But hey folks, it happened when they were partnered with Novell, and then stabbed those folks in the back, they did it to IBM, they slowed the adoption of Java to the point where the much nastier activeX took over
ActiveX took over? On the internet? Where? There is lots of ActiveX within Windows, but it is basically renamed COM. There is little use of ActiveX on web pages.
(but Sun keeps kissing their ass)...
True, if you assume that Sun sueing Microsoft, and Microsoft giving in and paying Sun billions and giving sun access to APIs is 'kissing Microsoft's ass'.
I'm thinking PHP probably with MySQL makes up for the largest part of it.
I doubt it. If you read the article, it suggests that use of Open Source is increasing partly in terms of Java application servers, like JBoss. So, paradoxically there is a growth of Open Source tools, libraries and services around a technology that isn't Open Source - Java (although Kaffe and Harmony may change this).
The only need one has regarding multiuser on their workstation is to be able to run as root and non-root and perhaps experiment in a sandbox. Windows supports all of this, thus I see that argument as void.
You misunderstand. I mean being able to have multiple users on a machine at the same time, running applications locally and remotely, each will full access to command-line and graphical applications.
A machine doesn't need to be command driven to be remotely administrated (though it often eases things). Take VNC for example.
Yes, and that is totally impractical through long-distance connections that are either slow or have any lag. Try using VNC through a satellite-based connection for example.
To direct counter your argument, there are several SSH implementations for Windows which means you can do pretty much anything you can in Unix.
Of course you can't. SSH is nothing more than a connection protocol, and does not change what the OS is capable of.
So.. I stand fast by my previous argument, if a user knows a platform other than Linux, there is really no need or urge driving them to switch.
And I stand fast by what I said - there are capabilities that Linux/Unix provides that are essential for some uses and that Windows simply can't provide.
It's the stock price. I think that speaks for itself.
No it doesn't. The wall street opinion of a company has a pretty limited perspective.
What exactly is the competitive advantage of using SPARC that would justify its enormous investment?
It's scalability at the high end, especially for things like networking performance.
At some point investors want to see a return on that investment. They've been waiting a while... Ultrasparc V was cancelled. Sun has never built an out-of-order processor. Niagra is late.
This happens - there is nothing new about late processors.
Furthermore, Niagra = Cell so it's not exactly a special Sun-only technology.
How is this relevant?
My main point is this. Sun delivers mediocre hardware,
Oh, I really disagree with this! The processor may not be the fastest yet, but the general hardware is great.
but they can't even deliver that at a price the market wants because competitors offer solutions that are far cheaper and still get the job done.
They are still selling the stuff!
The management strategy seems to be this: Let's compete with Linux, EMC, Dell, IBM and Intel all at once!
No - it is about competing with those in the areas where those are weak: Linux in terms of high-scalability, Dell in terms of high-performance servers, Intel in terms of core performance and high-end-scalability.
Fast SPARC is an oxymoron. I'll believe it when I see it.
This is wildly simplistic. SPARC had a real performance advantage a few years ago. I'd be interested in how a 8-core processor running at high GHz is going to be slower than 2-core processors at the same speed.
Sun are changing, and some of the markets you mention are shrinking, but it would be a sad day if everything was stock-market driven and large sections of a company that included huge amounts of expertise and IP were dumped just to please short-term interests of investors.
If they can get their software stack to run on this commodity hardware, then they have a survivable future.
I believe that is exactly what they have been doing with Java, and now it is getting that way with Solaris.
Sun management seems clueless.
I often hear this, and to me it seems a little... premature. The only people who are in a position to judge this in reality are the management themselves, because they are in possession of the facts. Still, I guess, we are all free to state our opinions.
Witness the latest aquisition of a storage company. They still want to sell hardware? They still pour billions into SPARC development? Why? Intel and AMD do a perfectly good job of making fast scalable processors.
My impression is that these are pretty good ways forward. There is about to be a phenomenal demand for storage because of the growth of networked multimedia and because of new regulations in the USA and elsewhere for businesses to keep all information about everything. Storage and archiving are going to be big, and if you can get a complete systems integrated with your servers from one source, this is a real advantage.
