The difference between corruption in government and corruption in the free market, however, is that BP actually gets punished. They lose money, reputation, face increased scrutiny, and so on. What happens to the government? Nothing. Nothing at all. And they've already gotten their guaranteed paychecks through your taxes, so what's their incentive to change? So, given a choice between a self-regulating free market that can be punished by law and an powerful government that's above the law, I'll choose the former any day.
Now do you people understand the opposition to net neutrality? The government would "regulate" torrent traffic and other things that high-paying lobbyists didn't like.
Don't worry. Like USB in the 90s, this technology will eventually become standard on PCs thanks to Apple forcing device manufacturers to support it for the Mac. And, like before, PC users won't acknowledge yet another one of Apple's contributions to computing standards. Instead, like always, there will be more outdated one-button mouse jokes.
To be fair it's not that there's any inherent problem with Objective-C, that much is pretty well demonstrated by the countless great applications built on it for Apple's platforms. The real issue is really that it's like the neanderthal of languages- it evolved from C in parallel with languages like C++ and Java, but in doing so has ended up rather more ugly, and whilst it has some good bits, it also has bad bits like a lack of namespaces and operator overloading (although of course these issues aren't limited to Objective-C, Java lacks operator overloading too for example) but
That it lacks operator overloading is a huge positive, not a negative. You don't give a convincing example that Objective-C is a "neanderthal language," though that kind of hyperbole implies a pre-existing bias against it.
the combination of what is frankly a quite horrible syntax and these missing features means it's essentially just a poor man's C++. The obscurity of the syntax just builds an extra barrier that's really unnecessary in this day and age- every developer just about is comfortable with C++ style syntax so why waste time with a language syntax that's so obscure when you can just have one that people can jump straight into?
No offense, but this is really stupid, especially calling it "a poor man's C++." The big difference between C++ and Objective-C isn't syntax; syntax is a superficial barrier to entry that everyone gets over when learning a language. The difference is that C++ is a compile-time language, while Objective-C is a run-time language. It uses a dynamic dispatch, and there's nothing obscure about the syntax--your praise of C++ makes the statement even more bizarre since C++ is infamous for its insanely and obscure syntax! Objective-C's messages are just brackets. Arguments in the message are prefixed with labels. You get used to this after a day, if that long. Every new C programmer thought braces and semicolons were weird, too.
If your primary argument against Objective-C is that it doesn't look like C++, then that's a really bad argument, especially given how critical people have always been toward C++ for its ability to inadvertently hide unpredictable behavior.
So yeah, certainly it "works", but there's really just no point in it when other languages work just as well without the added headache of lack of things like namespaces and an obscure syntax.
You repeat the "obscure syntax" claim, which is, again, bullshit. Not only it not obscure, but it inherits Smalltalk's self-documenting, easy-to-read nature. Objective-C code is vastly less obscure and obfuscated than C++ code.
As for namespaces, this isn't ever an issue for Objective-C programmers in practice (and some consider namespaces an obfuscation of code anyway). It would be solving a non-problem. Adding namespaces to Objective-C would conflict with the dynamic nature of the language and its ability to, for example, add methods at run-time. Again, Objective-C is a dynamic dispatch language, and it intentionally does not enforce compile-time restrictions on methods. You can send messages to objects that don't even implement those messages, and all you'll get is a compiler warning. You can actually implement a method in your class to catch unrecognized selectors and forwards them elsewhere. Namespace support would require a total reworking of the run-time and would limit much of its dynamic nature.
Putting the word "works" in quotation marks is just trolling.
There are bigger issues with the development tools and libraries themselves
Such as? You're throwing out a lot of personal conclusions here without any evidence and getting modded up for it. Let's hear what you have to say about these frameworks and development tools, because so far, you've come off as judgmental and misinformed.
but really that's something else, my comment was really t
Developing for the iPad requires using UIKit, which is built on the Cocoa foundations that GNUStep adheres to an older version of (OpenStep). You're not going to be able to simply copy over the code for a project.
Your post is so misinformed. Objective-C is one of the reasons Cocoa is such a beloved and powerful framework, Steve Jobs had nothing to do with GNUStep, and you provide zero evidence or examples to back up your claim that "it's just obsolete and never worked that well to begin with."
