I think perhaps the issue is a confusion of a platform versus a language.
It is that. and thats because I don't see any evidence yet that C#.net will have any substantial differences to VB.net. As far as I can tell, it will be the same environment, different skin. Similarly Delphi.NET, Fortran.NET, Python.NET
Maybe when some functional languages come out of.NET, or anything that isn't just another procedural-OO language with a different textual method of indicating program blocks "{.. }" vs "begin.. end" vs "sub.. end sub" vs indentation (for python), yet calling the same.net framework classes, maybe then the distinction will be meaningful.
Actually I'm not even sure why you mentioned Python
I know it's a bit leftfield, but I mentioned it in order to make you realise that.net is not quite so unique - Python is a modern, VM-based OO, garbage collected language designed for ease of use. Sound a bit familiar?
Does Java or Python give you easy access to the DTC? MSMQ? Win32 APIs like WMI?
Point taken that it's the APIs and middleware as much as anything else that make.NET a good proposition for MS shops, but that can be built onto just about any platform. MSMQ in.net is probably not intrinsic to.net, but is in the class library, and could have been in another. All languages have ways to bring in foreign APIs.
Java, Python, Delphi and such are nice solutions to some of the problems offered from VB, but not to the extent Microsoft has provided with.NET
I would agree that Delphi is only a few steps ahead of VB, and that.NET has raised the bar again, but IMHO it has raised it to the Java level. Really, what fundamental advantage does.NET have over java? From my reading on.NET, thier design principles and front end (c#) look very similar, much on the same level. Bigger better class library? Maybe, but that's a quantitative consequence of throwing more money at it, not a new level. Multiple syntax variants on the programming language front end? ditto.
The main advantage of.NET is to Windows developers as it gives them the flexibility and functionality of C++ with the ease of rapid development of VB. It's all about efficiency.
That is the selling point and a very good one it is too. If my company was about to start a project in VB6 or MSVC++, or even in Borland Delphi I would have no hesitation in recommending C#.NET to them instead for that reason.
But is.NET the only way in which that goal could have been achieved? I mean, Java or Python would have worked well too. Heck, Delphi's not that bad if you are looking for "the flexibility and functionality of C++ with the ease of rapid development of VB."
As I said, there are many reasons why.Net is the just the way it is, and many of them are not engineering ones, but are to do with Microsoft's strategies and their threat assesments, as I outlined.
And that is one of the covert aims of.NET. Having used Borland products for years, I can appreciate thier situation - for them Microsoft is both an opponent (in MS VC++, VB etc) and the owner of the playing field (Windows).
MS's favourite tactic is not just to play the game well, but to move the goalposts, tilt the playing field, change the rules of the game, and mangle other sports metaphors:)
.NET is a major shift, no doubt about it. In part it is there in order to give Micrsoft viable ways to deal with the challenges that they expect to face in the next few years.
OS-dependence seems to be one of those. The option of rapidly decoupling thier apps from the Win32 OS kernel may be important to them, for Linux, WinCE or whatever reason.
do keep C out of the story as I didn't brought it up
*shrug* you started out discussing (in a loose sense of the word) C libraries etc. Go read what you posted. I did, just to check. What I brought up is buffer overruns, as I think it's a most important security topic. Of course you seem to think that the equivalence of code and data is *far* more important. Why? BTW, can you name one major recent exploit in software in the wild that involved this 'flaw' in processor architecture but was not a buffer overrun fo some kind?
C, Basic, Java or even.NET have nothing to do with the main reason for buffer overflows
Well, here's the thing. AFAIK, buffer overruns happen a lot in C programs but very seldom if ever in Java, python or.NET programs, and then unsually with the help of C extensions. Coding in these languages would (despite other non-security-related drawbacks) make internet software a lot more secure, as the single most common flaw would be mostly eliminated. The fast that the real machine under the virtual machine is still theoretically vulnerable is true but irrelevant.
And while we are at it, do you feel that the presnece of mere JNI makes Java as insecure as C? Bear in mind that unmanaged.NET code amounts to the same thing.
Can you comment on how the.NET and Java virtual machines require that those interested in security study x86 processor architectures? Can you comment on how these virtual machines share this flaw or not?
Or not, as you don't seem to be making any coherent points anyway.
Now can you tell me that a supersecured environment like.NET that, still allows you to contact some piece of trash like C can be considered secure?
well, yes I can. Simply because.NET does not allow just any program to run unmanaged code. But of course you knew that didn't you, genius? BTW, you still need to tone down the ranting.
Keep C out of this discussion.
*shrug* you brought it up.
From both these systems,.NET takes the best and the worse.
Rubbish. I can't speak about the java/network security half of that comparison, but the main problem with C as a network programming language is the potential for buffer overrun exploits. Environments like Java, Python and.NET (excepting unmanged code) eliminate the posibility of that class of error, making them far more suitable from that point of view.
You don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
anyone else with real names that hotmail doesn't like?)
