so it occurs to me to run a few test of my own... now that we are going to count not only actual errors, but errors that might potentially be added to the language.
[scribble scribble][calculate][ponder] yes... the number of defects, including potential defect is exactly infinite!
Now, if only they used a language where it is impossible to code a defect, like Java, or Godland, there would be no problem!
so, evidently numbers are involved with this somehow... facinating!
Re:Godzilla
on
Space Blog
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It doesn't actually cost by the ounce. They have a total pull they will take and they divide the cost by the weight to get numbers like that..., it's not actually directly proportional and the personal items the astonauts take up easily fit in the margins and don't actually cost much more in extra fuel.
really? do you have any numbers... that doesn't seem right but I don't really remember... I mean, I pay a flat rate for local and it doesn't seem any more than it ever was, except possibly for inflation.
or as someone else pointed out... if you give to both parties "evenly" the only explanation is that you are buying favors... right? I mean, it cannot be ideological!
actually, Islam (via the Koran) thinks of Jews and Christians are sister religions which should tollerated.
The hatred of the Jews for Muslim's is all about the politics of coming to the eastern shore of the mediteranian and saying, "ok, all of you out! This is a new country and by the way it doesn't belong to you any more."
Fact is, antisemitism has a longer history in Europe than it does in the middle east.
A fine book! However, my point is you don't have to learn all that. It's perfectly reasonable and wise to start out writing C code with classes. Now, in this day and age it's not as obvious, but when I started using C++ in earnest in 1994 compilers didn't even support (or supported really badly) a lot of the features of C++, so it was all the more reasonable to learn C++ features slowly. But it's still reasonable because C++ is multiparadigmed, like a tool box, a bunch of tools, of course every job doesn't use every tool.
Like a natural language... you aren't expected to memorize a dictionary to speak it! Not even to speak it "well". To be a "guru" or "expert", I suppose you need to at least familiarize yourself with the whole thing, in terms of whats available, so you will know when to learn a specific feature of the language.
About python... I have started using python recently because I last year started using Zope for quick intranet tools because I didn't have to do anything but install it and it's Products (i.e. because I didn't have to learn dtml or python). Then I looked a bit deeper, dtml is easy. Then deeper, only to find Zope is full of pythony goodness inside!
Python: I think I'm in love. To my mind python makes use of the Virtual Machine architecture to grant idioms that really require that approach, unlike Java, which takes the hits of a VM with relatively few of the benefits.
Really, such benefit is clear with Zope, by basing it on Python, you can share namespaces between all the levels of zope and control code-as-data better (loading modules without compile, etc.).
riiiiight! get with the program... I didn't might that argument with C-lovers... that was legit, and we could decide which C++ features to avoid and in what circumstance. IOW, we could approach it as software engineers, instead of saying, "resource usage... not important!" But now that's the the point, now they are saying C++ is only for "low level" things. Ah yes.
BTW: C++ is multiparadigmed, there are many paradigms that do not introduce ANY bloat in and of themselves.
>With Java, if your implementation is complete, you've got the standard libraries right there. No screwing around. And Java's standard library is not "tied tightly" to the language, it's just shipped with it, to give you a guarantee that at least you HAVE that library available to you. And you can always use third party libraries if you want.
So, basically, one, I don't think it's all right there because there is the little thing about setting up the java environment itself, which in my experience is no easier than any other environment. I have not found that Java is some magical "just works" type of system. Sorry but that seems more like wishful thinking. Perhaps good java programmers set their environment up so that it appears to just work. Guess what, all good programmers to that, C++ project "just work" after you have made them "just work".
And two, you point out you can use alternate libraries if you like. Would you be happy if all C++ compilers started shipping with GTK, so there was a standard library that you could replace if you like?
Far from feeling like the JVM design means I don't have to worry about the machine... it multiplied my worries, not only do different VMs have different problems, but since different VMs run on the same architecture one has to worry about learning every VM and how it's going to behave, if someone wants to make an informed decision about how to deploy one's work.
There still isn't a magic bullet, but C++ doesn't try to be. It a tool kit. There is nothing you cannot do with it. What is bad about a tool like that? In fact, professional tools are always like that... the do-it-yourself handimand tools might be made of plastic and be simplified... but class yourself.
btw: I do believe Java has it's uses, and VM's certainly do. I'm in reactionary mode about C++ and compiled vs. VM languages... I think there is a lot of FUD, basically, about C++.
So much of what is said about C++ here on slashdot looks to me to be fear, uncertainty and doubt I find it ironic.
The complaints about C++ are the kind of complaints users make about linux when comparing it to Windows. "It's much easier to click on a big E than to learn another icon..."
