but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Idiot doesn't realize that the danger of modifying source doesn't depend on whether it's an open source model or closed source model. When people working in closed source organization modify their products code the level of danger depends entirely on the competence of the programmer working on that source code base.
I hate people who susbtitute analogies for evidence or proof. Analogies help illustrate the point but they don't make the point. This writer pretty much set the scene from the opening line by linking open source with spam mail. It's a pretty far-fetched analogy. The entity we are comparing with is spam mail, the link betweeen spam and open source is that they're both free. I bet someone could think up another evil entity and associate it via some property common to closed source development and then discredit closed source software that way.
Well there is a list of official MVPs here (click menu 'view a listing of MVPs by Technology') so just sticking MVP on your sig aint gonna help. I think you get to be a MVP by consistently answering questions on one of the MS newsgroups.
I dislike Microsoft's practices quite a bit, but I have to take issue with you here. You are complaining that Windows help relies on an HTML user-agent. That is the defining quality of modularity - instead of writing a specialised help viewer, they reused an existing component of the system. That is good software engineering.
I agree - what you describe is an example of good engineering. I wasn't complaining about it. I was meaning to cite this as an example of bad design this:
The Explorer is fully integrated with the operating system, take it away and the OS grinds to a halt
When I use the term 'higher level' I mean it in terms of a dependency relation, like the way the branches higher up a tree depend on a root branch for support. MS would like us to believe that the OS depends on IE in order to work (using the tree metaphor, the IE branch is a root branch and the OS grows from that branch). If this is true then IE is at lower level than the OS. In other words the kernel, filesystem, GDI etc require IE in some way to function. However from an engineering perspective, it's virtually impossible to see how IE can be at a lower level than the OS. If it truely is, then it's indicative of bad design, bad code and hence bad software.
From Gates himself "How could we ignore the browser?," Gates responded. 'The Explorer is fully integrated with the operating system, take it away and the OS grinds to a halt. When you call up Help, you're using the browser. In Office 2003 instead of going to the local files, the browser will go online and fetch the latest documents."
Any software engineer/programmer who reads this can make a good case for bad design of windows because it's not modular. What morons design an OS that depends on a higher level application. In this case it's IE but it it could easily be any other application, like solitare. Of course it's rubbish that the Windows OS depends on IE but this is the story they have to front ever since they won the case against Netscape.
That was a good explaination of MSes long term strategy and what.NET has to do with it. I never really understood what their goal with.NET was. If what you say is true, eventually it won't be about the OS anymore. MS will be able to rent applications to Linux based users because of Mono.
To be fair, it's probably easier to write unreadable but still useful code in Perl than in any other language (and I'd say Java is second) while Python does strongly encourage code that has, at the very least, a logical and easily understandable form.
The apparent usefulness of Perl (like Visual Basic) is only indicative of the large number of modules it incorporates. It's got nothing to do with properties of the language itself. Personally I think the usefulness of a language should be measured using the number of constructs it supports, not the modules used. Scalability, the ability to say what you mean concisely and the ability to write correct code should also play a role in the evaluation. Of course, when you're talking about the usefulness of a language in a broader sense with application development in mind, by all means, factor in the modules supported, speed of learning the new language, resources available etc...
For someone who's been coding for years you still don't have half a clue. It's been metioned several times already, by myself and others, that the following are true:
It's not the compiler's job to sort out what functions are used. It's the linker's job.
Linkers already do what you're complaing about. The problem you're describing doesn't exist
My question is, why do we always end up creating libraries/classes that contain other code we will never use?
Just because you aren't using those classes it doesn't mean that other people aren't.
What I would like is a compile environment where each function or object that I use is individually addressable, without having to pull in other "stuff" I don't need in my specific app. Is that so hard?
C++ allows for individually adressable functions and objects.
As far as I know when you write a program in C or C++ the functions that are used get worked out at link time (assuming static link). Other functions or classes that may be in a package/library you've pulled in aren't included in the final exe. If using dynamic linkage the system is similar except at link time your program links against a stub library that references the dll so that it loads the appropriate functions at run-time. If you don't like the idea of sharing functions and classes between different programs using dynamic linking, just statically link and then your final exe will contain the minimal set of classes/fucntions required for the program to operate.
I've tried several 3d modelling packages. Most of them have innovative and different user interfaces. I've found blender's ui to be hard to get to grips with. It's incredibly cluttered and the shortcut keys aren't standardized. You're also presented with a myriad of buttons and switches that easily confuse.
