You can't really trust a company that has the following somewhere in their product catalog: "UC Enablers are products that strategically build the bridge from desktop reliance to PC Voice and all the liberating possibilities of Unified Communications". I pity the fools who fall for this verbal abomination.
Never mind that their PR lady is horrible at her job. Her voice sucks, and her appearance and body language sucks too.
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
GObject introspection tool seems to be a recent thing -- that's what I glean from what passes for their documentation. Never mind that the tool itself is not documented within GObject documentation, so don't blame someone who refers to official documentation (not the live crapfest) for not finding it. Various anti-Qt-fanbois have been whining for the longest time about the fact that Qt uses an extra tool (like if that was hard, gimme a break). It was GTK's supposed win factor that you could do everything manually; of course if you feel so inclined you can code up QObject metadata by hand too, what moc does isn't magic.
Suddenly --- boom, GTK has not one but two brand-new tools that generate C code: the introspection compiler, akin to moc, and Vala, a whole new language. I'd hardly call the GObject introspection project innovative in any way, I mean come on, moc has been with us for 15 years or so. Yes, they finally realized that not everyone is a masochist even if they write in C, so good for them, but IMHO it's a bit too little, too late. Oh, and good luck finding it if you don't know it's already there.
As a professional developer, I would not really bother even looking at their stuff, the documentation is so bad. From my viewpoint, the fact that the Gnome project is cut up into so many libraries doesn't help at all, nor does it instill any confidence. The individual libraries are all a crapshoot from integration viewpoint: some use GObject, some don't, the API conventions differ, it seems like a loosely bound mess. When you work with a monolithic framework like Qt, at least you can count on some measure of self-consistency.
Jail != Prison. Prison is where you go when you've been sentenced. Jail is where you go when you get arrested. It's inaccurate to treat those as synonyms IMHO.
I know that it must be crushing to a parent to have a kid commit suicide, but just maybe, just maybe, her suicide would end her suffering? Wouldn't that be a better outcome in a grand scheme of things? She is obviously in a distress. She is not a terminally ill cancer patient who begs for euthanasia, yet her suffering may be homologous to that caused by physical pain. I think there's a point at which people become irrational and self-centered when preventing others from dying. I can't judge if it's so in this case, but it certainly should be kept in mind.
That shows why every school district out there should stop begging the state and feds for money. Let them decide for themselves. The state and federal money enslaves them. They had traded some of their liberty for money. Some people call that prostitution.
I don't think he did point it out as a good thing:)
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 1
Nope. It's not about the code generator, it's about compiler generated code, such as template instantiations. STL is not supposed to be bloaty, it's a standard library that you are supposed to use, after all. Yet there are plenty of template instantiations that result in identical intermediate code (or identical code were the template parameter class constructors virtual), yet they are dumped multiple times by the compiler. Templatized code is often used solely as compile-time type carrier. C++ ABI and compilers aren't clever enough yet to leverage that fully.
1995?! In 1988, Windows/386 (2.1x) was preemptively multitasking the windows subsystem with one or more DOS virtual machines. I used it, I remember that. DESQview provided multitasking for DOS in 1985; I've got it in 1986 IIRC. 16 bit windows applications were multitasking, but cooperatively. There's nothing wrong with that, other than too many people not knowing how to code up nonblocking code. It has performance benefits, and the idea is hardly dead. Look at quantum leaps QP framework: it takes cooperative (run to completion) multitasking quite far, and it's a joy to use.
As for what they "should have had": they were a business, it was a business decision to make. It had nothing to do with technical prowess of anyone. If you'd be running a business doing stuff just because you can, you'll run it into the ground. It has to make sense, on multiple grounds.
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 1
True, but I think that in practice some code bloat and resultant cache pressure seems to compensate for some optimization gain if the latter result in code bloat. Of course there are times when C++ lets you optimize quite well -- just look at compile-time vectorization in the eigen linear algebra library. Quite clever yet today it's pretty much idiomatic C++.
To me, higher-level languages are more about programmer productivity and their promise to aid me in writing better, more correct code with less effort. They don't have to perform better than Algol-style C code would, except for hot spots (DSP, image processing, etc) -- in those hot spots C++ seems to be gaining ground due to synergy of better compilers and better understood C++ programming techniques.
