The problem with zealotry (either for or against somthing) is that no matter what your position, you're still wrong.
As you mentioned in your reply (thank you, BTW) A hammer isn't a good screw driver. Neither is a screw driver a good hammer (though you can get hammered drinking screwdrivers...)
I use java when its the best tool for the job. I use C or C++ when either is the better tool. Sometimes I use Python, PHP, Delphi, etc. Hell, even VB has its place as "The right tool" once in a while. (VB has its zealots too, but at least they know their wrong most of the time.)
Perhaps we'd all be better off if we'd realize that no matter how fancy our swiss army knife may be, sometimes you just need to use somthing else to get the job done right.
I was enjoying this discussion until you posted this load of seemingly random flames. It wasn't even worth reading.
Heres an example: Wow. You really do function in an altered state of reality. Are you this out of touch or do I really need to explain to you why the above comments make you sound like an idiot?
Yes, you do need to explain yourself. Thats the whole point of discussion!
Could you reply to the post again without the flames and nonsense?
So, I guess my question is, do you guys just not follow the standards? What is it that you're doing to break your apps so much?
If I had mod points today, this post would get an insightful.
I often wondered the same thing. I'm no Java advocate -- I use it only when its the right tool for the job. I've never had a problem running a java app I've written on multiple platforms.
Now *other* java apps I've used, tend to break, are buggy/slow don't run on win32/Mac/linux/etc.
Blame the developer? There's lots of *really* bad VB code out in the world, but mostly because there are a lot or *really bad* developers out there writing code in VB. ( OT: Torvalds & VB)
There's a quote (I can't find online for some reason) from a fellow who says that he can program in fortran (or was it cobol?) no matter what language he was using. Perhaps the reason we has so many very poor java developers isn't because java is a poor language, or the developers are second rate, but because they refuse to change their style or methodology. Java isn't C. You shouldn't code as though it were.
I haven't used an applet in forever.
It's sad, Java was really ahead of its time on this one. Applets were a really good idea. "Wow , a way to safely run apps on the client machine!" It's too bad that the implementation was so poor early on.
Java still suffers from this bad rep, dispite the incredible advances its made.
Don't think that as a CS freshman, you are better than them.
Probably preaty sound advice, however, I've met some freshman programmers that turn out some amazing code (as a hobby, no less). Who knows, this fellow could be one of 'em.
It reminds me of what one of my old prefessors told me after I had finished my BaSc: "When you're an undergrad, we can safely assume that know nothing. As a graduate, we can consider you a contemporary, though that doesn't happen very often."
I never, in the above posts, lectured to you about science. Read them again, slowly.
Do you even know what your [sic] talking about? I highly doubt it.
I didn't correct your grammer and spelling mistakes. I'm sorry to see you sink to such a low.
So who are you? Likely another Slashdot 14-year-old know-it-all.
No, not a know-it-all. No, not 14. I am, however, a published author, a teacher, and an ordained minister. I hold a professorship at a local university. I lecture in two fields, computer science and theology. Mpore especially, I'm just a fellow who's defending myself -- after You obviously misinterpreted my post and felt the need to start a flame war.
While were still flaming -- I've noticed you like to jump to wild conclusions, make gross assumptions, and apply them to me. (oh, and BTW, psychology *is* a science.)
The parent mentioned that he believed a particular technology would *never* be cheaper than the current technology.
This reminded me of quotes like "Man will never reach the moon" and "No one will ever need a computer in their home"
Hence my post -- Read it again, slowly.
You expressed a view which only illustrates that you, like most people want to believe anything is possible. Human nature finds impossibilities unsettling, like other concepts such as mortality and infinity.
No, I DO NOT believe that anything is possible. Nor is that implied in my post. Read it again, slowly.
By saying "Science often makes the impossible possible", you are putting blind faith in science.
Wrong again! I'm not putting blind faith in science. What I said is true. Science often makes the impossible possible. It was impossible to reach the moon. It was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound. It was impossible for man to fly. It was impossible to navigate beyond the sight of land. There are countless examples.
Science isn't about finding what people want to find. It's about finding reality. In reality, some things are impossible.
I never said that nothing was impossible. You drew this conclusion on your own, with no basis in reality.
I'm not even going to get into epistemology here, but it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
This is apparently a random excuse to use the word "epistemology" I wonder if you even know what it means...
Especially in economic reality, which is what I was talking about.
Are you the parent poster? I never bothered to look. Well, you can go on living in your little deluded world, where 640k is enough for anyone -- and only the very wealthy and big business will be able to have access to computers. (Me, well, I think that there is a world market for maybe 10 computers. There so damned expensive!)
Go back, study some science, and some philosophy of science, and perhaps some human psychology and then try and realize what you are saying and why you are saying it.
Didn't you imply in your last flame that human psychology wansn't science? See, I was under the impression that it was. Did you change your mind? Are you a different poster? Do you even know what your talking about? I highly doubt it.
Yeah, I used to laugh when I'd see people "double the capacity" of their disks with a punch. They were just asking for bit rot.
"Look how clever you are!" I'd think to myself.
"It's too bad your data will be unreadable in a year."
