Pidgin unstable? This is news to me and I use pidgin to connect to AIM, MSN, and Google. And combined have over 150 contacts I converse with...sometimes a dozen at a time.
I have never had issues sending messages to people on MSN either...are you certain it isn't just the specific computer you are using it on?
You can have another nickel...a company I left in late '05 never replaced me, as their systems were always rock solid and smooth running (I was with them since day 1, and built their infrastructure).
Well now that they've had several hardware failures and the necessity to upgrade many/most of their systems they have graciously payed me every cent of the extortionary rate I asked for on a hourly contract basis:).
They easily have paid more than what it would have been to hire someone to maintain those systems. But I can't complain...my wallet is nice and healthy...
Just as a side note, tracing through the DOM would also speed up all extensions made for Firefox, as well as the entire interface for Firefox. The interface firefox employs is completely based on XUL, a XML based interface which incorporates javascript and DOM.
I can't wait:)! (yes, I am a web developer that also makes XUL applications)
I would whole-heartedly disagree, simply for the fact of the extensibility firefox provides through its extensions/add-ons capability. No such ability exists in Opera, greatly limiting its features to those implemented by the core developers. If you add in all of the features provided by the add-ons then firefox wins HANDS DOWN on the feature front.
And yes, it is fair to include them because they are features Firefox at the very least HAS the ability to have...Opera does not.
It is still working on killing the Microsoft monopoly. With the 1.9 Gecko rendering engine XUL is really reaching maturity. The only part which truly is lacking a great deal is the documentation, and really mostly with XPCOM, not the XUL markup itself (everything else is SUPERB). There are also some controls which I feel would be a good addition to XUL however you can write your own in place of these.
Speaking as someone who develops apps with XUL and XPCOM on the Mozilla platform...I am simply just waiting for it to gain more momentum (which it is, and has been for some time). It truly is a great cross-platform method of developing real applications, standalone or integrated with Firefox/Thunderbird/etc.
Yes, I *heart* XUL/XPCOM/Mozilla. I am not a fan-boy, I just love it when tools enable me to develop full-featured applications quickly and easily.
There really should be no reason in this day and age we as developers tie ourselves to a certain platform because of binary incompatibility (unless of course you are talking apps which need specialized operating environments/conditions/speed/etc, there are exceptions of course)...the Mozilla platform (Gecko specifically) can break us from that headache...giving us freedom to move our applications to whatever platform we (or the user) wish.
ok seriously...get back to reality. You speak as if solely for the fact its an interpreted language we need not worry about efficiency.
First and foremost, MOST companies do not have unlimited resources with which they wish to spend on gobs of hardware. My guess, given your previous statement, that either you work for one of those very few companies that do, OR you have never ever had to scale a project (my guess is the latter).
Secondly, templating engines more or less are generally useless. Why? Because when you are talking about properly written software the main goal is separation of presentation and business logic...which is very simple and much faster in execution without using a templating engine. You can still have easily manageable and readable code while using native constructs. Oh and also, for those one-off cases where you need some more complicated logic structures you don't need to resort to adding functionality to the templating engine or doing things in a funky way to get it to work.
I am sorry, but templating engines built on templating engines areuseless.
The other big shove Vista has going for it is the migration for development to not only a new set of APIs, but a new concept of development that is as revolutionary as Drag and Drop event based programming made popular with Visual Basic back in 1993. Vista's XAML and core WPF technologies are a graphic designer/developers wet dream in terms of abilities, performance and moving from basic UI constructs. This can also be witnessed with Silverlight, another technology based on Vista technology.
Vista brings no new development models, and especially no 'revolutionary' ones that didn't already exist...let me explain...
XML based interfaces such as XAML have existed for quite a while now. Libraries for doing such things have also been around for a while now...just take a look at Firefox, it is based on XUL (XUL has been around since 1998). Whats even better about XUL, is it is cross platform (something XAML can't claim) and based on existing standards. You may think XAML is a big deal, but I say its just another stolen idea that has already been implemented in a better way elsewhere. You could already write native-looking apps in an XML and cross platform manner. What does XAML do that XUL does not? If you know, please enlighten me - because I don't see it.
