They not only use the frameworks but the IDE that makes the frameworks usable.
Let's tackle that lie. The framework is usable without an IDE, just like any language with libraries. So you're wrong there.
Since there is a monoculture (ha!) of language and IDE, slowly the two become inseparable as instead of thinking through API's the API developers can rely on tools to make a kludgey API usable.
Another lie. There is nothing inseparable about the language and the IDE, and the API is not kludgey.
So to me I understood exactly what was meant by comparing a language and framework to an IDE that is realistically just the the two combined.
You're full of shit there too. Only an idiot would compare an IDE to a framework that are not tied together.
You need to think before you post so your lies don't have to be pointed out to everyone.
No, what you don't understand is that the compilers and libraries are not tied to VS.NET at all. So you can throw around words like bloated if you want, but if you're cheap and/or don't want a IDE then you don't need it. There's an open source IDE called SharpDevelop that you can use or use Vim if you want. So once again, you're ignorant of certain realities of.NET. The reason that so many people use VS.NET is because it beats developing in "just" an editor.
Yeah, I know about OpenDylan, but it really sucks that Apple chose Objective-C (mostly because of NeXT) instead of using the work they had done with Dylan. Dylan is a much more powerful language than Objective-C will ever. Seriously, check it out. It's compiled, but has 95% of the power of Lisp (CLOS-like object system and Macros). Too bad that the Functional Developer IDE doesn't get some love, but I still love the language (even if its a little verbose for my tastes).
t's still interpreted, it's just interpreted all at once before execution (Hm... Sounds like Perl, Ruby, Python and a few others...). Try again.
And guess what, C and C++ are "interpreted" by a compiler too. And you can AOT(Ahead of Time) your assemblies to native - which the.NET framework libraries are. You try again.
Unlike Java, using.Net usually means you are using Visual Studio - in fact almost exclusively . While you can also do standalone work, the simple fact is no-one (and the people that do are the rounding error by 0.0) does that. They not only use the frameworks but the IDE that makes the frameworks usable. Since there is a monoculture (ha!) of language and IDE, slowly the two become inseparable as instead of thinking through API's the API developers can rely on tools to make a kludgey API usable.
So to me I understood exactly what was meant by comparing a language and framework to an IDE that is realistically just the the two combined.
You have no clue of what you're talking about. Nobody is forcing you to use Visual Studio. Maybe because it's a productive environment, most people. Most Mono development is not done using an IDE. And as far as bloated - jesus christ, if you're a developer go buy a gig of ram...it's nearly 2006. Your whole point is invalid.
First, as somewhat of an amateur PC historian, I can tell you that Jobs was never much of a programmer - if he ever was. I believe he did have a stint at Atari during the early 70s (during the Nolan Bushnell "let's hire every hippy off the streets of San Francisco" phase), but I doubt he was doing any circuit design heavy-lifting for those mostly hardware machines back then. And I've never heard any source say that he ever had his hands directly on any hardware/software engineering on anything coming from Apple. But he's been around it for a long time and so knows quite a bit about it. My old boss, president of the company, and head sales dude didn't program but had heavy technical knowledge - you could have a good technical conversation with him. So he doesn't have to be in the trenches to know some things.
But on to the main point, I thought i had heard a rumor of Apple porting their framework to other platforms not too long ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. I like C# and.NET, but I think it would be great for more development choice on all platforms. GNUStep has always felt not quite there for me on windows and unix. But I've always heard good things about Objective-C, and there are benefits to having a highly dynamic language environment with the ability to drop down to C for some things. High quality Ruby bindings for Apple's frameworks would be really nice too.
Bear in mind that most of the "features" not included from C++ were examples of very poor language design.
I don't care what Sun or some academic has to say about operator overloading...it was a mistake to not include it. Let the development team decide when and where to use it - not the language designers. The big fallacy that if you include it *everybody* will abuse it has been put to rest and it does improve readibility much of the time. And after further reading of your post, it seems you agree.
Switch on strings, an enum from the beginning, I think the event/delegate mechanism in C# is much cleaner than Java's. I think C# has real closures now and Java has inner classes. For me, it's a bunch of little things that add up and make Java code so verbose. I don't care about typing, I care about reading.
