Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent.
https://www.ecowatch.com/bioma...
Calculating the orbits of asteroids is indeed not accurate enough to calculate the chance of impact, but it is possible to rule out an impact. The majority of the thousands of asteroids found today are not harmless. Most of them won't cross earth's orbit in near (= hundreds of years) future, will leave the solar system or are small enough to burn in earth's atmosphere. There are, however, potentially hazardouds asteroids for which collision can't be ruled out. Odds are that they won't collide, but there may be a small chance (e.g. 0.2 % chance of impact in 20 years). "Pushing" these asteroids a couple of meters to the left now, results in a different orbit which reduces or completely takes away the impact risk a couple of decades later. That's the idea.
Diverting asteroids this way won't keep us safe, because the real danger comes from asteroids we have not discovered yet (so we don't have orbit-data), comets and other objects coming from the direction of the sun.
1. Bullshit. is unreadable because it looks like a mark-up tag.
<%for (int i=0;i<234984;i++){%>
<tr> blahblah </tr>
<%}%>
Is more readable. The separators are there to alarm the web-design people; "please do not touch this".
2. bullshit; as I said before. When using a plain for-loop you "copy-paste" a decent flow construction. That's no reason; it implies that almost any program is copy-paste-bloatware. When using some kind of tag-lib you copy-paste a flow construction which looks like a markup-tag PLUS you use YAFEFBS (yet another fancy enterprise framework business solution). A web-designer can fuck it up easily by accident. When a programmer needs to change the behavior, he has to dive into the configuration, edit a java-class, compile it and even deploy it, restart an application-server.
And about the 25 different pages; you just should not create 25 different pages if they all contain the same the stuff...
You state that struts sucks because of too many configuration files. You also state that 'raw java' should be avoided, because it sucks. Is that a reason? Why does that suck? I gave a good reason why it does not suck: you can easily distinguish flow control and logic from markup.
The whole problem is the browser. It was never meant for interactive applications. People just started to miss-use HTML: table-tags for doing layout, forms for emulation of normal GUI's etc. Stuff like all MVC-frameworks just simulate a normal way of programming, but at the end you just have to spit out some HTML which is static and then you do not have control anymore and the simulation ends.
Customers always want fancy interactive applications running in a browser (don't ask me why) so you always have to hack stuff with java-script, pass parameters in the URL to get things working etc...etc... With a framework like struts, JSF or tapestry in between, it's a whole lot of work to just add some simple stuff:
Customer: "I want a help-button in the table-header on screen 1,4,25?"
struts-evangelist: "Err...Hm...I have to add a new parameter to my tag, update the descriptor-XML....hm...I need to compile and deploy the whole stuff....let me think...that's 3 hours work."
nerd: "Ah ok, let's give it a try..."
# rsh testserver Welcome to testserver $ vi screen1.jsp screen4.jsp screen25.jsp.....
[...] 3 minutes later....
nerd: "something like this?"
Customer: "Yeah! thanks! put it in production, please"
All those fancy frameworks just don't work in the real world. Is ebay running struts? is amazon using JSF? is hotmail using tapestry? (And what about slashdot? is it running cocoon and xsl-transformations?:))
No way....popular, user-friendly, fast and fancy applications are just handcrafted using more flexible tools.
Using tags is the same as indirectly embedding java in your HTML. The only difference is that you have to open more files (an XML-configuration, a java-class) to see what it's behavior is. When using just java embedded in your HTML you have everything in just one file.
Be honest, moving a so called scriptlet to a class, writing a descriptor-file and add some new syntax (a new tag) to the mark-up-language is a lot of work. A simple piece of java-code is easier to maintain than all this framework-stuff, just because it's less code.
Adding some simple functionality is a lot of work.
And what 's the difference between:
<%=this.is.my.Tag.getHTML()%>
and some fancy XML-syntax!?
Isn't <%xyzzy%> xml-compliant?