And Vista as for the claim that Vista is buggy or broken or performs slowly, think about it in these terms instead. It is more stable than XP, OS X, and Linux and for an v1 OS release has shown that MS can get security on industry par and even best what is out there, as Vista has had fewer security flaws or bugs than OS X has in the last year and Tiger has been around a while where these issues should have been fixed a long time ago.
More stable and secure than Linux? Stability (and security, for that matter) of the platform is still questionable and I simply feel it is, at best, baseless to say it is more stable than Linux (and simply silly to say its more secure than Linux). Baseless in the sense that no one has really tested it under long duration or high load environments for any appreciable amount of time comparable to its Linux counterpart. In other words...call me when its running on servers and has uptimes >1 year, then we can start to talk.
Also, v1? You really think Vista was written from scratch? I am sorry, but I wouldn't call Vista a v1 OS...it has far too many non-v1 parts built into it to be called a v1 release.
The reason internal combustion engines need multiple gears (unlike electric powered motors), is because of the changing torque curve. Internal combustion engines tend to generate a certain peak torque at a certain RPM...the trick is, to get and keep your vehicle INSIDE that peak - or somewhere around it (ok well, technically, you want it around the HP peak, but HP is just a value calculated with torque and RPM). Since electric vehicles produce a generally FLAT torque curve (ie: produces the same force @ 1 rpm as it does 10000 rpm), they do not need this gear changing, they are just geared to go a certain speed or whatnot (different, depending on the needs of the vehicle).
I know this in part because I once wrote a c program eons ago, that I used to calculate the best shift points on my cars (i used to race a lot) using the dynamometer data. Yes, I wanted every advantage I could have at that point...and I actually did improve my 1/4 and 1/8 mile times after implementing these new shift points.
Depends on the coder, I personally am extremely careful with my code and usually have very few to no syntax or typo goofs. I also am very careful with my grammar as well. It's all about the person and their individual habits. You have lazy coders who let the compiler or error output tell them where to look or you have coders who are careful with each and every character they type, its meaning, significance, and effect on the code in question.
Re:Opposite way of thinking?
on
PHP 5 in Practice
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... I find myself more the opposite where I know how to solve a problem theoretically but I need to know the exact syntax...
Thats a problem where you are not familiar enough with the syntax of a language. I would probably guess its because of your limited experience with it.
... and sometimes even the libraries/classes already available) to allow me to do what I want....
Thats a problem that even very experienced developers hit often, this is exactly what you were talking about in your (the parent to this) post.
Language syntax is something you learn and then can mostly just take care of without having to refer to reference manuals...however, class definitions, function and method declarations, data structures, etc...those are all something you often will reference out of documentation of sorts when you need it. I have been developing in PHP for about 8 years now but I STILL go to the manual on php.net to see the function arguments/etc (although, granted, with PHP this is largely an issue with the inconsistent naming/etc).
Your comment was marked funny, as it should have been. But because I can't help but be a nagging voice I feel the need to point out that when they say 'hit to kill' they mean to actually STRIKE the side (or something) on the object to cause it to fail (likely) or pre-detonate (not likely). This is opposed to blowing up something near to it, causing the same net effect.
I am guessing the weight is lighter since not having to carry a payload of explosives, allowing for a faster and more maneuverable object with which to hit the offending missile.
By removing tie in to a single entity, you are effectively removing that single tie in. So yes, I believe my original statement still holds value. Using and coding with OSS removes that single entity (big company, in this case) tie in.
I also have worked for several ISPs (as CTO, network admin, software engineer, and a bunch of other hats) that sell a myriad of services including DSL,T1s,T3s,Dialup,ISDN, etc...and the parent poster is 100% correct.
I'd mod the parent up if I had any mod points. So someone else do that please, it is deserved.
