It's not a matter of lock-in. Actually, that concept has always worked against Borland, since their tools are always of the "road less travelled" variety -- the main road mainly being Microsoft "Visual" programming products. People who use Borland products don't do it because they have to, they do it because they're totally infatuated with the products. These C++Builder people can easily switch to Visual C++ -- but they'll hate having to do it.
Thanks for making me feel better. You're talking about a product I would have worked on if I'd stayed at Borland. I was really looking forward to this one, because it was supposed to be Borland's first step towards an all-C++ replacement for C++Builder. (The current C++Builder relies mostly on Delphi-language libraries, and the language impedence gap was always painful to deal with.) The had some first-rate people working on it, and my job would have been to document the new libraries from the ground up. Fun challenging work for a serious API writer, and I've often kicked myself for walking away from it. But of course the project self-destructed, as Borland projects are wont to do.
I tried before to explain Borland's Dysfunctionality. Whatever the reason, it's pretty clear they're never going to live up their potential. Which potential is pretty great -- that's why people get so pissed when they screw up.
On the contrary, your statement reveals your lack of knowledge Delphi -- which currently includes a cross-platform version of its component library called CLX. (The Windows-only original is called VCL.) To provide basic cross-platform functionality, Borland got a commercial license for Qt, and CLX is built on that library, much as the VCL is built on the Windows API.
I guess Qt is OK, but your missing my point when you talk about "power". The problem with C++ is precisely it's "power" -- it's so feature bloated, that it's really hard to deal with. That's why newer languages, including Java and C#, deliberately back away from all the weird syntactic gimmickry of C++.
When I document an API, I usually spend a lot of time reading the code for the functions and objects I'm explaining. It takes 10 times as much work to read and understand code in C++ as does equivalent Delphi code. That's because you never know what obscure language feature a C++ programmer is going to use. I haven't done much API writing for Java (none for C#), but the level of difficulty for simple reading (and thus for maintenance and debugging) is pretty similar. That's why these alternatives to C++ exist.
In any case, Qt is hardly a testimony to the power of C++. Qt is based on an object model that C++ does not directly support. Which is why you have to run your Qt code through a pre-processor before you can compile it.
I agree the IBM-compatible speaker isn't good for much. But it isn't totally worthless either. You have to have some way for the system to make basic noises even when the sound-card driver isn't loaded. Or, in the case of most servers, when there isn't a sound card at all.
In the PC world, x86-series processors implement the call stack in a way that makes Pascal-style nested procedures easier to implement. Back in the 70s, Intel thought that Pascal was the high-level language of the future. They didn't anticipate the C/Unix mindset taking over so thoroughly.
And in certain circles, Pascal is still the language of choice. Lots of people who hack out basic native-code Windows software prefer Borland's Delphi IDE to any alternative. One reason is the programming language, which is actually an object-oriented extension of Pascal.
I spent 3 years at Borland, documenting their component libraries, which are mostly written in Delphi. I came to appreciate its simplicity and power. My job required me to go back and forth between Delphi and C++ (the same libraries are used in Borland's C++ products) and it was an object lesson (forgive the pun) in how painfully baroque C++ has become.
It's a pity that Pascal/Delphi has so thoroughly lost the language wars. But it has. Even if C++ hadn't thoroughly taken over native-code programming, Borland's bizarre and insular corporate culture would keep from spreading beyond a few fierce loyalists.
You do realize you can run X-Windows under MacOS X out of the box, right?
In which case you still have the MacOS user interface. I'm not going to repeat what I said on that topic.
And you can install KDE, Gnome, or whatever....
So major hacking of MacOS is an alternative to replacing it with Linux. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that nobody will prefer the replacement to the hacking.
It's an obvious combination for somebody who prefers PPC architecture to Pentium, but doesn't want to deal with MacOS. Mac diehards would never concede that anybody can design a user interface better than Apple -- but some of us are thoroughly adjusted to an X- or Windows-style user interface, and don't find it worthwhile to retrain ourselves.
I once read a survey of Vietnam flicks, written by a former Infantry commander who was actually there. Green Berets was at the bottom of his list, mainly because of John Wayne's macho-but-dangerous grenade throwing style. His favorite was Go Tell The Spartans. Never seen it, but I gather it's more historically, politically, and militarily accurate than most war movies. Which explains why it's more or less forgotten!
I'm the candidate of the California Seccessionist Party (Our motto: the Rockies are there for a reason!) and I'm sadened to report that my party has been totally ignored this year! It's the end of democracy!
I was not complaining about the qualiity of KDE, I was simply saying that I disagree with its direction...
