iterating over a map is about the same cost as iterating over a list. A map is derived from a Set, which is pretty much a sorted list with an added hash table for quick lookups. The performance hit on a map comes on insertion which is much slower than inserting into a list.
While I agree that the standard interface hides the complexity, I personally think that's a good thing. The bulk of the code written will be of a run once variety, whereas a central core will most likely require custom code anyway, indicating less of a need for a "standard" library.
Was caused by internet piracy then because people were discovering all sorts of new music they had never heard and were rushing out to purchase CD's of the good stuff...
Right?
Right?
oh no no no, that was brilliant marketing on the part of RIAA and besides it would've been... uh...28% growth, yeah, 30% even if it hadn't been for those EVIL CHEATING INTERNET PIRACY SCUM who are STEALING money away from these poor starving artsts they represent!
Courtney Love: I want the money you owe me!
RIAA: Shut up! Oh Mr. Clintttooonnnnn... would you mind signing this bill into law that says musicians are really contractors to us and don't really deserve any money for their creations except for an hourly wage, but extend copyright law so we can sell the same disc at 1500% mark-up for 100 years? Thaaanksss... Oh, here's some money for your wife's campaign...
Heat from 150 years ago is 100 metres below ground? (Depending on the rock). Sort of like tree rings...
"Tree Rings" are the result of bark cycles of the tree. This is *not* the same thing... We're talking about rock that has never seen the light of day... so we're talking about radiation permeating the surface and being stored there like a BATTERY...
What about temperature cycles? Can he "see" the great cold snap of '78?
What about dispersal patterns? Does radiation permeate equally?
And does that mean that the caves that have a constant temperature of ~60 degrees WERE the temperatures thousands of years ago?
What *we* do know... is that its science that makes for good press, politics, and money...
Actually I was only thinking in the context of the teacher/student one-on-one relationship. Not as part of a team, or as part of a creation for an employer.
(Although I didn't know about the sharing your rights with the university papers clause... I don't remember signing anything like that when I went into college... I wonder how that would affect creative writing stories...)
It doesn't explicitly state that they "own the work". (at least from the privavy policy and users rights section I read on the web site). But it does state that any submitted works will be retained AND those works will be handed out to people who submit plagiaristic copies AND the submitters personal information will be tracked to inform the submitters of plagiarism of his copies.
So basically, they'll get to use your paper to charge for their services (including marketing) and give out copies of it... All without paying you for use of it...
Anything I write is automatically copyrighted by ME. That's the law.
If I use this service to submit my own papers, that constitutes an implied consent to license my paper to their service.
However, when a teacher submits student papers to this service... Those papers automatically become property of the service... and therefore, that's an illegal transfer of the copyright...
In other words, Turnitin is the napsterization of student papers.
On top of THAT, the service requires that the students name be passed on with the paper when submitted (with the noble reason being that they want to notify the student when somebody cheats from her paper... but in the fine print it says that such information can be used for marketing purposes.)
And last but not least, the web crawler portion of this service is also illegal, because it will inevitably hit a database cache of other papers used for reference and capture them. Copying another's database is a violation of the DMCA.
I can tell you exactly how these games are going to work out:
A Peta game would be like this: What do you want to eat for supper? a> Beef. b> Chicken. c> A nice wholesome salad with walnut dressing.
a or b> YOU DIE! YOU'RE EVIL! Play again?
A Republican environmental policy game: Do you lower the emissions controls for the coal power plants, knowing that it's still a level of environmental protection? a> yes b> no
b> USAMA BIN LADEN TAKES OVER THE WORLD THROUGH OIL CONTRACTS. YOU DIE! Play again? (If the democrats offer the game and you press A> YOU'VE NOT DONE ENOUGH TO SAVE THE WORLD! YOU DIE FROM LACK OF OXYGEN! Play again?)
But go ahead, play your games and get "informed"... that's much better than actually hounding your senator about taking Enron/MPAA/RIAA/Health industry/Microsoft's money and letting them dictate law...
Setup a wishlist to get ANIMATED SHOWS that are SUBTITLED.
Setup a wishlist to get ANIMATED SHOWS that have a rating higher than Y7.