Mod parent to the sky, this is so true. I would LOVE more women to be involved, I happened to date and almost MARRY one I met in CS in highschool (yea, some of us code weavers aren't completely inept with the opposite gender). But alas, most women just aren't interested in software development, let alone computers in general.
It has been long known that stresses on the body cause it to adapt. For instance, I lift weights pretty seriously. I went to a sports medicine doctor last year to diagnose an issue I was having with my right shoulder. I had ex-ray scans taken of my upper torso and the shoulder. The doctor put my scans up and said he could tell I weight trained...I was told my bone density was much higher than that of a 'normal' man.
So congrats, they figured out that training an animal will cause its body to adapt and grow stronger in response. This is physical training 101, not some new fangled discovery.
Parent post is spot on. Having worked as the senior network engineer at a mid-size DSL based ISP in Houston TX for 6 years I believe the last distance limits we had (Jan '06) were:
16k feet for 1.5 mbit/sec down, 384kbits/sec up
9.5k feet for 3.0 mbit/sec down, 512kbits/sec up
6.5k feet for 6.0 mbit/sec down, 768kbits/sec up
And those distances were loop length, not 'as the crow flies' (straight line). All lines have their distance limits.
Re:The one place I can really see this used...
on
WebOS Market Review
·
· Score: 1
There is going to be a bit of 'stickyness' applied to WHATEVER technology/environment you use...are you trying to argue that a native desktop environment would be better? Thats fine, however don't try to pass that argument off as something else.
Who says these corporate apps need to be used outside of their environment anyhow? This isn't Joe Blow the desktop user that wants to move from one pc to another...this is a large (or not?) company that uses these specific apps to do specific work. There isn't the need to be able to run these apps outside of their web environment. If you DO have that requirement, well then this may not be the best thing for you...no one said this was the be-all for applications.
Also, once the internet moves forward you can choose to move to that new development platform if you wish, or continue with the current setup you have. No one is requiring you to move to it, that is the beauty of not being tied into a platform like Microsoft where you are essentially REQUIRED to upgrade and spend money. Don't want to implement XUL? Fine, stay with your current AJAX/Javascript/XHTML setup...no one is saying you can't and there are certainly no problems maintaining a setup like that. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of javascript/web/ajax/etc developers so you are probably going to be ok for atleast the next few decades if you choose to stay with it.
The one place I can really see this used...
on
WebOS Market Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
...is in a corporate environment.
I mean think about it, you have a ton of desktops that must be kept up to date, must keep running for someone to be productive, and shouldn't really be used for personal purposes. Boot them all off of bootable CD's (or maybe even RW's so boot CD's can be cycled and some money saved when doing 'updates'), have them login to a central thin-client 'server'. This has several benefits:
1) Users are 'sandboxed'.
2) Easily control what someone can and cannot do.
3) Only 1 central machine (or cluster, depending) to manage and keep up-to-date.
4) Far less likely that someone will fsck their box.
5) If someone DOES end up messing up their box, just reboot and re-login.
6) Big brother can even more easily track you (good for company, albeit bad for you).
7) Whats that you say, no HD's to purchase or fail?
8) IT staff reduced as some of the support required drops.
Ok well first of all you need to get your terms correct, PHP and Perl are server side scripting languages...something this 'WebOS' crap doesn't even touch. Javascript, HTML, XHTML, DHTML, WHATEVER is what this is building on - client side technologies. And there are many different languages because each was created out of an apparent 'need', not that some languages necessarily have 'problems' (which may in fact be called features, depending on who you speak to).
Javascript + DHTML IS a mess, and far moreso than any other language in my opinion (having worked with most modern languages, including web based ones). Compared to C, C++, PHP, Java, hell even Perl it (Javascript) is a complete mess. The way it is implemented, the way it is written, the way it is invoked - a mess. What we really need, is something COMPLETELY new, written from the ground up for what we know is needed. Something which cuts through all the bullshit, something truly cross platform and written to a frickin standard....a man can dream, can't he?
Slashdot Mirror
Pidgin unstable? This is news to me and I use pidgin to connect to AIM, MSN, and Google. And combined have over 150 contacts I converse with...sometimes a dozen at a time.
