A lot of efforts are being done to simplify the parallel programming, both on micro scale and component scale. Just look through lambda-the-ultimate archives. Micro scale is mostly invisible to application programmers, and it is mostly done by compilers when they use SSE and friends, one of notable efforts of making it more explicit is OpenMP. On component scale, most of them are based on the message passing concurrency model (after you grok it, it is really really simple). The best effort that I have seen from point of view of usability is E programming language. I tried to clone its core ideas in my pet project AsyncObjects Framework, but usability is less than E's one because of the framework clutter.
There is no need to use XML to be extensible. I'm working on research project that allows to do for languages that use normal syntax. For early released prototype see http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group _id=11569&package_id=109063.
Dowload both files and run scripts in xj.ast\docs for demos of parser. Also there is some documentation that explains an idea.
OODBMS systems usually state different goal from RDBMS. The OODBMS goal is an persistentce for object. This is an cardinal break from RDMS parspective, which goal is to provide interface to structured persistence storage.
Lets consider full typical stack of layers in RDBMS.
hard drive or other physical persistence staroage (disk/sector model)
file system above hard drive (folder/document model).
All three layers provide different interface to the bits on the disk but throw different concepts. They update disks on bits and start from bits on the disk.
OODBMS-es do not start from bits on the disk, they start from objects an make them "persistent". The goal is unreachable. Object is transient thing and could not be made peristent. If you will kill a program and start it again you will have other object. OODBMS system usually invest to many efforts to maintain the Illusion of Persistence, but the Illusion is broken on every step. A schizophrenical double thought is required to program on OODBMS-es. Object is persistent and transient at the same time. It is especialy hard to think in this way in clustered environment.
OODBMS-es will start to conquire the world when they will acknowledge reality of transient objects and persitent bits on the disk. So task will be good OO interfaces to those bits.
Only OODBMS' innovation that worth trees killed in name of them is OID (and therefore an fast navigation) and which could be easily put in the RDBMS. I guess that SQL3 (or SQL99) already done it.
Inheritance is really syntactic sugar over linking.
Composition is also easy with oids and cascade on delete.
"No Impedence Mismatch" cost loosing flexibility in schema changes.
One data model is easily solved by automatic generation of interfaces from database, database scheme model just need to be enriched with binding info. But database should be an real source of data model.
OODBMS systems usually state different goal from RDBMS. The OODBMS goal is an persistentce for object. This is an cardinal break from RDMS parspective, which goal is to provide interface to structured persistence storage.
Lets consider full typical stack of layers in RDBMS.
1. hard drive or other physical persistence staroage (disk/sector model)
2. file system above hard drive (folder/document model).
3. structre above files (database/table/record model).
All three layers provide different interface to the bits on the dist but throw different concepts. They update disks on bits and start from bits on the disk.
OODBMS-es do not start from bits on the disk, they start from objects an make them "persistent". The goal is unreachable. Object is transient thing and could not be made peristent. If you will kill a program and start it again you will have other object. OODBMS system usually invest to many efforts to maintain the Illusion of Persistence, but the Illusion is broken on every step. A schizophrenical double thought is required to program on OODBMS-es. Object is persistent and transient at the same time. It is especialy hard to think in this way in clustered environment.
OODBMS-es will start to conquire the world when they will acknowledge reality of transient objects and persitent bits on the disk. So task will be good OO interfaces to those bits.
Only OODBMS' innovation that worth trees killed in name of them is OID (and therefore an fast navigation) and which could be easily put in the RDBMS. I guess that SQL3 (or SQL99) already done it.
Inheritance is really syntactic sugar over linking.
Composition is also easy with oids and cascade on delete.
"No Impedence Mismatch" cost loosing flexibility in schema changes.
One data model is easily solved by automatic generation of interfaces from database, database scheme model just need to be enriched with binding info. But database should be an real source of data model.
I'm not US citizen. But US sets very bad example that could affect my country too.
I see following pattern which is occur very often in IP debates. Concept Absence of profit is replaced with concept of Harm .
For example:
Artists will not get money for their creation when their musics are distributed on Nasper.
is replaced with
Artists will loose money when their musics are distributed on Nasper.
This is a big paradigm shift. It absence of profit that theoretically could be got is equated with loss of money. And music industry do not say that they are unable to get profit from internet, they say that they loose money on internet. It is like saying that cabs are loosing money becase of taxi.
