For balance, let's list REXX's main *mis*features...
1. Functions can't return multiple values, nor can they modify their arguments. If you want to write a function which returns two values (say), you need to use a magic string which you think will never occur in either of them as a separator, concatenate, return the result, and then split it apart again.
2. Whitespace is significant--it's interpreted as concatenation. Hence mistyped or syntactically invalid statements are quite likely to be reinterpreted as some kind of concatenation of variables. (And I thought Python was bad.)
3. Using an undefined variable is not considered an error. Instead, it just defaults to having a value that's the same as its name, only in upper case. Truly foul, especially when combined with misfeature #2 above.
So if (for example) you put whitespace between a function name and the brackets surrounding its arguments, it suddenly stops being a function call and becomes a concatenation of strings instead. Pass the barf bag.
4. REXX normally guesses continuations, by assuming the next line is a continuation of the current line if the current line doesn't look like a complete statement.
5. Comma is used both to separate function arguments, and to indicate continuation. So in spite of #3, you can't just break a long list of function arguments across multiple lines--you have to turn the last comma on each line into double-comma, or you get something completely not what you intended. Ugh.
6. You're allowed to use variables that have the same names as words used in the language itself.
7. Scoping is dynamic. Functions and procedures are just a hack whereby the system temporarily hides all variables except the listed ones, until it next hits a return. Not that you have to; it's quite possible to write functions with overlapping scope.
8. Forget about associative storage, REXX doesn't even have arrays. You can simulate them with 'compound variables', but then there's no type checking or bounds checking. If you want any, you have to write it yourself.
9. You can't pass arguments by reference. In fact, you can't pass them by value either. Instead, you have to pass constants, and have the function or procedure use those constants to calculate the name of the variables it should use.
I think REXX is the ugliest hack I've seen since Perl 4 or Tcl.
The existing Adobe and Macromedia applications are written against Carbon because that was all that existed on the Mac when they were written. There are plenty of commercial applications based on Cocoa.
I didn't say GNUstep had automatic memory management, I said that it was available. There are automatic memory management systems for Objective-C.
Reference counting doesn't seem to be a big deal to people, anyway--look at the number of Python zealots.
If there was any sanity in the open source desktop developer community, we'd see more effort going into GNUstep.
Works with everything we have today? Check, there's compatibility with KDE and GNOME applications as well as Motif, with window style hints too.
High level language support? Check, Objective-C provides Smalltalk-like object orientation, and automatic memory management is available. There are also bindings to Ruby and Java. You can even build Java applications with native quality look and feel.
Compatible with what programmers know today? Yup, Objective-C is a slight superset of C, so almost any programmer can get to grips with it in a weekend. (Speaking as someone who did.)
Good class libraries? Yes, modeled on NeXT's excellent work, the same foundation used to build OS X. I've written Cocoa code, it's the most painless class library I've encountered. (Yes, I write Java too and have written C++.)
Cross platform? Yes again, programs are portable between GNUstep and Cocoa without too much work--see GNUmail for an example. Non-GUI programs even port to Windows without major effort, allegedly.
Good developer tools? Again, yes. Excellent developer tools on OS X. Doubtless the free tools on Linux could use some work, but that shouldn't be too hard. We can even build them using the OS X tools if necessary.
Pretty UI? Well, I think it looks OK. Not as nice as Aqua, but it's functional.
Mature? Well, the Objective-C compiler is GCC, Apple use it for their developer tools and push back improvements, the class library design has been refined over the course of 10+ years.
Think about it, people. We could unify the Linux and Apple developer communities. All work towards one common goal. Get 10%+ desktop market share for OpenStep/OS X/GNUstep in no time.
Hell, get GNUstep up to scratch and you'd probably see developers porting their commercial applications from OS X to Linux. Wouldn't you like to see products from Adobe, Macromedia, maybe even Apple available to run on your Linux desktop?
Think about all the problems that have been solved by NeXT and Apple. Application packaging, for example? Solved, applications are bundles of files that you can just drag-drop wherever you want to keep them, and they work.
The fact is that before Bill Gates, there was no Microsoft, no employees, no product, no sales.