In fact, you're another one of these suspicious, anonymous posters who seems to show up in every Apple article, bashing their technologies. It's getting way too predictable to be a coincidence.
Objective-C is kind of blah these days. It has the performance of a scripting language with the verbosity of a compiled language (I'm exaggerating but not much). No thanks.
You're absolutely exaggerating. Objective-C is C with an object-oriented run-time, and so it has the performance of C. The overhead of sending messages through the run-time is little more than that of a function call.
You don't understand. This is Slashdot. That means quality isn't a consideration. Instead, the following factors are what determines success:
1.) Is it open source? I'll never compile it in my life, but I just have to know if others can do it for me. 2.) Does it run Linux? It must run Linux. 3.) Can I install anything I want? Basically, I want to pirate ROMs and other warez. 4.) Can I use Flash? People here have always mocked the use of Flash on websites, but when Apple decided not to support it on their mobile devices for performance reasons, Flash became important to me all of a sudden. 5.) Is it by Google? If it's by Google, it's automatically amazing to me. Google can do no wrong on Slashdot. The Google Street View van is sitting outside scanning my emails right now, but that's okay because Flash is currently running on my tablet! Hang on, it just crashed. 6.) Does it clone the iPad look and feel? I bash Apple products all the time, but the alternatives I use are mimics of those Apple products. All smartphones today resemble iPhones. Don't point this out to me, or I'll vote down your comment. 7.) Does it make me feel cool? I'm way too cool and independent to use an Apple product. I'm just going to stand here with all the other cool Android users who are way too cool for Apple users. Haha, those sheep.
Re:Still not available to everbody ...
on
Apple iOS 4.2 Hands-On
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Welcome to Slashdot, where Apple collecting technical specs on your device is something to beware, but don't you dare criticize Google for driving WiFi-snooping vans around your neighborhood to gather emails and passwords.
There were always Apple-bashing trolls, but the reason so many people around here try to hate on Apple now is that Google came out with a competing mobile platform, and Slashdotters are vehemently pro-Google no matter what the company does, so Apple has suddenly become the enemy again.
I think almost everyone is surprised at the iPad's success. I certainly didn't expect it to do so well. I thought it would be a novelty that only devoted fans would latch onto, like the Apple TV. Bashers were so ready to dismiss it as "a giant iPod touch."
None, since those engineers were hired by Apple, and Xerox engineers themselves have said Apple didn't rip them off. Did you know that the standard "File Edit View Window Help" menu layout originated at Apple? As did "cut-and-paste?"
Undeterred, the anonymous cabal of Apple-haters that has taken hold on Slashdot in the last six months will continue their efforts.
There's a difference between website search result and inline information from other google services.
The point is that Google doesn't denote the difference. It's a regular link that looks like other search results, sometimes with a special graphic to make it even more appealing, and it's forced to the top of the results as if it is legitimately more popular than the other results. Yahoo Finance is used way more than Google Finance, so why is Google Finance getting top billing? Google claims its results are unbiased.
I can't believe anyone is actually defending this. This is Microsoft behavior.
The article is inaccurate. Google does not bias search results, the results which appear on top aren't regular search results, they are more like services.
That's the point. They appear at the top of the search results and look like a normal link, sometimes with a specialized graphic to make it even more appealing to click. There is nothing denoting that it's a non-algorithmic, hard-coded result that links to one of Google's own services over other, more popular results. That would be like a news station owning a bunch of businesses in town but not telling you while recommending all their own products amongst their regular news.
If I wasn't new here I would ask: "Why is this even news in slashdot land?":P
If Microsoft was doing this with Bing, there would be an uproar around here. Slashdot comments have become so riddled with pro-Google bias that it's like pulling teeth getting anybody to think critically. It seems Google can truly do no wrong.
That would be like me calling up my local lawnmower store looking for a lawnmower - and getting angry that they recommended I by a lawnmower that they sold, and I should buy it from them! If you don't like it...call a different lawnmower store!
It wouldn't be like that at all. It would be more like if you asked the guy at the local lawnmower store for the best gasoline for the lawnmower you just bought, and the gas he recommended came from a gas station that he also happened to own, but he didn't tell you that he did. As a consumer, you never had the choice of shopping around for better gas prices, because you assumed that the guy was unbiased and genuinely giving you objective advice.
