Yes, most of -- this means . What has age to do with this?.NET 1.0 was released in 2002, and it was a very early version, nowhere close to being mature, so it had issues that needed fixing. v1.1 fixed a lot, but there were design flaws in the system that couldn't just be patched on top of the existing VM -- something that Sun/Oracle decided to do with Java, because god forbid making the new code not work in my old cellphone (although that finally happened in Java 7, IIRC).
This is a guide to exactly what breaking changes were done between.NET 1.1 and 2.0: Breaking Changes in.NET Framework 2.0. Almost all the changes are either fixes for design flaws, or problems with the implementation that couldn't be fixed without breaking compatibility. So yes, MOST of the code works, and whatever code may not work, it's probably because it was using/abusing features that were broken.
Also, Microsoft is just the main developer of the.NET technologies. If Microsoft decided to suddenly drop all support for.NET and stop all development, we could still continue to use it and work on improving the standard through the Mono project, some fork of Mono, or a whole new implementation.
I have to disagree with the bit suggesting that.NET is mangled every few months.
First of all,.NET isn't a language. I suppose you may mean C#, although maybe you have had to mess with VB.NET (which is a torture I wouldn't wish on anyone, but still doesn't apply to what you are saying). So assuming C#, any code written for.NET 2.0 works in the latest version of the compiler, and MOST of the.net 1.0/1.1 should work too.
If you find a piece of.net 1.1 code that doesn't compile in a recent version of the.net Framework, then chances are it's because of the CLR (class library), which in it's original version it still had some maturing to do. But the CLR has been backwards compatible since version 2.0, and Microsoft has only been extending it since then.
IE9 is mostly standards-compliant, and IE10 is better. The days of IE-specific hacks are in the past (or in people stuck with supporting XP clients). If you stick to the supported versions of the browsers (that means Firefox 10 long-term + the newest release Firefox, the latest chrome, IE9 and IE10), you only have very minor differences between browsers, at least when it comes to the standardized feature set. Now if you want to use experimental features, you have to start messing with prefixed identifiers and different implementations, but that would be completely your problem, then, not IE's fault.
That's sortof the point I was making with VS and C#. Install, Launch, New Project -> Windows Forms (or WPF if you like that sort of thing), Build, Run. No need for anything else. That sequence of clicks gives you a fully functional executable with an empty window. Adding visual content is a matter of dragging controls into the window, and adding behaviour is a matter of writing some lines of code in the event handlers. The Visual Studio installer installs the.NET Framework for you, so you really don't need to worry about anything. It just works. Similarly, there's other environments for other languages and platforms. Eclipse comes to mind as one of the most notable. I don't know if it installs the JDK for you, though, but it's not too complicated either way.
I do agree that setting up a toolchain is complicated, which is why I don't set up toolchains. I ignore them completely and I didn't learn of such a concept until many years after I learned to program. If you are learning to program, GCC with makefiles isn't the right starting point. You want an IDE that handles the compilation process for you, with a high-level language that handles strings and resource allocation for you. Specially if your area of expertise lies elsewhere, and you want to program as a tool to help you with your real job.
He's saying programming is not as simple as Excel because programming doesn't have an equivalent of the SUM() function that does almost all the work for you when you are new to it.
Yet, excel never tells you that you have to use the SUM function, or that A:A means the whole A column, or that $1$3 means it shouldn't change the row/column when spreading the formulas. But he wants the development environment to somhow not require knowledge of how a loop works, or what an array is?
The problem isn't that programming is harder than Excel, at least not if you use a full-featured IDE with a decent language, like Visual Studio with C# 4.0. You can learn to drag a few controls to a new window, double-click on a button, and write something like "MesageBox.Show(textBox1.Text);" in seconds. No knowledge of arrays or functions necessary.
Programming is NOT harder than excel, and there ARE tools that make it as easy as possible. Anything else requires "visual programming" which he states he doesn't want, either. But of course, excel doesn't "hide the logic" from you, right?
