Self-righteous indignation is an appropriate response to dealing with people who are willfully and aggressively stupid. I get that way when dealing with ID proponents. No matter how many times you refute a claim, ten minutes later they're back to the same claim. It's like they're arguing against some weird misunderstanding of science they have in their heads. There's days I want to forcibly resynchronize their brains with reality using an aluminum baseball bat.
What does ID has to do with what is being discussed here, or with the post you gratuitously attacked? Strawmaning much?
I gather he drank the kool-aid when he went through the door. I'm halfway through the interview and its basically ".NET is better than Java"
Java and Lamp's advantages have more to do with deployment simplicity then quality of language. C# is a better language, but there's so much more to a development platform then the language or even the VM. With PHP you can just open the script in any text editor and change it without having to recompile. Java has a much more robust open-source / Linux deployment scenario compared to Mono.
Having used PHP, C#, and Java, I'll gladly state that even though C# /.Net is the best language and VM; Java and Lamp are often a better fit for what people are trying to make.
Bingo. Finally someone who summarizes the Java/C# state of affairs rather well. I've been doing Java for so long (and tired of its verbosity) that I'm just enamored with C#'s way of doing things. It is simply a better language. But as you said, language itself is not the only factor to take into account when creating and deploying solutions.
I cannot say that Java and LAMP-based solutions are often a better fit for what people are trying to make (since I've seen truly large scale MS-based solutions that work as well or even better than most JEE solutions I've seen.) I would say that it is not only functional requirements, but non-functional (as well as social/corporate contexts) that suggest themselves for a particular solution stack, be it JEE, RoR, LAMP/LAMP-like or MS-based.
It always boils down to the simple: the right tool for the right job (where job >> just the functional requirements.)
Well, when someone implies that climate scientists don't know how to account for water vapor (which guess what, they do)... and blah blah blah...
I mean, like, dude, talking about taking someone's comment (originally part of a sarcastic comment with a bit of truth followed by a very funny comment) completely out of context. Here, the following will help remove the sand and soap-boxed centipedes out of your irritated, self-righteous whining/indignant private areas:
The sun is setting on Java indeed. (no pun intended)
Java will exist as Cobol exists for many decades on crappy intranet apps for IE 6 and for newer mainframe and as/400 apps.
What does IE 6 has to do with intranet apps, COBOL or Java? And what's wrong with enterprise computing in big-iron hardware? And who the hell develops in AS/400 anymore? Do you really know what you are talking about?
I learned true object oriented programmimg on it after I had issues with C++.
Strange, I thought one learned OO modeling (not just programming) on a language agnostic way. Also, as a person has worked with C++ (and C) and Java and other OO and non-OO languages, this statement makes no sense to me at all.
Java takes millions of lines of code to get anything done in any moderately complex web apps vs PHP and even ASP.Net.
Fortunately, the bulk of Java development is not on web apps alone. And I'm sorry, have you ever seen the typical PHP and ASP.net code base? They aren't the epitome of succinct code base either. A comparison with Python, Groovy or Ruby would have been more appropriate (to showcase Java verbosity that is.)
It is a shame as it hurts Linux
No it doesn't. This is stupid. Running Java is just one little use case for Linux.
but many companies are willing to drop down $100,000 in licensing fees for IIS, SQL Server, and Windows Server over free Linux and Java because of the productivity gains
So if there are productivity gains, then it is an acceptable thing to do, right, right, right? Or what, productivity gains are subject to ideological ramblings now? If that's the case, you are in the wrong career. I'd suggest a switch to the fine arts (where subjectivity is not only prevalent, but necessary to create good work of arts.)
and pro MS inertia by the MBAs in I.T. departments.
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you think that by lumping the words "inertia", "MS", "MBA" and "IT", that magically becomes a cogent argument?
Me I am ready to abandon Java on a website I am creating and I am seriously considering C# or PHP if licensing is too expensive.
PHP licensing? Me thinks you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
There is no need to start a new project in Java as it is like starting a new project in cobol. Why?
Have you ever started a project in Cobol? What frame of reference do you have to make that statement?
As for why using Java for a new project, how about a track record of scalability? Ease of productivization. Typically well known return on investment? An abundant and vibrant ecosystem of tools, debuggers, libraries and an extensive tried-and-true industrial knowledge base around it? A defined (JEE) architecture?
