A grain of truth makes for a better rhetorical rant. His ignorance on this issue shows through plainly nonetheless, with a healthy smattering of claims that are clearly wrong.
the most shocking: the fact that people buy it (it's in the shop, so there are customers for it. At least the shop owner thinks it's worth dedicating shelf space to and they wouldn't if it doesn't sell).
It's fairly safe to say that the number of people who buy full price Microsoft Office from a store is roughly the same as the number of people who set themselves on fire in downtown Seattle. The only reason the box would be in the store is if the retailer pays nothing for it, and actually gets a kickback to make up for the wasted shelf space.
- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you cannot fix it without rewriting your app.
This is no different in C...
The same problem is much worse in C. Because you will have grafted a crappy half-OO hack onto it that has accreted stupid numbers of macros, casts and other abuses. And it will be hell to change. Speaking from experience.
For all his brilliance, Linus is stupid about some things. One of them is his near complete lack of understanding of C++. He obviously has zero skill in it, but he has plenty of skill at getting up on his pulpit and flaming people who do.
We got the Web by NOT using OO. Why do we want to keep trying to apply a failed concept?
Still trying to explain why you haven't gotten around to learning C++? Because you obviously haven't. It hurts, but not that much. And then you might have a clue.
C used to be the hot new language that held your hand and did everything for you, unlike assembler. Now C is assembler-like?
C was always considered assembler-like, including by those who wrote it. Non-assembler like languages of the day included Algol 68, LISP, Snobol, TRAC and Simula.
there are plenty of other high-level programming paradigms that for some tasks can be vastly superior to OO--e.g. straight functional programming in ML or Dylan, or logic programming in Prolog, or explicitly stack-based programming in Forth or Postscript.
OO is orthogonal to all those techniques. If you want to OOP your explicit stacks, you can.
OO isn't always the best option. OO languages are typically a lot more complex and produce slower executables than plain C, so there is a trade-off that can be important in certain situations. As with anything, pick the best tool for the job.
You got modded up for that misinformation? Perhaps you are not aware that gcc and g++ use the same optimizer and code generator. If you just mindless recompile your C program as C++ then you will get the same executable code. On the other hand, you can often take advantage of C++ features such as member functions to write code that optimizes better than palin C. So the truth is the opposite of what you claim.
TIOBE is essentially just a big troll site. Their methodology is so far beyond unscientific it's not even wrong. Here is the result of my own unscientific poll:
Now, if you tell me that xbox live usage is going down, then this is something to worry about.
Have you noticed how XBox is steadily losing ground to PS3? Two or three months from now there will be fewer XBoxes installed than PS3s and things will no doubt degenerate from there. If you feel the need to worry about something, maybe you should worry about that. Not that I have any love for Sony, but I do appreciate the good work they do in undermining Microsoft's monopoly dreams int the console space.
I think you can trust the accuracy and honesty of W3Schools. However keep in mind that these are their statistics for visitors, and the vast majority of visitors are those who write HTML. Not the general population. This should be even more disturbing for Microsoft because it tells you what the front line HTML coders are running. W3Schools is therefore a leading indicator. For a long time, their numbers have accurately predicted a year in advance what the general population will be doing.
Maybe if they drop the price low enough, somebody might actually buy Microsoft Word instead of downloading LibreOffice for free.
Well, there are a lot of things that Microsoft can do now, but pretty well all of them come with the disadvantage of earning less money. Not that I would shed a tear.
OK I'll give you one, Linus Torvalds has been using Apple products for the last 6 years.
Linus runs Linux when he uses Apple hardware. You just proved my point. And now you want to rely on an Apple commercial to boost your geek cred? Proved my point again.
By the way, since you seem fond of appeal to authority type arguments: "I’m not an apple fan, because I think they’ve done some really bad things too" -- Linus Torvalds.
OK, we know you aren't a true geek, you have made that abundantly clear. If you feel the need to pose as one, I suggest you find a friend to write your posts for you because you are not doing too well on your own. Maybe you might learn something.