The fact is, you need some basic knowledge to do any job. Excel requires knowing the syntax and function names, so does general-purpose programming, just like you need to know the parts of a car, and their use, if you ever want to build one from scratch.
The problem, I think, is that Microsoft is just too large. Some parts of Microsoft are opening up, releasing loads of details about protocols and such, helping opensource projects and even supporting Linux development, while others work in walled gardens, patent wars, and everything else related to competing in the phone & tablet markets.
I'm an owner of a Nokia Lumia 710 (Windows Phone 7.x) and you can browse and play back youtube videos just fine in the browser, without the need of any app. And in fact there are apps that let you browse youtube, but they may not have full permission from google to do it. What they are complaining about is access to the metadata content for the videos, not the playback itself.
It's less blurry and doesn't give you headaches, why would ANYONE want watch a movie that's NOT blurry or -- if seen in 3D -- gives you headaches?
I do agree that it doesn't have the "cinematic" feel of standard movies, so it feels weird when you watch it -- different. But it's so clear, smooth and headache-free that it's worth losing that. In fact, I'd like to see a movie in 60 or 75fps someday.
There's one part of me saying "don't feed the troll... don't do it", but it lost.
Unlike "alternative theories", science doesn't pretend that everything written must be right, and has room for corrections. Regardless, this doesn't even touch evolution's status. Things DID evolve just fine, they just may have been in dry land somewhat earlier than previously thought.
So, like the Arduino boards but with PC hardware instead. And hopefully a "stacking bus" based on a faster mini-PCI (pci-e is point-to-point and so it wouldn't work for stacking).
Don't those also generally come with laptop ("Mobile") models of the components? I have always thought of those -- and the ones that come integrated into a screen, like iMacs -- as non-mobile laptops.
... a laptop in a box. Except without all the extra things a laptop comes with -- like battery, keyboard, speakers, screen, ethernet, etc. Cute, but that's all.
Woah... so although you don't actually "take" part of the rice's genetic code as yours, eating rice may alter the way genes activate... in a way that makes you get an extra dose of "bad" cholesterol. I suppose it's good that I don't eat too much rice, then.
I don't think genetics work the way you think they work. Eating something doesn't give you the traits of that something, contrary to the popular belief in certain tribes.
Because we as humans are genetically configured to think in terms of survival of the fittest. We tend to think in terms of "you win or you die", and we would rather see our favoured choice be the one that wins, so we desire death for the competitors, even though most of us rationally know it's actually a good thing.
The features of DirectX 11.1 over the "11.0" version are mostly improvements to device and resource sharing across different processes and API versions, on top of certain features that make it possible to better implement hardware-accelerated UIs. 11.1 is win8-exclusive because we don't need to handle HW-accelerated "metro" in windows 7. As far as games are concerned, 11.1 doesn't bring anything interesting enough to add a new rendering path to the game engines.
Ah, interesting, I saw the other article mentioned a lot around, but no one seemed to want the rest of us to know they denied it.... I'd mod you Insightful if Slashdot wasn't too paranoid about bias to let me do so.
If you expect your datacenter to spend a lot on time processing data, then ARM and other low-power components are probably not for you. If, on the other side, you expect the cpu to be somewhat idle, and the system to spend most of the time on DMA operations between HDDramnetwork, you want a system that uses up the least possible power, specially in idle contiditions. Of course I suppose in most practical examples you don't really have either situation. Chances are you want your datacenter to be able to process distributed queries, and only transfer the minimal required data through the network, which does require some processing power.
If you don't allow people like Google to do their business with your data, then they will most probably stop making all those services free for the user, since the money comes from the user tracking data.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. It's sorely needed to regulate the personal information sharing/trading. But people need to be aware that many of the free services we have like so much are free because we are not the clients, our data is the product instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, sorry, pretend that "-- this means " is not there, I missed that bit.
