In my opinion the.Net framework is essential, is is also the fulcrum for "MS ownership" that has completely eluded this discussion. If the.Net framework succeeds, no new language will be able to become popular unless it supports the.Net framework, which plays to MS's strengths as a platform exploiter.
Also in general I think it is crucial for frameworks to leap beyond the language. Why should you be limited to the hierarchy your language vendor provides? Arguably CORBA provided the tools for this but it never took off.
Could you explain to me the difference between these two statements? What prevents you from doing either one with a JVM?
I can write a Perl program that defines a CLR compliant.Net framework class (blessed package). I can then inherit that class in a C# class. Or vice versa. You cannot do that with Java.
No, the article above is making the claim that the entire.Net framework exists only for financial exploitation. My point was to state that there are clear technical advantages to this platform. Its called a counter argument - and yes, its relevant.
The CLR allows object-level integration between code in languages emitting IL and suporting the.Net framework. This does not hold - you may compile different languages to the JVM, but integrating them at the object level is not possible.
I am sure this feature could be added to the JVM but Sun seems obsessed with the proliferation of the Java language itself.
You are correct to point out the relative inability of the commercial unix vendors to get their act together, although this needs qualification. Most high end commercial unixes are tied closely to a high-performance platform. Personally I think those vendors would be remiss not to expose that exotic hardware as directly as possible to the owner - otherwise, whats the point of buying a $200k server? To me, this means systems programming in C/C++. I am sure there are people who purchase exotic hardware to run a VM on, but I don't see the point.
For smaller, commodity systems though, you are spot on. The unix vendors will always be a camp divided, needlessly thrusting small incompatibilities into the development cycle. Maybe Linux on x86 will simply borg the other commodity unices and solve this problem in an indirect fashion, but even then linux itself is splintering in a frustrating fashion.
Do some research on the subject and come back and join the discussion. The original author was correct -.Net supports multiple languages (support driven by independent vendors).
The tenor of your comment seems to be par for the course on/. lately - reactionary and ill-informed.
The CLR allows Microsoft to promote garbage-collected languages in toto. This includes C++, which now has MS extensions to allow garbage collection. You can reserve your own counsel on the topic of extensions to a language, but it works, I'll say that for it.
The CLR also incorporates some other innovative features - the ability link packages based on the signature of that package, not the package name, allowing side by side execution.
Also, the CLR is closely tied to the.Net framework, which is far ahead of the Java class library as you may mix and match classes across various languages. Note this does not mean you can just compile different languages to the CLR, but reuse code at runtime from code written in other languages.
Frankly the rest of the comments here are rants, I don't think many readers here understand the.Net platform.
Something tells me that while the/. audience is well informed on science issues, that the people working on this project would have already thought of this if it was so obvious.
Something tells me there is a concise, clear argument as to why you are completely wrong.
Your post only makes sense if no one in Belgiums has a standard to compare their linux experience to. Something tells me there are already ove ra million windows mahcines in the country, so yes, people will wonder what the hell that is on their computer when it boots up into KDE.
They will wonder why they can't use any of the applications they see at the store and why the need to run a program called "btichX" to get help.
I don't think anyone believed that in a true, practical sense, any type of project in any industry could be quantified precisely. That said, many programmer/managers don't even take the common sense approach to scehduling.
First hint is to collect resonable metrics - even if you can't estimate a project, at least make sure you have some data to go on for the next one. Like defect rates, how much code is being generated or fixed per day, and so on.
Secondly, get programmers on the team to provide some tight resolution of how much they expect to get done...not in a month, but in a day. After a few days they'll start to understand how quickly they actually work and their estimates will get better.
Most of all, attach dollar amounts to things you do. Don't spend $1000 in engineering time to save $10 in computer time. Learn what resources are cheap and what resources are expensive.
There are many other tidbits which a common sense to most working programmers, but it doesn't seem that anyone employs them.
More to the point, they are doing a disservice to the market by buying everyone the same computer. They should simply provide a tax credit or a voucher for the purchase of a PC, and let the consumers decide what they want. One size will not fit all, particularly for people who already own a PC.