As for the processors, these tend to leap-frog each other in cycles. Intel and AMD are fast now, but they have hit a problem in terms of heat and are moving to multi-core. The new SPARC is going to be way ahead terms of performance. Intel and AMD are talking about dual-core. The new SPARC will have 8 cores, each capable of running 4 threads. The open-sourcing of Solaris, and running it non-SPARC was a great idea. It means that developers can use Solaris for free, and then easily migrate to very fast SPARC-based systems when demand requires this.
Irrelevant in the "makes money" sense of the word. The C language has a huge and lasting impact on the computing world, but nobody cares that it was invented at AT&T.
It is not irrelevant at all. The situation would be comparable only if AT&T licensed some implementations of C (as with J2EE and J2ME) and had a considerable business selling C-based products (such as their Enterprise systems).
Our Products net revenue was unfavorably impacted by competition and a continuing market shift in overall computer system demand away from our data center servers towards the usage of enterprise and entry level servers
Yes, which is why they are moving towards services and software.
Hmm...maintenance contracts that will run out once the customers move away to cheaper/more-capable hardware solutions from IBM/Dell and the likes. So, contrary to your assertation, service revenue is hugely dependent on your hardware lineup.
It certainly is dependent to some extent, but if you look at the details of these services and contracts on their reports you will see that they mention both hardware and software. This is a significant change on what they were doing years ago.
The continual 'it doesn't look good' reports don't seem to have any relevance to Sun's real prospects. If nothing else, they have billions of funds that could have kept them going for the best part of a decade, even when they were making a loss. They are now roughly back in profit. By no standards is this 'grim'.
Sun will certainly change, and perhaps in ways that the stock market does not like. However, they have always been changing, and I have little doubt that they will be around in some form for a long while to come.
They got a lot of mind share with Java but did they get any cash?
Yes, they did. Java is the foundation for much of the software and services that they sell and license, and this forms an increasing part of their income. Selling hardware (the 'losing game', as you call it) is a decreasing proportion of their business.
In short - their business model is broken. I have no idea how they can fix it. They will become increasingly irrelevant and die a long slow death due - like SGI.
There would be a problem if their business model depended primarily on selling computer systems. It doesn't. Like IBM, Sun has been changing the focus of their company and now have a significant and increasing proportion of their income from software sales, licensing and consultancy services.
Sun have never been irrelevant; on the contrary they are having a significant effect on the IT industry. For example, Java may not be wildly popular amongst slashdotters, but it is extremely widely used for everything from business applictations, real-time systems and mobile devices. There are now many more installations which use Sun-designed software than use Microsoft! In no way can this be called 'irrelevant'.
1)Lowering the price on their machines by 40%. Clearly this is the death rattle. A company operating at a loss is a company which won't be operating for very long.
Sheesh! First Sun is criticised for producting overpriced machines, then criticised for cutting the prices!
2)Sleeping with microsoft.
Er. There was legal action against Microsoft by Sun. Sun won, because Microsoft settled. Part of the deal was that Sun got access to some Microsoft technologies. It's not sleeping with Microsoft - it is beating them.
Yet, if you look at the fsf web page, you can easily see that 'cuddle' (the sun license; god knows why the came up with yet another one) is as far from free software as you can get!
First Sun are criticised for being closed source, then they are criticised when they open source (OSI approved) major software items.
SUN's days are numbered. Time to cash in your stock and cut your losses.
Ah, the regular Slashdot 'SUN is dead' proclamation. The one we have been reading for years. It is now so cliched it is a joke.
This argument is complete BS. from a business point of view. No one I know chose to work with Linux because primarily because it's "Unix like". They chose it because of the apps that run on it and how well those apps work on that kernel (sometimes also couples with reduced license fees).
Just because you don't know anyone who wants this does not mean it is BS. I know many people who definitely want a Unix-style system. They want something that is multi-user, that can be command-line driven so that it can be remotely administered even over slow connections, and that is secure. These may not be your typical users, but they do exist!
Linux on the desktop has a huge amount to offer. Apart from the price issue, which can be significant for a large company, there are major benefits in terms of support and security. Recently a co-worker came to me worried because she had heard about the latest Windows virus. I replied that because we were using Linux there was no problem (she was so familiar with the desktop she had forgotten it was not Windows).
