Um, because the legends of an ancient Middle-Eastern tribe (which were later written down and translated into other languages) had some phrase or two that modern readers contrued as applying in this case?
Nah, that couldn't be it...
Re:Lisp not accessible?
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
If it's the parens, then obviously people are too superficial to look past the syntax
Sadly, it's true.
Hey, here's a challenge for you Lisp-o-philes out there:
Come up with an alternate syntax for Lisp that is as close to C / C++ / Java as you can manage. (You can even provide a transliteration tool so that source can be seamlessly converted either way.)
Now give it an entirely new name (e.g., "Emerald" or "Cobra") and don't claim ANY RELATION to Lisp; just promote it as The Next Big Thing in languages.
When it becomes insanely popular, reveal your subterfuge, then sit back and laugh maniacally.
Re:I find myself suspicious of static typing
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
Consider the zillion bugs in Java from casting to Object and back!
Since the whole point of casting is to subvert the type system, yeah, no kidding.
I'm a huge fan of static typing, personally, but Java made a huge mistake in encouraging casting in this way. To me, anytime you have to do a cast (in any language), it's a sign that your design has failed. If the language doesn't make it possible to avoid casting of this sort, the type system needs rethinking.
Re:Dynamic typing
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
static typing charges you through the nose for very, very dubious benefits
Well, as they say, "your mileage may vary".
From my development perspective, static typing isn't a cost, it's a dividend.
Code with explicit typing, to me, is MORE readable, more clear, and easier to deal with, because type expectations are spelled out explicitly; I *can't* avoid specifying them, because the language won't let me. Maybe you find it to be annoying, irrelevant dreck that drowns out the meat of the program, but for me, types are inextricably part of the meat -- removing them makes me wonder, "what are the expectations for this again? I hope someone commented it properly..." (And yes, I've done enough work in dynamic languages to have valid opinion of both sides.)
You're almost always better off taking the development-speed gains of a dynamically-typed language, and learning the discipline to write good tests
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard this argument. I happen to agree that improved testing is a good thing, and that testing frameworks tend to be harder than necessary in most current static-typed languages. But IMHO this argument is rather like saying that seat belts are unnecessary if you have air bags (or vice versa); I'll take *both*, thanks.
Until someone shows me that all the code that I've written in dynamic languages that have served tens or hundreds of thousands of people are somehow riddled with type bugs
Whoa, slow down, no one's saying that dynamic languages are impossible to write proper code in. My assertion is that static typing is a tool to help programmer's avoid dumb mistakes, and to make the meaning of the code more clear. Can I get by without this tool? Yeah. But I don't see a good reason to, in general.
"I've done both styles quite a lot, and I can say that dynamic typing really is overrated. It sacrifices too much error checking and code readability in large group-programming situations for what is really too little benefit, and allows you to let the language help you avoid the trivial errors so that your brain can focus on solving the interesting problems. The main problem that many dynamic-typing fans seem to have is a lack of exposure to a really well-thought-out, well-designed, large-scale system with static typing -- and enough experience to allow themselves the freedom to break old habits/patterns to actually see the help that static typing gives in developing large systems reliably."
In Quebec, for example, it is often considered "offensive" to speak English on a public street, and represents intolerance of the pure laine Quebecois majority.
I gotta say:
WTF?
Look, in San Franciscio the majority of residents speak English, but I don't consider it "offensive" to hear someone speaking Spanish or Chinese on a public street.
If there's any "intolerance" going on there, it's in the minds of someone who can't bear to hear something other than their preferred language spoken in public!
It's disturbing because EA has been (and continues to be) the target of class-action lawsuits over non-payment of overtime pay... not to mention the target of much online scorn over their working conditions. (Google for "ea_spouse" if you somehow weren't paying attention the past two years.)
Granted, it's not exactly the same issue as Ubisoft, but EA is in no position to be criticizing *anyone* over its employment policies.
Don't tell me: tell the grandparent poster that I was responding to.
