And only a moron like you would use an integer to represent a direction. You're a real OO genius, aren't you?
Replying to anymous insults (the title Coward is clearly earned here) has got to be pretty low, but i'ts a slow day at work, so here goes.
I don't code like that. The original poster gave it as an example of how it is done in Java. Sadly it is often done like that in Java. I gave an example of how it falls down, cos I don't like it. Read before replying, Mr. A Coward.
So if this technique is so good (it does look cool) why isn't the JDK coded that way? The JDK is the best-known body of java code, and is where most java programmers get thier coding cues from - you'd think they'd use what was best?
True, but this easy method can be done in Java with public member variables, it's just discouraged.
Nope, it can't - not unless the gettor and settor are trivial one-liners. And if they change from trivial to non-trivial, you have to chamge your public int foo; into public int getFoo(); public void setFoo(int fooVal); and break all the code that uses foo. Properties avoid this breakage, which is why they are a good idea.
For a non-trivial e.g. Label.font.bold = true; The settor could actually cause a refresh of the label as well.
The java method will compile/run a tad faster,
Will it? The enum is really just an int - with compile time range-checking. Compile-time checking won't make it run slower. BTW, in Java you could also write int wall = Direction.NORTH;
wall += 43;
Which is clearly semantically dead wrong, but the compiler will never know. That is why enums were invented in the first place, not that Java's designers ever learnt that lesson.
Re:That metaphor if freedom, LOL
on
MAME On Xbox
·
· Score: 1
What makes you think M$ is taking a loss on this mighty gimped Celery?
I read it in articles. Like on salon:
The company is taking a substantial loss on every Xbox sale, apparently hoping that the superior hardware inside will be its best future asset
All of this cell phone text messaging technology is aburdly stupid. It's useless, in my opinion.
Opinions are good things, until there is reality and experience, which is a better guide than opinion. After which time, opinion is worthless.
SMS has proved to be a killer app. Like it or hate it (and I reluctantly grew to like it despite the shortcomings of the interface), it is here, it is popular (the US just hasn't caught up with the rest of us yet), and you are wrong.
That metaphor if freedom
on
MAME On Xbox
·
· Score: 4, Informative
unless the creators finally see that its power is not something to be feared, but something to be celebrated in, and to let the rider use that power for what they see fit would be the greatest use of this powerful animal.
It's business, not fear - if you could do anything with it, MS would have to stop selling the hardware at a loss to subsidise the software that they want you to buy for it.
I'm sure that there'll be a linux port, filesystem decoders and all kinds of hardware hacks anyway.
but what they consider to be mission-critical is FAR different than what a big investment bank or hospital would consider to be mission critical.
Excellent point!
we also need to know... How many connections ? How many users ?
Also: How much money in financial transactions does your company stand too lose if the server is ofline for an hour? What other implications are there of such an outage? How much money would be lost, and what other implications are there is an hour's worth of data is lost completely? How much is at risk, what sensitive data is compromised if that data is exposed to malicious hackers?
This kind of question defines just how mission critical "mission critical" really is.
What you're doing is called "Guilt by association". This means, you dress him up in straw, and call him a straw man.
Nope, what I'm doing is explaining once again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Which is lacking.
Um, you're awfully silent on what the astronomers had to say when the comet fell into Jupiter
That's cause I really don't see what a comet falling into jupiter, spectacular but understandable and predictable using even 1800's vintage mechanics (Newtonian physics) has to do at all with a planet suddenly falling out of Jupiter, which is an extraordinary claim, without any plausiable mechanism.
If so, then you can write PDA applications for the Sharp device
I very much doubt it - they only target the x86 processors.
Besides that limitation, you can do anything - commandline aps, roll your own classes to wrap APIs, program procedurally if you wanna. Of course, the less of the class libary you use, the more time you'll spend on framework code.
Where did you get the magic number, oh sage of the ivory tower? Well, we just made it up -- it seems to work.
There is nothing wrong in principle with measuring what has happened in the past, and using that to predict what will happen in the future, before you discover why it works like that.
For instance, if you measure that throughout the year, the average time between sunrises is 24 hours. You can use that number even though the only explanation for it that you might have is "it seems to work"
Of course, when you apply this to software develpment time estimation, it falls down for a number of reasons. It's not constant across technologies. It's not constant across types of project. It doesn't take into account the variation in technological risks (ie if you have done something like this before, you will spend less time finding ways to do stuff). It doesn't scale linearly with the size of the project. It varies across individuals. etc. etc.
And stupid, too, because why would os/2 reply to a post he hadn't read?
Could it be possible that os/2 (the poster) is stupid? Nah...
Carl is making a JOKE; metaphoricly confabulating two different senses of "laughed at."
