It is interesting to note that while python is slow like a typical scripting language now, it may not necessarily be slow in the future (i.e., before this program is ever finished 1/2:-). I have some suspicions that python 3.0 (2.2 is current version) will make a few changes to the language to allow it to speed up via java (jython) or just natively with an incremental compiler (a la java). For instance, it would be nice if not all numbers had to be objects (as they are now in python's very pure OO world). Such a change wouldn't violate most program semantics (since few programs subclass or customize numbers!), or perhaps there's a technique for providing the illusion that numbers are objects but treating them as CPU-native (until necessary). Smalltalk implementations did that.
Anyway, current python is your typical (slow) scripting language (but not too slow), but won't necessarily still be so by the half-life of such a huge project as this one.
NB: the transmission in question is not a normal manual (i.e., with a foot clutch and stick). It's a hybrid auto-manual which has an electronically controlled clutch (i.e., there's no foot pedal since the computer controls the clutch entirely). The gearing is controlled by the computer or (as desired) by two paddles (+/-) along the steering wheel for up/down shift. BMW calls its version SMG (Sequential Manual Gearbox).
Ferrari and F1 cars also have this feature (similar technologies).
The acceleration assist is a genuine feature which basically tells the SMG to accelerate hard from a standstill as a special case (F1 cars also have launch control). It's a genuine feature, not an easter egg.
If MS knows its customers (and they do), they know that the admins are their biggest boosters in corporations. The MS corp relies on its techies to tell it what to do. These techies are wannabe techies who just go MS (the way people used to go IBM).
Suits everyone (suits and MIS drones) fine, since everyone feels comfortable going MS and crucifying every other option that competes with MS (makes them look knowledgeable and valuable). I've experienced this half-wit MIS attitude first-hand.
No, MS is not eliminating their bread and butter. It's not the execs, it's the pushover MIS department which relies on MS for its credentials, credibility, and credit accounts.
Sun has found a sweet spot to attack MS. That sweet spot is MS's Cost Of Ownership.
I was at the second of two public hearings on whether to adopt software patents in the US. They were led by Bruce Lehmann who was heading the USPTO at the time.
With hindsight (actually the next morning), it was clear that he had made up his mind to institute software patents before the second hearing was over. So, the hearings were a public relations hoax perpetrated by Lehmann and his lawyer cohorts.
To be clear, every person on the committee was a lawyer. As a legal industry, they decided to institute software patents.
As to their clarity of thought, I can tell you that Bruce Lehmann was no sharp cookie (perhaps politically, but not technically or socially for the good). He was more interested in having his cake and eating it too, than clearly understanding what a logistical and socially negative impact software patents would have on the software industry and innovation.
However, the key point is that they provide an excellent issue of contention (socially negative), immeasurable source of research (since there's no way to validate safety from existing or submarine patents). They also have a wonderful 17 year life confused by hidden existence until approved. The people approving them are not the cream of the crop (according to Bruce Lehmann) but smart enough to know what they're doing (how could they be?).
In sum, the whole software patents disaster can be laid at the feet of the US legal industry who was in severe conflict of interest (must have known it) and followed through in their personal interests.
Bruce Lehmann got his excuse to bulk up the USPTO indefinitely with software patent reviewers while also providing a cash cow to his legal industry.
-=-
So, if your country's legal industry needs a shot in the arm, or you just want to suppress innovation, entrepreneurship and open source in software industry, software patents are great.
A purely logical argument against software patents is that they are logically absurd. In concept, you are patenting ways of thinking and could patent thoughts that people have. Logically, that makes no sense and is unenforceable.
Logistically, software patents make no sense as well. The USPTO has no system and can not with any serious integrity compare quality of ideas in software nor provide a reasonable (no) cost way to check software for patent violations --- a crucial component to software management. As a result, all software is susceptible to patents.
Of course, the real value of patents is to the legal industry. These non-computable problems become a cash cow for them even though they are insupportable from a logical or logistical point of view.
Ultimately, the answer is that software patents cost society far more than they ever offer in terms of innovation and record keeping.
They should be outlawed and should never have been approved by the USPTO under Bruce Lehmann and his lawyer cronies.
The most fundamental reason to (re)outlaw software patents and patents in general is that monopolies are supposed to be illegal. Patents originated from US Constitutional law as an idea, and were regretted by the originator (Jefferson?) before he even died.
At his time, the industrial revolution had not occurred. At least, the idea of a government granted monopoly for a valuable idea made sense *at*that*time* since it could be prohibitively expensive to manufacture products before someone copied the idea with existing facilities.
Compare that situation 1. to post-industrial evolution, and you begin to wonder why patents would be used at all. They were arguably a mistake even outside software.
Compare them to software, and the whole idea of patents (to give the small guy a chance in the face of manufacturing costs) is turned on its head. Copying bits to a CD is trivial (negligible manufacturing costs). Software does not need patents.
Furthermore, today's patent system has very low integrity in both quality of patents (the nature of the beast due to explosion in software industry) and the counterproductive nature (legal expenses and hidden exposure) of any software entrepreneur or open source project to patent suits.
IOW, patents were a mistake. Software patents not just a mistake but just plain destructive of the very entrepreneurial intent of original patents.
That's the basic problem with patents and software patents in particular. They should never have been approved by Bruce Lehmann and his USPTO committee of lawyers.
I should say (to avoid your inclination to oversimplify)...
Direct access to Quartz Extreme (et al.) is unavailable.
Yes,
This leaves us with Java2. This is Apple's implementation of Sun's Java2 standard edition (currently shipping 1.3.1). Apple has done a huge amount of work getting Java2 into Mac OS X and leveraging Mac OS X features as possible. In other words programming in Java2 (and staying in those APIs) is programming to use CoreGraphics (Quartz). Apple deals with this for you and you can stick with the Java2 API that you are used too. This is Apple's goal... to make J2SE a peer platform with little to no performance penalties.
Apple does some (nice) advanced plumbing to provide Quartz underpinnings through the standard pure Java APIs. That's cool, that's powerful, but that only supports pure Java programming. (FYI, it's uncool that it takes them so long to do so as OS X Java programmers have been awaiting Java 1.4 for ages. OTOH, done once, hopefully they'll just keep improving their timeliness on future releases.)
