Re:Article is inaccurate.
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
"When was the last time you saw a not-quite-Microsoft-friendly document on a Microsoft site ?"
Well, MS's MSDN site includes articles previously published in magazines that while generally postive toward MS do include negative comments on specific details of MS products.
"I know several people who worked for Microsoft who all tell me the same thing about the Microsoft company culture : adhere unconditionally to the Microsoft way of be booted eventually."
Yes, you know a tiny fraction of the people who worked at Microsoft and based on their comments you've jumped to the conclusion that everyone who works there believes the same thing.
Re:Article is inaccurate.
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
"The ONLY information one can derive from a document hosted on a Microsoft server is..."
"ANYBODY who works for Microsoft for any length of time will..."
"Microsoft's company culture precludes real personal opinion on ANY aspect of the Microsoft company.."
"ANY person who tells you he works at Microsoft... is..."
Absolute statements like those above are almost always false.
Re:Real advantage?
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not the biggest advancement but it is a viable marketing strategy. Why do so many new languages look so much like C? It's not because C has the ultimate syntax but because programmers are more likely to use a new language if it looks familiar to them and C is widely known.
If a Smalltalk programmer is happy with his current ability to create applications, he'll probably stick with it. If he finds some advantage to target the CLR and Smalltalk.NET (whatever it might be called) isn't that different from plain old Smalltalk, he might use it.
Releasing Windows source is part of the states' proposed remedies. They shouldn't get this for free as part of the proceedings.
The states just finished arguing that calling the witnesses on MS's list would delay the process but apparently evaluating the Windows source code would not. How absurd. The states have no real interest in the source code for evidence, but they know its release will make Sun, Oracle and AOL happy which is, after all, what they're there for.
If it had not been for the lobbying of MS competitors there would not be an antitrust case. To be fair the judge should ask for the records of lobbying on the part of Oracle, Sun, AOL etc. I suspect that the total money spent by all of these companies on anti-MS lobbying over the years exceeds MS's total.
With so many vendors having the same problem in their implementations, it makes me wonder if they started with the same source code. Sometimes we forget that code resuse can mean bug reuse too.
"Which, come to think of it, was exactly what they intended to do with Java. Make the Sun version irrelevant."
Actually, I think MS's intentions for Java were simpler and more practical. They thought they could make money by offering a Java tool that was more attractive to Windows programmers than the existing tools. They also figured out that with some changes Java would be a great language to use with COM.
I don't buy the argument that they tried to trick Windows programmers into using J++ extentions only to find out later that the application wouldn't run on multiple platforms. First, I don't think most Windows programmers are very interested in platform-independent code given Windows large share of the market. Second, most programmers would run some tests early in the development process to verify platform-independence if that were a goal.
The real choice for most Windows programmers was between using MS's extended Java or no Java at all. Sun took away the first option, so now it's no Java at all..Net fills the void left by Sun.
Is this supposed to be a response to what I posted?
I don't see any connection between the fact that users don't know or care about what language was used and the ability of programmers to choose between performance and "safety". Of course, programmers can write 100% safe code without the language protecting them- it's just harder.
I agree. I think the idea that MS fooled Windows developers into thinking they could write applications using Windows Foundation Classes and have them run on any platform is absurd.
MS documented the fact that WFC was targeted for Windows:
"The combination of this class framework and RAD tool make it easy to build fast and powerful applications and components for the Microsoft platform using the Java language."
"I wonder where we would be if Microsoft had enbraced (but not extended) Java, such that both Sun and MS had meanful discussions on how to expand it and yet keep the promise of "Write Once, Run Everywhere" (ie, no MS-specific extensions, and so forth)."
I wonder where we would be if Microsoft had just ignored Java. Despite all the complaints about extending Java, I think MS's adoption of it made it much more widely accepted than it otherwise would have been. In that case Java would not be evidence in the antitrust suit, and the possibility of the court ordering MS to ship with Java would be even more remote than it is today.
Deep Blue is not A.I.
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Given the explosive growth of the Net, the near-continuous increases in computing power and much-publicized A.I. breakthroughs like Deep Blue's 1997 victory over chess champion Gary Kasparov, the question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will reach the level of human intelligence: It's when."
Deep Blue is neither an example of A.I. nor a breakthrough in programming. It's just an example of how fast a gaming problem can be solved when you have a lot of resources. I doubt that the interesting problems of A.I. are going to be solved in a brute-force manner.
By the way, what does the "explosive growth of the Net" have to do with A.I.?
Which method you use depends a lot on what your assignment is.
If you're doing something fairly simple using text MFC is OK (I'm assuming you have access to Visual C++). Just use the wizard to create a skeleton application and then fill in the rest.
