The Dreamcast thing was handled very badly in the UK, with massive delays on games coming from US, lots not coming over at all etc. It's very like the anime situation- Japan has everything, US a proportion of that, and the UK a smaller subset of that again.
Funnily enough, in the UK the same thing is happening with the PS2 game situation.
And don't even mention PS1- crappy pal conversions of all the us games so you get the black borders, hence wrong aspect ratio.
At least most UK Dcast releases had a 60Hz option- nice one Sega. (The UK versions of lots of PS2 games are crappy 50Hz monstrosities- e.g. Ridge Racer 5 and Eternal Ring).
They mean RAD. I wish ppl would shut the fuck up slagging off VB. I bet 90% of such comments are from people who have never used VB for any length of time. Also, people have this thing against RAD, the sort of people who claim to write web pages in notepad, and who would probably claim to type on their keyboards using a ten-foot pole from across the room, while drunk and blindfolded, just because they think it makes them seem *hard*.
I spend 7 hours a day writing case-management tools for solicitors in VB, then 7 hours at home working on private projects mostly in C and C++. So what of it?
if you're going to be sarcastic at least get your facts right...
VB: interprets p-code while writing and debugging but compiles to NATIVE CODE.
Smalltalk: Check out the squeek compile via c
Java: interpreted by default but there JITs and also real native code compilers
.NET interpreted MSIL, but compiled to native on first run and on subsequent change.
Is this the same Alan Cox who designed Objective C and who thought that the way forward was in Pay-per-use software???? If so, not such a great person to quote on linux issues...
Yeah, the Universal Translators in Star Trek handle the lip-synch too- they must project a holographic image onto people's lips as it translates...
Even better is how UTs in Star Trek manage to cunningly leave key words and phrases in the original language, (esp. with Klingon) for dramatic effect. I mean when you listen to a klingon opera, how do you specify if you want it translating or not? Do they have a language selection menu like on DVDs????
>>The guy who wrote this article just trolled the shit out of all of you. I bow to him. Goodnight.
I know, I know, it's so true.
My only defense is that I couldn't help but take the bait, and I suspect neither could anyone else who posted.
The problem is that if an argument is sound then you can properly discuss it rationally, while if it is really really absurd then you don't feel inclined to refute it.
Where the argument is only slightly absurd, however, cloaked in a false sense of sensibleness then you feel strongly inclined to argue.
This is why the best trolls (intentional or otherwise) are in just the right place between sensible and absurd. Too absurd, and the troll is given away to everyone and no-one bothers- give it just that shade of reality (Just a whiff, nothing more), and you attract posts like a dead weasel attracts bizarre similies.
>>which often get skizophrenic because of the simplistic dispatching...
Erm. Schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personalities, so you can't use the adjective as a way of describing something with two different ways of behaving. The confusion over the word arises because schizophrenia refers to the splitting-up of personality- but into a mess of shattered pieces- not lots of separate personalities.
Also, you should get off your relational database trip- the only reason we still use relational databases today is for performance reasons- for lots of complex DBs it is much more natural to express things in an OO way than in a relational way-
Just compare getting the address of the client's parent with:
theclient.parent.address
vs doing the same thing with:
select address from people p
inner join people p2
on p2.idparent=p.id
and p2.id=theclient
(Ok, so it's nearly 4am so my SQL is probably well fucked-up, but you get the idea).
Many people implement OO designs in relational dbs now with this "have a globally-unique identifier for every row" technique- and postgresql actually inserts the GUIDs for you
So, there you go. Actually, it must be the 4am effect because I am starting to regret all the nasty things I wrote to/about you in my other posts, and pity you because you are obviously attention-seeking because of some deep psychological problem. Call it the 4am sentimentality effect. Actually that last part is pretty hurtful. Oh what the hell, slashdot's seen worse, and no doubt so have you.
In the end, no-one needs to prove anything about any language, db type or method of working since everyone will just go ahead and use what works best for them. Debate is only useful when it causes people to re-evaluate what they currently believe, even if they reach the same conclusions.
"Why can't we all just get along?" the flower people sang.
"Because we're all a bunch of cunts" I sagely replied.
>>relating apostrophe usage to general intelligence is a
little bit of a stretch. Why are some people so distracted
by such things?
Because if you could grasp the syntax of the English language I might have more time to listen to your rants on language semantics. I didn't relate apostrophe usage to general intelligence anyway, even though someone of moderate to high intelligence would probably be curious enough to go and look the rules of grammar up rather than just blindly guess when posting.
