Well, that and desktop integration. VMs are nice and all, but having to pop up a separate Window that contains the Windows app(s) I want to run is a serious pain in the ass.
And that's ignoring the fact that Wine will almost certainly be faster than running under a VM. And will use fewer resources (particularly RAM). And will allow you to run apps without owning a copy of Windows. And probably a few other reasons I haven't thought of.
I see your point concerning users who don't have a legit copy of Windows and don't want to use a bootleg, but if you want good 3D, wouldn't you be better off dual-booting?
Uhh... why? There is absolutely *no* reason why Wine's Direct3D implementation can't meet or exceed the Windows implementation (and, in some cases, that's already true). So why would I dual-boot if Wine can get me there for free?
Good luck getting anywhere near the performance in a VM that you get from a native implementation of the Win32 APIs, as is the case with Wine. Not to mention things like integration with the desktop that Wine gives you (eg, integration with the system tray, etc). And to top it off, I can mix Wine and traditional Linux applications on the same desktop, seamlessly.
Once you have the region marked out, most editors can indent that region for you.
Really! Okay, here's some code:
print "Hello" print "World"
Now, I want you to insert the statement 'if (true):' at the top of that code, such that the print statements execute within the context of the if statement, and I want you to use the editor to indent the code. Hey, you know what, don't bother, I'll show you what you get:
if (true):
print i print i + 1
But, of course, that's not what I wanted at all. I wanted this:
if (true):
print i
print i + 1
The problem is, the editor has no idea what I want because, without understanding the semantics of the code, the fact that blocks aren't properly delimited means the editor can only guess as to the correct indentation for a given hunk of code.
Of course, this is a very simple example. But it also doesn't even approach the sheer hell that is refactoring larger bodies of Python code.
Except, of course, that Python doesn't provide enough context for an editor to properly indent blocks automatically, as there's no proper block delimiters. So, if I, for example, need to change the level of nesting in an existing block of code for some reason (say, introducing an if statement, or factoring some code out into a separate function), the editor can't help me to ensure I get the indentation level right. And in Python, incorrect indentation means incorrect semantics.
Uhh, you *are* aware that the Supreme Court exists to do more than just uphold the Constitution, right? Remember that part about "laws passed by the legislative"? Yeah, it has to rule on those, too. So, unless the Clean Air Act, itself, is ruled unconstitutional (and it hasn't been), it must be enforced, and the ruling reflected that fact.
So, no, there is no distinction, except in your own head, which is clearly a very strange, confused place.
Why do you care if I quote my height in feet rather than in meters while I'm in the US?
I don't care what *you* do. I care that manufacturers have to constantly adjust to the fact that the US measures everything using an outdated weights and measures system. Everything from parts manufacture to simple things like labeling. It's a *massive*, expensively, pointless pain in the ass, and if you don't believe that, I'm sure NASA has a few words to say on the topic.
From your english level, it sounds like you're a native english speaker. Should we insist that everyone speak english?
Oh please, that's not even remotely the same thing, and you know it. Ignoring the fact that language is as much a cultural artifact as anything else, and thus people have irrational attachments to their language, there are also, I'm guessing, thousands of languages on the planet. In constract, there are *two* weights and measures systems (well, three if you count the fact that the US and UK systems are different), and virtually everyone in the world but a scant 300 million of them all use the same damn system, and yet we all have to suffer for those 300 million. It's ridiculous, and the US really needs to grow up and switch over so we can all move on.
Because you're a pain in the ass to the rest of the world, who has grown up and moved on to a more accurate, sensible system of weights and measures. You've created an undo burden on *everyone else*, but in true American style, you don't give a shit. I'm not surprised, but it's annoying and deeply arrogant.
I suggest that the Bush administration has just as much constitutional authority to give the court the finger,
And you'd be wrong. Very wrong.
The executive must follow the laws passed by the legislative. And guess what? The Clean Air Act was passed by the legislative branch (just as habeas corpus is the law of the land). The judiciary simply determined that, as it stands, the executive is not abiding by the law. The executive must now comply with the law.
But, you're right, I'm sure this is all about judicial "activism".:rollseyes:
Yeah, but libraries are a whole other ballgame entirely. If you want a library, like KDE4, accessible from multiple languages, traditionally you needed a lowest-common-denominator language. KDE/Qt chose C++. Gtk chose C. Were it not for that requirement, there is absolutely no reason not to use a higher-level language, as the vast bulk of the work done by KDE and Qt is not performance critical. The only exceptions are graphics and audio processing, but it's trivial to write those bits in a faster, lower-level language (which is how, say, Squeak manages something as impressive as Croquet).
As such, I would contend that the *vast* majority of the time, you really *don't* want a single language that can "do it all" (after all, how often do you build a cross-platform library that must be available from multiple languages?). As such, C++ is almost always the wrong solution to a given problem, especially given just how many issues there are with the language itself.
