I would happily pay as much as I can (say, $1000/mo) to an organization that would make sure that as much money is taken away from Microsoft as the amount paid to this organization. Obviously, that would have to actually take money away, not place them into some Microsoft-controlled "charity" scheme.
I believe, plenty of people and companies would do likewise.
Actually yes, they do, because their existence is supposed to be enirely at the mercy of population.
If US supposedly-representing-the-poplation government will pass a law that says McDonald's is no longer a company, and its assets will be distributed by NIH for projects related to fighting obesity and malnutrition, guess what would happen?
It is illegal to conspire with someone else to assist him in a crime. And amuse of monopoly is a crime. This means, yes, Lenovo can be forced to sell computers without Windows if Windows bundling is a part of monopoly abuse.
Oh yes, hairyfeet is back to shill for his Microsoft masters.
Abuse of monopoly is illegal. Antitrust laws exist in every country where Microsoft is "selling" their bundled OS, and times ant times again it was demonstrated that Microsoft breaks those laws when it forces OS bundling through OEM "discounts". Just becase Microsoft got nothing for its past crimes from "business-friendly" Bush administration, it does not mean that they are free to continue breaking the law again.
Come on man, the point was that if you are having trouble finding a job, it might help to put an OO language on your resume. If you can find a job without it, then well done. The OP seemed to be struggling, and that's why I suggested it.
And how would he achieved this -- by learning a language through a crash course, not using it and placing it on his resume? This is a kind of resume-padding that devalues the rest of it. When I had to interview candidates for engineering/software position, I had to wade through loads and loads of bullshit just to find out what does this person actually know and can apply in practice, what is on the resume "by association", and what is a plain bald-faced lie.
Certainly polymorphism is overused, and inheritance has surely caused the world more problems than it's solved, but I think you always want to encapsulate things as much as possible. Encapsulation is a good way to limit the scope of things, and the smaller the scope of a thing, the easier it is to visually verify that it's not broken.
No, encapsulation is a specific form of a modular design. The benefit you are describing is from modularity, not from encapsulation. There are plenty of forms of modularity that can't be a part of object-oriented without massive, convoluted ugliness -- for example, network and IPC protocols as interfaces. To make them truly object-oriented you have to shoehorh them into RPC model, or, worse, implement object lifetime management exposed through the interface with factories and other horrible crap.
Without object-oriented model, all you need is a consistent interface with all implementation details hidden, thus providing better modularity and reducing the amount of synchronization, supporting asynchronous or mostly-unidirectional protocols.
A bug-free programming technique.
There are no bug-free programming techniques. For any given programming technique, method or ideology, there are unlimited ways of writing a buggy program entirely within their scope.
I guess OOP is so ubiquitous, and so broad, that everything structured can be interpreted as OOP.
No, it means that you (along with many other victims of "teach OOP as an ideology" education) have very poor understanding of structure and modularity if you conflate it with one, and not even remarkable, instance of structured/modular design, that OOP is.
A module can be called an object, for example;
No. A module is an "object" in a sense of executable linking (as in.o file), not in a sense of object-oriented programming. It has to contain an OOP-style object (because it provides methods for operations on itself), however it usually contains various other objects that implement module's functionality, and beyond this interface model may or may not be object-oriented in its implementation.
or when you do a system call, you are really sending a message into an encapsulated kernel object (since you have no real visibility into the kernel's internal structure).
No, because interface between kernel and userspace almost never exposes the identity of the objects, maintained by the kernel, and even when it does (inode/device pair) never accepts those identifiers as a target of operation. This enforces a very simple interface to a very complex set of objects, what is completely outside of the OOP design (and this principle is completely unknown to "OOP-as-ideology" programmers).
Last week I wrote a bit of code in Java that could be classified as imperative, but it's Java so I stuck it in a class and called it a singleton. Anything can be interpreted as OOP. Also since it's Java I broke it up into lots of little files.
The design of Java is based mostly on its authors' ideas of how software "ought" to be developed. What means, it's full of ideology and idiosyncrasies. For this reason alone it should not be used for teaching.
It does not take "a genius" to do Linux kernel development. Even hyper-v guys from Microsoft eventually ended up doing some, and they are definitely not geniuses.
The OP may not be doing that though, which would explain why he can't find a job.
There are plenty of other useful things a developer can do without touching C++, Java or other "object-oriented languages".
Maybe, but most of the time you want to divide your code into pieces
That's modularity, not object-oriented programming. Object-oriented programming involves encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. Encapsulation is based on modularity, but not the other way around. Object-oriented programming ties units of data with operations that are performed on them. This property is unique to object-oriented programming, and it is often completely unnecessary.
, although each piece might not represent a real-world object.
If it does not represent an object that either exists in real world or had identifiable need for OO objects' properties, it's a misuse of object-oriented programming.