Britain went to war because Germany invaded Poland. In the 1st gulf war the US went to war legitimately against Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. This time it's different. The US have invaded in what they call a pre-emptive strike. Their actions imitate those of Iraq and Germany in the past wars. This was the point I was trying to make. Also note that it was Neville Chamberlain who declared war on Germany, not Winston Churchill.
I was speculating about Bush's motives for going to war. You didn't attempt to answer that question and either deliberately or mistakenly evaded it. Your point about Iraq is already well known and understood and therefore redundant.
The attack on Iraq is unprecedented in modern history because this time it is the US that is invading a sovereign nation. This is similar to what Hitler did to Poland to spark WW2. However, Hitler's motivation was clear. He wanted more land and to expand Germany. The motives of the Bush administration is not so clear. Are they really that altruistic and do they sincerely seek a regime change for the sake of the Iraqi people? Once Saddam is out of power and a new regime appointed, will the US army leave and let the UN take over in a peackeeping capacity?. If this is truly the case then the war will be potentially cathartic. However, if the Bush administration orders the occupation of Iraq (probably because of oil) and Iraq effectively becomes the 53rd state of the US then the actions we are witnessing now are the precursors of another world war.
Was going to make a similar comment but you beat me to it. Companies should not be allowed to steal words from a language, piss on them (like a dog marking its territory), and then claim they own the word.
Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux.
That's not right is it?
Talk about stating the obvious....This guy obviously thinks he's onto something that not many other people realize.
He's also arrogant enough to make this sweeping generalization 'The second is that almost no journalists, and no geeks, have ever come across the concept of "the whole product", though it is well known to marketing people.' Everyone I know, be they geek or not, when evaluating an item tries to look at it from as many angles as possible. It's common sense.
By most peoples' definition this isn't sci-fi however it does deal with themes that crop up in sci-fi novels. Excellent book and highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0552997803/reviews/qid=1043149942/sr=2-1/ ref=sr_2_1/102-1687957-6094563
People have been factorising stuff for centuries:
x^2 + 6x + 8 = (x + 2)(x + 4)
There are similaraties between whats above and refactoring code. Even the word refactoring comes from mathematics. In alot of ways refactoring code is common sense. I would think most developers do it already on a small scale, whether they realize it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank god there are people like you around...just need more of them in Princeton.
but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway.
Idiot doesn't realize that the danger of modifying source doesn't depend on whether it's an open source model or closed source model. When people working in closed source organization modify their products code the level of danger depends entirely on the competence of the programmer working on that source code base.
I hate people who susbtitute analogies for evidence or proof. Analogies help illustrate the point but they don't make the point. This writer pretty much set the scene from the opening line by linking open source with spam mail. It's a pretty far-fetched analogy. The entity we are comparing with is spam mail, the link betweeen spam and open source is that they're both free. I bet someone could think up another evil entity and associate it via some property common to closed source development and then discredit closed source software that way.
Well there is a list of official MVPs here (click menu 'view a listing of MVPs by Technology') so just sticking MVP on your sig aint gonna help. I think you get to be a MVP by consistently answering questions on one of the MS newsgroups.
I dislike Microsoft's practices quite a bit, but I have to take issue with you here. You are complaining that Windows help relies on an HTML user-agent. That is the defining quality of modularity - instead of writing a specialised help viewer, they reused an existing component of the system. That is good software engineering.
I agree - what you describe is an example of good engineering. I wasn't complaining about it. I was meaning to cite this as an example of bad design this:
The Explorer is fully integrated with the operating system, take it away and the OS grinds to a halt
When I use the term 'higher level' I mean it in terms of a dependency relation, like the way the branches higher up a tree depend on a root branch for support. MS would like us to believe that the OS depends on IE in order to work (using the tree metaphor, the IE branch is a root branch and the OS grows from that branch). If this is true then IE is at lower level than the OS. In other words the kernel, filesystem, GDI etc require IE in some way to function. However from an engineering perspective, it's virtually impossible to see how IE can be at a lower level than the OS. If it truely is, then it's indicative of bad design, bad code and hence bad software.
From Gates himself "How could we ignore the browser?," Gates responded. 'The Explorer is fully integrated with the operating system, take it away and the OS grinds to a halt. When you call up Help, you're using the browser. In Office 2003 instead of going to the local files, the browser will go online and fetch the latest documents."
Any software engineer/programmer who reads this can make a good case for bad design of windows because it's not modular. What morons design an OS that depends on a higher level application. In this case it's IE but it it could easily be any other application, like solitare. Of course it's rubbish that the Windows OS depends on IE but this is the story they have to front ever since they won the case against Netscape.