I don't believe you can separate quality from these other issues. The KDE folk have chosen to match Windows feature for feature. They even have an equivalent of ActiveX. In so doing, they run the risk of duplicating all of Windows' security holes, reliability issues, and otherwise duplicating Microsoft's flouting of Murphy's Law.
When was that last compelling design change of the ubiquitous x86 desktop or laptop (maybe from Alienware)?
Alienware? Please. But you're right, the Apple do a lot of innovative physical design, imitation (never mind competition) is limited to trivial stuff, like using translucent materials.
Then again, so what? Most of the Apple design is eye candy. Yes, they do stuff that's a functional step forward, like those pedestal-stalk-lcd IMacs. But then they EOL it in favor of the latest gimmick du jour. Trivial changes made to keep their customers from getting bored.
OK, maybe you like spending a lot of money on eye candy. I don't, and I couldn't afford to anyway. Which I think describes most people.
Geez, you just described completely idiotic DB developer who doesn't know how to do his stuff.
Perhaps. But he's also described most of the self-taught developers who do most web applications.
In corporate world you don't need to convince much - just fire them.
That's assuming anybody above him on the food chain is any more clueful. I suspect a lot of corporate types don't even know what a join is, never mind the best way to do them.
SCSI and SCSI raids are just a waste of money on a desktop...
I'm not an expert, but I've worked with developers who've insisted on having SCSI instead of IDE. The theory is that building a really large product requires a lot sustained disk I/O -- which is what SCSI is good at.
There are floor-sitting servers too. I own a PowerEdge 1400SC. Of course, I sort of defeat my own argument by using it as a workstation.
What makes this guy a server? I'm no expert, but here's what I see:
Lots of RAM. Came pre-configured with 1GB, and could handle many times that.
There's only two 32-bit PCI slots, but four 64-bit slots. Handy if you want to add RAID or Fibre support, a nuisance if you want the more ordinary kind of add-in.
No built-in sound card.
No AGP interface. Instead, there's a basic 4MB video interface on the motherboard.
Massive fans.
Anyway, bionic-john is correct in thinking that a workstation will do as a server, provided only that you don't demand more of it than it's designed to do. (Which is always a question anyway.) I work for a hosting/colocation provider, and I see all kinds of stuff pressed into service as servers: cheap white boxes, Sun and Apple workstations, even an X-Box or two. Ultimately, all computers are interchangable. Specialized computers are just a matter of convenience and cost-effectiveness.
What gets *my* goat is that people call the Big Bang a theory, but get mad when people say that it's only a theory. Huh?
Huh yourself. It's a theory, yeah, but when you say "just a theory" you put it on the same level with theories like "Elvis killed JFK."
To parrot my Critical Thinking professor, you're punning "theory". No, you're not making a joke, but you are using two different concepts and equating them, just because they have the same name. Sometimes "theory" is working principle you use to understand how the universe works. Sometimes "theory" is just another word for opinion.
The Big Bang requires just as much faith as does the existence of God.
That shows how little you know the history of science. Scientists change their working theories all the time. The Big Bang theory itself became popular only after a long fight with the Steady State theory. ("Big Bang" was originally a term of abuse, invented by the Steady Staters.) Show physicists the right data, and they'll stop believing in the Big Bang once again. There would be a lot of resistance, but it would happen. Can you imagine any data that would make Christians stop believing in God? Maybe it exists, but it'd take a lot more than a few spectrographs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of lock-in. Actually, that concept has always worked against Borland, since their tools are always of the "road less travelled" variety -- the main road mainly being Microsoft "Visual" programming products. People who use Borland products don't do it because they have to, they do it because they're totally infatuated with the products. These C++Builder people can easily switch to Visual C++ -- but they'll hate having to do it.
I tried before to explain Borland's Dysfunctionality. Whatever the reason, it's pretty clear they're never going to live up their potential. Which potential is pretty great -- that's why people get so pissed when they screw up.
I much prefer the American system. If you can afford it, you jump to the head of the queue. If you can't, you die. Very darwinian.
I guess Qt is OK, but your missing my point when you talk about "power". The problem with C++ is precisely it's "power" -- it's so feature bloated, that it's really hard to deal with. That's why newer languages, including Java and C#, deliberately back away from all the weird syntactic gimmickry of C++.
When I document an API, I usually spend a lot of time reading the code for the functions and objects I'm explaining. It takes 10 times as much work to read and understand code in C++ as does equivalent Delphi code. That's because you never know what obscure language feature a C++ programmer is going to use. I haven't done much API writing for Java (none for C#), but the level of difficulty for simple reading (and thus for maintenance and debugging) is pretty similar. That's why these alternatives to C++ exist.
