Or even break down and spend a few bucks on Visual Basic
I've never used VB, but everyone tells me that you're better off not learning VB unless you actually need to use it, because it promotes some bad habits. In other words, it's not a good learning language. I might be wrong about this, but that's what I've heard. Why not just install Python? Python is easy to pick up, you can see instant results in the interactive interpreter, and costs less than VB. ActiveState has a Windows port (or better yet just install Cygwin).
This was, in my view, the pivotal point in the downfall of the company. It was Newton's Third Law of Motion in action. Foundstone poked Glaser in the eye, and Glaser poked back. The benches of the opposing teams emptied out on the field for an old-fashioned brawl. This human element in business and history in general has always served as a fascination to me.
Let me guess -- you're supposed to be either Q, the Architect, or Satan. The cosplay and fanfic convention is down the hall.
Re:Things PHP is missing
on
PHP Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Quotes in PHP do work in a sane and consistent way, very similar to the way they work in PERL. The only thing I mourn is the lack of a qq[-like facility (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone snuck it in while I wasn't looking, and I just didn't know about it).
Not yet, AFAIK, but you can always use the heredoc syntax to achieve the same effect -- the only problem is that the heredoc terminators kind of disturb your indentation. Still very useful for large string literals....
Take what the above poster said, but use base.php instead of base.inc.
No, use inc and use an.htaccess file to block all requests for files with extension ".inc". You don't want these include files to ever be executed unless it is from inside of a PHP script. As Rasmus Lerdorf calls it, "executing code outside of its context".
The combination of these two books might better server you rather than one "everything and the kitchen sink" Mac OS X book.
Hang on to your pennies. It would seem that Running MacOS X, a book for MacOS X power users in the vein of Running Linux, is in development right now.
Re:Conclusion
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perl.Net -- not a Microsoft product, therefore not related to the discussion ("target demographic of.NET initiative").
Managed Extensions for C++ -- not C, therefore not related to the discussion (I said "C programmers" and in another branch of this thread I make it clear that I used C and not C/C++ for an explicit reason).
Re:Conclusion
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So what is the target demographic, mechanics? Albino carpet cleaners? Of course it's Perl and C programmers.
Give me a break. MS isn't going to make much money coming up with the next Perl or C. Perl is used for two very good reasons: devotion of the user base, and the CPAN. MS couldn't replicate either of those under any circumstances, and there isn't much money to be made in trying. C, on the other hand, is primarily used for writing Unix software. (Note that I did not say C++.) Not much of a market for Microsoft either.
.NET is targetting the Java market, pure and simple.
Re:Conclusion
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Neither Perl nor C stuff depends on this encapsulation for any security stuff.
Perl and C programmers are not target demographic of the.NET initiative.
No, that is nothing -- the following is an actual review for a book I saw on Amazon.com:
Free Review Chapter looks impressive, March 24, 2003
Reviewer: karthik (see more about me) from India
I went through the free chapter available for download at oreilly's website. It hosts the Junit Chapter for free.
I'm in the process of setting up an automated test framework at my work place. Got to admit, it definitely helped.
It did'nt have any chapters on ANT integration with JUnit, but looking at the contents , i figured out that it's been included as a part of the "Using ANT" chapter. Good job!
This book is not available in India so am helpless. We are using Cactus, how i wish the authors c'd publish that chapter as well. But after reading the sample chapter something tells me that this book w'd deliver. I have read Java & XSLT by the same author and that rocks and this s'd be along the same lines.
Hope this book will be released in India soon.
This idiot posted a review for a book he hadn't even read. Don't believe me? See for yourself.
I sure hope there's some amazing skip protection on those bad boys. I don't mind that my gamecube or playstation uses optical media because the console itself sits on a TV stand, nice and stable, but frequently with my GameBoy Advance I am picking it up, putting it down, putting it in my pocket, all while it's on and mid-game, depending on the situation (even running down the airport terminal). I'd hate to lose my game or experience skipping just because I didn't hold it still enough.
You're right, I completely forgot about that step. And you might want to declare the class itself final so that it can't be subclassed by someone trying to subvert the code (and pass in their own enumeration rather than one that you've specified).
I don't use ints for my enumerations anymore after reading Josh Bloch's Effective Java. The type-safe enum pattern he recommends is fantastic.
