As a hobbyist Java programmer (using the Sun JVM on multiple platforms) this both pisses me off, and makes me very sad indeed. I greatly fear that Microsoft has succeeded in assimilating and killing Java. I worry that Java has already been dealt the fatal blow, but it's still staggering on under its own momentum, shedding limbs and slowly dissolving. When it finally expires, the beast that will erupt from its tattered corpse won't even be J++, but C#
Very alarmist scenario, but quite overblown.
Java is doing very well indeed in several areas (particularly server-side and cell phone). Apple has a full-blown implementation that is quite good, and is pushing Java as one of it's primary development languages. The VMs just keep getting better and better, and I'm sure millions of copies of Windows and Linux have a modern JVM installed.
I do think AOL/Netscape will push modern JVMs onto lots of desktop machines.
Finally, it is up to software developers to help their customers use the best technology. Evaluate Java objectively, and you'll use it because it's the best thing out there for lots of projects. Yes, its that good.:-)
C# won't really be a competitor until there are great C# environments for MacOS, Linux, Solaris etc. I'm certainly not holding my breath...;-)
I think this example and the Stephen King experiments show that at least for now, we don't have a workable system that will allow someone to live off what they're writing online.
Not true, check out Fictionwise, which claims to be profitable. I think one key is that the content cost less than a dead-tree book would, but Fictionwise actually charges as much and gets away with it. I'm hoping to publish some content there if I can write something that doesn't suck.;-)
I think the thing that most hurt William's efforts was the $17.99 price tag. That was too steep.
Hi kaladorn. Do you folks need any help at the moment? I'm looking for a new opportunity, and your project sounds interesting. If you'd like, respond to:
This is good to hear, because I've been troubled lately by the incredible slowness of virtually every java GUI development system I've been able to get my hands on. When I try to load Forte or JBuilder Foundation on my laptop (admittedly, it's not a screamer, it's only a 667Mhz Celeron with 96MB or so of ram) it's like, run the program, go get a coffee, come back, wait some more, and so on.
You need more RAM. Swing apps (like JBuilder and Forte) are very memory hungry. That's one reason Eclipse and SWT are interesting (another big one is accelerated graphics support). 256 MB should work OK for a development system. I think Eclipse would take less.
Out of curiosity, I wrote three "hello, world" apps, one in C++ using C-style printf, one in C++ using qt, and one in java. The java version came up with "Hello, World!" (just a single output statement) in two seconds. The other two came up instantaneously. I don't know how significant this is, but jeez, you know? Seems kind of slow.
Its not significant, unless your app is a tiny command-line app. Current Java implementations suffer from slow startup. JDK/JRE 1.5 is supposed to provide for better sharing between VMs and programs, so things like Swing only get loaded once per system instead of many times.
I would like to see a similar feature for Java that the CLR has on Windows - the ability to pre-compile the bytecode into native code at install time. Alternatively, 'freezing' the running program onto disk on exit would be fine, and would completely preserve the dynamic aspect of Java.
I just don't like the idea of wasting cycles on repeatedly optimizing the same code, run after run. Plus, static compilers can do fancier optimizations.
Re:Some patterns to live by...
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 2
According to many of Sun's Java engineers, with the latest hotspot, it is not necessary to be paranoid about object creation. The hotspot compiler is optimized to deal with many short-lived objects.
Object creation performance has improved, but it is still much slower than recycling objects. Swing suffers from excessive temporary object creation. Also, even the short pauses from incremental GC can be problematic for some apps.
It is pragmatic to use an OO programming style that doesn't gratuitously throw away cycles. Interestingly, concise code is often also clearer code.
Re:Simple, stupid but not efficient
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I think the point is that the simple, stupid (i.e. clean) use of objects in Java can make it slow.
No, the over-engineering of code with too many layers and overly complicated object heirarchies are much more likely to be the culprit.
