Interesting to note that Steadicopter claims that their helicopter is unique and there is no other of its kind in the world.
...Uh, no. It would be interesting if the helicopter is unique but there were others of its kind...cause that would be contrary to the definition of unique.
The problem isn't the C language. The problem is, as always, language bigotry and poor breadth of knowledge.
...and laziness, lack of planning, lack of dedication, yada-yada-yada.
Joy is right that more structured languages reduce programming errors. When it comes to working with Java, you can feel when your code is getting ugly because it starts to deviate from the clean design of (most of) the language's libraries.
With C (for example), there are few standards upon which to measure the "cleanliness" of your own code. Many libraries/APIs you use aren't consistent, well-designed and/or well-documented.
He (oh, that would be me!) meant that 99.87% of webmasters only care about IE users (85-95% of the client market).
Try emailing most webmasters (of non-technical sites) and telling them there stuff doesn't render correctly in Moz. You'll get back a "we only support IE".
Personally, I think that's rather too narrow a definition.
Though I completely agree with your statement, I can't overlook the fact that 99.87% of webmasters believe that 85-95% of the client market is the web.
Yes, ActiveX only runs on one platform. No, it is not the entire web. However, I realize that many people don't respect that my view is Right:-)
BTW: I've never even read the "spec" for ActiveX, so I'm just talking out my ass-umptions on how it works...I never have (and never expect to be asked to) develop an ActiveX control.
I can develop any non-trivial application in Java at a much faster rate than the equivalent C program.
My time costs way too much for my customers to worry about squeezing a few miliseconds (or even a second or two) out of the average end-user's workflow.
Don't get me wrong. I do understand that there are some niches where performance matters. However, it is much more oftener than not that people argue about performance before they even know what the performance requirements are. And no, "the fastest it can be" is not a valid requirement.
... but Php and Java aren't even the same kind of programming language
Agreed.
Java can be used to create all the same types of apps that C can
Well...no. C is used for system development (i.e. hardware banging). Java cannot be used in that environment without direct support of the libraries and the JVM (or by JNI calls to libraries written in C/C++).
...though C cannot be used in all the apps Java can (i.e Web.)
Well...no. C can be used anywhere that Java can be. On the server side, most servers (including web and proxy servers) are written in C. There's nothing stopping people from writing "app servers" in C...in fact there may even be a few of those too.
On the client side, "applets" are not a valid use of Java. Applets was a marketing ploy that grew wildly out of hand. Besides, there are ActiveX controls written in C/C++ that perform the same basic functionality of applets.
One thing that Java has over C/C++ is its cross-platform capabilities. With C, if you want cross-platform you have to work to code it that way. With Java, if you want to break cross-platform, you have to work to code it that way (use non-standard libs, use JNI, etc...)
As for perl, the fact that it has to be compiled every time it is run kinds of takes away from any speed advantage over Java.
Yes and no. Perl is slower to start up than a C/C++ native application of similar functionality. Java too is very slow to start up (usually *much* slower than Perl for very small scripts).
However, long running apps written in Perl and Java both perform very well when compared to similar C/C++. By long-running, I mean "long enough that the startup time becomes a wash". I've written web crawlers in Perl and Java that run for weeks at a time. Comparing their performance to existing crawlers written in C/C++, the performances are equivalent (though the Java and Perl bots suck up more memory).
Development time for those bots was significantly less in Java and Perl than for equivalent C-based bots. (BTW: the Perl bots were written back before LWP was stable/available)
The only language in common use that does everything Java does is fricking Visual Basic
Well...no. VB is stuck on one platform (well, two if you consider MS-Java...though VB.NET is NOT VB).
I'm willing to wager that better than 85% of that ten mil. is from OpenServer licensees paying maintenance fees or upgrade fees
And even then, much of that licensing/maintenance could have actually been sold a year ago or more. They may just now be recognizing the support/maintainence revenues from past sales.
Anyone done analysis of their press release patterns to see if the trends of Big Sales announcements has changed in the past 6 months or so?
