Maybe it's just me, but aside from the $ sigil, which can be traced back to shell scripting, PHP borrows far more from C/C++ than it does from Perl.
Aditionally, I think Perl is an excellent language for novice programmers. While the "line noise" may perpetuate the belief that Perl is overly complicated, it is in fact quite simple.
I cannot say the same for PHP. The rather large library of built-in functions, in my experience, makes it harder to learn, and when learned, harder to use for things like database interaction.
While less mature than PHP, if you're interested in a powerful general purpose language that can be embedded in HTML, you might want to check out eRuby(http://www.modruby.net).
It uses plain Ruby code, but embeds it PHP-style, thought it uses rather than by defualt.
It's also a nice change from the "here, download this 500K program that then connects to an Apple server and downloads the other 20MB at the slowest speed possible" approach to distributing Quicktime.
Apple's choice is to focus on hardware, and basically milk it for all it's worth. They also develop software to make their computers more appealing.
Microsoft makes software, and milks each release for every penny they can. They use relatively inexpensive, commodity hardware to sell relatively expensive software.
As mainstream consumer software becomes less and less affected by changes in hardware, and since consumers usually tend to stick with what works for long periods of time, the two approaches become roughly equally effective.
This doesn't mean Apple and Microsoft are going to divide the marketshare 50/50, but I think it means that there are fewer incentives to move away from or to either platform.
So both sides are looking for a way to counter this. Apple's approach is to release better software with solid hardware integration to lure consumers over.
Microsoft, however, seems more paranoid than bold there days. I think they've realized that they lack control over hardware. With OEM price wars still going on, it becomes more reasonable for consumers to purchase PCs with Windows, and then experiment with extra software whose cost isn't quite so hardly felt. Microsoft can't have this, but they can't exactly stop it either. What they can do is make it as painful as possible. This is what may actually turn people away from the platform in the long-run.
"Apple doesn't care if you pirate their software... you still have to buy a Mac to run it!"
Yes, you do have to do your homework to use a Mac for the first time. That's what the thin book filled with screenshots and concise accurate descriptions of how things work is for.
You want Linux in the mainstream desktop market?
1. Make it easy for newcomers to Linux to get started. 2. Adopt a single UI standard, and stick with it so those people, and developers, can be productive. I'd recommend Window Maker. Linux is not Windows. Trying to make it a cheap skin-deep Windows knock-off isn't going to win anyone over. 3. Make the console an option. "Here it is, and you might even have some fun figuring this out, but if you don't want it, that's ok too."
While I agree that the low-end G4s as they stand are a better price/performance deal, there is more involved than simple clockspeeds with Apple's three configurations. The higher-end systems will net you more memory, better video cards, more storage space, and I believe the two high-end configs feature more cache.
It may not make enough of a difference, but it's something to consider. As always, there's BTO customization.
See, the thing is, most people are only driving their cars through town anyway, where the speed limit is somewhere between 25 and 35MPH. For them, it's more important that their car work reliably, with a minimum of maintenance.
The same applies to computers now.
This of course, is not to say that I wouldn't appreciate faster Macs, and architectural improvements, but clockspeed is not everything, and it drives sales only because consumers are still largely ignorant of the availability of Apple machines.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but just because we don't have processor's with ridiculously high clockspeeds, does not mean people are tearing their hair out on this side of the fence. OS X runs quite nicely even on 3+ year old iMacs with less than the reccomended memory. I know, I'm using one now.
You see, the vast majority of Mac users are happy with their computers. I understand if that's a hard concept to grasp in the x86 world.
For one, Apple does not make any processors at all. IBM and Motorola do. Secondly, I have a feeling Moto and IBM could.
Single CPUs continue to dominate because in many applications, there is no need for them. Creative pros, hobbyists, and the mathematic/scientific communities are small markets. Most computers are still being used as glorified typewriters.
Also, people prefer one big, fast CPU han multiple CPUs with less impressve specs on papers. It's easier for them to figure out, since there's no math involved..
