I thought Homeworld 2 was a disaster story wise. It also was extremely difficult and had a really bad story compared to Homeworld 1.
Homeworld is about how you start out and then get to your Homeworld. It would have been better if they had dumped Makaan. Homeworld 2 should have had another mystery where the Homeworlders find they need to go to another world from Haigara which is not there true Homeworld. So it should be a homeworld of a homeworld.
I'm not sure Starcraft 2 will top Sup Com. Sup Com is much more agressive in pushing
the limits by allowing thousands of Units and allowing battlefield zooming and dual monitors. Sup Com also has massive experimental units and sea and land battles. It sounds like Starcraft 2 might be much more conservative by trying to keep gameplay the same and by keeping mechanics similar. They won't even add sea battles to Starcraft 2 which is somewhat conservative.
Hopefully Sarcraft 2 won't be Starcraft 1 + a few more units. I also wish they wouldn't try to balance gameplay as much. It would be more interesting if the game were somewhat less balanced than trying to make 3 very different armies equal and balanced.
In Starcraft 1 I thought the Protoss Zealots were poorly designed in having short range swords. In modern warfare battles aren't fought hand to hand but from hundreds of feet apart and often you don't see your oponent. So a Protoss warrior sword rushing is really nutzo. Zealots would often get killed in the rush attack on bunkers.
Blizzard needs to add something new to the game. The game doesn't look much different from the first Starcraft. Most of the Starcraft 2 buildings look the same only in 3D. They need to add 50 or 60 different units for Starcraft 2 maybe even 100 total to make things interesting. Hopefully, it will add something more than Sup Com.
You have to give Chris Taylor credit at Gas Powered Games. Starcraft has been in development for 4 years and Sup Com is out before it with some very innovative technology.
The space battles in Revenge of the Sith were terrible. There is about 5 seconds where the movie shows the Republic ships fighting the Separatist Ships. Instead of having a panaramic battle scene George Lucas decides to focus on the Jedi Star fighters and the buzz droids. I don't give a damn about the Jedi fighters. What I wanted to see was a Return of the Jedi style ship to ship battle. The scenes where Anakin disables the frigates shields were also really bad and detract from the ship battle. All you see in the Revenge of the Sith are the Star Destroyer's against the Separatist ships with no idea of how it started or when. At least in Return of the Jedi you get to see the rebel ships jump in and a proper battle start whereas in Revenge of the Sith you get a continuation of a cartoon story instead of a movie. George Lucas could have at least shown them abducting Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith. In one moment you see Dukoos ship getting pummeled by a Star Destroyer and in the next it is orbiting above the battle leaving you wonder where did the Star Destroyer go? How did it move from the thick of battle to nowhere near the battle? The opening seen of Revenge of the Sith was discontuous. It shouldn't have focused on the fighters it should have focused on the combat between the ships.
Revenge of the Sith was full of plot holes as was the entire prequel. Dukoo didn't have much of a flagship either. It was just a small cruiser and nothing like a Super Star Destroyer and it was an even match for a Republic Star Destroyer. You would think that Dukoo or Dudoo would at least have a fairly large battleship. George Lucas gives the main villain of Revenge of the Sith a dinky underpowered frigate. I'm sure he could have come up with something better. If you were as powerful as Dudoo I'm sure you would have a brawny beefy battleship not some Tug.
Star Wars is one of the most mismanaged franchises in movie history. Starwars online? George Lucas should have a series of movies like James Bond and have other people direct them. George Lucas doesn't have to make two Trilogies. Harry Potter is not a trilogy. Making a prequel is a terrible way to continue a story. With the prequels your trying to continue a story before your story but how do you continue the post Return of the Jedi now that he went backward? George Lucas could have also have extended the Republic fight over 9 movies something like Kirshner wanted. The idea to make Anakin Luke's father was also poorly concieved. What is Lucas fascination with making Darth Vader Lukes father? Darth Vader should never have been Lukes father.... Then we wouldn't have three sorry excuses for sequels. Who's idea anyway was it to make a sequel a prequel? Darth Vader should have just been a very powerful villain that Luke had to fight two or three times to beat. Lucas basically decided to do the Ford Taurus concept and experiment on his bread and butter of Star Wars instead of making something conventional and extending it. At least GM didn't do this with the Aztec... A company like Honda is consistent whereas ol' George is inconsistent. This is like Honda changing the name of the Civic to Le Sabre and giving it an underpowered 3 cylinder from GM with a Gremlin style hood. Lucas has shown a lot of business brilliance lately by getting screwed for billions by Steve Job's over Pixar. Another question I have is why does he want to associate Star Wars with a B movie with the title Attack of the Clones? I would never associate Star Wars with a B anything. For Star Wars Brand development Lucas gets an F---.
Lucas also shouldn't have made the prequel into a droids verses Clones thing. He should have had a clones verses clones battle which would have made a more interesting story. This is how I thought it would be and maybe how Timothy Zahn thought it would be. The Naboo battle scene where lines of robots fight lines of troops is 1812 style tactics. No one lines up in ranks of lines to fight a battle anymore. This surely isn't modern blitzkri
The Fedora core doesn't come with the Linux kernel source. This used to be included with the distribution. I dislike the way that you have to monkey around to get the Linux Kernel to compile on Fedora. What is being done to resolve this? http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-kernel-fc4.h tml. Installing and recompiling the kernel should be simple and straightforward not difficult.
Also Vmware is somewhat difficult to install on Fedora 4. I had to use a patch to get it to work with one of the kernels.
I have one word to trash Fioina's job performance. Agilent
On July 19, 1999: Fiorina, 44, becomes president and CEO. On June 2000 HP spins off Agilent Technologies. This is a real stroke of genius. HP since then has just become a computer company.
Agilent has since been spinning off its chips business for 2.6 billion. Agilent also sold both the high growth Lumileds for 1 billion and the profitable Healthcare Solutions Group for 1.7 billion. Healthcare has since become one of Philips most profitable divisions. This spin off as a whole cost HP 4 to 5 billion in cash since HP could have easily made the same money splitting it up. This is really illustrative of weak and innefective Agilent leadership and the incompetence of Fiorina. HP still derives most of it's profits from printers and low margin computers and if they had medical instruments they could have expanded the business into MRI's like Philips has and which Siemens has also done. Instead Philips is carving up the best of Agilent and laughing all the way to the bank. Medical insatruments is a high margin business with fewer competitors. The Hewlett's and Packard's are both right she created a new HP that is totally dependent on computers with very little diversification. HP could have expanded into Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), X-ray, and ultrasound systems and radiology and general imaging.
