As I said you don't understand. People talk negatively about some [free] software because the software has serious flaws. JWZ may have said it in a bad manner but he's telling a lot of truth. If the software works flawlessly nobody would sh!t on it.
And it's funny that in this case a lot of people regards JWZ as a total asshole while at the sametime sh!tting about Emacs being complete crap and RMS being an idiot. Shouldn't those people shut up and do it themselves if they don't like Emacs?
Giving something for free doesn't mean the giver owns the getter. It may be an asshole to be ungrateful but anybody can be one if he chooses. If you can't tolerate negative feedback, then don't give out stuff for free in the first place.
You chose to publish your own code. And be prepared to receive critism for anything you present to the world. If you can't put up with it, just keep the code to yourself and be happy.
I agree. Take soccer for example. Since the US female soccer team won world cup, soccer suddenly became a popular game among girls in the US. You see TV commercials showing teenage girls playing soccer. So in the US the social image of soccer is an ok game for girls. This is vastly different from the rest of the world, where soccer is dominated by male players and females are only a very tiny part.
So it's all about what the general public thinks. An individual will be trained to accept the 'normal way'. One example is you hear people say women have natural fondness of jewelry, which I think is complete BS. No, I don't think women are born to like funny looking stones. It's only because the society trained them this way.
My belief is you should use debuggers, but shouldn't rely on it too much. I tend to read over the code again and again before finally step into the program execution. The biggest help of debuggers is they let you discover your blind spot in your logic, by showing what the program is really doing. If your logic is accurate, other than a few typos the program should run as you expect, and you can predict the program's behavior even without printfs or tracing into it. By debugging over mind logic first you're training yourself for clearer and more accurate thinking, which will make you a programmer.
Relying too much on debuggers tend to make me mind-lazy. I let the debugger lead me to the problem rather than actively find it myself. Thus I focus less on constructing a clear mental image of the program logic but more on a particular bug. This, IMO is a symptom of being spoiled by good tools. It's the same as people writing unnecessarily inefficient code because CPUs are becoming faster. Tools don't make a good programmer, it's the mind that matters.
Re:I'll never give up my veal, veggie-boy
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
You may like your veal if you want. But your words are gross!
Imagine some other species cut you in pieces and cook you in a pot. They saw you bleed and cry, then discuss the question:" Do you think he suffered while we killed him? Hmmm... tough question..."
No. What's wrong with current programming world is its still mostly a manual craftmanship. Look at current large applications. Almost each one of them has its own solution of memory management, debugging tools, or even gui widgets, etc. There's too much reinventing the wheel, like each car has its own hand made wheels. Just by training a large number of good craftsman will not bring programming to the mass production stage. We need a revolution in programming methods, standards, etc. so that program components can really be reusable like screws and bolts.
This is the typical 'elitism' attitude that's prevalent among open source supporters. "I can read source code like english, then you should too!". And yet these same people want open source software to be used by average user who doesn't have good knowledge of computers.
Average user:"Excuse me, could you tell me how to use your software?"
-- "RTFM!"
Average user: "But there's no manual..."
-- "RTF source code!"
Yes. In the Chinese culture the Dragon represents all mighty power and holiness. The ancient emperors were considered true dragons in human form. However, the Chinese dragon is different from the western world's definition. In western world, a dragon is a dinosaur-like creature with a pair of tiny wings. The Chinese dragon is created by combining all the considered best features found in the real animals. The dragon is the Chinese cultural symbol.
If it weren't for all the free software gpl crap, Linux wouldn't be used and would've been dead by now. The popularity of Linux is mainly (IMO) due to its free.
And FSF has existed for over a decade. Why suddenly it becomes responsible for the IT meltdown? When IT was booming did you say the same thing? Get a clue.
I'm puzzled by people saying this linux distro is stable and the other is not. Aren't they all using relatively the same version & set of packages, except maybe a few configuration variance? I've used redhat, mandrake, and currently debian. Not alot, but pretty much the same experience with each one. All of them need some tweaking and some reading of the HOWTOs. But I haven't had any severe experience that one distro crashes often and the other does not. They are all linux, arent they? I'm wondering how those people use linux. Do they install the CDs choosing 'install everything', bootup, oops, something not working, label it as unstable and try another one?
Maybe you are trying to be funny. But it isn't.
