Anyway, this really is not the travesty everyone here thinks it is.
I certainly hope so. For example, I had just many packages updated automatically, also Firefox. In Windows it would be a nightmare, I had to restart for the update, which I would have done in two weeks (or never, because I forget that their was an update). By then I certainly would have get a virus or trojan.
Or I remember the counter in Windows XP after an update that will not go away. It would have a countdown like 5 minutes and it would restart my computer automatically, if I want or not. The first time I saw it I though I had a virus/trojan
Now I just need to logout and login again, no problems with Firefox, Eclipse, KDE, Pluseaudio, etc.
The right solution would be of course to implement some framework, where such dependencies would be managed by the package manager. Just re-load the program or re-start the service, and if the program/service do not behave well, send a bug report (and a fix). To restart the computer is always to give up and a sign of a bad OS design. I can understand that you need to re-start with a kernel update, but for everything else (even the X server) just login and logout should be enough.
Just theoretical, Microsoft could just say it supports Linux distributions in Azure, but they will run 10% slower then any Windows Server, and are more difficult to configure. I don't think they will be that stupid anyway. Linux is demanded from their customers, and if it runs bad on their Azure it will be big news.
My Linux Fedora 16 uses 12GB for the system, with things like Latex, Eclipse, Java, Firefox, KDE Desktop with lots and lots of KDE applications, Mysql, LAMPP stack, Gimp, Inkscape, and many more applications for video, audio, office, XBMC etc.
Does Windows 8 now ship with a useful notepad yet?
The revierer spends only 19 hours for each patent to review it, find prior-art, etc. The USPTO makes 10 times as much money if they grant the patent (apply free+issue fee+maintant fee) as if they deny the patent (only apply fee).
Patents litigated: 1-2%
of those, how many go to trial: 0.1-0.2%
of those (the patents that go to trial), how many prior-art: 30%
of those (the patents that go to trial) are obvios: 40%
That means that of the best of the best patents, 30% are prior-art and 40% are obvios. That tells a lot of the quality of US patents.
Of the patents granted by the USPO, how many are granted by other juristictions:
EPO: 72.5%
JPO: 44.5%
Both EPO and JPO: 37.7%.
That means that less then half of the patents granted in the US are granted in Europe and Japan.
In summary: USTPO: is a rubber stamp organization, whose only role is to grant as much patents as possible.
What the hell? A MDA (Mail Delivery Agent, like sendmail or postfix) can be configured to save a copy of each Email your employees send to a central archive. Also you have Mailing Lists for Many to Many communications.
It's really funny how a bunch of "hippies" aka Open Source Developer (go to any project like Groovy, Apache projects, Linux, etc) can solve all the "disadvantages" of Email you complain about.
Archive: just configure your MDA so send each email send or received to a central email archive server. Many-Many: just use mailing lists, in which you can create your private groups or anyone can join a group. Mailing Lists have also an archive feature, so older emails can be easily red.
Email is not broken, it is one of the most convenient forms of communication online. That is why it is still around after 47 years and will be for at least more 20 or 50 years.
My tip for you: use a real Email client and some real Email infrastructure, like postfix, and not Outlook Express.
I just wonder, why isn't it the development model for Microsoft anyway? As I recall, there was always the iteration between a "beta" Windows and the "stable" Windows. Win 3.11 (stable), then Win 95 (beta), Win Mil (beta), and then Windows 2000, Windows XP (stable), then Vista (beta), then Windows 7 (stable).
Ubuntu's model would be much better for Microsoft and the businesses that rely on Windows. Two versions of "beta" or "experimental" versions, then one LTS version. The first version is like a "vision" to the future, then some people can pick it up and try it and Microsoft would receive the critic, the next version would fix bugs and improve on the critic, and the can pick it up and try it again and report issues/critic. The third version would be more stable, "ironed out" and would be the LTS (Long Time Support) version what cooperations can deploy.
Of course Microsoft's business model is to sell the system, so it would be difficult to sell a "beta" or "experimental" system, and would be more difficult to convince to give the first two versions out for free. But it would make sense. Or Microsoft could sell the first two versions as "desktop" or "end user" systems, and the LTS version for the enterprise.