In any case, Qt is hardly a testimony to the power of C++. Qt is based on an object model that C++ does not directly support. Which is why you have to run your Qt code through a pre-processor before you can compile it.
Specifics would be of interest. Problem configuring the driver? Inability to playback cleanly?
"Environment" would have been more appropriate. But either way it's just a metaphor.
I agree the IBM-compatible speaker isn't good for much. But it isn't totally worthless either. You have to have some way for the system to make basic noises even when the sound-card driver isn't loaded. Or, in the case of most servers, when there isn't a sound card at all.
...but it's a kneejerk anti-MS rant that has no place in this discussion.
And in certain circles, Pascal is still the language of choice. Lots of people who hack out basic native-code Windows software prefer Borland's Delphi IDE to any alternative. One reason is the programming language, which is actually an object-oriented extension of Pascal.
I spent 3 years at Borland, documenting their component libraries, which are mostly written in Delphi. I came to appreciate its simplicity and power. My job required me to go back and forth between Delphi and C++ (the same libraries are used in Borland's C++ products) and it was an object lesson (forgive the pun) in how painfully baroque C++ has become.
It's a pity that Pascal/Delphi has so thoroughly lost the language wars. But it has. Even if C++ hadn't thoroughly taken over native-code programming, Borland's bizarre and insular corporate culture would keep from spreading beyond a few fierce loyalists.
Actually, you can. But that's beside the point. If you really want to know the point, try reading my post again.
Did you miss what I said about the Mac UI?
It's an obvious combination for somebody who prefers PPC architecture to Pentium, but doesn't want to deal with MacOS. Mac diehards would never concede that anybody can design a user interface better than Apple -- but some of us are thoroughly adjusted to an X- or Windows-style user interface, and don't find it worthwhile to retrain ourselves.
There's a great deal of truth in what you say!
I once read a survey of Vietnam flicks, written by a former Infantry commander who was actually there. Green Berets was at the bottom of his list, mainly because of John Wayne's macho-but-dangerous grenade throwing style. His favorite was Go Tell The Spartans. Never seen it, but I gather it's more historically, politically, and militarily accurate than most war movies. Which explains why it's more or less forgotten!
I'm the candidate of the California Seccessionist Party (Our motto: the Rockies are there for a reason!) and I'm sadened to report that my party has been totally ignored this year! It's the end of democracy!
Then again, so what? Most of the Apple design is eye candy. Yes, they do stuff that's a functional step forward, like those pedestal-stalk-lcd IMacs. But then they EOL it in favor of the latest gimmick du jour. Trivial changes made to keep their customers from getting bored.
OK, maybe you like spending a lot of money on eye candy. I don't, and I couldn't afford to anyway. Which I think describes most people.
What makes this guy a server? I'm no expert, but here's what I see:
- Lots of RAM. Came pre-configured with 1GB, and could handle many times that.
- There's only two 32-bit PCI slots, but four 64-bit slots. Handy if you want to add RAID or Fibre support, a nuisance if you want the more ordinary kind of add-in.
- No built-in sound card.
- No AGP interface. Instead, there's a basic 4MB video interface on the motherboard.
- Massive fans.
Anyway, bionic-john is correct in thinking that a workstation will do as a server, provided only that you don't demand more of it than it's designed to do. (Which is always a question anyway.) I work for a hosting/colocation provider, and I see all kinds of stuff pressed into service as servers: cheap white boxes, Sun and Apple workstations, even an X-Box or two. Ultimately, all computers are interchangable. Specialized computers are just a matter of convenience and cost-effectiveness.To parrot my Critical Thinking professor, you're punning "theory". No, you're not making a joke, but you are using two different concepts and equating them, just because they have the same name. Sometimes "theory" is working principle you use to understand how the universe works. Sometimes "theory" is just another word for opinion.
That shows how little you know the history of science. Scientists change their working theories all the time. The Big Bang theory itself became popular only after a long fight with the Steady State theory. ("Big Bang" was originally a term of abuse, invented by the Steady Staters.) Show physicists the right data, and they'll stop believing in the Big Bang once again. There would be a lot of resistance, but it would happen. Can you imagine any data that would make Christians stop believing in God? Maybe it exists, but it'd take a lot more than a few spectrographs.That's very interesting... but nobody mentioned photo printing.
But if you want advice that goes beyond cute offtopic stuff like the above, you probably should check out the manufacturer's customer support site.