In fact I've never seen a flexible, modular program of any size that couldn't be divided into pieces.
Again, that's modularity.
The linux kernel is definitely OO, and it uses polymorphism all over the place.
Linux kernel definitely is object-oriented in its handling of internal interfaces between its components. However it is definitely not object-oriented in either interface to userspace (system calls do expose polymorphism of file descriptors implementation through the interface) or internals (purpose-specific internal data structures do not have methods attached to them).
It doesn't matter. If you can't put on your resume that you are at least familiar with it, people are going to think you are deficient, even if you are only programming in C (a lot of people use 'object oriented' C nowadays).
This is why my resume lists Linux kernel development along with a bunch of languages.
I'm really interested though. What sorts of problems are you thinking of that don't match OOP?
Find whoever told you that there are no stupid questions and punch him in the face. Because you have just asked one.
No. All you need to know is that all screwups can be fixed by restoring a pre-screwup snapshot. We are entering a new era when competence does not matter, virtualization has no performance penalties, a proper solution to hardware failure is restoring a random snapshot in a new VM, package management is worthless, and everyone should run Windows.
VMWare jockeys should die in a fire, along with all their "servers".
Hay guyz, computers are easy now, let's hire more middle managers who know Excel!
Not that most "certifications" weren't always only slightly above the "fraud" level -- they are given to people who passed crash course in some vendor's product use, and do not indicate any ability to do anything useful (or even safe) in practice.
Huh? Almost all display cards support this, and infact it is part of the VESA BIOS Extensions & Accelerator Functions.
Don't pretend to be dense. Problems with this functionality weren't seen for years.
But what exactly is wrong with posting problems about Linux on Slashdot?
Lying and shilling for Microsoft.
Also, do you have any evidence that exists outside of your head which shows that Microsoft pays or has ever paid a third-party to post on Slashdot while hiding their affiliation with Microsoft.
The fact that there are hundreds of posts referring to nonexistent, long ago solved, or severely misrepresented "problems", and all of them match top results from a Google search for "Linux <whatever> problem" or similar?
He is probably talking about rendering of the cursor. If the GPU supports it then the cursor's position is controlled by two GPU registers & it is the last item to be overlayed on top of the frame buffer. When you move the cursor the framebuffer does not need to be rendered again.
It was not seen on any hardware that anyone sane would use for running games, for years. However it IS mentioned on http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1051483 , what confirms my suspicion that most "complaints" here are posted by Microsoft marketing people googling Ubuntu forums for plausible descriptions of bugs and problems.
You can run KDE without eye candy, and its requirements are pretty modest to begin with. I would prefer if it was smaller in its minimal form, but any more or less modern desktop or laptop (and KDE is definitely for desktops/laptops, not tablets and phones) should be sufficient.
companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.'"
"Figuring out how to receive dollars" is wrong by default. It ceases to be wrong when you are DOING SOMETHING USEFUL FOR OTHERS so you are getting paid for it. What asshole companies are definitely not doing by breaking used games.
And your whole company, and whatever Microsoft "partner" organized that crap.
If you actually needed a wireless client device with easy data entry, you would not use 2indows 7 "tablet". If you wanted something useful out of your handheld devices, you would have access to printers and other devies IN SPECIFICATIONS. But then, you would not be able to sign an extremely expensive contract with whoever is supplying Sharepoint-based applications for your system.
That's not a "problem", that's "pathology", lack of empathy. It's not a "skill" -- the only "skill" involved is ability to operate within society's accepted conventions for interpersonal and professional interactions, and those vary wildly between societies, their segments and subcultures. Not to mention, plenty of society segments and subcultures have "accepted conventions" that are based on suppression of empathy (and for this, and many other reasons, it would be a good thing if they will be abandoned).
I've found that PHP, HTML and CSS to be the most demanded skills on sites like Elance, but the talent pool is flooded with overseas workers and Americans with so much more experience than me.
And to do any of that at any level of quality above "scam", you have to have fundamental knowledge that you lack, and have no chance to obtain in a foreseeable time.
You have two choices -- stay being a full-time mom, or get a job. Consider yourself lucky if you even have such a choice.
Alternatively, I recommend the following fine occupations that do not involve getting a job: hooker, robber, black market organ donor, assassin, spammer, astroturfer, Nigerian-style scammer, drug dealer, video game gold farmer (in no particular order).
Slashdot Mirror
I would happily pay as much as I can (say, $1000/mo) to an organization that would make sure that as much money is taken away from Microsoft as the amount paid to this organization. Obviously, that would have to actually take money away, not place them into some Microsoft-controlled "charity" scheme.
I believe, plenty of people and companies would do likewise.
Actually yes, they do, because their existence is supposed to be enirely at the mercy of population.
