While I see what you are saying, actually might as well work with Python anyway. Iron Python is a python implementation for.NET. Right now it is at a fairly early stage, but work on it is moving forward.
At least in the case of Python, there is no "python native compiler". What you do have are simple systems (py2exe, mcmillian installer) that will bundle a python interpreter with your code in an easily distributable, single install package.
The only package I know for perl does the same thing. But there might be a native compiler there, and I just don't know it. Not as familiar with perl tools.
However, these packages do have "people clamoring" for them and are used fairly frequently. It is very important for a lot of us to be able to run our code A) on a known version of the interpreter and B) in places where the intrepter might not be without making our users install more than they need to.
But I definitely agree with you that dynamic languages are coming into their own and systems languages are being relegated to only those places where you really need their strengths.
So it does the same thing that Python and WxWidgets have done for years? Oh, except you can't run it on OS X...
Re:give us cheap Linux-based PPC machines
on
LinuxPPC64 Contest
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm. And that brings up the network interface on boot if that network is available so I can do NIS for login? I could have sworn I tried that, but I will definitely try it again next time I am in the office.
Thanks
Re:give us cheap Linux-based PPC machines
on
LinuxPPC64 Contest
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, the grandparent was complaining about the tied hardware with insufficent released specs. Which isn't likely to change, unfortnuately, since Apple has been doing this pretty much as long as they have existed.
Though I don't pretend to understand what Apple thinks they are gaining by holding back things like full specs on the airport extreme card in my notebook which would allow better development from the open source community with no downside I can see for Apple. But such is the way of the fruit. And I like my little notebook enough, but this is one of the annoyances of going with the Apple platform.
And if someone can tell me why the airport network interface is only brought up AFTER someone logs into the machine, thus making NIS authentication over the wireless card a moot point, I would like to know that, as well. Ah, but that is wandering far off topic.
Yeah, I am a little amazed that no one else was seeing this, but wasn't going to bother to comment.
I am not in love with Corey's writing style by any means, but that people are missing the obvious intentional paraody of Asimov here makes me wonder about them.
Of course I don't know how complex this web mail system is, but 200,000 lines _suggests_ a poor design with a lot of redundancy.
The two clauses of that sentence don't go together: "I don't know the thing I need to know in order to judge how many lines it should be, so I will assume it is bad."
Actually, if you look at the product, it is fairly complex and comprehensive and 200KLOC looks very reasonable. It includes an imap system, pop system, interface systems, calendar systems, list managers and a whole host of other crap.
As for judging things by their LOC, well, I kind of agree with you there, except for the immediate leap that the line count tells you the redundancy. Line count doesn't really tell you anything but line count until you have more information. And as such, shouldn't be touted in headlines one way or the other.
This is bogus crap, someone with points please mod this the flamebait it is. I work with cali service agencies, and almost everything above is a bunch of propaganda.
Yeah, except they weren't going bankrupt. Not throwing stones, they made a choice, and I am not privy to all the factors involved. But they were showing profitable quarters when they supported both server and RHL. They made a strategic decision to drop RHL in a bid, I am sure, to maximize profits, but they were making money when they were supporting both products. And in the long run, it remains to be seen if by losing mindshre among the "little guys" they didn't cost themselves some money doing it.
And they have lost at least some paid server installs over this. I mean, I understand their thinking. But I know of two techs who were Redhat-centric who switched first for desktops because they felt that Fedora wasn't stable enough. This led to the same two techs starting to recommend SuSE's server product for installs.
I know I have switched to SuSE for desktops now, and am still clinging to RH for servers, but am likely to start working with Deb or SuSE in the future, since if I am going to have a different distro on the server than on the desktop, I might as well real-world test some other toys.
I realize this is just guys like me working small shops, but I really think that by abandoning the RHL line, RH caused a group of low- to mid-level techs to start considering other options, when RH had been our default. If Fedora's QC had been there from the start, this might not have happened, but a series of small bugs, including not dual boot installing cleanely from the default installer, ran some of us off. These problems are probably fixed now, but the damage is done. I know I won't go back to Fedora, because I don't trust their QC process.
