Hahaha, sorry, but you sound brainwashed. "Paradigm"? "Information sharing"?
I sound brainwashed? Ok, dude. Next time I'll use monosyllabic words and hand-waving to get my point across, rather than the appropriate words to describe what I'm trying to say.
When something cool happens on the internet, lots of blogs cover it but they usually just say one thing, "Check this out, it's so cool! Yeah, hmm, ok.. Lots of these people don't have any original thought of their own.
No shit. Lots of people in general don't have any original thoughts of their own. What's your point? You don't have to read all the drivel that comes across the internet. Find those blogs written by people that do have something interesting to say and subscribe in your RSS reader. There are plenty out there (although it's a small percentage of the total number... 90% of everything is crap, remember?)
I don't get why people here are so vehemently (whoops, sorry about using another big word!) opposed to blogs, when they're so in love with the web in general. Blogs are the exact same thing, with some added technologies on top to facilitate new methods of communication (RSS/Atom, trackback, pingback, and so on). Yes, most of the blogs out there are crap, but that's the case with everything.
Sure, some ARE *special*, but not in the sense of having more RIGHTS than the rest of us.
Um, yes they do. The whole point of a government is that they have a monopoly on the right to use force to keep society functioning smoothly. I certainly don't agree that the government should be exempt from a shutdown, since they're not the only people with mission-critical stuff depending on their BlackBerries, but they most definitely do have rights that the rest of us don't.
... it's the network of interlinking blogs (via trackback/pingback) that carry on an ongoing conversation that is the real power of the blogs. Along with RSS and Atom, which aside from just letting you read a bunch of blogs through a single interface also let sites like Technorati provide a nearly real-time search of the "live" internet, blogs and the related technologies that have sprung up around them are really creating a new paradigm of information sharing. Google lets you search the static web, but Technorati (and PubSub, and Google Blogsearch, and other RSS/Atom indexing/search engines) let you search through information as it happens, and follow the interlinking cross-blog conversations. That's incredibly powerful.
I actually just wrote a post on this subject on my blog a few hours ago... *cough*...
All of the popular frameworks are immature. They'll be completely different in a couple of years, and if you're lucky -- I mean really lucky -- they'll incorporate some sort of backward compatibility to let you leverage your existing code base. I wouldn't count on that though.
One of the original design considerations of.NET was to eliminate DLL versioning problems, so an application can specify "use the 1.1 version of this framework, and the 2.0 version of that framework." You can also have any number of different versions of the same framework installed (and in use) at the same time, if you so desire. There's no "backwards compatibility" necessary when the application specifies which version it wants to link to.
Makes you wonder why Nintendo doesn't release one of those "multi games in a controller" with it and some of the other sweet games from the NES days.You know it would sell like hotcakes to all of us that remember the good old days.
Because the Revolution is going to be able to download/play the old games, and because of that, IT will sell like hotcakes to those of us that remember the good old days (hell, I'm certainly gonna buy one, for that reason alone).
Red clouds? I can't remember what you're talking about.
I always called 'em bubbles, but I guess they were ghosts of some sort. Those things that buzzed around in dungeons that would make you unable to use your sword... you know what I'm talking about. In the second quest there were red ones which, instead of taking away your sword for a little while, took it away permanently until you could find a blue bubble/ghost/cloud/whatever to touch you and give it back. GOD were those aggravating.
If you can stick code in them, you've got a medium for virii.
First of all, no you can't - you can stick code in web pages, but properly sandboxed, you can't write a JavaScript virus (properly sandboxed meaning no browser vulnerabilities, obviously). And all this is are web pages archived with all external resources into a single file.
I know there are certain situations that MI is extremely useful. But you can always work around it somehow, and it gets abused more often than used legitimately. Overall, I'm of the opinion that MI hurts more than it helps, so I'm not upset to see it gone.
Sure you can, you'll just have to continue compiling it as regular c++, with an c++/cli interface layer if you want to access it from.net.