Fiorina is a totally incompentent executive who's only claim to fame is the Compaq acquisition. Even then without Hurd it might not have worked.
Contraire. You're the "idiot." You must an AMD fan boy.
Apple showed that you can take a risc architecture and emulate an older cisc architecture and then migrate to a newer risc only one. Apple migrated the Mac OS from the 68000 to the powerpc while maintaining backward compatability with the 68000 through a software register emulator. The powerpc is lightyears beyond the 68000 and the 68000 architecture is lightyears beyond the x86 or even the Athlon and that was 10 years ago.
The Athlon is not a true RISC chip no matter how much some might say it is. The Athlon is a hybrid containing risc and cisc elements. A wolf is still a wolf even though it wares sheeps clothing. A risc like core surrounded by a complex instruction set is still a complex instruction set. The Athlon still speaks the dialect of x86. The Athlon still has to deal with an external instruction set that is dissimilar and contains variable length instructions. All advantages of the x86. All the advantages of microcode.
Intel merely tolerates the competition and refrains from crushing AMD like the bug it is. If Intel wanted to it could crush AMD like a cockroach. The Pentium 4 is not as strong a chip as Intel could make. The Athlon is just an Intel Wanabe and Intel could easily make a chip that really put the nails in AMD's coffin.
Also I do know some things about the Athlon. The Athlon is not the end all processor. It's not even a classic like the 68000. The Athlon is not a risc x86 emulator it is an Intel processor clone. The Athlon carries a lot of baggage from the x86 architecture. An architecture that has been revised and extended and modified. For the x86 there are several multimedia formats including MMX, MMX2, SSE, SSE2, 3D-now.
The x86-64 instruction set is a joke. AMD just slapped on a 64 bit instruction set with a few more registers. That doesn't take any genius or creatvity. It doesn't show great engineering prowess. It's just short term thinking like let's just extend the carriage instead of thinking 10 years into the future and resigning the carriage. The x86 was never a clean design and it has gone through several generations including the 8086, 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium 2, Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 ad. nauseum.
IBM only makes fun of the Itanium because doing so profits the power 5. They realise that the Opterot is not a competitor with the power 5 so they can laugh all the way to the bank.
All of this is just anti Itanium speach is AMD marketing fud. The AMD fud is that the Itanium is inneficient or a bad architecture or has huge dies that are costly to manufacture which is all AMD marketing crap. The Opteron is an outdated processor based on extending an obsolete 20 year old architecture. AMD and Intel should have cooperated and created a new architecture insteading of extending an obsolete instruction set. The only reason why you would want x86-64 is if your AMD. Extending the x86 architecture is the only way that AMD can have market leading influence.
The AMD people criticize the Itanium but the Itanium idea is absolutely correct. A new architecture would be preferable than a 20 year old architecture. Apple has shown that you can move from the 68000 which is better than x86 and move to a modern risc architecture like powerpc.
The Alpha engineers were given a tour of the Intel plant and when they were told the processor yields. They were shocked by how high the yield was. The yield on Intel wafer's is very good which knocks the myth that large dies are hard to make. Intel has absolutely incredible lithography and fabrication technology. Vastly superior than AMDs. If it weren't for state aid courtesy of Saxony AMD wouldn't be competing with Intel. The fact is you can't put your stock in AMD which is 1/10th the size of Intel and shouldn't be considered a competitor. Intel also owns all their plants unlike AMD which has to beg Saxony for a handout and beg IBM for some fabrication techniques like SOI.
Extending the x86 is like trying to cross a dead dog with a cheatah. The result is you get a dead mangy cat. The Opteron is not a revolutionary architecture and it only succeeds at the inneficiency of the Pentium 4. The Opteron is not the answer because it extends the x86 architecture. A new risc architecture could easily supplant the x86 one with emulation for backward compatability and be a much better solution than AMD-64. However, transitioning to a new architecture would have been better 15 years ago and much easier than trying to emulate the monolithic-skunk-dog-which-is-a-rancid-decaying-an d-dead-and stinks-to-hell-x86 soon to be x86-64 and if AMD succeeds AMD-x86-64.
Opterot is not the answer. x86 has been extended and gone through 5 or 6 generations and has so many layers and calcification that even a paleontologist couldn't classify them. The x86 is an archeological disaster unfit for teaching and not using. It is unkempt and unclean and should be exorcised by the local priest. Itanium is a new design and new is better than Opterot. A new better pc architecture benefits everyone except Sun and IBM and their outdated bigiron.
I'd like to see someone write a tcp/ip stack in Cobol. Better yet write a working tcp/ip stack in a truly evil language from destined for Hell. A language designed as a programmers worst nightmare or programmers Hell. A language designed from the start to make easy things impossible and difficult things implausible.
A really challenging test of programmer skill would be writing a tcp/ip stack in a difficult language. An example of a difficult programming lanuage would be in brainf*** or Intercal (
http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/) or Malebolge or even Unlambda or Befunge or ILLGOL which is described as a mash of Perl with a dash or Fortran and some other dainties to make programming an internship in hell. Writing anything in these languages is akin to cyber insanity. It's a challenge to write anything in Intercal or it's brethren and a true test of skill to write a program tcp/ip stack in Intercal. These languages marry obfuscation with encryption and cuneiform. Some even reverse the logical flow of programs. And for some languages there is no logical flow.
An example snippet of brainf*** from
http://cydathria.com/bf/bf_ex1.html:
An example of Unlambda code from the website http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore /programs/unlambda/
The Z1 doesn't really count as the first digital computer because it used mechanical memory. The Z1 was an electo mechanical computer of which a lot of the early machines were. This is an important distinction between digital modern computers and mechanical computers of Babbage and electro mechanical computers which were a step between fully digital electronic machines. It should be noted that the first digital computer should be electronic instead of mechanical or electromechanical.
5 minutes does not an expert make. 5 minutes of anything doesn't allow for a lot of credibility to criticise. Movie critics have to watch an entire movie whether they like it or not. If anyone found out that Siskel didn't watch the last 30 minutes of 2001 because it was incromprehensible no one would follow Siskel's review.
