We'll have a re-run of the elephant man, and human cloning might be banned worldwide.
This might seriously hinder research stem cell research which might have many future benifits.
Regretably, If this turns out correct, you may have your real life... "clone billgates, take over microsoft, and selfdestruct". Now... many of you might say "What a plan!!:)".
"clone president, take over country, and selfdestruct". Not such a wonderfull idea.
Cheap AMD Linux Server Boxen will (speculation) make MS suffer in the server market.
MS will push for greater use of amd64.
Intel will do one of two things:
restrict MS use of amd64, if IA64 turns out good implement amd64 in yamhill if AMD starts beating IA64.
Intel's play in things will depend on who's profit line starts to suffer first.
MS / Intel.
One thing is certain: Legacy software is here for a reason. It isnt going to just up and migrate to IA64. AMD will want to run that software as f= a= s= t= as possible running x86-32 asfast as amd64.
One thing intel might try is embrace and extend (ms style), by outselling the number of CPUs with amd extensions... or have an entirely new 64bit instruction set, and screw amd over the appropriate extensions and binary compatability issues. This alone is a developmental hazard.
They are all the application of proven scientific methods to produce a result that achieves some objective and works safely within specified limits&criteria with repeatable reproducable results.
Civil Engineers build bridges & buildings
Mechanical Engineers build turbines & engines
Software Engineers build software for nuclear reactors and apollo moon missions.
Software Programmers build software for space probes that crash into mars because of no formal validation.
Engineers dont/cannot afford to make mistakes.
Lives are at stake.
---
Now, what does all this have to do with OO:
----
The difference between a software developer and a software engineer is that an engineer will have some formal process and paradigms to ensure that the process of development is safe and that the result has no alternative side effects.
Object Orientation makes LARGE systems so much more architecturally flexible entirely due to formal reusability and potential reflection/descovery.
Once objects have been engineered to some formal generalized state, they should be reusable across a business and the customized subclasses should be the implementation of all custom business logic.
In addition, an object is not like a 'library' in that while two of the same libraries may not be linked to a program, a program may have references to the two live instances of an object which are the same, except in version and revision (theoretically it should work this way, but i think only the latest J2EE stuff is capable of this).
In addition, OO legacy goal is to invisibly extend the system, while not breaking the contract on which binds process, and provide support for current methodologies on legacy systems... this is not successfull.
-=-
OO does not calculate information quicker.
In fact, it will definately be slower if you make everything, and every process an object.
The only possibly good effect that OO will have in a procedural calculation is version control and the magnification and seperation of abstract mechanics.
Think raycasting, think process transformation, think mechanical dials, think resources in a 'machine', think realtime execution, think of more than one analysis that one wants to work with within the same machine framework.
Importantly, Objects are expected to have a contract which they enforce. Breach of this contract should be impossible.
When it comes to raw processing such as:
for each step
for particle 1 to google do
interact field
push particle
end
calculate field
end
There are no major architectural components.
Sure, you could use OO for datatype abstraction, but a library is just as sufficient.
One important thing to rememeber is that a scientific tool does not need to be robust. It's designed for a specific purpose, calculate an answer. One does not care about the instance of implementation, or the process of implementation, but only, that the answer is correct.
You throw the program away after you have the answer.
Something like mathematica or IDL, which are both meta-scientific tools that aid in the calculation of calculations will use objects extensively. They have procedural/functional syntax to solve problems. Using the tools are functional.
You throw the program away after you have the answer; so WHY use OO ? There is no real reason. You can use OO libraries in your procedural process. You can use OO in designing an application that executes your procedural process, but unless you're process is massive, I wouldnt use OO for the implementation of the procedural process.
Infact, i'd put the entire procedural process within one object.
class myanalysis {
Graph calculate(int x, int y);
}
Calculate is clearly procedural.
The output, eg: Graph, and the means for viewing the result may be in the application domain, in which case OO is used extensively.
EG: windowing components and visual graphing components.
But you're analysis is very much procedural.
Dont foolyourself, use the best tool/paradigm for the job. If its perl, php, parot, prolog, lisp, visual basic or Java then use it.
=== sidenote ===
A Software Engineer is not currently a formalized profession, but I do believe that there is some work going on to make this so. Those that have the understanding on what it takes for a process to be formally proved to work, and have the means to implement the process, are Software Engineers.
For those wondering: Most programmers are just software developers, the [software] engineer is just a tag aquired to sound good. This (formal definition of a software engineer and the means to aquire said title) may have changed at the time of me writing this.
Yes, electronics engineers write software in electronics components, no, they arnt software engineers, but they are (commonly) programmers.
with formal acreditation... unless i'm mistaken.
=== sidenote 2 ====
Formal Object Reuse on a massive scale has not lived up to the hype'ed expectations.
Components dont just 'fit' together as easily as one would like. This makes the formal process very difficult. Java makes this easier in terms of a formal, well guided implementation, but there are better formal languages out there, unfortunately some are only research projects or have lacked the mainstream support.
Taking two components: one from vendor A, one from vendor B, do not currently 'just work' without some intermediate interface marshalling... a goal of current thinkers is to solve this problem. Hence reflection, beans, visual components. Important component/process such as the various banking processes and company ledgers always need to be customized and information is not usually consistent between different implementations of ledgers and supporting APIs, thus one cannot just swap ledger components from two accounting packages as they're too different, on an implementation level.
One of my university leacturers told me why he decided to go the mathematics route.
"Mathematics and Physics are the last true blood sports. Kill one bird an EVERYTHING goes."
Funny when you realise the ramifications of this since ALOT of work needs to be reevaluated, etc, even when the results are "statistically" correct, since the explinations and models of how things achieved some result are now totally different.
