That's the first thing I thought as well. Eclipse is a good "delivery system" for their dev projects overall, I'm sure they have plenty of people already working on the general Eclipse project. But I think they might/should go further. Look at Aptana -- it's specifically designed for web development. They could design Eclipse "variants" that are specific to Android-programming and, possibly, some version that facilitates programming NaCl modules.
Intellisense isn't just an autocomplete, it models the entire structure of the code. Classes, methods, function overloading, operator overloading -- it'll catch "deep" errors before you compile. Eclipse has a pretty good general autocomplete, but it's no intellisense.
VS is "slow"? Setting aside the other arguments, I've never heard of VS being called "slow". Compared to what? Not Netbeans, and certainly not Eclipse. Unless you're running it on a netbook, it's the fastest IDE out there -- certainly for C++.
It's the nature of digital logic. If you want memory management, you need more cycles. If you want "better" (more flexible and succinct) syntax, you need more cycles. C++ is popular because it's the highest abstraction you'll get that's still fast. As long as there isn't some insane quantum leap in computing power, C++ is the best option you have for creating "compute-intensive" software.
Now for my subjective viewpoint: I program using whatever language has better support for the task. I wouldn't use C++ for general server-side development when PHP will do most of the work for me. I use JavaScript on the browser because that's the only option. I use Perl and Python for housekeeping scripts, since they have countless libraries that will serve most of my needs. Having said that -- if there's no specific requirement from the environment, I choose C++ whenever I can. If there was a widely supported scripting language that was basically C++/STL, I'd use it instead of other interpreted languages. C++ is an explicit, flexible, OO language with fewer warts than most other languages. Yes, there's a long "here's what you shouldn't do" list, but once you have that down it's probably the language you have to "hack" the least to achieve your goal.
It's scary *now*. There are new exploits daily -- search Google News for "new browser exploit". I wouldn't be browsing without NoScript on a computer with any information I care about. I use Chrome only on sites that I know and trust (basically a whitelist). I'd probably use Chrome more if it had a reliable script blocking add-on.
Check the timeline. Up until this year,.Net *has* been getting priority, to the point where they dropped intellisense for c++/cli in VS2010. Now MS is starting to push JavaScript for Windows 8, and Native(non-managed code) is starting to get better treatment. This isn't a contradiction, it's a change over time.
Yes, but it's not nearly as bad as when you had to accommodate IE6. The "-webkit-/-moz-/-ms-" hacks are usually just to add extra graphical detail, not actual functionality. Then there's the DOM and XHR stuff, to which there are plenty of solid, fast solutions that are plug-and-forget. You no longer have to make a chart of "browser capabilities" before starting to design a web app. HTML5 is still in Draft/Working Draft status, but in practice things aren't nearly as bad as they were ~3 years ago.
I've always seen Chrome as a way for Google to stimulate other browsers to be better and drive innovation. Every since Chrome came onto the scene, showing off its fast rendering and javascript engine, other browser companies have had to step up their game
That's true, and that may have been the initial intent, but they've been pushing the Chrome browser like practically no other product of theirs. A Chrome ad appears on Youtube pages very frequently, in several formats, and "types" of ads (some are animated, some are still images saying something like "browser faster"), and they keep making oddball viral-ish Chrome campaigns. I can't think of any product they push this hard (although Google+ may change that).
Chrome market share hasbeen rising inexorably since its release.
It's not just a tech demo anymore. They want the browser market.
A great example of one of the top 5 posts on Slashdot: "your joke isn't technically correct". Saying "Nietzsche didn't use the shell prompt" wouldn't have worked. The string "echo $DEITY" is valid PHP. Now kindly remove the stick from your ass.
He also didn't use PHP.
"echo $DEITY"? Please. It's: printf ("%s \n", "DEITY");
Though I think that suggests that god is a string, which I also don't think he said...
Zynga's already on board. Maybe they thought that placing the FarmVille icon will make them seem too much like Facebook? I mean they really are creating carbon copies of the features they're adding. If you added Zynga to the announcement post it'd just read "Step 17 of the 'Google+ == Facebook' project".
They should just give up the pretense, though. I'd respect them a lot more if they said -- "Look, Facebook is popular and they're making a ton of money. We didn't invent the search engine, and we didn't invent online advertising. We just made them better, and that's what we're going to do with the social network".