Yes, most of -- this means . What has age to do with this? .NET 1.0 was released in 2002, and it was a very early version, nowhere close to being mature, so it had issues that needed fixing. v1.1 fixed a lot, but there were design flaws in the system that couldn't just be patched on top of the existing VM -- something that Sun/Oracle decided to do with Java, because god forbid making the new code not work in my old cellphone (although that finally happened in Java 7, IIRC).
This is a guide to exactly what breaking changes were done between .NET 1.1 and 2.0: Breaking Changes in .NET Framework 2.0. Almost all the changes are either fixes for design flaws, or problems with the implementation that couldn't be fixed without breaking compatibility. So yes, MOST of the code works, and whatever code may not work, it's probably because it was using/abusing features that were broken.
Also, Microsoft is just the main developer of the .NET technologies. If Microsoft decided to suddenly drop all support for .NET and stop all development, we could still continue to use it and work on improving the standard through the Mono project, some fork of Mono, or a whole new implementation.
I have to disagree with the bit suggesting that .NET is mangled every few months.
First of all, .NET isn't a language. I suppose you may mean C#, although maybe you have had to mess with VB.NET (which is a torture I wouldn't wish on anyone, but still doesn't apply to what you are saying). So assuming C#, any code written for .NET 2.0 works in the latest version of the compiler, and MOST of the .net 1.0/1.1 should work too.
If you find a piece of .net 1.1 code that doesn't compile in a recent version of the .net Framework, then chances are it's because of the CLR (class library), which in it's original version it still had some maturing to do. But the CLR has been backwards compatible since version 2.0, and Microsoft has only been extending it since then.
So are parents that buy smartphones for kids too young to watch porn, for that matter.
IE9 is mostly standards-compliant, and IE10 is better. The days of IE-specific hacks are in the past (or in people stuck with supporting XP clients). If you stick to the supported versions of the browsers (that means Firefox 10 long-term + the newest release Firefox, the latest chrome, IE9 and IE10), you only have very minor differences between browsers, at least when it comes to the standardized feature set. Now if you want to use experimental features, you have to start messing with prefixed identifiers and different implementations, but that would be completely your problem, then, not IE's fault.
That's sortof the point I was making with VS and C#. Install, Launch, New Project -> Windows Forms (or WPF if you like that sort of thing), Build, Run. No need for anything else. That sequence of clicks gives you a fully functional executable with an empty window. Adding visual content is a matter of dragging controls into the window, and adding behaviour is a matter of writing some lines of code in the event handlers. The Visual Studio installer installs the .NET Framework for you, so you really don't need to worry about anything. It just works. Similarly, there's other environments for other languages and platforms. Eclipse comes to mind as one of the most notable. I don't know if it installs the JDK for you, though, but it's not too complicated either way.
I do agree that setting up a toolchain is complicated, which is why I don't set up toolchains. I ignore them completely and I didn't learn of such a concept until many years after I learned to program. If you are learning to program, GCC with makefiles isn't the right starting point. You want an IDE that handles the compilation process for you, with a high-level language that handles strings and resource allocation for you. Specially if your area of expertise lies elsewhere, and you want to program as a tool to help you with your real job.
He's saying programming is not as simple as Excel because programming doesn't have an equivalent of the SUM() function that does almost all the work for you when you are new to it.
Yet, excel never tells you that you have to use the SUM function, or that A:A means the whole A column, or that $1$3 means it shouldn't change the row/column when spreading the formulas. But he wants the development environment to somhow not require knowledge of how a loop works, or what an array is?
The problem isn't that programming is harder than Excel, at least not if you use a full-featured IDE with a decent language, like Visual Studio with C# 4.0. You can learn to drag a few controls to a new window, double-click on a button, and write something like "MesageBox.Show(textBox1.Text);" in seconds. No knowledge of arrays or functions necessary.
Programming is NOT harder than excel, and there ARE tools that make it as easy as possible. Anything else requires "visual programming" which he states he doesn't want, either. But of course, excel doesn't "hide the logic" from you, right?
The fact is, you need some basic knowledge to do any job. Excel requires knowing the syntax and function names, so does general-purpose programming, just like you need to know the parts of a car, and their use, if you ever want to build one from scratch.
