Seems like a troll but J++ is a pretty good editor. After a few registry tweaks, the IDE runs JRE1.4 and has no proprietary junk. Wouldn't recommend starting out anew with this app but if you've already invested any time in learning Visual Studio it can be convenient to work in a familiar environment.
Took a basic Ec course in college and all I can remember are these stupid marginal cost/benefit analyses. Seems like the answer to every test question was a graph with a randomly distorted pair of lines with roughly opposite slopes. Where they intersect... something or other happens. OK. That was a bit off-topic.
Anyways, in most industries with high-priced alternatives, the less popular sellers simply put more resources into manufacturing a high quality product. Hand craftsmanship, expensive materials, expert designers, extensive customization: all of these things cost a heap. More importantly, the overall cost keeps increasing as more units are produced.
Software doesn't suffer from these limitations. An extra copy of DB2 costs IBM about ten cents (or whatever) for the CD. For this reason, one wouldn't expect niche software providers to prosper unless they're filling some obscure need. Just because you're willing to pay a little more than the next guy, don't expect to get a better word processor. In all likelihood, the market leader can suit your needs with (a version) his generic offering.
With software, the cost of building something that's as good as what already exists and then improving upon it is astronomical. When the rare company does accomplish this, it usually becomes the market leader rather than surviving as a fringe player. Doesn't seem to be much room for second place players. No marginal costs make it more appealing for the leader to adjust its prices to take the whole market. Even worse: there are a ton of benefits to having the same software as the next guy. Such a feedback loop makes it seem like monopoly is the state of equilibrium in the world of bits and bytes. Somehow that has something to do with the aforementioned graph.
George Soros' book offered a ton of concrete solutions. A welcome break from disingenuous rhetoric of the Right and the clueless whining of the disenfranchised. The current state of affairs is not without problems but I think most pragmatists would agree that capitalism sucks less.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't Windows ME run DOS stuff ok?
Seems like a troll but J++ is a pretty good editor. After a few registry tweaks, the IDE runs JRE1.4 and has no proprietary junk. Wouldn't recommend starting out anew with this app but if you've already invested any time in learning Visual Studio it can be convenient to work in a familiar environment.
Actually, I think Bush pronouces it 'nook-ya-lar' (a la Homer Simpson).
Took a basic Ec course in college and all I can remember are these stupid marginal cost/benefit analyses. Seems like the answer to every test question was a graph with a randomly distorted pair of lines with roughly opposite slopes. Where they intersect ... something or other happens. OK. That was a bit off-topic.
Anyways, in most industries with high-priced alternatives, the less popular sellers simply put more resources into manufacturing a high quality product. Hand craftsmanship, expensive materials, expert designers, extensive customization: all of these things cost a heap. More importantly, the overall cost keeps increasing as more units are produced.
Software doesn't suffer from these limitations. An extra copy of DB2 costs IBM about ten cents (or whatever) for the CD. For this reason, one wouldn't expect niche software providers to prosper unless they're filling some obscure need. Just because you're willing to pay a little more than the next guy, don't expect to get a better word processor. In all likelihood, the market leader can suit your needs with (a version) his generic offering.
With software, the cost of building something that's as good as what already exists and then improving upon it is astronomical. When the rare company does accomplish this, it usually becomes the market leader rather than surviving as a fringe player. Doesn't seem to be much room for second place players. No marginal costs make it more appealing for the leader to adjust its prices to take the whole market. Even worse: there are a ton of benefits to having the same software as the next guy. Such a feedback loop makes it seem like monopoly is the state of equilibrium in the world of bits and bytes. Somehow that has something to do with the aforementioned graph.
George Soros' book offered a ton of concrete solutions. A welcome break from disingenuous rhetoric of the Right and the clueless whining of the disenfranchised. The current state of affairs is not without problems but I think most pragmatists would agree that capitalism sucks less.
I thought the author was claiming that this would become the case only if .NET squashed Java. He doesn't suggest that J2EE and C# are the same.
Managing a sotware project is hard (Slashdot).