And gratuitous use of multiple inheritance is bad design, so you might want to think about that. Yes it's a good thing sometimes, but this is VERY RARE - it always increases complexity and can cause problems later, it's just that sometimes the benefits are worth it. Usually not, though. Anyway, I'm not getting into that right now.
it does have generics, which are templates without the metaprogramming possibilities -- because it does not have templates. Henceforth, the STL does not work under C++/CLI. Nor does Boost.
Yes it does. No multiple inheritance, that's true, but as for templates, they're supported just fine.
(posting this as a top level comment because I can't reply to EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that is loudly proclaiming that C++/CLI isn't C++ because it doesn't support templates)
Yes, yes it does - it just happens to support generics also: straight from MSDN. Templates, being strictly a compiler phenomenon requiring no post-compilation support from the runtime, are supported just fine. The only real C++ feature that isn't supported is multiple inheritance (with the exception of interface implementation). And that's just fine with me.
So to all you people claiming C++/CLI doesn't support templates, you're dead wrong.
For instance, as far as I know, C++.net only supports single inheritance whereas C++ supports multiple inheritance.
I think you're right; however, the reason for that is the the CLR itself only supports single inheritance (except for interface inheritance). Which is a good thing. I've been using C++ for 13 years and I have needed multiple inheritance exactly once (except for, as I said, when implementing interfaces). And it was a problem that could have been worked around in other ways anyway.
In C++.net, the object may or may not be destroyed when you think it is. This seems like a minor thing, but in reality it can be quite major. This introduces subtle changes in a program's behavior.
No it doesn't. new and delete are still there, and they still work the same way. It's only when you use managed objects that the garbage collector comes into play, and that's not going to cause problems for pre-existing code, now is it?
No, C++/CLI is not stock C++. But it's basically C++ with (a very few) restrictions and a couple added keywords and features. It's certainly close enough that the name C++/CLI applies.
If that's the case, how did Trolltech achieve compatibility between Qt 4's signals/slots and Boost's signals/slots?
Trolltech themselves have stated that the reason they use a preprocessor instead of a template-based system is for compiler compatibility, and not any functionality that is gained.
If you can stand them, they sound phenomenal. They're basically earplugs with speakers built in, so they block out damn near all external sound by making an airtight seal, and you can keep the volume pretty low as a result. I used them for about a month, before I decided they were too much trouble than they were worth, though. They just wouldn't stay in my ears for extended periods of time.
Some people swear by them, though, and I can see why - when they're in, they sound great. I think they just didn't fit me right or something.
They could, but I'm guessing they'd be breaking laws in the process. And in any case, MSN could spider Google from any number of IPs distributed around the globe... it's not like they have to spider only from their own IPs.
In any case, this whole theory is ridiculous. Like that other comment in this article said, Google could drop puppies into volcanos (or something to that effect), but why would they?
I am a MIS major and focusing on Java right now since its the number 1 language sought after. For someone with limited experience should I be focusing on c#?
Java and C# are almost interchangable, especially with Java 1.5, which adds a few things that C# had added to the mix. If you know one, you can immediately start writing in the other, provided you have a decent reference book by your side, and you can fully learn the other language in an afternoon.
This isn't to say that the APIs are identical, though - but don't worry about that, because VS.NET's autocomplete is phenomenal and it'll fill in gaps in your knowledge pretty well.
Um. The obvious problem would be that robots.txt is an entirely voluntary agreement - the client does not have to respect it, nor does it have to even download it. So if this actually became a problem, MSN could simply tell their spider to ignore robots.txt on Google-hosted sites.
What you need is a good book on chess and your local chess club. Yes, they do tend to have members in the single-digit age range (it sucks being knocked out of a tournament by an 8 year old!)
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, sorry, but you sound brainwashed. "Paradigm"? "Information sharing"?
I sound brainwashed? Ok, dude. Next time I'll use monosyllabic words and hand-waving to get my point across, rather than the appropriate words to describe what I'm trying to say.
When something cool happens on the internet, lots of blogs cover it but they usually just say one thing, "Check this out, it's so cool! Yeah, hmm, ok.. Lots of these people don't have any original thought of their own.