Always triple thumbs up anything that's japanese anime. (regardless of whether or not you like it)
Do ONE thumbs down for any cartoon shows that show up that are completely out of your field (like My Little Pony).
One thumbs down seems to get Tivo to realize the genre's ok, but the subject matter is all wrong... 3 thumbs down seem to give Tivo the idea that everything about the show is wrong, which is not what you want...
It takes a while, but I've got my Tivo trained enough to pick up the Action network's saturday night anime about 60% of the time. (which is about my thumb hit for other shows as well...)
That's still not perfect, but it's still pretty cool to come home and find some anime I didn't even know was showing recorded automatically (Although Encore likes to show Appleseed way too many time...)
But Microsoft's not quite sure what it is yet...
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
.NET does to the internet what the WIN16/32 API did to the PC. Eventually establish a monolithic layer between you (your app) and your information (your hardware).
Microsoft was trying to do this with COM, but was having trouble getting an interoperable binary standard going on anything other than an intel platform. Java showed them the solution to that problem, and thus.NET was born.
.NET's strength is that it will (supposedly) allow for the Java power of write once, run anywhere to developers, while still maintaining Microsoft's control as the middle layer (you go through us to get to your computer/information).
Everything else (web services, server apps, hailstorm, etc) are the initial attempts to capitalize on that power. (Rented apps, centralized data stores for everybody so they can see their MS Money statements from any computer in the world! type stuff) But it remains to be seen if that will be viable.
Either way, it's a win-win for Microsoft. If these services are accpeted, Microsoft gains the ability to not only control your hardware, but how you access your information as well. If full blown internet services don't take,.NET falls back to a windows-centric position that is now ready to go on Macs, 64 bit processors, and even XBoxes without modification.
But other than THAT, developers are still locked to a whereever Microsoft goeth, I goeth... proposition.
Stand alones do about the 1gb/hour rate... (which is user adjustable to about 1gb/1.5+ hours, but many people don't like the quality of that rate)
combo boxes are harder to determine, because its up to the compression that's sent over DSS (there is no user selectable setting on the Tivo combo boxes) . Assuming they've got better hardware for compression and can do dynamic rates better.... but overall it still seems to average out to about 1gb/hour. (less with sports, more with cartoon animation...)
Actually, all of the PVR's (with the exception of DirectTV Combo PVR's) do real time MPEG-2 compression/decompression via an on-board hardware encoder. DirectTV Combo PVR's capture the raw signal from the satellite directly, and only decode on playback. (which is why you can record 2 things while watching a third on DSS-PVR's, but only record 1 thing, and playback another on a stand-alone PVR.. because the stand alone has to encode and decode simultaneously, while the DSS one only has to decode and capture...
If they're trying to use that argument, they CAN'T win. That would make the publishing of any TV Guide an infringement of fair use. Pushed a little further that would mean that advertising that a particular movie was going to be broadcast would be an infringement...And ultimately that would mean the BROADCASTING of such content is an infringement of fair use, which is nonsensical, because the parties gained income from the sale of broadcast rights, so how does that impact their overall market!?
You're correct in thinking that markets are not protected.
However, there is legal precedent that the courts will do their best to try and protect existing markets from an "infringing" (or hostile) market. But I believe only so far so as to level the playing field. (The rationale for this was probably to protect smaller individual markets from encroaching big competitors, and prevent monopolies from forming... (IE Joe Grocery store from Wal-Mart) Unfortunately... the law's being twisted here to be used by the big guys...)
"Look, you don't know what you are talking about. That's clear because you've taken a problem that is really quite complex and tried to simplify it down to "people are just lazy." "
Uhh no, I happen to have quite a bit of experience in the IT industry, working with various development environments and frameworks:
I've written software strictly for "in-house" (as you so quaintly put it) and have worked for an 8 am milestone deadline so the boss could report the "success" at his monday morning meeting.
And contrary to your limited experience "language neutrality" has been around a long time. It's called network computing (Microsoft called it "DDE" way back when), and we communicate using standard protocols. Group A uses their language, and Group B uses ours... It's not rocket science, but neither group exchanges algorithms. Not because they're lazy (as you would think anybody who disagrees with you), but because the algorithms AREN'T TAILORED to the solution domain already in existence.