Now if by new project you mean pet project or internal web app with little back-end complexity, then you might have a point. But, despite of what you might thing, those aren't the typical use case scenarios for Java (meaning, your argument makes no sense.)
The sun is setting on Java indeed. (no pun intended)
Java will exist as Cobol exists for many decades on crappy intranet apps for IE 6 and for newer mainframe and as/400 apps. I learned true object oriented programmimg on it after I had issues with C++. Java takes millions of lines of code to get anything done in any moderately complex web apps vs PHP and even ASP.Net.
It is a shame as it hurts Linux, but many companies are willing to drop down $100,000 in licensing fees for IIS, SQL Server, and Windows Server over free Linux and Java because of the productivity gains and pro MS inertia by the MBAs in I.T. departments.
Me I am ready to abandon Java on a website I am creating and I am seriously considering C# or PHP if licensing is too expensive. There is no need to start a new project in Java as it is like starting a new project in cobol. Why?
This is a clueless post.
Indeed. It has 'i-know-only-makes-little-web-appz' written all over it.
At least he explains why. MS has way more resources than Sun ever could manage. It surprises me that Java even got out the door, honestly.
Also recall that MS hired the best and brightest away from Borland a few years before the inception of.NET. And look, the best of them (Anders) architects C# now.
It might also have something to do that when C# turned up, Java was already a mature language and approached the various problems. Of course, if you do something later, you learn from previous attempts, so it couldn't be worse just from that fact. Since C# never aimed to run on non-windows, it's also not a fair comparison of designs, because the goals were different.
I've been a Java/EE developer for the last 12 years, and Java has given me a good way to put food on the table, but even I have to say that this is just not true, and that is not the case here. C# has become a superior language over Java because C# has been lead by more pragmatic PL designers than Gosling ever was. Not to take away from Gosling's genius, but his major contribution by now has become the VM, not the primary high-level language running on top of it (Java.)
The design of C# has been more than willing to break things and deprecate stuff in order to get things done. Not so in Java. Example: generics via type erasure. We got those because of the JCP unwillingness to create a new collection library (introducing generics without type erasure would have broken the old collections.) Also, the insistence in retaining backward compatibility back to Java 1.x is just ridiculous. How about Vector and HashTable? Those two should have been deprecated long ago (in favor of List and HashMap).
There are inconsistencies with the practical sense as well. The new for(type : Iterable) mechanism introduced in Java 1.5 works on... an object implementing Iterable. Iterable returns an Iterator.... but there is no equivalent for Enumerator.
And guess what? The most common interable thing when building web applications are http parameters and attirbutes, which are returned as an Enumerator. So either the new for loop construct should have been made capable of working with Enumerators, or the Servlet API been enhanced with an ability to directly return an Iterator for parameters (instead of having to go through the convoluted dot (.) soup of invoking the iterator off the entry set off the map returned by getParameterMap.
I mean, no language is perfect, but in this sense C#, as a language, offers better facilities than Java.
The.NET CLR also provides a common run-time type system, which the JVM does not. And this is a big plus (not a perfect "plus" but a workable "plus) when it comes to language interoperability. The thing that shines in the Java camp is the JVM. Possibly only the Erlang VM is superior to the JVM when it comes to scalability and robustness. The CLR does not compare to the JVM in equal terms.
To summarize, both Java and C# has been exposed to the same type of classes of problems. But Java's unwillingness to deprecate and replace things and the slow-turtle pace of the JCP is what has kept the language behind the times compared to C#. It is not as you claimed that C# had a chance to look at how problems were being solved on the other side. More importantly, that C#/.NET were never designed to be multiplatform has no bearing on the language design differences between the two languages. It does not follow.
Well it doesn't take shilling to know that it is better than java under most circumstances.
A little bit more quantification and qualification of these would be in order, not unless you have a tendency to pull one of these (courtesy of S. Harris) when building up arguments:
He's talking about the stupidity taking files you wouldn't want to see in public and backing them on dropbox or some other cloudy-place (most likely in plain text.) Granted, his wording is a bit out of whack, but c'mon, the context in which the argument is made is clear.
The interesting this is the pricing scheme for this book (which I assume will be the same for others):
30-day - $17.24
60-day - $21.55
90-day - $25.35
120-day - $27.46
So, the rental fee decreases over time with an option to buy at any time (and get a price deduction off the purchase price for the rental price paid so far.) Not bad I'd say. This is a model of electronic books I could subscribe to.