It does not provide access to OS X in general, e.g., the latest OS X technologies which are not Java API accessible including Calendar and Quartz Extreme. Direct access to any OS X stuff on demand is what Java needs to be first class citizen on OS X.
Since obj-c is the language of choice for OS X, and the two language memory models are incompatible (obj-c uses reference counts; java uses gc), gluing the languages together seamlessly is (understatement) problematic.
Your enthusiasm for the current situation is nice, but not sufficient for java programmers who want full access to OS X.
You are confusing superficial access to a select subset of OS X features with robust general access. I'm glad for you that you are happy with the existing situation.
Direct access to latest technologies in OS X, including Quartz Extreme (which is what I asked the engineers about). Other new tech would be missing too, including the new Calendar, etc..
You have to write your own glue or JNI to get to the OS X stuff as I understand it.
I also believe that the glue that is there only works on a superficial level, e.g., don't expect to manage obj-c objects from a java program without risking a cockup of some sort (and vice versa). So, ultimately, the Java program and obj-c programs need to be compartmentalized into their own memory models so they don't short-circuit each others (incompatible) memory managers. This explains why there isn't an easy glue solution between the two langauges (I suspect).
Many OS X technologies are unavailable to Java programmers without writing glue or going JNI which means Java is not fully supported for OS X programming. For example, Quartz Extreme is unavailable to Java programmers.
Wow, an uninformed speculative reply gets higher ranking than a first-hand report from the front line. Who's the troll? Interesting!
Programmers at Apple aren't supposed to write in 100% Pure Java for what I hope are obvious reasons (they
wouldn't take full advantage of the OS X user experience).
Good point. Java for Cocoa is a second class citizen to pure Java, and pure Java doesn't access Cocoa. That's clear.
Most (but not all) applications at Apple destined for OS X, meanwhile, are not written in Java
due to the fact that users find the speed unacceptable.
Decent point for now, and an issue raised in the defense of obj-c by the Apple folk.
Considering Java's current (long VM, libraries loading, and app) startup time and lack of shared VM images (as I understand it), Java is not totally ready for prime time for general one-use consumer apps (yet). The Apple folk did specifically mention that the startup time was a problem, so that is one of their concerns.
However, I believe one of their innovations for OS X 10.2 Java was getting the images to share, and they have apparently shared that technique with Sun. So, I do think they have some good reasons for hedging their bets somewhat, but their overall pure Java only approach was disappointing considering their 'best platform for Java' promise. So, if you're speaking about startup time, you have a good point, but startup time is not always a showstopper (or Java wouldn't be so compelling in so many server, handheld, and high uptime applications).
With the memory mapping features of Apple's 10.2 Java (due August 24, I believe), graphics is quite fast for general apps (and beyond) in Java and memory footprint for multiple apps should be down dramatically through VM footprint sharing (good stuff!) (but arguably still somewhat memory heavy). The rest of Java speed is a matter of taste since hotspot compiles dynamically depending on the nature of the app(s).
So, to finish your thought. Apple does not write in Java (for their reasons), e.g., their iApps are still being written in obj-c which pretty much aligns with their treating Java as a bastard child despite Steve's promise. Steve's promise should be "best platform for pure Java" to disambiguate the situation.
That's why Apple's VM team is so arrogant:
Let's clarify this issue.
Apple's VM (and Java, since they're the same) team or, more particularly, prominent members of their Obj-C/Java VM team and so-called "java evangelist" have no reason to be arrogant toward their developers. Arrogance is unprofessional, reckless, and offensive. Feel free to troll as hard as you want on this point, but they did themselves no favors with their arrogant and offensive attitudes.
specifically in order to allow Apple and others to write OS X-specific apps in Java using the Cocoa bindings without a performance penalty, Apple's been trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance they can out of the VM.
No, they've been squeezing performance for general performance.
Contrary to your speculation, they told me that they only care about pure Java apps. That's why (according to them) they do not support Cocoa from Java. The drive for speed is to win the (pure) Java platform speed title.
They aren't there [high performance Java Cocoa apps] yet,
Point is: they're not even trying (according to them) to support Cocoa Java. Their answer to that question is: program in obj-c, you'll like it. (Swing and miss.)
IOW, they're saying: pure java or bust on OS X. Java is no alternative to obj-c (c, obj-c++, etc.).
unlike some companies, they care enough about the end-user experience to keep Java off the front line until the 15% performance gap can be closed.
First of all, Apple does not choose whether Java is on front line for industry. Java already is front line. Also, they don't choose the user experience by determining languages. The developers of apps choose user experience by doing well designed, quality work using the tools of their choice, including Java.
Second, Steve chose to make the Java issue front line for OS X with his "best platform for Java" jingoism. So your comment is misleading.
Finally, what 15% gap? The startup time gap is >> 15%, so you're not talking about that. The memory footprint gap with multiple apps is variable according to the apps running and number of copies running (and Apple fares well on that with their promised shared memory for Java), so memory footprint should not be your issue. The execution speed is variable according to the app as well --- could be faster, same or slower. There's no well recognized 15% gap known --- it's totally app dependent when using hotspot optimization versus compile-time optimization. Bottom line: who cares about performance for general apps anyway as long as its speedy enough?
The driving value in programming languages (and environments) today is value to the customer for efficiency and effectiveness of programming (not necessarily speed of execution). Apple does not dictate whether Java is on front line. Apple determines whether Apple gives Java priority and native support.
For native apps, Apple supports obj-c, not Java. If they choose to support Java Cocoa in the future, that would be promising. According to them publically and behind the scenes at WWDC, they do not support Java for Cocoa (contrary to your opening assertions). IOW, despite your speculation otherwise, Java and obj-c (and therefore Cocoa on OS X) are not seamlessly integrated --- according to Apple.
Apple has two different bridges, neither of which work. They advised against using either one when pressed, and different engineers would give conflicting opinions about which one was better (i.e., neither one was feature-complete, sufficient, or robust). Take home message: run away. I.e., only pure Java gets their nod, or for Cocoa programming, use obj-c.
-=-
Obj-c is the VM team's baby. Java is new to OS X and doesn't even run the latest Java incarnation yet (10.2 in August should catch up most of the way).
If Apple does work with Sun to port OpenOffice using some aspect of Java to talk OS X Cocoa, then perhaps the waters will part and, lo and behold, Java will reach the promised land (Cocoa first class citizenship). However, as long as it's obj-c uber alles (with pure java second class citizenship), OS X Cocoa is basically an obj-c or bust platform which is not particularly appetizing when more modern, compelling, and popular languages are available.