If US supposedly-representing-the-poplation government will pass a law that says McDonald's is no longer a company, and its assets will be distributed by NIH for projects related to fighting obesity and malnutrition, guess what would happen?
s/amuse/abuse/
It is illegal to conspire with someone else to assist him in a crime. And amuse of monopoly is a crime.
This means, yes, Lenovo can be forced to sell computers without Windows if Windows bundling is a part of monopoly abuse.
Oh yes, hairyfeet is back to shill for his Microsoft masters.
Abuse of monopoly is illegal. Antitrust laws exist in every country where Microsoft is "selling" their bundled OS, and times ant times again it was demonstrated that Microsoft breaks those laws when it forces OS bundling through OEM "discounts". Just becase Microsoft got nothing for its past crimes from "business-friendly" Bush administration, it does not mean that they are free to continue breaking the law again.
Come on man, the point was that if you are having trouble finding a job, it might help to put an OO language on your resume. If you can find a job without it, then well done. The OP seemed to be struggling, and that's why I suggested it.
And how would he achieved this -- by learning a language through a crash course, not using it and placing it on his resume? This is a kind of resume-padding that devalues the rest of it. When I had to interview candidates for engineering/software position, I had to wade through loads and loads of bullshit just to find out what does this person actually know and can apply in practice, what is on the resume "by association", and what is a plain bald-faced lie.
Certainly polymorphism is overused, and inheritance has surely caused the world more problems than it's solved, but I think you always want to encapsulate things as much as possible. Encapsulation is a good way to limit the scope of things, and the smaller the scope of a thing, the easier it is to visually verify that it's not broken.
No, encapsulation is a specific form of a modular design. The benefit you are describing is from modularity, not from encapsulation. There are plenty of forms of modularity that can't be a part of object-oriented without massive, convoluted ugliness -- for example, network and IPC protocols as interfaces. To make them truly object-oriented you have to shoehorh them into RPC model, or, worse, implement object lifetime management exposed through the interface with factories and other horrible crap.
Without object-oriented model, all you need is a consistent interface with all implementation details hidden, thus providing better modularity and reducing the amount of synchronization, supporting asynchronous or mostly-unidirectional protocols.
A bug-free programming technique.
There are no bug-free programming techniques. For any given programming technique, method or ideology, there are unlimited ways of writing a buggy program entirely within their scope.
I guess OOP is so ubiquitous, and so broad, that everything structured can be interpreted as OOP.
No, it means that you (along with many other victims of "teach OOP as an ideology" education) have very poor understanding of structure and modularity if you conflate it with one, and not even remarkable, instance of structured/modular design, that OOP is.
A module can be called an object, for example;
No. A module is an "object" in a sense of executable linking (as in .o file), not in a sense of object-oriented programming. It has to contain an OOP-style object (because it provides methods for operations on itself), however it usually contains various other objects that implement module's functionality, and beyond this interface model may or may not be object-oriented in its implementation.
or when you do a system call, you are really sending a message into an encapsulated kernel object (since you have no real visibility into the kernel's internal structure).
No, because interface between kernel and userspace almost never exposes the identity of the objects, maintained by the kernel, and even when it does (inode/device pair) never accepts those identifiers as a target of operation. This enforces a very simple interface to a very complex set of objects, what is completely outside of the OOP design (and this principle is completely unknown to "OOP-as-ideology" programmers).
Last week I wrote a bit of code in Java that could be classified as imperative, but it's Java so I stuck it in a class and called it a singleton. Anything can be interpreted as OOP.
Also since it's Java I broke it up into lots of little files.
The design of Java is based mostly on its authors' ideas of how software "ought" to be developed. What means, it's full of ideology and idiosyncrasies. For this reason alone it should not be used for teaching.
Uh ok, great that you are a genius.
It does not take "a genius" to do Linux kernel development. Even hyper-v guys from Microsoft eventually ended up doing some, and they are definitely not geniuses.
The OP may not be doing that though, which would explain why he can't find a job.
There are plenty of other useful things a developer can do without touching C++, Java or other "object-oriented languages".
Maybe, but most of the time you want to divide your code into pieces
That's modularity, not object-oriented programming. Object-oriented programming involves encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. Encapsulation is based on modularity, but not the other way around. Object-oriented programming ties units of data with operations that are performed on them. This property is unique to object-oriented programming, and it is often completely unnecessary.
, although each piece might not represent a real-world object.
If it does not represent an object that either exists in real world or had identifiable need for OO objects' properties, it's a misuse of object-oriented programming.
In fact I've never seen a flexible, modular program of any size that couldn't be divided into pieces.
Again, that's modularity.
The linux kernel is definitely OO, and it uses polymorphism all over the place.
Linux kernel definitely is object-oriented in its handling of internal interfaces between its components. However it is definitely not object-oriented in either interface to userspace (system calls do expose polymorphism of file descriptors implementation through the interface) or internals (purpose-specific internal data structures do not have methods attached to them).
