XSLT is not a general FPL and therefore it is not a good start to begin with FP. Try Lisp or Scheme to learn FPL. You may also try to learn FP in Python, but FP is some limited there.
Why FP for page rendering? Because you can "attach" functionality to data "on the fly", modify it, re-attach - something that OOP will never give you (unless it's OOP in FPL). Embedding scripts to pages (JavaScript in HTML) is a good step to it, but this step is not complete.
With lambda expressions documents would be much more than "just a set of paragraphs" (HTML) or "just a tagged structure" (XML).
The industry was frustrated with HTML and created XML, which is more general than HTML, but still primitive. That's why the industry has created RDF - even more general format, but even RDF is still not functional (despite DAML-OIL attempts to fix it).
There is some projects to bring FP into documents - XLambda, XESPR, but I am not sure if there any progress out there.
The are much closer to each other than they are very far from Lisp or Schema. Both Python and Perl are very far from being perfect. Jurst Python is quickly moving in the reight direction (as usually through thinking about language design and paradigms), while Perl is just dying (despite all those Perl-6 convulsions).
It was a strategic mistake to use such a horrible language to add some "dynamic" functionality to HTML.
I think if they would really want to add "dynamic" functionality then they should use someting from LISP family or, generally, any functional programming language.
Even years ago Emacs was one of the best document processing applications written itself mostly on the language that extends it - on Lisp. Emacs example proves that a harmony FP language brings to the application doesn't break performance. Why did they ignore Emacs experience?
Of course MAC is better than DAC. Because it's more secure. But it's still primitive.
RBAC is the most adequate solution to manage security of collaborative environment. Read more here:
"The principal motivation behind RBAC is the desire to specify and enforce enterprise-specific security policies in a way that maps naturally to an organization's structure.". Briefly, it's like a RDF graph: you have subjects and privelegies mapped to each other (M:M) using roles, which, in other relationships, hierarchically describe users.
They have some example for Linux. I've tried its concepts in few applications and found really it very naturally and intuitevely reflects security requirements in commercial systems. Oracle and NT security models have something similar, although NT domains are not nested while in Oracle the role graqph is not really hierarchical (acyclic though).
I've read about NSA SElinux and found they show a very good progress, but it's just a beginning. I believe that RBAC eventually will come to Linux (and to BSD after that?). Nothing is impossible in Linux (and in BSD, lol).
Psychologically many admins prefer to reboot from time to time.
Personally, I like to reboot when the system (including remote monitoring clients) has some scripts related to reboot/shutdown and I'd like to test changes I've recently made. I know, I've already tested it on the testing machines, but... just to make sure.
Of course, the obvious advantage over Flash is the fact it's open source (GPL).
GPL is not advantage, it is rather a problem. Use BSD-like licenses for application you may want to use in the business.
Frankly speaking - use Mozilla and XPCOM, which is, by the way, much better designed, much better implemented and is completely a cross platform thing.
I've tried XWT on Linux/PPC - it doesn't work. I think that XWT guys think "Linux" about "Linux/x86" sub-platform.
It has nothing to do with this plugin software. Instead, it has to be in the preferences of your Mozilla browser along with "Javascript" and "Popup" options.
You have low chances to force Macromedia to abandon their own player.
You have good chances (if you are a good programmer) to add such patch to Mozilla as this browser is available in the source code.
Of course I don't care about IE as I abandoned IE as a closed proprietary software.
Goverments are non-profit organizations. For goverments it is more important keep IP right as it is than to make money on it. GPL is the the strongest type of OSS licenses to protect the code from stealing. Therefore GPL is the best license type for goverments.
2.4.7 was not bad in that collection. The rest i did not use. As I told, I do at first regression test by myself before I apporve to myself any upgrades in the production system.
Longest time in that table means for me that people don't have rapidly developed applications there. I guess they host mostly static pages. Maximum what they have is CGI scripts with MySQL. I sure they don't use any Java servlets. Any serious databases servers either. And as far as know the phsychology of most of sysadmins - when they upgrade serious web or database server they use the chance to restart the computer. Either just for a case or to test last changes in boot or monitoring scripts. No matter what OS: Solaris, BSD or Linux - use the chance to reboot your box. So your table doesn't prove anything.
Hey, people, what are you doing with operating systems that they are crashing like a domino?
I use Linux as well as FreeBSD for awhile with Apache, Sendmail, X11 and lots of other software competing for memory, CPU, exotic devices, network bandwidth and just for disk I/O. No crashes. On linux I use also video, Oracle, Tomcat, JBoss - all works fine, besides own bugs (it's ok for userland, isn't it?).
For my experience, which doesn't meet crashes, it is more important what hardware, filesystems and protocols are supported. And of course I compare systems with only stable manually configured and re-compiled kernels passed "on-the-field" regression tests before I upgrade the production mode with that new kernel.
