Beta-version of Windows 2003 is likely to support a developers-only version of Opteron in 32 bit mode, however, only in case M$ does not discontinue the whole Windows 2003 product line. Sorry.
Success of Paladium creates open source hardware.
on
Palladium Changes Name
·
· Score: 1
Just my 2 cents. If Palladium totally wins, than people will get encouraged to create their own hardware. Now all commercial hardware exceeds the capability of what individuals can construct because performance is the only reason to pay more. But existence of Palladium, especially enforced by law, creates demand for the untrusted hardware, even with lower performance.
The fact is that it is not Java that is broken, but the common perception of what is actually needed, and this very o'reilly article shows that clearly. It is not possible to "fix" a language just by removing bad API and generalizing its ad-hoc constructs. It is mind which needs fixing.
One might say Java is secure. It is secure in terms of JVM, but it is broken in terms of typing, and it is funny to see this skipped in the article. For example, collections are not type-safe.
One might think Java is reliable. Yes, its object model forces people not just to implement things, but also to someway "declare" what they are going to do. But "enterprise programming techniques" are mostly about overcoming this, for they use "reflection", which is about overcoming type restrictions.
Java has born templates. As somebody already noticed, templates are means to secure job, for nobody else will be able to figure out what's the hell is going on in your code. It's a joke, but the actual reason why templates are bad is that that they are a hack: Java is not expressive enough to let people develop abstract algorithms.
People are used to OO modelling. That's good by itself, but the common practices are harsh. Everybody knows that virtually any UML guy is capable of producing tons of completely incomprehensible diagrams, incomprehensible save to him. By programming, we build a computer model of the problem we solve. Since people generally dislike abstractions, it is considered more useful to have the world totally modelled than to have as much abstractions as possible found. So, just to add two integers, objects are created, and messages are passed. Nobody even tries now to teach programmers think abstract.
Let me make a conclusion. It is not because Java is good by itself that it has gained so much, and not because it is convenient lots of people are forced into it. It is because it is really a sort of agreable common ground (And it is better than VB anyway:-)) There is not reason to neither fix or drop anything in it; just push for better implementation and more standards. But if you feel like looking for something true and ethernal, try objective caml, and implement a java bytecode compiler for it.
The problem is that P2P really impacts sales of recording monopolies a lot. So, the confounded spyware hype is created to divert people from using P2P tools.
It is the recording companies who make those who develop P2P networks include spyware into their client software, and not for the sake of the information this software can collect (though it is quite useful too), but TO MAKE PEOPLE AFRAID OF INSTALLING P2P BECAUSE OF SPYWARE.
Suppose we have to develop an OLTP. What happens when number of tables becomes several hundreds? How to maintain forms designed two years ago? What happens when the logic fails to behave in the expected way because of being overy complicated? No language will help you when it comes to dealing with the good old enthropy. Now forget OLTP.
The problem is that as soon as development begins, the idea of what needs to be developed is being gradually replaced by how the things are being done. The declarative meaning gets lost for the sake of imperative implementation. It is quite uncommon that the rules of how to get "imperative" from "declarative" are not being lost.
My personal opinion: never try manually coding the entire system. Use automation where possible.
My personal belief is that Objective Caml is one of the best tools to make generators of all sorts. It is not that it has any unusual features. It is very simple, has very little caveats of any sorts, and powerful enough. As soon as you fix typing errors, you risk getting the right code (assuming your mind is clear enough).
It's a new Chinease stealth submarine...
on
New Deep Sea Squid
·
· Score: 1
Well, the truth is that this very word is hihgly abused. Possibly it is meant to be some sort of moral responsibility, some quite illusionary one. It has then to be objected.
The only decent form of responsibility is when you say "Okay, it is me who made this, and it is me who is to be honoured if it works for people, and it is me who is to be executed if it fails".
Even this is not all of the truth; the truth is there exists "equal amount of responsibility". It is possible to define it as something one is ready to loose in case of failure of the actions he bears responsibility of.
Ironically, "the only decent form" is indeed very little (how much does it cost to bear and breed a human?) Since human beings cannot be responsible for big entities, what is a really just form of societal/collective responsibility? How can human beings which form the society ensure that they are being justly coerced to fullfill such responsibility in case of failure?
Well, this is all theory. But I said all this to justify the idea that certification is by no means a way to make people do their job well. The only way is to breed and to teach them; they should do their job well not because they are certified, but because they fear of being sinful and eager to save in the most religious way:-)
More of this. Programming is a dirty and merciless activity. Only disproportinally little reward can one expect for the pains taken to produce good software, for there are too many seekers.
That's good, and I always promote writing program generators instead of programs. But I really object to the very idea of calling Lisp a high-level language:-) I find it more like an "functional assembly with good memory protection" - and thus it only deserves being generated. It lacks static typing and modules. Consequently, it becomes very hard to write big programs, and to use higher-level functions.
Okay, technical reasons are good, but they do not seem to rule the world all the time. I want to mention some purely political ideas.
1. To my point of view, it is relational model that dominates because of collective efforts of several big companies that managed to persuade everyone of its technical superiority, and then to deliver unparalleled implementations. (It was hard to develop a good RDBMS in those ancient times). So everybody with non-relational databases was claimed down and out and only permitted to silently die.
2. There exists a direct relationship between DTD and relational model (just map !elements into relational tables and impose constraints). The question is whether one cares to develop a query language which operates over XML primitives instead of relational ones so as it were more convenient for plain old hackers and newly brewed developers (and possibly housemaids). I personally do not believe in rapid creation of universally accepted such a language.
3. Everybody has become clever enough to develop different complicated ways of doing simple things. But not everybody is wise enough to make complicated things simple. And the XML is something overy bloated to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Beta-version of Windows 2003 is likely to support a developers-only version of Opteron in 32 bit mode, however, only in case M$ does not discontinue the whole Windows 2003 product line. Sorry.
