Here is a link to a Hacker's Jargon Dictionary with an explanation of foo() and bar(). "Cause everyone else does" is pretty much it. It's just one of those silly programmer tradition things.
Kind of like sig lines with geeky memory-management jokes.;)
I can't believe I'm mentioning this, but: IIRC, K&R style has the opening bracket of a function on the next line:
int foo() { return bar; }
While "Java" style generally puts it on the same line:
public int foo() { return bar; }
Yep, it's a minor difference. Believe or not, I actually spent time agonizing over which code style to use and where. If you care which I personally prefer, you should really get out more.
Java is interpreted and slow. The virtual machine is always bulky and slow. Java can't access any sort of native methods. Write-once-run-anywhere is a complete lie. Besides, Microsoft killed it anyway.
Of course, I've never written a single thing in Java. Oh, did I mention that I believe every piece of Java misinformation that I read?
A few reasons why someone might want to program in Java, even without bytecode portability:
1. Enforced object-oriented style (this can be good or bad, depending on your personal philosophy). 2. Forced exception handling in many cases (again -- personal preference). 3. Simplicity and speed of development 4. Fairly consistent API for GUI design (compared to platform-specific windowing APIs). 5. No memory management worries (Forget Kevin Mitnick, most programmers need to worry more about freeing their mallocs.;) ).
This is not a "Java is better" case, just a few answers to the question.
(Not arguing with you here. Just adding my own $0.02)
"The demand that every problem be solved prior to shipping is absurdly unrealistic."
While I agree that it is always possible for bugs to slip by the developers and testers, I also strongly believe that, on the whole, quality is too frequently sacrificed for, "We must ship next week."
I don't think this is a problem unique to Red Hat (I'm not using RH right now, so I don't know if it really is a problem for Red Hat). It seems built-in to the software development model that most companies use today. The desire to get the most and latest "stuff" included right up to the ship date results in some of that "stuff" not getting the quality assurance it should. This is not the fault of the QA people and certainly not the fault of the support people.
FWIW -- I've found that the biggest source of frustration for support experts is a lack of information. Few things are more frustrating that not knowing what the problem is or even how to troubleshoot it. By taking the time to explain how things (should) work, development staff can save themselves a lot of time dealing with unnecessary problem escalations. The support experts are happier and the customers' problems get fixed faster.
I have a little problem with the idea of "don't bother calling for support". Uhhhh, what is support there for? What am I, Joe Software Consumer, paying for? Unfortunately, the goal in too many support departments is churning the maximum number of calls. This, IMO, is a big reason for the "reinstall to fix it" mentality among Windows users. Get 'em off the phone and answer the next call. I would hate to see a simliar attitude take root (no pun intended) in the world of Linux support.
#define COMMENT_TONE HUMOROUS/* So don't take me all serious and stuff */
You know you're reading a serious, thoughtful, and considered essay when the author uses the following description:
"...which frankly sucks ass"
I'll be sure to include that phrase in my next status report ("Dear Mr. Vice President: We have encountered some unforeseen problems in using the new network cards. They frankly suck ass.")
Yep, I think a big promotion is right around the corner!:)
This not the first article I've seen on this topic where posters refer to, "...the way Microsoft killed Java."
I respect the programming language Perl and understand that it is very powerful. I am not a Perl coder, however (yet).
I use a handful of other languages, though. Java is one of them. I'm not "married" to any language (well, ok, C perhaps) and can get along fine if one or more of them is "killed". If Java really was killed, I would say, "Bummer -- it was a nice language," and fire up the C or C++ compiler.
That hasn't happened yet. Reports of Java's demise are greatly exaggerated.
It's more accurate to say that Java has not lived up to its hype. In 1996, pundits expected everyone to be porting all of their C++ apps to Java in 3 years. Obviously, that's not happening.
But I don't think any language COULD live up to that amount of hype or that aggressive a time table. Furthermore, anyone who expects companies to rewrite millions of lines of legacy code written in very popular, powerful languages like C++ is just not being realistic.
I recognize and thoroughly resent Microsoft's attempt to "embrace and extend" Java with incompatible libararies. Honestly, though, did anyone really think that Microsoft would just stick with Sun's standard and not try to add their own goodies? I look at C++ vs. Visual C++ here. As best I can tell, Microsoft's Foundation Classes have done nothing to harm good ol' C++. When programmers want portability, they just don't use MFC.
