"Enthusiasts" is used as a very critical term, meaning almost the opposite of anyone who actually is enthusiastic about Java. I think Bruce Eckel is just saying thank god all the hypemeisters have left and are now bellowing about Ruby on Rails, or who knows what, leaving actual Java progammers the quiet they need to actually get some work done.
What slashdot needs is a filter that sends any message with "everybody knows" to the bottom of the filter level, then digs a hole and puts it 5 levels beneath that. I don't believe I've ever read a comment anywhere that includes "everybody knows" and is worth reading.
What they really mean is "I really don't have a clue to I'll just use this rhetorical flourish and hope nobody notices."
Given the length of the newly named function I expect you to be longwinded............:-) I do tend to agree with you though and find it odd to find myself turning to these monstrously long names in the interest of clarity as I get older.
This isn't insightful. It's just ignorant. One might also ask why slashdot has lost readership -- to much ignorance being branded insightful and getting through my filters.
I can't get to that link at the moment so am going to write this in the meantime.
Really I'm just thinking out loud about a subject that I've thought about for quite a few years: why have I never seen a wooden computer table/desk/hutch/whatever that appealed to me? I'm very fond of wood furniture and would take it over any other material most any day. Yet every time I see some sort of wooden furniture paired with a computer it just looks wrong. Same thing with entertainment centers/home theaters now that I think of it.
Maybe it's just me. The best explanation I can come up with is that wood, unless it's trying to hide its origins and look like something else, is quintessentially organic. Technology is not. Even if you created computers that made Gaudi look straightlaced I don't think they'd seem organic. Perhaps it's the screen, perhaps it's the keyboard. Like I said I'm just musing out loud, waiting for that perfect day when I find a wooden computer that looks right.
Well I have to admit that when I took my first Java course I kept mentioning to class that I thought Perl was better in many ways.......
But now a few years later, and now that I'm doing and rewriting more production Perl code, I see how fragile it can be. And wish it forced a little more discipline on itself.
That said I think for those who use it you can't help but love it for what it does. I don't have much sympathy with those who take easy but ignorant pot shots at Perl. But on the other hand I think it could do much, and its users could do much, to help make it more robust and give it the respect it deserves.
It's just seems too hard to make robust Perl code and that really bothers me.
Yes I think that's right. Perl gives you far more rope to write unreadable code with. And for some reason people delight in doing so. I really do think that it's part of the Perl culture.
I'm sure I'm not alone in having spent a lot of time thinking about this over the years. I've recently had to both rewrite someone else's Perl code and write some new stuff of my own. What I noticed immediately is how easy it is to write something complicated in Perl and how easy it is to write code that is so terse that no one else will be able to understand it without considerable work. Worse I really think that the dominant Perl culture, as much as there is one, disdains comments and clear code in favor of terse and clever code. And Perl surely lets you do that.
I should add that Perl is my primary language. But I also do a fair amount of Java coding and it sheds some interesting light on Perl. Yes it is incredibly verbose. But it also is much better about forcing you do consider error conditions. Perl by contrast allows you to THINK that you have a working program without informing you of the possible error conditions that exist. Yes I know about -w and use strict and they help. But not everyone uses them. As I said it's still my main language. But there sure are times when I liked to send it to Java school for a little discipline.
On related matters I'd really recommend "Effective Perl Programming" by Joseph N. Hall, with Randall.
Forget about red herrings such as what you've seen in galleries, museums, newspapers, etc. The art world committed suicide about 50 years ago and it in itself no longer has any relation to art. What may be in museums, galleries, etc. is unimportant.
Instead ask yourself if you'd consider something a program (this holds especially true if you're a programmer) if a computer program created it for you. For instance suppose there was a web site where you typed in some keywords, for instance 'file, copy, image, lock, java' or 'ftp query perl string' and then the program created a working program. Would you be happy with it as a program? Suppose it really was very cleverly done and brought a smile to your face. Would it then be a program? Suppose you realized that the code was actually better and more elegant than something that you might write. Would it then be a program? Complicate this by the knowledge that Art is considered to be something more than just the creation of something functional. Depending upon how much pride you take in your programming, whether you're happy with the most error-ridden software that you might steal from some web site, whether you're used to only the most elegant programming you will probably react differently. Then multiply the complexity of that by 100 or so and you'll have some idea as to whether computer generated art, photography, Marcel Duchamp, a street artist or Velasquez creates art. Maybe they all are.