The point being, that there are notices about changes that directly affect your installation. You have the option to pull down those you want. You have the power to analyze what you are applying to your OS, your machine.
Even a technically savvy person can't be 100% sure that the patch being applied in a closed system is anywhere near what they advertise it to be.
However, this says nothing about how easily each system was attacked - we need to know the totals numbers, per system, of attempted attacks.
Along with this, there is the whole concept of "verifiable". I may be standing out on a limb somewhat, but I would suspect that people running GNU/Linux (an "open" platform) are going to be more willing to disclose security information than those running a proprietary (closed) system.
I also am 100% sure that my Linux servers do not have license clauses barring me from disclosing information about my servers without talking to RMS or Linus. Can't say the same for those other OS's.
I wonder just how much hot water a company would get into if they blatantly announced that their IIS servers were hacked....
Although I don't like Microsoft's software [...] they do at least tell us when they've got a patch.
[...] Red Hat has offered such a notification service for years [...] I've been getting such notifications for a long time; I probably get a dozen a week.
Grand-parent, please note what he says above: a dozen a week.
Microsoft does NOT notify you of security issues. They release a patch, inform you of some obvious changes/fixes, and you take them at their word.
Just because you can get your system "patched", does not necessarily mean they are helping you in any way...
As of Tuesday [Sept. 2], we actually began making the license available. Selling it and mailing it to someone is not something we've actually done as yet, but as of today we are able to do that.
So let's see if I get this right: people are willing to buy a license without actually being able to read it ?? I mean, isn't this the root of the entire problem in the first place: a mis-understanding or blatant ignorance of licensing rules?
but in fact it's not the same kind of thing at all, because this is the governments choosing domestic producers over foreign producers for government systems.
No, the governments aren't "choosing domestic producers". They have set up a fund to encourage the development of a technology. Realize that MS and many other high-tech companies get various government grants and tax breaks for doing exactly the same thing.
Most governments around the world do this for a number of reasons. However, if this is truly a "free market", then governments should NOT be doing so but letting the "market forces" dictate whether such a venture is worthwhile.
...
but then again, who in their right mind would claim than any of us live in a "free market" society? (Whoever they might be, their either wrong or they listen to a lot of talk radio/CNN...)
It will be a shame if in the future a wealth of information is locked away because knoweldge of the underlying technology is lost.
There is nothing to be learned from the past. Who cares what they did back then? Look at how ugly their cars were. Look how inefficient their industries were. They used to use mechanical gears to keep track of time!!!
I say let the stuff go. Heck, its probably all written in archaic languages anyways like assembler and COBOL. [shudder]
I mean, name one good piece of software today that is based on past technologies. Name one piece of software written in C, FORTRAN or Perl 4.
Slashdot Mirror
emoticon://sorry/
I know at least five people who haven't thought that since at least 1991, if ever at all (at least one who never did ;-))
Joy is right that more structured languages reduce programming errors. When it comes to working with Java, you can feel when your code is getting ugly because it starts to deviate from the clean design of (most of) the language's libraries.
With C (for example), there are few standards upon which to measure the "cleanliness" of your own code. Many libraries/APIs you use aren't consistent, well-designed and/or well-documented.
At least, that's one way to look at the issue.
Try emailing most webmasters (of non-technical sites) and telling them there stuff doesn't render correctly in Moz. You'll get back a "we only support IE".
Their perception is that 100% is IE.
Yes, ActiveX only runs on one platform. No, it is not the entire web. However, I realize that many people don't respect that my view is Right :-)
BTW: I've never even read the "spec" for ActiveX, so I'm just talking out my ass-umptions on how it works...I never have (and never expect to be asked to) develop an ActiveX control.
I can develop any non-trivial application in Java at a much faster rate than the equivalent C program.
My time costs way too much for my customers to worry about squeezing a few miliseconds (or even a second or two) out of the average end-user's workflow.
Don't get me wrong. I do understand that there are some niches where performance matters. However, it is much more oftener than not that people argue about performance before they even know what the performance requirements are. And no, "the fastest it can be" is not a valid requirement.