I have never had issues sending messages to people on MSN either...are you certain it isn't just the specific computer you are using it on?
You can have another nickel...a company I left in late '05 never replaced me, as their systems were always rock solid and smooth running (I was with them since day 1, and built their infrastructure).
Well now that they've had several hardware failures and the necessity to upgrade many/most of their systems they have graciously payed me every cent of the extortionary rate I asked for on a hourly contract basis :).
They easily have paid more than what it would have been to hire someone to maintain those systems. But I can't complain...my wallet is nice and healthy...
Just as a side note, tracing through the DOM would also speed up all extensions made for Firefox, as well as the entire interface for Firefox. The interface firefox employs is completely based on XUL, a XML based interface which incorporates javascript and DOM.
I can't wait :)! (yes, I am a web developer that also makes XUL applications)
I would whole-heartedly disagree, simply for the fact of the extensibility firefox provides through its extensions/add-ons capability. No such ability exists in Opera, greatly limiting its features to those implemented by the core developers. If you add in all of the features provided by the add-ons then firefox wins HANDS DOWN on the feature front.
And yes, it is fair to include them because they are features Firefox at the very least HAS the ability to have...Opera does not.
...if there is an 'article' titled 'Google Chrome, Day 3' tomorrow I am taking an uzi to the entire /. crew...
Geebuz H Christ...I'm having chrome overload. I am all for cool articles having to do with the web (I'm a web developer) but enough is enough!
It is still working on killing the Microsoft monopoly. With the 1.9 Gecko rendering engine XUL is really reaching maturity. The only part which truly is lacking a great deal is the documentation, and really mostly with XPCOM, not the XUL markup itself (everything else is SUPERB). There are also some controls which I feel would be a good addition to XUL however you can write your own in place of these.
Speaking as someone who develops apps with XUL and XPCOM on the Mozilla platform...I am simply just waiting for it to gain more momentum (which it is, and has been for some time). It truly is a great cross-platform method of developing real applications, standalone or integrated with Firefox/Thunderbird/etc.
Yes, I *heart* XUL/XPCOM/Mozilla. I am not a fan-boy, I just love it when tools enable me to develop full-featured applications quickly and easily.
There really should be no reason in this day and age we as developers tie ourselves to a certain platform because of binary incompatibility (unless of course you are talking apps which need specialized operating environments/conditions/speed/etc, there are exceptions of course)...the Mozilla platform (Gecko specifically) can break us from that headache...giving us freedom to move our applications to whatever platform we (or the user) wish.
My $.02...
ok seriously...get back to reality. You speak as if solely for the fact its an interpreted language we need not worry about efficiency.
First and foremost, MOST companies do not have unlimited resources with which they wish to spend on gobs of hardware. My guess, given your previous statement, that either you work for one of those very few companies that do, OR you have never ever had to scale a project (my guess is the latter).
Secondly, templating engines more or less are generally useless. Why? Because when you are talking about properly written software the main goal is separation of presentation and business logic...which is very simple and much faster in execution without using a templating engine. You can still have easily manageable and readable code while using native constructs. Oh and also, for those one-off cases where you need some more complicated logic structures you don't need to resort to adding functionality to the templating engine or doing things in a funky way to get it to work.
I am sorry, but templating engines built on templating engines are useless.
Ok, I'll bite on a couple of your points here...
The other big shove Vista has going for it is the migration for development to not only a new set of APIs, but a new concept of development that is as revolutionary as Drag and Drop event based programming made popular with Visual Basic back in 1993. Vista's XAML and core WPF technologies are a graphic designer/developers wet dream in terms of abilities, performance and moving from basic UI constructs. This can also be witnessed with Silverlight, another technology based on Vista technology.
Vista brings no new development models, and especially no 'revolutionary' ones that didn't already exist...let me explain...