IOW, I'll take a little Jython with my Java over obj-c anyday, and I'd like that with my OS X but it's not currently available (despite your speculative gestures).
When I went to WWDC this year for the first time ever, I went as a Java programmer interesting in learning how to program OS X (and Quartz GUI stuff) in Java. I was told by the "java evangelist" in no uncertain terms that I was "not Apple's target market". Java was its own platform, not to be crossplatformed to OS X and Quartz.
WWDC did not have a single session on programming Quartz in Java. In the only mildly interesting session on Java, it was like pulling teeth to get concrete information out of the presenters in Q&A, and yet the presenters (Apple JVM guys) were incredibly arrogant about their work and how advanced it was (which in some ways it is) and how even Sun was considering incorporating their JVM innovations.
What was boggling was Apple's Java guys didn't _get_ that they should want Java to become a first class citizen on OS X (rather than a poor stepchild to OS X's (and NeXTstep's vaunted in their eyes) objective-c. Sure, I could see the obj-c guys being protective of their baby (even though it's basically stillborn by the time its reached OS X), but why would the Java guys be so lousy sharing information on Cocoa (OS X) programming in Java.
On the side, I got contradictory information about how to program in Cocoa using two different bridges across obj-c and java. In sum, neither really works so Apple doesn't support either really. (In particular, obj-c's reference counting doesn't mix well with Java's garbage collection.) Unfortunately, despite Apple's migration of WebObjects to Java (from obj-c), The rest of OS X and Cocoa (GUI) stayed in obj-c. Doh.
I even spoke with their then new head of software tools and engineering. As a smalltalk guy (skeptical of java and obj-c), he claimed that obj-c won him over. No love for Java there. Just more "not Apple's target market". It's hard to swallow paying thousands to go to a developer conference and have some pinheaded honcho tell you that despite Apple's "best platform for Java" campaign, that Java programmers are not allowed to program in Cocoa (OS X native) since Java Cocoa is not Apple's target market. What arrogance!
Unfortunately, one of Apple's catchy banners did not mean what I wanted it to mean: "Come for the Java, Stay for the Cocoa". Instead of providing the means to program Cocoa in Java, the banner really means come to learn about Java on OS X (and be profoundly disappointed), and we'll (try to) lure you to objective-c every step, session, and discussion along the way.
Cough-cough.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), I'm an ex NeXT enthusiast, so I've already tasted obj-c (not to my liking), reasonably informed about its strengths and weaknesses, and happy with Java.
-=-
So, why is Apple, its head of engineering so obstinate. I assume it's because he's in love with smalltalk and obj-c caters (a la obj-c tenuous lease on life) to smalltalk, his desired language. Fair enough (but too bad for Apple and its Java shortcomings).
But why oh why would lowly Apple Java grunts be so against first-class java support on OS X for Cocoa? That really confused the heck out of me, until I discovered that the very arrogant presenter(s) of JVM breakthroughs (yada yada yada about Apple innovations) was really the obj-c kernel team doing side work on the JVM. Doh!
Java not obj-c. Obj-c >> Java. You know?
There are not Java evangelists at Apple. The keepers of the Java VM are obj-c hacks. Their baby (albeit on life support) is obj-c. OUCH.
When I figured that out, beat around the bush at the top to discover the smalltalk allegiance, and just generally got stonewalled by too many (certainly not all) of the small team of java(obj-c) insiders, I just gave up.
Besides, the Quartz Extreme team had awesome presentations, was extremely humble despite their awesome GUI architectural innovations, and was just generally the real mccoy from an engineering point of view. My WWDC became a GUI tour rather than a deep tour of Java (as intended and paid for, as far as I was concerned).
One final note: my impression is that Java on OS X is good --- but only for Java only apps (i.e., use Swing, not Apple's Cocoa). Their target market (as I gathered anyway) is pure Java (as opposed to Java Cocoa apps). So, if you want to port and run pure Java on OS X, they (should) love you. FYI.
-=-
So, it's amusing and ironic to see Apple spending any resources on Java for Cocoa now as I assume (fingers crossed) they'll do for OpenOffice after telling me that's not their target market!
What happened to all the arrogance? Disdain? Curt political marketroid answers to basic engineering questions? Yada yada yada.
Too painfully amusing and ironic.
So I guess I am crossing my fingers that Apple separates the JVM team from their obj-c team, fires (or at least reassigns to obj-c only) their so-called "java evangelist", and gives java its own first-class political and technical citizenship at Apple.
Maybe next year's WWDC can have a banner which says (and means) "Come for the Java, and Stay for the Mocha". That would be a dream worth having.
If it's fair to judge from a single digital cinema screening (at Paul Allen's Seattle "Cinerama" theatre), then digital cinema still needs to cook a bit more. I thought the dark scenes lost tremendous detail, worse even than a home DLP (digital) system. I wonder whether the DLP chips in theatres is a generation or so behind the best of breed chips available in home theatres now.
Also, I suspect the digital video throughput is limited as well since there seemed to be a large variance in detail and resolution in general. The best scenes (few) were perhaps better than film, but the worst or common scenese seemed (imho) worse than film, especially high motion scenes.
Even though the movie wasn't so good (better than episode 1 but still weak dialogue and character development; good special effects though), I look forward to seeing SW: Return of the Clones on a film screen. Lucas suggests the digital experience is better since the celluloid is transfer from digital, but I suspect the transfer was not done off a DLP image, so the detail in dark scenes may very well transfer and show up better than the digital 'original' medium.
-=-
So, presumably digital *will* replace celluloid, but I wouldn't expect today's technology to do so. Unless you have to have digital, I'd stick with celluloid until the digital is genuinely and all-around better than celluloid.
The most exciting controller from E3 was, IMO, the SpikeWireless controller demo in the hall between the main s. They were handing out many t-shirts to anyone who would put it on immediately, so plenty of the t-shirts were around the show.
The controller has a custom, multithreaded chip which handles the wireless and protocols and seemed strong. What made me most excited is the opportunity for a third party controller with wireless dongles for each different console. IOW, buy one set of wireless controllers (i.e., one, two, or four to taste) and one dongle for each of your nextgen consoles (e.g., ps2, gamecube, or xbox). Use one set of controllers for all your gaming.