I don't know why people think MS programmers are stupid. True MS code often have bugs, but this has been improving a lot. Is linux bug free from the first release? If you think you are so smart, try come up with some software at the scale and caliber of the Office suite and such, I bet ya'll have some fun with that. There are some damned smart people in Microsoft. Take a look at SIGGRAPH's annual proceedings and you'll spot quite a few papers from Microsoft research. And I would say the top software engineers in MS are no doubt among the top programmers in the world.
I don't like MS, and I agree and believe in the free software paradidgm strongly. I use Debian most of the time home. But the kind of attitude of the original poster are just absurd and only shows ignorance.
Another use for all the different distros is the classification of users. Using redhat? ppppf, that's for idiots. I use distro $#%@&. Who needs the stupid gui tools that make life easier? With my distro I have infinite customizability because I hand copy each file to each directory. Man I feel so smart doing that.
The law of evolution says those who survive is not the most efficient, but the fittest. The goal of programming is to solve problems. As long as this goal is met, whether a piece of software will survive depends on finding a good trade-off among a number of factors, such as ease of use, efficiency, development time, ease of maintainence and upgrade, etc. Efficiency is just one of the factors that doesn't really deserve more preference than others. The preference of efficiency is more of a historical legacy when hardware was so tight that in order for a program to be acceptable it must be highly efficient. But nowadays this point is less and less valid. I would say for today's PC desktop software, ease of use generally has much higher priority than other factors, and that's why Microsoft still dominates the PC market.
Bjarne Stroustrup says, (not in exact words) separation is easy, but the hard part is communication. This so true if you ever worked on a non-trivial sized project. It's very easy to think up a neat(seemingly) structure and draw some pretty diagrams. But only when you actually goes to implement them that all sorts of flaws begin to appear. This is where experience and maybe talent comes in. Everybody knows loosely coupled code is good. But how to design the architecture so that communication is not thwarted is the real challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
minimizing the browser quickly when the boss is coming your way.
As I said you don't understand. People talk negatively about some [free] software because the software has serious flaws. JWZ may have said it in a bad manner but he's telling a lot of truth. If the software works flawlessly nobody would sh!t on it. And it's funny that in this case a lot of people regards JWZ as a total asshole while at the sametime sh!tting about Emacs being complete crap and RMS being an idiot. Shouldn't those people shut up and do it themselves if they don't like Emacs?
Crap is still crap, regardless it's free or not. Quality and freeness are totally different issues. But I don't think you'll understand that.
oh how smarty you are!
Giving something for free doesn't mean the giver owns the getter. It may be an asshole to be ungrateful but anybody can be one if he chooses. If you can't tolerate negative feedback, then don't give out stuff for free in the first place.
You chose to publish your own code. And be prepared to receive critism for anything you present to the world. If you can't put up with it, just keep the code to yourself and be happy.
Yeah right, just to watch a 10 minute video and you have to spend days to 'contribute'.
I agree. Take soccer for example. Since the US female soccer team won world cup, soccer suddenly became a popular game among girls in the US. You see TV commercials showing teenage girls playing soccer. So in the US the social image of soccer is an ok game for girls. This is vastly different from the rest of the world, where soccer is dominated by male players and females are only a very tiny part. So it's all about what the general public thinks. An individual will be trained to accept the 'normal way'. One example is you hear people say women have natural fondness of jewelry, which I think is complete BS. No, I don't think women are born to like funny looking stones. It's only because the society trained them this way.
bookmark management
My belief is you should use debuggers, but shouldn't rely on it too much. I tend to read over the code again and again before finally step into the program execution. The biggest help of debuggers is they let you discover your blind spot in your logic, by showing what the program is really doing. If your logic is accurate, other than a few typos the program should run as you expect, and you can predict the program's behavior even without printfs or tracing into it. By debugging over mind logic first you're training yourself for clearer and more accurate thinking, which will make you a programmer.
Relying too much on debuggers tend to make me mind-lazy. I let the debugger lead me to the problem rather than actively find it myself. Thus I focus less on constructing a clear mental image of the program logic but more on a particular bug. This, IMO is a symptom of being spoiled by good tools. It's the same as people writing unnecessarily inefficient code because CPUs are becoming faster. Tools don't make a good programmer, it's the mind that matters.
You may like your veal if you want. But your words are gross!
