In libel and slander suits, law recognizes a difference between a daily newspaper and a magazine, which should have much more time to check facts. A newspaper, which has to be printed quickly and is literally keeping up with today's news does not always have time for in depth checking as a magazine.
CNN, and other networks, on Election Night in 2000 were reporting live, real time events. It is very understandable why all the networks had trouble calling Florida's vote count.
Dan Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job. In one case, a source had been read the documents over the phone, but never told they were typewritten. There were also problems with the dates -- the memos involved people who were no longer in the Texas ANG. While there is a rush to get that kind of info out, Rather (who, I admit, I have never trusted or liked as a newscaster) seemed to live up to the image I developed of him in Journalism class when I read his autobiography (The Camera Never Blinks) -- he was more concerned with being the first, the most noticable, and the one with the biggest ego, instead of making sure he was reporting news.
I don't think there's reason to penalize CNN and other networks for the gaffs in 2000, but Rather -- I hope this helps people finally see he operates on the same level Geraldo operated on when he did stunts like opening Al Capone's vault.
I also think Rather owes a public apology to BOTH Bush and Kerry, since the memos slandered Bush, but also would have looked to many like Kerry was trying to slander Bush.
BTW, even though I can forgive CNN for the mistakes in 2000, I still can't bring myself to call any station a news channel when they spend 8 hours a day for a year on the O.J. Simpson trial.
I heard something similar. I can't remember where, but it was a source that doesn't report rumors. I think the elector (can't remember her name, but the same one who played favorites for Bush last time around) put it on anyway.
There's no way Jebbie is going to let his brother lose Florida. That family is so busy being right, they don't care what rules they break.
Fiddling with software is usually pretty low on my priority list, but I'd like to at least get a feel for what everyone is talking about
Then I'd stick with a live CD for now, which will let you poke around and decide later if you want to do more. You may not get much of an idea, though, by just booting a CD and trying a few programs. After a while you'll decide they all have a different look'n'feel, but that a lot of it, without digging deeper, is just a different way of doing the same thing.
I can give you one simple example of one of the MANY things I like about Linux that isn't part of Windows. I use KDE, and it includes a panel (like the task bar). GNOME and other desktop environments use the same thing. There are many applets I can install on the panel (such as a pager, so I can have 4 or more virtual desktops, so I can keep one clean or with only a few windows on it). It's not the same as having an icon in the system tray. It's much more customizable. It might even be a flaw, but since Linux is open, MANY extra options often get added to even the smalles thing because a programmer wants to add something and simply can, instead of having to wait for the company that wrote it to add it.
If I had it, I'd be glad to get it to you, but when it didn't work, I created a graphic, put it in as bg for a table, and did the text as regular text. I figured that way, if there were a problem, I could always blame the user's browser. (I love blaming the user's browser -- especially if it's IE!)
1) see my other post, so you won't think I'm just trolling.
2) You can buy or order many different distros. Last time I got a distro, I got Libranet for $30 in mail order. You can order or buy a number of distros for under $50.
3) Go to a local LUG (Linux Users Group). To find one, try a Google search. Ask if someone can burn a distro for you.
4) but I'd still like to know what I was getting into before even going that far. -- If you're really that squeamish, then you might not want to get into it at all. The best way is to just dive in. (Sorry, not trolling, but Linux is still about learning and exploring, not about popping a CD and playing games or browsing -- while you can do that with a live CD, if you want to learn, it isn't a walk in the park.)
Get yourself a hard drive rack (it's a rack you can mount in a 5 1/4" bay with a case for the drive, then you can easily take the drive out of the system and swap with another), and an old hard drive (or order a new, small one from someone on pricewatch.com -- you'd be surprised how cheap you can get a drive). You can then start the computer with a Windows hard drive, or a Linux hard drive. For Linux, you can fit a good working system in under 2G -- less, depending on how many extras you install.
That way you don't have to worry about a dual boot, you don't have to touch the original hard drive, and you can download and burn a distro. It also means you can keep all your data safe (?) on your Windows drive (I'm assuming you've got enough firewalling and AV software to actually make a Windows partition safe), so when you put Linux on a disk, you don't have to worry about making sure your Internet connection is safe.
Mandrake is probably the easiest to get started (I have a system like described above, with 4-8 drives I use for testing software and it was easier to install Mandrake 10.0 than Windows XP!). Now that you have a blank drive, get going and try it.
