According to Wikipedia there are already quite a few projects doing DbC:
Java, via iContract2, Contract4J, jContractor, Jcontract, C4J, CodePro Analytix, STclass, Jass preprocessor, OVal with AspectJ, Java Modeling Language (JML), SpringContracts for the Spring framework, or Modern Jass, Custos using AspectJ,JavaDbC using AspectJ, JavaTESK using extension of Java.
Do we really need an entirely new one? If none of those are sufficient, why not build on top of and improve an existing project? Starting over is not always a good thing...
From the linked answer:
The Gmail Team is currently testing a new feature called 'Gmail Clips,' which provides users access to news, blogs, and other information within their Gmail accounts, using RSS/Atom feeds. Currently, a small number of randomly selected users are testing the feature, but it may become more widely available in the future.
Sounds like "Gmail Clips" would be somewhat different than what I saw of Google Reader.
On another note, I don't believe that the slow (non-existant?) response times from Google Reader are from a slashdotting. Turns out, I was looking at it before the post on/. and it was slow then. Perhaps digg.com readers contributed? Who knows. Anyway, it was slow to begin with. Give them a few days to notice their web logs and I'm sure they'll beef up the load balancing in front of reader.
I find it interesting that so many people complain that the/. readership is overly anti-Microsoft. Has anyone other than me noticed that every Microsoft related thread is flooded by people either defending MS or complaining that we are too anti-ms?
Anyway, more to the point, I cannot believe the audacity of Microsoft at forcing and update to SP2. I laud them for attempting to fix the security holes that have been so prevalent, but the way to do it is NOT by breaking popular software that many people use. Yes, I know that many of the problems were only for 64-bit version, but many companies and probably a significant number of individuals either currently use or are moving to 64-bit processors. The corporate mindset that allows Microsoft to force this non-backwards compatible update on users is not acceptable.
I'll admit that I'm a fan of Apple and Google, seemingly the two poster children of./, but I would have the EXACT same reaction if either of those companies forced an update on me that broke services or programs that I use often. If they can't come up with a way to fix the security holes without breaking software then give people a choice.
A good, user centric approach to software maintenance DOESN'T force people to break what they use. If this is how they want to do business, goodbye Microsoft, I'll read about you from my Mac.
Seriously though, I can't help but wonder if projects such as this will help or hurt the overall literacy of the populace. It seems to me that the ability to extract excerpts quickly without having to peruse the context could lead to a less educated society. Some of the most interesting facts I have learned have been things I've accidentally run across in a book while looking for something else.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the idea of having quick access to any information that might be needed. I am simply speculating that some other steps might need to be taken to ensure that future generations still benefit from the subtleties of knowledge that come from reading a book.
...it was originally published as three separate books, and only later collected into one volume.
Granted it was originally published as three volumes, but it was written as one single coherent work, aka a single story, and was broken up by the publishers because they didn't think it would sell well. I would give a link to back this up, but I couldn't find one. If you are interested however, you can pick up a copy of the single volume and read the "Note on the text" by Douglas A. Anderson, Ithaca, NY, April 1993.
Well, maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'm hopeful for that Lord of the Rings trilogy they're working on...
Well, thankfully since the original book was only one novel and not three seperate books there is only one story to be told. Thereby avoiding the issue of repetitious plots.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Wikipedia there are already quite a few projects doing DbC:
Java, via iContract2, Contract4J, jContractor, Jcontract, C4J, CodePro Analytix, STclass, Jass preprocessor, OVal with AspectJ, Java Modeling Language (JML), SpringContracts for the Spring framework, or Modern Jass, Custos using AspectJ,JavaDbC using AspectJ, JavaTESK using extension of Java.
Do we really need an entirely new one? If none of those are sufficient, why not build on top of and improve an existing project? Starting over is not always a good thing...
Check out the Gmail Help Center for the answer
/. and it was slow then. Perhaps digg.com readers contributed? Who knows. Anyway, it was slow to begin with. Give them a few days to notice their web logs and I'm sure they'll beef up the load balancing in front of reader.
From the linked answer: The Gmail Team is currently testing a new feature called 'Gmail Clips,' which provides users access to news, blogs, and other information within their Gmail accounts, using RSS/Atom feeds. Currently, a small number of randomly selected users are testing the feature, but it may become more widely available in the future.
Sounds like "Gmail Clips" would be somewhat different than what I saw of Google Reader.
On another note, I don't believe that the slow (non-existant?) response times from Google Reader are from a slashdotting. Turns out, I was looking at it before the post on
I find it interesting that so many people complain that the /. readership is overly anti-Microsoft. Has anyone other than me noticed that every Microsoft related thread is flooded by people either defending MS or complaining that we are too anti-ms?
./, but I would have the EXACT same reaction if either of those companies forced an update on me that broke services or programs that I use often. If they can't come up with a way to fix the security holes without breaking software then give people a choice.
Anyway, more to the point, I cannot believe the audacity of Microsoft at forcing and update to SP2. I laud them for attempting to fix the security holes that have been so prevalent, but the way to do it is NOT by breaking popular software that many people use. Yes, I know that many of the problems were only for 64-bit version, but many companies and probably a significant number of individuals either currently use or are moving to 64-bit processors. The corporate mindset that allows Microsoft to force this non-backwards compatible update on users is not acceptable.
I'll admit that I'm a fan of Apple and Google, seemingly the two poster children of
A good, user centric approach to software maintenance DOESN'T force people to break what they use. If this is how they want to do business, goodbye Microsoft, I'll read about you from my Mac.
As of 9 am on December 14, a FAQ detailing the Harvard pilot program...
Don't you mean an FAQ?
Seriously though, I can't help but wonder if projects such as this will help or hurt the overall literacy of the populace. It seems to me that the ability to extract excerpts quickly without having to peruse the context could lead to a less educated society. Some of the most interesting facts I have learned have been things I've accidentally run across in a book while looking for something else.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the idea of having quick access to any information that might be needed. I am simply speculating that some other steps might need to be taken to ensure that future generations still benefit from the subtleties of knowledge that come from reading a book.
Just a thought.
-Daniel
...And TAs coming from overseas, I was happy if they could even speak english in the of chance that i need help....
Were you my 211 TA? I could swear I've heard that sentence structure before...
Before you try to pass yourself off (note the spelling) as a xenophobic English speaker, give me a call and we'll work on your grammar.
...it was originally published as three separate books, and only later collected into one volume.
Granted it was originally published as three volumes, but it was written as one single coherent work, aka a single story, and was broken up by the publishers because they didn't think it would sell well. I would give a link to back this up, but I couldn't find one. If you are interested however, you can pick up a copy of the single volume and read the "Note on the text" by Douglas A. Anderson, Ithaca, NY, April 1993.
Well, maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'm hopeful for that Lord of the Rings trilogy they're working on...
Well, thankfully since the original book was only one novel and not three seperate books there is only one story to be told. Thereby avoiding the issue of repetitious plots.