Stop saying Powershell. Powershell is still running in the same old DOS cmd prompt. I am not talking about the shell (aka bash, sh, zsh, Powershell, etc.) I am talking about the "window" where you input your commands, the command prompt (or terminal).
Console2 could be a good replacement. But I'm talking about features of Windows, not some random apps that you download somewhere.
You are funny. I ask about features for Windows and you say: just use Linux (via remote X). Cygwin's terminal is still the same DOS prompt, only a little better with some colors, but it's still the same old DOS prompt from Windows 95.
It is so annoying everytime if I just want to look at a file or to open it in different editor, or delete I file I need first to search the app that opened it. In Linux you just open the file with whatever you want, move it, delete it, etc. no problems.
#2, virtual desktops.
If I work on a project and then want to look something up, or someone comes with an USB stick and I need to copy it, and open the files, I just switch the desktop. It's like you have one table full of stuff, then you go to a different table to eat your pizza, and then you go back to your work table. You don't put away your work stuff so you can eat the pizza, you just go to the kitchen table.
#3 Fast file system checks.
The fsck on Linux takes only 20 seconds for 100GB (ext4) why does Windows need minutes for a check?
#4 A good command prompt
I really hate the 1990 DOS command prompt. Can we please have a modern command prompt in the year 2012? A modern cmd prompt is: any true type font, any size also full size, completition of commands with tab key, searchable history of cmds, different background, different text color, etc. For an example of a modern cmd prompt, see Konsole (KDE).
#5 Ease change of the desktop environments
I mean a complete change, not just like a theme. I really like to replace the whole Windows desktop with KDE.
#6 Good SSH integration.
In Linux I can type in anywhere: ssh-add and it adds my ssh key for every program. Why can't it be that easy in Windows?
That correct, sorry I didn't think about that (why you get only 1 mod point). I did again with -f:
time fsck -f/dev/mapper/read-snap
fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
e2fsck 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
read: 880423/6406144 files (0.8% non-contiguous), 22360202/25599488 blocks
real 0m22.523s
user 0m4.032s
sys 0m1.116s
It takes 22.5 seconds. Still way faster then Windows would take.
fsck with ext4 takes literally seconds for 100s of GB. It is so fast, I am using it every time I mount my backup medias. For example 100GB encrypted partition:
[~] # time fsck/dev/mapper/read-snap
fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
e2fsck 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010)
read: clean, 880109/6406144 files, 22357360/25599488 blocks
real 0m0.184s
user 0m0.022s
sys 0m0.010s
So it just took 0.2 Sec for the check, whereas the Windows chkdsk takes a few minutes. I don't know what chkdsk does, why it takes so long. But as long as chkdsk takes minutes, it is just garbage. How about to make it perform in seconds (or fraction of seconds) just like fsck with ext4 (or ext2, ext3 it was).
Why are you not just install Xfce or KDE, the well tested, well used, well behaving desktops (I did not include Gnome because of Gnome 3.0)? In 5 years or the next two LTE Ubuntu versions you can try Unity again if you like so, but I see no reason to use a not tested, beta desktop, other then curiosity.
Btw, KDE 4 with 3D effects enabled are working nice on a netbook (of course you should not enable all effects at once).
Talking about anecdotes. Napster had somewhat around 26 Million users. Napster did a poll of the users, how many are willing to pay at was price. They come up with:
But instead to innovate the Music Mafia just bought new laws, like the DMCA. How much more evidence you need to understand that there are who download everything for free, but a large percentage would buy the music if it's offered convenient to them. That is also the success story of iTunes and Amazon, and others.
The community is very big. Have you seen StackOverflow? The most popular languages there are.NET ones.
Only that you have more questions for a language, does not mean it's more popular. If you want popularity, then I guess Tiobe is a much better source. With C# at place 5. (down from 4.), overturned by Objective-C.
The meaning of "final" for classes is "you can't inherit from it" (you can't change classes anyway). The meaning of "final" for methods is "you can't override it" (again, you can't change a method once it's defined). And for variables, you'll see the difference as soon as you try using them in "case".
Oh com'on use some of your brains. The meaning is the same. If you can't inherit a class from, you can't change it. If you can't override a method, you can't change it. And I really don't know what "case" is suppose to do with final variables. Case is a Java language construct with have limitations, the limitations applied whether it's final or not. Yes, you can argue that it's a design flaw, but really when you are using switch-case anyway.