Don't blame it on the users. Blame it on the software makers. They too will learn that concentrating on Windows software is exposing them to analogous risks to those the article talks about.
Everyone has been coopted by the MS monopoly. So it's easier to just use IE. It's easier to just write software for Windows (though I know some ESRI products work on 'nix systems). But the current and continuing state of the computer world really will destroy that easiness and both casual users and software makers are going to have to seriously consider non-MS products.
It's only a matter of time. I'm not promulgating it, just predicting it.
I won't read anything with a headline of "pizazz." Surely it must be the oldest cliche around. Just what is "pizazz?" My dictionary says it was first used in 1937. Since I assume you mean to indicate something new and flashy don't you think you could come up with something better than a word from 1937?
Nothing personal mind you. I've just never understood the use of this musty word to indicate something new and exciting. Then again maybe it's just me.
I sort of doubt that IBM could top MS when it started marketing Visual Studio Projects as Visual Studio Solutions many years ago. I believe that defines crap as far as "solutions" goes.
Used JSPWiki instead, had it working in less than a day, but had same wonderful results!!
Obviously there must be something wrong with it if you can get it done in less than a day and it doesn't cost anything! I think the only hope for such software is that you can get it to work in an emergency situation. Only then will co-workers give it the credit it deserves.
P.S. Calling it a wiki of course was the last straw. Now if wiki were an acronym for Web Initialized Knowledge Infobase or some such thing you could bet that we wouldn't be having this problem!
Firefox will only get a single shot with most users.......... until they get another IE induced virus that is. Though it's often true that software must work correctly the first time or users will give up on it (the success of Windows not withstanding) I think there are enough problems with IE that users will give Firefox more than one chance. And really I think Firefox works awfully well as is.
Quoted the article twice today
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
before seeing this Personal Horn Tooting. I think the article does articulate a different business model that many people may just refuse to see. I believe that it was Tim O'Reilly who wrote an article saying that it was the Googles, Amazons etc. that were really creating the new killer software, not Sun or MS, and that part of the reason was that they gave more control to users. This theme is echoed in the book We The Media.
I've lived through 30+ years of overhyped predictions about the future, starting way back when with The Greening of America. But there's a big difference between a book/essay that's trying to shape the future by exhorting its readers to make the future that way and one that is slightly more objective and says that it thinks things are developing in such a way as to come to this predicted future. I mention all this just to say "I hope that I won't be fooled again."
And that I think what these various authors say is most likely true: there seems to be an inevitable democritization of media/commerce that allows for the Long Tail, whether it be in newspapers, bookstores, blogging, music stores or whatever. All seem to have the common thread of better too much than too little, better too all-inclusive than too exclusive. From what I've seen they are right and we might, I hope, all gain from it.
I just wish I could figure out how to make a good living from it.:-)
So that brings up another topic: how many languages have to use another language to fix their own problems? And how often is perl the language used to fix things?
Oddly enough I happened to read both the WSJ article and the Toulouse mini-article during my lunch a few minutes ago and came back to find this on slashdot.
I also have to commend the graphic that accompanies the WSJ article. The article says that for the first time ever IE share dropped, presumably because of the virus threat. Also a few words about the Mozilla developers.
I have to agree with you, or I shouldn't say have to I'm happy to. Though I've greatly enjoyed other Paul Graham articles the one line that jumped out as manifestly wrong in his article was the notion that great programmers don't use Java.
This strikes me as exhibiting a type of hotdogging that I hadn't come to expect from him. I say hotdogging for two reasons: one, Perl readily allows for hotdog programming; Java really doesn't; two, it seems like a thoughtless, off-the-cuff, hotdog type of remark and I wonder if he really means it. Who knows but let's assume that he does.
In that case he makes a hotdog, showoff type of remark in favor of a language that can, but doesn't have to be used in a hotdog manner. That sounds like someone who hss a bias towards the frisson of creativity and away from the satisfaction of a job well done, or maybe art versus craft. I'm obviously just thinking out loud here but it does make me think that I ought to go back and reread his essay on painting and programming to see what type of art he likes.
