>>Because of this, I'll stick with my beloved python and hope one day, just one day, it catches on that I'll regularly get employment doing it.
Good philosophical viewpoint there.
Agree about lisp etc in terms of purity and elegance but a successful language must not place purist impediments in the way of the majority of potential users.
PHP succeeds like it does because it is a readily-understandable, practical tool, and it's easy to apply PHP to the problem in hand. Python is great in certain problem domains but doesn't have the sheer 'applicability' of PHP.
>>I prefer to be poisoned with PHP rather than starved by Ruby: poison is quicker and less painful.
Ha ha! My thinking exactly.
I feel you are correct in your assessment of these (and other) technologies that abound now.
They were designed by skilfull amateurs and enthusiastic students, who knew problem they needed to address, and addressed it pretty well, but without the benefit of deep technical knowledge and experience.
If everyone had waited for heavyweight pros to address the problem, we'd still be waiting, or be working with some horrible kludge (a camel is a horse designed by a committee etc.).
So viva PHP! and viva Ruby!
They aren't perfect, and nothing ever is, but they power a great deal of the web, very effectively and usefully.
IBM also has a history of successful products. Eclipse, WAS, WSAD, Lotus Notes, Rational Developer etc... The utterly failed in the office market with Lotus (They probably didnt have a clue on what to do with it)
There, you defeated your own argument by saying Lotus Notes.
IBM's 'Lotus' desktop software has a reputation (among the devs who know) for cheap 'good enough' software engineering practices. I am privileged (sic) have seen the code for quite a lot of it, and it is a heap of bat shit ten miles high. Redmond's shittiest code shines like a beacon compared to it.
Have you ever USED Notes? It's an abomination, in every aspect!
IBM's corporate clients suck it down as it's a tiny footnote on their quarterly software bill for z/OS, CICS and DB2.
Far be it from me to defend Microsoft's OS offerings but I think the truth does deserve an occasional airing.
With Win 95/98 there was not much 'hunting for drivers' unless you had very quirky, oddball hardware (for which the mfr. of said hardware should have provided Win9x drivers).
Win NT did have a bit of a driver famine initially, but by W2K, most of everything was tolerably supported.
I just don't understand your issue of getting desktops out of 640x480 8 - there never was an issue with supported video chips/cards (i.e. almost all by Win95).
I'm sorry, but as a long-time Ubuntu user, hardware support is certainly NOT ahead of where W2K was in 2001. Just yelling "IT IS TOO" doesn't help Ubuntu's cause one bit.
It's nothing to do with to OS per-se, but how the hardware mfr. prioritizes the demand and the market.
Maybe. But Sony laptop boards aren't exactly a generic form-factor and they would probably cost a *lot* more - even if you could but them, which you can't except as Sony spares.
Slashdot Mirror
Back off a little and chill man.
Instead of just yammering away like a totally spastic geek, try to engage people.
I didn't hear anything you said there. It just sounded like furious random spam or noise.
Yes, and this is all good except when the company is MS.
Agree Perl needs to be killed. It's a hopeless and dangerous irrelevance now.
Oh, the good old "call anyone who I disagree with a 'TROLL' situation".
Yep, that's ok pal. Just try calling everyone a 'Troll' in real life.
Learn to stand your own arguments upright. Get out of your room and your 17" LCD viewport.
*POOF* indeed!
Oh just grow up for fuck's sake.
Go outside and play. Make friends with the other children.
I'm sorry.
/. you have to take the rough and tumble that goes with that. It's nothing personal.
I wasn't trying to hurt you, or troll you.
I don't make it my business to 'harass' anyone either.
Maybe you're a little too sensitive. When you post on
>>All i care about is nice looking and agile code, really.
Oh really?
And what do your client care about (assuming you're a professional)?
BTW your website sucks for usability - black text on dark gray background!
>>Because of this, I'll stick with my beloved python and hope one day, just one day, it catches on that I'll regularly get employment doing it.
Good philosophical viewpoint there.
Agree about lisp etc in terms of purity and elegance but a successful language must not place purist impediments in the way of the majority of potential users.
PHP succeeds like it does because it is a readily-understandable, practical tool, and it's easy to apply PHP to the problem in hand. Python is great in certain problem domains but doesn't have the sheer 'applicability' of PHP.