Installing and running Linux involves a LOT of different things. There are some guide on the Internet (try Googling with something like +linux +tutorial +beginner or variations on those terms, like guide for tutorial and you should find MANY websites), but your best bet is to hoof it to your local bookstore with a LARGE selection of computer books (Barnes and Noble carries the top 40 and is heavily slanted to Windows, with a generally poor selection on things that aren't strongly associated with.NOT and Windows -- if you've got a Borders nearby, the one near us has literally 4 times the selection than B&N on ANY computer topic), and spend some time browsing through all the books that explain setting up Linux for a beginner.
But, no matter what you do, you won't know anything until you try an install. I strongly suggest a drive rack (about $15.00), since you can abuse a Linux system all you want, and just shut down, swap drives, and your Win box is ready and unchanged. This is one of the many cases where you can only really learn by doing.
On another note, I am a former teacher and really like to help people learn, and love to see people ask questions and explore on their own. Linux has come a long way in ease-of-use (especially in installation) in the 4 years I've been using it, but it is still "off the beaten path." (It still reminds me of the early days, on my Apple ][e, where the programmers and users were all learning, one program at a time, how to work with micro computers.) It is still for the bold and those willing to not just ask questions, but who are willing to LOOK for the answers. It's great your asking here, but if you aren't able to take the extra step and use Google and figure out a few terms to find the many HOWTOs and other guides online, you might not want to try Linux (except maybe Linspire or Xandros). It is still not the place where you'll find the easy answers for everything unless you're willing to work.
Oh, and learn how to use Usenet. There are many newsgroups on there where you can get a LOT of help.
Why is it that people on/. can't ever seem to get the point that there are many users who need things like good fonts, a usable GUI, and other features besides JUST a command prompt?
I was using a few Bitstream fonts yesterday, putting graphics together for a web page, and couldn't believe how crappy some of the text looked in Gimp.
I think that's it -- he definitely has his terms confused. Linear editing is when you have to start with the first scene and add one scene at a time. Non-linear editing is when you can edit the scenes and shots in any order.
He is looking for a live keyer or character generator (as you say, real-time).
There are many machines that do that. Basically he wants a switcher, not a computer. But I hear you can still use an old Amiga 2000 like that.
You know, when people are doing "Ask Slash-Google" it would really help if they reasearch their terms so they know what they're talking about before they ask a question.
No offense, but, to be blunt, you're the third person to say the same thing. You're also the third person to miss the forest through the trees. You're taking the one example to literally.
I'm replying because this leads me to wonder if Java programmers and Perl programmers (that is, when given a choice of languages) think differently. Perhaps Java is a more literal language, which works better for people that think literally, and maybe Perl works better for people like me (I'm also a writer) who think more symbolicaly and are more used to simile and metaphore. I noticed this because I've had (as I said) 3 responses, all stating the same thing, and all seeming to miss the part where I said, "For example (and please don't get picky -- I'm picking a simple, quick example and there are thousands of others)," and afterwards I address this case specifically by saying, "It's a small example, and I know I can combine creating the myFile object with getting the file list, but the point is I can't just DO it, I have to prep it and do it. I'm always going around my thumb to get to my elbow."
It's interesting that there are 3 posts about Java that probably read just the examples, without reading the context, yet there isn't a single post talking about Perl where it seems the poster did the same thing. That's what leads me to my thought above, about Java coders being more literal minded, and perhaps not interested in alternatives, where Perl coders seem to like the ability to write in their style, which seems easier in Perl than Java.
Re-read the whole post, and look at what I'm saying. And try not to take it literally. Then read my comments to the other poster that said this.
Then there is a CHANCE you'll see what I'm saying, but, to be honest, your comment shows that you didn't get the point -- you missed the forest because you were fixated on one tree.
I have a book on Python. I've started to read it a few times, but I am having a LOT of trouble getting past the point that whitespace is part of the language. -- Actually, it's more precise to say that this is what stopped me at first when I was deciding between Python and Perl. Then I got going on Perl, and haven't had time to invsetigate anything that isn't directly part of what I do.
I've heard comments about Python, though, that make me think you're right, and the people I know who like Python seem to think like I do. I guess I'll have to check into it when I have the time.
