The article was incomplete, in that it failed to mention JWZs lamenting the fact that Nutscrape didn't provide the sourceware community with a working product from which to base its efforts.
Linux, Apache, and (F|N|O)BSD, GNUtils, and the like weren't put together in a day, and didn't face the hurdles of tons of legacy cruft to wade through, incomplete subsystems (okay, in the case of 4.4BSD a lot had to be re-implemented), and a general glut of poorly designed and poorly documented spaghetti to wade through. JWZ was correct. Software is hard. Starting from scratch is sometimes easier than maintaining/patching an incomplete, non-working codebase.
As part of their induction into the US, the constitution of the state of Texas includes a provision which gives them the right to secede of their own volition.
With this kind of language, agreed to by those who admitted the state of Texas, there would be no war of secession.
They, just like the Linsux kernel, are in "release mode" right now. They've got to stop discussing at some point and publish a standard. The one they have is relatively decent, and so with a bit more discussion, minor fixes, etc. it can be released.
Is this not logical, especially for a standards body?
Hmm... anyone want to start a new movement with a lot of press hype and industry buzz?
I recently bought a Matrox G200-based card *based on their decision to open the programming specs*. I emailed them and told them so, too, and told them that if they opened the specs for the upcoming G400 (which looks to be very cool, BTW), I would upgrade all the systems within my grasp to that.
You have to vote with your pocket books, and don't forget to tell the vendors why you made the choice you made.
I wonder, though... could an "Open Specs" ([tm] [r] [c];-) movement make any headway in this arena?
The only way to learn recursion is to learn recursion.
--Corey
No operator overloading??
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
If the majority of people don't know how to use overloaded operators, then their code sucks and their programming skills are atrocious. Don't however, take away a powerful tool like operator overloading just because there are idiots in the world.
Clarity and cleanliness is so much easier to attain when code uses symbols to mean certain things.
One question: string1 + string2 is a straightforward concept. How would you conceive string1 - string2, or string1 / string2? I can see string1 * int, but not string1 * string2.
You might like XWPE, then. Its IDE is almost an exact copy of the Borland IDE, and it's free. It needs better integration with the rest of the dev tools, but the IDE is mostly there.
Pentium II is the follow-on to Pentium. It can't do more than 2-way MP because of the way it talks to its address bus and chipset. Pentium III is the follow-on to Pentium II, and has the same limitations.
Pentium {II,III} Xeon is the follow-on to Pentium Pro. Pentium Pro can do 8-way MP because it was designed to access its bus and chipset in a more rational manner. Xeon carries much the same design forward, and so can do 8-way MP.
You can get slot adapters from Supermicro (and Tyan?) that will let you run slot1 CPUs in a slot2 motherboard. If you can get the quad-proc motherboard, that might be a solution for you.
Especially for things like video and sound drivers, you are correct. The problem with it is, there is no way to know if you have the whole specification.
With this specification, you do have the whole thing.
Windows' device model is, from what I've heard, way too foreign to be integrated.
I read an earlier version of the standard from fron to back and, while the draft was rough as hell, it seemed fairly complete and well-designed. A lot of it dovetails with the Linux Driver Interface. There were a couple problems with it that I could see, in that there wasn't enough possibility for dynamic configuration of drivers at a general level, and finer-grained configurability at instance levels, but all in all it seemed a good specification.
In that case, then, we have the interface to use in debugging and reverse-engineering the driver. It's a sensible interface, unlike the things I've heard about Windows drivers, and since it's a standard, there won't be any niggling little OS-specific hooks.
Even if the vendors don't release code, the job of supporting their hardware still becomes easier, and we can test the function of our open drivers against that UDI driver.
No, UDI is binary compatible across similar OSes on the same platform. SCO and Linux and Solaris could all use the same binary driver in a UDI environment.
Your point about the possibility of more open-source drivers resulting from this is a good one. Not because of the reduced engineering effort to produce a driver (that will simply increase the quality of the driver), but because there will be no proprietary information for each vendor needed in the driver. They will use a common interface, rather than a XYZOS interface, the publishing of which certainly has legal ramifications.
Umm... it already *does* that. How do you think you can stripe a SCSI disk and an IDE disk together? Simple, because to the kernel layer above the raw device drivers they look *the same*.
This would not slow anything down if the UDI environment were to exist side-by-side with the current Linux Driver Interface, rather than below it.
If a binary driver is unstable under Linux, then it will also be unstable under Solaris/x86, SCO, etc. If it works well on those platforms, then it will work well under Linux (assuming the UDI environment of Linux is stable, which I believe it will be, since it will be one of the reference platforms).
This is a Good Thing [tm] for Linux and Unix-like OSes in general.
Now, to the source code issue... It might be that, with the most widely used UDI implementation around, drivers for that environment might get opened up by the manufacturers. Don't count on it, but is there really any reason to not open up the source to a device driver for a platform like that? Once the standard is set, there will be no silly driver interface licensing issues with major Unix vendors (for whom the decent I/O peripheral companies will write drivers).