Factually incorrect, as MS-DOS was purchased from Seattle Computer Systems, who had been selling it as QDOS; and it was then modified to be more like CP/M, sold by Digital Research.
MS Windows did not have true multitasking at the start because Intel botched the 286 design. Unlike the Motorola 68K which supported multitasking and protected memory but for some reason Apple decided not to use them.
Actually, the 68000 did not support protected memory or pre-emptive multi-tasking. The memory protection provided was purely kernel vs everything else, and page faults caused loss of information. One vendor got around the problem by using dual 68000s, only delivering the interrupt to one, and retrieving the lost info from the other, but that was a bit impractical.
The 68020 added barrel shifters to improve the atrocious rotate left and right speeds of the 68000, but the 68030 was the first 68K series chip which was physically capable of both per-process memory protection and pre-emptive multi-tasking. The first Mac to use a 68030 was the Mac II, as I recall. So there was nothing strange about Apple's not implementing pre-emptive multi-tasking and memory protection in MacOS; up until 1987 none of their hardware was capable of it.
(I used to write 68000 assembler for the Atari ST.)
Easy for casual email users, but not for corporate people like myself.
Hey, if you're a corporate user, what do you care? You get paid to sit and wait for someone to get rid of the virus, or paid to sit and spend an afternoon removing it. So sit back and relax and do your bit to maintain Microsoft's legendary TCO.
Personally I'm not worried as I work in a sector that seems to be fairly immune to the ups and downs of the economy (Insurance).
Yeah, the thing that should be keeping you awake at night is global climate change. A few more freakishly bad seasons in Florida and you'll start seeing insurance companies going under.
There was an link on Fark a week ago to an article about some guy that actually looks forwards to receiving spam, and had bought a lot of things from spam mails.
The same story was on Slashdot; go search for it and you'll find it. Several people pointed out something that the journalist missed: the guy interviewed is himself a spammer. And remember, the first rule of spam is:
1. Spammers lie.
He was just another lying scumbag criminal trying to get some free positive publicity. The reporter fell for it.
The studies I'm familiar with showed that it took 5 years to become competent in C++, and that was before they added STL. So I suspect the statistics for the number of alleged C++ programmers who actually know the language would be even worse.
I've been writing code for (thinks) over 20 years now, and whatever the language I always need to make extensive reference to documentation for simple things like names of API calls and order of arguments. For instance, in spite of writing C for over 20 years, I still need to refer to the man pages to check the parameters for fopen. Any employer who expected me to write code at an interview and get the syntax correct would be in for a big disappointment.
So I have a big problem with syntax. That's why I like Scheme and hate C++. To me, syntax seems like a silly arbitrary distraction. I wish more languages took the Smalltalk approach to function arguments, too.
I'd have no problem with questions about architecture, abstraction, the development process and design trade-offs though.
A month or two ago I tried SLES 3.0, and I couldn't get YaST to do online updates at all. I finally gave up when it presented me with a dialog box that said "ERROR: Completed." after it hadn't done anything.
Perhaps open-sourcing YaST will help get the bugs fixed.
Not very many companies are making a killing on OSS right now. Some, like IBM, are subsidizing it from their HW sales.
IBM's middleware strategy is based on the WebSphere products, which are based on Tomcat, Apache, and Eclipse. That middleware business alone is worth over $11 billion a year, and it is profitable. And that's without considering any money made by the consulting part of the company, which is separate from the Software Group.
IBM keeps careful track of exactly which parts of the company are making money, and has clearly shown that it is willing to sell or abandon those (like Aptiva, its typewriter business and its hard drive business) which aren't contributing enough to the bottom line. If IBM wasn't making a profit by selling software solutions based on OSS, it wouldn't be doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or does this sound like the start of an episode of "Thunderbirds"?
For balance, let's list REXX's main *mis*features...
1. Functions can't return multiple values, nor can they modify their arguments. If you want to write a function which returns two values (say), you need to use a magic string which you think will never occur in either of them as a separator, concatenate, return the result, and then split it apart again.
2. Whitespace is significant--it's interpreted as concatenation. Hence mistyped or syntactically invalid statements are quite likely to be reinterpreted as some kind of concatenation of variables. (And I thought Python was bad.)
