I haven't seen the code either - I was just speaking in general.
Trying to solve the problem of obfuscated code by style guidelines underestimates the imagination of the programmer. You have to take the individual aside, point to his/her offending code and say don't continue do this if you want to keep your job.
"How would you feel as a coder to be tossed an old modded version of your code with a totally different style to it, and have to redo alot of your OWN developments to incorporate in somebody elses."
I would feel like every programmer that ever worked on a project with other programmers.
The most effective solution is for everyone to stop worrying that everybody else has a different style and embrace the diversity. The value of a consistent coding style is outweighed by the pain and effort people have to go through to maintain it.
The standard argument is that a consistent style is easier to understand, but anyone who can hold down a programming job for a year is capable of understanding a foreign style without working up a sweat.
As I've said before, these conventions aren't about ease of understanding, they're about ego and xenophobia.
The engineering industry has been complaining about a shortage of engineers continuously since the 1950's, but it's never been true.
Now that I'm in my 50's and can appreciate the limitations of the engineering career cycle, my advice to young people who are considering an engineering career is the same as I would give to those considering music, acting or art: do it only if you aren't any good at anything else and don't expect it to support you forever.
"I mean, if they didn't, Apple could take away Tiger Direct's trade mark."
The principle of protecting your trademark goes beyond the immediate issue. If they don't protect it, Tiger Direct could lose its mark altogether, not just to Apple.
Even the old farts have moved on. If this transition were occurring 10 years ago, aliasing the DOS commands would be great, but very few Windows users use DOS commands today, or need to.
Encourage them to wear bell-bottom pants, long sideburns for the men and play disco music in the background. That should acclimate them to 1970's style computing.
I guess you didn't notice my Nickname; I'm not a FOSS advocate.
As I said before, I have no problem with IBM holding back any technology they wish to. My problem is with their hypocritical attitude over FOSS. If they simply want to quietly support FOSS in a limited way, fine. But if they are going to preach to others about it, then they should be willing to go all the way.
I also have a problem with FOSS advocates that while preaching purity to everyone (note the extreme arguments about the use of BitKeeper), are willing to give IBM a pass despite that fact IBM hasn't released source code for any of its core technologies.
I suspect that many believe that the practical value of an endorsement of FOSS by IBM outweighs IBM's "sins".
Yes, we all know that versions of Windows prior to NT ran on top of DOS. That's an implementation detail that doesn't change the fact that OS/2 wasn't the first OS available on the PC with a Graphical User Interface.
I don't have anything against IBM doing any level of closed vs. open source. But I do have an objection to IBM talking as if they have "seen the light" on open source and giving advice to other companies like Sun when they are holding back the most profitable products from the open source model.
Perhaps "getting" open source for IBM means throwing a few crumbs to OSS community with the knowledge that it will get them a free pass in the future.
Isn't avoiding undercutting your own products exactly the same policy that MS has?
If someday IBM decides it can't release any OSS products without undercutting it's money-making products, will they still qualify as an OSS poster-child?
If IBM really believed in openness, as they claim they do, they would open all their products up and offer a free license to all their patents.
I don't blame them if they don't (because I believe it's bad for their business), but I can tell the difference betwee principle and PR.
"OS/2 was designed by IBM as the first graphical OS for the PC."
No. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985 and OS/2 1.0 in 1987. By the way, the first four releases of OS/2 didn't require a 386, just a 286 (the 286 has a protected mode too).
"I've got to say - even if 40% of OS2 is opened up, the benefits to many, many projects could be wide-spread."
I've got to wonder if there's really any generic information in OS2 that OSS programmers (as a group) don't already know.
It seems to me that source code for cancelled software products is most useful for those who were already using it and need to upgrade it so they can continue using it in the future.
I'd like to see Rational Visual Test opened because many people are still using it. As soon as IBM bought Rational, they discontinued selling it to help prop-up sales of the more expensive Rational Robot.
That's why I don't buy in to the idea of IBM as the OSS poster child.
