You are right that Sun features the JDK/JRE for Linux as well on its download page.
But if you look closer you will notice differences in the effort Sun puts in for the various plattforms. It is more obvious if you look at availibilty of the additional packages,
like
this one.
First comes Windows, be it 95,98,ME,NT,2000 or XP.
You noticed the special XP 1.3.1 release?
And it makes pretty much sense for them - enterprises typically use Unix for the server side and Win32 for client boxes, so the Java clients there need attention.
Next one seems to me Solaris. At least in the Java parts I work with, I see more activity for Solaris than for Linux.
However I can't speak of the quality here, as I rarely use the Solaris box we have.
Last comes Linux, x86 Linux. And it is not clear to me what Linux they use as reference, as Linux distributions differ. Had some strange problems here.
I would like to hear other Slashdotter's opionion on this.
Eh, a JDK exists for FreeBSD, and if that isn't good enough, the Linux one'll run just fine.
Yes, all exist. But the native 1.2 and 1.3.1 ports are still of beta quality.
And last time I checked it, the linux port too had problems running the Hot Spot VM. Part of this was due to the different thread implementations between Linux and FreeBSD. I'm not sure, if this has been fixed in the meantime. Could be, could be not.
For production use, one needs a rock solid implementation and the speed one gets. Thus having resort to the classic VM is a major drawback.
The situation under Linux regarding stability is
better than under BSD. However the various JDK releases each have their own bugs and drawbacks
and strangenesses. My personal experience is that while Linux got some support here from Sun, it typically lacks behind the Windows version
in quality.
This gets more obvious if you look at the situation for extensions, like Java3D, which lack behind in version often too.
Not that it is technically impossible to come up with similiar nice Unix versions, but it has not happened yet. And it is clear why. The present dominant client system is Win32 and Sun concentrates its efforts
here.
Some experimental stuff I did (e.g. Java3D distribution via Java Web Start) did not work out
under Linux while it did under Win32 due to fundamental problems with shared library loading
and Linux glibc madness.
A lesser evil is the appearance of the GUI/Swing applications under X11 in general. It simply looks uglier than under Windows.
I'm not sure why exactly, it could be the
fonts.
All this adds up to my opinion that the only real nice Java implementation for building clients at present is the Win32 one. I don't like this, but such it is.
A lot of the static checking made possible by Cyclone can be done for ordinary C with lclint
Apparently neither the poster nor the 5 folks who modded this up read the
project page
carefully otherwise they would have noted
this link
on it, where they compare their project to other similiar efforts and discuss the approaches behind.
One of them lclint.
Java performance is an argument of the past. The improvements made in the VM, hotspot, and good coding pactices have alleviated the performance issues.
Java has not much margin compared to C++.
You have to code quite good Java.
Yes, the VM got faster. It is not the VM that is to blame all the time, expect for those occasions when native libs want to shovel data into the VM and back.
Trust on the garbage collection leads to memory bloat. The high level leads to the construction of deep nested objects that cost much time and memory to construct.
Not that it is different under C++, but people stick closer to the metal there.
Like you wrote, it depends largely if the developer is able to handle the tool.
Which means it will run with all promised features only on Win32, with some drawbacks under Solaris, with other drawbacks under Linux (where it has a strange status between supported and unsupported) and is not supported at all under *BSD.
The situation for Mac is not known to me,
Jave seems to be available lately.
Portability without changing a line of code (or recompiling for that matter)
Both is not true in general. Only non GUI programs, using only established APIs have a change to run without modification, so much for
source compatibility.
For byte code it turned out, that while the byte code it self might be stable, other stuff changed so much over time, that you are forced to recompile old classes (I had this experience with many security related APIs).
Multi-threading
Multi-threading is still a complicated matter under Java, perhaps it is a bit easier because one just deals with one implementation per plattform in general.
But implementation is still different. Under Win32 you get preemptive multitasking, under other implementations (like Solaris up to certain revision) you have only cooperative multitasking.
So you are still forced to stray yield() or sleep() into your loops.
I found debugging multithreaded apps under Java complicated as well, not too much help from the JBuilder IDE I used, and I was not able to detect certain stall conditions with JProbe's threadalizer. (Blame it on me or the tool:)
I had to work things out with classic printf style debugging that gave me a hint, what thread was doing what.