It's obvious that you have no real programming experience outside a Microsoft environment and believe Microsoft has single-handedly innovated everything. But then being an MCP, that would explain everything.
As for VB. The differences ARE substantial. Yeah, VB programmers are used to abuse whenever they move up to the next version of VB. ('Cause their code often has to be modified to accomodate the minor language changes from each version...) But the entire paradigm of VB is different with VB.NET. VB.NET is a TRUE object oriented language. VB is NOT. VB had objects, but the objects weren't inheritable, and the methods weren't overridable. My argument isn't that old VB'ers can't do new VB. My argument is that, for the price of learning the new paradigm, the VB programmers can spend a little more effort and learn C# and take advantage of more features than in VB plus have a lead in to doing C++ which will enhance their career skillsets...
Oh, but that would break the.NET argument of language neutrality... because everyone wants to use different languages...
Actually... you have the naive view of software development.
Yes, most companies have a dozen or so different languages deployed...
But those teams DON'T WORK TOGETHER. ONE team uses ONE language, ONE platform, and (if you're fortunate) ONE architectural style. Just making all the underlying code callable from within a different language DOESN'T make the code WORK TOGETHER.
So Microsoft's argument is "Now, we have enabled every COBOL programmer to still be useful and valuable to the company. Their code can be used by C# programmers!" BS! If you're a C# programmer at three o'clock in the morning, and you're trying to fix a bug to ship your product by deadline at 8am, and you track the bug down to a problem in the COBOL source... AND YOU DON'T KNOW COBOL... what good is that? What're you going to do? Hope you can get in touch with the COBOL guy, and try to have him fix his code?!
What happens if you're the manager when the COBOL guy leaves? Are you going to replace him with ANOTHER COBOL guy? Or are you going to have the code rewritten to conform to whatever language you have the most programmers of (which is what everyone does nowadays without.NET anyway!)
The reason ONE team uses ONE language is to keep its own sanity in check. If you break development over multiple languages, you just add more risk and potential bugs to the development. (oh sorry, I sent a CZ string instead of a.NET string and the VB module foobared itself...)
(and I don't know why you throw SINGLE PLATFORM in there, because you're implying.NET works on multiple platforms... Guess you're talking Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows CE...)
The old VB is, for all intents and purposes, GONE. In its place is a language that has almost a completely different syntax and environment, but is called VB.
And why was this done? Because the "old" VB wasn't supportable by the OOP-ness of the CLR (which is what this article points out)
In effect, it would be FAR better for the old-VB'ers to learn C# than VB. Because they're going to be basically learning a new language anyway.
Even C++ programmers are left out in the dust because you essentially have to use proprietary C++ keyword extensions to access.NET functionality. (not code to the.NET API, you must use.NET syntax) In some cases, basic C++ operations (like casting) cannot be used if your app will be.NET capable, and you must code explicit workarounds to case using the.NET way (see last month's MSDN journal...)
(oh and C is NOT a.NET language... also from the MSDN)
But I fail to see how all of this shows that this = language neutrality and therefore this = a very easy transition/upgrade for many developers out there?
And I'm ultimately more concerned about how this impacts my ability to make reusable C++ objects across multiple platforms... I know alot of people on slashdot these days seem to think there's nothing but windows out there (odd because slashdotters are accused of being Linux biased...)... and that's not the case...
Java NEVER claimed to be a "safe" language because it doesn't have pointers. Java claimed that it would prevent fewer BUGS because programmers couldn't shoot themselves in the foot with dangling pointers, or buffer overruns.
Java claimed to be a "safe" language because it ran in a controlled VM inside of a sandbox.
RTFM... Take the Java applet out of the sandbox, and Sun makes no guarantees to the runtime safety of the object. And as you so studiously point out, Java has no pointers... so how can it be unsafe?
Semantics ARE everything. Now go back to playing with your scipts...
First off,.NET compiles to an VM layer like Java (it can also compile directly to a native binary, ).
Secondly, it'd be...well... stupid to mark every instruction in the VM layer that's unsafe. Especially when such an action is only to inform the running machine that this executable contains unsafe code. It's specified as part of the language to force the programmer to mark out that he/she is doing something "unsafe" (riiight).
