What do you think China will do with 1 cm accuracy? Track Pandas? No, they will develop Galileo guided weapons and giving them further options in Taiwan, Kashmir, and even Siberia. All possible for a pitance of a few $100M. Galileo creates a strategic threat to the US and countermeasures will have to be developed. I can assure you there will be nothing guaranteed about service levels if the system is used to attack US interests.
And US uses it now for what? To track desert rabbits? Look from the other side. US system poses just as much of a threat to other coutries as you say EU system poses to US. No one likes having one above his head. Times when US played that role are over, at least most of the world would like it like that. The only problem I see here is that US constantly enforces its right (without any basis) to that role.
Just first question in the row of questions about weapon reselling. Who put Saddam on position and who funded his warfare? Oh, yes martians did it.
Secondary question. Most of the attacks on US happened for one reason only. US government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (and be that its political or military nose). Note that I completely disagree with any kind of even so simple violence, but sometimes I find it hard not to see the reasons for some their actions (although I don't agree with their way of responding, in my opinion hitting back with a hammer just leads to return hit with a bigger hammer, and so on. Just hammers are getting bigger and bigger without any results but so called collateral damage as seen by both sides. Violence is stupid, but it is predictable and it is in human nature).
As history tells, violent interferring calls for violent response.
In short, 1. if US has so many enemies as it fears, there must be a reason why there are so many. It is a simple: "action / reaction" with a little bit of human psychology. And please no relations how you make peace. I saw one such peacemaking from up close enough and last thing I would like to hear is *explanation* of what I saw 2. nobody likes "Big brother", dislike is even greater if that "brother" is a foreigner. You don't like stranger to come to your house and tells you how you sleep and work either. See, I don't agree with that either.
Not exactly like that, although there is a lot of truth in what you said. Where you where wrong? Nowhere. Better question is "What you forgot to mention".
A lot of code consists with memory block moving (and those are the most time cunsuming parts usualy too). This happens a lot faster on 64-bit (register is larger and you move larger block in one cycle). Every time you move or reallocate memory. For example, string functions are mostly this kind of logic. Then another one it is mapping one bitmap over another (or a simple cpy) for example. Even searches can be optimized for 64-bit pattern (Larger pattern, less steps, less cycles).
I'm not even nearing 40, more like just crossed 30. But I noticed that too. I used to rush in implementations, now not anymore. And most of coders I respect are all over 40.
Resolution of PS3 is 1920x1080, and your computer does twice that resolution?
It is interesting for people with either HD-LCD monitors, or HD-TV owners. Check resolution of those TV sets and then tell it will be the same. I for example am much more interested in Linux kit on PS3 (It will allow me to get rid of whole bunch of devices and set one PS3 and HDTV only with the same or better functionality than before with whole load of devices).
People using SVHS or composite will probably experience PS2 again. Probably just more elements in games.
Actualy it is bashing closed source and praising OSS without even knowing it.
Staroffice was made public in 1986 and made OSS in july 2000. Its length is cca 10mio lines of code. It has made a lot of progress in last 5 years. Especially if you take the project length to account. And Staroffice had a lot more problems. It acted as complete desktop, which OO.o rid off. Bad language support. Even longer start times. A lot less functions.
Again, how hard is "many eyes" to make bigger and better result differs on few factors. - was it always OSS? It is harder to maintain something you've not written - how big it is? OO.o scales as very large project here - How many eyes? In fact not so many as one would thought.
Taken these point to account I dare to proclaim OO.o is a success with a great future.
In my case. A newsflash for Craig Barrett, Intel Corporation chairman.
I've been dissapointed with Intels buggy hardware too long and any alternative would be acceptable. Unfortunately for MIT, AMD was a solution in my case, and maybe hopefully Cell in the future.
Oh, that is definitly wrong. I have yet to encounter a rootkit on a Windows machine but the linux machines I administer, I have seen a few.