For those not sure exactly how it works, you simply create a class to represent an instance of the enum, and you make the constructor private so that no one can create their own instances. Then you just provide a public static instance of the class for each enum.
I used this pattern simply to achieve its intended effect of providing an enumeration, and then later found that by adding methods to the class, I could even give behaviors to the enumeration instances! Try doing that with an int. This was far more elegant than creating a giant "if" statement and performing conditional logic to test the value of the enumeration, because I simply used a polymorphic method call.
An example:
public class SenseEnumeration { // the action associated with this enumeration private java.lang.reflect.Method sense;
private SenseEnumeration(Method m) { this.sense= m; }
// assuming we've already created some // Method instances to use here public static SenseEnumeration TASTE = new SenseEnumeration(myTasteMethod); public static SenseEnumeration HEAR = new SenseEnumeration(myHearMethod); public static SenseEnumeration SMELL = new SenseEnumeration(mySmellMethod);
...etc...
public Method getSenseMethod() { return this.sense; } public void invokeSenseMethod(Object target) { sense.invoke(target, null); } }
You get the main idea. No, not as fast as an int, but far more powerful.
I remember back circa 1996 reading an interview with the Chemical Brothers in an issue of Details magazine. They were talking about where they get samples from for their music, and the interviewer asked them about the upcoming "Dig Your Own Hole" (or maybe it was already out). And the brothers basically said they couldn't say where they got the samples from, even though they had distorted the samples, for fear of legal repercussions.
From my experience, Java is much nicer for enterprise-level web applications than anything MS offers. As for desktop apps, it's fruitless to write desktop apps in Java when 95% of your customers are running Windows and MS has meager support for Java, at best.
Dude, you should see Java on MacOS X. It makes Java apps running on the Windows JVM look like native code. Even the SWT libraries of Eclipse run like molasses.
Re:JDO vs EJB Entity Beans?
on
Java Data Objects
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would refer you first to Christopher J Date's and Hugh Darwen's The Third Manifesto [thethirdmanifesto.com] there isn't much on the site, I point it to you more as a reference to the book. I keep some more links at DMoz [dmoz.org.], and if you have a tough skin you can try Chris J Date's and Fabian Pascal's Database Debunkings [dbdebunk.com.].
Hm. I will have to check them out sometime.
Well, assume that the XML schema did convey all the possible information in SQL. SQL is the standard, why create yet another language? Now assume the XML schema can convey even more information than SQL. In this case, I would rather use something terser, clearer, more straightforward such as Tutorial D or D4 or any other declarative D.
Perhaps because XML is a pretty widely-used standard format? Apache projects tend to use other Apache projects' libraries as much as possible, and Apache has a very successful XML project, so I'm not surprised that Torque (which was originally part of the Turbine web application framework) uses XML. I'm not really sure why, I don't have much to do with Torque. But I've never heard of Tutorial D or D4. (I googled "tutorial d", and your SF project is the first hit. No offense intended, but I think that this illustrates how much support exists for "Tutorial D", at least in the area of open source projects.)
But I fool myself: I don't actually like OO, I would rather program functionally.
Sorry. No, I didn't. After all, persistence & framework are two no-value-added hyping buzzwords for storage & libraries; as you didn't describe Torque, only mentioned it with Marketspeak, I was lead into error.
Sorry that you can't own up to a simple oversight (you could have even ignored it), and that you feel it's your place to make judgement calls on the value of words. Last I heard, both "persistent" and "framework" are pretty common synonyms for "storage" and "libraries", regardless of whether they add value to the original word or not.
There is a reason why all this OO BS endures, and it is people frustrated with SQL arbitrary limitations and lack of power without realising that's because of violating the relational prescriptions and proscription.
Perhaps you can explain this to me, because I'm not familiar with "relational prescriptions and proscription".
From the scant documentation I gathered one has to create a XML schema, instead of much more rationally taking SQL or some valid D, such as Tutorial D or Alphora Dataphor D4, as input. That strikes me as either requiring duplication of effort, or that the XML be the reference schema -- neither option seems desirable.
Isn't it six on one side, half-dozen on the other? What if you could easily generate the SQL from the XML, or vice versa? Would it really matter which is "ideal"? I'm being serious -- I don't see the difference if you can effortlessly move from one format to the other, but if you know of one, by all means enlighten me. (And Torque can automatically generate the XML from an existing database, though it's not flawless yet. So you don't have to duplicate your effort, if you started with SQL.)