I hope that this service is backwards compatible with their existing Kindle devices, making it Amazon Tablet (aPad?) only is going to anger their existing customer base...
Would it not? Amazon provides not just the kindle hardware, but also software-base readers for Windows, iOS, Android and BlackBerry that you can register as your own additional devices. Just yesterday I *pushed* all my kindle books to my newly bought Vizio tablet (which is not a top of the line tablet mind you)... all that done from my Amazon Kindle account.
Amazon has been tentatively made several books available for rental, for example, Li & Yao's "Real-Time Concepts for Embedded Systems", for a bit less than half the full price for a 30-day rental. Not bad I'd say (for those with the discipline to go through what's needed off such a book rental in 30 days.)
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Time-Concepts-Embedded-Systems-ebook/dp/B003VM7GK6/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1315840111&sr=8-1
So the concept works now in both hardware and software-based Kindle readers using existing Kindle services. Making the concept widespread doesn't alter that, so I don't know what the FUD this is all about.
You have a good point (I'm also from the pre-internet, brick-n-mortar library era as well.) One could then argue that Google is helping to foster a more "educated" (in question marks) population in a more energy-efficient manner that what would be possible with brick-n-mortar libraries alone.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins.
I'll believe global warming is a problem, when the proponents ACT like it's a problem.
Because that piece of rhetoric absolutely and logically follows from my post. Here, let me help you. Define ACT. And by "define" I mean objectively, practically and pragmatically.
In what way do patents, in ANY form, foster innovation? Strangely enough, there have been thousands of years of inventions without patents.
Uhhhh..... for the longest time before patents, many (if not most) important trades remained state or family secrets, virtual monopolies enforced by some sort of official decree. Think ceramics and silk.
I've never seen a single shred of evidence that patents do anything other than stifle creativity and lead to competition by litigation.
Look harder (meaning, objectively). Historically, patents have allowed inventors to obtain a temporary monopoly (thus protecting the fruit of their inventiveness from being stolen by bigger, more powerful fish.) Think of the MS vs i4i case - i4i won the case and restitution for losses caused by MS taking on i4i's invention.
You cannot promote innovation if you do not provide a means for innovators to defend themselves against larger parties that take over their innovations without restitution. If you can, in a real, pragmatic dog-eat-dog world (which is the world we live and will always will be), let me know.
That patent law has been used and abused to stiffen innovation and mire people in litigation, that is undeniable. But that does not follow from the concept of a patent. Your argument does not logically follow, no matter how hard you want to believe in it.
. Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library.
Sure, because the guy who just searched Google to find out what goatse is would clearly have gone to the library to look up such trivial information had Google not been available....
Because goaste and its like are the only (or primary) things people use google for. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I don't have an issue with Google using more power so we lose less. I have an issue with them using it as an excuse to blame people for power usage, by going to the library. It's the responsibility of big corporations to push economical, green energy, not to push oil and coal on us and then blame the people for global warming etc.
They are not blaming people for going to the library. They are saying, or so their argument goes, they are facilitating people with more energy-efficient means of searching things compared to driving to the library.
That you deliberately chose to interpret their argument the way you did speaks more about your than them. Either that or there is a tremendous failz in reading comprehension.
The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming.
But that is a false dichotomy since extreme use of energy does not necessarily imply the energy is obtained from burning coal, fecal matter, babies, dolphins and wood from endangered species in mega furnaces churning tons of smog, sooth, chlorofluorocarbons, weaponized anthrax spores and sarin gas directly into the polar ozone holes.
Taking drastic actions against global warming does not mean turning off the lights completely. It means a lot of other things regarding how to use energy efficiently. And if your business requires to use tremendous amounts of energy but you are doing it in an energy-eco-efficient manner, then you are taking drastic actions.
When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
And which is fine and dandy, so long as people do not jump to stupid conclusions of the form (using lots of energy) -> (energy inefficient).
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites.
Your logic is absolutely flawless</rolls eyes>
What is happening here is that you are trying very hard to find a) something to be upset about and b) someone to point the finger at to justify the former.
They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins. The audacity of taking a pleasure trip afforded by someone's earned wealth is an unspeakable horror in this world of absolute black and whites, erasing anything of value done or spoken by the aforementioned tree killers when it comes to eco-responsibility.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!! The horror, the horror.