In what way is Mutant X bad? That is a matter of opinion without any fact. I can say anything is bad but how do I know it unless I explain why? Mutant X is a lot better than Space 1999 or Dr. Who and the TV version of the Incredible Hulk which is a lot better than the Universal movie of 2003. Mutant X is better than some Battle Star Galactica episodes or Babilon 5. Mutant X is an improvement over some of the Star Trek episodes. Mutant X is at least like a TV version of X-Men which is why Tribune got sued by Fox over Mutant X. Mutant X was to similar to X-men in 20th Century Fox opinion. There aren't a lot of mutant style TV shows. You could name a lot of cartoons but very few X-men style TV shows. Mutant X is a TV show of X-men.
Name Mutant X for what it is. At least it has some interesting plot and intrigue. The style of Mutant X is at least unique and novel. The Mutants and there powers are also interesting. Mutant X is not Space 1999 or Lexx where the last season is mired in hell in Fire and Water which basically ruined the series (if there was one). Mutant X isn't campy like Dr. Who or the Batman TV show. A lot of Critics gave good ratings to Mutant X. Mutant X isn't the disaster of epic proportions of Matrix Revolutions. Mutant X is not as bad as claimed. A really bad show is a really bad show for obvious specified reasons.
And you must be Siskel or Ebert? The critic in the TV show The Critic. I don't think the date is the important part. Star Wars came out in 1978. Oops I mean 1977 but the date is not the point. The facts speak for themselves. The facts are the point.
The fact remains as valid a lot of Scifi is not up to the standards of Star Wars. Star Wars was a real path breaker that redefined the genre and gave it financial viability. There are a lot of really bad Scifi shows too. If you are such a TV expert you must have you missed the last episodes of Lexx or you must be a Space 1999 fanatic. Honorable mention can be given to the movie version of Wing Commander and the last 30 minutes of the Black Hole or 2001 which are almost unfathomable and don't make any sense because they are surreal and the movies never adequately explain the endings. 2001 the Movie helps sell 2001 the book. This also explains why the Black Hole bombed. There never will be another sequel to Disney's the Black Hole because Eisner would never allow it.
As brilliant as the Matrix was its sequels pale in comparison. The Matrix Revolutions was a disaster.
Andromeda and Mutant X are probably better than the Honeymooners. This isn't a very good comparison. Mutant X and Andromeda are Scifi and Honeymooners is comedy. The Honeymooners is 30 to 40 years old and is filmed in black and white with much more primitive cameras and lighting. Mutant X and Andromeda have much better animation and color and lighting and special effects and have 40 to 50 years of technology improvements in cimematography. Mutant X and Andromeda are of much higher film and camera quality. To say that the Honeymooners is a classic and the Andromeda and Mutant X are not a classic is a falacy. For one they are products of two generations. Anyone who is normal would rather watch Mutant X and Andromeda because the genre is newer and the images are in color. No one wants to watch old black and white reruns no matter how appealing or funny? How many reruns of I Love Lucy can any normal person take before they are institutionalized? A better comparison would be a scifi show from the 50s such as Lost in Space with Mutant X and Andromeda. There is no comparison.
Comparing a comedy sitcom with a scifi show is not a valid comparison. Also Andromeda and Mutant X have more episodes to show for their popularity.
Comedies are much easier than Scifi. Making good Scifi is very difficult and much more expensive. There are very few excellent sci fi movies and fewer excellent Scifi shows. 90% of all sci fi shows are garbage. This can be seen in Space 1999 and Lexx and Dr. Who which is not famous for its special effects but for a campy style. In Scifi the quality is proportional to the budget. There are a lot of really bad episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation and Star Trek. Even the Star Trek movies were not always very good. You know the mantra even numbered Trek movies are good and odd numbered Star Trek Movies Suck. Aside from Star Trek II and Star Trek IV there is a big drop afterwards.
Another really bad scifi show is Lexx on the Sci Fi channel. There are several other bad Scifi TV shows. A good Scifi TV show can be a rarity. Farscape is very quirky and it has some bad episodes that are elevated by the performance of Ben Browder. A good actor can carry a subpar episode.
There are lots of B shows on the Sci Fi channel and there are few very Sci Fi shows that are a cut above and exemplify Star Wars quality. Star Wars is the movie that all sci fi shows aspire to and even the Star Wars sequels aspire to be Star Wars. Most of the newer Scifi programming has occurred within the past 10 years.
Mutant X and Andromeda are ok overall and have a much larger number of episodes. Mutant X and Andromeda are evolutionary TV shows that are much better than there predessors such as Star Trek and some of the Star Trek the Next Generation episodes or even Earth Final Conflict. At least Andromeda never had the Garbage haulers of Voyager or Commander Janeway and never sank to the depths of Star Trek Voyager.
As with everything there is a yin and yang. Most Scifi shows have some really bad episodes and average episodes and fewer great episodes. That is why Andromeda and Mutant X should be considered as classics. A lot of Sci Fi shows are unwatchable.
Yes, Buffy has a preoccupation with demons. So? It's called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" not "Buffy the Farmer" or "Buffy the Anorexic Lawyer".
What your really saying is that Vampires are deamons. It should be Buffy the deamon slayer. It's really Buffy the deamon slayer not Buffy the Vampire slayer. Thats exactly the point. There is no creativity in there selection of monsters. They could create other types of monsters but the creators themselves must be possessed. There are different monsters ghosts, balrogs, liches, Witches, Warlocks, Pixies, Centaurs, Orcs, Trolls, Chimeras, Wraiths, and Nazguls, Dragons, Unicorns, Wizards, but Buffy has one predominant monster a deamon. Even JRR Tolkien has different monsters, but Buffy was never the Lord of the Rings and the producers aren't Stephen Jackson and the FX shop isn't Wicka.
Yes, Buffy's vampire rules are different from Dracula's. That's why the show is named after her, not him.
Yes, and Dracula is considered a literary classic whereas Buffy is not. Defying conventions will get you only so far. In Angel's case cancelled. There is also the convention of logic which is lacking.
Ok, I'm done now.
Yeah, and Angel is done too. Officially, Angel is spiked.
Glory was not killed because the demon dimensions were destroying the world...
That's exactly the point. If the last Glory episode was so good then why did Buffy switch networks afterword. The WB frog network let Buffy escape to the UPN. The only real thing you can do with a monster is keep it caged or let it escape.
If they'd really wanted a cliffhangar for the Glory episode they would have turned Buffy (the vampire slayer) into a vampire. But knowing the producers they would have turned buffy into a daemon instead (err deamon).
