That would be wasteful, they could however strip down one of the current compilers and make it a "bare minimum" of features necessary to support the compiler.
It's not a horrible language if you take into account it's requirements. C++'s requirements are horrible and make it the monster it is. It has to have all the low-levelness of C with all the high level goodness of a modern OO language. Languages like Java, C#, Ruby, etc.. all have the advantage of not having to be a low-level language as well. While OS's have been written in languages like Pascal (original MacOS for instance and early versions of Windows) those were also largely custom compilers that added low-level functionality to the language.
So basically, C and C++ are unique in that they are required to be systems languages as well as applications languages. This makes both of them quirky to say the least.
After a few moments of thought, the answer seems obvious, so i'm ansing my own question. They will likely have a bootstrap C++ compiler written in C that is capable of compiling the full C++ compiler.
I'm guessing that only the C++ compiler part will be written in C++. Sort of an Ouroborus.
One of the reasons for gcc being in C for so many years is that it was easier to get a bootstrap c compiler running on a given platform to compile the full gcc toolchain, but I would guess that a C++ compiler was not that important to those people anyways, but it still begs the question.. how do you get a C++ compiler working on a platform that doesn't have one?
No. You misunderstand. This has nothing to do with internet access. Currently, Gmail, via it's license, prohibits the use of the android marketplace on any device it has not authorized, and so far they have not "blessed" tablet PC's for use with android. Only phones.
I said I doubted the multi-touch. I didn't say it wasn't capable, just that I didn't believe it would be given the technology. Please don't confuse my opinion with someone claiming a fact, which I did not do.
So don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
According to Asus's website, it has 16GB of internal flash. Yes, it can also have an additional 16GB of external flash, but that's not the same as having 32GB with expansion.. if you use that 16GB of flash, there is no other expansion.
Yes, but none of what you said contradicts what I said, and it doesn't support the original claim that apple uses nothing but off the shelf components and doesn't do anything themselves.
Contracting manufacturing out is different from using COTS.
Except that the T91 has a slow as hell processor, only 16GB of flash which will likely be almost entirely eaten up by Windows, has a resistive touchscreen rather than a capacitive one... and i highly doubt it's multi-touch being that it's a resistive touchscreen (ie requires pressure).
Just not my idea of a good Windows tablet. It should have at least 32GB, use a capacitive screen, and a snappy CPU.
Because Android still has lots of issues on tablets. Until Google "blesses" it for use on a tablet PC, it's going to have a lot of limitations. For instance, Google will not allow tablet versions of Android to use the Android Marketplace... so you now have to provide a way to get apps to your tablet, and that is a headache a lot of manufactuers don't want. Either that or tell your customers to fend for themselves in finding apps.
I'm not a fanboy, but that's not exactly true. Yes, most of their devices do have a lot of stock components, however apple does do a lot of custom ASIC's in their products and supposed the new CPU is an apple modified version of teh ARM Cortex... so they do do their own hardware as well.
I own an Archos 7, and while they may release the source, there is no authorized way to install another OS (or the same OS with new features). You have to physically hack the system and solder wires on to the motherboard to hack into it...
Yes, and no. Microsoft wants Windows to be everywhere, and lots of people want Windows to be everywhere. So far, that hasn't worked for a variety of reasons.
Everything in Windows was designed for mouse/keyboard combination, and there is no touch UI to behold.
Again, yes and no. Windows 7 has a terrific touch UI. but the legacy apps aren't written to support it.
An affordable windows slate is wanted and needed and has a market, if it has the performance characteristics necessary (cpu, battery, etc..). Nobody wants another overpriced tablet pc.
Certainly, the iPad has it's place, and it's a popular place. It's going to destroy part of the ebook reader market, at least until color eInk shows up, and even then lack of backlight makes eInk difficult for a lot of people. I know, that's what makes it such a great ebook reader, lack of a backlight... but tell that to people that like to read in bed, or in low-light areas.
