Just once I would like to see a movie on the Battle of Britian --- without the US being center, but based on the RAF who defended the british coast with their lives.
Try "The Battle of Britain."
Man, what a movie the Battle of the Bulge would make.
Here's a question. It's not a rhetorical question at all, but actually a serious one. Assuming that it is very difficult for Hollywood to create a movie based around a historical event (say, hypothetically, Pearl Harbor) without introducing some historical inaccuracies, would it serve to alleviate the problem if the movie itself identified some of the liberties it took? For example, if before the credits rolled, Pearl Harbor were mention the names of the actual Doolittle raiders, to tell the number of US planes that actually did get off the ground and intercept the attacking Japanese (and that, no, they did not play "chicken" with the Japanese fighters), etc.?
It would certainly be unprecedented, and probably difficult for many in Hollywood to stomach, but might actually earn such a movie lots of positive press. What do you think?
Re:I saw the movie, and didn't think it was that b
on
Review: Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure that a Zero could outrun a P-40 in a straight-out race at the time, although the Zero could easily out-maneuver a P-40.
Maybe it's just because I'm a Java developer and not a real./er:-), but I don't see what the argument, but I've got two great development environments on my Linux box at home (Forte and JBuilder), and the versions I have are, well, free.
I wonder if you would make the same rationalizations if you were to suddenly find the product that you created, whose sales you rely on for income, being traded for free.
"it is the nature of music to be free"
What kind of h0r$e$h!t is that? I love music of all kinds. I listen to as much as I can. I respect the musicians who work hard to create it. And I believe in compensating them for it, not turning around and telling them that I shouldn't pay them because, hey, it's the nature of music to be free.
No no no no!!!! Don't think ASPs when you think of JSP. That will only get you in trouble. ASP insists that you put all of your code and logic in your HTML files, which is the wrong way to code. Try maintaining a site that has all of its business logic in its Web pages. JSP lets you code in this incorrect manner, and if you approach a JSP project the same way you approach an ASP project, you probably will code in this incorrect manner.
Instead, a JSP should have very little code in it. A few useBean: or getValue: tags, and possibly a for-loop or two. Leave the rest of the code in your Java classes.
Agreed (except that to make an even more robust system, most of your business logic should reside in beans, not the servlet.) It is very possible to misuse Java Server Pages, just as it is very possible to misuse any tool. My team first started using JSP just as the spec came out, and the closest thing we'd seen to JSP at that point was Active Server Pages. So we sort of shrugged our shoulders, and started piling all of our logic into our Web pages.
Fast forward to a year later... we began looking at our pages and saying to ourselves, "What a bunch of convoluted garbage this is!" And then we set about doing it right, using servlets and JSP and beans in conjunction with each other. And behold, the heavens shined down upon us, and we had one kick a** piece of software.
The moral: use JSP, and use it right the first time.
Without effective online advertising techniques, no advertiser would pay to place ads online. Without ads, there would be little or no free content on the Web. Sure, we complain about being bothered by online ads, but what's the alternative? Paying for every piece of online content we access?
Personally, writing things like foo.insertanobjectattheendofthislist(object) doesn't really appeal to my sense of elegence
I've heard this argument throughout this thread, and, while some other arguments are valid, this one is absurd. Java doesn't force you to name your methods in any way or fashion. While the convention among Java developers is to name methods so that it is easy to see what action they perform, you can easily write "a.b(c)" if you really wanted to.
Interesting comment, although I have had a different experience.
When I joined the last company I worked at, I was a PERL hack and PHP developer, and knew very little Java. I was psyched, 'cuz I thought that this company was going to be an all PERL/PHP shop. Soon after, we hired a few more programmers, two of which told me that they used to be C and PERL programmers but, once they learned Java, they never went back. I thought they were insane.
Well then, the CEO of this company decided that Java would be the language of choice. Not being a fanatic (okay, I would've quit on the spot if the CEO decided to go with VB), I decided to learn Java. A few months later, I didn't want to look at PERL ever again. I completely understand what those programmers were talking about.
I do still use PHP, though. And I don't know Python, which you mentioned as well. A lot of people have suggested that I pick it up, which I might do.
You do know that "using Java" goes far beyond allowing applets to download to Netscape, don't you? Particularly using J2EE, Java's enterprise network tools, Java is rock-solid on Linux. My team and I have about 12 development versions of our company's site, utilizing JSP, JavaBeans and Enterprise JavaBeans, JDBC, Resin (as a JSP engine) and WebLogic (as an application server) and it's been one of the best, most stable environments I've ever worked in.
Java has a JDK and JRE for Linux on their site, and have for the better portion of this year. It'll be nice when those tools get updated to 1.3 (they're at, I believe, 1.2.2 now), but they're there.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to whine and make excuses like that too, while I was frustrated and struggling to learn Java and OO.
Just once I would like to see a movie on the Battle of Britian --- without the US being center, but based on the RAF who defended the british coast with their lives.
Try "The Battle of Britain."