On a related note: Some of those old DSHD 5.25" disks were really well made. I've put some through preaty heavy abuse and had them come out okay with data intact. Then again, I've had some that didn't make past their first trip to campus.
These are just small word documents, way too much to waste a CD on.
You said it all right there! CD-RW's are basically garbage, and CD-R's (though reliable) are neither cheap enough nor convenient enough for use as a floppy replacement.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (its happened before) but the biggest problem I have with cd burners is there doesn't seem to be any standard interface for writing to the disk (it's driver nightmare!) Heck, even my bios has a set of interupts I can call to use to write to a floppy disk! What other removable storage media gives me that kind of flexability?
The floppy disk may be dying (or even dead). But its left one helluva hole in its wake that'll take some serious industry cooperation to plug. (I still see the occasional computer that can't boot from CD, WTF is that about?!)
Sorry for the rant -- Dell's floppy diskless systems just worry me, that's all.
The real bitch about the whole thing is proving that your program is valid. (That's no fun for even trivial programs.)
Of course, you then have to show that the process was carried out without error. (Computers aren't 100% accurate all the time. Any number of unknowns can "creep in and flip a bit" [so to speak] and ruin your calculation.)
There are a good number of papers, iirc, that mention the problems with the computer "proof" of the four-color theorem.
Yeah, Thinkgeek was Own3d by OSDN and they were like these guys suck. So Thinkgeek was like forget that, and dropped a r00t kit on OSDN's box and turned all the OSDN's on their site to OSTG.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with zealotry (either for or against somthing) is that no matter what your position, you're still wrong.
As you mentioned in your reply (thank you, BTW) A hammer isn't a good screw driver. Neither is a screw driver a good hammer (though you can get hammered drinking screwdrivers...)
I use java when its the best tool for the job. I use C or C++ when either is the better tool. Sometimes I use Python, PHP, Delphi, etc. Hell, even VB has its place as "The right tool" once in a while. (VB has its zealots too, but at least they know their wrong most of the time.)
Perhaps we'd all be better off if we'd realize that no matter how fancy our swiss army knife may be, sometimes you just need to use somthing else to get the job done right.
Thanks again for the reply.
I was enjoying this discussion until you posted this load of seemingly random flames. It wasn't even worth reading.
Heres an example:
Wow. You really do function in an altered state of reality. Are you this out of touch or do I really need to explain to you why the above comments make you sound like an idiot?
Yes, you do need to explain yourself. Thats the whole point of discussion!
Could you reply to the post again without the flames and nonsense?
So, I guess my question is, do you guys just not follow the standards? What is it that you're doing to break your apps so much?
If I had mod points today, this post would get an insightful.
I often wondered the same thing. I'm no Java advocate -- I use it only when its the right tool for the job. I've never had a problem running a java app I've written on multiple platforms.
Now *other* java apps I've used, tend to break, are buggy/slow don't run on win32/Mac/linux/etc.
Blame the developer? There's lots of *really* bad VB code out in the world, but mostly because there are a lot or *really bad* developers out there writing code in VB. ( OT: Torvalds & VB)
There's a quote (I can't find online for some reason) from a fellow who says that he can program in fortran (or was it cobol?) no matter what language he was using. Perhaps the reason we has so many very poor java developers isn't because java is a poor language, or the developers are second rate, but because they refuse to change their style or methodology. Java isn't C. You shouldn't code as though it were.
I haven't used an applet in forever.
It's sad, Java was really ahead of its time on this one. Applets were a really good idea. "Wow , a way to safely run apps on the client machine!" It's too bad that the implementation was so poor early on.
Java still suffers from this bad rep, dispite the incredible advances its made.
Right. Ask the average user what PNG is. He'll probably say "oh that's one of those graphics on the Internet, right?".
I just asked 3 average users what PNG was:
Participant 1: "PNG, um... I dunno."
Participant 2: (shakes head)
Participant 3: "What? P what?"
Participant 2: "PNG"
Participant 3: "huh? no."
Then they felt bad.
Ask the average user what TIFF is, and most of them will stare at you like you ate a kitten for breakfast.
When I asked the same group about TIFF, a voice from behind me answered: "She's not here"
I'm a little upset that the data didn't support your kitten eating hypothesis.
Retro units are cool. Come on man, you wanna be cool don't you? Everybodys doin' it.
Don't think that as a CS freshman, you are better than them.
Probably preaty sound advice, however, I've met some freshman programmers that turn out some amazing code (as a hobby, no less). Who knows, this fellow could be one of 'em.
It reminds me of what one of my old prefessors told me after I had finished my BaSc: "When you're an undergrad, we can safely assume that know nothing. As a graduate, we can consider you a contemporary, though that doesn't happen very often."
Who are you to lecture me on science?
I never, in the above posts, lectured to you about science. Read them again, slowly.
Do you even know what your [sic] talking about? I highly doubt it.
I didn't correct your grammer and spelling mistakes. I'm sorry to see you sink to such a low.
So who are you? Likely another Slashdot 14-year-old know-it-all.