Network I/O
Berkley sockets are quite standard, be it UNIX or Win32 (WinSocks) that is not that hard.
In addition, you can get security, high availabilty, and scaleability with far less effort and platform-dependence than a C/C++ solution.
I think that statement is bullshit.
It largely depends on the experience of your programmer what is easier to use.
In my experience Java is still unforgiving.
Good code runs well, but you will feel it if you
run sloppy or bad code, be it speed or memory
wise. Under C/C++ there is a certain margin of tolerance in that area. Alas you have to grok pointers, which seems to be seen as a problem
todays.
On the good side Java has some large standardized
libraries and nice development tools.
I also believe that the average Java code is more
modern, because it uses these modern libs.
Both approaches C++/QT/NSPR whatever or Java might lead to a working solution.
Each has its strongnesses and weaknesses.
(And there is other stuff, like functional languages:)
Again I would take the experience of the crew as the deciding factor.
As far as whether games are supported as well, maybe you should check out www.lokigames.com and ask them. I would venture to say they wouldn't work, but I'm not sure of that, so I will just say I don't know.
The FreeBSD kernel is able to run Linux binaries, once you have installed the Linux emulation port (it adds a kernel module that is able to work with Linux ABI binaries plus stores a couple of system libs compiled for Linux - so it is rather a different operation mode than an emulation).
Quake3 Arena for example works under FreeBSD
just fine.
Where there is a problem is the support of acclerated graphics drivers. Where such a driver is open source, it has been ported to FreeBSD (Matrox drivers, the rather slow nvidia driver for XFree86 3.3.x series,..).
Where there is only a binary driver, and most unfortunately, this is the case for the fast nvidia drivers, this has yielded no results yet.
The problem is that while the nvidia binary driver might work in theory on all x86 plattforms, with just a different kernel interfacing (for which the source exists), in reality it does only run with certain Linux kernels.
Here is a report
that goes into details.
The earlier news today was that the northern alliance forces are only hours away from arriving at the capital Kabul.
So I wonder if there is a connection.
According to
GameStar magazine,
Europeans will have to pay much more than US citizens for the xbox and individual game titles (European prices: 479 Euros for the box and about 69 per game, according
to this news
the exact numbers),
not to mention the extra 50 bucks for the DVD
support.:(
Your use of "interpreted functional languages" indicates an ignorance of current Lisp practice.
I apologize for that statement. What I wanted to approach was that when talking about languages, one often includes the development/execution environment of the typical language implementation.
In case of Lisp these are the integrated systems like the ones you describe.
In case of C++ the environment is split into compilers, linkers, assemblers with very loose coupling. And thus lead to this big recompile in that case you describe.
But I see no reason (which doesn't mean that there is one:-) that one builds a C++ system that has many of those Lisp features. I guess it would have to modify or get rid of the present object and library file models.
How do the Lisp implementations solve the problem of linking libraries from different vendors?
The 'rewrite' part is possible but ugly as hell in C (dump the source, exec the compiler, dl_open... you get the idea?).
That's why I used 'ugly' in the first place, if you cared to read.
On the other hand this is a somewhat artificial uglyness, because compilation is usually delegated to external programs (the compiler) and not integral part of the run time system, which makes it harder to use and to get perceived more artificial than the built in byte code compilation of those interpreted functional languages. This has nothing to do with the language, why not have C++ running on a VM and with an easy integrated compilation function?
(Will something like this not be part of.NOT?)
(and no, #defines are not Turing complete, nor they can parse their arguments).
I didn't claim that. But templates (which are one of the means Stroustrup tried to get rid of the preprocessor) offer such computation power at run time:
This link to
template metaprogramming
should give an example.
C++ isn't a fully object-oriented language. It's a set of object-oriented extensions grafted onto a non-OO substructure. One particular place where you can see this is the way the object-oriented extensions combine with operator overloading and type coercion to create something that's deeply confusing.
This is not true. C++ has full support for OOP (and lots of other paradigms as well by the way).
In that aspect it is more complete than Java which misses multiple inheritence due to concessions to its VM interpretation.
Operator overloading is a blessing or a curse depending on how you use it.
Too bad that many beginning C++ programmers expose the same habit like new wordprocessor users who try out every font and style to create ugly documents, but that's not the fault of C++.