His comment: "If Google does it right, a lot of people will migrate. "Goobuntu" (which is a stupid name) will be a gateway drug, as it were. Those who are fine with what Google offers in its OS will stay there, while those more interested in digging deeper will move on to other distros. Google's main hurdle is being user-friendly."
I'd say this falls squarely in the camp of Passing The Mom Test, which IMHO means No Command Line, Ever.
Linux should never be "dumbled down" by default to satisfy a minority of a minority of Linux users.
You're entitled to your opinion, but if the grandparent poster's suggestion came to pass, they would probably become the clear majority.
But here's the real problem... hardly ANYONE wants to use the mouse all the time.
I guess you've never met my mom or dad.
the shell will still ALWAYS be faster to do some operations
Likewise, you've probably never seen the speed at which my parents can type.
Just because you hate opening a shell, doesn't mean the rest of the Unix and Linux world do.
Fine, but I wasn't talking about the "Unix/Linux" world. I was responding to the grandparent poster, who was positing this as an OS for the "common man".
If it wasn't part of the question, it should have been.
Open-source projects get ported to where-ever people have the inclination.
Commercial software gets ported to the platforms where profit is a possibility. (At least, that's the theory... for companies that want to remain in business, anyway.)
I know, it's lame to post just a "Mod parent up" -- especially an AC post -- but this guy is right on the money:
To summarize, I don't think proprietary software will be successful on Linux until the market grows. I don't think the market will grow until proprietary software is successful on Linux.
Together with InDesign and Illustrator, this would round out a complete Linux publishing solution that any professional could sit down at and get productive.
Well, OK, but look at this from Adobe's perspective:
-- Adobe already owns the lion's share of the "creative professional" market, virtuall all of whom use Mac or Windows. -- Adobe could decide to spend millions of dollars, and man-months (or more likely, man-years) of time doing Linux ports... which, at best, would get customers currently using Mac or Windows to switch to Linux. -- This may be great for Linux, but helps Adobe not at all. In fact, they have now blown money and time to do ports which probably haven't affected their marketshare in the slightest (but most certainly would increase their tech support costs).
Bottom line: Adobe's in business to make money, not to promote Linux. I guarantee you that if Linux ports made it likely for them to increase their profit, those ports would be underway tomorrow.
Linux certainly has its charms, but as a target for deskop-user shrink-wrapped software, it's just too much of a moving target.
Aside from everything else, imagine the costs of tech support: the possible variations are so huge that tech support in the conventional way would be cost-prohibitive.
Of course, Adobe could (say) choose exactly *one* distribution and choose to support *only* that one... which would give them a small fraction of the Linux desktop market, which isn't exactly huge to begin with.
"David Mendels [Senior Vice President at Adobe] noted that the FAQ could bear another edit, and added: "We plan to keep the Flash Player small and focused. We *also* plan on a new client code named Apollo that will work out of the browser and bring together the best of HTML, Flash, and PDF." (I don't have additional info on the Apollo project yet... best I can offer is current search results on what's in the public record.)"
Great, another slashdot meme is born... let's complete the cycle, shall we?
-- It is official; Netcraft confirms: Flash is dying -- Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Flash killers! -- 1. Kill Flash; 2. ??? 3. Profit! -- In Soviet Russia, Flash kills you! -- In Korea, Flash is only used by old people anyway -- CowboyNeal
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.
Poorly written Flash, sure.
Just like poorly written JavaScript, or poorly written Java, or poorly written C++.
Don't laugh. When I was at EA, a co-worker was fired after putting in a mere 70 hours one week.
Well, it was spelled "egregious", but he pronounced it as "throat warbler mangrove"...
Um, because the legends of an ancient Middle-Eastern tribe (which were later written down and translated into other languages) had some phrase or two that modern readers contrued as applying in this case?
Nah, that couldn't be it...
If it's the parens, then obviously people are too superficial to look past the syntax
Sadly, it's true.
Hey, here's a challenge for you Lisp-o-philes out there:
Come up with an alternate syntax for Lisp that is as close to C / C++ / Java as you can manage. (You can even provide a transliteration tool so that source can be seamlessly converted either way.)
