Like our buddy George W. is really looking out for the civil liberties of Americans. About a year ago, I got laid off and remember watching the CNN coverage as the second plane hit the WTC. The first thought that popped into my head was not about the horror of the event or even those who dies but rather a disturbed feeling that this is the start of a long erosion of everyone's rights.
Today, we have secret courts used to judge people, the FBI/CIA is allowed to perform surveillance on anyone and everyone and the key to the equation...no one is liable or reporting to freedom's biggest driver - us. Before we start bashing a political party, just understand that the old and true parties need to take the blame for the lack of freedom today.
Most people who have used both Objective C and C++ agree that Objective C is the far better language.
What makes ObjC a better language? Is it because there are less compile time restrictions or because you can manipulate classes without making things ugly? Almost all Software Engineers agree that most of the software development process can/should be automated. Why let the error prone human do something when a machine could do it with a high rate of success. That's why almost all manufacturing is done by machine today. Why should the computer be any different.
Microsoft is based on giving the customers what they think they want; Apple is based on building thing the right way.
In this case, wouldn't making a computer work better be the right thing? The joy of owning an Apple was that they didn't crash. They didn't stop someone from doing their work. The computer just worked. This includes software developed by third parties and Apple included. C++ is going to allow engineers to develop software that doesn't depend on run time conditions, but more on compile time conditions. If the program compiles, we know that all methods exist in the classes. Using references, we know that care was taken to ensure memory cleanup. The STL provides a high degree of cross platform (and cross vendor) choices in algorithms. All good things that, IMHO, would lead to the right way.
God, I hope not. IMHO, C++ is just overkill for most of the native development on OS X. Then again, I am not a C++ fan.
I respect the fact that other people would rather use another programming language where I would pick C++. Truth be told, C++ is one of the best languages for writing cross platform, platform specific code (I dislike the JFC/Swing idea that everyone is forced into a single look and feel). If I had to choose a language for Mac only development, I would probably select ObjC.
Anyway, if the issue is Cocoa, then Apple would have to provide C++ Cocoa APIs, instead of Objective-C.
That's what I am looking and trying to build support for. Like the.Net WinForm API, you can write APIs for many different languages that all do roughly the same thing. There are a number of individual works, like Coplan's Advanced C++, that work through the issues of making C++ more run time based than it currently is.
I don't know about how Steve Jobs thinks, but the Cocoa APIs are pretty solid Model-View-Controller stuff -- pretty venerable and proven object technology.
Of course. Anyone who attempt cross platform development really needs MVC, but ObjC doesn't provide the MVC, the design of the Cocoa libraries provide the MVC nature of the program.
Apple has been persistently working on improving ObjC++ support.
If you wouldn't have posted this comment, I don't think I would have known that ObjC++ existed. Even when I try to lookup classes in the CoreFramework (like XML parsing classes) I often times find incomplete or out of date material. While I'm a supported of C++, I wish Apple would get the documentation together so more developers could trust it.
I found the sections on Cocoa to be intresting. From some general reading on the topic, it looks like more hobby developers are embracing Cocoa for their development, yet the commercial developers keep moving away from it. Another developer scraps his Mac version of the program because development for OS X requires buying too much into the Jobs way of thinking. I do hope that someone at Apple sees this and really pushes for moving back towards C++ instead of Cocoa.
Artists like the sound that a vacuum tube produces, so high end sound cards have started to add a handful of tubes for sound output. So not only do our computers today act as thin clients to huge servers (the web), but they also contain vacuum tubes. Doesn't look like we got very far.
The burden is on THEM to make sure their skills are up to task...
It's not who has the skills, the idea is to succeed. They win as a team and they fail as a team. Telling them that they need to get their skills up to par won't do much good. When I've run into this problem with people, I try to make them feel at ease. Try holding after hour gatherings the local bar. Then don't talk about work. Once they feel you're not an ass, then start bring up the concepts of work. When I've treated by co-developers with respect, I generally get respect back.