Also, since C++ is aimed at building very efficient systems programs, it skirts things that seem difficult, like multiple inheritance.
C++ has no garbage-collection.
Again I disagree. Java has shown how helpful a modern, large, portable, well documented set of libraries is.
The libraries are the real part, where C++ could need additional work.
More importantly, the concept of code generation and evaluation as part of the language semantics is NOT possible in C or C++.
Which is bull, because all these languages, even assembler, are computationally equivalent (Turing complete).
It is just more work and uglier to achieve.
My regrets stem from my perception that the best aspects of the university experience are student to student interactions and student to teacher interactions.
I agree with you. What I wanted to add was that at least in the German university system teacher-student interaction is quite poor (the first time probably when you have to prepare a seminar treatise or perhaps even at the time you prepare a thesis, but not at class time) so that this makes no big difference between presence and distance education.
Student-student interaction is important, that is why the distance university has tutoring centers in the bigger cities that serve a whole region around them, where people can get mentoring.
The intenet of course has been very helpful too.
I don't argue for distance learning in general,
but because many people have to spend time for jobbing at the same time they study, distance learning methods (as a means to learn at flexible times and locations) combined with traditional student meeting points are very helpful.
I took advantage of the fact that for many of the university courses I took were on-line. Not only were all the course materials on-line, but the lectures were too. So I would often sleep in and then catch class on my Mac Performa while eating
lunch. Guess what? I really regret doing that. I wish I could go back and kick myself in the head and make myself go to class. I did fine in my classes but I missed out on lots of interaction, and the ability to ask a question in lecture.
This is because the american university system is closer to school.
The German system is to have the professor go to the board or slide projector and to give his performance for 90 minutes. This is usually an one man show, with very few questions from the audience. School is IMHO, wenn the professor cares about the individual progress of the students and asks them questions etc.
The places where you learn are the small exercise groups and in contact with other students.
Today I study computer science next to my job at a distance university and wish I had the same material when I studied physics at a traditional university. That stuff is better and it saves you time, except you are one of those few persons who are actually able to learn at the speed the professor gives his talk (I'm not, I need usually twice the time:-)
I am amazed that you think that professions that don't need lab environments don't need campus based training. Would you want to pursue a history/English/law/religion degree without spending actual classroom time with your teacher and fellow students?
Well I signed up for the hardware lab this year and it is done this way: They send you a complete computer with interfaces, software etc home and you have 8x2 weeks time to get used to it and do homework with it. Later, if you solved the assignments, you have to go to one the locations where they offer examination and write a test. If you pass you are allwed to do a one week full time lab at the university location.
The funny thing that you meet your peer students personally just at the examinations or these labs in person, otherwise e-mail, news or irc is the means for contact, or individual arranged meetings among the students that live not too far away.
*BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You left out that they tested the systems in out-of-the-box configurations.
This result might be of use for occasional users who don't touch the knobs, but has nothing to do with administered environments, where settings are adapted to the local necessities.
It would be interesting to compare these results, with boxes that were tweaked by gurus and by average admins.
ERS's first recorded publicly available hacking efforts are limited to buggy, non-functional, and redundant/useless programs contributed to the BSD effort, none of which were accepted. BSD maintainers nicknamed him "core dump" due to the effects of running his programs.
You're not trolling, are you? fetchmail is a useful program by Eric, still in the ports collection. The old driver that allowed the built in pc speaker to create some sounds was also by him, if I remember correctly and part of the FreeBSD tree once. Didn't he write the cvs modes for Emacs as well?
This doesn't take away that Eric has some bizarre views on the right to carry arms, for which he deserves critique. His flame fest with the Bitkeeper guy on the subversions mailing list was also not a high light.
I am interested in porting the Web Start product to FreeBSD. However the legal requirements are unclear to me.
I would really love to roll a distribution, like the Blackdown group did with Java3D for Linux, but I don't know how to get the OK from Sun.
What is required?
The present solution I see is leaving the user to sign the
Sun's Communite Source License
himself, and just offering a source patch set.
For application a blessed binary release would
be much nicer.
Again, is anyone from the Blackdown guys here, how could explain what is needed?
No, java needs to embrace the open source community. Last time I checked, java was closed.
That frightning license guarding the download pages of Sun has not only helped them to fence off Microsoft's Java VM but is a major PITA
having a decent Java implementation on the non-supported plattforms, like the BSDs.