The right of people to earn money in the way they like is not something that should be protected by government. They need to find way where other will wish to pay them. (I agree that money that people have already earned should be proteced.) It like saying that the beggar right for getting money from you should be protected by law because they like so. Beggars have too little money to lobby such law, but music industry seems to have money.
Artists will not die because lack of money while there are people that want to listen them. The only question how paying to them will work in the end. Current music industry way seems stops to work.
Cool! It is the new meaning of impossible. Now it mean "NASA does not know how to do it". Look at this paper and this paper to learn more about such thinking bug. These papers worth reading.
This feature suggests enforcing morality as the way of fixing problem. I think that will not lead to fixing the problem, it can make the problem worse. The additional rules will not became the part of solution. They will became the part of the problem.
Look at current problem that can be named "Sexual Harrasment Prevention Sindrome". There is a real problem: abuse of position of power in realtionships that involve sex. But under current rules the phrase "you have two legs" can be considered as sexual harrasment. From my limited knowledge of psycology, this will cause greater emotional problems in most of peaple in US that are difficult to be recognized as such by native citizen because they are "norm". Luckly I'm not the citizen of US and I do not live in US. On bad side US promotes their living standards to my country.
The interesting site about rules is at this link. Parts 0-2 was very intersting read for me. The rest is more questionable but is still interesting.
I think that the solution is not the new right rules, but to convey understanding. Behaviour based on understanding need not be controlled. I was forced to clean teeth at my childhood, now I understand what will happen if I will not do it, and I does not need to be controlled now. Just talk their language, and explain why they (rather then we) need to change. The force solution will not lead to real change. It will lead to avoiding punishment.
There was an article at slashdot about quantium computing efforts funded EC. They claim that it is possible to solve prime number factoring problem at resonable time if quantium logic gate is created. Maybe they have done some progress on it. On other hand I may be just too parnoic.
The big problem is that it does work. Especially well on people with average/low intellegence. Take almost any book on social psycology, that touch the subject, to read about it. The entry level book on subject is named something like: Mayers. Social Psycology. (I do not really remember exact english book title).
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of efforts are being done to simplify the parallel programming, both on micro scale and component scale. Just look through lambda-the-ultimate archives. Micro scale is mostly invisible to application programmers, and it is mostly done by compilers when they use SSE and friends, one of notable efforts of making it more explicit is OpenMP. On component scale, most of them are based on the message passing concurrency model (after you grok it, it is really really simple). The best effort that I have seen from point of view of usability is E programming language. I tried to clone its core ideas in my pet project AsyncObjects Framework, but usability is less than E's one because of the framework clutter.
There is no need to use XML to be extensible. I'm working on research project that allows to do for languages that use normal syntax. For early released prototype see http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group _id=11569&package_id=109063.
Dowload both files and run scripts in xj.ast\docs for demos of parser. Also there is some documentation that explains an idea.
OODBMS systems usually state different goal from RDBMS. The OODBMS goal is an persistentce for object. This is an cardinal break from RDMS parspective, which goal is to provide interface to structured persistence storage.
Lets consider full typical stack of layers in RDBMS.
All three layers provide different interface to the bits on the disk but throw different concepts. They update disks on bits and start from bits on the disk.
OODBMS-es do not start from bits on the disk, they start from objects an make them "persistent". The goal is unreachable. Object is transient thing and could not be made peristent. If you will kill a program and start it again you will have other object. OODBMS system usually invest to many efforts to maintain the Illusion of Persistence, but the Illusion is broken on every step. A schizophrenical double thought is required to program on OODBMS-es. Object is persistent and transient at the same time. It is especialy hard to think in this way in clustered environment.
OODBMS-es will start to conquire the world when they will acknowledge reality of transient objects and persitent bits on the disk. So task will be good OO interfaces to those bits.
Only OODBMS' innovation that worth trees killed in name of them is OID (and therefore an fast navigation) and which could be easily put in the RDBMS. I guess that SQL3 (or SQL99) already done it.
Inheritance is really syntactic sugar over linking.
Composition is also easy with oids and cascade on delete.
"No Impedence Mismatch" cost loosing flexibility in schema changes.