If you want an IDE for Ruby, I would recommend http://rubyeclipse.sourceforge.net/ for non-radrails programming or http://radrails.org/ for rails programming. Both are plugins to Eclipse and work pretty well. I probably don't hate Java as much as you, but Ruby definitely is a more powerful (as in language features) and concise than Java ever will be. To me, Sun had a chance to do something really interesting and productive during the Self days and they chose to dumb down C++. I'll just never be gung-ho about Java. But they do have some good tools...that's for sure. Ruby with a Smalltalk-like environment would be very powerful; and don't forget about the VM coming in Ruby 2.0 which should give it some more cred in the corporate environment.
I don't think Java or Swing is really slow these days. I run the weekly Mustang builds and Java is plenty fast - way faster than Ruby for obvious reasons. But I just tried the weekly build of Mustang SwingSet2 demo and it still doesn't look all that hot on an XP LCD at 1920x1200. The fonts are just too damn small compared to my system fonts. There's needs to be more hooks into the native OS in order for Swing to get hints about approximately it should use. And Swing fonts on an LCD have been a freaking nightmare for ever since there have been LCDs. Mustang finally is attempting the subpixel rendering in Java 6 (Mustang), and they've got it down partly. The actual font rasterizations could use some work though still. Why, oh why, did Sun decide they had to paint everything themselves years and years ago. Why couldn't they have used more native OS hooks...like fonts. SWT wouldn't have had to been invented and Swing would look great. And now finally in Java 6, they're starting to use more gtk hooks and windows hooks. But it's so freaking late. Anyway, that my rant/history of Swing.
And so I would prefer native fidelity I much prefer SWT/JFaces...or the RCP as a whole depending on how big I'm talking. So SWT is a pretty raw API. They put Jfaces on top and to the side the API stack, but JFaces isn't as powerful as something like Swing, so...
To me, the only thing that doesn't make programming in Java a complete monotonous/boilerplate-ridden pain in the ass are the IDEs, which everybody knows are second to none. But hell, give me Ruby and vim and I'm good to go even though the RDT and RadRails plugins for Eclipse are getting better. Ruby and/or Python both could use a rich Smalltalk-like environment like that were around (and I guess still are) 20 years ago. At the very least the move to a real VM in Ruby 2.0 will be nice and bring up performance considerably.
No, you and the others that have bought that story just don't get it. Microsoft was never going to let Sun dictate the language direction for their desktop. In fact, it would have been crazy for any company to let Sun dictate. What Sun could have done is just Microsoft add some extensions so that proper desktop development could have been done. Sun is clueless when it comes to desktop development, as can be seen by the failure of the Java client. At the least, you would have had a bunch of crossplatform libraries that weren't Microsoft specific. Now Microsoft comes along with.NET and Sun has absolutely no leverage. You can always count on Sun to do the stupidest thing possible.
I feel all cheap and dirty because I constantly point out to people how really sad I am for them stuck in their prison of idiocy, stupidicity, and crap, but what can I do?
STFU, because people don't want to be disturbed by operating system kernel evangelists. If it gives you a boost for your low self-esteem then by all means join one of the numerous forums and irc channels where you and many others can circle-jerk to the glory of linux.
I've recently redone the server end for [yet another] office (Linux based, of course) for which they certainly won't show up in Linux or Windows based sales "reports".
You gotta just love these personal anecdotes that everybody is so fond in telling us. They are so indicative of market trends.
"People, all you have to do is listen to my random personal experience to know the market trends. I'm important. Listen to me.......please"
Obviously, I was have fun with my response since the whole concept of software making you more free or less free based on source is beyond ridiculous, but it's always fun watching the stallman drones try to explain their cult to me.
There's actually another list called Seattle wireless or something to that effect. I'm too lazy to look it up. Unfortunately, even with that list you don't get the whole picture. For example look at this card http://www.linuxquestions.org/hcl/showproduct.php? product=2386&sort=8&cat=133&page=1. The same revision can actually have two different chipsets. Marvel (which isn't open sources) and Atheros (which is).
