Multi-language capability gets slammed with the argument that 5 different programming teams within an organization are going to write in 7 different languages, and how do you maintain that mess. For many organizations, the issue is hiring and efficient staffing. If you have 7 languages, but you can only find programmers that know 3 of them, then you can only use those programmers for some of your projects. They go without work while you can't even find staff for some of your other projects.
The place where I work "standardized" on one language and is probably about to pick up another one, because we are expanding beyond just webapps. I say "standardized" with quotations because we do have some perl and java stuff, despite being officially a coldfusion (and soon to be c#, maybe) shop. No one that works there came in knowing cf, but it is easy to learn, to the managers just hire programmers and we toss the manual at them. Works suprisingly well.
By the way, why do you say that.NET is fake multi-language? I haven't done any work with it outside of c#, but I'm led to believe that VB.NET, j# and managed c++ work well as well (though it is obvious that c++ and j++ are just peace offers to companies that don't want to retrain their programmers). I've even seen Lisp, component Pascal and Forth compilers for.NET. Is it just the MS enthusism for C# that makes you say that?
Purported: Windows has lower staffing costs and thus lower TCO.
While people only trained to handle Windows servers do cost less to hire, this might not be much of an issue depending on your server/staff ratio, the amount of student labor you have (:), and what applications you need. Linux also has more places in the datacenter than just servers. Linux machines could be used on commodity hardware for firewalls, load balancers, etc. Not to mention that for some companies, the downtime from a major crash w/ data loss might be worth several employees for a year. That's to be debated later.
Purported: WinTel servers are cheaper than linux on mainframes.
Um, ok. Newsflash WinTel servers cheaper than a cluster of 1,000,000 SPARC machines running PalmOS. How about a WinTel/LinTel server comparison?
Purported:.Net cheaper to develop for than j2EE.
Probably so, as Java programmers are going to have more experience with Java than.NET programmers have with.NET, so they can afford to charge a seniority tax. Also, a few years down the line,.NET might not just be a windows thing (I'm an applications developer who recently evaluated mono for our team. It is mostly ready to go for our needs [C# interface to MySQL]). And Microsoft was so kind has to release the standard as open, so they wouldn't really have a legal foot to stand on in court if they tried to stop mono (IANAL, IMHO).
Firstly, the languages in question are called Inuktikut and Inuptiaq. Inuit is the name that the people who speak those languages call themselves. Secondly, they do have noun phrases and verb phrases, just like other languages. However, these languages also demonstrate much more bound morphology than english, so there isn't as much of a need for combinational rules and transformations to denote mood, tense, or even action. Just because inuktikut isn't as "space delimited" as English is, doesn't mean it has different units of meaning. After all, can you say that French has no past tense because you have to conjugate verbs to indicate it? You would be on better ground if Chomky were the only one advancing this kind of theory, but it is one of the best supported ones in linguistics.
Just because Chomsky focused on English doesn't mean the theory only holds for English. There hasn't been a language found yet that violates the concepts of transformational and generative grammar. Specifically, every sentence meets the NP, AUX, VP formula, though the order might be AUX, NP, VP or whatever. The NP might even be understood (understood subjects come to mind), but they are still part of the sentence structure (as evidenced by the fact that a grammatical transformation will make them reappear). Guess what, humans communicate by grouping smaller units of meaning into larger ones, and by changing the orders of those units. It is a universal characteristic.
human languages, there's no central structure. I think if you spoke to any linguistics major, they would disagree. If you are interested in structures in human languages, a good place to start is with any of Chomsky's linguistics work, because he studied how words combine into phrases and phrases into sentences (think of it as a tree). In fact, every sentence in every human language is formed from a noun phrase, auxillory, and a verb phrase. It is kind of similar to token types combining to form sucessivly "larger" constructions in a computer language, but it is more easily recognizible because a) computer langauges barely have any transformational rules b) have a very limited non-user defined vocabulary.
I set up my filtering system to keep a list of spammers. Then, everytime I get a spam, I forward it to every address on that list. It might not be much, but at least it makes ME feel better.
Thanks for that. I'm so tired of the grammar squad insisting that we write based on some sort of artificial grammar, instead of how the language is actually spoken.
University of Texas is fairly well covered (almost every building, though some of the artsy-shmartsy types are dragging their feet). Of course, I always cringe when I see people checking their bank balances over it, seeing as it is completely unencrypted...
Funny, I thought I heard that as of yesterday the batteries on the lander would have been depleted unless the lander had received an order to recharge its batteries. God, I hope not. That would possibly be one of the stupidest design flaws I have heard of in a long time. Why can't it just charge its batteries whenever the sun is shining? That said, maybe the onboard clock is in American time and not Metric time:)
until a virus burns your house down, or turns the gas on the stove on and it doesn't light, then no one notices... Or when a virus causes your phone to randomly dial people long distance. Or when a hacker takes control of the little computer in your car and makes you drive off a bridge...
Or maybe this isn't as big a problem as everyone makes it seem...