Now imagine that guy not only owned the lawnmower store and gas station but also a lawn care store, a car store, and a popular radio station that was telling people how awesome all those stores were without disclosing that one guy owned them all.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring your annoying, hard-to-read, all-lowercase style of writing...
Your beloved government edited its oil drilling safety report to make it appear as if a six-month drilling ban had been peer-reviewed by experts, and it ignored scientists and misrepresented data throughout the ordeal.
The difference between corruption in government and corruption in the free market, however, is that BP actually gets punished. They lose money, reputation, face increased scrutiny, and so on. What happens to the government? Nothing. Nothing at all. And they've already gotten their guaranteed paychecks through your taxes, so what's their incentive to change? So, given a choice between a self-regulating free market that can be punished by law and an powerful government that's above the law, I'll choose the former any day.
Now do you people understand the opposition to net neutrality? The government would "regulate" torrent traffic and other things that high-paying lobbyists didn't like.
Engadget: Apple Dictated Light Peak Creation To Intel
Here you go.
Don't worry. Like USB in the 90s, this technology will eventually become standard on PCs thanks to Apple forcing device manufacturers to support it for the Mac. And, like before, PC users won't acknowledge yet another one of Apple's contributions to computing standards. Instead, like always, there will be more outdated one-button mouse jokes.
The moral here is that C++ will ruin your brain.
That it lacks operator overloading is a huge positive, not a negative. You don't give a convincing example that Objective-C is a "neanderthal language," though that kind of hyperbole implies a pre-existing bias against it.
No offense, but this is really stupid, especially calling it "a poor man's C++." The big difference between C++ and Objective-C isn't syntax; syntax is a superficial barrier to entry that everyone gets over when learning a language. The difference is that C++ is a compile-time language, while Objective-C is a run-time language. It uses a dynamic dispatch, and there's nothing obscure about the syntax--your praise of C++ makes the statement even more bizarre since C++ is infamous for its insanely and obscure syntax! Objective-C's messages are just brackets. Arguments in the message are prefixed with labels. You get used to this after a day, if that long. Every new C programmer thought braces and semicolons were weird, too.
If your primary argument against Objective-C is that it doesn't look like C++, then that's a really bad argument, especially given how critical people have always been toward C++ for its ability to inadvertently hide unpredictable behavior.
You repeat the "obscure syntax" claim, which is, again, bullshit. Not only it not obscure, but it inherits Smalltalk's self-documenting, easy-to-read nature. Objective-C code is vastly less obscure and obfuscated than C++ code.
As for namespaces, this isn't ever an issue for Objective-C programmers in practice (and some consider namespaces an obfuscation of code anyway). It would be solving a non-problem. Adding namespaces to Objective-C would conflict with the dynamic nature of the language and its ability to, for example, add methods at run-time. Again, Objective-C is a dynamic dispatch language, and it intentionally does not enforce compile-time restrictions on methods. You can send messages to objects that don't even implement those messages, and all you'll get is a compiler warning. You can actually implement a method in your class to catch unrecognized selectors and forwards them elsewhere. Namespace support would require a total reworking of the run-time and would limit much of its dynamic nature.
Putting the word "works" in quotation marks is just trolling.
Such as? You're throwing out a lot of personal conclusions here without any evidence and getting modded up for it. Let's hear what you have to say about these frameworks and development tools, because so far, you've come off as judgmental and misinformed.
Developing for the iPad requires using UIKit, which is built on the Cocoa foundations that GNUStep adheres to an older version of (OpenStep). You're not going to be able to simply copy over the code for a project.
Your post is so misinformed. Objective-C is one of the reasons Cocoa is such a beloved and powerful framework, Steve Jobs had nothing to do with GNUStep, and you provide zero evidence or examples to back up your claim that "it's just obsolete and never worked that well to begin with."
In fact, you're another one of these suspicious, anonymous posters who seems to show up in every Apple article, bashing their technologies. It's getting way too predictable to be a coincidence.
You're absolutely exaggerating. Objective-C is C with an object-oriented run-time, and so it has the performance of C. The overhead of sending messages through the run-time is little more than that of a function call.