Yup. And even that falls quite short from any semblance of formalized specification. Such would need to use some formal semantics notation to express exactly what is it that various functions do, say in terms of some idealized stateful interface. There has been at least the Z notation that would have been available to MS in the 80s, but of course they never realized what it means to have formal documentation...
Way to miss my point. I presumed Commodore came to be in the 70s, but that's my only mistake. I never mentioned any PC home market anywhere, I don't know why you bring it up. MS did not have to copy the ideas of multitasking etc. from Commodore/Atari because, as I pointed out, those ideas were well established at the time. You made a general statement that MS had to copy from Commodore/Atari. They definitely did not have to copy from Commodore/Atari. The only innovation in Amiga was that it was available for the home market. All the technology was available way before that, some parts of it as much as 20 years before (ever heard of the mother of all demos? -- look it up).
Re:If they plan on going mobile then i'm afraid
on
Qt 5 Alpha Released
·
· Score: 1
With plain GObject, you had to handwrite all that crap! In Qt, you write a method signature once, you declare it as a signal or a slot, and you're done. IIRC with GObject you have to tell the framework about everything: the name of the method, what arguments it takes, all that other crap, it's insane that anyone would still be expecting application developers to handle this crap by hand. Of course Vala changes all that, and it provides more functionality than Qt's moc, I give them that. But it's a work in progress, so it's not really on equal footing to Qt. What Vala does is akin to early C++-to-C implementations, but the language it implements is what C++ ought to be. I like it so far, but it's not ready for prime time.
Slashdot Mirror
Rootkit for seeds, TubeSteak, rootkit for seeds ;)
If the recovery is not out of the question then I agree -- it's worth the effort.
You can't really trust a company that has the following somewhere in their product catalog: "UC Enablers are products that strategically build the bridge from desktop reliance to PC Voice and all the liberating possibilities of Unified Communications". I pity the fools who fall for this verbal abomination.
The lady seems to have no clue what she's talking about anyway :(
Never mind that their PR lady is horrible at her job. Her voice sucks, and her appearance and body language sucks too.
GObject introspection tool seems to be a recent thing -- that's what I glean from what passes for their documentation. Never mind that the tool itself is not documented within GObject documentation, so don't blame someone who refers to official documentation (not the live crapfest) for not finding it. Various anti-Qt-fanbois have been whining for the longest time about the fact that Qt uses an extra tool (like if that was hard, gimme a break). It was GTK's supposed win factor that you could do everything manually; of course if you feel so inclined you can code up QObject metadata by hand too, what moc does isn't magic.
Suddenly --- boom, GTK has not one but two brand-new tools that generate C code: the introspection compiler, akin to moc, and Vala, a whole new language. I'd hardly call the GObject introspection project innovative in any way, I mean come on, moc has been with us for 15 years or so. Yes, they finally realized that not everyone is a masochist even if they write in C, so good for them, but IMHO it's a bit too little, too late. Oh, and good luck finding it if you don't know it's already there.
As a professional developer, I would not really bother even looking at their stuff, the documentation is so bad. From my viewpoint, the fact that the Gnome project is cut up into so many libraries doesn't help at all, nor does it instill any confidence. The individual libraries are all a crapshoot from integration viewpoint: some use GObject, some don't, the API conventions differ, it seems like a loosely bound mess. When you work with a monolithic framework like Qt, at least you can count on some measure of self-consistency.
may have been cut into by humans
The fuck? Most of the good meat and plenty of bones have been removed, and they say "may have been"?!
I think that the actress that played Frau Blücher was a quite pretty lady.
Jail != Prison. Prison is where you go when you've been sentenced. Jail is where you go when you get arrested. It's inaccurate to treat those as synonyms IMHO.
I tried to follow that URL, but it doesn't seem to work.
It was pretty close. A dot was missing before 'com', and the link was to a wrong title, but the search function found the book they suggested: Arrest, Search and Investigation in North Carolina. The Cell Phone Technology for Criminal investigations is a training course; I think you'd have to attend it in person.
