IIRC, Brazil Bovespa had a small glitch last month or two.
Back in the day when Wall Street and financial markets ran on Solaris systems (AFAIK), this shit wasn't common.
Now it's probably going to become *acceptable* for stock exchanges and aviation reservation software to crash.
Apparently, there's a new generation of a-holes on the system administration markets who grew up with Windows and the Blue Screen of Death, that thinks it's acceptable for operating systems to crash, once in a while. Is it evolution?
2- An IDE that will tell you about what's going on with your objects.
3- You will be working with code already existing. You will then be asked to modify the classes. This is much more realistic, because usually you don't write the whole software by yourself. An essential skill is understanding other people's code and being able to work with existing classes. Supposedly, this is the big thing about OOP.
The IDE helps a lot. It kind of feels like Smalltalk - a Good Thing (TM), IMHO.
At least, get an "objects first" book. So many books teach Java as it were C, objects and classes being squashed in the middle.
Also, as a second book you will want a book on Data Structures. This being Java, you will want a book that teaches you how to use the existing stuff. "Objects, Abstraction, Data Structures and Design Using Java", by Koffman/Wolfgang is one I like.
PS: The BlueJ book is better than Thinking Java, IMHO.
One of the tenets in Perl's design was to keep it somehow like a human language.
Now, consider the snippets you submitted. I will argue that the variability makes it easy to remember the code. Why? Because you are basically retaining the functionality of the code. That is to say, do people remember code per se or do they remember the functionality of the code? They remember the functionality of the code.
Now, I have no empirical data to support this - and this is one aspect of programming that I find deeply aggravating, i.e., nobody seems to research the human factor, the psychological factor. There's very little empirical data and there's just too much opinion. It fucking looks like the social sciences, sometimes.
But if we look at some surrounding evidence, mathematical writing, we will see that there's not a single book where Mathematics itself was not described in a human language. There's no book with Theorem/Proof Theorem/Proof/Corollary, etc. ad infinitum without a written descripition of the Mathematics.
Of course, as you mature, you move towards heavy notation. Likewise, in Perl, as you progress you move to operators, etc, to the point where sigils abstract very nicely what you want to say (contexts in Perl are important).
To say it differently, there cannot be pure Logos.
Small number of keywords. Now THERE'S an interesting discussion in Python vs. Perl (almost all others being useless, like syntax).
This is like Scheme vs. Common Lisp. One's easy to pick up, but you go around sometimes having to build a lot of stuff. While the other is harder to pick up, because the spec is lo large, but when you need something it's like, "hey, this is nice, they already put that in the language."
This actually might apply more to Perl 5 vs. Perl 6.
But Perl 6 is Chinese. Common Lisp is Latin (or is it Greek?). Perl 5 is Japanese and Scheme is a Romance language.
Come to think of it, Perl and Python are very, very different languages and approaches to languages. Perl is more creative and flexible and Perl 6 will let you bend it in whichever direction you want. This is definitely not Python. I don't even know why people compare them all the time.
Yes, Python is so sane, like confounding mutation and equality. And Ruby...so well designed they haven't even sorted out namespaces yet (have they? I don't follow Ruby).
Perl 5, OTOH, had closures so now there are like 5 object systems, going from vanilla to MOP-like.
You know, the problem is that the level of programmers is appalling. And I'm talking about the ones out of colleges. If mechanical engineers were like that we'd all be dead.
How about the braindead attitude of people talking thing out of their assholes, like uh, regular code is more readable and sigils are unreadable.
How do you know? HOW do you know that?!
Until somebody comes along with a thorough investigation in the cognitive aspects of programming, I will argue that regular code turns your brain off, because it's tedious and sigils provide "hooks" for attention and improve cognition by compacting and abstracting a lot of things.
I am not talking about "obfuscated Perl" - just like we normally don't talk of "obfuscated C" in the wild - that would be *so* dishonest (yet a lot of people wann play that card in an argument).
Now, I am just venting things out of my ass, but to me, it smells better than yours.
You probably don't realize this and you probably meant to come out as being ironic but, in fact, you just ended up saying that the situation really sucks.
Yeah. You better have physical access to boxen running Debian.
Debian can even uninstall kernel packages when you ask for something trivial (like uninstalling KDE or OCaml). This has been documented.
Obviously, this information won't sit right there in Ubuntu's front page of their web site or in the documentation that the Holy Debian Developers produce (as they perceive themselves), but Google for papers on the package dependency problem.
"NixOS is a Linux distribution based on Nix, a purely functional package management system. NixOS is an experiment to see if we can build an operating system in which software packages, configuration files, boot scripts and the like are all managed in a purely functional way, that is, they are all built by deterministic functions and they never change after they have been built. Such an operating system should have all the nice characteristics that the Nix package manager has: The entire system kernel, system services, configuration files, etc. is built by a Nix expression in a deterministic and repeatable way. Since configuration changes are non-destructive (they donâ(TM)t overwrite existing files), you can easily roll back to a previous configuration. For instance, the Grub boot menu in NixOS allows the user to boot into any previous system configuration that hasnâ(TM)t been garbage collected yet. This is very nice if something goes wrong. Upgrading a configuration is as safe as installing from scratch, since the realisation of a configuration is not stateful. This is a result of being purely functional. Multi-user package management any user can install software through the same mechanisms that the administrator uses. This is not the case for most package managers such as RPM.