TV show stars can get paid just as well as movie stars. For example look at Seinfeld who will get millions of dollars per episode for each rerun. The Freinds cast will also get several million dollars per episode. The Cheers cast also recieved several million per episode. Another example is the show Everybody Loves Raymond where the actor who plays the brother walked off over a salary dispute to up his salary to 5 million.
For Hercules Kevin Sorbo could also recieve millions of dollars for reruns depending if he wins his lawsuit with universal. This illustrates that there is money in TV shows.
Another example is Bill Cosby who made millions of dollars for The Cosby show.
While Sci Fi shows probably are not on the level of a popular sitcom, it still shows that TV stars can make as much as movie stars through the reruns. Star Trek reruns have netted Paramount millions of dollars.
Last week Angel gets turned into a puppet or muppet in the 5th season episode of Smile Time. This equivalent to turning Kermit the Frog into a Vampire. Instead they turn Angel into Count Dracula the muppet or puppet and the enemies are demon posessed puppets. Smile Time is the story of the Muppets Goes To Hell. Oh wait that was already done in the movie Puppetmaster!!!
This episode didn't get released it escaped as a monster all its own. This is one reason why Henson won't let Clive Barket get close to the Muppets as well an example of briliant script writing.
This is the second coming of the infamous LA Law vantriliquist episode.
This was probably a good move to cancel Angel. The Vampire TV show has been worn out. A vampire TV show is difficult to do correctly. Angel is a dropoff from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Two Vampire shows is tooo much.
This is a prime example of a producer losing touch with the audience (Josh Whedon). Josh Whedon does really bizarre things like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical with non broadway actors. Some of the vampire mythology is also strange and atypical. The vampires in Buffy and Angel are deamons without a soul. The vampires are also so vulnerable and almost to easy kill (they follow the Blade paradigm that when a Vampire dies it puffs in smoke). If a Vampire is this easy to kill it makes a very weak monster. A weak monster makes a weak villain and story.
Another fatal flaw is that almost all (90%) of the monsters in Angel and Buffy are Deamons. They could be more imaginative about the monsters. The show has a preoccupation with deamons. Even Vampires are deamons. In Buffy the Mayor was a deamon and Glory was a hell god from a deamon dimension. On buffy they even had a Cyborg deamon. They also violate the official cannon of a vampire established by dracula.
The Buffy the Vampire slayer was at its best when Clare Kramer played Glory as the villain. The really stupid thing they did is they killed Glory off. But they also killed Glory off in a very weak implausible way. The story made it absolutely essential that Glory had to die or the deamon dimmensions would destroy the world.
They should have let Glory escape to the deamon dimmension and not killed Buffy. To kill Buffy or Glory is to kill the show. They never had another villain equal to Glory and the fatal flaw of any story is to kill the Chief villain. Almost all good stories have a recurring villain (such as Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes) and when you have a good villain you utilize them and don't kill them. Starwars would not be Starwars if Kenobi had killed Vader in Star Wars a New hope. They could have reused Glory in future episodes.
Sarah Michelle Ghellar also quit Buffy because it was declining or basically dead. It would be really stupid for her to do Buffy or Angel again. It would be counter productive to her career. Basically she is now to good for either or was always to good for the role.
Here is a link for Clare Kramer: She is the height of the show and its demsise. http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/intervie ws/kramer_ clips/index.shtml
The last episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer was also dumb. They could have gotten a true Villain but instead the used Sarah Michelle Ghellar twice as Buffy and the Evil Buffy. They could have had a second actor as the villain but they were to cheap so they used Ghellar twice.
Sarah Michelle Ghellar made Buffy the Vamp a success. As a vampire killing vixen the lead role requires a hot actress and it took a lot to carry a show about the dead and deamons.
The theory that hydrocarbons are derived from plant matter is obsolete. This is passe. It doesn't require 4 tons of plants to make oil. Oil is the result of sulfur or element eating bacteria and other deep earth processes.
The current theory is that bacteria and other biological processes deep in the earth are what produces oil, natural gas, and hydrocarbons. The new theory is supported by the book The Deep Hot Biosphere. Some scientists are stuck in the dark age.
How would plant matter form oil deposits 10 miles down? There is also oil deposits below coal deposits. If hydrocarbons are the result of dead plants then why are some hydrocarbon aquifers are refilling? Plant matter alone can't explain the amount of oil and natural gas that exists. They also don't explain deep pockets of oil in the earth. Some deposits could be hundreds of miles down.
The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold supports the idea that deep within the earth there is a biosphere and it is here that life began. Oil and natural gas were created by formed by ancient bacteria and sulphur eating life forms that feeds on the rocks and decomposes it creating natural gas and oil. There are also unknown processes that the organisms use to survive high temperatures and pressures and the result of this biosphere is anerobic and creates natural gas deposits. Some organisms have been found that feed on the rusting steel hulk of the Titanic and slowly decompose it. Different organisms exist that support life in very foreign almost alien environments.
Another example presented in the book is organisms that live in deep sea vents. These organisms live off of sulphur or other elements and not oxygen. They decompose hydrocarbons. Bacteria is very adaptive and life exists under different circumstances deep with the earth.
.Net is just a knockoff of Java and Java is an attempt to improve C++.
Is it any wonder that 6+ years later C++ is still standard for system programming? C is standard for many open source projects and after 6+ years no one has managed to find a replacement for C++.
Platform independence is hogwash. Java could supplant C++ but instead Sun has loaded it down with a bloated Class library and poor native support and JIT bytecode.
Sun forces you to program a certain way and criticizes any alternatives. Enums and Structs are considered bad by Java standards and overloading is bad for you and Delagates are bad and inner classes are better. In Java Speed doesn't matter or native support violates platform independence. Speed isn't a priority with Java. Sun force feeds people what they think is good for them. Java is just another way for Sun to sell servers instead of coming up with
something useful.
Java makes you write a bunch just to display a line. Consider the following:
system.out.printline()
or
public static final int N;
Very bloated and obtuse.
whereas with c# you can say
console.writeln()
Java has very little native compiler or interface support for Java.
D is way better than both and it is a possible successor to C++. Whereas Java and C# are really niche languages that fail to succeed where C++ left off and improve on Native compilation or systems programming D actually in a native programming language.
Java doesn't differentiate the class library from the language which is a very bad thing. Java could be a smaller language but instead they load it with every library and function and make a very large bloated system. The enmity of OOP is class libraries that extend other classes and become a huge tangled tree of bloat.
