Don't forget as well that the Pentium 4's ALU's clocks are doubly pumped, and as such it takes a lot of instructions to keep them busy. SMT helps here.
I don't believe Katz even thinks about the drivel he writes anymore. It's all reflexive, a mechanical stringing together of words. "We all know", "media this", "always has been", "corporate that". This man is nothing more than a puppet, an empty shell, his cliched writing an empty husk around stale fantasy and bankrupt ideology. I don't believe a word he writes.
Of course, you can run your older apps on a new VM. But then you don't get any of the new features. And I'm not talking gee-whiz bang features. I'm talking about features like "setting the creation date on a file". Or features like "Swing widgets actually get focus when you click on them".
As for threads, well, it's true. You need heaps and gobs of them. If you're a server, you'll need a separate thread for every child, because Java is rather lacking in the "sane I/O" department.
Sure, the new I/O layer in 1.4 will fix that (once they get the bugs out on all platforms) -- but then you are back to point number 1: you can't use the new I/O layer when your customers don't have/want 1.4. So it's no panacea.
Java works well when you have a large degree of control over the environment where your application will be deployed and ample resources to spare. However, this is quite contrary to the alleged portable nature of Java, and rules out most thin-client applications (another Java selling point at one time). So although it is commercially successfull and has encouraged for the first time widespread adoption of useful programming techniques such as object orientation and garbage collection, both implementation and design leave so much wanting that I think on the whole it must be concluded that Java is a technological failure.
Oh god. Java is hell. Forget about it. Don't defend it. Everything about it is broken.
1.4? Yeah. But how are you going to deploy your apps? Not everybody is running 1.4 -- can't very well expect everybody to download a 15MB installer. So you will still need to support 1.3 for at least six months to a year.
Memory use. Java eats memory for breakfast. A simple GUI app can easily take upwards of 70MB of memory. Now try to maximize the window to fullscreen. You have entered a world of PAIN. It is too slow.
Threads. You have to do frigging everything in Java with threads. It's fragile! Livelocks and deadlocks lurks after every code block.
Seriously, the Java language and the libraries are fundamentally flawed.
Everybody knows that sleepy people are depressed loners, anxious to get to the next day in the hope that it won't be as depressing. Of course when that never happens they kill themselves.
In any case, this example doesn't translate to email. Unless you create a class of email addresses that work like 900 numbers, which would be a major feat. Even then, all you've just done is create a way that makes it very easy for spammers to see where to not send their spam.
Your example is like expecting telemarketers to harvest and make calls to 1-900 numbers.
I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the Netherlands, when you call a 1-900 number (or the Dutch equivalent), you get a recorded message informing you of the cost of the call. So, no, if I dial a wrong number, I am informed and can hang up. If it's not like that in the US, pity you poor fools.
You are a bit of an idiot. I don't know what you are doing, but Java has been working flawlessly using Sun's 1.3 and 1.4 JDK's ever since 0.9.4 for me. Not saying your problems don't exist (in fact I've seen them and I know what you are talking about), but "a bit of an expert" would have worked around them, not written a page-long rant about how Java does not work (because it does, honestly).
I'm sure Apple went through a lot of pain to make sure apps like Final Cut Pro run like a chick buttered slick. However, knowing Apple, I'm also afraid their pain pretty much ended there. But anyway, many people seem to concur that Linux is looking real good.
Maybe your eggs need "deterministic response or nothing at all" but mine just need approx 2 minutes I guess.
The point is that there is a range of behaviour that is satisfying, then beyond that you start to worry. For audio or MIDI 1ms or even 10ms error may be acceptable. Even a 200ms error is acceptable when it occurs only once a week.
The task simply doesn't afford the troubles and cost of what you call a "serious solution", but at the same time it does require that some effort be put into constraining worst case latency. Much like cooking an egg really.
It doesn't matter. Most of the really, really horrible Perl code is that way simply because it was written to occupy very little space. Something you can't even decide on with Python, most of the time.
True enough. But then, Python isn't exactly getting the kind of exposure Perl is getting, either, because having whitespace as tokens makes it quite a bit harder to transcribe (copy-paste-mail-send, those kind of routine jabs).
Windows NT doesn't have a very low latency. If it had, there wouldn't have been any need to move GDI into ring 0.
QNX is great but realtime programming is really a specialism of its own. Realtime guarantees are confined to a limited subset of operations that would strike most non-realtime programmers as excessively restrictive.
