Properties were just the first thing off the top of my head....didn't mean to imply the only thing. IMHO, it's the FIRST thing but I just hate the glut of methods you see when using a java app.
Thanks for the reply. I can see where you're going and why I didn't notice a lot of the problems. I did a lot of WinForms work but no data-binding. The majority of my work was with ASP.NET but this was coming from a ASP and PHP background so I had nothing but praise for ASP.NET...as the poster above me said, it was leaps and bounds ahead of most other stuff out there...but apparently not all java web frameworks which I wasn't familiar with anyways.
Funny thing is, you're the first person I've ever seen NOT complain about partial class support in VS.NET wrt Windows Forms. I agree with you though, separating the auto-generated code makes the most sense.
You know C# has had properties since it came out right? I just don't see Java implementing this....it's very simple to implement (it compiles to get/set methods like java has now...) so they can't have been waiting for technical reasons...I think they just want to sit on their high horse and proclaim that their way is better. What other reason could they have?
Having dealt with hardware vendors whose API is ported directly from Java to C# (I'm looking at you Topaz), properties are the first thing that come to my mind. Imagine a C# library with no properties and a LOT of getXYZ() setXYZ() methods. It's a real eyesore.
But yea, generics are great...Not sure if java has anonymous methods or not either.
Why do you say.NET 1 was garbage? I'm really curious. I've using.NET since Beta1 and I really didn't have any big problems with.NET 1.0. 2.0 added some great stuff for sure (generics and anonymous methods, YES!) but I didn't feel.NET 1.0 was lacking in any great way.
The same goes for practically any code. Even encrypted executables can be gotten around. My point was, it keeps the kid down the street from tinkering with your 'time bomb'.
I'm curious, how does me signing and encrypting a message limit what the intended recipients can do with it?
Lets imagine we're in the bizarro world for a minute and it does limit their uses in some way.....how is private communications comparable to purchased copyrighted material.
Yea...this article is stupid. Sound like a manager heard about this concept called 'code re-use' and thought it could improve productivity and let them get more work done. I feel sorry for this one's subordinates. Though really, this kind of thing happens every day....
No more buffer overflow exploits, no more null pointer dereferences, and no more need for 30+ libraries that have duplicate or similar code in them... or so the thought goes.
-OR-
A buffer overflow exploit in 20+ apps based on this code.....
Not saying code-reuse is a bad thing, but to suggest that it eliminates these type of problems is a little short-sighted.
And its reasoning for this is that XBox Live support has a status code which says 'modded xbox'....so what? That doesn't indicate any action on Microsoft's part. It just means that their customer database has a status code for modded xboxes. Talk about jumping to conclusions.
I think ads taking up a fixed portion on the screen would be incredibly easier to filter than the ones we have now. That and it'd throw directors nuts as their broadcast proportions would change again and arbitrarily.
For commercials to become unprofitable then there has to be mass adoption of commercial blocking technology. There won't be because of the very reasons stated in the article summary....commerical DVR builders won't include it and we know something like MythTV isn't going to take off en masse.
Their stance is that what you select to encrypt will be encrypted and they don't have access to it. It is encrypted with your PIN (not PW to your google account) which Google says they don't send to the server.
Also, you can optionally NOT sync your saved passwords or form information, etc...
Sounds like you haven't even tried it, or looked into it. That's fine...but you do have some misconceptions.
Have you ever seen one of Stewart's interviews? Hell, just the other night he had Trent Lott on the show for the second time (the first was a year ago).
"Sniffs his throne" -- that's the exact kind of bullshit talk that Stewart pinning on Carlson!
Try and find that kind of contentious bickering on TDS on any of his interviews...it's not there.
In that same vein, try to find the kind of open discussion you see on TDS on Crossfire or the Oreilly factor....geez.
Seriously, download some TDS episodes and watch some of the interviews (with the politicians, not the actors). I really think you'd change your mind. Unless of course you're one of those people that go out every election and vote Democrat/Republican because that's their party.
I used a BoA checkcard to fund an account a year ago...my local bank always would and still does decline such transactions though, but Bank of America didn't.
Reading the link you posted now (thanks) but are you SURE this is targetted at third party proxies? Like you said, how can they possibly tell what the transfer is for?
Slashdot Mirror
Properties were just the first thing off the top of my head....didn't mean to imply the only thing. IMHO, it's the FIRST thing but I just hate the glut of methods you see when using a java app.