Congratulations sir, here is your trophy for winning the competition of infallible logic: a crowbar. It comes very handy to unplug your one's head out of one's ass.
You might not have noticed, but most of Europe does _not_ speak English. In dutch it's known as Informatica, in French as informatique, in Spanish as Informatica and in german as Informatik.
I'll leave it up to you and your arse to google translate the word into the rest of Europe's 20+ languages.
The problem is, at least here in Canada, a 2 year comunity college diploma that probably prepares you better for an actual job writing actual software for actual real world people is looked down upon by most employers. There is a noticable pay difference and the large number of jobs will just shred your resume if it doesn't have a university degree on it.
This is the attitude that needs to change. I think a fairly large chunk of university students would much prefer a "no bullshit" education in the field they hope to make a living in.. but end up going the university route for resume food.
This is true also in the US. I started my software development career just a few months prior to getting an AA degree back in 1995, and indeed community colleges prepared students better then (and now). But I pursued a BS degree while on the job and then went to grad school because, at the time, I saw the writings in the wall.
In my time companies started looking down on AA and AS degrees, and now, that behavior is the de-facto. It is a terrible mistake because, IMO, most development needs out there can be sufficiently met with a good graduate off a AA/AS degree.
Having said that, a 4-year university, or a grad education does also prepare people for work in the real world. Most universities (actually, all universities I know of) provide those learning opportunities. I strongly believe that it is a function of the student as well. University is what we make of it.
They also insist on 'teaching' students outdated technologies based on theoretical knowledge rather than any practical understanding of what is required for a job in the real world.
That's because n university is not a vocational school. It's purpose is to teach theoretical knowledge, not prepare people for a job. And yes, that means that you shouldn't go to one if your goal is a well-paying job outside academica.
University trains scientists; you're looking for engineers.
That is absolute, complete bullshit. My university (Florida Int. University) provided work-oriented courses at the senior-undergrad and first-year grad levels. The curriculum has changed with the times (not much to my linking nowadays), but in my time, these hands-on courses included web development, systems administration, Unix and Windows (Win32+MFC) programming. The undergrad software engineering course involved heavy use of very specific tools chosen according to the demands of the time (back then it was either PowerBuilder or Visual C++.) A few years ago, the curriculum changed to include courses in Java development using Struts, Spring and Hibernate. Now, it is very focused on.NET (which is big in the area.)
My grad education was even more hands-on and practical than that. I did a lot of theoretical stuff (formal methods using various type of petri nets and computational tree logic comes to mind.) But we also did a lot of work on software engineering courses and case studies paired with local companies (mostly from the health care sector), CORBA, MDA and UML using Rational Rose (also with case studies and joined research with local companies). We learned how to use tools like Perforce and bug trackers. And the CS department had many part-time jobs for students that involved things from Unix and NT systems administration to programming internal apps using Lotus Notes.
Now the practical, hands-ons part of the graduate-level curricula has shifted to enterprise computing and web services, still going strong with MDA and MSDS (this time IIRC with Omondo). Almost every job I've had since I left grad school in 2000 has been thanks to the stuff I did in my senior undergrad year and in my grad studies...
... and mind you that my Alma Mater is not one of the greatest CS schools out there. Another local university (Florida Atlantic University) has IMO a better curriculum. The school rotates every semester their senior and undergrad hands-on courses from.NET development & architecture to Android Development to Python. It provides a course in executable UML every other year and has graduate-level classes in software topics like Agile development, testing, and the like. They have courses in vehicular area networks and so on and so on.
Other, more prestigious universities do even better than that for training people to work (which in the end, it is primarily a function of the student.) Honestly, I cannot think of a university that does not provide material directly applicable to work.
Yes, a university is not a vocational school. But it is a false dichotomy to say that this means they don't provide any practical curriculum that prepares you in one way or another for a job, and that everything is theory.
Anyone who says that is just full of shit, attended a truly shitty university, or simply didn't pay attention to what was available during his scholastic years.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-righteous indignation is an appropriate response to dealing with people who are willfully and aggressively stupid. I get that way when dealing with ID proponents. No matter how many times you refute a claim, ten minutes later they're back to the same claim. It's like they're arguing against some weird misunderstanding of science they have in their heads. There's days I want to forcibly resynchronize their brains with reality using an aluminum baseball bat.