Linux with Andrew Morton's patches is very very good in comparison. It's not a realtime system however and it doesn't really make sense to ask "how realtime" it does not can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget as well that the Pentium 4's ALU's clocks are doubly pumped, and as such it takes a lot of instructions to keep them busy. SMT helps here.
The funniest and most insightful post in this forsaken forum gets (0, Troll). Crackmods
I don't believe Katz even thinks about the drivel he writes anymore. It's all reflexive, a mechanical stringing together of words. "We all know", "media this", "always has been", "corporate that". This man is nothing more than a puppet, an empty shell, his cliched writing an empty husk around stale fantasy and bankrupt ideology. I don't believe a word he writes.
As for threads, well, it's true. You need heaps and gobs of them. If you're a server, you'll need a separate thread for every child, because Java is rather lacking in the "sane I/O" department.
Sure, the new I/O layer in 1.4 will fix that (once they get the bugs out on all platforms) -- but then you are back to point number 1: you can't use the new I/O layer when your customers don't have/want 1.4. So it's no panacea.
Java works well when you have a large degree of control over the environment where your application will be deployed and ample resources to spare. However, this is quite contrary to the alleged portable nature of Java, and rules out most thin-client applications (another Java selling point at one time). So although it is commercially successfull and has encouraged for the first time widespread adoption of useful programming techniques such as object orientation and garbage collection, both implementation and design leave so much wanting that I think on the whole it must be concluded that Java is a technological failure.
1.4? Yeah. But how are you going to deploy your apps? Not everybody is running 1.4 -- can't very well expect everybody to download a 15MB installer. So you will still need to support 1.3 for at least six months to a year.
Memory use. Java eats memory for breakfast. A simple GUI app can easily take upwards of 70MB of memory. Now try to maximize the window to fullscreen. You have entered a world of PAIN. It is too slow.
Threads. You have to do frigging everything in Java with threads. It's fragile! Livelocks and deadlocks lurks after every code block.
Seriously, the Java language and the libraries are fundamentally flawed.
Whatever kid. You seem to be unable to get around the broken software installer. That is all, and you're being an ass about it.
Everybody knows that sleepy people are depressed loners, anxious to get to the next day in the hope that it won't be as depressing. Of course when that never happens they kill themselves.
Your example is like expecting telemarketers to harvest and make calls to 1-900 numbers.
I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the Netherlands, when you call a 1-900 number (or the Dutch equivalent), you get a recorded message informing you of the cost of the call. So, no, if I dial a wrong number, I am informed and can hang up. If it's not like that in the US, pity you poor fools.
Let's say my phone number is 1-YOUPAY5. Does that mean you have to pay five bucks when you dial a wrong number?
Time going backward is really just time going forward with hindsight.
IMMA JUST GONNA GO LIKE THIS,
AND IT'S NOT MY FAULT IF YOU GET HIT! Of course that's not legally binding. The law is not stupid.Perfect memory? Shit, even MP3 is lossy!
She would be a chick. Buttered. Slick.
I'm sure Apple went through a lot of pain to make sure apps like Final Cut Pro run like a chick buttered slick. However, knowing Apple, I'm also afraid their pain pretty much ended there. But anyway, many people seem to concur that Linux is looking real good.
The point is that there is a range of behaviour that is satisfying, then beyond that you start to worry. For audio or MIDI 1ms or even 10ms error may be acceptable. Even a 200ms error is acceptable when it occurs only once a week.
The task simply doesn't afford the troubles and cost of what you call a "serious solution", but at the same time it does require that some effort be put into constraining worst case latency. Much like cooking an egg really.
It doesn't matter. Most of the really, really horrible Perl code is that way simply because it was written to occupy very little space. Something you can't even decide on with Python, most of the time.
True enough. But then, Python isn't exactly getting the kind of exposure Perl is getting, either, because having whitespace as tokens makes it quite a bit harder to transcribe (copy-paste-mail-send, those kind of routine jabs).
I can't be sure because I haven't measured but from previous experience with Mach, no, I don't think OS X does beat Linux latency-wise.
QNX is great but realtime programming is really a specialism of its own. Realtime guarantees are confined to a limited subset of operations that would strike most non-realtime programmers as excessively restrictive.
Linux with Andrew Morton's patches is very very good in comparison. It's not a realtime system however and it doesn't really make sense to ask "how realtime" it does not can be.
no text
Oh, and another thing. While we're playing hypothetical claptrap. IF there had been no CN or US -- do you think there would have been a world war?
How can you prove that "non-evil" qualities are not actually what help us, in an "evolutionary sense"?