If VA was smart they would figure out ways to take the CVS code, make it modular and sell modules for source control systems other than CVS. Not everyone is going to use CVS just because SourceForge requires it.
First, CVS is quite limited to what can be done with it. A lot of third party tools like PVCS and ClearCase provide a lot of GUI enhancements that make working with the products easier. And other systems, like Perforce and Bitkeeper really give developers a lot of control over concurrent development. CVS was a great idea to RCS, but now, it rates right up their with Visual Source Safe.
We looked at using SourceForge where I work. Basically, since we didn't use CVS or have a need for the mailing list features, we only saw value to the bug tracker, task list and document section. The document section of SourceForge is very simple so it didn't buy us anything more than posting pages in HTML. Why would we pay for it. Now, if they could develop nice web based stuff like tinderbox for different source control systems, we would buy it hands down.
C++Builder 1.0 for Windows didn't support a number of STL classes (like string) per the specifications. I thought that version 3.0 would work better, but I still was missing some of the algorithms and such defined in the standad.
I haven't worked with any additional version of C++ Builder since then. If they have changed the support for STL, then I wouldn't know. I'm sure they still require things like AnsiString when passing information to controls. When I can pass my STL string into their controls, then I'll take another look.
I don't really think there's much to comment on. When I purchased my CD-RW, I printed out the compatability page and brought it shopping. If it wasn't on the list, I didn't even consider it. I'd bet most Mac users follow this pattern and thus, not a lot of unsupported hardware in the field.
Besides, what could be more exciting for end users than device drivers?
Problems with DHCP? Do you have a link? I've been trying to figure out why my laptop has problems recieving IP and DNS information at times. Might be the cause of my problems....
The overall design is based on the model from VS. Class Explorer, Form Editor, Message Window, etc. All Borland had to do was remove the MDI based controls and used tabbed editing screen instead. I don't know if I would call Borland's design 100% orginial. Can't comment on VS.NET too much, since I've never used it.
Although I wouldn't turn up my nose at the Borland compiler, it's a fast one, and it produces tight and good code.
Too bad it's not standard code. People grill Mircosoft for not making a standard C++ compiler, but then turn around and sing praise to Borland when they just forget to implement large parts of the template and RTTI sections in their compiler.
The real reason Borland can't make a standard compiler is that they would loose out on all that wonderful pascal code they bet the company on years ago. Delphi didn't make it against Visual Basic so why not repackage it for C++ developers. Frankly, they can keep the crap. If I'm looking to write messed up code, I might as well pick up Objective-C and learn Cocoa.
Kylix 3.0 integrates two great object-oriented languages into one very powerful IDE.
Only through a load of C++ compiler options. I used C++ Builder (the foundation for Kylix on Windows) and it's just full of special compiler constructs like __fastcall and other BS that just detracts from C++. Plus, the STL support just wasn't included. Nothing like needing to convert strings a million times just to interface with a standard C++ library. I'll be impressed when I can write applications using standard C++ language features and library APIs without learning about the pascal workings of this product.
Re:"MFC programming", what the heck?
on
Qt vs MFC
·
· Score: 1
I actually see the WinForms aspect of.Net as a starting over point for programmers on the Windows platform. Microsoft has known for a while that the old API was showing it's age..Net is less about developing a new technology, but refactoring the existing technologies and products for stability, security, performance, and all other sorts of good stuff.
Maybe if you didn't spend all your money on Vox, then you could afford an Apple machine.
In all fairness, Apple doesn't release cheaper machines because they don't skimp on some options. You can't by a Mac with too little memory or a tiny hard drive. Buying a Mac just means I need to do less tweaking of my machine when I order it.
Re:"MFC programming", what the heck?
on
Qt vs MFC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And what is it with those API's on Windows, do they have to typedef _everything_ for every different occasions...
Could it be to support more than a single machine architecture? Windows NT used to run on Alpha boxes and now, the move to IA-64 means that an unsigned int is going to change size. They typedef everything to ensure that no matter what platform they move to, the framework doesn't require major changes.
