Actually, in the tech space, Sun pioneered this "Marketing Swallows the Co." business strategy in the 90's, which was pretty much their downfall.
It showed in their branding for Java. First it was Java, then came Java 2, which for non-marketroid public meant 1.2 to 1.4, then Java x for the non-marketroid versions of 1.x. The marketing basically invented confusion where there was none, and they got their way.
C++ was originally created by a practitioner as well - Stroustrup has decided that, for the task at hand, he would do better with some Simula 67 constructs, and added them to C; thus, C++ was born. It wasn't "design by committee" in any meaningful way.
Incidentally, at that time it was a mostly sane language that nobody has problems using. It started to break down approximately at the time when they decided to add unlimited multiple inheritance and "fixed" the problems by virtual inheritance. Then the "multi-paradigm" crap started getting promoted, exceptions were shoehorned into the language which clearly does not fit them, generic programming promoted in a fashion ignorant to the fact that the world has invented shared libraries for better code reuse, and it went downhill from there. Nobody had the will to say no to the ridiculous overcomplication.
Yes, and the difference between, say, Haskell and C++ perfectly illustrates the difference between computer scientists and practitioners.
So, computer scientists can create a language that's compatible with rational thinking? C was a language created by practitioners; C++ was created by a committee of language designers which got way out of hand, but they successfully used the "increment over C" marketing trick.
Right now Go is a bunch of "but just look at the groundwork we've laid down! This will be great when it's done!" As the article mentioned, that may be true, but its complexity will approach C++ as its capabilities do.
It shouldn't have to. It needs to provide a robust set of features needed to implement reasonably complex projects, and resist the other cruft that gets in the way. Heck, garbage collection is already a huge win over C++: it means, for example, that exceptions can be implemented without exposing the developers to a whole layer of artificial complexity that C++ people call "exception safety".
Last, some entertainment for a self-proclaimed C++ fanboy: can you tell how many different functions can the following C++ code call: {
const int v = 0;
f(1);
f(v); }
I rather meant using methods doing what you really meant to get by using RTTI. Like, "does the object provide functionality X" instead of "is the object an instance of X". But yes, sometimes it's quicker and simpler to check just that.
RTTI cannot be implemented properly and fast across shared libraries due to poorly through out instantiation semantics of C++.
Also, most of the time, the need to use runtime type identification indicates bad software design. Grow some API-specific virtual methods that you really miss, so that you have to replace them with dynamic type checks.
Yeah, to think of it, compared to a game full of guys in kinky garb emphasizing their muscular prowess and tight shorts, making intense physical contact with each other...
That's because there is no integrated AIM and MSN as far as Nokia is concerned. These are installable as open source libpurple plugins to work with telepathy-haze, but no official support is provided, besides occasionally noticing that something is wrong in working with the framework, when it is only exposed by these add-ons. An officially supported solution would need an agreement with the proprietary service providers; and you can bet they won't allow reverse-engineered protocol stacks.
since the inception of cell phone technology, a cell phone that is sitting perfectly still will get better reception that one you are waving around.
Really? I didn't use cell phones since the inception of cell phone technology, but all cell phones I did use had no problems being waved around or held in hand. But I do think it's too early to judge. I find it hard to believe that Apple let such a big design flaw slip in. Maybe the problem has been admitted into some manufacturing yields and will be fixed.
N900 lacks ICE and SRTP. That said, I don't believe FaceTime is entirely done to open standards, as SIP standards tend to permit too much variation, suffer from feature creep, and have trouble consistently addressing the challenges of modern internet such as NAT. There has to be a particular way FaceTime implements all that, and it has to be followed by other implementations to be interoperable. If theirs will be a no-strings-attached specification, this means finally there will be a major standardizing force that has a significant market share and nails things down enough for any two implementations to work without tweaks. Except, we don't really need to invent that because there is already XMPP and Jingle.
Uh-oh. Good to know, thanks. Now I have a new appreciation for the vile filtered stuff that keeps me through the day at work (hey, it's free, and the employer didn't yet splurge on espresso machines at every floor and wing). I hope my morning french-pressed cuppa, or an occasional Turkish brew on a weekend, doesn't hurt too much.
On the other hand, I put sugar into my drip coffee, just to knock off the vile flavor, and that probably makes it a worse hit overall.
The emulator is a lot fine. Even on the phone, your app runs in a virtual machine. You can change resolution on the emulator as well.
Can you also emulate how your application "feels" under the touchscreen on any real device? The Android UI probably makes best effort for it too be all right, but you can never be sure until you try. And it would suck if the users think your application is sluggish or "just doesn't feel right" because some performance-sensitive parameter has never been tuned outside of an emulated environment.
Do you seriously think all PC developers buy 15", 17", 19", 21" and 24" monitors just to test their apps at different resolutions? Or every single graphics card made in the last 10 years by nVidia, ATI, and Intel?
