A bit like how C programs can break if they don't have correct versions of libraries available, right ?
You're playing both sides of the issue to be right. It is sort of the same, but, eh, not really.
Apparently your old company fell for MS's scam.
Actually, it was PragmaSystems that did, I called their staff several times to ask when they would have a migration strategy, but it caused enough of a headache for me.
Unfortunately, I find myself incapable of comprehending what you wrote, and am therefore uncapable of answering your question, since I don't know what you are asking. Please clarify your question.
Ok, to break it down. If C# programs run in a cross-platform binary compatible format, and they were to offer software to allow C# programs to run under Linux, would you then feel the same about C# as you do about Java?
The question is, if C# were Microsoft's Java, and it did all of the same things as Java, would you defend Microsoft's actions, or are you merely arguing all of this because it's anti-Microsoft?
The reason that I ask is because I feel that, too often, Slashdot posters are so willing to argue against Microsoft that it doesn't really matter what Microsoft did. If a competing company does exactly the things that we accuse Microsoft of, that's ok, but when it's Microsoft, it's a problem.
The problem is, the user can never explain why it's a problem. When you have a majority of users who behave this way, well, Slasdhot posters become a liability to the community, because they demonstrate that it's not so much that they're pro-Open Source, it's that they're anti-Microsoft. Not only that, but it shows that they're nothing but shills echoing the point of view on an Internet forum. If they were something more, they could identify what it is about Microsoft that has irked them.
It's a discredit to the entire community.
That said, you're free to maintain your views regarding Java.
I certainly hope that this does not become a flame-war. I'm much too busy this time of year for that.
Well, you can feel that way, but that is not and has not been the stance of the FSF.
As for cross platform. If your goal is to serve content to a wide audience, and the future JVM is not backward compatible, then you would have to upgrade in order to meet your whole audience, or force them to run more than 1 JVM. Gosh, I seem to remember this happening before.
At my old company, we ran a piece of software that required the MS VM. It was incompatible with the Sun JVM. I wrote a product that required the Sun JVM. The internal debacle was annoying, especially given that MS had already stopped distributing that particular VM.
To turn the question on you. If MS dropped a C# CLR on you... perhaps, I don't know, Mono, would you run C# apps on it... or is does your view only apply when the language is Java and the corporate interest is not MS?
If C# still exists 10 years from now, is more opened, has better cross-platform capabilities, and has become as pervasive as Java and javascript, then we can talk. Until then, adieu.
C# will exist 10 years from now. Don't delude yourself into thinking that MS will tank within a decade.
Sun Microsystems owns Java, don't trick yourself into thinking that its an open standard just because it's distributed with source.
Why the hell does javascript enter into this conversation?
If you're concerned with the web development market (sounds like you are), then C# is superior in many respects, codebehind being #1 in this regard in my opinion. I, however, tend to develop libraries of commonly used primitives early in projects, so after about the first month, everything sort of becomes the same.
Crossing platforms isn't important if you only want to appeal to Windows users, and you can make plenty of money like that.
C# is an open spec, Mono implements it under Linux. If you were to use a platform specific SDK under any language, you'd be bound to the underlying platform. Just this week I wrote Java code that will only execute properly under Linux.
All that aside, you could develop an argument along the lines of what you're shooting for. You just didn't do so successfully. Put aside the anti-MS rhetoric and make a real argument, then you'll be fine. You can even make a real argument against MS if you like... I don't really care.
Now, to break down openness. C# is open, for the most part, in the way that people want things to be open. It has an open spec. It's proprietary, but, oh well, so is Java.
If you're going to argue the open source argument, well, plenty of Linux figures have publicly stated that open source Java code is completely worthless, because it relies on Sun proprietary infrastructure. Even if there are 100% binary compatible Linux JVMs, well, guess what, Sun Microsystems can go and change Java tomorrow, and your cross-platform capabilities will again drive you to their product.