Check it out at
www.spikewireless.com
Good: Eliminate the tangle of wires for multiple consoles. Eliminate the controller 'musical chairs' for getting games working. Use the 900MHz range to play anywhere in a room (a la a phone connection). Only buy one set of controllers (instead of a full set for each console). Tidy. One controller fits all consoles.
Bad: Batteries required. Not available yet. Operational issues? (The exhibitor included one of the engineers, and he gave good tech vibes, so I suspect the design is strong, a la Nintendo's Wavebird.) Prototype controller was a little big (could be fixed with some ergonomic redesign) and heavy (batteries). Generic controller may miss out on some ergonomic feature specific to a particular console --- but with a variety of manufacturers producing these (compatible?) controllers, this misfeature may diminish.
Unfortunately, Spike Wireless has no plans to produce the item themselves. They're doing the licensing thing to get accessory manufacturers to produce accessories using their chipset. The demo had proof of concept controllers, but they weren't selling the solution yet.
Personally, the approach of one set of controllers sounds excellent to me, and I likely would have bought a set (four) with appropriate dongles immediately were they available. Doh. My three console setup gets messy. I'd love to detangle the wires, and have dedicated controllers.
I do hope at least one of the licensees makes a great controller (good ergonomics) a la the standard PS2 or Gamecube controllers. There's no reason for this solution not to work with other controllers as well, e.g., steering wheels, flightsticks, etc..
Bottom line: single set of wireless controllers for all consoles would rock, and SpikeWireless is promising that RSN.
Wow! A story about a game magazine editor reborn as a game developer failure re-reborn to break into the gaming console market with a budget of a mere $5-6b. Result: mixed success --- yowza.
It's hard for me to be inspired by a venture which is basically insanely well funded, still has deep pockets, and takes advantage of monopoly power and positioning (MS) to make the venture a success, and then meets with mixed success.
Truth be told, they may well have done a good job under some extremely competitive conditions (Sony, Nintendo, etc.), but the Red Herring story just seems so misguided and manipulative. It's a personal piece trying to make this guy out as risk-taker (with $5-6b and MS backing) and who learned from his failed game experience. The marriage proposal at ToysRUs just makes the whole artificially romanticized story that much more saccharine sweet and distasteful.
I sincerely wish Seamus all the best on his marriage and ventures, but the story strikes me as forced, sleazy journalism.
Most likely Eisner is not trying to help Apple, but that's the effect. Apparently Apple has become the de facto media management system in Eisner's eyes, and that's just the way Apple and Jobs would like it to be. Deservedly so.
I also agree that Apple has conceded to media industry by making iPod xfer only one way. Should be two way, and friendly to other iPods.
Yeah, and I love the ergonomics and space savings of those $400 PC flat screens. NOT. The flat iMac is made for tight spaces, ease of use, and industrial strength computing. Your $400 PC won't be as rugged, space conscious, or nearly as friendly, versatile and easy to use.
Plus, you haven't factored in the software costs which are substantial.
The macs come with iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and iTunes built-in. UNIX is preinstalled. Latest Java is preinstalled. MacOS X is preinstalled.
I'm not sure your PCs really compare well to the iMacs. It really depends on what classroom teaching they want to do. I doubt that a $400 PC really compares to an iMac for first-time computer users. What's more important: effective teaching or cheap PC's?
Moreover, the flat iMacs start at $1299. Only get one (or two?) flat iMacs with combo drives if classes include movie instruction.
Plus, I'm sure Apple would provide educational discounts for this classroom (though I suspect they'd be modest (10%) discounts --- I don't really know).
Finally, if price really is crucial, you'd probably still be better off getting old iMacs starting at $800 or less for used. They're still excellent teaching computers, but the form factor is smaller than PC but still bigger and less ergonomic than new LCD iMacs.
The new iMac seems an obvious choice due to its excellent size (can be practically flush with the wall of the vehicle, no box to store anywhere), excellent ergonomics (flat screen readily adjustable), relatively solid state which is a bonus for a vehicle based classroom.
Also, it has an excellent technological base of UNIX, Java, all unix open source available, as well as MS Office for OSX, and Virtual PC (if you want or need to run anything in a PC environment). For a teaching environment, I can imagine VPC could be extremely useful to test Windows alongside Intel Linux in windows on Mac OSX (if they're comparing operating systems, approaches, etc.).
In sum, the new iMac is pretty all-inclusive with Virtual PC, Unix, Mac, and even MS Office native, not to mention less technical vocations like photography (new iPhoto just rocks), music (iTunes), and movie creation and publication (iMovie and iDVD) which are all excellent ways to introduce creative career paths superquickly and easily.
SW Rogue Leader is an amazing game. The PS2 and xbox have SW Starfighter which doesn't even rate compared to the experience of Rogue Leader. Rogue Leader is a great example of a beautifully designed and executed game. It proves the gamecube is fully capable of competing with the other two consoles (even though Nintendo isn't hyping the specs of their new machine). If you want to reexperience the attack on the deathstar, you can do it right out of the box with the gamecube and a copy of SW Rogue Leader.
Then... make sure you play it with the component cables... so you get the progressive graphics. WHAT a difference: rock solid stars in the background, crisp graphics, smooth images as you swoop around the world. Amazing.
Cmdr, is it possible to filter out "Humor" comments with this new version? For some threads that's about half of the (supposedly) high value comments, but I'd really just like to read info. I've looked through the preferences without finding that feature.
"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman (MIT Press).
One of the most eye-opening and amazing books on CS. It's based on scheme ('the' elegant dialect of Lisp) and takes a no-holds barred approach to introducing oversimplifications (e.g., data + program) and then turning them on their heads for great instruction.
There's a comment line. Use that to suggest supporting Java on PS2 as well (perhaps in future if not available immediately).
Just a suggestion, but I think Sony already has Java in works, so it could be a reasonable addition to their Linux offering. Java games on PS2, hehe.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Nice of Steve Gillmor to give up an issue of his column for the mail-in letter.
It is interesting to note that while python is slow like a typical scripting language now, it may not necessarily be slow in the future (i.e., before this program is ever finished 1/2 :-). I have some suspicions that python 3.0 (2.2 is current version) will make a few changes to the language to allow it to speed up via java (jython) or just natively with an incremental compiler (a la java). For instance, it would be nice if not all numbers had to be objects (as they are now in python's very pure OO world). Such a change wouldn't violate most program semantics (since few programs subclass or customize numbers!), or perhaps there's a technique for providing the illusion that numbers are objects but treating them as CPU-native (until necessary). Smalltalk implementations did that.
