they allowed Mono to be created, it seems doubtful that MacOS wouldn't get some sort of support for .NET as well.
- Running a VB application
- Compiling C# programs
- Developing software with tools like Visual Studio, with features like Intellisense and real time syntax checking
- Looking at your SQL server installation from your MMC snapin, while administrating the rest of the network/applications
Mmhmm. VB and C# are Microsoft's programming languages, which they haven't ported to the Mac. Thank god for that. Of course, this has nothing to do with activity that cannot be performed with a Mac application. Those languages are used to create the application, and the same task can be done with a dozen other languages.
And yes, Visual Studio... do you really think there aren't any software development suites for the Mac? It doesn't need to be made by Microsoft to be useable. (trying to resist from making obvious remarks) I personally haven't ever seen the need for using such software so I can't tell you if the Mac development suites available have "Intellisense", whatever that might be, but I'm pretty sure most of them have real time syntax checking.
Come to think of it, even Apple provide such software (ProjectBuilder) for free with MacOS X on the Developer Tools CD. I don't see Microsoft doing that.
Far as SQL goes, I have absolutely no idea what MMC is -- another Microsoft tool? Rest asure there are graphical front-ends for SQL databases on the Mac, as well as ones for other system administration tasks.
(Should I go on?)
Please do, and try to mention actual activities. You can develop software on a Mac, you can administer databases, applications and networks on a Mac. And I'm betting you can do all of it just as easily and efficiently as on a Windows box.
I don't think there really is any significant segment left that wouldn't be feasible to use a Mac for. Of course, if your company has chosen to develop code with C#, you can't very well use Macs for the development. But then, if it's chosen to develop with Objective C, you will have to use Macs.
Just about the only relevant area I can think of that Macs don't have the software for is
As far as the everlasting MHz war goes, does anybody really care whether an 8xx MHz G4 can outwin an x86 with twice the clock speed? (Though shouldn't it suffice that it outperforms one with the same clock speed?) Or whether, in general, the fastest PPC processor is faster than the fastest P4? Sure, we all want our programs to run smoothly but I really doubt that this has been a processor speed issue for years, apart for maybe games that actually have gotten a lot more complex.
- Time travel: umm, what about "All good things"? "Yesterday's Enterprise"? "Time's Arrow"? "Trials and tribble-ations"? OK, so there are many rather silly eps that revolve around the subject as well, but considering what great potential it has for plots, I'd definitely not dismiss it altogether. It's perhaps the all-time scifi theme, certainly not to be missed out on one of the all-time scifi series.
- The Holodeck: Episodes set mostly on the holodeck have a greater-than-usual chance of being, if nothing else, at least funny: we've seen Data play Sherlock Holmes in "Elementary, dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle" (which actually had a very thoughtful plot as well), we've seen Tom Paris play Captain Proton in "Bride of Chaotica!" , in what is arguably the only enjoyable episode of Voyager (ironically a fill-in for the original concept for that episode never filmed due to damage to the props). Again, as with time travel, this is a theme that allows for a variety of intriguing, intelligent and humorous plots, and cuts off many restrictions imposed by the usual Trek settings.
- The Doctor: OK, I'll admit, I haven't seen the episodes where he gets reprogrammed, but in general I'm sure most would agree that without Robert Picardo in it, Voyager would be even more of a drag than it already is (or was). But then, maybe DiBona subscribes to that too.
Another good theme bet is whenever Q is involved