Can you name a product that used them together the way the iPhone and iPad do? If not, then, apparently, it's not sufficiently obvious to all the other consumer gadget makers out there otherwise somebody else would have done it.
The new standard completely changes the meaning of the auto keyword. That alone will break code, and it's adding something. Come to think of it, though, the article doesn't mention what, if anything, will replace the behavior that's going away.
Do you actually code in C++? Nobody uses the auto keyword in its original meaning. Its original use was completely redundant and was never needed, not even for C. Hence, nothing needs to replace the original auto.
They can't because it would break people's code
and most people get upset when that happens.
In a Google Talk about the Go language, Rob Pike make a snide remark about how they made the recent iteration of Go smaller unlike some other languages. The only reason they can get away with that is because there's very little Go code out there.
In contrast, there's tons of C++ and Java code out there. Both languages have cruft that I'd like to see removed too, but it simply can't be done. That's the price of success.
I download music illegally because that is the only way to get music where I live. The stores don't stock non-mainstream stuff, so if I want Pantera I need to go online for it.... If the *AA's wanted to prevent illegal downloading, they would have provided a legal option years ago.
I stole my car because it was the only way to get the type of car I wanted. The local car dealerships don't stock non-mainstream cars, so when a traveler passing through my town was driving the car I wanted, I stole it. If the car companies wanted to prevent car theft, they would have built a car dealership in my town.
Just because you want something that your town doesn't have isn't a justification for stealing it. You chose to live where you do. If anybody other than you is to blame at all, it would be the local music stores for choosing not to stock non-mainstream music.
I have no love for the *AAs, but they're not to blame here.
The system has been often exploited by organizations or individuals who have patented an idea which is too general or universal...
That implies that the system (in particular, the patent examiners) should be improved, not abandoned.
... or who have simply purchased licensing rights from the original creator. I think the right to sell a patent has deteriorated the purpose of patents.
I don't see why that's bad. If I invent a new widget and patent it, but I don't have the means to mass-produce and market my widget, why shouldn't I be allowed to sell the patent rights to some company who can and will for a tidy sum?
If only they would make it so that you can safely allocate an object in one DLL and destroy it in either another DLL or your main app using native C++ new/delete operators rather than their archaic COM mechanism.
I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.
I'm one of those crazy guys who just wants my computers to work. I did the whole "Linux thing" for a while (I even ran my own dual mail servers at home with auto-failover). I've got more important things to do now, so I just run Mac OS X. And I still have access to a bash shell and can compile open-source software myself if I feel like it. I let Apple employees worry about updating and patching my OS.
I'm a little confused how you can just sit there not paying attention and that doesn't have any negative consequences. To me, that indicates that the wrong people are on the call.
Well, it's been nearly 2 years and nobody has reported any negative consequences (aside from the fact that the call tends to waste people's time). The call is comprised of the entire team: that's why it's called a weekly team call. Therefore by definition, there can be no "wrong" people on the call.
If everybody on the call doesn't have something to contribute to each part of the discussion, then what you've done is taken what is actually two or more teams and glued them together to make a "team" that's not really a team.
Please don't say "what you've done." The team wasn't assembled by me. The software project is a large one. What person A is working on in subsystem X really doesn't affect either me or others not also working on subsystem X. Now, if each subsystem team had weekly calls, that might be better, but that's not what we've got.
[I]f dealing with people is irritating then you aren't going to be able to construct a team since a team is about dealing with people.
First, I never said dealing with people is irritating. All I said was that it's a waste of my time. We're all quite cordial to each other and there's often jokes and other humor involved, but that doesn't make it any less a waste of my time.
Second, again it's not about me being able to construct a team. I didn't construct the team in the first place. I never said I had any desire to construct any team whatsoever. That's not my job.
[O]n a functioning team there's no such thing as "That doesn't concern me."
Of course there is for a large project, especially if it's being done by a large company. I do software development. I really don't care what HR is doing, for example. There's no reason we should all ever have to be on the same weekly conference call. I'm not saying that in my case I am on such a conference call with HR: I'm only using this example to highlight the fact that your assertion breaks down eventually because it can't possibly scale.
In my case, I really don't care about, say, XML schema validation. I know next to nothing about it. Schema validation doesn't interact with my code nor does my code interact with it. So why should I care about it? The point of having many people in a team is to specialize their tasks and divide the labor. Saying that everybody needs to know about every component of the software goes directly against that.
