Yes. I'm afraid that the new internal code name for their legal course is "Cherry Blossom."
Launch has been made, nothing to do now but ride it out.
As a corollary this probably explains why Ralph Yarro is being refered to as "Betty" around the SCO offices and has little or nothing to do with his private life.
Flashing is one of the hardcoded patterns that trout recognize. This is why you'll find most streamers have a tinsel body, but a spinner really flashes better than a fly and if the trout aren't in selective mood will generally outproduce any fly.
It simulates a "bait fish" (or one of the trout's own offspring) in flight for its life.
This doesn't really apply to things like nymphs. Nymph flies often have a bit of tinsel on them, but that's just because flashing is one of the hardcoded patterns that consumers recognize.
Oh, I don't know. I'd guess that hand sized antelope would sell pretty well to the same crowd that thought pot-bellied pigs were a good thing to have around the house.
You got me on why they would need a PC though.
KFG
Re:EJB is REALLY Bitter
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
Ah, well, remember that object oriented programing started before there was an object oriented language as one possible approach to coding a project. Primarily as an engineering tool. It was in this enviroment that I first started coding in an object oriented manner, in APL no less (well, ok, I was coding card games really, but the idea is the imporant thing).
So yes, I took up Java before Python; and C++ before that, but was at least well familiar with the "gestalt" of object orientedness before learning any of them.
Perl gives me hives. I can't stand the syntax.:)
Java's strength in the marketplace is certainly its "enterprise" ( a term that gives me hives) support. Contract work for the "enterprise" is where I primarily use Java. On the other hand one of the essential problems with a huge class base is that it's often quicker and easier to code your own classes than to find and understand existing ones.
That's without even getting into the quality of the classes and their documentation. Sometimes object oriented programmers are their own worst enemies with a poor grasp of the concepts of class and inheritence themselves, or where such concepts might not even be the optimum solution.
Just put me down as an old curmudgeon if you must.:)
Please insert the lyrics to Kip Addota's "Wet Dreams" here and be done with it.
KFG
Re:Languages need novices, novices need good books
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
The older you get, the harder it is to pick up new concepts.
I've only found this to be true for those who "coast" and stop picking up new concepts in the first place.
KFG
Re:EJB is REALLY Bitter
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
A few days before I could work with it in a "just type this" sort of way. A few weeks before I had any real idea how it worked.
Yes, it was my first approach to an object oriented language, but not to object oriented programming.
I may be a bit slow at times, but I'm not stupid. I taught myself Quantum Mechanics before it ever came up as "course work." Give me a good book and I'll work it out. I armed myself with some good Java books.
I do not deny your claim, a priori, that learning to write object oriented code is a hurdle to understanding Java, however I posit that that in no way effects my claim that to understand Java you must first understand Java.
And Python, as an example, does not suffer from this. It offers an easy path.
On the other hand Ruby does, it isn't a criticism unique to Java.
C++ is just an unholy mess.
I certainly don't "know" Java in the way I would define "know." I don't even know it that's possible. My current feeling for Java is that it's expanding and morphing faster than any human mind that doesn't do anything but try to keep track of it can reasonably cope with.
I'm not a full time programer, let alone a full time programer in any single language. I use Java where I must, as a tool. I at least understand it at a low level now, if not all of its little nooks and pragmatic corners.
I still believe it is a bit daunting on initial approach though and if I were to try to teach my mom object oriented programing I wouldn't start with it. If it comes to that if I were to teach her programing I wouldn't start her with an object oriented approach at all.
Why? As it turns out it's because Bass are pretty smart fish. They can make generalizations. This thing has certain aspects to it that edible things have. Let's see if it's good to eat.
Who knew that such things as Red Devils, Rapalas and rubber worms would come along?
Trout, on the other hand, are primitive and stupid. They rely on hardcoded pattern recognition to find food. If the available food doesn't match the pattern a trout can starve among plenty. Or ignore your fly.
The problem with Outlook isn't that it's stupid. It's too smart. It makes decisions for the user ( who should, legitimately, be the sole source of intelligence when reading mail. Post your luser joke here).
It's like a Bass. Too easy to catch virii and malicious code because it recognizes that it's something that might be able to run. Well hell, let's try to run it and see what happens.
Gotcha!
KFG
Re:Languages need novices, novices need good books
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that most Java developers have lost their "Beginner's Mind."
You can see the evidence of it in my previous post criticising Java for its complexity. Experts who already understand it post 10 lines of "Hello World" code and say, "See? Nothing to it! If you understand it it's easy to understand."
Well Duh. That's what I said.
But you can't start understanding it by understanding it. It ought to be a truism that you start understanding something with a lack of understanding and have to build up in steps.
Java makes little to no provision for taking those steps. It's a real problem.