Apple marketing created the illusion which it's products hid behind, the illusion has mostly evaporated under the glare of the truth. So Apple is basically acknowledging that it's market are the spoilt brats who don't give a crap about anything unless it is fashionable to do so, today, in the last hour, now. So it is squeezing out on cost to maximise profits because the spoilt brat market eventually becomes the no taste market, they have basically painted themselves in a corner. Fashionable fads always die, clothes, hairstyles, jewellery, food, cars, basically any imaginable accessory all go the route of the yoyo and hula hoop.
Cutting analysis but accurate. So accurate that Apple's professional Slashdot moderators need to be alerted right away. Oh wait, they're already here.
I wonder what it feels like, to be an Apple Scientologist?
Apple uses glue because it is faster to manufacture and it frees you from certain structural constraints. I don't like that from a repair standpoint but I understand why they do it.
I understand too. Because Apple doesn't give a fuck about anything but profits. However, overtly coming out of the closet to kick the greens in the nads has got to be a profit-losing proposition from any point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
A grain of truth makes for a better rhetorical rant. His ignorance on this issue shows through plainly nonetheless, with a healthy smattering of claims that are clearly wrong.
From the Bill Gates Cyborg, to the inherent bias of the articles published, it's not a fanboi of MS. Let's get over that.
Where do you have to go to find MSFT fanbois these days? Bill Gates' living room?
Oh, it seems I found one right here, with mod points even.
the most shocking: the fact that people buy it (it's in the shop, so there are customers for it. At least the shop owner thinks it's worth dedicating shelf space to and they wouldn't if it doesn't sell).
It's fairly safe to say that the number of people who buy full price Microsoft Office from a store is roughly the same as the number of people who set themselves on fire in downtown Seattle. The only reason the box would be in the store is if the retailer pays nothing for it, and actually gets a kickback to make up for the wasted shelf space.
- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you cannot fix it without rewriting your app.
This is no different in C...
The same problem is much worse in C. Because you will have grafted a crappy half-OO hack onto it that has accreted stupid numbers of macros, casts and other abuses. And it will be hell to change. Speaking from experience.
For all his brilliance, Linus is stupid about some things. One of them is his near complete lack of understanding of C++. He obviously has zero skill in it, but he has plenty of skill at getting up on his pulpit and flaming people who do.
Considering that C++ was originally implemented as a preprocessor for C, there's an existence proof that says you are wrong.
Skipped your theorum proving class, then?
You can write object orientated code in C.
Having done a lot of that I can confidently state that it sucks beyond belief.
We got the Web by NOT using OO. Why do we want to keep trying to apply a failed concept?
Still trying to explain why you haven't gotten around to learning C++? Because you obviously haven't. It hurts, but not that much. And then you might have a clue.
Inheritance is syntactic sugar around struct pointer casting.
Control structures are syntactic sugar around gotos and high level languages are syntactic sugar for directly typing the bytes into memory.
Everyone else will attempt to explain OO using OO terms to a non-OO programmer.
How about: "It's like when you stop beating yourself on the head with a hammer".
I've written goddamn VB, when I have to.
I've written GWBASIC and no matter how hard I scrub, I can't get it off me.
C used to be the hot new language that held your hand and did everything for you, unlike assembler. Now C is assembler-like?
C was always considered assembler-like, including by those who wrote it. Non-assembler like languages of the day included Algol 68, LISP, Snobol, TRAC and Simula.
there are plenty of other high-level programming paradigms that for some tasks can be vastly superior to OO--e.g. straight functional programming in ML or Dylan, or logic programming in Prolog, or explicitly stack-based programming in Forth or Postscript.
OO is orthogonal to all those techniques. If you want to OOP your explicit stacks, you can.
OO isn't always the best option. OO languages are typically a lot more complex and produce slower executables than plain C, so there is a trade-off that can be important in certain situations. As with anything, pick the best tool for the job.
