As an athiest, I assume you believe in evolution. The very word "evolution" implies that the subject did not "spring" into existence. Contrast this with, "Let there be light!" as a means of explaining away just about everything.
In programmer terms, this IUPAC nomenclature is like Hungarian notation, putting too much information about the data into the name without sufficiently ascribing useful information to it.
Hungarian notation is useful information in itself, by definition. You don't simply affix some notation, then go somewhere else to assign useful information to that notation. There are unquestionably situations and places where it is not useful, or even simply undesirable, and even casual browsing of the Win32 API will clearly demonstrate that it is easy to abuse, but that doesn't make nearly as useless as you have suggested.
It occurs to me that the editors have always very carefully avoided giving anyone an opening to discuss slashdot problems -- of which duplicates are glaring, commonplace example -- yet remain on-topic. One might argue that by including this whiny mini-rant at the end of the article itself, El Kapitan Taquito has "opened the kimono" so to speak. (My apologies to anyone eating lunch as they read this.)
Rant or rave, new developments in this area can be a great aid to experienced developers, but in the wrong hands they can cause more harm than good (Visual Basic anybody?)
You're barking (trolling?) up the wrong tree. The "Visual" in VB's name purely referred to the ability to lay out your application's Windows user interface visually. That was a fairly new thing back in the VB 1.0 days and was a fantastic time-saver. Other products had rudimentary equivalents but VB's was pretty stunningly intuitive at the time.
At no point has VB ever attempted to be a "visual" programming language in the sense being described here.
But those are all extremely limited domains which define either static relationships or relatively simple relationships. How many of your aircraft, spacecraft, and buildings contain a truckload of electronics which then contain firmware or software?
What you describe is equivalent to something like UML in the software world -- close but no cigar.
Ummm, writing HTML is **NOT** programming. There's a reason it's called "HTML" instead of "HTPL". Sheesh
Ummm, laying out a window in Visual Studio or Eclipse isn't programming either, but you're not going to get a hell of a lot accomplished if you're writing an end-user application but you're too "elite" to trifle with a UI. Sheesh.
Look at a PS game and then a PS2 game. Compare GT2 to GT4. But the differences between GT3 and GT4 are almost unnoticable.
The improvement from GT2 to GT3 was vast, but GT4 is still significantly better than GT3. Try it on a very large rear- or front-projection display, perhaps. I go the xbox route myself, but I bought a friend a PS2 with GT3 for xmas and frankly I was extremely disappointed, whereas I am routinely impressed (or at least satisfied) with the image quality in GT4. There is a big difference.
Second, the summary clearly states "he is running Linux on it".
While I agree with you, typically those summaries are added after-the-fact as a lame impression of performing tasks worthy of the title "editor". It probably doesn't excuse the flood of not-very-surprising responses assuming he's using OSX, but it might at least explain some of them.
sigh, my information was based on one of the dev lead's breakout session speeches. He actually demonstrated the COM3 folder naming problem, in fact. Granted, this problem pre-dated the tech preview (at which time I was still annoyed it wasn't going to be called NGWS; my interest was largely unrelated to the Internet and the ".NET" name was a sure sign the marketing dweebs were poking their festering fingers into the pie).
sigh, so to a degree I can grant you weren't completely off-base -- as I had already done in response to godfathr's reply yesterday -- but that is a far cry from suddenly reversing my position.
sigh, as I stated in my final sentence in the original post, Fernandez rather handily dispatched most of your points. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said (which also doesn't mean I agree with you), but I found his response more than adequate.
Personally I think they should have stuck with NGWS, but MS has never been able to resist the lure of their marketing zombies (usually to their extreme disadvantage, in every case which comes to mind).
Microsoft has abandoned confidence in both.NET and sales of Longhorn
That will come as a big surprise to Microsoft.
Hell, Grimes doesn't even get the original name of the.NET preview right. In the linked article, he states:
"I started using.NET when it was in technical preview at the beginning of 2000; at that time it was called COM+2"
In fact, it was being called COM3, and it was renamed NGWS because Windows NT wouldn't let you work with a directory called COM3 (IIRC, you could create the directory, but trying to use it resuled in some kind of conflict in which NT thought you were referring to a serial port).
Fernandez himself says everything else you need to know about Grimes' DDJ bitchfest.
Slashdot Mirror
The only downside is the meaning of what is encoded thousands of years in the future
I salute your exuberant optimism!
But for what we have seen, the INS would pick them up next week and hand them back to a grateful Mexico.
One can always hope.
Here's a new one for you to hand-wring over:
Is this evidence of a Mexican "brain-drain" phoenomenon?
Your first two sentences are contradictory.
As an athiest, I assume you believe in evolution. The very word "evolution" implies that the subject did not "spring" into existence. Contrast this with, "Let there be light!" as a means of explaining away just about everything.
In programmer terms, this IUPAC nomenclature is like Hungarian notation, putting too much information about the data into the name without sufficiently ascribing useful information to it.