If you're buying one for a laptop the best bet is to do your homework, find a few cards that *might* have a supported chipset, call up your local best buy, compusa, frys, whatever, and take your laptop with you in the car and just try them out and take them back if they don't work.
Oh, and good luck finding G cards that don't require ndiswrapper. That's even more of a crapshoot.
Fuck RedHat. We all know what their motivations are for spreading that FUD about Mono. They don't want it ever to become a part of Gnome because they fear losing control over Gnome. Stop being so weak-minded.
Microsoft is far ahead of the curve on "AJAX" stuff its not even funny. Hell, Microsoft invented XMLHttpRequest 7 years ago or so. And Ajax is a joke compared to something like XAML and a.NET runtime in the browser. It'll make all this html/css/javascript+dom look like the stone age, and it'll all be in the browser. Word and anything else they want to run will look and almost act native. I used Visual Studio ActiveX that responded reasonably years ago.
The RTL8180 is a pretty infamous card that now has native support after years of Realtek jerking us around with drivers that worked on 2.4.24 kernel or below. Of course the old orinico and prism chipsets work well, but 802.11g native support seems to be lacking a lot more than b. There's a chipset called RALINK or something or another that is open sourced.
The big problem is that the card makers will change chipsets at the drop of a hat and it can be next to impossible to find out what chipset its actually using - even if you know the revision and everything. I remember one card where there was the same version, but some were made in taiwan and some were made in china and only the chinese cards had the proper chipset.
It's a real mess. I probably spent 3 hours one night doing research and had my choices narrowed down when I happened to pop in a kanotix live cd and lo and behold it picked up my card without ndiswrapper or anything. So I'm happy for now, even though its just a 802.11b card. And then of course you've got the whole frequency regulation crap where manufacturers can't even open source if they want to.
OOP is about encapsulation and separating interface from implementation. Inheretance is not a necessarfy component of OOP. The vast majority of the time its the misused bastard feature of OOP more than a help.
Exactly, you don't lose what you don't use in C++. It's all about knowing what the costs are. Granted, there are some real small 2k-4k stuff where it might not make much sense to use C++. Then you almost get into the realm of assembly almost. But this guy has 16Mb to play around with. Ram sizes only continue to go up in "embedded" devices, while C++ compilers are a helluva lot better than they were 10 years ago.
And I agree that inheritance is the most (mis)overused crap in any OO language.
Where is this guy when I need the leaves raked
on
Atari 800 XE Laptop
·
· Score: 1
Obviously he has plenty of free time. I'll give him the Atari 800, Atari 400, a couple drives, joysticks, manuals, tons of software that I bought off a co-worker for $20 about 5 years ago.
Now someone needs to come up with a monkey dance cartoon with that subject and put it up at a site like ajaxian. But seriously, deployment is what it always comes down. For years, I sat around doing my bit-twiddling in C++, ignoring HTML, CSS, Javascript, XUL and all the backend frameworks because I thought it was silly to do a "real" app in the browser. But one of my side interests has always been deployment and so inevitably I started looking into what can be done with DHTML/Ajax and friends once most modern browsers supported it.
Is it clunky working around all the browser incompatibility issues? Yes. Are your widgets limited? yeah(too bad SVG isn't supported fully in all browsers natively). But there are some interesting things possibilities.
Now obviously Microsoft doesn't want a richer web experience, except maybe for IE, but the more interesting thing is that it doesn't really bode well for the open source desktop either. How many extensions are you using in Firefox that you might normally use a KDE or Gnome applet for?
SVG is really the key to the intermediate future. It seems with SVG, a whole new world of widgets can be realized. Of course, Mozilla-based browsers still won't have complete support even with Firefox 1.5 coming out. Microsoft doesn't support it natively and its not really in their interests to with XAML coming out and just the fact that a richer web with an open standards would hurt them (in their eyes).
Slashdot Mirror
I could barely hear the guy and the other architects were nudging him a little about being so quiet. I wonder why;)?
Have you read ShowStopper?
Let's just post what you did say:
They not only use the frameworks but the IDE that makes the frameworks usable.