I think its nice that the linux folks are giving it the "college effort", but chances are most home users would simply shrug and furrow their brow if they booted up their computer and it wasn't Windows.
The "free" argument doesn't wash either - for such a large purchase it impossible that the government would pay the going consumer rate per install. In fact, I suspect they would pay at most 40% of the cost of being each copy of Windows independently.
This decreases MS's future revenue. Do you really think that they will do that?
Firstly, cannibalizing one's own business for the purpose of potential revenues is a common tactic for aggresive businesses. Secondly, the Windows market on the desktop is saturated, so they stand little to lose. Where they stand to gain is in the services and frameworks markets. By standardizing.Net, they can potentially knock Sun out of the frameworks market and then really start turning the screws on services.
This ECMA effort may be primarily symbolic, however, since only a player with enormous resources and funding could possibly implement the standard. If you use.Net you can expect to be using it only on Windows for a long time to come.
This is typical of Ross. Not only does it not make sense (is there some limit at which we consider a system "tto big" to publish specs on?), but its patently false. The larger the system, the more necessary the spec is, not the other way around.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 3, Informative
US Gov't might not, the US public probably would
The masses are occupied watching Survivor. They could care less about the politics of the Middle East. Chomsky could go on for hours about this.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
I would say that with the largest land empire in history and with battles that regularly ended in wholesale slaughter, the Mongols are getting too little credit from you.
Total War was invented over a millennia before the Khans were born. Not just by the Greeks.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
but if the Israelis were to mow down a few hundred peaceful Palestinian protesters (as did the British before CNN and the Internet), I'm certain that Israel's days of support from the U.S. would be numbered.
Are you really this naive?
The dollar amount the US gives to Israel throughout its entire history of conflict in the West Bank has never decreased. The US does not have a problem with a proactive Israel.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
I'd go even further, and suggest that if the Palestinians had taken a King/Ghandi approach, they would have had their own state (possibly in some sort of federation with Israel) several years ago.
I support the Israelis in the middle East, but lets face it - they, like the Palestinians, listen more to violence than dialogue.
If the Palestinians had rolled over since day one, they would be marginalized, dispersed, and likely not exist any more as a nation.
BZZT! Canada still constitutional monarchy
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 5, Informative
When did the Queen cease being the ceremonial head of state in Canada? You have your history mixed up - Canada is still a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen of England as that head.
I believe this is also the case in Australia and New Zealand.
While it hans't (ever?) happened, the Queen can still veto legislation in Canada through her official representative who must assent to all new legislation.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
You're not talking about Western culture where peace is preferable
This is a total myth - Western culture perfected the art of "total war" - before the Greeks, peoples rarely fought bloody close battles of their own free will. The notion of victory by the complete destruction of the enemy on the battlefield is deeply ingrained in the Western tradition, and it is why Western culture is now ascendant. Reading Victor Hansen's "Carnage and Culture" might provide insight into the true basis for Western power and culture.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Thats absurd. Pacifism is an interesting philosophy, and you can hold your nose up on the supposed moral high ground, but how many times in history have a people won their independence through peaceful means? Don't cite India - the British occupation was marked by violence on both sides (see - Black Hole of Calcutta).
How about Blacks? Demographics indicate they are still an obvious underclass in the US.
Now compare that to how many times people have used violent force to gain their freedom.
Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The technocracy will effectively control global population through its effective military technology. Thats too bad, more people have won their rights and freedoms through bloody sacrifice than by any other means.
It will be almost impossible for oppressed people's to violently object to tyranny in such a scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Also in general I think it is crucial for frameworks to leap beyond the language. Why should you be limited to the hierarchy your language vendor provides? Arguably CORBA provided the tools for this but it never took off.
I can write a Perl program that defines a CLR compliant .Net framework class (blessed package). I can then inherit that class in a C# class. Or vice versa. You cannot do that with Java.
And most people will concede that JAva was an attempt to break MSs platform owership. These companies compete. What of it?
No, the article above is making the claim that the entire .Net framework exists only for financial exploitation. My point was to state that there are clear technical advantages to this platform. Its called a counter argument - and yes, its relevant.