So Microsoft may not support pure Java anymore. So what? Sun and others make perfectly good runtime environments that are zero-cost and run just fine on Win32.
In short, it just bugs me when I see people pronouncing Java "dead". Especially in a forum like slashdot where FUD is a four-letter word. Why all this langauge "holy war" nonsense anyway? Is anyone really willing to bet the farm that their favorite language today will be their first choice in ten years? If Java goes away and I decide to code in Perl, so be it. The langauge is just a tool.
I couldn't help but throw out a few "slashdot-esque" comments about these cases:
1) How long until we have kernel support for them?
2) Wow! Someone should build a beowulf cluster of systems with these cases! (And wouldn't THAT be the most butt-ugly pile of flourescent hardware ever....)
3) Who cares? I keep my overclocked Celeron motherboard in a shirt box I took from my dad's closet. I cool it with a desktop fan blowing through a modified coil from a Whirlpool refrigerator. It's hooked up to a T1 and serves over 50,000 web hits a day without breaking a sweat....
"The Corel Linux Advisory Council will attempt to address issues and propose solutions to create an environment which helps Windows(r) operating system vendors to understand the possibilities of Linux...."
/* Deep breath, asbestos underwear on */
The wording makes this group sound a little like a counter for the recently-announced Microsoft Linux disadvisory group. I don't know if this is a Good Thing(tm) or a Bad Thing(tm). Is this group going to be focused on advocating Linux, attacking Windows, or both?
If the group intends to attack Windows, I wonder if The Linux Community, Inc. really wants to play that game. It might give them less room to complain about MS FUD attacks. It also means taking on one of the most well-funded PR machines of our time.
Perhaps it would be better to take the high road and talk about what Linux CAN do -- leaving out the "...and Windows can't".
I also wonder if they will concentrate on technical OS features, or the overall benefits of using Free Software. That's probably a whole 'nuther issue, though.
(Ok, ok, it's not the.au format that caused me grief as much as it's the old Java sound API. It only recognized 8-bit mu-Law encoded.au files. Wait, it gets better. The only sample rate it understood was something like 8Khz. Not 11Khz, not 22.5Khz, -- 8! Took me FOREVER to find that out, but I digress.....)
That's it, folks! Stand up for your rights! Fight the greedy network corporations who deny your right to watch your favorite prime-time television show!
Oh sure, some would say there are more important things you could get upset about. Some would say that the U.S Constitution is being slowly eroded while we watch television. None of that matters, though. What matters is being able to watch the season finale of "Buffy". Heck, they can take our rights, they can increase our taxes, JUST DON'T MESS WITH OUR T.V. SHOWS!
Clearly, this is a huge victory for "netizens". It proves that we have the power to make change WHERE IT MATTERS. It proves that we can pat ourselves on the back when we make those changes. It proves that we have writers who can write long articles about T.V. shows. It proves that we can write long posts on slashdot about those articles.
Yes, thanks to "The Buffy Effect", I will sleep better knowing that the rights-takers are now almost certainly cowering in fear.
Unlike California, Texas does not have a state income tax (a big reason why I live here). How does the Texas state government get wage information on its citizens? Is federal income tax info forwarded by the federal government to the Texas state government?
The article said that Texas sells _similar_ data, which makes me think that the data may be more along the lines of driver's license, vehicle registration, or birth certificate info. I don't think it's terribly hard to obtain someone's home address based on their license plate number, for example.
Either way, the selling of personal information by a local government is incredibly intrusive. It alarms me that elected officials have the cajones to even suggest such an idea, let alone implement it.
FWIW, I once worked at an ISP. I got to sit in on meetings where the execs were discussing the value of the company if it were to go public.
As you said, they base the company value on the user count at $xx per user. In this case, the explanation was that $xx per user is how telcos are valued. They believed that the telco model was the closest thing to an ISP (since no/few ISPs have been around long enough to show real long-term returns).
Of course, that wasn't a big enough number for them, so they pumped it up a bit because ISP customers are worth more per user. Their conservative estimate was basically midway between the value per customer of a telco and the value per customer of another ISP that had already gone public.