Man, what a movie the Battle of the Bulge would make.
Try "The Battle of the Bulge"
Here's a question. It's not a rhetorical question at all, but actually a serious one. Assuming that it is very difficult for Hollywood to create a movie based around a historical event (say, hypothetically, Pearl Harbor) without introducing some historical inaccuracies, would it serve to alleviate the problem if the movie itself identified some of the liberties it took? For example, if before the credits rolled, Pearl Harbor were mention the names of the actual Doolittle raiders, to tell the number of US planes that actually did get off the ground and intercept the attacking Japanese (and that, no, they did not play "chicken" with the Japanese fighters), etc.?
It would certainly be unprecedented, and probably difficult for many in Hollywood to stomach, but might actually earn such a movie lots of positive press. What do you think?
I'm not sure that a Zero could outrun a P-40 in a straight-out race at the time, although the Zero could easily out-maneuver a P-40.
MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT
</quote>
<translation>
Don't hold us legally accountable if all of the "facts" in this document are completely made up.
</translation>
Maybe it's just because I'm a Java developer and not a real ./er :-), but I don't see what the argument, but I've got two great development environments on my Linux box at home (Forte and JBuilder), and the versions I have are, well, free.
Nice rationalizations.
I wonder if you would make the same rationalizations if you were to suddenly find the product that you created, whose sales you rely on for income, being traded for free.
"it is the nature of music to be free"
What kind of h0r$e$h!t is that? I love music of all kinds. I listen to as much as I can. I respect the musicians who work hard to create it. And I believe in compensating them for it, not turning around and telling them that I shouldn't pay them because, hey, it's the nature of music to be free.
Linux is a piece of dog shit
Translation:
Waaaah! I had a bad experience with Linux once, so that means that the entire operating system sucks.
It (Windows) works.
Translation:
Sometimes.
No no no no!!!! Don't think ASPs when you think of JSP. That will only get you in trouble. ASP insists that you put all of your code and logic in your HTML files, which is the wrong way to code. Try maintaining a site that has all of its business logic in its Web pages. JSP lets you code in this incorrect manner, and if you approach a JSP project the same way you approach an ASP project, you probably will code in this incorrect manner.
Instead, a JSP should have very little code in it. A few useBean: or getValue: tags, and possibly a for-loop or two. Leave the rest of the code in your Java classes.
Agreed (except that to make an even more robust system, most of your business logic should reside in beans, not the servlet.) It is very possible to misuse Java Server Pages, just as it is very possible to misuse any tool. My team first started using JSP just as the spec came out, and the closest thing we'd seen to JSP at that point was Active Server Pages. So we sort of shrugged our shoulders, and started piling all of our logic into our Web pages.
Fast forward to a year later... we began looking at our pages and saying to ourselves, "What a bunch of convoluted garbage this is!" And then we set about doing it right, using servlets and JSP and beans in conjunction with each other. And behold, the heavens shined down upon us, and we had one kick a** piece of software.
The moral: use JSP, and use it right the first time.
Without effective online advertising techniques, no advertiser would pay to place ads online. Without ads, there would be little or no free content on the Web. Sure, we complain about being bothered by online ads, but what's the alternative? Paying for every piece of online content we access?
Personally, writing things like foo.insertanobjectattheendofthislist(object) doesn't really appeal to my sense of elegence
I've heard this argument throughout this thread, and, while some other arguments are valid, this one is absurd. Java doesn't force you to name your methods in any way or fashion. While the convention among Java developers is to name methods so that it is easy to see what action they perform, you can easily write "a.b(c)" if you really wanted to.
He who likes Java does not know other languages
Interesting comment, although I have had a different experience.
When I joined the last company I worked at, I was a PERL hack and PHP developer, and knew very little Java. I was psyched, 'cuz I thought that this company was going to be an all PERL/PHP shop. Soon after, we hired a few more programmers, two of which told me that they used to be C and PERL programmers but, once they learned Java, they never went back. I thought they were insane.
Well then, the CEO of this company decided that Java would be the language of choice. Not being a fanatic (okay, I would've quit on the spot if the CEO decided to go with VB), I decided to learn Java. A few months later, I didn't want to look at PERL ever again. I completely understand what those programmers were talking about.
I do still use PHP, though. And I don't know Python, which you mentioned as well. A lot of people have suggested that I pick it up, which I might do.
"So....you dont bother to use Java when the going gets tough? :) "
JNI is Java.
You do know that "using Java" goes far beyond allowing applets to download to Netscape, don't you? Particularly using J2EE, Java's enterprise network tools, Java is rock-solid on Linux. My team and I have about 12 development versions of our company's site, utilizing JSP, JavaBeans and Enterprise JavaBeans, JDBC, Resin (as a JSP engine) and WebLogic (as an application server) and it's been one of the best, most stable environments I've ever worked in.
Java has a JDK and JRE for Linux on their site, and have for the better portion of this year. It'll be nice when those tools get updated to 1.3 (they're at, I believe, 1.2.2 now), but they're there.