Plus if you change one class it can depracate many others that use it. Deprecation is a language feature of Java.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Homeworld 2 was a disaster story wise. It also was extremely difficult and had a really bad story compared to Homeworld 1.
Homeworld is about how you start out and then get to your Homeworld. It would have been better if they had dumped Makaan. Homeworld 2 should have had another mystery where the Homeworlders find they need to go to another world from Haigara which is not there true Homeworld. So it should be a homeworld of a homeworld.
I'm not sure Starcraft 2 will top Sup Com. Sup Com is much more agressive in pushing the limits by allowing thousands of Units and allowing battlefield zooming and dual monitors. Sup Com also has massive experimental units and sea and land battles. It sounds like Starcraft 2 might be much more conservative by trying to keep gameplay the same and by keeping mechanics similar. They won't even add sea battles to Starcraft 2 which is somewhat conservative.
Hopefully Sarcraft 2 won't be Starcraft 1 + a few more units. I also wish they wouldn't try to balance gameplay as much. It would be more interesting if the game were somewhat less balanced than trying to make 3 very different armies equal and balanced.
In Starcraft 1 I thought the Protoss Zealots were poorly designed in having short range swords. In modern warfare battles aren't fought hand to hand but from hundreds of feet apart and often you don't see your oponent. So a Protoss warrior sword rushing is really nutzo. Zealots would often get killed in the rush attack on bunkers.
Blizzard needs to add something new to the game. The game doesn't look much different from the first Starcraft. Most of the Starcraft 2 buildings look the same only in 3D. They need to add 50 or 60 different units for Starcraft 2 maybe even 100 total to make things interesting. Hopefully, it will add something more than Sup Com.
You have to give Chris Taylor credit at Gas Powered Games. Starcraft has been in development for 4 years and Sup Com is out before it with some very innovative technology.
The space battles in Revenge of the Sith were terrible. There is about 5 seconds where the movie shows the Republic ships fighting the Separatist Ships. Instead of having a panaramic battle scene George Lucas decides to focus on the Jedi Star fighters and the buzz droids. I don't give a damn about the Jedi fighters. What I wanted to see was a Return of the Jedi style ship to ship battle. The scenes where Anakin disables the frigates shields were also really bad and detract from the ship battle. All you see in the Revenge of the Sith are the Star Destroyer's against the Separatist ships with no idea of how it started or when. At least in Return of the Jedi you get to see the rebel ships jump in and a proper battle start whereas in Revenge of the Sith you get a continuation of a cartoon story instead of a movie. George Lucas could have at least shown them abducting Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith. In one moment you see Dukoos ship getting pummeled by a Star Destroyer and in the next it is orbiting above the battle leaving you wonder where did the Star Destroyer go? How did it move from the thick of battle to nowhere near the battle? The opening seen of Revenge of the Sith was discontuous. It shouldn't have focused on the fighters it should have focused on the combat between the ships.
Revenge of the Sith was full of plot holes as was the entire prequel. Dukoo didn't have much of a flagship either. It was just a small cruiser and nothing like a Super Star Destroyer and it was an even match for a Republic Star Destroyer. You would think that Dukoo or Dudoo would at least have a fairly large battleship. George Lucas gives the main villain of Revenge of the Sith a dinky underpowered frigate. I'm sure he could have come up with something better. If you were as powerful as Dudoo I'm sure you would have a brawny beefy battleship not some Tug.
Star Wars is one of the most mismanaged franchises in movie history. Starwars online? George Lucas should have a series of movies like James Bond and have other people direct them. George Lucas doesn't have to make two Trilogies. Harry Potter is not a trilogy. Making a prequel is a terrible way to continue a story. With the prequels your trying to continue a story before your story but how do you continue the post Return of the Jedi now that he went backward? George Lucas could have also have extended the Republic fight over 9 movies something like Kirshner wanted. The idea to make Anakin Luke's father was also poorly concieved. What is Lucas fascination with making Darth Vader Lukes father? Darth Vader should never have been Lukes father.... Then we wouldn't have three sorry excuses for sequels. Who's idea anyway was it to make a sequel a prequel? Darth Vader should have just been a very powerful villain that Luke had to fight two or three times to beat. Lucas basically decided to do the Ford Taurus concept and experiment on his bread and butter of Star Wars instead of making something conventional and extending it. At least GM didn't do this with the Aztec... A company like Honda is consistent whereas ol' George is inconsistent. This is like Honda changing the name of the Civic to Le Sabre and giving it an underpowered 3 cylinder from GM with a Gremlin style hood. Lucas has shown a lot of business brilliance lately by getting screwed for billions by Steve Job's over Pixar. Another question I have is why does he want to associate Star Wars with a B movie with the title Attack of the Clones? I would never associate Star Wars with a B anything. For Star Wars Brand development Lucas gets an F---.
Lucas also shouldn't have made the prequel into a droids verses Clones thing. He should have had a clones verses clones battle which would have made a more interesting story. This is how I thought it would be and maybe how Timothy Zahn thought it would be. The Naboo battle scene where lines of robots fight lines of troops is 1812 style tactics. No one lines up in ranks of lines to fight a battle anymore. This surely isn't modern blitzkri
The Fedora core doesn't come with the Linux kernel source. This used to be included with the distribution. I dislike the way that you have to monkey around to get the Linux Kernel to compile on Fedora. What is being done to resolve this? http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-kernel-fc4.h tml. Installing and recompiling the kernel should be simple and straightforward not difficult.
Also Vmware is somewhat difficult to install on Fedora 4. I had to use a patch to get it to work with one of the kernels.
I have one word to trash Fioina's job performance. Agilent
On July 19, 1999: Fiorina, 44, becomes president and CEO. On June 2000 HP spins off Agilent Technologies. This is a real stroke of genius. HP since then has just become a computer company.
Agilent has since been spinning off its chips business for 2.6 billion. Agilent also sold both the high growth Lumileds for 1 billion and the profitable Healthcare Solutions Group for 1.7 billion. Healthcare has since become one of Philips most profitable divisions. This spin off as a whole cost HP 4 to 5 billion in cash since HP could have easily made the same money splitting it up. This is really illustrative of weak and innefective Agilent leadership and the incompetence of Fiorina. HP still derives most of it's profits from printers and low margin computers and if they had medical instruments they could have expanded the business into MRI's like Philips has and which Siemens has also done. Instead Philips is carving up the best of Agilent and laughing all the way to the bank. Medical insatruments is a high margin business with fewer competitors. The Hewlett's and Packard's are both right she created a new HP that is totally dependent on computers with very little diversification. HP could have expanded into Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), X-ray, and ultrasound systems and radiology and general imaging.