Ohhh????....Nope my dear Watson, you have encountered them. They are just called viruses, trojans or backdoors on windows (that would be 99%, 1% are called rootkits)
Because they make it easier to over-take a server
Wrong again. Rootkit doesn't overtake your system, hacker does. Rootkit is usualy installed to preserve the OS access to hacker only after that system was overtaken. Or you had unpatched server running and was prone to get overtaken by some malicious script.
t the whole Linux Vs Windows argument isn't going to fly very far in this case. Infact, if I'm correct in thinking
It flies:) , it flies:) , just look at all the terms for rootkit (virus, trojan, backdoor). But if you're reffering to rootkit word then they take about 50% each.
Personally, I'd suggest using the Kubuntu variant, as it offers KDE rather than GNOME
Just a mild and simple warning.
And if he is a Gnome user? KDE is your preference. Not mine, for example. It is better to keep away with comments like this, you can easily start flamewar and send one completely valid topic to hell. You don't want to do that. Flamewars between KDE and Gnome do more damage than good.
There's a lot of choice: Ubuntu, Gnubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, now Edubuntu (even demudi is Ubuntu based). Few more and people can skip the Ubuntu part:)
Packages are extremely easy to install.
Just as everywhere else, not easier, not harder. Except maybe bigger repositories.
The problem is that there are parts of GTK that have, over the last few months, *FINALLY* been optimized by someone who knows what they are doing
??? Now, where did you hear that stupidity?
Reasons for delay are: - Trusted X (SELinux based X11) - Xen integration - Free Java replacement - Live CD - RHDS integration - Actualy trimming setup to 1 or 2 CD-s - Boot speedup - New sound server - Library deprecation
This are all too big plans for them to keep at 6month release. That is why this was changed to 9 months not GTK. GTK being speed up is just one of additional features that coincides with FC5 timing, not the reason.
Wrong. (You're probably to big Mac fan to see the reality)
If they are not the most used system on some hardware, then they are supposed to fear that suddenly user will find equivalent replacements in his other OS.
A possible scenario: 1. Developer makes custom app. 2. Companies he provides with run Windows. 3. He is forced to develop for Windows. (but he really preffers OSX) 4. Well, companies start to buy Macs and have dualboot. 5. And since maybe developer preffers Macs and knows that companies have OSX he makes next version for OSX. 6. Now multiply with the factor that average company user uses 2 custom apps and 8 generic. 7. As soon as those 2 custom apps are developed on OSX, need to buy windows suddenly vanishes.
Why would MS be happy about this scenario? And second thing. Dell is beholded to MS, not around. I wouldn't be happy if that comes to reality (Apple is even worster player in lockup game than MS). And I'm no MS fan.
Shake? Or few other commercial ones used by studios? If you search for free alternative then it doesn't exist on any OS. Well, Cinepaint (Film Gimp) is free and used by studios.
Desktop Suse moved to OpenSuse.org. Novell is counting more or less on server support, where their dektop money lies in commercial waters, aka. bussiness desktop. Gnome is far more polished than KDE for a typical Joe Sixpack. Gnome's moto is simplicity and having only those options that are needed, while moto of KDE is "Look, empty space? Must... put... something.... flashy... here, but that will require additional 10 preferences in kcontrol" (but that kind of stupidity should end with 4.0, at least as far I read the papers) - Sooo, bussiness deployment mean money, and Gnome does provide easier environment than KDE
Problem with KDE is that general KDE user is a long time geek, or unemployed guy who only lives to set his desktop just as he needs. Typical Joe Sixpack is probably scared with abnormal number of settings. KDE plans for 4.0 are the correct ones. And which way they are they taking? Same as Gnome. Simplicity over complexity. Functionality over being configurable. - No money here, move along Novell.
On the other hand majority of the money from Suse lies in servers. You don't need KDE for server, don't you? - Much more money here, but no desktop environment needed
Now, why do you think that I think that you know that I know you think Novell made a correct decision
The problem is that users think Linux=RedHat in the US and Linux Desktop=KDE in Europe.