Actually, I think you have to understand the syntax with Java as much as with Perl. I learned Java for 2 reasons:
1) It was cross platform, so I could write it on Linux and know it would work on my client's Win32 systems (and eventually OSX, as well as Linux). It was also easier to learn Java and be able to do a cross platform GUI, than to learn C or C++ and all the changes I'd have to make for each OS. (At the time, there wasn't a GUI toolkit for Perl that operated on Mac, Linux, and Win32, except maybe Perl/TK and I forgot why I rejected that.)
2) I needed to control OpenOffice and, after several days of studying code for StarBASIC (which I could write in) for OOo macros, and looking over Java and C info on bindings for OOo, I realized the OOo API seemed to behave like Java's API, so it was easier to learn Java than another language.
While pouring overcode, and having not been taught about strict types (at least that I could remember), I found the extra declarations and several other features of Java confusing, but when I studied Perl, even before/without a book, I found it quick to pick up. Maybe that's atypical. All I can speak for is my experience.
There are some things in Java I like, such as the ease of having each class in its own file, which is easier in Java than Perl. I like the blackbox nature of classes, so I can spend days writing (in this case) a wrapper for OOo API functions, then never have to think about what goes on inside that class again -- just call the methods. Perl does that with modules, but it doesn't seem quite the same.
And you make a good point, with your example, about variable names. I've noticed that happens a lot, but I make sure I use clear variable names, since it makes life easier a few weeks later, when I'm debugging something I haven't had time to work on for a while.
I haven't had to work on anything as big as enterprise, so I can't speak (with any experience) to that situation. It seems to me part of what you are saying is that Java forces a coder to be safe, whether he/she wants to or not. I can see that for something on the scale your talking about, since you have many coders working and you don't know what the others are doing, you have to count on them being forced to maintain certain standards.
Not to drag out Perl again, but it has the nifty ability to add "use strict" to make sure you declare all variables and play by the rules. I think I'd use Java more often if I could use Java more if there were a similar setting so I could, for example, write a class that bypasses all the safety enforcements, strict types, etc., but could not if I turned on the "strict" or "safe" mode. Not that it would happen, but I just don't like being forced to "be safe." It makes me feel like I'm an adult, driving my own car, and being in a child protective seat.
Your example about the 12' boat is good. It also made me consider that even on a 12' boat, if you want to be safe, you could shout "Prepare to tack!" Just as, in Perl, if you want safety, you could add a line or two to make sure the directory exists. Personally, I like not having the extra overhead. Many times I've already verified, upfront, that all my resources are available, so once I write the start of the program, I can spend the rest doing what I need to do.
I also have to admit that all my programming is focused on one large project, which, although complex and multi-part (and multi-os), does limit my experience a bit.
There's always one who doesn't read the post, but responds to it anyway...
1) I said that was ONE example, just a simple one, and there were many more.
2) I also said I know you can do it in one line.
3) The point was NOT that it could be condensed into one line, but that it was a pain to have to keep thinking about Java's requirements INSTEAD of focusing on getting the task done.
4) Okay, that's one example, it's one step. I've had times where I had to create an object, use it to get another object, then use that object to create a third. While this could be done in one line, it makes for hideous reading if you ever troubleshoot it -- much worse than reading some lines of Perl. Showing a solve for one example does not mean the problem doesn't exist on a larger scale. It is a literal reading with a narrow focus of a much larger issue. It's like saying, "We fixed this one bug in Windows, so it's safe now," but still leaving tens of thousands of other bugs out there.
It's not that your way is wrong, it's that it has nothing to do with the overall point: that Java requires you to have to continually add steps to do something simple. Instead of just doing it, you prepare to do it, then do it.
I know there's been a gazillion comments, but there's one thing I don't see mentioned that I want to mention. Before I do, a brief note on my background: I learned BASIC in high school in the '70s, then Fortran and Vax 11/780 Assembler in college, then taught myself 6502 Assembler and programmed a lot on my Apple//e. For over a decade, I didn't touch anything to do with programming. Then I had a chance to put some programs together and start my own business. I had to learn languages that weren't even around when I had programmed before. I've had some formal classes in programming, but I'm mostly self-taught. I've had some coder friends tell me that I seem to automatically follow a lot of "good programming practices" that I was never taught.