Even under the supported Linux plattform, the
quality of the Java implementation is worse
than under Win32.
So, lets help ourselves. But how?
Both the gcj people (Java to natice code compiler of the GCC) and the Kaffee folks (a free VM) face the obstacle of not being able to bind against SUNs Java libs that contain native code.
Thus they are forced to write either their own pure or native versions of that enormous sized
Java libraries.
Java is a great plattform, as long as you use
Sun's implementation.
This means lots of unnecessary work for a free
implementation.
Plus add the cultural differences of the mostly
C and C++ open source folks with the Java crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you look closer you will notice differences in the effort Sun puts in for the various plattforms. It is more obvious if you look at availibilty of the additional packages, like this one.
First comes Windows, be it 95,98,ME,NT,2000 or XP. You noticed the special XP 1.3.1 release? And it makes pretty much sense for them - enterprises typically use Unix for the server side and Win32 for client boxes, so the Java clients there need attention.
Next one seems to me Solaris. At least in the Java parts I work with, I see more activity for Solaris than for Linux. However I can't speak of the quality here, as I rarely use the Solaris box we have.
Last comes Linux, x86 Linux. And it is not clear to me what Linux they use as reference, as Linux distributions differ. Had some strange problems here.
I would like to hear other Slashdotter's opionion on this.
Regards,
Marc
Yes, all exist. But the native 1.2 and 1.3.1 ports are still of beta quality.
And last time I checked it, the linux port too had problems running the Hot Spot VM. Part of this was due to the different thread implementations between Linux and FreeBSD. I'm not sure, if this has been fixed in the meantime. Could be, could be not.
For production use, one needs a rock solid implementation and the speed one gets. Thus having resort to the classic VM is a major drawback.
The situation under Linux regarding stability is better than under BSD. However the various JDK releases each have their own bugs and drawbacks and strangenesses. My personal experience is that while Linux got some support here from Sun, it typically lacks behind the Windows version in quality. This gets more obvious if you look at the situation for extensions, like Java3D, which lack behind in version often too.
Not that it is technically impossible to come up with similiar nice Unix versions, but it has not happened yet. And it is clear why. The present dominant client system is Win32 and Sun concentrates its efforts here.
Some experimental stuff I did (e.g. Java3D distribution via Java Web Start) did not work out under Linux while it did under Win32 due to fundamental problems with shared library loading and Linux glibc madness.
A lesser evil is the appearance of the GUI/Swing applications under X11 in general. It simply looks uglier than under Windows. I'm not sure why exactly, it could be the fonts.
All this adds up to my opinion that the only real nice Java implementation for building clients at present is the Win32 one. I don't like this, but such it is.
Regards,
Marc
Apparently neither the poster nor the 5 folks who modded this up read the project page carefully otherwise they would have noted this link on it, where they compare their project to other similiar efforts and discuss the approaches behind. One of them lclint.
Java has not much margin compared to C++. You have to code quite good Java.
Yes, the VM got faster. It is not the VM that is to blame all the time, expect for those occasions when native libs want to shovel data into the VM and back.
Trust on the garbage collection leads to memory bloat. The high level leads to the construction of deep nested objects that cost much time and memory to construct.
Not that it is different under C++, but people stick closer to the metal there.
Like you wrote, it depends largely if the developer is able to handle the tool.
Regards,
Marc
- Cross Platform
Which means it will run with all promised features only on Win32, with some drawbacks under Solaris, with other drawbacks under Linux (where it has a strange status between supported and unsupported) and is not supported at all under *BSD. The situation for Mac is not known to me, Jave seems to be available lately.- Portability without changing a line of code (or recompiling for that matter)
Both is not true in general. Only non GUI programs, using only established APIs have a change to run without modification, so much for source compatibility. For byte code it turned out, that while the byte code it self might be stable, other stuff changed so much over time, that you are forced to recompile old classes (I had this experience with many security related APIs).- Multi-threading
Multi-threading is still a complicated matter under Java, perhaps it is a bit easier because one just deals with one implementation per plattform in general.But implementation is still different. Under Win32 you get preemptive multitasking, under other implementations (like Solaris up to certain revision) you have only cooperative multitasking. So you are still forced to stray yield() or sleep() into your loops.