Anyway, current python is your typical (slow) scripting language (but not too slow), but won't necessarily still be so by the half-life of such a huge project as this one.
That's a real feature of the transmission.
:-)
NB: the transmission in question is not a normal manual (i.e., with a foot clutch and stick). It's a hybrid auto-manual which has an electronically controlled clutch (i.e., there's no foot pedal since the computer controls the clutch entirely). The gearing is controlled by the computer or (as desired) by two paddles (+/-) along the steering wheel for up/down shift. BMW calls its version SMG (Sequential Manual Gearbox).
Ferrari and F1 cars also have this feature (similar technologies).
The acceleration assist is a genuine feature which basically tells the SMG to accelerate hard from a standstill as a special case (F1 cars also have launch control). It's a genuine feature, not an easter egg.
Cool car, M3!
If MS knows its customers (and they do), they know that the admins are their biggest boosters in corporations. The MS corp relies on its techies to tell it what to do. These techies are wannabe techies who just go MS (the way people used to go IBM).
Suits everyone (suits and MIS drones) fine, since everyone feels comfortable going MS and crucifying every other option that competes with MS (makes them look knowledgeable and valuable). I've experienced this half-wit MIS attitude first-hand.
No, MS is not eliminating their bread and butter. It's not the execs, it's the pushover MIS department which relies on MS for its credentials, credibility, and credit accounts.
Sun has found a sweet spot to attack MS. That sweet spot is MS's Cost Of Ownership.
Best luck to Sun et al..
I was at the second of two public hearings on whether to adopt software patents in the US. They were led by Bruce Lehmann who was heading the USPTO at the time.
With hindsight (actually the next morning), it was clear that he had made up his mind to institute software patents before the second hearing was over. So, the hearings were a public relations hoax perpetrated by Lehmann and his lawyer cohorts.
To be clear, every person on the committee was a lawyer. As a legal industry, they decided to institute software patents.
As to their clarity of thought, I can tell you that Bruce Lehmann was no sharp cookie (perhaps politically, but not technically or socially for the good). He was more interested in having his cake and eating it too, than clearly understanding what a logistical and socially negative impact software patents would have on the software industry and innovation.
However, the key point is that they provide an excellent issue of contention (socially negative), immeasurable source of research (since there's no way to validate safety from existing or submarine patents). They also have a wonderful 17 year life confused by hidden existence until approved. The people approving them are not the cream of the crop (according to Bruce Lehmann) but smart enough to know what they're doing (how could they be?).
In sum, the whole software patents disaster can be laid at the feet of the US legal industry who was in severe conflict of interest (must have known it) and followed through in their personal interests.
Bruce Lehmann got his excuse to bulk up the USPTO indefinitely with software patent reviewers while also providing a cash cow to his legal industry.
-=-
So, if your country's legal industry needs a shot in the arm, or you just want to suppress innovation, entrepreneurship and open source in software industry, software patents are great.
Otherwise, I would suggest steering clear.
= Joe =
A purely logical argument against software patents is that they are logically absurd. In concept, you are patenting ways of thinking and could patent thoughts that people have. Logically, that makes no sense and is unenforceable.
Logistically, software patents make no sense as well. The USPTO has no system and can not with any serious integrity compare quality of ideas in software nor provide a reasonable (no) cost way to check software for patent violations --- a crucial component to software management. As a result, all software is susceptible to patents.
Of course, the real value of patents is to the legal industry. These non-computable problems become a cash cow for them even though they are insupportable from a logical or logistical point of view.
Ultimately, the answer is that software patents cost society far more than they ever offer in terms of innovation and record keeping.
They should be outlawed and should never have been approved by the USPTO under Bruce Lehmann and his lawyer cronies.
= Joe =
The most fundamental reason to (re)outlaw software patents and patents in general is that monopolies are supposed to be illegal. Patents originated from US Constitutional law as an idea, and were regretted by the originator (Jefferson?) before he even died.
At his time, the industrial revolution had not occurred. At least, the idea of a government granted monopoly for a valuable idea made sense *at*that*time* since it could be prohibitively expensive to manufacture products before someone copied the idea with existing facilities.
Compare that situation 1. to post-industrial evolution, and you begin to wonder why patents would be used at all. They were arguably a mistake even outside software.
Compare them to software, and the whole idea of patents (to give the small guy a chance in the face of manufacturing costs) is turned on its head. Copying bits to a CD is trivial (negligible manufacturing costs). Software does not need patents.
Furthermore, today's patent system has very low integrity in both quality of patents (the nature of the beast due to explosion in software industry) and the counterproductive nature (legal expenses and hidden exposure) of any software entrepreneur or open source project to patent suits.
IOW, patents were a mistake. Software patents not just a mistake but just plain destructive of the very entrepreneurial intent of original patents.
That's the basic problem with patents and software patents in particular. They should never have been approved by Bruce Lehmann and his USPTO committee of lawyers.
= Joe =
I should say (to avoid your inclination to oversimplify)...
Direct access to Quartz Extreme (et al.) is unavailable.
Yes,
This leaves us with Java2. This is Apple's implementation of Sun's Java2 standard edition (currently shipping 1.3.1). Apple has done a huge amount of work getting Java2 into Mac OS X and leveraging Mac OS X features as possible. In other words programming in Java2 (and staying in those APIs) is programming to use CoreGraphics (Quartz). Apple deals with this for you and you can stick with the Java2 API that you are used too. This is Apple's goal... to make J2SE a peer platform with little to no performance penalties.
Apple does some (nice) advanced plumbing to provide Quartz underpinnings through the standard pure Java APIs. That's cool, that's powerful, but that only supports pure Java programming. (FYI, it's uncool that it takes them so long to do so as OS X Java programmers have been awaiting Java 1.4 for ages. OTOH, done once, hopefully they'll just keep improving their timeliness on future releases.)
It does not provide access to OS X in general, e.g., the latest OS X technologies which are not Java API accessible including Calendar and Quartz Extreme. Direct access to any OS X stuff on demand is what Java needs to be first class citizen on OS X.