What does ID has to do with what is being discussed here, or with the post you gratuitously attacked? Strawmaning much?
I gather he drank the kool-aid when he went through the door. I'm halfway through the interview and its basically ".NET is better than Java"
Java and Lamp's advantages have more to do with deployment simplicity then quality of language. C# is a better language, but there's so much more to a development platform then the language or even the VM. With PHP you can just open the script in any text editor and change it without having to recompile. Java has a much more robust open-source / Linux deployment scenario compared to Mono.
Having used PHP, C#, and Java, I'll gladly state that even though C# / .Net is the best language and VM; Java and Lamp are often a better fit for what people are trying to make.
Bingo. Finally someone who summarizes the Java/C# state of affairs rather well. I've been doing Java for so long (and tired of its verbosity) that I'm just enamored with C#'s way of doing things. It is simply a better language. But as you said, language itself is not the only factor to take into account when creating and deploying solutions.
I cannot say that Java and LAMP-based solutions are often a better fit for what people are trying to make (since I've seen truly large scale MS-based solutions that work as well or even better than most JEE solutions I've seen.) I would say that it is not only functional requirements, but non-functional (as well as social/corporate contexts) that suggest themselves for a particular solution stack, be it JEE, RoR, LAMP/LAMP-like or MS-based.
It always boils down to the simple: the right tool for the right job (where job >> just the functional requirements.)
Well, when someone implies that climate scientists don't know how to account for water vapor (which guess what, they do) ... and blah blah blah ...
I mean, like, dude, talking about taking someone's comment (originally part of a sarcastic comment with a bit of truth followed by a very funny comment) completely out of context. Here, the following will help remove the sand and soap-boxed centipedes out of your irritated, self-righteous whining/indignant private areas:
take this as needed.
It's possible, though unlikely, that you have a severe, severe, severe rage problem.
Possibly a symptom of vaginal silicosis or a centipedal infection of the surrounding areas /dark humor>
The sun is setting on Java indeed. (no pun intended)
Java will exist as Cobol exists for many decades on crappy intranet apps for IE 6 and for newer mainframe and as/400 apps.
What does IE 6 has to do with intranet apps, COBOL or Java? And what's wrong with enterprise computing in big-iron hardware? And who the hell develops in AS/400 anymore? Do you really know what you are talking about?
I learned true object oriented programmimg on it after I had issues with C++.
Strange, I thought one learned OO modeling (not just programming) on a language agnostic way. Also, as a person has worked with C++ (and C) and Java and other OO and non-OO languages, this statement makes no sense to me at all.
Java takes millions of lines of code to get anything done in any moderately complex web apps vs PHP and even ASP.Net.
Fortunately, the bulk of Java development is not on web apps alone. And I'm sorry, have you ever seen the typical PHP and ASP.net code base? They aren't the epitome of succinct code base either. A comparison with Python, Groovy or Ruby would have been more appropriate (to showcase Java verbosity that is.)
It is a shame as it hurts Linux
No it doesn't. This is stupid. Running Java is just one little use case for Linux.
but many companies are willing to drop down $100,000 in licensing fees for IIS, SQL Server, and Windows Server over free Linux and Java because of the productivity gains
So if there are productivity gains, then it is an acceptable thing to do, right, right, right? Or what, productivity gains are subject to ideological ramblings now? If that's the case, you are in the wrong career. I'd suggest a switch to the fine arts (where subjectivity is not only prevalent, but necessary to create good work of arts.)
and pro MS inertia by the MBAs in I.T. departments.
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you think that by lumping the words "inertia", "MS", "MBA" and "IT", that magically becomes a cogent argument?
Me I am ready to abandon Java on a website I am creating and I am seriously considering C# or PHP if licensing is too expensive.
PHP licensing? Me thinks you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
There is no need to start a new project in Java as it is like starting a new project in cobol. Why?
Have you ever started a project in Cobol? What frame of reference do you have to make that statement?
As for why using Java for a new project, how about a track record of scalability? Ease of productivization. Typically well known return on investment? An abundant and vibrant ecosystem of tools, debuggers, libraries and an extensive tried-and-true industrial knowledge base around it? A defined (JEE) architecture?
Now if by new project you mean pet project or internal web app with little back-end complexity, then you might have a point. But, despite of what you might thing, those aren't the typical use case scenarios for Java (meaning, your argument makes no sense.)
