"Doing so would even retain backwards compatibility with prior versions!"
Eh. No. It would require you to have brackets, which would break backwards compatibility.
Yes, the indenting thing is annoying. In the beginning. Then you get used to it.
The thing with the indentation is that because you indent anyway, the brackets are simply superfluous. Getting rid of them makes the code more readable. Also, this way there is no war about the One True Bracing Style, since the brackets aren't there.;)
Not so. They vote no, because they no the public does not want this. They are EXTREMELY happy that the centre-right goverment takes the hit for this, otherwise they would have to.
The socialists will now complain about this law all they way into goverment after the next election, when they will....do exactly nothing about it.
Just as with everything else they complain about. That's swedish politics for you.
Well, if you want transactions, then you of course have to start and commit (or rollback) the transaction as well, yes.
"If under the covers your code is still operating procedurally one record at a time"
"Records?" It's an OODB. It does not have records. It has objects.:) I'm not sure what "operating procedurally one object at a time" would mean. I'm going to guess that you mean that you want to modify one attribute on loads of objects at one time. That is certainly possible to do in an object database if you have a fixed schema per object type, but if you do you miss out seriously.;) ZODB is schemaless, and hence that concept just doesn't map onto ZODB. As I mentioned other where relational databases are great for tabular data like that. In that case I agree, ORMs are a good solution.
Replace? No. But I would argue that a good OODB is a better choice in many cases, and that relational databases are good for those cases where you have loads of relations and when you want to be able to query your data in many different dimensions. Also, it rocks for tabular data.;)
Problem is that the only good OODB I've used is Python-only, so it's really hard to come with general recommendations.:(
"What efficiency advantages do they have over naive 'fetch record; do something; fetch another record' procedural code for dealing with large amounts of data?"
Efficiency I don't know. But with a good OODB you do not "fetch record, do something, write start over". You just do it. In your typical ZODB application there is no difference between doing something on objects in memory and doing it on objects stored in the database. The only difference is that the objects inherit from a persistent subclass.
The benefit of this i that you no longer have to design the database. You design your objects as you would use them, and that's it. The database part is completely transparent. You don't have to care that there is a database there. This speeds up development something fantastically.
When I studied computer science, which admittedly was a very short time, we had a very interesting course layout which really made sense in the end.
What we did was that we started with high level languages (Pascal mainly, this was back in the stone age) and at the same time we had courses in digital electronics, that tought logic and basic circuitry.
And then, while the digital electronics got more and more complex, the programming got more and more low-level. And in the end of the year, we made our own microcomputer and programmed it in assembler.
Something like this should in my opinion be the layout of every single first year in computer sciences. Admittedly I didn't learn anything the first half-year, having dome some computing before, but in hindsight, when everything came together at the end of the year, I realized this was a fantastic overview over computing. I had after this insight in both procedureal programming as well as SQL-databases while still being able to program in assembler and actually soldering together my own little 8-bit computer.
Big Kudos to whoever at Utvecklingscentrum Gotland and The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm that thought this course up in the end of the 80s. I don't think you can get a better one-year introduction to computing.
If Mona Lisa is a fantastic programming language, then yes. If it isn't then your reply is irrelevant.
"the simple fact that it is not in widespread use would mean that it wasnt that 'fantastic'."
Eh... no. I said that if a programming language is fantastic, that justifies widespread use. Notice the words "justifies".
First of all, you just did the most basic and fundamental of all stupid logical errors. The statement "If A then B" does NOT mean that the statement "If B then A" automatically is true.
Secondly, I said it *justified* widespread use. I did not say that if would *have* widespread use.
Two big stupid errors in one go. You should give up now.
When it comes to languages, they do, as the word "fantastic" when it comes to languages can be translated to "something that is justified for widespread usage".:)
A more reasonable comment from you would have been to ask what makes it fantastic. But you didn't ask that, so now you may never know.;-)
The poison with python is that it is a FANTASTIC programming language. That's what.:) Sure, for the end user with their CMS it doens't matter what the CMS is written in. But me, who writes it, I care.:)
Well, Plone is a content management system. An offshore gamling application doesn't exactly sound like a CMS site... So even if you had liked what was under the hood, you probably wouldn't have ended up actually using much of it.:)
No, it doesn't have a lot of code connected to open sockets. It connects one piece of code, the ZServer, to open sockets, and that is only if you don't connect it via apache, which most people do for various reasons. The ZServer does not evolve rapidly.