Let's tackle that lie. The framework is usable without an IDE, just like any language with libraries. So you're wrong there.
Since there is a monoculture (ha!) of language and IDE, slowly the two become inseparable as instead of thinking through API's the API developers can rely on tools to make a kludgey API usable.
Another lie. There is nothing inseparable about the language and the IDE, and the API is not kludgey.
So to me I understood exactly what was meant by comparing a language and framework to an IDE that is realistically just the the two combined.
You're full of shit there too. Only an idiot would compare an IDE to a framework that are not tied together.
You need to think before you post so your lies don't have to be pointed out to everyone.
No, what you don't understand is that the compilers and libraries are not tied to VS.NET at all. So you can throw around words like bloated if you want, but if you're cheap and/or don't want a IDE then you don't need it. There's an open source IDE called SharpDevelop that you can use or use Vim if you want. So once again, you're ignorant of certain realities of .NET. The reason that so many people use VS.NET is because it beats developing in "just" an editor.
Yeah, I know about OpenDylan, but it really sucks that Apple chose Objective-C (mostly because of NeXT) instead of using the work they had done with Dylan. Dylan is a much more powerful language than Objective-C will ever. Seriously, check it out. It's compiled, but has 95% of the power of Lisp (CLOS-like object system and Macros). Too bad that the Functional Developer IDE doesn't get some love, but I still love the language (even if its a little verbose for my tastes).
Maybe that's too much to ask of the sissy programmers coming out of school these days.
A sissy programmer, eh? Why do you pussies need a high-level language. Real programmers write assembly.
t's still interpreted, it's just interpreted all at once before execution (Hm... Sounds like Perl, Ruby, Python and a few others...). Try again.
.NET framework libraries are. You try again.
And guess what, C and C++ are "interpreted" by a compiler too. And you can AOT(Ahead of Time) your assemblies to native - which the
Unlike Java, using .Net usually means you are using Visual Studio - in fact almost exclusively
. While you can also do standalone work, the simple fact is no-one (and the people that do are the rounding error by 0.0) does that. They not only use the frameworks but the IDE that makes the frameworks usable. Since there is a monoculture (ha!) of language and IDE, slowly the two become inseparable as instead of thinking through API's the API developers can rely on tools to make a kludgey API usable.
So to me I understood exactly what was meant by comparing a language and framework to an IDE that is realistically just the the two combined.
You have no clue of what you're talking about. Nobody is forcing you to use Visual Studio. Maybe because it's a productive environment, most people. Most Mono development is not done using an IDE. And as far as bloated - jesus christ, if you're a developer go buy a gig of ram...it's nearly 2006. Your whole point is invalid.
First, as somewhat of an amateur PC historian, I can tell you that Jobs was never much of a programmer - if he ever was. I believe he did have a stint at Atari during the early 70s (during the Nolan Bushnell "let's hire every hippy off the streets of San Francisco" phase), but I doubt he was doing any circuit design heavy-lifting for those mostly hardware machines back then. And I've never heard any source say that he ever had his hands directly on any hardware/software engineering on anything coming from Apple. But he's been around it for a long time and so knows quite a bit about it. My old boss, president of the company, and head sales dude didn't program but had heavy technical knowledge - you could have a good technical conversation with him. So he doesn't have to be in the trenches to know some things.
.NET, but I think it would be great for more development choice on all platforms. GNUStep has always felt not quite there for me on windows and unix. But I've always heard good things about Objective-C, and there are benefits to having a highly dynamic language environment with the ability to drop down to C for some things. High quality Ruby bindings for Apple's frameworks would be really nice too.
But on to the main point, I thought i had heard a rumor of Apple porting their framework to other platforms not too long ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. I like C# and
Bear in mind that most of the "features" not included from C++ were examples of very poor language design.
I don't care what Sun or some academic has to say about operator overloading...it was a mistake to not include it. Let the development team decide when and where to use it - not the language designers. The big fallacy that if you include it *everybody* will abuse it has been put to rest and it does improve readibility much of the time. And after further reading of your post, it seems you agree.
