POSIX was designed back when they had to limit the length of strings because hardware was expensive. POSIX and LSB, sadly, happen to be the most nitpicking standards I've seen to date.
You can't have seen many standards then. Case in point: ISO-9899 (a.k.a. ISO-C).
Them even bringing up gets() makes me doubt their whole report. If the rest of their comments are on the same scale as this, I'd say go with the LSB everytime.
Well, the report set out to highlight the differences between LSB and POSIX. That's exactly what they did. Why do you doubt it?
The difference is in the edge-cases and extreme flight regimes. Once you are outside of what the MSFS table data is prepared to handle, MSFS starts to behave just strange. Especially the stall model of table-based sims are pure crap. Add to this the fact that most people that fly flight sims fly on the edge of the flight envelope all the time (because that's where the fun is) you can see the advantage of real-time calulated FM's and the static tables.
X-plane is no doubt the most extreme of the real-time flight sims, but if you like to shoot stuff, you can compare the amazing IL-2 Forgotten Battles which is real-time calculated (although not as advanced as X-plane) to Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 (based on the MSFS engine). You don't have to be a pilot to feel which one is more real, and "live".
Last I tried Ephipany is lacked the ability to disable popups. Needless to say, it lasted about 5 minutes on my system.
If you, like me, forgot just how painful popups are, make sure Ephipany has implemented the popup blocking before trying it. I still have nightmares after this experience.
I find it interesting that not one of the high-score responses (I havent read the others) to this question has mentioned XP, i.e. Extreme Programming.
XP was built on the knowledge you just mentioned: That the Q&D solution is necessary, and that if you try to follow set procedure (or the "waterfall model" as it's called) where you have a requirements, design phase, implementaion phase, testing phase you will most likely fail.
Basically, what XP is all about, is to acknowledge that the specification is useless, beacuse after a couple of years when the project is finished, the end result doesn't look anything like the sepcification anyway. At least if you want to survive in a dynamic market. We have all seem that in the real world, the requirements change during development, and if they do, you need to go back and change the spec, and then possibly reimplement large parts of the code.
So, how do you go about solving this? Well, first of all you have to understand and believe in a couple of mantras:
This means that instead of writing a specification before programming begins, you let the application evolve (very similar to most Open Source projects actually) and if the requirements change during development, you change the code to adopt.
Refactor mercilessly
This is absolutely nessecary in order for the previous point to work. What it means is that you should not be afraid to change the layout of working code, to make it easier to add new features. With good refactoring you don't need a complex design in the beginning, which means that you get to market more quickly.
If you are thinking of implementing a couple of abstract base classes and interfaces to make your object design super generic, so that it can be used for a lot of differnt things in the future. For example implementing a plugin architecture in your file parser or somehting like that, you need to ask yourself the following questions:
Am I going to need this abstraction now? and If I need it in the future, will it be easy to refactor the code so it gets that functionality? If your ansers to there questions are "no" and "yes" respectively (which they usually are) then you should not do it.
Essentially: don't do anything until you need it.
Test driven development
All this refactoring, and no solid specs can be a bit scary, especially in the beginning. A common question that pops up is: "how can we guarantee that the code works if you keep changing it all the time?". The answer is: unit testing. The rule of thumb here is: Implement the test first, then you implement the code so that the rest runs. Whenever you are going to fix a bug, write a unit test that triggers the bug first, and then fix the code so that the test succeeds. You then make sure you run the ever growing test suite several times per day. It helps a lot in catching regression bugs.
Now, the biggest problem you face is selling XP to your PHB's. They will more than likely feel that they are losing control, and they will be afraid that their nice Microsoft Project documents will become useless (no one seems to remember that (almost) every single waterfall project will overrun both budget and time constraints). However, there is
Yes! It's true! Sciense has finally provided us with the solution. Now YOU can gain access to the amazing new weight loss discovery that NASA is researching. click here to learn more!
The scientist they interviewed is probably right, but he does seem to get one fact wrong:
"There's no performance in a vacuum," he concludes. I ask him about the more bug-eyed theories of lifter fanatics. Some claim that lifters create electrical fields that push against space-time; a few think the devices harness the hypothetical zero point energy field. Could there be a new type of physics here? "We don't expect to find one," Campbell says dryly. "And if you come across something, don't tell me about it - go straight to Oslo and the Nobel Committee."
