Seriously, researchers love to come up with theories that blame the patient or their parents for the illness. A lot easier than developing a vaccine and it satisfies their protestant work-ethic bias too.
"Object Oriented programming has become a vague religion rather than a specific tool."
It would appear that you treat it like religion yourself except that you aren't vague about it.
I've been using C++ since the mid-eighties and I doubt that I've ever violated LSP, but I have broad enough experience in software development to realize that I can't foresee every possible scenario.
To paraphrase Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth, MadKeithV, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
"But without it you'll end up with situations where a function will not accept a pointer to a triangle, because it will only take pointers to data type "polygon" from which triangle is derived."
Yes, I understand the implications.
"If the rule is correctly applied, the relationships between base and derived classes should also be a lot clearer. If it doesn't make sense for a derived type to be passed as a base type, you've probably made a wrong decision in your code design."
There are no "wrong decisions" unless some requirement is unfulfilled.
My point is that we sometimes we confuse dogma with correctness.
"Sadly, too many people still think it's a guideline, not a rule. Sorry, if your code violates the LSP, you've got a bug, it just hasn't bitten you yet."
It's really a very common design convention, but not following the convention isn't necessarily a bug. A bug is a deviation from requirements and requirements should never be assumed.
"You - and a million other developers - are glad to take whatever ships with the system."
Yes, we call that programing for the platform. We are developers, not politicians. We enjoy writing programs that do something useful, we don't enjoy brown-nosing the EU or self-appointed software Nazis.
AOL purchased Netscape to inherit Netscape's "victimness" at the hands of MS. Although they got the big pay day they were seeking from MS, they paid too much for Netscape so they lost money on the deal.
It sounds like Sun was very cautious and didn't want to ship Mono without legal protection. Nevertheless, permission from Microsoft isn't required and Mono isn't the only project that has implemented.Net.
"Mono exists because of the Novell/Microsoft pact, which was an early step in a long-term strategy to use patents to destroy the GPL ecosystem."
No. First of all, Mono was around for years before Novell purchased Ximian, so the agreement between Novell and Microsoft wasn't a factor. Besides, anyone can make their own.Net clone, it's an ECMA standard, and it doesn't require any permission from Microsoft to implement.
That would make sense if they found any MS patents that could apply only to.Net and nothing else. The fact that mono implements part of the.Net framework doesn't mean it carries a special danger of patent infringement.
Most patents are written to be as broad as possible, MS has enough experience at it to avoid the mistake of limiting its scope to the.Net framework.
Slashdot Mirror
"True, but you opted in, right when you used inheritance."
No. Inheritance is possible without polymorphism and polymorphism is possible without inheritance.
because they're outside and living active lives.
Seriously, researchers love to come up with theories that blame the patient or their parents for the illness. A lot easier than developing a vaccine and it satisfies their protestant work-ethic bias too.
"the era of Rick Berman looks to finally be at an end"
Whatever you think of Rick Berman, the fact is that it was his era that made Star Trek financially viable for Paramount.
Of course his era also included some of the best Trek episodes ever.
"Object Oriented programming has become a vague religion rather than a specific tool."
It would appear that you treat it like religion yourself except that you aren't vague about it.
I've been using C++ since the mid-eighties and I doubt that I've ever violated LSP, but I have broad enough experience in software development to realize that I can't foresee every possible scenario.
To paraphrase Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth, MadKeithV, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The mere fact that you have a class hierarchy does not a requirement make.
Polymorphism is a capability that most if not all OO languages support, but like any capability it's entirely optional.
"But without it you'll end up with situations where a function will not accept a pointer to a triangle, because it will only take pointers to data type "polygon" from which triangle is derived."
Yes, I understand the implications.
"If the rule is correctly applied, the relationships between base and derived classes should also be a lot clearer. If it doesn't make sense for a derived type to be passed as a base type, you've probably made a wrong decision in your code design."
There are no "wrong decisions" unless some requirement is unfulfilled.
My point is that we sometimes we confuse dogma with correctness.
We just had dirt. Young whipper-snapper!
"Sadly, too many people still think it's a guideline, not a rule. Sorry, if your code violates the LSP, you've got a bug, it just hasn't bitten you yet."
It's really a very common design convention, but not following the convention isn't necessarily a bug. A bug is a deviation from requirements and requirements should never be assumed.
If this patent means it's illegal for me to market myself in a job interview, I'm all for it!
"The troll moderation is NOT for modding down something you disagree with people."
In practice all moderation on Slashdot is about what you agree or disagree with. Why try to challenge a good argument when you can just bury it?
"If all it takes is a dinner--even a nice dinner--then why would she put out for you?"
This sounds like a "we know what you are, we're just negotiating the price" argument.
I accept your apology EU, don't do it again.
"You - and a million other developers - are glad to take whatever ships with the system."
Yes, we call that programing for the platform. We are developers, not politicians. We enjoy writing programs that do something useful, we don't enjoy brown-nosing the EU or self-appointed software Nazis.
"Developers are there to provide things users need. Users are NOT there to facilitate things the developers need."
Sure, that's why IE should stay in Windows and web developers should just suck it up and make their sites work with it.
AOL purchased Netscape to inherit Netscape's "victimness" at the hands of MS. Although they got the big pay day they were seeking from MS, they paid too much for Netscape so they lost money on the deal.
"Big money companies can't do research, it's against their nature and a huge waste of cash."
Sure, just consider AT&T, Xerox, and IBM. Nothing useful ever came from these big companies' research.
Sure, and think of all the good publicity for open source when it's associated with illegal activity!
"C'mon... You can't be serious. My argument was finished way up the thread."
So why didn't you stop when your argument was "finished"?
"Has .NET been vetted by experts in the way open source projects like this will be?"
What open source projects like this have been vetted by experts in the past? Who were they?
Not a very good closing argument, daemonburrito.
You wouldn't know if I'm mistaken or not since I didn't express an opinion on what an ECMA standard means.
It sounds like Sun was very cautious and didn't want to ship Mono without legal protection. Nevertheless, permission from Microsoft isn't required and Mono isn't the only project that has implemented .Net.
"Mono exists because of the Novell/Microsoft pact, which was an early step in a long-term strategy to use patents to destroy the GPL ecosystem."
No. First of all, Mono was around for years before Novell purchased Ximian, so the agreement between Novell and Microsoft wasn't a factor. Besides, anyone can make their own .Net clone, it's an ECMA standard, and it doesn't require any permission from Microsoft to implement.
I was just responding to the claim that this suit would set a legal precedent, which it won't.
If there is any fear on the part of linux customers over this case, Bruce and company are creating it.
Most business customers have never heard of Tom Tom and didn't know it used Linux. Probably most of them still don't know what it is.
That would make sense if they found any MS patents that could apply only to .Net and nothing else. The fact that mono implements part of the .Net framework doesn't mean it carries a special danger of patent infringement.
Most patents are written to be as broad as possible, MS has enough experience at it to avoid the mistake of limiting its scope to the .Net framework.