In a lot of cases the best option is to choose "Dialog based" within the wizard and uncheck "Document/View architecture". By choosing these options, you minimize the amount you have to know about MFC internals.
On the other hand, if your application doesn't seem to be a good fit with what MFC offers or you want to limit the size, I would use C or C++ and just use the Windows API.
As others have mentioned MSDN is a good source of info. Petzold's book is also useful, but it was orginally written for Windows 1.0 and despite revisions, is still a bit dated. I would also recommend "Win32 Programming" by Brent E. Rector and Joseph M. Newcomer for Windows API programming. For MFC programming take a look at "Programming Windows With MFC" by Jeff Prosise.
Hey, that's great. Now, can you find a quote that supports the position that it would be illegal for MS as a monopoly to integrate a database in their filesystem but not illegal for non-monopoly companies to do it?
"While this is true, it does not provide the insight needed to accomplish the goal of accelerating the exansion of Linux into the MS arena."
Well, my point is that I doubt there is such an insight to discover. Unix was invented before Windows so of course, it wasn't designed to displace it.
I suspect that if Linux continues to grow, you'll see companies like Sun fading away and you'll end up with Linux for those who prefer Unix, OSX for those that prefer Apple and Windows for those that prefer MS.
The reason why is obvious, Linux IS Unix. So the transition from say Solaris to Linux doesn't require a significant cultural change or retraining.
So for Linux to compete as effectively against Windows it would have to change to be highly compatible with Windows both in terms of the programs it can run and the look and feel. There are technical and legal reasons why this would be very difficult. In addition, although I certainly can't speak for Linux developers, I doubt that making Linux a Windows clone is something they really want to do.
"The term "troll" has definite, highly polarized meaning here"
Yes, it's an insult and as I said adds nothing useful to the discussion.
"So you manufacture a requirement that the other poster must agree with my analysis before I can post it?"
I didn't say that the poster had to agree with you. I said that after his post you chose a particular definition and then concluded he was in error. As for your conclusion that a non-legal definition is not clear, you're just plain wrong. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary's first defintion of monopoly is "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action" there are three other definitions listed none of which mention legal proceedings. Why don't you post an actual legal definiton of monopoly and cite a source for it?
"No comparison was made between the relative capacities of/. readers as contrasted with, say, appellate judges (perhaps because no comparison really needs to be made)."
You have a short memory: "Obviously we should fire all those black-robed slackers on the judiciary, since you, a slashdot reader, know so much more about it." Obviously the point you were trying to make is that as a slashdot reader he was not qualified to question judges.
"At this point I'm willing to pick nits in just about anything"
Grasping at straws is what I'd call it.
"Of course, you don't know if I truly believe what I'm saying here either... maybe you can tell me."
What? You were the one denying someone's claim of a belief, not me.
"The astute reader will have noticed that my comment was somewhat, err, "sarcastic". Let me be the first to point out that I do not really consider the judiciary to be a collection of "black-robed slackers". In the future, I shall go to every effort to ascertain that my comments have no humorous component whatsoever, in order to avoid any possible confusion on your part."
Well, you do a nice job of making it sound like I misunderstood you, but I did not. As I stated above, you were trying to discredit the poster on the basis that he wasn't as qualified as judges.
"If I disagree with the direction of the court, I may choose to vote for a candidate who reflects my own views and who might tend to appoint to vacancies justices who share those views as well."
Exactly my point. There's nothing wrong with that but again you shouldn't try to discredit other posters by comparing them to judges unless you're willing to agree with all judgements equally.
"I think a troll is pretty much defined by context. The true measure of a troll is how many exasperated, furious, overly-serious responses (like mine) it engenders... (which goes a long way toward explaining why trolls are so much fun)."
So, in other words a troll is a minority opinion. If the same statement was made in a pro-microsoft environment, it would not be a troll. You might just as well say the poster is ugly for all the intellectual value "troll" brings to the discussion.
"I think we are probably using the term "monopoly" in two senses here; the strictly legalistic sense and a more common sense usage... I don't believe M$ is a monopoly", it's actually flying in the face of the facts, and is therefore either a) a troll, or b) egregiously incorrect."
So first you state that there may be a lack of agreement about the term "monopoly" and then you go on to choose the definition that supports your position as if the other poster had agreed to it.
Of course, the statement "I don't believe M$ is a monopoly" is not the same as "MS is not a monopoly". You can't disprove the first statement unless you can read minds and have determined that the poster is lying.