Of course they do, I mean those who can afford a QA process. If you don't, well, you can discover all the issues on your live user base, provided that they report back on the channels you have provided them, and not simply dump your application.
2. Technical Challenge=Developing a fully waterproof (top to bottom) electrical cord, that requires a key or combo to unlock it, and installed on a retractable coil. This is where potential $millions await.
Of course we cannot forget the unmentioned challenge = fighting for that exact public space to do the charge.
Hmm, dunno about charging, but here in Finland pretty much every residential parking lot has cables for engine block heaters, and yes, they have keys to unlock them. Space... may indeed be a problem where people live like sardines, but this is hardly the single issue in such cities. Also, public transport tends to be better developed there.
You are saying there is another doohickey that you need to carry with you, not attached to the phone most of the time (as it can break and besides, it makes the phone look less sexy), or else you will have to ask around for it or find a store and spend $29 every time you need it?
These scientists are drawing the conclusion that industrialized modern man is the cause yet they fail to explain why global temperatures were higher than they are today before the 14th century.
Because it's not something that the anthropogenic climate change theory seeks to disprove. What it does assert is, in some hundred years, the medieval warm period (as felt in places where it was indeed observed) will seem like a fucking cool time to live in, and the global temperature will continue to rise if we don't drastically curtail our CO2 emissions.
why they were higher when dinosaurs dominated the planet.
Why, there is a lot of research about that. But why does it feel like some kind of triumph to point at this and say: see, dinosaurs could live with those temperatures (which rose gradually over millenia)? Does it mean a damn thing for our potential troubles in adapting to an abrupt raise of temperature at a scale that humans have never experienced?
There's a very big difference between the theories of the Big Bang, Evolution, the origin of the Earth and the theory of climate change. The former don't have the potential to destroy economies around the world and redistribute wealth to poor countries from rich ones.
Neither has the scientific finding of anthropogenic climate change. You must be confusing it with some policies proposed in reaction to it.
Slashdot Mirror
enough cassette tapes and records stuffed in there to fill several refrigerators
I was 5 years old in 1980, and my memories are hazy, but I'm sure people didn't keep their records in refrigerators.
Bulshytt
That was my biggest complaint with 7 until I found I could click on the directory names in the location bar; it's simplicity itself.
I wonder if this idea has been borrowed from somewhere... like the GNOME file views.
Actually, in the tech space, Sun pioneered this "Marketing Swallows the Co." business strategy in the 90's, which was pretty much their downfall.
It showed in their branding for Java. First it was Java, then came Java 2, which for non-marketroid public meant 1.2 to 1.4, then Java x for the non-marketroid versions of 1.x. The marketing basically invented confusion where there was none, and they got their way.
C++ was originally created by a practitioner as well - Stroustrup has decided that, for the task at hand, he would do better with some Simula 67 constructs, and added them to C; thus, C++ was born. It wasn't "design by committee" in any meaningful way.
Incidentally, at that time it was a mostly sane language that nobody has problems using. It started to break down approximately at the time when they decided to add unlimited multiple inheritance and "fixed" the problems by virtual inheritance. Then the "multi-paradigm" crap started getting promoted, exceptions were shoehorned into the language which clearly does not fit them, generic programming promoted in a fashion ignorant to the fact that the world has invented shared libraries for better code reuse, and it went downhill from there. Nobody had the will to say no to the ridiculous overcomplication.
Yes, and the difference between, say, Haskell and C++ perfectly illustrates the difference between computer scientists and practitioners.
So, computer scientists can create a language that's compatible with rational thinking?
C was a language created by practitioners; C++ was created by a committee of language designers which got way out of hand, but they successfully used the "increment over C" marketing trick.
Right now Go is a bunch of "but just look at the groundwork we've laid down! This will be great when it's done!" As the article mentioned, that may be true, but its complexity will approach C++ as its capabilities do.
It shouldn't have to. It needs to provide a robust set of features needed to implement reasonably complex projects, and resist the other cruft that gets in the way. Heck, garbage collection is already a huge win over C++: it means, for example, that exceptions can be implemented without exposing the developers to a whole layer of artificial complexity that C++ people call "exception safety".
Last, some entertainment for a self-proclaimed C++ fanboy: can you tell how many different functions can the following C++ code call:
{
const int v = 0;
f(1);
f(v);
}
I rather meant using methods doing what you really meant to get by using RTTI. Like, "does the object provide functionality X" instead of "is the object an instance of X". But yes, sometimes it's quicker and simpler to check just that.
RTTI cannot be implemented properly and fast across shared libraries due to poorly through out instantiation semantics of C++.
Also, most of the time, the need to use runtime type identification indicates bad software design. Grow some API-specific virtual methods that you really miss, so that you have to replace them with dynamic type checks.