Why stop at MozillaExplorer and MozillaOutlook?
Oh, well...
Just my 2 cents. If Palladium totally wins, than people will get encouraged to create their own hardware. Now all commercial hardware exceeds the capability of what individuals can construct because performance is the only reason to pay more. But existence of Palladium, especially enforced by law, creates demand for the untrusted hardware, even with lower performance.
The fact is that it is not Java that is broken, but the common perception of what is actually needed, and this very o'reilly article shows that clearly. It is not possible to "fix" a language just by removing bad API and generalizing its ad-hoc constructs. It is mind which needs fixing.
:-)) There is not reason to neither fix or drop anything in it; just push for better implementation and more standards. But if you feel like looking for something true and ethernal, try objective caml, and implement a java bytecode compiler for it.
One might say Java is secure. It is secure in terms of JVM, but it is broken in terms of typing, and it is funny to see this skipped in the article. For example, collections are not type-safe.
One might think Java is reliable. Yes, its object model forces people not just to implement things, but also to someway "declare" what they are going to do. But "enterprise programming techniques" are mostly about overcoming this, for they use "reflection", which is about overcoming type restrictions.
Java has born templates. As somebody already noticed, templates are means to secure job, for nobody else will be able to figure out what's the hell is going on in your code. It's a joke, but the actual reason why templates are bad is that that they are a hack: Java is not expressive enough to let people develop abstract algorithms.
People are used to OO modelling. That's good by itself, but the common practices are harsh. Everybody knows that virtually any UML guy is capable of producing tons of completely incomprehensible diagrams, incomprehensible save to him. By programming, we build a computer model of the problem we solve. Since people generally dislike abstractions, it is considered more useful to have the world totally modelled than to have as much abstractions as possible found. So, just to add two integers, objects are created, and messages are passed. Nobody even tries now to teach programmers think abstract.
Let me make a conclusion. It is not because Java is good by itself that it has gained so much, and not because it is convenient lots of people are forced into it. It is because it is really a sort of agreable common ground (And it is better than VB anyway
The problem is that P2P really impacts sales of recording monopolies a lot. So, the confounded spyware hype is created to divert people from using P2P tools.
It is the recording companies who make those who develop P2P networks include spyware into their client software, and not for the sake of the information this software can collect (though it is quite useful too), but TO MAKE PEOPLE AFRAID OF INSTALLING P2P BECAUSE OF SPYWARE.
Sic
Suppose we have to develop an OLTP. What happens when number of tables becomes several hundreds? How to maintain forms designed two years ago? What happens when the logic fails to behave in the expected way because of being overy complicated? No language will help you when it comes to dealing with the good old enthropy. Now forget OLTP.
The problem is that as soon as development begins, the idea of what needs to be developed is being gradually replaced by how the things are being done. The declarative meaning gets lost for the sake of imperative implementation. It is quite uncommon that the rules of how to get "imperative" from "declarative" are not being lost.
My personal opinion: never try manually coding the entire system. Use automation where possible.
My personal belief is that Objective Caml is one of the best tools to make generators of all sorts. It is not that it has any unusual features. It is very simple, has very little caveats of any sorts, and powerful enough. As soon as you fix typing errors, you risk getting the right code (assuming your mind is clear enough).
Designed in response to recent declassification of a Russian "stealth" warship and as a countermeausure to the National Missile Defense.
Does it sound like "responsibility" here?
:-)
Well, the truth is that this very word is hihgly abused. Possibly it is meant to be some sort of moral responsibility, some quite illusionary one. It has then to be objected.
The only decent form of responsibility is when you say "Okay, it is me who made this, and it is me who is to be honoured if it works for people, and it is me who is to be executed if it fails".
Even this is not all of the truth; the truth is there exists "equal amount of responsibility". It is possible to define it as something one is ready to loose in case of failure of the actions he bears responsibility of.
Ironically, "the only decent form" is indeed very little (how much does it cost to bear and breed a human?) Since human beings cannot be responsible for big entities, what is a really just form of societal/collective responsibility? How can human beings which form the society ensure that they are being justly coerced to fullfill such responsibility in case of failure?
Well, this is all theory. But I said all this to justify the idea that certification is by no means a way to make people do their job well. The only way is to breed and to teach them; they should do their job well not because they are certified, but because they fear of being sinful and eager to save in the most religious way
More of this. Programming is a dirty and merciless activity. Only disproportinally little reward can one expect for the pains taken to produce good software, for there are too many seekers.
What should the better ones do?
That's good, and I always promote writing program generators instead of programs. But I really object to the very idea of calling Lisp a high-level language :-) I find it more like an "functional assembly with good memory protection" - and thus it only deserves being generated. It lacks static typing and modules. Consequently, it becomes very hard to write big programs, and to use higher-level functions.
I would recommend using ocaml or haskell.
Okay, technical reasons are good, but they do not seem to rule the world all the time. I want to mention some purely political ideas.
1. To my point of view, it is relational model that dominates because of collective efforts of several big companies that managed to persuade everyone of its technical superiority, and then to deliver unparalleled implementations. (It was hard to develop a good RDBMS in those ancient times). So everybody with non-relational databases was claimed down and out and only permitted to silently die.
2. There exists a direct relationship between DTD and relational model (just map !elements into relational tables and impose constraints). The question is whether one cares to develop a query language which operates over XML primitives instead of relational ones so as it were more convenient for plain old hackers and newly brewed developers (and possibly housemaids). I personally do not believe in rapid creation of universally accepted such a language.
3. Everybody has become clever enough to develop different complicated ways of doing simple things. But not everybody is wise enough to make complicated things simple. And the XML is something overy bloated to me.