Re:If you don't know OOP by now...
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In that post Linus seems to rail more against C++ and not OOP in general. Good design is good design regardless of a language. You can do OO like design in C or even ASM if you follow some rules.
OO is not a panacea, and just because some is OO doesn't make it a better design than non-OO. Each problem is unique.
I agree with you. Too many people think that unless you invented the bit and built up from there then you didn't innovate. Every innovation builds on previous innovations. Even if a new innovation is simple a user interface or a slick use of AJAX. Google has a knack right now for taking things that are cool and making them work in a very non-intrusive manner. This is in of itself an innovation. They didn't need to invent email to be credited with inventing a very slick email web interface and API.
Oh and just for kicks MS actually invented AJAX, though they didn't use that term. I'm sure somewhere in the depths of MS there were some engineers who tried to push for a web based office suite like we see coming from Google, but they were squashed because they would have created competition for MS's own cash cow.
So rename them already. You are the IT department, right?
Haha...not much experience dealing with legacy apps? It's nice if everything was a web based app that I could just change a link on a users desktop, but it doesn't work that way. Of course you can do some DNS trickery to make the old name resolve to the new name, etc... but they you're adding even more complexity. At this point I haven't even started to address the various server apps that don't like it when the server they reside on has its name changed.
Why is everyone so intent at putting the servers location in the name? IT support should be able to look up a servers IP and have the subnet clue them into the location. Remember, the location of a server should NOT matter to the users. Where I work now network ops used to have this stupid idea of putting location in the names of servers. So now we have servers scattered around the US with names that do not match their location. You also don't want the company name in the server. We have a couple servers left over from years ago that have a company name in them that hasn't existed for 5 years. So now they have a company and location that's part of their name and both are incorrect.
Server function as a part of the name I'm okay with. Usually if you change the function of the server you also reburn it. This means that any links to that server are going to go away anyways.
Of course user desktops are a different beast. Those are usually re-imaged so frequently that it's fine to name them with location and some number. Also, if they are ever moved to a new location they are re-imaged before going back out on the network.
So, my preferred naming standard is unique, theme based names for servers and location + ### for user desktops.
On the other hand, a language that was really designed for kilocores or megacores would be radically different from most modern languages, adding a few extra (un)loop-statements wouldn't do. Functional languages are a good bet. When everything is side-effect-free, there's no good reason why all of it can't be executed in parallel.
Exactly. Languages like you describe already exist. Erlang for example, was designed from the ground up with concurrency in mind.
If customers had any idea about the true cost of things to the companies that they purchase from, they wouldn't buy at the prices that things are being sold at.
First, the cost to produce has no bearing to what you charge the customer. If customers are paying for a completely optional service then the price to them must not appear to be that bad. Second, if the cost to produce is as little as the article suggests then cheaper alternatives will start popping up. In fact, I think we are starting to see this happen. I'm seeing more and more small local cell providers pop up and pay as you go phones that are much cheaper than any of the big providers.
Oh and BTW, efficient markets require perfect knowledge. Free markets just require choice, which I think we have plenty of.
First, $90k-$150k is what a CIO might make at some 10 person company. The money you're talking about is something that a talented senior developer can easily be making. Additionally, an MIS degree may or may not help you become a CIO. I only know one CIO personally. He works for a private company worth ~$1B and his degree is in music.
Not sure how you want to define supply then. Apple has very little problem meeting any demand that they have for their computers. I don't care if this supply comes from stock or build on demand. The only supply issues I've ever seen from Apple are management ones. For example, one store having lots of iPhones for sale while another is out in 5 minutes.
Huh? We're not talking about the base hardware here. We're talking about the upgraded components you can get. Those components are the same ones you can buy on pricewatch or anywhere else. Anyone who is buying RAM or HDs from the Apple store is getting completely ripped off.
And what does supply and demand have anything to do with it? Trust me, Apple has plenty of computers to sell to anyone who wants one.
I agree with you, but would like to add 'limit pollution' to your list of important concerns. I'm no greenie, but I do like to go outdoors and enjoy my time when I'm out there. Lessening pollution overall can only be a good thing. I wish the Green Movement would focus on lessening pollution because well, no one likes a dirty house, instead of the asinine fear mongering they keep trying to do with global warming. Plus, I think they would get more people to actually care.
What would happen if we shot all the rich? Would the money disappear? Would the jobs go away? No. Others would easily pick up the slack and do whatever 'job' the rich were doing.
Shooting the rich isn't the same as getting rid of a rich persons wealth through taxes. The rich, through their activities, not only provide jobs, but job growth. Their money acts as the starter for the economy. Look at a company like Google. They provide a lot of high paying jobs nowadays. At some point they needed to raise money in order to get going. Where do you think that money came from? Some rich person (or small group) who had a enough money that they could risk a significant amount in the hopes of a big return. Many many companies are started this way and a large majority fail with the rich losing their investment. So no, others won't just pick up the job the rich were doing. The only other option would be the government, and more government control is the last thing.