In addition to moving from WebSphere to WebLogic, does anyone know about moving from JBoss to WebLogic. We're deploying applications on JBoss now (since it's free) but the corporation is looking at moving to WebLogic. Is Java truly the Write Once. Run Anywhere platform Sun was once pushing?
I'd say the G4 has been milked for all it's worth. I see the L3 cache and dual 1GHz move as an attempt to push a design that doesn't want to move forward and keep up with Intel. The lack of major Power Mac lines gives me the impression that they can't make a major change at this time.
Intel can no longer claim clock speeds are the only meaningful chip performance measurement.
Well, most people still believe in that the chip speed does matter. I see AMD making a larger impact in the minds of the common consumers about why not to purchase the higher MHz chip.
I think it would be a great move if Apple moved to a new chip. Motorola doesn't seem concerned on keeping up with the big boys of chips. So pick something new. I just hope that they don't move to a P4. Skip 32-bit and move right into the IA-64 market.
Right On! I'm not getting on another damn plane until they take away the rights for the pilots to carry firearms. Nothing like giving a nervous, stresses, and under trained individual a gun and tell them to protect freedom.
So what! Shit happens and people die because someone else doesn't like them. I feel bad for the families of the victims, but I'm not going to give up my right to not be deemed a criminal until proven otherwise. The government can't protect all of the citizens all of the time, nor should it. Just by living, we take a risk.
This case is critical in determining how much of our rights we give up for crappy policies that won't save us in the future. The real problem isn't checking every person on the flight. The real issue is the FBI and CIA sat on their ass while field agents reported behavior by individuals that would indicate their intent to attack us. So what's George W.'s big plan? Lets assume everyone is a criminal. Treat them like one and make them carry our brand of IDs. Then in 20 years some field agent can make another report about some terrorists and we can look the other way until they attack....but we'll be safe with our IDs right?
Slashdot Mirror
but there is a VB for Macs and somewhere in the world another engineer sheds a tear....
Like our buddy George W. is really looking out for the civil liberties of Americans. About a year ago, I got laid off and remember watching the CNN coverage as the second plane hit the WTC. The first thought that popped into my head was not about the horror of the event or even those who dies but rather a disturbed feeling that this is the start of a long erosion of everyone's rights.
Today, we have secret courts used to judge people, the FBI/CIA is allowed to perform surveillance on anyone and everyone and the key to the equation...no one is liable or reporting to freedom's biggest driver - us. Before we start bashing a political party, just understand that the old and true parties need to take the blame for the lack of freedom today.
Most people who have used both Objective C and C++ agree that Objective C is the far better language.
What makes ObjC a better language? Is it because there are less compile time restrictions or because you can manipulate classes without making things ugly? Almost all Software Engineers agree that most of the software development process can/should be automated. Why let the error prone human do something when a machine could do it with a high rate of success. That's why almost all manufacturing is done by machine today. Why should the computer be any different.
Microsoft is based on giving the customers what they think they want; Apple is based on building thing the right way.
In this case, wouldn't making a computer work better be the right thing? The joy of owning an Apple was that they didn't crash. They didn't stop someone from doing their work. The computer just worked. This includes software developed by third parties and Apple included. C++ is going to allow engineers to develop software that doesn't depend on run time conditions, but more on compile time conditions. If the program compiles, we know that all methods exist in the classes. Using references, we know that care was taken to ensure memory cleanup. The STL provides a high degree of cross platform (and cross vendor) choices in algorithms. All good things that, IMHO, would lead to the right way.
God, I hope not. IMHO, C++ is just overkill for most of the native development on OS X. Then again, I am not a C++ fan.
.Net WinForm API, you can write APIs for many different languages that all do roughly the same thing. There are a number of individual works, like Coplan's Advanced C++, that work through the issues of making C++ more run time based than it currently is.
I respect the fact that other people would rather use another programming language where I would pick C++. Truth be told, C++ is one of the best languages for writing cross platform, platform specific code (I dislike the JFC/Swing idea that everyone is forced into a single look and feel). If I had to choose a language for Mac only development, I would probably select ObjC.