Well, the.NET framework gives you lots of appropriate choices. VB.NET and managed C++ can share objects with C#, for example. You can also define classes in VB.NET or managed C++ or whatever and use them in C#. There is a standard for the size of various data types in this framwork (ints, floats, chars, etc), so you don't have to worry about data loss or funny conversions when using data from a class written in a different language.
1)It is spelled 'actual.' Saddam claimed he didn't have weapons of mass destruction in 1990, but then he started lobbing SCUDs at anyone he could reach. Why should we believe him now? Also, why refuse UN inspections if you have nothing to hide. The rules are (under UN orders) that he couldn't even have those kinds of facilities (and that he had to comply with inspections). Actual weapons or not, he was still disobeying several UN resolutions.
2) I said there were no materials present. That could either mean that they weren't active yet, or that they had been wiped clean. It is notoriously difficult to wipe such a lab clean, so my guess is the first. Does that really make the situation any better?
Field research? With a truck full of microscopes, hazardous materials isolation equipment, and clean room conditions? If anything dangerous enough to warrant that exists in 'the field' under normal conditions, we have a lot more pressing concerns than Saddam.
Perhaps you are forgetting that months ago we found facilities for producing WMD. The complaint at the time was that we didn't find any actual weapons. Remember those tracker-trailer labs, for example? Now, granted they didn't find any traces of chemical or biological weapons, but what the fuck else are you going to use a biological research facility on wheels for?
It doesn't actually have much to do with the IPs being one off. It has to do with them being on the same subnet. Behind the same router. If www.sco.com was being DDOSed, then there would have at least been a) a hiccup, DDOSed servers don't go straight offline b) effects on hosts on the same subnet. Of course, SCO also claimed it hit their corporate intranet. I wonder how that happened?
Even if you do produce a paper receipt, most people won't even look at it. Even those who do look at it will probably just toss it in the trash bin on the way out. We're such a consumer culture, the average american tosses printed receipts several times a day.
Now if we printed out a decorative "Don't blame me, I voted for so-and-so" certifiate people could use to impress their friends (seeing as voting is for the most part a social event nowadays for a lot of people, so they can discuss politics at cocktail parties)...
Slashdot Mirror
Multi-language capability gets slammed with the argument that 5 different programming teams within an organization are going to write in 7 different languages, and how do you maintain that mess.
.NET is fake multi-language? I haven't done any work with it outside of c#, but I'm led to believe that VB.NET, j# and managed c++ work well as well (though it is obvious that c++ and j++ are just peace offers to companies that don't want to retrain their programmers). I've even seen Lisp, component Pascal and Forth compilers for .NET. Is it just the MS enthusism for C# that makes you say that?
For many organizations, the issue is hiring and efficient staffing. If you have 7 languages, but you can only find programmers that know 3 of them, then you can only use those programmers for some of your projects. They go without work while you can't even find staff for some of your other projects.
The place where I work "standardized" on one language and is probably about to pick up another one, because we are expanding beyond just webapps. I say "standardized" with quotations because we do have some perl and java stuff, despite being officially a coldfusion (and soon to be c#, maybe) shop. No one that works there came in knowing cf, but it is easy to learn, to the managers just hire programmers and we toss the manual at them. Works suprisingly well.
By the way, why do you say that
Bet it won't stop those images I've been using to run off fake quarters...
Looks like the "liberal media" conviently neglected to warn us about this. Gee, I wonder why.
Dude, if your files are in there... well, select at your own risk...
Purported: Windows has lower staffing costs and thus lower TCO.
.NET programmers have with .NET, so they can afford to charge a seniority tax. Also, a few years down the line, .NET might not just be a windows thing (I'm an applications developer who recently evaluated mono for our team. It is mostly ready to go for our needs [C# interface to MySQL]). And Microsoft was so kind has to release the standard as open, so they wouldn't really have a legal foot to stand on in court if they tried to stop mono (IANAL, IMHO).
While people only trained to handle Windows servers do cost less to hire, this might not be much of an issue depending on your server/staff ratio, the amount of student labor you have (:), and what applications you need. Linux also has more places in the datacenter than just servers. Linux machines could be used on commodity hardware for firewalls, load balancers, etc. Not to mention that for some companies, the downtime from a major crash w/ data loss might be worth several employees for a year. That's to be debated later.
Purported: WinTel servers are cheaper than linux on mainframes.
Um, ok. Newsflash WinTel servers cheaper than a cluster of 1,000,000 SPARC machines running PalmOS. How about a WinTel/LinTel server comparison?
Purported:.Net cheaper to develop for than j2EE.
Probably so, as Java programmers are going to have more experience with Java than
Firstly, the languages in question are called Inuktikut and Inuptiaq. Inuit is the name that the people who speak those languages call themselves. Secondly, they do have noun phrases and verb phrases, just like other languages. However, these languages also demonstrate much more bound morphology than english, so there isn't as much of a need for combinational rules and transformations to denote mood, tense, or even action. Just because inuktikut isn't as "space delimited" as English is, doesn't mean it has different units of meaning. After all, can you say that French has no past tense because you have to conjugate verbs to indicate it? You would be on better ground if Chomky were the only one advancing this kind of theory, but it is one of the best supported ones in linguistics.