When re-use is an issue, you can always use jsp-includes:) And when using tags you also copy/paste the calls to the tags.
Yeah right....
So, in your opinion I have to create a tag instead of a simple for-loop (that anyone can read) because I may not copy-paste a for-loop. Every structured program contains loops and stuff (Dijkstra), so why should we add another custom abstraction layer, and (and that's the other downside) a new scope?
Re:struts is a pig -- downside??????
on
Struts Survival Guide
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
Why is mixing Java-code and markup a downside? When using struts you have some kind of XML-document in which you cannot see the difference between controll-statements (logic) and markup because it's all in the same format. That's unreadable and unmaintainable.
The problem with stuff like struts, velocity, cocoon, tapestry etc. is that you have to change stuff in multiple files to change simple behavior.
For instance; If you have a page with a table of 34983 rows, and you want to split them ("go to next 100 results") in chunks and you created your page with all those fancy framework you have to change stuff in different-files, you have to create a new 'tag' and perhaps you have to "deploy" or what-ever....It's just not maintainable.
In a simple JSP with a for-loop (just java-code) and an iteration which prints a... you can just add an offset in the loop and pass it in the url or something like that.... It's done in 15 minutes...try that with your struts and tapestry stuff......
You are right. I've seen the same at companies I worked for. New 'technology' is injected into an organization by the speed of light and more and more projects are failing. I've seen over 10 projects where things were just broken because of bloated 'technology'....I think you recognize this sentence: 'We have some performance problems...can you fix them?'. In my case it was EJB....over 2 years or so, it will be.NET triggering need for help like this;)
Books like the one described in this posting are just another attempt to let people think that networking is not an application.
The whole problem with stuff like, J2EE, Corba and.NET is the fact that frameworks/platforms/or-whatever-you-call-it try to masquerade existing functionality and bring it to a higher level; in this case an Object Oriented approach. Object Orientation is invented to support more 'real-life' thinking, while designing and writing software. One can say that an Object Oriented program is more like reality.
Al the frameworks mentioned above try to encapsulate the 'distributedness' of software and offer an Object Oriented shell around the real communication (which is still TCP;)). This means that the fact that software has something to do with networking is irrelevant while designing software with this stuff. On the other hand: the fact that software is distributed has large impact on the design. There is no single point of communication (a socket?) anymore, but the communication is done by the framework.
In my opinion datacommunication needs to be implemented as part of an application instead of an aspect.
.NET is just another solution (J.A.S.). A solution in terms of software constists of a paradigm, a bunch of managers yelling acronyms, The Mighty White Paper, success stories and a lot of advertising to make people think that everybody uses the new solution already. In fact, stuff like.NET is like a religion, so if you believe in it, it works.
A couple of years ago, people started believing in Web-applications. People started exploiting -tags to place buttons on the right position instead of displaying a table, the -tag was invented and after the addition of the hidden--field, everything changed everything was web-enabled. Nobody seems to remember how fast distributed software was before those bloated web-stuff which are only hacks and trics with the browser.
If.NET wins and people go to.NET-churches, yell Microsoft-slogans and spread the Mighty Word of Solution Integration And Results Leveraging.NET-Solution Deployment Broker Technology Enablement Integration, everything will be.NET. People will forget the ancient speed of simple XML-less TCP-communication and full-duplex interprocess communication. Then,.NET is scalable, because all other things are eliminated.... By the way, another alarm-word for religion like bloatware like.NET is the word 'professional'. Large scale solutions are professional, simple solutions (a web site built with PHP, instead of J2EE with Container Managed Persistency) are always called 'unprofessional' or 'stuff for hackers' and that's just because people think everything related to computers is very complex or has to be complex.