No, not a know-it-all. No, not 14. I am, however, a published author, a teacher, and an ordained minister. I hold a professorship at a local university. I lecture in two fields, computer science and theology. Mpore especially, I'm just a fellow who's defending myself -- after You obviously misinterpreted my post and felt the need to start a flame war.
While were still flaming -- I've noticed you like to jump to wild conclusions, make gross assumptions, and apply them to me. (oh, and BTW, psychology *is* a science.)
You didn't read my post again slowly, did you?
The parent mentioned that he believed a particular technology would *never* be cheaper than the current technology.
This reminded me of quotes like "Man will never reach the moon" and "No one will ever need a computer in their home"
Hence my post -- Read it again, slowly.
You expressed a view which only illustrates that you, like most people want to believe anything is possible. Human nature finds impossibilities unsettling, like other concepts such as mortality and infinity.
No, I DO NOT believe that anything is possible. Nor is that implied in my post. Read it again, slowly.
By saying "Science often makes the impossible possible", you are putting blind faith in science.
Wrong again! I'm not putting blind faith in science. What I said is true. Science often makes the impossible possible. It was impossible to reach the moon. It was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound. It was impossible for man to fly. It was impossible to navigate beyond the sight of land. There are countless examples.
Science isn't about finding what people want to find. It's about finding reality. In reality, some things are impossible.
I never said that nothing was impossible. You drew this conclusion on your own, with no basis in reality.
I'm not even going to get into epistemology here, but it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
This is apparently a random excuse to use the word "epistemology" I wonder if you even know what it means...
Especially in economic reality, which is what I was talking about.
Are you the parent poster? I never bothered to look. Well, you can go on living in your little deluded world, where 640k is enough for anyone -- and only the very wealthy and big business will be able to have access to computers. (Me, well, I think that there is a world market for maybe 10 computers. There so damned expensive!)
Go back, study some science, and some philosophy of science, and perhaps some human psychology and then try and realize what you are saying and why you are saying it.
Didn't you imply in your last flame that human psychology wansn't science? See, I was under the impression that it was. Did you change your mind? Are you a different poster? Do you even know what your talking about? I highly doubt it.
You completely missed the point of my post.
Read it again, slowly.
...the price/performance ratio will never become good enough to replace the older one.
I don't like words like "never" and "always". Science has a nasty habbit of making the impossible possible.
Only 304!!!! There is hope for us yet!
I'm having trouble thinking of ways to not apply this technology!
Yeah, like feline euthanasia.
I must have missed that part. Have you been kind enough to inform Sun of this "fact"?
Yeah, I used to laugh when I'd see people "double the capacity" of their disks with a punch. They were just asking for bit rot.
"Look how clever you are!" I'd think to myself.
"It's too bad your data will be unreadable in a year."
On a related note:
Some of those old DSHD 5.25" disks were really well made. I've put some through preaty heavy abuse and had them come out okay with data intact. Then again, I've had some that didn't make past their first trip to campus.
Same with any media I'd suppose...
These are just small word documents, way too much to waste a CD on.
You said it all right there! CD-RW's are basically garbage, and CD-R's (though reliable) are neither cheap enough nor convenient enough for use as a floppy replacement.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (its happened before) but the biggest problem I have with cd burners is there doesn't seem to be any standard interface for writing to the disk (it's driver nightmare!) Heck, even my bios has a set of interupts I can call to use to write to a floppy disk! What other removable storage media gives me that kind of flexability?
The floppy disk may be dying (or even dead). But its left one helluva hole in its wake that'll take some serious industry cooperation to plug. (I still see the occasional computer that can't boot from CD, WTF is that about?!)
Sorry for the rant -- Dell's floppy diskless systems just worry me, that's all.
I am just talking about verifing a given proof.
The real bitch about the whole thing is proving that your program is valid. (That's no fun for even trivial programs.)
Of course, you then have to show that the process was carried out without error. (Computers aren't 100% accurate all the time. Any number of unknowns can "creep in and flip a bit" [so to speak] and ruin your calculation.)
There are a good number of papers, iirc, that mention the problems with the computer "proof" of the four-color theorem.
Nothing the poor boy could do about it... after all, 12 is too many and (now that he's broken a set) 8 is too few...
What good is a new born baby?
Latrobe Brewery
Hey, they're local! Musta been drinkin' Rolling Rock? (or that weird "Green Lite" stuff)
(why can't I stay on-topic today?!)
(Watts = Joules per second)
Jumping Gigawatts! Ever read Joules Vern?
(yeah, it was worth the karma)
Yeah, Thinkgeek was Own3d by OSDN and they were like these guys suck. So Thinkgeek was like forget that, and dropped a r00t kit on OSDN's box and turned all the OSDN's on their site to OSTG.
So now Thinkgeek is 0wn3d by OSTG. Check it.
JB weld your GPS to your leatherman?
Seriously, aren't the tools just too different to be useful as a single device?
Yeah. Its an awesome book. The monolith teaches monkies to write an OS.
So that explains windows...
Maybe I mised that book -- I have 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001. When did Clark write 2011?
The Jews, Christians, and Muslims are pray to the same God, the God of Abraham.
yeah, but this little "fact" seems to escape most people... and has caused many a flame war on various forums.