Your math is correct, but the same transaction also takes a larger % of the poorer persons income regardless of tax. Should we lower the price of the butter to people who make less? Should we adjust all prices based on a % of income?
The problem isn't guns, it's much bigger than that. The problem is that people are afraid to talk about the real issue - the growing class of poor minorities. Look at DC, Atlanta, LA, New Orleans. A culture has formed where it's not cool to be educated, where joining gangs is the norm, and living the thug life is what people aspire to. People are afraid to talk about it because they don't want to risk being called a racist or bigot. When it's brought up someone always says..."well that's our culture" or "you don't understand what we go through." It's really a sad state of affairs.
You're right. Waistline size is a poor measure as is the BMI because both penalize athletes which are generally in good shape. If you're going to measure fat, then you need to look at BF%. Problem there is that it's hard to measure. Those scales you can get for your house are notoriously not accurate. Calipers need someone do them the same way every time. Plus doing anything more than the 3-point test is hard to do by yourself. Submersion tests can be more accurate, but who is going to go through that expense?
Or do you mean that the government should do all of the R&D and complex manufacturing? That way we could completely avoid the influence of a powerful monopoly, for sure.
Avoid all except of course the most powerful monopoly of them all - the government.
Who cares if Gates bought DOS? Are you saying that for someone to invent something new they have to develop every part of it from the ground up? Gates wasn't just inventing software he was trying to invent an entire industry of having a computer in every home and on every desk. But you're right, Gates didn't work at all and was just handed a multi-billion company. I'm sure anyone else at that time could've done the same thing.
0. Do whatever it takes to get into a monopoly position.
I don't know about you, but I don't play any game for second place. Gaining a monopoly position is basically saying you won, that you have crushed all your other competitors.
If we want cheap gas we need to do what Mexico does (for their $2 gas). Regulation and forbid speculation on a "critical" national resource.
Um no. Regulations is exactly why we are in this problem. In the US the red tape that you have to cut through to drill new wells or even just to refine oil prevents many companies from opening new wells and refineries. In the rest of the world (Chindia, Mexico, etc...), the socialist policies that have capped and subsidized gas prices have led to the continued high demand even while prices surged. In a normal market economy demand would have already slowed (as it has in the US) and prices would have come down. I'm expecting demand in China to finally slow when they start removing gas subsidies after the olympics.
Haha, my parents didn't yell, but they pushed for perfection. I can't count the number of times I was made to do something completely over because one tiny thing was missed. I'm pretty sure that's why I'm a decent engineer today because I am OC about the details. Is this healthy? Who knows lol
I don't know the details of the bill, but was that the only issue in the bill? Too often we now see things like "Spending bill of 1 trillion $$$ with a small clause that will save babies" If I vote against spending 1 trillion, I'm now labeled a baby killer.
4 years ago we had something similar in my state on the ballot. It was a tax increase, but was worded you are either for clean air, water, and green spaces or you aren't (where is the option that I'm for a clean environment, but not the tax increase?). The results were thrown out and only slightly re-worded which many still disagreed with.
Slashdot Mirror
In that post Linus seems to rail more against C++ and not OOP in general. Good design is good design regardless of a language. You can do OO like design in C or even ASM if you follow some rules.
OO is not a panacea, and just because some is OO doesn't make it a better design than non-OO. Each problem is unique.
I agree with you. Too many people think that unless you invented the bit and built up from there then you didn't innovate. Every innovation builds on previous innovations. Even if a new innovation is simple a user interface or a slick use of AJAX. Google has a knack right now for taking things that are cool and making them work in a very non-intrusive manner. This is in of itself an innovation. They didn't need to invent email to be credited with inventing a very slick email web interface and API.
Oh and just for kicks MS actually invented AJAX, though they didn't use that term. I'm sure somewhere in the depths of MS there were some engineers who tried to push for a web based office suite like we see coming from Google, but they were squashed because they would have created competition for MS's own cash cow.
You must be new here. Anything MS is bad!
Anyways, I agree with you. Adobe needs some real competition. In my mind they are worse than MS in many ways.
Haha...not much experience dealing with legacy apps? It's nice if everything was a web based app that I could just change a link on a users desktop, but it doesn't work that way. Of course you can do some DNS trickery to make the old name resolve to the new name, etc... but they you're adding even more complexity. At this point I haven't even started to address the various server apps that don't like it when the server they reside on has its name changed.
Why is everyone so intent at putting the servers location in the name? IT support should be able to look up a servers IP and have the subnet clue them into the location. Remember, the location of a server should NOT matter to the users. Where I work now network ops used to have this stupid idea of putting location in the names of servers. So now we have servers scattered around the US with names that do not match their location. You also don't want the company name in the server. We have a couple servers left over from years ago that have a company name in them that hasn't existed for 5 years. So now they have a company and location that's part of their name and both are incorrect.
Server function as a part of the name I'm okay with. Usually if you change the function of the server you also reburn it. This means that any links to that server are going to go away anyways.
Of course user desktops are a different beast. Those are usually re-imaged so frequently that it's fine to name them with location and some number. Also, if they are ever moved to a new location they are re-imaged before going back out on the network.