Since obj-c is the language of choice for OS X, and the two language memory models are incompatible (obj-c uses reference counts; java uses gc), gluing the languages together seamlessly is (understatement) problematic.
Your enthusiasm for the current situation is nice, but not sufficient for java programmers who want full access to OS X.
Enjoy.
You are confusing superficial access to a select subset of OS X features with robust general access. I'm glad for you that you are happy with the existing situation.
Cheers!
What's missing?
Direct access to latest technologies in OS X, including Quartz Extreme (which is what I asked the engineers about). Other new tech would be missing too, including the new Calendar, etc..
You have to write your own glue or JNI to get to the OS X stuff as I understand it.
I also believe that the glue that is there only works on a superficial level, e.g., don't expect to manage obj-c objects from a java program without risking a cockup of some sort (and vice versa). So, ultimately, the Java program and obj-c programs need to be compartmentalized into their own memory models so they don't short-circuit each others (incompatible) memory managers. This explains why there isn't an easy glue solution between the two langauges (I suspect).
Many OS X technologies are unavailable to Java programmers without writing glue or going JNI which means Java is not fully supported for OS X programming. For example, Quartz Extreme is unavailable to Java programmers.
Enjoy!
Wow, an uninformed speculative reply gets higher ranking than a first-hand report from the front line. Who's the troll? Interesting!
Programmers at Apple aren't supposed to write in 100% Pure Java for what I hope are obvious reasons (they
wouldn't take full advantage of the OS X user experience).
Good point. Java for Cocoa is a second class citizen to pure Java, and pure Java doesn't access Cocoa. That's clear.
Most (but not all) applications at Apple destined for OS X, meanwhile, are not written in Java
due to the fact that users find the speed unacceptable.
Decent point for now, and an issue raised in the defense of obj-c by the Apple folk.
Considering Java's current (long VM, libraries loading, and app) startup time and lack of shared VM images (as I understand it), Java is not totally ready for prime time for general one-use consumer apps (yet). The Apple folk did specifically mention that the startup time was a problem, so that is one of their concerns.
However, I believe one of their innovations for OS X 10.2 Java was getting the images to share, and they have apparently shared that technique with Sun. So, I do think they have some good reasons for hedging their bets somewhat, but their overall pure Java only approach was disappointing considering their 'best platform for Java' promise. So, if you're speaking about startup time, you have a good point, but startup time is not always a showstopper (or Java wouldn't be so compelling in so many server, handheld, and high uptime applications).
With the memory mapping features of Apple's 10.2 Java (due August 24, I believe), graphics is quite fast for general apps (and beyond) in Java and memory footprint for multiple apps should be down dramatically through VM footprint sharing (good stuff!) (but arguably still somewhat memory heavy). The rest of Java speed is a matter of taste since hotspot compiles dynamically depending on the nature of the app(s).
So, to finish your thought. Apple does not write in Java (for their reasons), e.g., their iApps are still being written in obj-c which pretty much aligns with their treating Java as a bastard child despite Steve's promise. Steve's promise should be "best platform for pure Java" to disambiguate the situation.
That's why Apple's VM team is so arrogant:
Let's clarify this issue.
Apple's VM (and Java, since they're the same) team or, more particularly, prominent members of their Obj-C/Java VM team and so-called "java evangelist" have no reason to be arrogant toward their developers. Arrogance is unprofessional, reckless, and offensive. Feel free to troll as hard as you want on this point, but they did themselves no favors with their arrogant and offensive attitudes.
specifically in order to allow Apple and others to write OS X-specific apps in Java using the Cocoa bindings without a performance penalty, Apple's been trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance they can out of the VM.
No, they've been squeezing performance for general performance.
Contrary to your speculation, they told me that they only care about pure Java apps. That's why (according to them) they do not support Cocoa from Java. The drive for speed is to win the (pure) Java platform speed title.
They aren't there [high performance Java Cocoa apps] yet,
Point is: they're not even trying (according to them) to support Cocoa Java. Their answer to that question is: program in obj-c, you'll like it. (Swing and miss.)
IOW, they're saying: pure java or bust on OS X. Java is no alternative to obj-c (c, obj-c++, etc.).
unlike some companies, they care enough about the end-user experience to keep Java off the front line until the 15% performance gap can be closed.
First of all, Apple does not choose whether Java is on front line for industry. Java already is front line. Also, they don't choose the user experience by determining languages. The developers of apps choose user experience by doing well designed, quality work using the tools of their choice, including Java.
Second, Steve chose to make the Java issue front line for OS X with his "best platform for Java" jingoism. So your comment is misleading.
Finally, what 15% gap? The startup time gap is >> 15%, so you're not talking about that. The memory footprint gap with multiple apps is variable according to the apps running and number of copies running (and Apple fares well on that with their promised shared memory for Java), so memory footprint should not be your issue. The execution speed is variable according to the app as well --- could be faster, same or slower. There's no well recognized 15% gap known --- it's totally app dependent when using hotspot optimization versus compile-time optimization. Bottom line: who cares about performance for general apps anyway as long as its speedy enough?
The driving value in programming languages (and environments) today is value to the customer for efficiency and effectiveness of programming (not necessarily speed of execution). Apple does not dictate whether Java is on front line. Apple determines whether Apple gives Java priority and native support.
For native apps, Apple supports obj-c, not Java. If they choose to support Java Cocoa in the future, that would be promising. According to them publically and behind the scenes at WWDC, they do not support Java for Cocoa (contrary to your opening assertions). IOW, despite your speculation otherwise, Java and obj-c (and therefore Cocoa on OS X) are not seamlessly integrated --- according to Apple.
Apple has two different bridges, neither of which work. They advised against using either one when pressed, and different engineers would give conflicting opinions about which one was better (i.e., neither one was feature-complete, sufficient, or robust). Take home message: run away. I.e., only pure Java gets their nod, or for Cocoa programming, use obj-c.
-=-
Obj-c is the VM team's baby. Java is new to OS X and doesn't even run the latest Java incarnation yet (10.2 in August should catch up most of the way).
If Apple does work with Sun to port OpenOffice using some aspect of Java to talk OS X Cocoa, then perhaps the waters will part and, lo and behold, Java will reach the promised land (Cocoa first class citizenship). However, as long as it's obj-c uber alles (with pure java second class citizenship), OS X Cocoa is basically an obj-c or bust platform which is not particularly appetizing when more modern, compelling, and popular languages are available.