Now give it an entirely new name (e.g., "Emerald" or "Cobra") and don't claim ANY RELATION to Lisp; just promote it as The Next Big Thing in languages.
When it becomes insanely popular, reveal your subterfuge, then sit back and laugh maniacally.
Consider the zillion bugs in Java from casting to Object and back!
Since the whole point of casting is to subvert the type system, yeah, no kidding.
I'm a huge fan of static typing, personally, but Java made a huge mistake in encouraging casting in this way. To me, anytime you have to do a cast (in any language), it's a sign that your design has failed. If the language doesn't make it possible to avoid casting of this sort, the type system needs rethinking.
static typing charges you through the nose for very, very dubious benefits
Well, as they say, "your mileage may vary".
From my development perspective, static typing isn't a cost, it's a dividend.
Code with explicit typing, to me, is MORE readable, more clear, and easier to deal with, because type expectations are spelled out explicitly; I *can't* avoid specifying them, because the language won't let me. Maybe you find it to be annoying, irrelevant dreck that drowns out the meat of the program, but for me, types are inextricably part of the meat -- removing them makes me wonder, "what are the expectations for this again? I hope someone commented it properly..." (And yes, I've done enough work in dynamic languages to have valid opinion of both sides.)
You're almost always better off taking the development-speed gains of a dynamically-typed language, and learning the discipline to write good tests
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard this argument. I happen to agree that improved testing is a good thing, and that testing frameworks tend to be harder than necessary in most current static-typed languages. But IMHO this argument is rather like saying that seat belts are unnecessary if you have air bags (or vice versa); I'll take *both*, thanks.
Until someone shows me that all the code that I've written in dynamic languages that have served tens or hundreds of thousands of people are somehow riddled with type bugs
Whoa, slow down, no one's saying that dynamic languages are impossible to write proper code in. My assertion is that static typing is a tool to help programmer's avoid dumb mistakes, and to make the meaning of the code more clear. Can I get by without this tool? Yeah. But I don't see a good reason to, in general.
Interesting. See, my response would be:
"I've done both styles quite a lot, and I can say that dynamic typing really is overrated. It sacrifices too much error checking and code readability in large group-programming situations for what is really too little benefit, and allows you to let the language help you avoid the trivial errors so that your brain can focus on solving the interesting problems. The main problem that many dynamic-typing fans seem to have is a lack of exposure to a really well-thought-out, well-designed, large-scale system with static typing -- and enough experience to allow themselves the freedom to break old habits/patterns to actually see the help that static typing gives in developing large systems reliably."
What "dynamic typing" lets you do is forget about data types.
...do stuff to contents of arg1... }
Cool!
So now I can do something like:
function void foo(const ReallyComplexDataStructure& arg1) {
foo("Hello, World!");
and have it somehow work!
In Quebec, for example, it is often considered "offensive" to speak English on a public street, and represents intolerance of the pure laine Quebecois majority.
I gotta say:
WTF?
Look, in San Franciscio the majority of residents speak English, but I don't consider it "offensive" to hear someone speaking Spanish or Chinese on a public street.
If there's any "intolerance" going on there, it's in the minds of someone who can't bear to hear something other than their preferred language spoken in public!
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
It's disturbing because EA has been (and continues to be) the target of class-action lawsuits over non-payment of overtime pay... not to mention the target of much online scorn over their working conditions. (Google for "ea_spouse" if you somehow weren't paying attention the past two years.)
Granted, it's not exactly the same issue as Ubisoft, but EA is in no position to be criticizing *anyone* over its employment policies.
No, it's more like: Black Hole told kettle: "you're black".
The concept of EA criticizing *anyone* for employment practices is ludicrous. No, wait, "ludicrous" doesn't do it justice.
Remember: you can't spell "exploitation" without "ea"...
Don't try to make Linux into something it isn't.
Don't tell me: tell the grandparent poster that I was responding to.
His comment: "If Google does it right, a lot of people will migrate. "Goobuntu" (which is a stupid name) will be a gateway drug, as it were. Those who are fine with what Google offers in its OS will stay there, while those more interested in digging deeper will move on to other distros. Google's main hurdle is being user-friendly."
