Firstly, I want to address the point a couple of people have made concerning the size of a Linux distro (2-3 CDs in some cases) compared to the size of Windows 2000 (1 CD). The obvious difference is the vast quantity of applications supplied with a Linux distribution. Linux itself is still 'lean and mean', but those many megabytes of software aren't.
There *are* distributions which you can fit onto a single floppy if you want to. Not necessarily that much use, or that common, but they do exist.
The point made by the article is valid to a certain extent IMHO. Although some users *do* want access to everything, and to have the capability to set their Linux system up exactly as they want, others want to be hand-held through the process. It isn't really an issue of how much data is on the CD (or CDs) - it's more a question of why Joe User should have to know whether or not he wants to install perl, and should have it installed by default if he doesn't say no.
Surely this is the whole point of having multiple distributions (Or at least a significant part of it) - some cater for the server, some for the power user, and some for the novice. The problem is that the novice distributions don't step far enough away from the advanced user distributions, making the mistake of still trying to pack too much in, provide too much choice. What's wrong with the idea of having a slimmed down distribution for novice desktop users, with less choice and more ease of use? Standardise on KDE, don't provide server code or obscure development applications, just give simple configuration, a standard set of tools (office suite, solitaire game, etc.) that reminds them of Windows, and a setup that can be used entirely through the UI, without having to touch the command prompt unless you want to. You don't have to use it. I *wouldn't* use it. But it's what some people need, and the elitist attitude that people need to learn to be a Linux hacker in order to use the OS is one of the most damaging aspects of the push to get Linux on the desktop.
In the original article it says:
"Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop."
And this is still true, despite the steps towards this goal made by some distributions. To get a well-configured Linux distribution up and running, you really need some experience. On the other hand, even a trained monkey can install Win2K - that sort of ease of use is something that would be useful for *some* Linux users.
Your story is a perfect example of why teaching OO as part of the fundamentals is so important. A design which ignores how the classes will work together is a clear sign of someone who learned OO as an afterthought, not as an integral part of the language and design process.
OO is *not* 'the end' when it comes to Java. You can't write a single line of useful Java code without defining a class.
Who cares if someone who has only learnt OO can't write a useful program? It's not the end of the training process. However, for an object oriented language it should (and must) be the beginning.
C++ does not hide your data very well, but at least it gives you an easy way to separate the interface of a class from its implementation -.cpp and.h. With Java, you can often do so only by subclassing.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the only valid response to this is 'Well, duh!'. Firstly, the problems you're highlighting aren't really with the use of Java, but with the structure of the course.
Secondly, your last point is that learning Java instead of C++ may put you at a disadvantage when it comes to taking a C++ course. This is kind of self-evident, surely? In the same way, when it comes to learning Java you're a lot better off if you've already learnt Java than someone whose first courses were in C++.
Incidentally, it's my personal experience that C++ coders who later migrate to Java do a much worse job of it than Java programmers who later migrate to C++. There are plenty of nasty habits that C++ programmers tend to bring with them when they learn Java, which have led to the death of at least one major commercial product to my knowledge...
Personnally, i think that, if an exception is not caught, the function should automattically be marked as throwing it, and a warning should be generated. I find that this often makes writing a quick proof of concept or prototype a pain in the ass, since i usually have to go back and add them manually BEFORE it compiles.
Two points.
Firstly, there are very good reasons for enforcing handling of exceptions. Yes, it may make proof of concept applications and quick hacks slightly more painful to write, but it makes real applications a lot more reliable, minimalising the risk of uncaught exceptions causing crashes or unexpected behaviour. This is worth a lot more to me than saving a couple of seconds typing in a throws clause. It also means the method signatures are a lot more meaningful to any other developer working with that code. If you don't explicitly declare the exception that is being thrown then either you have to document it elsewhere (which takes even longer) or anyone else working with your code will have to scan through it and all methods it calls to discover whether they need to handle exceptions.