Bah, that's the same attitude the cell phone companies have: just mash all the features of a phone, organizer, music player, etc, into one crappy interface. Problem is, just like C++, the result is a tool that's only mediocre at doing any one of those things, rather than a bunch of tools that are perfectly designed for the job at hand.
Personally, I would *much* prefer to write an application in a high-level language that has a top-notch FFI, and write the high-performance stuff in C. Why? Because, like most people, I spend the vast majority of my time *not* writing performance-critical code, and in that case, I want a language that's easy to use, has a strong toolset, and is designed to make my job easier while preventing me from screwing up. Meanwhile, if I hit a point where I really do need to squeeze that last ounce of performance out of a piece of code, I have the option to switch to a lower-level language that's tailored for that job.
Just on this topic, there's a good reason for Obama to refuse public financing: the RNC has raised far *FAR* more money than the DNC. And the respective committees can assist in financing the candidates, in particular sharing costs on media buys, etc. As such, if Obama were to only use public financing, he'd basically be hamstrung.
Frankly, that just says to me that McCain-Feingold is broken as written. But, it is what it is, and so Obama is basically forced to refuse public financing and bankroll his own campaign through private contributions.
I have no problem with the left progressives using similar techniques of swaying public opinion, but the left are using truth, reality, and actual facts to beat the conservatives at their own game.
Well, now, let's be fair, here. Those on the right distorting facts, shouting down all criticism, and generally making asses out of themselves, are quite clearly the extreme of the right wing. Conversely, there are many on the left who I would accuse of doing *precisely* the same things (and, for the record, I consider myself to be quite left wing, which is saying a lot, given I'm a Canadian)... The Daily Kos comes to mind as a lovely counterpoint to, say, The Drudge Report.
Basically, there are crazies on both sides. That said, there are also moderates on both sides, who hold their beliefs with conviction, and believe it or not, do believe in truth, reality, and facts. They may hold a different interpretation of those facts, but that's the very essence of political/economic philosophy. As such, you may not disagree with them, but the least you can do is respect the fact that they've come to their positions honestly.
All that said, I *do* think that the rabid right-wing conservatives seem to be more common in the realm of the media, and those people *are* perfectly happy living in a reality distortion field. Honestly, I can't say why that is... it could simply be a ratings grab (after all, Rush has been on the radio and screaming at the evil, pinko lefties for far longer than I'd like, and damnit, people listen to him, jackass that he is). But for every one Keith Olbermann, it seems like there's five Sean Hannity's.
'course, I'd much rather there be far fewer Sean Hannity's in this world than more Keith Olbermann's. The polarized screaming matches that televised political commentary has transformed in to is, frankly, disgusting, particularly in contrast to the genuinely great journalism of, say, Edward R. Murrow.
eople who don't share your viewpoint aren't idiots
When did he say that? The truth is, most voters are generally uneducated and rely on mainstream media to provide them with sufficient information, simply because they either don't have time, or don't care enough to research things for themselves. As such, they're going to pick up on mainstream headlines, and those headlines are manufactured by the underhanded tactics of the opposing party. Hell, just look at the percentage of Americans who *still* think Barack Obama is a frickin' muslim (answer: 1 in 10, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which is a non-partisan organization).
Similarly, I bet there's a shockingly high number of people who believe that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
The fact is, people are, as an aggregate, stupid and easily duped. And, the sad corollary is that evil, underhanded campaign tactics *work*.
Because any crypto available from that time is trivially crackable today
Bah, that's just silly. Sure, some cryptographic algorithms of yesterday are crackable today. But the underlying methods that those algorithms (eg, the mechanics of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, etc) have been well understood for a very long time. Which is why, if you look at, say, IPSEC or TLS, what you have is a framework for establishing a secure connection, along with mechanisms for negotiating capabilities. This allows you to phase out old algorithms or introduce new ones as the technologies change. But the actual mechanics of establishing an IPSEC or TLS tunnel remain the same, because those mechanics are perfectly sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, apparently I need to choose a more explicit example, as you're too thick to understand. Let's say I have this:
if (true):
print "Hello World"
for i in range(1,10):
print i
print i + 1
Now, insert the for loop into the if statement, before print statement, and use the editor to reindent the block. And good luck.
Meanwhile, with C, I'd have:
if (1) {
printf("Hello World\n");
}
for (i = 0; i 10; i++) {
printf("%d\n", i);
printf("%d\n", i + 1);
}
I could then just copy the for loop, past it into the if block, get the editor to reindent, and voila, the code is correct.
*Now* do you get it? Please god, say you get it...
Well, that and desktop integration. VMs are nice and all, but having to pop up a separate Window that contains the Windows app(s) I want to run is a serious pain in the ass.