You know, for docs I haven't had that problem. But for proposals, various group-work documents and other such stuff, I end up having to drop into an office suite, most often Word for compatiblity.
I get what you are saying, and my documentation isn't done in office suites, but too many other things have to be. I would rather not have to work in them, and do all my work on Linux and OS X systems, so it isn't like I am not doing what I can to get out from under the office suite tyranny in general and MS flavor in particular, but it just doesn't seem to really work that way with the things I need to do with other people in real life.
No argument there, I think it was Neal Stephenson who pointed out that at any given time 90% of the world's population is making mud bricks or field stripping AK-47s.
However, this is a discussion about people who DO own computers, and specifically those who are paying a premium to own Apple systems. The grandparent's point was that office suites aren't used by a presumed large group of "casual computer users" and I suspect there aren't that many of that group, and I definitely don't think they are large enough to base an effective marketing campaign around for a piece of hardware that is more expensive on average than commodity wintel systems.
Do you work? I am not trying to be a troll, but I find this difficult to understand. I have to deal with documents from my co-workers all the time. I have to generate documents to my co-workers all the time. By your term "casual user" I am reading "does work that doesn't involve touching a computer", which in the world I know is a definite minority of people.
Is an office suite the number one thing I use on my laptop? No, it isn't. But it surely is an important component. And I am not actually an office worker per se, I am a mostly-contract coder. But I still have to generate and deal with a significant number of documents in an Office-compatible format for dealing with others. And I can't really imagine many jobs that use a computer at all that aren't the same way.
Actually played football for a while in school, but that isn't the point.
I was a little pissy and maybe I shouldn't have been, just I don't get people constantly comparing things to chess to give them an intellectual sheen. Sure, football is as complex as any other activity that involves a small group of people competing against another group of people. Hell, not even competing, any group activity in which people try to accomplish a task is inherently complex due to human factors and constraints. But construction work is equally complex, really, and you don't see people comparing it to chess. Or planning muncipal traffic flows, or any of a number of things that are as inherently complex if you drill down enough.
You are, however, quite correct that I don't really know anything about Spears' body of work.
Yes and no. The NFL is a trade association. That isn't the same thing as a 501c charity. They are exempt from income tax, and that is about it. Property taxes and so on still apply, and you can't donate to them.
There are like 25 different categories of non-profit in the US and the rules are way different dependong on which kind you are.
"Ah, but if you know anything about football you would know it is a very deep and complex game. Football reminds me of a chess game with real people where each side can choose their opening positions every play. "
Yeah, kinda like Britney Spears reminds one of Mozart.
Actually, I am not too sure I agree with this idea that a cell phone conversation doesn't make a driver at least slightly more dangerous on the face of it. I mean, you are multi-tasking at that point.
The line "While talking on the phone a (good) driver can still be aware of the road and vehicles around him and pay closer attention to driving than to the conversation at hand." Paying closer attention to one thing than another still pretty much says that you aren't paying complete attention to either task. And when piloting half a ton of metal around at speed, I am thinking it _might_ be a good idea that we use all our attention.
That said, I have to admit to dealing with short, trivial cell phone conversations when driving in non-congested environments. If the phone call gets to be anything that really starts taking attention, I pull over and finish the call, or if the driving situation gets more complicated I hang up.
But you know, I am not really sure what the problem is with cell phone conversations compared with talking with someone in the car. I treat talking with someone while I am driving the same way I do cell phone conversations. I will stop a conversation when the traffic situation becomes complex.
I have friends that while driving at high speed in traffic will actually turn to make eye contact with me every sentence or two. I try not to ride with them on a regular basis, since I am figuring it is just a matter of time before the flaming death thing has to kick in for them. I don't really see where that is any different than talking on a cell phone. But how many people do we see up in arms about people talking to passengers while driving?
Okay, just to play the devil's advocate, you do anything you want to in your home, that becomes off limits to surveilance? I don't really see that working out. Especially when you are talking about RICO and conspiracy stuff. Just hold all meetings in your home, and you are good to go.
Nah, I don't see that being all that good an idea, if you posit that there is a purpose to having surveilance under warrant in the first place, then saying that you have known sanctuary from it in your home doesn't seem very logical to me.