This is known generically as "the Scunthorpe problem". Scunthorpe, BTW, is a town in England. It's not a dirty word, except to regexp matches for c--t.
Sometimes ass needs to be kicked in the short term in order to save a lot of lives in the long term. Imagine if Hitler had been beat down in the 1930s rather than the 1940s
Imagine if Saddam had been beat down in the 1980s not the 1990s. Imagine if the quote-unquote "global cop" had intervened in Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, Zimbabwe or any of the many other worthy places where the US's cheap raw materials or own security wasn't directly at risk.
I'm not saying that the US obliged to sort out other people's problems that they did not cause, but let's not be under illusions about it being a case of 'sometimes the right thing needs to be done'.
Then, how long do you think it would take Europe to fall part into another world war?
A long long time, you deluded troll. Firstly most Europeans, excluding the British use the same currency. One of the aims of the EU is to fuse the economies so as to make war between member states unfeasable.
Secondly those peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe in the last decade - those weren't lead by the US, were they?
Re:Biggest problem with macroevolution...
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 2
you require initial conditions... which macroevolution doesn't consider. It is... adept at describing the physical system.
What on earth are you gibbering about? Can macroevolution , in your confused view, decribe the initial non-living conditions or not?
Anyway, what is metaphical about the emergent properties of matter? Go read this for some real evolutionary metaphics.
The fact that none of God's pantheon of creatures have managed to completely subvert nature and consume the planet
It already happened millions of years ago.
Darwin's menagerie of creatures actually did consume much of the planet, leaving behind waste products such as coal, chalk, and the biggie: oxygen in the air.
eh. Having made several IMHO good comments recently, which gained no notice, this quick sarcastic comment gets +5. Oh well, this is slashdot, home of the embittered and short-attention spanned. Myself included.
It might be possible for a program to pass the Turing Test and still not be considered intelligent according to some other criteria.
I'm not sure of that. Given the all-encompasing variety of things that can be excpressed as conversation, how can a program give intelligent debate, learing and insight, and not be intelligent? Perhaps yoy are thinking of that old crock, Searle's chinese room. Go read a some debunking here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?lastnode_id=40 6243
I think this is another straw man. Templates and pointers in C++ are hard.
Yes, they are. Now think outside the C++ box and it's not such a straw man anymore - it's a criticism of C++ and C-style strings, a legacy that we are stuck with due to APIs, even if we move to a language with sensible string handling.
Sometimes... creating ten AbstractFactoryContainerXYZYourMom objects each time "AbstractFactoryContainerXYZYourMom objects each time there's a need for a one line getter method just isn't the way to do it."
I agree. Using as many design patterns as possible in one bit of code is just annoying. But that's not what Xp is about. XP says "Do the simplest thing that could possibly work".
I've seen it in action
Judging by your comments above, I think the human factors overshadowed the methodology here. There is no silver bullet for stupidity.
If Indian programming shops are in majority unable to take up Linux-specific programming tasks, this weakness will be an opportunity to slow the leaking of programming jobs outside western countries.
And how, pray tell, is this a boon to Linux? It may be a boon to your yankee job, but Linux improved in India is still improved.
Please, this is slashdot, let's have OS prejudice not race and nationality prejudice. On purely humanitarian grounds, parochial protectionism is no boon to the third world.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Borland have that in beta already. It's called Delphi.net. See the Borland website if you don't believe me.
It is that. and thats because I don't see any evidence yet that C#.net will have any substantial differences to VB.net. As far as I can tell, it will be the same environment, different skin. Similarly Delphi.NET, Fortran.NET, Python.NET
Maybe when some functional languages come out of
Right now, it isn't.
You're right. Now why do MS see it as an advantage to go down this road when they could have done another lockin?
I know it's a bit leftfield, but I mentioned it in order to make you realise that .net is not quite so unique - Python is a modern, VM-based OO, garbage collected language designed for ease of use. Sound a bit familiar?
Does Java or Python give you easy access to the DTC? MSMQ? Win32 APIs like WMI?
Point taken that it's the APIs and middleware as much as anything else that make .NET a good proposition for MS shops, but that can be built onto just about any platform. MSMQ in .net is probably not intrinsic to .net, but is in the class library, and could have been in another. All languages have ways to bring in foreign APIs.
Java, Python, Delphi and such are nice solutions to some of the problems offered from VB, but not to the extent Microsoft has provided with .NET
I would agree that Delphi is only a few steps ahead of VB, and that .NET has raised the bar again, but IMHO it has raised it to the Java level. Really, what fundamental advantage does .NET have over java? From my reading on .NET, thier design principles and front end (c#) look very similar, much on the same level. Bigger better class library? Maybe, but that's a quantitative consequence of throwing more money at it, not a new level. Multiple syntax variants on the programming language front end? ditto.
That is the selling point and a very good one it is too. If my company was about to start a project in VB6 or MSVC++, or even in Borland Delphi I would have no hesitation in recommending C#.NET to them instead for that reason.