Fiorina is a totally incompentent executive who's only claim to fame is the Compaq acquisition. Even then without Hurd it might not have worked.
Contraire. You're the "idiot." You must an AMD fan boy.
Apple showed that you can take a risc architecture and emulate an older cisc architecture and then migrate to a newer risc only one. Apple migrated the Mac OS from the 68000 to the powerpc while maintaining backward compatability with the 68000 through a software register emulator. The powerpc is lightyears beyond the 68000 and the 68000 architecture is lightyears beyond the x86 or even the Athlon and that was 10 years ago.
The Athlon is not a true RISC chip no matter how much some might say it is. The Athlon is a hybrid containing risc and cisc elements. A wolf is still a wolf even though it wares sheeps clothing. A risc like core surrounded by a complex instruction set is still a complex instruction set. The Athlon still speaks the dialect of x86. The Athlon still has to deal with an external instruction set that is dissimilar and contains variable length instructions. All advantages of the x86. All the advantages of microcode.
Intel merely tolerates the competition and refrains from crushing AMD like the bug it is. If Intel wanted to it could crush AMD like a cockroach. The Pentium 4 is not as strong a chip as Intel could make. The Athlon is just an Intel Wanabe and Intel could easily make a chip that really put the nails in AMD's coffin.
Also I do know some things about the Athlon. The Athlon is not the end all processor. It's not even a classic like the 68000. The Athlon is not a risc x86 emulator it is an Intel processor clone. The Athlon carries a lot of baggage from the x86 architecture. An architecture that has been revised and extended and modified. For the x86 there are several multimedia formats including MMX, MMX2, SSE, SSE2, 3D-now.
The x86-64 instruction set is a joke. AMD just slapped on a 64 bit instruction set with a few more registers. That doesn't take any genius or creatvity. It doesn't show great engineering prowess. It's just short term thinking like let's just extend the carriage instead of thinking 10 years into the future and resigning the carriage. The x86 was never a clean design and it has gone through several generations including the 8086, 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium 2, Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 ad. nauseum.
IBM only makes fun of the Itanium because doing so profits the power 5. They realise that the Opterot is not a competitor with the power 5 so they can laugh all the way to the bank.
All of this is just anti Itanium speach is AMD marketing fud. The AMD fud is that the Itanium is inneficient or a bad architecture or has huge dies that are costly to manufacture which is all AMD marketing crap. The Opteron is an outdated processor based on extending an obsolete 20 year old architecture. AMD and Intel should have cooperated and created a new architecture insteading of extending an obsolete instruction set. The only reason why you would want x86-64 is if your AMD. Extending the x86 architecture is the only way that AMD can have market leading influence.
The AMD people criticize the Itanium but the Itanium idea is absolutely correct. A new architecture would be preferable than a 20 year old architecture. Apple has shown that you can move from the 68000 which is better than x86 and move to a modern risc architecture like powerpc.
The Alpha engineers were given a tour of the Intel plant and when they were told the processor yields. They were shocked by how high the yield was. The yield on Intel wafer's is very good which knocks the myth that large dies are hard to make. Intel has absolutely incredible lithography and fabrication technology. Vastly superior than AMDs. If it weren't for state aid courtesy of Saxony AMD wouldn't be competing with Intel. The fact is you can't put your stock in AMD which is 1/10th the size of Intel and shouldn't be considered a competitor. Intel also owns all their plants unlike AMD which has to beg Saxony for a handout and beg IBM for some fabrication techniques like SOI.
Extending the x86 is like trying to cross a dead dog with a cheatah. The result is you get a dead mangy cat. The Opteron is not a revolutionary architecture and it only succeeds at the inneficiency of the Pentium 4. The Opteron is not the answer because it extends the x86 architecture. A new risc architecture could easily supplant the x86 one with emulation for backward compatability and be a much better solution than AMD-64. However, transitioning to a new architecture would have been better 15 years ago and much easier than trying to emulate the monolithic-skunk-dog-which-is-a-rancid-decaying-an d-dead-and stinks-to-hell-x86 soon to be x86-64 and if AMD succeeds AMD-x86-64.
Opterot is not the answer. x86 has been extended and gone through 5 or 6 generations and has so many layers and calcification that even a paleontologist couldn't classify them. The x86 is an archeological disaster unfit for teaching and not using. It is unkempt and unclean and should be exorcised by the local priest. Itanium is a new design and new is better than Opterot. A new better pc architecture benefits everyone except Sun and IBM and their outdated bigiron.
I'd like to see someone write a tcp/ip stack in Cobol. Better yet write a working tcp/ip stack in a truly evil language from destined for Hell. A language designed as a programmers worst nightmare or programmers Hell. A language designed from the start to make easy things impossible and difficult things implausible.
A really challenging test of programmer skill would be writing a tcp/ip stack in a difficult language. An example of a difficult programming lanuage would be in brainf*** or Intercal (
http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/) or Malebolge or even Unlambda or Befunge or ILLGOL which is described as a mash of Perl with a dash or Fortran and some other dainties to make programming an internship in hell. Writing anything in these languages is akin to cyber insanity. It's a challenge to write anything in Intercal or it's brethren and a true test of skill to write a program tcp/ip stack in Intercal. These languages marry obfuscation with encryption and cuneiform. Some even reverse the logical flow of programs. And for some languages there is no logical flow.
An example snippet of brainf*** from
http://cydathria.com/bf/bf_ex1.html:
e /programs /unlambda/
An example of Unlambda code from the website
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/mador
The Z1 doesn't really count as the first digital computer because it used mechanical memory. The Z1 was an electo mechanical computer of which a lot of the early machines were. This is an important distinction between digital modern computers and mechanical computers of Babbage and electro mechanical computers which were a step between fully digital electronic machines. It should be noted that the first digital computer should be electronic instead of mechanical or electromechanical.
That's why Star wars is now called (in sequel) Star Wars: A New Hope.
5 minutes does not an expert make. 5 minutes of anything doesn't allow for a lot of credibility to criticise. Movie critics have to watch an entire movie whether they like it or not. If anyone found out that Siskel didn't watch the last 30 minutes of 2001 because it was incromprehensible no one would follow Siskel's review.