Quartz Extreme will only require 16MB of Video RAM on an AGP 2x bus. All of Apple's current machines, minus the old iMac currently meet this. Yes, it would be nice to see all of them meet the reccomended 32MB, but as it is, they'll all be able to take advantage of hardware accelerated Quartz when 10.2 ships.
(P.S.: expect to see some new form of use strict; (one which does strong type checking and lots of other things to let you reign in perl's extreme expressiveness to the point you are always sure what you are doing) become very popular in the enterprise once Perl 6 has settled..)
Strong type checking in Perl 6 is built right in, and types and classes will be unified, so that an object can be declared as being of a certain class.
Not quite. For those using Mac OS X, there's the wonderful Proteus multi-IM client.
The code used to interface with the various services is included in the download, so those trying to make clients compatible with the various services may want to take a look.
I can write programs in a number of different languages.
Can I set my VCR to tape Farscape for me? No. I've tried on and off for a couple of years now. I've read the manual from cover to cover. I can't make the frelling thing work.
There are a couple of basic problems here.
1. Consistency. Why does every screen have to look different(and by this I mean organization as opposed to colors)?
2. Consistency. Why does every brand feel the need to reinvent the wheel with regards to how I do something as simple as taping a show?
We need a well-designed, well thought-out standard for these things, because it's not just the technically inept who have trouble with these things.
Yeah, because as everyone knows, the Mac doesn't have any kind of presence in mathematically and scientifically intensive fields like, say, bioinformatics.
You see, people who are actually into model rockets, they go outside and actually build them.
Similarly, people who are really into bass fishing... they use a boat, not a computer.
Now, people who are into downloading things because an epilapsy-inducing banner ad promised that it'd be the greatest program ever made, these are the people who use their computer to catch bass.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's just me, but aside from the $ sigil, which can be traced back to shell scripting, PHP borrows far more from C/C++ than it does from Perl.
Aditionally, I think Perl is an excellent language for novice programmers. While the "line noise" may perpetuate the belief that Perl is overly complicated, it is in fact quite simple.
I cannot say the same for PHP. The rather large library of built-in functions, in my experience, makes it harder to learn, and when learned, harder to use for things like database interaction.
While less mature than PHP, if you're interested in a powerful general purpose language that can be embedded in HTML, you might want to check out eRuby(http://www.modruby.net).
It uses plain Ruby code, but embeds it PHP-style, thought it uses rather than by defualt.
As for online retailers, like Mamall, or Smalldog. Also check out http://www.lowendmac.com.
It's also a nice change from the "here, download this 500K program that then connects to an Apple server and downloads the other 20MB at the slowest speed possible" approach to distributing Quicktime.
Disk images are definitely the way to go.
Apple's choice is to focus on hardware, and basically milk it for all it's worth. They also develop software to make their computers more appealing.
Microsoft makes software, and milks each release for every penny they can. They use relatively inexpensive, commodity hardware to sell relatively expensive software.
As mainstream consumer software becomes less and less affected by changes in hardware, and since consumers usually tend to stick with what works for long periods of time, the two approaches become roughly equally effective.
This doesn't mean Apple and Microsoft are going to divide the marketshare 50/50, but I think it means that there are fewer incentives to move away from or to either platform.
So both sides are looking for a way to counter this. Apple's approach is to release better software with solid hardware integration to lure consumers over.
Microsoft, however, seems more paranoid than bold there days. I think they've realized that they lack control over hardware. With OEM price wars still going on, it becomes more reasonable for consumers to purchase PCs with Windows, and then experiment with extra software whose cost isn't quite so hardly felt. Microsoft can't have this, but they can't exactly stop it either. What they can do is make it as painful as possible. This is what may actually turn people away from the platform in the long-run.
"Apple doesn't care if you pirate their software... you still have to buy a Mac to run it!"
Yes, you do have to do your homework to use a Mac for the first time. That's what the thin book filled with screenshots and concise accurate descriptions of how things work is for.
You want Linux in the mainstream desktop market?
1. Make it easy for newcomers to Linux to get started.
2. Adopt a single UI standard, and stick with it so those people, and developers, can be productive. I'd recommend Window Maker. Linux is not Windows. Trying to make it a cheap skin-deep Windows knock-off isn't going to win anyone over.