I am sure this feature could be added to the JVM but Sun seems obsessed with the proliferation of the Java language itself.
But the CLR allows you to integrate IL code from various languages in one program not just at the function call level but object orientation as well.
For smaller, commodity systems though, you are spot on. The unix vendors will always be a camp divided, needlessly thrusting small incompatibilities into the development cycle. Maybe Linux on x86 will simply borg the other commodity unices and solve this problem in an indirect fashion, but even then linux itself is splintering in a frustrating fashion.
Do some research on the subject and come back and join the discussion. The original author was correct - .Net supports multiple languages (support driven by independent vendors).
The tenor of your comment seems to be par for the course on /. lately - reactionary and ill-informed.
The CLR also incorporates some other innovative features - the ability link packages based on the signature of that package, not the package name, allowing side by side execution.
Also, the CLR is closely tied to the .Net framework, which is far ahead of the Java class library as you may mix and match classes across various languages. Note this does not mean you can just compile different languages to the CLR, but reuse code at runtime from code written in other languages.
Frankly the rest of the comments here are rants, I don't think many readers here understand the .Net platform.
Something tells me there is a concise, clear argument as to why you are completely wrong.
They will wonder why they can't use any of the applications they see at the store and why the need to run a program called "btichX" to get help.
First hint is to collect resonable metrics - even if you can't estimate a project, at least make sure you have some data to go on for the next one. Like defect rates, how much code is being generated or fixed per day, and so on.
Secondly, get programmers on the team to provide some tight resolution of how much they expect to get done...not in a month, but in a day. After a few days they'll start to understand how quickly they actually work and their estimates will get better.
Most of all, attach dollar amounts to things you do. Don't spend $1000 in engineering time to save $10 in computer time. Learn what resources are cheap and what resources are expensive.
There are many other tidbits which a common sense to most working programmers, but it doesn't seem that anyone employs them.
Better to simply provide a tax credit, and let consumers make their own choices.
More to the point, they are doing a disservice to the market by buying everyone the same computer. They should simply provide a tax credit or a voucher for the purchase of a PC, and let the consumers decide what they want. One size will not fit all, particularly for people who already own a PC.
The "free" argument doesn't wash either - for such a large purchase it impossible that the government would pay the going consumer rate per install. In fact, I suspect they would pay at most 40% of the cost of being each copy of Windows independently.
Firstly, cannibalizing one's own business for the purpose of potential revenues is a common tactic for aggresive businesses. Secondly, the Windows market on the desktop is saturated, so they stand little to lose. Where they stand to gain is in the services and frameworks markets. By standardizing .Net, they can potentially knock Sun out of the frameworks market and then really start turning the screws on services.
This is typical of Ross. Not only does it not make sense (is there some limit at which we consider a system "tto big" to publish specs on?), but its patently false. The larger the system, the more necessary the spec is, not the other way around.
The masses are occupied watching Survivor. They could care less about the politics of the Middle East. Chomsky could go on for hours about this.
Total War was invented over a millennia before the Khans were born. Not just by the Greeks.
Are you really this naive?
The dollar amount the US gives to Israel throughout its entire history of conflict in the West Bank has never decreased. The US does not have a problem with a proactive Israel.
I support the Israelis in the middle East, but lets face it - they, like the Palestinians, listen more to violence than dialogue.
If the Palestinians had rolled over since day one, they would be marginalized, dispersed, and likely not exist any more as a nation.
I believe this is also the case in Australia and New Zealand.
While it hans't (ever?) happened, the Queen can still veto legislation in Canada through her official representative who must assent to all new legislation.
This is a total myth - Western culture perfected the art of "total war" - before the Greeks, peoples rarely fought bloody close battles of their own free will. The notion of victory by the complete destruction of the enemy on the battlefield is deeply ingrained in the Western tradition, and it is why Western culture is now ascendant. Reading Victor Hansen's "Carnage and Culture" might provide insight into the true basis for Western power and culture.
How about Blacks? Demographics indicate they are still an obvious underclass in the US.
Now compare that to how many times people have used violent force to gain their freedom.
It will be almost impossible for oppressed people's to violently object to tyranny in such a scenario.