Finally, a patent that I want the claimant to hold, so that others do not try to reproduce it.
Those would be 'anoraks'.
Um, soccer is perceived as gay in the US?
Yeah, to think of it, compared to a game full of guys in kinky garb emphasizing their muscular prowess and tight shorts, making intense physical contact with each other...
the integrated aim and msn suck
That's because there is no integrated AIM and MSN as far as Nokia is concerned. These are installable as open source libpurple plugins to work with telepathy-haze, but no official support is provided, besides occasionally noticing that something is wrong in working with the framework, when it is only exposed by these add-ons.
An officially supported solution would need an agreement with the proprietary service providers; and you can bet they won't allow reverse-engineered protocol stacks.
since the inception of cell phone technology, a cell phone that is sitting perfectly still will get better reception that one you are waving around.
Really? I didn't use cell phones since the inception of cell phone technology, but all cell phones I did use had no problems being waved around or held in hand.
But I do think it's too early to judge. I find it hard to believe that Apple let such a big design flaw slip in. Maybe the problem has been admitted into some manufacturing yields and will be fixed.
N900 lacks ICE and SRTP.
That said, I don't believe FaceTime is entirely done to open standards, as SIP standards tend to permit too much variation, suffer from feature creep, and have trouble consistently addressing the challenges of modern internet such as NAT. There has to be a particular way FaceTime implements all that, and it has to be followed by other implementations to be interoperable. If theirs will be a no-strings-attached specification, this means finally there will be a major standardizing force that has a significant market share and nails things down enough for any two implementations to work without tweaks. Except, we don't really need to invent that because there is already XMPP and Jingle.
What do you mean it's not British?
Nokia should have made these.
Uh-oh. Good to know, thanks. Now I have a new appreciation for the vile filtered stuff that keeps me through the day at work (hey, it's free, and the employer didn't yet splurge on espresso machines at every floor and wing). I hope my morning french-pressed cuppa, or an occasional Turkish brew on a weekend, doesn't hurt too much.
On the other hand, I put sugar into my drip coffee, just to knock off the vile flavor, and that probably makes it a worse hit overall.
The emulator is a lot fine. Even on the phone, your app runs in a virtual machine. You can change resolution on the emulator as well.
Can you also emulate how your application "feels" under the touchscreen on any real device? The Android UI probably makes best effort for it too be all right, but you can never be sure until you try. And it would suck if the users think your application is sluggish or "just doesn't feel right" because some performance-sensitive parameter has never been tuned outside of an emulated environment.
Do you seriously think all PC developers buy 15", 17", 19", 21" and 24" monitors just to test their apps at different resolutions? Or every single graphics card made in the last 10 years by nVidia, ATI, and Intel?
Of course they do, I mean those who can afford a QA process. If you don't, well, you can discover all the issues on your live user base, provided that they report back on the channels you have provided them, and not simply dump your application.
2. Technical Challenge=Developing a fully waterproof (top to bottom) electrical cord, that requires a key or combo to unlock it, and installed on a retractable coil. This is where potential $millions await.
Of course we cannot forget the unmentioned challenge = fighting for that exact public space to do the charge.
Hmm, dunno about charging, but here in Finland pretty much every residential parking lot has cables for engine block heaters, and yes, they have keys to unlock them. Space... may indeed be a problem where people live like sardines, but this is hardly the single issue in such cities. Also, public transport tends to be better developed there.
You are saying there is another doohickey that you need to carry with you, not attached to the phone most of the time (as it can break and besides, it makes the phone look less sexy), or else you will have to ask around for it or find a store and spend $29 every time you need it?
These scientists are drawing the conclusion that industrialized modern man is the cause yet they fail to explain why global temperatures were higher than they are today before the 14th century.
Because it's not something that the anthropogenic climate change theory seeks to disprove. What it does assert is, in some hundred years, the medieval warm period (as felt in places where it was indeed observed) will seem like a fucking cool time to live in, and the global temperature will continue to rise if we don't drastically curtail our CO2 emissions.
why they were higher when dinosaurs dominated the planet.
Why, there is a lot of research about that. But why does it feel like some kind of triumph to point at this and say: see, dinosaurs could live with those temperatures (which rose gradually over millenia)? Does it mean a damn thing for our potential troubles in adapting to an abrupt raise of temperature at a scale that humans have never experienced?
Just in case you've been subscribed to this particular myth, volcanoes do not emit more carbon dioxide than humans.
There's a very big difference between the theories of the Big Bang, Evolution, the origin of the Earth and the theory of climate change. The former don't have the potential to destroy economies around the world and redistribute wealth to poor countries from rich ones.
Neither has the scientific finding of anthropogenic climate change. You must be confusing it with some policies proposed in reaction to it.