The sun is setting on Java indeed. (no pun intended)
Java will exist as Cobol exists for many decades on crappy intranet apps for IE 6 and for newer mainframe and as/400 apps. I learned true object oriented programmimg on it after I had issues with C++. Java takes millions of lines of code to get anything done in any moderately complex web apps vs PHP and even ASP.Net.
It is a shame as it hurts Linux, but many companies are willing to drop down $100,000 in licensing fees for IIS, SQL Server, and Windows Server over free Linux and Java because of the productivity gains and pro MS inertia by the MBAs in I.T. departments.
Me I am ready to abandon Java on a website I am creating and I am seriously considering C# or PHP if licensing is too expensive. There is no need to start a new project in Java as it is like starting a new project in cobol. Why?
This is a clueless post.
Indeed. It has 'i-know-only-makes-little-web-appz' written all over it.
Go for scala
I suggest you listen to episode #44 of the Basement Coders Podcast : http://basementcoders.com/2011/09/episode-44-david-pollak-scalas-not-for-the-proletariat-hp-touchpad-is-resurrected-rss-is-poisonous-javaone-winner/
At least he explains why. MS has way more resources than Sun ever could manage. It surprises me that Java even got out the door, honestly.
Also recall that MS hired the best and brightest away from Borland a few years before the inception of .NET. And look, the best of them (Anders) architects C# now.
It might also have something to do that when C# turned up, Java was already a mature language and approached the various problems. Of course, if you do something later, you learn from previous attempts, so it couldn't be worse just from that fact. Since C# never aimed to run on non-windows, it's also not a fair comparison of designs, because the goals were different.
I've been a Java/EE developer for the last 12 years, and Java has given me a good way to put food on the table, but even I have to say that this is just not true, and that is not the case here. C# has become a superior language over Java because C# has been lead by more pragmatic PL designers than Gosling ever was. Not to take away from Gosling's genius, but his major contribution by now has become the VM, not the primary high-level language running on top of it (Java.)
The design of C# has been more than willing to break things and deprecate stuff in order to get things done. Not so in Java. Example: generics via type erasure. We got those because of the JCP unwillingness to create a new collection library (introducing generics without type erasure would have broken the old collections.) Also, the insistence in retaining backward compatibility back to Java 1.x is just ridiculous. How about Vector and HashTable? Those two should have been deprecated long ago (in favor of List and HashMap).
There are inconsistencies with the practical sense as well. The new for(type : Iterable) mechanism introduced in Java 1.5 works on... an object implementing Iterable. Iterable returns an Iterator.... but there is no equivalent for Enumerator.
And guess what? The most common interable thing when building web applications are http parameters and attirbutes, which are returned as an Enumerator. So either the new for loop construct should have been made capable of working with Enumerators, or the Servlet API been enhanced with an ability to directly return an Iterator for parameters (instead of having to go through the convoluted dot (.) soup of invoking the iterator off the entry set off the map returned by getParameterMap.
I mean, no language is perfect, but in this sense C#, as a language, offers better facilities than Java.
The .NET CLR also provides a common run-time type system, which the JVM does not. And this is a big plus (not a perfect "plus" but a workable "plus) when it comes to language interoperability. The thing that shines in the Java camp is the JVM. Possibly only the Erlang VM is superior to the JVM when it comes to scalability and robustness. The CLR does not compare to the JVM in equal terms.
To summarize, both Java and C# has been exposed to the same type of classes of problems. But Java's unwillingness to deprecate and replace things and the slow-turtle pace of the JCP is what has kept the language behind the times compared to C#. It is not as you claimed that C# had a chance to look at how problems were being solved on the other side. More importantly, that C#/.NET were never designed to be multiplatform has no bearing on the language design differences between the two languages. It does not follow.
Well it doesn't take shilling to know that it is better than java under most circumstances.
A little bit more quantification and qualification of these would be in order, not unless you have a tendency to pull one of these (courtesy of S. Harris) when building up arguments:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif
He's talking about the stupidity taking files you wouldn't want to see in public and backing them on dropbox or some other cloudy-place (most likely in plain text.) Granted, his wording is a bit out of whack, but c'mon, the context in which the argument is made is clear.
the library lending will probably have a time limit
It does in 30-day increments. There are books already there with a rental options (I've been eyeballing this for a few weeks now):
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Time-Concepts-Embedded-Systems-ebook/dp/B003VM7GK6/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1315840111&sr=8-1
The interesting this is the pricing scheme for this book (which I assume will be the same for others):
So, the rental fee decreases over time with an option to buy at any time (and get a price deduction off the purchase price for the rental price paid so far.) Not bad I'd say. This is a model of electronic books I could subscribe to.
