I have an AT&T GSM phone and the coverage is very good. I live to Chicago. It was bad six months ago but now it really is much better. The kicker is I took my phone to France and I was roaming day one. I am getting my phone unlocked as we speak so I can use another provider when overseas. GSM phones are the best. It's a matter of economics. More people use GSM phones in the world than CDMA. Thus the Nokias, Ericssons will produce the phones for the GSM market. Perhaps CDMA is more technologically advanced but in the market GSM rules. Windows ?? Nuff said.
Unless you live in some rural area, you should really use a GSM phone.
As long as we have many competing desktops, Linux will never be as prevelant as Windows. Yea Yea Yea, I've heard the 'Choice is good' argument before, but efforts need to be concentrated on one desktop and only then will Linux be a viable desktop platform.
A desktop choice should be as ubiquitous as Apache, SendMail and other 'standard' Unix programs.
I hate it when someone bashes apache.org stuff. Those guys produce the most wonderful and high quality software. Facts.
Xerces supported XML schemas before MSXML did. Version 3.0 of MSXML supported XDR crap and did not support XML schemas until version 4.0. Get your facts straight. Yes MS did have a big hand in forming the schema spec but they DID NOT produce the first schema parser. Apache DID.
Xerces implements w3c standards which are the same API's that MS boasts. Pile of Junk ? What are you talking about? We have been using Xerces with Schemas for almost a year now without the need for 5 or 6 libraries.
P.S I own a consulting company. Perhaps you need some help. Send me an email.
The biggest issue with any C++ 'standard' library, is that every compiler vendor has to implement the standard. Leading to incompatibilties and wasted resources.
What C++ needs is something like Java. a standard reference implementation that all licensed compiler vendors can resue. If all Java compiler vendors had to rewrite the standard Java libraries, it will take thousands of man hours and introduce all sort of bugs. Atleast bugs in the current Java implementation are isolated and reasonably well addressed.
I am glad that we switched away from C++ to Java for our server implementations. Will never look back.
The best phones in the world are the ones based on GSM bar none. CDMA phones are a joke. Check out the Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung and you will see the huge difference.
>>I simply claimed there's no way a language that's compiled into bytecode and has GC will be as fast as regular C++ as it's claimed in the article
Compiled into byte code but recompiled into machine code on the fly based on program behavior are completely different things. GC's do help. I will be more than happy to point you to a GC pand dynamic code optimization primers because you really need to brush up on you technical skills and knowledge. Never say no way.
>>I find it impossible to believe that a bytecode program, which runs on top of a VM (written, by the way, in C++ or in an equivalent imperative language) could be faster than C++ unless the programmer is absolutely clueless. But I'll even be satisfied with "only 50% slower" if I see an example.
The Java VM is written in C.
There are many assemblers out there written in C, C++ and Pascal yet the production language is faster. What is your point ?
>>So we basically have this guy saying that Java can be faster than C++, which can be as fast as assembly and still admitting that Java uses garbage collection (an inherently slow task).
For C++ garbage collection and the benefits of GC in systems, I suggest that you read:
The stupid IBM decision to release an OS that did not take advantage of the 386 multiple DOS boxes is what doomed OS/2 against Windows 3.0.
During those days, people were looking for a solution to allow them to run multiple DOS boxes. Windows did not have any serious apps and was not a threat. 3.0 allowed people to finally run multiple DOS boxes under a cute little GUI.
I made a lot of money from OS/2 consulting and was an avid fan. As much as I detest Microsoft, IBM did the OS in. They had no clue and they truley cared about thier stupid PS/2 line (mostly 286's) at that time. What a bunch of goofballs.
It seems to me that you are the one that is retarded. When I install MS office, I just click on one executable and there it goes. I do not download the hunder of separate "components" that make it up.
I disagree with you. We used AIX for four years and the thing was so unreliable it was a joke. The tcp system was crap. On the other hand, Solaris is simply rock solid.
.NET claims that any of the supported languages can be "first class citizens" of the platform. After reading
this article: it became pretty obvious that not all languages are created equal. This is definitly not my father's C++. Please, can someone explain how specific language features (pointers) are handled in the.NET environment without re-writing the code to be more.NET friendly.
If C or C++ components use pointers, can they crash the whole.NET environment ? Please explain how I can add C++ objects by reference or by pointers to.NET collections.
Slashdot Mirror
but please let go!! Don't repeat the same mistake I made with Amiga and OS/2
>>IBM buys Sun and changes Java to their open source licence
Like they opened up DB2, AIX, OS/400 and MVS ?
Get real.
>>The US GSM footprint is horrendous
I have an AT&T GSM phone and the coverage is very good. I live to Chicago. It was bad six months ago but now it really is much better. The kicker is I took my phone to France and I was roaming day one. I am getting my phone unlocked as we speak so I can use another provider when overseas. GSM phones are the best. It's a matter of economics. More people use GSM phones in the world than CDMA. Thus the Nokias, Ericssons will produce the phones for the GSM market. Perhaps CDMA is more technologically advanced but in the market GSM rules. Windows ?? Nuff said.
Unless you live in some rural area, you should really use a GSM phone.