Java is a language that is supposed to be used in real-world applications. Many of its benefits lie in the increased ease of development for large teams and decreased incidence of many common problems that arise in other language. Enforced exception handling is part of that, and I would list it as a good feature of Java. Oh, and this isn't a compiler issue - it's part of the language specification.
Secondly, as everyone knows, Java's exception handling policies are based on Pokemon. Allowing auto-generation of throws clauses would negate the rule.
For those who aren't already aware of the Pokemon rules of Java exceptions:
Obviously I'd need to see the course in order to comment, but my personal experience is that a lot of Java courses right now just aren't very good, particularly on OO concepts.
Any Java course that teaches OO at the end of the course should be thrown out immediately for a start. Seems a bit odd that in a language where you can't write any code without defining a class, some people think that teaching about what a class is should be the least important thing in the course, but it happens, and on a regular basis, both in university/college courses and (more worryingly) in commercial courses.
In general I find Java better than C++ for teaching OO, because it presents a simpler, cleaner model to work with, and forces you down the OO route to a certain extent. Just look at the comparative sizes of the language specifications for a graphic example of why Java is a better teaching language.;^)
This one has been done to death elsewhere. No, the background is not pre-rendered. Yes, it is fully 3D. Just look at any of the cuboid items in the background and watch the way in which you see different sides of them as the camera moves.
The cause of this effect is the gameplay mechanisms used by Tekken since the first game in the series. It's based on an infinite ring. No trapping your opponent in the corner. No ring-outs. Just two characters fighting. Now that works fine when you don't have any real backgrounds (as in the first games) but if you want more detail in the environments you run into problems. You need to have the infinite arena, but now you need to fit it into a finite surrounding. Something which has previously only been managed by Gallifreyans.
Namco's approach to this in TTT works pretty well, I think. But it does make some people think that the backgrounds are pre-rendered when they're not (can't understand this myself - they're very obviously real-time for me...) The one improvement I'd suggest would be to cover up the join slightly better, with plants or scenery (some stages actually do this in TTT).
There is a playable demo of MGS2 out there (due to be shipped with Zone of Enders, another woefully underhyped Konami game with input from Hideo Kojima), but as far as I can tell not many people have had a chance to play it. Even at Konami's recent Gamers' Day the press weren't allowed to get their hands on it - the demo was played by a Konami rep.
For more information, check out the IGN articles on the demo here and here.
That's what themes are for, of course. Download one of the themes out there with smaller buttons. Create your own theme with tiny buttons (grab a copy of Chameleon for this, perhaps...) Use the classic theme if you find that any better.
Ah, memories. I used to have the original Star Fighter 3K for the Archimedes. Don't know how it compares to the 3DO version, but it was far more playable than the later PSX version. I wonder if emulation has reached the point where I can play this one on my PC now...
As well as native and web interfaces, a Java interface would be a nice idea. Gives the extra flexibility over a web interface in terms of how the UI works, but also allows it to run on platforms that don't have a native front-end implementation.
Firstly, a web interface is a must, but then it always is.
Secondly, some easy way of synchronising it with popular PDAs (particularly Psions;) would be handy, if you'll excuse the pun.
Thirdly, a feature I'd love to see is the ability to schedule time based not on an individual user, but on some qualification of that user. It's all very well to say "Tell me whether John Smith is available in week 36", but what I'd really like to be able to say is "Tell me which certified Websphere architects we have available in week 36", or "Tell me which instructors can teach course NL06 in either week 25 or 26". Current solutions that I've been using haven't offered this.
...or would do if Bleemcast had seen the light of day. And given Bleem's reputation surrounding the PC version of their software I wouldn't be holding out for too much in the way of compatibility and stability. Of course, the best way to play PSOne games is on... a PSOne. Duh.
Actually, last time I checked it was imported as a games console. Sony were threatening to take various countries to court over their refusal to accept it as a PC (with the correspondingly lower import duty), but nothing had happened yet. So the first batch does have that import duty.