Um, no. He is pointing out that while sometimes people with really good ideas are rejected for a while, rejection does not imply that your idea was good. People with utterly daft ideas generally get rejected too, and a it happens a lot more often. Most preople who seem to be cranks actually are: Demnetia is more common than unsung genius. A most seemingly daft way-out ideas actually are daft and way-out.
Is that simple enough or do you want it in even shorter words?
Maybe the extraordinary proof will be excavated near the iraqi crater? I guess we shouldn't even bother to look.
Craters are interesting. A crater is not proof that Venus went AWOL from the laws of physics. You have a very tenuos grasp on elementry logic.
Velikovsky and OS/2 are not outdated.
<sarcasm>Right - that's why the recent 0S/2 kernel and GUI developments, and not Linux is so interesting right now.</sarcasm>
Vekikovsky was a clinical psychologist. These people can glark the true cause of events from a person's behaviour and descriptions.
Human events, maybe. Astrophysics, no. See the post you are replying to.
The reason why Velikovsky is not accepted is the same that Copernicus's theory was not.
Carlk Sagan once said something like: "They laughed at Galilieo. They laughed at Copernicus. But then they also laughed at Bozo the clown".
Not that it was against logic
But it is against logic: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. And suggesting that "Venus was bored orbiting over there, and decided to wander over this way a bit" or "Jupiter burped" Aint it.
You seem to have touble letting go of outmoded things (OS2, Velikovsky). KDE is quite nice you know.
Folk, its a telephone... Have you ever tried "typing" using the numeric keypad of a phone? Its not worth the trouble.
Your post makes sense. It is logical, rational and Plain wrong.
Consumers the world over have shown that text messages are a very good app for those mobile digital radio communication devices that we refer to as "telephones". And that they will put up with typing on a numeric keypad, message length limitations etc.
Which is why the providers who failed to predict this are scrambling to lessen those limitations and anonnoyances in the hope that it will help them sell thier brand of electronic widgets and services.
It's quite simple: Good open source programs are category killers. That is, if there is a good (ie feature-complete, stable, fast etc. ) program that does X and is open, there is little or no opportunity for a company to try to enter the X market with an expensive product.
This works to an extent in existing markets - for e.g. all proprietary unix vendors are feeling the Linux pinch. MS can't sell IIS for much, due to Apache's presence.
Thus, open-source can be a barrier to entry, and have a monopoly on a market. A monopoly of sorts - Here's an old quote (I forget who from)
"Open Source will not become a multi-billion or trillion dollar sector of the global economy.
Quite on the contrary, Open Source/Free Software has the effect of removing points of economic
friction by circumventing the traps and nets that allow certain types of profit to be
accumulated."
fall flat on its face.. I predict this will happen within about three years
People have been saying that for 3 years or more. Remenber when win2000 was supposed to be a disaster due to code size & complexity?
Microsoft is in many ways a pre-Internet company. The internet has caused changes to the way software is developed and distributed. There is nothing Microsoft can do about this.
Microsoft would like to be a post-internet company and they are working hard on it. That is, each time when you fire up Microsoft office, it will make a Microsoft connection to a Microsoft server so that you can sign on to Microsoft passport, get out your Microsoft wallet and make a Micropayment into Microsoft's not-exactly-micro account. (Integrating passport into applications is mentioned in the article). This is what they can do about it.
There are a few people who have MS Office (since they claim they can't send (Star|Open)Office to other companies
Get them to send HTML files - it's more of a open standard than word doc ever will be, with editors and viewers just about ubiquitous. And it handles 99% of business documentation needs.
You are right in that the advantage of CLR is that it is a level of integration better than COM, which is itself a level of integration better than the flat-DLL/library API function call interfaces that the original poster was happy with.
but
development is faster in a team where every programmer can use the language he/she likes the most.
Is it really? It hasn't been tested in the real world yet. IMHO, that's not a team, that's a collection of individuals going off in all directions. IMHO a project that's written in 5 different styles in 5 different languages would be a 'mare to maintain, extend or even to complete.
I'm all for picking the right tool for the job, and writing the project in the best language (or two) for the job, but in a medium-to-large project, it is important that code is collectively owned, well-integrated and understood by more than one person.
How will that work if everyone codes in thier pet language? Do you now expect Joe VB to learn not one but ten new lanuages? Or to not understand 4/5 of the project he is working on, even with the source? Language choice should not be made on personal whim, but as a group decision on language suitablity.
I see this as having the potential for of a whole new level of code impenetrability.
then you are saying that the gap between the two products isn't that big.
I'm not saying that. It's a big gap, and not likely to close anytime soon.
That those features of PostgreSQL that have been around for years aren't anything to shout about.
That means that they are tested and proven. And work reliably now. That's worth shouting about.
Is it that hard for you to imagine that the everyone else is getting along fine with what mySQL has to offer?