It is incredibly annoying to navigate Java source trees because of all those useless folders on the top, like./com/sun/java/... - the top three are completely pointless for example, because they have exactly one subfolder.
That's an issue with the File Browser you are using. Also when are you really open the Java files in a text editor yourself, instead of using an IDE?
This enforcement is for example very handy on a smartphone, where many apps are coming from different vendors. For example in Android. If you have a package com.devent.myapp (with needs to have a registered domain devent.com) you can save your stuff on/com/devent/myapp/. First, this enforced convention is very handy to avoid file collisions, and second, Android will delete everything in this app-directory automatically at deinstallation of the app.
and this is very handy when it comes to e.g. generated code (which can then be all just shoved into a single directory without recreating the whole package structure).
Yeah right, that is the most difficult issue of a code generator, to create directories.
The false sense of security stems from the fact that you can always add your class to any package out there, and thereby gain access to package-private stuff.
With is handy if you do unit testing. Also I don't think package-private is a security feature. It is what it means: package-private.
You mean, a List of Lists?
No I mean, using arrays for matrices and Collections for jagged-arrays. because jagged-arrays are not arrays anyway.
And if both libraries just use a standard interface for arrays and jagged-arrays (Collections), instead of two incompatible types, we can actually have some interoperability. You can just convert a List to a Set without copying all of the elements, because a Set can be just a different view (or implementation) to a List. That's why a List and Set in Java have the same interface: Collection. So library A and B just use Collection and we all happy. The library that needs a 2D Matrix just use the toArray() method.
More keywords provide for clearer code - for example, where in Java "final" has several very different things in different contexts, in C# that difference is made explicit by using "sealed", "readonly" and "const".
That is no advantage. Human language uses the same words with different meanings all the time. That have a reason, so we don't have to invent (and learn and remember) yet another word. That can be applied to computer languages. A final method, a final class, a final field/variable, have all the same meanings. The meaning is: you can't change it. So why you need 3 different keywords?
That's wishful thinking.
No, that's user-friendliness, and only a technological problem (meaning it can be solved, you just need time and developers). Why should the user be suffering with a workaround that have it's own traps.
What's wrong about them? They're strictly better than packages, because they don't dictate physical layout, nor do they provide a false sense of security with package-private types.
That is a big advantage of Java and a great idea of the designers to dictate the physical layout. Because now not every single source file is in one directory, but have a structure that follows the code.
What false sense? The compiler is enforcing package-private, i.e. it gives you a compiler error.
Because they represent two different things - a 2D array is guaranteed to be a matrix (every row is the same length), a jagged one is not.
And why we need them for? You can just use a List. It's really funny then, if library A needs a normal array and library B needs a jagged array. Why we can't just have a List, with would be generic for both libraries.
We can argue all day long. Funny, how you didn't address my main concern with C#, the Community, the Libraries, the Tools, the IDEs.
I prefer my language to be neat and clean, with as less keywords as possible. For example, I wouldn't care less if Java would drop Generics, inline classes or would never implement closures. My preferences are with the Community, the Libraries, the Tools, the IDEs.
Because with the 4 important pillars I can work around any issues with the language, and the less things are in the language, the less problems I will have.
I did mix in Groovy (or I would mix in Scala, JPython, Closure, etc.) because it is part of Java. The Groovy language is just a simple Jar file that I include to my project (plus an addon to Eclipse), it's really that simple. So yes, Java has no closures, but who cares, if you can just add a simple Jar file to your project and use Groovy, with is transparent to Java (meaning you can easily mix Groovy and Java code). Or if you like the new functional programming trend you add a different Jar file and have Scala.
Microsoft can only bloat up the language, until you end up with 100s of keywords, each with it's quirks. But really productive I can only be with a language if I'm perfectly sure that for each problem I encounter I will find a Open Source Library or an Open Tool.
As I understand correctly, C# delegates are
only signature-safe. So the delegates are "safe" as Pythons functions if they
follow the method signature. But from a strongly typed language I expect "safe"
to mean "type-safe" not "signature-safe". So for example you have the following
code:
// C#
delegate void Fire(double, double); ...
public Fire fire;
In C# code, fire can mean different things in different contexts. You can assign
fire everything, it just have to meet the method signature. But for ignator you can
assign only a FireIgnator.