*insert self-righteous sounding comment here*, I bid you adieu.
Actually, the chance to work on personal projects on company time and equipment is part of the contract. I don't remember what percentage it is, I think that it's as high as 30% of the time you spend.
You hit it on the head. We keep seeing Google is evil posts on/. because they raised rates for software engineers, because they value software engineers, and because they're "steeling all of the talent."
What can I say? What kind of software engineer would complain about this? Why don't you want to make more money? Why don't you want demand for your trade to go up? Why do you think that a company that engineers want to go to is evil?
Consider now a company with great management and lousy programmers. Do you really think that any amount of management can bail them out? The key to business is what you produce. If you produce nothing, you have nothing.
It certainly is, and sometimes it's to the detriment of the business. If your engineers need resources, they should have them. Businesses run like that deserve to fold.
But, even in trench warfare, there were multiple rows of trenches, right? There were also troops and hospitals and such behind the trenches. There were occupation forces inside cities in there. Couldn't one view planets as being equivalent to such cities, only stragegically far more important because of the difficulty of the intelligence task of analyzing a planet's stragetic stance?
At that point, you'd have to argue that your occupation expands as a band across your holdings, or am I still missing something here?
Oh, anyway, that would still require you to protect a surface that is hyperplanar in the space, so my argument stands, it just becomes (distance occupied)^(dimensions figting in, - 1).
2 dots moving outwards, you would still need to protect the line between the dots.
In 2D, I'd think that you'd have to protect the area of the object. If not, you'd at least want an offensive on the no-mans land between the two parties, which is again, an area, not a perimeter. I don't think that merely protecting the perimeter is a safe strategy.
Lets look at our perceptions of space, as we work with mathmatics.
1D space will increase linearly. 2D with the square. 3D with the cube. 4D with a 4D hypercube. So on and so forth.
I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly see no difference. None of this is exponential (constant^n), and unmanagable. This is all merely increasing in complexity with the number of dimensions, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
You know, I feel guilty, but I have to laugh at this: The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning... The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide.
I feel bad laughing at someone who's clearly flipped his lid, but still... it's funny.
If you're job is so important that it requires privacy like this, they'll probably have put you in an office by now anyways.
I don't know what you consider to be important, but plenty of software engineers work in cubicles while management sits in comfy offices. I once was on a site where engineers who worked on classified information sat in an open room at a big round desk with computers... kind of like a campus computer lab. They certainly seemed to require privacy, but lacked it.
The simple fact of the matter is that most successful companies would probably do what you're talking about. Most companies, however, are run by people who are just ahead of "trying to get by," and populated by engineers who are "just getting by." In those companies, the execs walk around with high powered computer that they don't need, while the engineers work at 5+ year old machines. Certainly, the average programmer needs something better... though this solution IS annoying.
You've nailed it on the head. People should just do what they want with their lives, and we should stop driving them into IT.
I'm trying to get a PhD in computer science because I like computer science, not because it's particularly lucrative (though, with the right skills, it is).
At least one of the women in those calendars is not real.
There are so many contradictions in their profiles, these people couldn't exist. The one profile goes from hard-core academic to super-industry lowest common denominator fluff. If she was into one, she wouldn't be into the other.
women are still a minority in computer and engineering fields?>br>
So, fields with mostly men are lame? Why is it ok to just be as offensive as you'd like if it's about men. Why didn't you just say "gah, men suck so bad." If they were cool men, they'd be in a field with women.
Slashdot Mirror
A bit like how C programs can break if they don't have correct versions of libraries available, right ?
You're playing both sides of the issue to be right. It is sort of the same, but, eh, not really. Apparently your old company fell for MS's scam.
Actually, it was PragmaSystems that did, I called their staff several times to ask when they would have a migration strategy, but it caused enough of a headache for me.
Unfortunately, I find myself incapable of comprehending what you wrote, and am therefore uncapable of answering your question, since I don't know what you are asking. Please clarify your question.