Roger Session (COM and DCOM: Microsoft's Vision for Distributed Objects, Wiley, 1998) (OK, this is from the pre-C# days when MS was going to have you do your GUI in VB, your business logic in the MS Java dialect-du-jour) goes on about "object pools", about how you don't create a new taxi cab everytime you need a ride from the airport.
Yes, that is a good example where the Factory pattern along with object recycling is useful.
I always wondered, what is so expensive about object creation anyway, and in C++ with "auto" objects, it is just about free. Java object loading, however, is expensive because unlike C++, they do not use a static VTABLE but have to check character string names against what is in the object. Java object loading is what makes you sit there twiddling your thumbs when an good sized Java app fires up.
You are confusing 'class loading' with 'object creation'. Class loading typically happens once for many object creation events.
Auto objects in C++ come off the stack, whereas Java objects are always allocated from the heap. However, current Java implementations are very fast at object creation, and you never blow stack with Java objects.;-)
So, to optimize a Java app, one has to leave clean, textbook OO behind and resort to tricks like OO's that "lazy load" classes as they are needed instead of at application start time, like the use of "object pools" to create object instances once and keep reusing them.
Um, that is 'textbook OO'. BTW, 'lazy loading' was around long before Java...it's been used for years in the VB community.
The word on the street is that Java is dog slow unless you optimize,
The word on the street is wrong, then. Modern Java is quite fast on typical 'first blush' code.
it is slow because of class loading,
Class loading mainly effects application startup time. It is a fallacy to confuse 'startup time' with 'execution time'. Many of my apps stay up for days at a time...startup time just isn't an issue.
and the way you optimize is that you use object creation sparingly in your inner loops, even if it makes your code look ugly.
Interestingly, this is also a good way to optimize C++.;-)
Some patterns to live by...
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein
"Keep it simple, stupid." - anonymous
"Limit temporary object creation." - any smart Java programmer
Java does a pretty good job of providing much more functionality for a little more overhead. There are areas in the Java libs which seem over-engineered and slower and bigger than they should be (Swing!). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, though...Java is good and the crufty parts will evolve into something better.
Your votes on which Bug Parade bugs are highest priority would count the same as anyone else's. You would also have access to all the Java source code, if you want it.
the dynamic that has made Java grow exponentially in 'real' software development, and become the dominant teaching language versus the constant bashing it receives here on Slashdot and among OSS people?
Java is actually very good, and yes, very fast. I fail to understand why anyone would prefer Microsoft's poor imitation. Java is still growing very fast and getting better all the time.
Ignore it at your peril. Or better yet, just laugh at it...that is until you're in the unemployment line because you don't know it.
Au contraire, I provide my insights gratis.
What about Mono? You don't call that an implementation?
Absolutely not. It is nowhere near complete. We'll see what stance Microsoft takes once it is (nearly) useful for deploying.Net functionality.
Yeah, you can also grow marijuana in Alaska and smoke it for medicinal purposes. What is your point? You cannot use your modified JVM for any practical purpose.
Submitting patches would be one practical purpose.
I'm not sure what the legal issues are with using your modified JVM for your own purposes...but in practical terms Sun has no control over it. Just something to think about...
I can't wait to do some benchmarking between the Sun and IBM JREs and Mono. Should be very...revealing.:-)
Yes, Mono would obviously win because it does not have to allocate every object on the heap as Java does. No brainer.
Java implementations can do stack allocation, as long as the implementation conforms to the language standard.
However, if you think that one issue will make any significant difference, you're mistaken.
I do hope more Java implementations will include realtime Java features like Immortal (static) objects.
I hope mainstream Gnome development uses another path (gcj!), or there'll be big trouble someday...
What does this mean? Trouble for you being out of a job? Do you work for Sun or something?
Um, no (to all of the above).
I was referring to the time when Mono becomes nearly real and Microsoft sues the hell out of them for a) copyright infringement, b) DMCA violations and c) patent infringement. It's going to be ugly. Does Ximian really have the resources to fight Microsoft? I doubt it seriously. Then where will all that Open Source energy have gone...? It's sad that so many are being sucked in, as apparently you have.
You can see Microsoft going after the GPL even now.