I'd say this falls squarely in the camp of Passing The Mom Test, which IMHO means No Command Line, Ever.
Linux should never be "dumbled down" by default to satisfy a minority of a minority of Linux users.
You're entitled to your opinion, but if the grandparent poster's suggestion came to pass, they would probably become the clear majority.
But here's the real problem... hardly ANYONE wants to use the mouse all the time.
I guess you've never met my mom or dad.
the shell will still ALWAYS be faster to do some operations
Likewise, you've probably never seen the speed at which my parents can type.
Just because you hate opening a shell, doesn't mean the rest of the Unix and Linux world do.
Fine, but I wasn't talking about the "Unix/Linux" world. I was responding to the grandparent poster, who was positing this as an OS for the "common man".
And, if the user just has to go into the terminal line, make the commands easier to understand and more intuitive
If the user just has to go into the terminal line, Goobuntu would be a dismal failure.
Really.
Repeat after me: normal people never, ever, ever ever want to deal with the command line.
Requiring command-line use for anything -- even installation, config, administration, etc. -- give a failing grade on the "Mom Test".
In Korea, only old people use Goobuntu.
C++ support: Then get apps from the vendor or compile them on the system with glibc ... or fix glibc yourself if you don't like it.
Given that the point of the grandparent was binary compatibility, compiling the app yourself isn't an answer.
Not to mention being completely unacceptable for my mom. (Maybe your mom understands the concept of makefiles. Mine doesn't.)
Did you even read the parent post?
The stereotype that all men do nothing but stare at breasts all day is interesting - am I the only one that doesn't?
Assuming you are straight: yes.
If it wasn't part of the question, it should have been.
Open-source projects get ported to where-ever people have the inclination.
Commercial software gets ported to the platforms where profit is a possibility. (At least, that's the theory... for companies that want to remain in business, anyway.)
I know, it's lame to post just a "Mod parent up" -- especially an AC post -- but this guy is right on the money:
To summarize, I don't think proprietary software will be successful on Linux until the market grows. I don't think the market will grow until proprietary software is successful on Linux.
Together with InDesign and Illustrator, this would round out a complete Linux publishing solution that any professional could sit down at and get productive.
Well, OK, but look at this from Adobe's perspective:
-- Adobe already owns the lion's share of the "creative professional" market, virtuall all of whom use Mac or Windows.
-- Adobe could decide to spend millions of dollars, and man-months (or more likely, man-years) of time doing Linux ports... which, at best, would get customers currently using Mac or Windows to switch to Linux.
-- This may be great for Linux, but helps Adobe not at all. In fact, they have now blown money and time to do ports which probably haven't affected their marketshare in the slightest (but most certainly would increase their tech support costs).
Bottom line: Adobe's in business to make money, not to promote Linux. I guarantee you that if Linux ports made it likely for them to increase their profit, those ports would be underway tomorrow.
Linux certainly has its charms, but as a target for deskop-user shrink-wrapped software, it's just too much of a moving target.
Aside from everything else, imagine the costs of tech support: the possible variations are so huge that tech support in the conventional way would be cost-prohibitive.
Of course, Adobe could (say) choose exactly *one* distribution and choose to support *only* that one... which would give them a small fraction of the Linux desktop market, which isn't exactly huge to begin with.
This is misleading.
/ player_future.cfm
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2005/12
"David Mendels [Senior Vice President at Adobe] noted that the FAQ could bear another edit, and added: "We plan to keep the Flash Player small and focused. We *also* plan on a new client code named Apollo that will work out of the browser and bring together the best of HTML, Flash, and PDF." (I don't have additional info on the Apollo project yet... best I can offer is current search results on what's in the public record.)"
Chuck Norris IS the only flash killer.
Great, another slashdot meme is born... let's complete the cycle, shall we?
-- It is official; Netcraft confirms: Flash is dying
-- Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Flash killers!
-- 1. Kill Flash; 2. ??? 3. Profit!
-- In Soviet Russia, Flash kills you!
-- In Korea, Flash is only used by old people anyway
-- CowboyNeal