This could be a Very Good Thing [tm].
--Corey
any Similar IDE's to Cafe for linux?
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
Boy, if we could just convince IBM to port the Visual Age stuff to Linsux...:)
Have a look at the MudOS LPMud driver for proof of this concept. That language has, for years, mixed bytecode, interpreted, and natively-compiled objects, and is a fairly decent OO language in its own right (if somewhat dated).
There is an intermediate form targetted by the language front-end, which consists of a highly decorated syntax tree. This form is passed to the back end for optimization and production of assembly code.
I do tend to agree with you, in that multiple inheritance is a very useful paradigm. However, where I find C++ lacking is in its inability to do interface inheritance. Having both concepts in a language cannot be impossible, surely.
Interface inheritance makes dynamic type loading a much easier proposition (without the need for factory methods and like cruft... ick...), while multiple inheritance can make a coherent family of objects sing. I like both concepts.
On to a couple other points raised here by other/.ers...
Is multiple dispatch (mentioned by a Dylan guy) a sort of SIMD thing? If I have an array of Foo objects, and I want to call Bar() using each of them as an argument, is there a possibility for concurrency of execution innate in the language? If so, I _really_ appreciate that.
Also, in the case of C++ on Unix, there needs to be a set of exceptions which map to the system's asynchronous signal model, and the use of signal() in C++ programs should be deprecated.
It is the runtime library for egcs-COMPILED Java programs. It is, I'm assuming, somewhat analogous to a libgcc, which is where the compiler stores some of the functions needed for a GNU C environment on the target platform (things like strdup, possibly, where it doesn't exist in-system).
It will doubtless also provide the environment for Java programs to make calls to C runtime libraries and routines, and provide any scratch areas for stuff like exception handling.
Privacy is really a non-issue when you are considering video rentals. People who rented "The Tin Drum" in Oklahoma City (I think) got cops knocking on their doors one fine day to get any copies of the movie from them.
Video stores _do_ track that kind of thing, and privacy be damned. You're best off to just shut yourself away from the world anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
The article was incomplete, in that it failed to mention JWZs lamenting the fact that Nutscrape didn't provide the sourceware community with a working product from which to base its efforts.
Linux, Apache, and (F|N|O)BSD, GNUtils, and the like weren't put together in a day, and didn't face the hurdles of tons of legacy cruft to wade through, incomplete subsystems (okay, in the case of 4.4BSD a lot had to be re-implemented), and a general glut of poorly designed and poorly documented spaghetti to wade through. JWZ was correct. Software is hard. Starting from scratch is sometimes easier than maintaining/patching an incomplete, non-working codebase.
--Corey
What I don't understand is why you had to post this same blurb at least 8 times.
--Corey
As part of their induction into the US, the constitution of the state of Texas includes a provision which gives them the right to secede of their own volition.
With this kind of language, agreed to by those who admitted the state of Texas, there would be no war of secession.
Yeah, right... but in theory...
--Corey
Here's a little ditty I like to define in various places when I'm coding. It's short, sweet, and to the point, and fits well in the C idiom.
#define strequ(x,y) (strcmp((x),(y)) == 0)
--Corey
They, just like the Linsux kernel, are in "release mode" right now. They've got to stop discussing at some point and publish a standard. The one they have is relatively decent, and so with a bit more discussion, minor fixes, etc. it can be released.
Is this not logical, especially for a standards body?
--Corey
Hmm... anyone want to start a new movement with a lot of press hype and industry buzz?
;-) movement make any headway in this arena?
I recently bought a Matrox G200-based card *based on their decision to open the programming specs*. I emailed them and told them so, too, and told them that if they opened the specs for the upcoming G400 (which looks to be very cool, BTW), I would upgrade all the systems within my grasp to that.
You have to vote with your pocket books, and don't forget to tell the vendors why you made the choice you made.
I wonder, though... could an "Open Specs" ([tm] [r] [c]
--Corey
The only way to learn recursion is to learn recursion.
--Corey
If the majority of people don't know how to use overloaded operators, then their code sucks and their programming skills are atrocious. Don't however, take away a powerful tool like operator overloading just because there are idiots in the world.
:)
Clarity and cleanliness is so much easier to attain when code uses symbols to mean certain things.
One question:
string1 + string2 is a straightforward concept. How would you conceive string1 - string2, or string1 / string2? I can see string1 * int, but not string1 * string2.
Please email me with an answer to this, too.
--Corey
You might like XWPE, then. Its IDE is almost an exact copy of the Borland IDE, and it's free. It needs better integration with the rest of the dev tools, but the IDE is mostly there.
--Corey
Think of it this way:
Pentium II is the follow-on to Pentium. It can't
do more than 2-way MP because of the way it talks
to its address bus and chipset.
Pentium III is the follow-on to Pentium II, and has the same limitations.
Pentium {II,III} Xeon is the follow-on to Pentium Pro. Pentium Pro can do 8-way MP because it was designed to access its bus and chipset in a more rational manner. Xeon carries much the same design forward, and so can do 8-way MP.