I started with (and hated) Tcl. I found a book on Perl that was about 75% off, bought it, and was writing useful Perl code in under a day. When I had to learn Java, it took several books and was 2-3 weeks before I could write anything useful (in part due to needing to get used to the API before I could do anything I needed).
When I code in Java, I'm always reminded of the scene in Spaceballs where Col. Sanders keeps saying, "Prepare for..." and Dark Helmet interrupts and says, "Why do you have to prepare for everything?" In Perl, if I want to do something, I do it. It takes a line or two of code, and I'm done. In Java, to do something I have to prepare for it AND do it. I often have to create from 1 to 3 objects to finally get the object I need, then I can finally do what I wanted to do. For example (and please don't get picky -- I'm picking a simple, quick example and there are thousands of others), if I want a list of files in a directory, in Perl it's:
@file = glob($filename."/*");
In Java, I have to do:
File myFile = new File($filename); String[] myList = myFile.list();
It's a small example, and I know I can combine creating the myFile object with getting the file list, but the point is I can't just DO it, I have to prep it and do it. I'm always going around my thumb to get to my elbow. In Java, I'm too busy keeping track of object types, creating objects (and sometimes creating objects, using that object to obtain another, then using the obtained ojbect in creating a third...) that I feel like a lot of my focus is on taking care of Java's needs rather than on writing my own program.
I like working in Java. I like the cross platform abilities. I like Swing, since it is (to me) an esay GUI to write for. I like the class structure. But I don't like writing in Java as much as Perl and, given a choice, I'll take Perl whenever possible. I've found I can put a program together in Perl in a day and it'll take 2-3 to write the same thing in Java.
is it safe to just delete those ugly hidden directories from the Windows directory
I'm still trying to wrap my head around a sentence that includes both "safe" and "Windows" in the same sentence.
It's alot safer than a lot of things you can do in Windows (like, say, using Outlock Express, Outlock, Word, Internet Explorer, or even booting and connecting to the Internet).
First: You don't know how many of those applicants are unemployed, and how many are looking for something better. Many of those who are employed may not have applied for a sweatshop job.
Second: Your point was addressed. Even if you're getting a 100:1 applicant to job ratio, there is still a finite supply of IT pros.
For example fast food drains their workers, uses them up, and forgets them. They can do this. There is an endless supply of teenagers who need spending cash. While there are new IT grads every year, many of those seeking an intellectual challenge will go into something else if they know they have 40+ years in a sweatshop to look forward to. You may have a large supply of sweatshop fodder, but it's not endless. At one point, you'll run out.
I was not, in any way, looking at an old world. I was just considering a few points, but you were so busy being snide you either didn't read the full post or didnt' think it through.
Most programmers have a strong desire to be challenged and to solve problems. They want to use their brain and imagination. (Wasn't there an article here within the last few weeks about charactistics of good programmers?) That's why they hate cubicles so much. If you try to stuff them into "factories" where they're doing nothing but making modifications to existing code over and over, the tedium will get them.
Those that don't quit will burn out and self destruct. While there is a surplus of IT workers, a sweatshop like this will burn through programmers fast enough that it'll only last a few years before the quality of code gets shoddy because there's no good programmers left that are NOT burned out that will willingly work at such a place.
I think there's a reverse spin to look at, which is close to what you point out.
They want us to KNOW Linuxers are in danger of patent suits and that there is an imminent threat. This means companies are afraid, and they buy the insurance. I think the very fact that this company is selling insurance to protect you from these potential infringements says that they don't think there's much of a chance of anyone actually pursuing these patents in court.
It remindes me of Harold Hill. "Yes, friends, we've got trouble, right here in River City. It's trouble with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for Pool." And once everyone is afraid of how a pool table will corrupt their youth, they're in a hurry to buy uniforms for the boys band to keep their kids busy.
Create a fear, then sell the solution. --Hey, that's it:
1. Develop a worthless product 2. ???^H^H^H Make people afraid of what happens if you don't buy the product 3. Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
Just because Cobol registered, I wouldn't call it popular.
Just used when necessary, I'd think.
In libel and slander suits, law recognizes a difference between a daily newspaper and a magazine, which should have much more time to check facts. A newspaper, which has to be printed quickly and is literally keeping up with today's news does not always have time for in depth checking as a magazine.
CNN, and other networks, on Election Night in 2000 were reporting live, real time events. It is very understandable why all the networks had trouble calling Florida's vote count.