Not sure what's clumsy about it
It's just so many { and } in C# (4 levels of braces):
namespace foo {
class Foo {
public int Xx {
get { }
set { }
}
}
}
Other language have solved that problem in a more elegant way, for example Groovy:
class Foo {
def xxx// automatic setter and getter
def getXxx() { }// override the getter
void setXxx(def foo) { }// override the setter
} ...
Foo foo = new Foo()
foo.xxx = "new value"
println foo.xxx
That there are other issues with C# that I dislike. For example:
the IXxxx for interfaces. I mean really, what is the point? You shouldn't care less if it's an interface or not,
since it's OOP, which means that you should not known which specific implementation you are programming to.
the distinction between class/struct. Optimization should happen without that the programmer should care about. The VM should
be intelligent enough to notice when a class it's just value holding record and optimize it. Also see C# Optimization Secrets
Unless you know more about the C# language than I do, it is typically best to avoid structs entirely. If you use structs, you must be careful to not pass the struct as a parameter to methods often, or performance will degrade to worse than using a class type. The reason for this is that structs are copied in their entirety on each function call or return value.
Maybe the language (C#) is better (with is a personal opinion anyway, for example I don't like C# with the class/struct distinction, the unsafe delegates, the clumsy syntax for properties, the two collection frameworks [one with generics, one without] and many more issues)
But where it counts, Java is clearly the better choice, it's not for nothing the #1 used language now.
Where it counts is the Open Source Community, the build tools (is there any equivalent of maven for C#?), the libraries, the IDEs. There is C# still the underdog.
I am following the Oracle suite very much, because I'm myself a Java developer (and I searched long [Python, C#, C, C++, Php, Ruby] but I can't find any other language that suites my needs better). So this statement is just wrong, because Oracle is not suing over Java, but the use of the Java API and the structure, sequence and organization (SSO).
For me, the whole suite is just a stupid attempt by Oracle to get a piece of the mobile pie from Google and such a suite can only happening in the USA with it's more then confusing laws about copyright and patent laws which can patent everything.
Such suite can be easily happening with Microsoft over C#'s API or SSO, they don't hire 100s of layers for nothing.
How about Plan B, reform the justice system so your scenario will become more unlikly? But of course, the solution is to make new laws that will benefit only a few big companies, instead of making it more fairer for everyone.
Did you really read the TFA? The article is about some random people who want his advice but sending him NDAs first. Why he should waste his time to create an alternative NDA?
If those people would give him money, like a consulting session, that would be a different story.
perhaps the easiest and best solution for all concerned is to whack on a modest per-GB tariff, similar to the Canadian levy on blank media, to be paid back to content producers.
You know what should be more easier? To just let them fuck off and legalize pirating. Eventually, they should realize that they have to offer a good product and to meet demands from the market to sell their stuff. So they could finally play at normal terms, without a 70 years monopoly grand (or whatever the copyright term for movies is in Australia).
They talk about how everyone wants stuff for free, they talk about starving artists, a "riddle in a fast broadband world", etc. How about we talk about the one century of lost culture because of the 100 years copyright terms that they push around the world?
They talk about lost sales because of piracy. How about we talk about the invasion of privacy and broken products, because of their DRM'd crap?
I thought to myself while reading 1942 if the USA is already some kind of "Oceania". I'm now at the chapter with Goldstein book and all the symptoms are applicable to the USA.
Inner party, outer party and the "prols". The inner party is the military industrial complex, with the bankers and the Wallstreet, the Department of Homeland Security and the President on the top. The president is regarded as the official figure of the Party, with little difference if he is a Democrat or Republican. The outer party is the the rest of the government, the Democrat and Republican Party. The "prols" are the low and middle income households.
Continues war. First it was the Cold War and the hunt for "communists", now it is the "War on Terror". Besides is the "War on Drugs". The USA is now continuously at war, and always in a war that can never be won. The Cold War couldn't be won, neither the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror".
Stagnant inequality. The fact is that production is now most efficient, we have robots, heavy machinery, etc. A car to manufacture costs not more then $3,000 or less, a computer costs $500 or less. The worker productivity has risen continuously. But where is all this production go? Not to the workers, because the wages are stagnant or sinking. Austerity is now the slogan for everyone, despise the fact that trillions are given away to the "Inner Party" aka the military, bankers and the Wallstreet.