Switch on strings, an enum from the beginning, I think the event/delegate mechanism in C# is much cleaner than Java's. I think C# has real closures now and Java has inner classes. For me, it's a bunch of little things that add up and make Java code so verbose. I don't care about typing, I care about reading.
If you want an IDE for Ruby, I would recommend http://rubyeclipse.sourceforge.net/ for non-radrails programming or http://radrails.org/ for rails programming. Both are plugins to Eclipse and work pretty well. I probably don't hate Java as much as you, but Ruby definitely is a more powerful (as in language features) and concise than Java ever will be. To me, Sun had a chance to do something really interesting and productive during the Self days and they chose to dumb down C++. I'll just never be gung-ho about Java. But they do have some good tools...that's for sure. Ruby with a Smalltalk-like environment would be very powerful; and don't forget about the VM coming in Ruby 2.0 which should give it some more cred in the corporate environment.
I don't think Java or Swing is really slow these days. I run the weekly Mustang builds and Java is plenty fast - way faster than Ruby for obvious reasons. But I just tried the weekly build of Mustang SwingSet2 demo and it still doesn't look all that hot on an XP LCD at 1920x1200. The fonts are just too damn small compared to my system fonts. There's needs to be more hooks into the native OS in order for Swing to get hints about approximately it should use. And Swing fonts on an LCD have been a freaking nightmare for ever since there have been LCDs. Mustang finally is attempting the subpixel rendering in Java 6 (Mustang), and they've got it down partly. The actual font rasterizations could use some work though still. Why, oh why, did Sun decide they had to paint everything themselves years and years ago. Why couldn't they have used more native OS hooks...like fonts. SWT wouldn't have had to been invented and Swing would look great. And now finally in Java 6, they're starting to use more gtk hooks and windows hooks. But it's so freaking late. Anyway, that my rant/history of Swing.
And so I would prefer native fidelity I much prefer SWT/JFaces...or the RCP as a whole depending on how big I'm talking. So SWT is a pretty raw API. They put Jfaces on top and to the side the API stack, but JFaces isn't as powerful as something like Swing, so...
To me, the only thing that doesn't make programming in Java a complete monotonous/boilerplate-ridden pain in the ass are the IDEs, which everybody knows are second to none. But hell, give me Ruby and vim and I'm good to go even though the RDT and RadRails plugins for Eclipse are getting better. Ruby and/or Python both could use a rich Smalltalk-like environment like that were around (and I guess still are) 20 years ago. At the very least the move to a real VM in Ruby 2.0 will be nice and bring up performance considerably.
No, you and the others that have bought that story just don't get it. Microsoft was never going to let Sun dictate the language direction for their desktop. In fact, it would have been crazy for any company to let Sun dictate. What Sun could have done is just Microsoft add some extensions so that proper desktop development could have been done. Sun is clueless when it comes to desktop development, as can be seen by the failure of the Java client. At the least, you would have had a bunch of crossplatform libraries that weren't Microsoft specific. Now Microsoft comes along with .NET and Sun has absolutely no leverage. You can always count on Sun to do the stupidest thing possible.
I feel all cheap and dirty because I constantly point out to people how really sad I am for them stuck in their prison of idiocy, stupidicity, and crap, but what can I do?
STFU, because people don't want to be disturbed by operating system kernel evangelists. If it gives you a boost for your low self-esteem then by all means join one of the numerous forums and irc channels where you and many others can circle-jerk to the glory of linux.
I've recently redone the server end for [yet another] office (Linux based, of course) for which they certainly won't show up in Linux or Windows based sales "reports".
You gotta just love these personal anecdotes that everybody is so fond in telling us. They are so indicative of market trends.
"People, all you have to do is listen to my random personal experience to know the market trends. I'm important. Listen to me.......please"
Obviously, I was have fun with my response since the whole concept of software making you more free or less free based on source is beyond ridiculous, but it's always fun watching the stallman drones try to explain their cult to me.
Also, he seems to be the unwaivering center of a worldwide socio-political movement to protect your freedom and mine,
If you follow Stallman doctrine, then you are less free than me because I have the freedom to choose open source or closed source.