In any event, the iPad proves there's a market for a non-general purpose computer tablet. It does not prove that general purpose tablets will fail. To date they have because they keep trying to cram a full computer into a tablet, and they cost too freaking much.. but a netbook level computer with a tablet interface would be priced correctly, and would appeal to a lot of people as well.
Too many tablet makers price tablets outside their value proposition, they're too greedy.
Yeah, it's not like there are tons of violent video games they can use to channel their agressions... Nor are there programs like Martial Arts, Wrestling, or Football.
"is a 32 bit operating system" is not "Is the first 32 bit operating system".
That was your claim. And Win95 was a 32 bit OS as much as OS/2 was (you do know that OS/2 had 16 bit underpinnings as well, right?)
Microsoft never claimed Windows 95 was the first 32 bit operating system.
Also, while Microsoft did claim that Windows 95 no longer ran on top of DOS very early in it's development, that was the plan.. things changed, and compatibility became more important, which necessitated a real DOS subsystem. It's still a matter of semantics as to whether or not it "ran on dos" because in reality, Windows 95 took over and ran the DOS session in it's own process, then routed various interrupt routines through it. Although this was not that much different from what programs like DesqView did.
While you certainly *CAN* hold Microsoft or any company responsible for claims they made about a product 3 years before it shipped, doing so is rather pointless. Products always end up different from the original plans. And not just Microsoft has that problem.
I agree, my point would be better phrased as you say.
However, my point was just because claim 1 is very general and may not stand up to a patent validity test, doesn't mean the entire patent is invalid.
It also doesn't mean that because my claim 1 has a vague claim that you are barred from implementing it, because if the claim is sufficiently vague, it's also sufficiently difficult to protect.
An english teacher marks up a term paper with red pen. Is this infringing on microsoft's red squiggle? I'm fairly certain that red pens have been used far longer.
And accounting ledger books have been in use for centuries, so therefore Visicalc wasn't innovative either.
All ideas are derivative in some way or another, we can't just come up with something in a vacuum.
Even Einsteins theory of relativity is derivitive, not just of work at the time, but he claimed to have thought of it while looking at church clocks in the eurpoean countryside and noting how distance played a part in how you percieved time.
If you want to argue that because something is based on something else, then you are basically arguing that there is no such thing as novelty or invention.
What part of "being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it unique" do you keep having trouble understanding? You're talking about things that have nothing to do with the ribbons novelty.
Clearly your experience with the ribbon consists of looking at a picture of it. There is nothing unique about the visual look of the ribbon, that is completely true. There is nothing about it being tabbed that's unique either.
Given that, how is your comment even relevant? All you're talking about is what it looks like.
thats bullshit. Programmers spend a good amount of their time writing code that is the first do something in a specific area. Because if someone else had already done it before then we'd just use the software someone else already wrote for that task.
Have you never heard of Not invented here syndrome? It's chronic in software developers. The reasons are many, but often the reasoning is "Well, that other version doesn't do what I need in exactly the way I need it" or "I don't want to pay a royalty for that" or "I can do it better/faster/cheaper".
Patents don't protect *ONLY* an idea. You can't have an implementation without the idea. So to have an innovative invention, you must have an innovative idea. Simply having an idea is not enough, but the idea is a requirement.
They didn't invent the drive-thru until the 60's or 70's, despite having cars and previoiusly thought of drive-ins.
The drive-thru couldn't have been obvious, or people would have been doing it since the invention of cars.
Regarding the telephone, there's much debate of whether it was simultaneously invented or whether it was stolen by bell, given that both showed virtually identical prototypes. Also, the telephone was derived from the telegraph, so it was a derivitive work.
Why? There are tons of innovative ways people have gone broke, for instance. Tons of innovative ways people have killed themselves... etc.. etc.. etc..
Dan Bricklin? The guy that took the standard ledger and made a computer program that did the same thing?
Look, I agree those people are all innovative, but the same arguments can be applied to most of their works. All of it was derivitive in some way or another. You think they were innovative because they did it on a computer first.