Ok, to break it down. If C# programs run in a cross-platform binary compatible format, and they were to offer software to allow C# programs to run under Linux, would you then feel the same about C# as you do about Java?
The question is, if C# were Microsoft's Java, and it did all of the same things as Java, would you defend Microsoft's actions, or are you merely arguing all of this because it's anti-Microsoft?
The reason that I ask is because I feel that, too often, Slashdot posters are so willing to argue against Microsoft that it doesn't really matter what Microsoft did. If a competing company does exactly the things that we accuse Microsoft of, that's ok, but when it's Microsoft, it's a problem.
The problem is, the user can never explain why it's a problem. When you have a majority of users who behave this way, well, Slasdhot posters become a liability to the community, because they demonstrate that it's not so much that they're pro-Open Source, it's that they're anti-Microsoft. Not only that, but it shows that they're nothing but shills echoing the point of view on an Internet forum. If they were something more, they could identify what it is about Microsoft that has irked them.
It's a discredit to the entire community.
That said, you're free to maintain your views regarding Java.
I certainly hope that this does not become a flame-war. I'm much too busy this time of year for that.
Well, you can feel that way, but that is not and has not been the stance of the FSF.
As for cross platform. If your goal is to serve content to a wide audience, and the future JVM is not backward compatible, then you would have to upgrade in order to meet your whole audience, or force them to run more than 1 JVM. Gosh, I seem to remember this happening before.
At my old company, we ran a piece of software that required the MS VM. It was incompatible with the Sun JVM. I wrote a product that required the Sun JVM. The internal debacle was annoying, especially given that MS had already stopped distributing that particular VM.
To turn the question on you. If MS dropped a C# CLR on you... perhaps, I don't know, Mono, would you run C# apps on it... or is does your view only apply when the language is Java and the corporate interest is not MS?
VB is a terrible language.
C# is actually fairly good.
If C# still exists 10 years from now, is more opened, has better cross-platform capabilities, and has become as pervasive as Java and javascript, then we can talk. Until then, adieu.
C# will exist 10 years from now. Don't delude yourself into thinking that MS will tank within a decade.
Sun Microsystems owns Java, don't trick yourself into thinking that its an open standard just because it's distributed with source.
Why the hell does javascript enter into this conversation?
If you're concerned with the web development market (sounds like you are), then C# is superior in many respects, codebehind being #1 in this regard in my opinion. I, however, tend to develop libraries of commonly used primitives early in projects, so after about the first month, everything sort of becomes the same.
Crossing platforms isn't important if you only want to appeal to Windows users, and you can make plenty of money like that.
C# is an open spec, Mono implements it under Linux. If you were to use a platform specific SDK under any language, you'd be bound to the underlying platform. Just this week I wrote Java code that will only execute properly under Linux.
All that aside, you could develop an argument along the lines of what you're shooting for. You just didn't do so successfully. Put aside the anti-MS rhetoric and make a real argument, then you'll be fine. You can even make a real argument against MS if you like... I don't really care.
Now, to break down openness. C# is open, for the most part, in the way that people want things to be open. It has an open spec. It's proprietary, but, oh well, so is Java.
If you're going to argue the open source argument, well, plenty of Linux figures have publicly stated that open source Java code is completely worthless, because it relies on Sun proprietary infrastructure. Even if there are 100% binary compatible Linux JVMs, well, guess what, Sun Microsystems can go and change Java tomorrow, and your cross-platform capabilities will again drive you to their product.
*insert self-righteous sounding comment here*, I bid you adieu.
I tend to think of 'mob mentality' er the 'wisdom of crowds' as a bad thing.
Actually, the chance to work on personal projects on company time and equipment is part of the contract. I don't remember what percentage it is, I think that it's as high as 30% of the time you spend.
You hit it on the head. We keep seeing Google is evil posts on /. because they raised rates for software engineers, because they value software engineers, and because they're "steeling all of the talent."