Anyway, if the issue is Cocoa, then Apple would have to provide C++ Cocoa APIs, instead of Objective-C.
That's what I am looking and trying to build support for. Like the
I don't know about how Steve Jobs thinks, but the Cocoa APIs are pretty solid Model-View-Controller stuff -- pretty venerable and proven object technology.
Of course. Anyone who attempt cross platform development really needs MVC, but ObjC doesn't provide the MVC, the design of the Cocoa libraries provide the MVC nature of the program.
Apple has been persistently working on improving ObjC++ support.
If you wouldn't have posted this comment, I don't think I would have known that ObjC++ existed. Even when I try to lookup classes in the CoreFramework (like XML parsing classes) I often times find incomplete or out of date material. While I'm a supported of C++, I wish Apple would get the documentation together so more developers could trust it.
I found the sections on Cocoa to be intresting. From some general reading on the topic, it looks like more hobby developers are embracing Cocoa for their development, yet the commercial developers keep moving away from it. Another developer scraps his Mac version of the program because development for OS X requires buying too much into the Jobs way of thinking. I do hope that someone at Apple sees this and really pushes for moving back towards C++ instead of Cocoa.
Artists like the sound that a vacuum tube produces, so high end sound cards have started to add a handful of tubes for sound output. So not only do our computers today act as thin clients to huge servers (the web), but they also contain vacuum tubes. Doesn't look like we got very far.
The burden is on THEM to make sure their skills are up to task...
It's not who has the skills, the idea is to succeed. They win as a team and they fail as a team. Telling them that they need to get their skills up to par won't do much good. When I've run into this problem with people, I try to make them feel at ease. Try holding after hour gatherings the local bar. Then don't talk about work. Once they feel you're not an ass, then start bring up the concepts of work. When I've treated by co-developers with respect, I generally get respect back.
If VA was smart they would figure out ways to take the CVS code, make it modular and sell modules for source control systems other than CVS. Not everyone is going to use CVS just because SourceForge requires it.
First, CVS is quite limited to what can be done with it. A lot of third party tools like PVCS and ClearCase provide a lot of GUI enhancements that make working with the products easier. And other systems, like Perforce and Bitkeeper really give developers a lot of control over concurrent development. CVS was a great idea to RCS, but now, it rates right up their with Visual Source Safe.
We looked at using SourceForge where I work. Basically, since we didn't use CVS or have a need for the mailing list features, we only saw value to the bug tracker, task list and document section. The document section of SourceForge is very simple so it didn't buy us anything more than posting pages in HTML. Why would we pay for it. Now, if they could develop nice web based stuff like tinderbox for different source control systems, we would buy it hands down.
...I then contacted an Apple Store where they were helpful...
To live in an area with an Apple store would be bliss. <Sigh>
C++Builder 1.0 for Windows didn't support a number of STL classes (like string) per the specifications. I thought that version 3.0 would work better, but I still was missing some of the algorithms and such defined in the standad.
I haven't worked with any additional version of C++ Builder since then. If they have changed the support for STL, then I wouldn't know. I'm sure they still require things like AnsiString when passing information to controls. When I can pass my STL string into their controls, then I'll take another look.
I don't really think there's much to comment on. When I purchased my CD-RW, I printed out the compatability page and brought it shopping. If it wasn't on the list, I didn't even consider it. I'd bet most Mac users follow this pattern and thus, not a lot of unsupported hardware in the field.
Besides, what could be more exciting for end users than device drivers?
Problems with DHCP? Do you have a link? I've been trying to figure out why my laptop has problems recieving IP and DNS information at times. Might be the cause of my problems....
The overall design is based on the model from VS. Class Explorer, Form Editor, Message Window, etc. All Borland had to do was remove the MDI based controls and used tabbed editing screen instead. I don't know if I would call Borland's design 100% orginial. Can't comment on VS.NET too much, since I've never used it.