Imagine some other species cut you in pieces and cook you in a pot. They saw you bleed and cry, then discuss the question:" Do you think he suffered while we killed him? Hmmm... tough question..."
I remember reading somewhere that by donation MS gets huge cut in taxes.
No. What's wrong with current programming world is its still mostly a manual craftmanship. Look at current large applications. Almost each one of them has its own solution of memory management, debugging tools, or even gui widgets, etc. There's too much reinventing the wheel, like each car has its own hand made wheels. Just by training a large number of good craftsman will not bring programming to the mass production stage. We need a revolution in programming methods, standards, etc. so that program components can really be reusable like screws and bolts.
This is the typical 'elitism' attitude that's prevalent among open source supporters. "I can read source code like english, then you should too!". And yet these same people want open source software to be used by average user who doesn't have good knowledge of computers. Average user:"Excuse me, could you tell me how to use your software?" -- "RTFM!" Average user: "But there's no manual..." -- "RTF source code!"
Another round of "[Why|How|What] Linux [is|isn't] good for the [desktop|end user|office|server|admin|etc..]" battle!
No, "Feng Shui" is 100% Chinese. The two words are direct pronunciations from the Chinese counterpart.
Yes. In the Chinese culture the Dragon represents all mighty power and holiness. The ancient emperors were considered true dragons in human form. However, the Chinese dragon is different from the western world's definition. In western world, a dragon is a dinosaur-like creature with a pair of tiny wings. The Chinese dragon is created by combining all the considered best features found in the real animals. The dragon is the Chinese cultural symbol.
If it weren't for all the free software gpl crap, Linux wouldn't be used and would've been dead by now. The popularity of Linux is mainly (IMO) due to its free. And FSF has existed for over a decade. Why suddenly it becomes responsible for the IT meltdown? When IT was booming did you say the same thing? Get a clue.
I'm puzzled by people saying this linux distro is stable and the other is not. Aren't they all using relatively the same version & set of packages, except maybe a few configuration variance? I've used redhat, mandrake, and currently debian. Not alot, but pretty much the same experience with each one. All of them need some tweaking and some reading of the HOWTOs. But I haven't had any severe experience that one distro crashes often and the other does not. They are all linux, arent they? I'm wondering how those people use linux. Do they install the CDs choosing 'install everything', bootup, oops, something not working, label it as unstable and try another one?
Maybe you are trying to be funny. But it isn't. I don't know why people think MS programmers are stupid. True MS code often have bugs, but this has been improving a lot. Is linux bug free from the first release? If you think you are so smart, try come up with some software at the scale and caliber of the Office suite and such, I bet ya'll have some fun with that. There are some damned smart people in Microsoft. Take a look at SIGGRAPH's annual proceedings and you'll spot quite a few papers from Microsoft research. And I would say the top software engineers in MS are no doubt among the top programmers in the world. I don't like MS, and I agree and believe in the free software paradidgm strongly. I use Debian most of the time home. But the kind of attitude of the original poster are just absurd and only shows ignorance.
Another use for all the different distros is the classification of users. Using redhat? ppppf, that's for idiots. I use distro $#%@&. Who needs the stupid gui tools that make life easier? With my distro I have infinite customizability because I hand copy each file to each directory. Man I feel so smart doing that.
The law of evolution says those who survive is not the most efficient, but the fittest. The goal of programming is to solve problems. As long as this goal is met, whether a piece of software will survive depends on finding a good trade-off among a number of factors, such as ease of use, efficiency, development time, ease of maintainence and upgrade, etc. Efficiency is just one of the factors that doesn't really deserve more preference than others. The preference of efficiency is more of a historical legacy when hardware was so tight that in order for a program to be acceptable it must be highly efficient. But nowadays this point is less and less valid. I would say for today's PC desktop software, ease of use generally has much higher priority than other factors, and that's why Microsoft still dominates the PC market.
Bjarne Stroustrup says, (not in exact words) separation is easy, but the hard part is communication. This so true if you ever worked on a non-trivial sized project. It's very easy to think up a neat(seemingly) structure and draw some pretty diagrams. But only when you actually goes to implement them that all sorts of flaws begin to appear. This is where experience and maybe talent comes in. Everybody knows loosely coupled code is good. But how to design the architecture so that communication is not thwarted is the real challenge.