Actually MS was telling everyone to write for OS/2 since Windows was just a temporary solution. Lotus and Wordperfect got screwed.
As long as we have many competing desktops, Linux will never be as prevelant as Windows. Yea Yea Yea, I've heard the 'Choice is good' argument before, but efforts need to be concentrated on one desktop and only then will Linux be a viable desktop platform.
A desktop choice should be as ubiquitous as Apache, SendMail and other 'standard' Unix programs.
I hate it when someone bashes apache.org stuff. Those guys produce the most wonderful and high quality software. Facts.
Xerces supported XML schemas before MSXML did. Version 3.0 of MSXML supported XDR crap and did not support XML schemas until version 4.0. Get your facts straight. Yes MS did have a big hand in forming the schema spec but they DID NOT produce the first schema parser. Apache DID.
Xerces implements w3c standards which are the same API's that MS boasts. Pile of Junk ? What are you talking about? We have been using Xerces with Schemas for almost a year now without the need for 5 or 6 libraries.
P.S I own a consulting company. Perhaps you need some help. Send me an email.
Enjoy!
Will any future Intel 64bit x86 chip be binary compatible with the Hammer ?
They are ?
Well then, open source AIX, WebSphere, AS400. IBM is only an advocate of open source when it suits their needs.
They are a buch of hypocrites
I just want to know what happened 'before' any of these theories ?
>>Java is not a good laguage for building large enterprise level systems.
EJBs, XA Transactions, Messaging, JDBC, XML, JSP, JNDI and JMX. Hmmm, what are you smoking ? Name one C++ standard equivalent. Just one and you win.
>>C++ jobs pay much better than Java jobs (and Unix pays better than windoze).
Learn the above and you will make a lot more money than C++.
The biggest issue with any C++ 'standard' library, is that every compiler vendor has to implement the standard. Leading to incompatibilties and wasted resources.
What C++ needs is something like Java. a standard reference implementation that all licensed compiler vendors can resue. If all Java compiler vendors had to rewrite the standard Java libraries, it will take thousands of man hours and introduce all sort of bugs. Atleast bugs in the current Java implementation are isolated and reasonably well addressed.
I am glad that we switched away from C++ to Java for our server implementations. Will never look back.
IBM can not market a cure for dead people. They will f**ck up java and hand MS the reign of the NET.
Oracle + SUN + BEA will be a formidable combination for MS and IBM.
The best phones in the world are the ones based on GSM bar none. CDMA phones are a joke. Check out the Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung and you will see the huge difference.
>>I simply claimed there's no way a language that's compiled into bytecode and has GC will be as fast as regular C++ as it's claimed in the article
Compiled into byte code but recompiled into machine code on the fly based on program behavior are completely different things. GC's do help. I will be more than happy to point you to a GC pand dynamic code optimization primers because you really need to brush up on you technical skills and knowledge. Never say no way.
>>I find it impossible to believe that a bytecode program, which runs on top of a VM (written, by the way, in C++ or in an equivalent imperative language) could be faster than C++ unless the programmer is absolutely clueless. But I'll even be satisfied with "only 50% slower" if I see an example.
The Java VM is written in C.
There are many assemblers out there written in C, C++ and Pascal yet the production language is faster. What is your point ?
>>So we basically have this guy saying that Java can be faster than C++, which can be as fast as assembly and still admitting that Java uses garbage collection (an inherently slow task).
For C++ garbage collection and the benefits of GC in systems, I suggest that you read:
GC issues
The stupid IBM decision to release an OS that did not take advantage of the 386 multiple DOS boxes is what doomed OS/2 against Windows 3.0.
During those days, people were looking for a solution to allow them to run multiple DOS boxes. Windows did not have any serious apps and was not a threat. 3.0 allowed people to finally run multiple DOS boxes under a cute little GUI.
I made a lot of money from OS/2 consulting and was an avid fan. As much as I detest Microsoft, IBM did the OS in. They had no clue and they truley cared about thier stupid PS/2 line (mostly 286's) at that time. What a bunch of goofballs.
It seems to me that you are the one that is retarded. When I install MS office, I just click on one executable and there it goes. I do not download the hunder of separate "components" that make it up.
I disagree with you. We used AIX for four years and the thing was so unreliable it was a joke. The tcp system was crap. On the other hand, Solaris is simply rock solid.
Show me an environment that provides all of this and I will switch in a second. I am not even showing the J2EE stuff.
Only if you communicate with your clients about memory responsibility. An auto pointer makes things easier but is no competition to a good GC.
.NET claims that any of the supported languages can be "first class citizens" of the platform. After reading .NET environment without re-writing the code to be more .NET friendly.
.NET environment ? Please explain how I can add C++ objects by reference or by pointers to .NET collections.
this article: it became pretty obvious that not all languages are created equal. This is definitly not my father's C++. Please, can someone explain how specific language features (pointers) are handled in the
If C or C++ components use pointers, can they crash the whole
Am I missing something with your logic ? Why spend a couple of billion dollars for something that is free ?
We use Swing. You can email me and will be glad to assist you in resolving the issues that you have.
I have never used IBM's JDK only Sun's. But I have heard good things about IBM's.