Even with that thrown in, of course, it's cheaper in the US. And the reason is, as you say, that they know they can get away with it. 300 pounds doesn't sound like a reasonable price to this consumer, though. And what with the delays in releases of games, or no releases at all in Europe (from Square alone, Europe missed out on Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics, Parasite Eve, Saga Frontier, Chrono Cross and many more...) if I ever decide I want a Western PS2, I'll be importing from the US.
No need for such a creature. Most TVs in Europe will happily display NTSC signals. I'm running Japanese and US import consoles on my bog-standard el-cheapo ex-rental TV with no additional hardware other than the voltage converter (this one's mandatory if you don't want your expensive new console to go fzzt...)
It should be a case of the lesser of two evils being preferable, but I really can't make up my mind which is which.
Here's my suggestion: let the court cases go ahead, and when the advertising company representatives are in court along with all the lawyers, blow the building up. (All members of the public would obviously have been replaced with inflatable replicas before this event...) That way everyone wins.
I don't think I can agree with that attitude. Surely the correct approach would be for him not to speak for us all until an arbitrary body that we elect solely for that purpose calls for him to do so? Seems much more in the spirit of things.
Just a couple of points to raise: firstly, there isn't exactly zero tool support for JSPs, just for Tomcat. Commercial application servers are (unsurprisingly) slightly ahead here. I'm currently working with Websphere, which while it has some issues, does have useful support for generating and maintaining JSPs (through Websphere Studio) and good administration and testing tools (integrated into VisualAge).
As you say, JDBC probably isn't the best interface to be using directly in all cases, but EJBs are great for this sort of enterprise application: the business logic developer doesn't need to know anything about the back end and how it's accessed anyway.
What items they may have missed? Any actual facts would be good, I suppose. The response of one PS2 developer to this article was that *some* of the 'facts' about DC were close to being true, but that was about it.
Since when did PS2 start storing vertex data in the embedded memory on GS? <sigh>
Re:my 2 cents... like you even care...
on
The PS2 Experience
·
· Score: 1
I'd agree with you on not paying more than $300 for it (look at the sick prices on e-bay, even without the spoiler bids some morons are placing), but just wanted to raise a couple of other issues.
Firstly, the power switch is on the back because you're not expected to use it. There's a button on the front for that: press once for reset, or hold for power-off.
Secondly, Tekken Tag Tournament is great, if you like Tekken. If you don't, then why on earth did you buy it? It's not entirely 2D fighting, incidentally (unlike the Street Fighter game) - all characters can sidestep (up, up or up, down, IIRC) and some characters (such as King) have moves which involve side movements.
There's something there I just can't quite put my finger on...
http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/2703 5.html
Ah, that's it, yes. It's a link comparing Dreamcast and PS2 from dudes who get paid to say good things about Dreamcast for a living. That'll be a fair and balanced opinion, sure enough.
It's mildly amusing that they compare the PS2 launch titles to games that aren't even available on the DC in the US right now (and even some that aren't available anywhere). But even then they have to not just bend the truth, but wrench it right round and tie it in knots in some of their comparisons.
That's not to say that the PS2 games wipe the floor with their DC equivalents. Far from it - of course the DC's wider library of 3rd generation games has an advantage over the PS2's launch titles, and you'd be a fool not to see that. But titles like SSX, Dynasty Warriors 2 and Armored Core 2 are beautiful to behold, and in many of their other comparisons (Tekken vs Soul Calibur, for example) it all comes down to personal preference.
If you want a balanced view of the two consoles, good luck in finding one. But anything from a DC-specific site written by someone with a reputation of being about as DC-philic as it's possible to get legally doesn't exactly count, I'm afraid.
There's no way that a current PC is going to be emulating a PS2 at anything approaching playable speeds in the near future. Dreamcast emulation isn't really feasible yet, and that's a system that's much close to the PC in architecture and spec.
Right now the only way to get PS2 functionality in a DVD player is to license the chips from Sony, and with their problems supplying enough for their own launch I doubt that's a real possibility.