Because of all those stupid Prophets of Solutions and Wizards of Enterprise Integration,.NET will be scalable and it will take over everything. Within 5 years people start their cars by passing an XML-document and telephone calls are encoded and packed in XML-CDATA-tags and sent over the line...just like 100 years aho where telephone was half-duplex.:)
Everybody seems to sue everybody and who will be next? Maybe the one owning the patent of 'operating systems' or just 'software' has to sue all software companies. Or maybe someone has the patent of 'sueing computer-related companies' and sues SCO, The Open Group and all others....:)
Slashdot should start a poll like:
Which companies will sue eachother next week?
a) The Open Group -> SCO
b) 'The Open Source Community' -> SCO
c) SCO -> SCO
d) The Open Group -> Microsoft
It's better to improve recording technology rather than producting expensive speaker systems to improve 'natural sound'. As long as people have two ears, two signals are enough to recreate 3D sound in our brains.
As long as I'm sitting on a couch while listening to the soundtrack of a movie while watching the screen, I don't want to move my head to listen to the superfluous speakers.
Tomcat indeed works fine....it just does the same as the big and expensive commercial bloatware. But do you really use EJBs and other j2ee related stuff? My experience is that software which uses this is (most of the time) slow. You really have to know what you're doing when using existing frameworks like this.
Regarding learning programming languages, I don't bother learning something new, but when I already know how things have to work and know how to implement it, why should I use a framework which hides the internals?
I still don't understand the real advantages of this kind of stuff. Honestly I've tried to understand the whole j2ee stuff, and I still can't. I haven't tried.NET and I will never try it, because all the books about it with titles containing words like 'Enterprise', 'Solution', 'Deploying' and 'Integrated' just make me sick.
Big companies just try to sell something 'good' for software development. The problem is, that they sell it to suits who just believe the marketing crap of sales people. Most of the time there are no technical people involved in these decisions and people like us just have to work with it, because 'it's good', 'scalable', 'integrated', blkahblahblah...
I really hope all this crap is over in a couple of years, and we can just use whatever we want to use and know is good. Getting experienced in using progamming languages and tools is the only way to see if things work.
My experience is that in projects where they used stuff like J2EE, SOAP and COM, a lot of people where involved (a lot of suits) and the projects last long....over 2 years for a simple web based application!!! Arrgrhgh!!
I've seen a lot of those projects and nobody overthere knew how to query a database using SQL how to use TCP-sockets, or what's the HTTP-protocol all about...They laughed at me because I did not want to use Visual Age for Java and I used javac and vi instead. "In Visual Age I cannot not see on which line parse errors occur" was my answer, when they asked what was better about just using the command line. I had to explain the word 'parser'.....
People on these kind of big projects just had a one week course and some experience with Excel macro's. And who sells those courses....???
Slashdot Mirror
Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent. https://www.ecowatch.com/bioma...
Calculating the orbits of asteroids is indeed not accurate enough to calculate the chance of impact, but it is possible to rule out an impact. The majority of the thousands of asteroids found today are not harmless. Most of them won't cross earth's orbit in near (= hundreds of years) future, will leave the solar system or are small enough to burn in earth's atmosphere. There are, however, potentially hazardouds asteroids for which collision can't be ruled out. Odds are that they won't collide, but there may be a small chance (e.g. 0.2 % chance of impact in 20 years). "Pushing" these asteroids a couple of meters to the left now, results in a different orbit which reduces or completely takes away the impact risk a couple of decades later. That's the idea. Diverting asteroids this way won't keep us safe, because the real danger comes from asteroids we have not discovered yet (so we don't have orbit-data), comets and other objects coming from the direction of the sun.
It's a joke... The article was written by Ali G... look at the picture at the end of the article.
simple techniques!? IBMs examples are pieces of over-engineered bloatware....
why not just:
getValues()
{
if (list==null)
list=loadList();
return list;
}
??
Isn't that easier than writing XML-configuration files?
(first-name=Joe,last-name=Smith,salary= 48000),5 0000)
(first-name=Jane,last-name=Smith,salary=
etc...
]]>
With such a powerful machine you can even run Websphere!
unreadable because it looks like a mark-up tag.