>>You remind me of my wife: you find "messes"
that nobody would otherwise notice
Look, if everyone else is too polite to tell you that you shat under the coffee table again, then that's not my problem. More power to your wife for pointing it out to you.
Graspee
P.S. just tell me if I go too far- I'll mark you done as "flunked because could dish it out but not take it"
You seem to have failed to grasp the point of my post. I *can't* prove that OO is better- not because it isn't, but because it's impossible to prove that one programming paradigm is inherently superior to another.
It's as if I said- "How can I prove that my cheese is faster than your cheese? Cheese doesn't have a speed!", and you said:
"If you are unable to prove that your cheese is faster, that is NOT my problem. Stop making excuses."
>>Your style book isn't the be-all and end-all of correct English. What counts is how everyone writes. Officially correct style is determined by common usage. Some rules, like those relating to "its" and "it's", are so dumb and commonly violated that we can only hope that style-book-writing pedants will eventually accept that common "mistakes" are correct.
I'm not talking about MY style book but the actual real rules of English grammar. The "it's"/"its" rule is not "dumb", no-one feels inclined to write "hi's" or "he'r" instead of "his" and "her"- it's only because *coincidentally* "its" is the same as "it" with an "s" on the end; If the word for "his" was "hims" then people would probably want to put an apostrophe in there too.
Officially correct style is NOT "determined by common usage"; The language can and does evolve over time, and this process is affected by common usage, BUT it hasn't evolved yet, so the examples given are still wrong.
Do you call your C compiler a "style-book-writing pedant" when it complains about a missing semi-colon? We have these rules in the English language for a reason- they help to resolve ambiguities. Unfortunately it seems as though English is going to "evolve" into a piece of crap without any of the subtle nuances we have today.
And don't tell me "It's only grammar"; It was you who started this by incorrectlty "correcting" someone else's grammar post.
>>IOW, you claim your car is faster, but you won't race it. If you won't race it, how can I compare? All I can do is concluded that you are probably full of it. This is where the situation stands right now.
No, you dumb-fuck, it's more like YOU claim that your type of cheese is better than my type of cheese, and that my reluctance to enter a cheese race is due to the fact that I think my cheese will lose, when it's in fact the case that you can't race cheese. (i.e. you can't PROOVE that OO is SUPERIOR to procedural, it's just true that my nice fresh cheddar is better than your 20 year old piece of Brie you found behind the 'fridge...)
Graspee
P.S. Please, no posts on the practicalities of cheese racing- it might encourage G. Lucas to put a scene in Episode II...
>>I asked for code proof that one NEEDS perl's cryptic stuff, and nobody could do it.
The most cryptic part of perl is the regexp syntax which is:
a) borrowed from other places anyway
b) an entirely necessary part of perl
c) impossible to make less cryptic while keeping the power it has
I find it interesting you quoted the cobol advocacy part of the comment and din't comment on it. If you can find ANYTHING to like about cobol you are obviously in serious need of a wetware upgrade...
You don't even have the "smarts" to be able to use apostrophes correctly so I suggest you cease and desist...
Nobody will ever come up with 3 "biz app/model proofs" that satisfy you because even if they were damn good you would just nitpick.
You just don't sem to realize that there are some things which cannot be "proven" in a scientific way.
Asking someone to "proove" that OO is superior is like asking someone to proove that John Donne's poetry is more sophisticated than Shakespeare's, because:
a) whether it *actually is* is partially a matter of personal preference
b) The reasons why it is are abstract and not quantifiable.
You can't go round counting lines of code or timing how long projects take to write. What are you some Dilbertian nightmare IT manager?
>>I might have a big mouth, but that does NOT
make me wrong.
Well, yeah, but the fact that both are true can't be mere coincidence...
Graspee
P.S. OK, so I'm not actually *advancing the argument* here, but since he put "Ah, poor widdle kid. " he deserved to be given a slap. All those in agreement, say "Aye!"
So admitting to being the author of the original article and then restating things in that article gets you a "4- interesting" these days? WTF is the world coming to?
No, bub, you're completely wrong. That's why the 's' is smaller, to separate it from the main word. (The only "excuse" for the apostrophe was to separate things out so it was clearer that you were referring for example, to CDs == more than one CD, instead of CDS == some acronym for something.
>>An apostrophe is commonly used to denote plural for acronyms and such, hence it is perfectly correct
Ever heard of logic, bub? MS Frontpage is "commonly used" to write web pages, but it doesn't mean it's correct (or even sane). The word "it's" meaning "belonging to it" is "commonly" written with an apostrophe, despite its (haha) being completely INcorrect.
Check "Fowler's Modern English Usage" if you doubt me.