"Personally, if the monopoly finding is reversed, I'll mutter some bad words about it... and perhaps rethink my voting preferences and campaign contributions, since I would strongly disagree, but I'm not going to insist that they don't know what they're doing or that they don't have the jurisdiction."
Well, this is a change in your position. If the court is supposed to be wiser than slashdot readers, why would you consider changing your voting preferences? It suggests that you (like the original poster and everyone else) are willing to cite the court when it agrees with you but would like to see them replaced if they do not.
Troll? Then the statement "I believe that M$ is a monopoly" must also be a troll.
"Obviously we should fire all those black-robed slackers on the judiciary, since you, a slashdot reader, know so much more about it."
So if a court in the future reverses some of the findings or if MS ends up with a light punishment you'll be 100% in support since the judges are so much more knowlegeable than a slashdot reader like yourself?
"Starting from scratch is what bad programmers do when they don't have the intelligence or patience to figure out what has been done and what has been learned previously."
While looking at old code can eventually lead to understanding what has been done, it can't inform you of what has been learned previously - that's the role of documentation. It's because most systems are poorly documented that programmers are forced to modify old code even when there are compelling reasons to start over.
The decision to modify or start over should be based on the answer to a number of questions: How long will it take to adequately understand the old code? Which will get the job done faster? Cheaper? Which is the easier to maintain? Are any of the original authors still with the company? Can you get adequate performance out of the old code? How much of the old code is relevent to the new product?
This is not a complete list, but the point is that the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Of course, if the old code is highly modular you may be able to have the best of both worlds. You can create a new code structure that is appropriate for the new product while reusing already debugged components.
"To my knowledge, nobody's ever done a cost-accounting for, say, Red Hat Linux 7.2. Let's say it cost a grand total of $6 million to produce Red Hat 7.2, going all the way back to Linus's spare time."
What about all the money that AT&T invested to develop Unix?
"A good architect will inevitably deliver re-usable components (which may require some refactoring if rushed). "
There's nothing inevitable about it at all. Designing and implementing reusable components takes time and if sufficient time is not available, the quality will suffer.
It's also true that a "good architect" (if we are talking about a real human being) will screw-up once in a while.
No choice of language, methodology, process, or personel will make a quality product inevitable. You have to fight that battle anew for each and every product.
Slashdot Mirror
"When was the last time you saw a not-quite-Microsoft-friendly document on a Microsoft site ?"
Well, MS's MSDN site includes articles previously published in magazines that while generally postive toward MS do include negative comments on specific details of MS products.
"I know several people who worked for Microsoft who all tell me the same thing about the Microsoft company culture : adhere unconditionally to the Microsoft way of be booted eventually."
Yes, you know a tiny fraction of the people who worked at Microsoft and based on their comments you've jumped to the conclusion that everyone who works there believes the same thing.
"The ONLY information one can derive from a document hosted on a Microsoft server is ..."
..."
.."
... is ..."
"ANYBODY who works for Microsoft for any length of time will
"Microsoft's company culture precludes real personal opinion on ANY aspect of the Microsoft company
"ANY person who tells you he works at Microsoft
Absolute statements like those above are almost always false.
It's not the biggest advancement but it is a viable marketing strategy. Why do so many new languages look so much like C? It's not because C has the ultimate syntax but because programmers are more likely to use a new language if it looks familiar to them and C is widely known.
If a Smalltalk programmer is happy with his current ability to create applications, he'll probably stick with it. If he finds some advantage to target the CLR and Smalltalk.NET (whatever it might be called) isn't that different from plain old Smalltalk, he might use it.
Releasing Windows source is part of the states' proposed remedies. They shouldn't get this for free as part of the proceedings.
The states just finished arguing that calling the witnesses on MS's list would delay the process but apparently evaluating the Windows source code would not. How absurd. The states have no real interest in the source code for evidence, but they know its release will make Sun, Oracle and AOL happy which is, after all, what they're there for.
If it had not been for the lobbying of MS competitors there would not be an antitrust case. To be fair the judge should ask for the records of lobbying on the part of Oracle, Sun, AOL etc. I suspect that the total money spent by all of these companies on anti-MS lobbying over the years exceeds MS's total.
With so many vendors having the same problem in their implementations, it makes me wonder if they started with the same source code. Sometimes we forget that code resuse can mean bug reuse too.
"Which, come to think of it, was exactly what they intended to do with Java. Make the Sun version irrelevant."
.Net fills the void left by Sun.
Actually, I think MS's intentions for Java were simpler and more practical. They thought they could make money by offering a Java tool that was more attractive to Windows programmers than the existing tools. They also figured out that with some changes Java would be a great language to use with COM.