<%for (int i=0;i<234984;i++){%>
<tr> blahblah </tr>
<%}%>
Is more readable. The separators are there to alarm the web-design people; "please do not touch this".
2. bullshit; as I said before. When using a plain for-loop you "copy-paste" a decent flow construction. That's no reason; it implies that almost any program is copy-paste-bloatware. When using some kind of tag-lib you copy-paste a flow construction which looks like a markup-tag PLUS you use YAFEFBS (yet another fancy enterprise framework business solution). A web-designer can fuck it up easily by accident. When a programmer needs to change the behavior, he has to dive into the configuration, edit a java-class, compile it and even deploy it, restart an application-server.
And about the 25 different pages; you just should not create 25 different pages if they all contain the same the stuff...
You state that struts sucks because of too many configuration files. You also state that 'raw java' should be avoided, because it sucks. Is that a reason? Why does that suck? I gave a good reason why it does not suck: you can easily distinguish flow control and logic from markup.
The whole problem is the browser. It was never meant for interactive applications. People just started to miss-use HTML: table-tags for doing layout, forms for emulation of normal GUI's etc.
Stuff like all MVC-frameworks just simulate a normal way of programming, but at the end you just have to spit out some HTML which is static and then you do not have control anymore and the simulation ends.
Customers always want fancy interactive applications running in a browser (don't ask me why) so you always have to hack stuff with java-script, pass parameters in the URL to get things working etc...etc... With a framework like struts, JSF or tapestry in between, it's a whole lot of work to just add some simple stuff:
Customer: "I want a help-button in the table-header on screen 1,4,25?"
struts-evangelist: "Err...Hm...I have to add a new parameter to my tag, update the descriptor-XML....hm...I need to compile and deploy the whole stuff....let me think...that's 3 hours work."
nerd: "Ah ok, let's give it a try..." [...]
3 minutes later....
nerd: "something like this?"
Customer: "Yeah! thanks! put it in production, please"
nerd does:All those fancy frameworks just don't work in the real world. Is ebay running struts? is amazon using JSF? is hotmail using tapestry? (And what about slashdot? is it running cocoon and xsl-transformations?
No way....popular, user-friendly, fast and fancy applications are just handcrafted using more flexible tools.
Using tags is the same as indirectly embedding java in your HTML. The only difference is that you have to open more files (an XML-configuration, a java-class) to see what it's behavior is. When using just java embedded in your HTML you have everything in just one file.
:) And when using tags you also
Be honest, moving a so called scriptlet to a class, writing a descriptor-file and add some
new syntax (a new tag) to the mark-up-language
is a lot of work. A simple piece of java-code is easier to maintain than all this framework-stuff,
just because it's less code.
Adding some simple functionality is a lot of
work.
And what 's the difference between:
<%=this.is.my.Tag.getHTML()%>
and some fancy XML-syntax!?
Isn't <%xyzzy%> xml-compliant?
When re-use is an issue, you can always use jsp-includes
copy/paste the calls to the tags.
Do PHP-taglibs including XML-config exist?
Yeah right.... So, in your opinion I have to create a tag instead of a simple for-loop (that anyone can read) because I may not copy-paste a for-loop. Every structured program contains loops and stuff (Dijkstra), so why should we add another custom abstraction layer, and (and that's the other downside) a new scope?
Why is mixing Java-code and markup a downside?
... you can just add an offset in the loop and pass it in the url or something like that.... It's done in 15 minutes...try that with your struts and tapestry stuff......
When using struts you have some kind of XML-document in which you cannot see the difference between controll-statements (logic) and markup because it's all in the same format.
That's unreadable and unmaintainable.
The problem with stuff like struts, velocity, cocoon, tapestry etc. is that you have to change stuff in multiple files to change simple behavior.
For instance;
If you have a page with a table of 34983 rows, and you want to split them ("go to next 100 results") in chunks and you created your page with all those fancy framework you have to change stuff in different-files, you have to create a new 'tag' and perhaps you have to "deploy" or what-ever....It's just not maintainable.