I found debugging multithreaded apps under Java complicated as well, not too much help from the JBuilder IDE I used, and I was not able to detect certain stall conditions with JProbe's threadalizer. (Blame it on me or the tool :)
I had to work things out with classic printf style debugging that gave me a hint, what thread was doing what.
Berkley sockets are quite standard, be it UNIX or Win32 (WinSocks) that is not that hard.
- In addition, you can get security, high availabilty, and scaleability with far less effort and platform-dependence than a C/C++ solution.
I think that statement is bullshit. It largely depends on the experience of your programmer what is easier to use.In my experience Java is still unforgiving. Good code runs well, but you will feel it if you run sloppy or bad code, be it speed or memory wise. Under C/C++ there is a certain margin of tolerance in that area. Alas you have to grok pointers, which seems to be seen as a problem todays.
On the good side Java has some large standardized libraries and nice development tools. I also believe that the average Java code is more modern, because it uses these modern libs.
Both approaches C++/QT/NSPR whatever or Java might lead to a working solution. Each has its strongnesses and weaknesses. (And there is other stuff, like functional languages :)
Again I would take the experience of the crew as the deciding factor.
Regards,
Marc
The FreeBSD kernel is able to run Linux binaries, once you have installed the Linux emulation port (it adds a kernel module that is able to work with Linux ABI binaries plus stores a couple of system libs compiled for Linux - so it is rather a different operation mode than an emulation).
Quake3 Arena for example works under FreeBSD just fine.
Where there is a problem is the support of acclerated graphics drivers. Where such a driver is open source, it has been ported to FreeBSD (Matrox drivers, the rather slow nvidia driver for XFree86 3.3.x series, ..).
Where there is only a binary driver, and most unfortunately, this is the case for the fast nvidia drivers, this has yielded no results yet.
The problem is that while the nvidia binary driver might work in theory on all x86 plattforms, with just a different kernel interfacing (for which the source exists), in reality it does only run with certain Linux kernels. Here is a report that goes into details.
Regards,
Marc
The earlier news today was that the northern alliance forces are only hours away from arriving at the capital Kabul.
So I wonder if there is a connection.
Hope this is not another one.
Regards,
Marc
I apologize for that statement. What I wanted to approach was that when talking about languages, one often includes the development/execution environment of the typical language implementation.
In case of Lisp these are the integrated systems like the ones you describe.
In case of C++ the environment is split into compilers, linkers, assemblers with very loose coupling. And thus lead to this big recompile in that case you describe.
But I see no reason (which doesn't mean that there is one :-) that one builds a C++ system that has many of those Lisp features. I guess it would have to modify or get rid of the present object and library file models.
How do the Lisp implementations solve the problem of linking libraries from different vendors?
That's why I used 'ugly' in the first place, if you cared to read.
On the other hand this is a somewhat artificial uglyness, because compilation is usually delegated to external programs (the compiler) and not integral part of the run time system, which makes it harder to use and to get perceived more artificial than the built in byte code compilation of those interpreted functional languages. This has nothing to do with the language, why not have C++ running on a VM and with an easy integrated compilation function? (Will something like this not be part of .NOT?)
(and no, #defines are not Turing complete, nor they can parse their arguments).
I didn't claim that. But templates (which are one of the means Stroustrup tried to get rid of the preprocessor) offer such computation power at run time: This link to template metaprogramming should give an example.
Regards, Marc
This is not true. C++ has full support for OOP (and lots of other paradigms as well by the way). In that aspect it is more complete than Java which misses multiple inheritence due to concessions to its VM interpretation. Operator overloading is a blessing or a curse depending on how you use it.
Too bad that many beginning C++ programmers expose the same habit like new wordprocessor users who try out every font and style to create ugly documents, but that's not the fault of C++.
Also, since C++ is aimed at building very efficient systems programs, it skirts things that seem difficult, like multiple inheritance. C++ has no garbage-collection.
Again I disagree. Java has shown how helpful a modern, large, portable, well documented set of libraries is. The libraries are the real part, where C++ could need additional work.
Which is bull, because all these languages, even assembler, are computationally equivalent (Turing complete).
It is just more work and uglier to achieve.
Sure, that's why I am allowed to replicate them to materials I bought myself, or???
Regards, Marc
I bought the videos..