3. Make the console an option. "Here it is, and you might even have some fun figuring this out, but if you don't want it, that's ok too."
While I agree that the low-end G4s as they stand are a better price/performance deal, there is more involved than simple clockspeeds with Apple's three configurations. The higher-end systems will net you more memory, better video cards, more storage space, and I believe the two high-end configs feature more cache.
:-)
It may not make enough of a difference, but it's something to consider. As always, there's BTO customization.
But please wait until MWNY.
Wow, if Microsoft is more open than Apple that must mean they've released the kernel and the GUI source for Windows XP. That's a pretty bold move...
Oh, wait, they haven't done any of that, have they?
Those using 16MB graphics cards will see a noticeable improvement, though.
Heck, I saw a pretty good improvement when 10.1.5 gave me use of my 6MB Rage card.
See, the thing is, most people are only driving their cars through town anyway, where the speed limit is somewhere between 25 and 35MPH. For them, it's more important that their car work reliably, with a minimum of maintenance.
The same applies to computers now.
This of course, is not to say that I wouldn't appreciate faster Macs, and architectural improvements, but clockspeed is not everything, and it drives sales only because consumers are still largely ignorant of the availability of Apple machines.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/
See the note at the bottom, and be sure to take note of the "reccomended".
iBooks aren't getting G4s, so don't hold your breath.
The G3 is still scaling, and it uses less power, which means better battery life, which is Good Thing(tm) in a laptop.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but just because we don't have processor's with ridiculously high clockspeeds, does not mean people are tearing their hair out on this side of the fence. OS X runs quite nicely even on 3+ year old iMacs with less than the reccomended memory. I know, I'm using one now.
You see, the vast majority of Mac users are happy with their computers. I understand if that's a hard concept to grasp in the x86 world.
For one, Apple does not make any processors at all. IBM and Motorola do. Secondly, I have a feeling Moto and IBM could.
Single CPUs continue to dominate because in many applications, there is no need for them. Creative pros, hobbyists, and the mathematic/scientific communities are small markets. Most computers are still being used as glorified typewriters.
Also, people prefer one big, fast CPU han multiple CPUs with less impressve specs on papers. It's easier for them to figure out, since there's no math involved..
Quartz Extreme will only require 16MB of Video RAM on an AGP 2x bus. All of Apple's current machines, minus the old iMac currently meet this. Yes, it would be nice to see all of them meet the reccomended 32MB, but as it is, they'll all be able to take advantage of hardware accelerated Quartz when 10.2 ships.
Strong type checking in Perl 6 is built right in, and types and classes will be unified, so that an object can be declared as being of a certain class.
my int $foo = 42;
Why bother?
Because people like version numbers, and at least Apple is a bit more conservative about using them than some other companies...
My guess is that it'll just be Superdrive 2. Definitely faster, possibly DVD+RW or some other standard that's backwards compatible with DVD-RW.
I can write programs in a number of different languages.
Can I set my VCR to tape Farscape for me? No. I've tried on and off for a couple of years now. I've read the manual from cover to cover. I can't make the frelling thing work.
There are a couple of basic problems here.
1. Consistency. Why does every screen have to look different(and by this I mean organization as opposed to colors)?
2. Consistency. Why does every brand feel the need to reinvent the wheel with regards to how I do something as simple as taping a show?
We need a well-designed, well thought-out standard for these things, because it's not just the technically inept who have trouble with these things.
Yeah, because as everyone knows, the Mac doesn't have any kind of presence in mathematically and scientifically intensive fields like, say, bioinformatics.
Oh, wait...
I wonder how much the performance of cross-stitching is hindered by running under VirtualPC...
You see, people who are actually into model rockets, they go outside and actually build them.
Similarly, people who are really into bass fishing... they use a boat, not a computer.
Now, people who are into downloading things because an epilapsy-inducing banner ad promised that it'd be the greatest program ever made, these are the people who use their computer to catch bass.
That's what $300 no-name beige boxes and corporate tech support folks who like overtime pay are for.
Or you could just hand them your Mac, let them secretly compile the proprietary application on it, and give it back to you an hour later.
Exactly. :-)