I agree, except where the current standards are HTML, CSS, and Javascript, and as much as they try to make them better, as long as they keep backwards compatibility, they will continue to suck in the future, and web apps will continue to suck because of that.
You can't compare a law to an industry. Laws are written, and then they stay around until it's in someone's political advantage to erase them. Corporations are money-making machines: if they don't make money, they disappear. If there's an advertisement industry, it means companies believe it's worth their money. If they didn't see a measurable increase in sales, they would stop paying for it. So unless my logic fails, since they do keep paying for it, it has to mean it works.
You are not the average consumer then. The average consumer soaks in advertisements, and then when they go shopping they will favor the brand that has burned the strongest into their brains.
If advertisement did not work, the whole industry would have died a long time ago.
No, you have an unnamed function with unnamed parameters that takes a series of unknown numbers, and returns another unknown number.
The idea of obfuscation is that it makes the job hard to make those unknowns known, so that you can name the unnamed.
I didn't read the article, but it looks to me like at some point, the code is going to call some OS API functions, or call the UI library, or similar. And you can always start the naming from there. But of course if the WHOLE PROGRAM is obfuscated, so that the inputs are the command-line parameters and user interaction events, and the output parameters are the results and the display calls, and everything is such a mess that even the CPU doesn't really know what it's doing (really bad thing performance-wise), then it may be impractical to figure it out. Not impossible though.
I cannot possibly think Java is "*very*" good, until they give it operator overloading, so I can use [] to access lists and hash tables instead of get/set/put. And while they are at it, also give it properties, like in C# or Javascript, so I don't have to use getX/setX/putX. It's not BAD, but it's slightly lacking. Also, I dislike the methods in camelCase, and constants in caps-and-underscores, but that's not really a feature of the language, only a convention.
Try "debugging with print statements" when the codebase takes over 10 minutes to compile, and that's when the resources don't need to be re-processed. After you admit to that, the rest of the post can't possibly be taken seriously.
To expand on it: avoiding pollution can be expensive, and it's not in anyone's immediate interests to spend money just to be greener. People can think long-term, but corporations are usually short-term money-making machines, so green is only ever used as a PR measure to paint themselves more attractive, or avoid taxes.
How is my post offtopic? I was clearly stating my emotion (subject) and opinion (content) to Linux being able to be used with a graphics API other than OpenGL.
Just because I didn't write a long rant exposing an approximation to why I think I feel that way, it doesn't mean the content isn't related to the article.
Maybe so, but to me, lightweight is more important than virus protection. The only reason I have an AV at all is because every 5-10 years, I happen to click on the wrong file, sometimes knowing it was going to be a virus.
MSE is the only AV I have used that doesn't noticeably lower the system responsiveness the moment you turn it on. For me, it's either MSE, or no AV at all.
Well, when I mentioned the market share, I was referring to Java ME. But yes I suppose it's unfair to say android doesn't use Java, although a quick read on the Wikiepdia page on Dalvik seems to point at it being far from a JVM, with Dalvik being register-based instead of a stack machine.
I wasn't thinking of Javascript as a toy language. I was thinking more about how hard it is for Javascript code to get translated into a form the CPU can execute fast. They are doing miracles with the modern javascript engines, and not a small part of it is due to static analysis algorithms. But then they (Mozilla, in this case) suggest ASM.js as a means to make code more optimizable, instead of using/creating an open, standarized bytecode language that can fit that use case better, just because that way it can run in old browsers. Except it really can't, because if you need the optimizations in ASM.js to make the code usably fast, then it would be too slow in old browsers regardless.
(Note: Sorry, I TL;DR'd the middle section of your reply, hopefully I didn't miss anything important that makes this reply sound stupid)
All the programming languages that I know have their syntax based on C, with the exception of BASIC, which I stopped using when I moved from VB6 to C# 2.0. Javascript is no exception. I fail to see the amusement. I must be too young.
You write code in java, but the Java VM isn't used. The java bytecode is translated into Dalvik bytecode before it's packaged, you aren't really running Java applications in Android.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, except where the current standards are HTML, CSS, and Javascript, and as much as they try to make them better, as long as they keep backwards compatibility, they will continue to suck in the future, and web apps will continue to suck because of that.
You can't compare a law to an industry. Laws are written, and then they stay around until it's in someone's political advantage to erase them. Corporations are money-making machines: if they don't make money, they disappear. If there's an advertisement industry, it means companies believe it's worth their money. If they didn't see a measurable increase in sales, they would stop paying for it. So unless my logic fails, since they do keep paying for it, it has to mean it works.