Very well, I have a question. A sensible question. A question that will tax your IQ to its very limits and stretch the sinews of your knowledge to bursting point. The question is this: Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, I want to address the point a couple of people have made concerning the size of a Linux distro (2-3 CDs in some cases) compared to the size of Windows 2000 (1 CD). The obvious difference is the vast quantity of applications supplied with a Linux distribution. Linux itself is still 'lean and mean', but those many megabytes of software aren't.
There *are* distributions which you can fit onto a single floppy if you want to. Not necessarily that much use, or that common, but they do exist.
The point made by the article is valid to a certain extent IMHO. Although some users *do* want access to everything, and to have the capability to set their Linux system up exactly as they want, others want to be hand-held through the process. It isn't really an issue of how much data is on the CD (or CDs) - it's more a question of why Joe User should have to know whether or not he wants to install perl, and should have it installed by default if he doesn't say no.
Surely this is the whole point of having multiple distributions (Or at least a significant part of it) - some cater for the server, some for the power user, and some for the novice. The problem is that the novice distributions don't step far enough away from the advanced user distributions, making the mistake of still trying to pack too much in, provide too much choice. What's wrong with the idea of having a slimmed down distribution for novice desktop users, with less choice and more ease of use? Standardise on KDE, don't provide server code or obscure development applications, just give simple configuration, a standard set of tools (office suite, solitaire game, etc.) that reminds them of Windows, and a setup that can be used entirely through the UI, without having to touch the command prompt unless you want to. You don't have to use it. I *wouldn't* use it. But it's what some people need, and the elitist attitude that people need to learn to be a Linux hacker in order to use the OS is one of the most damaging aspects of the push to get Linux on the desktop.
In the original article it says:
"Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop."
And this is still true, despite the steps towards this goal made by some distributions. To get a well-configured Linux distribution up and running, you really need some experience. On the other hand, even a trained monkey can install Win2K - that sort of ease of use is something that would be useful for *some* Linux users.
Here ends today's rant.
Your story is a perfect example of why teaching OO as part of the fundamentals is so important. A design which ignores how the classes will work together is a clear sign of someone who learned OO as an afterthought, not as an integral part of the language and design process.
OO is *not* 'the end' when it comes to Java. You can't write a single line of useful Java code without defining a class.
Who cares if someone who has only learnt OO can't write a useful program? It's not the end of the training process. However, for an object oriented language it should (and must) be the beginning.
I think the only valid response to this is 'Well, duh!'. Firstly, the problems you're highlighting aren't really with the use of Java, but with the structure of the course.
Secondly, your last point is that learning Java instead of C++ may put you at a disadvantage when it comes to taking a C++ course. This is kind of self-evident, surely? In the same way, when it comes to learning Java you're a lot better off if you've already learnt Java than someone whose first courses were in C++.
Incidentally, it's my personal experience that C++ coders who later migrate to Java do a much worse job of it than Java programmers who later migrate to C++. There are plenty of nasty habits that C++ programmers tend to bring with them when they learn Java, which have led to the death of at least one major commercial product to my knowledge...
Two points.
Firstly, there are very good reasons for enforcing handling of exceptions. Yes, it may make proof of concept applications and quick hacks slightly more painful to write, but it makes real applications a lot more reliable, minimalising the risk of uncaught exceptions causing crashes or unexpected behaviour. This is worth a lot more to me than saving a couple of seconds typing in a throws clause. It also means the method signatures are a lot more meaningful to any other developer working with that code. If you don't explicitly declare the exception that is being thrown then either you have to document it elsewhere (which takes even longer) or anyone else working with your code will have to scan through it and all methods it calls to discover whether they need to handle exceptions.
Java is a language that is supposed to be used in real-world applications. Many of its benefits lie in the increased ease of development for large teams and decreased incidence of many common problems that arise in other language. Enforced exception handling is part of that, and I would list it as a good feature of Java. Oh, and this isn't a compiler issue - it's part of the language specification.
Secondly, as everyone knows, Java's exception handling policies are based on Pokemon. Allowing auto-generation of throws clauses would negate the rule.
