The BeOS runs great on my Mac-clone with a 250Mhz PowerPC 603 and just 32MB of RAM. The BeIDE runs fine within that amount of RAM, and you could run plenty of other applications along with BeIDE in that amount of RAM. The OS boots up amazing fast (by today's standards) and is amazingly responsive on what is considered really low-end PC hardware by today's standards.
I'd love to see Haiku ported to PDA's. Even some phones today have more than 64MB of RAM. The BeOS is so much more capable than Windows Mobile 5.
"i always felt the lack of a sweet spot between the hard and fast low-level programming languages and the loosely typed scripting languages."
You might want to check out the Dylan programming language which can be efficiently compiled to code that performs at C-like speeds. When programming in Dylan, you don't have to add any type specifiers unless you want to. If you do choose to add type specifiers, the compiler will use them for both optimization and verification purposes. In practice, you often only add type specifiers for the parameters of methods. The compiler is smart enough to type-inference the rest of the types within the method, so there's often no performance gain to be had by specifying a lot of typing info.
> On the other hand, for most of us in the security community, $500 is maybe a half-day of work.
That's a very U.S.-centric view. For some countries, $500 may be a month's work. Mozilla is not a U.S.-only project, and people from any country can make valuable contributions.
No, I just don't think that a proper Lisp has been implemented yet - I'm thinking of a language with all of the semantics of Lisp *plus* easily readable syntactic sugar. I'd like to see a standardized lisp that I can write and read as quickly and Python.
It sounds like Dylan is what you are looking for. http://www.gwydiondylan.org/
Here's some sample code:
define function fibo (M:: <integer>) => result:: <integer>; case M < 2 => 1; otherwise => fibo (M - 2) + fibo (M - 1); end case; end function fibo;
Dylan is technologically successful (a dynamic, abstract, powerful language which produces programs that run as fast as those written in C/C++), though it has not been market-place successful. If Microsoft had put its weight behind Dylan, instead of C#, then I think Java would have been in serious trouble. The Dylan language is considerably more powerful than Java, but built on a small, very elegant extendable core. Dylan is basically a fully object-oriented descendant of Lisp with infix syntax instead of prefix syntax used by Lisp. Like Lisp, Dylan's macro system allows the language to be extended from within itself.
The open-source Dylan compiler, Gwydion Dylan, is still being actively improved by a small group. http://www.gwydiondylan.org It runs on linux and MacOS X.
I recommend Kerio Personal Firewall and Avast! anti-virus. Both are free for personal, home use.
Re-inventing the wheel... but making it square...
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
Replace the references to Java below with C#: ------- Sounds like they are adding a lot of features that the Dylan programming language has had since it's release (approximately 1995).
But whereas the features were elegantly incorporated into Dylan since the beginning and are consistent and easy to use, I suspect that in Java they are a hack.
I've gotten 14 of those messages from Microsoft. Here's what they look like:
From: ".NET Messenger Service Staff"
Subject: Important Security Update for the.NET Messenger Service
Date: Mon 18, Aug 2003
ATTENTION: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED FOR MSN AND WINDOWS MESSENGER USERS.
You are receiving this e-mail because you are a MSN Messenger or Windows Messenger Service user.
As part of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing initiative, Microsoft is updating the.NET Messenger Service and providing you with an important MSN Messenger or Windows Messenger security update.
If you are using MSN Messenger 5.0, Windows Messenger 4.7.2000, or MSN Messenger for Mac 3.5, or any versions higher than these, you do NOT need this security update. To find out which version you have, select the 'Help' menu in Messenger, then select 'About'. If you are using an older version, or are not sure, please visit: http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.asp x for an update.
NOTICE: If you are not using an updated version, you will be unable to continue using your MSN Messenger or Windows Messenger Service.
Thank you for helping Microsoft further its commitment to helping you protect your privacy and security online.
You can view the.NET Messenger Statement of Privacy at: http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Privacy.aspx a nd the.NET Messenger Service Terms of Use and Notices at: http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Terms.aspx.
> You don't need macros since Python is dynamically > typed and even functions are first-class objects.
You don't even know what you are missing.:-)
Lisp and Dylan are dynamically typed with functions as first class objects. However those features are orthogonal to a true macro system... They're not related. A true macro system allows a capable programmer to extend the language itself. Need a new control struct to lock a resource and then automatically unlock it at the end of the block of code? Well you can just write one yourself if you have real macros.
