I'm waiting for Perl6 before I get too serious about Perl, as I don't want to have a lot of unlearning to do
Got about 10 pages into it before the/.ing. What a provocative language.
Question regarding:
my %pet is Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of Cat;
why not:
typedef my Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of Cat %pet;
IMHO, without typedef, C++ would be lost, particularly when the STL is on the loose...
After you 'by' said box, you have to give it a home and maintain it.
Why not blow off all of the discussion with the management for the funding? You can thug some RAM from the manager's machine to support the extra address space requirements, and irritate his pointy-hair-edness at the same time.
Only joking about the unethical behavior.
Running any legacy code, i.e. everything you have, requires you to buy MS Plus for Longhorn.
Note the two beautiful features of this: 1) Mr. Softy blows off the anti-trust suit, as the article mentions. "Hey, it's not Microsoft Windows!"
2) Mr. Softy gets you to pay again to use the stuff you already have.
Let not the technically vacuous, yet legally air-tight, nature of the argument cause you to discount its implementability.
Two responses are appropriate: 1) Admire the business savvy involved.
2) Boot Linux.
Re:The only once inside the GNOME-community
on
Has GNOME Become LAME?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So, in summary, XML is about standardization, a Good Thing.
How satisfying is it when you can open something completely new, and discover your existing knowledge about how stuff works maps perfectly to the new application?
Except when you want to do something slightly different.
What about scripting?
The cynic in me figures that most of these chrome-and-tailfin features are about driving you to buy more hardware as much as they are about improving the computing experience.
But wait!
ME: Computer, generate random video of a love godess across a lot of CPUs, for a high-performance performance.
Computer: Starting imaging, on a beowulf cluster, of those Natalie Portman photos of her being herself...
Fine, call it low animal cunning if you want.
Your examples clearly show that first mover advantages are difficult to keep alive in technology markets.
People remain sheep, and Redmond's shears are sharp.
Not on technical grounds, for that is where the author's argument appears to hold a lot of truth.
No, it's about organizations. The genius of Bill Gates is that his vision extends to the people as well as the tech.
Them peeps want a system that doesn't bother them with case sensitive strings and granular file permissions. Furthermore, eye candy=good, command line=bad.
Peeps are as likely to abandon 'Doze for Open Source as they are to exercise regularly, eat healthy things, educate themselves, and live peacefully with their neighbor.
If you roger up for any of the activities in the previous para, you are not a representative sample. Sorry.
This is not a pro-Microsoft troll, for all it might appear to contradict the/. orthodoxy.
But perhaps one day we can have a cell phone with enough bollocks to implement these asinine standards in software, so we can just buy something and expect to work, without getting thrashed by all these CDMA/GSM issues.
No, I don't know the details, but I can't believe a transceiver cannot be made programmable such that it can implement an arbitrary standard.
At the risk of violating the orthodoxy, there is something to be said, from the consumer perspective, for 800 pound gorilla companies that can make a standard from sheer gravitas.
Any objective person can see that CTRL+C / CTRL+V with a functioning clipboard capability is a Good Thing.
In contrast, Monday I was in a lab trying to copy some stuff from a XTerminal to an OpenOffice document. Talk about an HMI disaster! And this is RedHat 8.0, definitely a step in the direction I'm talking about.
Yes, it's great to have the breadth and choice available in Open Source, but a little depth would be a Good Thing.
Blessed are they who play along and try to harmonize that which exists, rather than come up with Yet Another <insert category here> Application.
Before the moderators wax me for being off-topic, the point is that the fragmentary, chaotic market envisioned in the parent post may not be what we really want...
Right. I was envisioning a primitive WebTV with an Atari 2600 and a cartridge with an phone jack, Linux, and a Lynx browser, and someone writing email with an old joystick.
Re:Memory Stick Should Go the Way of Beta
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 1
No' so fast. If Sony gets enough products on the market that support the Memory Stick, and sales are sufficient, they might create a 'standard' that forces everyone to play along by sheer gravity.
Had I piles of cash and wanted I a shelf of gadgets with a single medium for moving information between them, I'd be hard pressed to find a better answer than Sony's.