There's actually another list called Seattle wireless or something to that effect. I'm too lazy to look it up. Unfortunately, even with that list you don't get the whole picture. For example look at this card http://www.linuxquestions.org/hcl/showproduct.php? product=2386&sort=8&cat=133&page=1. The same revision can actually have two different chipsets. Marvel (which isn't open sources) and Atheros (which is).
If you're buying one for a laptop the best bet is to do your homework, find a few cards that *might* have a supported chipset, call up your local best buy, compusa, frys, whatever, and take your laptop with you in the car and just try them out and take them back if they don't work.
Oh, and good luck finding G cards that don't require ndiswrapper. That's even more of a crapshoot.
Fuck RedHat. We all know what their motivations are for spreading that FUD about Mono. They don't want it ever to become a part of Gnome because they fear losing control over Gnome. Stop being so weak-minded.
Microsoft is far ahead of the curve on "AJAX" stuff its not even funny. Hell, Microsoft invented XMLHttpRequest 7 years ago or so. And Ajax is a joke compared to something like XAML and a .NET runtime in the browser. It'll make all this html/css/javascript+dom look like the stone age, and it'll all be in the browser. Word and anything else they want to run will look and almost act native. I used Visual Studio ActiveX that responded reasonably years ago.
The RTL8180 is a pretty infamous card that now has native support after years of Realtek jerking us around with drivers that worked on 2.4.24 kernel or below. Of course the old orinico and prism chipsets work well, but 802.11g native support seems to be lacking a lot more than b. There's a chipset called RALINK or something or another that is open sourced.
The big problem is that the card makers will change chipsets at the drop of a hat and it can be next to impossible to find out what chipset its actually using - even if you know the revision and everything. I remember one card where there was the same version, but some were made in taiwan and some were made in china and only the chinese cards had the proper chipset.
It's a real mess. I probably spent 3 hours one night doing research and had my choices narrowed down when I happened to pop in a kanotix live cd and lo and behold it picked up my card without ndiswrapper or anything. So I'm happy for now, even though its just a 802.11b card. And then of course you've got the whole frequency regulation crap where manufacturers can't even open source if they want to.
OOP is about encapsulation and separating interface from implementation. Inheretance is not a necessarfy component of OOP. The vast majority of the time its the misused bastard feature of OOP more than a help.
Exactly, you don't lose what you don't use in C++. It's all about knowing what the costs are. Granted, there are some real small 2k-4k stuff where it might not make much sense to use C++. Then you almost get into the realm of assembly almost. But this guy has 16Mb to play around with. Ram sizes only continue to go up in "embedded" devices, while C++ compilers are a helluva lot better than they were 10 years ago.
And I agree that inheritance is the most (mis)overused crap in any OO language.
Obviously he has plenty of free time. I'll give him the Atari 800, Atari 400, a couple drives, joysticks, manuals, tons of software that I bought off a co-worker for $20 about 5 years ago.
Now someone needs to come up with a monkey dance cartoon with that subject and put it up at a site like ajaxian. But seriously, deployment is what it always comes down. For years, I sat around doing my bit-twiddling in C++, ignoring HTML, CSS, Javascript, XUL and all the backend frameworks because I thought it was silly to do a "real" app in the browser. But one of my side interests has always been deployment and so inevitably I started looking into what can be done with DHTML/Ajax and friends once most modern browsers supported it.
Is it clunky working around all the browser incompatibility issues? Yes. Are your widgets limited? yeah(too bad SVG isn't supported fully in all browsers natively). But there are some interesting things possibilities.
Now obviously Microsoft doesn't want a richer web experience, except maybe for IE, but the more interesting thing is that it doesn't really bode well for the open source desktop either. How many extensions are you using in Firefox that you might normally use a KDE or Gnome applet for?
2) Make SVG a core part of web browsers.
SVG is really the key to the intermediate future. It seems with SVG, a whole new world of widgets can be realized. Of course, Mozilla-based browsers still won't have complete support even with Firefox 1.5 coming out. Microsoft doesn't support it natively and its not really in their interests to with XAML coming out and just the fact that a richer web with an open standards would hurt them (in their eyes).