What can I say? What kind of software engineer would complain about this? Why don't you want to make more money? Why don't you want demand for your trade to go up? Why do you think that a company that engineers want to go to is evil?
That's at best a half-truth.
Yes, the execs make decisions.
Consider now a company with great management and lousy programmers. Do you really think that any amount of management can bail them out? The key to business is what you produce. If you produce nothing, you have nothing.
If this dust bounces like canonballs, then the NBA will be ALL OVER toxic moondust basketballs.
Haven't read it, perhaps I should.
Wow, you've really thought this out. Good points.
It certainly is, and sometimes it's to the detriment of the business. If your engineers need resources, they should have them. Businesses run like that deserve to fold.
But, even in trench warfare, there were multiple rows of trenches, right? There were also troops and hospitals and such behind the trenches. There were occupation forces inside cities in there. Couldn't one view planets as being equivalent to such cities, only stragegically far more important because of the difficulty of the intelligence task of analyzing a planet's stragetic stance?
At that point, you'd have to argue that your occupation expands as a band across your holdings, or am I still missing something here?
Oh, anyway, that would still require you to protect a surface that is hyperplanar in the space, so my argument stands, it just becomes (distance occupied)^(dimensions figting in, - 1).
How exactly are you working that out?
2 dots moving outwards, you would still need to protect the line between the dots.
In 2D, I'd think that you'd have to protect the area of the object. If not, you'd at least want an offensive on the no-mans land between the two parties, which is again, an area, not a perimeter. I don't think that merely protecting the perimeter is a safe strategy.
I've never read the book.
Lets look at our perceptions of space, as we work with mathmatics.
1D space will increase linearly.
2D with the square.
3D with the cube.
4D with a 4D hypercube.
So on and so forth.
I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly see no difference. None of this is exponential (constant^n), and unmanagable. This is all merely increasing in complexity with the number of dimensions, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
You know, I feel guilty, but I have to laugh at this: ... The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide.
The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning
I feel bad laughing at someone who's clearly flipped his lid, but still... it's funny.
If you're job is so important that it requires privacy like this, they'll probably have put you in an office by now anyways.
I don't know what you consider to be important, but plenty of software engineers work in cubicles while management sits in comfy offices. I once was on a site where engineers who worked on classified information sat in an open room at a big round desk with computers... kind of like a campus computer lab. They certainly seemed to require privacy, but lacked it.
The simple fact of the matter is that most successful companies would probably do what you're talking about. Most companies, however, are run by people who are just ahead of "trying to get by," and populated by engineers who are "just getting by." In those companies, the execs walk around with high powered computer that they don't need, while the engineers work at 5+ year old machines. Certainly, the average programmer needs something better... though this solution IS annoying.
You've nailed it on the head. People should just do what they want with their lives, and we should stop driving them into IT.
I'm trying to get a PhD in computer science because I like computer science, not because it's particularly lucrative (though, with the right skills, it is).
the office opening for schoolchildren
Why did the office open for schoolchildren?
Hehehe, you don't want to know just how close you are.
It actually got better in the long run, and the system is safe... but it was an uphill fight.
At least one of the women in those calendars is not real.
There are so many contradictions in their profiles, these people couldn't exist. The one profile goes from hard-core academic to super-industry lowest common denominator fluff. If she was into one, she wouldn't be into the other.
women are still a minority in computer and engineering fields?>br>
So, fields with mostly men are lame? Why is it ok to just be as offensive as you'd like if it's about men. Why didn't you just say "gah, men suck so bad." If they were cool men, they'd be in a field with women.
You can't run a program that is encrypted without decrypting it first. That's what I was talking about.
You can't have something that stays encrypted forever. You can't leave it encrypted during the entire process... just most of it.
Bah. The technology to do that hasn't been written yet if you're talking about doing that in RAM (except, perhaps for decrypting it into cache).