Finally it's sad that Sun decided to standardize on Gnome, and fund some Gnome development, and then a major Gnome developer decided to use a Microsoft technology for next-gen development. I can't believe that decision was made...the only saving grace is that writing Java bindings for that stuff should be relatively easy.
There are many great things going on with Java. Don't sell out and get locked in to Microsoft heroinware (I love that term!). It's not worth it.
This is opposite to the Sun "look, but don't touch" Java policy.
That is not Sun's policy...that is Microsoft's policy with everything in.Net except C# and the CLR.
Oh wait, I forgot "Don't implement".:-P
You can modify the JRE and use it for your own purposes to your heart's content. You just can't distribute it without a license. You can also turn in your bugfixes to the JCP with the hope that they'll be adopted (similar to Linux kernel patches;).
popular software ported to C# in less than a month:
JUnit -> NUnit
Ant -> Nant
Log4J -> Log4N
I can't wait to do some benchmarking between the Sun and IBM JREs and Mono. Should be very...revealing.:-)
I hope mainstream Gnome development uses another path (gcj!), or there'll be big trouble someday...
Java will outlive C# simply because C# is tied to Windows. Don't believe the hype about Mono - Mono is in it's infancy, while there are at least two high-quality commercial JREs for Linux and a rapidly improving open-source ahead-of-time Java compiler, gcj. Mono faces an uphill legal battle to actually provide any signficant subset of.Net on Linux.
One example of the author's cluelessness is that he touts the Halcyon solution - which is implemented in Java. This is supposed to show Java's vulnerability how?
The rest of his "myths" are just as insightful..i.e. a bunch of crap.;-)
Where was SWT in this discussion for instance? Where was the discussion regarding millions of Java-enabled devices in the marketplace? Where was the discussion of Javas total dominance in application servers right now (perhaps.Net will make a dent, but it remains to be seen).
Then the author gives forth with:
"We have a beautiful language here in Java; it has achieved industry-wide support and is pushing forward with great velocity. What can we do to support it?"
For a start, perhaps NOT writing clueless, FUD-filled articles that completely exaggerate the threat of C# to Java... Many, many Java users are going to be very slow to move to a Microsoft proprietary solution...and make no mistake about it,.Net is Microsoft proprietary. Only the C# language and the CLR runtime have been submitted to ECMA and those make up a tiny subset of.Nyet (sorry, couldn't resist doing that at least once!).
Overheard at cadsoft.de...
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 1
Both books and music are making the transition from a tangible medium to an intangible one. I think one problem is that people have a tough time perceiving value when nothing physical is involved. That is really an education issue.
I think one difference between books and CDs is the perceived value. Personally, I think books are a fairly good deal (though at $8 for a paperback they are getting expensive - I usually buy them discounted at $3-$4 if possible). CDs, on the other hand, cost less than $1 to produce in quantity. (I'm curious what it costs to produce a paperback book.) I find it hard to believe that a $13-$18 sale price per CD is necessary to feed all the poor, starving folk in the recording industry.
Also, don't the musicians make just a small amount per CD?
A better plan is needed, and it is not CD copy-protection! Maybe providing a better value to consumers would be a good start...
His second point is that by using a completely new operating system, they lock out users from the thousands of existing Palm and Windows CE programs. Once again, we have the "no apps for it, so nobody buys it, so nobody programs apps for it" circle.
Uhhhh...except it's running Linux so there is a lot of easily ported software...
Since Sharp used Linux and Java, there is a ton of available programming talent ready to go. Don't sell it short.
I expect some of the most interesting and creative PDA software will be released for this device. It will also be great for custom vertical apps like FedEx tracking and so on.
It isn't polished yet, but it will do fine in the long run (or at least PDAs running Linux will).
It is just aimed at a little different market segment, for now...
+ Quick foreplay, slow execution
- Slow execution, though with underwhelming performance
You need a virtual machine upgrade to JDK 1.4. Then you'll be able to make many more connections per second(!), and will possess nearly the same performance and stamina as the legendary FORTRAN and C.