Maybe I've just been blessed to work on better teams than you have, but your post comes off sounding egotistical to me.
Your post makes it sound like you've only worked in very small teams where the entire team is working on the same component. That's not the case I am talking about.
I've just got off our weekly engineering call that went for the last two hours...
I also happen to be part of a geographically dispersed team that has weekly conference calls via Skype. IMHO (and a few others'), the calls are largely a waste of time. I know what my job is. I can work independently. For everything else, e-mail is just fine.
For most of the call, I'm actually doing real work in another window and pretty much ignore the call because it's about talking about other aspects of the project that don't involve me. I have to respond only when I hear my name and then it's usually to give status that's just a repeat of what I've already sent in e-mail.
The only thing I find the call useful for is to get answers from people who didn't respond to e-mail I sent. IMHO, I shouldn't have to do that.
BTW: don't some very famous, large, geographically dispersed software projects get along just fine without weekly conference calls? Apache, GCC, and Linux come to mind.
The nice thing about a Time Travel series - is you need not watch it sequentially!
Actually, you sometimes do. Quite often, they refer to things that happened in the past (relative to the Doctor). If you never saw the older episodes, you won't know to what they're referring to.
You really have to decide whether you want to start watching the "new" series (starting with Christopher Eccleston) or the old series (starting with, conceivably, William Hartnell).
The new series has much better special effects, but, occasionally, they pay homage to the old series, so those bits will be lost on you. The old series has, by today's standards, cheesy special effects (perhaps even cheesy by the standards way back then).
However, the old series does have some very good stories, so if you can suspend your criticism of the special effects, start with the old series. Many of my favorites are in the Tom Baker (#4) era. In the new series, anything written by Steven Moffat is brilliant.
Although there tends to be a Dr. Who bias whereby whichever Doctor you see first is your favorite Doctor (similar to one's first James Bond), my personal favorites are Tom Baker (#4) and David Tennant (#10).
And the iPad comes with a 30% tax on developers...
And developers don't have to pay anything for the bandwidth to have their app downloaded; nor do they have to with companies like Digital River and pay them a percentage of sales; nor do they have to try to get into various distribution channels since they're included in the now de-facto standard distribution channel for all Macs. Developers are getting something in return for that 30%. Also, for free apps, 30% of $0 is $0.
Do you want a future where companies can reject their competitors' apps 'just because' ?
No, I don't, so I will agree with you on that point.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you name a product that used them together the way the iPhone and iPad do? If not, then, apparently, it's not sufficiently obvious to all the other consumer gadget makers out there otherwise somebody else would have done it.
The cited "prior art" didn't work using accelerometers either, so there was really no "existing invention" (at least the cited ones weren't).
Neither of the two cited examples of "prior art" cited in the summary were portable as is claimed (also according to the summary) by the Apple patent.
Do you actually code in C++? Nobody uses the auto keyword in its original meaning. Its original use was completely redundant and was never needed, not even for C. Hence, nothing needs to replace the original auto.
They can't because it would break people's code and most people get upset when that happens.
In a Google Talk about the Go language, Rob Pike make a snide remark about how they made the recent iteration of Go smaller unlike some other languages. The only reason they can get away with that is because there's very little Go code out there.
In contrast, there's tons of C++ and Java code out there. Both languages have cruft that I'd like to see removed too, but it simply can't be done. That's the price of success.
I stole my car because it was the only way to get the type of car I wanted. The local car dealerships don't stock non-mainstream cars, so when a traveler passing through my town was driving the car I wanted, I stole it. If the car companies wanted to prevent car theft, they would have built a car dealership in my town.
Just because you want something that your town doesn't have isn't a justification for stealing it. You chose to live where you do. If anybody other than you is to blame at all, it would be the local music stores for choosing not to stock non-mainstream music.
I have no love for the *AAs, but they're not to blame here.
That implies that the system (in particular, the patent examiners) should be improved, not abandoned.
I don't see why that's bad. If I invent a new widget and patent it, but I don't have the means to mass-produce and market my widget, why shouldn't I be allowed to sell the patent rights to some company who can and will for a tidy sum?
My point is that you don't have this kind of issue on any other platform.
If only they would make it so that you can safely allocate an object in one DLL and destroy it in either another DLL or your main app using native C++ new/delete operators rather than their archaic COM mechanism.