Bluetooth or something else wireless, sure, but you like solid state media from time to time.
Yet certainly irritating. Consider GeneSpring, a fairly common BioInformatics application. On a two year old laptop, you click the icon, go pour the tea, and return to see it just waking up.
The argument in favor of Java for this is that the interface is graphically intensive, and the audience is about as cross-platform as it gets, so you require a robust, platform agnostic system.
Having said all that, I still fall short of faith in all of this JIT business. It still sounds like yet another layer of indirection. The counter-argument, 'go Assembly if you really care about performance', is noted.
But stuff like Boost and the STL still fascinate...
ability to use powerpoint and visio to confuse and confound
Oh, let's differentiate between the information itself and the tools used to describe it (the heart of my argument).
There is probably a high-end consultant who uses these digitial crayons to do masterpieces for the corporate refrigerator and seriously earns that loot.
Your remark certainly applies to a large population of consultants, though. OTOH, I'm a relatively modestly priced consultant, and I've walked in and _demonstrated_ simpler, better (from the theoretical standpoint of orthogonal data, logic, and presentation), more robust code and been told _by the client_ to go back and do hideous things to it. So where is the justice?
Sure, the money, but, given a finite lifetime, why piss it away on crap?
UML is already bodged, further extensions are not going to help much.
Even God gets negative feedback. What will be amusing with XML is when somebody figures out that in a sizeable application, offloading a lot of the textual fluff that makes it so flexible will buy considerable speed, and markets an XML svelte-ifier of some sort.
, and
& g t ; & l t ; (sans whitespace) are the keys.
Last time I looked at it in detail (1.0?), UML had an extension mechanism.
Surely, Rational will take effective action to protect market share if the Xxx onslaught becomes too fearsome.
To do otherwise would be...(adjective).
DTDs are a hangover from SGML that will eventually go away.
Let's hear an estimate, with cold cash backup.
The big problem with schema is that you actually have two type systems going. Element definitions are types for elements. Type definitions are actualy types for types for elements. I saw a hopelessly confused attempt by some UML people to express XML schema in UML, they simply could not understand that there was no way it could ever work. UML has completely different semantics.
Find myself doubting the Three Amigos would agree with you.
The thing that bores me about all of the acronyms churned out by marketing is that these are all systems for representing information. Sure, the semantic power of the systems vary. Yet, if the DTD works, Don't Touch Dat! There is some trick of the mind whereby we develop religious attachment to the acronym du jour, and seek salvation in spiffy new technologies. Gotta spend that budget before the money evaporates!
Yet, behind the high-frequencies emitted by the hype box is the bass hum of simple systems plugging along, producing the correct answers without all of the shiny chrome...
What will be the next variation on the theme that will save us from the (retrospectively obvious) weaknesses of XML? Stay tuned.
</curmudgeon>
I explain that the simpler, better, working implementation I just showed them is really what they want.
The customer re-iterates demands.
The project manager capitulates, and I get stuck writing extensive logic in a scripting language (!) to do something completely tasteless that will only dismay the customer when the lousy repercussions of their demands hit them in the face.
"Welcome to software consulting" says the project manager.
The fact that I held true to my ethics and tried to dissuade the customer is cold comfort.
SVG-files often are compressed.
The O'Reilly link mentioned use of gzip to effect this.
Should, say, a Monopoly Short-circuit that with some proprietary scheme, one hopes that the market would break from its traditional hooverism and respond accordingly.
OK, I'm thinking wishfully...
Trust them, potential interest conflicts and all.
This is the usual story when these "mine's better" discussions arise.
For benchmarks, who has a reputation for
That will be cool. Hopefully, "Larry" does better in the marketplace than "Bob".
Seriously, we speak of information systems, and the discussion amounts to "Where shall we choose to draw lines in the abstraction hierarchy?"
I submit that a similar discussion could be had on the similarities/differences between TCP/IP stacks and the OSI stack. Which is more pedantically pure? Who cares? Differences that make little difference, say I.
Do you really think you would want to write a GCC backend that emitted Ada source code?
GCC already compiles Ada, if this is accurate.