Hell, I can't believe some of the pornos those two made together... And with Java you'll be much, much bigger!
Really? How do function points and "Lines Of Code" relate, exactly?
Who is the more productive programmer - the one who implements an entire new grid control for his data (taking eight weeks to finish), or the one that uses an existing grid control (taking one week to finish). The first one might win using a "KLOC/day" kind of metric...
Given today's environments, with a ton of already available classes and components an important measure of productivity is how well these things are reused. "KLOC per day", in any form, is a very poor metric for this.
A metric that takes real productivity into account for new projects (the Ingrid example above wasn't a great one since she was maintaining code, not creating it) would be one that measures requirements met versus time. It would of course be up to the manager to say whether the time taken was too long, about right, or less than expected.
A developer that consistently meets requirements with working code, in a timely manner, is a good developer.
Clearly the key to success with this metric is managing your manager's expectations.;-)
We have gone over this a thousand times. It will never happen for some of the reasons stated in an earlier reply. I'll take my dual 1GHz, nVidiaGeForce4, 1.5 GB RAM, built in super drive, etc...performance? Oh boy...
If AMD comes through as promised, the first Hammers will be at a 3400+ PR rating. That's the equivalent (according to their metrics) of a 3.4 GHz. original Athlon in throughput. Discounting Altivec vs. SSE, that is at least twice as fast as those 1 GHz. G4s...and they're 64 bit CPUs so they can tackle problems the G4 can't touch. Finally, each Hammer has it's own memory controller, so a dual CPU system has double the memory bandwidth of dual G4s with DDR...except of course your current Mac is still using PC133 SDRAM. Every Clawhammer CPU will work in a two-way SMP system.
Apple will have to work very hard to compare to that. They've overpromised on CPU performance for a long time, I'm skeptical of the G5. And I haven't even touched on Sledgehammer, which has dual DDR controllers (per CPU) and scales to at least 8-way systems...
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I believe you already know the answer to this question, this have discussed into oblivion...
Really? I hadn't seen a single dicussion of MacOS X specifically for AMD x86-64 only, myself...
One reason that might be an attractive move for Apple is that it *wouldn't* run on IA32. Hammer systems will be significantly more expensive (and hopefully higher quality) than typical x86 systems.
It wouldn't necessarily be a high-volume item (well depending on how Clawhammer does;), so it might provide a nice, easy transition to a portable OS. Again, that is: OpenStep was ported to five or so CPU architectures and MacOS X is essentially up-to-date OpenStep with a facelift.
Java is a first-class development language on OSX, and fat binaries are available. Again, OpenStep was developed to easily accomodate multiple CPU architectures. Software developers would have to endure a little pain, but would sell more product.
The final point is that Apple can charge whatever it wants for the OS and limit things that way. I think if it hit the right sweet spot ($300?) it would generate plenty of revenue for not that much of an investment. The folks who want white-box Hammers are a very different crowd from Apple's traditional user base.
Don't forget that both hardware bases use the same peripherals and cards, so driver support is a no brainer.
Amazing to see such a good idea get such a negative response...;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Apple would provide MacOS X for x86 in some form. A good compromise might be to only support AMD x86-64. That way I could build best-of-breed hardware (inexpensively) and run MacOS X on it, while the "average" Mac user could happily buy a Mac.
The problem with Macs right now is that you know you have the nicest OS around...on sub-par hardware (performance wise at least) that costs too much. I could care less about "industrial design" - the ergonomics of normal PCs are sufficient.
I know Darwin runs on x86. You just don't get any of the MacOS X user interface or graphics capabilities, and that's not good enough.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
's cool, and I love that they run Linux, but honestly, there's no real reason that they couldn't have done this on WinNT. Might take more work, but "googling" is hardly a Linux feature.:-)
Perhaps it could be done with WinNT, but that's not the point.
The point is that Linux is scalable and robust enough to actually do the job. Many would have contested that at one point.