I am sure that if they IPO soon and catch the wave, their estimate will be about right. It just amuses me that this kind of creative math is used to estimate the value of these companies. It will probably require several years of profit/loss statements to figure out the real equation.
Pick up a copy of "Fortune", "Forbes", "Upside", or any other magazine which targets executives. I seem to find article after article about small tech companies that went big-time and made some college student rich.
These stories are great sources of inspiration, but they tend to gloss over the technical side of things. This is understandable if your audience is not technical, but sometimes understanding the nuts and bolts helps explain WHY the company succeeded.
Of course, to many managers and execs, the technical side is irrelevent. (sarcasm) Obviously, these companies succeeded because they have great management. Engineers and techies are just laborers who help the fulfill the executive "vision".
Sorry to sound bitter, I'm just dealing with a situation right now where a certain CEO keeps repeating the word "portal" like some kind of mantra. He doesn't really know what a portal is, he just wants one ("What color would you like that portal to be?" "I think mauve has the most RAM.").
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a link to a Hacker's Jargon Dictionary with an explanation of foo() and bar(). "Cause everyone else does" is pretty much it. It's just one of those silly programmer tradition things.
;)
Kind of like sig lines with geeky memory-management jokes.
Why is it that so many programmers think that the world would be a better place if everyone would just use their favorite language?
I can't believe I'm mentioning this, but:
IIRC, K&R style has the opening bracket of a function on the next line:
int foo()
{
return bar;
}
While "Java" style generally puts it on the same line:
public int foo() {
return bar;
}
Yep, it's a minor difference. Believe or not, I actually spent time agonizing over which code style to use and where. If you care which I personally prefer, you should really get out more.
Java is interpreted and slow.
The virtual machine is always bulky and slow.
Java can't access any sort of native methods.
Write-once-run-anywhere is a complete lie.
Besides, Microsoft killed it anyway.
Of course, I've never written a single thing in Java. Oh, did I mention that I believe every piece of Java misinformation that I read?
/* Yes, this was sarcasm */
Arrrrrgh! Four semesters of Latin and you're giving me flashbacks!
sharpei diem -- seize the wrinkled dog
sharpie diem -- seize the felt-tip marker
"Some computer scientists believe that in the rise of the Internet and the World Wide Web, society has struck a Faustian bargain...."
:)
Yeah, and I'm sure some computer scientists believe that JFK was a space alien.
Here's a handy rule:
#ifdef REPORTER_SPEAK
#define SOME_PEOPLE ALMOST_NO_ONE_CREDIBLE
#endif
Remember the handy guide to thesis paper jargon? ("It is generally acknowledged that...." means "I think that....")
The comparisons between a real-life virus and a malicious computer program are quaint and romantic. It's just too bad they're not real accurate.
/* Sorry I'm so grumpy. I forgot BOTH my St. John's Wort AND my coffee this morning. */
I'd love to flame your position on C++.
:)
But I just spent the last week cleaning up memory leaks from a programmer who is new to C++.
So I can't.
A few reasons why someone might want to program in Java, even without bytecode portability:
;) ).
1. Enforced object-oriented style (this can be good or bad, depending on your personal philosophy).
2. Forced exception handling in many cases (again -- personal preference).
3. Simplicity and speed of development
4. Fairly consistent API for GUI design (compared to platform-specific windowing APIs).
5. No memory management worries (Forget Kevin Mitnick, most programmers need to worry more about freeing their mallocs.
This is not a "Java is better" case, just a few answers to the question.
(Not arguing with you here. Just adding my own $0.02)
"The demand that every problem be solved prior to shipping is absurdly unrealistic."
While I agree that it is always possible for bugs to slip by the developers and testers, I also strongly believe that, on the whole, quality is too frequently sacrificed for, "We must ship next week."
I don't think this is a problem unique to Red Hat (I'm not using RH right now, so I don't know if it really is a problem for Red Hat). It seems built-in to the software development model that most companies use today. The desire to get the most and latest "stuff" included right up to the ship date results in some of that "stuff" not getting the quality assurance it should. This is not the fault of the QA people and certainly not the fault of the support people.
