Windows.Forms is not subject to the platform-independence constraint because it is not part of the CLI standard. Your complaint is like setting up KDE on a p200 with 64MB of memory and then bitching about how slow it is.
> Not only was OS/2 an excellent OS in terms of > multitasking and protection but with full Windows > and Dos compatability it offered a real possibility > for migration. The issue with OS/2 was never the > capability or the quality of the OS it was:
IIRC, DOS support in OS/2 1.x was limited at best which was one of the reasons why it failed to make as big an impact as the "DOS killer" as it was anticipated. But since it had to run on 286 machines, this was acceptable... at least it could run DOS applications.
I was an OS/2 fanboy until I heard about Linux. The main problem with OS/2 was not its performance (the original poster clearly does not know a thing about OS/2 as it had some of the best multitasking and multithreading capability available for x86 PC OSes at the time). IBM's braindead marketing strategy which lead to a lack of native applications for it was probably the main thing which lead to OS/2's downfall in the consumer market. It got to a point where everything I ran on my OS/2 box were GNU ports of UNIX apps. So I figured I might as well go all the way and use a UNIX(-like) OS.
> You have to be very careful not to short anything > when extracting the flashroms while the PC is ON > and whatever you do, don't insert them the wrong > way around!
I used to use old cheap PCChips motherboards as a sort of a "Poor Man's" EEPROM programmer using this technique. Works great. The trick is to pull out the EEPROM out of its socket while the motherboard is off, then put it back on but not all the way. It doesn't need to be put back all the way, just the pins need to make contact. That way you don't have to use so much force when pulling it back out.
Oh, and a $5.00 chip puller from Radio Shack helps too.
> However, the percentage of development done on > Windows in C++ (relative to other languages germane > to our discussion -- Visual Basic doesn't apply, > since neither gtk nor Qt support it) versus the > percentage done on UNIX in C++ is far higher.
Who told you this? Perhaps on Linux, this may be true (the lack of a mature C++ compiler for so long may be a possible explanation for this). But Linux is hardly representative of UNIX in general.
Ya... when I interviewed at Lockheed, one of the hiring managers told me once you get your government security clearance you pretty much have a job for life. I wish I knew how to get it though without having an employer give it to you. I hear obtaining top secret security clearance can cost as much as $25k, so it definately ain't cheap.
> Yet it is so very true that a typical > object-oriented language like C++ or Java is much > harder to learn than a procedural language like C > (think of all the extra syntax...virtual, public, > private...).
Doing object-oriented things in a language which doesn't directly support the paradigm ends up being more complicated than in a language which does directly support it. For example, the concept of dynamic binding is realized via the use of virtual functions in C++. To do the same thing in C would involve manipulating sets of pointers to functions which can get nontrivial and error prone very quickly.
> And even writinh OO code is often harder, > especially when you're faced with decissions > like ``should this member be publicly > accessible?''
Which you should know the answer to before you even write a line of code. With OO, you spend more time in the design phase than coding compared to a structured approach. However, the overall development time is usually about the same for both methodologies.
OO designs are almost always more complicated than a structured design. The big pay-off comes when it's time to maintain and enhance the system. A properly designed OO system should be easier to enhance and adapt to changing requirements without breaking the thing compared to a structured design. At least, thats the goal.
The problem with a strictly vegetarian diet is that the protein obtained from plant sources are not complete proteins (they lack certain amino acids which your body needs). While it's possible to mix and match your food obtained from plant sources to achieve a more complete amino acid profile, it is way more easier to obtain the majority of your protein from animal sources. Failure to do so will result in a protein deficiency.
However, your average dumbass vegetarian do not know this. They say they don't eat animal products because "it's healthier", yet they'll eat a bag of potato chips and wash it down with a pepsi. Healthy my ass. A vegetarian diet is NOT necessarily healthier. Most of the vegetarians I've met don't have the faintest clue regarding proper nutrition which would explain why they usually look pastey, thin, and generally unhealthy.
Regarding why creation "science" is not science see the
The General Anti-Creationism FAQ and perhaps also this
page by a guy named Lenny Flank. Those two sites summarize my arguments quite succinctly.
> Care to show some sort of logical relationship > between creation science, theories of human > reproduction, and moon landing conspiracies?
The logical relationship between creation "science" and moon landing conspiracies is that they're both based on ignorance and idiocy. Not sure what theories of human reproduction is all about, so perhaps the O.P. can expand a bit on that.
> Care to show some sort of logical relationship
> between creation science, theories of human
> reproduction, and moon landing conspiracies?
The logical relationship between creation "science" and moon landing conspiracies is that they're both based on ignorance and idiocy. Not sure what theories of human reproduction is all about, so perhaps the O.P. can expand a bit on that.
> Wait till your utopia bears out, Sun is gone, M$ > starts charging for their SDK
Why would MS start charging for the.NET SDK? MS has always provided SDKs for the various Windows APIs (Platform SDK, DirectX, etc.) as free downloads. Why would the.NET SDK be any different?