I had liked much of that essay but now I wonder if re-reading it I won't find the same type of hotdogging.
If so then I'd have to come to this conclusion: he favors the frisson that comes with a stylish slap of the brush across the canvas rather than the restrained satisfaction of a more carefully built painting, a Hals versus a Rembrandt, or perl versus Java. I don't say this to slight perl. I use and love it, as I do Java. A person who goes more for thrills than substance may prefer Perl. But then they'd probably prefer Hals to Rembrandt.
Surely some IT people are tired of combatting IE's security flaws. Mozilla already seems to me to be more useful than IE, it is standards compliant, and it promises as we see here to continue to be. What SMART IT department wouldn't like that?
Sadly in my opinion many home users went to Windows because that's what their corporate IT departments forced them to use at work. So they got familiar with it, warts and all. If those same IT people get them to use Mozilla I'm sure they'd be far less fearful of trying it at home.
To expand a bit, if you look at what any great craftsman (well most anyway) you'll see that they use the right tool for the job whether it's a bow saw, a dovetail saw, a power saw, a Cuisinart, a forged steel knife, Perl, Java, VB, ksh or whatever. I think the great craftsmen both know their tools and their power. They know when to use them and, probably most importantly, they know when NOT TO USE THEM. It's so easy to be swayed by popularity and trendiness, e.g. should I drop all my Java work and jump on ASP.NET because everyone else in my department is yipping and yapping about it? I think really good craftmen, and I'm not saying I'm one because I'm not, have the ability to quickly choose the right tool for the job, pick it and use it. I'm happy to say that I use both Perl and Java most of the time and I really find that they complement one another. My time constraints often force me to use Perl because I can do something quickly with it. But I often wish I had the time to do it in Java because I think it would be more robust. And sometimes I do. On the other hand sometimes I make a project perhaps needlessly complicated because I choose Java over Perl. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Hopefully I'll learn better over time which I should choose, or whether I should explore something new. We're all lucky if we find a tool that feels right to us, whether it's Perl, an old Addis chisel or one of my 1800-vintage Sabatier knives. They're fun to work with and make the job easier. But I think that once you really learn to use one tool well you also are better able to see the possibilities that other tools offer. So next time you try Java, or a power saw, etc. In any case I think the skilled programmer marvels at the wealth of good tools rather than spends too much time debating the supremacy of one over the other. And that's the one very odd thing about this essay that I can't quite agree with, the bias for Perl and Python over other languages. I see their appeal, and I personally love Perl, but I'd be surprised if only the best hackers use them.
Well I'm happy to see that someone has finally given some details as to exactly what the problem was, what vendor was involved etc. But as far as I can tell no one has yet explained whether it was a coding error in the software (my bets are against it), a configuration error in the new software, a network error, a permissions error.
As many of the responses have pointed out more and more of what we do is dependent upon many different computer elements working together. And every connection as well as every element is a point of failure. It makes me wonder if anyone ever analyzes, in writing I mean, all the possible points of failure of a project and then methodically checks them if/when something goes wrong. NASA might but I doubt newspapers, with which I'm quite familiar, do.
Re:Have to be careful here with music tastes
on
IT's Musical Habits
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Right you are. It's part of the moral cowardice that grew out of the 60s, of which I was a part I might add. Better to say everything is OK than say that something is good and something bad, or you like one thing but not the other, because God forbid you might offend someone or maybe worse might be proved wrong. Instead take no stand on anything. In place of moral decision making the godawful, senile, century-old "irony" took its place, and still stays there, stinking up everything it touches.
Why limit yourself to "software?" You have to wonder why anyone listens to them at all when any company can drop 33% because it's a few cents off in it's expected earnings. That IS and HAS BEEN ridiculous for quite awhile. It drives companies to continue to cut costs, regardless of quality diminshment, in order to meet analysts expecatations for earnings. But no one seems to have learned and so we all stay on this suicidal treadmill. As long as this continues we'd all be best off working for companies that aren't publicly traded. And investing our money as best we can in the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"Enthusiasts" is used as a very critical term, meaning almost the opposite of anyone who actually is enthusiastic about Java. I think Bruce Eckel is just saying thank god all the hypemeisters have left and are now bellowing about Ruby on Rails, or who knows what, leaving actual Java progammers the quiet they need to actually get some work done.