Dylan is a language very similar to Scheme, but with an infix syntax and a module system.
Here's some sample code:
define method quicksort (data:: ) => sorted-data::;
if (empty?(data) | empty?(tail(data)))
data;
else
collect(head(data), tail(data), #(), #());
end if; end method quicksort;
I know Paul Graham is not a fan of Dylan because Dylan's infix syntax has complicated the macro system. But nonetheless, Dylan still has a powerful macro system.
Also in Dylan, the compiler is not part of the run-time, as it is in Lisp, which makes it not as powerful as Lisp in that sense.
But still the Fourth Annual ICFP Programming Contest judges proclaimed that Dylan is a fine programming tool for many applications.:-)
Any real geek knows that a language that isn't self-extensible through its macro system (ala Lisp, Scheme, Dylan) is just plane lame.:-)
I haven't been following python for a long time, though I've used it for a few projects. I know a lot of Lisp-like features such as lambda, eval, etc. have been added to it. (Java's adding a *lot* of features that Dylan has had since its inception, such as keyword arguments... but adding those features to Java makes the language even more ugly.) But what about a real macro system (and I don't mean a C style macro system)? I assume that it would be difficult to incorporate into Python because the Python syntax is not as consistent as the Lisp-family languages.
I assume that Python is still not efficiently compilable either, right? I think Guido was discussing a sealing mechanism for Python similar to Dylan's. Gywdion Dylan can produce code that's as fast as code written in C... and there's still many more optimizations that can be implemented into the compiler.
Windows can be made more secure by editing the registry to turn off some of the network services. The steps recommended in the following Windows security page are somewhat of a pain to do, but are useful.
Minimization of network services on Windows systems http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/breves/min_s rv_res_wi n.en.html
The Gwydion Dylan project (and Dylan language as a whole) has always had trouble gaining a significant user base. Gwydion Dylan is an open-source optimizing compiler for the Dylan programming language. It was originally developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, but is now maintained (and extended) by a small group of volunteers.
Dylan is a wonderful, elegant, extensible language that really puts Java to shame. Usually when there's a programming language article on slashdot, people end up describing their dream language... and it usually what they describe matches Dylan quite well. But still it's very hard to attract new programmers to the language.
It's a great compiler, and a team using it earned second place in the 2001 ICFP Programming Contest. The compiler is still being improved, but in all honestly, there's just a few dedicated volunteers working on it.
I don't know how to explain it's lack of "success", except to note that few geeks are really geeky enough to stray away from the mainstream languages.
One piece of analysis, therefore, is to find all the public instance variables. But we can find them and also make them private, add all the setters and getters, and account for what it means to actually access the variables via setters and getters.
As I've said before, Gosling appears to have oblivious to most of the research that had gone on in the field of object-oriented languages.
Java should been designed from the start to enforce getter/setter access to instance variables. This feature has long been recognized to be a desirable feature in an object-oriented language. I think Self, Dylan, and other object-oriented languages got this feature right.
You are missing the bigger picture... Sun introduced a totally new programming language: Java. They were not constrained by backwards compatibility, and they had a chance to do it right. It is true they suceeded rather admirally in the marketing aspect, but if you ask me, they failed in the technical aspects of the language. They ignored the language research in academia that had gone on in that period and before, and spat out a rather intellectually-unsatisfying language.
The basic premise of Java was to introduce a more simple object-oriented language. But it is growing tremendously complicated because it's internal lack of consistency.
Sounds like they are adding a lot of features that the Dylan programming language has had since it's release (approximately 1995).
But whereas the features were elegantly incorporated into Dylan since the beginning and are consistent and easy to use, I suspect that in Java they are a hack.
bzip doesn't have to compress better all of time. It compresses significantly better *most* of the time, and nearly as well for the few times it doesn't compress as well as zip/gzip.
BTW, GIF is lossless, JPEG is lossy. That is comparing apples and oranges.
Python is nice. Python is useful. But it's still just a scripting language. It saddens me that Dylan, which is better in several important ways, has not gained acceptance. Dylan has a real macro facility, is compilable to efficient code (see http://cristal.inria.fr/ICFP2001/prog-contest/), has real garbage collection, multiple inheritance, etc.