In a simple JSP with a for-loop (just java-code) and an iteration which prints a
But you don't understand!
This is IBMs ON DEMAND Strategy!
...and besides that, it's my signature...
"This is even more effective"
And there is even more technology! At the moment there is more 'technology' and there are more books about Web Services than actual Web Services.
You have to do XML-requests to open it.
You are right. I've seen the same at companies I worked for. New 'technology' is injected into an organization by the speed of light and more and more projects are failing. I've seen over 10 projects where things were just broken because of bloated 'technology'....I think you recognize this sentence: 'We have some performance problems...can you fix them?'. In my case it was EJB....over 2 years or so, it will be .NET triggering need for help like this ;)
Books like the one described in this posting are just another attempt to let people think that networking is not an application. The whole problem with stuff like, J2EE, Corba and .NET is the fact that frameworks/platforms/or-whatever-you-call-it try to masquerade existing functionality and bring it to a higher level; in this case an Object Oriented approach. Object Orientation is invented to support more 'real-life' thinking, while designing and writing software. One can say that an Object Oriented program is more like reality.
Al the frameworks mentioned above try to encapsulate the 'distributedness' of software and offer an Object Oriented shell around the real communication (which is still TCP ;)). This means that the fact that software has something to do with networking is irrelevant while designing software with this stuff. On the other hand: the fact that software is distributed has large impact on the design. There is no single point of communication (a socket?) anymore, but the communication is done by the framework.
In my opinion datacommunication needs to be implemented as part of an application instead of an aspect.
Nah...this one is at least compatible with my very own all-purpose, bloatless, but XML-compliant DTD :
V $P`;@`\```````____+```V HNSWKS[#X;B2);FB:;JRK;N"\?R3-?VC>?ZB \8A,*I?,IO,)C4JGU*KUBLUJM]RN]PL.B\?DLID%:*1):\3Z J 0<9N)'I1S>8* 9XF+B>>J-VF7RHGWNKOK6,JGU 875E]'1UG/`J*J*RF78X=W6[>O.UMF;>H[N[@F \K&9E:S^09RS>+X#J##"G8*YCM&[U]N9Z-@P41G\#^,;7R;4+H @ H$^:ZD<)DTK0(K UV=1C6HTLYE?U`]NR,M&JG<FNK^ OT[X:A<P(17#"Z,.&)7;?T.)WZ<L^C-EDTA6]:([ =]L:#QBE0(X]V^WH<ILYK:8OVT3VRF/IUGU/*3K8E;9NL[M[>Y CM4 >].