As for the so-called training costs; I may have been lucky, but I have found that they are minimal. Users are not, in general, stupid, and can usually move from Windows to a well-set-up KDE desktop with FireFox, Evolution and Open Office with few problems. I have seen more issues arising from a transition between different versions of MS Office.
Linux is definitely ready for at least the corporate desktop, and certainly does not suck. It gives the companies where I have installed it a major advantage in terms of cost, support and security.
"there is no additional performance, memory or disc cost"
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about the basic symbol information stored in class files. The post I replied to said:
"The point about introspection in Java is that it _always_ costs you in performance and memory/disc use. Even if you're not using it"
I understand introspection as "Studying a Javabean with reflection to discover its properties" (from the Java Glossary at mindprod.com).
My point was that the ability to use reflection does not require any extra information to be added to class files above what is already there, therefore the ability to use this facility does not cost you anything, either in terms of performance or size.
I suspect we are using terms like 'reflection information' differently. This terms implies information put into classes specifically for use by the java.lang.reflect.* API. If you look at the official class file specification the terms 'introspection' and 'reflection' are not even there. This information is present so that the ClassLoader can dynamically resolve classes and methods.
Actually, there is: along with each clss is stored a copy of its name, the name of its superclass, the names of the interfaces it implements, the names and types of all its member variables, the names and types of all its methods and details of the exceptions they throw.
Those are nothing to do with the compiled code itself - they are present as part of the header of the file which contains the compiled code. This imposes no performance penalty.
In an average class, that takes up more space than the bytecode. A version of Java that didn't support introspection would probably be half the size, start about 20% faster, and use about 10% less memory.
Yes, but I was assuming that the original poster was talking about running speed (performance) rather than start speed. Also, there is going to be very little impact on memory, as this information is stored per-class, not per-instance.
The point about introspection in Java is that it _always_ costs you in performance and memory/disc use. Even if you're not using it.
Nonsense. There is no additional code or hooks placed in compiled Java to allow introspection, so there is no additional performance, memory or disc cost if you don't use it.
Yes it does. Under C++, cleaning up of resources no longer used is the responsibility of the programmer. This is not the case with Java - so you are implicitly forced to use the garbage collector.
No you aren't. Garbage collection is assumed but is not required. An example of Java with no garbage collection is Card Java, a version of Java for embedded use.
Java does not remove a few warts from C++, it forces you to use a Garbage collector, OO design, type introspection, etc, etc. Those are pretty fundamental changes.
No it doesn't. How, when and if garbage collection is performed in Java is implementation dependent. There is nothing in Java that forces it's use.
You don't have to use OO design at all. You can start a source file with the 'class' keyword, then do things entirely procedurally.
As for introspection, that is a very specialised aspect of the language, and no-one is forced to use it at all.
Innovation? How about Visual Studio? How about the whole COM platform? *That's* what Ballmer is talking about when he talks about "developers". That's innovation. I can whip up a usable, very functional Windows app in seconds. Try doing that on any other platform.
That ability is decades old. Since the late 70s Smalltalk implementations have allowed the ability to visually design complex applications in a way that makes Visual Studio and COM look primitive. Bill Gates knew about Smalltalk. COM was not innovative, and neither was Visual Studio.
I'm sure many of you can recall stuff which many ordinary people would be astonished by, yet they are considered true and real: try explaining how a central processing unit works (I know this isn't purely into computer science, but some students actually have classes of how and why it works).
Explaining how computers work is very easy. There are systems from way back, like punch card processors and the Jacquard loom that clearly indicate the logical operations that make up a computer in a way that anyone can understand.
So do the results in computer science, hence the claim that the language doesn't guarantee a good result, although it can help, it's all in the hands of the programmer.
Results don't differ. Computers are extremely logical devices that give repeatable results. in 30 years of IT work I have never heard anyone say that a computer language 'doesn't guarantee a good result'.
Oh, by the way, astrology has its foundations on the "as above, so below" hermetic stuff
How can one say "as above, so below" if one has no understanding of what above actually is? Astrology has no concept of million-mile diameter balls of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion, or light years, or gravitational radiation. What I am trying to say is that a tradition or mythology devised when the stars were mysterious (and being of unknown character, could reasonably be assumed to have influence) seems (at least to me) terribly old-fashioned and outdated now that we know exactly what the stars are, and know that they can have no influence.