Dan Rather, on the other hand, had time to check, and didn't do his job. In one case, a source had been read the documents over the phone, but never told they were typewritten. There were also problems with the dates -- the memos involved people who were no longer in the Texas ANG. While there is a rush to get that kind of info out, Rather (who, I admit, I have never trusted or liked as a newscaster) seemed to live up to the image I developed of him in Journalism class when I read his autobiography (The Camera Never Blinks) -- he was more concerned with being the first, the most noticable, and the one with the biggest ego, instead of making sure he was reporting news.
I don't think there's reason to penalize CNN and other networks for the gaffs in 2000, but Rather -- I hope this helps people finally see he operates on the same level Geraldo operated on when he did stunts like opening Al Capone's vault.
I also think Rather owes a public apology to BOTH Bush and Kerry, since the memos slandered Bush, but also would have looked to many like Kerry was trying to slander Bush.
BTW, even though I can forgive CNN for the mistakes in 2000, I still can't bring myself to call any station a news channel when they spend 8 hours a day for a year on the O.J. Simpson trial.
I heard something similar. I can't remember where, but it was a source that doesn't report rumors. I think the elector (can't remember her name, but the same one who played favorites for Bush last time around) put it on anyway.
There's no way Jebbie is going to let his brother lose Florida. That family is so busy being right, they don't care what rules they break.
Fiddling with software is usually pretty low on my priority list, but I'd like to at least get a feel for what everyone is talking about
Then I'd stick with a live CD for now, which will let you poke around and decide later if you want to do more. You may not get much of an idea, though, by just booting a CD and trying a few programs. After a while you'll decide they all have a different look'n'feel, but that a lot of it, without digging deeper, is just a different way of doing the same thing.
I can give you one simple example of one of the MANY things I like about Linux that isn't part of Windows. I use KDE, and it includes a panel (like the task bar). GNOME and other desktop environments use the same thing. There are many applets I can install on the panel (such as a pager, so I can have 4 or more virtual desktops, so I can keep one clean or with only a few windows on it). It's not the same as having an icon in the system tray. It's much more customizable. It might even be a flaw, but since Linux is open, MANY extra options often get added to even the smalles thing because a programmer wants to add something and simply can, instead of having to wait for the company that wrote it to add it.
If I had it, I'd be glad to get it to you, but when it didn't work, I created a graphic, put it in as bg for a table, and did the text as regular text. I figured that way, if there were a problem, I could always blame the user's browser. (I love blaming the user's browser -- especially if it's IE!)
1) see my other post, so you won't think I'm just trolling.
2) You can buy or order many different distros. Last time I got a distro, I got Libranet for $30 in mail order. You can order or buy a number of distros for under $50.
3) Go to a local LUG (Linux Users Group). To find one, try a Google search. Ask if someone can burn a distro for you.
4) but I'd still like to know what I was getting into before even going that far. -- If you're really that squeamish, then you might not want to get into it at all. The best way is to just dive in. (Sorry, not trolling, but Linux is still about learning and exploring, not about popping a CD and playing games or browsing -- while you can do that with a live CD, if you want to learn, it isn't a walk in the park.)
Get yourself a hard drive rack (it's a rack you can mount in a 5 1/4" bay with a case for the drive, then you can easily take the drive out of the system and swap with another), and an old hard drive (or order a new, small one from someone on pricewatch.com -- you'd be surprised how cheap you can get a drive). You can then start the computer with a Windows hard drive, or a Linux hard drive. For Linux, you can fit a good working system in under 2G -- less, depending on how many extras you install.
.NOT and Windows -- if you've got a Borders nearby, the one near us has literally 4 times the selection than B&N on ANY computer topic), and spend some time browsing through all the books that explain setting up Linux for a beginner.
That way you don't have to worry about a dual boot, you don't have to touch the original hard drive, and you can download and burn a distro. It also means you can keep all your data safe (?) on your Windows drive (I'm assuming you've got enough firewalling and AV software to actually make a Windows partition safe), so when you put Linux on a disk, you don't have to worry about making sure your Internet connection is safe.
Mandrake is probably the easiest to get started (I have a system like described above, with 4-8 drives I use for testing software and it was easier to install Mandrake 10.0 than Windows XP!). Now that you have a blank drive, get going and try it.
