See this is why decaf is EVIL! and not to be trusted.
Re:Constantly innovate? Too late!!!
on
Java Gets Templates
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So what?!?! This whole thread is missing the point. Its not about being innovative but winning the game. Do you really think that Microsoft cares if java was first to come out and that C# is just a clone with a few added features. The first people out the gate are not the ones who always unless they keep up that lead throughout the race. For all we know, it may have been Microsoft's intention all along to wait on competing with Java until it was necessary. Come out with a better (my opinion) product not while its competition has just started but until it has matured a little and innovation has slowed. That way you know the boundaries of your competition's product and you simply go through a checklist of things to improve and a couple of new things that your competition doesn't have../'ers would do themself some real good if they started thinking a little more like businesspeople and a little less like naive programmers.
>>This is a common problem in C/C++ and can result in some odd behavior.
This is a common mistake made by C/C++ programmers. Solved by not being lazy and putting initalizers in the constructors.
It says '....MAY automatically check the version.... and MAY provide upgrades or fixes....' .
I think they are just covering themselves legally for a SERVICE that is installed on WinXP.
You can turn it off by disabling Automatic Updates in Services.
>But if you write a C++ program that does do things this way.
good point except that if you are good C++ programmer you wouldn't write it exactly the same way.
Writing C++ code doesn't mean that its automatically SLOW C code.
Check out Effective C++ by forgot who. Gives great pointers on efficient C++ design.
this argument against C++ bc its to low level is a self inflicted argument. enforce a style and it won't happen. make sure that you are not breaking your own logic before you commit that code to the screen.INVARIANTS!!!!!!! Also a strong infrastructure for debugging (better logging of errors) can remove all of the hassle. if you write something in C++ that corrupts memory it means that same code written in Java would also somehow be flawed.
>How about 6 years work experience in consulting shops and software companies archtecting and implementing complete systems.
>A few weeks ago, i took a look at the number of lines of just C++ code that are right now in production systems. passed 400,000. THAT IS ALOT OF CODE for 6 years.
>As far as other languages go, I have used professionally (EXTENSIVELY) Java, Smalltalk , perl , Lisp, and a lot of server side scripting. I have found that people who claim to know how to program in C++ mix a vague notion of object oriented technique with every mistake you could make in straight structured C coding. I do admit that less than adequate programmers will be more destructive in the the development of a project in C++ than in Java.
>That safety net is built into Java. its restrictions allow for them to pass by. But i do put forth that if you enforce good style and standards,your design is not flawed from the start of the project, then these arguments fall away to the waste side.
>Also it matters what kind of leeway your project has in terms of requirements. Sure if it doesn't matter that your program is a hog and slow then why would you want to use C++ over Java. Only once it start looking like C++ strengths are not really necessary, I start to look to Smalltalk more as a solution then Java. Ease of development is order higher than in either of Java or C++. And for team based development VisualWorks with Envy blows everything out of the water.
>As for these GC systems that i talk about they are all interoperable and there are 7 because i like to be tight with GC and apply the right process to the right situation. All of them are component like and usually involve just a couple of lines to code.
>Part of the problem that i have with people lauding Java's libraries over everything else is that compared to what is out there Java's libraries as a foundation are lacking.
if you looking at what is out there and remove all the poorly written stuff it still is larger than java's class libraries.
> In fact if I WERE a student or someone in academia then i'd say argument for Java would make more sense to me."Hmm... I do not write a lot of code. The code that i write usually does not need to efficient. And I don't want write my own foundation of utility classes bc its not necessary for my dinky little projects." ya then java makes much more sense.
>I think you want to argue that Java is easier to LEARN than C++. Once you learn C++ properly and work with it for a while, You begin to see that java requires just as much time as C++ and you on top of that you get better performance with C++.
>All the people shouting "I can write C++ 10 times as fast as you can write Java, loser" please form a line in an orderly fashion, you will be spanked in the order you arrive...
I have yet to be proven wrong that developing using C++ is any harder or time consuming than writing in Java. Arguments for usually revolve around Java's libraries and its garbage collection.
To that i say Java's libraries are outclassed and outnumbered by the amount of source for C++ and the number of libraries like Boost,Dinkum, etc for instance. As for garbage collection, I myself have 7 different conceptual collection systems implemented that can be easily integerated into any code you want.
I can even make the case that developing for C++ is easier given the use of templates. Those who say that Java is easier to program in really don't want to learn the advantages of programming in C++.
The author of this article Larry Chin is a freelance journalist.
This article was written for red pepper magazine a radical left publication. I just went through a bunch of their articles and they all have a "conspiracy" spin. Larry Chin overlooks the fact that whatever mistakes were made by the West and the UN pale in comparision to the mass genocide inflicted by the warlords ruling Mogadishu. Check who you quote before you post.
Slashdot Mirror
Trent Lott is that you !!!!!
See this is why decaf is EVIL! and not to be trusted.
So what?!?! This whole thread is missing the point. Its not about being innovative but winning the game. Do you really think that Microsoft cares if java was first to come out and that C# is just a clone with a few added features. The first people out the gate are not the ones who always unless they keep up that lead throughout the race. For all we know, it may have been Microsoft's intention all along to wait on competing with Java until it was necessary. Come out with a better (my opinion) product not while its competition has just started but until it has matured a little and innovation has slowed. That way you know the boundaries of your competition's product and you simply go through a checklist of things to improve and a couple of new things that your competition doesn't have. ./'ers would do themself some real good if they started thinking a little more like businesspeople and a little less like naive programmers.