"Dylan--which I think has a very academic flavor--is everything Python is plus so much more" -Guido van Rossum, 1999
Slashdot Mirror
The BeOS runs great on my Mac-clone with a 250Mhz PowerPC 603 and just 32MB of RAM. The BeIDE runs fine within that amount of RAM, and you could run plenty of other applications along with BeIDE in that amount of RAM. The OS boots up amazing fast (by today's standards) and is amazingly responsive on what is considered really low-end PC hardware by today's standards.
I'd love to see Haiku ported to PDA's. Even some phones today have more than 64MB of RAM. The BeOS is so much more capable than Windows Mobile 5.
Correction: Perl is the Visual Basic of the late 1990's.
Perl is Visual Basic of the 1990's.
"i always felt the lack of a sweet spot between the hard and fast low-level programming languages and the loosely typed scripting languages."
You might want to check out the Dylan programming language which can be efficiently compiled to code that performs at C-like speeds. When programming in Dylan, you don't have to add any type specifiers unless you want to. If you do choose to add type specifiers, the compiler will use them for both optimization and verification purposes. In practice, you often only add type specifiers for the parameters of methods. The compiler is smart enough to type-inference the rest of the types within the method, so there's often no performance gain to be had by specifying a lot of typing info.
> On the other hand, for most of us in the security community, $500 is maybe a half-day of work.
That's a very U.S.-centric view. For some countries, $500 may be a month's work. Mozilla is not a U.S.-only project, and people from any country can make valuable contributions.
99% of the virus activity of the last 10 years can be blamed on Bill Gates.
Perhaps your are confusing Lisp with Tcl. hehe
It sounds like Dylan is what you are looking for.
http://www.gwydiondylan.org/
Here's some sample code:
Dylan is technologically successful (a dynamic, abstract, powerful language which produces programs that run as fast as those written in C/C++), though it has not been market-place successful. If Microsoft had put its weight behind Dylan, instead of C#, then I think Java would have been in serious trouble. The Dylan language is considerably more powerful than Java, but built on a small, very elegant extendable core. Dylan is basically a fully object-oriented descendant of Lisp with infix syntax instead of prefix syntax used by Lisp. Like Lisp, Dylan's macro system allows the language to be extended from within itself.
The open-source Dylan compiler, Gwydion Dylan, is still being actively improved by a small group. http://www.gwydiondylan.org
It runs on linux and MacOS X.
I recommend Kerio Personal Firewall and Avast! anti-virus. Both are free for personal, home use.
Replace the references to Java below with C#:
-------
Sounds like they are adding a lot of features that the Dylan programming language has had since it's release (approximately 1995).
But whereas the features were elegantly incorporated into Dylan since the beginning and are consistent and easy to use, I suspect that in Java they are a hack.
Wasn't Java designed to be a simple language?
More modern electronic or computerised equipment is exactly the same in terms of how it reacts to failures."
o r. decapitated.ap/index.html
Okay, I believe you...
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A surgical resident was killed when an elevator malfunctioned and decapitated him.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/08/18/doct
"Unmeasurable"? Does that mean too small to measure?
I've gotten 14 of those messages from Microsoft. Here's what they look like:
:
: .NET Messenger Service
:
.NET Messenger Service and providing you with an important
p x
.NET Messenger Statement of Privacy at:
a nd the .NET Messenger Service Terms of Use and Notices at:
From
".NET Messenger Service Staff"
Subject
Important Security Update for the
Date
Mon 18, Aug 2003
ATTENTION: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED FOR MSN AND WINDOWS MESSENGER USERS.
You are receiving this e-mail because you are a MSN Messenger or Windows
Messenger Service user.
As part of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing initiative, Microsoft is
updating the
MSN Messenger or Windows Messenger security update.
If you are using MSN Messenger 5.0, Windows Messenger 4.7.2000, or MSN
Messenger for Mac 3.5, or any versions higher than these, you do NOT need
this security update. To find out which version you have, select the
'Help' menu in Messenger, then select 'About'. If you are using an older
version, or are not sure, please visit:
http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Upgrades.as
for an update.
NOTICE: If you are not using an updated version, you will be unable to
continue using your MSN Messenger or Windows Messenger Service.
Thank you for helping Microsoft further its commitment to helping you
protect your privacy and security online.
You can view the
http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Privacy.aspx
http://messenger.msn.com/Help/Terms.aspx.
> You don't need macros since Python is dynamically
:-)
> typed and even functions are first-class objects.
You don't even know what you are missing.