I don't buy the argument that they tried to trick Windows programmers into using J++ extentions only to find out later that the application wouldn't run on multiple platforms. First, I don't think most Windows programmers are very interested in platform-independent code given Windows large share of the market. Second, most programmers would run some tests early in the development process to verify platform-independence if that were a goal.
The real choice for most Windows programmers was between using MS's extended Java or no Java at all. Sun took away the first option, so now it's no Java at all.
Is this supposed to be a response to what I posted?
I don't see any connection between the fact that users don't know or care about what language was used and the ability of programmers to choose between performance and "safety". Of course, programmers can write 100% safe code without the language protecting them- it's just harder.
The average desktop user has no clue about what language was used to write an application and couldn't care less.
I agree. I think the idea that MS fooled Windows developers into thinking they could write applications using Windows Foundation Classes and have them run on any platform is absurd.
MS documented the fact that WFC was targeted for Windows:
"The combination of this class framework and RAD tool make it easy to build fast and powerful applications and components for the Microsoft platform using the Java language."
"I wonder where we would be if Microsoft had enbraced (but not extended) Java, such that both Sun and MS had meanful discussions on how to expand it and yet keep the promise of "Write Once, Run Everywhere" (ie, no MS-specific extensions, and so forth)."
I wonder where we would be if Microsoft had just ignored Java. Despite all the complaints about extending Java, I think MS's adoption of it made it much more widely accepted than it otherwise would have been. In that case Java would not be evidence in the antitrust suit, and the possibility of the court ordering MS to ship with Java would be even more remote than it is today.
"Given the explosive growth of the Net, the near-continuous increases in computing power and much-publicized A.I. breakthroughs like Deep Blue's 1997 victory over chess champion Gary Kasparov, the question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will reach the level of human intelligence: It's when."
Deep Blue is neither an example of A.I. nor a breakthrough in programming. It's just an example of how fast a gaming problem can be solved when you have a lot of resources. I doubt that the interesting problems of A.I. are going to be solved in a brute-force manner.
By the way, what does the "explosive growth of the Net" have to do with A.I.?
Which method you use depends a lot on what your assignment is.
If you're doing something fairly simple using text MFC is OK (I'm assuming you have access to Visual C++). Just use the wizard to create a skeleton application and then fill in the rest.
In a lot of cases the best option is to choose "Dialog based" within the wizard and uncheck "Document/View architecture". By choosing these options, you minimize the amount you have to know about MFC internals.
On the other hand, if your application doesn't seem to be a good fit with what MFC offers or you want to limit the size, I would use C or C++ and just use the Windows API.
As others have mentioned MSDN is a good source of info. Petzold's book is also useful, but it was orginally written for Windows 1.0 and despite revisions, is still a bit dated. I would also recommend "Win32 Programming" by Brent E. Rector and Joseph M. Newcomer for Windows API programming. For MFC programming take a look at "Programming Windows With MFC" by Jeff Prosise.
Hey, that's great. Now, can you find a quote that supports the position that it would be illegal for MS as a monopoly to integrate a database in their filesystem but not illegal for non-monopoly companies to do it?
In other words, you can't quote any sources and don't really know.
"The rules are different for you if you have a monopoly."
Here we go again. What exactly are these different rules?
"While this is true, it does not provide the insight needed to accomplish the goal of accelerating the exansion of Linux into the MS arena."
Well, my point is that I doubt there is such an insight to discover. Unix was invented before Windows so of course, it wasn't designed to displace it.
I suspect that if Linux continues to grow, you'll see companies like Sun fading away and you'll end up with Linux for those who prefer Unix, OSX for those that prefer Apple and Windows for those that prefer MS.
The reason why is obvious, Linux IS Unix. So the transition from say Solaris to Linux doesn't require a significant cultural change or retraining.
So for Linux to compete as effectively against Windows it would have to change to be highly compatible with Windows both in terms of the programs it can run and the look and feel. There are technical and legal reasons why this would be very difficult. In addition, although I certainly can't speak for Linux developers, I doubt that making Linux a Windows clone is something they really want to do.
"The term "troll" has definite, highly polarized meaning here"
/. readers as contrasted with, say, appellate judges (perhaps because no comparison really needs to be made)."
... maybe you can tell me."
Yes, it's an insult and as I said adds nothing useful to the discussion.
"So you manufacture a requirement that the other poster must agree with my analysis before I can post it?"
I didn't say that the poster had to agree with you. I said that after his post you chose a particular definition and then concluded he was in error. As for your conclusion that a non-legal definition is not clear, you're just plain wrong. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary's first defintion of monopoly is "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action" there are three other definitions listed none of which mention legal proceedings. Why don't you post an actual legal definiton of monopoly and cite a source for it?