And that's ignoring the fact that Wine will almost certainly be faster than running under a VM. And will use fewer resources (particularly RAM). And will allow you to run apps without owning a copy of Windows. And probably a few other reasons I haven't thought of.
I see your point concerning users who don't have a legit copy of Windows and don't want to use a bootleg, but if you want good 3D, wouldn't you be better off dual-booting?
Uhh... why? There is absolutely *no* reason why Wine's Direct3D implementation can't meet or exceed the Windows implementation (and, in some cases, that's already true). So why would I dual-boot if Wine can get me there for free?
Good luck getting anywhere near the performance in a VM that you get from a native implementation of the Win32 APIs, as is the case with Wine. Not to mention things like integration with the desktop that Wine gives you (eg, integration with the system tray, etc). And to top it off, I can mix Wine and traditional Linux applications on the same desktop, seamlessly.
See my other comment, as clearly you don't understand the issue I'm describing.
No, that's the block *start* delimiter. There is no end delimiter. Which is my entire point.
Let me guess... you've never refactored code before?
Once you have the region marked out, most editors can indent that region for you.
Really! Okay, here's some code:
print "Hello"
print "World"
Now, I want you to insert the statement 'if (true):' at the top of that code, such that the print statements execute within the context of the if statement, and I want you to use the editor to indent the code. Hey, you know what, don't bother, I'll show you what you get:
if (true):
print i
print i + 1
But, of course, that's not what I wanted at all. I wanted this:
if (true):
print i
print i + 1
The problem is, the editor has no idea what I want because, without understanding the semantics of the code, the fact that blocks aren't properly delimited means the editor can only guess as to the correct indentation for a given hunk of code.
Of course, this is a very simple example. But it also doesn't even approach the sheer hell that is refactoring larger bodies of Python code.
Except, of course, that Python doesn't provide enough context for an editor to properly indent blocks automatically, as there's no proper block delimiters. So, if I, for example, need to change the level of nesting in an existing block of code for some reason (say, introducing an if statement, or factoring some code out into a separate function), the editor can't help me to ensure I get the indentation level right. And in Python, incorrect indentation means incorrect semantics.
Sorry, it *is* a deal-breaker.
Uhh, you *are* aware that the Supreme Court exists to do more than just uphold the Constitution, right? Remember that part about "laws passed by the legislative"? Yeah, it has to rule on those, too. So, unless the Clean Air Act, itself, is ruled unconstitutional (and it hasn't been), it must be enforced, and the ruling reflected that fact.
So, no, there is no distinction, except in your own head, which is clearly a very strange, confused place.
Why do you care if I quote my height in feet rather than in meters while I'm in the US?
I don't care what *you* do. I care that manufacturers have to constantly adjust to the fact that the US measures everything using an outdated weights and measures system. Everything from parts manufacture to simple things like labeling. It's a *massive*, expensively, pointless pain in the ass, and if you don't believe that, I'm sure NASA has a few words to say on the topic.
From your english level, it sounds like you're a native english speaker. Should we insist that everyone speak english?
Oh please, that's not even remotely the same thing, and you know it. Ignoring the fact that language is as much a cultural artifact as anything else, and thus people have irrational attachments to their language, there are also, I'm guessing, thousands of languages on the planet. In constract, there are *two* weights and measures systems (well, three if you count the fact that the US and UK systems are different), and virtually everyone in the world but a scant 300 million of them all use the same damn system, and yet we all have to suffer for those 300 million. It's ridiculous, and the US really needs to grow up and switch over so we can all move on.
Because you're a pain in the ass to the rest of the world, who has grown up and moved on to a more accurate, sensible system of weights and measures. You've created an undo burden on *everyone else*, but in true American style, you don't give a shit. I'm not surprised, but it's annoying and deeply arrogant.
And yet, the rest of the world managed it somehow. Well, I guess that says something about US ingenuity...
Nope, it's "arrogate", and I've now added a new word to my vocabulary. :)
I suggest that the Bush administration has just as much constitutional authority to give the court the finger,
And you'd be wrong. Very wrong.
The executive must follow the laws passed by the legislative. And guess what? The Clean Air Act was passed by the legislative branch (just as habeas corpus is the law of the land). The judiciary simply determined that, as it stands, the executive is not abiding by the law. The executive must now comply with the law.
But, you're right, I'm sure this is all about judicial "activism". :rollseyes:
Oh, and the term is "abrogated".
Yeah, but libraries are a whole other ballgame entirely. If you want a library, like KDE4, accessible from multiple languages, traditionally you needed a lowest-common-denominator language. KDE/Qt chose C++. Gtk chose C. Were it not for that requirement, there is absolutely no reason not to use a higher-level language, as the vast bulk of the work done by KDE and Qt is not performance critical. The only exceptions are graphics and audio processing, but it's trivial to write those bits in a faster, lower-level language (which is how, say, Squeak manages something as impressive as Croquet).