A company exists for one reason and one reason only: to make money. Your comment about the original poster looking like an idiot for cursing Sun for not making money when he himself benefits from their actions makes no sense whatsoever.
However, in the UK where guns are also illegal homicide rates remain steady while in the US homicide rates are actually on the decline.
Speaking of the UK, there was case involving a man who used a shotgun and killed a burglar who broke into his house while he was sleeping. The man is now serving a life sentence for first degree murder.
> Microsoft owns the library API's, plain and > simple.
This isn't entirely true as a subset of the FCL is part of the CLI which is part of the ECMA standard. So bottom line is, to remain portable just stick to whats part of the ECMA standard and you're good to go.
In addition, C# includes a C/C++-like preprocessor. So you can also use the traditional preprocessor tricks to portable code as well.
Its not unusual for people who legally buy a gun for self defense purposes take lessons on how to use it. I bet your average dumbass criminal is not gonna make the extra effort.
Furthermore, if guns were not freely available, then I'd say its more likely that a criminal would have a gun than a law abiding, sedentary female.
> Not to be objectionable or anything, but there is > no way that Philosophy can be considered useless.
I dunno... I took Introduction to Philosophy as one of my General Education requirement classes, and it had to be the biggest time waster of all the classes I've ever taken. Maybe it was the instructor, I dunno. But eventually I ended up using the time spent in class doing my statistics homework. And I still managed to pull off a B.
On the other hand, I also took a course called Critical Thinking, and it was under the "Philosophy" section at my school. That had to be one of the most interesting courses I've ever taken. This course seems to be what you are talking about when you mention "It's mostly logic applied to real or theoretical situations". I've sold back most of my college textbooks, including the CS-related ones. But I kept my Critical Thinking text, and even still crack it open on occasion. Great class.
Well, no unless you want to redefine what an RDBMS is. I'm not saying that not being an RDBMS automatically means its crap, I'm saying MySQL isn't an RDBMS because it doesn't fit the definition of an RDBMS.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows.Forms is not subject to the platform-independence constraint because it is not part of the CLI standard. Your complaint is like setting up KDE on a p200 with 64MB of memory and then bitching about how slow it is.
> Not only was OS/2 an excellent OS in terms of
... at least it could run DOS applications.
> multitasking and protection but with full Windows
> and Dos compatability it offered a real possibility
> for migration. The issue with OS/2 was never the
> capability or the quality of the OS it was:
IIRC, DOS support in OS/2 1.x was limited at best which was one of the reasons why it failed to make as big an impact as the "DOS killer" as it was anticipated. But since it had to run on 286 machines, this was acceptable
I was an OS/2 fanboy until I heard about Linux. The main problem with OS/2 was not its performance (the original poster clearly does not know a thing about OS/2 as it had some of the best multitasking and multithreading capability available for x86 PC OSes at the time). IBM's braindead marketing strategy which lead to a lack of native applications for it was probably the main thing which lead to OS/2's downfall in the consumer market. It got to a point where everything I ran on my OS/2 box were GNU ports of UNIX apps. So I figured I might as well go all the way and use a UNIX(-like) OS.
+5 Funny
Bah ... I bet your average Slashdot reader couldn't code thier way out of a wet paper bag.
> You have to be very careful not to short anything
> when extracting the flashroms while the PC is ON
> and whatever you do, don't insert them the wrong
> way around!
I used to use old cheap PCChips motherboards as a sort of a "Poor Man's" EEPROM programmer using this technique. Works great. The trick is to pull out the EEPROM out of its socket while the motherboard is off, then put it back on but not all the way. It doesn't need to be put back all the way, just the pins need to make contact. That way you don't have to use so much force when pulling it back out.
Oh, and a $5.00 chip puller from Radio Shack helps too.
Worf had prune juice for the first time in the TNG episode entitled "Yesterday's Enterprise".
> However, the percentage of development done on
> Windows in C++ (relative to other languages germane
> to our discussion -- Visual Basic doesn't apply,
> since neither gtk nor Qt support it) versus the
> percentage done on UNIX in C++ is far higher.
Who told you this? Perhaps on Linux, this may be true (the lack of a mature C++ compiler for so long may be a possible explanation for this). But Linux is hardly representative of UNIX in general.
Ya ... when I interviewed at Lockheed, one of the hiring managers told me once you get your government security clearance you pretty much have a job for life. I wish I knew how to get it though without having an employer give it to you. I hear obtaining top secret security clearance can cost as much as $25k, so it definately ain't cheap.
> Yet it is so very true that a typical
> object-oriented language like C++ or Java is much
> harder to learn than a procedural language like C
> (think of all the extra syntax...virtual, public,
> private...).
Doing object-oriented things in a language which doesn't directly support the paradigm ends up being more complicated than in a language which does directly support it. For example, the concept of dynamic binding is realized via the use of virtual functions in C++. To do the same thing in C would involve manipulating sets of pointers to functions which can get nontrivial and error prone very quickly.