...
I bought the wide screen version..
I bought the THX videos
I bought the Laser discs
I bought the DVDs
I bought the Super DVDs
I bought the holo cube
I bought the
I agree with you. What I wanted to add was that at least in the German university system teacher-student interaction is quite poor (the first time probably when you have to prepare a seminar treatise or perhaps even at the time you prepare a thesis, but not at class time) so that this makes no big difference between presence and distance education.
Student-student interaction is important, that is why the distance university has tutoring centers in the bigger cities that serve a whole region around them, where people can get mentoring. The intenet of course has been very helpful too.
I don't argue for distance learning in general, but because many people have to spend time for jobbing at the same time they study, distance learning methods (as a means to learn at flexible times and locations) combined with traditional student meeting points are very helpful.
Regards, Marc
This is because the american university system is closer to school. The German system is to have the professor go to the board or slide projector and to give his performance for 90 minutes. This is usually an one man show, with very few questions from the audience. School is IMHO, wenn the professor cares about the individual progress of the students and asks them questions etc.
The places where you learn are the small exercise groups and in contact with other students.
Today I study computer science next to my job at a distance university and wish I had the same material when I studied physics at a traditional university. That stuff is better and it saves you time, except you are one of those few persons who are actually able to learn at the speed the professor gives his talk (I'm not, I need usually twice the time :-)
I am amazed that you think that professions that don't need lab environments don't need campus based training. Would you want to pursue a history/English/law/religion degree without spending actual classroom time with your teacher and fellow students?
Well I signed up for the hardware lab this year and it is done this way: They send you a complete computer with interfaces, software etc home and you have 8x2 weeks time to get used to it and do homework with it. Later, if you solved the assignments, you have to go to one the locations where they offer examination and write a test. If you pass you are allwed to do a one week full time lab at the university location.
The funny thing that you meet your peer students personally just at the examinations or these labs in person, otherwise e-mail, news or irc is the means for contact, or individual arranged meetings among the students that live not too far away.
Regards, Marc
Well giving proper credit is one the basic things you have to do in research.
Regards,
Marc
You left out that they tested the systems in out-of-the-box configurations.
This result might be of use for occasional users who don't touch the knobs, but has nothing to do with administered environments, where settings are adapted to the local necessities.
It would be interesting to compare these results, with boxes that were tweaked by gurus and by average admins.
Not that I expected a serious posting from you. :)
You're not trolling, are you? fetchmail is a useful program by Eric, still in the ports collection. The old driver that allowed the built in pc speaker to create some sounds was also by him, if I remember correctly and part of the FreeBSD tree once. Didn't he write the cvs modes for Emacs as well?
This doesn't take away that Eric has some bizarre views on the right to carry arms, for which he deserves critique. His flame fest with the Bitkeeper guy on the subversions mailing list was also not a high light.
Regards,
Marc
I would really love to roll a distribution, like the Blackdown group did with Java3D for Linux, but I don't know how to get the OK from Sun.
What is required? The present solution I see is leaving the user to sign the Sun's Communite Source License himself, and just offering a source patch set. For application a blessed binary release would be much nicer.
Again, is anyone from the Blackdown guys here, how could explain what is needed?
Regards,
Marc
we feel with you.
I agree with you.
Although a decent C++ compiler will take about 10 man years to finish.
Plus C++ Standard library.
Plus linker, assembler and debugger.
On the other hand if one doesn't start with it, it probably won't take off ever.
Anyone mad enough and seriously interested in that task should drop me a mail.
Regards,
Marc
That frightning license guarding the download pages of Sun has not only helped them to fence off Microsoft's Java VM but is a major PITA having a decent Java implementation on the non-supported plattforms, like the BSDs. Even under the supported Linux plattform, the quality of the Java implementation is worse than under Win32.
So, lets help ourselves. But how?
Both the gcj people (Java to natice code compiler of the GCC) and the Kaffee folks (a free VM) face the obstacle of not being able to bind against SUNs Java libs that contain native code. Thus they are forced to write either their own pure or native versions of that enormous sized Java libraries. Java is a great plattform, as long as you use Sun's implementation.
This means lots of unnecessary work for a free implementation.
Plus add the cultural differences of the mostly C and C++ open source folks with the Java crowd.
I used the taocp account but am not sure if this is the right one.