120-day $27.46
I hope that this service is backwards compatible with their existing Kindle devices, making it Amazon Tablet (aPad?) only is going to anger their existing customer base...
Would it not? Amazon provides not just the kindle hardware, but also software-base readers for Windows, iOS, Android and BlackBerry that you can register as your own additional devices. Just yesterday I *pushed* all my kindle books to my newly bought Vizio tablet (which is not a top of the line tablet mind you)... all that done from my Amazon Kindle account.
Amazon has been tentatively made several books available for rental, for example, Li & Yao's "Real-Time Concepts for Embedded Systems", for a bit less than half the full price for a 30-day rental. Not bad I'd say (for those with the discipline to go through what's needed off such a book rental in 30 days.) http://www.amazon.com/Real-Time-Concepts-Embedded-Systems-ebook/dp/B003VM7GK6/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1315840111&sr=8-1 So the concept works now in both hardware and software-based Kindle readers using existing Kindle services. Making the concept widespread doesn't alter that, so I don't know what the FUD this is all about.
Artificial scarcity or not, people still like to get paid for work they do.
Stop it. You are making too much sense, which is anathema in /.
You have a good point (I'm also from the pre-internet, brick-n-mortar library era as well.) One could then argue that Google is helping to foster a more "educated" (in question marks) population in a more energy-efficient manner that what would be possible with brick-n-mortar libraries alone.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins.
I'll believe global warming is a problem, when the proponents ACT like it's a problem.
Because that piece of rhetoric absolutely and logically follows from my post. Here, let me help you. Define ACT. And by "define" I mean objectively, practically and pragmatically.
In what way do patents, in ANY form, foster innovation? Strangely enough, there have been thousands of years of inventions without patents.
Uhhhh..... for the longest time before patents, many (if not most) important trades remained state or family secrets, virtual monopolies enforced by some sort of official decree. Think ceramics and silk.
I've never seen a single shred of evidence that patents do anything other than stifle creativity and lead to competition by litigation.
Look harder (meaning, objectively). Historically, patents have allowed inventors to obtain a temporary monopoly (thus protecting the fruit of their inventiveness from being stolen by bigger, more powerful fish.) Think of the MS vs i4i case - i4i won the case and restitution for losses caused by MS taking on i4i's invention.
You cannot promote innovation if you do not provide a means for innovators to defend themselves against larger parties that take over their innovations without restitution. If you can, in a real, pragmatic dog-eat-dog world (which is the world we live and will always will be), let me know.
That patent law has been used and abused to stiffen innovation and mire people in litigation, that is undeniable. But that does not follow from the concept of a patent. Your argument does not logically follow, no matter how hard you want to believe in it.
. Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library.
Sure, because the guy who just searched Google to find out what goatse is would clearly have gone to the library to look up such trivial information had Google not been available....
Because goaste and its like are the only (or primary) things people use google for. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I don't have an issue with Google using more power so we lose less. I have an issue with them using it as an excuse to blame people for power usage, by going to the library. It's the responsibility of big corporations to push economical, green energy, not to push oil and coal on us and then blame the people for global warming etc.
They are not blaming people for going to the library. They are saying, or so their argument goes, they are facilitating people with more energy-efficient means of searching things compared to driving to the library.
That you deliberately chose to interpret their argument the way you did speaks more about your than them. Either that or there is a tremendous failz in reading comprehension.
The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming.
But that is a false dichotomy since extreme use of energy does not necessarily imply the energy is obtained from burning coal, fecal matter, babies, dolphins and wood from endangered species in mega furnaces churning tons of smog, sooth, chlorofluorocarbons, weaponized anthrax spores and sarin gas directly into the polar ozone holes.
Taking drastic actions against global warming does not mean turning off the lights completely. It means a lot of other things regarding how to use energy efficiently. And if your business requires to use tremendous amounts of energy but you are doing it in an energy-eco-efficient manner, then you are taking drastic actions.
When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
And which is fine and dandy, so long as people do not jump to stupid conclusions of the form (using lots of energy) -> (energy inefficient).
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites.