I also think there's something of a problem with Java programers ending up crippled by the enviroment themselves. It isn't the only way to go about solving problems, and neither is OOP.
And as with most pissing matches I expect some territory will be marked out, penis size and stream range will be compared and commented upon, the joint will stink for a while. ..
and a year from now no one who wasn't directly involved will even remember it happened.
Re:EJB is REALLY Bitter
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
I would suggest that you have to count the time and work needed to gain experience with Python/Smalltalk as against the time it takes to understand Java then.
An experienced programmer can pick up Python in a matter of minutes. I have not found this to be true of Java.
KFG
Re:EJB is REALLY Bitter
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
Dude, how did we end up talking about Microsoft when I spoke only of Unix and Java? I made a criticism of Java. I did not endorse or compare to any Microsoft enviroment.
Methinks your knee is jerking.
For my own part, whatever it might have to do with the subject, I prefer a Linux/bash/vim/C/Python programing enviroment and avoid Windows whenever I can.
I had decades of programing experience when I first approached Java, I found it heavy sledding to get going.
I can't imagine how it looks to a programing novice. You need to understand too much to do anything.
KFG
Re:Languages need novices, novices need good books
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Not just for novices. I'm a "graying ponytail." I cut my teeth in real programing on an IBM 360 in APL. Selectric as the i/o device. "Changable fonts" by changing the typeball and all that.
I'm hardly either command line nor dense mathmatical code shy.
Today I'm a bit of a C+Python snob, but I went through a VB phase when making the switch to graphical shell programing. It was like magic. It got me up on my feet and running, producing really usable apps in the Windows enviroment in no time flat.
I "outgrew" it in fairly short order, but as a stepping stone between "old world" and "new world" I found it invaluable.
KFG
Re:EJB is REALLY Bitter
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 1
Well no, not really. Unix can actually be taken in small steps, despite its complexity, and no knowledge of advanced uses is necessary to derive real use from the shell.
Take grep for instance. You can start using grep right away, and do really useful work with it, without even knowing that pipes, awk and sed even exist.
Maybe a dozen shell commands used in a fairly crude way is enough for 99.9% of users to do 99.9% of their work.
The problem with Java in general (not just EJB) is that you really need to grok the whole in order to understand a simple "Hello World" program, let alone do anything really useful.
Yes, we all know the reasons why the GPL prevents Red Hat from becoming Microsoft 2. I rather suspect that IBM knows it too, no matter how clueless the article's author is. (Yes, I read the article, so I know your post isn't offtopic at all).
Thing is that from IBM's point of view they're just trying to become something vaguely like IBM again.
From Red Hat's, Novell's and some other's point of view though I rather suspect they're trying to become the new Sun since Sun seems to have lost its way.
And then there's SCO, who is trying to not be a Linux company and is aiming for. ..well, good question. Microsoft's hit man maybe? The Blob?
Antarctica sounds like a good resolution to that matter.
"How many acres of weeds do you think it would take to make enough hydrogen to run your car for a week?"
And voila! Here we have the key to the answer.
Yes, yes, I know, this isn't hydrogen, but the answer is still going to be rougly similar. Probably rather worse actually, for the reasons I expounded in that rather fractious thread. Biomass for fuel will not save us.
Nor is the problem the efficiency of our cars. The problem is the efficiency of our cars. That is to say making our cars 35% efficient instead of 25% efficient still won't change the essential vast quatities of plant matter needed to run them. It's the car itself, as we know it, that is the problem.
Not to mention how we use them. See Douglas Adams, re "bypass."
Mass transit won't be our saviour either. Trains are more efficient than cars. Trains used to run on biomass. We stripped forests bare to power trains, that's why we switched to fossil plant fuels for trains in the first place. No more damned trees. Nearly one quarter the people in the US in 1900 too, and far fewer of them used and significant mechanical means of travel on a daily basis. Now we have four times the people and more cars than people.
Myself, I've found that one pound of plant mass is sufficient to take me 20 miles, but only a few of us are willing to take that route.
Today.
Tommorow you may have little choice in the matter. They ain't makin' petroleum crude as fast as we're using it.
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows he was in the other window of the book depository.
"Windows" is a code.
It's a good thing that conspiritors always leave blatent codes like this lying about, otherwise we'd have to rely on those meddling kids to flush them out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I'm afraid that the new internal code name for their legal course is "Cherry Blossom."
Launch has been made, nothing to do now but ride it out.
As a corollary this probably explains why Ralph Yarro is being refered to as "Betty" around the SCO offices and has little or nothing to do with his private life.
KFG
More importantly, whose export control laws?
The bulk of Linux code isn't American and is thus imported, on which there are no restrictions.
KFG
Flashing is one of the hardcoded patterns that trout recognize. This is why you'll find most streamers have a tinsel body, but a spinner really flashes better than a fly and if the trout aren't in selective mood will generally outproduce any fly.