Furthermore, NixOS allows us to verify that Nix packages are really pure. Nix prevents undeclared dependencies between packages in the Nix store, but when you run Nix on an existing OS such as SUSE Linux, Nix cannot prevent a build script from (say) calling programs in/bin. If there is no/bin, such a build script will fail."
Problem: nobody gives a shit. Because, you know, eeewwwww, they said "functional." I personally would not expect anything smart to come out Debian. Their technology stalled in the 90s.
This project is stupid and unfocused. To assume "the lower middle class" (what they called "the middle class of developing countries") is gonna settle for less than a PC with a pirated Windows XP is insane.
Take the Linux machines that are currently being sold in Brazil: they are tipically low-end PCs with a subsidized price (and, may I add, the most retarded KDE interface you could ever come up with). Talk to *any* salesperson and they will tell you what you already knew: the buy Linux because it's a cheap machine then they scrape it for a Windows XP that you can buy in any street market for less than US$10.00.
'Marketing got wind of it, and nobody at Apple is ever allowed to speak publicly about anything without marketing approval,' a Black Hat spokesman said."
Then Apple marketing people aren't very smart, are they? Because it sure isn't helping the perception that Apple is lax on security.
Slashdot Mirror
The Johannesburg Stock Exchange, too.
It uses LSE's trading platform.
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/09/08/business/OUKBS-UK-LSE.php
I concur.
Will somebody please mod this guy up?
Ok, so here's the tally I've seen so far:
- LSE today (7 hours downtime)
- Ho Chi Minh City stock exchange (3 days downtime)
- Brazil futures, BM & F, aug 26, 2008 and Bovespa Nov, 30th, 2007.
that I've heard of.
It's incredible! This looks systemic and widespread.
I guess it's a great marketing achievement for Microsoft.
When will people in the financial sector wake up and learn they've been duped?
IIRC, Brazil Bovespa had a small glitch last month or two.
Back in the day when Wall Street and financial markets ran on Solaris systems (AFAIK), this shit wasn't common.
Now it's probably going to become *acceptable* for stock exchanges and aviation reservation software to crash.
Apparently, there's a new generation of a-holes on the system administration markets who grew up with Windows and the Blue Screen of Death, that thinks it's acceptable for operating systems to crash, once in a while. Is it evolution?
Learn Java with the BlueJ book:
http://www.bluej.org/
Why?
1- Objects First.
2- An IDE that will tell you about what's going on with your objects.
3- You will be working with code already existing. You will then be asked to modify the classes. This is much more realistic, because usually you don't write the whole software by yourself. An essential skill is understanding other people's code and being able to work with existing classes. Supposedly, this is the big thing about OOP.
The IDE helps a lot. It kind of feels like Smalltalk - a Good Thing (TM), IMHO.
At least, get an "objects first" book. So many books teach Java as it were C, objects and classes being squashed in the middle.
Also, as a second book you will want a book on Data Structures. This being Java, you will want a book that teaches you how to use the existing stuff. "Objects, Abstraction, Data Structures and Design Using Java", by Koffman/Wolfgang is one I like.
PS: The BlueJ book is better than Thinking Java, IMHO.
One of the tenets in Perl's design was to keep it somehow like a human language.
Now, consider the snippets you submitted. I will argue that the variability makes it easy to remember the code. Why? Because you are basically retaining the functionality of the code. That is to say, do people remember code per se or do they remember the functionality of the code? They remember the functionality of the code.
Now, I have no empirical data to support this - and this is one aspect of programming that I find deeply aggravating, i.e., nobody seems to research the human factor, the psychological factor. There's very little empirical data and there's just too much opinion. It fucking looks like the social sciences, sometimes.
But if we look at some surrounding evidence, mathematical writing, we will see that there's not a single book where Mathematics itself was not described in a human language. There's no book with Theorem/Proof Theorem/Proof/Corollary, etc. ad infinitum without a written descripition of the Mathematics.
Of course, as you mature, you move towards heavy notation. Likewise, in Perl, as you progress you move to operators, etc, to the point where sigils abstract very nicely what you want to say (contexts in Perl are important).
To say it differently, there cannot be pure Logos.
Python is not well-designed.
Small number of keywords. Now THERE'S an interesting discussion in Python vs. Perl (almost all others being useless, like syntax).
This is like Scheme vs. Common Lisp. One's easy to pick up, but you go around sometimes having to build a lot of stuff. While the other is harder to pick up, because the spec is lo large, but when you need something it's like, "hey, this is nice, they already put that in the language."
This actually might apply more to Perl 5 vs. Perl 6.
But Perl 6 is Chinese. Common Lisp is Latin (or is it Greek?). Perl 5 is Japanese and Scheme is a Romance language.