Then how do you explain this quote from The New York Times?:
"In the suit, filed last Thursday, Xerox accused Apple of unlawfully using, in two of its computers, copyrighted Xerox software that controls desktop computers. Xerox also argues that Apple has undermined Xerox's ability to license its own software widely by suing two other companies marketing similar software."
The suit was eventually thrown out and perhaps Apple bought a license later, but it's clear that Xerox believed their interface had been stolen.
By the way, in those days it was often assumed that copyright covered not only source code, but "look and feel" as well.
I only watched Leo Laporte on The Site. That was back in the early days of MSNBC when they actually tried to do something different.
In those days the motto for The News with Brian Williams was "It's not your father's news program". Then before you knew it, MSNBC was too conservative to be your father's news channel.
Doziness, lethargy and an increasing inability to focus reached "startling" levels in the trials by 1,100 people, who also demonstrated that IQ tests in particular have an addictive, drug-like grip.
Respondents' minds were all over the place as they faced new questions and challenges every time a new test was presented. Productivity at work was damaged and the effect on staff who could not resist trying to juggle IQ Tests with existing work was the equivalent, over a day, to the loss of a night's sleep.
Like it or not, the goals of C++ are not achievable with Java.
One of the most important of these goals was to retain a high degree of compatibility with C. This was done not only for purposes of code reuse, but to retain C's ability to handle system programming tasks.
Java is a useful language, but can't replace C++ for everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen the code either - I was just speaking in general.
Trying to solve the problem of obfuscated code by style guidelines underestimates the imagination of the programmer. You have to take the individual aside, point to his/her offending code and say don't continue do this if you want to keep your job.
Well, you must have a different definition of "old" then I do. The term PHB is fairly new.
In any case, I think most PHB's have the opposite problem; they want to ship the product too soon.
"How would you feel as a coder to be tossed an old modded version of your code with a totally different style to it, and have to redo alot of your OWN developments to incorporate in somebody elses."
I would feel like every programmer that ever worked on a project with other programmers.
The most effective solution is for everyone to stop worrying that everybody else has a different style and embrace the diversity. The value of a consistent coding style is outweighed by the pain and effort people have to go through to maintain it.
The standard argument is that a consistent style is easier to understand, but anyone who can hold down a programming job for a year is capable of understanding a foreign style without working up a sweat.
As I've said before, these conventions aren't about ease of understanding, they're about ego and xenophobia.
If your point is that bad programmers favor functionality over refactoring, I disagree.
Your attitude reminds me of the old joke:
Q: "How do you finish a project?"
A: "You shoot the engineers"
The engineering industry has been complaining about a shortage of engineers continuously since the 1950's, but it's never been true.
Now that I'm in my 50's and can appreciate the limitations of the engineering career cycle, my advice to young people who are considering an engineering career is the same as I would give to those considering music, acting or art: do it only if you aren't any good at anything else and don't expect it to support you forever.
"I mean, if they didn't, Apple could take away Tiger Direct's trade mark."
The principle of protecting your trademark goes beyond the immediate issue. If they don't protect it, Tiger Direct could lose its mark altogether, not just to Apple.
Even the old farts have moved on. If this transition were occurring 10 years ago, aliasing the DOS commands would be great, but very few Windows users use DOS commands today, or need to.
Encourage them to wear bell-bottom pants, long sideburns for the men and play disco music in the background. That should acclimate them to 1970's style computing.
I guess you didn't notice my Nickname; I'm not a FOSS advocate.
As I said before, I have no problem with IBM holding back any technology they wish to. My problem is with their hypocritical attitude over FOSS. If they simply want to quietly support FOSS in a limited way, fine. But if they are going to preach to others about it, then they should be willing to go all the way.
I also have a problem with FOSS advocates that while preaching purity to everyone (note the extreme arguments about the use of BitKeeper), are willing to give IBM a pass despite that fact IBM hasn't released source code for any of its core technologies.
I suspect that many believe that the practical value of an endorsement of FOSS by IBM outweighs IBM's "sins".
"You can robe someone, get to jail and you will be able to eat there."
