"More importantly, if your language is imperative, odds are your syntax can be C-like, and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language, and this allows to language to be succesful."
Which is a long way to say the developers are hidebound.
"That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development."
I agree. The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?
In the case of UNIX, there are those who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but since they weren't on earth when it was created they can't differentiate between its good ideas and those that were adopted because of the limitations of that era.
It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white. Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.
Not true. In the period between "by invitation only" and "anybody can sign up", you had to provide your mobile number to sign up without an invitation. I know because I did it.
Unless a phishing site has been delivering my mail for the last 7 years.
So, the "pure research and engineering culture" never makes anything that sucks? In my experience, bad ideas aren't exclusive to any particular group. Good ideas aren't either. "Us vs. Them" produces a lot of heat, but no light.
"We had a beautiful standard, called HTML. Micro$hit convinced people to use their stupid proprietary extensions, and in a few years we had destroyed the web."
Yes, XMLHttpRequest that MS came up with which made AJAX possible is just another stupid extension. We should use only "beautiful" HTML.
From a business perspective, we are youtube's "product". If that product isn't delivered to advertisers, it will fail. So yes, to be successful for Google, it's their job to deliver the content we want.
Most of us aren't interesting enough to have friends post embarrassing pictures of us on the Internet. Besides that would require us to interact with other people, possibly including girls.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because C syntax is awesome"
Sure. Do you know what "=+" is?
"More importantly, if your language is imperative, odds are your syntax can be C-like, and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language, and this allows to language to be succesful."
Which is a long way to say the developers are hidebound.
"The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy."
You're right. Linus probably played with Legos rather than Tinker Toys.
Well, it's certainly true of large codebases that aren't well designed. I don't think Asterisk is considered the poster boy for good structure.
"When a select few are the only ones who can perform a certain task.."
I thought we were talking about software development. Are there certain processor op codes that only a select few developers know about?
"That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development."
I agree. The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?
In the case of UNIX, there are those who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but since they weren't on earth when it was created they can't differentiate between its good ideas and those that were adopted because of the limitations of that era.
It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white. Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.
Last time I checked, Wine didn't even fully implement Win32.
So we'll know if you received any democratic brain cells when you wimp-out at the thought of a total Republican no vote.
Of course with Republican brains cells you'd pee your pants at the thought of making an independent choice against your congressional leaders.
No, every company doesn't have to have a patent portfolio, many don't and thus Google doesn't have the smallest patent portfolio.
the run-on sentence.
"This is why IBM takes out so many patents too. Most of them are "defensive" patents."
Yes. Let's have a toast to all the prolific patent-holders and their "defensive" patents. I'll pour the Kool-Aid.
Actually, it can't be 7 years - It's only been around since 2004.
Not true. In the period between "by invitation only" and "anybody can sign up", you had to provide your mobile number to sign up without an invitation. I know because I did it.
Unless a phishing site has been delivering my mail for the last 7 years.
So, the "pure research and engineering culture" never makes anything that sucks? In my experience, bad ideas aren't exclusive to any particular group. Good ideas aren't either. "Us vs. Them" produces a lot of heat, but no light.
is going to reinvent UNIX? It's amazing, she's never even programmed before! I guess that's where the "poorly" part comes in.
Yes, because creating a command line interface requires such advanced design skills.
Perhaps if there were a book in electronic form that had all English words in it perhaps with a definition of each word.
"We had a beautiful standard, called HTML. Micro$hit convinced people to use their stupid proprietary extensions, and in a few years we had destroyed the web."
Yes, XMLHttpRequest that MS came up with which made AJAX possible is just another stupid extension. We should use only "beautiful" HTML.
Given that Google would be the one to "untie" itself from IE, it would make a lot of difference.
Antitrust law is like porn to anti-MS folks these days, but just as with regular porn, it's more fantasy than reality.
"Fault" has no meaning in this context. It's just business.
Besides, if I wanted to perform charity work, I'd pick something more important than making Sergey and Larry a bit richer.
"It's your job to filter through all the junk"
From a business perspective, we are youtube's "product". If that product isn't delivered to advertisers, it will fail. So yes, to be successful for Google, it's their job to deliver the content we want.
What about improved content? Junk is still junk even if delivered via open standards.
I thought you said "I went with the T-Mobile Even More Pus plan".
Most of us aren't interesting enough to have friends post embarrassing pictures of us on the Internet. Besides that would require us to interact with other people, possibly including girls.
You remind me of Reverend Scot Sloan. You can "talk to the young".
For $1 billion I'll become a PostgreSQL developer and then agree to stop developing for it.