(my emphasis)
The Nobel comittee is in Stockholm. The Nobel Peace Price comittee is in Oslo.
Well, I have yet to buyone of these. I was beta tester for Eve and E&B, and the others had a certain number of days free play.
Yes, I'm still looking for an MMP game that will keep my attention for more than a single weekend. No, I still havent't found it, and yes, I really do want to find one.
To me, it's two things that turns me off: The tediousness. I don' thave much time to spend in an online game, and having to spend 50 hours just to build the character is too much for me.
The other problem for me is the other players. Why do people feel the urge to behave like asses in an online game? Instant turnoff, at least for me.
I can't really blame them. Whn you sighn up as a beta tester you agree to an NDA. Posting a review means that you violate that NDA. Throwing that person out is the least they should do.
Not that I mind reading wharever is leaked though.:-)
I doubt there is a single feature in the.NET IDE that IDEA doesn't do better (except for GUI builder, of course, since IDEA doesn't have one. It's a tool for developers, after all[1].:-) ).
As a side note, I use IDEA for Java development, which is an IDE written in Java. The UI seems very responsive on my 1ghz linux laptop. Not sure what they do different than everyone else.
IntelliJ know how to program, that's why. Swing makes it so damn easy to develope GUI application that anyone and his one-eyed limp dog on a bad-hair day could write one up.
The problem is that while it's easy to make a user interface, it's a lot harder to make one well. I guess you could say that Swing is the victim of its own success.
Oh, well w0000t! It's only cross-platform on Windows. What a very fucking useful piece of cross-platformness that must be. Truly its cross-platform powers are astonishing. What a dazzling range of platforms it crosses, indeed. If I ever need a cross-platform IDE, but I only want to run it on fucking Windows, Eclipse will be my first port of fucking call.
Maybe I should have said it's only transparent cross-platform on Windows. In other words, an SWT app will run on Linux and OSX (but not on all systems that has Java available, since it has a native part that needs porting) but only on Windows will it behave just like a normal app, in terms of drag&drop behaviour, menus, etc. On OSX it looks like a Windows application with OSX buttons. Same for Linux, which is a pain now that GNOME allows you to get a very seamless integrated desktop.
SWT also forces you to manually manage all resources. Yes people, it means that you once again are looking at huge potential resource leaks in your app.
I can only advise you to try out both IDEA and Eclipse to make up your own mind.
The.NET Framework has a SLIGHTLY smaller footprint than the latest version of Java (46.5 vs 47.3 on my workstation). And it does more stuff -- a lot of the add-on packages for Java, including all of their J2EE crap, parellels what's already in the Framework. Not that it matters...including the framework on an install CD is trivial, and most Windows Update and XP users have it already.
You said it yourself. You can't really compare size like that since there is more to.NET than just the libraries and the VM..NET uses a huge amount of bread&butter stuff in the Windows libraries, something which obviously can't be used by Java. At least not in the same way, since Java has to work on more than one platform.
.NET does NOT integrate the web into windows applications..NET allows users to create web apps in much the same interface as standard windows forms, using a system called WebForms.
True, but it does integrate.NET into the web. It makes it very easy to build applications with much more "intelligence" on the client side, similar to building a XUL application using Mozilla.
The downside (or advantage, if you're Microsoft) is that you will only get these "rich" client experiences when running Explorer, preferably on Windows. But that's the whole point. Lock-in by pretending to be open, it's brilliant.
It also allows regular ASP pages to be compiled into faster versions a la JSP/Servlets.
True again, but they are still slower than JSP's on fast app servers, for example Orion. (disclaimer: I don't have the latest benchmarks so things may have changed).
What's cool about.NET is that the IDE supports all sorts of really useful data transformation and reporting mechanisms using SQL/XML/etc built right in...no rolling your own data access methods (though I end up doing it anyway).
These things has been available in Java IDE's/libraries/toolkits for longer than I care to remember. I believe it started with Sun's JavaBlend (which agreeably wasn't very good, but a lot has happened in the 6 or so years since it came out).
Today we have several frameworks, suitable for different needs. For example Hibernate, JDO, or, if you simply want a fast persistance layer: Prevayler. There are more, of course.
