As has already been pointed out ad nausem, this is written by folks who don't know programming. Case in point, calling.NET a programming language, when it's a suite of programming languages that target a particular platform.
That said, there's more they're not saying..NET may be in big demand, but not *every* aspect of.NET is in big demand. If you want those mega-bux salaries, you'd better be prepared to do ASP.NET to pretty much the exclusion of everything else. That's what easily 75% of the.NET oriented jobs I've seen posted are asking for; everyone wants web applications.
Of course, if you prefer rich client rather than web client application development, like me, you're pretty much stuck.
Does anyone else see the problem with this?.Net is so platform specific that most of what you learn is non-portable.
Nothing learned while programming is non-portable. The basic concepts of programming, as well as everything built on those concpts, are the same in any language.
"What options do I have to build a small application on Windows, without a large learning curve?"
Your two options are mutually exclusive.
First, the learning curve is going to be large, regardless of which route you take. Some, however, have a smaller learning curve than others.
Second, the smaller learning curves tend to use large runtime libraries that will have to be installed along with your application.
If you want the smallest application footprint possible, you're better off using Win32, but the learning curve is large. MFC is also an option, but the learning curve is actually a little higher, even if you can do much more with MFC than with Win32.
If you happen to be using the latest windows operating system (i.e. XP SP2), odds are that you have the.NET Framework pre-installed. If that's the case, you're best off using Visual Studio's GUI designers and whichever language flavor you prefer (I recommend C# over VB). As has already been pointed out, there are free/beer and free/freedom alternatives to buying Visual Studio.
If.NET is unavailable and small installation size is a key factor, use Win32. Odds are you're a system programmer, so Win32 will probably be a fairly smooth transition for you. Unless you happen to hate Hungarian notation like I do -- then you'll want to pick up your monitor and throw it across the room whenever you use Win32 (or MFC).:)
I don't have any mod points, but you deserve several +1 Informatives.
Folks, look a little deeper, please. Sparkle isn't Flash, it's just a different way of doing WinFX.
Everything you can do with Sparkle, you can already do right now with Visual Studio 2005 and the December WinFX CTP with Cider.
Sparkle just gives you a different approach to it. It's designer oriented rather than developer oriented. It's GUI-driven rather than code-driven.
A better thing to compare Sparkle to would be the original release of Visual Basic: a way to help non-code-monkeys build windows applications and applets.
I say, don't worry too much. Yes, Pixar was, by far, my favorite movie studio.
But what made them great? The folks that worked at Pixar, the directors, the animators, and the producers.
So what will happen if Disney starts forcing their particular outlook on things? Well, aside from the fact that they've already been doing that for every Pixar flick ever made, there will essentially be a choice for the Pixar folks. Do it Disney's way, or walk.
If they can't do quality stuff for Disney, I think the folks at Pixar will walk and form their own, new Pixar-ish company. Sure, the Pixar brand name will be gone, but the name isn't what's important, it's the folks making the movies.
So give it a movie or two. There may be kinks, but I think things will smooth out over time. With or without Disney, we'll still eventually get the movies we love again.
Yes, a good portion, but how many of those will actually need to be hardware emulated? Sure, maybe ramdisks and CD-emulation disks (a la Alchohol), but those I would say are the exception, not the norm.
You should try reading *more* of the article. User-mode drivers (which most drivers *should* be) are still fair game. It's only kernel-mode that's at issue, and they're only really necessary for stringent timing requirements and legacy hardware.
Actually, nearly all hardware emulation drivers, along with most general purpose device drivers, can still be unsigned.
I suggest folks RTFA. Hell, just read the tagline for/. article. It says "kernel mode", folks, not "user mode". You need a digital signature to write kernel-mode drivers (and, BTW, to stream protected content), but user-mode unlicensed drivers are fair game.
Frankly, IMO, most drivers *should* be user-mode -- if you're writing your driver in kernel mode, you should re-think your design. Yeah, there's always the necessary exception, but if it's that important, go get a digital signature.
By now, many of us have heard about Singularity, Microsoft's research OS with its ultimate goal of dependability (in which security plays a very large role). How does Singularity fit into Microsoft's long-term security and operating system goals? Will Microsoft eventually adopt Singularity and its inherent security? Will Microsoft adapt the concepts of Singularity to its current NT-based OS structure? Is there a third option coming down the pipe?
I can't really quote performance stats; I've never dealt with a server that gets enough traffic to make a difference.
What I can tell you is that there is a major, important consequence to using MySQL for Windows rather than *nix. It stems from the way MySQL stores table data: the name of the table is the filename of the file used to store that table. Ditto for database names.
On Windows, filenames are case insensitive. The filename "MySQL" is the same as "mysql" is the same as "MysqL", etc. Consequently, table and database names on MySQL windows servers are case insensitive. Case is preserved on *nix, because filenames are case sensitive.
That's not to say that you shouldn't use MySQL for Windows, just be prepared for portability issues if you happen to migrate from *nix.