Some people can be dimwits. By claiming that there is no strategy in Starcraft is the same as claiming that there is no strategy in Chess. Sure, i would agree that on a theater level, chess has more strategies than an RTS, but thats due to the battle nature of current RTS games. In the real world, there are not too many strategies.
You have your frontline, you have guerilla forces, you have tactical missiles, you have strategic missiles, you have the option to push your frontier, or diminish their defense; and total anniahlation. A bit more to it than that, but there arnt too many options. You need to defend against the initial assault (blitz) and then manage the RTS to a point in which you're invasionary force may win.
Strategy is not the same as tactics. Likewise, an RTS is not the same as a real total-war (world-war 2).
Strategy games each have their own strategies associated with them. The best players identify these, identify what their opponent is using, and counteract with appropriate defenses.
I'm not refering to tactical logistics (if player X brings unit A, then I bring unit B to counter unit A; and the execution of the statement).
> Then came warcraft 2.. A good logical
> extension.. SLightly simpler game dynamic, but
> similiar concept.. Some slight skirmishes, some
> resource allocation and research, but still
> based around the idealogy of overwhelming
> force.. You either crush someone, or you lose..
> No battle lines..
I dont believe this player has ever played War2 in a top 100 setting. War 2 has battle lines, also known as your frontier; An insane amount of conflict is required to keep the status-quo. Your battle line is effectively the line where you'll send units to meet his; units are not necessarily waiting on that line for musketteers to pop along and blow them away.
Consider every point on a map in which you feel it safe to build a building. That area is known as 'behind your frontier', so clearly, the line at which your decision changes to 'no, i wont build there' is your frontier, your battle line. The territory you'll fight to defend (preserve expansion).
Read up to the "fuck you type fast" bit. This was using an older version of alice.
---
private to USERNAME): A BC...
USERNAME(private): funny
(private to USERNAME): I am so glad you find this amusing, USERNAME.
USERNAME(private): you a comedian ?
(private to USERNAME): Not professionally.
USERNAME(private): well dont give up your day job *g*
(private to USERNAME): Well that's okay. Ok I'll try not to do it
too much.
USERNAME(private): well I can already tell that you are not a 15 year
old like all the other kiddies here....
(private to USERNAME): Well that's okay. Oh you can, can you?
USERNAME(private): fuck you type fast...
(private to USERNAME): Why are you using that kind of language?
USERNAME(private): hahah.....im speaking to a piece of software...I
can tell
(private to USERNAME): Funny, huh ?:-) I like your style of
speaking, USERNAME.
USERNAME(private): bleh
(private to USERNAME): That remark was either too complex or too
simple for me. We were talking about bleh.
USERNAME(private): bleh bleh
(private to USERNAME): My brain contains more than 22,000 patterns,
but not one that matches your last input.
---
Why _any_ programming language?
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Any programming language has the possibility to become a legacy programming language. This has important ramifications on the choice of any system's development.
Similar to COBOL and the various BASICs out there, a legacy language could be defined as any language which is _ONLY_ supported because there are systems which critically depend on their maintanance.
The more commonly pleasnt languages like C and C++ exist because they are required to support a vast majority(? okay, a _lot_) of software out there; but most notably, they do what they were designed for well.
If any new language intends on surviving, it needs to focus on an aspect of what the language needs to achieve to exist, and do it more elegantly, with more coordinated tools libraries than any other language in its category currently supports. This is why Microsoft can and will ram C# down societies throat. (If only all the genieii of the language development society could coordinate development better).
Now, getting back to the topic:
For any mainstream programmer (non fringe), what they're currently using as a language is more than adequate at aiding them in what they're developing. As soon as they need a different language (one that tackles a different paradigm/problem), they'll look for the best there is; the most documented; etc; etc.
Hopefully that'll be ruby, mabey it wont. But whatever it is, it needs a lot of support because any programmer hates/detests the maintainance of old software.
Once in a while a language will shine and all that documentation and support grows because:
a) The language solves a perticular problem well;
b) There is nothing as well suited to solve the problem
c) The language is elegant
Isnt it amazing how the diversity of life on earth provides for us solutions to problems. Life forms produce foods and medicine which we couldnt live without.
Take beer as an example.
Lets chop down the amazon while we're a bit thoughtless and destroy possibly millions of solutions to problems we can concieve.
> If you were going to structure a curriculum to
> teach Object Oriented concepts, would you teach
> it using Java, C/C++, or something else?
Java. I'd totally forget about C++, mabey throwing it in as a pointer intensive crash course. Learning C++ would be there as a non-compulsory course available Not For Credit ONLY. Any serious programmer MUST know C++, but it is not required for computer scientists. You use the best tool for the job.
> 1) Java is a fine development language,
> and it will help me as a programmer to learn it.
True. You'll think like a programmer, learn OOP. Mabey a few design patterns. All in all, you could be learning Object Pascal and you'd pick up the same programming mindset. Java is more crash resistant so you'll tend to get the coding done faster.
> 2) I'm right. Java is a fad, not worth much
> more than the Windows OS in terms of quality,
> and my CS faculty is doing me a disservice by
> cramming it down my throat.
False. Scientists are not uber computer programmers. They do not care about programming. They want to describe their thoughts in the quickest way possible. Like wise, they have a limited amount of time in which to tutor you in concepts of AI, Image Processing, etc.
> There's a little truth in both the above
> statements.
False.
> The language taught, which has progressed from
> Pascal to (currently) C++ is changing once
> more. Next year will be the last for C++. The
> new language will become Java. My question is,
> realistically:
> Which is the best language for an AP Comp class to learn?
Answer: IT DOESNT MATTER. Who Cares? You have to adapt in the computer world, or you'll be unemployed @ 35-40, or in stuck in some horrid legacy development company that cant find anyone else to do their development.
If you think you're going to leave highschool as a "Master Guru Programmer" and get employed for some ludicrous amount, you're wrong and have a long way to go. (The uber geek is the exception).
