If you do the MBA, you'll probably get either directly into management, or will in a pretty short time.
IOW if you like to stay in techland, forget it.
If you have had enough of technical details, try the MBA.
If you are in it for the money only, choose also MBA.
Some of the people I started the study with did MBA, I didn't. And in retrospect, I'm happy I didn't.
But it worked out pretty well for them too.
This is an attitude that causes a lot of problems, and exactly what forced Java to be an introductionary cause always.
True CS majors should be nearly language dependant, since they grasp the fundamental principles behind them.
Learning a lot of languages is important to see the bigger picture. A picture that you don't get if you start with C++ and end with C++, with a one semester Java course.
First courses should be about teaching fundamentals, and creating good habits.
Hardly typed, autocleaning languages are therefore not suitable. Modula2, Pascal, C, C++,java, VB
And I also think a procedural language is better as introductional course than an object oriented one, pretty much for the same reasons.
Schools often seem to take fashionable languages as primary one to increase contacttime with those languages, but since most time in introductionary courses is lost in wrestling with fundamental concepts, I think that is severely overrated, and hinders actually acquiring the actual, supposed to be learned in an introductionary course, basic skills.
I would prefer strong typed langauges, Pascal, or better, Modula2 as introductionary course.
My experience is people that did such language significantly produce better C/C++.
Then Delphi and C++, and maybe some small Java course (which won't be a problem then)
The idea to start with Java was fashionable for a while, but now reason has returned. Fundaments first.
When I got a new burner, I bought the bundle with the 4.0 OEM, because I liked 3.5c, and also contained DirectCD. (which can be handy doing smalltime backups)
The 4.0 version also had problems with my 98lited system. The DirectCD was even worse. One couldn't turn it off like with the 3.x versions.
DirectCD always has been a program that some games/other programs didn't like. Not being able to turn it off, pretty much makes it useless
There are machines with multiple PCI busses though, but they are expensive (e.g. Compaq), and often only available in "solutions", not as a retail mainboard
There IS a commercial GUI builder : Kylix
on
The Superior Motif?
·
· Score: 1
Kylix is QT based, and Borland is looking into ways to add GTK support (though I don't think that'll happen this year).
With a price of > $2000 for the cheapest version, you might want to call it commercial.
Hmm, mea culpa. The first two I checked seemed to be wrongly ported. (I was checking some source for FreeBSD Linux differences, but it seems the Linux source had errors already, which were assumed to be FreeBSD linux differences)
E.g. somebody had declared mode_t as 16-bit.
I'll noted your email addr. In the unlikely event that checking them reveals such beasts.
Since you did it during your employers time, do you have anything in writing, or in your contract that copyright is to fall to you? (so that you can legally place it under the GPL?), or other documentation that proves that somebody with signing authority agreed to put it under the GPL?
---
As a last resort and compromise, you could offer to write out a separate commercial license to allow inclusion in the proprietary library, still saving the code for usage under GPL.
Yes, but the restritive part sits in the viral aspect (which is the main difference to the LGPL).
This is not really a problem (it is intentional), but people should examine this before GPl'ing something. Specially teams (see below)
You can't combine it with commercial software (like in DLLs) unless those come with the OS (like the windows API dll's)
So you can't use GPL in any commercial software (commercial as in software you want to sell).
However authors *can* dual license their code. (so you can simply ask for a commercial license, this is however more difficult with team based projects, since it is less clear where the copyright lies)
Except that (at least in European countries) government keeps some control, and has something to say in what is extra, and what is free/non subscription based.
With the software subscription mechanism, that isn't the case, and nothing keeps them from tying them in with the hardware.
(big) OEMs are already forcing useless licenses down our throat, and if I hear the rumours about Windows eXPerimetal, that will only increase.
With.NET, I only expect that to increase, and the amount of control over your own computer to decrease.
e.g. What will happen to Open Source OSes when Microsoft creates an OS that doesn't allow other OSes partitions on the HD?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you want?
Business or engineering?
If you do the MBA, you'll probably get either directly into management, or will in a pretty short time.
IOW if you like to stay in techland, forget it.
If you have had enough of technical details, try the MBA.
If you are in it for the money only, choose also MBA.
Some of the people I started the study with did MBA, I didn't. And in retrospect, I'm happy I didn't.
But it worked out pretty well for them too.
They like to spend twice the amount of time to fix things :-)
Another nice bit is Jack Crenshaws compiler building tutorial. Easily found via Google
(but that is not CS introductionary of course)
----
IMHO, assembler shouldn't be the first also btw, but assembler definitely has a place in the CS curriculum.
Both to get some fundamental ideas that will help you in your HLL programming, AND in case you'll have to do something embedded.
You don't always work in a company that has all IT disciplines.
What attitude you ask?
Forcing the tools of the market to introduction to programming. Thinking that what is good for the market, must be good for teaching.
C++ doesn't belong there, like Java.
6502, definitely
Then I should instantly learn assembler.
And more importantly, learn it by disassembling parts of your own code, and try to improve on it.
Also writing simple string routines in assembler is good.
Knowing what the compiler makes out of it will make you a better HLL programmer.
Agree completely. Also a lot of small slow details can make one big slow applications. And 250ms reactiontime is already slow for a GUI user.