No, no, this is new:
"But sharing is about more than just conversations. The experiences we have together are just as important to our relationships. We want to make playing games online just as fun, and just as meaningful, as playing in real life."
See? This was their idea. It's new, it's innovative. They came to this realization through trial and error, through experience. They employed a crack team of behavioral psychologists that independently came to the conclusion that "people want to play games online". Up until now, games online weren't fun. But they're going to change that. Look at this list of games they're going to launch right off the bat: Angry Birds, Bejeweled, Sudoku! Oh man, Google's gonna make games FUN again. I can't wait.
c) Laser power will require *much* more energy than gas, where will the power for the lasers come from?
What I'm wondering is how much energy is lost on the way. Also, how does weather effect this system?
This might be useful for UAVs that are always close to base, possibly on a repeating patrol pattern. But even then: "David Graham is CEO of Powerbeam, a company that uses a similar technology to deliver small amounts of power to home appliances. He says the advantages of powering a UAV via a beam are lost because of the distances involved"
It's interesting technology, but this doesn't seem to be the ideal application.
This meme will never get old. Never. 20 year from now, we'll still be associating sharks with lasers. They (the people 20 year from now) won't know *why* the two are related, but at that point it won't matter, it'll become vestigial. And all of this because ACs like you. Thank you.
You can probably plot that graph to the budget they're getting. There's not more USSR to have a pissing contest with. It used to be that NASA was part-exploration, part-military (during the space race, I mean). Now that it's "just" exploration and science, it no longer "justifies" the expense. Good thing the Europeans support projects like the LHC -- I don't think that with the current turbulence in the US economy we can expect too much money to flow into "science projects", of any kind.
10 million isn't enough to do the paperwork *within* NASA. We're talking about separate small companies, who will have a drastically different approach. This is a good idea -- push (support) the commercial efforts for a relatively low cost and see which innovations they can use themselves down the line.
Huge budgets lead to bloat and bureaucracy. Small companies will be forced to look at every dollar spent, and be result-oriented.
Kind of like the Darpa "Cyber-Fast Track initiative". It's a type of "outsourcing" to that takes advantage of ideas outside the organization. Independent companies will have a much greater incentive to reduce costs.
They couldn't care less. They want clicks, and this headline achieved that purpose. When they got the claim from Ceglia, it just gave them an excuse to stick a microphone in facebook's...um..."face", and await their reaction. It doesn't matter if the reaction made sense, just that there is a reaction, which they can now post. I'm sure that if you posed the question to them, they'd say "it's our job/responsibility to report".
That's how the "game" is played. It's not like some judge is going to say "well, this evidence means that 30% of the company is now his". This is the same as the Winklevy twins -- they were somewhere within farting distance of zuckerberg when he started stealing peoples' informat....erm, I mean, started facebook, and they want cash. So far at least 2 parties have managed to get hush-money out of him, so why not try again?
Strictly speaking, this doesn't contradict the headline. The headline merely states that "We Have Proof Ceglia's Contract Is Fake", it doesn't say "and we have it right here". The proof could be on Mars, for all we know. They just said "We Have Proof", they didn't say what the location of the proof is.
Seriously though, facebook had to respond somehow. Not saying anything would have seemed suspicious. Even if this is just an ad hominem ("Facebook insists Ceglia is a known con artist. Ceglia, as has been well-documented, has a history of forgery."), it gives the media something to chew on.
Isn't it interesting that whenever there's a new development in the "facebook chronicles", somebody "finds" some new documents? It's like this is some archeological expedition, and every now and then one of the people carefully excavating the digsite finds a piece of pottery and says "Hey guys! Look what I found! It's got writings on it!". Then facebook has to defend itself, so it sends its own archeologists to the deep dark dungeons of their corporate basement and they come back with a carbon-dated bit of clay with hieroglyphs on it -- "no, see, this is older than the piece you found, and it says the opposite!".
At least we know this won't last forever. Just until Google+ turns facebook into myspace.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the first thing I thought as well. Eclipse is a good "delivery system" for their dev projects overall, I'm sure they have plenty of people already working on the general Eclipse project. But I think they might/should go further. Look at Aptana -- it's specifically designed for web development. They could design Eclipse "variants" that are specific to Android-programming and, possibly, some version that facilitates programming NaCl modules.
