Yes they are. But the point is, by holding a grip on Java they are doing a disservice to themselves. Sun is a hardware company first. They give Java software away for free to sell hardware. It is in their best interest for it to succeed. If someone else chipped in with development, how could that be a problem?
Did you actually read IBM's proposal? They were offering their own implementation. They just wanted Sun to do the same thing and merge efforts to make it a *true* community driven language.
Java will never succeed with Sun holding an iron grip over it. IBM, currently Java's biggest supporter outside Sun, has already stated so. The Linux vendors have said so. The simple fact is that computer languages need to be vendor neutral to be a long running, wide ranging success.
Sun wants control. I say let them have control over their crappy language. May they keep it all to themselves, while we go on using something else. Something better. No, not.NET. That is more of the same. The OSS community has proved they are able to create better languages and development environments than Microsoft or Sun. We should instead make our own community driven language neutral VM, for example Parrot, establish our own standard high-level language, for example Python.
Who needs a half-assed effort, riddled with vendor lock-in?
Yeah, sure. I am not forced to program using an OO style in C++ if I want to. It still has C as a subset. But most C++ people try to force me into it, even if it makes no sense at all. But that is besides the point. The thing is, C++ does not fix the main problems of C. What it adds is a bunch of feature creep which is more often than not useless.
There is one thing that is mildly useful however. Namespaces. On C you usually work around that problem by adding prefixes to function names, but this is suboptimal.
Regarding C++ being much more suitable for large programs due to being more modular, well, not really. Besides namespaces, there isn't much that C++ can do and C cannot in that respect. C libraries are great and I personally have used them in most of my larger projects. They enable most of my module requirements.
The Linux kernel has 3 million lines of code and is written in C, with some pieces of assembly here and there. So here is one successful example for you. There are more.
I have programmed both on C and C++. Reasonably sized , over 10K lines of code, projects. C++ has several flaws and does not fix most of my issues with C. More, it adds several annoyances of its own.
For one, object orientation is not a productive programming paradigm for most things. Sure it works well for GUIs and other types of visual programming, but not everything fits neatly into that role model. What if I want to do event based programming, or procedural programming for example? The template support helps somewhat, I actually enjoy that style of programming more than object orientation, but the language support for template style programming is fairly poor. This is partly due to the static nature of C++.
Another problem is that C++ promotes sloppy programming. Good programming should separate interfaces from code. C++ has things like the class declarations with code inside, which are just plain nasty.
The main problems of C are due to memory handling issues. Overruns, unassigned pointers, etc. C++ is hardly an improvement on this matter.
You aren't supposed to have both a patent and a trade secret of the same thing. A patent application discloses your device, so it is no longer a trade secret. Your point is moot.
And a bad low-level windowing system at that. The 2D drawing API is something out of the stone age. The color system for one, is horribly complicated. Only supporting 24-bit displays helps cut the insanity somehow, since this way you sidestep the braindamaged palette allocation routines.
I should know, since I actually had to program on it. It also has no native support for alpha blending, anti-aliasing, double buffering, splines or beziers, anything that was leading edge back in the 1980s. Don't talk to me about extensions. This sort of thing should be standard be now. If the platform does not natively support it the API should provide software emulation. I don't want to make several application backends, reinvent the wheel so my program will work on all Linux desktops for something basic like double buffering.
Some concepts are nice. Like network graphics capability. That is a good thing. But I still think the best idea would be just to make a new windowing system and build X11 compatibility on top of that. Like Apple did with MacOS X.
Ah an amendment. Makes sense. Although the definition of cruel and unusual punishment is somewhat open to discussion, I suppose legal precedent would take care of that.
The US constitution is pretty short. I doubt it says anything about people having the right to make backups of copyrighted materials.
The other laws are just regular laws, not like the constitution. The government can write and erase them. As long as they do not do anything against the constitution, such laws are always valid and a judge always sticks to the letter of the law, when the law fits the case neatly. Morals have nothing to do with it.
If the law said people which commited copyright infringement should have their fingers cut off, a judge would pronounce that sentence on violators. And I don't think there would be anything in the constitution against that either.
Shows how much you know about past wars. Nevermind Gettysburg. That was a confrontation between two armies, each trying to get to the other side. Read about Sherman's campaigns in the South, then you will see civilian devastation.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare his design with the Delta IV Heavy, which has no engine out capability and will use 3 engines. Mighty risky I might add.
I suppose he will design a heavier duty engine, once he has recouped his original costs and made a small profit.