In what way is Mutant X bad? That is a matter of opinion without any fact. I can say anything is bad but how do I know it unless I explain why? Mutant X is a lot better than Space 1999 or Dr. Who and the TV version of the Incredible Hulk which is a lot better than the Universal movie of 2003. Mutant X is better than some Battle Star Galactica episodes or Babilon 5. Mutant X is an improvement over some of the Star Trek episodes. Mutant X is at least like a TV version of X-Men which is why Tribune got sued by Fox over Mutant X. Mutant X was to similar to X-men in 20th Century Fox opinion. There aren't a lot of mutant style TV shows. You could name a lot of cartoons but very few X-men style TV shows. Mutant X is a TV show of X-men.
Name Mutant X for what it is. At least it has some interesting plot and intrigue. The style of Mutant X is at least unique and novel. The Mutants and there powers are also interesting. Mutant X is not Space 1999 or Lexx where the last season is mired in hell in Fire and Water which basically ruined the series (if there was one). Mutant X isn't campy like Dr. Who or the Batman TV show. A lot of Critics gave good ratings to Mutant X. Mutant X isn't the disaster of epic proportions of Matrix Revolutions. Mutant X is not as bad as claimed. A really bad show is a really bad show for obvious specified reasons.
And you must be Siskel or Ebert? The critic in the TV show The Critic. I don't think the date is the important part. Star Wars came out in 1978. Oops I mean 1977 but the date is not the point. The facts speak for themselves. The facts are the point.
The fact remains as valid a lot of Scifi is not up to the standards of Star Wars. Star Wars was a real path breaker that redefined the genre and gave it financial viability. There are a lot of really bad Scifi shows too. If you are such a TV expert you must have you missed the last episodes of Lexx or you must be a Space 1999 fanatic. Honorable mention can be given to the movie version of Wing Commander and the last 30 minutes of the Black Hole or 2001 which are almost unfathomable and don't make any sense because they are surreal and the movies never adequately explain the endings. 2001 the Movie helps sell 2001 the book. This also explains why the Black Hole bombed. There never will be another sequel to Disney's the Black Hole because Eisner would never allow it.
As brilliant as the Matrix was its sequels pale in comparison. The Matrix Revolutions was a disaster.
Andromeda and Mutant X are probably better than the Honeymooners. This isn't a very good comparison. Mutant X and Andromeda are Scifi and Honeymooners is comedy. The Honeymooners is 30 to 40 years old and is filmed in black and white with much more primitive cameras and lighting. Mutant X and Andromeda have much better animation and color and lighting and special effects and have 40 to 50 years of technology improvements in cimematography. Mutant X and Andromeda are of much higher film and camera quality. To say that the Honeymooners is a classic and the Andromeda and Mutant X are not a classic is a falacy. For one they are products of two generations. Anyone who is normal would rather watch Mutant X and Andromeda because the genre is newer and the images are in color. No one wants to watch old black and white reruns no matter how appealing or funny? How many reruns of I Love Lucy can any normal person take before they are institutionalized? A better comparison would be a scifi show from the 50s such as Lost in Space with Mutant X and Andromeda. There is no comparison.
Comparing a comedy sitcom with a scifi show is not a valid comparison. Also Andromeda and Mutant X have more episodes to show for their popularity.
Comedies are much easier than Scifi. Making good Scifi is very difficult and much more expensive. There are very few excellent sci fi movies and fewer excellent Scifi shows. 90% of all sci fi shows are garbage. This can be seen in Space 1999 and Lexx and Dr. Who which is not famous for its special effects but for a campy style. In Scifi the quality is proportional to the budget. There are a lot of really bad episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation and Star Trek. Even the Star Trek movies were not always very good. You know the mantra even numbered Trek movies are good and odd numbered Star Trek Movies Suck. Aside from Star Trek II and Star Trek IV there is a big drop afterwards.
Another really bad scifi show is Lexx on the Sci Fi channel. There are several other bad Scifi TV shows. A good Scifi TV show can be a rarity. Farscape is very quirky and it has some bad episodes that are elevated by the performance of Ben Browder. A good actor can carry a subpar episode.
There are lots of B shows on the Sci Fi channel and there are few very Sci Fi shows that are a cut above and exemplify Star Wars quality. Star Wars is the movie that all sci fi shows aspire to and even the Star Wars sequels aspire to be Star Wars. Most of the newer Scifi programming has occurred within the past 10 years.
Mutant X and Andromeda are ok overall and have a much larger number of episodes. Mutant X and Andromeda are evolutionary TV shows that are much better than there predessors such as Star Trek and some of the Star Trek the Next Generation episodes or even Earth Final Conflict. At least Andromeda never had the Garbage haulers of Voyager or Commander Janeway and never sank to the depths of Star Trek Voyager.
As with everything there is a yin and yang. Most Scifi shows have some really bad episodes and average episodes and fewer great episodes. That is why Andromeda and Mutant X should be considered as classics. A lot of Sci Fi shows are unwatchable.
What your really saying is that Vampires are deamons. It should be Buffy the deamon slayer. It's really Buffy the deamon slayer not Buffy the Vampire slayer. Thats exactly the point. There is no creativity in there selection of monsters. They could create other types of monsters but the creators themselves must be possessed. There are different monsters ghosts, balrogs, liches, Witches, Warlocks, Pixies, Centaurs, Orcs, Trolls, Chimeras, Wraiths, and Nazguls, Dragons, Unicorns, Wizards, but Buffy has one predominant monster a deamon. Even JRR Tolkien has different monsters, but Buffy was never the Lord of the Rings and the producers aren't Stephen Jackson and the FX shop isn't Wicka.
Yes, Buffy's vampire rules are different from Dracula's. That's why the show is named after her, not him.
Yes, and Dracula is considered a literary classic whereas Buffy is not. Defying conventions will get you only so far. In Angel's case cancelled. There is also the convention of logic which is lacking.
Ok, I'm done now.
Yeah, and Angel is done too. Officially, Angel is spiked.
Glory was not killed because the demon dimensions were destroying the world...
That's exactly the point. If the last Glory episode was so good then why did Buffy switch networks afterword. The WB frog network let Buffy escape to the UPN. The only real thing you can do with a monster is keep it caged or let it escape.
If they'd really wanted a cliffhangar for the Glory episode they would have turned Buffy (the vampire slayer) into a vampire. But knowing the producers they would have turned buffy into a daemon instead (err deamon).