And clearly he's talking about GUI libraries... instead of multiple good C++ and C based multi-platform GUI libraries, he prefers another model, more like javas, where you get one crappy library and save yourself a lot of thinking!
If anyone cares about the quality of the software (more than their experience developing), they'll learn to use a good compiled language, period. If you can cut corners on quality, if you buy the idea that CPU cycles are here to waste, then use something lesser (I do in that case). However, I think we are wasting cycles, and there are some amazing things our software is not doing that it could. Moore's Software Law is that every 18 months software gets twice as inefficient doing the same thing.
I don't understand what's so difficult about C++, espc. if you know C.
C++ is a multiparadigmed language. You don't have to know everything it offers because you also won't want to use everything it offers in any given project, indeed, you will find there are certain paradigms available you will never use. Is that difficult?
If you know C you should at least like C++ to use to create constructors for structures that clear the structure, or to create functions with more than one form of argument input, etc.
no, I don't think bundling that is particularly convienient... indeed, I think that it's more convienient to have a choice and not have things like that tied tightly to the language.
Right now there are well established libraries in C++ for anything you get from standard libraries that are tightly integrated... just with multiple competing established libraries. A wealth of choices.
There is no standard GUI library that ships with all compilers. That will come, but not before it's time. Java gives such a library... too bad it sucks.
> making shitloads of money and turning the web into another television channel weren't part of my visions for what the net could become.
I think you should blame old Marc and Netscape a lot more for this than you evidently do.
"Mosaic Killer". Kill Mosaic. Kill! It's pathetic. Turning the net into a television channel was what Netscape was ALL ABOUT! Day one! They were just really incompetant about it, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
>You have become the old IBM.
I have savoured this irony loe these many years now! so true.
and cruel, quite cruel.
especially since even IBM isn't the oldIBM anymore, but the new IBM.
Shall we be able to praise the new Microsoft(s) some day?
nice twist
is to follow your principles into the street where you will be sleeping from then on.
the quote in your sig is histerical. I've been looking for the source, found it refered to a lot but I would love to know the context.
It's good to see the president is enlightened.
so it's like having a bunch of computers of different kinds, all attached to a common network talking over common protocols so they can be diverse.
Maybe we should call this thing that Microsoft has invented "The Internet!"
What a great idea!
... sorry, "pants"... the company owns some Unix Pants, that's all.
sorry for the confusion.
so it occurs to me to run a few test of my own... now that we are going to count not only actual errors, but errors that might potentially be added to the language.
[scribble scribble][calculate][ponder] yes... the number of defects, including potential defect is exactly infinite!
Now, if only they used a language where it is impossible to code a defect, like Java, or Godland, there would be no problem!
oh, the sarcasm! I'm so full of it!
so, evidently numbers are involved with this somehow... facinating!
It doesn't actually cost by the ounce. They have a total pull they will take and they divide the cost by the weight to get numbers like that..., it's not actually directly proportional and the personal items the astonauts take up easily fit in the margins and don't actually cost much more in extra fuel.
Because they refer to the same company.
really? do you have any numbers... that doesn't seem right but I don't really remember... I mean, I pay a flat rate for local and it doesn't seem any more than it ever was, except possibly for inflation.
when sarcasm, intending to be wrong, is right, is that irony?
or as someone else pointed out... if you give to both parties "evenly" the only explanation is that you are buying favors... right? I mean, it cannot be ideological!
This other solar system, it does know that we've patented the planetary creation process... right?
10 billion years of back license royalties... wehooo!
actually, Islam (via the Koran) thinks of Jews and Christians are sister religions which should tollerated.
The hatred of the Jews for Muslim's is all about the politics of coming to the eastern shore of the mediteranian and saying, "ok, all of you out! This is a new country and by the way it doesn't belong to you any more."
Fact is, antisemitism has a longer history in Europe than it does in the middle east.
A fine book! However, my point is you don't have to learn all that. It's perfectly reasonable and wise to start out writing C code with classes. Now, in this day and age it's not as obvious, but when I started using C++ in earnest in 1994 compilers didn't even support (or supported really badly) a lot of the features of C++, so it was all the more reasonable to learn C++ features slowly. But it's still reasonable because C++ is multiparadigmed, like a tool box, a bunch of tools, of course every job doesn't use every tool.
Like a natural language... you aren't expected to memorize a dictionary to speak it! Not even to speak it "well". To be a "guru" or "expert", I suppose you need to at least familiarize yourself with the whole thing, in terms of whats available, so you will know when to learn a specific feature of the language.
