Anyone who wonders why IE 6 became the de facto standard just needs to find a download of Netscape Communicator.
I don't get it. IE became the defacto standard because it was pre-installed on MS Windows. And MS Windows became the defactor standard because it comes with every computer pre-installed.
If, back then, the Netscape Communicator were pre-installed, the Netscape Communicator would have been the defacto standard. But Netscape didn't own an operation system. Yes, it's nice to have an operation system which with you can bundle stuff. It's good that besides ActiveX MS didn't really done anything with the IE. At least we are not living like in South Korea where you need to have IE with ActiveX to do any online banking.
What exactly did MS anyway with the 90% market share of IE? I can't remember any technology that was really needed back then. I think they were just happy to have the market share. Right now I can't see anything that the dominance of IE have left us.
The GPL only apply to somebody if this somebody modify the source code of the software _and_ re-distribute the modified software. Are there examples where somebody would take, for example MariaDB, modify it and re-distribute the modified package to it's customers? The GPL doesn't concern you at all if you, for example, take MariaDB, modify it to run 500% faster and use it on your servers for the next big internet thing. It's also not a big deal if you take MariaDB, modify it for your application and make the modifications available under the GPL again. Because the modifications are special to your application, nobody would benefit.
The only example where the GPL would concern you, if you are going to embed MariaDB in your software. In that case your software would have to be GPLed, too. But MariaDB is not really a database which you want to embed in your software. You rather going to use something like JDBC or ODBC, in which case the GPL doesn't concern you.
The only commercial thing you want from MariaDB is a service contract and here is the GPL a big advantage, because now you can go to any company that offers a service for it.
So in which case the GPL concern you? In which case would you want to embed something like MariaDB in your software and not using JDBC or ODBC?
Oracle is not suing someone who's using Java. The JVM on Android is not the Sun JVM and Oracle is not suing Google because they are using a Java style syntax. How is Oracle suing Google over the Dalvik JVM going to affect the millions applications that are written with Java for the Sun Java JVM?
You have been warning all this years that Google will be sued over patents for a Virtual Machine? In this patent minefield in the USA it's a wonder if you are not been sued over a Hello World application. I think somebody would have had some patent and it was just a matter of time that Google gets sued. Oracle and Google will just settle, the lawyers will get their share and the world will keep spinning.
Oh please, stop this nonsense. A lot of KDE4 users are pleased and like KDE4, like myself. And most I like KWin with the 3D effects, which I'm using all the time. All other DE feels to me like back to '95.
Almost the same rant I could post for Gnome, Xfce, Fluxbox and so on.
Only for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for Windows
Please, tell the system the virus/malware/trojan is for. Maybe then we could "get the facts"* right. *http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?R=cf
No company that contributes to Linux makes any cent from selling Linux. But if the newspaper build their own "gold standard" they wouldn't depend on any other company. Very few companies are actually have at it's core business software. But in the 21 century every company needs I.T. and software. So it's either a) depend on a third company, b) build itself or c) come together and make an open source project. Options a) and b) can be very costly, especially a) if there is only one vendor. Option c) can be very cheap and secure.
Well, you can do that in Dolphin, if you like. It's called "Columns View Mode". But actually, it's pretty useless. Why should I care of the parent directory if I go one directory deeper? And now I can only use 1/3 of the Dolphin window to see the files I'm interested in.
Why aren't newspaper come together and build or enhance an open source software, just for the need of the newspaper industry? Like Google is doing with Android, car manufactures doing with Linux, supercomputer engineers doing with Linux, etc.
The license should be GPL so nobody can just take the work and get an advantage over the other. But if then every newspaper pay the developers the costs should be just a small fraction to the costs they need to pay now.
It's like with Linux, where a lot of companies are paying the developers, but the cost per company remains very small, comparing to paying for licenses or build an own operation system.
Is that the distortion field in action? First you telling me that the phone will drop the call if I hold it in my hand, but secondly you telling that's the iPhone is actually superior to other phones. Third, you telling it's actually my problem for holding the phone wrong in my hand and finally you telling me that with the next iPhone it will all be better and we should just wait and spend another 500$ (or whatever it will cost).
Because MS success on the desktop is the lock-in in MS Word, MS Access, MS Excel, the deals with OEMs and that almost all games and applications are running on Windows only.