Although I wouldn't turn up my nose at the Borland compiler, it's a fast one, and it produces tight and good code.
Too bad it's not standard code. People grill Mircosoft for not making a standard C++ compiler, but then turn around and sing praise to Borland when they just forget to implement large parts of the template and RTTI sections in their compiler.
The real reason Borland can't make a standard compiler is that they would loose out on all that wonderful pascal code they bet the company on years ago. Delphi didn't make it against Visual Basic so why not repackage it for C++ developers. Frankly, they can keep the crap. If I'm looking to write messed up code, I might as well pick up Objective-C and learn Cocoa.
Also Visual Studio has the crapest development environment I've ever used and the help is shite.
Must be the reason that more IDEs copy the Visual Studio layout for their own applications. We've got KDevelop, JBuilder, Eclipse, ProjectBuilder,...
Kylix 3.0 integrates two great object-oriented languages into one very powerful IDE.
Only through a load of C++ compiler options. I used C++ Builder (the foundation for Kylix on Windows) and it's just full of special compiler constructs like __fastcall and other BS that just detracts from C++. Plus, the STL support just wasn't included. Nothing like needing to convert strings a million times just to interface with a standard C++ library. I'll be impressed when I can write applications using standard C++ language features and library APIs without learning about the pascal workings of this product.
I actually see the WinForms aspect of .Net as a starting over point for programmers on the Windows platform. Microsoft has known for a while that the old API was showing it's age. .Net is less about developing a new technology, but refactoring the existing technologies and products for stability, security, performance, and all other sorts of good stuff.
Maybe if you didn't spend all your money on Vox, then you could afford an Apple machine.
In all fairness, Apple doesn't release cheaper machines because they don't skimp on some options. You can't by a Mac with too little memory or a tiny hard drive. Buying a Mac just means I need to do less tweaking of my machine when I order it.
And what is it with those API's on Windows, do they have to typedef _everything_ for every different occasions...
Could it be to support more than a single machine architecture? Windows NT used to run on Alpha boxes and now, the move to IA-64 means that an unsigned int is going to change size. They typedef everything to ensure that no matter what platform they move to, the framework doesn't require major changes.
In addition to moving from WebSphere to WebLogic, does anyone know about moving from JBoss to WebLogic. We're deploying applications on JBoss now (since it's free) but the corporation is looking at moving to WebLogic. Is Java truly the Write Once. Run Anywhere platform Sun was once pushing?
I'd say the G4 has been milked for all it's worth. I see the L3 cache and dual 1GHz move as an attempt to push a design that doesn't want to move forward and keep up with Intel. The lack of major Power Mac lines gives me the impression that they can't make a major change at this time.
Intel can no longer claim clock speeds are the only meaningful chip performance measurement.
Well, most people still believe in that the chip speed does matter. I see AMD making a larger impact in the minds of the common consumers about why not to purchase the higher MHz chip.
I think it would be a great move if Apple moved to a new chip. Motorola doesn't seem concerned on keeping up with the big boys of chips. So pick something new. I just hope that they don't move to a P4. Skip 32-bit and move right into the IA-64 market.
Right On! I'm not getting on another damn plane until they take away the rights for the pilots to carry firearms. Nothing like giving a nervous, stresses, and under trained individual a gun and tell them to protect freedom.
So what! Shit happens and people die because someone else doesn't like them. I feel bad for the families of the victims, but I'm not going to give up my right to not be deemed a criminal until proven otherwise. The government can't protect all of the citizens all of the time, nor should it. Just by living, we take a risk.
This case is critical in determining how much of our rights we give up for crappy policies that won't save us in the future. The real problem isn't checking every person on the flight. The real issue is the FBI and CIA sat on their ass while field agents reported behavior by individuals that would indicate their intent to attack us. So what's George W.'s big plan? Lets assume everyone is a criminal. Treat them like one and make them carry our brand of IDs. Then in 20 years some field agent can make another report about some terrorists and we can look the other way until they attack....but we'll be safe with our IDs right?