Look at it this way... wouldn't it make more sense to "know" that certain opcodes contained in an.EXE are "unsafe" and then disallow the user to run a program that contained bad opcodes, RATHER than force the programmer to mark his source code as "unsafe", when the language will already know what actions are and aren't unsafe?
If the choice is allowing an "unsafe" option for speed over a "safe" option for dependability... doesn't it make more sense to set that up as a compile time FLAG (I want safe code, screw safety give me speed) than forcing the user to PAINSTAKINGLY MARK OUT THE CODE that's desired to be unsafe? (and who knows, it might actually be that way by 3.0...)
Putting the word UNSAFE in front of a pointer declaration does not make the code dangerous. Likewise, having no UNSAFE declarations does not make the code safe (in this case, safe from exploits).
But by merely accepting the terminology, you're already separating the code modules in your mind as "safe" and "unsafe".
But then you probably think filtered cigarettes are perfectly fine...
If I put the keyword UNSAFE in front of any line of code, C# generates a flag (similar to CONST in C/C++), that sends the keyword all the way down to the code emitter which sets a flag in the.EXE header that states "the unsafe flag was set in the code, so don't run it if you don't run "unsafe" code...
There's NOTHING, NADA, ZIP in this system that makes the code in this program "safe". All you're REALLY saying is "MICROSOFT WARRANTS THAT THIS CODE HAS NO POINTERS! (TM)"
That's what Joy is saying... When Microsoft has to state in their documentation "The keyword UNSAFE, marks code that is UNSAFE to run, because the code being run would be UNSAFE when it is run. This actually makes the code SAFE." There's something VERY WRONG here...
Stop buying the Orwellian newspeak... THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!
Slashdot Mirror
iterating over a map is about the same cost as iterating over a list. A map is derived from a Set, which is pretty much a sorted list with an added hash table for quick lookups. The performance hit on a map comes on insertion which is much slower than inserting into a list.
While I agree that the standard interface hides the complexity, I personally think that's a good thing. The bulk of the code written will be of a run once variety, whereas a central core will most likely require custom code anyway, indicating less of a need for a "standard" library.
Was caused by internet piracy then because people were discovering all sorts of new music they had never heard and were rushing out to purchase CD's of the good stuff...
Right?
Right?
oh no no no, that was brilliant marketing on the part of RIAA and besides it would've been... uh...28% growth, yeah, 30% even if it hadn't been for those EVIL CHEATING INTERNET PIRACY SCUM who are STEALING money away from these poor starving artsts they represent!
Courtney Love: I want the money you owe me!
RIAA: Shut up! Oh Mr. Clintttooonnnnn... would you mind signing this bill into law that says musicians are really contractors to us and don't really deserve any money for their creations except for an hourly wage, but extend copyright law so we can sell the same disc at 1500% mark-up for 100 years? Thaaanksss... Oh, here's some money for your wife's campaign...
Rent the DVD's (or find the binaries. ;>).
While you could probably pick up the storyline without too much difficulty in the middle, there's lots of emotional build-up you'd be missing.
In other words, certain "aha!" events aren't going to mean anything to you.
But what if the mysterious guy from the future IS Wesley Crusher...
Heat from 150 years ago is 100 metres below ground? (Depending on the rock). Sort of like tree rings...
"Tree Rings" are the result of bark cycles of the tree. This is *not* the same thing... We're talking about rock that has never seen the light of day... so we're talking about radiation permeating the surface and being stored there like a BATTERY...
What about temperature cycles? Can he "see" the great cold snap of '78?
What about dispersal patterns? Does radiation permeate equally?
And does that mean that the caves that have a constant temperature of ~60 degrees WERE the temperatures thousands of years ago?
What *we* do know... is that its science that makes for good press, politics, and money...
True. (But IANAL. ;>)
Actually I was only thinking in the context of the teacher/student one-on-one relationship. Not as part of a team, or as part of a creation for an employer.
(Although I didn't know about the sharing your rights with the university papers clause... I don't remember signing anything like that when I went into college... I wonder how that would affect creative writing stories...)
It doesn't explicitly state that they "own the work". (at least from the privavy policy and users rights section I read on the web site). But it does state that any submitted works will be retained AND those works will be handed out to people who submit plagiaristic copies AND the submitters personal information will be tracked to inform the submitters of plagiarism of his copies.