About python... I have started using python recently because I last year started using Zope for quick intranet tools because I didn't have to do anything but install it and it's Products (i.e. because I didn't have to learn dtml or python). Then I looked a bit deeper, dtml is easy. Then deeper, only to find Zope is full of pythony goodness inside!
Python: I think I'm in love. To my mind python makes use of the Virtual Machine architecture to grant idioms that really require that approach, unlike Java, which takes the hits of a VM with relatively few of the benefits.
Really, such benefit is clear with Zope, by basing it on Python, you can share namespaces between all the levels of zope and control code-as-data better (loading modules without compile, etc.).
Microsoft is supposed to have stopped that as of the 1994 Consent Decree.
... "you insensitive clod"
riiiiight! get with the program... I didn't might that argument with C-lovers... that was legit, and we could decide which C++ features to avoid and in what circumstance. IOW, we could approach it as software engineers, instead of saying, "resource usage... not important!" But now that's the the point, now they are saying C++ is only for "low level" things. Ah yes.
BTW: C++ is multiparadigmed, there are many paradigms that do not introduce ANY bloat in and of themselves.
>With Java, if your implementation is complete, you've got the standard libraries right there. No screwing around. And Java's standard library is not "tied tightly" to the language, it's just shipped with it, to give you a guarantee that at least you HAVE that library available to you. And you can always use third party libraries if you want.
So, basically, one, I don't think it's all right there because there is the little thing about setting up the java environment itself, which in my experience is no easier than any other environment. I have not found that Java is some magical "just works" type of system. Sorry but that seems more like wishful thinking. Perhaps good java programmers set their environment up so that it appears to just work. Guess what, all good programmers to that, C++ project "just work" after you have made them "just work".
And two, you point out you can use alternate libraries if you like. Would you be happy if all C++ compilers started shipping with GTK, so there was a standard library that you could replace if you like?
Far from feeling like the JVM design means I don't have to worry about the machine... it multiplied my worries, not only do different VMs have different problems, but since different VMs run on the same architecture one has to worry about learning every VM and how it's going to behave, if someone wants to make an informed decision about how to deploy one's work.
There still isn't a magic bullet, but C++ doesn't try to be. It a tool kit. There is nothing you cannot do with it. What is bad about a tool like that? In fact, professional tools are always like that... the do-it-yourself handimand tools might be made of plastic and be simplified... but class yourself.
btw: I do believe Java has it's uses, and VM's certainly do. I'm in reactionary mode about C++ and compiled vs. VM languages... I think there is a lot of FUD, basically, about C++.
So much of what is said about C++ here on slashdot looks to me to be fear, uncertainty and doubt I find it ironic.
The complaints about C++ are the kind of complaints users make about linux when comparing it to Windows. "It's much easier to click on a big E than to learn another icon..."
And clearly he's talking about GUI libraries... instead of multiple good C++ and C based multi-platform GUI libraries, he prefers another model, more like javas, where you get one crappy library and save yourself a lot of thinking!
If anyone cares about the quality of the software (more than their experience developing), they'll learn to use a good compiled language, period. If you can cut corners on quality, if you buy the idea that CPU cycles are here to waste, then use something lesser (I do in that case). However, I think we are wasting cycles, and there are some amazing things our software is not doing that it could. Moore's Software Law is that every 18 months software gets twice as inefficient doing the same thing.
I don't understand what's so difficult about C++, espc. if you know C.
C++ is a multiparadigmed language. You don't have to know everything it offers because you also won't want to use everything it offers in any given project, indeed, you will find there are certain paradigms available you will never use. Is that difficult?
If you know C you should at least like C++ to use to create constructors for structures that clear the structure, or to create functions with more than one form of argument input, etc.
I frankly don't understand the problem.
no, I don't think bundling that is particularly convienient... indeed, I think that it's more convienient to have a choice and not have things like that tied tightly to the language.
Right now there are well established libraries in C++ for anything you get from standard libraries that are tightly integrated... just with multiple competing established libraries. A wealth of choices.
There is no standard GUI library that ships with all compilers. That will come, but not before it's time. Java gives such a library... too bad it sucks.
holy shite, I think I'm going to make a billion dollars off that idea... well, maybe not me, but someone.
Really, that's a great idea if you could figure out a nice interface for it.
> making shitloads of money and turning the web into another television channel weren't part of my visions for what the net could become.
I think you should blame old Marc and Netscape a lot more for this than you evidently do.
"Mosaic Killer". Kill Mosaic. Kill! It's pathetic. Turning the net into a television channel was what Netscape was ALL ABOUT! Day one! They were just really incompetant about it, that's all.