Another point is that the total cost in OS software licenses for 4000+ nodes is $0.00. Let's see Microsoft match that one!;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
I generally find that when someone says
"It seems to me that the reasons for doing such a thing are glaringly self-evident."
Then they have no reasons which are not opinions. Not that opinions are bad, just not very convincing.
I generally say something is "glaringly self-evident" when a feel that a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-informed person would feel likewise. I've given further rationale in other posts, read those if you're still confused.
Also, the boycott Microsoft software is a comment in every single story on slashdot.
Yes, but those are different in that they encourage a general, voluntary boycott (which is a fine idea also, I might add). I'm advocating a court-ordered, government only cessation of Microsoft software purchases.
[irrelevant examples snipped]
I personally don't think that the government should boycott Microsoft due to a conflict of interest, as basically everything can be described as a conflict of interest with the government.
Not true at all. Most companies the government does business with are ethical, and not monopolies. Microsoft deserves special treatment (and I don't mean that in a good way).
Unfortunately, the government has a lot of responsibility for the current state of Microsoft, but that is another matter.
There are many other _good_ reasons to boycott Microsoft, but I see no good reasons for it being due to a conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest lies between the arm of the goverment that should be punishing it for antitrust violations, and those which are rewarding it by purchasing it's products. Simple enough for you?
This conversation will now be modded (Score:-1, Offtopic)
Another clueless moderator...but there are so many of those, aren't there? =)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Slashdot Mirror
Very alarmist scenario, but quite overblown.
Java is doing very well indeed in several areas (particularly server-side and cell phone). Apple has a full-blown implementation that is quite good, and is pushing Java as one of it's primary development languages. The VMs just keep getting better and better, and I'm sure millions of copies of Windows and Linux have a modern JVM installed.
I do think AOL/Netscape will push modern JVMs onto lots of desktop machines.
Finally, it is up to software developers to help their customers use the best technology. Evaluate Java objectively, and you'll use it because it's the best thing out there for lots of projects. Yes, its that good. :-)
C# won't really be a competitor until there are great C# environments for MacOS, Linux, Solaris etc. I'm certainly not holding my breath... ;-)
Not true, check out Fictionwise, which claims to be profitable. I think one key is that the content cost less than a dead-tree book would, but Fictionwise actually charges as much and gets away with it. I'm hoping to publish some content there if I can write something that doesn't suck. ;-)
I think the thing that most hurt William's efforts was the $17.99 price tag. That was too steep.
javacoder2@yahoo.com
Thanks!
You need more RAM. Swing apps (like JBuilder and Forte) are very memory hungry. That's one reason Eclipse and SWT are interesting (another big one is accelerated graphics support). 256 MB should work OK for a development system. I think Eclipse would take less.
Out of curiosity, I wrote three "hello, world" apps, one in C++ using C-style printf, one in C++ using qt, and one in java. The java version came up with "Hello, World!" (just a single output statement) in two seconds. The other two came up instantaneously. I don't know how significant this is, but jeez, you know? Seems kind of slow.
Its not significant, unless your app is a tiny command-line app. Current Java implementations suffer from slow startup. JDK/JRE 1.5 is supposed to provide for better sharing between VMs and programs, so things like Swing only get loaded once per system instead of many times.
I would like to see a similar feature for Java that the CLR has on Windows - the ability to pre-compile the bytecode into native code at install time. Alternatively, 'freezing' the running program onto disk on exit would be fine, and would completely preserve the dynamic aspect of Java.
I just don't like the idea of wasting cycles on repeatedly optimizing the same code, run after run. Plus, static compilers can do fancier optimizations.
Object creation performance has improved, but it is still much slower than recycling objects. Swing suffers from excessive temporary object creation. Also, even the short pauses from incremental GC can be problematic for some apps.
It is pragmatic to use an OO programming style that doesn't gratuitously throw away cycles. Interestingly, concise code is often also clearer code.
No, the over-engineering of code with too many layers and overly complicated object heirarchies are much more likely to be the culprit.