Ok, I live in Europe, but from all people I know that use Linux (about 200) I know only 2 that are using KDE, and one is coding commercial apps for Gnome while using KDE (well, world is strange. What can I say). So your Europe and my Europe are different Europes? And to give you even more to think about, servers (deployments I know, not only mine) here are either RH (quite a few), Fedora (more than RH), CentOS (majority), FreeBSD (can count them on my fingers of my left hand). Desktop users are more and more moving to Ubuntu. That would be my Europe I know about.
Ok, saying the strange flips of the truth made me troll, can someone tell me what I have to say to become a dwarf? Or even better, rich? Ah, just forget it, for the second one you just have to lie, cheat and steal or being born as a mouse in a cheese factory.
Window selection for Terminal.app is a lot better than gnome though, cmd-1 to cmd-9 lets you quickly flip between terms.
Well, that's a new one. Someone saying Terminal.app is better than anything. Terminal.app is the... worst... terminal... emulation... ever... cmd+1..9 would mean anything if terminals would be as tabs and one could actualy know which is 1 and so on. Personaly, on Linux I always open at least five terminals in one fullscreen window, each for its basic task and I can always select whichever I need (alt+1..9 or Ctrl+PgUp/Dn or mouse).
Also I'm not sure how you can stand that GNOME and KDE junk on Linux.
Don't know for original poster, but I can tell you much easier than with OSX (and yes I do have G5 with Tiger, sucks just as previous with Panther).
Because if you're not using it, it shouldn't be there?
So, basicaly what you are saying is "WFT is this rtl ethernet driver doing in kernel, I don't have this fscking network card! Anyone who does should apply patch"?
Typical computer has one CPU, one chipset, one eth... Now, just why do you think kernel contains more than one. Because people don't use the same one hardware you use maybe? Same goes for the needs, you have your own needs just as everybody else has their own. Personally, I can only benefit from Xen.
If module that is not desired by you is there, then that module can be compiled by choice. If you build your own kernel then nothing stops you to say NO to options you don't need. Beside that, I doubt that RH plans to enforce Xen by default.
I can see why Red Hat would want it in the kernal, they sell enterprise server software, but with linux being used for everything from appliances to cell phones to PVRs to workstations to servers, seems to me there are LOTS of places where it would be undesirable.
All those appliances build their custom kernel. And all will probably choose NO if they don't see the need for Xen. Where is the problem?
On the other side, all those who build those kernels can only benefit from this. They imidietly get more robust and better environment to actualy do some work on systems you named.
I'm not sure how far that effort is along at this point, although Tor certainly seemed to be making excellent progress and was patching all sorts of Gnome/Win32 bugs in various projects.
Demo failed on GNOME Summit but as he writes otherwise, it should be pretty far with porting. If I remember correctly it is now about 2-3 months sice he posted first screenshots. And all libs are now in CVS and can be built
I've been working with Java for nearly ten years and still I'm hardly an expert on memory management in Java. There's a lot to be learned on this subject.
Well, if ten years is not enough for memory handling then my choice about leaving was correct. And you're not the first to say this. All the people I talked about this treat memory handling in Java or.Net like it would be something really complicated. In any other language this is just natural.
C++ is your hammer, good for you. If you'd spend as much time with Java as you apparently have with C++ you might have some different opinions about the whole thing. Three months to become an expert in anything is a very little time.
Who said anything about becoming expert? Did I ever??? I was using Java for about 3-4 years and then was a few years gap (used Java when it suited my needs). This would be the first job I would really apply Java commercialy and full app.
Spending so much with C++? Nah, actualy I spend most last months with fpc. This project I'm working on will be made with fpc. Except that fpc had shortcommings and I had to implement preprocessor for pascal++ specs and few additions of mine. As such I can almost completely avoid memory handling (but it took 3 months to finally create version that touches fpc on very few points and can be applied against any fpc version until now) and I can rely on my own GC-like engine. Being able to control language specs made me possible to achieve the only thing I searched with Java and still retain simple low level hadling.