>>I prefer to be poisoned with PHP rather than starved by Ruby: poison is quicker and less painful.
Ha ha! My thinking exactly.
I feel you are correct in your assessment of these (and other) technologies that abound now.
They were designed by skilfull amateurs and enthusiastic students, who knew problem they needed to address, and addressed it pretty well, but without the benefit of deep technical knowledge and experience.
If everyone had waited for heavyweight pros to address the problem, we'd still be waiting, or be working with some horrible kludge (a camel is a horse designed by a committee etc.).
So viva PHP! and viva Ruby!
They aren't perfect, and nothing ever is, but they power a great deal of the web, very effectively and usefully.
And who's fault was that?
Microsoft's or the AGP card manufacturers?
It's like saying 'Win98 didn't support my Jacquard Loom'.
It's a specious argument - blaming the OS for not supporting 'idiot hardware'.
>>There was lots of user hate and resentment
Wow!
Now that's the way to serve your users!
LOL!
Well no!
I think Eclipse is a ghastly, awful, clunky horror, but some love it, I know.
Give me Visual Studio any day, or emacs.
There, you defeated your own argument by saying Lotus Notes.
IMHO Eclipse is pretty awful too.
>>Open Office just has a "cheap feel" to it
Is that improved by the 'Lotus' branding?
IBM's 'Lotus' desktop software has a reputation (among the devs who know) for cheap 'good enough' software engineering practices. I am privileged (sic) have seen the code for quite a lot of it, and it is a heap of bat shit ten miles high. Redmond's shittiest code shines like a beacon compared to it.
Have you ever USED Notes? It's an abomination, in every aspect!
IBM's corporate clients suck it down as it's a tiny footnote on their quarterly software bill for z/OS, CICS and DB2.
Yes Notes lives on - but it IS a REALLY, REALLY BAD application.
Lotus Notes is by far the worst piece of commercial software engineering I've seen in the corporate space, ever.
Nothing that has come out of Redmond even comes close to the lameness of Notes.
IBM has a long history of adopting failed, failing or about-to-fail products. Lotus Notes was a classic example.
Even products with some hope of recovery have been driven to their doom by IBM.
IBM are the kings of big computers and big operating systems - they haven't got a clue about desktop software.
Leave it alone IBM!
>>What's entry level hardware in your world?
Anything that's x1000 entry level hardware in "your world".
OMG "The Raven64"
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
Nope, never have!
I have, however, compiled OoO.0oO0O.oo.2 in seventeen months - woot!!
eh?
What's your point?
Oh bull!
Far be it from me to defend Microsoft's OS offerings but I think the truth does deserve an occasional airing.
With Win 95/98 there was not much 'hunting for drivers' unless you had very quirky, oddball hardware (for which the mfr. of said hardware should have provided Win9x drivers).
Win NT did have a bit of a driver famine initially, but by W2K, most of everything was tolerably supported.
I just don't understand your issue of getting desktops out of 640x480 8 - there never was an issue with supported video chips/cards (i.e. almost all by Win95).
I'm sorry, but as a long-time Ubuntu user, hardware support is certainly NOT ahead of where W2K was in 2001. Just yelling "IT IS TOO" doesn't help Ubuntu's cause one bit.
It's nothing to do with to OS per-se, but how the hardware mfr. prioritizes the demand and the market.
Just how lean, light and fast does a C compiler have to be?
Surely, even the largest C projects compile in tolerable times on entry-level hardware these days.
I, for one, miss those long lunch-hours when I could call out "Another Martini, Barman! - I can do nothing until the operators page me!".
It sounds so unnecessary, and expensive.
Could you explain the benefits of this tech-heavy approach in a learning environment?
Personally, if I had to go back (too many years!) to the classroom, I think the tech would seriously get in my way.
Also, reading back over paper notes and sketched diagrams seems to embed the information more firmly in my brain.
Ok, maybe I'm an old fart, but give me paper and pen every time in a classroom, business meeting, or creative thinking moment.
I've just messaged your prof to tell him to throw a piece of chalk at you.
>>The EU has laws requiring the owners of a closed down business to continue to provide support for several years
Can you please provide a citation for that?
Or did you just pull that 'fact' out of your ass?
Insightful?
Maybe. But Sony laptop boards aren't exactly a generic form-factor and they would probably cost a *lot* more - even if you could but them, which you can't except as Sony spares.