I can definitely agree with the whole MUD language thing. When I was an undergrad my richest programming experience was writing LambdaMOO code. The old MUD/MOO programming languages were great learning tools because they existed in an ideal environment for object-orientation... it was a lot of fun to build your own objects.:-)
Choosing a programming language for introductory CS students is difficult for professors because they often feel they must balance two major things:
the needs of the industry (clearly Java/C++/something similar)
languages that enforce good programming practices and keep simple tasks simple to implement (Python, Lisp, Pascal)
Yes, I listed Pascal as a good language for the latter category. Don't act so shocked.:-) As you may recall, one of the focuses of Wirth's Pascal was that it be used as a teaching language. One nice thing about Python, Lisp, and Pascal are that they provide simple I/O mechanisms--a large part of intro CS classes--as opposed to Java's clunky I/O classes or the use of C++'s overidden stream insertion/extraction operators--something with which intro students shouldn't need to concern themselves. It should be simple for these students to do simple things. They should not have to face OO in the face from square one (do you remember the first time you saw OO? OO is a very abstract concept for students who have yet to understand simple concepts like looping, conditionals, and arrays). Add on the fact that C/C++ does not offer array bounds checking other than a cryptic message that a student does not yet understand, i.e. a segfault.
Unfortunately, good teaching languages are often not considered because languages like Java, C, and C++ are in higher industry demand and are therefore more attractive to beginning CS students. What we seem to end up with is students that "know Java" but suffer from poor programming style and techniques.
... roughly the same as an alien invasion but twice as scary....:-)
Qt & GTK bloatware?? Not compared to Motif.
on
RMS On 'Open' Motif
·
· Score: 1
I like motif. GTK and QT are both slow bloatware.
Though I haven't seen many benchmarks comparing Motif to Qt and GTK, it has been my experience having worked with Motif and Qt that Qt seemed noticeably faster and fit in a smaller memory footprint than Motif. At the time I attributed it to Qt being written on top of Xlib rather than on top of sucky Xt like Motif is. Who knows what the real story is (has anyone seen any true benchmarks yet)? Either way, I really liked the ease of being able to develop your own customized widgets in Qt... this ease is something Motif undeniably lacks.
Back to the topic at hand though, I believe RMS has a point, and that this seems like a last ditch attempt to save a dying toolkit. Just my two cents worth though.
I know I am e-sick of all this e-crap. It has been my experience that people are generally more comfortable with a clear separation between computers and everything else e.g. if you want to use the computer you go to your PC. Wearable computers (calling Dick Tracy?) may eventually take off, but we are a long way from that. Until then, I guess we have to put up with all the unnecessary wearable digital device hype and all of the abuse of the prefix "e-". Yick!
I would tend to think of retaliating against a DDOS attack as similar to what many feared during the Cold War. You fire your nukes at us, so we fire them at you. In no time we have bye bye world. I know that when I first started sysadmining (and had no clue about security esp. NFS on Solaris... yick!) I had a somebody hack my box and use it to hack into other boxes. I am glad nobody retaliated against my site just because some one was using it for unsavory practices. The Internet is a self-balancing decentralized community. "An eye for an eye" would only seek to destroy that community.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of ambiguity of acronyms, did anyone catch this one? SSI = "Single System Image" != "Server-Side Includes"
I can definitely agree with the whole MUD language thing. When I was an undergrad my richest programming experience was writing LambdaMOO code. The old MUD/MOO programming languages were great learning tools because they existed in an ideal environment for object-orientation... it was a lot of fun to build your own objects. :-)
- the needs of the industry (clearly Java/C++/something similar)
- languages that enforce good programming practices and keep simple tasks simple to implement (Python, Lisp, Pascal)
Yes, I listed Pascal as a good language for the latter category. Don't act so shocked.Unfortunately, good teaching languages are often not considered because languages like Java, C, and C++ are in higher industry demand and are therefore more attractive to beginning CS students. What we seem to end up with is students that "know Java" but suffer from poor programming style and techniques.
I have no sig.
Where did they manage to find infinite tape? The last time I went to Walmart they were out. :-)
The article forgot about #21...
... roughly the same as an alien invasion but twice as scary.... :-)
The Slashdot Effect!!
I like motif. GTK and QT are both slow bloatware.
Though I haven't seen many benchmarks comparing Motif to Qt and GTK, it has been my experience having worked with Motif and Qt that Qt seemed noticeably faster and fit in a smaller memory footprint than Motif. At the time I attributed it to Qt being written on top of Xlib rather than on top of sucky Xt like Motif is. Who knows what the real story is (has anyone seen any true benchmarks yet)? Either way, I really liked the ease of being able to develop your own customized widgets in Qt... this ease is something Motif undeniably lacks.
Back to the topic at hand though, I believe RMS has a point, and that this seems like a last ditch attempt to save a dying toolkit. Just my two cents worth though.
Is anyone else really sick of this crap?
I know I am e-sick of all this e-crap. It has been my experience that people are generally more comfortable with a clear separation between computers and everything else e.g. if you want to use the computer you go to your PC. Wearable computers (calling Dick Tracy?) may eventually take off, but we are a long way from that. Until then, I guess we have to put up with all the unnecessary wearable digital device hype and all of the abuse of the prefix "e-". Yick!
I would tend to think of retaliating against a DDOS attack as similar to what many feared during the Cold War. You fire your nukes at us, so we fire them at you. In no time we have bye bye world. I know that when I first started sysadmining (and had no clue about security esp. NFS on Solaris... yick!) I had a somebody hack my box and use it to hack into other boxes. I am glad nobody retaliated against my site just because some one was using it for unsavory practices. The Internet is a self-balancing decentralized community. "An eye for an eye" would only seek to destroy that community.