Yeah, I don't think this is going to work out, either, since this article on The School of the Americas is already turning into a shitstorm and not moving out of review. I particularly love the guy who is on and on about it being biased and that the school probably didn't do anything wrong and then is talking about not knowing what Argentina's dirty war was. I suspect, along with the parent, that this isn't going to work out too well. Editorial to the lowest common denominator doesn't work out all that well. (preparing for the inveitable spate of posts saying that slashdot proves me wrong...)
Dude, if you are trying to do anything past the really simple in Zope, you run into ALL kinds of complexity, and it isn't particularly well documentented or sensible complexity. bobobase modifcation times come to mind as well as the growning url problem from zope's not entirely intuitive acquisition features. And that is just simple stuff you need for fairly basic projects, there are a TON of these types of things. I like Zope enough, and I am on a couple of fairly meaty projects with it, but it is in desperate need of a refactoring. And complex dtml is a beast. I have dtml here you need a masters in philosophy to sort out.
If I am going to climb a learning curve, one that has some of the cruft taken out would make me happy as punch, even though I have already paid this price once and now will have to do it again if I am going to stay in Zopeland when Zope 3 (not 3x) finally releases.
I have no idea what the orginal parent is talking about, and I have to assume he is trolling. That, or he has a LOT of experience in C++ and just a little in python.
I have found just the opposite, as I think almost everyone with a reasonable amount of work in both languages has. The original parent discounts garbage collection and built-in libraries, which is on crack, as both of those aid development speed tremendously. He is blowing off the fact that you have to hunt and find the libs you need to speed up C++ dev, and you get them with the language in Py (same can be said for Java) and while you can go out and get others if you want, 99% of the time I find the built-ins do what I need in a given instance.
More importantly, the dynamic nature of the language itself makes things much, much faster to code over C++ for me. Using lambda for dispatch, list comprehensions, built-in regular expressions, dynamic typing...bah, the more I think about this, the more I think this was just a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
While I see what you are saying, actually might as well work with Python anyway. Iron Python is a python implementation for .NET. Right now it is at a fairly early stage, but work on it is moving forward.
At least in the case of Python, there is no "python native compiler". What you do have are simple systems (py2exe, mcmillian installer) that will bundle a python interpreter with your code in an easily distributable, single install package.
The only package I know for perl does the same thing. But there might be a native compiler there, and I just don't know it. Not as familiar with perl tools.
However, these packages do have "people clamoring" for them and are used fairly frequently. It is very important for a lot of us to be able to run our code A) on a known version of the interpreter and B) in places where the intrepter might not be without making our users install more than they need to.
But I definitely agree with you that dynamic languages are coming into their own and systems languages are being relegated to only those places where you really need their strengths.
So it does the same thing that Python and WxWidgets have done for years? Oh, except you can't run it on OS X...
Hmmm. And that brings up the network interface on boot if that network is available so I can do NIS for login? I could have sworn I tried that, but I will definitely try it again next time I am in the office.
Thanks
Actually, the grandparent was complaining about the tied hardware with insufficent released specs. Which isn't likely to change, unfortnuately, since Apple has been doing this pretty much as long as they have existed.
Though I don't pretend to understand what Apple thinks they are gaining by holding back things like full specs on the airport extreme card in my notebook which would allow better development from the open source community with no downside I can see for Apple. But such is the way of the fruit. And I like my little notebook enough, but this is one of the annoyances of going with the Apple platform.
And if someone can tell me why the airport network interface is only brought up AFTER someone logs into the machine, thus making NIS authentication over the wireless card a moot point, I would like to know that, as well. Ah, but that is wandering far off topic.
misplaced fear, but fear.
Gotta love that terror of something different than your own structure. Gets the heart pumping in the morning.
Actually, I think the full quote, is "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
Yeah, I am a little amazed that no one else was seeing this, but wasn't going to bother to comment.
I am not in love with Corey's writing style by any means, but that people are missing the obvious intentional paraody of Asimov here makes me wonder about them.
Funny, I remember when everyone was on about too many people on usenet were destroying it: The great AOL newbie flood.
Now too many people are killing it?
Hell, strikes me it is just getting back to normal.