Do you mean a de-compiler? Why?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm waiting for Perl6 before I get too serious about Perl, as I don't want to have a lot of unlearning to do /.ing. What a provocative language.
;)
Got about 10 pages into it before the
Question regarding:
my %pet is Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of Cat;
why not:
typedef my Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of Cat %pet;
IMHO, without typedef, C++ would be lost, particularly when the STL is on the loose...
Larry, your Boss is as good as mine...
After you 'by' said box, you have to give it a home and maintain it.
Why not blow off all of the discussion with the management for the funding? You can thug some RAM from the manager's machine to support the extra address space requirements, and irritate his pointy-hair-edness at the same time.
Only joking about the unethical behavior.
Seriously.
The core OS has 0 backward compatibility.
Running any legacy code, i.e. everything you have, requires you to buy MS Plus for Longhorn.
Note the two beautiful features of this:
1) Mr. Softy blows off the anti-trust suit, as the article mentions. "Hey, it's not Microsoft Windows!"
2) Mr. Softy gets you to pay again to use the stuff you already have.
Let not the technically vacuous, yet legally air-tight, nature of the argument cause you to discount its implementability.
Two responses are appropriate:
1) Admire the business savvy involved.
2) Boot Linux.
So, in summary, XML is about standardization, a Good Thing.
How satisfying is it when you can open something completely new, and discover your existing knowledge about how stuff works maps perfectly to the new application?
Except when you want to do something slightly different.
What about scripting?
The cynic in me figures that most of these chrome-and-tailfin features are about driving you to buy more hardware as much as they are about improving the computing experience.
But wait!
ME: Computer, generate random video of a love godess across a lot of CPUs, for a high-performance performance.
Computer: Starting imaging, on a beowulf cluster, of those Natalie Portman photos of her being herself...
Help me, please!
Fine, call it low animal cunning if you want.
Your examples clearly show that first mover advantages are difficult to keep alive in technology markets.
People remain sheep, and Redmond's shears are sharp.
Not on technical grounds, for that is where the author's argument appears to hold a lot of truth. /. orthodoxy.
No, it's about organizations. The genius of Bill Gates is that his vision extends to the people as well as the tech.
Them peeps want a system that doesn't bother them with case sensitive strings and granular file permissions. Furthermore, eye candy=good, command line=bad.
Peeps are as likely to abandon 'Doze for Open Source as they are to exercise regularly, eat healthy things, educate themselves, and live peacefully with their neighbor.
If you roger up for any of the activities in the previous para, you are not a representative sample. Sorry.
This is not a pro-Microsoft troll, for all it might appear to contradict the
Jesus exhibited Luddite tendencies.
But perhaps one day we can have a cell phone with enough bollocks to implement these asinine standards in software, so we can just buy something and expect to work, without getting thrashed by all these CDMA/GSM issues.
No, I don't know the details, but I can't believe a transceiver cannot be made programmable such that it can implement an arbitrary standard.
At the risk of violating the orthodoxy, there is something to be said, from the consumer perspective, for 800 pound gorilla companies that can make a standard from sheer gravitas.
Any objective person can see that CTRL+C / CTRL+V with a functioning clipboard capability is a Good Thing.
In contrast, Monday I was in a lab trying to copy some stuff from a XTerminal to an OpenOffice document. Talk about an HMI disaster! And this is RedHat 8.0, definitely a step in the direction I'm talking about.
Yes, it's great to have the breadth and choice available in Open Source, but a little depth would be a Good Thing.
Blessed are they who play along and try to harmonize that which exists, rather than come up with Yet Another <insert category here> Application.
Before the moderators wax me for being off-topic, the point is that the fragmentary, chaotic market envisioned in the parent post may not be what we really want...
Right. I was envisioning a primitive WebTV with an Atari 2600 and a cartridge with an phone jack, Linux, and a Lynx browser, and someone writing email with an old joystick.
No' so fast. If Sony gets enough products on the market that support the Memory Stick, and sales are sufficient, they might create a 'standard' that forces everyone to play along by sheer gravity.
Had I piles of cash and wanted I a shelf of gadgets with a single medium for moving information between them, I'd be hard pressed to find a better answer than Sony's.