"Doublethink"/Ideology. The most significant event of the last 10 years is the banking crisis. With shook the world economy and will leave a decade of recession. The failure of the banks was so obvious, that a child can see that the top banks in the world committed fraud and took enormous risks with led to their bankruptcy. The consequences must be obviously, too. More regulation of the bank, stricter enforcement, put the failed banks in public hand. Put the money in the economy, stimulate new jobs, increase wages. But the politic was exact the opposite. Free money for the failed banks, austerity for the government, no regulation and no enforcement.
Media. The media in the USA is in control of a few mega-cooperations. The media was lying to the people and followed the party line (FOX News).
Control. The USA is on it's best way to be a total controlling state with laws like the Patriot Act, mass surveillance with cooperation of the ISPs.
I foresee *lots* of new jobs for lawyers thanks to ICANN.
What do you think is the goal of this anyway? Any organization will make anything to increase it's own influence. The goal is not to make the DNS "fair" or maintain a logical hierarchy. The goal is to milk the DNS system and increase the influence of ICANN as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, this really is not the travesty everyone here thinks it is.
I certainly hope so. For example, I had just many packages updated automatically, also Firefox. In Windows it would be a nightmare, I had to restart for the update, which I would have done in two weeks (or never, because I forget that their was an update). By then I certainly would have get a virus or trojan.
Or I remember the counter in Windows XP after an update that will not go away. It would have a countdown like 5 minutes and it would restart my computer automatically, if I want or not. The first time I saw it I though I had a virus/trojan
Now I just need to logout and login again, no problems with Firefox, Eclipse, KDE, Pluseaudio, etc.
The right solution would be of course to implement some framework, where such dependencies would be managed by the package manager. Just re-load the program or re-start the service, and if the program/service do not behave well, send a bug report (and a fix). To restart the computer is always to give up and a sign of a bad OS design. I can understand that you need to re-start with a kernel update, but for everything else (even the X server) just login and logout should be enough.
Just theoretical, Microsoft could just say it supports Linux distributions in Azure, but they will run 10% slower then any Windows Server, and are more difficult to configure. I don't think they will be that stupid anyway. Linux is demanded from their customers, and if it runs bad on their Azure it will be big news.
Wow, a wooping 2.4GB ISO for the preview.
My Linux Fedora 16 uses 12GB for the system, with things like Latex, Eclipse, Java, Firefox, KDE Desktop with lots and lots of KDE applications, Mysql, LAMPP stack, Gimp, Inkscape, and many more applications for video, audio, office, XBMC etc.
Does Windows 8 now ship with a useful notepad yet?
Here is an intersting Google Talk about The Patent Polution Problem
Some intersting statistics about patents:
The revierer spends only 19 hours for each patent to review it, find prior-art, etc. The USPTO makes 10 times as much money if they grant the patent (apply free+issue fee+maintant fee) as if they deny the patent (only apply fee).
That means that of the best of the best patents, 30% are prior-art and 40% are obvios. That tells a lot of the quality of US patents.
Of the patents granted by the USPO, how many are granted by other juristictions:
That means that less then half of the patents granted in the US are granted in Europe and Japan.
In summary: USTPO: is a rubber stamp organization, whose only role is to grant as much patents as possible.
What the hell? A MDA (Mail Delivery Agent, like sendmail or postfix) can be configured to save a copy of each Email your employees send to a central archive. Also you have Mailing Lists for Many to Many communications.
It's really funny how a bunch of "hippies" aka Open Source Developer (go to any project like Groovy, Apache projects, Linux, etc) can solve all the "disadvantages" of Email you complain about.
Archive: just configure your MDA so send each email send or received to a central email archive server. Many-Many: just use mailing lists, in which you can create your private groups or anyone can join a group. Mailing Lists have also an archive feature, so older emails can be easily red.
Email is not broken, it is one of the most convenient forms of communication online. That is why it is still around after 47 years and will be for at least more 20 or 50 years.
My tip for you: use a real Email client and some real Email infrastructure, like postfix, and not Outlook Express.