If they understand the alternatives, and really only need a fast, small but junior leauge DB like MySQL, then no problem. If they are just ignorant, then I suggest trying harder.
I'm already impressed by this example of open-source might.
Might?? MySQL is still only for weenies. You wouldn't be at all impressed with it if you'd used a really functional Open-source Database like postgresSQL. I've used both and there's really no comparison.
I don't see these as major changes, rather than just adding some features
They aren't major changes, just adding some of the features that PostgreSQL has had for years.
This has been aired on Slashdot before and the three-letter system has been stretch until it works no more - the Mac's approach to metadata is better.
For e.g.:
.doc It means 'document' - could be anything - yet it is staked out as Microsoft Word Document.
.dat It meand 'data. It is used for everything from SQL databases to video files. Double-click one and anything could happen, usually useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. Actually it's a question. Thanks for the constructive answer. Not.
Replying to anymous insults (the title Coward is clearly earned here) has got to be pretty low, but i'ts a slow day at work, so here goes.
I don't code like that. The original poster gave it as an example of how it is done in Java. Sadly it is often done like that in Java. I gave an example of how it falls down, cos I don't like it. Read before replying, Mr. A Coward.
So if this technique is so good (it does look cool) why isn't the JDK coded that way? The JDK is the best-known body of java code, and is where most java programmers get thier coding cues from - you'd think they'd use what was best?
Nope, it can't - not unless the gettor and settor are trivial one-liners. And if they change from trivial to non-trivial, you have to chamge your public int foo; into public int getFoo(); public void setFoo(int fooVal); and break all the code that uses foo. Properties avoid this breakage, which is why they are a good idea.
For a non-trivial e.g. Label.font.bold = true; The settor could actually cause a refresh of the label as well.
The java method will compile/run a tad faster,
Will it? The enum is really just an int - with compile time range-checking. Compile-time checking won't make it run slower. BTW, in Java you could also write
int wall = Direction.NORTH;
wall += 43;
Which is clearly semantically dead wrong, but the compiler will never know. That is why enums were invented in the first place, not that Java's designers ever learnt that lesson.
I read it in articles. Like on salon:
The company is taking a substantial loss on every Xbox sale, apparently hoping that the superior hardware inside will be its best future asset
Opinions are good things, until there is reality and experience, which is a better guide than opinion. After which time, opinion is worthless.
SMS has proved to be a killer app. Like it or hate it (and I reluctantly grew to like it despite the shortcomings of the interface), it is here, it is popular (the US just hasn't caught up with the rest of us yet), and you are wrong.
It's business, not fear - if you could do anything with it, MS would have to stop selling the hardware at a loss to subsidise the software that they want you to buy for it.
I'm sure that there'll be a linux port, filesystem decoders and all kinds of hardware hacks anyway.
Excellent point!
we also need to know ... How many connections ? How many users ?
Also: How much money in financial transactions does your company stand too lose if the server is ofline for an hour? What other implications are there of such an outage? How much money would be lost, and what other implications are there is an hour's worth of data is lost completely? How much is at risk, what sensitive data is compromised if that data is exposed to malicious hackers?
This kind of question defines just how mission critical "mission critical" really is.
Nope, what I'm doing is explaining once again that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Which is lacking.
Um, you're awfully silent on what the astronomers had to say when the comet fell into Jupiter
That's cause I really don't see what a comet falling into jupiter, spectacular but understandable and predictable using even 1800's vintage mechanics (Newtonian physics) has to do at all with a planet suddenly falling out of Jupiter, which is an extraordinary claim, without any plausiable mechanism.
I very much doubt it - they only target the x86 processors.
Besides that limitation, you can do anything - commandline aps, roll your own classes to wrap APIs, program procedurally if you wanna. Of course, the less of the class libary you use, the more time you'll spend on framework code.
There is nothing wrong in principle with measuring what has happened in the past, and using that to predict what will happen in the future, before you discover why it works like that.
For instance, if you measure that throughout the year, the average time between sunrises is 24 hours. You can use that number even though the only explanation for it that you might have is "it seems to work"
Of course, when you apply this to software develpment time estimation, it falls down for a number of reasons. It's not constant across technologies. It's not constant across types of project. It doesn't take into account the variation in technological risks (ie if you have done something like this before, you will spend less time finding ways to do stuff). It doesn't scale linearly with the size of the project. It varies across individuals. etc. etc.
Could it be possible that os/2 (the poster) is stupid? Nah...
Carl is making a JOKE; metaphoricly confabulating two different senses of "laughed at."
Um, no. He is pointing out that while sometimes people with really good ideas are rejected for a while, rejection does not imply that your idea was good. People with utterly daft ideas generally get rejected too, and a it happens a lot more often. Most preople who seem to be cranks actually are: Demnetia is more common than unsung genius. A most seemingly daft way-out ideas actually are daft and way-out.