Title: competitive OpenOffice.qxd
Author: Gravity
Application: QuarkXPress(tm) 4.11
PDF Producer: Acrobat Distiller 4.05 for Macintosh
How about eating your own dogfood before complaining against other brands Microsoft?
Do you really think M$ would backtrack on .NET, a proprietary platform they can have lock-in with patents, at this moment in time?
Yes they are. But the point is, by holding a grip on Java they are doing a disservice to themselves. Sun is a hardware company first. They give Java software away for free to sell hardware. It is in their best interest for it to succeed. If someone else chipped in with development, how could that be a problem?
Did you actually read it? People can sue Debian for faults they get when running their Sun implemented Java programs. That clause is revolting.
Did you actually read IBM's proposal? They were offering their own implementation. They just wanted Sun to do the same thing and merge efforts to make it a *true* community driven language.
So you want to go the WINE route? Constantly scrambling to catch a moving train, benefiting a monopolist wannabe in the process?
Sun wants control. I say let them have control over their crappy language. May they keep it all to themselves, while we go on using something else. Something better. No, not .NET. That is more of the same. The OSS community has proved they are able to create better languages and development environments than Microsoft or Sun. We should instead make our own community driven language neutral VM, for example Parrot, establish our own standard high-level language, for example Python.
Who needs a half-assed effort, riddled with vendor lock-in?
Poland had more allies besides France who didn't do a thing either. In fact, no one did a single thing to help the Poles.
Hitler should have been stopped the minute he invaded another country. Not before.
So the USA won WWI and WWII all by itself uh? Fancy that.
There is one thing that is mildly useful however. Namespaces. On C you usually work around that problem by adding prefixes to function names, but this is suboptimal.
Regarding C++ being much more suitable for large programs due to being more modular, well, not really. Besides namespaces, there isn't much that C++ can do and C cannot in that respect. C libraries are great and I personally have used them in most of my larger projects. They enable most of my module requirements.
The Linux kernel has 3 million lines of code and is written in C, with some pieces of assembly here and there. So here is one successful example for you. There are more.
For one, object orientation is not a productive programming paradigm for most things. Sure it works well for GUIs and other types of visual programming, but not everything fits neatly into that role model. What if I want to do event based programming, or procedural programming for example? The template support helps somewhat, I actually enjoy that style of programming more than object orientation, but the language support for template style programming is fairly poor. This is partly due to the static nature of C++.
Another problem is that C++ promotes sloppy programming. Good programming should separate interfaces from code. C++ has things like the class declarations with code inside, which are just plain nasty.
The main problems of C are due to memory handling issues. Overruns, unassigned pointers, etc. C++ is hardly an improvement on this matter.
You aren't supposed to have both a patent and a trade secret of the same thing. A patent application discloses your device, so it is no longer a trade secret. Your point is moot.
Actually, they will think Linux sucks and go back to Windows. IMHO WINE should just die.
I should know, since I actually had to program on it. It also has no native support for alpha blending, anti-aliasing, double buffering, splines or beziers, anything that was leading edge back in the 1980s. Don't talk to me about extensions. This sort of thing should be standard be now. If the platform does not natively support it the API should provide software emulation. I don't want to make several application backends, reinvent the wheel so my program will work on all Linux desktops for something basic like double buffering.
Some concepts are nice. Like network graphics capability. That is a good thing. But I still think the best idea would be just to make a new windowing system and build X11 compatibility on top of that. Like Apple did with MacOS X.
Forgot to say, I hope you have a couple of 250 MW nuclear reactors to power the laser.
That is Leik Myrabo's lightcraft concept. Except he usually prefers lasers instead.
There is already OpenOffice, what would be the use?
Ever heard of the LGPL?
This seems a very good point and I wonder why hasn't anybody tried to take it to court yet.
Ah an amendment. Makes sense. Although the definition of cruel and unusual punishment is somewhat open to discussion, I suppose legal precedent would take care of that.
The other laws are just regular laws, not like the constitution. The government can write and erase them. As long as they do not do anything against the constitution, such laws are always valid and a judge always sticks to the letter of the law, when the law fits the case neatly. Morals have nothing to do with it.
If the law said people which commited copyright infringement should have their fingers cut off, a judge would pronounce that sentence on violators. And I don't think there would be anything in the constitution against that either.
Shows how much you know about past wars. Nevermind Gettysburg. That was a confrontation between two armies, each trying to get to the other side. Read about Sherman's campaigns in the South, then you will see civilian devastation.
Not just that, but it drives innovation. Healthy competition is a great thing.