So basically, they'll get to use your paper to charge for their services (including marketing) and give out copies of it... All without paying you for use of it...
First the legalese... I am not a lawyer.
Okay...
Anything I write is automatically copyrighted by ME. That's the law.
If I use this service to submit my own papers, that constitutes an implied consent to license my paper to their service.
However, when a teacher submits student papers to this service... Those papers automatically become property of the service... and therefore, that's an illegal transfer of the copyright...
In other words, Turnitin is the napsterization of student papers.
On top of THAT, the service requires that the students name be passed on with the paper when submitted (with the noble reason being that they want to notify the student when somebody cheats from her paper... but in the fine print it says that such information can be used for marketing purposes.)
And last but not least, the web crawler portion of this service is also illegal, because it will inevitably hit a database cache of other papers used for reference and capture them. Copying another's database is a violation of the DMCA.
I can tell you exactly how these games are going to work out:
A Peta game would be like this:
What do you want to eat for supper?
a> Beef.
b> Chicken.
c> A nice wholesome salad with walnut dressing.
a or b> YOU DIE! YOU'RE EVIL! Play again?
A Republican environmental policy game:
Do you lower the emissions controls for the coal power plants, knowing that it's still a level of environmental protection?
a> yes
b> no
b> USAMA BIN LADEN TAKES OVER THE WORLD THROUGH OIL CONTRACTS. YOU DIE! Play again?
(If the democrats offer the game and you press A> YOU'VE NOT DONE ENOUGH TO SAVE THE WORLD! YOU DIE FROM LACK OF OXYGEN! Play again?)
But go ahead, play your games and get "informed"... that's much better than actually hounding your senator about taking Enron/MPAA/RIAA/Health industry/Microsoft's money and letting them dictate law...
Setup a wishlist to get ANIMATED SHOWS that are SUBTITLED.
Setup a wishlist to get ANIMATED SHOWS that have a rating higher than Y7.
Always triple thumbs up anything that's japanese anime. (regardless of whether or not you like it)
Do ONE thumbs down for any cartoon shows that show up that are completely out of your field (like My Little Pony).
One thumbs down seems to get Tivo to realize the genre's ok, but the subject matter is all wrong... 3 thumbs down seem to give Tivo the idea that everything about the show is wrong, which is not what you want...
It takes a while, but I've got my Tivo trained enough to pick up the Action network's saturday night anime about 60% of the time. (which is about my thumb hit for other shows as well...)
That's still not perfect, but it's still pretty cool to come home and find some anime I didn't even know was showing recorded automatically (Although Encore likes to show Appleseed way too many time...)
.NET does to the internet what the WIN16/32 API did to the PC. Eventually establish a monolithic layer between you (your app) and your information (your hardware).
.NET was born.
.NET falls back to a windows-centric position that is now ready to go on Macs, 64 bit processors, and even XBoxes without modification.
Microsoft was trying to do this with COM, but was having trouble getting an interoperable binary standard going on anything other than an intel platform. Java showed them the solution to that problem, and thus
.NET's strength is that it will (supposedly) allow for the Java power of write once, run anywhere to developers, while still maintaining Microsoft's control as the middle layer (you go through us to get to your computer/information).
Everything else (web services, server apps, hailstorm, etc) are the initial attempts to capitalize on that power. (Rented apps, centralized data stores for everybody so they can see their MS Money statements from any computer in the world! type stuff) But it remains to be seen if that will be viable.
Either way, it's a win-win for Microsoft. If these services are accpeted, Microsoft gains the ability to not only control your hardware, but how you access your information as well. If full blown internet services don't take,
But other than THAT, developers are still locked to a whereever Microsoft goeth, I goeth... proposition.
Stand alones do about the 1gb/hour rate... (which is user adjustable to about 1gb/1.5+ hours, but many people don't like the quality of that rate)
combo boxes are harder to determine, because its up to the compression that's sent over DSS (there is no user selectable setting on the Tivo combo boxes) . Assuming they've got better hardware for compression and can do dynamic rates better.... but overall it still seems to average out to about 1gb/hour. (less with sports, more with cartoon animation...)