--Corey
You can get slot adapters from Supermicro (and Tyan?) that will let you run slot1 CPUs in a slot2 motherboard. If you can get the quad-proc motherboard, that might be a solution for you.
--Corey
Especially for things like video and sound drivers, you are correct. The problem with it is, there is no way to know if you have the whole specification.
With this specification, you do have the whole thing.
Windows' device model is, from what I've heard, way too foreign to be integrated.
--Corey
I read an earlier version of the standard from fron to back and, while the draft was rough as hell, it seemed fairly complete and well-designed. A lot of it dovetails with the Linux Driver Interface. There were a couple problems with it that I could see, in that there wasn't enough possibility for dynamic configuration of drivers at a general level, and finer-grained configurability at instance levels, but all in all it seemed a good specification.
--Corey
In that case, then, we have the interface to use in debugging and reverse-engineering the driver. It's a sensible interface, unlike the things I've heard about Windows drivers, and since it's a standard, there won't be any niggling little OS-specific hooks.
Even if the vendors don't release code, the job of supporting their hardware still becomes easier, and we can test the function of our open drivers against that UDI driver.
This is still a Good Thing.
--Corey
No, UDI is binary compatible across similar OSes on the same platform. SCO and Linux and Solaris could all use the same binary driver in a UDI environment.
Your point about the possibility of more open-source drivers resulting from this is a good one. Not because of the reduced engineering effort to produce a driver (that will simply increase the quality of the driver), but because there will be no proprietary information for each vendor needed in the driver. They will use a common interface, rather than a XYZOS interface, the publishing of which certainly has legal ramifications.
--Corey
Umm... it already *does* that. How do you think you can stripe a SCSI disk and an IDE disk together? Simple, because to the kernel layer above the raw device drivers they look *the same*.
This would not slow anything down if the UDI environment were to exist side-by-side with the current Linux Driver Interface, rather than below it.
--Corey
If a binary driver is unstable under Linux, then it will also be unstable under Solaris/x86, SCO, etc. If it works well on those platforms, then it will work well under Linux (assuming the UDI environment of Linux is stable, which I believe it will be, since it will be one of the reference platforms).
This is a Good Thing [tm] for Linux and Unix-like OSes in general.
Now, to the source code issue... It might be that, with the most widely used UDI implementation around, drivers for that environment might get opened up by the manufacturers. Don't count on it, but is there really any reason to not open up the source to a device driver for a platform like that? Once the standard is set, there will be no silly driver interface licensing issues with major Unix vendors (for whom the decent I/O peripheral companies will write drivers).
This could be a Very Good Thing [tm].
--Corey
Boy, if we could just convince IBM to port the Visual Age stuff to Linsux... :)
--Corey
Have a look at the MudOS LPMud driver for proof of this concept. That language has, for years, mixed bytecode, interpreted, and natively-compiled objects, and is a fairly decent OO language in its own right (if somewhat dated).
ftp://ftp.imaginary.com/pub/LPC (I think)
--Corey
There is an intermediate form targetted by the language front-end, which consists of a highly decorated syntax tree. This form is passed to the back end for optimization and production of assembly code.
AFAIK, anyway...
--Corey
I do tend to agree with you, in that multiple inheritance is a very useful paradigm. However, where I find C++ lacking is in its inability to do interface inheritance. Having both concepts in a language cannot be impossible, surely.
/.ers...
Interface inheritance makes dynamic type loading a much easier proposition (without the need for factory methods and like cruft... ick...), while multiple inheritance can make a coherent family of objects sing. I like both concepts.
On to a couple other points raised here by other
Is multiple dispatch (mentioned by a Dylan guy) a sort of SIMD thing? If I have an array of Foo objects, and I want to call Bar() using each of them as an argument, is there a possibility for concurrency of execution innate in the language?
If so, I _really_ appreciate that.
Also, in the case of C++ on Unix, there needs to be a set of exceptions which map to the system's asynchronous signal model, and the use of signal() in C++ programs should be deprecated.
--Corey
That's the subject of their contest. Hit their website for details.
--Corey
It is the runtime library for egcs-COMPILED Java programs. It is, I'm assuming, somewhat analogous to a libgcc, which is where the compiler stores some of the functions needed for a GNU C environment on the target platform (things like strdup, possibly, where it doesn't exist in-system).
It will doubtless also provide the environment for Java programs to make calls to C runtime libraries and routines, and provide any scratch areas for stuff like exception handling.
--Corey
... is that there's no reason this couldn't technically work, and no reason MS wouldn't or couldn't do this.
Scary joke.
--Corey
Privacy is really a non-issue when you are considering video rentals. People who rented "The Tin Drum" in Oklahoma City (I think) got cops knocking on their doors one fine day to get any copies of the movie from them.
Video stores _do_ track that kind of thing, and privacy be damned. You're best off to just shut yourself away from the world anymore.
--Corey