Installing and running Linux involves a LOT of different things. There are some guide on the Internet (try Googling with something like +linux +tutorial +beginner or variations on those terms, like guide for tutorial and you should find MANY websites), but your best bet is to hoof it to your local bookstore with a LARGE selection of computer books (Barnes and Noble carries the top 40 and is heavily slanted to Windows, with a generally poor selection on things that aren't strongly associated with
But, no matter what you do, you won't know anything until you try an install. I strongly suggest a drive rack (about $15.00), since you can abuse a Linux system all you want, and just shut down, swap drives, and your Win box is ready and unchanged. This is one of the many cases where you can only really learn by doing.
On another note, I am a former teacher and really like to help people learn, and love to see people ask questions and explore on their own. Linux has come a long way in ease-of-use (especially in installation) in the 4 years I've been using it, but it is still "off the beaten path." (It still reminds me of the early days, on my Apple ][e, where the programmers and users were all learning, one program at a time, how to work with micro computers.) It is still for the bold and those willing to not just ask questions, but who are willing to LOOK for the answers. It's great your asking here, but if you aren't able to take the extra step and use Google and figure out a few terms to find the many HOWTOs and other guides online, you might not want to try Linux (except maybe Linspire or Xandros). It is still not the place where you'll find the easy answers for everything unless you're willing to work.
Oh, and learn how to use Usenet. There are many newsgroups on there where you can get a LOT of help.
Why is it that people on /. can't ever seem to get the point that there are many users who need things like good fonts, a usable GUI, and other features besides JUST a command prompt?
So what does he do, work with only one font?
I was using a few Bitstream fonts yesterday, putting graphics together for a web page, and couldn't believe how crappy some of the text looked in Gimp.
One font does not a solution make.
I think that's it -- he definitely has his terms confused. Linear editing is when you have to start with the first scene and add one scene at a time. Non-linear editing is when you can edit the scenes and shots in any order.
He is looking for a live keyer or character generator (as you say, real-time).
There are many machines that do that. Basically he wants a switcher, not a computer. But I hear you can still use an old Amiga 2000 like that.
You know, when people are doing "Ask Slash-Google" it would really help if they reasearch their terms so they know what they're talking about before they ask a question.
But that doesn't pull out compressed strings -- only recognizable ascii strings.
And if the tape doesn't block it out by itself, you can use it to tape a piece of paper or cardboard over the LED.
Or, if you prefer (as I do), use the "handy man's secret weapon": duct tape. Duct tape fixes everything.
So why is this story under hardware? As soon as I moused over a color choice and saw the actual design, I was ROTFLMAO.
This is a museum quality mouse?
It should be in a museum, right next to all those flying machines that never made it.
No offense, but, to be blunt, you're the third person to say the same thing. You're also the third person to miss the forest through the trees. You're taking the one example to literally.
I'm replying because this leads me to wonder if Java programmers and Perl programmers (that is, when given a choice of languages) think differently. Perhaps Java is a more literal language, which works better for people that think literally, and maybe Perl works better for people like me (I'm also a writer) who think more symbolicaly and are more used to simile and metaphore. I noticed this because I've had (as I said) 3 responses, all stating the same thing, and all seeming to miss the part where I said, "For example (and please don't get picky -- I'm picking a simple, quick example and there are thousands of others)," and afterwards I address this case specifically by saying, "It's a small example, and I know I can combine creating the myFile object with getting the file list, but the point is I can't just DO it, I have to prep it and do it. I'm always going around my thumb to get to my elbow."
It's interesting that there are 3 posts about Java that probably read just the examples, without reading the context, yet there isn't a single post talking about Perl where it seems the poster did the same thing. That's what leads me to my thought above, about Java coders being more literal minded, and perhaps not interested in alternatives, where Perl coders seem to like the ability to write in their style, which seems easier in Perl than Java.
Re-read the whole post, and look at what I'm saying. And try not to take it literally. Then read my comments to the other poster that said this.
Then there is a CHANCE you'll see what I'm saying, but, to be honest, your comment shows that you didn't get the point -- you missed the forest because you were fixated on one tree.
I have a book on Python. I've started to read it a few times, but I am having a LOT of trouble getting past the point that whitespace is part of the language. -- Actually, it's more precise to say that this is what stopped me at first when I was deciding between Python and Perl. Then I got going on Perl, and haven't had time to invsetigate anything that isn't directly part of what I do.
