You hit the nail on the head. Mono is the only choice for a serious C# application. Unfortunately, the rest of the industry figured this out years ago and wrote all their code in java, which runs on all the platforms you mentioned and has nothing to do with microsoft. Why you wouldn't use an existing and mature cross platform language that is non-microsoft is beyond me.
People seriously need to wake up. The whole mono thing isn't about windows people moving towards linux, its about linux applications moving towards windows. People already have windows. They bought their computers from dell with windows preinstalled. Now they are looking for fun and useful applications, not to reinstall an alternative operating system.
OK, here is a hint. The REAL application that matters is the office suite. Particularly word, excel, and powerpoint. The day you see MS write these applications in.NET and then have them run on linux is the day it will matter. MS ain't that dumb guys....
These are serious questions. Is "God" the god of the universe or just earth? If "God" is the god of the universe, and "God" made man in his own image, then wouldn't life on all planets on the universe also be made in "Gods" image? Is the bible discussing the birth of the earth or the universe? If the earth, then is there another super bible explaining the universe and its creation?
I saw this the other day as a reference from Make magazine. I looked into the hardware and that circuit monitor alone is over $2000 USD. Be aware that this setup is quite costly. Notice the update on the first page that says he is trying to get the company to provide a lower cost version.
I know the slashdot crowd doesn't like Java, but the reality is that it has a major foothold and it is not letting go. Take for example, this graph. You can clearly see the decline in.NET and the sustainability of Java. Go Mono!
Another twist. I'll call it Schrodinger's Cash. Take a box and set it up so that there is a 50/50 chance of a big money trade to be executed. You won't know whether you are a millionaire until you observe the contents of the box. If you postpone the observation until some time in the future you have a 50% chance of being a millionaire.
I'm a professional software developer, but I've been racing cars, drag racing mostly, for over 14 years. Had lots of cars with lots of different ways to make power (big blocks, superchargers, nitrous, turbo, etc). Currently have a buick grand national. It's too bad geeks don't look into cars more. It really is a technical hobby with lots of math and calculations. Intelligence and innovation goes a long way. The downside is the need for at least some mechanical inclination, which most geeks lack.
Speeking of geeky, I have a laptop permanently monitoring the computer in my car and I can reprogram the computer to behave as I wish.
"fast" equates to speed. A car that can go 200mph is fast. A car that goes 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds is "quick". One does not imply the other. A car that is fast is not necessarily quick. And a car that is quick is not necessarily fast. Being quick is accomplished by power to weight ratio. You can make a go-cart that'll smoke any street car 0 to 60. Fast requires power and aerodynamics. They are entirely different goals.
Also, geeks will get a much better understanding of the need of horsepower vs torque with the following discussion
Yes, heirarchical databases. Exactly what RDBMS's were designed to move away from. Amazing how things come full circle. If you ask me, an xml schema or dtd is just a modern version of a cobol copybook!
Here is the problem with your idea. Unlike the relational model, XML does not link facts. XML documents can be joined in any way, either valid or invalid, without you knowing one way or another. The relationships between documents are weak. There is no referential integrity. Within a proper relational model you are stating facts and factual relationships. Joins of those facts generate derived facts that are as true and accurate as your original model. Why add the overhead and complexity of xml? Why not just use a proper relational model?
Coding is simply the implementation of design. There really isn't a lot of thinking going on. Which is why the coding portion of software development can be outsourced so easily. The success of the coding is highly dependent on the thinking/design part. The thinking part happens in design and analysis before any coding begins.
You would use an IDE to implement code. You don't use and IDE to do a design. Very different activities. If you develop software professionally these lines a clearly drawn. Most processes even have completely separate roles for the activities. The "language" for design would be UML or some equivalent. And the language for implementing that design could be C/C++/Java/Python/Ruby/Whatever.
If you're typing out full words while coding then you're doing something wrong. Any modern IDE has the ability to do code completion. Its just like using tab-complete in a bash shell. Type a letter, then ctrl+space or whatever your IDE uses and it will either provide a list of options or autocomplete your word if there is only one option. Additionally, most IDE's will close braces, paranthesis and do other nice things for you. You can make code templates so a ctrl+j inserts a for loop for you. Once these things become second nature to you your productivity will soar. Code smarter, not typing faster!
When it comes to data, I'm wondering what possession actually means. Specifically, say I have a list of SSN's as S, and I apply an encryption function encrypt(), they become encrypt(S). Given only encrypt(S), am I illegally possessing data? Taken one step further. Clearly, applying decrypt() to encrypt(S) gives me back S. Assume I have some data D. If I can arrive at a function decrypt() that can turn D into the original S, shouldn't D be as illegal as encrypt(S)?
As a realistic example, imagine I was able to write a function decrypt() such that it could turn a text file of one of the works of shakespeare into a list of social security numbers. Would then, all people who have a text version of said shakespearean work be in possession of illegal material?