What slashdot needs is a filter that sends any message with "everybody knows" to the bottom of the filter level, then digs a hole and puts it 5 levels beneath that. I don't believe I've ever read a comment anywhere that includes "everybody knows" and is worth reading.
What they really mean is "I really don't have a clue to I'll just use this rhetorical flourish and hope nobody notices."
Given the length of the newly named function I expect you to be longwinded............:-)
I do tend to agree with you though and find it odd to find myself turning to these monstrously long names in the interest of clarity as I get older.
This isn't insightful. It's just ignorant. One might also ask why slashdot has lost readership -- to much ignorance being branded insightful and getting through my filters.
Totally, unrelated to the gist of the subject but is that the old Telegraph Theater, reincarnated as the UC Theater?
I can't get to that link at the moment so am going to write this in the meantime.
Really I'm just thinking out loud about a subject that I've thought about for quite a few years: why have I never seen a wooden computer table/desk/hutch/whatever that appealed to me? I'm very fond of wood furniture and would take it over any other material most any day. Yet every time I see some sort of wooden furniture paired with a computer it just looks wrong. Same thing with entertainment centers/home theaters now that I think of it.
Maybe it's just me. The best explanation I can come up with is that wood, unless it's trying to hide its origins and look like something else, is quintessentially organic. Technology is not. Even if you created computers that made Gaudi look straightlaced I don't think they'd seem organic. Perhaps it's the screen, perhaps it's the keyboard. Like I said I'm just musing out loud, waiting for that perfect day when I find a wooden computer that looks right.
Well I have to admit that when I took my first Java course I kept mentioning to class that I thought Perl was better in many ways.......
But now a few years later, and now that I'm doing and rewriting more production Perl code, I see how fragile it can be. And wish it forced a little more discipline on itself.
That said I think for those who use it you can't help but love it for what it does. I don't have much sympathy with those who take easy but ignorant pot shots at Perl. But on the other hand I think it could do much, and its users could do much, to help make it more robust and give it the respect it deserves.
It's just seems too hard to make robust Perl code and that really bothers me.
Yes I think that's right. Perl gives you far more rope to write unreadable code with. And for some reason people delight in doing so. I really do think that it's part of the Perl culture.
I'm sure I'm not alone in having spent a lot of time thinking about this over the years. I've recently had to both rewrite someone else's Perl code and write some new stuff of my own. What I noticed immediately is how easy it is to write something complicated in Perl and how easy it is to write code that is so terse that no one else will be able to understand it without considerable work. Worse I really think that the dominant Perl culture, as much as there is one, disdains comments and clear code in favor of terse and clever code. And Perl surely lets you do that.
I should add that Perl is my primary language. But I also do a fair amount of Java coding and it sheds some interesting light on Perl. Yes it is incredibly verbose. But it also is much better about forcing you do consider error conditions. Perl by contrast allows you to THINK that you have a working program without informing you of the possible error conditions that exist. Yes I know about -w and use strict and they help. But not everyone uses them. As I said it's still my main language. But there sure are times when I liked to send it to Java school for a little discipline.
On related matters I'd really recommend "Effective Perl Programming" by Joseph N. Hall, with Randall.
Forget about red herrings such as what you've seen in galleries, museums, newspapers, etc. The art world committed suicide about 50 years ago and it in itself no longer has any relation to art. What may be in museums, galleries, etc. is unimportant.
Instead ask yourself if you'd consider something a program (this holds especially true if you're a programmer) if a computer program created it for you. For instance suppose there was a web site where you typed in some keywords, for instance 'file, copy, image, lock, java' or 'ftp query perl string' and then the program created a working program. Would you be happy with it as a program?
Suppose it really was very cleverly done and brought a smile to your face. Would it then be a program? Suppose you realized that the code was actually better and more elegant than something that you might write. Would it then be a program? Complicate this by the knowledge that Art is considered to be something more than just the creation of something functional. Depending upon how much pride you take in your programming, whether you're happy with the most error-ridden software that you might steal from some web site, whether you're used to only the most elegant programming you will probably react differently. Then multiply the complexity of that by 100 or so and you'll have some idea as to whether computer generated art, photography, Marcel Duchamp, a street artist or Velasquez creates art. Maybe they all are.