3. Using an undefined variable is not considered an error. Instead, it just defaults to having a value that's the same as its name, only in upper case. Truly foul, especially when combined with misfeature #2 above.
So if (for example) you put whitespace between a function name and the brackets surrounding its arguments, it suddenly stops being a function call and becomes a concatenation of strings instead. Pass the barf bag.
4. REXX normally guesses continuations, by assuming the next line is a continuation of the current line if the current line doesn't look like a complete statement.
5. Comma is used both to separate function arguments, and to indicate continuation. So in spite of #3, you can't just break a long list of function arguments across multiple lines--you have to turn the last comma on each line into double-comma, or you get something completely not what you intended. Ugh.
6. You're allowed to use variables that have the same names as words used in the language itself.
7. Scoping is dynamic. Functions and procedures are just a hack whereby the system temporarily hides all variables except the listed ones, until it next hits a return. Not that you have to; it's quite possible to write functions with overlapping scope.
8. Forget about associative storage, REXX doesn't even have arrays. You can simulate them with 'compound variables', but then there's no type checking or bounds checking. If you want any, you have to write it yourself.
9. You can't pass arguments by reference. In fact, you can't pass them by value either. Instead, you have to pass constants, and have the function or procedure use those constants to calculate the name of the variables it should use.
I think REXX is the ugliest hack I've seen since Perl 4 or Tcl.
The existing Adobe and Macromedia applications are written against Carbon because that was all that existed on the Mac when they were written. There are plenty of commercial applications based on Cocoa.
I didn't say GNUstep had automatic memory management, I said that it was available. There are automatic memory management systems for Objective-C.
Reference counting doesn't seem to be a big deal to people, anyway--look at the number of Python zealots.
Let me repeat myself...
If there was any sanity in the open source desktop developer community, we'd see more effort going into GNUstep.
Works with everything we have today? Check, there's compatibility with KDE and GNOME applications as well as Motif, with window style hints too.
High level language support? Check, Objective-C provides Smalltalk-like object orientation, and automatic memory management is available. There are also bindings to Ruby and Java. You can even build Java applications with native quality look and feel.
Compatible with what programmers know today? Yup, Objective-C is a slight superset of C, so almost any programmer can get to grips with it in a weekend. (Speaking as someone who did.)
Good class libraries? Yes, modeled on NeXT's excellent work, the same foundation used to build OS X. I've written Cocoa code, it's the most painless class library I've encountered. (Yes, I write Java too and have written C++.)
Cross platform? Yes again, programs are portable between GNUstep and Cocoa without too much work--see GNUmail for an example. Non-GUI programs even port to Windows without major effort, allegedly.
Good developer tools? Again, yes. Excellent developer tools on OS X. Doubtless the free tools on Linux could use some work, but that shouldn't be too hard. We can even build them using the OS X tools if necessary.
Pretty UI? Well, I think it looks OK. Not as nice as Aqua, but it's functional.
Mature? Well, the Objective-C compiler is GCC, Apple use it for their developer tools and push back improvements, the class library design has been refined over the course of 10+ years.
Think about it, people. We could unify the Linux and Apple developer communities. All work towards one common goal. Get 10%+ desktop market share for OpenStep/OS X/GNUstep in no time.
Hell, get GNUstep up to scratch and you'd probably see developers porting their commercial applications from OS X to Linux. Wouldn't you like to see products from Adobe, Macromedia, maybe even Apple available to run on your Linux desktop?
Think about all the problems that have been solved by NeXT and Apple. Application packaging, for example? Solved, applications are bundles of files that you can just drag-drop wherever you want to keep them, and they work.
Factually incorrect, as MS-DOS was purchased from Seattle Computer Systems, who had been selling it as QDOS; and it was then modified to be more like CP/M, sold by Digital Research.
Yeah, but if you're a company like IBM, it's worth $1000 not to have to do business with Network Solutions.
No, I was thinking of Apple IIs. Sub-pixel rendering doesn't require LCDs.
Yeah, the eBay prohibition on duplicate listings is the biggest farce out there.
Maybe it was someone from perverted-justice.com.
