Agreed. Take the last presidential election: If all electronic votes had come to McCain (or Obama) it would have been obvious for everyone involved that something was wrong. You have no booth where 100% of the votes goes to ONE candidate.
To have your design not built in your implementation means no implementation. Or no design. Or neither.
There is a level of separation in most languages called interfaces, abstract classes or simply just inheritance (Java terminology here). It allows to separate design from implementation. But the implementation is still geared toward the specific design you're working with. Otherwise there is no sense. The abstraction just makes it more readable, and discard the need from boilerplate code by casting objects back and forth.
JavaScript doesn't allow this separation, but by the very nature of JavaScript, it is not needed.
Maybe I don't get it, but you don't either. So either provide an example of something you can't do in JavaScript (and feel the need to be able to do) or just shut up.
You know, if the guy (poster) has only worked with Windows systems in the past, I'd go the last mile and let him get a WAMP install instead of LAMP. It's probably a bad idea to get in the Linux bandwagon while deploying a production server for 2500 users.
JavaScript being loosely typed, your concept of abstract data type doesn't even apply. You can consider any object as being of any types, and the "beauty" (or "horror" depending on your religion) is that you don't need abstract data types. Of course, being loosely typed, any error will show up at runtime instead of compile/parsing time.
In Java, you define superclasses, abstract classes and interfaces. In Javascript, you don't need to declare them. Just go with it the instance, and consider it as whatever object you need.
So, by your example, JavaScript is *much* more abstract than Java.
Perhaps you're just as ignorant in JavaScript as you are in abstraction.
WTF do you mean by abstraction by the way? Do you even know how it relates to a programming language? ALL programming languages do abstraction. The higher level they are, the more they abstract. It seems that JavaScript is too low level for you? Is that really your claim?
Maybe you never learned the language properly? If you compare programming with JavaScript vs Assembler, it looks like you've never actually used the language. Now quit talking about it.
Painful, crappy, buggy, slow, PITA to integrate in a web page, not indexable by search engines, the list is long. And it is consistent. I didn't like it 10 years ago, I like it no more and no less today.
As far as a final HTMLv5, where have you been in the past 10 years? W3C propose a draft, browsers go ahead, standards are frozen later on. If only MS had the kindness of not making browsers anymore, things would go well. Now, in almost all browsers you have client side storage, canvas, css3 to a large extent. That's a good enough base as far as I am concerned.
IE4 was a freaking *revolution* compared to Netscape 4. IE4 was DOM based, meaning you could change pages dynamically in Javascript. It had CSS. Netscape4 was a piece of crap. It crashed every 30 minutes and was just basically static HTML rendering (but for forms)
Well, this is all well and good. I'm almost seeing pink flying unicorns over there, look !!!
There are open source encoders and decoders for H.264, so the open vs close source debate shouldn't take place here. As far as patents are concerned, as soon as you write software, you're screwed. So H.264 or VP8 are equally as bad. Some patent troll may come into the picture at any time. At least, H.264 currently known patent holder is exposing his terms up front. But that doesn't mean anything really since potentially 100k other patents may or may not be applicable as well.
All Apple ever did was copy other people's ideas and stick them into shiny boxes.
So you're basically saying Apple's success is only due to their shiny boxes? I sincerely hope you don't believe that, or you've missed the entire picture. It looks as if you have nothing to do in an Apple-related thread. As someone said, nothing's worse than Apple fanbois. Except Apple haters.
I'll fix it for you then:
All Apple ever did was copy other people's ideas and stick them into usable boxes.
Because with the iPhone, for the first time, my grandma was able to use SMS, email, Maps, etc... That's an achievement that prior to the iPhone I though could not be done. Ever.
I read (part of) your paper. This seems overly naive to me. If a program is hidden from the taskbar, it is effectively running in the background and can do any kind of access. If this program has a security flaw, it is a gateway to malware just as much as current operating systems are. Granted, the malware will run in userspace. But if your program is an FTP server (for example) it will have RW access to all your drives. Hence, the malware will feel right at home.
Now, what you propose is likely to reduce malware as we know it. But I believe malware will react and adapt.
My only question is, why would you assume a 50/50 split for white hat vs. black hat. Certainly in the general population there are not 50/50 good vs. evil. If that was the case, people would be a whole lot worse off than they are now. I would say that a much larger percentage of hackers are white hat. That being said, even a small number of black hat hackers can do a serious amount of damage.
It's not 50% bad 50% the rest of the world. It's 50% black hat, 50% white hat. But there is still 99% of the population not in either categories.
When I went to see this movie, there was a standing O in the end. It was a very entertaining experience. For the first 8-10 minutes, the place was silent (save for the movie). Then people started laughing realising it was a comedy intended for laughter. The rest of the movie was hysterical as people laughed harder and harder.
A well deserved standing ovation, in which I participated wholeheartedly.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Take the last presidential election: If all electronic votes had come to McCain (or Obama) it would have been obvious for everyone involved that something was wrong. You have no booth where 100% of the votes goes to ONE candidate.
People go to facebook because that's where their friends are. What good does a social network do if your friends aren't there?
To have your design not built in your implementation means no implementation. Or no design. Or neither.
There is a level of separation in most languages called interfaces, abstract classes or simply just inheritance (Java terminology here). It allows to separate design from implementation. But the implementation is still geared toward the specific design you're working with. Otherwise there is no sense. The abstraction just makes it more readable, and discard the need from boilerplate code by casting objects back and forth.
JavaScript doesn't allow this separation, but by the very nature of JavaScript, it is not needed.
Maybe I don't get it, but you don't either. So either provide an example of something you can't do in JavaScript (and feel the need to be able to do) or just shut up.