The book begins by explaining that inexperienced role players need not apply. This is intended as an advanced rulebook, and those not already familiar with d20 will have everything that they need, but may find the book daunting (this is the only major flaw I've found in the book).
"Inexperienced role players need not apply"? A more appropriate sentence would be: "This book is only for rollplayers* with at least three advanced mathematics degrees."
Seriously, though, I've read it, and if you're the type who likes tons of solid rules about what you can and cannot do in combat, along with more Final Fantasy style limit break special moves than you can put in a Bag of Holding, it's the book for you. But you'd better be ready for some slow combat, 'cause there's lots of stuff for you to keep track of.
IMO, this is more of a miniatures wargaming ruleset than a roleplaying ruleset. If you're more into roleplaying, you're probably better off with a more abstract combat system; then you can do whatever sort of cinematic moves you want, with a single role.
...if only they could find a way to attach this to a shark's head.
Re:I haven't worked with both, but....
on
JSF vs ASP.net
·
· Score: 1
Let me just add a corollary -- I do use Eclipse whenever I do a Java project. J# is not Java, and that's all that's remotely Java-flavored in Visual Studio. If I do a.NET project, I do it in C#/Visual Studio. If I do a Java project, I use Eclipse.
I suppose arguing one vs. the other is like apples and oranges, since there's little cross-over between the two.
Re:I haven't worked with both, but....
on
JSF vs ASP.net
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Visual Studio 2005 now has Edit and Continue for.NET/C#. It has not had it up until it launched last November.
As for the IDE, I have indeed used both, and prefer Visual Studio. Don't get me wrong; Eclipse is a very good IDE. VS is just better, IMO. I've already detailed the real differences between them; the rest is look/feel, responsiveness, and general user experience. Eclipse is great, but VS is better.
It's like the difference between MS Office and OpenOffice.org. OpenOffice.org is damn good, especially for the price, but MS Office really is better. I find that the only people who ever argue otherwise tend to be closed-minded about anything MS-related.
Slashdot Mirror
As has already been pointed out ad nausem, this is written by folks who don't know programming. Case in point, calling .NET a programming language, when it's a suite of programming languages that target a particular platform.
.NET may be in big demand, but not *every* aspect of .NET is in big demand. If you want those mega-bux salaries, you'd better be prepared to do ASP.NET to pretty much the exclusion of everything else. That's what easily 75% of the .NET oriented jobs I've seen posted are asking for; everyone wants web applications.
That said, there's more they're not saying.
Of course, if you prefer rich client rather than web client application development, like me, you're pretty much stuck.
Does anyone else see the problem with this? .Net is so platform specific that most of what you learn is non-portable.
Nothing learned while programming is non-portable. The basic concepts of programming, as well as everything built on those concpts, are the same in any language.
Yes, we do, but apparently you missed my own, as did the Slashdot Moderators.
Perhaps I should just put a big "ATTENTION: JOKE INTENDED" in front of my posts from now on.
"What options do I have to build a small application on Windows, without a large learning curve?"
.NET Framework pre-installed. If that's the case, you're best off using Visual Studio's GUI designers and whichever language flavor you prefer (I recommend C# over VB). As has already been pointed out, there are free/beer and free/freedom alternatives to buying Visual Studio.
.NET is unavailable and small installation size is a key factor, use Win32. Odds are you're a system programmer, so Win32 will probably be a fairly smooth transition for you. Unless you happen to hate Hungarian notation like I do -- then you'll want to pick up your monitor and throw it across the room whenever you use Win32 (or MFC). :)
Your two options are mutually exclusive.
First, the learning curve is going to be large, regardless of which route you take. Some, however, have a smaller learning curve than others.
Second, the smaller learning curves tend to use large runtime libraries that will have to be installed along with your application.
If you want the smallest application footprint possible, you're better off using Win32, but the learning curve is large. MFC is also an option, but the learning curve is actually a little higher, even if you can do much more with MFC than with Win32.
If you happen to be using the latest windows operating system (i.e. XP SP2), odds are that you have the
If
From TFA:
"The origin of the word 'Goobuntu' is not clear, though it does not appear in online Zulu dictionaries."
I mean, come on. The author can't make the miniscule mental leap that "Goobuntu" is a combination of Google and Ubuntu?
Perhaps you should have just copied and pasted the entire article like the author who got his story posted did. :|
I mean, it's not like CmdrTaco has formatting suggestions or anything.
Oh, wait...
It's "earth-like" in that it's "rocky", rather than a gas giant.
;)
Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Pluto are all "earth-like" planets.
Well... Pluto is more like a large comet.
I don't have any mod points, but you deserve several +1 Informatives.
Folks, look a little deeper, please. Sparkle isn't Flash, it's just a different way of doing WinFX.
Everything you can do with Sparkle, you can already do right now with Visual Studio 2005 and the December WinFX CTP with Cider.
Sparkle just gives you a different approach to it. It's designer oriented rather than developer oriented. It's GUI-driven rather than code-driven.