If they try to bring their stuff on something where you don't have such deals and lock-ins, like phones, gaming platforms, servers, super computer, they just suck. On the phones the OEMs are not afraid to advertise something different; in gaming platforms you have already the big players Sony and Nintendo; On servers was Unix dominant until Linux, same with super computers.
The problem with Desktop and Laptops is, nobody dare to advertise anything else besides Windows. So nobody is exposed to alternatives, so the market share stays low and nobody build applications for different platforms. Prove me wrong and go to Dell, Hp, Asus, etc. and try to find anything else then Windows and "We recommend Windows 7". Even if somebody will come and build the most advanced desktop system ever, the entry bar in the desktop market is just too high. Every new system to the market needs to compete not only on quality but on how well it runs Windows applications. Further, it needs to compete with the MS OEMs deals.
But only because the law is broken. Lemmings was first released in 1991, that's almost 20 years ego. Mario was first released 1981, that's 31 years ego. You should have copyright for 20 years at the outmost maximum. In fact, since we have now the Internet as the fastest delivery platform, the monopoly grand should be much less then 20 years. In the I.T. industry 20 years is like 60 years (or more) in the traditional industry. The copyright in this industry should be much much shorter.
The real villain here is the congress of the USA which is protecting the monopolies and steal from the public domain.
It's like Einstein trying to make his special relativity theory and try to avoid patents from Hendrik Lorentz for his Lorentz transformations, because in 1903 he was a poor student working in a patent office. Thank you very much America, because you try to export this stupidity all over Europe. Yes, he worked in a patent office, but in that time patents were granted only for real machines and not for math.
Imagine, if at the beginning of the computer revolution the patent offices around the world would have had granted patents on software. We would now still using Windows 3.11 or DOS, because every day-to-day technology that you are so used to would have been locked down for 20 years. Quick-Sort patented; Factory pattern patented; MVC pattern patented; and so on, you get the idea. But luckily back then nobody would even have this idea that you can get a patent on software, because every computer science student will tell you that software is just math that runs on a general purpose calculation machine.
Finally, the software that is running will _not_ change the machine, because that is for what a computer was invented in the first place. An abacus will not be transformed into something else if you calculate with it; you brain will not change if you calculate 1+1; a piece of paper will not change if you write some math. formula on it. The abacus stays an abacus; your brain is still a brain and the paper is still a piece of paper.
The H.264 algorithms are not tied to a particular machine, they are not manufacturing anything, and are not composition of matter. And they are not a process in the original meaning. But if you argue that they are a process, which takes some input and produces a result, then you opened the door to patent every math out there. Not only math, but now everything can be patented, like composition of music, writing of text and film a movie.
I'm sorry but I really don't like or want software patents in any form. I'm a software developer myself, have gone to the college and university and study I.T. That anyone could grant any patent on software is just beyond me and in my opinion the software patents are holding a whole generation of ideas and implementations thereof back in the USA and other countries which accept patents on math.
It's just how capitalism works. If woman working for less pay, why pay them more? After the woman with less pay leaves, they have to replace her with a man for more pay. But they saved some money.
It's the same system why we produce everything in China. Why pay them more if they work for a minimum wage and the people over here buy the stuff that was produced basically by children and slaves?
The American Society of Prostitutes has begun soliciting donations to fight key organizations of the free love movement, such as Marriage, Girlfriends and Fuck Buddies. According to a letter received by ASOP member Lisa Rugnetta, 'Many forces including the Marriage, Girlfriends and Fuck Buddies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Loveleft" in order to undermine our "Loveright." They say they are advocates of consumer love, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our services. Their mission is to spread the word that love should be free.'
There is nothing good about the WTO, the DMCA and the copyright in the current form. The only people who gain a profit from it are the big cooperation and the losers are everybody else.
International copyright is bound by WTO treaties and other international law. The USA acknowledges international copyrights. The DMCA may have controversial portions, but much of it is good, providing means and method of having infringing data removed from the internet and requires certain compliance by intermediary parties (i.e. hosting companies) of infringing content.
Adobe's PDF reader is so terrible because they including every stupid feature in their viewer instead on concentrating what people expect from a PDF viewer: View PDFs. Last security fiasco was because of the running scripts in a PDF.