So, my preferred naming standard is unique, theme based names for servers and location + ### for user desktops.
What do you do when a server moves? General guidelines say you shouldn't put the computers location in the name.
Exactly. Languages like you describe already exist. Erlang for example, was designed from the ground up with concurrency in mind.
First, the cost to produce has no bearing to what you charge the customer. If customers are paying for a completely optional service then the price to them must not appear to be that bad. Second, if the cost to produce is as little as the article suggests then cheaper alternatives will start popping up. In fact, I think we are starting to see this happen. I'm seeing more and more small local cell providers pop up and pay as you go phones that are much cheaper than any of the big providers.
Oh and BTW, efficient markets require perfect knowledge. Free markets just require choice, which I think we have plenty of.
First, $90k-$150k is what a CIO might make at some 10 person company. The money you're talking about is something that a talented senior developer can easily be making. Additionally, an MIS degree may or may not help you become a CIO. I only know one CIO personally. He works for a private company worth ~$1B and his degree is in music.
The stats don't back you up. This is an older article, but it shows only 38% of fortune 500 CEOs have an MBA.
Not sure how you want to define supply then. Apple has very little problem meeting any demand that they have for their computers. I don't care if this supply comes from stock or build on demand. The only supply issues I've ever seen from Apple are management ones. For example, one store having lots of iPhones for sale while another is out in 5 minutes.
Huh? We're not talking about the base hardware here. We're talking about the upgraded components you can get. Those components are the same ones you can buy on pricewatch or anywhere else. Anyone who is buying RAM or HDs from the Apple store is getting completely ripped off.
And what does supply and demand have anything to do with it? Trust me, Apple has plenty of computers to sell to anyone who wants one.
I agree with you, but would like to add 'limit pollution' to your list of important concerns. I'm no greenie, but I do like to go outdoors and enjoy my time when I'm out there. Lessening pollution overall can only be a good thing. I wish the Green Movement would focus on lessening pollution because well, no one likes a dirty house, instead of the asinine fear mongering they keep trying to do with global warming. Plus, I think they would get more people to actually care.
Bitter much?
Your math is correct, but the same transaction also takes a larger % of the poorer persons income regardless of tax. Should we lower the price of the butter to people who make less? Should we adjust all prices based on a % of income?
The problem isn't guns, it's much bigger than that. The problem is that people are afraid to talk about the real issue - the growing class of poor minorities. Look at DC, Atlanta, LA, New Orleans. A culture has formed where it's not cool to be educated, where joining gangs is the norm, and living the thug life is what people aspire to. People are afraid to talk about it because they don't want to risk being called a racist or bigot. When it's brought up someone always says..."well that's our culture" or "you don't understand what we go through." It's really a sad state of affairs.
then this is the one of the best lines ever!
Real. Life. Dilbert.
You're right. Waistline size is a poor measure as is the BMI because both penalize athletes which are generally in good shape. If you're going to measure fat, then you need to look at BF%. Problem there is that it's hard to measure. Those scales you can get for your house are notoriously not accurate. Calipers need someone do them the same way every time. Plus doing anything more than the 3-point test is hard to do by yourself. Submersion tests can be more accurate, but who is going to go through that expense?
Yeah, Rollins is simply a bad ass. He's built like a truck and isn't afraid to tell you what he's thinking.
Avoid all except of course the most powerful monopoly of them all - the government.
Who cares if Gates bought DOS? Are you saying that for someone to invent something new they have to develop every part of it from the ground up? Gates wasn't just inventing software he was trying to invent an entire industry of having a computer in every home and on every desk. But you're right, Gates didn't work at all and was just handed a multi-billion company. I'm sure anyone else at that time could've done the same thing.
I don't know about you, but I don't play any game for second place. Gaining a monopoly position is basically saying you won, that you have crushed all your other competitors.
Um no. Regulations is exactly why we are in this problem. In the US the red tape that you have to cut through to drill new wells or even just to refine oil prevents many companies from opening new wells and refineries. In the rest of the world (Chindia, Mexico, etc...), the socialist policies that have capped and subsidized gas prices have led to the continued high demand even while prices surged. In a normal market economy demand would have already slowed (as it has in the US) and prices would have come down. I'm expecting demand in China to finally slow when they start removing gas subsidies after the olympics.
Haha, my parents didn't yell, but they pushed for perfection. I can't count the number of times I was made to do something completely over because one tiny thing was missed. I'm pretty sure that's why I'm a decent engineer today because I am OC about the details. Is this healthy? Who knows lol
I don't know the details of the bill, but was that the only issue in the bill? Too often we now see things like "Spending bill of 1 trillion $$$ with a small clause that will save babies" If I vote against spending 1 trillion, I'm now labeled a baby killer.
4 years ago we had something similar in my state on the ballot. It was a tax increase, but was worded you are either for clean air, water, and green spaces or you aren't (where is the option that I'm for a clean environment, but not the tax increase?). The results were thrown out and only slightly re-worded which many still disagreed with.