Why I wanted Java or.Net in the first place? Sources are cleaner and less bug prone and not because Java or.Net would be something greater than the rest of the world. I don't know about you but I hate having mountains of sources and my self constantly searching where bug lies like I did until now But what I discovered is two options (and results): 1. Source even less maintainable than C++ but app is effective; result = not what I was looking for 2. Source is very nice and readable but app is not effective (for my needs); result = better to stick where I am, it works
BTW. what I know of nio, it is clearly positioned as the solution for the type of app you were trying to create (IO intensive stuff & large memory buffers). And I agree, it's not a very pretty API and requires some study to get into. But it's understandable that you run into trouble trying to avoid using it while trying to implement something for which it was created in the first place.
Well, again I specify. Having more readable source and being less error prone were the reasons why I was trying Java anyway. NIO fails at least first by a lot.
Don't blame the garbage collector for poor program design.
Since same approach from non-managed languages works like a charm, I can. They are just more suitable for this need and Java is no hammer for every nail (and you sound like it is, in your comment it is like "If it doesn't work then it is your fault", well if it does then it is butt ugly. Would that be my fault too? Remember my reasons why I even tried Java. It wasn't because C++, C or fpc wouldn't suit my needs. It was because I was searching for a nicer (more readable and less bug prone) way of implementation). As I said few times now, I dicredit Java for my OWN (and everytime I specify "my personal opinion") reasons and results in testing Java. And be that for no documentation on that topic or shortcommings of suited approach. Result will be the same.
I somehow feel that you are offended. Well if you are I didn't intend to offend you, but I'll say it again, Java is nice but it is far from universal hammer for my taste.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think China will do with 1 cm accuracy? Track Pandas? No, they will develop Galileo guided weapons and giving them further options in Taiwan, Kashmir, and even Siberia. All possible for a pitance of a few $100M. Galileo creates a strategic threat to the US and countermeasures will have to be developed. I can assure you there will be nothing guaranteed about service levels if the system is used to attack US interests.
And US uses it now for what? To track desert rabbits? Look from the other side. US system poses just as much of a threat to other coutries as you say EU system poses to US. No one likes having one above his head. Times when US played that role are over, at least most of the world would like it like that. The only problem I see here is that US constantly enforces its right (without any basis) to that role.
Just first question in the row of questions about weapon reselling. Who put Saddam on position and who funded his warfare? Oh, yes martians did it.
Secondary question. Most of the attacks on US happened for one reason only. US government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (and be that its political or military nose). Note that I completely disagree with any kind of even so simple violence, but sometimes I find it hard not to see the reasons for some their actions (although I don't agree with their way of responding, in my opinion hitting back with a hammer just leads to return hit with a bigger hammer, and so on. Just hammers are getting bigger and bigger without any results but so called collateral damage as seen by both sides. Violence is stupid, but it is predictable and it is in human nature).
As history tells, violent interferring calls for violent response.
In short,
1. if US has so many enemies as it fears, there must be a reason why there are so many. It is a simple: "action / reaction" with a little bit of human psychology. And please no relations how you make peace. I saw one such peacemaking from up close enough and last thing I would like to hear is *explanation* of what I saw
2. nobody likes "Big brother", dislike is even greater if that "brother" is a foreigner. You don't like stranger to come to your house and tells you how you sleep and work either. See, I don't agree with that either.
Not exactly like that, although there is a lot of truth in what you said. Where you where wrong? Nowhere. Better question is "What you forgot to mention".
A lot of code consists with memory block moving (and those are the most time cunsuming parts usualy too). This happens a lot faster on 64-bit (register is larger and you move larger block in one cycle). Every time you move or reallocate memory. For example, string functions are mostly this kind of logic. Then another one it is mapping one bitmap over another (or a simple cpy) for example. Even searches can be optimized for 64-bit pattern (Larger pattern, less steps, less cycles).
Of course I code a lot smarter than before
I'm not even nearing 40, more like just crossed 30. But I noticed that too. I used to rush in implementations, now not anymore. And most of coders I respect are all over 40.
Resolution of PS3 is 1920x1080, and your computer does twice that resolution?
It is interesting for people with either HD-LCD monitors, or HD-TV owners. Check resolution of those TV sets and then tell it will be the same. I for example am much more interested in Linux kit on PS3 (It will allow me to get rid of whole bunch of devices and set one PS3 and HDTV only with the same or better functionality than before with whole load of devices).