Come to think of it, Perl and Python are very, very different languages and approaches to languages. Perl is more creative and flexible and Perl 6 will let you bend it in whichever direction you want. This is definitely not Python. I don't even know why people compare them all the time.
Regexs should be documented, because each one deals with a very specific problem. So you better mention what is is you're solving.
Are you done with the fallacy?
Yes, Python is so sane, like confounding mutation and equality. And Ruby...so well designed they haven't even sorted out namespaces yet (have they? I don't follow Ruby).
Perl 5, OTOH, had closures so now there are like 5 object systems, going from vanilla to MOP-like.
You know, the problem is that the level of programmers is appalling. And I'm talking about the ones out of colleges. If mechanical engineers were like that we'd all be dead.
How about the braindead attitude of people talking thing out of their assholes, like uh, regular code is more readable and sigils are unreadable.
How do you know? HOW do you know that?!
Until somebody comes along with a thorough investigation in the cognitive aspects of programming, I will argue that regular code turns your brain off, because it's tedious and sigils provide "hooks" for attention and improve cognition by compacting and abstracting a lot of things.
I am not talking about "obfuscated Perl" - just like we normally don't talk of "obfuscated C" in the wild - that would be *so* dishonest (yet a lot of people wann play that card in an argument).
Now, I am just venting things out of my ass, but to me, it smells better than yours.
Yes, BOO!, go away!
Oh oh. Another one who hasn't read the book on Perl and OOP...Because if you had, you would see Perl's OOP is "bolted on" just coz it can.
There's flexibility for you.
By I'm not crossing my fingers, hoping you get it.
What Sun needs to do is to educate young people by supporting user groups and presenting OpenSolaris to LUGs at Universities.
In fact, Damn Small Linux can install itself without human intervention, infinitely. Twice.
You probably don't realize this and you probably meant to come out as being ironic but, in fact, you just ended up saying that the situation really sucks.
Yeah. You better have physical access to boxen running Debian.
Debian can even uninstall kernel packages when you ask for something trivial (like uninstalling KDE or OCaml). This has been documented.
Obviously, this information won't sit right there in Ubuntu's front page of their web site or in the documentation that the Holy Debian Developers produce (as they perceive themselves), but Google for papers on the package dependency problem.
Dependency problems will be solved RSN, probably, by Nix OS.
http://nixos.org/nixos/
"NixOS is a Linux distribution based on Nix, a purely functional package management system. NixOS is an experiment to see if we can build an operating system in which software packages, configuration files, boot scripts and the like are all managed in a purely functional way, that is, they are all built by deterministic functions and they never change after they have been built. Such an operating system should have all the nice characteristics that the Nix package manager has:
The entire system kernel, system services, configuration files, etc. is built by a Nix expression in a deterministic and repeatable way.
Since configuration changes are non-destructive (they donâ(TM)t overwrite existing files), you can easily roll back to a previous configuration. For instance, the Grub boot menu in NixOS allows the user to boot into any previous system configuration that hasnâ(TM)t been garbage collected yet. This is very nice if something goes wrong.
Upgrading a configuration is as safe as installing from scratch, since the realisation of a configuration is not stateful. This is a result of being purely functional.
Multi-user package management any user can install software through the same mechanisms that the administrator uses. This is not the case for most package managers such as RPM.
Furthermore, /bin. If there is no /bin, such a build script will fail."
NixOS allows us to verify that Nix packages are really pure. Nix prevents undeclared dependencies between packages in the Nix store, but when you run Nix on an existing OS such as SUSE Linux, Nix cannot prevent a build script from (say) calling programs in
Problem: nobody gives a shit. Because, you know, eeewwwww, they said "functional." I personally would not expect anything smart to come out Debian. Their technology stalled in the 90s.
apt-get install fellatio
This project is stupid and unfocused. To assume "the lower middle class" (what they called "the middle class of developing countries") is gonna settle for less than a PC with a pirated Windows XP is insane.
Take the Linux machines that are currently being sold in Brazil: they are tipically low-end PCs with a subsidized price (and, may I add, the most retarded KDE interface you could ever come up with). Talk to *any* salesperson and they will tell you what you already knew: the buy Linux because it's a cheap machine then they scrape it for a Windows XP that you can buy in any street market for less than US$10.00.
'Marketing got wind of it, and nobody at Apple is ever allowed to speak publicly about anything without marketing approval,' a Black Hat spokesman said."
Then Apple marketing people aren't very smart, are they? Because it sure isn't helping the perception that Apple is lax on security.
So, you're saying we're ot gonna run huge data centers from the PS3s at home - because of the disks?
You're just saying it for the lulz, right? :-)
You got the hypervisor part right.
The performance part I think you pulled it out of your ass.
All you have to do, if you're really worried about that 256 RAM is:
1) Play some ps3 games, like the almost photo-realistic Gran Tourismo, to be convinced that simple explanations here do not suffice
2) Use a more optimized windows manager that's still beautiful, like Enlightenment.
Anyway, what's good enough for 1080p, 1080i? Only Blu-Ray.