I just wonder, why isn't it the development model for Microsoft anyway? As I recall, there was always the iteration between a "beta" Windows and the "stable" Windows. Win 3.11 (stable), then Win 95 (beta), Win Mil (beta), and then Windows 2000, Windows XP (stable), then Vista (beta), then Windows 7 (stable).
Ubuntu's model would be much better for Microsoft and the businesses that rely on Windows. Two versions of "beta" or "experimental" versions, then one LTS version. The first version is like a "vision" to the future, then some people can pick it up and try it and Microsoft would receive the critic, the next version would fix bugs and improve on the critic, and the can pick it up and try it again and report issues/critic. The third version would be more stable, "ironed out" and would be the LTS (Long Time Support) version what cooperations can deploy.
Of course Microsoft's business model is to sell the system, so it would be difficult to sell a "beta" or "experimental" system, and would be more difficult to convince to give the first two versions out for free. But it would make sense. Or Microsoft could sell the first two versions as "desktop" or "end user" systems, and the LTS version for the enterprise.
Console2 could be a good replacement. But I'm talking about features of Windows, not some random apps that you download somewhere.
You are funny. I ask about features for Windows and you say: just use Linux (via remote X). Cygwin's terminal is still the same DOS prompt, only a little better with some colors, but it's still the same old DOS prompt from Windows 95.
It is so annoying everytime if I just want to look at a file or to open it in different editor, or delete I file I need first to search the app that opened it. In Linux you just open the file with whatever you want, move it, delete it, etc. no problems.
#2, virtual desktops.
If I work on a project and then want to look something up, or someone comes with an USB stick and I need to copy it, and open the files, I just switch the desktop. It's like you have one table full of stuff, then you go to a different table to eat your pizza, and then you go back to your work table. You don't put away your work stuff so you can eat the pizza, you just go to the kitchen table.
#3 Fast file system checks.
The fsck on Linux takes only 20 seconds for 100GB (ext4) why does Windows need minutes for a check?
#4 A good command prompt
I really hate the 1990 DOS command prompt. Can we please have a modern command prompt in the year 2012? A modern cmd prompt is: any true type font, any size also full size, completition of commands with tab key, searchable history of cmds, different background, different text color, etc. For an example of a modern cmd prompt, see Konsole (KDE).
#5 Ease change of the desktop environments
I mean a complete change, not just like a theme. I really like to replace the whole Windows desktop with KDE.
#6 Good SSH integration.
In Linux I can type in anywhere: ssh-add and it adds my ssh key for every program. Why can't it be that easy in Windows?
time fsck -f
fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
e2fsck 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
read: 880423/6406144 files (0.8% non-contiguous), 22360202/25599488 blocks
real 0m22.523s
user 0m4.032s
sys 0m1.116s
It takes 22.5 seconds. Still way faster then Windows would take.
fsck with ext4 takes literally seconds for 100s of GB. It is so fast, I am using it every time I mount my backup medias. For example 100GB encrypted partition: [~] # time fsck /dev/mapper/read-snap
fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
e2fsck 1.41.14 (22-Dec-2010)
read: clean, 880109/6406144 files, 22357360/25599488 blocks
real 0m0.184s
user 0m0.022s
sys 0m0.010s
So it just took 0.2 Sec for the check, whereas the Windows chkdsk takes a few minutes. I don't know what chkdsk does, why it takes so long. But as long as chkdsk takes minutes, it is just garbage. How about to make it perform in seconds (or fraction of seconds) just like fsck with ext4 (or ext2, ext3 it was).
Why are you not just install Xfce or KDE, the well tested, well used, well behaving desktops (I did not include Gnome because of Gnome 3.0)? In 5 years or the next two LTE Ubuntu versions you can try Unity again if you like so, but I see no reason to use a not tested, beta desktop, other then curiosity.
Btw, KDE 4 with 3D effects enabled are working nice on a netbook (of course you should not enable all effects at once).
Polls during that time state that %68 of users were willing to pay up to $14.99 a month for Napster service. That would mean about 25 million paying users accrueing sales of $375 million per month. Not only would the profits have been amazing, but it offered the revitalization the waning recording industry desperately needs today.
But instead to innovate the Music Mafia just bought new laws, like the DMCA. How much more evidence you need to understand that there are who download everything for free, but a large percentage would buy the music if it's offered convenient to them. That is also the success story of iTunes and Amazon, and others.