I was meaning both Common Lisp and Scheme unde "Lisp". How were my points related to AI? Very simple: Lisp family, implemented very well FP, is already good for AI. But it is not good for real-world programming. Therefore, AI applications, being written on Lisps in today's state, will stay in closed academical and commercial laboratories. If you are fine with it, if you don't want to port AI apps across platforms etc - then fine, use Lisp (Common Lisp or Scheme) as it is today. As for me, in my projects AI applications have to be integrated with non AI applications and have to satisfy other conditions (see the list). That's why I use Python. Although, I need mostly reasoning, inference and meta-programming what is just a small part of AI domain.
By the way, most popular Guile applications are not related to AI: GIMP, Sawfish, TeXmacs. Why?
Actually, "self-modifying" code is exactly what's necessary to represent a knowledge, which is far more complicated than simple XML files.
Let's consider RDF, for example. Especially DAML. Why it's not easy to have XSLT for RDF? Because RDF has much more than "straucture", it has meaning. And the meaning itself tends to have "embedded" rules about interpretation. So, we need a self-interpretting form of knowledge representation. Lisp is not bad (if not best) form of it. If you will try to do anything similar in XML tags - sooner or later you will come to Lisp semantic, just with another shape of brackets:) One of such failed projects is still on W3C
Cross-platform - Python is Python on every platform, besides, of cource OS-dependent packages. There is no one Lisp implementation, working the same on all common (Linux, BSD, Unices, MSWin, Mac OS) platforms. And the set of available (and free!) implementations does not have a complete set of OS-independent packages working the same on all common platforms;
Database interfaces - I cannot imagine moder application without database. And of cource database interfaces should be the same for all databases of the same type, either it RDBMS, ODBMS or XMLDBMS;
Mature libraries - Perl's CPAN is the ideal model. Of course all OS-independent libraries should be cross-platform;
XML - support of XML Schema, XSLT and RDF, all implemented as plaform-independent;
Extensibility - The ideal extensibility model is Tcl. Guile was supposed to follow the same model, but it shares most of Lisp's problems. Tcl itslef failed by other reasons - it's a command scripting language, rather then programming one;
i18n - one of reasons Guile failed is lack of i18n. That's why Gauche project appeared;
Prolog - I'd specially emphasize on integration with existing Prolog systems, which work much better than Prolog-In-Lisp. Otherwise, make Prolog-in-Lisp practically working, not just theoretically;
Networking - SOAP today is the must to allow integration with other applications. CORBA had some good ideas, but I think it is failed as it is problem to connect Java and C++ through CORBA. SOAP is much more implementation-independent protocol. The model concurrency in Erlang is not that open and distributed as in SOAP;
Open Source - no comments are needed, besides about the license - it has to be BSD for compatibility with commercial world:)
And keep Lisp syntax as it is, don't afraid parentheses. When I write functional code on Python it is visually pretty much the same as adequate Lisp code.
From the point of view of OS corporate consumer, I am comfortable to welcome Linux 3.0 if it will be "Trusted", at last. Trusted not in terms of outdated BSD - "good old stable fixed stuff", but in terms of system architecture from the begining designed to behave stable even in environment of some unstable "userland" packages.
Being more specific, I expect LSM, SE-Linux and LIDS to bring me RBAC. I am sick of primitive Unix user-group-other file permissions and unsecure workarounds.
These are old, well-tested packages. This is a stable release.
I would understand such arguments having apply to server packages. But we are talking about GUI. And this GUI is not embedded to the OS kernel, like in some very famous proprietary systems. In 99.99% of Gnome crashes all you need is to restart X11 - all server daemons will go on without problems. At least it's true on RedHat:)
pre-compiled binary was compiled with different option and I want to change it;
pre-compiled binary was compiled with different libraries or I want to add another one;
the bug is found and I want to try to fix it (obvious choice, isn't it?)
Generally - we talk about Linux and Gnome, open source systems. I have my right to get sources. And the only way to make sure that I have an appropriate source code (without fraud and without mistake) - to compile the source code and compare the result with original binary.
All arguments like you don't need sources are against GPL, BSD and other OSS licenses.
I will inform RMS if you will insist on your arguments that I dont need sources. Be afraid - I 'm warning you!:)
Erlang is a general-purpose programming language and runtime environment. Erlang has built-in support for concurrency, distribution and fault tolerance.
In other words, it's a small concurrent functional programming language developed by Ericsson after their experiments with Lisp and Prolog.
Although, you will not love it if have already poisoned by OO "snake oil"
Beautiful: It is easy to write BRL code that is understandable and maintainable, appealing to a programmer's sense of aesthetics.