Computers are a tool. 99.9% of people just use them to get a particular job done (that job is sometimes entertainment, but the computer's still being used as a tool, just as a fishing rod might be if your hobby's fishing). They don't care about how exciting the software they use is -- they just want it to help them do what they want to do, be that browse the web, play videos or audio tracks, write a novel, or whatever.
How do you know that 99.9% of people don't care about this? I would not be confident about posting any such assessment.
Let's take your fishing rod example. Fishermen don't just buy any old rod. They buy one that suits them - that looks good, that is well designed, that feels right. My experience of fishermen is that they certainly don't consider their rod 'just a tool'. I believe your example directly contradicts the point you are trying to make.
Computers are not just 'a tool', in the same way as a car is not just 'a transport mechanism'. They can be significant parts of people's working environments, and good design, which makes users feel comfortable and at ease (and, believe me, that takes some innovation!) is important.
Yeah I'm so fucking inspired when I can't figure out how to do something in GIMP or when I have to waste time to search around MS office for the feature I need instead of actually accomplishing what I've set out to do.
We weren't discussing 'bad' design - the topic is about 'boring' design.
If you want to change the look of Windows you can simply install a product such as StyleXP.
If you really think that good design of interfaces is just a matter of fiddling about with styles, then I would suggest you really don't understand design at all.
However, most people don't care if their desktop looks your so called 'inspired and intuative' as they are focused on getting work done not marvelling at the pretty colors on screen.
How do you know?
Frankly, MacOS X doesn't even look that great most Gnome, StyleXP and KDE themes blow it away.
in your opinion.
Usability and quality of an interface is not about how pretty a single person thinks it looks.
Slashdot Mirror
But hey folks, it happened when they were partnered with Novell, and then stabbed those folks in the back, they did it to IBM, they slowed the adoption of Java to the point where the much nastier activeX took over
ActiveX took over? On the internet? Where? There is lots of ActiveX within Windows, but it is basically renamed COM. There is little use of ActiveX on web pages.
(but Sun keeps kissing their ass)...
True, if you assume that Sun sueing Microsoft, and Microsoft giving in and paying Sun billions and giving sun access to APIs is 'kissing Microsoft's ass'.
I'm thinking PHP probably with MySQL makes up for the largest part of it.
I doubt it. If you read the article, it suggests that use of Open Source is increasing partly in terms of Java application servers, like JBoss. So, paradoxically there is a growth of Open Source tools, libraries and services around a technology that isn't Open Source - Java (although Kaffe and Harmony may change this).
The only need one has regarding multiuser on their workstation is to be able to run as root and non-root and perhaps experiment in a sandbox. Windows supports all of this, thus I see that argument as void.
.. I stand fast by my previous argument, if a user knows a platform other than Linux, there is really no need or urge driving them to switch.
You misunderstand. I mean being able to have multiple users on a machine at the same time, running applications locally and remotely, each will full access to command-line and graphical applications.
A machine doesn't need to be command driven to be remotely administrated (though it often eases things). Take VNC for example.
Yes, and that is totally impractical through long-distance connections that are either slow or have any lag. Try using VNC through a satellite-based connection for example.
To direct counter your argument, there are several SSH implementations for Windows which means you can do pretty much anything you can in Unix.
Of course you can't. SSH is nothing more than a connection protocol, and does not change what the OS is capable of.
So
And I stand fast by what I said - there are capabilities that Linux/Unix provides that are essential for some uses and that Windows simply can't provide.
It's the stock price. I think that speaks for itself.
No it doesn't. The wall street opinion of a company has a pretty limited perspective.
What exactly is the competitive advantage of using SPARC that would justify its enormous investment?
It's scalability at the high end, especially for things like networking performance.
At some point investors want to see a return on that investment. They've been waiting a while... Ultrasparc V was cancelled. Sun has never built an out-of-order processor. Niagra is late.
This happens - there is nothing new about late processors.
Furthermore, Niagra = Cell so it's not exactly a special Sun-only technology.
How is this relevant?