FWIW -- I've found that the biggest source of frustration for support experts is a lack of information. Few things are more frustrating that not knowing what the problem is or even how to troubleshoot it. By taking the time to explain how things (should) work, development staff can save themselves a lot of time dealing with unnecessary problem escalations. The support experts are happier and the customers' problems get fixed faster.
I have a little problem with the idea of "don't bother calling for support". Uhhhh, what is support there for? What am I, Joe Software Consumer, paying for? Unfortunately, the goal in too many support departments is churning the maximum number of calls. This, IMO, is a big reason for the "reinstall to fix it" mentality among Windows users. Get 'em off the phone and answer the next call. I would hate to see a simliar attitude take root (no pun intended) in the world of Linux support.
What a great idea (at least to a guy who stands in front of the microwave shouting, "Hurry up, dammit!").
"I put instant coffee in a microwave oven and almost went back in time." -- Steven Wright
My grandmother told me I would go blind if I didn't stop overclocking my palm. :)
#define COMMENT_TONE HUMOROUS /* So don't take me all serious and stuff */
:)
You know you're reading a serious, thoughtful, and considered essay when the author uses the following description:
"...which frankly sucks ass"
I'll be sure to include that phrase in my next status report ("Dear Mr. Vice President: We have encountered some unforeseen problems in using the new network cards. They frankly suck ass.")
Yep, I think a big promotion is right around the corner!
Why do they have to get involved in everything? Geez, isn't it enough that they dominate down here on earth? Now they have to spread to Mars!
Oh, wait.... Microbes.... I thought it said "Microsoft".
Never mind.
This not the first article I've seen on this topic where posters refer to, "...the way Microsoft killed Java."
I respect the programming language Perl and understand that it is very powerful. I am not a Perl coder, however (yet).
I use a handful of other languages, though. Java is one of them. I'm not "married" to any language (well, ok, C perhaps) and can get along fine if one or more of them is "killed". If Java really was killed, I would say, "Bummer -- it was a nice language," and fire up the C or C++ compiler.
That hasn't happened yet. Reports of Java's demise are greatly exaggerated.
It's more accurate to say that Java has not lived up to its hype. In 1996, pundits expected everyone to be porting all of their C++ apps to Java in 3 years. Obviously, that's not happening.
But I don't think any language COULD live up to that amount of hype or that aggressive a time table. Furthermore, anyone who expects companies to rewrite millions of lines of legacy code written in very popular, powerful languages like C++ is just not being realistic.
I recognize and thoroughly resent Microsoft's attempt to "embrace and extend" Java with incompatible libararies. Honestly, though, did anyone really think that Microsoft would just stick with Sun's standard and not try to add their own goodies? I look at C++ vs. Visual C++ here. As best I can tell, Microsoft's Foundation Classes have done nothing to harm good ol' C++. When programmers want portability, they just don't use MFC.
So Microsoft may not support pure Java anymore. So what? Sun and others make perfectly good runtime environments that are zero-cost and run just fine on Win32.
In short, it just bugs me when I see people pronouncing Java "dead". Especially in a forum like slashdot where FUD is a four-letter word. Why all this langauge "holy war" nonsense anyway? Is anyone really willing to bet the farm that their favorite language today will be their first choice in ten years? If Java goes away and I decide to code in Perl, so be it. The langauge is just a tool.
"Microsoft was just another bit player...."
"bit" player. heh.
/* Insert "16-bit player" joke here */
I couldn't help but throw out a few "slashdot-esque" comments about these cases:
1) How long until we have kernel support for them?
2) Wow! Someone should build a beowulf cluster of systems with these cases! (And wouldn't THAT be the most butt-ugly pile of flourescent hardware ever....)
3) Who cares? I keep my overclocked Celeron motherboard in a shirt box I took from my dad's closet. I cool it with a desktop fan blowing through a modified coil from a Whirlpool refrigerator. It's hooked up to a T1 and serves over 50,000 web hits a day without breaking a sweat....
"USB support you seek? Heh, heh. Write drivers, you can, yes?"
"Microkernel not make one great!"
/* Ok. I'm done now. */
Something in the article made me say, "Hmmmm":
"The Corel Linux Advisory Council will attempt to address issues and propose solutions to create an environment which helps Windows(r) operating system vendors to understand the possibilities of Linux...."