IOW, I'll take a little Jython with my Java over obj-c anyday, and I'd like that with my OS X but it's not currently available (despite your speculative gestures).
When I went to WWDC this year for the first time ever, I went as a Java programmer interesting in learning how to program OS X (and Quartz GUI stuff) in Java. I was told by the "java evangelist" in no uncertain terms that I was "not Apple's target market". Java was its own platform, not to be crossplatformed to OS X and Quartz.
WWDC did not have a single session on programming Quartz in Java. In the only mildly interesting session on Java, it was like pulling teeth to get concrete information out of the presenters in Q&A, and yet the presenters (Apple JVM guys) were incredibly arrogant about their work and how advanced it was (which in some ways it is) and how even Sun was considering incorporating their JVM innovations.
What was boggling was Apple's Java guys didn't _get_ that they should want Java to become a first class citizen on OS X (rather than a poor stepchild to OS X's (and NeXTstep's vaunted in their eyes) objective-c. Sure, I could see the obj-c guys being protective of their baby (even though it's basically stillborn by the time its reached OS X), but why would the Java guys be so lousy sharing information on Cocoa (OS X) programming in Java.
On the side, I got contradictory information about how to program in Cocoa using two different bridges across obj-c and java. In sum, neither really works so Apple doesn't support either really. (In particular, obj-c's reference counting doesn't mix well with Java's garbage collection.) Unfortunately, despite Apple's migration of WebObjects to Java (from obj-c), The rest of OS X and Cocoa (GUI) stayed in obj-c. Doh.
I even spoke with their then new head of software tools and engineering. As a smalltalk guy (skeptical of java and obj-c), he claimed that obj-c won him over. No love for Java there. Just more "not Apple's target market". It's hard to swallow paying thousands to go to a developer conference and have some pinheaded honcho tell you that despite Apple's "best platform for Java" campaign, that Java programmers are not allowed to program in Cocoa (OS X native) since Java Cocoa is not Apple's target market. What arrogance!
Unfortunately, one of Apple's catchy banners did not mean what I wanted it to mean: "Come for the Java, Stay for the Cocoa". Instead of providing the means to program Cocoa in Java, the banner really means come to learn about Java on OS X (and be profoundly disappointed), and we'll (try to) lure you to objective-c every step, session, and discussion along the way.
Cough-cough.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), I'm an ex NeXT enthusiast, so I've already tasted obj-c (not to my liking), reasonably informed about its strengths and weaknesses, and happy with Java.
-=-
So, why is Apple, its head of engineering so obstinate. I assume it's because he's in love with smalltalk and obj-c caters (a la obj-c tenuous lease on life) to smalltalk, his desired language. Fair enough (but too bad for Apple and its Java shortcomings).
But why oh why would lowly Apple Java grunts be so against first-class java support on OS X for Cocoa? That really confused the heck out of me, until I discovered that the very arrogant presenter(s) of JVM breakthroughs (yada yada yada about Apple innovations) was really the obj-c kernel team doing side work on the JVM. Doh!
Java not obj-c. Obj-c >> Java. You know?
There are not Java evangelists at Apple. The keepers of the Java VM are obj-c hacks. Their baby (albeit on life support) is obj-c. OUCH.
When I figured that out, beat around the bush at the top to discover the smalltalk allegiance, and just generally got stonewalled by too many (certainly not all) of the small team of java(obj-c) insiders, I just gave up.
Besides, the Quartz Extreme team had awesome presentations, was extremely humble despite their awesome GUI architectural innovations, and was just generally the real mccoy from an engineering point of view. My WWDC became a GUI tour rather than a deep tour of Java (as intended and paid for, as far as I was concerned).
One final note: my impression is that Java on OS X is good --- but only for Java only apps (i.e., use Swing, not Apple's Cocoa). Their target market (as I gathered anyway) is pure Java (as opposed to Java Cocoa apps). So, if you want to port and run pure Java on OS X, they (should) love you. FYI.
-=-
So, it's amusing and ironic to see Apple spending any resources on Java for Cocoa now as I assume (fingers crossed) they'll do for OpenOffice after telling me that's not their target market!
What happened to all the arrogance? Disdain? Curt political marketroid answers to basic engineering questions? Yada yada yada.
Too painfully amusing and ironic.
So I guess I am crossing my fingers that Apple separates the JVM team from their obj-c team, fires (or at least reassigns to obj-c only) their so-called "java evangelist", and gives java its own first-class political and technical citizenship at Apple.
Maybe next year's WWDC can have a banner which says (and means) "Come for the Java, and Stay for the Mocha". That would be a dream worth having.
= Joe =
If it's fair to judge from a single digital cinema screening (at Paul Allen's Seattle "Cinerama" theatre), then digital cinema still needs to cook a bit more. I thought the dark scenes lost tremendous detail, worse even than a home DLP (digital) system. I wonder whether the DLP chips in theatres is a generation or so behind the best of breed chips available in home theatres now.
Also, I suspect the digital video throughput is limited as well since there seemed to be a large variance in detail and resolution in general. The best scenes (few) were perhaps better than film, but the worst or common scenese seemed (imho) worse than film, especially high motion scenes.
Even though the movie wasn't so good (better than episode 1 but still weak dialogue and character development; good special effects though), I look forward to seeing SW: Return of the Clones on a film screen. Lucas suggests the digital experience is better since the celluloid is transfer from digital, but I suspect the transfer was not done off a DLP image, so the detail in dark scenes may very well transfer and show up better than the digital 'original' medium.
-=-
So, presumably digital *will* replace celluloid, but I wouldn't expect today's technology to do so. Unless you have to have digital, I'd stick with celluloid until the digital is genuinely and all-around better than celluloid.
= Joe =
The most exciting controller from E3 was, IMO, the SpikeWireless controller demo in the hall between the main s. They were handing out many t-shirts to anyone who would put it on immediately, so plenty of the t-shirts were around the show.
The controller has a custom, multithreaded chip which handles the wireless and protocols and seemed strong. What made me most excited is the opportunity for a third party controller with wireless dongles for each different console. IOW, buy one set of wireless controllers (i.e., one, two, or four to taste) and one dongle for each of your nextgen consoles (e.g., ps2, gamecube, or xbox). Use one set of controllers for all your gaming.