Bluetooth or something else wireless, sure, but you like solid state media from time to time.
...do they do anything?
Curious.
Yet certainly irritating. Consider GeneSpring, a fairly common BioInformatics application. On a two year old laptop, you click the icon, go pour the tea, and return to see it just waking up.
The argument in favor of Java for this is that the interface is graphically intensive, and the audience is about as cross-platform as it gets, so you require a robust, platform agnostic system.
Having said all that, I still fall short of faith in all of this JIT business.
It still sounds like yet another layer of indirection.
The counter-argument, 'go Assembly if you really care about performance', is noted.
But stuff like Boost and the STL still fascinate...
ability to use powerpoint and visio to confuse and confound
Oh, let's differentiate between the information itself and the tools used to describe it (the heart of my argument).
There is probably a high-end consultant who uses these digitial crayons to do masterpieces for the corporate refrigerator and seriously earns that loot.
Your remark certainly applies to a large population of consultants, though. OTOH, I'm a relatively modestly priced consultant, and I've walked in and _demonstrated_ simpler, better (from the theoretical standpoint of orthogonal data, logic, and presentation), more robust code and been told _by the client_ to go back and do hideous things to it. So where is the justice?
Sure, the money, but, given a finite lifetime, why piss it away on crap?
UML is already bodged, further extensions are not going to help much.
Even God gets negative feedback. What will be amusing with XML is when somebody figures out that in a sizeable application, offloading a lot of the textual fluff that makes it so flexible will buy considerable speed, and markets an XML svelte-ifier of some sort.
, and
& g t ; & l t ; (sans whitespace) are the keys.
Last time I looked at it in detail (1.0?), UML had an extension mechanism.
Surely, Rational will take effective action to protect market share if the Xxx onslaught becomes too fearsome.
To do otherwise would be...(adjective).
The thing that bores me about all of the acronyms churned out by marketing is that these are all systems for representing information.
Sure, the semantic power of the systems vary. Yet, if the DTD works, Don't Touch Dat!
There is some trick of the mind whereby we develop religious attachment to the acronym du jour, and seek salvation in spiffy new technologies.
Gotta spend that budget before the money evaporates!
Yet, behind the high-frequencies emitted by the hype box is the bass hum of simple systems plugging along, producing the correct answers without all of the shiny chrome...
What will be the next variation on the theme that will save us from the (retrospectively obvious) weaknesses of XML?
Stay tuned.
</curmudgeon>
Absolutely. A little Nabokov or Updike...
The customer demands.
I explain that the simpler, better, working implementation I just showed them is really what they want.
The customer re-iterates demands.
The project manager capitulates, and I get stuck writing extensive logic in a scripting language (!) to do something completely tasteless that will only dismay the customer when the lousy repercussions of their demands hit them in the face.
"Welcome to software consulting" says the project manager.
The fact that I held true to my ethics and tried to dissuade the customer is cold comfort.
apostrophe.
The trophy they took from the apos, silly.
Or maybe they're just Zappa fans.
Guess we'll know when they begin to serve man.
SVG-files often are compressed.
The O'Reilly link mentioned use of gzip to effect this.
Should, say, a Monopoly Short-circuit that with some proprietary scheme,
one hopes that the market would break from its traditional hooverism and respond accordingly.
OK, I'm thinking wishfully...
Do it yourself, or,
Trust them, potential interest conflicts and all.
This is the usual story when these "mine's better" discussions arise.
For benchmarks, who has a reputation for
Knowing what they are about, and
Remaining objective?
Ah, so so so.
That will be cool. Hopefully, "Larry" does better in the marketplace than "Bob".
Seriously, we speak of information systems, and the discussion amounts to "Where shall we choose to draw lines in the abstraction hierarchy?"
I submit that a similar discussion could be had on the similarities/differences between TCP/IP stacks and the OSI stack. Which is more pedantically pure? Who cares? Differences that make little difference, say I.
Do you really think you would want to write a GCC backend that emitted Ada source code? GCC already compiles Ada, if this is accurate.
Do you mean a de-compiler? Why?