You miss the _entire_ point of University & High School. The university system does not care if you come out with no technical skills. Universities do not train students technical skills. (If they do, its probably a cheesy University) Universities are supposed to train your mind to THINK in a manner that will allow you to adapt to change and create change.
Learning java at university does not have the goal to teach you how to program in Java but rather, to get you to "THINK" in a logical method to plan programs and put your thoughts into computational programs. The university doesnt care that you come out with Pascal / C++ / Java. As long as you can program successfully. Ie: You're mind is structured in such a way that programming is natural. (Like driving a car).
Their primary goal is to get you to a point that you can do your Image Processing & Artificial Intelligence assignments. All those advanced 4th year modules are what computer Science is. The first few years in undergrad is getting those less geeky students to THINK and Program.
Once you know how to program in one language, you'll quickly be able to pick up another language. The more languages you learn, the easier it is to learn new languages. This is because PROGRAMMING in different languages use different models in which they describe their language, BUT, there are only a few such models. Most languages are extremely similar, only changing in syntax.
When it comes down to the one person who cares what you know - Your Employer - You'll realise that you'll use the best programming language for the job. That may mean that you'll have to learn something new while employed. If you do not adapt in the computer world, you'll be unemployed at the age of 35 (unless you're either a manager, or a leacturer).
If you're thinking you're wasting your time, you're _so_ wrong. While learning how to program, downtime caused by crashes and pointer problems make learning difficult. Java is definately the perfect educational language. If anything, knowing java will make you a better C++ programmer by enforcing OOP methedologies.
Bonus points if you can program in java and your employer develops in Java. But dont think you can only get away with learning one language. If so, go to www.darwin.org for usefull tips on how others get by this problem.
> C is a language that has been designed to be
> very close to the hardware, and its
> ideosyncracies and power reflect that. Through
> this relationship, C reflects the realities of
> the hardware your programs run on. Memory
> management, low level process and I/O control
> are all things that a computer
> scientist should understand at a very low
> level, to better aid in future programming and
> debugging no matter which language is chosen or
> inflicted upon said scientist.
> In contrast, Java has been designed to take
> such concerns away from the programmer. Memory
> management? Low level IO?
This is the information age. To push research further, you stand on the head of previous technology. You do not start back at the wheel developing everything up until your research area. You take the best tools for the job, you specialise your research and focus on what you're trying to achieve.
What Scientist are you refering to? Mathematical Computer Scientist, Info Computer Scientist or Electronics Computer Scientist and Systems Scientist? Only the last two apply. If you want to build operating systems, you've gotta know alot of the bones. If you want to do AI, you're working in Prolog, or something so far from the hardware : Because you dont care. Sure, everyone HAS to know the principles of programming. You learn this in C, C++ and Java. It is not exclusive to C. Ideally, our thoughts would be mapped directly onto the computer. Scientists want to describe their thoughts, not silly programming languages.
Oh, So you want to be a programmer.
If you want to master a programming language / programming in general. Go to a technical college, or some skills training. There is no place for C in general computer science unless its some operating systems course / low level electronics integration.
> In short, since I believe that AP CS courses
> should focus on the low level architecture of
> computing, Java is an inappropriate language
> for that course.
Are you a scientist or a programmer?
There are different objectives. Every student should ask themselves this question. Some students blindly think that they are thinking.
> When is Java appropriate? In your college ?
> sophomore comparative languages course, or,
> alternatively, in an OO course or two?
Its appropriate when they can teach you to program in it, quickly, ensuring that you can do Image Processing / AI / Algorithm Analysis / Whatever else they decide to teach as a Science. Computer science is not a technical training school.
---
All uber geeks dont actually learn how to program in university. If you're not an uber geek, stick to the syllabus until you can think, mabey take some extra courses.
Code cracking challenges are a waste of processing time. Their processing cycles would be better put to use in either Research or Distributed Dynamic Massively Multiplayer RPGs.
a) There is a finite number of people who are interested enough to install distributed processing software.
b) Research is the only way that the human society advances.
c) The next avenue of research is taking place in solving NP problems.
d) NP Problems are brute force problems.
e) Those millions of people who support distributed code cracking could be more usefull by supporting research than cracking competitions which achieve _NOTHING_.
f) At least they could be usefull in processing some Distributed Dynamic Massively Multiplayer Online RPG. Atleast others would benifit from this massive generated game world, it'd be more entertaining. Research would even be usefull.
Going from one commercial environment to another, I recommend Borland Kylix / Delphi.
4 points:
1) Are the development tools good?
2) Are they recognised by future employers?
3) What are the other benifits to the tool?
4) Advice
===
1) As a Visual Basic programmer, you've most likely been developing applications. You have no interest in the workings of the machine and want the RAD tool to hide that from you. RAD tools such as VB and Delphi are good for quickly developing applications. They must be easy to use. Kylix is easy to use.
2) Companies look towards the leaders in development technology for tools. It is common for "management" to only recognise brand names. Known vs Unknown. I, again, recommend Borland Kylix as Borland has a well established brand name. Future employees will recognise you're skills associated with products from that company.
3) Borland supports many different platforms. Windows, Linux, MacOSX, Solaris are just a few of the notable environments they support. Kylix is not necessarily available on all of them, however: Borland's tools are designed to be as similar as possible. Moving between C++ Builder and Delphi is easy. The environment in JBuilder is predictable, on all platforms. I'd imagine it would be relatively easy to port their current products to different platforms. I would also imagine that their next step would be to move Kylix to MacOSX. So, By taking up Kylix, you get an exposure to the development environments which Borland uses. In addition, if/when borland ports Kylix to MacOSX, you'll easily be able to leverage your current skills in the MacOSX arena.
4) In the short-term, for your career, look to the current development tools which will suit you best. To master applications development in linux, you'll need to have a look at all the environments once you have a better understanding of Linux. Only then will you be able to choose the environment which suits you best.