One data model is easily solved by automatic generation of interfaces from database, database scheme model just need to be enriched with binding info. But database should be an real source of data model.
OODBMS systems usually state different goal from RDBMS. The OODBMS goal is an persistentce for object. This is an cardinal break from RDMS parspective, which goal is to provide interface to structured persistence storage. Lets consider full typical stack of layers in RDBMS. 1. hard drive or other physical persistence staroage (disk/sector model) 2. file system above hard drive (folder/document model). 3. structre above files (database/table/record model). All three layers provide different interface to the bits on the dist but throw different concepts. They update disks on bits and start from bits on the disk. OODBMS-es do not start from bits on the disk, they start from objects an make them "persistent". The goal is unreachable. Object is transient thing and could not be made peristent. If you will kill a program and start it again you will have other object. OODBMS system usually invest to many efforts to maintain the Illusion of Persistence, but the Illusion is broken on every step. A schizophrenical double thought is required to program on OODBMS-es. Object is persistent and transient at the same time. It is especialy hard to think in this way in clustered environment. OODBMS-es will start to conquire the world when they will acknowledge reality of transient objects and persitent bits on the disk. So task will be good OO interfaces to those bits. Only OODBMS' innovation that worth trees killed in name of them is OID (and therefore an fast navigation) and which could be easily put in the RDBMS. I guess that SQL3 (or SQL99) already done it. Inheritance is really syntactic sugar over linking. Composition is also easy with oids and cascade on delete. "No Impedence Mismatch" cost loosing flexibility in schema changes. One data model is easily solved by automatic generation of interfaces from database, database scheme model just need to be enriched with binding info. But database should be an real source of data model.
I'm not US citizen. But US sets very bad example that could affect my country too.
I see following pattern which is occur very often in IP debates. Concept Absence of profit is replaced with concept of Harm .
For example:
Artists will not get money for their creation when their musics are distributed on Nasper.is replaced with
Artists will loose money when their musics are distributed on Nasper.This is a big paradigm shift. It absence of profit that theoretically could be got is equated with loss of money. And music industry do not say that they are unable to get profit from internet, they say that they loose money on internet. It is like saying that cabs are loosing money becase of taxi.
The right of people to earn money in the way they like is not something that should be protected by government. They need to find way where other will wish to pay them. (I agree that money that people have already earned should be proteced.) It like saying that the beggar right for getting money from you should be protected by law because they like so. Beggars have too little money to lobby such law, but music industry seems to have money.
Artists will not die because lack of money while there are people that want to listen them. The only question how paying to them will work in the end. Current music industry way seems stops to work.
Have you ever cared to read about anarchism and what they offer?
Try this FAQ to get started.
Cool! It is the new meaning of impossible. Now it mean "NASA does not know how to do it". Look at this paper and this paper to learn more about such thinking bug. These papers worth reading.
This feature suggests enforcing morality as the way of fixing problem. I think that will not lead to fixing the problem, it can make the problem worse. The additional rules will not became the part of solution. They will became the part of the problem.
Look at current problem that can be named "Sexual Harrasment Prevention Sindrome". There is a real problem: abuse of position of power in realtionships that involve sex. But under current rules the phrase "you have two legs" can be considered as sexual harrasment. From my limited knowledge of psycology, this will cause greater emotional problems in most of peaple in US that are difficult to be recognized as such by native citizen because they are "norm". Luckly I'm not the citizen of US and I do not live in US. On bad side US promotes their living standards to my country.
The interesting site about rules is at this link. Parts 0-2 was very intersting read for me. The rest is more questionable but is still interesting.
I think that the solution is not the new right rules, but to convey understanding. Behaviour based on understanding need not be controlled. I was forced to clean teeth at my childhood, now I understand what will happen if I will not do it, and I does not need to be controlled now. Just talk their language, and explain why they (rather then we) need to change. The force solution will not lead to real change. It will lead to avoiding punishment.
There was an article at slashdot about quantium computing efforts funded EC. They claim that it is possible to solve prime number factoring problem at resonable time if quantium logic gate is created. Maybe they have done some progress on it. On other hand I may be just too parnoic.
The big problem is that it does work. Especially well on people with average/low intellegence. Take almost any book on social psycology, that touch the subject, to read about it. The entry level book on subject is named something like: Mayers. Social Psycology. (I do not really remember exact english book title).