People using SVHS or composite will probably experience PS2 again. Probably just more elements in games.
Actualy it is bashing closed source and praising OSS without even knowing it.
Staroffice was made public in 1986 and made OSS in july 2000. Its length is cca 10mio lines of code. It has made a lot of progress in last 5 years. Especially if you take the project length to account. And Staroffice had a lot more problems. It acted as complete desktop, which OO.o rid off. Bad language support. Even longer start times. A lot less functions.
Again, how hard is "many eyes" to make bigger and better result differs on few factors.
- was it always OSS? It is harder to maintain something you've not written
- how big it is? OO.o scales as very large project here
- How many eyes? In fact not so many as one would thought.
Taken these point to account I dare to proclaim OO.o is a success with a great future.
I'm not sure he's right
Well, I'm sure he's not right:)
In my case. A newsflash for Craig Barrett, Intel Corporation chairman.
I've been dissapointed with Intels buggy hardware too long and any alternative would be acceptable. Unfortunately for MIT, AMD was a solution in my case, and maybe hopefully Cell in the future.
Oh, that is definitly wrong. I have yet to encounter a rootkit on a Windows machine but the linux machines I administer, I have seen a few.
....Nope my dear Watson, you have encountered them. They are just called viruses, trojans or backdoors on windows (that would be 99%, 1% are called rootkits)
:) , just look at all the terms for rootkit (virus, trojan, backdoor). But if you're reffering to rootkit word then they take about 50% each.
Ohhh????
Because they make it easier to over-take a server
Wrong again. Rootkit doesn't overtake your system, hacker does. Rootkit is usualy installed to preserve the OS access to hacker only after that system was overtaken. Or you had unpatched server running and was prone to get overtaken by some malicious script.
t the whole Linux Vs Windows argument isn't going to fly very far in this case. Infact, if I'm correct in thinking
It flies:) , it flies
Personally, I'd suggest using the Kubuntu variant, as it offers KDE rather than GNOME
Just a mild and simple warning.
And if he is a Gnome user? KDE is your preference. Not mine, for example. It is better to keep away with comments like this, you can easily start flamewar and send one completely valid topic to hell. You don't want to do that. Flamewars between KDE and Gnome do more damage than good.
There's a lot of choice: Ubuntu, Gnubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, now Edubuntu (even demudi is Ubuntu based). Few more and people can skip the Ubuntu part:)
Packages are extremely easy to install.
Just as everywhere else, not easier, not harder. Except maybe bigger repositories.
The problem is that there are parts of GTK that have, over the last few months, *FINALLY* been optimized by someone who knows what they are doing
??? Now, where did you hear that stupidity?
Reasons for delay are:
- Trusted X (SELinux based X11)
- Xen integration
- Free Java replacement
- Live CD
- RHDS integration
- Actualy trimming setup to 1 or 2 CD-s
- Boot speedup
- New sound server
- Library deprecation
Here is Wiki about it for you to get your facts straight
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FC5Future
This are all too big plans for them to keep at 6month release. That is why this was changed to 9 months not GTK. GTK being speed up is just one of additional features that coincides with FC5 timing, not the reason.
Now simply answer this. When did MS provided Ghost with install CD?
And yes it is easier with kickstart than ghost.
You still have to change names, ip, etc... Kickstart option can be selective. Ghost not.
Too bad it seems Microsoft skipped the "bargaining" step.
And all those times billg or steveb visited some coutry would be called what? Extortion?
now... where's the news?
Wrong. (You're probably to big Mac fan to see the reality)
If they are not the most used system on some hardware, then they are supposed to fear that suddenly user will find equivalent replacements in his other OS.
A possible scenario:
1. Developer makes custom app.
2. Companies he provides with run Windows.
3. He is forced to develop for Windows. (but he really preffers OSX)
4. Well, companies start to buy Macs and have dualboot.
5. And since maybe developer preffers Macs and knows that companies have OSX he makes next version for OSX.
6. Now multiply with the factor that average company user uses 2 custom apps and 8 generic.
7. As soon as those 2 custom apps are developed on OSX, need to buy windows suddenly vanishes.
Why would MS be happy about this scenario? And second thing. Dell is beholded to MS, not around. I wouldn't be happy if that comes to reality (Apple is even worster player in lockup game than MS). And I'm no MS fan.