I am sure that the value of the content far surpasses the cost of the copy.
Value: analysis of problems, recommendations in areas, poetry, stories, jokes, designs, solutions, ideas.
Cost: man hours spent maintaining the database, economic cost of spending money archiving usenet, hardware, etc.
For this reason, that archive should never be deleted and preserved by the U.N.
You know... There should be a non-profit archival system accountable to the U.N. for the internet. Similar to project Gutenburg in its aims.
Many "services" are fundumental to the future of the human-knowledge-network that allows researchers to quickly access information empowering them to do what they want.
I think you have it wrong.
Firstly, Macs are no Orcish hordes.
Definately elfish, but the story has changed since they took a different route.
Gandalf = Steve Jobs
The One Ring = OSX
(one ring to rule them all... It can only be an Operating System. Specificly Darwin/BSD)
When Gandalf returned for the second time, he took the ring from Frodo instead of passing it by for the nth time.
Sauron == Bill Gates
Mordor == Redmond/MS-US
Orthanic == MS-Europe
Denethor == some OS/2 executive, ensared by Bill Gates evil plan, as Denethor was ensnared by the Palantir.
Aqua == Aragorn
NT == Balrog
ERS == Boromir
Allan Cox == Gimli
Steve Ballmer == Sauraman
Shadowfax == Dual G4
Commander Taco == Frodo
Hemos == Samwise
Netscape == Bormir
agh.... something like that.
Its only @ the beginning of the second book, still 4 more to go.
I would imagine that yes, they'd want it, except their bundle structure is different.
Further, I'd imagine in their first rollout of OSX, it would not include said package manager. Only after a few revisions would further features like that be distributed by default.
-Tim
I believe the purpose of the content aware drives are to provide an extra layer of security to prevent fraud in a company.
The standard drives will "never" be replaced and the planet-wide-overhaul required would break too many valuable software applications to be of financial use.
The target market would most likely be pharmaceuticals, the defense industry, fashion design houses and electronic engineering companies.
The only reasonably novel use I can see is as a digital media storage facility, where content delivered by a media company can be stored and physically locked to a computer as far as perfect digital storage goes.
But Obviously, they can be re-recorded to non-fixed media. Therefore I see no way that any fixed content storage system like this will ever work in the consumer market. (audio watermarking is just an example).
I do, however, think that the industrial implications are important. Its a valid deployable storage mechanism as far as a physical barrier to industrial espionage. But I can imagine that it'll be hell to maintain such a network infrastructure. I can only hope those MCSEs will be able to cope with the security requirements of the future.
Pharmaceuticals, the defense industry, fashion design houses and electronic engineering companies are the ones with the money that this is aimed at. The protection of Trade Secrets.
Any assault on the consumer market is going to have just as much success as WAP. I mean... wtf.. I dont even have a WAP cellphone. And will never buy one. (it'd have to be a freebie).
If the movie included a DFA scene, it'd make the movie absolutely worthwhile.
Picture:
Character does something outrageous which the DM/Director doesnt want...
While the character does this, there is a shadow around the player...
The Woolly Mammoth Hits with an impressive speed.
(The scene then cuts back to just before the death from above scene... as if the incident didnt happen).
(Just like in a REAL d&d rpg).
> My first problem with this is if every action
> has an equal and opposite reaction then how
> does the movement of the superconducting
> magnets cause any real change? Sure, their
> inertia will have an effect, but as soon as
> they move back into their original position
> their inertia will cause the opposite reaction.
A creative possibility:
The magnetic force could have an equal and opposite reaction in an area which is not within range of magnetic interference, due to properties of "brief asymmetry in the magnetic field".
If the opposite force does not originate at the point of contact, then it should be possible to ensure that there are no points of contact from where the opposite force reacts.
However, if the point of contact of the reaction force is at the original point of contact, then the thing aint going nowhere. (?).
I'm no physicist... but it'd be neat if it were possible.
I dont see the resulting devices being too small. The ideal application would be to have such a magnetic drive small enough, and powerfull enough, to launch from earth. If that were possible, it'd be possible to continue in space at high speeds.
I would pity those with metalic fillings... A serious dentist trip would be required. Another problem would be that any loose screws would be near fatal during launch. Any crash would seriously harm the area... what type of power source would be required for a long trip ? Nuclear ? 100 tons of capacitors ? (refuel via solar panels once in orbit?)
MacOS X could very easily be converted into a "server" mode by killing the GUI when "server" mode is required. Without the GUI, Darwin would be the raw unix running the various daemons.
This GUI->Console->GUI relationship would allow less gifted system administrators to configure and secure their systems using a GUI.
Without the extra GUI baggage, MacOS X would be the "perfect" server. All Apple would need are 4-way and 8-way PPC OS-X supported servers.
I would speculate that OS-X would be a great contender in the small-business server market along with NT & W2K.
I would also speculate that after an initial half a year of a stable MacOS-X rollout, they would release related server hardware making a Mac only environment more appropriate for companies. I would also imagine that their "server" hardware would be designed to be correctly stackable with appropriate power & monitor cables to make technical maintainaince easy.
Considering i've only ever tinkered with Apple hardware, but have extensive use of FreeBSD servers, I am seriously considering purchasing an apple when OS-X is preinstalled.
Slashdot Mirror
Business.
Eg: Trucking Companies / Cargo Companies.
Any high volume -> high management business can usually be streamlined. I know a number of companies (trucking+cargo) which employ 'pads'.
Things go wrong . . .
:)".
We'll have a re-run of the elephant man, and human cloning might be banned worldwide.
This might seriously hinder research stem cell research which might have many future benifits.
Regretably, If this turns out correct, you may have your real life... "clone billgates, take over microsoft, and selfdestruct". Now... many of you might say "What a plan!!