Slashdot Mirror
Or even break down and spend a few bucks on Visual Basic
I've never used VB, but everyone tells me that you're better off not learning VB unless you actually need to use it, because it promotes some bad habits. In other words, it's not a good learning language. I might be wrong about this, but that's what I've heard. Why not just install Python? Python is easy to pick up, you can see instant results in the interactive interpreter, and costs less than VB. ActiveState has a Windows port (or better yet just install Cygwin).
At the moment, Macs are for the most part embarassingly slow (I say this as a Mac user, so flame all you like, but you're flaming your own)
Relax. This is apple.slashdot.org. You're safe here.
This was, in my view, the pivotal point in the downfall of the company. It was Newton's Third Law of Motion in action. Foundstone poked Glaser in the eye, and Glaser poked back. The benches of the opposing teams emptied out on the field for an old-fashioned brawl. This human element in business and history in general has always served as a fascination to me.
Let me guess -- you're supposed to be either Q, the Architect, or Satan. The cosplay and fanfic convention is down the hall.
Mod parent up!
Quotes in PHP do work in a sane and consistent way, very similar to the way they work in PERL. The only thing I mourn is the lack of a qq[-like facility (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone snuck it in while I wasn't looking, and I just didn't know about it).
Not yet, AFAIK, but you can always use the heredoc syntax to achieve the same effect -- the only problem is that the heredoc terminators kind of disturb your indentation. Still very useful for large string literals....
Get your facts straight first, Mac OSX is based on BSD - not Linux!
That doesn't matter. What if SCO was leveraging their claims against BSD instead of Linux? The precedent behind all of this is the same regardless.
Take what the above poster said, but use base.php instead of base.inc.
No, use inc and use an .htaccess file to block all requests for files with extension ".inc". You don't want these include files to ever be executed unless it is from inside of a PHP script. As Rasmus Lerdorf calls it, "executing code outside of its context".
The combination of these two books might better server you rather than one "everything and the kitchen sink" Mac OS X book.
Hang on to your pennies. It would seem that Running MacOS X, a book for MacOS X power users in the vein of Running Linux, is in development right now.
So what is the target demographic, mechanics? Albino carpet cleaners? Of course it's Perl and C programmers.
Give me a break. MS isn't going to make much money coming up with the next Perl or C. Perl is used for two very good reasons: devotion of the user base, and the CPAN. MS couldn't replicate either of those under any circumstances, and there isn't much money to be made in trying. C, on the other hand, is primarily used for writing Unix software. (Note that I did not say C++.) Not much of a market for Microsoft either.
.NET is targetting the Java market, pure and simple.
Neither Perl nor C stuff depends on this encapsulation for any security stuff.
Perl and C programmers are not target demographic of the .NET initiative.
No, that is nothing -- the following is an actual review for a book I saw on Amazon.com:
Free Review Chapter looks impressive, March 24, 2003 Reviewer: karthik (see more about me) from India
I went through the free chapter available for download at oreilly's website. It hosts the Junit Chapter for free. I'm in the process of setting up an automated test framework at my work place. Got to admit, it definitely helped. It did'nt have any chapters on ANT integration with JUnit, but looking at the contents , i figured out that it's been included as a part of the "Using ANT" chapter. Good job! This book is not available in India so am helpless. We are using Cactus, how i wish the authors c'd publish that chapter as well. But after reading the sample chapter something tells me that this book w'd deliver. I have read Java & XSLT by the same author and that rocks and this s'd be along the same lines. Hope this book will be released in India soon.
This idiot posted a review for a book he hadn't even read. Don't believe me? See for yourself.
I've skipped minidisc before, with 40-second (about) skip protection.
I sure hope there's some amazing skip protection on those bad boys. I don't mind that my gamecube or playstation uses optical media because the console itself sits on a TV stand, nice and stable, but frequently with my GameBoy Advance I am picking it up, putting it down, putting it in my pocket, all while it's on and mid-game, depending on the situation (even running down the airport terminal). I'd hate to lose my game or experience skipping just because I didn't hold it still enough.
You're right, I completely forgot about that step. And you might want to declare the class itself final so that it can't be subclassed by someone trying to subvert the code (and pass in their own enumeration rather than one that you've specified).