It simulates a "bait fish" (or one of the trout's own offspring) in flight for its life.
This doesn't really apply to things like nymphs. Nymph flies often have a bit of tinsel on them, but that's just because flashing is one of the hardcoded patterns that consumers recognize.
Of course dynamite still works best.
"You come here to talk, or fish?"
KFG
Oh, I don't know. I'd guess that hand sized antelope would sell pretty well to the same crowd that thought pot-bellied pigs were a good thing to have around the house.
You got me on why they would need a PC though.
KFG
Ah, well, remember that object oriented programing started before there was an object oriented language as one possible approach to coding a project. Primarily as an engineering tool. It was in this enviroment that I first started coding in an object oriented manner, in APL no less (well, ok, I was coding card games really, but the idea is the imporant thing).
:)
:)
So yes, I took up Java before Python; and C++ before that, but was at least well familiar with the "gestalt" of object orientedness before learning any of them.
Perl gives me hives. I can't stand the syntax.
Java's strength in the marketplace is certainly its "enterprise" ( a term that gives me hives) support. Contract work for the "enterprise" is where I primarily use Java. On the other hand one of the essential problems with a huge class base is that it's often quicker and easier to code your own classes than to find and understand existing ones.
That's without even getting into the quality of the classes and their documentation. Sometimes object oriented programmers are their own worst enemies with a poor grasp of the concepts of class and inheritence themselves, or where such concepts might not even be the optimum solution.
Just put me down as an old curmudgeon if you must.
KFG
The kind that usually gets his limit of Bass in 15 minutes.
KFG
"I'd like to see you apply this theory to /. trolling. :-)
Ooooooooooo, shiney on one side, pretty red and white stripes on the other, and it wiggles!
I'm as smart as any damned fish. Let's bite it.
KFG
Please insert the lyrics to Kip Addota's "Wet Dreams" here and be done with it.
KFG
The older you get, the harder it is to pick up new concepts.
I've only found this to be true for those who "coast" and stop picking up new concepts in the first place.
KFG
A few days before I could work with it in a "just type this" sort of way. A few weeks before I had any real idea how it worked.
Yes, it was my first approach to an object oriented language, but not to object oriented programming.
I may be a bit slow at times, but I'm not stupid. I taught myself Quantum Mechanics before it ever came up as "course work." Give me a good book and I'll work it out. I armed myself with some good Java books.
I do not deny your claim, a priori, that learning to write object oriented code is a hurdle to understanding Java, however I posit that that in no way effects my claim that to understand Java you must first understand Java.
And Python, as an example, does not suffer from this. It offers an easy path.
On the other hand Ruby does, it isn't a criticism unique to Java.
C++ is just an unholy mess.
I certainly don't "know" Java in the way I would define "know." I don't even know it that's possible. My current feeling for Java is that it's expanding and morphing faster than any human mind that doesn't do anything but try to keep track of it can reasonably cope with.
I'm not a full time programer, let alone a full time programer in any single language. I use Java where I must, as a tool. I at least understand it at a low level now, if not all of its little nooks and pragmatic corners.
I still believe it is a bit daunting on initial approach though and if I were to try to teach my mom object oriented programing I wouldn't start with it. If it comes to that if I were to teach her programing I wouldn't start her with an object oriented approach at all.
KFG
Bass are relatively easy to catch. Trout hard.
Why? As it turns out it's because Bass are pretty smart fish. They can make generalizations. This thing has certain aspects to it that edible things have. Let's see if it's good to eat.
Who knew that such things as Red Devils, Rapalas and rubber worms would come along?
Trout, on the other hand, are primitive and stupid. They rely on hardcoded pattern recognition to find food. If the available food doesn't match the pattern a trout can starve among plenty. Or ignore your fly.
The problem with Outlook isn't that it's stupid. It's too smart. It makes decisions for the user ( who should, legitimately, be the sole source of intelligence when reading mail. Post your luser joke here).
It's like a Bass. Too easy to catch virii and malicious code because it recognizes that it's something that might be able to run. Well hell, let's try to run it and see what happens.
Gotcha!
KFG
The problem is that most Java developers have lost their "Beginner's Mind."
You can see the evidence of it in my previous post criticising Java for its complexity. Experts who already understand it post 10 lines of "Hello World" code and say, "See? Nothing to it! If you understand it it's easy to understand."
Well Duh. That's what I said.
But you can't start understanding it by understanding it. It ought to be a truism that you start understanding something with a lack of understanding and have to build up in steps.
Java makes little to no provision for taking those steps. It's a real problem.
I also think there's something of a problem with Java programers ending up crippled by the enviroment themselves. It isn't the only way to go about solving problems, and neither is OOP.
