Eh? What do you mean by "lightening fast?" Check out The benchmarks.
It still takes nearly 3x as long as SYSENTER on an Athlon. And an Athlon is slow to begin with. An EV6 was down near 80 clock cycles for system calls! That's about 5x less than the P4.
A computer scientist doesn't necessarily know anything about computers. Computer science is about the theories of computation, not about the details of programming.
Now, there is a certain benefit to knowing how the computer works at a low level, but its becoming less and less important. Especially considering that x86 assembly is completely different from how the CPU actually works at the lowest levels! I'd be much happier with a programmer who had a good grasp of the abstract theories of computation and didn't understand hardware at a low level, than one whose knowledge was the other way around.
Nah. If you really want something revolutionary, write your kernel in a safe language. That way, everything can safely be in kernel space, and you don't need system calls at all!
You just don't get it. The inflexibility of Java that you refer to is about SYNTAX. -------- No, the inflexibility of Java is semantic. There is only one way to do anything, the Sun approved way.
You give a human being a computer, and he can design anything ------ I don't doubt that, but do they? It hardly takes highly skilled work to make a lot of the programs a certain class of programmers write.
Besides, what the hell would a "mechanical programmer" do, anyways? ------- Plug pre-built Java components together, like a lot of programmers do now.
The unfounded and baseless claims about Microsoft on Slashdot get written by *users*. This is a not a media site but the comments page of one! An official website of the BBC is just a little bit higher up on the "I trust this for my information" ladder than random, anonymous user comments!!!
Bolting the head onto 200 engines each day as they pass by on their way to meet up with transmissions probably does require less skill (though I'd guess any of us would consider it harder work). ----- That's not how its done, at least in Japan. Each worker works on a complete subsystem. These subsystems are then assembled. This requires more skill, but has shown to lead to higher quality.
My sig is not about not believing in anything. Its about not believing in anything so deeply that you cannot even think of questioning it. My belief in capitalism is hardly unwavering. I used to be against globalization. Then I actually read books and studied the subject and realized that my fears were unfounded.
Even though I've gotten into this stupid discussion numerous times, people always give me emotional/patriotic/doom-saying arguments, never sound economic theory.
If people did what you actually suggested, the global economy would revert to the 1700s.
Clue: Free trade is good. Economists say it is good. Economic theory shows trade tarrifs always lead to a reduced GDP in the long term. History shows it is good. Consider France. Before Napoleon, the various provinces were independent, and each had trade barriers (tarrifs, laws, etc) with each other. Napoleon got rid of them, and the entire economy prospored. Consider Europe as a whole. By tearing down trade barriers between countries, the European economy as a whole is becoming more competitive in the world. Consider the US trade relationship with Canada. It directly supports millions of jobs in each country. Hell, despite early criticism, even NAFTA has been successful!
That's not true. English if a very rich, flexible language. Java is explicitly designed to make things highly rigid and allow the programmers little flexibility, to facillitate the mechanical programming methods of many companies. I'm not saying that programmers in general are the same as people building an engine, but I'd argue that a certain class of them are.
Oh, and in Japan, they don't use the kind of assembly line methods we do here. Each person assembles a specific subsystem, and the subsystems are put together afterwards. This takes significantly more skill than just bolting something on as it passes by on the assembly line.
What did we produce after we stopped producing shoes, then cars, etc? Other stuff! Capitalism works because human progress is unlimited. Unless you believe that progress will come to an end, you can rest assured that things will work out in the long term.
And guess what. We're still here! And things are better than ever! We've been out-sourcing for decades, and we're better than ever!
There may be no more jobs in making steel, or cars, or textiles, but back then, there weren't jobs in electronics, bio tech, etc.
Oh, and by your logic, if you stopped outsourcing stuff like hardware manufacturing, things would be so great! I mean, we'd be even better off if we made memory chips in the USA rather than in Taiwan. Oh wait. That'd put a lot of our electronics companies out of business! Doh...
Its quite a strech to say that "all the white-collar jobs have been moved over seas" when programmers hardly comprise all white collar jobs.
And I hate to put it in these terms, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between a certain class of programmer jobs and manufacturing jobs. I mean, isn't that the whole point of languages like Java? To structure things so tightly that programmers are basically just there to put pre-built parts together in a certain order? Does it really less skill to assemble a car engine than to make a Java servlet that processes customer transactions?