For those who aren't already aware of the Pokemon rules of Java exceptions:
Obviously I'd need to see the course in order to comment, but my personal experience is that a lot of Java courses right now just aren't very good, particularly on OO concepts.
Any Java course that teaches OO at the end of the course should be thrown out immediately for a start. Seems a bit odd that in a language where you can't write any code without defining a class, some people think that teaching about what a class is should be the least important thing in the course, but it happens, and on a regular basis, both in university/college courses and (more worryingly) in commercial courses.
In general I find Java better than C++ for teaching OO, because it presents a simpler, cleaner model to work with, and forces you down the OO route to a certain extent. Just look at the comparative sizes of the language specifications for a graphic example of why Java is a better teaching language. ;^)
This one has been done to death elsewhere. No, the background is not pre-rendered. Yes, it is fully 3D. Just look at any of the cuboid items in the background and watch the way in which you see different sides of them as the camera moves.
The cause of this effect is the gameplay mechanisms used by Tekken since the first game in the series. It's based on an infinite ring. No trapping your opponent in the corner. No ring-outs. Just two characters fighting. Now that works fine when you don't have any real backgrounds (as in the first games) but if you want more detail in the environments you run into problems. You need to have the infinite arena, but now you need to fit it into a finite surrounding. Something which has previously only been managed by Gallifreyans.
Namco's approach to this in TTT works pretty well, I think. But it does make some people think that the backgrounds are pre-rendered when they're not (can't understand this myself - they're very obviously real-time for me...) The one improvement I'd suggest would be to cover up the join slightly better, with plants or scenery (some stages actually do this in TTT).
You've seen it being played? Are you sure?
There is a playable demo of MGS2 out there (due to be shipped with Zone of Enders, another woefully underhyped Konami game with input from Hideo Kojima), but as far as I can tell not many people have had a chance to play it. Even at Konami's recent Gamers' Day the press weren't allowed to get their hands on it - the demo was played by a Konami rep.
For more information, check out the IGN articles on the demo here and here.
That's what themes are for, of course. Download one of the themes out there with smaller buttons. Create your own theme with tiny buttons (grab a copy of Chameleon for this, perhaps...) Use the classic theme if you find that any better.
Ah, memories. I used to have the original Star Fighter 3K for the Archimedes. Don't know how it compares to the 3DO version, but it was far more playable than the later PSX version. I wonder if emulation has reached the point where I can play this one on my PC now...
As well as native and web interfaces, a Java interface would be a nice idea. Gives the extra flexibility over a web interface in terms of how the UI works, but also allows it to run on platforms that don't have a native front-end implementation.
Nonononono.
;^)
Keep the paperclips. Add support for console lightgun hardware.
Firstly, a web interface is a must, but then it always is.
;) would be handy, if you'll excuse the pun.
Secondly, some easy way of synchronising it with popular PDAs (particularly Psions
Thirdly, a feature I'd love to see is the ability to schedule time based not on an individual user, but on some qualification of that user. It's all very well to say "Tell me whether John Smith is available in week 36", but what I'd really like to be able to say is "Tell me which certified Websphere architects we have available in week 36", or "Tell me which instructors can teach course NL06 in either week 25 or 26". Current solutions that I've been using haven't offered this.
...or would do if Bleemcast had seen the light of day. And given Bleem's reputation surrounding the PC version of their software I wouldn't be holding out for too much in the way of compatibility and stability. Of course, the best way to play PSOne games is on... a PSOne. Duh.
I already have a Dreamcast, an extra controller, two games and a memory card. Why on earth would I want another one?
Actually, last time I checked it was imported as a games console. Sony were threatening to take various countries to court over their refusal to accept it as a PC (with the correspondingly lower import duty), but nothing had happened yet. So the first batch does have that import duty.