Report: BRL is particularly suitable for constructing output that is a mix of static and dynamic content, e.g. web pages, e-mail messages. Its greatest strength is constructing output from SQL databases, though it is useful for many other tasks.
Language: The full power of a general-purpose programming language is there, though you wouldn't know it from simple examples.
It is based on Scheme, which makes the syntax extremely simple yet powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
I can download ISO images of several flavours of Linux and few of BSD - that *is* FREE.
Why FP for page rendering? Because you can "attach" functionality to data "on the fly", modify it, re-attach - something that OOP will never give you (unless it's OOP in FPL). Embedding scripts to pages (JavaScript in HTML) is a good step to it, but this step is not complete.
With lambda expressions documents would be much more than "just a set of paragraphs" (HTML) or "just a tagged structure" (XML).
The industry was frustrated with HTML and created XML, which is more general than HTML, but still primitive. That's why the industry has created RDF - even more general format, but even RDF is still not functional (despite DAML-OIL attempts to fix it).
There is some projects to bring FP into documents - XLambda, XESPR, but I am not sure if there any progress out there.
Moreover, if you like to have mathematically verifiable code, then use Prolog :)
Anf if you have already tried FP on Python, then you don't need any argument - you already wants Lisp.
The only problem with Lisp - too many of them :(
The are much closer to each other than they are very far from Lisp or Schema. Both Python and Perl are very far from being perfect. Jurst Python is quickly moving in the reight direction (as usually through thinking about language design and paradigms), while Perl is just dying (despite all those Perl-6 convulsions).
I think if they would really want to add "dynamic" functionality then they should use someting from LISP family or, generally, any functional programming language.
Even years ago Emacs was one of the best document processing applications written itself mostly on the language that extends it - on Lisp. Emacs example proves that a harmony FP language brings to the application doesn't break performance. Why did they ignore Emacs experience?
ALL Rational software products are designed so bad that I even doubt that there is any help from UML. Or is it that OOD/OOP so useless?
RBAC is the most adequate solution to manage security of collaborative environment. Read more here:
"The principal motivation behind RBAC is the desire to specify and enforce enterprise-specific security policies in a way that maps naturally to an organization's structure.". Briefly, it's like a RDF graph: you have subjects and privelegies mapped to each other (M:M) using roles, which, in other relationships, hierarchically describe users.
They have some example for Linux. I've tried its concepts in few applications and found really it very naturally and intuitevely reflects security requirements in commercial systems. Oracle and NT security models have something similar, although NT domains are not nested while in Oracle the role graqph is not really hierarchical (acyclic though).
I've read about NSA SElinux and found they show a very good progress, but it's just a beginning. I believe that RBAC eventually will come to Linux (and to BSD after that?). Nothing is impossible in Linux (and in BSD, lol).
Psychologically many admins prefer to reboot from time to time.
Personally, I like to reboot when the system (including remote monitoring clients) has some scripts related to reboot/shutdown and I'd like to test changes I've recently made. I know, I've already tested it on the testing machines, but ... just to make sure.
GPL is not advantage, it is rather a problem. Use BSD-like licenses for application you may want to use in the business.
Frankly speaking - use Mozilla and XPCOM, which is, by the way, much better designed, much better implemented and is completely a cross platform thing.
I've tried XWT on Linux/PPC - it doesn't work. I think that XWT guys think "Linux" about "Linux/x86" sub-platform.
It has nothing to do with this plugin software. Instead, it has to be in the preferences of your Mozilla browser along with "Javascript" and "Popup" options.
You have low chances to force Macromedia to abandon their own player.
You have good chances (if you are a good programmer) to add such patch to Mozilla as this browser is available in the source code.
Of course I don't care about IE as I abandoned IE as a closed proprietary software.
Goverments are non-profit organizations. For goverments it is more important keep IP right as it is than to make money on it. GPL is the the strongest type of OSS licenses to protect the code from stealing. Therefore GPL is the best license type for goverments.
2.4.7 was not bad in that collection. The rest i did not use. As I told, I do at first regression test by myself before I apporve to myself any upgrades in the production system.
Longest time in that table means for me that people don't have rapidly developed applications there. I guess they host mostly static pages. Maximum what they have is CGI scripts with MySQL. I sure they don't use any Java servlets. Any serious databases servers either. And as far as know the phsychology of most of sysadmins - when they upgrade serious web or database server they use the chance to restart the computer. Either just for a case or to test last changes in boot or monitoring scripts. No matter what OS: Solaris, BSD or Linux - use the chance to reboot your box. So your table doesn't prove anything.
Hey, people, what are you doing with operating systems that they are crashing like a domino?