What's the difference between "doing it on a computer first" and "doing in first?"
Slashdot Mirror
That would be wasteful, they could however strip down one of the current compilers and make it a "bare minimum" of features necessary to support the compiler.
It's not a horrible language if you take into account it's requirements. C++'s requirements are horrible and make it the monster it is. It has to have all the low-levelness of C with all the high level goodness of a modern OO language. Languages like Java, C#, Ruby, etc.. all have the advantage of not having to be a low-level language as well. While OS's have been written in languages like Pascal (original MacOS for instance and early versions of Windows) those were also largely custom compilers that added low-level functionality to the language.
So basically, C and C++ are unique in that they are required to be systems languages as well as applications languages. This makes both of them quirky to say the least.
After a few moments of thought, the answer seems obvious, so i'm ansing my own question. They will likely have a bootstrap C++ compiler written in C that is capable of compiling the full C++ compiler.
I'm guessing that only the C++ compiler part will be written in C++. Sort of an Ouroborus.
One of the reasons for gcc being in C for so many years is that it was easier to get a bootstrap c compiler running on a given platform to compile the full gcc toolchain, but I would guess that a C++ compiler was not that important to those people anyways, but it still begs the question.. how do you get a C++ compiler working on a platform that doesn't have one?
No. You misunderstand. This has nothing to do with internet access. Currently, Gmail, via it's license, prohibits the use of the android marketplace on any device it has not authorized, and so far they have not "blessed" tablet PC's for use with android. Only phones.
I said I doubted the multi-touch. I didn't say it wasn't capable, just that I didn't believe it would be given the technology. Please don't confuse my opinion with someone claiming a fact, which I did not do.
So don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
According to Asus's website, it has 16GB of internal flash. Yes, it can also have an additional 16GB of external flash, but that's not the same as having 32GB with expansion.. if you use that 16GB of flash, there is no other expansion.
Yes, but none of what you said contradicts what I said, and it doesn't support the original claim that apple uses nothing but off the shelf components and doesn't do anything themselves.
Contracting manufacturing out is different from using COTS.
Except that the T91 has a slow as hell processor, only 16GB of flash which will likely be almost entirely eaten up by Windows, has a resistive touchscreen rather than a capacitive one... and i highly doubt it's multi-touch being that it's a resistive touchscreen (ie requires pressure).
Just not my idea of a good Windows tablet. It should have at least 32GB, use a capacitive screen, and a snappy CPU.
Because Android still has lots of issues on tablets. Until Google "blesses" it for use on a tablet PC, it's going to have a lot of limitations. For instance, Google will not allow tablet versions of Android to use the Android Marketplace... so you now have to provide a way to get apps to your tablet, and that is a headache a lot of manufactuers don't want. Either that or tell your customers to fend for themselves in finding apps.
I'm not a fanboy, but that's not exactly true. Yes, most of their devices do have a lot of stock components, however apple does do a lot of custom ASIC's in their products and supposed the new CPU is an apple modified version of teh ARM Cortex... so they do do their own hardware as well.
I own an Archos 7, and while they may release the source, there is no authorized way to install another OS (or the same OS with new features). You have to physically hack the system and solder wires on to the motherboard to hack into it...
Not a good example.
Yes, and no. Microsoft wants Windows to be everywhere, and lots of people want Windows to be everywhere. So far, that hasn't worked for a variety of reasons.
Again, yes and no. Windows 7 has a terrific touch UI. but the legacy apps aren't written to support it.
An affordable windows slate is wanted and needed and has a market, if it has the performance characteristics necessary (cpu, battery, etc..). Nobody wants another overpriced tablet pc.
I agree to some extent.
Certainly, the iPad has it's place, and it's a popular place. It's going to destroy part of the ebook reader market, at least until color eInk shows up, and even then lack of backlight makes eInk difficult for a lot of people. I know, that's what makes it such a great ebook reader, lack of a backlight... but tell that to people that like to read in bed, or in low-light areas.