If Slashdot cared they would stop posting articles which beg to have their copyright violated.
Yeah, my requirements for a watch were very simple:
1. Shockproof enough to withstand everyday abuse like catching my wrist on doors.
2. Waterproof to any depth I might reasonably swim to without special equipment.
3. Accurate to a few seconds a month or better.
4. Doesn't need batteries changing or other regular maintenance.
5. Time, date.
It's surprisingly hard to fulfil those basic requirements.
ClearType was an idea used on the Apple II, as was extensively documented on Slashdot when Microsoft got a patent on it.
Optimizing SQL server code doesn't exactly come under the category of innovative basic research either.
Actually, the 68000 did not support protected memory or pre-emptive multi-tasking. The memory protection provided was purely kernel vs everything else, and page faults caused loss of information. One vendor got around the problem by using dual 68000s, only delivering the interrupt to one, and retrieving the lost info from the other, but that was a bit impractical.
The 68020 added barrel shifters to improve the atrocious rotate left and right speeds of the 68000, but the 68030 was the first 68K series chip which was physically capable of both per-process memory protection and pre-emptive multi-tasking. The first Mac to use a 68030 was the Mac II, as I recall. So there was nothing strange about Apple's not implementing pre-emptive multi-tasking and memory protection in MacOS; up until 1987 none of their hardware was capable of it.
(I used to write 68000 assembler for the Atari ST.)
Hey, if you're a corporate user, what do you care? You get paid to sit and wait for someone to get rid of the virus, or paid to sit and spend an afternoon removing it. So sit back and relax and do your bit to maintain Microsoft's legendary TCO.
The Russian SimCity 3000 port was infamously bad. I didn't even bother buying it.
Yeah, the thing that should be keeping you awake at night is global climate change. A few more freakishly bad seasons in Florida and you'll start seeing insurance companies going under.
Have a nice day!
I'm an AOL user, you insensitive clod!
He's a spammer. Spammers lie. He was just trying to get some free positive publicity, and a reporter fell for it. Read the discussion.
Sounds to me like the whining of a lazy ISP trying to come up with an excuse for his failure to act effectively against spammers.
The same story was on Slashdot; go search for it and you'll find it. Several people pointed out something that the journalist missed: the guy interviewed is himself a spammer. And remember, the first rule of spam is:
He was just another lying scumbag criminal trying to get some free positive publicity. The reporter fell for it.
The studies I'm familiar with showed that it took 5 years to become competent in C++, and that was before they added STL. So I suspect the statistics for the number of alleged C++ programmers who actually know the language would be even worse.
I've been writing code for (thinks) over 20 years now, and whatever the language I always need to make extensive reference to documentation for simple things like names of API calls and order of arguments. For instance, in spite of writing C for over 20 years, I still need to refer to the man pages to check the parameters for fopen. Any employer who expected me to write code at an interview and get the syntax correct would be in for a big disappointment.
So I have a big problem with syntax. That's why I like Scheme and hate C++. To me, syntax seems like a silly arbitrary distraction. I wish more languages took the Smalltalk approach to function arguments, too.
I'd have no problem with questions about architecture, abstraction, the development process and design trade-offs though.
Q: What's the difference between a Christian and a schizophrenic?
A: One of them is a mentally unbalanced person who thinks he hears invisible beings talking to him... and the other one is taking prescription drugs.
In other words, illness is in the eye of the beholder.
A month or two ago I tried SLES 3.0, and I couldn't get YaST to do online updates at all. I finally gave up when it presented me with a dialog box that said "ERROR: Completed." after it hadn't done anything.
Perhaps open-sourcing YaST will help get the bugs fixed.
IBM's middleware strategy is based on the WebSphere products, which are based on Tomcat, Apache, and Eclipse. That middleware business alone is worth over $11 billion a year, and it is profitable. And that's without considering any money made by the consulting part of the company, which is separate from the Software Group.
IBM keeps careful track of exactly which parts of the company are making money, and has clearly shown that it is willing to sell or abandon those (like Aptiva, its typewriter business and its hard drive business) which aren't contributing enough to the bottom line. If IBM wasn't making a profit by selling software solutions based on OSS, it wouldn't be doing it.