Roger Session (COM and DCOM: Microsoft's Vision for Distributed Objects, Wiley, 1998) (OK, this is from the pre-C# days when MS was going to have you do your GUI in VB, your business logic in the MS Java dialect-du-jour) goes on about "object pools", about how you don't create a new taxi cab everytime you need a ride from the airport.
Yes, that is a good example where the Factory pattern along with object recycling is useful.
I always wondered, what is so expensive about object creation anyway, and in C++ with "auto" objects, it is just about free. Java object loading, however, is expensive because unlike C++, they do not use a static VTABLE but have to check character string names against what is in the object. Java object loading is what makes you sit there twiddling your thumbs when an good sized Java app fires up.
You are confusing 'class loading' with 'object creation'. Class loading typically happens once for many object creation events.
Auto objects in C++ come off the stack, whereas Java objects are always allocated from the heap. However, current Java implementations are very fast at object creation, and you never blow stack with Java objects. ;-)
So, to optimize a Java app, one has to leave clean, textbook OO behind and resort to tricks like OO's that "lazy load" classes as they are needed instead of at application start time, like the use of "object pools" to create object instances once and keep reusing them.
Um, that is 'textbook OO'. BTW, 'lazy loading' was around long before Java...it's been used for years in the VB community.
The word on the street is that Java is dog slow unless you optimize,
The word on the street is wrong, then. Modern Java is quite fast on typical 'first blush' code.
it is slow because of class loading,
Class loading mainly effects application startup time. It is a fallacy to confuse 'startup time' with 'execution time'. Many of my apps stay up for days at a time...startup time just isn't an issue.
and the way you optimize is that you use object creation sparingly in your inner loops, even if it makes your code look ugly.
Interestingly, this is also a good way to optimize C++. ;-)
"Keep it simple, stupid." - anonymous
"Limit temporary object creation." - any smart Java programmer
Java does a pretty good job of providing much more functionality for a little more overhead. There are areas in the Java libs which seem over-engineered and slower and bigger than they should be (Swing!). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, though...Java is good and the crufty parts will evolve into something better.
Yes, for free.
Would they even listen to me, if I could join?
Your votes on which Bug Parade bugs are highest priority would count the same as anyone else's. You would also have access to all the Java source code, if you want it.
Java is actually very good, and yes, very fast. I fail to understand why anyone would prefer Microsoft's poor imitation. Java is still growing very fast and getting better all the time.
Ignore it at your peril. Or better yet, just laugh at it...that is until you're in the unemployment line because you don't know it.
Au contraire, I provide my insights gratis. What about Mono? You don't call that an implementation?
Absolutely not. It is nowhere near complete. We'll see what stance Microsoft takes once it is (nearly) useful for deploying .Net functionality.
Yeah, you can also grow marijuana in Alaska and smoke it for medicinal purposes. What is your point? You cannot use your modified JVM for any practical purpose.
Submitting patches would be one practical purpose.
I'm not sure what the legal issues are with using your modified JVM for your own purposes...but in practical terms Sun has no control over it. Just something to think about...
I can't wait to do some benchmarking between the Sun and IBM JREs and Mono. Should be very...revealing. :-)
Yes, Mono would obviously win because it does not have to allocate every object on the heap as Java does. No brainer.
Java implementations can do stack allocation, as long as the implementation conforms to the language standard.
However, if you think that one issue will make any significant difference, you're mistaken.
I do hope more Java implementations will include realtime Java features like Immortal (static) objects.
I hope mainstream Gnome development uses another path (gcj!), or there'll be big trouble someday...
What does this mean? Trouble for you being out of a job? Do you work for Sun or something?
Um, no (to all of the above).
I was referring to the time when Mono becomes nearly real and Microsoft sues the hell out of them for a) copyright infringement, b) DMCA violations and c) patent infringement. It's going to be ugly. Does Ximian really have the resources to fight Microsoft? I doubt it seriously. Then where will all that Open Source energy have gone...? It's sad that so many are being sucked in, as apparently you have.
You can see Microsoft going after the GPL even now.