Is that simple enough or do you want it in even shorter words?
Maybe the extraordinary proof will be excavated near the iraqi crater? I guess we shouldn't even bother to look.
Craters are interesting. A crater is not proof that Venus went AWOL from the laws of physics. You have a very tenuos grasp on elementry logic.
Velikovsky and OS/2 are not outdated.
<sarcasm>Right - that's why the recent 0S/2 kernel and GUI developments, and not Linux is so interesting right now.</sarcasm>
Human events, maybe. Astrophysics, no. See the post you are replying to.
The reason why Velikovsky is not accepted is the same that Copernicus's theory was not.
Carlk Sagan once said something like: "They laughed at Galilieo. They laughed at Copernicus. But then they also laughed at Bozo the clown".
Not that it was against logic
But it is against logic: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. And suggesting that "Venus was bored orbiting over there, and decided to wander over this way a bit" or "Jupiter burped" Aint it.
You seem to have touble letting go of outmoded things (OS2, Velikovsky). KDE is quite nice you know.
Your post makes sense. It is logical, rational and Plain wrong.
Consumers the world over have shown that text messages are a very good app for those mobile digital radio communication devices that we refer to as "telephones". And that they will put up with typing on a numeric keypad, message length limitations etc.
Which is why the providers who failed to predict this are scrambling to lessen those limitations and anonnoyances in the hope that it will help them sell thier brand of electronic widgets and services.
Mac OS X? Oh wait, that's on BSD, not that it's a big difference from a PAI point of view.
Read and learn.
It's quite simple: Good open source programs are category killers. That is, if there is a good (ie feature-complete, stable, fast etc. ) program that does X and is open, there is little or no opportunity for a company to try to enter the X market with an expensive product.
This works to an extent in existing markets - for e.g. all proprietary unix vendors are feeling the Linux pinch. MS can't sell IIS for much, due to Apache's presence.
Thus, open-source can be a barrier to entry, and have a monopoly on a market. A monopoly of sorts - Here's an old quote (I forget who from)
Of couse you wouldn't - you'd want your bombs to be all gung ho, eager and agressive.
People have been saying that for 3 years or more. Remenber when win2000 was supposed to be a disaster due to code size & complexity?
Microsoft is in many ways a pre-Internet company. The internet has caused changes to the way software is developed and distributed. There is nothing Microsoft can do about this.
Microsoft would like to be a post-internet company and they are working hard on it. That is, each time when you fire up Microsoft office, it will make a Microsoft connection to a Microsoft server so that you can sign on to Microsoft passport, get out your Microsoft wallet and make a Micropayment into Microsoft's not-exactly-micro account. (Integrating passport into applications is mentioned in the article). This is what they can do about it.
Get them to send HTML files - it's more of a open standard than word doc ever will be, with editors and viewers just about ubiquitous. And it handles 99% of business documentation needs.
You are right in that the advantage of CLR is that it is a level of integration better than COM, which is itself a level of integration better than the flat-DLL/library API function call interfaces that the original poster was happy with.
but
development is faster in a team where every programmer can use the language he/she likes the most.
Is it really? It hasn't been tested in the real world yet. IMHO, that's not a team, that's a collection of individuals going off in all directions. IMHO a project that's written in 5 different styles in 5 different languages would be a 'mare to maintain, extend or even to complete.
I'm all for picking the right tool for the job, and writing the project in the best language (or two) for the job, but in a medium-to-large project, it is important that code is collectively owned, well-integrated and understood by more than one person.
How will that work if everyone codes in thier pet language? Do you now expect Joe VB to learn not one but ten new lanuages? Or to not understand 4/5 of the project he is working on, even with the source? Language choice should not be made on personal whim, but as a group decision on language suitablity.
I see this as having the potential for of a whole new level of code impenetrability.
But they are
then you are saying that the gap between the two products isn't that big.
I'm not saying that. It's a big gap, and not likely to close anytime soon.
That those features of PostgreSQL that have been around for years aren't anything to shout about.
That means that they are tested and proven. And work reliably now. That's worth shouting about.
Is it that hard for you to imagine that the everyone else is getting along fine with what mySQL has to offer?
If they understand the alternatives, and really only need a fast, small but junior leauge DB like MySQL, then no problem. If they are just ignorant, then I suggest trying harder.
Might?? MySQL is still only for weenies. You wouldn't be at all impressed with it if you'd used a really functional Open-source Database like postgresSQL. I've used both and there's really no comparison.
I don't see these as major changes, rather than just adding some features
They aren't major changes, just adding some of the features that PostgreSQL has had for years.
Why bother with MySQL?
The ATA has already been stonewalled
First sentence of the article: ATA has been renamed PATRIOT. So how is this "an alternative bill"?
You do realise that it would wear round very quickly.