Just because Chomsky focused on English doesn't mean the theory only holds for English. There hasn't been a language found yet that violates the concepts of transformational and generative grammar. Specifically, every sentence meets the NP, AUX, VP formula, though the order might be AUX, NP, VP or whatever. The NP might even be understood (understood subjects come to mind), but they are still part of the sentence structure (as evidenced by the fact that a grammatical transformation will make them reappear). Guess what, humans communicate by grouping smaller units of meaning into larger ones, and by changing the orders of those units. It is a universal characteristic.
human languages, there's no central structure.
I think if you spoke to any linguistics major, they would disagree. If you are interested in structures in human languages, a good place to start is with any of Chomsky's linguistics work, because he studied how words combine into phrases and phrases into sentences (think of it as a tree). In fact, every sentence in every human language is formed from a noun phrase, auxillory, and a verb phrase. It is kind of similar to token types combining to form sucessivly "larger" constructions in a computer language, but it is more easily recognizible because a) computer langauges barely have any transformational rules b) have a very limited non-user defined vocabulary.
when the site gets /.ed, do their lights turn off? Maybe it calls their upstream provider and asks for more bandwidth, automatically?
import os /usr")
:)
os.system("mount
i'm not even a python user and i know you can do that
That's why it is funny :)
I set up my filtering system to keep a list of spammers. Then, everytime I get a spam, I forward it to every address on that list. It might not be much, but at least it makes ME feel better.
Thanks for that. I'm so tired of the grammar squad insisting that we write based on some sort of artificial grammar, instead of how the language is actually spoken.
University of Texas is fairly well covered (almost every building, though some of the artsy-shmartsy types are dragging their feet). Of course, I always cringe when I see people checking their bank balances over it, seeing as it is completely unencrypted...
Funny, I thought I heard that as of yesterday the batteries on the lander would have been depleted unless the lander had received an order to recharge its batteries. :)
God, I hope not. That would possibly be one of the stupidest design flaws I have heard of in a long time. Why can't it just charge its batteries whenever the sun is shining? That said, maybe the onboard clock is in American time and not Metric time
until a virus burns your house down, or turns the gas on the stove on and it doesn't light, then no one notices...
Or when a virus causes your phone to randomly dial people long distance. Or when a hacker takes control of the little computer in your car and makes you drive off a bridge...
Or maybe this isn't as big a problem as everyone makes it seem...
Well, the .NET framework gives you lots of appropriate choices. VB.NET and managed C++ can share objects with C#, for example. You can also define classes in VB.NET or managed C++ or whatever and use them in C#. There is a standard for the size of various data types in this framwork (ints, floats, chars, etc), so you don't have to worry about data loss or funny conversions when using data from a class written in a different language.
forgot the double-A's again this Christmas...
Son, you have no idea of the kind of thread you just started.
I hope you're happy.
1)It is spelled 'actual.' Saddam claimed he didn't have weapons of mass destruction in 1990, but then he started lobbing SCUDs at anyone he could reach. Why should we believe him now? Also, why refuse UN inspections if you have nothing to hide. The rules are (under UN orders) that he couldn't even have those kinds of facilities (and that he had to comply with inspections). Actual weapons or not, he was still disobeying several UN resolutions.
2) I said there were no materials present. That could either mean that they weren't active yet, or that they had been wiped clean. It is notoriously difficult to wipe such a lab clean, so my guess is the first. Does that really make the situation any better?
Field research? With a truck full of microscopes, hazardous materials isolation equipment, and clean room conditions? If anything dangerous enough to warrant that exists in 'the field' under normal conditions, we have a lot more pressing concerns than Saddam.
Perhaps you are forgetting that months ago we found facilities for producing WMD. The complaint at the time was that we didn't find any actual weapons. Remember those tracker-trailer labs, for example? Now, granted they didn't find any traces of chemical or biological weapons, but what the fuck else are you going to use a biological research facility on wheels for?
It doesn't actually have much to do with the IPs being one off. It has to do with them being on the same subnet. Behind the same router. If www.sco.com was being DDOSed, then there would have at least been a) a hiccup, DDOSed servers don't go straight offline b) effects on hosts on the same subnet. Of course, SCO also claimed it hit their corporate intranet. I wonder how that happened?
Even if you do produce a paper receipt, most people won't even look at it. Even those who do look at it will probably just toss it in the trash bin on the way out. We're such a consumer culture, the average american tosses printed receipts several times a day.
Now if we printed out a decorative "Don't blame me, I voted for so-and-so" certifiate people could use to impress their friends (seeing as voting is for the most part a social event nowadays for a lot of people, so they can discuss politics at cocktail parties)...
Now if I only knew what 'ueberwachungsstrategien' was...