I've heard comments about Python, though, that make me think you're right, and the people I know who like Python seem to think like I do. I guess I'll have to check into it when I have the time.
Actually, I think you have to understand the syntax with Java as much as with Perl. I learned Java for 2 reasons:
1) It was cross platform, so I could write it on Linux and know it would work on my client's Win32 systems (and eventually OSX, as well as Linux). It was also easier to learn Java and be able to do a cross platform GUI, than to learn C or C++ and all the changes I'd have to make for each OS. (At the time, there wasn't a GUI toolkit for Perl that operated on Mac, Linux, and Win32, except maybe Perl/TK and I forgot why I rejected that.)
2) I needed to control OpenOffice and, after several days of studying code for StarBASIC (which I could write in) for OOo macros, and looking over Java and C info on bindings for OOo, I realized the OOo API seemed to behave like Java's API, so it was easier to learn Java than another language.
While pouring overcode, and having not been taught about strict types (at least that I could remember), I found the extra declarations and several other features of Java confusing, but when I studied Perl, even before/without a book, I found it quick to pick up. Maybe that's atypical. All I can speak for is my experience.
There are some things in Java I like, such as the ease of having each class in its own file, which is easier in Java than Perl. I like the blackbox nature of classes, so I can spend days writing (in this case) a wrapper for OOo API functions, then never have to think about what goes on inside that class again -- just call the methods. Perl does that with modules, but it doesn't seem quite the same.
And you make a good point, with your example, about variable names. I've noticed that happens a lot, but I make sure I use clear variable names, since it makes life easier a few weeks later, when I'm debugging something I haven't had time to work on for a while.
I haven't had to work on anything as big as enterprise, so I can't speak (with any experience) to that situation. It seems to me part of what you are saying is that Java forces a coder to be safe, whether he/she wants to or not. I can see that for something on the scale your talking about, since you have many coders working and you don't know what the others are doing, you have to count on them being forced to maintain certain standards.
Not to drag out Perl again, but it has the nifty ability to add "use strict" to make sure you declare all variables and play by the rules. I think I'd use Java more often if I could use Java more if there were a similar setting so I could, for example, write a class that bypasses all the safety enforcements, strict types, etc., but could not if I turned on the "strict" or "safe" mode. Not that it would happen, but I just don't like being forced to "be safe." It makes me feel like I'm an adult, driving my own car, and being in a child protective seat.
Your example about the 12' boat is good. It also made me consider that even on a 12' boat, if you want to be safe, you could shout "Prepare to tack!" Just as, in Perl, if you want safety, you could add a line or two to make sure the directory exists. Personally, I like not having the extra overhead. Many times I've already verified, upfront, that all my resources are available, so once I write the start of the program, I can spend the rest doing what I need to do.
I also have to admit that all my programming is focused on one large project, which, although complex and multi-part (and multi-os), does limit my experience a bit.
There's always one who doesn't read the post, but responds to it anyway...
1) I said that was ONE example, just a simple one, and there were many more.
2) I also said I know you can do it in one line.
3) The point was NOT that it could be condensed into one line, but that it was a pain to have to keep thinking about Java's requirements INSTEAD of focusing on getting the task done.
4) Okay, that's one example, it's one step. I've had times where I had to create an object, use it to get another object, then use that object to create a third. While this could be done in one line, it makes for hideous reading if you ever troubleshoot it -- much worse than reading some lines of Perl. Showing a solve for one example does not mean the problem doesn't exist on a larger scale. It is a literal reading with a narrow focus of a much larger issue. It's like saying, "We fixed this one bug in Windows, so it's safe now," but still leaving tens of thousands of other bugs out there.
It's not that your way is wrong, it's that it has nothing to do with the overall point: that Java requires you to have to continually add steps to do something simple. Instead of just doing it, you prepare to do it, then do it.
Java is anything but terse.
//e. For over a decade, I didn't touch anything to do with programming. Then I had a chance to put some programs together and start my own business. I had to learn languages that weren't even around when I had programmed before. I've had some formal classes in programming, but I'm mostly self-taught. I've had some coder friends tell me that I seem to automatically follow a lot of "good programming practices" that I was never taught.