Thanks.
You know, if the guy (poster) has only worked with Windows systems in the past, I'd go the last mile and let him get a WAMP install instead of LAMP. It's probably a bad idea to get in the Linux bandwagon while deploying a production server for 2500 users.
JavaScript being loosely typed, your concept of abstract data type doesn't even apply. You can consider any object as being of any types, and the "beauty" (or "horror" depending on your religion) is that you don't need abstract data types. Of course, being loosely typed, any error will show up at runtime instead of compile/parsing time.
In Java, you define superclasses, abstract classes and interfaces. In Javascript, you don't need to declare them. Just go with it the instance, and consider it as whatever object you need.
So, by your example, JavaScript is *much* more abstract than Java.
Any other examples?
Perhaps you're just as ignorant in JavaScript as you are in abstraction.
WTF do you mean by abstraction by the way? Do you even know how it relates to a programming language? ALL programming languages do abstraction. The higher level they are, the more they abstract. It seems that JavaScript is too low level for you? Is that really your claim?
A beautiful rant killed by an ugly fact.
My social skills are just like that, yes, thank you.
Wrong on three counts (should I say two and a half?). Not bad.
Support for threads is coming (already there in some browsers).
There is block level scope since JavaScript 1.7
There is inheritance, since day one.
No strong typing, granted.
Maybe you never learned the language properly? If you compare programming with JavaScript vs Assembler, it looks like you've never actually used the language. Now quit talking about it.
You know, Java, JavaScript, it's all the same crap. For some.
Nothing can be worse than Oracle. Seriously, you want to talk evil companies...
You do know we're not talking about Java, right?
It's not like there are millions of these iOS dudes! And besides, they don't have any money we could leverage on. Wait a minute ...
consistancy
Painful, crappy, buggy, slow, PITA to integrate in a web page, not indexable by search engines, the list is long. And it is consistent. I didn't like it 10 years ago, I like it no more and no less today.
As far as a final HTMLv5, where have you been in the past 10 years? W3C propose a draft, browsers go ahead, standards are frozen later on. If only MS had the kindness of not making browsers anymore, things would go well. Now, in almost all browsers you have client side storage, canvas, css3 to a large extent. That's a good enough base as far as I am concerned.
Sadly, no one ever had the guts
How would you know?
many argue that IE4 was better than Netscape
IE4 was a freaking *revolution* compared to Netscape 4. IE4 was DOM based, meaning you could change pages dynamically in Javascript. It had CSS. Netscape4 was a piece of crap. It crashed every 30 minutes and was just basically static HTML rendering (but for forms)
Look at the quote at the very bottom of this page (at this moment):
"You can make it illegal, but you can't make it unpopular."
You forget all the corporate people, browsing from work, with their unique IP (proxy for the company) and same browser (corporate install).
For the home users, they'll just get down to an IP, not knowing if the same user or another one of the same household is there.
Overall it's just an approximation and it is much less precise than getting back a cookie set on another site.
Well, this is all well and good. I'm almost seeing pink flying unicorns over there, look !!!
There are open source encoders and decoders for H.264, so the open vs close source debate shouldn't take place here. As far as patents are concerned, as soon as you write software, you're screwed. So H.264 or VP8 are equally as bad. Some patent troll may come into the picture at any time. At least, H.264 currently known patent holder is exposing his terms up front. But that doesn't mean anything really since potentially 100k other patents may or may not be applicable as well.
What other arguments did you have again?
they aren't confident in the codebase being patent free.
And how could they be? By reviewing the 1.5 trillion software patents already on record?
Then they won't get the cookie they set in my browser when I was visiting another site, so they'll have a hard time figuring out who I am.
All Apple ever did was copy other people's ideas and stick them into shiny boxes.
So you're basically saying Apple's success is only due to their shiny boxes? I sincerely hope you don't believe that, or you've missed the entire picture. It looks as if you have nothing to do in an Apple-related thread. As someone said, nothing's worse than Apple fanbois. Except Apple haters.
I'll fix it for you then:
All Apple ever did was copy other people's ideas and stick them into usable boxes.
Because with the iPhone, for the first time, my grandma was able to use SMS, email, Maps, etc... That's an achievement that prior to the iPhone I though could not be done. Ever.
I read (part of) your paper. This seems overly naive to me. If a program is hidden from the taskbar, it is effectively running in the background and can do any kind of access. If this program has a security flaw, it is a gateway to malware just as much as current operating systems are. Granted, the malware will run in userspace. But if your program is an FTP server (for example) it will have RW access to all your drives. Hence, the malware will feel right at home.
Now, what you propose is likely to reduce malware as we know it. But I believe malware will react and adapt.
My only question is, why would you assume a 50/50 split for white hat vs. black hat. Certainly in the general population there are not 50/50 good vs. evil. If that was the case, people would be a whole lot worse off than they are now. I would say that a much larger percentage of hackers are white hat. That being said, even a small number of black hat hackers can do a serious amount of damage.
It's not 50% bad 50% the rest of the world. It's 50% black hat, 50% white hat. But there is still 99% of the population not in either categories.
When I went to see this movie, there was a standing O in the end. It was a very entertaining experience. For the first 8-10 minutes, the place was silent (save for the movie). Then people started laughing realising it was a comedy intended for laughter. The rest of the movie was hysterical as people laughed harder and harder.
A well deserved standing ovation, in which I participated wholeheartedly.
Palm (and HP) produced sub-par hardware with excellent software. This makes up for a sub-par phone.
Throw in a killer phone such as the Galaxy S II with WebOS and you'll see if they don't sell like hotcakes.