TV show stars can get paid just as well as movie stars. For example look at Seinfeld who will get millions of dollars per episode for each rerun. The Freinds cast will also get several million dollars per episode. The Cheers cast also recieved several million per episode. Another example is the show Everybody Loves Raymond where the actor who plays the brother walked off over a salary dispute to up his salary to 5 million.
For Hercules Kevin Sorbo could also recieve millions of dollars for reruns depending if he wins his lawsuit with universal. This illustrates that there is money in TV shows.
Another example is Bill Cosby who made millions of dollars for The Cosby show.
While Sci Fi shows probably are not on the level of a popular sitcom, it still shows that TV stars can make as much as movie stars through the reruns. Star Trek reruns have netted Paramount millions of dollars.
Last week Angel gets turned into a puppet or muppet in the 5th season episode of Smile Time. This equivalent to turning Kermit the Frog into a Vampire. Instead they turn Angel into Count Dracula the muppet or puppet and the enemies are demon posessed puppets. Smile Time is the story of the Muppets Goes To Hell. Oh wait that was already done in the movie Puppetmaster!!!
This episode didn't get released it escaped as a monster all its own. This is one reason why Henson won't let Clive Barket get close to the Muppets as well an example of briliant script writing.
This is the second coming of the infamous LA Law vantriliquist episode.
This was probably a good move to cancel Angel. The Vampire TV show has been worn out. A vampire TV show is difficult to do correctly. Angel is a dropoff from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Two Vampire shows is tooo much.
This is a prime example of a producer losing touch with the audience (Josh Whedon). Josh Whedon does really bizarre things like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical with non broadway actors. Some of the vampire mythology is also strange and atypical. The vampires in Buffy and Angel are deamons without a soul. The vampires are also so vulnerable and almost to easy kill (they follow the Blade paradigm that when a Vampire dies it puffs in smoke). If a Vampire is this easy to kill it makes a very weak monster. A weak monster makes a weak villain and story.
Another fatal flaw is that almost all (90%) of the monsters in Angel and Buffy are Deamons. They could be more imaginative about the monsters. The show has a preoccupation with deamons. Even Vampires are deamons. In Buffy the Mayor was a deamon and Glory was a hell god from a deamon dimension. On buffy they even had a Cyborg deamon. They also violate the official cannon of a vampire established by dracula.
The Buffy the Vampire slayer was at its best when Clare Kramer played Glory as the villain.
The really stupid thing they did is they killed Glory off. But they also killed Glory off in a very weak implausible way. The story made it absolutely essential that Glory had to die or the deamon dimmensions would destroy the world.
They should have let Glory escape to the deamon dimmension and not killed Buffy. To kill Buffy or Glory is to kill the show. They never had another villain equal to Glory and the fatal flaw of any story is to kill the Chief villain. Almost all good stories have a recurring villain (such as Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes) and when you have a good villain you utilize them and don't kill them. Starwars would not be Starwars if Kenobi had killed Vader in Star Wars a New hope. They could have reused Glory in future episodes.
Sarah Michelle Ghellar also quit Buffy because it was declining or basically dead. It would be really stupid for her to do Buffy or Angel again. It would be counter productive to her career.
Basically she is now to good for either or was always to good for the role.
Here is a link for Clare Kramer: She is the height of the show and its demsise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/intervi
The last episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer was also dumb. They could have gotten a true Villain but instead the used Sarah Michelle Ghellar twice as Buffy and the Evil Buffy. They could have had a second actor as the villain but they were to cheap so they used Ghellar twice.
Sarah Michelle Ghellar made Buffy the Vamp a success. As a vampire killing vixen the lead role requires a hot actress and it took a lot to carry a show about the dead and deamons.
The theory that hydrocarbons are derived from plant matter is obsolete. This is passe. It doesn't require 4 tons of plants to make oil. Oil is the result of sulfur or element eating bacteria and other deep earth processes.
The current theory is that bacteria and other biological processes deep in the earth are what produces oil, natural gas, and hydrocarbons. The new theory is supported by the book The Deep Hot Biosphere. Some scientists are stuck in the dark age.
How would plant matter form oil deposits 10 miles down? There is also oil deposits below coal deposits. If hydrocarbons are the result of dead plants then why are some hydrocarbon aquifers are refilling? Plant matter alone can't explain the amount of oil and natural gas that exists. They also don't explain deep pockets of oil in the earth. Some deposits could be hundreds of miles down.
The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold supports the idea that deep within the earth there is a biosphere and it is here that life began. Oil and natural gas were created by formed by ancient bacteria and sulphur eating life forms that feeds on the rocks and decomposes it creating natural gas and oil. There are also unknown processes that the organisms use to survive high temperatures and pressures and the result of this biosphere is anerobic and creates natural gas deposits. Some organisms have been found that feed on the rusting steel hulk of the Titanic and slowly decompose it. Different organisms exist that support life in very foreign almost alien environments.
Another example presented in the book is organisms that live in deep sea vents. These organisms live off of sulphur or other elements and not oxygen. They decompose hydrocarbons. Bacteria is very adaptive and life exists under different circumstances deep with the earth.
.Net is just a knockoff of Java and Java is an attempt to improve C++. Is it any wonder that 6+ years later C++ is still standard for system programming? C is standard for many open source projects and after 6+ years no one has managed to find a replacement for C++. Platform independence is hogwash. Java could supplant C++ but instead Sun has loaded it down with a bloated Class library and poor native support and JIT bytecode. Sun forces you to program a certain way and criticizes any alternatives. Enums and Structs are considered bad by Java standards and overloading is bad for you and Delagates are bad and inner classes are better. In Java Speed doesn't matter or native support violates platform independence. Speed isn't a priority with Java. Sun force feeds people what they think is good for them. Java is just another way for Sun to sell servers instead of coming up with something useful. Java makes you write a bunch just to display a line. Consider the following: system.out.printline() or public static final int N; Very bloated and obtuse. whereas with c# you can say console.writeln() Java has very little native compiler or interface support for Java. D is way better than both and it is a possible successor to C++. Whereas Java and C# are really niche languages that fail to succeed where C++ left off and improve on Native compilation or systems programming D actually in a native programming language. Java doesn't differentiate the class library from the language which is a very bad thing. Java could be a smaller language but instead they load it with every library and function and make a very large bloated system. The enmity of OOP is class libraries that extend other classes and become a huge tangled tree of bloat. Plus if you change one class it can depracate many others that use it. Deprecation is a language feature of Java.