I wouldn't trade my HP 32SII for anything. Personally I don't see the need for a graphing calculator as a professional. If I just want to visualize a simple graph, I can do it in my head or on a napkin (graphing by hand seems to be a lost art). If I want a detailed graph of something that I cannot visualize in my head (or on a napkin). I use a computer. (lets see, do I want to look at a graph in monochrome 131x80 or full color, antialiased 1400x1050? Oh and the larger one graphs muuuuch faster.)
XML is simple and can be extended to fit almost any hierarchical data. An imediate benefit over ini format is that tags can be nested. There are also attributes of the tags. The reason XML is a big deal is it is a standard for marking up data that everyone can be happy with. The tags (both start and end) make it good for streaming as programs will know when the end of a block of data is. With xml schema or DTD's a specific language can be specified and an xml file can be verified to match that language easily.
The big deal isn't so much XML as the tools to manipulate XML data such as XSLT, XPath, DOM, and SAX.
My number one complaint about Linux is the inconsistency between applications in their user interface. In the windows world most programs that I use have a consistent feel to them that makes working on a windows system much easier. I can go to practically anyone's computer with windows and use software that I have never seen before without a hitch. Half the time I go to a linux program I have to play around with it for a while to figure out what it can and cannot do in its UI before I can even start to learn how to make the program do what I want it to.
Sure you can setup your favorite distro of Linux with your favorite window manager and all your favorite hotkeys. But the point is that windows has ingrained standards that carry over to all applications, usually regardless if the programmer intended it. For example in a list view in windows, double-click on a separator between column titles and windows will resize that column to fit the width of the largest string in that column. This works on all versions of windows that I work.
I understand it is not an issue with Linux as much as it is with a lack of focus toward UI in OSS. Props to Gnome for trying to make a difference.
"That's one of the reasons the US labels are proceeding so cautiously, because they don't want the consumer to have a bad experience."
They are going to have to stop producing Back Street Boys if they want to stop that.
Do they seriously thing we are going to have a good experience with music force fed down our throughts rather then allowing users to listen to music on their own terms?
Someone could make smaller clocked components that make up a system, in fact that is how most systems work right now (memory vs CPU). With the asynchronous chips they are talking about in the article, it is the Data itself that drives how long the system waits for a circuit to execute. A circuit finishes execution based on the data that was passed into it, rather then based on a fixed amount of time.
Re:Software Development for the World
on
wxWindows vs. MFC
·
· Score: 1
I agree a whole lot with what you said, but I think you missed the origional question a little. There is still the problem of Cross-Platform development even with a good program design. Clearly it is good design to make a fully encapsulated back-end to a program, but the question still remains, what librarys are going to be used to make it. MFC and wxWindows are more then just a GUI (which very well could be a bad design). In order to make the back-end easy to program and cross platform, people look to tools like wx to simplify things. Unfortunaly in my experience wx simply wasn't stable enought to work and on top of that it didn't look right.
My advice, write the back end in a more portable langauge then c/c++ or use standard (stable) librarys that work and enought platforms. Write the back-end in Scheme, C#, or even (heaven forbid) Java. Then the backend will run on any system and the only code that can really reliably be cross platform is.
In my opinion, the UI of a program ends up better if the details are worked out for each specific platform. Lets face it users of different systems expect different behavior, wx cannot encode that, so you end up with junk on both platforms.
I used wxWindows for a cross platform project simply because cross platform was a requirement of the project. It ended up with different bugs and querks on each platform that I used. I had to toss multithreading because it completely failed on one platform. It was not a problem to program in wx as it is clearly a copy of the MFC's design. Which makes you ask one question, why would anyone copy the MFC? It makes it easy to program in for an MFC programmer, but really it just gives a delusional sense to a windows programmer that they can do cross platform programming without any work.
Bottomline, MFC can work in Windows without bugs. Use something other the wx if you want stable cross platform support.
Hollywood anounced today they have decided on their watermark system to stop copyright pirates. From now on all copyrighted material will be marked with the age old symbol 666.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah an automated tool like "treat warnings as errors".
it was a missing pair of parentheses:
h es/xorg-server-1.0.1-geteuid.diff
a rch/013992.html
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/X11R7.0/patc
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-M
Microsoft's Paul Allen owns one. Maybe it runs windows... of course it would be pretty hard to make a blue screen of death for a green LCD display.