That was a good explaination of MSes long term strategy and what .NET has to do with it. I never really understood what their goal with .NET was. If what you say is true, eventually it won't be about the OS anymore. MS will be able to rent applications to Linux based users because of Mono.
hey that was useful - i knew the windows way but not the linux or mozilla way.
To be fair, it's probably easier to write unreadable but still useful code in Perl than in any other language (and I'd say Java is second) while Python does strongly encourage code that has, at the very least, a logical and easily understandable form.
The apparent usefulness of Perl (like Visual Basic) is only indicative of the large number of modules it incorporates. It's got nothing to do with properties of the language itself. Personally I think the usefulness of a language should be measured using the number of constructs it supports, not the modules used. Scalability, the ability to say what you mean concisely and the ability to write correct code should also play a role in the evaluation. Of course, when you're talking about the usefulness of a language in a broader sense with application development in mind, by all means, factor in the modules supported, speed of learning the new language, resources available etc...
It's not the compiler's job to sort out what functions are used. It's the linker's job.
Linkers already do what you're complaing about. The problem you're describing doesn't exist
C++ allows for individually adressable functions and objects.
As far as I know when you write a program in C or C++ the functions that are used get worked out at link time (assuming static link). Other functions or classes that may be in a package/library you've pulled in aren't included in the final exe. If using dynamic linkage the system is similar except at link time your program links against a stub library that references the dll so that it loads the appropriate functions at run-time. If you don't like the idea of sharing functions and classes between different programs using dynamic linking, just statically link and then your final exe will contain the minimal set of classes/fucntions required for the program to operate.
MS products will never die. If the worst comes (i.e. MS goes broke) I reckon they'll opensource their code.
God, I LOVE competition.
There's not much of a contest because MS is a monopoly.
yeah - maybe i shouldf give blender another try. it's a good package and i shouldn't let the ui get in my way.
I've tried several 3d modelling packages. Most of them have innovative and different user interfaces. I've found blender's ui to be hard to get to grips with. It's incredibly cluttered and the shortcut keys aren't standardized. You're also presented with a myriad of buttons and switches that easily confuse.
Britain went to war because Germany invaded Poland. In the 1st gulf war the US went to war legitimately against Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. This time it's different. The US have invaded in what they call a pre-emptive strike. Their actions imitate those of Iraq and Germany in the past wars. This was the point I was trying to make. Also note that it was Neville Chamberlain who declared war on Germany, not Winston Churchill.
I was speculating about Bush's motives for going to war. You didn't attempt to answer that question and either deliberately or mistakenly evaded it. Your point about Iraq is already well known and understood and therefore redundant.
The attack on Iraq is unprecedented in modern history because this time it is the US that is invading a sovereign nation. This is similar to what Hitler did to Poland to spark WW2. However, Hitler's motivation was clear. He wanted more land and to expand Germany. The motives of the Bush administration is not so clear. Are they really that altruistic and do they sincerely seek a regime change for the sake of the Iraqi people? Once Saddam is out of power and a new regime appointed, will the US army leave and let the UN take over in a peackeeping capacity?. If this is truly the case then the war will be potentially cathartic. However, if the Bush administration orders the occupation of Iraq (probably because of oil) and Iraq effectively becomes the 53rd state of the US then the actions we are witnessing now are the precursors of another world war.
Was going to make a similar comment but you beat me to it. Companies should not be allowed to steal words from a language, piss on them (like a dog marking its territory), and then claim they own the word.
Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux.
That's not right is it?
The Java VM wasn't designed to support multiple languages, the .NET CLR was.
The .NET package is more integrated than a Java/Linux solution (eg deployment is easier using .NET)
Talk about stating the obvious....This guy obviously thinks he's onto something that not many other people realize.
He's also arrogant enough to make this sweeping generalization 'The second is that almost no journalists, and no geeks, have ever come across the concept of "the whole product", though it is well known to marketing people.' Everyone I know, be they geek or not, when evaluating an item tries to look at it from as many angles as possible. It's common sense.
By most peoples' definition this isn't sci-fi however it does deal with themes that crop up in sci-fi novels. Excellent book and highly recommended. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail /-/books/0552997803/reviews/qid=1043149942/sr=2-1/ ref=sr_2_1/102-1687957-6094563
People have been factorising stuff for centuries: x^2 + 6x + 8 = (x + 2)(x + 4) There are similaraties between whats above and refactoring code. Even the word refactoring comes from mathematics. In alot of ways refactoring code is common sense. I would think most developers do it already on a small scale, whether they realize it or not.