But with Chrome you have now a combination of the two most insecure technologies in the I.T. industry: PDFs and the Web. Either Chrome will just download the PDF and show it in their separated application or I'm looking forward to a lot of fun on Slashdot.
I already have an excellent PDF viewer, thank you very much. It displays my PDFs wonderful and is separated from any browser and don't even use any library that have anything to do with the internet (as far as I know). And I like it that way.
Internet is a highly dangerous place and it's very hard, if not impossible, to secure the browser only for HTML, CSS, JavaScript and DOM. But now Google makes the same mistake like MS with the IE (with ActiveX) and includes PDF in the core browser? PDF is a monstrous standard; the hackers can even hack a stand alone PDF viewer to run code on your computer and now you want to include it in the core Chrome? What's next, ActiveX?
Leave it in a additional Addon for that people who just can't just download a PDF and open it in the stand alone PDF viewer.
What you want are multiple projects hosted in the same solution. In that case, you can build and run just a single project within the overall solution, and VS won't require that the rest of the solution build.
No, don't work. I need to fix every compiler error in every project in the solution to run one project. Even if the projects are not related to each other what-so-ever.
Alas, it does not exist... while VS does a good job catching coding errors at edit time, it isn't until you complete a compile cycle on at least the current project that the source is actually built out.
'course, in truth, Java is the weird outlier here. But I'll freely admit it's an interesting feature.
Why is it weird? It's my most favorite feature and every time I'm using something else, it's like I'm back with C/C++ nightmare again.
The class view is a bad joke again. Instead to show me the members of the class, I need to click through the tree to find my class. Also, I'm pretty sure that both the code generation tools and the refactoring tools in Eclipse are more powerful and more easy accessible than the one's in VS. VS is in no way the leading software in IDEs. If you take into account that you even have to pay for it, it makes it just ridicules.
But that's the whole point: working with a higher level language that binds against those libraries means you don't have to work directly against a C or C++ library. You just work with clean bindings that allow you to leverage the power of existing OSS software. So, for example, I could write a multimedia app using gstreamer and all the power it affords. That's an incredible good thing, as you're fully integrating with the underlying platform, as opposed to living in a fenced off little world of your own.
It's the same with Java. You can write an API that uses a native library in Java. That's how OpenGL in Java is working, that's why there is QTJambi. But I argue that for the most (at least 99%) the Java implementation is sufficient. And you have the advantage of the JRE/JDK that it's behave on every platform well defined. That's why I can take a single Jar file, package everything inside and run it on different platforms.
Further, yes you can package every application, simple or complex, in a single Jar file. I don't know why people don't do it. You can package native libraries, images and configuration in the Jar file.
I think the success of Java speaks for it self. The success, the multitude of open source libraries, tools and applications; the penetration in servers and client applications. This success needs Mono first gain but I don't see any feature of C#/Mono that have any advantage what so ever over Java.
Additionally, Ubuntu and others include Perl, Python, Ruby, et, packages in their packaging ecosystem. So while I certainly *can* use CPAN, most of the time I don't, as I *want* to use apt if at all possible (not the least of which because it makes package removal easier).
Java, Eclipse, Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Netbeans, Jakarta, and so on, are all included in the repositories. In fact a yum search java|wc -l gives me 931 lines. Same with Mono gives me only 228 lines. (Perl is 2242 lines; Ruby is 427.)
I also don't understand this at all. Your code didn't compile. Why the hell would you want to run it?
Maybe I changed something which breaks something else, but I don't care about this something, because I'm working on a whole different module? For some reason, I can't even run a project which no compiler errors, if a different project in the same solution which uses this project breaks. For example, I have my real project and a test project in the same solution. Now I change my real project, my test project breaks. I can't run my real project.
In Eclipse I can change something, run it, see if it's that what I wanted and be bothered with the rest of the project later. Thanks to an incremental compiler and because the compiler time errors are converted to exceptions, my change-compile-test cycle is very very short.
Btw, where is the incremental compiler in C#? An incremental compiler will only compile the changes I made, not the whole project. Why do I need to compile C# still like it is C or C++?
I don't understand this... VS provides an outliner, jump-to-declaration and similar features... what are you missing, exactly?