I wouldn't trade my HP 32SII for anything. Personally I don't see the need for a graphing calculator as a professional. If I just want to visualize a simple graph, I can do it in my head or on a napkin (graphing by hand seems to be a lost art). If I want a detailed graph of something that I cannot visualize in my head (or on a napkin). I use a computer. (lets see, do I want to look at a graph in monochrome 131x80 or full color, antialiased 1400x1050? Oh and the larger one graphs muuuuch faster.)
oh, check out one of the coolest websites ever:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/
XML is simple and can be extended to fit almost any hierarchical data. An imediate benefit over ini format is that tags can be nested. There are also attributes of the tags. The reason XML is a big deal is it is a standard for marking up data that everyone can be happy with. The tags (both start and end) make it good for streaming as programs will know when the end of a block of data is. With xml schema or DTD's a specific language can be specified and an xml file can be verified to match that language easily.
The big deal isn't so much XML as the tools to manipulate XML data such as XSLT, XPath, DOM, and SAX.
Yeah, once we get SVG browser support we can look forward to SVG banner ads.
My number one complaint about Linux is the inconsistency between applications in their user interface. In the windows world most programs that I use have a consistent feel to them that makes working on a windows system much easier. I can go to practically anyone's computer with windows and use software that I have never seen before without a hitch. Half the time I go to a linux program I have to play around with it for a while to figure out what it can and cannot do in its UI before I can even start to learn how to make the program do what I want it to.
Sure you can setup your favorite distro of Linux with your favorite window manager and all your favorite hotkeys. But the point is that windows has ingrained standards that carry over to all applications, usually regardless if the programmer intended it. For example in a list view in windows, double-click on a separator between column titles and windows will resize that column to fit the width of the largest string in that column. This works on all versions of windows that I work.
I understand it is not an issue with Linux as much as it is with a lack of focus toward UI in OSS. Props to Gnome for trying to make a difference.
"That's one of the reasons the US labels are proceeding so cautiously, because they don't want the consumer to have a bad experience."
They are going to have to stop producing Back Street Boys if they want to stop that.
Do they seriously thing we are going to have a good experience with music force fed down our throughts rather then allowing users to listen to music on their own terms?
How long does it take chocolate to break down? When is it no longer chocolate?
Someone could make smaller clocked components that make up a system, in fact that is how most systems work right now (memory vs CPU). With the asynchronous chips they are talking about in the article, it is the Data itself that drives how long the system waits for a circuit to execute. A circuit finishes execution based on the data that was passed into it, rather then based on a fixed amount of time.
I agree a whole lot with what you said, but I think you missed the origional question a little. There is still the problem of Cross-Platform development even with a good program design. Clearly it is good design to make a fully encapsulated back-end to a program, but the question still remains, what librarys are going to be used to make it. MFC and wxWindows are more then just a GUI (which very well could be a bad design). In order to make the back-end easy to program and cross platform, people look to tools like wx to simplify things. Unfortunaly in my experience wx simply wasn't stable enought to work and on top of that it didn't look right.
My advice, write the back end in a more portable langauge then c/c++ or use standard (stable) librarys that work and enought platforms. Write the back-end in Scheme, C#, or even (heaven forbid) Java. Then the backend will run on any system and the only code that can really reliably be cross platform is.
In my opinion, the UI of a program ends up better if the details are worked out for each specific platform. Lets face it users of different systems expect different behavior, wx cannot encode that, so you end up with junk on both platforms.
I used wxWindows for a cross platform project simply because cross platform was a requirement of the project. It ended up with different bugs and querks on each platform that I used. I had to toss multithreading because it completely failed on one platform. It was not a problem to program in wx as it is clearly a copy of the MFC's design. Which makes you ask one question, why would anyone copy the MFC? It makes it easy to program in for an MFC programmer, but really it just gives a delusional sense to a windows programmer that they can do cross platform programming without any work.
Bottomline, MFC can work in Windows without bugs. Use something other the wx if you want stable cross platform support.
NEWS FLASH!
Hollywood anounced today they have decided on their watermark system to stop copyright pirates. From now on all copyrighted material will be marked with the age old symbol 666.