Quite honestly, if you take this to a logical extreme, no matter what the input data, given the ability to write any function, the output data could be anything you could conceive. What if your function is simply the concatenation of "illegal" data to the output. Would then the "reverse engineering" of said "encryption" function be illegal according to the DMCA? It is a "security device" at this point, right?
This all boils down to the difference between data and functions on data. It is illegal to hold certain data. But what if we lable data as functions on data. In fact, security device functions on data. Could we then distribute the functions and make it illegal for people to reverse engineer the functions without permission?
Is it time for the USPSS system, or the UPSS system? You know, like HTTPS, but for the postal system or UPS. That way you can securely send your packages using the latest in cutting edge delivery security.
The major weakness of linux is, and will continue to be, marketing. Linux is driven by technical issues first. What "the market" wants does not play a major role in the development of linux. In fact, "the market" for linux has never been properly defined. Therefore the current market for linux, by its direction, is those people who care about technical issues over all others. Sadly, the majority of computer users do not place technical superiority first, at least not at this point in personal computing.
Microsoft did not get to its current state by producing superior software. It got to this current state by superior marketing, and ruthless business practices.
By using "Linux" in the above statements I am referring to the number of linux distributions, not the kernel proper. This is probably a branding issue. Another part of marketing.
I used to be a C++ developer too. Then I moved on to Java. You may want to look into this for a number of reasons. For one, you can use eclipse on any platform, including OSX to develop your java apps. For two, apple really likes Java. They have done a lot of work on the jvm for OSX and it performs extremely well. They also provide a number of OSX specific Java interfaces to the underlying platform if you don't care about it being platform specific. Its truly worth a shot.
I have worked in the corporate world for about 10 years now. Developing off the shelf applications for very large companies. Not one time have I heard one of these companies take issue with java. Though I can tell you, on more than one occasion they have taken issue with open source code within our applications. Some companies have gone so far as to say that they would not accept our applications if they contained any open source software. Now, any time we want to use any open source code as a library in our code we have to get it approved by managment, get it approved by legal, and do all kinds of hoop jumping. It is in fact open source dependencies that the corporate world is worried about.
Slashdot Mirror
You hit the nail on the head. Mono is the only choice for a serious C# application. Unfortunately, the rest of the industry figured this out years ago and wrote all their code in java, which runs on all the platforms you mentioned and has nothing to do with microsoft. Why you wouldn't use an existing and mature cross platform language that is non-microsoft is beyond me.
People seriously need to wake up. The whole mono thing isn't about windows people moving towards linux, its about linux applications moving towards windows. People already have windows. They bought their computers from dell with windows preinstalled. Now they are looking for fun and useful applications, not to reinstall an alternative operating system.
.NET and then have them run on linux is the day it will matter. MS ain't that dumb guys....
OK, here is a hint. The REAL application that matters is the office suite. Particularly word, excel, and powerpoint. The day you see MS write these applications in
OK, so should they also put:
"This book discusses gravity. Which is also just a theory."
A scientific theory is not something you pull out of nowhere. It is a falsifiable hypothesis proven over time by many experiments to be correct.
These are serious questions. Is "God" the god of the universe or just earth? If "God" is the god of the universe, and "God" made man in his own image, then wouldn't life on all planets on the universe also be made in "Gods" image? Is the bible discussing the birth of the earth or the universe? If the earth, then is there another super bible explaining the universe and its creation?
I saw this the other day as a reference from Make magazine. I looked into the hardware and that circuit monitor alone is over $2000 USD. Be aware that this setup is quite costly. Notice the update on the first page that says he is trying to get the company to provide a lower cost version.
I know the slashdot crowd doesn't like Java, but the reality is that it has a major foothold and it is not letting go. Take for example, this graph. You can clearly see the decline in .NET and the sustainability of Java. Go Mono!
Lets test your theory. I am going to hop in my time machine right now and go back and assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Lets see how this turns out...
John W. Booth
Another twist. I'll call it Schrodinger's Cash. Take a box and set it up so that there is a 50/50 chance of a big money trade to be executed. You won't know whether you are a millionaire until you observe the contents of the box. If you postpone the observation until some time in the future you have a 50% chance of being a millionaire.
I'm a professional software developer, but I've been racing cars, drag racing mostly, for over 14 years. Had lots of cars with lots of different ways to make power (big blocks, superchargers, nitrous, turbo, etc). Currently have a buick grand national. It's too bad geeks don't look into cars more. It really is a technical hobby with lots of math and calculations. Intelligence and innovation goes a long way. The downside is the need for at least some mechanical inclination, which most geeks lack.
Speeking of geeky, I have a laptop permanently monitoring the computer in my car and I can reprogram the computer to behave as I wish.
"fast" equates to speed. A car that can go 200mph is fast. A car that goes 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds is "quick". One does not imply the other. A car that is fast is not necessarily quick. And a car that is quick is not necessarily fast. Being quick is accomplished by power to weight ratio. You can make a go-cart that'll smoke any street car 0 to 60. Fast requires power and aerodynamics. They are entirely different goals.