"clone president, take over country, and selfdestruct". Not such a wonderfull idea.
-Tim
Code it up in the game of life, encode linux for it, ... the possibilities are.... uh... slow.
'boxen', its a play on words.
there's a word, where, dropping the S adding 'en' meaning 'alot of'. I picked it up from somewhere/something, just an interesting change to english.
probably slang or a crossover from another language. but, who cares.
-Tim
Cheap AMD Linux Server Boxen will (speculation) make MS suffer in the server market.
MS will push for greater use of amd64.
Intel will do one of two things:
restrict MS use of amd64, if IA64 turns out good
implement amd64 in yamhill if AMD starts beating IA64.
Intel's play in things will depend on who's profit line starts to suffer first.
MS / Intel.
One thing is certain: Legacy software is here for a reason. It isnt going to just up and migrate to IA64. AMD will want to run that software as f= a= s= t= as possible running x86-32 asfast as amd64.
One thing intel might try is embrace and extend (ms style), by outselling the number of CPUs with amd extensions... or have an entirely new 64bit instruction set, and screw amd over the appropriate extensions and binary compatability issues. This alone is a developmental hazard.
Civil Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
Software Engineer
What do the above have in common?
They are all the application of proven scientific methods to produce a result that achieves some objective and works safely within specified limits&criteria with repeatable reproducable results.
Civil Engineers build bridges & buildings
Mechanical Engineers build turbines & engines
Software Engineers build software for nuclear reactors and apollo moon missions.
Software Programmers build software for space probes that crash into mars because of no formal validation.
Engineers dont/cannot afford to make mistakes.
Lives are at stake.
---
Now, what does all this have to do with OO:
----
The difference between a software developer and a software engineer is that an engineer will have some formal process and paradigms to ensure that the process of development is safe and that the result has no alternative side effects.
Object Orientation makes LARGE systems so much more architecturally flexible entirely due to formal reusability and potential reflection/descovery.
Once objects have been engineered to some formal generalized state, they should be reusable across a business and the customized subclasses should be the implementation of all custom business logic.
In addition, an object is not like a 'library' in that while two of the same libraries may not be linked to a program, a program may have references to the two live instances of an object which are the same, except in version and revision (theoretically it should work this way, but i think only the latest J2EE stuff is capable of this).
In addition, OO legacy goal is to invisibly extend the system, while not breaking the contract on which binds process, and provide support for current methodologies on legacy systems... this is not successfull.
-=-
OO does not calculate information quicker.
In fact, it will definately be slower if you make everything, and every process an object.
The only possibly good effect that OO will have in a procedural calculation is version control and the magnification and seperation of abstract mechanics.
Think raycasting, think process transformation, think mechanical dials, think resources in a 'machine', think realtime execution, think of more than one analysis that one wants to work with within the same machine framework.
Importantly, Objects are expected to have a contract which they enforce. Breach of this contract should be impossible.
When it comes to raw processing such as:
for each step
for particle 1 to google do
interact field
push particle
end
calculate field
end
There are no major architectural components.
Sure, you could use OO for datatype abstraction, but a library is just as sufficient.
One important thing to rememeber is that a scientific tool does not need to be robust. It's designed for a specific purpose, calculate an answer. One does not care about the instance of implementation, or the process of implementation, but only, that the answer is correct.
You throw the program away after you have the answer.
Something like mathematica or IDL, which are both meta-scientific tools that aid in the calculation of calculations will use objects extensively. They have procedural/functional syntax to solve problems. Using the tools are functional.
You throw the program away after you have the answer; so WHY use OO ? There is no real reason. You can use OO libraries in your procedural process. You can use OO in designing an application that executes your procedural process, but unless you're process is massive, I wouldnt use OO for the implementation of the procedural process.
Infact, i'd put the entire procedural process within one object.
class myanalysis {
Graph calculate(int x, int y);
}
Calculate is clearly procedural.
The output, eg: Graph, and the means for viewing the result may be in the application domain, in which case OO is used extensively.
EG: windowing components and visual graphing components.
But you're analysis is very much procedural.
Dont foolyourself, use the best tool/paradigm for the job. If its perl, php, parot, prolog, lisp, visual basic or Java then use it.
=== sidenote ===
A Software Engineer is not currently a formalized profession, but I do believe that there is some work going on to make this so. Those that have the understanding on what it takes for a process to be formally proved to work, and have the means to implement the process, are Software Engineers.
For those wondering: Most programmers are just software developers, the [software] engineer is just a tag aquired to sound good. This (formal definition of a software engineer and the means to aquire said title) may have changed at the time of me writing this.
Yes, electronics engineers write software in electronics components, no, they arnt software engineers, but they are (commonly) programmers.
with formal acreditation... unless i'm mistaken.
=== sidenote 2 ====
Formal Object Reuse on a massive scale has not lived up to the hype'ed expectations.
Components dont just 'fit' together as easily as one would like. This makes the formal process very difficult. Java makes this easier in terms of a formal, well guided implementation, but there are better formal languages out there, unfortunately some are only research projects or have lacked the mainstream support.
Taking two components: one from vendor A, one from vendor B, do not currently 'just work' without some intermediate interface marshalling... a goal of current thinkers is to solve this problem. Hence reflection, beans, visual components. Important component/process such as the various banking processes and company ledgers always need to be customized and information is not usually consistent between different implementations of ledgers and supporting APIs, thus one cannot just swap ledger components from two accounting packages as they're too different, on an implementation level.
Lots of problems.
-Tim
I can see it now...
WarDriving (any city)
WarFlotilla (venice)
WarBalloonz
... is if they race 3000km across the UK.
One of my university leacturers told me why he decided to go the mathematics route.
"Mathematics and Physics are the last true blood sports. Kill one bird an EVERYTHING goes."