My main point is this. Sun delivers mediocre hardware,
Oh, I really disagree with this! The processor may not be the fastest yet, but the general hardware is great.
but they can't even deliver that at a price the market wants because competitors offer solutions that are far cheaper and still get the job done.
They are still selling the stuff!
The management strategy seems to be this: Let's compete with Linux, EMC, Dell, IBM and Intel all at once!
No - it is about competing with those in the areas where those are weak: Linux in terms of high-scalability, Dell in terms of high-performance servers, Intel in terms of core performance and high-end-scalability.
Fast SPARC is an oxymoron. I'll believe it when I see it.
This is wildly simplistic. SPARC had a real performance advantage a few years ago. I'd be interested in how a 8-core processor running at high GHz is going to be slower than 2-core processors at the same speed.
Sun are changing, and some of the markets you mention are shrinking, but it would be a sad day if everything was stock-market driven and large sections of a company that included huge amounts of expertise and IP were dumped just to please short-term interests of investors.
If they can get their software stack to run on this commodity hardware, then they have a survivable future.
... premature. The only people who are in a position to judge this in reality are the management themselves, because they are in possession of the facts. Still, I guess, we are all free to state our opinions.
I believe that is exactly what they have been doing with Java, and now it is getting that way with Solaris.
Sun management seems clueless.
I often hear this, and to me it seems a little
Witness the latest aquisition of a storage company. They still want to sell hardware? They still pour billions into SPARC development? Why? Intel and AMD do a perfectly good job of making fast scalable processors.
My impression is that these are pretty good ways forward. There is about to be a phenomenal demand for storage because of the growth of networked multimedia and because of new regulations in the USA and elsewhere for businesses to keep all information about everything. Storage and archiving are going to be big, and if you can get a complete systems integrated with your servers from one source, this is a real advantage.
As for the processors, these tend to leap-frog each other in cycles. Intel and AMD are fast now, but they have hit a problem in terms of heat and are moving to multi-core. The new SPARC is going to be way ahead terms of performance. Intel and AMD are talking about dual-core. The new SPARC will have 8 cores, each capable of running 4 threads. The open-sourcing of Solaris, and running it non-SPARC was a great idea. It means that developers can use Solaris for free, and then easily migrate to very fast SPARC-based systems when demand requires this.
Irrelevant in the "makes money" sense of the word. The C language has a huge and lasting impact on the computing world, but nobody cares that it was invented at AT&T.
It is not irrelevant at all. The situation would be comparable only if AT&T licensed some implementations of C (as with J2EE and J2ME) and had a considerable business selling C-based products (such as their Enterprise systems).
Our Products net revenue was unfavorably impacted by competition and a continuing market shift in overall computer system demand away from our data center servers towards the usage of enterprise and entry level servers
Yes, which is why they are moving towards services and software.
Hmm...maintenance contracts that will run out once the customers move away to cheaper/more-capable hardware solutions from IBM/Dell and the likes. So, contrary to your assertation, service revenue is hugely dependent on your hardware lineup.
It certainly is dependent to some extent, but if you look at the details of these services and contracts on their reports you will see that they mention both hardware and software. This is a significant change on what they were doing years ago.
The continual 'it doesn't look good' reports don't seem to have any relevance to Sun's real prospects. If nothing else, they have billions of funds that could have kept them going for the best part of a decade, even when they were making a loss. They are now roughly back in profit. By no standards is this 'grim'.
Sun will certainly change, and perhaps in ways that the stock market does not like. However, they have always been changing, and I have little doubt that they will be around in some form for a long while to come.
They got a lot of mind share with Java but did they get any cash?
Yes, they did. Java is the foundation for much of the software and services that they sell and license, and this forms an increasing part of their income. Selling hardware (the 'losing game', as you call it) is a decreasing proportion of their business.
In short - their business model is broken. I have no idea how they can fix it. They will become increasingly irrelevant and die a long slow death due - like SGI.
There would be a problem if their business model depended primarily on selling computer systems. It doesn't. Like IBM, Sun has been changing the focus of their company and now have a significant and increasing proportion of their income from software sales, licensing and consultancy services.
Sun have never been irrelevant; on the contrary they are having a significant effect on the IT industry. For example, Java may not be wildly popular amongst slashdotters, but it is extremely widely used for everything from business applictations, real-time systems and mobile devices. There are now many more installations which use Sun-designed software than use Microsoft! In no way can this be called 'irrelevant'.