Agreed.
Well...no. C is used for system development (i.e. hardware banging). Java cannot be used in that environment without direct support of the libraries and the JVM (or by JNI calls to libraries written in C/C++).
Well...no. C can be used anywhere that Java can be. On the server side, most servers (including web and proxy servers) are written in C. There's nothing stopping people from writing "app servers" in C...in fact there may even be a few of those too.
On the client side, "applets" are not a valid use of Java. Applets was a marketing ploy that grew wildly out of hand. Besides, there are ActiveX controls written in C/C++ that perform the same basic functionality of applets.
One thing that Java has over C/C++ is its cross-platform capabilities. With C, if you want cross-platform you have to work to code it that way. With Java, if you want to break cross-platform, you have to work to code it that way (use non-standard libs, use JNI, etc...)
Yes and no. Perl is slower to start up than a C/C++ native application of similar functionality. Java too is very slow to start up (usually *much* slower than Perl for very small scripts).
However, long running apps written in Perl and Java both perform very well when compared to similar C/C++. By long-running, I mean "long enough that the startup time becomes a wash". I've written web crawlers in Perl and Java that run for weeks at a time. Comparing their performance to existing crawlers written in C/C++, the performances are equivalent (though the Java and Perl bots suck up more memory).
Development time for those bots was significantly less in Java and Perl than for equivalent C-based bots. (BTW: the Perl bots were written back before LWP was stable/available)
Well...no. VB is stuck on one platform (well, two if you consider MS-Java...though VB.NET is NOT VB).
And even then, much of that licensing/maintenance could have actually been sold a year ago or more. They may just now be recognizing the support/maintainence revenues from past sales.
Anyone done analysis of their press release patterns to see if the trends of Big Sales announcements has changed in the past 6 months or so?
Maybe they had no choice? Isn't this the spirit of the lawsuits in the first place? ;-)
Even a technically savvy person can't be 100% sure that the patch being applied in a closed system is anywhere near what they advertise it to be.
Along with this, there is the whole concept of "verifiable". I may be standing out on a limb somewhat, but I would suspect that people running GNU/Linux (an "open" platform) are going to be more willing to disclose security information than those running a proprietary (closed) system.
I also am 100% sure that my Linux servers do not have license clauses barring me from disclosing information about my servers without talking to RMS or Linus. Can't say the same for those other OS's.
I wonder just how much hot water a company would get into if they blatantly announced that their IIS servers were hacked....
Microsoft does NOT notify you of security issues. They release a patch, inform you of some obvious changes/fixes, and you take them at their word.
Just because you can get your system "patched", does not necessarily mean they are helping you in any way...
Someone(s) set the default behaviours. Those are your terrorists.
Why go so far? Y'all live in a country that simply imposes crushing tariffs whenever the right lobby group gets involved...
"Free markets" my fanny...
So let's see if I get this right: people are willing to buy a license without actually being able to read it ?? I mean, isn't this the root of the entire problem in the first place: a mis-understanding or blatant ignorance of licensing rules?
Yikes!
No, the governments aren't "choosing domestic producers". They have set up a fund to encourage the development of a technology. Realize that MS and many other high-tech companies get various government grants and tax breaks for doing exactly the same thing.
Most governments around the world do this for a number of reasons. However, if this is truly a "free market", then governments should NOT be doing so but letting the "market forces" dictate whether such a venture is worthwhile.
but then again, who in their right mind would claim than any of us live in a "free market" society? (Whoever they might be, their either wrong or they listen to a lot of talk radio/CNN...)
Now the
There is nothing to be learned from the past. Who cares what they did back then? Look at how ugly their cars were. Look how inefficient their industries were. They used to use mechanical gears to keep track of time!!!
I say let the stuff go. Heck, its probably all written in archaic languages anyways like assembler and COBOL. [shudder]
I mean, name one good piece of software today that is based on past technologies. Name one piece of software written in C, FORTRAN or Perl 4.
Yah...didn't think you could.:-)
Sorry.