#3N,QG2]XR)O^ :4X[)Y\(J.E#%'SZ`9C03ORYEXI61 23%GDSUL=>AA9A)JHIYH^FPSE$H8,*C:6@PN&***$' AUD,B;0/'ALR!K,?Z6VRSU"5F2>O[YZ-9/2/Z8EW9,XN7DDZ=) 2665# U)8A@2(4>1%E9YPN>% @&?12M4I6-#4G&(:5&V090-C,NF92-J M^,F1U$H*`N4B;G@S7B)U62LB99&183%EI@JD5:6&)0D (I@)IJ3^4IZ34K@ALF=ZM46IF[4*JSBP3FMBI<RN&A.//*':3: V*?LKA- W=V2UZ]`,O"D+E(925G& &F_,<<<>-U=QHB7$N=^83HF6'GV"A*P,; KD?JO>7H::AO/DA'4\YXT(^H/,.4(BLC.8:X:,$^`LF,SX P^@2Y^]T5FM:3!.LH*IL["]%J[X1B[*;N!M8AVR0;W(*V\X*8+ =[?O_OKJK LL.2:U^"CQ<K^S!_>&A;13 @UMK%"F$35;D/S]MU1ISNIV@#)7O+KKH?E2 =6WN3HMTE=K7_TG\?CZ+:1T)P>F8O"4G^%R#=EOO+V7CW^<
M G:[+@T]^^>:?CW[Z57:O,_0LBID!F0]#CNMR[(=YXCAM:E*ANW USE#/\\2EIU S7F):Y>6;.6I3(HB^<M@UHB3 =6V!PCM4CD#CPLF-BW3;^1W5\J<[$TH$6#43N 'I4L;K98'%-]!ZUPX:J'^$+=VH"OFIT%3VYS^3)?%8X'J5CT< O _"0B3SOD;6C@9.)\)#47H01HHH LSKO32B2AD.!,Y;FOWJR4L<0C,(I[.C+4,00A?: YG?]%H5)+"`[7/,K*8UKXG-;&ISF]SLIC=OH,G<?1,(L^GE.!T V& JNQIS_/.8'SZ,Y: G2C'!V()]G9433,+*3@;&!!#KBH+ RCQ83*G'JQK-$G5OO*DD9BK,WO74ITJZXZQ::3Q_Q *3J*BU*5*4:H^N"A5>7?5K&IUJUSMJE>_"M:PBG6L9"VK6<^*U K2J`
<data>
<![CDATA[
begin 644 xmlgif.gz
M'XL(".[).C\``V)L82YG:68``;`&3_E'248X-
M```P`;@```+^C(^IR^T/HYRT
MSO?^#PP*A\2
M'4FW`W,Z8'YORQ5U1O_0]V>P!YB0YW97*'@VLM@X"`E!>%@8
M6-D9&DK(>"%WZ?F6B#KYZ09*NFJWY[I`*BH
M>LP:.:K+B]JI^\G,^U!\C&
M#!\_3VE+?
MB-;";QGIU?N740U)0R57FE2)L:*?C6:LR?/H*>6?:>`H2G
M,B"ZGT5S_6(FKA]+G:V"7@3442$?6+^P#
M@RW<L7/KVKV+-Z_>O7S[
MTFE,7Y<
M.SCPX,2+&S^./+GRY<R)#`==(=9B#-(O/6_.X3HYAU\Q
M4]W;8+#=GKQW2[P):ZGG"8-O<*6D=]#
M_WT68`<*O03-:,U,9)
M!F9(%
M5EZ)999:;FG*"SM&%%Z7&MQRXW0?BACE?FG!,5AIK0
M8BF2YVWG(1F,*IRQV5]YX!%)S';.*
M+_)FE5E+5C%@9I,]
M&-Z
MJ%0XZNE"R_I*HZGU9<HC9>;":5^HQMJK:)I'T)F;
MN01[)5ITX=Y+F+Y<,B+QQ#59C''
MRUM)3#+$%K"'HK
M2
MH:HF(^NZ_/BX,G2@YBK$KBN>"K>KJ@[,]=[^I3
M-HUZQWUMM=F&6S>\4%?Z,K8(M
MN5"`,\$O3M3T
M`_19>J3FO*&)*S:],%N=5H2HVSW-2"1)'1=V
M[!WNFE5"@5TA<\+#7:=.][5
M%K#`L<`/+4
M7^M<>*'87=%=GR/C"`LDNC.U,(Z^<^.?PF"];`40>9NY$5>2 UXZU!<UH#>/=
M(:17R+,1,%ZU45^3'`DE2$IRDI2LI"4OZ9
MX_+"(FE0(FD\)0U*54,9L
MURNQJ;"8
M/#_QXWOGM"4KDRF;=KXRBH%4G0_E>0+!B0UE'B0F/D?$-
M@OYS7&9:)P^5%VH#A4)T9!.=@D0KBM&,
M/9%41N_46P8OM5+JT!.
M$A6AT7
A=:UL;:M;WPK7N,IUKG2MJUWOBE>[%@``.Z[]*V6P!@`
`
end.
]]>
</data>
.NET is just another solution (J.A.S.). A solution in terms of software constists of a paradigm, a bunch of managers yelling acronyms, The Mighty White Paper, success stories and a lot of advertising to make people think that everybody uses the new solution already. In fact, stuff like .NET is like a religion, so if you believe in it, it works.