Hungarian notation is useful information in itself, by definition. You don't simply affix some notation, then go somewhere else to assign useful information to that notation. There are unquestionably situations and places where it is not useful, or even simply undesirable, and even casual browsing of the Win32 API will clearly demonstrate that it is easy to abuse, but that doesn't make nearly as useless as you have suggested.
It occurs to me that the editors have always very carefully avoided giving anyone an opening to discuss slashdot problems -- of which duplicates are glaring, commonplace example -- yet remain on-topic. One might argue that by including this whiny mini-rant at the end of the article itself, El Kapitan Taquito has "opened the kimono" so to speak. (My apologies to anyone eating lunch as they read this.)
OTHERWISE...
That was one of the best replies in this entire topic.
Rant or rave, new developments in this area can be a great aid to experienced developers, but in the wrong hands they can cause more harm than good (Visual Basic anybody?)
You're barking (trolling?) up the wrong tree. The "Visual" in VB's name purely referred to the ability to lay out your application's Windows user interface visually. That was a fairly new thing back in the VB 1.0 days and was a fantastic time-saver. Other products had rudimentary equivalents but VB's was pretty stunningly intuitive at the time.
At no point has VB ever attempted to be a "visual" programming language in the sense being described here.
But those are all extremely limited domains which define either static relationships or relatively simple relationships. How many of your aircraft, spacecraft, and buildings contain a truckload of electronics which then contain firmware or software?
What you describe is equivalent to something like UML in the software world -- close but no cigar.
Ummm, writing HTML is **NOT** programming. There's a reason it's called "HTML" instead of "HTPL". Sheesh
Ummm, laying out a window in Visual Studio or Eclipse isn't programming either, but you're not going to get a hell of a lot accomplished if you're writing an end-user application but you're too "elite" to trifle with a UI. Sheesh.
+1, Hell Yes
You mean like the Firefox History sidebar does? :)
Look at a PS game and then a PS2 game. Compare GT2 to GT4. But the differences between GT3 and GT4 are almost unnoticable.
The improvement from GT2 to GT3 was vast, but GT4 is still significantly better than GT3. Try it on a very large rear- or front-projection display, perhaps. I go the xbox route myself, but I bought a friend a PS2 with GT3 for xmas and frankly I was extremely disappointed, whereas I am routinely impressed (or at least satisfied) with the image quality in GT4. There is a big difference.
Hmm... so then this would mean that instead of defragging your hard drive, you'd want to periodically fragment your millipede!
Pretty much the same concept as striped RAID...
Second, the summary clearly states "he is running Linux on it".
While I agree with you, typically those summaries are added after-the-fact as a lame impression of performing tasks worthy of the title "editor". It probably doesn't excuse the flood of not-very-surprising responses assuming he's using OSX, but it might at least explain some of them.
ANY hardware is desirable over a machine from Dell or HP. If you spend that much money building an x86, you end up with a really nice machine.
Wow, he got a UNIX box to run a different kind of UNIX!
AMAZING! Jaw-dropping material, for sure.
Well said. Obvious, but apparently it needed to be said.
"install latest DirectX and pray older games don't break"
Actually DX has an excellent track record in terms of backwards compatability.
sigh, my information was based on one of the dev lead's breakout session speeches. He actually demonstrated the COM3 folder naming problem, in fact. Granted, this problem pre-dated the tech preview (at which time I was still annoyed it wasn't going to be called NGWS; my interest was largely unrelated to the Internet and the ".NET" name was a sure sign the marketing dweebs were poking their festering fingers into the pie).
sigh, so to a degree I can grant you weren't completely off-base -- as I had already done in response to godfathr's reply yesterday -- but that is a far cry from suddenly reversing my position.
sigh, as I stated in my final sentence in the original post, Fernandez rather handily dispatched most of your points. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said (which also doesn't mean I agree with you), but I found his response more than adequate.
Interesting, thanks for checking.
Personally I think they should have stuck with NGWS, but MS has never been able to resist the lure of their marketing zombies (usually to their extreme disadvantage, in every case which comes to mind).
Microsoft has abandoned confidence in both .NET and sales of Longhorn
.NET preview right. In the linked article, he states:
.NET when it was in technical preview at the beginning of 2000; at that time it was called COM+2"
That will come as a big surprise to Microsoft.
Hell, Grimes doesn't even get the original name of the
"I started using
In fact, it was being called COM3, and it was renamed NGWS because Windows NT wouldn't let you work with a directory called COM3 (IIRC, you could create the directory, but trying to use it resuled in some kind of conflict in which NT thought you were referring to a serial port).
Fernandez himself says everything else you need to know about Grimes' DDJ bitchfest.
When Microsoft.com was in ASP, it was javascript.
No, it wasn't. The emitted client-side code was in JS.
The server-side ASP was all VBS.
Some of the people who wrote that stuff used to work for me, many years ago...
That, or somebody needs to put more effort into testing the validity of the simulators...
i would hazard to guess that he meant that most fps are very similar
And *I* would hazard to guess that if he meant FPS, he wouldn't have said:
"(inset any racing game or sports game here)"