You are not the average consumer then. The average consumer soaks in advertisements, and then when they go shopping they will favor the brand that has burned the strongest into their brains.
If advertisement did not work, the whole industry would have died a long time ago.
If you application does not have a working find functionality, consider an alternative application.
Because he read it in a Terry Pratchett book, I guess?
Then they say 'unique data' they mean they aren't counting loading the same file more than once, not that the data has never been accessed before.
UEFI is a better boot method than the old 16bit BIOS. PLEASE people stop hating on UEFI when it's just Secure Boot that you dislike.
No, you have an unnamed function with unnamed parameters that takes a series of unknown numbers, and returns another unknown number.
The idea of obfuscation is that it makes the job hard to make those unknowns known, so that you can name the unnamed.
I didn't read the article, but it looks to me like at some point, the code is going to call some OS API functions, or call the UI library, or similar. And you can always start the naming from there. But of course if the WHOLE PROGRAM is obfuscated, so that the inputs are the command-line parameters and user interaction events, and the output parameters are the results and the display calls, and everything is such a mess that even the CPU doesn't really know what it's doing (really bad thing performance-wise), then it may be impractical to figure it out. Not impossible though.
No, no, no... the summary clearly says:
[...] rules in favor of Volkswagon [...]
That'd be: "If hacking is outlawed only hackers will drive Volkswagons".
I cannot possibly think Java is "*very*" good, until they give it operator overloading, so I can use [] to access lists and hash tables instead of get/set/put. And while they are at it, also give it properties, like in C# or Javascript, so I don't have to use getX/setX/putX. It's not BAD, but it's slightly lacking. Also, I dislike the methods in camelCase, and constants in caps-and-underscores, but that's not really a feature of the language, only a convention.
Try "debugging with print statements" when the codebase takes over 10 minutes to compile, and that's when the resources don't need to be re-processed. After you admit to that, the rest of the post can't possibly be taken seriously.
"US authorities have charged four Russians and a Ukrainian five on charges of running a global hacking operation [...]
Maybe they are not as lazy as humans, and when they want to meet someone they walk instead of calling and waiting.
To expand on it: avoiding pollution can be expensive, and it's not in anyone's immediate interests to spend money just to be greener. People can think long-term, but corporations are usually short-term money-making machines, so green is only ever used as a PR measure to paint themselves more attractive, or avoid taxes.
Always thought, never mentioned.
How is my post offtopic? I was clearly stating my emotion (subject) and opinion (content) to Linux being able to be used with a graphics API other than OpenGL.
Just because I didn't write a long rant exposing an approximation to why I think I feel that way, it doesn't mean the content isn't related to the article.
Wheee!
Unless he meant "If it isn't out out of money, don't fix it."
Maybe so, but to me, lightweight is more important than virus protection. The only reason I have an AV at all is because every 5-10 years, I happen to click on the wrong file, sometimes knowing it was going to be a virus.
MSE is the only AV I have used that doesn't noticeably lower the system responsiveness the moment you turn it on. For me, it's either MSE, or no AV at all.
Even Microsoft agrees with that, it seems. They created a Git plugin for VS2012.
Well, when I mentioned the market share, I was referring to Java ME. But yes I suppose it's unfair to say android doesn't use Java, although a quick read on the Wikiepdia page on Dalvik seems to point at it being far from a JVM, with Dalvik being register-based instead of a stack machine.
I wasn't thinking of Javascript as a toy language. I was thinking more about how hard it is for Javascript code to get translated into a form the CPU can execute fast. They are doing miracles with the modern javascript engines, and not a small part of it is due to static analysis algorithms. But then they (Mozilla, in this case) suggest ASM.js as a means to make code more optimizable, instead of using/creating an open, standarized bytecode language that can fit that use case better, just because that way it can run in old browsers. Except it really can't, because if you need the optimizations in ASM.js to make the code usably fast, then it would be too slow in old browsers regardless.
(Note: Sorry, I TL;DR'd the middle section of your reply, hopefully I didn't miss anything important that makes this reply sound stupid)
All the programming languages that I know have their syntax based on C, with the exception of BASIC, which I stopped using when I moved from VB6 to C# 2.0. Javascript is no exception. I fail to see the amusement. I must be too young.
You write code in java, but the Java VM isn't used. The java bytecode is translated into Dalvik bytecode before it's packaged, you aren't really running Java applications in Android.
As for performance, well like statistics, you can make benchmarks say whatever you want them to say, but here's the first benchmark I could find (it's 3 years old though, so maybe it has changed with Java 7): http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/92812/Benchmark-start-up-and-system-performance-for-Net