The community is very big. Have you seen StackOverflow? The most popular languages there are .NET ones.
Only that you have more questions for a language, does not mean it's more popular. If you want popularity, then I guess Tiobe is a much better source. With C# at place 5. (down from 4.), overturned by Objective-C.
The meaning of "final" for classes is "you can't inherit from it" (you can't change classes anyway). The meaning of "final" for methods is "you can't override it" (again, you can't change a method once it's defined). And for variables, you'll see the difference as soon as you try using them in "case".
Oh com'on use some of your brains. The meaning is the same. If you can't inherit a class from, you can't change it. If you can't override a method, you can't change it. And I really don't know what "case" is suppose to do with final variables. Case is a Java language construct with have limitations, the limitations applied whether it's final or not. Yes, you can argue that it's a design flaw, but really when you are using switch-case anyway.
It is incredibly annoying to navigate Java source trees because of all those useless folders on the top, like ./com/sun/java/... - the top three are completely pointless for example, because they have exactly one subfolder.
That's an issue with the File Browser you are using. Also when are you really open the Java files in a text editor yourself, instead of using an IDE?
This enforcement is for example very handy on a smartphone, where many apps are coming from different vendors. For example in Android. If you have a package com.devent.myapp (with needs to have a registered domain devent.com) you can save your stuff on /com/devent/myapp/. First, this enforced convention is very handy to avoid file collisions, and second, Android will delete everything in this app-directory automatically at deinstallation of the app.
and this is very handy when it comes to e.g. generated code (which can then be all just shoved into a single directory without recreating the whole package structure).
Yeah right, that is the most difficult issue of a code generator, to create directories.
The false sense of security stems from the fact that you can always add your class to any package out there, and thereby gain access to package-private stuff.
With is handy if you do unit testing. Also I don't think package-private is a security feature. It is what it means: package-private.
You mean, a List of Lists?
No I mean, using arrays for matrices and Collections for jagged-arrays. because jagged-arrays are not arrays anyway.
And if both libraries just use a standard interface for arrays and jagged-arrays (Collections), instead of two incompatible types, we can actually have some interoperability. You can just convert a List to a Set without copying all of the elements, because a Set can be just a different view (or implementation) to a List. That's why a List and Set in Java have the same interface: Collection. So library A and B just use Collection and we all happy. The library that needs a 2D Matrix just use the toArray() method.
More keywords provide for clearer code - for example, where in Java "final" has several very different things in different contexts, in C# that difference is made explicit by using "sealed", "readonly" and "const".
That is no advantage. Human language uses the same words with different meanings all the time. That have a reason, so we don't have to invent (and learn and remember) yet another word. That can be applied to computer languages. A final method, a final class, a final field/variable, have all the same meanings. The meaning is: you can't change it. So why you need 3 different keywords?
That's wishful thinking.
No, that's user-friendliness, and only a technological problem (meaning it can be solved, you just need time and developers). Why should the user be suffering with a workaround that have it's own traps.
What's wrong about them? They're strictly better than packages, because they don't dictate physical layout, nor do they provide a false sense of security with package-private types.
That is a big advantage of Java and a great idea of the designers to dictate the physical layout. Because now not every single source file is in one directory, but have a structure that follows the code.
What false sense? The compiler is enforcing package-private, i.e. it gives you a compiler error.
Because they represent two different things - a 2D array is guaranteed to be a matrix (every row is the same length), a jagged one is not.
And why we need them for? You can just use a List. It's really funny then, if library A needs a normal array and library B needs a jagged array. Why we can't just have a List, with would be generic for both libraries.
We can argue all day long. Funny, how you didn't address my main concern with C#, the Community, the Libraries, the Tools, the IDEs.
I prefer my language to be neat and clean, with as less keywords as possible. For example, I wouldn't care less if Java would drop Generics, inline classes or would never implement closures. My preferences are with the Community, the Libraries, the Tools, the IDEs.
Because with the 4 important pillars I can work around any issues with the language, and the less things are in the language, the less problems I will have.