See the following:
http://mariusbancila.ro/blog/2011/06/20/cpp-renaissance-at-microsoft/
http://herbsutter.com/2011/07/28/c-renaissance-the-going-native-channel/
http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Craig-Symonds-and-Mohsen-Agsen-C-Renaissance
It's true that MS it starting to push JavaScript/HTML5, but there's also a "return to roots" movement for C++.
Intellisense isn't just an autocomplete, it models the entire structure of the code. Classes, methods, function overloading, operator overloading -- it'll catch "deep" errors before you compile. Eclipse has a pretty good general autocomplete, but it's no intellisense.
VS is "slow"? Setting aside the other arguments, I've never heard of VS being called "slow". Compared to what? Not Netbeans, and certainly not Eclipse. Unless you're running it on a netbook, it's the fastest IDE out there -- certainly for C++.
It's the nature of digital logic. If you want memory management, you need more cycles. If you want "better" (more flexible and succinct) syntax, you need more cycles. C++ is popular because it's the highest abstraction you'll get that's still fast. As long as there isn't some insane quantum leap in computing power, C++ is the best option you have for creating "compute-intensive" software.
Now for my subjective viewpoint: I program using whatever language has better support for the task. I wouldn't use C++ for general server-side development when PHP will do most of the work for me. I use JavaScript on the browser because that's the only option. I use Perl and Python for housekeeping scripts, since they have countless libraries that will serve most of my needs. Having said that -- if there's no specific requirement from the environment, I choose C++ whenever I can. If there was a widely supported scripting language that was basically C++/STL, I'd use it instead of other interpreted languages. C++ is an explicit, flexible, OO language with fewer warts than most other languages. Yes, there's a long "here's what you shouldn't do" list, but once you have that down it's probably the language you have to "hack" the least to achieve your goal.
It's scary *now*. There are new exploits daily -- search Google News for "new browser exploit". I wouldn't be browsing without NoScript on a computer with any information I care about. I use Chrome only on sites that I know and trust (basically a whitelist). I'd probably use Chrome more if it had a reliable script blocking add-on.
Check the timeline. Up until this year, .Net *has* been getting priority, to the point where they dropped intellisense for c++/cli in VS2010. Now MS is starting to push JavaScript for Windows 8, and Native(non-managed code) is starting to get better treatment. This isn't a contradiction, it's a change over time.
Yes, but it's not nearly as bad as when you had to accommodate IE6. The "-webkit-/-moz-/-ms-" hacks are usually just to add extra graphical detail, not actual functionality. Then there's the DOM and XHR stuff, to which there are plenty of solid, fast solutions that are plug-and-forget. You no longer have to make a chart of "browser capabilities" before starting to design a web app. HTML5 is still in Draft/Working Draft status, but in practice things aren't nearly as bad as they were ~3 years ago.
I've always seen Chrome as a way for Google to stimulate other browsers to be better and drive innovation. Every since Chrome came onto the scene, showing off its fast rendering and javascript engine, other browser companies have had to step up their game
That's true, and that may have been the initial intent, but they've been pushing the Chrome browser like practically no other product of theirs. A Chrome ad appears on Youtube pages very frequently, in several formats, and "types" of ads (some are animated, some are still images saying something like "browser faster"), and they keep making oddball viral-ish Chrome campaigns. I can't think of any product they push this hard (although Google+ may change that).
Chrome market share has been rising inexorably since its release.
It's not just a tech demo anymore. They want the browser market.
A great example of one of the top 5 posts on Slashdot: "your joke isn't technically correct". Saying "Nietzsche didn't use the shell prompt" wouldn't have worked. The string "echo $DEITY" is valid PHP. Now kindly remove the stick from your ass.
He also didn't use PHP.
"echo $DEITY"? Please. It's: printf ("%s \n", "DEITY");
Though I think that suggests that god is a string, which I also don't think he said...
Zynga's already on board. Maybe they thought that placing the FarmVille icon will make them seem too much like Facebook? I mean they really are creating carbon copies of the features they're adding. If you added Zynga to the announcement post it'd just read "Step 17 of the 'Google+ == Facebook' project".
They should just give up the pretense, though. I'd respect them a lot more if they said -- "Look, Facebook is popular and they're making a ton of money. We didn't invent the search engine, and we didn't invent online advertising. We just made them better, and that's what we're going to do with the social network".