Finally it's sad that Sun decided to standardize on Gnome, and fund some Gnome development, and then a major Gnome developer decided to use a Microsoft technology for next-gen development. I can't believe that decision was made...the only saving grace is that writing Java bindings for that stuff should be relatively easy.
There are many great things going on with Java. Don't sell out and get locked in to Microsoft heroinware (I love that term!). It's not worth it.
That is not Sun's policy...that is Microsoft's policy with everything in .Net except C# and the CLR.
Oh wait, I forgot "Don't implement". :-P
You can modify the JRE and use it for your own purposes to your heart's content. You just can't distribute it without a license. You can also turn in your bugfixes to the JCP with the hope that they'll be adopted (similar to Linux kernel patches;).
popular software ported to C# in less than a month:
JUnit -> NUnit
Ant -> Nant
Log4J -> Log4N
I can't wait to do some benchmarking between the Sun and IBM JREs and Mono. Should be very...revealing. :-)
I hope mainstream Gnome development uses another path (gcj!), or there'll be big trouble someday...
One example of the author's cluelessness is that he touts the Halcyon solution - which is implemented in Java. This is supposed to show Java's vulnerability how?
The rest of his "myths" are just as insightful..i.e. a bunch of crap. ;-)
Where was SWT in this discussion for instance? Where was the discussion regarding millions of Java-enabled devices in the marketplace? Where was the discussion of Javas total dominance in application servers right now (perhaps .Net will make a dent, but it remains to be seen).
Then the author gives forth with:
"We have a beautiful language here in Java; it has achieved industry-wide support and is pushing forward with great velocity. What can we do to support it?"
For a start, perhaps NOT writing clueless, FUD-filled articles that completely exaggerate the threat of C# to Java... Many, many Java users are going to be very slow to move to a Microsoft proprietary solution...and make no mistake about it, .Net is Microsoft proprietary. Only the C# language and the CLR runtime have been submitted to ECMA and those make up a tiny subset of .Nyet (sorry, couldn't resist doing that at least once!).
Both books and music are making the transition from a tangible medium to an intangible one. I think one problem is that people have a tough time perceiving value when nothing physical is involved. That is really an education issue.
I think one difference between books and CDs is the perceived value. Personally, I think books are a fairly good deal (though at $8 for a paperback they are getting expensive - I usually buy them discounted at $3-$4 if possible). CDs, on the other hand, cost less than $1 to produce in quantity. (I'm curious what it costs to produce a paperback book.) I find it hard to believe that a $13-$18 sale price per CD is necessary to feed all the poor, starving folk in the recording industry. Also, don't the musicians make just a small amount per CD?
A better plan is needed, and it is not CD copy-protection! Maybe providing a better value to consumers would be a good start...
Uhhhh...except it's running Linux so there is a lot of easily ported software...
Since Sharp used Linux and Java, there is a ton of available programming talent ready to go. Don't sell it short.
I expect some of the most interesting and creative PDA software will be released for this device. It will also be great for custom vertical apps like FedEx tracking and so on.
It isn't polished yet, but it will do fine in the long run (or at least PDAs running Linux will).
It is just aimed at a little different market segment, for now...
That's the effect technology tends to have on things.
The RIAA is in the same position the book-producing monks were in after Gutenberg's press was invented...
- Slow execution, though with underwhelming performance
You need a virtual machine upgrade to JDK 1.4. Then you'll be able to make many more connections per second(!), and will possess nearly the same performance and stamina as the legendary FORTRAN and C.
Hell, I can't believe some of the pornos those two made together... And with Java you'll be much, much bigger!
BS. You can download it here. See the ISO images? ;-)
Really? How do function points and "Lines Of Code" relate, exactly?
Who is the more productive programmer - the one who implements an entire new grid control for his data (taking eight weeks to finish), or the one that uses an existing grid control (taking one week to finish). The first one might win using a "KLOC/day" kind of metric...
Or did I misunderstand your point?