Shake? Or few other commercial ones used by studios?
If you search for free alternative then it doesn't exist on any OS. Well, Cinepaint (Film Gimp) is free and used by studios.
And btw. it is cinelerra not cinerella.
Why?
I'm no MS lover, but for hell thigs would be much worse if situation was reverse and Apple would be as big as MS.
In other news ... Microsoft files patent for sucking-resistent code.
Didn't you mean... resistent sucking-code?
Oh, my god. As I was reading your title my eyes started flashing like Google crawler.
p.s. You forgot to put KEYWORDS in front. That would really spin me off
mm....mmmphh...Gotta... bite...this...one....
Desktop Suse moved to OpenSuse.org. Novell is counting more or less on server support, where their dektop money lies in commercial waters, aka. bussiness desktop. Gnome is far more polished than KDE for a typical Joe Sixpack. Gnome's moto is simplicity and having only those options that are needed, while moto of KDE is "Look, empty space? Must... put... something.... flashy... here, but that will require additional 10 preferences in kcontrol" (but that kind of stupidity should end with 4.0, at least as far I read the papers)
- Sooo, bussiness deployment mean money, and Gnome does provide easier environment than KDE
Problem with KDE is that general KDE user is a long time geek, or unemployed guy who only lives to set his desktop just as he needs. Typical Joe Sixpack is probably scared with abnormal number of settings. KDE plans for 4.0 are the correct ones. And which way they are they taking? Same as Gnome. Simplicity over complexity. Functionality over being configurable.
- No money here, move along Novell.
On the other hand majority of the money from Suse lies in servers. You don't need KDE for server, don't you?
- Much more money here, but no desktop environment needed
Now, why do you think that I think that you know that I know you think Novell made a correct decision
The problem is that users think Linux=RedHat in the US and Linux Desktop=KDE in Europe.
Ok, I live in Europe, but from all people I know that use Linux (about 200) I know only 2 that are using KDE, and one is coding commercial apps for Gnome while using KDE (well, world is strange. What can I say). So your Europe and my Europe are different Europes? And to give you even more to think about, servers (deployments I know, not only mine) here are either RH (quite a few), Fedora (more than RH), CentOS (majority), FreeBSD (can count them on my fingers of my left hand). Desktop users are more and more moving to Ubuntu.
That would be my Europe I know about.
Yeah, you're right, but that's just Windows. Installing GD2 on any other OS than Windows doesn't require restart. Doesn't even require even install.
In fact, Google can write all the thanks for this glorious feature exclusively to the fact that they don't support any other OS than Windows.
Ok, saying the strange flips of the truth made me troll, can someone tell me what I have to say to become a dwarf? Or even better, rich? Ah, just forget it, for the second one you just have to lie, cheat and steal or being born as a mouse in a cheese factory.
it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts
Window selection for Terminal.app is a lot better than gnome though, cmd-1 to cmd-9 lets you quickly flip between terms.
Well, that's a new one. Someone saying Terminal.app is better than anything. Terminal.app is the... worst... terminal... emulation... ever...
cmd+1..9 would mean anything if terminals would be as tabs and one could actualy know which is 1 and so on. Personaly, on Linux I always open at least five terminals in one fullscreen window, each for its basic task and I can always select whichever I need (alt+1..9 or Ctrl+PgUp/Dn or mouse).
Also I'm not sure how you can stand that GNOME and KDE junk on Linux.
Don't know for original poster, but I can tell you much easier than with OSX (and yes I do have G5 with Tiger, sucks just as previous with Panther).
What a stupid argument
Because if you're not using it, it shouldn't be there?
So, basicaly what you are saying is "WFT is this rtl ethernet driver doing in kernel, I don't have this fscking network card! Anyone who does should apply patch"?