Of course I don't know how complex this web mail system is, but 200,000 lines _suggests_ a poor design with a lot of redundancy.
The two clauses of that sentence don't go together: "I don't know the thing I need to know in order to judge how many lines it should be, so I will assume it is bad."
Actually, if you look at the product, it is fairly complex and comprehensive and 200KLOC looks very reasonable. It includes an imap system, pop system, interface systems, calendar systems, list managers and a whole host of other crap.
As for judging things by their LOC, well, I kind of agree with you there, except for the immediate leap that the line count tells you the redundancy. Line count doesn't really tell you anything but line count until you have more information. And as such, shouldn't be touted in headlines one way or the other.
This is bogus crap, someone with points please mod this the flamebait it is. I work with cali service agencies, and almost everything above is a bunch of propaganda.
AC was right. RH was losing money hand over fist. I hadn't realized that they were unprofitable during the period.
Yeah, except they weren't going bankrupt. Not throwing stones, they made a choice, and I am not privy to all the factors involved. But they were showing profitable quarters when they supported both server and RHL. They made a strategic decision to drop RHL in a bid, I am sure, to maximize profits, but they were making money when they were supporting both products. And in the long run, it remains to be seen if by losing mindshre among the "little guys" they didn't cost themselves some money doing it.
And they have lost at least some paid server installs over this. I mean, I understand their thinking. But I know of two techs who were Redhat-centric who switched first for desktops because they felt that Fedora wasn't stable enough. This led to the same two techs starting to recommend SuSE's server product for installs.
I know I have switched to SuSE for desktops now, and am still clinging to RH for servers, but am likely to start working with Deb or SuSE in the future, since if I am going to have a different distro on the server than on the desktop, I might as well real-world test some other toys.
I realize this is just guys like me working small shops, but I really think that by abandoning the RHL line, RH caused a group of low- to mid-level techs to start considering other options, when RH had been our default. If Fedora's QC had been there from the start, this might not have happened, but a series of small bugs, including not dual boot installing cleanely from the default installer, ran some of us off. These problems are probably fixed now, but the damage is done. I know I won't go back to Fedora, because I don't trust their QC process.
You know, for docs I haven't had that problem. But for proposals, various group-work documents and other such stuff, I end up having to drop into an office suite, most often Word for compatiblity.
I get what you are saying, and my documentation isn't done in office suites, but too many other things have to be. I would rather not have to work in them, and do all my work on Linux and OS X systems, so it isn't like I am not doing what I can to get out from under the office suite tyranny in general and MS flavor in particular, but it just doesn't seem to really work that way with the things I need to do with other people in real life.
No argument there, I think it was Neal Stephenson who pointed out that at any given time 90% of the world's population is making mud bricks or field stripping AK-47s.
However, this is a discussion about people who DO own computers, and specifically those who are paying a premium to own Apple systems. The grandparent's point was that office suites aren't used by a presumed large group of "casual computer users" and I suspect there aren't that many of that group, and I definitely don't think they are large enough to base an effective marketing campaign around for a piece of hardware that is more expensive on average than commodity wintel systems.
Do you work? I am not trying to be a troll, but I find this difficult to understand. I have to deal with documents from my co-workers all the time. I have to generate documents to my co-workers all the time. By your term "casual user" I am reading "does work that doesn't involve touching a computer", which in the world I know is a definite minority of people.
Is an office suite the number one thing I use on my laptop? No, it isn't. But it surely is an important component. And I am not actually an office worker per se, I am a mostly-contract coder. But I still have to generate and deal with a significant number of documents in an Office-compatible format for dealing with others. And I can't really imagine many jobs that use a computer at all that aren't the same way.
Actually played football for a while in school, but that isn't the point.
I was a little pissy and maybe I shouldn't have been, just I don't get people constantly comparing things to chess to give them an intellectual sheen. Sure, football is as complex as any other activity that involves a small group of people competing against another group of people. Hell, not even competing, any group activity in which people try to accomplish a task is inherently complex due to human factors and constraints. But construction work is equally complex, really, and you don't see people comparing it to chess. Or planning muncipal traffic flows, or any of a number of things that are as inherently complex if you drill down enough.