You got modded up for that misinformation? Perhaps you are not aware that gcc and g++ use the same optimizer and code generator. If you just mindless recompile your C program as C++ then you will get the same executable code. On the other hand, you can often take advantage of C++ features such as member functions to write code that optimizes better than palin C. So the truth is the opposite of what you claim.
TIOBE is essentially just a big troll site. Their methodology is so far beyond unscientific it's not even wrong. Here is the result of my own unscientific poll:
C: About 234,000,000 results
Objective-C: About 41,400,000 results
See, C++ dominates Objective-C by more than a factor of five. You can take that to the bank. You're welcome.
Now, if you tell me that xbox live usage is going down, then this is something to worry about.
Have you noticed how XBox is steadily losing ground to PS3? Two or three months from now there will be fewer XBoxes installed than PS3s and things will no doubt degenerate from there. If you feel the need to worry about something, maybe you should worry about that. Not that I have any love for Sony, but I do appreciate the good work they do in undermining Microsoft's monopoly dreams int the console space.
From the Bill Gates Cyborg, to the inherent bias of the articles published, it's not a fanboi of MS. Let's get over that.
Where do you have to go to find MSFT fanbois these days? Bill Gates' living room?
I think you can trust the accuracy and honesty of W3Schools. However keep in mind that these are their statistics for visitors, and the vast majority of visitors are those who write HTML. Not the general population. This should be even more disturbing for Microsoft because it tells you what the front line HTML coders are running. W3Schools is therefore a leading indicator. For a long time, their numbers have accurately predicted a year in advance what the general population will be doing.
The HUGE gap in numbers make me doubt all of the numbers.
Beat that dead horse enough, it just might get up.
(Objective-C Overtakes C++ based on TIOBE Index)
That would be Subjective-C.
Maybe if they drop the price low enough, somebody might actually buy Microsoft Word instead of downloading LibreOffice for free.
Well, there are a lot of things that Microsoft can do now, but pretty well all of them come with the disadvantage of earning less money. Not that I would shed a tear.
if the issue is simply glue verses tabs or screws, it seems there might be some middle ground that can be worked out
You're right. Buy an Android. Just stating the obvious.
Who, Apple astromods are sensitive about that one. Maybe the fact that sensible people buy a million Android phones a day has something to do with it?
OK I'll give you one, Linus Torvalds has been using Apple products for the last 6 years.
Linus runs Linux when he uses Apple hardware. You just proved my point. And now you want to rely on an Apple commercial to boost your geek cred? Proved my point again.
By the way, since you seem fond of appeal to authority type arguments: "I’m not an apple fan, because I think they’ve done some really bad things too" -- Linus Torvalds.
OK, we know you aren't a true geek, you have made that abundantly clear. If you feel the need to pose as one, I suggest you find a friend to write your posts for you because you are not doing too well on your own. Maybe you might learn something.
Apple marketing created the illusion which it's products hid behind, the illusion has mostly evaporated under the glare of the truth. So Apple is basically acknowledging that it's market are the spoilt brats who don't give a crap about anything unless it is fashionable to do so, today, in the last hour, now. So it is squeezing out on cost to maximise profits because the spoilt brat market eventually becomes the no taste market, they have basically painted themselves in a corner. Fashionable fads always die, clothes, hairstyles, jewellery, food, cars, basically any imaginable accessory all go the route of the yoyo and hula hoop.
Cutting analysis but accurate. So accurate that Apple's professional Slashdot moderators need to be alerted right away. Oh wait, they're already here.
I wonder what it feels like, to be an Apple Scientologist?
Apple uses glue because it is faster to manufacture and it frees you from certain structural constraints. I don't like that from a repair standpoint but I understand why they do it.
I understand too. Because Apple doesn't give a fuck about anything but profits. However, overtly coming out of the closet to kick the greens in the nads has got to be a profit-losing proposition from any point of view.