Typical computer has one CPU, one chipset, one eth... Now, just why do you think kernel contains more than one. Because people don't use the same one hardware you use maybe? Same goes for the needs, you have your own needs just as everybody else has their own. Personally, I can only benefit from Xen.
If module that is not desired by you is there, then that module can be compiled by choice. If you build your own kernel then nothing stops you to say NO to options you don't need. Beside that, I doubt that RH plans to enforce Xen by default.
I can see why Red Hat would want it in the kernal, they sell enterprise server software, but with linux being used for everything from appliances to cell phones to PVRs to workstations to servers, seems to me there are LOTS of places where it would be undesirable.
All those appliances build their custom kernel. And all will probably choose NO if they don't see the need for Xen. Where is the problem?
On the other side, all those who build those kernels can only benefit from this. They imidietly get more robust and better environment to actualy do some work on systems you named.
I'm not sure how far that effort is along at this point, although Tor certainly seemed to be making excellent progress and was patching all sorts of Gnome/Win32 bugs in various projects.
EvoWin32 progress here: http://tml-blog.blogspot.com/
Demo failed on GNOME Summit but as he writes otherwise, it should be pretty far with porting. If I remember correctly it is now about 2-3 months sice he posted first screenshots. And all libs are now in CVS and can be built
I've been working with Java for nearly ten years and still I'm hardly an expert on memory management in Java. There's a lot to be learned on this subject.
.Net like it would be something really complicated. In any other language this is just natural.
.Net in the first place? Sources are cleaner and less bug prone and not because Java or .Net would be something greater than the rest of the world. I don't know about you but I hate having mountains of sources and my self constantly searching where bug lies like I did until now
Well, if ten years is not enough for memory handling then my choice about leaving was correct. And you're not the first to say this. All the people I talked about this treat memory handling in Java or
C++ is your hammer, good for you. If you'd spend as much time with Java as you apparently have with C++ you might have some different opinions about the whole thing. Three months to become an expert in anything is a very little time.
Who said anything about becoming expert? Did I ever??? I was using Java for about 3-4 years and then was a few years gap (used Java when it suited my needs). This would be the first job I would really apply Java commercialy and full app.
Spending so much with C++? Nah, actualy I spend most last months with fpc. This project I'm working on will be made with fpc. Except that fpc had shortcommings and I had to implement preprocessor for pascal++ specs and few additions of mine. As such I can almost completely avoid memory handling (but it took 3 months to finally create version that touches fpc on very few points and can be applied against any fpc version until now) and I can rely on my own GC-like engine. Being able to control language specs made me possible to achieve the only thing I searched with Java and still retain simple low level hadling.
Why I wanted Java or
But what I discovered is two options (and results):
1. Source even less maintainable than C++ but app is effective; result = not what I was looking for
2. Source is very nice and readable but app is not effective (for my needs); result = better to stick where I am, it works
BTW. what I know of nio, it is clearly positioned as the solution for the type of app you were trying to create (IO intensive stuff & large memory buffers). And I agree, it's not a very pretty API and requires some study to get into. But it's understandable that you run into trouble trying to avoid using it while trying to implement something for which it was created in the first place.
Well, again I specify. Having more readable source and being less error prone were the reasons why I was trying Java anyway. NIO fails at least first by a lot.
Don't blame the garbage collector for poor program design.
Since same approach from non-managed languages works like a charm, I can. They are just more suitable for this need and Java is no hammer for every nail (and you sound like it is, in your comment it is like "If it doesn't work then it is your fault", well if it does then it is butt ugly. Would that be my fault too? Remember my reasons why I even tried Java. It wasn't because C++, C or fpc wouldn't suit my needs. It was because I was searching for a nicer (more readable and less bug prone) way of implementation). As I said few times now, I dicredit Java for my OWN (and everytime I specify "my personal opinion") reasons and results in testing Java. And be that for no documentation on that topic or shortcommings of suited approach. Result will be the same.
I somehow feel that you are offended. Well if you are I didn't intend to offend you, but I'll say it again, Java is nice but it is far from universal hammer for my taste.