Not only that, but the author of the article writes things like:
"...just as messy and more confusing than it's competitors"
(There are loads of incorrect "it's" in the document).
"1980's languages"
(Nuh Nerrrrrr. Wrong again!)
"Even OOP's goal's are not clear"
(How anyone can even *start* to justify the above is beyond me. It's a simple fucking plural you great fat illiterate fucking god-damn lobster-dating fuckwit, sponge-for-brains!)
As I said in an earlier post, (regarding the author of the original article): How can we take seriously a person's views on language semantics when he can't even use the syntax of the language he's trying to convey those ideas in? And don't give me that "maybe English isn't his native language" nonsense, because if he's German he could have written the article in German and I'd point out grammatical mistakes in that... (Except that it's mostly English Language lusers who can't use their own language).
And don't moderate this down, because I'm damn-well right. I can let all sorts of bad grammar pass in ordinary posts, but when some fool tries to "inform" slashdot readers of grammatical rules and is wrong, I WILL NOT LET IT PASS.
Thus the great lemur spoke, and lo! the people beheld his words and were in awe!
Graspee
So, as we can see, he obviously has no clue, just like 90% of Slashdot readers
If you're really the author of that dreadful article, I'd like to ask you why you decided not to respond to all the other way-more damning criticisms of your arguments.
Also of course I'd like to point out that in your article you can't use an apostrophe to save your life, so why the hell should we believe you are qualified to address semantics of languages when you haven't even grasped the syntax?
Slashdot Mirror
The Dreamcast thing was handled very badly in the UK, with massive delays on games coming from US, lots not coming over at all etc. It's very like the anime situation- Japan has everything, US a proportion of that, and the UK a smaller subset of that again.
Funnily enough, in the UK the same thing is happening with the PS2 game situation.
And don't even mention PS1- crappy pal conversions of all the us games so you get the black borders, hence wrong aspect ratio.
At least most UK Dcast releases had a 60Hz option- nice one Sega. (The UK versions of lots of PS2 games are crappy 50Hz monstrosities- e.g. Ridge Racer 5 and Eternal Ring).
They mean RAD. I wish ppl would shut the fuck up slagging off VB. I bet 90% of such comments are from people who have never used VB for any length of time. Also, people have this thing against RAD, the sort of people who claim to write web pages in notepad, and who would probably claim to type on their keyboards using a ten-foot pole from across the room, while drunk and blindfolded, just because they think it makes them seem *hard*.
I spend 7 hours a day writing case-management tools for solicitors in VB, then 7 hours at home working on private projects mostly in C and C++. So what of it?
it includes c++ too you know, (or rather you don't).
BTW I actually was forced to learn pascal in 1997/8 for a Masters degree.
do you know nothing?
if you're going to be sarcastic at least get your facts right...
VB: interprets p-code while writing and debugging but compiles to NATIVE CODE.
Smalltalk: Check out the squeek compile via c
Java: interpreted by default but there JITs and also real native code compilers
.NET interpreted MSIL, but compiled to native on first run and on subsequent change.
Is this the same Alan Cox who designed Objective C and who thought that the way forward was in Pay-per-use software???? If so, not such a great person to quote on linux issues...
If it's true, they have no right to sue- the pokemon in question is spelled "koffing"...
In fact it's probably spelled like that because it would be really stupid if you copyright ordinary household words.
Anyone who posts "Don't buy console x, wait for console y", or "console x sucks, I have a Y and the games are much better"
... is obviously a school kid.
School kids are forced to enter insane debates where they eulogize the console they own because they can't afford to buy another one.
Anyone older (and employed) and still serious about playing games has at least a PS,PS2,DC,N64,gameboy and several PCs.
Or... um, is that just me?
Anyway, it's nice being able to buy games without looking at what format they're for.
Yeah, the Universal Translators in Star Trek handle the lip-synch too- they must project a holographic image onto people's lips as it translates...
Even better is how UTs in Star Trek manage to cunningly leave key words and phrases in the original language, (esp. with Klingon) for dramatic effect. I mean when you listen to a klingon opera, how do you specify if you want it translating or not? Do they have a language selection menu like on DVDs????
>>The guy who wrote this article just trolled the shit out of all of you. I bow to him. Goodnight.
I know, I know, it's so true.
My only defense is that I couldn't help but take the bait, and I suspect neither could anyone else who posted.
The problem is that if an argument is sound then you can properly discuss it rationally, while if it is really really absurd then you don't feel inclined to refute it.
Where the argument is only slightly absurd, however, cloaked in a false sense of sensibleness then you feel strongly inclined to argue.