It doesn't matter. If you can't put on your resume that you are at least familiar with it, people are going to think you are deficient, even if you are only programming in C (a lot of people use 'object oriented' C nowadays).
This is why my resume lists Linux kernel development along with a bunch of languages.
I'm really interested though. What sorts of problems are you thinking of that don't match OOP?
Find whoever told you that there are no stupid questions and punch him in the face. Because you have just asked one.
Why have fighter jets at all? Is it still worth buying expensive war machines with the asymmetric threats larger nations face now days?
It may be a surprise for you, but India is not a part of US. Or Israel, if you have any doubts about that.
Object-oriented programming is older than C++, older than you, and I used it while programming in MACRO-11 on RSX11M.
It's also one of the things that you often HAVE TO AVOID because it does not match the problem.
No. All you need to know is that all screwups can be fixed by restoring a pre-screwup snapshot. We are entering a new era when competence does not matter, virtualization has no performance penalties, a proper solution to hardware failure is restoring a random snapshot in a new VM, package management is worthless, and everyone should run Windows.
VMWare jockeys should die in a fire, along with all their "servers".
Tetris.
3D Tetris with helicopters inside the cubes.
Hay guyz, computers are easy now, let's hire more middle managers who know Excel!
Not that most "certifications" weren't always only slightly above the "fraud" level -- they are given to people who passed crash course in some vendor's product use, and do not indicate any ability to do anything useful (or even safe) in practice.
Huh? Almost all display cards support this, and infact it is part of the VESA BIOS Extensions & Accelerator Functions.
Don't pretend to be dense. Problems with this functionality weren't seen for years.
But what exactly is wrong with posting problems about Linux on Slashdot?
Lying and shilling for Microsoft.
Also, do you have any evidence that exists outside of your head which shows that Microsoft pays or has ever paid a third-party to post on Slashdot while hiding their affiliation with Microsoft.
The fact that there are hundreds of posts referring to nonexistent, long ago solved, or severely misrepresented "problems", and all of them match top results from a Google search for "Linux <whatever> problem" or similar?
Some guy's speculation and Brian Proffitt's anti-Linux propaganda again?
He is probably talking about rendering of the cursor. If the GPU supports it then the cursor's position is controlled by two GPU registers & it is the last item to be overlayed on top of the frame buffer. When you move the cursor the framebuffer does not need to be rendered again.
It was not seen on any hardware that anyone sane would use for running games, for years. However it IS mentioned on http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1051483 , what confirms my suspicion that most "complaints" here are posted by Microsoft marketing people googling Ubuntu forums for plausible descriptions of bugs and problems.
hardware acceleration on the mouse
lol wut
You can run KDE without eye candy, and its requirements are pretty modest to begin with. I would prefer if it was smaller in its minimal form, but any more or less modern desktop or laptop (and KDE is definitely for desktops/laptops, not tablets and phones) should be sufficient.
Intel: check.
Nvidia: check.
ATI: check.
What exactly is missing?
Kubuntu 11.10 is perfectly usable for development.
Unity and Gnome 3, of course, are pure horror now.
companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.'"
"Figuring out how to receive dollars" is wrong by default. It ceases to be wrong when you are DOING SOMETHING USEFUL FOR OTHERS so you are getting paid for it. What asshole companies are definitely not doing by breaking used games.
And your whole company, and whatever Microsoft "partner" organized that crap.
If you actually needed a wireless client device with easy data entry, you would not use 2indows 7 "tablet".
If you wanted something useful out of your handheld devices, you would have access to printers and other devies IN SPECIFICATIONS. But then, you would not be able to sign an extremely expensive contract with whoever is supplying Sharepoint-based applications for your system.
That's not a "problem", that's "pathology", lack of empathy. It's not a "skill" -- the only "skill" involved is ability to operate within society's accepted conventions for interpersonal and professional interactions, and those vary wildly between societies, their segments and subcultures. Not to mention, plenty of society segments and subcultures have "accepted conventions" that are based on suppression of empathy (and for this, and many other reasons, it would be a good thing if they will be abandoned).
If his mother is a corpse, he can not possibly live in her basement, it's his basement.
I've found that PHP, HTML and CSS to be the most demanded skills on sites like Elance, but the talent pool is flooded with overseas workers and Americans with so much more experience than me.
And to do any of that at any level of quality above "scam", you have to have fundamental knowledge that you lack, and have no chance to obtain in a foreseeable time.
You have two choices -- stay being a full-time mom, or get a job. Consider yourself lucky if you even have such a choice.
Alternatively, I recommend the following fine occupations that do not involve getting a job: hooker, robber, black market organ donor, assassin, spammer, astroturfer, Nigerian-style scammer, drug dealer, video game gold farmer (in no particular order).