Actually, all of the PVR's (with the exception of DirectTV Combo PVR's) do real time MPEG-2 compression/decompression via an on-board hardware encoder. DirectTV Combo PVR's capture the raw signal from the satellite directly, and only decode on playback. (which is why you can record 2 things while watching a third on DSS-PVR's, but only record 1 thing, and playback another on a stand-alone PVR.. because the stand alone has to encode and decode simultaneously, while the DSS one only has to decode and capture...
Digital video HD storage is roughly 1 gig per hour of video... (depends on your compression level/quality...)
If they're trying to use that argument, they CAN'T win. That would make the publishing of any TV Guide an infringement of fair use. Pushed a little further that would mean that advertising that a particular movie was going to be broadcast would be an infringement...And ultimately that would mean the BROADCASTING of such content is an infringement of fair use, which is nonsensical, because the parties gained income from the sale of broadcast rights, so how does that impact their overall market!?
;>
Oh yeah, IANAL...
IANAL...
You're correct in thinking that markets are not protected.
However, there is legal precedent that the courts will do their best to try and protect existing markets from an "infringing" (or hostile) market. But I believe only so far so as to level the playing field. (The rationale for this was probably to protect smaller individual markets from encroaching big competitors, and prevent monopolies from forming... (IE Joe Grocery store from Wal-Mart) Unfortunately... the law's being twisted here to be used by the big guys...)
"Look, you don't know what you are talking about. That's clear because you've taken a problem that is really quite complex and tried to simplify it down to "people are just lazy." "
Uhh no, I happen to have quite a bit of experience in the IT industry, working with various development environments and frameworks:
I've written software strictly for "in-house" (as you so quaintly put it) and have worked for an 8 am milestone deadline so the boss could report the "success" at his monday morning meeting.
And contrary to your limited experience "language neutrality" has been around a long time. It's called network computing (Microsoft called it "DDE" way back when), and we communicate using standard protocols. Group A uses their language, and Group B uses ours... It's not rocket science, but neither group exchanges algorithms. Not because they're lazy (as you would think anybody who disagrees with you), but because the algorithms AREN'T TAILORED to the solution domain already in existence.
It's obvious that you have no real programming experience outside a Microsoft environment and believe Microsoft has single-handedly innovated everything. But then being an MCP, that would explain everything.
So what *IS* my flawed premise?
.NET argument of language neutrality... because everyone wants to use different languages...
As for VB. The differences ARE substantial. Yeah, VB programmers are used to abuse whenever they move up to the next version of VB. ('Cause their code often has to be modified to accomodate the minor language changes from each version...) But the entire paradigm of VB is different with VB.NET. VB.NET is a TRUE object oriented language. VB is NOT. VB had objects, but the objects weren't inheritable, and the methods weren't overridable. My argument isn't that old VB'ers can't do new VB. My argument is that, for the price of learning the new paradigm, the VB programmers can spend a little more effort and learn C# and take advantage of more features than in VB plus have a lead in to doing C++ which will enhance their career skillsets...
Oh, but that would break the
Actually... you have the naive view of software development.
.NET anyway!)
.NET string and the VB module foobared itself...)
.NET works on multiple platforms... Guess you're talking Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows CE...)
Yes, most companies have a dozen or so different languages deployed...
But those teams DON'T WORK TOGETHER. ONE team uses ONE language, ONE platform, and (if you're fortunate) ONE architectural style. Just making all the underlying code callable from within a different language DOESN'T make the code WORK TOGETHER.
So Microsoft's argument is "Now, we have enabled every COBOL programmer to still be useful and valuable to the company. Their code can be used by C# programmers!" BS! If you're a C# programmer at three o'clock in the morning, and you're trying to fix a bug to ship your product by deadline at 8am, and you track the bug down to a problem in the COBOL source... AND YOU DON'T KNOW COBOL... what good is that? What're you going to do? Hope you can get in touch with the COBOL guy, and try to have him fix his code?!
What happens if you're the manager when the COBOL guy leaves? Are you going to replace him with ANOTHER COBOL guy? Or are you going to have the code rewritten to conform to whatever language you have the most programmers of (which is what everyone does nowadays without
The reason ONE team uses ONE language is to keep its own sanity in check. If you break development over multiple languages, you just add more risk and potential bugs to the development. (oh sorry, I sent a CZ string instead of a
(and I don't know why you throw SINGLE PLATFORM in there, because you're implying
I don't understand your point.