1)Lowering the price on their machines by 40%. Clearly this is the death rattle. A company operating at a loss is a company which won't be operating for very long.
Sheesh! First Sun is criticised for producting overpriced machines, then criticised for cutting the prices!
2)Sleeping with microsoft.
Er. There was legal action against Microsoft by Sun. Sun won, because Microsoft settled. Part of the deal was that Sun got access to some Microsoft technologies. It's not sleeping with Microsoft - it is beating them.
Yet, if you look at the fsf web page, you can easily see that 'cuddle' (the sun license; god knows why the came up with yet another one) is as far from free software as you can get!
First Sun are criticised for being closed source, then they are criticised when they open source (OSI approved) major software items.
SUN's days are numbered. Time to cash in your stock and cut your losses.
Ah, the regular Slashdot 'SUN is dead' proclamation. The one we have been reading for years. It is now so cliched it is a joke.
This argument is complete BS. from a business point of view. No one I know chose to work with Linux because primarily because it's "Unix like". They chose it because of the apps that run on it and how well those apps work on that kernel (sometimes also couples with reduced license fees).
Just because you don't know anyone who wants this does not mean it is BS. I know many people who definitely want a Unix-style system. They want something that is multi-user, that can be command-line driven so that it can be remotely administered even over slow connections, and that is secure. These may not be your typical users, but they do exist!
Linux on the desktop has a huge amount to offer. Apart from the price issue, which can be significant for a large company, there are major benefits in terms of support and security. Recently a co-worker came to me worried because she had heard about the latest Windows virus. I replied that because we were using Linux there was no problem (she was so familiar with the desktop she had forgotten it was not Windows).
As for the so-called training costs; I may have been lucky, but I have found that they are minimal. Users are not, in general, stupid, and can usually move from Windows to a well-set-up KDE desktop with FireFox, Evolution and Open Office with few problems. I have seen more issues arising from a transition between different versions of MS Office.
Linux is definitely ready for at least the corporate desktop, and certainly does not suck. It gives the companies where I have installed it a major advantage in terms of cost, support and security.
Isn't .NET part of the Mono project?
.NET
No. Mono is an open source implementation of most parts of
From the original post I replied to:
"there is no additional performance, memory or disc cost"
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about the basic symbol information stored in class files. The post I replied to said:
"The point about introspection in Java is that it _always_ costs you in performance and memory/disc use. Even if you're not using it"
I understand introspection as "Studying a Javabean with reflection to discover its properties" (from the Java Glossary at mindprod.com).
My point was that the ability to use reflection does not require any extra information to be added to class files above what is already there, therefore the ability to use this facility does not cost you anything, either in terms of performance or size.
I suspect we are using terms like 'reflection information' differently. This terms implies information put into classes specifically for use by the java.lang.reflect.* API. If you look at the official class file specification the terms 'introspection' and 'reflection' are not even there. This information is present so that the ClassLoader can dynamically resolve classes and methods.
That is how I understand things.
Actually, there is: along with each clss is stored a copy of its name, the name of its superclass, the names of the interfaces it implements, the names and types of all its member variables, the names and types of all its methods and details of the exceptions they throw.
Those are nothing to do with the compiled code itself - they are present as part of the header of the file which contains the compiled code. This imposes no performance penalty.
In an average class, that takes up more space than the bytecode. A version of Java that didn't support introspection would probably be half the size, start about 20% faster, and use about 10% less memory.
Yes, but I was assuming that the original poster was talking about running speed (performance) rather than start speed. Also, there is going to be very little impact on memory, as this information is stored per-class, not per-instance.
The point about introspection in Java is that it _always_ costs you in performance and memory/disc use. Even if you're not using it.
Nonsense. There is no additional code or hooks placed in compiled Java to allow introspection, so there is no additional performance, memory or disc cost if you don't use it.
Yes it does. Under C++, cleaning up of resources no longer used is the responsibility of the programmer. This is not the case with Java - so you are implicitly forced to use the garbage collector.
No you aren't. Garbage collection is assumed but is not required. An example of Java with no garbage collection is Card Java, a version of Java for embedded use.