.NET wins and people go to .NET-churches, yell Microsoft-slogans and spread the Mighty Word of Solution Integration And Results Leveraging .NET-Solution Deployment Broker Technology Enablement Integration, everything will be .NET. People will forget the ancient speed of simple XML-less TCP-communication and full-duplex interprocess communication. Then, .NET is scalable, because all other things are eliminated.... By the way, another alarm-word for religion like bloatware like .NET is the word 'professional'. Large scale solutions are professional, simple solutions (a web site built with PHP, instead of J2EE with Container Managed Persistency) are always called 'unprofessional' or 'stuff for hackers' and that's just because people think everything related to computers is very complex or has to be complex.
.NET will be scalable and it will take over everything. Within 5 years people start their cars by passing an XML-document and telephone calls are encoded and packed in XML-CDATA-tags and sent over the line...just like 100 years aho where telephone was half-duplex. :)
A couple of years ago, people started believing in Web-applications. People started exploiting -tags to place buttons on the right position instead of displaying a table, the -tag was invented and after the addition of the hidden--field, everything changed everything was web-enabled. Nobody seems to remember how fast distributed software was before those bloated web-stuff which are only hacks and trics with the browser.
If
Because of all those stupid Prophets of Solutions and Wizards of Enterprise Integration,
Everybody seems to sue everybody and who will be next? Maybe the one owning the patent of 'operating systems' or just 'software' has to sue all software companies. Or maybe someone has the patent of 'sueing computer-related companies' and sues SCO, The Open Group and all others.... :)
Slashdot should start a poll like:
Which companies will sue eachother next week?
a) The Open Group -> SCO
b) 'The Open Source Community' -> SCO
c) SCO -> SCO
d) The Open Group -> Microsoft
It's better to improve recording technology rather than producting expensive speaker systems to improve 'natural sound'. As long as people have two ears, two signals are enough to recreate 3D sound in our brains. As long as I'm sitting on a couch while listening to the soundtrack of a movie while watching the screen, I don't want to move my head to listen to the superfluous speakers.
Tomcat indeed works fine....it just does the same as the big and expensive commercial bloatware. But do you really use EJBs and other j2ee related stuff? My experience is that software which uses this is (most of the time) slow. You really have to know what you're doing when using existing frameworks like this.
Regarding learning programming languages, I don't bother learning something new, but when I already know how things have to work and know how to implement it, why should I use a framework which hides the internals?
fedor.
I still don't understand the real advantages of this kind of stuff. Honestly I've tried to understand the whole j2ee stuff, and I still can't. I haven't tried .NET and I will never try it, because all the books about it with titles containing words like 'Enterprise', 'Solution', 'Deploying' and 'Integrated' just make me sick.
Big companies just try to sell something 'good' for software development. The problem is, that they sell it to suits who just believe the marketing crap of sales people. Most of the time there are no technical people involved in these decisions and people like us just have to work with it, because 'it's good', 'scalable', 'integrated', blkahblahblah...
I really hope all this crap is over in a couple of years, and we can just use whatever we want to use and know is good. Getting experienced in using progamming languages and tools is the only way to see if things work. My experience is that in projects where they used stuff like J2EE, SOAP and COM, a lot of people where involved (a lot of suits) and the projects last long....over 2 years for a simple web based application!!! Arrgrhgh!! I've seen a lot of those projects and nobody overthere knew how to query a database using SQL how to use TCP-sockets, or what's the HTTP-protocol all about...They laughed at me because I did not want to use Visual Age for Java and I used javac and vi instead. "In Visual Age I cannot not see on which line parse errors occur" was my answer, when they asked what was better about just using the command line. I had to explain the word 'parser'.....
People on these kind of big projects just had a one week course and some experience with Excel macro's. And who sells those courses....???
I think, it's all corrupt...
fedor