But is .NET the only way in which that goal could have been achieved? I mean, Java or Python would have worked well too. Heck, Delphi's not that bad if you are looking for "the flexibility and functionality of C++ with the ease of rapid development of VB."
As I said, there are many reasons why .Net is the just the way it is, and many of them are not engineering ones, but are to do with Microsoft's strategies and their threat assesments, as I outlined.
MS's favourite tactic is not just to play the game well, but to move the goalposts, tilt the playing field, change the rules of the game, and mangle other sports metaphors :)
OS-dependence seems to be one of those. The option of rapidly decoupling thier apps from the Win32 OS kernel may be important to them, for Linux, WinCE or whatever reason.
*shrug* you started out discussing (in a loose sense of the word) C libraries etc. Go read what you posted. I did, just to check. What I brought up is buffer overruns, as I think it's a most important security topic. Of course you seem to think that the equivalence of code and data is *far* more important. Why? BTW, can you name one major recent exploit in software in the wild that involved this 'flaw' in processor architecture but was not a buffer overrun fo some kind?
C, Basic, Java or even
Well, here's the thing. AFAIK, buffer overruns happen a lot in C programs but very seldom if ever in Java, python or
And while we are at it, do you feel that the presnece of mere JNI makes Java as insecure as C? Bear in mind that unmanaged
Can you comment on how the
Or not, as you don't seem to be making any coherent points anyway.
well, yes I can. Simply because .NET does not allow just any program to run unmanaged code. But of course you knew that didn't you, genius? BTW, you still need to tone down the ranting.
Keep C out of this discussion. *shrug* you brought it up.
Rubbish. I can't speak about the java/network security half of that comparison, but the main problem with C as a network programming language is the potential for buffer overrun exploits. Environments like Java, Python and
You don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
anyone else with real names that hotmail doesn't like?)
This is known generically as "the Scunthorpe problem". Scunthorpe, BTW, is a town in England. It's not a dirty word, except to regexp matches for c--t.
That would also do well as an anti-Disney, RIAA, MPAA etc. slogan.
Imagine if Saddam had been beat down in the 1980s not the 1990s. Imagine if the quote-unquote "global cop" had intervened in Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, Zimbabwe or any of the many other worthy places where the US's cheap raw materials or own security wasn't directly at risk.
I'm not saying that the US obliged to sort out other people's problems that they did not cause, but let's not be under illusions about it being a case of 'sometimes the right thing needs to be done'.
A long long time, you deluded troll. Firstly most Europeans, excluding the British use the same currency. One of the aims of the EU is to fuse the economies so as to make war between member states unfeasable.
Secondly those peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe in the last decade - those weren't lead by the US, were they?
What on earth are you gibbering about? Can macroevolution , in your confused view, decribe the initial non-living conditions or not?
Anyway, what is metaphical about the emergent properties of matter? Go read this for some real evolutionary metaphics.
It already happened millions of years ago.
Darwin's menagerie of creatures actually did consume much of the planet, leaving behind waste products such as coal, chalk, and the biggie: oxygen in the air.
Well, next time you get caught speeding on the highway, I ask that you be executed on the spot. After all, it's called ILLEGAL.
really isn't worth it unless you're hell-bent on pissing off Microsoft
Or more likely, hell-bent on pissing off the guys who fragged you.
And at that rate, will post to slashdot by 2040.
eh. Having made several IMHO good comments recently, which gained no notice, this quick sarcastic comment gets +5. Oh well, this is slashdot, home of the embittered and short-attention spanned. Myself included.
Of course! this explains why the USA's cellphone infrastructure is so much better than Europe's - the EU is just over-regulated!!
NB: That, like US cellphone systems, was a joke.
I'm not sure of that. Given the all-encompasing variety of things that can be excpressed as conversation, how can a program give intelligent debate, learing and insight, and not be intelligent? Perhaps yoy are thinking of that old crock, Searle's chinese room. Go read a some debunking here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?lastnode_id=4
Yes, they are. Now think outside the C++ box and it's not such a straw man anymore - it's a criticism of C++ and C-style strings, a legacy that we are stuck with due to APIs, even if we move to a language with sensible string handling.
I agree. Using as many design patterns as possible in one bit of code is just annoying. But that's not what Xp is about. XP says "Do the simplest thing that could possibly work".
I've seen it in action
Judging by your comments above, I think the human factors overshadowed the methodology here. There is no silver bullet for stupidity.
And how, pray tell, is this a boon to Linux? It may be a boon to your yankee job, but Linux improved in India is still improved.
Please, this is slashdot, let's have OS prejudice not race and nationality prejudice. On purely humanitarian grounds, parochial protectionism is no boon to the third world.
Me too ... on a good keyboard, like those nice big bent ones with the Microsoft logo on 'em.
Of course, maybe that's why Handspring got rid of the letter pad and replaced it with a keyboard on their Treos....
but can you type fast on that tiny thing? keyboards on a portable device will always be a compromise. Maybe pen input is the right answer sometimes.