Most of all I'm missing the Outline-frame from Eclipse. I want to see all members of the current class at one time. This ComboBox at the top in VS is just a bad joke If I want to see the hierarchy I just press F4 and get the Hierarchy-frame. With the super- and sub-type hierarchy. The Call-Hierarchy-frame. In VS it's just a simple Search of the reference. In Eclipse I get a whole hierarchy where the method is called.
And I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your sentence suggests that IntelliJ sucks... but being a Java fanboi, that seems oddly evenhanded.;)
IntelliJ isn't intelligent at all. It always gets me the whole bunch of options, which in the given context don't make any sense. Maybe you need to configure it somehow, I don't know. In Eclipse the completion is context sensitive, meaning that if I'm in a method it will give me options that makes sense. Or if I'm typing fooObject. it will only give me the members. IntelliJ gives me always all things, like keywords, namespaces, other classes and so on.
Should never be required in the first place. If you're autogen'ing actual code (as opposed to, say, XML definitions for forms, etc), IMHO, the framework is doing something wrong.
Eclipse will generate me the Ctors for the fields of the class; it will generate the Ctors based on the parent class; It will generate Getter and Setter; It will generate delegates methods; equals and hashCode methods;
rather than building an entire new ecosystem.
The Java ecosystem is already in place. Which lots and lots of free and open source libraries. And actually, I rather work with Jar files then with the C or C++ libraries. I think the reason because there are not many DEP or RPM packages to just simple be installed, is that a Java applications don't need to be installed. You just download a simple jar file and you can run the application. A simple jar file can contain all dependencies and all (default) configuration.
With maven you have a package manager for the Jar libraries. You just specify with library you need and maven will download it for you, put it in the classpath and you can use it. Just go to http://mvnrepository.com/ . Maven will test and deploy your application, too.
Why have Perl a CPAN for the Perl libraries and software? Why is Perl creating a whole new ecosystem if there is already DEP and RPMs? It's the same reason why Java have it's own ecosystem. As well as Ruby with RAA and RubyGems.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say, after SW I, II and III they don't have anything left to cheer for.
Anyone who wonders why IE 6 became the de facto standard just needs to find a download of Netscape Communicator.
I don't get it. IE became the defacto standard because it was pre-installed on MS Windows. And MS Windows became the defactor standard because it comes with every computer pre-installed.
If, back then, the Netscape Communicator were pre-installed, the Netscape Communicator would have been the defacto standard. But Netscape didn't own an operation system. Yes, it's nice to have an operation system which with you can bundle stuff. It's good that besides ActiveX MS didn't really done anything with the IE. At least we are not living like in South Korea where you need to have IE with ActiveX to do any online banking.
What exactly did MS anyway with the 90% market share of IE? I can't remember any technology that was really needed back then. I think they were just happy to have the market share. Right now I can't see anything that the dominance of IE have left us.
The GPL only apply to somebody if this somebody modify the source code of the software _and_ re-distribute the modified software. Are there examples where somebody would take, for example MariaDB, modify it and re-distribute the modified package to it's customers? The GPL doesn't concern you at all if you, for example, take MariaDB, modify it to run 500% faster and use it on your servers for the next big internet thing. It's also not a big deal if you take MariaDB, modify it for your application and make the modifications available under the GPL again. Because the modifications are special to your application, nobody would benefit.
The only example where the GPL would concern you, if you are going to embed MariaDB in your software. In that case your software would have to be GPLed, too. But MariaDB is not really a database which you want to embed in your software. You rather going to use something like JDBC or ODBC, in which case the GPL doesn't concern you.
The only commercial thing you want from MariaDB is a service contract and here is the GPL a big advantage, because now you can go to any company that offers a service for it.
So in which case the GPL concern you? In which case would you want to embed something like MariaDB in your software and not using JDBC or ODBC?
Yes exactly. The under the GPL licensed Java VM will become a much more proprietary platform then the C# from MS one.
I think every C# fan boy is so happy about this news, but can you please try a little harder?
Ok, next time I try to build myself the VM from .NET and avoid building a JavaVM. Maybe Oracle will leave me in peace with their patents.
Oracle is not suing someone who's using Java. The JVM on Android is not the Sun JVM and Oracle is not suing Google because they are using a Java style syntax. How is Oracle suing Google over the Dalvik JVM going to affect the millions applications that are written with Java for the Sun Java JVM?