I use Linux as well as FreeBSD for awhile with Apache, Sendmail, X11 and lots of other software competing for memory, CPU, exotic devices, network bandwidth and just for disk I/O. No crashes. On linux I use also video, Oracle, Tomcat, JBoss - all works fine, besides own bugs (it's ok for userland, isn't it?).
For my experience, which doesn't meet crashes, it is more important what hardware, filesystems and protocols are supported. And of course I compare systems with only stable manually configured and re-compiled kernels passed "on-the-field" regression tests before I upgrade the production mode with that new kernel.
So, one more time, why should I prefer BSD?
By the way, most popular Guile applications are not related to AI: GIMP, Sawfish, TeXmacs. Why?
Let's consider RDF, for example. Especially DAML. Why it's not easy to have XSLT for RDF? Because RDF has much more than "straucture", it has meaning. And the meaning itself tends to have "embedded" rules about interpretation. So, we need a self-interpretting form of knowledge representation. Lisp is not bad (if not best) form of it. If you will try to do anything similar in XML tags - sooner or later you will come to Lisp semantic, just with another shape of brackets :) One of such failed projects is still on W3C
- Cross-platform - Python is Python on every platform, besides, of cource OS-dependent packages. There is no one Lisp implementation, working the same on all common (Linux, BSD, Unices, MSWin, Mac OS) platforms. And the set of available (and free!) implementations does not have a complete set of OS-independent packages working the same on all common platforms;
- Database interfaces - I cannot imagine moder application without database. And of cource database interfaces should be the same for all databases of the same type, either it RDBMS, ODBMS or XMLDBMS;
- Mature libraries - Perl's CPAN is the ideal model. Of course all OS-independent libraries should be cross-platform;
- XML - support of XML Schema, XSLT and RDF, all implemented as plaform-independent;
- Extensibility - The ideal extensibility model is Tcl. Guile was supposed to follow the same model, but it shares most of Lisp's problems. Tcl itslef failed by other reasons - it's a command scripting language, rather then programming one;
- i18n - one of reasons Guile failed is lack of i18n. That's why Gauche project appeared;
- Prolog - I'd specially emphasize on integration with existing Prolog systems, which work much better than Prolog-In-Lisp. Otherwise, make Prolog-in-Lisp practically working, not just theoretically;
- Networking - SOAP today is the must to allow integration with other applications. CORBA had some good ideas, but I think it is failed as it is problem to connect Java and C++ through CORBA. SOAP is much more implementation-independent protocol. The model concurrency in Erlang is not that open and distributed as in SOAP;
- Open Source - no comments are needed, besides about the license - it has to be BSD for compatibility with commercial world
:)
And keep Lisp syntax as it is, don't afraid parentheses. When I write functional code on Python it is visually pretty much the same as adequate Lisp code.What AIML? Why not use Lisp which is good to write both functions AND data AND knowledge.
Being more specific, I expect LSM, SE-Linux and LIDS to bring me RBAC. I am sick of primitive Unix user-group-other file permissions and unsecure workarounds.
I would understand such arguments having apply to server packages. But we are talking about GUI. And this GUI is not embedded to the OS kernel, like in some very famous proprietary systems. In 99.99% of Gnome crashes all you need is to restart X11 - all server daemons will go on without problems. At least it's true on RedHat :)
- pre-compiled binary was compiled with different option and I want to change it;
- pre-compiled binary was compiled with different libraries or I want to add another one;
- the bug is found and I want to try to fix it (obvious choice, isn't it?)
Generally - we talk about Linux and Gnome, open source systems. I have my right to get sources. And the only way to make sure that I have an appropriate source code (without fraud and without mistake) - to compile the source code and compare the result with original binary.All arguments like you don't need sources are against GPL, BSD and other OSS licenses.
I will inform RMS if you will insist on your arguments that I dont need sources. Be afraid - I 'm warning you! :)
Is this a kind of joke?
Most of available to download gnome packages will fail to build with such old Gnome.
That is the last thing saying me - you do right staying with Redhat, which v 8.0b works just fine.
Erlang is a general-purpose programming language and runtime environment. Erlang has built-in support for concurrency, distribution and fault tolerance.
In other words, it's a small concurrent functional programming language developed by Ericsson after their experiments with Lisp and Prolog.
Although, you will not love it if have already poisoned by OO "snake oil"
If it's a case then try Dylan
Done. It's called BRL: Beautiful Report Language
- Beautiful: It is easy to write BRL code that is understandable and maintainable, appealing to a programmer's sense of aesthetics.
- Report: BRL is particularly suitable for constructing output that is a mix of static and dynamic content, e.g. web pages, e-mail messages. Its greatest strength is constructing output from SQL databases, though it is useful for many other tasks.
- Language: The full power of a general-purpose programming language is there, though you wouldn't know it from simple examples.
It is based on Scheme, which makes the syntax extremely simple yet powerful.