Funny when you realise the ramifications of this since ALOT of work needs to be reevaluated, etc, even when the results are "statistically" correct, since the explinations and models of how things achieved some result are now totally different.
-Tim
The "Strategy" in strategy games.
Some people can be dimwits. By claiming that there is no strategy in Starcraft is the same as claiming that there is no strategy in Chess. Sure, i would agree that on a theater level, chess has more strategies than an RTS, but thats due to the battle nature of current RTS games. In the real world, there are not too many strategies.
You have your frontline, you have guerilla forces, you have tactical missiles, you have strategic missiles, you have the option to push your frontier, or diminish their defense; and total anniahlation. A bit more to it than that, but there arnt too many options. You need to defend against the initial assault (blitz) and then manage the RTS to a point in which you're invasionary force may win.
Strategy is not the same as tactics. Likewise, an RTS is not the same as a real total-war (world-war 2).
Strategy games each have their own strategies associated with them. The best players identify these, identify what their opponent is using, and counteract with appropriate defenses.
I'm not refering to tactical logistics (if player X brings unit A, then I bring unit B to counter unit A; and the execution of the statement).
> Then came warcraft 2.. A good logical
> extension.. SLightly simpler game dynamic, but
> similiar concept.. Some slight skirmishes, some
> resource allocation and research, but still
> based around the idealogy of overwhelming
> force.. You either crush someone, or you lose..
> No battle lines..
I dont believe this player has ever played War2 in a top 100 setting. War 2 has battle lines, also known as your frontier; An insane amount of conflict is required to keep the status-quo. Your battle line is effectively the line where you'll send units to meet his; units are not necessarily waiting on that line for musketteers to pop along and blow them away.
Consider every point on a map in which you feel it safe to build a building. That area is known as 'behind your frontier', so clearly, the line at which your decision changes to 'no, i wont build there' is your frontier, your battle line. The territory you'll fight to defend (preserve expansion).
-Tim
See the log below:
...
.....im speaking to a piece of software...I
:-) I like your style of
Read up to the "fuck you type fast" bit. This was using an older version of alice.
---
private to USERNAME): A BC...
USERNAME(private): funny
(private to USERNAME): I am so glad you find this amusing, USERNAME.
USERNAME(private): you a comedian ?
(private to USERNAME): Not professionally.
USERNAME(private): well dont give up your day job *g*
(private to USERNAME): Well that's okay. Ok I'll try not to do it
too much.
USERNAME(private): well I can already tell that you are not a 15 year
old like all the other kiddies here....
(private to USERNAME): Well that's okay. Oh you can, can you?
USERNAME(private): fuck you type fast
(private to USERNAME): Why are you using that kind of language?
USERNAME(private): hahah
can tell
(private to USERNAME): Funny, huh ?
speaking, USERNAME.
USERNAME(private): bleh
(private to USERNAME): That remark was either too complex or too
simple for me. We were talking about bleh.
USERNAME(private): bleh bleh
(private to USERNAME): My brain contains more than 22,000 patterns,
but not one that matches your last input.
---
Similar to COBOL and the various BASICs out there, a legacy language could be defined as any language which is _ONLY_ supported because there are systems which critically depend on their maintanance.
The more commonly pleasnt languages like C and C++ exist because they are required to support a vast majority(? okay, a _lot_) of software out there; but most notably, they do what they were designed for well.
If any new language intends on surviving, it needs to focus on an aspect of what the language needs to achieve to exist, and do it more elegantly, with more coordinated tools libraries than any other language in its category currently supports. This is why Microsoft can and will ram C# down societies throat. (If only all the genieii of the language development society could coordinate development better).
Now, getting back to the topic:
For any mainstream programmer (non fringe), what they're currently using as a language is more than adequate at aiding them in what they're developing. As soon as they need a different language (one that tackles a different paradigm/problem), they'll look for the best there is; the most documented; etc; etc.
Hopefully that'll be ruby, mabey it wont. But whatever it is, it needs a lot of support because any programmer hates/detests the maintainance of old software.
Once in a while a language will shine and all that documentation and support grows because:
a) The language solves a perticular problem well;
b) There is nothing as well suited to solve the problem
c) The language is elegant
Its late, i need coffee.
Isnt it amazing how the diversity of life on earth provides for us solutions to problems. Life forms produce foods and medicine which we couldnt live without.
Take beer as an example.
Lets chop down the amazon while we're a bit thoughtless and destroy possibly millions of solutions to problems we can concieve.
I dont see what all the fuss is about.
To answer some of the questions in the article:
> If you were going to structure a curriculum to
> teach Object Oriented concepts, would you teach
> it using Java, C/C++, or something else?
Java. I'd totally forget about C++, mabey throwing it in as a pointer intensive crash course. Learning C++ would be there as a non-compulsory course available Not For Credit ONLY. Any serious programmer MUST know C++, but it is not required for computer scientists. You use the best tool for the job.
> 1) Java is a fine development language,
> and it will help me as a programmer to learn it.
True. You'll think like a programmer, learn OOP. Mabey a few design patterns. All in all, you could be learning Object Pascal and you'd pick up the same programming mindset. Java is more crash resistant so you'll tend to get the coding done faster.
> 2) I'm right. Java is a fad, not worth much
> more than the Windows OS in terms of quality,
> and my CS faculty is doing me a disservice by
> cramming it down my throat.
False. Scientists are not uber computer programmers. They do not care about programming. They want to describe their thoughts in the quickest way possible. Like wise, they have a limited amount of time in which to tutor you in concepts of AI, Image Processing, etc.
> There's a little truth in both the above
> statements.
False.
> The language taught, which has progressed from
> Pascal to (currently) C++ is changing once
> more. Next year will be the last for C++. The
> new language will become Java. My question is,
> realistically:
> Which is the best language for an AP Comp class to learn?