Zope, which is the platform om which CPS is based, is one of the bigger open source platforms for web application development, and has to my knowledge never been broken (which of course partly is because few have tried, but there you go).
You can rest assured that anything you write will have more security holes than Zope/CPS, simply because you are the only one that can find and fix them.;)
...annoys me. What is wrong with the already existing decentralized KAD network? It seems to work fine with me, and the non-centralized e2k precursor is easily the best non-centralized protocol.
The idea behind bittorrent, that you have one program downloading one file and sharing it at the same time is cool. But I can't see why it necessarily have to use it's own protocol. It would be cooler if I could choose to use the multiple downloads client I might already have running.
As it is now, when there are big game-patches to download for my games, bittorrent is needed. If I want to find unusual music, I need soulseek. To find be able to see Time Team shows, I need to download them with eMule. These all do the same thing: download and share. But of course, they have different protocols. MERGE! Please...
Cold fusion offers the world cheap energy that are practically limitless. But, of course, it doesn't work, it it will require a major scientific breakthrough before it does. But people still make vain research on it because they so much want it to work...
1. It's not a magazine written by economists. 2. Economics is like meteoreology, and if you use it to predict the future, you are probably gonna get it wrong. But if to understand how things work, it's very useful.
I like how this post instntly soawned a flmewar pn economy, mostly fueled by people that either don't understand 1. that The Economist is a magazine, not the people referred to in the sentence "economists say". 2. anything about economics. 3. both.
The Economist is a very good news magazine full of reasonable articles and opinions, in all senses of the word "reasonable". There is not enough praise on Slashdot to make it justice. You should all subscribe, assuming that you are interested of knowing what happens in the world from a political, economical and yes, technical standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is *no way the editor can handle this correctly*. "
Funny. Mine does. You paste it in, select the code you pasted, type tab, and it indents it one level. Correctly.
They did fix it. Now you can't mix tabs and spaces anymore. So it's fixed.
"Doing so would even retain backwards compatibility with prior versions!"
Eh. No. It would require you to have brackets, which would break backwards compatibility.
Yes, the indenting thing is annoying. In the beginning. Then you get used to it.
The thing with the indentation is that because you indent anyway, the brackets are simply superfluous. Getting rid of them makes the code more readable. Also, this way there is no war about the One True Bracing Style, since the brackets aren't there. ;)
"it's guaranteed to be "good" programming?"
No. But some common newbie bads are no longer possible.
Here is one example:
http://regebro.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/python-3-will-make-you-a-better-programmer/
What Wikileaks is doing now amounts to nothing less than black mail.
http://theopensociety.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/from-democracy-to-black-mail/
Not so. They vote no, because they no the public does not want this. They are EXTREMELY happy that the centre-right goverment takes the hit for this, otherwise they would have to.
The socialists will now complain about this law all they way into goverment after the next election, when they will....do exactly nothing about it.
Just as with everything else they complain about.
That's swedish politics for you.
Well, if you want transactions, then you of course have to start and commit (or rollback) the transaction as well, yes.
:) I'm not sure what "operating procedurally one object at a time" would mean. I'm going to guess that you mean that you want to modify one attribute on loads of objects at one time. That is certainly possible to do in an object database if you have a fixed schema per object type, but if you do you miss out seriously. ;) ZODB is schemaless, and hence that concept just doesn't map onto ZODB. As I mentioned other where relational databases are great for tabular data like that. In that case I agree, ORMs are a good solution.
"If under the covers your code is still operating procedurally one record at a time"
"Records?" It's an OODB. It does not have records. It has objects.
Replace? No. But I would argue that a good OODB is a better choice in many cases, and that relational databases are good for those cases where you have loads of relations and when you want to be able to query your data in many different dimensions. Also, it rocks for tabular data. ;)
:(
Problem is that the only good OODB I've used is Python-only, so it's really hard to come with general recommendations.
"What efficiency advantages do they have over naive 'fetch record; do something; fetch another record' procedural code for dealing with large amounts of data?"
Efficiency I don't know. But with a good OODB you do not "fetch record, do something, write start over". You just do it. In your typical ZODB application there is no difference between doing something on objects in memory and doing it on objects stored in the database. The only difference is that the objects inherit from a persistent subclass.
The benefit of this i that you no longer have to design the database. You design your objects as you would use them, and that's it. The database part is completely transparent. You don't have to care that there is a database there. This speeds up development something fantastically.