When was Microsoft ever a market leader?
Well, what are you going to do with it?
It's pretty much been done.
Programming, motherfucker.
I still think it's the lesser of two evils. Carriers almost never update phones.
iTunes works just fine on my Mac. I can't recall it ever crashing.
I also want to be able to buy mainstream software and have that just work too, e.g., Photoshop. Gimp is a joke.
I'm one of those crazy guys who just wants my computers to work. I did the whole "Linux thing" for a while (I even ran my own dual mail servers at home with auto-failover). I've got more important things to do now, so I just run Mac OS X. And I still have access to a bash shell and can compile open-source software myself if I feel like it. I let Apple employees worry about updating and patching my OS.
And this is, IMHO, one huge benefit to owning an iPhone instead: you get your updates directly from Apple, bypassing the carriers.
I think the distinction they're making is that the new robot is autonomous.
Well, it's been nearly 2 years and nobody has reported any negative consequences (aside from the fact that the call tends to waste people's time). The call is comprised of the entire team: that's why it's called a weekly team call. Therefore by definition, there can be no "wrong" people on the call.
Please don't say "what you've done." The team wasn't assembled by me. The software project is a large one. What person A is working on in subsystem X really doesn't affect either me or others not also working on subsystem X. Now, if each subsystem team had weekly calls, that might be better, but that's not what we've got.
First, I never said dealing with people is irritating. All I said was that it's a waste of my time. We're all quite cordial to each other and there's often jokes and other humor involved, but that doesn't make it any less a waste of my time.
Second, again it's not about me being able to construct a team. I didn't construct the team in the first place. I never said I had any desire to construct any team whatsoever. That's not my job.
Of course there is for a large project, especially if it's being done by a large company. I do software development. I really don't care what HR is doing, for example. There's no reason we should all ever have to be on the same weekly conference call. I'm not saying that in my case I am on such a conference call with HR: I'm only using this example to highlight the fact that your assertion breaks down eventually because it can't possibly scale.
In my case, I really don't care about, say, XML schema validation. I know next to nothing about it. Schema validation doesn't interact with my code nor does my code interact with it. So why should I care about it? The point of having many people in a team is to specialize their tasks and divide the labor. Saying that everybody needs to know about every component of the software goes directly against that.
Your post makes it sound like you've only worked in very small teams where the entire team is working on the same component. That's not the case I am talking about.
My only point was about conference calls. You stating that they use forums or IRC instead just supports my point.
I also happen to be part of a geographically dispersed team that has weekly conference calls via Skype. IMHO (and a few others'), the calls are largely a waste of time. I know what my job is. I can work independently. For everything else, e-mail is just fine.
For most of the call, I'm actually doing real work in another window and pretty much ignore the call because it's about talking about other aspects of the project that don't involve me. I have to respond only when I hear my name and then it's usually to give status that's just a repeat of what I've already sent in e-mail.
The only thing I find the call useful for is to get answers from people who didn't respond to e-mail I sent. IMHO, I shouldn't have to do that.
BTW: don't some very famous, large, geographically dispersed software projects get along just fine without weekly conference calls? Apache, GCC, and Linux come to mind.
Actually, you sometimes do. Quite often, they refer to things that happened in the past (relative to the Doctor). If you never saw the older episodes, you won't know to what they're referring to.
The new series has much better special effects, but, occasionally, they pay homage to the old series, so those bits will be lost on you. The old series has, by today's standards, cheesy special effects (perhaps even cheesy by the standards way back then).
However, the old series does have some very good stories, so if you can suspend your criticism of the special effects, start with the old series. Many of my favorites are in the Tom Baker (#4) era. In the new series, anything written by Steven Moffat is brilliant.
Although there tends to be a Dr. Who bias whereby whichever Doctor you see first is your favorite Doctor (similar to one's first James Bond), my personal favorites are Tom Baker (#4) and David Tennant (#10).
And developers don't have to pay anything for the bandwidth to have their app downloaded; nor do they have to with companies like Digital River and pay them a percentage of sales; nor do they have to try to get into various distribution channels since they're included in the now de-facto standard distribution channel for all Macs. Developers are getting something in return for that 30%. Also, for free apps, 30% of $0 is $0.
No, I don't, so I will agree with you on that point.