"No comparison was made between the relative capacities of
You have a short memory: "Obviously we should fire all those black-robed slackers on the judiciary, since you, a slashdot reader, know so much more about it." Obviously the point you were trying to make is that as a slashdot reader he was not qualified to question judges.
"At this point I'm willing to pick nits in just about anything"
Grasping at straws is what I'd call it.
"Of course, you don't know if I truly believe what I'm saying here either
What? You were the one denying someone's claim of a belief, not me.
"The astute reader will have noticed that my comment was somewhat, err, "sarcastic". Let me be the first to point out that I do not really consider the judiciary to be a collection of "black-robed slackers". In the future, I shall go to every effort to ascertain that my comments have no humorous component whatsoever, in order to avoid any possible confusion on your part."
Well, you do a nice job of making it sound like I misunderstood you, but I did not. As I stated above, you were trying to discredit the poster on the basis that he wasn't as qualified as judges.
"If I disagree with the direction of the court, I may choose to vote for a candidate who reflects my own views and who might tend to appoint to vacancies justices who share those views as well."
Exactly my point. There's nothing wrong with that but again you shouldn't try to discredit other posters by comparing them to judges unless you're willing to agree with all judgements equally.
"I think a troll is pretty much defined by context. The true measure of a troll is how many exasperated, furious, overly-serious responses (like mine) it engenders ... (which goes a long way toward explaining why trolls are so much fun)."
... I don't believe M$ is a monopoly", it's actually flying in the face of the facts, and is therefore either a) a troll, or b) egregiously incorrect."
... and perhaps rethink my voting preferences and campaign contributions, since I would strongly disagree, but I'm not going to insist that they don't know what they're doing or that they don't have the jurisdiction."
So, in other words a troll is a minority opinion. If the same statement was made in a pro-microsoft environment, it would not be a troll. You might just as well say the poster is ugly for all the intellectual value "troll" brings to the discussion.
"I think we are probably using the term "monopoly" in two senses here; the strictly legalistic sense and a more common sense usage
So first you state that there may be a lack of agreement about the term "monopoly" and then you go on to choose the definition that supports your position as if the other poster had agreed to it.
Of course, the statement "I don't believe M$ is a monopoly" is not the same as "MS is not a monopoly". You can't disprove the first statement unless you can read minds and have determined that the poster is lying.
"Personally, if the monopoly finding is reversed, I'll mutter some bad words about it
Well, this is a change in your position. If the court is supposed to be wiser than slashdot readers, why would you consider changing your voting preferences? It suggests that you (like the original poster and everyone else) are willing to cite the court when it agrees with you but would like to see them replaced if they do not.
I think you meant to respond to the post above mine which I was quoting from.
"I don't believe M$ is a monopoly. ... Nice Troll"
Troll? Then the statement "I believe that M$ is a monopoly" must also be a troll.
"Obviously we should fire all those black-robed slackers on the judiciary, since you, a slashdot reader, know so much more about it."
So if a court in the future reverses some of the findings or if MS ends up with a light punishment you'll be 100% in support since the judges are so much more knowlegeable than a slashdot reader like yourself?
"Starting from scratch is what bad programmers do when they don't have the intelligence or patience to figure out what has been done and what has been learned previously."
While looking at old code can eventually lead to understanding what has been done, it can't inform you of what has been learned previously - that's the role of documentation. It's because most systems are poorly documented that programmers are forced to modify old code even when there are compelling reasons to start over.
The decision to modify or start over should be based on the answer to a number of questions: How long will it take to adequately understand the old code? Which will get the job done faster? Cheaper? Which is the easier to maintain? Are any of the original authors still with the company? Can you get adequate performance out of the old code? How much of the old code is relevent to the new product?
This is not a complete list, but the point is that the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Of course, if the old code is highly modular you may be able to have the best of both worlds. You can create a new code structure that is appropriate for the new product while reusing already debugged components.
"To my knowledge, nobody's ever done a cost-accounting for, say, Red Hat Linux 7.2. Let's say it cost a grand total of $6 million to produce Red Hat 7.2, going all the way back to Linus's spare time."
What about all the money that AT&T invested to develop Unix?
"A good architect will inevitably deliver re-usable components (which may require some refactoring if rushed). "
There's nothing inevitable about it at all. Designing and implementing reusable components takes time and if sufficient time is not available, the quality will suffer.
It's also true that a "good architect" (if we are talking about a real human being) will screw-up once in a while.
No choice of language, methodology, process, or personel will make a quality product inevitable. You have to fight that battle anew for each and every product.