I did mix in Groovy (or I would mix in Scala, JPython, Closure, etc.) because it is part of Java. The Groovy language is just a simple Jar file that I include to my project (plus an addon to Eclipse), it's really that simple. So yes, Java has no closures, but who cares, if you can just add a simple Jar file to your project and use Groovy, with is transparent to Java (meaning you can easily mix Groovy and Java code). Or if you like the new functional programming trend you add a different Jar file and have Scala.
Microsoft can only bloat up the language, until you end up with 100s of keywords, each with it's quirks. But really productive I can only be with a language if I'm perfectly sure that for each problem I encounter I will find a Open Source Library or an Open Tool.
the unsafe delegates
As I understand correctly, C# delegates are only signature-safe. So the delegates are "safe" as Pythons functions if they follow the method signature. But from a strongly typed language I expect "safe" to mean "type-safe" not "signature-safe". So for example you have the following code:
public Fire fire;
interface MissleLauncher { void fire(double, double); }
interface FireIgnator { void fire(double, double); }
public FireIgnator ignator;
In C# code, fire can mean different things in different contexts. You can assign fire everything, it just have to meet the method signature. But for ignator you can assign only a FireIgnator.
Not sure what's clumsy about it
It's just so many { and } in C# (4 levels of braces):
namespace foo {
class Foo {
public int Xx {
get { }
set { }
}
}
}
Other language have solved that problem in a more elegant way, for example Groovy:
class Foo { // automatic setter and getter // override the getter // override the setter
...
def xxx
def getXxx() { }
void setXxx(def foo) { }
}
Foo foo = new Foo()
foo.xxx = "new value"
println foo.xxx
That there are other issues with C# that I dislike. For example:
Unless you know more about the C# language than I do, it is typically best to avoid structs entirely. If you use structs, you must be careful to not pass the struct as a parameter to methods often, or performance will degrade to worse than using a class type. The reason for this is that structs are copied in their entirety on each function call or return value.
Maybe the language (C#) is better (with is a personal opinion anyway, for example I don't like C# with the class/struct distinction, the unsafe delegates, the clumsy syntax for properties, the two collection frameworks [one with generics, one without] and many more issues)
But where it counts, Java is clearly the better choice, it's not for nothing the #1 used language now.
Where it counts is the Open Source Community, the build tools (is there any equivalent of maven for C#?), the libraries, the IDEs. There is C# still the underdog.
2. Oracle is suing Google over Java right now..
I am following the Oracle suite very much, because I'm myself a Java developer (and I searched long [Python, C#, C, C++, Php, Ruby] but I can't find any other language that suites my needs better). So this statement is just wrong, because Oracle is not suing over Java, but the use of the Java API and the structure, sequence and organization (SSO).
For me, the whole suite is just a stupid attempt by Oracle to get a piece of the mobile pie from Google and such a suite can only happening in the USA with it's more then confusing laws about copyright and patent laws which can patent everything.
Such suite can be easily happening with Microsoft over C#'s API or SSO, they don't hire 100s of layers for nothing.
How about Plan B, reform the justice system so your scenario will become more unlikly? But of course, the solution is to make new laws that will benefit only a few big companies, instead of making it more fairer for everyone.
Did you really read the TFA? The article is about some random people who want his advice but sending him NDAs first. Why he should waste his time to create an alternative NDA?
If those people would give him money, like a consulting session, that would be a different story.
perhaps the easiest and best solution for all concerned is to whack on a modest per-GB tariff, similar to the Canadian levy on blank media, to be paid back to content producers.
You know what should be more easier? To just let them fuck off and legalize pirating. Eventually, they should realize that they have to offer a good product and to meet demands from the market to sell their stuff. So they could finally play at normal terms, without a 70 years monopoly grand (or whatever the copyright term for movies is in Australia).
They talk about how everyone wants stuff for free, they talk about starving artists, a "riddle in a fast broadband world", etc. How about we talk about the one century of lost culture because of the 100 years copyright terms that they push around the world?
They talk about lost sales because of piracy. How about we talk about the invasion of privacy and broken products, because of their DRM'd crap?
I foresee *lots* of new jobs for lawyers thanks to ICANN.
What do you think is the goal of this anyway? Any organization will make anything to increase it's own influence. The goal is not to make the DNS "fair" or maintain a logical hierarchy. The goal is to milk the DNS system and increase the influence of ICANN as much as possible.