I know that it must be crushing to a parent to have a kid commit suicide, but just maybe, just maybe, her suicide would end her suffering? Wouldn't that be a better outcome in a grand scheme of things? She is obviously in a distress. She is not a terminally ill cancer patient who begs for euthanasia, yet her suffering may be homologous to that caused by physical pain. I think there's a point at which people become irrational and self-centered when preventing others from dying. I can't judge if it's so in this case, but it certainly should be kept in mind.
"They are there in their room" -- write it down a 100 times until it sticks. Nuff said.
That shows why every school district out there should stop begging the state and feds for money. Let them decide for themselves. The state and federal money enslaves them. They had traded some of their liberty for money. Some people call that prostitution.
Can't but agree!
It wouldn't be fun? Huh? It should fit in 100-200 lines of C on most any decent microcontroller with hardware UARTS. It's almost a no-brainer.
I don't think he did point it out as a good thing :)
Nope. It's not about the code generator, it's about compiler generated code, such as template instantiations. STL is not supposed to be bloaty, it's a standard library that you are supposed to use, after all. Yet there are plenty of template instantiations that result in identical intermediate code (or identical code were the template parameter class constructors virtual), yet they are dumped multiple times by the compiler. Templatized code is often used solely as compile-time type carrier. C++ ABI and compilers aren't clever enough yet to leverage that fully.
I'll have to check into that. It'd certainly help. Somehow it didn't pick our cups server by default...
1995?! In 1988, Windows/386 (2.1x) was preemptively multitasking the windows subsystem with one or more DOS virtual machines. I used it, I remember that. DESQview provided multitasking for DOS in 1985; I've got it in 1986 IIRC. 16 bit windows applications were multitasking, but cooperatively. There's nothing wrong with that, other than too many people not knowing how to code up nonblocking code. It has performance benefits, and the idea is hardly dead. Look at quantum leaps QP framework: it takes cooperative (run to completion) multitasking quite far, and it's a joy to use.
As for what they "should have had": they were a business, it was a business decision to make. It had nothing to do with technical prowess of anyone. If you'd be running a business doing stuff just because you can, you'll run it into the ground. It has to make sense, on multiple grounds.
True, but I think that in practice some code bloat and resultant cache pressure seems to compensate for some optimization gain if the latter result in code bloat. Of course there are times when C++ lets you optimize quite well -- just look at compile-time vectorization in the eigen linear algebra library. Quite clever yet today it's pretty much idiomatic C++.
To me, higher-level languages are more about programmer productivity and their promise to aid me in writing better, more correct code with less effort. They don't have to perform better than Algol-style C code would, except for hot spots (DSP, image processing, etc) -- in those hot spots C++ seems to be gaining ground due to synergy of better compilers and better understood C++ programming techniques.
I doubt it's just 5000 jobs with no qualified applicants. I'd think it'd be in the 10s of thousands at least, if not 100s of thousands...
Yup. And even that falls quite short from any semblance of formalized specification. Such would need to use some formal semantics notation to express exactly what is it that various functions do, say in terms of some idealized stateful interface. There has been at least the Z notation that would have been available to MS in the 80s, but of course they never realized what it means to have formal documentation...
Way to miss my point. I presumed Commodore came to be in the 70s, but that's my only mistake. I never mentioned any PC home market anywhere, I don't know why you bring it up. MS did not have to copy the ideas of multitasking etc. from Commodore/Atari because, as I pointed out, those ideas were well established at the time. You made a general statement that MS had to copy from Commodore/Atari. They definitely did not have to copy from Commodore/Atari. The only innovation in Amiga was that it was available for the home market. All the technology was available way before that, some parts of it as much as 20 years before (ever heard of the mother of all demos? -- look it up).
With plain GObject, you had to handwrite all that crap! In Qt, you write a method signature once, you declare it as a signal or a slot, and you're done. IIRC with GObject you have to tell the framework about everything: the name of the method, what arguments it takes, all that other crap, it's insane that anyone would still be expecting application developers to handle this crap by hand. Of course Vala changes all that, and it provides more functionality than Qt's moc, I give them that. But it's a work in progress, so it's not really on equal footing to Qt. What Vala does is akin to early C++-to-C implementations, but the language it implements is what C++ ought to be. I like it so far, but it's not ready for prime time.
BTW, I have no clue where you got the idea that I implied anything about LDAP and autoconfiguration :(