XML based interfaces such as XAML have existed for quite a while now. Libraries for doing such things have also been around for a while now...just take a look at Firefox, it is based on XUL (XUL has been around since 1998). Whats even better about XUL, is it is cross platform (something XAML can't claim) and based on existing standards. You may think XAML is a big deal, but I say its just another stolen idea that has already been implemented in a better way elsewhere. You could already write native-looking apps in an XML and cross platform manner. What does XAML do that XUL does not? If you know, please enlighten me - because I don't see it.
And Vista as for the claim that Vista is buggy or broken or performs slowly, think about it in these terms instead. It is more stable than XP, OS X, and Linux and for an v1 OS release has shown that MS can get security on industry par and even best what is out there, as Vista has had fewer security flaws or bugs than OS X has in the last year and Tiger has been around a while where these issues should have been fixed a long time ago.
More stable and secure than Linux? Stability (and security, for that matter) of the platform is still questionable and I simply feel it is, at best, baseless to say it is more stable than Linux (and simply silly to say its more secure than Linux). Baseless in the sense that no one has really tested it under long duration or high load environments for any appreciable amount of time comparable to its Linux counterpart. In other words...call me when its running on servers and has uptimes >1 year, then we can start to talk.
Also, v1? You really think Vista was written from scratch? I am sorry, but I wouldn't call Vista a v1 OS...it has far too many non-v1 parts built into it to be called a v1 release.
Damn, beat me to it.
But I will elaborate on your point a bit...
The reason internal combustion engines need multiple gears (unlike electric powered motors), is because of the changing torque curve. Internal combustion engines tend to generate a certain peak torque at a certain RPM...the trick is, to get and keep your vehicle INSIDE that peak - or somewhere around it (ok well, technically, you want it around the HP peak, but HP is just a value calculated with torque and RPM). Since electric vehicles produce a generally FLAT torque curve (ie: produces the same force @ 1 rpm as it does 10000 rpm), they do not need this gear changing, they are just geared to go a certain speed or whatnot (different, depending on the needs of the vehicle).
I know this in part because I once wrote a c program eons ago, that I used to calculate the best shift points on my cars (i used to race a lot) using the dynamometer data. Yes, I wanted every advantage I could have at that point...and I actually did improve my 1/4 and 1/8 mile times after implementing these new shift points.
Depends on the coder, I personally am extremely careful with my code and usually have very few to no syntax or typo goofs. I also am very careful with my grammar as well. It's all about the person and their individual habits. You have lazy coders who let the compiler or error output tell them where to look or you have coders who are careful with each and every character they type, its meaning, significance, and effect on the code in question.
http://www.php.net/register_globals Read the first sentence on that page please...it was fixed in PHP 4.2, not PHP 5.
Language syntax is something you learn and then can mostly just take care of without having to refer to reference manuals...however, class definitions, function and method declarations, data structures, etc...those are all something you often will reference out of documentation of sorts when you need it. I have been developing in PHP for about 8 years now but I STILL go to the manual on php.net to see the function arguments/etc (although, granted, with PHP this is largely an issue with the inconsistent naming/etc).
Your comment was marked funny, as it should have been. But because I can't help but be a nagging voice I feel the need to point out that when they say 'hit to kill' they mean to actually STRIKE the side (or something) on the object to cause it to fail (likely) or pre-detonate (not likely). This is opposed to blowing up something near to it, causing the same net effect.
I am guessing the weight is lighter since not having to carry a payload of explosives, allowing for a faster and more maneuverable object with which to hit the offending missile.
By removing tie in to a single entity, you are effectively removing that single tie in. So yes, I believe my original statement still holds value. Using and coding with OSS removes that single entity (big company, in this case) tie in.
Correct and thats one of the big reasons OSS is so appealing and works well...it removes that 'tie in'.
Ok, so then what kind of super powers do you have?
Funny you say that, some people think that is already the case. Who'da thunk it...
I also have worked for several ISPs (as CTO, network admin, software engineer, and a bunch of other hats) that sell a myriad of services including DSL,T1s,T3s,Dialup,ISDN, etc...and the parent poster is 100% correct. I'd mod the parent up if I had any mod points. So someone else do that please, it is deserved.
