I saw one of the towers when I got off the PATH train this morning, a little after 9:00AM. All these people were crowding Greenwich St., staring up. I looked over, and there it was.
I didn't find out what happened until I walked up a few blocks; someone had their car radio turned on to a news station, and they were describing what had happened. There were a lot of people with cameras or video recorders taking pictures. Everyone looked shocked, some where crying. Many of them were on cell phones, but the circuits are pretty much jammed so it's not much use.
It's hard to really describe what it was like seeing the WTC smoking. Putting it into words would just diminish it.
This piece sounds more like an ad than a real research paper. There aren't any real numbers, just the assertion that an OODMS can be faster on complex datatypes than an RDBMS. In what *specific* cases is an object-oriented database faster ? Then there's the "statisfied customer" section, "All these people are using object-oriented databases..."
The code size comparison is pretty useless. The code I use with Apple's EOF is more compact than any example here, and it can accomodate any kind of DB.
I'm sure that there are times when using an OODMS is a good choice. This article does nothing to help me determine what those times are.
I'd like to know what version of Mach the Liedtke paper is using for comparison. Later versions of Mach (e.g. 3.0) used a form of continuation passing to speed up context switches.
Also, as I recall both L3 and L4 have large sections coded in hand-tuned assembly language. It seems a bit unfair to compare a micro-kernel designed purely for high-performance on a single architecture to one designed for greater portability at the expense of some speed.
I don't think Tesla was self-taught. I believe he had a degree in Physics or Mathematics. This was (partly) the source of problems between himself and Edison. When Tesla first came to the US, he worked in Edison's labs, and was treated cruelly. Edison hated people with educations, and especially hated Tesla. Of course, this hatred was later amplified because of the struggle between Tesla's AC power and Edison's DC.
I don't believe in the "legacy" argument. Apple was right to go with a graphical interface with the original Macintosh, rather than cater to its entrenched Apple II users.
OS X represented a great opportunity to remove the cruft that had grown in the Mac, goofs like dragging a disk to the Trash in order to eject it, inconsistent use of control vs. shift click for non-contiguous region selection, and shifting APIs in both Pascal, C and C++. They blew it by caving in to legacy software companies by wasting resources on Carbon, and by destroying a good interface and replacing it with Aqua.
The idea of doing a defaults write to restore the UI is a joke, as this only works for ObjC apps, and the newer Apple apps are in Java or Carbon. (this is why System Preferences ran so sloowly in DP3 and DP4). In PB, this renders my system unusable, because it changes the Open panel into a Save panel. It doesn't bring back a Dock with available apps, or a browser with a path of file proxies to easily copy or move files. It doesn't bring back the old Projectbuilder, which wasn't cluttered with shifting panels.
One of the frustrating things about the article, and about the Aqua controversy in general, is that the Nextstep/Openstep users were ignored. It's not just Mac users who are losing out.
Apple ignored (horizontal menus) or destroyed (the browser, the dock) parts of the interface, in favor of Mac conventions or rewriting the app to make it unappealing to both sets of users.
The Apple file browser is a huge step backwards; so is the rewrite of Projectbuilder.
IMO, users would have been better off if Apple had adopted Workspace.app, and junked the aging MacOS interface. (Ironically, Apple did something like this when the moved from Apple II style character based apps to the Macintosh)
Slashdot Mirror
I saw one of the towers when I got off the PATH train this morning, a little after 9:00AM. All these people were crowding Greenwich St., staring up. I looked over, and there it was.
I didn't find out what happened until I walked up a few blocks; someone had their car radio turned on to a news station, and they were describing what had happened. There were a lot of people with cameras or video recorders taking pictures. Everyone looked shocked, some where crying. Many of them were on cell phones, but the circuits are pretty much jammed so it's not much use.
It's hard to really describe what it was like seeing the WTC smoking. Putting it into words would just diminish it.
This piece sounds more like an ad than a real research paper. There aren't any real numbers, just the assertion that an OODMS can be faster on complex datatypes than an RDBMS. In what *specific* cases is an object-oriented database faster ? Then there's the "statisfied customer" section, "All these people are using object-oriented databases..."
The code size comparison is pretty useless. The code I use with Apple's EOF is more compact than any example here, and it can accomodate any kind of DB.
I'm sure that there are times when using an OODMS is a good choice. This article does nothing to help me determine what those times are.I'd like to know what version of Mach the Liedtke paper is using for comparison. Later versions of Mach (e.g. 3.0) used a form of continuation passing to speed up context switches.
Also, as I recall both L3 and L4 have large sections coded in hand-tuned assembly language. It seems a bit unfair to compare a micro-kernel designed purely for high-performance on a single architecture to one designed for greater portability at the expense of some speed.
I don't think Tesla was self-taught. I believe he had a degree in Physics or Mathematics. This was (partly) the source of problems between himself and Edison. When Tesla first came to the US, he worked in Edison's labs, and was treated cruelly. Edison hated people with educations, and especially hated Tesla. Of course, this hatred was later amplified because of the struggle between Tesla's AC power and Edison's DC.
Well, CDs are $10 in the US if they're from the Dischord record label. All their CDs are labelled clearly, something like "This CD costs $10".
Dischord was founded by Ian Mackaye, among others, whose band Fugazi makes sure that all its concert tickets cost only $5.
I don't believe in the "legacy" argument. Apple was right to go with a graphical interface with the original Macintosh, rather than cater to its entrenched Apple II users.
OS X represented a great opportunity to remove the cruft that had grown in the Mac, goofs like dragging a disk to the Trash in order to eject it, inconsistent use of control vs. shift click for non-contiguous region selection, and shifting APIs in both Pascal, C and C++. They blew it by caving in to legacy software companies by wasting resources on Carbon, and by destroying a good interface and replacing it with Aqua.
The idea of doing a defaults write to restore the UI is a joke, as this only works for ObjC apps, and the newer Apple apps are in Java or Carbon. (this is why System Preferences ran so sloowly in DP3 and DP4). In PB, this renders my system unusable, because it changes the Open panel into a Save panel. It doesn't bring back a Dock with available apps, or a browser with a path of file proxies to easily copy or move files. It doesn't bring back the old Projectbuilder, which wasn't cluttered with shifting panels.
One of the frustrating things about the article, and about the Aqua controversy in general, is that the Nextstep/Openstep users were ignored. It's not just Mac users who are losing out. Apple ignored (horizontal menus) or destroyed (the browser, the dock) parts of the interface, in favor of Mac conventions or rewriting the app to make it unappealing to both sets of users. The Apple file browser is a huge step backwards; so is the rewrite of Projectbuilder. IMO, users would have been better off if Apple had adopted Workspace.app, and junked the aging MacOS interface. (Ironically, Apple did something like this when the moved from Apple II style character based apps to the Macintosh)