You keep adding exceptions based on your judgment. Why not just assume that other programmers are as capable as you of making that judgment?
My original point was that even the Java creators didn't believe 100% that operator overloading was bad. I suspect the real reason the feature doesn't exist is because they thought it was more trouble to implement than it was worth.
One of the historical problems with being a conscientious objector in the US was that you had to be opposed to all war. You couldn't make a distinction between WWII and the war in Vietnam, for example. In other words, there couldn't be any thinking or logic involved in your decision.
Choosing freedom by going to Canada IS taking a stand on what you believe in. How does choosing a different form of slavery or going to jail support the idea of freedom?
Furthermore, your conclusion that a draft would make it harder to fight an unpopular war is not supported by history. It took more then a decade of draftee deaths in Vietnam and public protest at home before the war ended and it's not clear that unpopularity was the ultimate reason for our giving up.
"that's the one overloading everyone uses that makes some sense... it was syntactic convienience like other parts of the language."
That's what all applications of operator overloading are intended to do. If you want to stop with strings, that's fine, but other programmers may want to use it in situations that make sense to them.
When wireless communication takes place over a satellite there are long time delays that IP doesn't tolerate very well and retries just compound the problem.
Most of the stability gains for Win2K were actually made in the transition from Windows 3.1 to Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993. Win2K's first beta release was in 1997 and it's release to manufactoring was in early 2000. Given this timeline, I seriously doubt that Linux was a big motivator in improving Win2k stability.
Well, I think IBM would love to make all of their competitor's products commodities. I don't think Java is a commodity yet, however.
"Pragmatists and businessmen want to selectively open applications to improve their bottom line."
Or in some cases, out of desperation (Netscape). In the case of IBM, they're really more interested in using (Linux) or opening (Java) other people's products then they are in opening their own.
So, they're porting their closed, proprietary apps to a new environment where they'll also be closed. How does that in any way support the theory that IBM is opening up their IP?
This offer reminds me of Fidel Castro's hilarious offer to the US to send election observers to Florida in light of the 2000 presidential election SNAFU.
Apparently the flow doesn't include releasing source code for products that make money without leading to more hardware sales.
For example, IMB recently bought Rational. Do you think they are going to open Rational's source code after spending all that money to buy them? IBM will be developing and acquiring closed and proprietary software for many years to come.
In the meantime, they'll support Open Source in markets where it won't cost them extra (e.g. Linux vs AIX).
While I do think Berman has over-exposed Star Trek, I think that without him STNG would have been canceled after 3 or 4 seasons and I doubt that any new series or movies would have been made. Since you apparently hate everything Berman touched, I guess you would have preferred to watch reruns of the orginal series for the last 15 years.
Actually, the term "politically correct" didn't exist at the time of the original series and I don't think the idea applies to it in any case. I think it was great that the original series had a ground-breaking and diverse cast.
What I was referring to was Roddenberry's taking some of his idealistic ideas about the future to the extreme in later years (much as the older George Lucas has). For example, in early STNG scripts most problems had to be resolved without violence which is nice but rather boring.
I believe Roddenberry's rules had a restraining effect, however, on the temptation that any producer might have in simply resorting to blowing a lot of stuff up (the scifi version of the car chase). So we ended up with episodes like "Yesterday's Enterprise" which had plenty of action but was still emotionally dramatic.
The quality of STNG was much higher than the original and improved dramatically after Roddenberry let Rick Berman lead the way. I think the combination of Roddenberry's somewhat politically correct "rules" and Berman's attempts to bend them was what made STNG so great.
Well, I said I didn't have the details, which is why I asked the question in the first place.
I seems to me that a system that encodes information and then performs operations on it can be considered a mathematical system, so I don't think the semantic web is necessarily free from the implications of Godel's theorm.
It depends on how much the device is supposed to cost and how many you're going to make.
There's still a lot of embedded systems designed today with 8 bit processors that cost a few dollars in large quantities. For low-cost, high-volume applications, development costs are often less significant then the cost of parts.
That should be "Microsoft was building Windows 3.0 at the same time". Windows was around a long time before OS/2.
"Microsoft pulled out of OS/2 & pushed Windows thus shafting IBM"
Of course, had IBM wanted to make OS/2 the winner they could have out-promoted it with their much larger war chest. Apparently, it wasn't that important to them.
"It sounds as if you, like many other folks here, assume that because you don't see that much going on Java-wise for client-side, Windows apps, that it therefore has a low profile."
If many folks believe that Java doesn't have a strong presence on the client side, isn't that the definition of "low profile"? I'm sure that some client-side 100% pure Java is being used for Windows, but I doubt that it represents a significant share.
"The other thing to remember is that Java wasn't initially developed as a M$-killer, or a C- or C++-killer, or anything like that"
From the beginning Sun promoted Java as a new programming language that allows a program to run on any computer and that it would eventually replace Windows. I'm not surprised that it wasn't originally developed for that purpose because I don't think Gosling was that naive.
MS was a key player in making the PC open. Had they not demanded the right to license DOS to other companies, you'd by buying all your PC's from IBM (assuming you could afford them).
As far as openness always winning, keep in mind that about 90% of all the technology used in PC's is closed, only the high-level architecture is open. If you don't believe me, try asking your microprocessor, video card, RAM, Disk, or printer vendor for all the technical information needed to knock off their product.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep adding exceptions based on your judgment. Why not just assume that other programmers are as capable as you of making that judgment?
My original point was that even the Java creators didn't believe 100% that operator overloading was bad. I suspect the real reason the feature doesn't exist is because they thought it was more trouble to implement than it was worth.
One of the historical problems with being a conscientious objector in the US was that you had to be opposed to all war. You couldn't make a distinction between WWII and the war in Vietnam, for example. In other words, there couldn't be any thinking or logic involved in your decision.