/* Deep breath, asbestos underwear on */
The wording makes this group sound a little like a counter for the recently-announced Microsoft Linux disadvisory group. I don't know if this is a Good Thing(tm) or a Bad Thing(tm). Is this group going to be focused on advocating Linux, attacking Windows, or both?
If the group intends to attack Windows, I wonder if The Linux Community, Inc. really wants to play that game. It might give them less room to complain about MS FUD attacks. It also means taking on one of the most well-funded PR machines of our time.
Perhaps it would be better to take the high road and talk about what Linux CAN do -- leaving out the "...and Windows can't".
I also wonder if they will concentrate on technical OS features, or the overall benefits of using Free Software. That's probably a whole 'nuther issue, though.
...that the .au format should be banned. :)
.au format that caused me grief as much as it's the old Java sound API. It only recognized 8-bit mu-Law encoded .au files. Wait, it gets better. The only sample rate it understood was something like 8Khz. Not 11Khz, not 22.5Khz, -- 8! Took me FOREVER to find that out, but I digress.....)
(Ok, ok, it's not the
That's it, folks! Stand up for your rights! Fight the greedy network corporations who deny your right to watch your favorite prime-time television show!
Oh sure, some would say there are more important things you could get upset about. Some would say that the U.S Constitution is being slowly eroded while we watch television. None of that matters, though. What matters is being able to watch the season finale of "Buffy". Heck, they can take our rights, they can increase our taxes, JUST DON'T MESS WITH OUR T.V. SHOWS!
Clearly, this is a huge victory for "netizens". It proves that we have the power to make change WHERE IT MATTERS. It proves that we can pat ourselves on the back when we make those changes. It proves that we have writers who can write long articles about T.V. shows. It proves that we can write long posts on slashdot about those articles.
Yes, thanks to "The Buffy Effect", I will sleep better knowing that the rights-takers are now almost certainly cowering in fear.
How in the world did it occur to anyone to grep the source code for four-letter words?
:)
I mean -- I've been bored before, but I would usually read a book or something.
Unlike California, Texas does not have a state income tax (a big reason why I live here). How does the Texas state government get wage information on its citizens? Is federal income tax info forwarded by the federal government to the Texas state government?
The article said that Texas sells _similar_ data, which makes me think that the data may be more along the lines of driver's license, vehicle registration, or birth certificate info. I don't think it's terribly hard to obtain someone's home address based on their license plate number, for example.
Either way, the selling of personal information by a local government is incredibly intrusive. It alarms me that elected officials have the cajones to even suggest such an idea, let alone implement it.
FWIW, I once worked at an ISP. I got to sit in on meetings where the execs were discussing the value of the company if it were to go public.
As you said, they base the company value on the user count at $xx per user. In this case, the explanation was that $xx per user is how telcos are valued. They believed that the telco model was the closest thing to an ISP (since no/few ISPs have been around long enough to show real long-term returns).
Of course, that wasn't a big enough number for them, so they pumped it up a bit because ISP customers are worth more per user. Their conservative estimate was basically midway between the value per customer of a telco and the value per customer of another ISP that had already gone public.
I am sure that if they IPO soon and catch the wave, their estimate will be about right. It just amuses me that this kind of creative math is used to estimate the value of these companies. It will probably require several years of profit/loss statements to figure out the real equation.
I'm in Dallas, but I'll make the drive. Count me in for an outing.
Pick up a copy of "Fortune", "Forbes", "Upside", or any other magazine which targets executives. I seem to find article after article about small tech companies that went big-time and made some college student rich.
These stories are great sources of inspiration, but they tend to gloss over the technical side of things. This is understandable if your audience is not technical, but sometimes understanding the nuts and bolts helps explain WHY the company succeeded.
Of course, to many managers and execs, the technical side is irrelevent. (sarcasm) Obviously, these companies succeeded because they have great management. Engineers and techies are just laborers who help the fulfill the executive "vision".
Sorry to sound bitter, I'm just dealing with a situation right now where a certain CEO keeps repeating the word "portal" like some kind of mantra. He doesn't really know what a portal is, he just wants one ("What color would you like that portal to be?" "I think mauve has the most RAM.").