Don't forget that MS Office is one of those "apps with custom GUIs!"
Yep, it uses its very own toolkit. Wonder why Office 97/2000 looks nothing like an XP app?
Re:You took the comment out of context.
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Except its not. You can produce BSD-licensed software, LGPL-licensed software, MIT-licenses software, etc. And even for closed-source development, Qt isn't "extremely expensive." Rational Rose, is *extremely* expensive, yet professional software companies think nothing of buying copies. Qt is much cheaper, and a much bigger productivity boost for programmers.
Its not that kind of integration. It doesn't mean building OO.o into KDE, like IE is built into Windows. It means getting OO.o to use KDE's file selection dialogs, look, feel, etc.
Well, that's kind of the point of KDE being so flexible. So that people (like Lycoris) who want to customize it to be an easy transition from Windows can do so.
This is really a by-product of the de-religionizing of the West. Fewer and fewer people are *really* religious. Many people who claim to be religious treat it as one component of their life, rather than as the only component. Now, I think this is a good thing, but its pretty fundementally illogical. I mean, you have a God, who is perfect, infinite, and supremely powerful, yet He is only one component of your lifestyle?
Consider, then, the sheer irony of the United States. Here you have a country that is predominantly Christian, yet has an absolute freedom of religion. Christianity (like Islam) is an evangelical religion. It is your duty as a Christian to persuade others to find Christ. At the same time, it is enshrined in law that people have the freedom to ignore Christ! You have two absolutes here that are fundementally irreconcilable. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people can live with this, its just really amusing that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, ideally, they'd understand both. But I was saying that I'd give more credit to having a good understanding of the high-level than the low-level.
Eh? What do you mean by "lightening fast?"
Check out The benchmarks.
It still takes nearly 3x as long as SYSENTER on an Athlon. And an Athlon is slow to begin with. An EV6 was down near 80 clock cycles for system calls! That's about 5x less than the P4.
A computer scientist doesn't necessarily know anything about computers. Computer science is about the theories of computation, not about the details of programming.
Now, there is a certain benefit to knowing how the computer works at a low level, but its becoming less and less important. Especially considering that x86 assembly is completely different from how the CPU actually works at the lowest levels! I'd be much happier with a programmer who had a good grasp of the abstract theories of computation and didn't understand hardware at a low level, than one whose knowledge was the other way around.
Nah. If you really want something revolutionary, write your kernel in a safe language. That way, everything can safely be in kernel space, and you don't need system calls at all!
Actually, a Pentium 4 has ridiculously slow system calls. Athlons have system calls twice as slow as classic Pentiums, and the P4 is much worse.
You just don't get it. The inflexibility of Java that you refer to is about SYNTAX.
--------
No, the inflexibility of Java is semantic. There is only one way to do anything, the Sun approved way.
You give a human being a computer, and he can design anything
------
I don't doubt that, but do they? It hardly takes highly skilled work to make a lot of the programs a certain class of programmers write.
Besides, what the hell would a "mechanical programmer" do, anyways?
-------
Plug pre-built Java components together, like a lot of programmers do now.
The unfounded and baseless claims about Microsoft on Slashdot get written by *users*. This is a not a media site but the comments page of one! An official website of the BBC is just a little bit higher up on the "I trust this for my information" ladder than random, anonymous user comments!!!
Your ideas go against much of existing economic theory. Your ideas could very well be valid, but I'll consider believing you when I see your book.
PS> Having protectionist policies and tariffs is one of the stupid things Europe and Japan do. There is a reason our economy is so much more powerful.
Bolting the head onto 200 engines each day as they pass by on their way to meet up with transmissions probably does require less skill (though I'd guess any of us would consider it harder work).
-----
That's not how its done, at least in Japan. Each worker works on a complete subsystem. These subsystems are then assembled. This requires more skill, but has shown to lead to higher quality.
My sig is not about not believing in anything. Its about not believing in anything so deeply that you cannot even think of questioning it. My belief in capitalism is hardly unwavering. I used to be against globalization. Then I actually read books and studied the subject and realized that my fears were unfounded.
Even though I've gotten into this stupid discussion numerous times, people always give me emotional/patriotic/doom-saying arguments, never sound economic theory.