Mod parent to the sky, this is so true. I would LOVE more women to be involved, I happened to date and almost MARRY one I met in CS in highschool (yea, some of us code weavers aren't completely inept with the opposite gender). But alas, most women just aren't interested in software development, let alone computers in general.
It has been long known that stresses on the body cause it to adapt. For instance, I lift weights pretty seriously. I went to a sports medicine doctor last year to diagnose an issue I was having with my right shoulder. I had ex-ray scans taken of my upper torso and the shoulder. The doctor put my scans up and said he could tell I weight trained...I was told my bone density was much higher than that of a 'normal' man.
So congrats, they figured out that training an animal will cause its body to adapt and grow stronger in response. This is physical training 101, not some new fangled discovery.
Parent post is spot on. Having worked as the senior network engineer at a mid-size DSL based ISP in Houston TX for 6 years I believe the last distance limits we had (Jan '06) were:
16k feet for 1.5 mbit/sec down, 384kbits/sec up
9.5k feet for 3.0 mbit/sec down, 512kbits/sec up
6.5k feet for 6.0 mbit/sec down, 768kbits/sec up
And those distances were loop length, not 'as the crow flies' (straight line). All lines have their distance limits.
There is going to be a bit of 'stickyness' applied to WHATEVER technology/environment you use...are you trying to argue that a native desktop environment would be better? Thats fine, however don't try to pass that argument off as something else.
Who says these corporate apps need to be used outside of their environment anyhow? This isn't Joe Blow the desktop user that wants to move from one pc to another...this is a large (or not?) company that uses these specific apps to do specific work. There isn't the need to be able to run these apps outside of their web environment. If you DO have that requirement, well then this may not be the best thing for you...no one said this was the be-all for applications.
Also, once the internet moves forward you can choose to move to that new development platform if you wish, or continue with the current setup you have. No one is requiring you to move to it, that is the beauty of not being tied into a platform like Microsoft where you are essentially REQUIRED to upgrade and spend money. Don't want to implement XUL? Fine, stay with your current AJAX/Javascript/XHTML setup...no one is saying you can't and there are certainly no problems maintaining a setup like that. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of javascript/web/ajax/etc developers so you are probably going to be ok for atleast the next few decades if you choose to stay with it.
...is in a corporate environment.
I mean think about it, you have a ton of desktops that must be kept up to date, must keep running for someone to be productive, and shouldn't really be used for personal purposes. Boot them all off of bootable CD's (or maybe even RW's so boot CD's can be cycled and some money saved when doing 'updates'), have them login to a central thin-client 'server'. This has several benefits:
1) Users are 'sandboxed'.
2) Easily control what someone can and cannot do.
3) Only 1 central machine (or cluster, depending) to manage and keep up-to-date.
4) Far less likely that someone will fsck their box.
5) If someone DOES end up messing up their box, just reboot and re-login.
6) Big brother can even more easily track you (good for company, albeit bad for you).
7) Whats that you say, no HD's to purchase or fail?
8) IT staff reduced as some of the support required drops.
Thats just a few off the top of my head...
Ok well first of all you need to get your terms correct, PHP and Perl are server side scripting languages...something this 'WebOS' crap doesn't even touch. Javascript, HTML, XHTML, DHTML, WHATEVER is what this is building on - client side technologies. And there are many different languages because each was created out of an apparent 'need', not that some languages necessarily have 'problems' (which may in fact be called features, depending on who you speak to).
Javascript + DHTML IS a mess, and far moreso than any other language in my opinion (having worked with most modern languages, including web based ones). Compared to C, C++, PHP, Java, hell even Perl it (Javascript) is a complete mess. The way it is implemented, the way it is written, the way it is invoked - a mess. What we really need, is something COMPLETELY new, written from the ground up for what we know is needed. Something which cuts through all the bullshit, something truly cross platform and written to a frickin standard....a man can dream, can't he?
No it isn't the non-mac version. I am running FF 1.5 here on linux (slackware 10.2 to be specific) and it passed the test.