You have been warning all this years that Google will be sued over patents for a Virtual Machine? In this patent minefield in the USA it's a wonder if you are not been sued over a Hello World application. I think somebody would have had some patent and it was just a matter of time that Google gets sued. Oracle and Google will just settle, the lawyers will get their share and the world will keep spinning.
Why exactly?
Oh please, stop this nonsense. A lot of KDE4 users are pleased and like KDE4, like myself. And most I like KWin with the 3D effects, which I'm using all the time. All other DE feels to me like back to '95.
Almost the same rant I could post for Gnome, Xfce, Fluxbox and so on.
Only for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for WindowsOnly for Windows
Please, tell the system the virus/malware/trojan is for. Maybe then we could "get the facts"* right. *http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx?R=cf
No company that contributes to Linux makes any cent from selling Linux. But if the newspaper build their own "gold standard" they wouldn't depend on any other company. Very few companies are actually have at it's core business software. But in the 21 century every company needs I.T. and software. So it's either a) depend on a third company, b) build itself or c) come together and make an open source project. Options a) and b) can be very costly, especially a) if there is only one vendor. Option c) can be very cheap and secure.
Well, you can do that in Dolphin, if you like. It's called "Columns View Mode". But actually, it's pretty useless. Why should I care of the parent directory if I go one directory deeper? And now I can only use 1/3 of the Dolphin window to see the files I'm interested in.
Why aren't newspaper come together and build or enhance an open source software, just for the need of the newspaper industry? Like Google is doing with Android, car manufactures doing with Linux, supercomputer engineers doing with Linux, etc.
The license should be GPL so nobody can just take the work and get an advantage over the other. But if then every newspaper pay the developers the costs should be just a small fraction to the costs they need to pay now.
It's like with Linux, where a lot of companies are paying the developers, but the cost per company remains very small, comparing to paying for licenses or build an own operation system.
Is that the distortion field in action? First you telling me that the phone will drop the call if I hold it in my hand, but secondly you telling that's the iPhone is actually superior to other phones. Third, you telling it's actually my problem for holding the phone wrong in my hand and finally you telling me that with the next iPhone it will all be better and we should just wait and spend another 500$ (or whatever it will cost).
Because MS success on the desktop is the lock-in in MS Word, MS Access, MS Excel, the deals with OEMs and that almost all games and applications are running on Windows only.
If they try to bring their stuff on something where you don't have such deals and lock-ins, like phones, gaming platforms, servers, super computer, they just suck. On the phones the OEMs are not afraid to advertise something different; in gaming platforms you have already the big players Sony and Nintendo; On servers was Unix dominant until Linux, same with super computers.
The problem with Desktop and Laptops is, nobody dare to advertise anything else besides Windows. So nobody is exposed to alternatives, so the market share stays low and nobody build applications for different platforms. Prove me wrong and go to Dell, Hp, Asus, etc. and try to find anything else then Windows and "We recommend Windows 7". Even if somebody will come and build the most advanced desktop system ever, the entry bar in the desktop market is just too high. Every new system to the market needs to compete not only on quality but on how well it runs Windows applications. Further, it needs to compete with the MS OEMs deals.
But only because the law is broken. Lemmings was first released in 1991, that's almost 20 years ego. Mario was first released 1981, that's 31 years ego. You should have copyright for 20 years at the outmost maximum. In fact, since we have now the Internet as the fastest delivery platform, the monopoly grand should be much less then 20 years. In the I.T. industry 20 years is like 60 years (or more) in the traditional industry. The copyright in this industry should be much much shorter.
The real villain here is the congress of the USA which is protecting the monopolies and steal from the public domain.
I didn't know MS's messenger can communicate with the Wave. And since when it's already in version 4?
It's like Einstein trying to make his special relativity theory and try to avoid patents from Hendrik Lorentz for his Lorentz transformations, because in 1903 he was a poor student working in a patent office. Thank you very much America, because you try to export this stupidity all over Europe. Yes, he worked in a patent office, but in that time patents were granted only for real machines and not for math.
Imagine, if at the beginning of the computer revolution the patent offices around the world would have had granted patents on software. We would now still using Windows 3.11 or DOS, because every day-to-day technology that you are so used to would have been locked down for 20 years. Quick-Sort patented; Factory pattern patented; MVC pattern patented; and so on, you get the idea. But luckily back then nobody would even have this idea that you can get a patent on software, because every computer science student will tell you that software is just math that runs on a general purpose calculation machine.