>>This is a common problem in C/C++ and can result in some odd behavior. This is a common mistake made by C/C++ programmers. Solved by not being lazy and putting initalizers in the constructors.
I know it wasn't the point but its simple enough to code adding two char pointer you just have to cast one of them to a string. its ugly and I never do it this way but here's something i coded int 3 mins...
#include <string.h>
class String {
char * m_str;
String(char * str, bool) {
m_str = str;
}
public:
static String operator+(const char* str , const String & s) {
return String(str) + s;
}
String(const String & str ) {
m_str = new char[strlen(str.m_str) + 1];
strcpy(m_str,str.m_str);
}
String(const char * str) {
m_str = new char[strlen(str)+ 1];
strcpy(m_str,str);
}
virtual ~String() {
if(m_str != 0)
delete [] m_str;
}
String operator+(const char*str) const {
char * tmp = new char[strlen(m_str) + strlen(str) + 1 ];
strcpy(tmp, m_str);
strcat(tmp,str);
return String(tmp,true);
}
String operator+(const String & str) const {
char * tmp = new char[strlen(str.m_str) + strlen(m_str) + 1];
strcpy(tmp,m_str);
strcat(tmp,str.m_str);
return String(tmp,true);
}
};
int main(int argc , char ** argv) {
String str = (String)"abc" + "foo";
}
The article takes about the simulation of nuclear bomb. I think the Athlon is more suitable to simulating a nuclear meltdown.
I think doing so would circumvent any argument that could be made against the native excel file format being software.
It says '....MAY automatically check the version .... and MAY provide upgrades or fixes ....' .
I think they are just covering themselves legally for a SERVICE that is installed on WinXP.
You can turn it off by disabling Automatic Updates in Services.
>But if you write a C++ program that does do things this way.
good point except that if you are good C++ programmer you wouldn't write it exactly the same way.
Writing C++ code doesn't mean that its automatically SLOW C code.
Check out Effective C++ by forgot who. Gives great pointers on efficient C++ design.
this argument against C++ bc its to low level is a self inflicted argument. enforce a style and it won't happen. make sure that you are not breaking your own logic before you commit that code to the screen.INVARIANTS!!!!!!! Also a strong infrastructure for debugging (better logging of errors) can remove all of the hassle. if you write something in C++ that corrupts memory it means that same code written in Java would also somehow be flawed.
awful templates mean you used them for something that they shouldn't have been use for
>How about 6 years work experience in consulting shops and software companies archtecting and implementing complete systems.
,your design is not flawed from the start of the project, then these arguments fall away to the waste side.
>A few weeks ago, i took a look at the number of lines of just C++ code that are right now in production systems. passed 400,000. THAT IS ALOT OF CODE for 6 years.
>As far as other languages go, I have used professionally (EXTENSIVELY) Java, Smalltalk , perl , Lisp, and a lot of server side scripting. I have found that people who claim to know how to program in C++ mix a vague notion of object oriented technique with every mistake you could make in straight structured C coding. I do admit that less than adequate programmers will be more destructive in the the development of a project in C++ than in Java.
>That safety net is built into Java. its restrictions allow for them to pass by. But i do put forth that if you enforce good style and standards
>Also it matters what kind of leeway your project has in terms of requirements. Sure if it doesn't matter that your program is a hog and slow then why would you want to use C++ over Java. Only once it start looking like C++ strengths are not really necessary, I start to look to Smalltalk more as a solution then Java. Ease of development is order higher than in either of Java or C++. And for team based development VisualWorks with Envy blows everything out of the water.
>As for these GC systems that i talk about they are all interoperable and there are 7 because i like to be tight with GC and apply the right process to the right situation. All of them are component like and usually involve just a couple of lines to code.
>Part of the problem that i have with people lauding Java's libraries over everything else is that compared to what is out there Java's libraries as a foundation are lacking.
if you looking at what is out there and remove all the poorly written stuff it still is larger than java's class libraries.
> In fact if I WERE a student or someone in academia then i'd say argument for Java would make more sense to me."Hmm... I do not write a lot of code. The code that i write usually does not need to efficient. And I don't want write my own foundation of utility classes bc its not necessary for my dinky little projects." ya then java makes much more sense.
>I think you want to argue that Java is easier to LEARN than C++. Once you learn C++ properly and work with it for a while, You begin to see that java requires just as much time as C++ and you on top of that you get better performance with C++.
>All the people shouting "I can write C++ 10 times as fast as you can write Java, loser" please form a line in an orderly fashion, you will be spanked in the order you arrive...
,Dinkum, etc for instance. As for garbage collection, I myself have 7 different conceptual collection systems implemented that can be easily integerated into any code you want.
I have yet to be proven wrong that developing using C++ is any harder or time consuming than writing in Java. Arguments for usually revolve around Java's libraries and its garbage collection.
To that i say Java's libraries are outclassed and outnumbered by the amount of source for C++ and the number of libraries like Boost
I can even make the case that developing for C++ is easier given the use of templates. Those who say that Java is easier to program in really don't want to learn the advantages of programming in C++.
The author of this article Larry Chin is a freelance journalist. This article was written for red pepper magazine a radical left publication. I just went through a bunch of their articles and they all have a "conspiracy" spin. Larry Chin overlooks the fact that whatever mistakes were made by the West and the UN pale in comparision to the mass genocide inflicted by the warlords ruling Mogadishu. Check who you quote before you post.
Cable.