.NET functionality. (not code to the .NET API, you must use .NET syntax) In some cases, basic C++ operations (like casting) cannot be used if your app will be .NET capable, and you must code explicit workarounds to case using the .NET way (see last month's MSDN journal...)
.NET language... also from the MSDN)
The old VB is, for all intents and purposes, GONE. In its place is a language that has almost a completely different syntax and environment, but is called VB.
And why was this done? Because the "old" VB wasn't supportable by the OOP-ness of the CLR (which is what this article points out)
In effect, it would be FAR better for the old-VB'ers to learn C# than VB. Because they're going to be basically learning a new language anyway.
Even C++ programmers are left out in the dust because you essentially have to use proprietary C++ keyword extensions to access
(oh and C is NOT a
But I fail to see how all of this shows that this = language neutrality and therefore this = a very easy transition/upgrade for many developers out there?
And I'm ultimately more concerned about how this impacts my ability to make reusable C++ objects across multiple platforms... I know alot of people on slashdot these days seem to think there's nothing but windows out there (odd because slashdotters are accused of being Linux biased...)... and that's not the case...
Buzz... oh I'm sorry, thank you for playing...
Java NEVER claimed to be a "safe" language because it doesn't have pointers. Java claimed that it would prevent fewer BUGS because programmers couldn't shoot themselves in the foot with dangling pointers, or buffer overruns.
Java claimed to be a "safe" language because it ran in a controlled VM inside of a sandbox.
RTFM... Take the Java applet out of the sandbox, and Sun makes no guarantees to the runtime safety of the object. And as you so studiously point out, Java has no pointers... so how can it be unsafe?
Semantics ARE everything. Now go back to playing with your scipts...
I don't get it.
If it verifies the code by scanning a set of opcodes (that Microsoft designed) to look for "unsafe" code...
Why does the programmer need to specify that she's writing unsafe code?
Answer: MARKETING!
First off, .NET compiles to an VM layer like Java (it can also compile directly to a native binary, ).
.EXE are "unsafe" and then disallow the user to run a program that contained bad opcodes, RATHER than force the programmer to mark his source code as "unsafe", when the language will already know what actions are and aren't unsafe?
Secondly, it'd be...well... stupid to mark every instruction in the VM layer that's unsafe. Especially when such an action is only to inform the running machine that this executable contains unsafe code. It's specified as part of the language to force the programmer to mark out that he/she is doing something "unsafe" (riiight).
Look at it this way... wouldn't it make more sense to "know" that certain opcodes contained in an
If the choice is allowing an "unsafe" option for speed over a "safe" option for dependability... doesn't it make more sense to set that up as a compile time FLAG (I want safe code, screw safety give me speed) than forcing the user to PAINSTAKINGLY MARK OUT THE CODE that's desired to be unsafe? (and who knows, it might actually be that way by 3.0...)
No. You've completely missed my point.
Putting the word UNSAFE in front of a pointer declaration does not make the code dangerous. Likewise, having no UNSAFE declarations does not make the code safe (in this case, safe from exploits).
But by merely accepting the terminology, you're already separating the code modules in your mind as "safe" and "unsafe".
But then you probably think filtered cigarettes are perfectly fine...
What kind of syntatical gobbeldy-gook is this!?!
.EXE header that states "the unsafe flag was set in the code, so don't run it if you don't run "unsafe" code...
If I put the keyword UNSAFE in front of any line of code, C# generates a flag (similar to CONST in C/C++), that sends the keyword all the way down to the code emitter which sets a flag in the
There's NOTHING, NADA, ZIP in this system that makes the code in this program "safe". All you're REALLY saying is "MICROSOFT WARRANTS THAT THIS CODE HAS NO POINTERS! (TM)"
That's what Joy is saying... When Microsoft has to state in their documentation "The keyword UNSAFE, marks code that is UNSAFE to run, because the code being run would be UNSAFE when it is run. This actually makes the code SAFE." There's something VERY WRONG here...
Stop buying the Orwellian newspeak... THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!