How in the hell was that off topic? Fucking dumbass hippies. Oh no! I fucking mentioned Microsoft ("M$"). The horror, a company that makes money. Damn, I am glad IB[u$ine$$]M is here to save the day. Thank you $un for fighting the good fight. You people are retarded. No wonder most of you have crappy ass jobs and you are afraid of being replaced by that guy in India because he is better than you are at your job. I hope we interview together, so I can steal your job.
I have never read a Wrox book I did not keep. A lot of the Microsoft (gasp) Publisher books are well written as well. I have never read a JavaScript book... there's always the internet for a ton of articles on it.
Or more to the reason: students are forced to buy it for the class because test questions are peeled from meaningless parts of the book. This increases the profits of the professor... and that's about it. Most books from the professor suck.
Are you doing any data manipulation? I have never seen a JSP page perform as well as PHP, let alone ASP.NET pages in identically designed pages.
If JSP's performance was to improve, then I would be one of the first to jump ship. Currently, PHP and ASP.NET hold my development interests because both are very fast with ASP.NET noticeablely faster and they can do everything I need done.
They're different in terms of their definition, but that's about it. One does not change, but the other can. I know they are different, but not by much and they serve the exact same purpose, excluding state objects, which only serve to be changed (constants only gets half that game down). You're just trying to nitpick a fatal flaw in the argument against globals, which I dreadfully hate (globals, not the argument). Globals are necessary in many problems and as I agree with in another post, singletons fit the object oriented idea of global variables. So if you won't accept my idea of global constants, then what about global singletons?
People say to avoid global variables because a lot of programmers go overboard with them. "It's used by more than one function? Make it global!" It does not fit good design practices and the problem with most variables used in this manner is that down the road they are simply changed 'because you can.' The idea of minimizing scope of global variables is rather rediculous because they are global; I assume you are referring to member variables here.
This is the same reason that most good programmers tell new ones to avoid multiple inheritance, which is because if you do not understand it, which most do not, then it will eventually come back to bite you and that it is too easy to go overboard using it. There are quite a few good reasons to want to use multiple inheritance (for example, inheriting from a base form type and a currently defined form, such as a browser control with missing functionality), but there are also quite a few bad ones. The exact same logic follows for global variables, there are quite a few good reasons to use them, but there are also quite a few bad ones.
That their own tech support people (Read: Help Desk) will support Linux issues?
They must love nerds doing all their work for free, and then when they dump 5% of what they make in a year on just Linux into the market over 3 years everyone thinks they love the community. What an awesome business model.
The general idea of "open source" is the development of open programs. In projects, (not just something some guy puts out for the world to see), just about anyone can submit code and help out.
You can have OSS that is completely commercial, but who wants to help out with that if they are not going to get any benefit from it, while the parent company receives all of it?
I am far from an OSS fanboy, but one thing I will say OSS is NOT, is license dependent.
There were two immediate thoughts that came to mind when I read this posting.
First: Professors are probably trying to protect the less intelligent in the class from themselves, by attempting to force them not to use globals (since beginners can tend to over use them, which leads to jumbled, unreadable code).
Second: A lot of programming professors do not know what they are saying. He may honestly believe that there is never a case for global variables, just as many programmers believe there is never a case for goto statements. Globally defined constants are still global. What does he say to that? "That's different?"
Onto your post, the true object oriented method would not be to have a static, global object simply marshalling all of the data around. Yes, it is a way to do it, but the general object oriented way would be to make objects that are necessary to be saved as serializable. Loop through them all, then bam, you're done. Easier said then done, but hey, that's object oriented.
Woah, woah, woah! You're not running Linux? Sucker.
----
I run Windows, and I do not have the moronic problems of the above posters probably poorly configured computer with probably even worse shortcut schemes.
I always find it amusing when I visit Slashdot and people are complaining about their own problems with Spyware and the necessity for locking down their computer to the point of making it unusable.
I do not run a spyware scanner and I do not run a virus scanner aside from Panda Software infrequently (twice in the past two years) to make sure something did not slip through a port while I may have been unpatched after a vacation from Windows Update for awhile (I don't even use auto update). I have never had a virus on my own computer and my MOTHER has never had a virus on her computer; she is far from tech savy. I have also never had spyware on my computer, though admittedly my mother has (but that actually came from getting her to install AIM..., and I have yet to upgrade to that version luckily; I use GAIM on Linux...).
The only computer I run a spyware scanner or virus scanner on are my work laptop and work desktop. That is only because of company policy (heh, though my company is four people strong), and the risk of the computer being jeopardized is too great.
Windows XP SP2 made blocking IE spyware so easy that the problem is laughable, including ActiveX spawned problems. The only problem I see with the update is that the popup blocker is not perfect, but neither is Google's. The only spyware currently not stopped is that that is installed with reputable software, which is what I used to think AIM was.
So I guess I have to ask, how tech savy are you if you are required to lock down your system in order to save you from yourself? Is that ActiveX [Yes/No] screen just too tempting? Do you install everything and never uncheck that "Install Spyware" feature? Do you never check your startup (not that I expect the not-so-savy people to do this, but come on, it's you with the low, low Slashdot ID of 153816. Aren't you hacking me by now on my inferior Windows box? You probably read this post before the Slashdot database even INSERTed it)?