Java does not remove a few warts from C++, it forces you to use a Garbage collector, OO design, type introspection, etc, etc. Those are pretty fundamental changes.
No it doesn't. How, when and if garbage collection is performed in Java is implementation dependent. There is nothing in Java that forces it's use.
You don't have to use OO design at all. You can start a source file with the 'class' keyword, then do things entirely procedurally.
As for introspection, that is a very specialised aspect of the language, and no-one is forced to use it at all.
Also all that Java mumbo jumbo somehow led people in the Internet world to think that everything had to run on Sun.
Nonsense. Java has also been available for Windows, MacOS and Linux since version 1.0, in 1996, and this was widely known.
Innovation? How about Visual Studio? How about the whole COM platform? *That's* what Ballmer is talking about when he talks about "developers". That's innovation. I can whip up a usable, very functional Windows app in seconds. Try doing that on any other platform.
That ability is decades old. Since the late 70s Smalltalk implementations have allowed the ability to visually design complex applications in a way that makes Visual Studio and COM look primitive. Bill Gates knew about Smalltalk. COM was not innovative, and neither was Visual Studio.
I'm sure many of you can recall stuff which many ordinary people would be astonished by, yet they are considered true and real: try explaining how a central processing unit works (I know this isn't purely into computer science, but some students actually have classes of how and why it works).
Explaining how computers work is very easy. There are systems from way back, like punch card processors and the Jacquard loom that clearly indicate the logical operations that make up a computer in a way that anyone can understand.
So do the results in computer science, hence the claim that the language doesn't guarantee a good result, although it can help, it's all in the hands of the programmer.
Results don't differ. Computers are extremely logical devices that give repeatable results. in 30 years of IT work I have never heard anyone say that a computer language 'doesn't guarantee a good result'.
Oh, by the way, astrology has its foundations on the "as above, so below" hermetic stuff
How can one say "as above, so below" if one has no understanding of what above actually is? Astrology has no concept of million-mile diameter balls of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion, or light years, or gravitational radiation. What I am trying to say is that a tradition or mythology devised when the stars were mysterious (and being of unknown character, could reasonably be assumed to have influence) seems (at least to me) terribly old-fashioned and outdated now that we know exactly what the stars are, and know that they can have no influence.
Computers are a tool. 99.9% of people just use them to get a particular job done (that job is sometimes entertainment, but the computer's still being used as a tool, just as a fishing rod might be if your hobby's fishing). They don't care about how exciting the software they use is -- they just want it to help them do what they want to do, be that browse the web, play videos or audio tracks, write a novel, or whatever.
How do you know that 99.9% of people don't care about this? I would not be confident about posting any such assessment.
Let's take your fishing rod example. Fishermen don't just buy any old rod. They buy one that suits them - that looks good, that is well designed, that feels right. My experience of fishermen is that they certainly don't consider their rod 'just a tool'. I believe your example directly contradicts the point you are trying to make.
Computers are not just 'a tool', in the same way as a car is not just 'a transport mechanism'. They can be significant parts of people's working environments, and good design, which makes users feel comfortable and at ease (and, believe me, that takes some innovation!) is important.
So you're saying that Flash is inspired and exciting?!
No. How did you come to that conclusion?
Yeah I'm so fucking inspired when I can't figure out how to do something in GIMP or when I have to waste time to search around MS office for the feature I need instead of actually accomplishing what I've set out to do.
We weren't discussing 'bad' design - the topic is about 'boring' design.
No no, it's not you. It's that one-button mouse. Compelling triumph of design efficiency if I ever saw one.
Macintoshes have been able to use multi-button mice for years.
I'm tired of listening to this garbage.
No one is forcing you to read it.
If you want to change the look of Windows you can simply install a product such as StyleXP.
If you really think that good design of interfaces is just a matter of fiddling about with styles, then I would suggest you really don't understand design at all.
However, most people don't care if their desktop looks your so called 'inspired and intuative' as they are focused on getting work done not marvelling at the pretty colors on screen.
How do you know?
Frankly, MacOS X doesn't even look that great most Gnome, StyleXP and KDE themes blow it away.
in your opinion.
Usability and quality of an interface is not about how pretty a single person thinks it looks.