Also note that the the JDO specification allows different vedors to plug in different implementations so you're not relying on a single vendor. This goes for pretty much all of the J2EE specifications as well. I'll take that over Microsofts solutions any day.
.NET is better than Java for apps that will always be used on a Windows PC, because:
- It has a much faster graphics interface, while maintaining a robust graphics toolkit.
And how do you know that your apps will always be used on a Windows PC? Do you have a magic crystal ball that can see into the future? Do you really want your apps to be limited to Windows only? Also, with the latest versions of Java, the speed difference (for well written applications, mind you) is neglible. Take a look at IDEA for a good example of a very efficient Swing application. And if you really believe you need native widgets, take a look at SWT, which Ecplise is built upon. But it's a pain to program in, and it's only really cross-platform on Windows. All other platforms suffer from the same problems as Swing apps do.
It has a better messaging mechanism (Events/Delegates are a GODSEND and are the sin
Slashdot Mirror
What?
Here in sweden I rent DVD's at the local video store for between 1 and 2 USD.
And no, these are not pirated copies. Sweden is actually civilised.
The difference is in the edge-cases and extreme flight regimes. Once you are outside of what the MSFS table data is prepared to handle, MSFS starts to behave just strange. Especially the stall model of table-based sims are pure crap. Add to this the fact that most people that fly flight sims fly on the edge of the flight envelope all the time (because that's where the fun is) you can see the advantage of real-time calulated FM's and the static tables.
X-plane is no doubt the most extreme of the real-time flight sims, but if you like to shoot stuff, you can compare the amazing IL-2 Forgotten Battles which is real-time calculated (although not as advanced as X-plane) to Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 (based on the MSFS engine). You don't have to be a pilot to feel which one is more real, and "live".
Sorry, scratch that... Wolfenstein 3D was great. RTCW sucked though.
Remember Doom 2?
Remember Hexen?
Remember Wolfenstein 3D?
If you, like me, forgot just how painful popups are, make sure Ephipany has implemented the popup blocking before trying it. I still have nightmares after this experience.
Compare with sweden where you'll pay 5 EUR or more for a pint.
Just for the record: I intended to type IANAS, but my keyboard disagreed.
XP was built on the knowledge you just mentioned: That the Q&D solution is necessary, and that if you try to follow set procedure (or the "waterfall model" as it's called) where you have a requirements, design phase, implementaion phase, testing phase you will most likely fail.
Basically, what XP is all about, is to acknowledge that the specification is useless, beacuse after a couple of years when the project is finished, the end result doesn't look anything like the sepcification anyway. At least if you want to survive in a dynamic market. We have all seem that in the real world, the requirements change during development, and if they do, you need to go back and change the spec, and then possibly reimplement large parts of the code.
So, how do you go about solving this? Well, first of all you have to understand and believe in a couple of mantras:
Here is the list of development rules.
The implementation is the specification
This means that instead of writing a specification before programming begins, you let the application evolve (very similar to most Open Source projects actually) and if the requirements change during development, you change the code to adopt.
Refactor mercilessly
This is absolutely nessecary in order for the previous point to work. What it means is that you should not be afraid to change the layout of working code, to make it easier to add new features. With good refactoring you don't need a complex design in the beginning, which means that you get to market more quickly.
I strongly recommend you read Martin Fowlers book Refactoring, it's a real eye-opener.
This leads us up to the next point:
Do the least thing that could possibly work
If you are thinking of implementing a couple of abstract base classes and interfaces to make your object design super generic, so that it can be used for a lot of differnt things in the future. For example implementing a plugin architecture in your file parser or somehting like that, you need to ask yourself the following questions:
Am I going to need this abstraction now? and If I need it in the future, will it be easy to refactor the code so it gets that functionality? If your ansers to there questions are "no" and "yes" respectively (which they usually are) then you should not do it.
Essentially: don't do anything until you need it.
Test driven development
All this refactoring, and no solid specs can be a bit scary, especially in the beginning. A common question that pops up is: "how can we guarantee that the code works if you keep changing it all the time?". The answer is: unit testing. The rule of thumb here is: Implement the test first, then you implement the code so that the rest runs. Whenever you are going to fix a bug, write a unit test that triggers the bug first, and then fix the code so that the test succeeds. You then make sure you run the ever growing test suite several times per day. It helps a lot in catching regression bugs.