I know there's been a gazillion comments, but there's one thing I don't see mentioned that I want to mention. Before I do, a brief note on my background: I learned BASIC in high school in the '70s, then Fortran and Vax 11/780 Assembler in college, then taught myself 6502 Assembler and programmed a lot on my Apple
I started with (and hated) Tcl. I found a book on Perl that was about 75% off, bought it, and was writing useful Perl code in under a day. When I had to learn Java, it took several books and was 2-3 weeks before I could write anything useful (in part due to needing to get used to the API before I could do anything I needed).
When I code in Java, I'm always reminded of the scene in Spaceballs where Col. Sanders keeps saying, "Prepare for..." and Dark Helmet interrupts and says, "Why do you have to prepare for everything?" In Perl, if I want to do something, I do it. It takes a line or two of code, and I'm done. In Java, to do something I have to prepare for it AND do it. I often have to create from 1 to 3 objects to finally get the object I need, then I can finally do what I wanted to do. For example (and please don't get picky -- I'm picking a simple, quick example and there are thousands of others), if I want a list of files in a directory, in Perl it's:
@file = glob($filename."/*");
In Java, I have to do:
File myFile = new File($filename);
String[] myList = myFile.list();
It's a small example, and I know I can combine creating the myFile object with getting the file list, but the point is I can't just DO it, I have to prep it and do it. I'm always going around my thumb to get to my elbow. In Java, I'm too busy keeping track of object types, creating objects (and sometimes creating objects, using that object to obtain another, then using the obtained ojbect in creating a third...) that I feel like a lot of my focus is on taking care of Java's needs rather than on writing my own program.
I like working in Java. I like the cross platform abilities. I like Swing, since it is (to me) an esay GUI to write for. I like the class structure. But I don't like writing in Java as much as Perl and, given a choice, I'll take Perl whenever possible. I've found I can put a program together in Perl in a day and it'll take 2-3 to write the same thing in Java.
is it safe to just delete those ugly hidden directories from the Windows directory
I'm still trying to wrap my head around a sentence that includes both "safe" and "Windows" in the same sentence.
It's alot safer than a lot of things you can do in Windows (like, say, using Outlock Express, Outlock, Word, Internet Explorer, or even booting and connecting to the Internet).
Read the whole post.
Then think.
First: You don't know how many of those applicants are unemployed, and how many are looking for something better. Many of those who are employed may not have applied for a sweatshop job.
Second: Your point was addressed. Even if you're getting a 100:1 applicant to job ratio, there is still a finite supply of IT pros.
For example fast food drains their workers, uses them up, and forgets them. They can do this. There is an endless supply of teenagers who need spending cash. While there are new IT grads every year, many of those seeking an intellectual challenge will go into something else if they know they have 40+ years in a sweatshop to look forward to. You may have a large supply of sweatshop fodder, but it's not endless. At one point, you'll run out.
I was not, in any way, looking at an old world. I was just considering a few points, but you were so busy being snide you either didn't read the full post or didnt' think it through.
Most programmers have a strong desire to be challenged and to solve problems. They want to use their brain and imagination. (Wasn't there an article here within the last few weeks about charactistics of good programmers?) That's why they hate cubicles so much. If you try to stuff them into "factories" where they're doing nothing but making modifications to existing code over and over, the tedium will get them.
Those that don't quit will burn out and self destruct. While there is a surplus of IT workers, a sweatshop like this will burn through programmers fast enough that it'll only last a few years before the quality of code gets shoddy because there's no good programmers left that are NOT burned out that will willingly work at such a place.
I think there's a reverse spin to look at, which is close to what you point out.
They want us to KNOW Linuxers are in danger of patent suits and that there is an imminent threat. This means companies are afraid, and they buy the insurance. I think the very fact that this company is selling insurance to protect you from these potential infringements says that they don't think there's much of a chance of anyone actually pursuing these patents in court.
It remindes me of Harold Hill. "Yes, friends, we've got trouble, right here in River City. It's trouble with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for Pool." And once everyone is afraid of how a pool table will corrupt their youth, they're in a hurry to buy uniforms for the boys band to keep their kids busy.
Create a fear, then sell the solution. --Hey, that's it:
1. Develop a worthless product
2. ???^H^H^H Make people afraid of what happens if you don't buy the product
3. Profit!
there's the question of can we decode their signals, would they spot our reply, and what's the lag time
And is their primary goal "To Serve Mankind?"...