"google+ gives your information away to government"
I'd actually really want to know when that happens.
No, no, this is new:
"But sharing is about more than just conversations. The experiences we have together are just as important to our relationships. We want to make playing games online just as fun, and just as meaningful, as playing in real life."
See? This was their idea. It's new, it's innovative. They came to this realization through trial and error, through experience. They employed a crack team of behavioral psychologists that independently came to the conclusion that "people want to play games online". Up until now, games online weren't fun. But they're going to change that. Look at this list of games they're going to launch right off the bat: Angry Birds, Bejeweled, Sudoku! Oh man, Google's gonna make games FUN again. I can't wait.
c) Laser power will require *much* more energy than gas, where will the power for the lasers come from?
What I'm wondering is how much energy is lost on the way. Also, how does weather effect this system?
This might be useful for UAVs that are always close to base, possibly on a repeating patrol pattern. But even then: "David Graham is CEO of Powerbeam, a company that uses a similar technology to deliver small amounts of power to home appliances. He says the advantages of powering a UAV via a beam are lost because of the distances involved"
It's interesting technology, but this doesn't seem to be the ideal application.
This meme will never get old. Never. 20 year from now, we'll still be associating sharks with lasers. They (the people 20 year from now) won't know *why* the two are related, but at that point it won't matter, it'll become vestigial. And all of this because ACs like you. Thank you.
Agreed.
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Aeronautics: Noun: The science or practice of travel through the air.
Aeronautics are a key part of the research. I don't see how this is a "step back" -- it's necessary, and right now it fits the budget.
You can probably plot that graph to the budget they're getting. There's not more USSR to have a pissing contest with. It used to be that NASA was part-exploration, part-military (during the space race, I mean). Now that it's "just" exploration and science, it no longer "justifies" the expense. Good thing the Europeans support projects like the LHC -- I don't think that with the current turbulence in the US economy we can expect too much money to flow into "science projects", of any kind.
10 million isn't enough to do the paperwork *within* NASA. We're talking about separate small companies, who will have a drastically different approach. This is a good idea -- push (support) the commercial efforts for a relatively low cost and see which innovations they can use themselves down the line.
Huge budgets lead to bloat and bureaucracy. Small companies will be forced to look at every dollar spent, and be result-oriented.
Kind of like the Darpa "Cyber-Fast Track initiative". It's a type of "outsourcing" to that takes advantage of ideas outside the organization. Independent companies will have a much greater incentive to reduce costs.
They couldn't care less. They want clicks, and this headline achieved that purpose. When they got the claim from Ceglia, it just gave them an excuse to stick a microphone in facebook's...um..."face", and await their reaction. It doesn't matter if the reaction made sense, just that there is a reaction, which they can now post. I'm sure that if you posed the question to them, they'd say "it's our job/responsibility to report".
https://plus.google.com/up/start/ -- "Google+ is in limited Field Trial". So no, it's not.
That's how the "game" is played. It's not like some judge is going to say "well, this evidence means that 30% of the company is now his". This is the same as the Winklevy twins -- they were somewhere within farting distance of zuckerberg when he started stealing peoples' informat....erm, I mean, started facebook, and they want cash. So far at least 2 parties have managed to get hush-money out of him, so why not try again?
Strictly speaking, this doesn't contradict the headline. The headline merely states that "We Have Proof Ceglia's Contract Is Fake", it doesn't say "and we have it right here". The proof could be on Mars, for all we know. They just said "We Have Proof", they didn't say what the location of the proof is.
Seriously though, facebook had to respond somehow. Not saying anything would have seemed suspicious. Even if this is just an ad hominem ("Facebook insists Ceglia is a known con artist. Ceglia, as has been well-documented, has a history of forgery."), it gives the media something to chew on.
Isn't it interesting that whenever there's a new development in the "facebook chronicles", somebody "finds" some new documents? It's like this is some archeological expedition, and every now and then one of the people carefully excavating the digsite finds a piece of pottery and says "Hey guys! Look what I found! It's got writings on it!". Then facebook has to defend itself, so it sends its own archeologists to the deep dark dungeons of their corporate basement and they come back with a carbon-dated bit of clay with hieroglyphs on it -- "no, see, this is older than the piece you found, and it says the opposite!".
At least we know this won't last forever. Just until Google+ turns facebook into myspace.