You are, however, quite correct that I don't really know anything about Spears' body of work.
Yes and no. The NFL is a trade association. That isn't the same thing as a 501c charity. They are exempt from income tax, and that is about it. Property taxes and so on still apply, and you can't donate to them.
There are like 25 different categories of non-profit in the US and the rules are way different dependong on which kind you are.
"Ah, but if you know anything about football you would know it is a very deep and complex game. Football reminds me of a chess game with real people where each side can choose their opening positions every play. "
Yeah, kinda like Britney Spears reminds one of Mozart.
Actually, I am not too sure I agree with this idea that a cell phone conversation doesn't make a driver at least slightly more dangerous on the face of it. I mean, you are multi-tasking at that point.
The line "While talking on the phone a (good) driver can still be aware of the road and vehicles around him and pay closer attention to driving than to the conversation at hand." Paying closer attention to one thing than another still pretty much says that you aren't paying complete attention to either task. And when piloting half a ton of metal around at speed, I am thinking it _might_ be a good idea that we use all our attention.
That said, I have to admit to dealing with short, trivial cell phone conversations when driving in non-congested environments. If the phone call gets to be anything that really starts taking attention, I pull over and finish the call, or if the driving situation gets more complicated I hang up.
But you know, I am not really sure what the problem is with cell phone conversations compared with talking with someone in the car. I treat talking with someone while I am driving the same way I do cell phone conversations. I will stop a conversation when the traffic situation becomes complex.
I have friends that while driving at high speed in traffic will actually turn to make eye contact with me every sentence or two. I try not to ride with them on a regular basis, since I am figuring it is just a matter of time before the flaming death thing has to kick in for them. I don't really see where that is any different than talking on a cell phone. But how many people do we see up in arms about people talking to passengers while driving?
Okay, just to play the devil's advocate, you do anything you want to in your home, that becomes off limits to surveilance? I don't really see that working out. Especially when you are talking about RICO and conspiracy stuff. Just hold all meetings in your home, and you are good to go.
Nah, I don't see that being all that good an idea, if you posit that there is a purpose to having surveilance under warrant in the first place, then saying that you have known sanctuary from it in your home doesn't seem very logical to me.
Yeah, I don't think this is going to work out, either, since this article on The School of the Americas is already turning into a shitstorm and not moving out of review.
I particularly love the guy who is on and on about it being biased and that the school probably didn't do anything wrong and then is talking about not knowing what Argentina's dirty war was. I suspect, along with the parent, that this isn't going to work out too well. Editorial to the lowest common denominator doesn't work out all that well. (preparing for the inveitable spate of posts saying that slashdot proves me wrong...)
Dude, if you are trying to do anything past the really simple in Zope, you run into ALL kinds of complexity, and it isn't particularly well documentented or sensible complexity. bobobase modifcation times come to mind as well as the growning url problem from zope's not entirely intuitive acquisition features. And that is just simple stuff you need for fairly basic projects, there are a TON of these types of things. I like Zope enough, and I am on a couple of fairly meaty projects with it, but it is in desperate need of a refactoring. And complex dtml is a beast. I have dtml here you need a masters in philosophy to sort out.
If I am going to climb a learning curve, one that has some of the cruft taken out would make me happy as punch, even though I have already paid this price once and now will have to do it again if I am going to stay in Zopeland when Zope 3 (not 3x) finally releases.
I have no idea what the orginal parent is talking about, and I have to assume he is trolling. That, or he has a LOT of experience in C++ and just a little in python.
I have found just the opposite, as I think almost everyone with a reasonable amount of work in both languages has. The original parent discounts garbage collection and built-in libraries, which is on crack, as both of those aid development speed tremendously. He is blowing off the fact that you have to hunt and find the libs you need to speed up C++ dev, and you get them with the language in Py (same can be said for Java) and while you can go out and get others if you want, 99% of the time I find the built-ins do what I need in a given instance.
More importantly, the dynamic nature of the language itself makes things much, much faster to code over C++ for me. Using lambda for dispatch, list comprehensions, built-in regular expressions, dynamic typing...bah, the more I think about this, the more I think this was just a troll.
Dan, you are right on.