I've used ZODB for almost ten years, and in dynamic languages like Python OODB is fantastic. In static languages it must be a pain. :)
When I studied computer science, which admittedly was a very short time, we had a very interesting course layout which really made sense in the end.
What we did was that we started with high level languages (Pascal mainly, this was back in the stone age) and at the same time we had courses in digital electronics, that tought logic and basic circuitry.
And then, while the digital electronics got more and more complex, the programming got more and more low-level. And in the end of the year, we made our own microcomputer and programmed it in assembler.
Something like this should in my opinion be the layout of every single first year in computer sciences. Admittedly I didn't learn anything the first half-year, having dome some computing before, but in hindsight, when everything came together at the end of the year, I realized this was a fantastic overview over computing. I had after this insight in both procedureal programming as well as SQL-databases while still being able to program in assembler and actually soldering together my own little 8-bit computer.
Big Kudos to whoever at Utvecklingscentrum Gotland and The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm that thought this course up in the end of the 80s. I don't think you can get a better one-year introduction to computing.
If Mona Lisa is a fantastic programming language, then yes. If it isn't then your reply is irrelevant.
"the simple fact that it is not in widespread use would mean that it wasnt that 'fantastic'."
Eh... no.
I said that if a programming language is fantastic, that justifies widespread use. Notice the words "justifies".
First of all, you just did the most basic and fundamental of all stupid logical errors. The statement "If A then B" does NOT mean that the statement "If B then A" automatically is true.
Secondly, I said it *justified* widespread use. I did not say that if would *have* widespread use.
Two big stupid errors in one go. You should give up now.
When it comes to languages, they do, as the word "fantastic" when it comes to languages can be translated to "something that is justified for widespread usage". :)
;-)
A more reasonable comment from you would have been to ask what makes it fantastic. But you didn't ask that, so now you may never know.
The poison with python is that it is a FANTASTIC programming language. That's what. :) :)
Sure, for the end user with their CMS it doens't matter what the CMS is written in. But me, who writes it, I care.
Well, Plone is a content management system. An offshore gamling application doesn't exactly sound like a CMS site... So even if you had liked what was under the hood, you probably wouldn't have ended up actually using much of it. :)
Good, I hate when I have to fight with the software. :)
No, it doesn't have a lot of code connected to open sockets. It connects one piece of code, the ZServer, to open sockets, and that is only if you don't connect it via apache, which most people do for various reasons. The ZServer does not evolve rapidly.
;)
Zope, which is the platform om which CPS is based, is one of the bigger open source platforms for web application development, and has to my knowledge never been broken (which of course partly is because few have tried, but there you go).
You can rest assured that anything you write will have more security holes than Zope/CPS, simply because you are the only one that can find and fix them.
...annoys me. What is wrong with the already existing decentralized KAD network? It seems to work fine with me, and the non-centralized e2k precursor is easily the best non-centralized protocol.
The idea behind bittorrent, that you have one program downloading one file and sharing it at the same time is cool. But I can't see why it necessarily have to use it's own protocol. It would be cooler if I could choose to use the multiple downloads client I might already have running.
As it is now, when there are big game-patches to download for my games, bittorrent is needed. If I want to find unusual music, I need soulseek. To find be able to see Time Team shows, I need to download them with eMule. These all do the same thing: download and share. But of course, they have different protocols. MERGE! Please...
Cold fusion offers the world cheap energy that are practically limitless. But, of course, it doesn't work, it it will require a major scientific breakthrough before it does. But people still make vain research on it because they so much want it to work...
It's a bit sad, really.
People in cowboy hats can not be trusted with technology.
Because it's worth it, and because you can read a paper magazine on the toilet. :)
1. It's not a magazine written by economists.
2. Economics is like meteoreology, and if you use it to predict the future, you are probably gonna get it wrong. But if to understand how things work, it's very useful.
Yeah, I have no idea how tjat happemed. I lawasy spelchek.
I like how this post instntly soawned a flmewar pn economy, mostly fueled by people that either don't understand
1. that The Economist is a magazine, not the people referred to in the sentence "economists say".
2. anything about economics.
3. both.
The Economist is a very good news magazine full of reasonable articles and opinions, in all senses of the word "reasonable". There is not enough praise on Slashdot to make it justice. You should all subscribe, assuming that you are interested of knowing what happens in the world from a political, economical and yes, technical standpoint.
"The Economist" != "the worlds economists"