No shit. Lots of people in general don't have any original thoughts of their own. What's your point? You don't have to read all the drivel that comes across the internet. Find those blogs written by people that do have something interesting to say and subscribe in your RSS reader. There are plenty out there (although it's a small percentage of the total number... 90% of everything is crap, remember?)
I don't get why people here are so vehemently (whoops, sorry about using another big word!) opposed to blogs, when they're so in love with the web in general. Blogs are the exact same thing, with some added technologies on top to facilitate new methods of communication (RSS/Atom, trackback, pingback, and so on). Yes, most of the blogs out there are crap, but that's the case with everything.
Sure, some ARE *special*, but not in the sense of having more RIGHTS than the rest of us.
Um, yes they do. The whole point of a government is that they have a monopoly on the right to use force to keep society functioning smoothly. I certainly don't agree that the government should be exempt from a shutdown, since they're not the only people with mission-critical stuff depending on their BlackBerries, but they most definitely do have rights that the rest of us don't.
Heh. How is it a shameless plug? It's not like I'm selling anything, I was just linking to a post I had just written on the topic at hand.
... it's the network of interlinking blogs (via trackback/pingback) that carry on an ongoing conversation that is the real power of the blogs. Along with RSS and Atom, which aside from just letting you read a bunch of blogs through a single interface also let sites like Technorati provide a nearly real-time search of the "live" internet, blogs and the related technologies that have sprung up around them are really creating a new paradigm of information sharing. Google lets you search the static web, but Technorati (and PubSub, and Google Blogsearch, and other RSS/Atom indexing/search engines) let you search through information as it happens, and follow the interlinking cross-blog conversations. That's incredibly powerful.
I actually just wrote a post on this subject on my blog a few hours ago... *cough*...
All of the popular frameworks are immature. They'll be completely different in a couple of years, and if you're lucky -- I mean really lucky -- they'll incorporate some sort of backward compatibility to let you leverage your existing code base. I wouldn't count on that though.
.NET was to eliminate DLL versioning problems, so an application can specify "use the 1.1 version of this framework, and the 2.0 version of that framework." You can also have any number of different versions of the same framework installed (and in use) at the same time, if you so desire. There's no "backwards compatibility" necessary when the application specifies which version it wants to link to.
One of the original design considerations of
The old man in level 5 told me "dodogdo dislikes music". So like a trusting little lamb, I left the dungeon and went all the way back to level 2 :(
Really? Haha, I never noticed that.
Makes you wonder why Nintendo doesn't release one of those "multi games in a controller" with it and some of the other sweet games from the NES days.You know it would sell like hotcakes to all of us that remember the good old days.
Because the Revolution is going to be able to download/play the old games, and because of that, IT will sell like hotcakes to those of us that remember the good old days (hell, I'm certainly gonna buy one, for that reason alone).
Being really confused by the dodongo/digdogger name switch in level 5
Name switch? Dodongo was the triceratops-looking thing, Digdogger was the big floating eyeball that shrunk or split when you blew the whistle.
Red clouds? I can't remember what you're talking about.
I always called 'em bubbles, but I guess they were ghosts of some sort. Those things that buzzed around in dungeons that would make you unable to use your sword... you know what I'm talking about. In the second quest there were red ones which, instead of taking away your sword for a little while, took it away permanently until you could find a blue bubble/ghost/cloud/whatever to touch you and give it back. GOD were those aggravating.
If you can stick code in them, you've got a medium for virii.
First of all, no you can't - you can stick code in web pages, but properly sandboxed, you can't write a JavaScript virus (properly sandboxed meaning no browser vulnerabilities, obviously). And all this is are web pages archived with all external resources into a single file.
And second of all, it's VIRUSES, goddamn you.
Actually, yes. Objective-C, too.
You're right, my bad.
That assumes you're using Exchange in the first place. Not everybody does.
Everybody running a BlackBerry server does.