Lisp and Dylan are dynamically typed with functions as first class objects. However those features are orthogonal to a true macro system... They're not related. A true macro system allows a capable programmer to extend the language itself. Need a new control struct to lock a resource and then automatically unlock it at the end of the block of code? Well you can just write one yourself if you have real macros.
Dylan is a language very similar to Scheme, but with an infix syntax and a module system.
:: ) => sorted-data :: ;
:-)
Here's some sample code:
define method quicksort (data
if (empty?(data) | empty?(tail(data)))
data;
else
collect(head(data), tail(data), #(), #());
end if;
end method quicksort;
I know Paul Graham is not a fan of Dylan because Dylan's infix syntax has complicated the macro system. But nonetheless, Dylan still has a powerful macro system.
Also in Dylan, the compiler is not part of the run-time, as it is in Lisp, which makes it not as powerful as Lisp in that sense.
But still the Fourth Annual ICFP Programming Contest judges proclaimed that Dylan is a fine programming tool for many applications.
Any real geek knows that a language that isn't self-extensible through its macro system (ala Lisp, Scheme, Dylan) is just plane lame. :-)
I haven't been following python for a long time, though I've used it for a few projects. I know a lot of Lisp-like features such as lambda, eval, etc. have been added to it. (Java's adding a *lot* of features that Dylan has had since its inception, such as keyword arguments... but adding those features to Java makes the language even more ugly.) But what about a real macro system (and I don't mean a C style macro system)? I assume that it would be difficult to incorporate into Python because the Python syntax is not as consistent as the Lisp-family languages.
I assume that Python is still not efficiently compilable either, right? I think Guido was discussing a sealing mechanism for Python similar to Dylan's. Gywdion Dylan can produce code that's as fast as code written in C... and there's still many more optimizations that can be implemented into the compiler.
Windows can be made more secure by editing the registry to turn off some of the network services. The steps recommended in the following Windows security page are somewhat of a pain to do, but are useful.
s rv_res_wi n.en.html
Minimization of network services on Windows systems
http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/breves/min_
Dylan is a wonderful, elegant, extensible language that really puts Java to shame. Usually when there's a programming language article on slashdot, people end up describing their dream language... and it usually what they describe matches Dylan quite well. But still it's very hard to attract new programmers to the language.
It's a great compiler, and a team using it earned second place in the 2001 ICFP Programming Contest. The compiler is still being improved, but in all honestly, there's just a few dedicated volunteers working on it.
I don't know how to explain it's lack of "success", except to note that few geeks are really geeky enough to stray away from the mainstream languages.
Gosling spoke:
One piece of analysis, therefore, is to find all the public instance variables. But we can find them and also make them private, add all the setters and getters, and account for what it means to actually access the variables via setters and getters.
As I've said before, Gosling appears to have oblivious to most of the research that had gone on in the field of object-oriented languages.
Java should been designed from the start to enforce getter/setter access to instance variables. This feature has long been recognized to be a desirable feature in an object-oriented language. I think Self, Dylan, and other object-oriented languages got this feature right.
You are missing the bigger picture... Sun introduced a totally new programming language: Java. They were not constrained by backwards compatibility, and they had a chance to do it right. It is true they suceeded rather admirally in the marketing aspect, but if you ask me, they failed in the technical aspects of the language. They ignored the language research in academia that had gone on in that period and before, and spat out a rather intellectually-unsatisfying language.
The basic premise of Java was to introduce a more simple object-oriented language. But it is growing tremendously complicated because it's internal lack of consistency.
Sounds like they are adding a lot of features that the Dylan programming language has had since it's release (approximately 1995).
But whereas the features were elegantly incorporated into Dylan since the beginning and are consistent and easy to use, I suspect that in Java they are a hack.
Wasn't Java designed to be a simple language?
bzip doesn't have to compress better all of time. It compresses significantly better *most* of the time, and nearly as well for the few times it doesn't compress as well as zip/gzip.
BTW, GIF is lossless, JPEG is lossy. That is comparing apples and oranges.
Speaking of legacy "standards", how about ditching gzip and zip compression in favor of bzip2? bzip2 compresses files significantly better.
http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/
Python is nice. Python is useful. But it's still just a scripting language. It saddens me that Dylan, which is better in several important ways, has not gained acceptance. Dylan has a real macro facility, is compilable to efficient code (see http://cristal.inria.fr/ICFP2001/prog-contest/), has real garbage collection, multiple inheritance, etc.
"Dylan--which I think has a very academic flavor--is everything Python is plus so much more" -Guido van Rossum, 1999