As such, I would contend that the *vast* majority of the time, you really *don't* want a single language that can "do it all" (after all, how often do you build a cross-platform library that must be available from multiple languages?). As such, C++ is almost always the wrong solution to a given problem, especially given just how many issues there are with the language itself.
Bah, that's the same attitude the cell phone companies have: just mash all the features of a phone, organizer, music player, etc, into one crappy interface. Problem is, just like C++, the result is a tool that's only mediocre at doing any one of those things, rather than a bunch of tools that are perfectly designed for the job at hand.
Personally, I would *much* prefer to write an application in a high-level language that has a top-notch FFI, and write the high-performance stuff in C. Why? Because, like most people, I spend the vast majority of my time *not* writing performance-critical code, and in that case, I want a language that's easy to use, has a strong toolset, and is designed to make my job easier while preventing me from screwing up. Meanwhile, if I hit a point where I really do need to squeeze that last ounce of performance out of a piece of code, I have the option to switch to a lower-level language that's tailored for that job.
You're right about the scripting languages, but Objective-C isn't as fast as C or C++? Huh, news to me...
Yeah, because what, 15 characters of overhead for an array literal is really convenient.
Have you really never heard of the 'using' statement?
I mean, I dislike C++ intensely, but this argument is just silly.
Yeah, there's just one big problem with baseball... it's just so godawful boring! :)
Uhh, who gives a shit? Carlin was complaining about modern, sunday Christians, and his comments are spot on.
Neoconservatives.
Just on this topic, there's a good reason for Obama to refuse public financing: the RNC has raised far *FAR* more money than the DNC. And the respective committees can assist in financing the candidates, in particular sharing costs on media buys, etc. As such, if Obama were to only use public financing, he'd basically be hamstrung.
Frankly, that just says to me that McCain-Feingold is broken as written. But, it is what it is, and so Obama is basically forced to refuse public financing and bankroll his own campaign through private contributions.
I have no problem with the left progressives using similar techniques of swaying public opinion, but the left are using truth, reality, and actual facts to beat the conservatives at their own game.
Well, now, let's be fair, here. Those on the right distorting facts, shouting down all criticism, and generally making asses out of themselves, are quite clearly the extreme of the right wing. Conversely, there are many on the left who I would accuse of doing *precisely* the same things (and, for the record, I consider myself to be quite left wing, which is saying a lot, given I'm a Canadian)... The Daily Kos comes to mind as a lovely counterpoint to, say, The Drudge Report.
Basically, there are crazies on both sides. That said, there are also moderates on both sides, who hold their beliefs with conviction, and believe it or not, do believe in truth, reality, and facts. They may hold a different interpretation of those facts, but that's the very essence of political/economic philosophy. As such, you may not disagree with them, but the least you can do is respect the fact that they've come to their positions honestly.
All that said, I *do* think that the rabid right-wing conservatives seem to be more common in the realm of the media, and those people *are* perfectly happy living in a reality distortion field. Honestly, I can't say why that is... it could simply be a ratings grab (after all, Rush has been on the radio and screaming at the evil, pinko lefties for far longer than I'd like, and damnit, people listen to him, jackass that he is). But for every one Keith Olbermann, it seems like there's five Sean Hannity's.
'course, I'd much rather there be far fewer Sean Hannity's in this world than more Keith Olbermann's. The polarized screaming matches that televised political commentary has transformed in to is, frankly, disgusting, particularly in contrast to the genuinely great journalism of, say, Edward R. Murrow.
eople who don't share your viewpoint aren't idiots
When did he say that? The truth is, most voters are generally uneducated and rely on mainstream media to provide them with sufficient information, simply because they either don't have time, or don't care enough to research things for themselves. As such, they're going to pick up on mainstream headlines, and those headlines are manufactured by the underhanded tactics of the opposing party. Hell, just look at the percentage of Americans who *still* think Barack Obama is a frickin' muslim (answer: 1 in 10, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which is a non-partisan organization).
Similarly, I bet there's a shockingly high number of people who believe that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
The fact is, people are, as an aggregate, stupid and easily duped. And, the sad corollary is that evil, underhanded campaign tactics *work*.
Because any crypto available from that time is trivially crackable today
Bah, that's just silly. Sure, some cryptographic algorithms of yesterday are crackable today. But the underlying methods that those algorithms (eg, the mechanics of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, etc) have been well understood for a very long time. Which is why, if you look at, say, IPSEC or TLS, what you have is a framework for establishing a secure connection, along with mechanisms for negotiating capabilities. This allows you to phase out old algorithms or introduce new ones as the technologies change. But the actual mechanics of establishing an IPSEC or TLS tunnel remain the same, because those mechanics are perfectly sound.