KFG
And as with most pissing matches I expect some territory will be marked out, penis size and stream range will be compared and commented upon, the joint will stink for a while. . .
and a year from now no one who wasn't directly involved will even remember it happened.
KFG
"kung fu guru?"
:)
Actually, that works too.
KFG
"Kentucky Fried... Grapes? :)"
Kathmandu Fried Greens.
KFG
print "Hello World."
I would posit that it's easier to understand this bit of code than then the one you submited.
Sure, you and I understand your code, because we grok the whole.
The opinion of an expert is often worthless when considering the opinion of a novice.
As for the MFC I've had a look at it and I don't even understand the mindset that produced it in the first place.
KFG
No.
KFG
I would suggest that you have to count the time and work needed to gain experience with Python/Smalltalk as against the time it takes to understand Java then.
An experienced programmer can pick up Python in a matter of minutes. I have not found this to be true of Java.
KFG
Dude, how did we end up talking about Microsoft when I spoke only of Unix and Java? I made a criticism of Java. I did not endorse or compare to any Microsoft enviroment.
Methinks your knee is jerking.
For my own part, whatever it might have to do with the subject, I prefer a Linux/bash/vim/C/Python programing enviroment and avoid Windows whenever I can.
I had decades of programing experience when I first approached Java, I found it heavy sledding to get going.
I can't imagine how it looks to a programing novice. You need to understand too much to do anything.
KFG
Not just for novices. I'm a "graying ponytail." I cut my teeth in real programing on an IBM 360 in APL. Selectric as the i/o device. "Changable fonts" by changing the typeball and all that.
I'm hardly either command line nor dense mathmatical code shy.
Today I'm a bit of a C+Python snob, but I went through a VB phase when making the switch to graphical shell programing. It was like magic. It got me up on my feet and running, producing really usable apps in the Windows enviroment in no time flat.
I "outgrew" it in fairly short order, but as a stepping stone between "old world" and "new world" I found it invaluable.
KFG
Well no, not really. Unix can actually be taken in small steps, despite its complexity, and no knowledge of advanced uses is necessary to derive real use from the shell.
Take grep for instance. You can start using grep right away, and do really useful work with it, without even knowing that pipes, awk and sed even exist.
Maybe a dozen shell commands used in a fairly crude way is enough for 99.9% of users to do 99.9% of their work.
The problem with Java in general (not just EJB) is that you really need to grok the whole in order to understand a simple "Hello World" program, let alone do anything really useful.
Life is short.
KFG
Yes, we all know the reasons why the GPL prevents Red Hat from becoming Microsoft 2. I rather suspect that IBM knows it too, no matter how clueless the article's author is. (Yes, I read the article, so I know your post isn't offtopic at all).
.well, good question. Microsoft's hit man maybe? The Blob?
Thing is that from IBM's point of view they're just trying to become something vaguely like IBM again.
From Red Hat's, Novell's and some other's point of view though I rather suspect they're trying to become the new Sun since Sun seems to have lost its way.
And then there's SCO, who is trying to not be a Linux company and is aiming for. .
Antarctica sounds like a good resolution to that matter.
KFG
I'd hate to see Tenniel's or Thurber's drawings rendered as ASCII when reading books. Even ebooks. I'd like to be able to see them properly displayed.
That said, pretty much all the work my business does is done in plain ASCII. Data mining is done with a bit of applied human intelligence and grep.
It works.
KFG
"How many acres of weeds do you think it would take to make enough hydrogen to run your car for a week?"
And voila! Here we have the key to the answer.
Yes, yes, I know, this isn't hydrogen, but the answer is still going to be rougly similar. Probably rather worse actually, for the reasons I expounded in that rather fractious thread. Biomass for fuel will not save us.
Nor is the problem the efficiency of our cars. The problem is the efficiency of our cars. That is to say making our cars 35% efficient instead of 25% efficient still won't change the essential vast quatities of plant matter needed to run them. It's the car itself, as we know it, that is the problem.
Not to mention how we use them. See Douglas Adams, re "bypass."
Mass transit won't be our saviour either. Trains are more efficient than cars. Trains used to run on biomass. We stripped forests bare to power trains, that's why we switched to fossil plant fuels for trains in the first place. No more damned trees. Nearly one quarter the people in the US in 1900 too, and far fewer of them used and significant mechanical means of travel on a daily basis. Now we have four times the people and more cars than people.
Myself, I've found that one pound of plant mass is sufficient to take me 20 miles, but only a few of us are willing to take that route.
Today.
Tommorow you may have little choice in the matter. They ain't makin' petroleum crude as fast as we're using it.
KFG
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows he was in the other window of the book depository.
"Windows" is a code.
It's a good thing that conspiritors always leave blatent codes like this lying about, otherwise we'd have to rely on those meddling kids to flush them out.
And their little dog too.
KFG