This is why the best trolls (intentional or otherwise) are in just the right place between sensible and absurd. Too absurd, and the troll is given away to everyone and no-one bothers- give it just that shade of reality (Just a whiff, nothing more), and you attract posts like a dead weasel attracts bizarre similies.
Graspee
>>which often get skizophrenic because of the simplistic dispatching ...
Erm. Schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personalities, so you can't use the adjective as a way of describing something with two different ways of behaving. The confusion over the word arises because schizophrenia refers to the splitting-up of personality- but into a mess of shattered pieces- not lots of separate personalities.
Also, you should get off your relational database trip- the only reason we still use relational databases today is for performance reasons- for lots of complex DBs it is much more natural to express things in an OO way than in a relational way-
Just compare getting the address of the client's parent with:
theclient.parent.address
vs doing the same thing with:
select address from people p
inner join people p2
on p2.idparent=p.id
and p2.id=theclient
(Ok, so it's nearly 4am so my SQL is probably well fucked-up, but you get the idea).
Many people implement OO designs in relational dbs now with this "have a globally-unique identifier for every row" technique- and postgresql actually inserts the GUIDs for you
So, there you go. Actually, it must be the 4am effect because I am starting to regret all the nasty things I wrote to/about you in my other posts, and pity you because you are obviously attention-seeking because of some deep psychological problem. Call it the 4am sentimentality effect. Actually that last part is pretty hurtful. Oh what the hell, slashdot's seen worse, and no doubt so have you.
In the end, no-one needs to prove anything about any language, db type or method of working since everyone will just go ahead and use what works best for them. Debate is only useful when it causes people to re-evaluate what they currently believe, even if they reach the same conclusions.
"Why can't we all just get along?" the flower people sang.
"Because we're all a bunch of cunts" I sagely replied.
Graspee
>>relating apostrophe usage to general intelligence is a
little bit of a stretch. Why are some people so distracted
by such things?
Because if you could grasp the syntax of the English language I might have more time to listen to your rants on language semantics. I didn't relate apostrophe usage to general intelligence anyway, even though someone of moderate to high intelligence would probably be curious enough to go and look the rules of grammar up rather than just blindly guess when posting.
>>You remind me of my wife: you find "messes"
that nobody would otherwise notice
Look, if everyone else is too polite to tell you that you shat under the coffee table again, then that's not my problem. More power to your wife for pointing it out to you.
Graspee
P.S. just tell me if I go too far- I'll mark you done as "flunked because could dish it out but not take it"
You seem to have failed to grasp the point of my post. I *can't* prove that OO is better- not because it isn't, but because it's impossible to prove that one programming paradigm is inherently superior to another.
It's as if I said- "How can I prove that my cheese is faster than your cheese? Cheese doesn't have a speed!", and you said:
"If you are unable to prove that your cheese is faster, that is NOT my problem. Stop making excuses."
Graspee
>>Your style book isn't the be-all and end-all of correct English. What counts is how everyone writes. Officially correct style is determined by common usage. Some rules, like those relating to "its" and "it's", are so dumb and commonly violated that we can only hope that style-book-writing pedants will eventually accept that common "mistakes" are correct.
I'm not talking about MY style book but the actual real rules of English grammar. The "it's"/"its" rule is not "dumb", no-one feels inclined to write "hi's" or "he'r" instead of "his" and "her"- it's only because *coincidentally* "its" is the same as "it" with an "s" on the end; If the word for "his" was "hims" then people would probably want to put an apostrophe in there too.
Officially correct style is NOT "determined by common usage"; The language can and does evolve over time, and this process is affected by common usage, BUT it hasn't evolved yet, so the examples given are still wrong.
Do you call your C compiler a "style-book-writing pedant" when it complains about a missing semi-colon? We have these rules in the English language for a reason- they help to resolve ambiguities. Unfortunately it seems as though English is going to "evolve" into a piece of crap without any of the subtle nuances we have today.
And don't tell me "It's only grammar"; It was you who started this by incorrectlty "correcting" someone else's grammar post.
Graspee
>>Wonder why they did that?
Pal has more lines than NTSC so it taketh up more space.
Graspee
Is a can of c++ like a can of worms?
Heh heh, oh yeah, of course it is.
Graspee
>>IOW, you claim your car is faster, but you won't race it. If you won't race it, how can I compare? All I can do is concluded that you are probably full of it. This is where the situation stands right now.