Don't blame it on the users. Blame it on the software makers. They too will learn that concentrating on Windows software is exposing them to analogous risks to those the article talks about.
Everyone has been coopted by the MS monopoly. So it's easier to just use IE. It's easier to just write software for Windows (though I know some ESRI products work on 'nix systems). But the current and continuing state of the computer world really will destroy that easiness and both casual users and software makers are going to have to seriously consider non-MS products.
It's only a matter of time. I'm not promulgating it, just predicting it.
I won't read anything with a headline of "pizazz." Surely it must be the oldest cliche around. Just what is "pizazz?" My dictionary says it was first used in 1937. Since I assume you mean to indicate something new and flashy don't you think you could come up with something better than a word from 1937?
Nothing personal mind you. I've just never understood the use of this musty word to indicate something new and exciting. Then again maybe it's just me.
I sort of doubt that IBM could top MS when it started marketing Visual Studio Projects as Visual Studio Solutions many years ago. I believe that defines crap as far as "solutions" goes.
But about your eyeballs? Mine are already shot from staring at a screen all day.
Used JSPWiki instead, had it working in less than a day, but had same wonderful results!!
Obviously there must be something wrong with it if you can get it done in less than a day and it doesn't cost anything! I think the only hope for such software is that you can get it to work in an emergency situation. Only then will co-workers give it the credit it deserves.
P.S. Calling it a wiki of course was the last straw. Now if wiki were an acronym for Web Initialized Knowledge Infobase or some such thing you could bet that we wouldn't be having this problem!
Firefox will only get a single shot with most users ..........
until they get another IE induced virus that is. Though it's often true that software must work correctly the first time or users will give up on it (the success of Windows not withstanding) I think there are enough problems with IE that users will give Firefox more than one chance. And really I think Firefox works awfully well as is.
before seeing this Personal Horn Tooting. I think the article does articulate a different business model that many people may just refuse to see. I believe that it was Tim O'Reilly who wrote an article saying that it was the Googles, Amazons etc. that were really creating the new killer software, not Sun or MS, and that part of the reason was that they gave more control to users. This theme is echoed in the book We The Media.
I've lived through 30+ years of overhyped predictions about the future, starting way back when with The Greening of America. But there's a big difference between a book/essay that's trying to shape the future by exhorting its readers to make the future that way and one that is slightly more objective and says that it thinks things are developing in such a way as to come to this predicted future. I mention all this just to say "I hope that I won't be fooled again."
And that I think what these various authors say is most likely true: there seems to be an inevitable democritization of media/commerce that allows for the Long Tail, whether it be in newspapers, bookstores, blogging, music stores or whatever. All seem to have the common thread of better too much than too little, better too all-inclusive than too exclusive. From what I've seen they are right and we might, I hope, all gain from it.
I just wish I could figure out how to make a good living from it.:-)
WTF? Bernard Berenson???!! He's almost older than photography itself!
So that brings up another topic: how many languages have to use another language to fix their own problems? And how often is perl the language used to fix things?
Oddly enough I happened to read both the WSJ article and the Toulouse mini-article during my lunch a few minutes ago and came back to find this on slashdot.
I also have to commend the graphic that accompanies the WSJ article. The article says that for the first time ever IE share dropped, presumably because of the virus threat. Also a few words about the Mozilla developers.
I have to agree with you, or I shouldn't say have to I'm happy to. Though I've greatly enjoyed other Paul Graham articles the one line that jumped out as manifestly wrong in his article was the notion that great programmers don't use Java.
This strikes me as exhibiting a type of hotdogging that I hadn't come to expect from him. I say hotdogging for two reasons: one, Perl readily allows for hotdog programming; Java really doesn't; two, it seems like a thoughtless, off-the-cuff, hotdog type of remark and I wonder if he really means it. Who knows but let's assume that he does.