In any event, the iPad proves there's a market for a non-general purpose computer tablet. It does not prove that general purpose tablets will fail. To date they have because they keep trying to cram a full computer into a tablet, and they cost too freaking much.. but a netbook level computer with a tablet interface would be priced correctly, and would appeal to a lot of people as well.
Too many tablet makers price tablets outside their value proposition, they're too greedy.
Yeah, it's not like there are tons of violent video games they can use to channel their agressions... Nor are there programs like Martial Arts, Wrestling, or Football.
Yeah, no place at all...
"is a 32 bit operating system" is not "Is the first 32 bit operating system".
That was your claim. And Win95 was a 32 bit OS as much as OS/2 was (you do know that OS/2 had 16 bit underpinnings as well, right?)
Microsoft never claimed Windows 95 was the first 32 bit operating system.
Also, while Microsoft did claim that Windows 95 no longer ran on top of DOS very early in it's development, that was the plan.. things changed, and compatibility became more important, which necessitated a real DOS subsystem. It's still a matter of semantics as to whether or not it "ran on dos" because in reality, Windows 95 took over and ran the DOS session in it's own process, then routed various interrupt routines through it. Although this was not that much different from what programs like DesqView did.
While you certainly *CAN* hold Microsoft or any company responsible for claims they made about a product 3 years before it shipped, doing so is rather pointless. Products always end up different from the original plans. And not just Microsoft has that problem.
I agree, my point would be better phrased as you say.
However, my point was just because claim 1 is very general and may not stand up to a patent validity test, doesn't mean the entire patent is invalid.
It also doesn't mean that because my claim 1 has a vague claim that you are barred from implementing it, because if the claim is sufficiently vague, it's also sufficiently difficult to protect.
And accounting ledger books have been in use for centuries, so therefore Visicalc wasn't innovative either.
All ideas are derivative in some way or another, we can't just come up with something in a vacuum.
Even Einsteins theory of relativity is derivitive, not just of work at the time, but he claimed to have thought of it while looking at church clocks in the eurpoean countryside and noting how distance played a part in how you percieved time.
If you want to argue that because something is based on something else, then you are basically arguing that there is no such thing as novelty or invention.
What part of "being a tabbed toolbar doesn't make it unique" do you keep having trouble understanding? You're talking about things that have nothing to do with the ribbons novelty.
Clearly your experience with the ribbon consists of looking at a picture of it. There is nothing unique about the visual look of the ribbon, that is completely true. There is nothing about it being tabbed that's unique either.
Given that, how is your comment even relevant? All you're talking about is what it looks like.
What part of "a tabbed toolbar is not what makes the ribbon unique" don't you understand?
COM has nothing to do with RPC. Where did you get that idea?
DCOM uses RPC, COM does not.
Have you never heard of Not invented here syndrome? It's chronic in software developers. The reasons are many, but often the reasoning is "Well, that other version doesn't do what I need in exactly the way I need it" or "I don't want to pay a royalty for that" or "I can do it better/faster/cheaper".
Patents don't protect *ONLY* an idea. You can't have an implementation without the idea. So to have an innovative invention, you must have an innovative idea. Simply having an idea is not enough, but the idea is a requirement.
They didn't invent the drive-thru until the 60's or 70's, despite having cars and previoiusly thought of drive-ins.
The drive-thru couldn't have been obvious, or people would have been doing it since the invention of cars.
Regarding the telephone, there's much debate of whether it was simultaneously invented or whether it was stolen by bell, given that both showed virtually identical prototypes. Also, the telephone was derived from the telegraph, so it was a derivitive work.
Why? There are tons of innovative ways people have gone broke, for instance. Tons of innovative ways people have killed themselves... etc.. etc.. etc..
Dan Bricklin? The guy that took the standard ledger and made a computer program that did the same thing?
Look, I agree those people are all innovative, but the same arguments can be applied to most of their works. All of it was derivitive in some way or another. You think they were innovative because they did it on a computer first.
What's the difference between "doing it on a computer first" and "doing in first?"