The problem, I think, is that Microsoft is just too large. Some parts of Microsoft are opening up, releasing loads of details about protocols and such, helping opensource projects and even supporting Linux development, while others work in walled gardens, patent wars, and everything else related to competing in the phone & tablet markets.
I'm an owner of a Nokia Lumia 710 (Windows Phone 7.x) and you can browse and play back youtube videos just fine in the browser, without the need of any app. And in fact there are apps that let you browse youtube, but they may not have full permission from google to do it. What they are complaining about is access to the metadata content for the videos, not the playback itself.
GAH! I can't +insightful and +funny at the same time, and I couldn't decide which to use, so I decided to reply instead... ;_;
It's less blurry and doesn't give you headaches, why would ANYONE want watch a movie that's NOT blurry or -- if seen in 3D -- gives you headaches?
I do agree that it doesn't have the "cinematic" feel of standard movies, so it feels weird when you watch it -- different. But it's so clear, smooth and headache-free that it's worth losing that. In fact, I'd like to see a movie in 60 or 75fps someday.
There's one part of me saying "don't feed the troll... don't do it", but it lost. Unlike "alternative theories", science doesn't pretend that everything written must be right, and has room for corrections. Regardless, this doesn't even touch evolution's status. Things DID evolve just fine, they just may have been in dry land somewhat earlier than previously thought.
So, like the Arduino boards but with PC hardware instead. And hopefully a "stacking bus" based on a faster mini-PCI (pci-e is point-to-point and so it wouldn't work for stacking).
That's what I meant with "also" in my previous post.
Don't those also generally come with laptop ("Mobile") models of the components? I have always thought of those -- and the ones that come integrated into a screen, like iMacs -- as non-mobile laptops.
... a laptop in a box. Except without all the extra things a laptop comes with -- like battery, keyboard, speakers, screen, ethernet, etc. Cute, but that's all.
Woah... so although you don't actually "take" part of the rice's genetic code as yours, eating rice may alter the way genes activate ... in a way that makes you get an extra dose of "bad" cholesterol. I suppose it's good that I don't eat too much rice, then.
I don't think genetics work the way you think they work. Eating something doesn't give you the traits of that something, contrary to the popular belief in certain tribes.
Because we as humans are genetically configured to think in terms of survival of the fittest. We tend to think in terms of "you win or you die", and we would rather see our favoured choice be the one that wins, so we desire death for the competitors, even though most of us rationally know it's actually a good thing.
The features of DirectX 11.1 over the "11.0" version are mostly improvements to device and resource sharing across different processes and API versions, on top of certain features that make it possible to better implement hardware-accelerated UIs. 11.1 is win8-exclusive because we don't need to handle HW-accelerated "metro" in windows 7. As far as games are concerned, 11.1 doesn't bring anything interesting enough to add a new rendering path to the game engines.
Ah, interesting, I saw the other article mentioned a lot around, but no one seemed to want the rest of us to know they denied it.... I'd mod you Insightful if Slashdot wasn't too paranoid about bias to let me do so.
If you expect your datacenter to spend a lot on time processing data, then ARM and other low-power components are probably not for you. If, on the other side, you expect the cpu to be somewhat idle, and the system to spend most of the time on DMA operations between HDDramnetwork, you want a system that uses up the least possible power, specially in idle contiditions. Of course I suppose in most practical examples you don't really have either situation. Chances are you want your datacenter to be able to process distributed queries, and only transfer the minimal required data through the network, which does require some processing power.
Eh actually sorry, Samsung decided to stop selling to Apple, so why would they sell ARM chips now?
Apple decided to stop buying their LCDs, why would they begin buying their ARM chips now?
If you don't allow people like Google to do their business with your data, then they will most probably stop making all those services free for the user, since the money comes from the user tracking data.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. It's sorely needed to regulate the personal information sharing/trading. But people need to be aware that many of the free services we have like so much are free because we are not the clients, our data is the product instead.