Check it out at
www.spikewireless.com
Good: Eliminate the tangle of wires for multiple consoles. Eliminate the controller 'musical chairs' for getting games working. Use the 900MHz range to play anywhere in a room (a la a phone connection). Only buy one set of controllers (instead of a full set for each console). Tidy. One controller fits all consoles.
Bad: Batteries required. Not available yet. Operational issues? (The exhibitor included one of the engineers, and he gave good tech vibes, so I suspect the design is strong, a la Nintendo's Wavebird.) Prototype controller was a little big (could be fixed with some ergonomic redesign) and heavy (batteries). Generic controller may miss out on some ergonomic feature specific to a particular console --- but with a variety of manufacturers producing these (compatible?) controllers, this misfeature may diminish.
Unfortunately, Spike Wireless has no plans to produce the item themselves. They're doing the licensing thing to get accessory manufacturers to produce accessories using their chipset. The demo had proof of concept controllers, but they weren't selling the solution yet.
Personally, the approach of one set of controllers sounds excellent to me, and I likely would have bought a set (four) with appropriate dongles immediately were they available. Doh. My three console setup gets messy. I'd love to detangle the wires, and have dedicated controllers.
I do hope at least one of the licensees makes a great controller (good ergonomics) a la the standard PS2 or Gamecube controllers. There's no reason for this solution not to work with other controllers as well, e.g., steering wheels, flightsticks, etc..
Bottom line: single set of wireless controllers for all consoles would rock, and SpikeWireless is promising that RSN.
= Joe =
Wow! A story about a game magazine editor reborn as a game developer failure re-reborn to break into the gaming console market with a budget of a mere $5-6b. Result: mixed success --- yowza.
It's hard for me to be inspired by a venture which is basically insanely well funded, still has deep pockets, and takes advantage of monopoly power and positioning (MS) to make the venture a success, and then meets with mixed success.
Truth be told, they may well have done a good job under some extremely competitive conditions (Sony, Nintendo, etc.), but the Red Herring story just seems so misguided and manipulative. It's a personal piece trying to make this guy out as risk-taker (with $5-6b and MS backing) and who learned from his failed game experience. The marriage proposal at ToysRUs just makes the whole artificially romanticized story that much more saccharine sweet and distasteful.
I sincerely wish Seamus all the best on his marriage and ventures, but the story strikes me as forced, sleazy journalism.
Gross me out.
(So much for Seamus's 15 minutes.)
Most likely Eisner is not trying to help Apple, but that's the effect. Apparently Apple has become the de facto media management system in Eisner's eyes, and that's just the way Apple and Jobs would like it to be. Deservedly so.
I also agree that Apple has conceded to media industry by making iPod xfer only one way. Should be two way, and friendly to other iPods.
Most probably, Eisner is just clueless.
Yeah, and I love the ergonomics and space savings of those $400 PC flat screens. NOT. The flat iMac is made for tight spaces, ease of use, and industrial strength computing. Your $400 PC won't be as rugged, space conscious, or nearly as friendly, versatile and easy to use.
Plus, you haven't factored in the software costs which are substantial.
The macs come with iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, and iTunes built-in. UNIX is preinstalled. Latest Java is preinstalled. MacOS X is preinstalled.
I'm not sure your PCs really compare well to the iMacs. It really depends on what classroom teaching they want to do. I doubt that a $400 PC really compares to an iMac for first-time computer users. What's more important: effective teaching or cheap PC's?
Moreover, the flat iMacs start at $1299. Only get one (or two?) flat iMacs with combo drives if classes include movie instruction.
Plus, I'm sure Apple would provide educational discounts for this classroom (though I suspect they'd be modest (10%) discounts --- I don't really know).
Finally, if price really is crucial, you'd probably still be better off getting old iMacs starting at $800 or less for used. They're still excellent teaching computers, but the form factor is smaller than PC but still bigger and less ergonomic than new LCD iMacs.
Good luck,
= Joe =
The new iMac seems an obvious choice due to its excellent size (can be practically flush with the wall of the vehicle, no box to store anywhere), excellent ergonomics (flat screen readily adjustable), relatively solid state which is a bonus for a vehicle based classroom.
Also, it has an excellent technological base of UNIX, Java, all unix open source available, as well as MS Office for OSX, and Virtual PC (if you want or need to run anything in a PC environment). For a teaching environment, I can imagine VPC could be extremely useful to test Windows alongside Intel Linux in windows on Mac OSX (if they're comparing operating systems, approaches, etc.).
In sum, the new iMac is pretty all-inclusive with Virtual PC, Unix, Mac, and even MS Office native, not to mention less technical vocations like photography (new iPhoto just rocks), music (iTunes), and movie creation and publication (iMovie and iDVD) which are all excellent ways to introduce creative career paths superquickly and easily.
Good luck,
= Joe =
The TimeCanada.com front page is back to the 12/7/01 issue, so TimeCanada finally got slapped by Apple (presumably) and reverted to the 'old' news.
SW Rogue Leader is an amazing game. The PS2 and xbox have SW Starfighter which doesn't even rate compared to the experience of Rogue Leader. Rogue Leader is a great example of a beautifully designed and executed game. It proves the gamecube is fully capable of competing with the other two consoles (even though Nintendo isn't hyping the specs of their new machine). If you want to reexperience the attack on the deathstar, you can do it right out of the box with the gamecube and a copy of SW Rogue Leader.
Then... make sure you play it with the component cables... so you get the progressive graphics. WHAT a difference: rock solid stars in the background, crisp graphics, smooth images as you swoop around the world. Amazing.
= Joe =
cough cough
Cmdr, is it possible to filter out "Humor" comments with this new version? For some threads that's about half of the (supposedly) high value comments, but I'd really just like to read info. I've looked through the preferences without finding that feature.
Thanks,
= Joe =
"Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman (MIT Press).
One of the most eye-opening and amazing books on CS. It's based on scheme ('the' elegant dialect of Lisp) and takes a no-holds barred approach to introducing oversimplifications (e.g., data + program) and then turning them on their heads for great instruction.
A (so far) timeless classic.
= Joe =
There's a comment line. Use that to suggest supporting Java on PS2 as well (perhaps in future if not available immediately).
:-)
Just a suggestion, but I think Sony already has Java in works, so it could be a reasonable addition to their Linux offering. Java games on PS2, hehe.