Actually there are some countries where you don't get to eat in jail, although I'm not familiar with any where clothing the naked is against the law.
Yes, we all know that versions of Windows prior to NT ran on top of DOS. That's an implementation detail that doesn't change the fact that OS/2 wasn't the first OS available on the PC with a Graphical User Interface.
I don't have anything against IBM doing any level of closed vs. open source. But I do have an objection to IBM talking as if they have "seen the light" on open source and giving advice to other companies like Sun when they are holding back the most profitable products from the open source model.
Perhaps "getting" open source for IBM means throwing a few crumbs to OSS community with the knowledge that it will get them a free pass in the future.
Isn't avoiding undercutting your own products exactly the same policy that MS has?
If someday IBM decides it can't release any OSS products without undercutting it's money-making products, will they still qualify as an OSS poster-child?
If IBM really believed in openness, as they claim they do, they would open all their products up and offer a free license to all their patents.
I don't blame them if they don't (because I believe it's bad for their business), but I can tell the difference betwee principle and PR.
"OS/2 was designed by IBM as the first graphical OS for the PC."
No. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985 and OS/2 1.0 in 1987. By the way, the first four releases of OS/2 didn't require a 386, just a 286 (the 286 has a protected mode too).
"I've got to say - even if 40% of OS2 is opened up, the benefits to many, many projects could be wide-spread."
I've got to wonder if there's really any generic information in OS2 that OSS programmers (as a group) don't already know.
It seems to me that source code for cancelled software products is most useful for those who were already using it and need to upgrade it so they can continue using it in the future.
I'd like to see Rational Visual Test opened because many people are still using it. As soon as IBM bought Rational, they discontinued selling it to help prop-up sales of the more expensive Rational Robot.
That's why I don't buy in to the idea of IBM as the OSS poster child.
This "look and feel" theory that Xerox tried to use on Apple was exactly the same theory that Apple used to sue MS.
Then how do you explain this quote from The New York Times?:
"In the suit, filed last Thursday, Xerox accused Apple of unlawfully using, in two of its computers, copyrighted Xerox software that controls desktop computers. Xerox also argues that Apple has undermined Xerox's ability to license its own software widely by suing two other companies marketing similar software."
The suit was eventually thrown out and perhaps Apple bought a license later, but it's clear that Xerox believed their interface had been stolen.
By the way, in those days it was often assumed that copyright covered not only source code, but "look and feel" as well.
DevNull used some mild sexual innuendo with Soledad once in a while, and I think it made her uncomfortable.
I only watched Leo Laporte on The Site. That was back in the early days of MSNBC when they actually tried to do something different.
In those days the motto for The News with Brian Williams was "It's not your father's news program". Then before you knew it, MSNBC was too conservative to be your father's news channel.
Doziness, lethargy and an increasing inability to focus reached "startling" levels in the trials by 1,100 people, who also demonstrated that IQ tests in particular have an addictive, drug-like grip.
Respondents' minds were all over the place as they faced new questions and challenges every time a new test was presented. Productivity at work was damaged and the effect on staff who could not resist trying to juggle IQ Tests with existing work was the equivalent, over a day, to the loss of a night's sleep.
"1983 was when Apple Macintosh released thier windowing software called lisa."
I guess you mean the computer called Lisa.
"Most people claim that windows was a direct ripoff of lisa."
Some people claim that Windows 1.0 (which was released in 1985) was a ripoff of the Mac. I haven't heard many people linking Windows and the Lisa.
Like it or not, the goals of C++ are not achievable with Java.
One of the most important of these goals was to retain a high degree of compatibility with C. This was done not only for purposes of code reuse, but to retain C's ability to handle system programming tasks.
Java is a useful language, but can't replace C++ for everything.
I missed the Apple II compatible version of DOS I guess.
so we can each get a $2 off coupon for RAM from the offending companies.
You're right.
The economic problem with these approaches is that you'd have to sell millions of devices before you'd get the economy of scale that PCs enjoy.
You end up with compromised functionality at about the same cost per user.