Your logic is absolutely flawless</rolls eyes>
What is happening here is that you are trying very hard to find a) something to be upset about and b) someone to point the finger at to justify the former.
They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins. The audacity of taking a pleasure trip afforded by someone's earned wealth is an unspeakable horror in this world of absolute black and whites, erasing anything of value done or spoken by the aforementioned tree killers when it comes to eco-responsibility.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!! The horror, the horror.
Congratulations sir, here is your trophy for winning the competition of infallible logic: a crowbar. It comes very handy to unplug your one's head out of one's ass.
You might not have noticed, but most of Europe does _not_ speak English. In dutch it's known as Informatica, in French as informatique, in Spanish as Informatica and in german as Informatik.
I'll leave it up to you and your arse to google translate the word into the rest of Europe's 20+ languages.
Ciencias de Computación ;)
My arse it is, I've never heard a native English speaker use that word
There is more than one country in Europe, and I think there are more native German speakers than native English speakers. In German it's "Informatik".
I've always called it computer science, but I'm willing to be persuaded. We don't often do science (testing theories, etc).
You might want to be more precise and geographically qualify that statement, just sayin' :)
The problem is, at least here in Canada, a 2 year comunity college diploma that probably prepares you better for an actual job writing actual software for actual real world people is looked down upon by most employers. There is a noticable pay difference and the large number of jobs will just shred your resume if it doesn't have a university degree on it.
This is the attitude that needs to change. I think a fairly large chunk of university students would much prefer a "no bullshit" education in the field they hope to make a living in.. but end up going the university route for resume food.
This is true also in the US. I started my software development career just a few months prior to getting an AA degree back in 1995, and indeed community colleges prepared students better then (and now). But I pursued a BS degree while on the job and then went to grad school because, at the time, I saw the writings in the wall.
In my time companies started looking down on AA and AS degrees, and now, that behavior is the de-facto. It is a terrible mistake because, IMO, most development needs out there can be sufficiently met with a good graduate off a AA/AS degree.
Having said that, a 4-year university, or a grad education does also prepare people for work in the real world. Most universities (actually, all universities I know of) provide those learning opportunities. I strongly believe that it is a function of the student as well. University is what we make of it.
That's because n university is not a vocational school. It's purpose is to teach theoretical knowledge, not prepare people for a job. And yes, that means that you shouldn't go to one if your goal is a well-paying job outside academica.
University trains scientists; you're looking for engineers.
That is absolute, complete bullshit. My university (Florida Int. University) provided work-oriented courses at the senior-undergrad and first-year grad levels. The curriculum has changed with the times (not much to my linking nowadays), but in my time, these hands-on courses included web development, systems administration, Unix and Windows (Win32+MFC) programming. The undergrad software engineering course involved heavy use of very specific tools chosen according to the demands of the time (back then it was either PowerBuilder or Visual C++.) A few years ago, the curriculum changed to include courses in Java development using Struts, Spring and Hibernate. Now, it is very focused on .NET (which is big in the area.)
My grad education was even more hands-on and practical than that. I did a lot of theoretical stuff (formal methods using various type of petri nets and computational tree logic comes to mind.) But we also did a lot of work on software engineering courses and case studies paired with local companies (mostly from the health care sector), CORBA, MDA and UML using Rational Rose (also with case studies and joined research with local companies). We learned how to use tools like Perforce and bug trackers. And the CS department had many part-time jobs for students that involved things from Unix and NT systems administration to programming internal apps using Lotus Notes.
Now the practical, hands-ons part of the graduate-level curricula has shifted to enterprise computing and web services, still going strong with MDA and MSDS (this time IIRC with Omondo). Almost every job I've had since I left grad school in 2000 has been thanks to the stuff I did in my senior undergrad year and in my grad studies...
Other, more prestigious universities do even better than that for training people to work (which in the end, it is primarily a function of the student.) Honestly, I cannot think of a university that does not provide material directly applicable to work.
Yes, a university is not a vocational school. But it is a false dichotomy to say that this means they don't provide any practical curriculum that prepares you in one way or another for a job, and that everything is theory.
Anyone who says that is just full of shit, attended a truly shitty university, or simply didn't pay attention to what was available during his scholastic years.
In the US your parents pay it
Are you f* kidding me? Where the hell did you get that from?
.. and also "Pitfalls of Object Oriented Development" by Bruce Webster.