Answer: IT DOESNT MATTER. Who Cares? You have to adapt in the computer world, or you'll be unemployed @ 35-40, or in stuck in some horrid legacy development company that cant find anyone else to do their development.
If you think you're going to leave highschool as a "Master Guru Programmer" and get employed for some ludicrous amount, you're wrong and have a long way to go. (The uber geek is the exception).
You miss the _entire_ point of University & High School. The university system does not care if you come out with no technical skills. Universities do not train students technical skills. (If they do, its probably a cheesy University) Universities are supposed to train your mind to THINK in a manner that will allow you to adapt to change and create change.
Learning java at university does not have the goal to teach you how to program in Java but rather, to get you to "THINK" in a logical method to plan programs and put your thoughts into computational programs. The university doesnt care that you come out with Pascal / C++ / Java. As long as you can program successfully. Ie: You're mind is structured in such a way that programming is natural. (Like driving a car).
Their primary goal is to get you to a point that you can do your Image Processing & Artificial Intelligence assignments. All those advanced 4th year modules are what computer Science is. The first few years in undergrad is getting those less geeky students to THINK and Program.
Once you know how to program in one language, you'll quickly be able to pick up another language. The more languages you learn, the easier it is to learn new languages. This is because PROGRAMMING in different languages use different models in which they describe their language, BUT, there are only a few such models. Most languages are extremely similar, only changing in syntax.
When it comes down to the one person who cares what you know - Your Employer - You'll realise that you'll use the best programming language for the job. That may mean that you'll have to learn something new while employed. If you do not adapt in the computer world, you'll be unemployed at the age of 35 (unless you're either a manager, or a leacturer).
If you're thinking you're wasting your time, you're _so_ wrong. While learning how to program, downtime caused by crashes and pointer problems make learning difficult. Java is definately the perfect educational language. If anything, knowing java will make you a better C++ programmer by enforcing OOP methedologies.
Bonus points if you can program in java and your employer develops in Java. But dont think you can only get away with learning one language. If so, go to www.darwin.org for usefull tips on how others get by this problem.
> C is a language that has been designed to be
> very close to the hardware, and its
> ideosyncracies and power reflect that. Through
> this relationship, C reflects the realities of
> the hardware your programs run on. Memory
> management, low level process and I/O control
> are all things that a computer
> scientist should understand at a very low
> level, to better aid in future programming and
> debugging no matter which language is chosen or
> inflicted upon said scientist.
> In contrast, Java has been designed to take
> such concerns away from the programmer. Memory
> management? Low level IO?
This is the information age. To push research further, you stand on the head of previous technology. You do not start back at the wheel developing everything up until your research area. You take the best tools for the job, you specialise your research and focus on what you're trying to achieve.
What Scientist are you refering to? Mathematical Computer Scientist, Info Computer Scientist or Electronics Computer Scientist and Systems Scientist? Only the last two apply. If you want to build operating systems, you've gotta know alot of the bones. If you want to do AI, you're working in Prolog, or something so far from the hardware : Because you dont care. Sure, everyone HAS to know the principles of programming. You learn this in C, C++ and Java. It is not exclusive to C. Ideally, our thoughts would be mapped directly onto the computer. Scientists want to describe their thoughts, not silly programming languages.
Oh, So you want to be a programmer.
If you want to master a programming language / programming in general. Go to a technical college, or some skills training. There is no place for C in general computer science unless its some operating systems course / low level electronics integration.
> In short, since I believe that AP CS courses
> should focus on the low level architecture of
> computing, Java is an inappropriate language
> for that course.
Are you a scientist or a programmer?
There are different objectives. Every student should ask themselves this question. Some students blindly think that they are thinking.
> When is Java appropriate? In your college ?
> sophomore comparative languages course, or,
> alternatively, in an OO course or two?
Its appropriate when they can teach you to program in it, quickly, ensuring that you can do Image Processing / AI / Algorithm Analysis / Whatever else they decide to teach as a Science. Computer science is not a technical training school.
---
All uber geeks dont actually learn how to program in university. If you're not an uber geek, stick to the syllabus until you can think, mabey take some extra courses.
-Tim
Code cracking challenges are a waste of processing time. Their processing cycles would be better put to use in either Research or Distributed Dynamic Massively Multiplayer RPGs.
a) There is a finite number of people who are interested enough to install distributed processing software.
b) Research is the only way that the human society advances.
c) The next avenue of research is taking place in solving NP problems.
d) NP Problems are brute force problems.
e) Those millions of people who support distributed code cracking could be more usefull by supporting research than cracking competitions which achieve _NOTHING_.
f) At least they could be usefull in processing some Distributed Dynamic Massively Multiplayer Online RPG. Atleast others would benifit from this massive generated game world, it'd be more entertaining. Research would even be usefull.
Going from one commercial environment to another, I recommend Borland Kylix / Delphi.
4 points:
1) Are the development tools good?
2) Are they recognised by future employers?
3) What are the other benifits to the tool?
4) Advice
===
1) As a Visual Basic programmer, you've most likely been developing applications. You have no interest in the workings of the machine and want the RAD tool to hide that from you. RAD tools such as VB and Delphi are good for quickly developing applications. They must be easy to use. Kylix is easy to use.
2) Companies look towards the leaders in development technology for tools. It is common for "management" to only recognise brand names. Known vs Unknown. I, again, recommend Borland Kylix as Borland has a well established brand name. Future employees will recognise you're skills associated with products from that company.
3) Borland supports many different platforms. Windows, Linux, MacOSX, Solaris are just a few of the notable environments they support. Kylix is not necessarily available on all of them, however: Borland's tools are designed to be as similar as possible. Moving between C++ Builder and Delphi is easy. The environment in JBuilder is predictable, on all platforms. I'd imagine it would be relatively easy to port their current products to different platforms. I would also imagine that their next step would be to move Kylix to MacOSX. So, By taking up Kylix, you get an exposure to the development environments which Borland uses. In addition, if/when borland ports Kylix to MacOSX, you'll easily be able to leverage your current skills in the MacOSX arena.