Finally, the software that is running will _not_ change the machine, because that is for what a computer was invented in the first place. An abacus will not be transformed into something else if you calculate with it; you brain will not change if you calculate 1+1; a piece of paper will not change if you write some math. formula on it. The abacus stays an abacus; your brain is still a brain and the paper is still a piece of paper.
The H.264 algorithms are not tied to a particular machine, they are not manufacturing anything, and are not composition of matter. And they are not a process in the original meaning. But if you argue that they are a process, which takes some input and produces a result, then you opened the door to patent every math out there. Not only math, but now everything can be patented, like composition of music, writing of text and film a movie.
I'm sorry but I really don't like or want software patents in any form. I'm a software developer myself, have gone to the college and university and study I.T. That anyone could grant any patent on software is just beyond me and in my opinion the software patents are holding a whole generation of ideas and implementations thereof back in the USA and other countries which accept patents on math.
It's just how capitalism works. If woman working for less pay, why pay them more? After the woman with less pay leaves, they have to replace her with a man for more pay. But they saved some money.
It's the same system why we produce everything in China. Why pay them more if they work for a minimum wage and the people over here buy the stuff that was produced basically by children and slaves?
The American Society of Prostitutes has begun soliciting donations to fight key organizations of the free love movement, such as Marriage, Girlfriends and Fuck Buddies. According to a letter received by ASOP member Lisa Rugnetta, 'Many forces including the Marriage, Girlfriends and Fuck Buddies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Loveleft" in order to undermine our "Loveright." They say they are advocates of consumer love, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our services. Their mission is to spread the word that love should be free.'
There is nothing good about the WTO, the DMCA and the copyright in the current form. The only people who gain a profit from it are the big cooperation and the losers are everybody else.
PS: Why there is no edit feature on Slashdot?
International copyright is bound by WTO treaties and other international law. The USA acknowledges international copyrights. The DMCA may have controversial portions, but much of it is good, providing means and method of having infringing data removed from the internet and requires certain compliance by intermediary parties (i.e. hosting companies) of infringing content.
Yeah, like printers. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Send-Your-Enemys-Printer-A-DMCA-Warning-95089
Adobe's PDF reader is so terrible because they including every stupid feature in their viewer instead on concentrating what people expect from a PDF viewer: View PDFs. Last security fiasco was because of the running scripts in a PDF.
But with Chrome you have now a combination of the two most insecure technologies in the I.T. industry: PDFs and the Web. Either Chrome will just download the PDF and show it in their separated application or I'm looking forward to a lot of fun on Slashdot.
I already have an excellent PDF viewer, thank you very much. It displays my PDFs wonderful and is separated from any browser and don't even use any library that have anything to do with the internet (as far as I know). And I like it that way.
Internet is a highly dangerous place and it's very hard, if not impossible, to secure the browser only for HTML, CSS, JavaScript and DOM. But now Google makes the same mistake like MS with the IE (with ActiveX) and includes PDF in the core browser? PDF is a monstrous standard; the hackers can even hack a stand alone PDF viewer to run code on your computer and now you want to include it in the core Chrome? What's next, ActiveX?
Leave it in a additional Addon for that people who just can't just download a PDF and open it in the stand alone PDF viewer.
What you want are multiple projects hosted in the same solution. In that case, you can build and run just a single project within the overall solution, and VS won't require that the rest of the solution build.
No, don't work. I need to fix every compiler error in every project in the solution to run one project. Even if the projects are not related to each other what-so-ever.
Alas, it does not exist... while VS does a good job catching coding errors at edit time, it isn't until you complete a compile cycle on at least the current project that the source is actually built out. 'course, in truth, Java is the weird outlier here. But I'll freely admit it's an interesting feature.
Why is it weird? It's my most favorite feature and every time I'm using something else, it's like I'm back with C/C++ nightmare again.
The class view is a bad joke again. Instead to show me the members of the class, I need to click through the tree to find my class. Also, I'm pretty sure that both the code generation tools and the refactoring tools in Eclipse are more powerful and more easy accessible than the one's in VS. VS is in no way the leading software in IDEs. If you take into account that you even have to pay for it, it makes it just ridicules.