That's what we've been using but my fingers get tired from typing all that extra crap in...
Write a perl script.
I don't use ints for my enumerations anymore after reading Josh Bloch's Effective Java. The type-safe enum pattern he recommends is fantastic.
For those not sure exactly how it works, you simply create a class to represent an instance of the enum, and you make the constructor private so that no one can create their own instances. Then you just provide a public static instance of the class for each enum.
I used this pattern simply to achieve its intended effect of providing an enumeration, and then later found that by adding methods to the class, I could even give behaviors to the enumeration instances! Try doing that with an int. This was far more elegant than creating a giant "if" statement and performing conditional logic to test the value of the enumeration, because I simply used a polymorphic method call.
An example:
You get the main idea. No, not as fast as an int, but far more powerful.
I remember back circa 1996 reading an interview with the Chemical Brothers in an issue of Details magazine. They were talking about where they get samples from for their music, and the interviewer asked them about the upcoming "Dig Your Own Hole" (or maybe it was already out). And the brothers basically said they couldn't say where they got the samples from, even though they had distorted the samples, for fear of legal repercussions.
So, according to this guy, the advantages are: 1. XML property files
Guess the guy doesn't know about java.util.prefs.Preferences.
From my experience, Java is much nicer for enterprise-level web applications than anything MS offers. As for desktop apps, it's fruitless to write desktop apps in Java when 95% of your customers are running Windows and MS has meager support for Java, at best.
Dude, you should see Java on MacOS X. It makes Java apps running on the Windows JVM look like native code. Even the SWT libraries of Eclipse run like molasses.
Is there an open source implementation of JDO?
I'm not sure how the web factors into "On the Road", which was certainly a log, I don't know about blog.
Whoah. Sounds like invasion of the (i)Pod people.
I would refer you first to Christopher J Date's and Hugh Darwen's The Third Manifesto [thethirdmanifesto.com] there isn't much on the site, I point it to you more as a reference to the book. I keep some more links at DMoz [dmoz.org.], and if you have a tough skin you can try Chris J Date's and Fabian Pascal's Database Debunkings [dbdebunk.com.].
Hm. I will have to check them out sometime.
Well, assume that the XML schema did convey all the possible information in SQL. SQL is the standard, why create yet another language? Now assume the XML schema can convey even more information than SQL. In this case, I would rather use something terser, clearer, more straightforward such as Tutorial D or D4 or any other declarative D.
Perhaps because XML is a pretty widely-used standard format? Apache projects tend to use other Apache projects' libraries as much as possible, and Apache has a very successful XML project, so I'm not surprised that Torque (which was originally part of the Turbine web application framework) uses XML. I'm not really sure why, I don't have much to do with Torque. But I've never heard of Tutorial D or D4. (I googled "tutorial d", and your SF project is the first hit. No offense intended, but I think that this illustrates how much support exists for "Tutorial D", at least in the area of open source projects.)
But I fool myself: I don't actually like OO, I would rather program functionally.
You should talk to this guy.
Sorry. No, I didn't. After all, persistence & framework are two no-value-added hyping buzzwords for storage & libraries; as you didn't describe Torque, only mentioned it with Marketspeak, I was lead into error.
Sorry that you can't own up to a simple oversight (you could have even ignored it), and that you feel it's your place to make judgement calls on the value of words. Last I heard, both "persistent" and "framework" are pretty common synonyms for "storage" and "libraries", regardless of whether they add value to the original word or not.
There is a reason why all this OO BS endures, and it is people frustrated with SQL arbitrary limitations and lack of power without realising that's because of violating the relational prescriptions and proscription.
Perhaps you can explain this to me, because I'm not familiar with "relational prescriptions and proscription".
From the scant documentation I gathered one has to create a XML schema, instead of much more rationally taking SQL or some valid D, such as Tutorial D or Alphora Dataphor D4, as input. That strikes me as either requiring duplication of effort, or that the XML be the reference schema -- neither option seems desirable.
Isn't it six on one side, half-dozen on the other? What if you could easily generate the SQL from the XML, or vice versa? Would it really matter which is "ideal"? I'm being serious -- I don't see the difference if you can effortlessly move from one format to the other, but if you know of one, by all means enlighten me. (And Torque can automatically generate the XML from an existing database, though it's not flawless yet. So you don't have to duplicate your effort, if you started with SQL.)