:: stands speechless ::
If people did what you actually suggested, the global economy would revert to the 1700s.
Clue: Free trade is good. Economists say it is good. Economic theory shows trade tarrifs always lead to a reduced GDP in the long term. History shows it is good. Consider France. Before Napoleon, the various provinces were independent, and each had trade barriers (tarrifs, laws, etc) with each other. Napoleon got rid of them, and the entire economy prospored. Consider Europe as a whole. By tearing down trade barriers between countries, the European economy as a whole is becoming more competitive in the world. Consider the US trade relationship with Canada. It directly supports millions of jobs in each country. Hell, despite early criticism, even NAFTA has been successful!
Patriotism has nothing to do with this, unless you want to equate economic stupidity with patriotism.
That's not true. English if a very rich, flexible language. Java is explicitly designed to make things highly rigid and allow the programmers little flexibility, to facillitate the mechanical programming methods of many companies. I'm not saying that programmers in general are the same as people building an engine, but I'd argue that a certain class of them are.
Oh, and in Japan, they don't use the kind of assembly line methods we do here. Each person assembles a specific subsystem, and the subsystems are put together afterwards. This takes significantly more skill than just bolting something on as it passes by on the assembly line.
Outsourcing certainly won't die out, but it will return to an equillibrium level that's at a point where quality is balanced with quantity.
Remember, its not a matter of who has better quality. Its a matter of who makes a better balance between quality and cost.
What did we produce after we stopped producing shoes, then cars, etc? Other stuff! Capitalism works because human progress is unlimited. Unless you believe that progress will come to an end, you can rest assured that things will work out in the long term.
And guess what. We're still here! And things are better than ever! We've been out-sourcing for decades, and we're better than ever!
There may be no more jobs in making steel, or cars, or textiles, but back then, there weren't jobs in electronics, bio tech, etc.
Oh, and by your logic, if you stopped outsourcing stuff like hardware manufacturing, things would be so great! I mean, we'd be even better off if we made memory chips in the USA rather than in Taiwan. Oh wait. That'd put a lot of our electronics companies out of business! Doh...
Its quite a strech to say that "all the white-collar jobs have been moved over seas" when programmers hardly comprise all white collar jobs.
And I hate to put it in these terms, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between a certain class of programmer jobs and manufacturing jobs. I mean, isn't that the whole point of languages like Java? To structure things so tightly that programmers are basically just there to put pre-built parts together in a certain order? Does it really less skill to assemble a car engine than to make a Java servlet that processes customer transactions?
But it hasn't started yet, and thus the MPL is still in effect, no?
But its not licensed under the GPL yet. The site says that the source will be tri-licensed under the GPL.
Don't forget that MS Office is one of those "apps with custom GUIs!"
Yep, it uses its very own toolkit. Wonder why Office 97/2000 looks nothing like an XP app?
Except its not. You can produce BSD-licensed software, LGPL-licensed software, MIT-licenses software, etc. And even for closed-source development, Qt isn't "extremely expensive." Rational Rose, is *extremely* expensive, yet professional software companies think nothing of buying copies. Qt is much cheaper, and a much bigger productivity boost for programmers.
Its not that kind of integration. It doesn't mean building OO.o into KDE, like IE is built into Windows. It means getting OO.o to use KDE's file selection dialogs, look, feel, etc.
Eh? Since when is installing Windows software one click? From what I remember, its an eternity of hitting "next" over and over and over again...
Well, that's kind of the point of KDE being so flexible. So that people (like Lycoris) who want to customize it to be an easy transition from Windows can do so.
This is really a by-product of the de-religionizing of the West. Fewer and fewer people are *really* religious. Many people who claim to be religious treat it as one component of their life, rather than as the only component. Now, I think this is a good thing, but its pretty fundementally illogical. I mean, you have a God, who is perfect, infinite, and supremely powerful, yet He is only one component of your lifestyle?
Consider, then, the sheer irony of the United States. Here you have a country that is predominantly Christian, yet has an absolute freedom of religion. Christianity (like Islam) is an evangelical religion. It is your duty as a Christian to persuade others to find Christ. At the same time, it is enshrined in law that people have the freedom to ignore Christ! You have two absolutes here that are fundementally irreconcilable. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people can live with this, its just really amusing that's all.