> And even writinh OO code is often harder,
> especially when you're faced with decissions
> like ``should this member be publicly
> accessible?''
Which you should know the answer to before you even write a line of code. With OO, you spend more time in the design phase than coding compared to a structured approach. However, the overall development time is usually about the same for both methodologies.
OO designs are almost always more complicated than a structured design. The big pay-off comes when it's time to maintain and enhance the system. A properly designed OO system should be easier to enhance and adapt to changing requirements without breaking the thing compared to a structured design. At least, thats the goal.
Troll? Idiot moderators.
The problem with a strictly vegetarian diet is that the protein obtained from plant sources are not complete proteins (they lack certain amino acids which your body needs). While it's possible to mix and match your food obtained from plant sources to achieve a more complete amino acid profile, it is way more easier to obtain the majority of your protein from animal sources. Failure to do so will result in a protein deficiency.
However, your average dumbass vegetarian do not know this. They say they don't eat animal products because "it's healthier", yet they'll eat a bag of potato chips and wash it down with a pepsi. Healthy my ass. A vegetarian diet is NOT necessarily healthier. Most of the vegetarians I've met don't have the faintest clue regarding proper nutrition which would explain why they usually look pastey, thin, and generally unhealthy.
Regarding why creation "science" is not science see the The General Anti-Creationism FAQ and perhaps also this page by a guy named Lenny Flank. Those two sites summarize my arguments quite succinctly.
As for moon landing conspiracies, check out the page at Bad Astronomy which talks about it.
> Care to show some sort of logical relationship
> between creation science, theories of human
> reproduction, and moon landing conspiracies?
The logical relationship between creation "science" and moon landing conspiracies is that they're both based on ignorance and idiocy. Not sure what theories of human reproduction is all about, so perhaps the O.P. can expand a bit on that.
> Care to show some sort of logical relationship > between creation science, theories of human > reproduction, and moon landing conspiracies? The logical relationship between creation "science" and moon landing conspiracies is that they're both based on ignorance and idiocy. Not sure what theories of human reproduction is all about, so perhaps the O.P. can expand a bit on that.
> Wait till your utopia bears out, Sun is gone, M$
.NET SDK? MS has always provided SDKs for the various Windows APIs (Platform SDK, DirectX, etc.) as free downloads. Why would the .NET SDK be any different?
> starts charging for their SDK
Why would MS start charging for the
A company exists for one reason and one reason only: to make money. Your comment about the original poster looking like an idiot for cursing Sun for not making money when he himself benefits from their actions makes no sense whatsoever.
Ugh .. this is the book we used in my Automata Theory class. I sold that bitch back as soon as the course was over.
> Here in Japan, guns are illegal.
However, in the UK where guns are also illegal homicide rates remain steady while in the US homicide rates are actually on the decline.
Speaking of the UK, there was case involving a man who used a shotgun and killed a burglar who broke into his house while he was sleeping. The man is now serving a life sentence for first degree murder.
> Hmm.
Hmm, indeed.
> Microsoft owns the library API's, plain and
> simple.
This isn't entirely true as a subset of the FCL is part of the CLI which is part of the ECMA standard. So bottom line is, to remain portable just stick to whats part of the ECMA standard and you're good to go.
In addition, C# includes a C/C++-like preprocessor. So you can also use the traditional preprocessor tricks to portable code as well.
Its not unusual for people who legally buy a gun for self defense purposes take lessons on how to use it. I bet your average dumbass criminal is not gonna make the extra effort.
Furthermore, if guns were not freely available, then I'd say its more likely that a criminal would have a gun than a law abiding, sedentary female.
> If saying it is derogatory, why do I hear black
> people saying it all the time?
What part of "for a white man to refer to a black man " did you not understand?
No.
> Most of us at /. are bigots and that's what makes /. cool
> IT and
Being a bigot makes one cool?
> Go forth and be GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
To be honest, I couldn't care less about the environment. I just hate having to refuel all the goddamn time. That 50MPG sounds perfect for me.
> Not to be objectionable or anything, but there is
... I took Introduction to Philosophy as one of my General Education requirement classes, and it had to be the biggest time waster of all the classes I've ever taken. Maybe it was the instructor, I dunno. But eventually I ended up using the time spent in class doing my statistics homework. And I still managed to pull off a B.
> no way that Philosophy can be considered useless.
I dunno
On the other hand, I also took a course called Critical Thinking, and it was under the "Philosophy" section at my school. That had to be one of the most interesting courses I've ever taken. This course seems to be what you are talking about when you mention "It's mostly logic applied to real or theoretical situations". I've sold back most of my college textbooks, including the CS-related ones. But I kept my Critical Thinking text, and even still crack it open on occasion. Great class.
> Well, sorry, but it is worthy.
Well, no unless you want to redefine what an RDBMS is. I'm not saying that not being an RDBMS automatically means its crap, I'm saying MySQL isn't an RDBMS because it doesn't fit the definition of an RDBMS.