Thanks for the reply. I can see where you're going and why I didn't notice a lot of the problems. I did a lot of WinForms work but no data-binding. The majority of my work was with ASP.NET but this was coming from a ASP and PHP background so I had nothing but praise for ASP.NET...as the poster above me said, it was leaps and bounds ahead of most other stuff out there...but apparently not all java web frameworks which I wasn't familiar with anyways.
Funny thing is, you're the first person I've ever seen NOT complain about partial class support in VS.NET wrt Windows Forms. I agree with you though, separating the auto-generated code makes the most sense.
Thanks again
You know C# has had properties since it came out right? I just don't see Java implementing this....it's very simple to implement (it compiles to get/set methods like java has now...) so they can't have been waiting for technical reasons...I think they just want to sit on their high horse and proclaim that their way is better. What other reason could they have?
Having dealt with hardware vendors whose API is ported directly from Java to C# (I'm looking at you Topaz), properties are the first thing that come to my mind. Imagine a C# library with no properties and a LOT of getXYZ() setXYZ() methods. It's a real eyesore.
But yea, generics are great...Not sure if java has anonymous methods or not either.
The VB.NET support is new (Or at least I think it is..)
Mono has always had a C# compiler
Why do you say .NET 1 was garbage? I'm really curious. I've using .NET since Beta1 and I really didn't have any big problems with .NET 1.0. 2.0 added some great stuff for sure (generics and anonymous methods, YES!) but I didn't feel .NET 1.0 was lacking in any great way.
Properties (well that's how C# is better).
Why are they feeding robots humans? Have things gotten that bad already? We didn't even have time to welcome our new overlords!
The same goes for practically any code. Even encrypted executables can be gotten around. My point was, it keeps the kid down the street from tinkering with your 'time bomb'.
ASP.NET can be compiled...so not any web application. I'm sure many others can be too.
I agree....so the original poster was just bringing up semantics.
should be
I'm curious, how does me signing and encrypting a message limit what the intended recipients can do with it?
Lets imagine we're in the bizarro world for a minute and it does limit their uses in some way.....how is private communications comparable to purchased copyrighted material.
Yea...this article is stupid. Sound like a manager heard about this concept called 'code re-use' and thought it could improve productivity and let them get more work done. I feel sorry for this one's subordinates. Though really, this kind of thing happens every day....
-OR-
A buffer overflow exploit in 20+ apps based on this code.....
Not saying code-reuse is a bad thing, but to suggest that it eliminates these type of problems is a little short-sighted.
And its reasoning for this is that XBox Live support has a status code which says 'modded xbox'....so what? That doesn't indicate any action on Microsoft's part. It just means that their customer database has a status code for modded xboxes. Talk about jumping to conclusions.
I think ads taking up a fixed portion on the screen would be incredibly easier to filter than the ones we have now. That and it'd throw directors nuts as their broadcast proportions would change again and arbitrarily.
For commercials to become unprofitable then there has to be mass adoption of commercial blocking technology. There won't be because of the very reasons stated in the article summary....commerical DVR builders won't include it and we know something like MythTV isn't going to take off en masse.
Too bad Firefox 2.0 doesn't have a grammar checker too huh? :)
No, it's 'terrorist' obviously.
Their stance is that what you select to encrypt will be encrypted and they don't have access to it. It is encrypted with your PIN (not PW to your google account) which Google says they don't send to the server.
Also, you can optionally NOT sync your saved passwords or form information, etc...
Sounds like you haven't even tried it, or looked into it. That's fine...but you do have some misconceptions.
Have you tried Google Browser Sync? I love it
Have you ever seen one of Stewart's interviews? Hell, just the other night he had Trent Lott on the show for the second time (the first was a year ago).
"Sniffs his throne" -- that's the exact kind of bullshit talk that Stewart pinning on Carlson!
Try and find that kind of contentious bickering on TDS on any of his interviews...it's not there.
In that same vein, try to find the kind of open discussion you see on TDS on Crossfire or the Oreilly factor....geez.
Seriously, download some TDS episodes and watch some of the interviews (with the politicians, not the actors). I really think you'd change your mind. Unless of course you're one of those people that go out every election and vote Democrat/Republican because that's their party.
Do you have any references for the statement by Party? Are they going to block US credit cards or ALL US players?
I used a BoA checkcard to fund an account a year ago...my local bank always would and still does decline such transactions though, but Bank of America didn't.
Reading the link you posted now (thanks) but are you SURE this is targetted at third party proxies? Like you said, how can they possibly tell what the transfer is for?