Even with that thrown in, of course, it's cheaper in the US. And the reason is, as you say, that they know they can get away with it. 300 pounds doesn't sound like a reasonable price to this consumer, though. And what with the delays in releases of games, or no releases at all in Europe (from Square alone, Europe missed out on Xenogears, Final Fantasy Tactics, Parasite Eve, Saga Frontier, Chrono Cross and many more...) if I ever decide I want a Western PS2, I'll be importing from the US.
No need for such a creature. Most TVs in Europe will happily display NTSC signals. I'm running Japanese and US import consoles on my bog-standard el-cheapo ex-rental TV with no additional hardware other than the voltage converter (this one's mandatory if you don't want your expensive new console to go fzzt...)
It should be a case of the lesser of two evils being preferable, but I really can't make up my mind which is which.
Here's my suggestion: let the court cases go ahead, and when the advertising company representatives are in court along with all the lawyers, blow the building up. (All members of the public would obviously have been replaced with inflatable replicas before this event...) That way everyone wins.
I don't think I can agree with that attitude. Surely the correct approach would be for him not to speak for us all until an arbitrary body that we elect solely for that purpose calls for him to do so? Seems much more in the spirit of things.
Just a couple of points to raise: firstly, there isn't exactly zero tool support for JSPs, just for Tomcat. Commercial application servers are (unsurprisingly) slightly ahead here. I'm currently working with Websphere, which while it has some issues, does have useful support for generating and maintaining JSPs (through Websphere Studio) and good administration and testing tools (integrated into VisualAge).
As you say, JDBC probably isn't the best interface to be using directly in all cases, but EJBs are great for this sort of enterprise application: the business logic developer doesn't need to know anything about the back end and how it's accessed anyway.
What items they may have missed? Any actual facts would be good, I suppose. The response of one PS2 developer to this article was that *some* of the 'facts' about DC were close to being true, but that was about it.
Since when did PS2 start storing vertex data in the embedded memory on GS? <sigh>
I'd agree with you on not paying more than $300 for it (look at the sick prices on e-bay, even without the spoiler bids some morons are placing), but just wanted to raise a couple of other issues.
Firstly, the power switch is on the back because you're not expected to use it. There's a button on the front for that: press once for reset, or hold for power-off.
Secondly, Tekken Tag Tournament is great, if you like Tekken. If you don't, then why on earth did you buy it? It's not entirely 2D fighting, incidentally (unlike the Street Fighter game) - all characters can sidestep (up, up or up, down, IIRC) and some characters (such as King) have moves which involve side movements.
Let's take a look at that link again, shall we?
http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/27035.html
There's something there I just can't quite put my finger on...
http:// dreamcast .ign.com/news/2703 5.html
Ah, that's it, yes. It's a link comparing Dreamcast and PS2 from dudes who get paid to say good things about Dreamcast for a living. That'll be a fair and balanced opinion, sure enough.
It's mildly amusing that they compare the PS2 launch titles to games that aren't even available on the DC in the US right now (and even some that aren't available anywhere). But even then they have to not just bend the truth, but wrench it right round and tie it in knots in some of their comparisons.
That's not to say that the PS2 games wipe the floor with their DC equivalents. Far from it - of course the DC's wider library of 3rd generation games has an advantage over the PS2's launch titles, and you'd be a fool not to see that. But titles like SSX, Dynasty Warriors 2 and Armored Core 2 are beautiful to behold, and in many of their other comparisons (Tekken vs Soul Calibur, for example) it all comes down to personal preference.
If you want a balanced view of the two consoles, good luck in finding one. But anything from a DC-specific site written by someone with a reputation of being about as DC-philic as it's possible to get legally doesn't exactly count, I'm afraid.
There's no way that a current PC is going to be emulating a PS2 at anything approaching playable speeds in the near future. Dreamcast emulation isn't really feasible yet, and that's a system that's much close to the PC in architecture and spec.
Right now the only way to get PS2 functionality in a DVD player is to license the chips from Sony, and with their problems supplying enough for their own launch I doubt that's a real possibility.
Very well, I have a question. A sensible question. A question that will tax your IQ to its very limits and stretch the sinews of your knowledge to bursting point. The question is this: Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted tea-cake?