A metric that takes real productivity into account for new projects (the Ingrid example above wasn't a great one since she was maintaining code, not creating it) would be one that measures requirements met versus time. It would of course be up to the manager to say whether the time taken was too long, about right, or less than expected.
A developer that consistently meets requirements with working code, in a timely manner, is a good developer.
Clearly the key to success with this metric is managing your manager's expectations. ;-)
If AMD comes through as promised, the first Hammers will be at a 3400+ PR rating. That's the equivalent (according to their metrics) of a 3.4 GHz. original Athlon in throughput. Discounting Altivec vs. SSE, that is at least twice as fast as those 1 GHz. G4s...and they're 64 bit CPUs so they can tackle problems the G4 can't touch. Finally, each Hammer has it's own memory controller, so a dual CPU system has double the memory bandwidth of dual G4s with DDR...except of course your current Mac is still using PC133 SDRAM. Every Clawhammer CPU will work in a two-way SMP system.
Apple will have to work very hard to compare to that. They've overpromised on CPU performance for a long time, I'm skeptical of the G5. And I haven't even touched on Sledgehammer, which has dual DDR controllers (per CPU) and scales to at least 8-way systems...
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Really? I hadn't seen a single dicussion of MacOS X specifically for AMD x86-64 only, myself...
One reason that might be an attractive move for Apple is that it *wouldn't* run on IA32. Hammer systems will be significantly more expensive (and hopefully higher quality) than typical x86 systems.
It wouldn't necessarily be a high-volume item (well depending on how Clawhammer does;), so it might provide a nice, easy transition to a portable OS. Again, that is: OpenStep was ported to five or so CPU architectures and MacOS X is essentially up-to-date OpenStep with a facelift.
Java is a first-class development language on OSX, and fat binaries are available. Again, OpenStep was developed to easily accomodate multiple CPU architectures. Software developers would have to endure a little pain, but would sell more product.
The final point is that Apple can charge whatever it wants for the OS and limit things that way. I think if it hit the right sweet spot ($300?) it would generate plenty of revenue for not that much of an investment. The folks who want white-box Hammers are a very different crowd from Apple's traditional user base.
Don't forget that both hardware bases use the same peripherals and cards, so driver support is a no brainer.
Amazing to see such a good idea get such a negative response... ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
The problem with Macs right now is that you know you have the nicest OS around...on sub-par hardware (performance wise at least) that costs too much. I could care less about "industrial design" - the ergonomics of normal PCs are sufficient.
I know Darwin runs on x86. You just don't get any of the MacOS X user interface or graphics capabilities, and that's not good enough.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Perhaps it could be done with WinNT, but that's not the point.
The point is that Linux is scalable and robust enough to actually do the job. Many would have contested that at one point.
Another point is that the total cost in OS software licenses for 4000+ nodes is $0.00. Let's see Microsoft match that one! ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Then they have no reasons which are not opinions. Not that opinions are bad, just not very convincing.
I generally say something is "glaringly self-evident" when a feel that a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-informed person would feel likewise. I've given further rationale in other posts, read those if you're still confused.
Also, the boycott Microsoft software is a comment in every single story on slashdot.
Yes, but those are different in that they encourage a general, voluntary boycott (which is a fine idea also, I might add). I'm advocating a court-ordered, government only cessation of Microsoft software purchases.
[irrelevant examples snipped]
I personally don't think that the government should boycott Microsoft due to a conflict of interest, as basically everything can be described as a conflict of interest with the government.
Not true at all. Most companies the government does business with are ethical, and not monopolies. Microsoft deserves special treatment (and I don't mean that in a good way).
Unfortunately, the government has a lot of responsibility for the current state of Microsoft, but that is another matter.
There are many other _good_ reasons to boycott Microsoft, but I see no good reasons for it being due to a conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest lies between the arm of the goverment that should be punishing it for antitrust violations, and those which are rewarding it by purchasing it's products. Simple enough for you?
This conversation will now be modded (Score:-1, Offtopic)
Another clueless moderator...but there are so many of those, aren't there? =)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!