For Java, I recommend JUnit.
Now, the biggest problem you face is selling XP to your PHB's. They will more than likely feel that they are losing control, and they will be afraid that their nice Microsoft Project documents will become useless (no one seems to remember that (almost) every single waterfall project will overrun both budget and time constraints). However, there is
As seen in WIRED MAGAZINE!
LOSE WEIGHT without MOVING any of your PARTS!
Yes! It's true! Sciense has finally provided us with the solution. Now YOU can gain access to the amazing new weight loss discovery that NASA is researching. click here to learn more!
IAMAS, but isn't it spewing ionised _air_? In a vacuum there isn't anything to ionise.
The Nobel comittee is in Stockholm. The Nobel Peace Price comittee is in Oslo.
You probably run XFree 4.3.0. RH9 by any chance? It's the mouse shadow! Yet another amazing(?) "innovation" that found its way to Linux.
Over here (sweden) mobile phones cost next to nothing and everybody got one. Paying the extra 50 or so for the digital camera function is no big deal.
Perhaps, I'm not ready to do that just yet though. :-)
Ah I see. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, I'm still looking for an MMP game that will keep my attention for more than a single weekend. No, I still havent't found it, and yes, I really do want to find one.
To me, it's two things that turns me off: The tediousness. I don' thave much time to spend in an online game, and having to spend 50 hours just to build the character is too much for me.
The other problem for me is the other players. Why do people feel the urge to behave like asses in an online game? Instant turnoff, at least for me.
Not that I mind reading wharever is leaked though. :-)
I have tried several[1] MMP games, and I have yet to find one that didn't bore me to death within a couple of days play.
[1] WW2OL, Eve, Jumpgate, Allegiance, Earth&Beyond, etc...
I doubt there is a single feature in the .NET IDE that IDEA doesn't do better (except for GUI builder, of course, since IDEA doesn't have one. It's a tool for developers, after all[1]. :-) ).
Check out this review. Or this one.
[1] Actually, a GUI builder is coming in the next version, but it's still in alpha state.
The problem is that while it's easy to make a user interface, it's a lot harder to make one well. I guess you could say that Swing is the victim of its own success.
SWT also forces you to manually manage all resources. Yes people, it means that you once again are looking at huge potential resource leaks in your app.
I can only advise you to try out both IDEA and Eclipse to make up your own mind.
You said it yourself. You can't really compare size like that since there is more to .NET than just the libraries and the VM. .NET uses a huge amount of bread&butter stuff in the Windows libraries, something which obviously can't be used by Java. At least not in the same way, since Java has to work on more than one platform.
True, but it does integrate .NET into the web. It makes it very easy to build applications with much more "intelligence" on the client side, similar to building a XUL application using Mozilla.
The downside (or advantage, if you're Microsoft) is that you will only get these "rich" client experiences when running Explorer, preferably on Windows. But that's the whole point. Lock-in by pretending to be open, it's brilliant.
True again, but they are still slower than JSP's on fast app servers, for example Orion. (disclaimer: I don't have the latest benchmarks so things may have changed).
These things has been available in Java IDE's/libraries/toolkits for longer than I care to remember. I believe it started with Sun's JavaBlend (which agreeably wasn't very good, but a lot has happened in the 6 or so years since it came out).
Today we have several frameworks, suitable for different needs. For example Hibernate, JDO, or, if you simply want a fast persistance layer: Prevayler. There are more, of course.
Also note that the the JDO specification allows different vedors to plug in different implementations so you're not relying on a single vendor. This goes for pretty much all of the J2EE specifications as well. I'll take that over Microsofts solutions any day.
And how do you know that your apps will always be used on a Windows PC? Do you have a magic crystal ball that can see into the future? Do you really want your apps to be limited to Windows only? Also, with the latest versions of Java, the speed difference (for well written applications, mind you) is neglible. Take a look at IDEA for a good example of a very efficient Swing application. And if you really believe you need native widgets, take a look at SWT, which Ecplise is built upon. But it's a pain to program in, and it's only really cross-platform on Windows. All other platforms suffer from the same problems as Swing apps do.