But more important, lowlevel knowledge is also important to select parts of a problem that
- are better implemented in a faster (read solidly compiled) language
- required more algorithmic study, or are worthwhile investing extra time in.
This is an attitude that causes a lot of problems, and exactly what forced Java to be an introductionary cause always.
True CS majors should be nearly language dependant, since they grasp the fundamental principles behind them.
Learning a lot of languages is important to see the bigger picture. A picture that you don't get if you start with C++ and end with C++, with a one semester Java course.
Whoops, missed somewhat there.
,java, VB
Suitability for introductionary courses:
Modula2, Pascal, C, C++
Delphi is before C, are after it, depending on how much you resent the initial language to be OOP
OTOH, C++ and Delphi also allow programming in the motherlanguage
First courses should be about teaching fundamentals, and creating good habits.
Hardly typed, autocleaning languages are therefore not suitable. Modula2, Pascal, C, C++
And I also think a procedural language is better as introductional course than an object oriented one, pretty much for the same reasons.
Schools often seem to take fashionable languages as primary one to increase contacttime with those languages, but since most time in introductionary courses is lost in wrestling with fundamental concepts, I think that is severely overrated, and hinders actually acquiring the actual, supposed to be learned in an introductionary course, basic skills.
I would prefer strong typed langauges, Pascal, or better, Modula2 as introductionary course.
My experience is people that did such language significantly produce better C/C++.
Then Delphi and C++, and maybe some small Java course (which won't be a problem then)
The idea to start with Java was fashionable for a while, but now reason has returned. Fundaments first.
When I got a new burner, I bought the bundle with the 4.0 OEM, because I liked 3.5c, and also contained DirectCD. (which can be handy doing smalltime backups) The 4.0 version also had problems with my 98lited system. The DirectCD was even worse. One couldn't turn it off like with the 3.x versions. DirectCD always has been a program that some games/other programs didn't like. Not being able to turn it off, pretty much makes it useless
There are machines with multiple PCI busses though, but they are expensive (e.g. Compaq), and often only available in "solutions", not as a retail mainboard
Kylix is QT based, and Borland is looking into ways to add GTK support (though I don't think that'll happen this year).
With a price of > $2000 for the cheapest version, you might want to call it commercial.
OTOH, they are regulating in the pockets of big companies, which is of course very Republican.
They say the raw data is not what they want to protect, but only the filtered data, and the processes they use for that.
They don't say it explicitely, but do I read the willingness to submit the raw data between the lines?
Hmm, mea culpa. The first two I checked seemed to be wrongly ported. (I was checking some source for FreeBSD Linux differences, but it seems the Linux source had errors already, which were assumed to be FreeBSD linux differences)
E.g. somebody had declared mode_t as 16-bit.
I'll noted your email addr. In the unlikely event that checking them reveals such beasts.
Sorry again.
Maybe more something for a major (3.0) change, but:
why do a lot of syscalls under Linux still have 16-bit parameters?
I would say it would depend on the content of the movie. If it were some fantasy movie, I would directly agree with Blizzard.
However, it seems to some action adventure with a druglord called Diablo. No resemblance whatsoever.
So Blizzard is just doing a stunt to get the word "Diablo" in the news. The movie company plays along, since it is also free publicity for them.
Seems like a simple case to me:
Since you did it during your employers time, do you have anything in writing, or in your contract that copyright is to fall to you? (so that you can legally place it under the GPL?), or other documentation that proves that somebody with signing authority agreed to put it under the GPL?
---
As a last resort and compromise, you could offer to write out a separate commercial license to allow inclusion in the proprietary library, still saving the code for usage under GPL.
Yes, but the restritive part sits in the viral aspect (which is the main difference to the LGPL).
This is not really a problem (it is intentional), but people should examine this before GPl'ing something. Specially teams (see below)
You can't combine it with commercial software (like in DLLs) unless those come with the OS (like the windows API dll's)
So you can't use GPL in any commercial software (commercial as in software you want to sell).
However authors *can* dual license their code. (so you can simply ask for a commercial license, this is however more difficult with team based projects, since it is less clear where the copyright lies)
Yup, and the GPL makes exceptions for OS parts, since it is linking. And glibc is lgpl.
Linux being GPL therefore can't be the problem, M$ could (in theory) still create apps for it.
If he didn't mean that, they should have named examples in their motivation.
Except that (at least in European countries) government keeps some control, and has something to say in what is extra, and what is free/non subscription based.
.NET, I only expect that to increase, and the amount of control over your own computer to decrease.
With the software subscription mechanism, that isn't the case, and nothing keeps them from tying them in with the hardware.
(big) OEMs are already forcing useless licenses down our throat, and if I hear the rumours about Windows eXPerimetal, that will only increase.
With
e.g. What will happen to Open Source OSes when Microsoft creates an OS that doesn't allow other OSes partitions on the HD?
People seem to forget that
Graphics arent necessarily the opposite of CLI.
There is also TUI (fullscreen texmode apps, that can use mouse, are event driven, can support quite a lot.
Turbo Vision apps / RHIDE / Free Pascal IDE etc are nice examples of that.
Well, I at least I proved that moderators aren't aware of what a
Anyway, for the record: I don't have anything against KDE (or Gnome, or, or), except when it starts to get in the way of the free choice.