Also, geeks will get a much better understanding of the need of horsepower vs torque with the following discussion
Yes, heirarchical databases. Exactly what RDBMS's were designed to move away from. Amazing how things come full circle. If you ask me, an xml schema or dtd is just a modern version of a cobol copybook!
Here is the problem with your idea. Unlike the relational model, XML does not link facts. XML documents can be joined in any way, either valid or invalid, without you knowing one way or another. The relationships between documents are weak. There is no referential integrity. Within a proper relational model you are stating facts and factual relationships. Joins of those facts generate derived facts that are as true and accurate as your original model. Why add the overhead and complexity of xml? Why not just use a proper relational model?
Wait a minute, I see a trend here. I am an EE too. And my wife and I are having our first child in about two weeks. And its a girl!
Coding is simply the implementation of design. There really isn't a lot of thinking going on. Which is why the coding portion of software development can be outsourced so easily. The success of the coding is highly dependent on the thinking/design part. The thinking part happens in design and analysis before any coding begins.
You would use an IDE to implement code. You don't use and IDE to do a design. Very different activities. If you develop software professionally these lines a clearly drawn. Most processes even have completely separate roles for the activities. The "language" for design would be UML or some equivalent. And the language for implementing that design could be C/C++/Java/Python/Ruby/Whatever.
If you're typing out full words while coding then you're doing something wrong. Any modern IDE has the ability to do code completion. Its just like using tab-complete in a bash shell. Type a letter, then ctrl+space or whatever your IDE uses and it will either provide a list of options or autocomplete your word if there is only one option. Additionally, most IDE's will close braces, paranthesis and do other nice things for you. You can make code templates so a ctrl+j inserts a for loop for you. Once these things become second nature to you your productivity will soar. Code smarter, not typing faster!
When it comes to data, I'm wondering what possession actually means. Specifically, say I have a list of SSN's as S, and I apply an encryption function encrypt(), they become encrypt(S). Given only encrypt(S), am I illegally possessing data? Taken one step further. Clearly, applying decrypt() to encrypt(S) gives me back S. Assume I have some data D. If I can arrive at a function decrypt() that can turn D into the original S, shouldn't D be as illegal as encrypt(S)?
As a realistic example, imagine I was able to write a function decrypt() such that it could turn a text file of one of the works of shakespeare into a list of social security numbers. Would then, all people who have a text version of said shakespearean work be in possession of illegal material?
Quite honestly, if you take this to a logical extreme, no matter what the input data, given the ability to write any function, the output data could be anything you could conceive. What if your function is simply the concatenation of "illegal" data to the output. Would then the "reverse engineering" of said "encryption" function be illegal according to the DMCA? It is a "security device" at this point, right?
This all boils down to the difference between data and functions on data. It is illegal to hold certain data. But what if we lable data as functions on data. In fact, security device functions on data. Could we then distribute the functions and make it illegal for people to reverse engineer the functions without permission?
What if slashdot is just a PR firm for Linux? Think about it......
Dear Sir,
Recently, we were sending all of the money in your account to another branch and, well, it got lost on the way. Sorry, shit happens.
Sincerely,
Your Bank
Is it time for the USPSS system, or the UPSS system? You know, like HTTPS, but for the postal system or UPS. That way you can securely send your packages using the latest in cutting edge delivery security.
I feel a new acronym coming on....WTFM (Watch The F'in Movie).
The major weakness of linux is, and will continue to be, marketing. Linux is driven by technical issues first. What "the market" wants does not play a major role in the development of linux. In fact, "the market" for linux has never been properly defined. Therefore the current market for linux, by its direction, is those people who care about technical issues over all others. Sadly, the majority of computer users do not place technical superiority first, at least not at this point in personal computing.
Microsoft did not get to its current state by producing superior software. It got to this current state by superior marketing, and ruthless business practices.
By using "Linux" in the above statements I am referring to the number of linux distributions, not the kernel proper. This is probably a branding issue. Another part of marketing.
I used to be a C++ developer too. Then I moved on to Java. You may want to look into this for a number of reasons. For one, you can use eclipse on any platform, including OSX to develop your java apps. For two, apple really likes Java. They have done a lot of work on the jvm for OSX and it performs extremely well. They also provide a number of OSX specific Java interfaces to the underlying platform if you don't care about it being platform specific. Its truly worth a shot.
Ironically, this is my employers project management style. They can claim prior art. And I am not kidding....
I have worked in the corporate world for about 10 years now. Developing off the shelf applications for very large companies. Not one time have I heard one of these companies take issue with java. Though I can tell you, on more than one occasion they have taken issue with open source code within our applications. Some companies have gone so far as to say that they would not accept our applications if they contained any open source software. Now, any time we want to use any open source code as a library in our code we have to get it approved by managment, get it approved by legal, and do all kinds of hoop jumping. It is in fact open source dependencies that the corporate world is worried about.
Be Sure To Drink Your Ovaltine