So what? They didn't believe in it based on objective observation. It's religion.
Better question--why do techies think normal people give a shit if a tablet OS is "open source and free?"
You don't understand. This is Slashdot. That means quality isn't a consideration. Instead, the following factors are what determines success:
1.) Is it open source? I'll never compile it in my life, but I just have to know if others can do it for me.
2.) Does it run Linux? It must run Linux.
3.) Can I install anything I want? Basically, I want to pirate ROMs and other warez.
4.) Can I use Flash? People here have always mocked the use of Flash on websites, but when Apple decided not to support it on their mobile devices for performance reasons, Flash became important to me all of a sudden.
5.) Is it by Google? If it's by Google, it's automatically amazing to me. Google can do no wrong on Slashdot. The Google Street View van is sitting outside scanning my emails right now, but that's okay because Flash is currently running on my tablet! Hang on, it just crashed.
6.) Does it clone the iPad look and feel? I bash Apple products all the time, but the alternatives I use are mimics of those Apple products. All smartphones today resemble iPhones. Don't point this out to me, or I'll vote down your comment.
7.) Does it make me feel cool? I'm way too cool and independent to use an Apple product. I'm just going to stand here with all the other cool Android users who are way too cool for Apple users. Haha, those sheep.
Welcome to Slashdot, where Apple collecting technical specs on your device is something to beware, but don't you dare criticize Google for driving WiFi-snooping vans around your neighborhood to gather emails and passwords.
I'd say 95% of the market is definitely stealing the market. They're even hurting netbook sales according to Microsoft.
There were always Apple-bashing trolls, but the reason so many people around here try to hate on Apple now is that Google came out with a competing mobile platform, and Slashdotters are vehemently pro-Google no matter what the company does, so Apple has suddenly become the enemy again.
Oh, really?
Apple-bashers are really running out of memes, especially since customers with an enterprise license can use the iPad however they need to.
I think almost everyone is surprised at the iPad's success. I certainly didn't expect it to do so well. I thought it would be a novelty that only devoted fans would latch onto, like the Apple TV. Bashers were so ready to dismiss it as "a giant iPod touch."
You're totally free not to use Apple.
You seem to have left out one-button mice and homosexuality in your tired Apple troll, anonymous coward.
None, since those engineers were hired by Apple, and Xerox engineers themselves have said Apple didn't rip them off. Did you know that the standard "File Edit View Window Help" menu layout originated at Apple? As did "cut-and-paste?"
Undeterred, the anonymous cabal of Apple-haters that has taken hold on Slashdot in the last six months will continue their efforts.
"email" returns Gmail as the first result.
The point is that Google doesn't denote the difference. It's a regular link that looks like other search results, sometimes with a special graphic to make it even more appealing, and it's forced to the top of the results as if it is legitimately more popular than the other results. Yahoo Finance is used way more than Google Finance, so why is Google Finance getting top billing? Google claims its results are unbiased.
I can't believe anyone is actually defending this. This is Microsoft behavior.
That's the point. They appear at the top of the search results and look like a normal link, sometimes with a specialized graphic to make it even more appealing to click. There is nothing denoting that it's a non-algorithmic, hard-coded result that links to one of Google's own services over other, more popular results. That would be like a news station owning a bunch of businesses in town but not telling you while recommending all their own products amongst their regular news.
If Microsoft was doing this with Bing, there would be an uproar around here. Slashdot comments have become so riddled with pro-Google bias that it's like pulling teeth getting anybody to think critically. It seems Google can truly do no wrong.
But as a defense against antitrust scrutiny, Google claims its search results are unbiased.
They're an ad company. They make money from you using their services or their recommended partners.
It wouldn't be like that at all. It would be more like if you asked the guy at the local lawnmower store for the best gasoline for the lawnmower you just bought, and the gas he recommended came from a gas station that he also happened to own, but he didn't tell you that he did. As a consumer, you never had the choice of shopping around for better gas prices, because you assumed that the guy was unbiased and genuinely giving you objective advice.
Now imagine that guy not only owned the lawnmower store and gas station but also a lawn care store, a car store, and a popular radio station that was telling people how awesome all those stores were without disclosing that one guy owned them all.