No, you dumb-fuck, it's more like YOU claim that your type of cheese is better than my type of cheese, and that my reluctance to enter a cheese race is due to the fact that I think my cheese will lose, when it's in fact the case that you can't race cheese. (i.e. you can't PROOVE that OO is SUPERIOR to procedural, it's just true that my nice fresh cheddar is better than your 20 year old piece of Brie you found behind the 'fridge...)
Graspee
P.S. Please, no posts on the practicalities of cheese racing- it might encourage G. Lucas to put a scene in Episode II...
>>Bertrand Meyer hinted this in OOSC2. (See OOSC2 critique section). Many trade rags also imply similar things. Is Berty silly then?
Yes. Bertrand Meyer is a freak. Just look at the bondage-and-discipline language that is Eiffel and you will know it for yourself.
Graspee
>>This "Real programmers don't use " is getting tired.
...unless you finish with one of the following words:
a) cobol
b) decaff
c) soap
d) sleep
...in which case it is hilarious and should get modded up +3 at least.
>>I asked for code proof that one NEEDS perl's cryptic stuff, and nobody could do it.
The most cryptic part of perl is the regexp syntax which is:
a) borrowed from other places anyway
b) an entirely necessary part of perl
c) impossible to make less cryptic while keeping the power it has
I find it interesting you quoted the cobol advocacy part of the comment and din't comment on it. If you can find ANYTHING to like about cobol you are obviously in serious need of a wetware upgrade...
Graspee
You don't even have the "smarts" to be able to use apostrophes correctly so I suggest you cease and desist...
Nobody will ever come up with 3 "biz app/model proofs" that satisfy you because even if they were damn good you would just nitpick.
You just don't sem to realize that there are some things which cannot be "proven" in a scientific way.
Asking someone to "proove" that OO is superior is like asking someone to proove that John Donne's poetry is more sophisticated than Shakespeare's, because:
a) whether it *actually is* is partially a matter of personal preference
b) The reasons why it is are abstract and not quantifiable.
You can't go round counting lines of code or timing how long projects take to write. What are you some Dilbertian nightmare IT manager?
Graspee
>>I might have a big mouth, but that does NOT
make me wrong.
Well, yeah, but the fact that both are true can't be mere coincidence...
Graspee
P.S. OK, so I'm not actually *advancing the argument* here, but since he put "Ah, poor widdle kid. " he deserved to be given a slap. All those in agreement, say "Aye!"
So admitting to being the author of the original article and then restating things in that article gets you a "4- interesting" these days? WTF is the world coming to?
Graspee
No, bub, you're completely wrong. That's why the 's' is smaller, to separate it from the main word. (The only "excuse" for the apostrophe was to separate things out so it was clearer that you were referring for example, to CDs == more than one CD, instead of CDS == some acronym for something.
>>An apostrophe is commonly used to denote plural for acronyms and such, hence it is perfectly correct
Ever heard of logic, bub? MS Frontpage is "commonly used" to write web pages, but it doesn't mean it's correct (or even sane). The word "it's" meaning "belonging to it" is "commonly" written with an apostrophe, despite its (haha) being completely INcorrect.
Check "Fowler's Modern English Usage" if you doubt me.
Not only that, but the author of the article writes things like:
"...just as messy and more confusing than it's competitors"
(There are loads of incorrect "it's" in the document).
"1980's languages"
(Nuh Nerrrrrr. Wrong again!)
"Even OOP's goal's are not clear"
(How anyone can even *start* to justify the above is beyond me. It's a simple fucking plural you great fat illiterate fucking god-damn lobster-dating fuckwit, sponge-for-brains!)
As I said in an earlier post, (regarding the author of the original article): How can we take seriously a person's views on language semantics when he can't even use the syntax of the language he's trying to convey those ideas in? And don't give me that "maybe English isn't his native language" nonsense, because if he's German he could have written the article in German and I'd point out grammatical mistakes in that... (Except that it's mostly English Language lusers who can't use their own language).
And don't moderate this down, because I'm damn-well right. I can let all sorts of bad grammar pass in ordinary posts, but when some fool tries to "inform" slashdot readers of grammatical rules and is wrong, I WILL NOT LET IT PASS.
Thus the great lemur spoke, and lo! the people beheld his words and were in awe!
Graspee
So, as we can see, he obviously has no clue, just like 90% of Slashdot readers
If you're really the author of that dreadful article, I'd like to ask you why you decided not to respond to all the other way-more damning criticisms of your arguments.
Also of course I'd like to point out that in your article you can't use an apostrophe to save your life, so why the hell should we believe you are qualified to address semantics of languages when you haven't even grasped the syntax?
Graspee
I was chanting along with you, but you stopped...
Did you run out of stack space?