Choosing freedom by going to Canada IS taking a stand on what you believe in. How does choosing a different form of slavery or going to jail support the idea of freedom?
Furthermore, your conclusion that a draft would make it harder to fight an unpopular war is not supported by history. It took more then a decade of draftee deaths in Vietnam and public protest at home before the war ended and it's not clear that unpopularity was the ultimate reason for our giving up.
"that's the one overloading everyone uses that makes some sense... it was syntactic convienience like other parts of the language."
That's what all applications of operator overloading are intended to do. If you want to stop with strings, that's fine, but other programmers may want to use it in situations that make sense to them.
When wireless communication takes place over a satellite there are long time delays that IP doesn't tolerate very well and retries just compound the problem.
So why did he define an overloaded '+' for strings?
Most of the stability gains for Win2K were actually made in the transition from Windows 3.1 to Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993. Win2K's first beta release was in 1997 and it's release to manufactoring was in early 2000. Given this timeline, I seriously doubt that Linux was a big motivator in improving Win2k stability.
I'm sure that the OSS community could create a more stable and secure OS than Linux if they designed it that way from the ground up.
I believe MS could do the same.
The problem is that nobody would use the new OS because they value backward-compatiblity more than stabilty and security.
From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter what RMS thinks is or is not compatible with the GPL. A court would decide that.
On the other hand, if he's giving a philosphical answer, that would probably be of interest to true believers.
"Platforms like java are commodities."
Well, I think IBM would love to make all of their competitor's products commodities. I don't think Java is a commodity yet, however.
"Pragmatists and businessmen want to selectively open applications to improve their bottom line."
Or in some cases, out of desperation (Netscape). In the case of IBM, they're really more interested in using (Linux) or opening (Java) other people's products then they are in opening their own.
So, they're porting their closed, proprietary apps to a new environment where they'll also be closed. How does that in any way support the theory that IBM is opening up their IP?
This offer reminds me of Fidel Castro's hilarious offer to the US to send election observers to Florida in light of the 2000 presidential election SNAFU.
Apparently the flow doesn't include releasing source code for products that make money without leading to more hardware sales.
For example, IMB recently bought Rational. Do you think they are going to open Rational's source code after spending all that money to buy them? IBM will be developing and acquiring closed and proprietary software for many years to come.
In the meantime, they'll support Open Source in markets where it won't cost them extra (e.g. Linux vs AIX).
Actually, I don't think MS would bother. If they released a new version of Java it would look like a they had no confidence in .Net.
You keep using this acronym "GUI". I don't think it means, what you think it means.
While I do think Berman has over-exposed Star Trek, I think that without him STNG would have been canceled after 3 or 4 seasons and I doubt that any new series or movies would have been made. Since you apparently hate everything Berman touched, I guess you would have preferred to watch reruns of the orginal series for the last 15 years.
Actually, the term "politically correct" didn't exist at the time of the original series and I don't think the idea applies to it in any case. I think it was great that the original series had a ground-breaking and diverse cast.
What I was referring to was Roddenberry's taking some of his idealistic ideas about the future to the extreme in later years (much as the older George Lucas has). For example, in early STNG scripts most problems had to be resolved without violence which is nice but rather boring.
I believe Roddenberry's rules had a restraining effect, however, on the temptation that any producer might have in simply resorting to blowing a lot of stuff up (the scifi version of the car chase). So we ended up with episodes like "Yesterday's Enterprise" which had plenty of action but was still emotionally dramatic.
The quality of STNG was much higher than the original and improved dramatically after Roddenberry let Rick Berman lead the way. I think the combination of Roddenberry's somewhat politically correct "rules" and Berman's attempts to bend them was what made STNG so great.
Since when did "patch and hack" become the prudent path to "stability and security"?
Well, I said I didn't have the details, which is why I asked the question in the first place.
I seems to me that a system that encodes information and then performs operations on it can be considered a mathematical system, so I don't think the semantic web is necessarily free from the implications of Godel's theorm.
It depends on how much the device is supposed to cost and how many you're going to make.
There's still a lot of embedded systems designed today with 8 bit processors that cost a few dollars in large quantities. For low-cost, high-volume applications, development costs are often less significant then the cost of parts.
I heard that the Semantic Web violates Godel's Theorem but I didn't get any details. Any comments?
I don't disagree. My point was that the failure of OS/2 was not because of MS "shafting" IBM.
That should be "Microsoft was building Windows 3.0 at the same time". Windows was around a long time before OS/2.
"Microsoft pulled out of OS/2 & pushed Windows thus shafting IBM"
Of course, had IBM wanted to make OS/2 the winner they could have out-promoted it with their much larger war chest. Apparently, it wasn't that important to them.
"It sounds as if you, like many other folks here, assume that because you don't see that much going on Java-wise for client-side, Windows apps, that it therefore has a low profile."
If many folks believe that Java doesn't have a strong presence on the client side, isn't that the definition of "low profile"? I'm sure that some client-side 100% pure Java is being used for Windows, but I doubt that it represents a significant share.
"The other thing to remember is that Java wasn't initially developed as a M$-killer, or a C- or C++-killer, or anything like that"
From the beginning Sun promoted Java as a new programming language that allows a program to run on any computer and that it would eventually replace Windows. I'm not surprised that it wasn't originally developed for that purpose because I don't think Gosling was that naive.
MS was a key player in making the PC open. Had they not demanded the right to license DOS to other companies, you'd by buying all your PC's from IBM (assuming you could afford them).
As far as openness always winning, keep in mind that about 90% of all the technology used in PC's is closed, only the high-level architecture is open. If you don't believe me, try asking your microprocessor, video card, RAM, Disk, or printer vendor for all the technical information needed to knock off their product.