I know there are certain situations that MI is extremely useful. But you can always work around it somehow, and it gets abused more often than used legitimately. Overall, I'm of the opinion that MI hurts more than it helps, so I'm not upset to see it gone.
Sure you can, you'll just have to continue compiling it as regular c++, with an c++/cli interface layer if you want to access it from .net.
And gratuitous use of multiple inheritance is bad design, so you might want to think about that. Yes it's a good thing sometimes, but this is VERY RARE - it always increases complexity and can cause problems later, it's just that sometimes the benefits are worth it. Usually not, though. Anyway, I'm not getting into that right now.
it does have generics, which are templates without the metaprogramming possibilities -- because it does not have templates. Henceforth, the STL does not work under C++/CLI. Nor does Boost.
Yes it does. No multiple inheritance, that's true, but as for templates, they're supported just fine.
(posting this as a top level comment because I can't reply to EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that is loudly proclaiming that C++/CLI isn't C++ because it doesn't support templates)
Yes, yes it does - it just happens to support generics also: straight from MSDN. Templates, being strictly a compiler phenomenon requiring no post-compilation support from the runtime, are supported just fine. The only real C++ feature that isn't supported is multiple inheritance (with the exception of interface implementation). And that's just fine with me.
So to all you people claiming C++/CLI doesn't support templates, you're dead wrong.
For instance, as far as I know, C++.net only supports single inheritance whereas C++ supports multiple inheritance.
I think you're right; however, the reason for that is the the CLR itself only supports single inheritance (except for interface inheritance). Which is a good thing. I've been using C++ for 13 years and I have needed multiple inheritance exactly once (except for, as I said, when implementing interfaces). And it was a problem that could have been worked around in other ways anyway.
In C++.net, the object may or may not be destroyed when you think it is. This seems like a minor thing, but in reality it can be quite major. This introduces subtle changes in a program's behavior.
No it doesn't. new and delete are still there, and they still work the same way. It's only when you use managed objects that the garbage collector comes into play, and that's not going to cause problems for pre-existing code, now is it?
No, C++/CLI is not stock C++. But it's basically C++ with (a very few) restrictions and a couple added keywords and features. It's certainly close enough that the name C++/CLI applies.
If that's the case, how did Trolltech achieve compatibility between Qt 4's signals/slots and Boost's signals/slots?
Trolltech themselves have stated that the reason they use a preprocessor instead of a template-based system is for compiler compatibility, and not any functionality that is gained.
If you can stand them, they sound phenomenal. They're basically earplugs with speakers built in, so they block out damn near all external sound by making an airtight seal, and you can keep the volume pretty low as a result. I used them for about a month, before I decided they were too much trouble than they were worth, though. They just wouldn't stay in my ears for extended periods of time.
Some people swear by them, though, and I can see why - when they're in, they sound great. I think they just didn't fit me right or something.
They could, but I'm guessing they'd be breaking laws in the process. And in any case, MSN could spider Google from any number of IPs distributed around the globe... it's not like they have to spider only from their own IPs.
In any case, this whole theory is ridiculous. Like that other comment in this article said, Google could drop puppies into volcanos (or something to that effect), but why would they?
I am a MIS major and focusing on Java right now since its the number 1 language sought after. For someone with limited experience should I be focusing on c#?
Java and C# are almost interchangable, especially with Java 1.5, which adds a few things that C# had added to the mix. If you know one, you can immediately start writing in the other, provided you have a decent reference book by your side, and you can fully learn the other language in an afternoon.
This isn't to say that the APIs are identical, though - but don't worry about that, because VS.NET's autocomplete is phenomenal and it'll fill in gaps in your knowledge pretty well.
Um. The obvious problem would be that robots.txt is an entirely voluntary agreement - the client does not have to respect it, nor does it have to even download it. So if this actually became a problem, MSN could simply tell their spider to ignore robots.txt on Google-hosted sites.
...to CDs, DVDs, zip drives, ...
What is this, 1996?
What you need is a good book on chess and your local chess club. Yes, they do tend to have members in the single-digit age range (it sucks being knocked out of a tournament by an 8 year old!)