But that's the whole point: working with a higher level language that binds against those libraries means you don't have to work directly against a C or C++ library. You just work with clean bindings that allow you to leverage the power of existing OSS software. So, for example, I could write a multimedia app using gstreamer and all the power it affords. That's an incredible good thing, as you're fully integrating with the underlying platform, as opposed to living in a fenced off little world of your own.
It's the same with Java. You can write an API that uses a native library in Java. That's how OpenGL in Java is working, that's why there is QTJambi. But I argue that for the most (at least 99%) the Java implementation is sufficient. And you have the advantage of the JRE/JDK that it's behave on every platform well defined. That's why I can take a single Jar file, package everything inside and run it on different platforms.
Further, yes you can package every application, simple or complex, in a single Jar file. I don't know why people don't do it. You can package native libraries, images and configuration in the Jar file.
I think the success of Java speaks for it self. The success, the multitude of open source libraries, tools and applications; the penetration in servers and client applications. This success needs Mono first gain but I don't see any feature of C#/Mono that have any advantage what so ever over Java.
Additionally, Ubuntu and others include Perl, Python, Ruby, et, packages in their packaging ecosystem. So while I certainly *can* use CPAN, most of the time I don't, as I *want* to use apt if at all possible (not the least of which because it makes package removal easier).
Java, Eclipse, Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Netbeans, Jakarta, and so on, are all included in the repositories. In fact a yum search java|wc -l gives me 931 lines. Same with Mono gives me only 228 lines. (Perl is 2242 lines; Ruby is 427.)
I also don't understand this at all. Your code didn't compile. Why the hell would you want to run it?
;)
Maybe I changed something which breaks something else, but I don't care about this something, because I'm working on a whole different module? For some reason, I can't even run a project which no compiler errors, if a different project in the same solution which uses this project breaks. For example, I have my real project and a test project in the same solution. Now I change my real project, my test project breaks. I can't run my real project.
In Eclipse I can change something, run it, see if it's that what I wanted and be bothered with the rest of the project later. Thanks to an incremental compiler and because the compiler time errors are converted to exceptions, my change-compile-test cycle is very very short.
Btw, where is the incremental compiler in C#? An incremental compiler will only compile the changes I made, not the whole project. Why do I need to compile C# still like it is C or C++?
I don't understand this... VS provides an outliner, jump-to-declaration and similar features... what are you missing, exactly?
Most of all I'm missing the Outline-frame from Eclipse. I want to see all members of the current class at one time. This ComboBox at the top in VS is just a bad joke
If I want to see the hierarchy I just press F4 and get the Hierarchy-frame. With the super- and sub-type hierarchy.
The Call-Hierarchy-frame. In VS it's just a simple Search of the reference. In Eclipse I get a whole hierarchy where the method is called.
And I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your sentence suggests that IntelliJ sucks... but being a Java fanboi, that seems oddly evenhanded.
IntelliJ isn't intelligent at all. It always gets me the whole bunch of options, which in the given context don't make any sense. Maybe you need to configure it somehow, I don't know. In Eclipse the completion is context sensitive, meaning that if I'm in a method it will give me options that makes sense. Or if I'm typing fooObject. it will only give me the members. IntelliJ gives me always all things, like keywords, namespaces, other classes and so on.
Should never be required in the first place. If you're autogen'ing actual code (as opposed to, say, XML definitions for forms, etc), IMHO, the framework is doing something wrong.
Eclipse will generate me the Ctors for the fields of the class; it will generate the Ctors based on the parent class; It will generate Getter and Setter; It will generate delegates methods; equals and hashCode methods;
rather than building an entire new ecosystem.
The Java ecosystem is already in place. Which lots and lots of free and open source libraries. And actually, I rather work with Jar files then with the C or C++ libraries. I think the reason because there are not many DEP or RPM packages to just simple be installed, is that a Java applications don't need to be installed. You just download a simple jar file and you can run the application. A simple jar file can contain all dependencies and all (default) configuration.
With maven you have a package manager for the Jar libraries. You just specify with library you need and maven will download it for you, put it in the classpath and you can use it. Just go to http://mvnrepository.com/ . Maven will test and deploy your application, too.
Why have Perl a CPAN for the Perl libraries and software? Why is Perl creating a whole new ecosystem if there is already DEP and RPMs? It's the same reason why Java have it's own ecosystem. As well as Ruby with RAA and RubyGems.