A better thing to compare Sparkle to would be the original release of Visual Basic: a way to help non-code-monkeys build windows applications and applets.
I say, don't worry too much. Yes, Pixar was, by far, my favorite movie studio.
But what made them great? The folks that worked at Pixar, the directors, the animators, and the producers.
So what will happen if Disney starts forcing their particular outlook on things? Well, aside from the fact that they've already been doing that for every Pixar flick ever made, there will essentially be a choice for the Pixar folks. Do it Disney's way, or walk.
If they can't do quality stuff for Disney, I think the folks at Pixar will walk and form their own, new Pixar-ish company. Sure, the Pixar brand name will be gone, but the name isn't what's important, it's the folks making the movies.
So give it a movie or two. There may be kinks, but I think things will smooth out over time. With or without Disney, we'll still eventually get the movies we love again.
Not everyone! :)
Yes, a good portion, but how many of those will actually need to be hardware emulated? Sure, maybe ramdisks and CD-emulation disks (a la Alchohol), but those I would say are the exception, not the norm.
You should try reading *more* of the article. User-mode drivers (which most drivers *should* be) are still fair game. It's only kernel-mode that's at issue, and they're only really necessary for stringent timing requirements and legacy hardware.
Actually, nearly all hardware emulation drivers, along with most general purpose device drivers, can still be unsigned.
/. article. It says "kernel mode", folks, not "user mode". You need a digital signature to write kernel-mode drivers (and, BTW, to stream protected content), but user-mode unlicensed drivers are fair game.
I suggest folks RTFA. Hell, just read the tagline for
Frankly, IMO, most drivers *should* be user-mode -- if you're writing your driver in kernel mode, you should re-think your design. Yeah, there's always the necessary exception, but if it's that important, go get a digital signature.
By now, many of us have heard about Singularity, Microsoft's research OS with its ultimate goal of dependability (in which security plays a very large role). How does Singularity fit into Microsoft's long-term security and operating system goals? Will Microsoft eventually adopt Singularity and its inherent security? Will Microsoft adapt the concepts of Singularity to its current NT-based OS structure? Is there a third option coming down the pipe?
That sentence, and the numerous repeats of it, were obviously a joke.
Well, *I* think it was deliberately done, given that Taco explicitly talks about "to" vs "too".
Of course, maybe you're making a joke to.
I can't really quote performance stats; I've never dealt with a server that gets enough traffic to make a difference.
What I can tell you is that there is a major, important consequence to using MySQL for Windows rather than *nix. It stems from the way MySQL stores table data: the name of the table is the filename of the file used to store that table. Ditto for database names.
On Windows, filenames are case insensitive. The filename "MySQL" is the same as "mysql" is the same as "MysqL", etc. Consequently, table and database names on MySQL windows servers are case insensitive. Case is preserved on *nix, because filenames are case sensitive.
That's not to say that you shouldn't use MySQL for Windows, just be prepared for portability issues if you happen to migrate from *nix.
MySQL documentation on the subject
No, I think (s)he is saying that it's old news. As in nearly a year old.
You could have just used this link instead....
Oops! I thought he wrote "heave" not "have".
My bad.
Er.... That last word should be "roll". Looks like I feel into my own homophonic trap.
The book begins by explaining that inexperienced role players need not apply. This is intended as an advanced rulebook, and those not already familiar with d20 will have everything that they need, but may find the book daunting (this is the only major flaw I've found in the book).
"Inexperienced role players need not apply"? A more appropriate sentence would be: "This book is only for rollplayers* with at least three advanced mathematics degrees."
Seriously, though, I've read it, and if you're the type who likes tons of solid rules about what you can and cannot do in combat, along with more Final Fantasy style limit break special moves than you can put in a Bag of Holding, it's the book for you. But you'd better be ready for some slow combat, 'cause there's lots of stuff for you to keep track of.
IMO, this is more of a miniatures wargaming ruleset than a roleplaying ruleset. If you're more into roleplaying, you're probably better off with a more abstract combat system; then you can do whatever sort of cinematic moves you want, with a single role.
* Misspelling deliberate
...if only they could find a way to attach this to a shark's head.
Let me just add a corollary -- I do use Eclipse whenever I do a Java project. J# is not Java, and that's all that's remotely Java-flavored in Visual Studio. If I do a .NET project, I do it in C#/Visual Studio. If I do a Java project, I use Eclipse.
I suppose arguing one vs. the other is like apples and oranges, since there's little cross-over between the two.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Visual Studio 2005 now has Edit and Continue for .NET/C#. It has not had it up until it launched last November.
As for the IDE, I have indeed used both, and prefer Visual Studio. Don't get me wrong; Eclipse is a very good IDE. VS is just better, IMO. I've already detailed the real differences between them; the rest is look/feel, responsiveness, and general user experience. Eclipse is great, but VS is better.
It's like the difference between MS Office and OpenOffice.org. OpenOffice.org is damn good, especially for the price, but MS Office really is better. I find that the only people who ever argue otherwise tend to be closed-minded about anything MS-related.