4) In the short-term, for your career, look to the current development tools which will suit you best. To master applications development in linux, you'll need to have a look at all the environments once you have a better understanding of Linux. Only then will you be able to choose the environment which suits you best.
I am sure that the value of the content far surpasses the cost of the copy.
Value: analysis of problems, recommendations in areas, poetry, stories, jokes, designs, solutions, ideas.
Cost: man hours spent maintaining the database, economic cost of spending money archiving usenet, hardware, etc.
For this reason, that archive should never be deleted and preserved by the U.N.
You know... There should be a non-profit archival system accountable to the U.N. for the internet. Similar to project Gutenburg in its aims.
Many "services" are fundumental to the future of the human-knowledge-network that allows researchers to quickly access information empowering them to do what they want.
(researcher = anyone from academic to child)
I think you have it wrong. Firstly, Macs are no Orcish hordes. Definately elfish, but the story has changed since they took a different route. Gandalf = Steve Jobs The One Ring = OSX (one ring to rule them all... It can only be an Operating System. Specificly Darwin/BSD) When Gandalf returned for the second time, he took the ring from Frodo instead of passing it by for the nth time. Sauron == Bill Gates Mordor == Redmond/MS-US Orthanic == MS-Europe Denethor == some OS/2 executive, ensared by Bill Gates evil plan, as Denethor was ensnared by the Palantir. Aqua == Aragorn NT == Balrog ERS == Boromir Allan Cox == Gimli Steve Ballmer == Sauraman Shadowfax == Dual G4 Commander Taco == Frodo Hemos == Samwise Netscape == Bormir agh.... something like that. Its only @ the beginning of the second book, still 4 more to go.
I would imagine that yes, they'd want it, except their bundle structure is different. Further, I'd imagine in their first rollout of OSX, it would not include said package manager. Only after a few revisions would further features like that be distributed by default. -Tim
I believe the purpose of the content aware drives are to provide an extra layer of security to prevent fraud in a company.
The standard drives will "never" be replaced and the planet-wide-overhaul required would break too many valuable software applications to be of financial use.
The target market would most likely be pharmaceuticals, the defense industry, fashion design houses and electronic engineering companies.
The only reasonably novel use I can see is as a digital media storage facility, where content delivered by a media company can be stored and physically locked to a computer as far as perfect digital storage goes.
But Obviously, they can be re-recorded to non-fixed media. Therefore I see no way that any fixed content storage system like this will ever work in the consumer market. (audio watermarking is just an example).
I do, however, think that the industrial implications are important. Its a valid deployable storage mechanism as far as a physical barrier to industrial espionage. But I can imagine that it'll be hell to maintain such a network infrastructure. I can only hope those MCSEs will be able to cope with the security requirements of the future.
Pharmaceuticals, the defense industry, fashion design houses and electronic engineering companies are the ones with the money that this is aimed at. The protection of Trade Secrets.
Any assault on the consumer market is going to have just as much success as WAP. I mean... wtf.. I dont even have a WAP cellphone. And will never buy one. (it'd have to be a freebie).
-Tim
If the movie included a DFA scene, it'd make the movie absolutely worthwhile. Picture: Character does something outrageous which the DM/Director doesnt want... While the character does this, there is a shadow around the player... The Woolly Mammoth Hits with an impressive speed. (The scene then cuts back to just before the death from above scene... as if the incident didnt happen). (Just like in a REAL d&d rpg).
> My first problem with this is if every action
> has an equal and opposite reaction then how
> does the movement of the superconducting
> magnets cause any real change? Sure, their
> inertia will have an effect, but as soon as
> they move back into their original position
> their inertia will cause the opposite reaction.
A creative possibility:
The magnetic force could have an equal and opposite reaction in an area which is not within range of magnetic interference, due to properties of "brief asymmetry in the magnetic field".
If the opposite force does not originate at the point of contact, then it should be possible to ensure that there are no points of contact from where the opposite force reacts.
However, if the point of contact of the reaction force is at the original point of contact, then the thing aint going nowhere. (?).
I'm no physicist... but it'd be neat if it were possible.
I dont see the resulting devices being too small. The ideal application would be to have such a magnetic drive small enough, and powerfull enough, to launch from earth. If that were possible, it'd be possible to continue in space at high speeds.
I would pity those with metalic fillings... A serious dentist trip would be required. Another problem would be that any loose screws would be near fatal during launch. Any crash would seriously harm the area... what type of power source would be required for a long trip ? Nuclear ? 100 tons of capacitors ? (refuel via solar panels once in orbit?)
-Tim
Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane? Oh shyte! It definatly aint Superman
I'd have to say its a risky investment... Especially with mutant space fungus and the likes.
MacOS X could very easily be converted into a "server" mode by killing the GUI when "server" mode is required. Without the GUI, Darwin would be the raw unix running the various daemons.
This GUI->Console->GUI relationship would allow less gifted system administrators to configure and secure their systems using a GUI.
Without the extra GUI baggage, MacOS X would be the "perfect" server. All Apple would need are 4-way and 8-way PPC OS-X supported servers.
I would speculate that OS-X would be a great contender in the small-business server market along with NT & W2K.
I would also speculate that after an initial half a year of a stable MacOS-X rollout, they would release related server hardware making a Mac only environment more appropriate for companies. I would also imagine that their "server" hardware would be designed to be correctly stackable with appropriate power & monitor cables to make technical maintainaince easy.
Considering i've only ever tinkered with Apple hardware, but have extensive use of FreeBSD servers, I am seriously considering purchasing an apple when OS-X is preinstalled.
-Tim