In that case he makes a hotdog, showoff type of remark in favor of a language that can, but doesn't have to be used in a hotdog manner. That sounds like someone who hss a bias towards the frisson of creativity and away from the satisfaction of a job well done, or maybe art versus craft. I'm obviously just thinking out loud here but it does make me think that I ought to go back and reread his essay on painting and programming to see what type of art he likes.
I had liked much of that essay but now I wonder if re-reading it I won't find the same type of hotdogging.
If so then I'd have to come to this conclusion: he favors the frisson that comes with a stylish slap of the brush across the canvas rather than the restrained satisfaction of a more carefully built painting, a Hals versus a Rembrandt, or perl versus Java. I don't say this to slight perl. I use and love it, as I do Java. A person who goes more for thrills than substance may prefer Perl. But then they'd probably prefer Hals to Rembrandt.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Department of Homeland Security recommendation not to use Internet Explorer:3 374931/
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/
Surely some IT people are tired of combatting IE's security flaws. Mozilla already seems to me to be more useful than IE, it is standards compliant, and it promises as we see here to continue to be. What SMART IT department wouldn't like that?
Sadly in my opinion many home users went to Windows because that's what their corporate IT departments forced them to use at work. So they got familiar with it, warts and all. If those same IT people get them to use Mozilla I'm sure they'd be far less fearful of trying it at home.
To expand a bit, if you look at what any great craftsman (well most anyway) you'll see that they use the right tool for the job whether it's a bow saw, a dovetail saw, a power saw, a Cuisinart, a forged steel knife, Perl, Java, VB, ksh or whatever.
I think the great craftsmen both know their tools and their power. They know when to use them and, probably most importantly, they know when NOT TO USE THEM. It's so easy to be swayed by popularity and trendiness, e.g. should I drop all my Java work and jump on ASP.NET because everyone else in my department is yipping and yapping about it? I think really good craftmen, and I'm not saying I'm one because I'm not, have the ability to quickly choose the right tool for the job, pick it and use it.
I'm happy to say that I use both Perl and Java most of the time and I really find that they complement one another. My time constraints often force me to use Perl because I can do something quickly with it. But I often wish I had the time to do it in Java because I think it would be more robust. And sometimes I do. On the other hand sometimes I make a project perhaps needlessly complicated because I choose Java over Perl. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Hopefully I'll learn better over time which I should choose, or whether I should explore something new.
We're all lucky if we find a tool that feels right to us, whether it's Perl, an old Addis chisel or one of my 1800-vintage Sabatier knives. They're fun to work with and make the job easier. But I think that once you really learn to use one tool well you also are better able to see the possibilities that other tools offer. So next time you try Java, or a power saw, etc.
In any case I think the skilled programmer marvels at the wealth of good tools rather than spends too much time debating the supremacy of one over the other. And that's the one very odd thing about this essay that I can't quite agree with, the bias for Perl and Python over other languages. I see their appeal, and I personally love Perl, but I'd be surprised if only the best hackers use them.
Well I'm happy to see that someone has finally given some details as to exactly what the problem was, what vendor was involved etc. But as far as I can tell no one has yet explained whether it was a coding error in the software (my bets are against it), a configuration error in the new software, a network error, a permissions error.
As many of the responses have pointed out more and more of what we do is dependent upon many different computer elements working together. And every connection as well as every element is a point of failure. It makes me wonder if anyone ever analyzes, in writing I mean, all the possible points of failure of a project and then methodically checks them if/when something goes wrong. NASA might but I doubt newspapers, with which I'm quite familiar, do.
Right you are. It's part of the moral cowardice that grew out of the 60s, of which I was a part I might add. Better to say everything is OK than say that something is good and something bad, or you like one thing but not the other, because God forbid you might offend someone or maybe worse might be proved wrong. Instead take no stand on anything. In place of moral decision making the godawful, senile, century-old "irony" took its place, and still stays there, stinking up everything it touches.
Why limit yourself to "software?" You have to wonder why anyone listens to them at all when any company can drop 33% because it's a few cents off in it's expected earnings. That IS and HAS BEEN ridiculous for quite awhile. It drives companies to continue to cut costs, regardless of quality diminshment, in order to meet analysts expecatations for earnings. But no one seems to have learned and so we all stay on this suicidal treadmill. As long as this continues we'd all be best off working for companies that aren't publicly traded. And investing our money as best we can in the same.