On to the only significant point you pretty much made:
Whether that's technical or simply because there are more Windows boxes and thus more interest is a matter for debate
No, it's not really up for debate. There are more Linux servers than there are Windows servers. The number of hacked Linux servers was MUCH higher last year than Windows servers. There are more Windows desktops than there are Linux desktops. The number of hacked Linux desktops was MUCH lower last year than Windows desktops. Now, again, I guess I will resort to name calling because I will at the end of the day be pointed to as 'not having an argument,' but I guess either I am a genius or you are ignorant (or both? I like how that one sounds, personally... or at least let me be a genius... come on!), but it is obvious that when the entry points exist, which they do on Linux exactly as they do on Windows, that people will break into them AS THEY SEE FIT. MySQL had a nice tunneling worm that was exactly like the MS SQL worm of recent fame, yet I did not even see it on Slashdot's main page. I guess that one is up for the debate? Maybe those MySQL admin's wanted their database comprimised, but quite obviously the MS SQL databases were comprimised because of proprietary code?
Personally, I thought the interview was pretty bad.
Not so much in substance, but whoever typed it up and posted it did as poor of a job as they possibly could. Also, the interviewer was a jerk, interrupting Martin and even throwing in his own two cents when he obviously did not know what he was talking about on a business level, which I guess most people won't notice here because most posters on Slashdot have zero business sense.
There is a difference between what he said and what you are arguing. He clearly was complaining that Michael made such an extreme exaggeration; "one company is mean to its customers, so all companies must be mean!"
You could easily follow that logic right into the open source world; not everyone is perfect and some people are downright ruthless.
"
Michael's insight into how likely is this scenario in any other network-reliant proprietary software is relevant, even if it's a quick take on an evident problem."
I guess we see where Michael's possy of blind followers resides, which keeps his extremely biased postings on Slashdot's front page.
As a side note, when these posts are made I generally first consider the companies history and in this case I had never heard of anything bad coming from Quicken, so I honestly assumed that this was just another complaint from a disgruntled customer that was probably caught doing something he shouldn't (look at all of the baseless lawsuits against everything for my reasoning there, even though this was not a lawsuit). After reading Intuit's own website on sunsetting or whatever they called it, the policy does seem harsh, but in order to keep pace with technology I do admit it may be necessary (as crappy as that sounds). Banks don't want out dated and unnecessary duplication and we don't need multiple routes into the bank. Now, I say that more from the banking perspective than the user's perspective because I would be just as pissed if I did my own finances with Quicken. As a programmer, the idea of removing features that are not broken sounds a bit rediculous and I cannot imagine Intuit getting away with this policy. The company is making a mistake here, in my opinion, and it would seem more honest and make more sense if they asked the banks to make the announcement that the banks would stop supporting older versions of Quicken. Long story short, that's the only morally acceptable route in my book on this page, but I do feel Michael has a problem with posting extreme bias that usually defies logic.
Really, it's not worth getting out of bed for that.
Are you kidding? Slashdot readers do all of the searching for this news and they even submit the text for it. The admins just serve as a medium that decides for us what we should see.
Could you imagine flying on it and getting close to no fuel? Suddenly the pilot tells everyone, "we are looking for large patches of flies in the air to maintain the flight course, but we have no fuel left." Then boom, you crash land in an apple farm only to have the plain eat them before you do, even though it is unable to fly?
Slashdot Mirror
This is off topic.
How exactly is it off topic to respond to an off topic post?
Wow, that's horrible. It's almost like you're defining it before using it? Crazy, how that works out just like I suggested.
I have never read a Wrox book I did not keep. A lot of the Microsoft (gasp) Publisher books are well written as well. I have never read a JavaScript book... there's always the internet for a ton of articles on it.
Programming languages and APIs do not change that quickly. Stop buying 20 year old books.
Or more to the reason: students are forced to buy it for the class because test questions are peeled from meaningless parts of the book. This increases the profits of the professor... and that's about it. Most books from the professor suck.
It's like programming with a variable that has yet to be defined.
If JSP's performance was to improve, then I would be one of the first to jump ship. Currently, PHP and ASP.NET hold my development interests because both are very fast with ASP.NET noticeablely faster and they can do everything I need done.
People say to avoid global variables because a lot of programmers go overboard with them. "It's used by more than one function? Make it global!" It does not fit good design practices and the problem with most variables used in this manner is that down the road they are simply changed 'because you can.' The idea of minimizing scope of global variables is rather rediculous because they are global; I assume you are referring to member variables here.
This is the same reason that most good programmers tell new ones to avoid multiple inheritance, which is because if you do not understand it, which most do not, then it will eventually come back to bite you and that it is too easy to go overboard using it. There are quite a few good reasons to want to use multiple inheritance (for example, inheriting from a base form type and a currently defined form, such as a browser control with missing functionality), but there are also quite a few bad ones. The exact same logic follows for global variables, there are quite a few good reasons to use them, but there are also quite a few bad ones.
They must love nerds doing all their work for free, and then when they dump 5% of what they make in a year on just Linux into the market over 3 years everyone thinks they love the community. What an awesome business model.
What is your point? JSP is insanely slow compared to anything other than ColdFusion.
You can have OSS that is completely commercial, but who wants to help out with that if they are not going to get any benefit from it, while the parent company receives all of it?
I am far from an OSS fanboy, but one thing I will say OSS is NOT, is license dependent.
First: Professors are probably trying to protect the less intelligent in the class from themselves, by attempting to force them not to use globals (since beginners can tend to over use them, which leads to jumbled, unreadable code).
Second: A lot of programming professors do not know what they are saying. He may honestly believe that there is never a case for global variables, just as many programmers believe there is never a case for goto statements. Globally defined constants are still global. What does he say to that? "That's different?"
Onto your post, the true object oriented method would not be to have a static, global object simply marshalling all of the data around. Yes, it is a way to do it, but the general object oriented way would be to make objects that are necessary to be saved as serializable. Loop through them all, then bam, you're done. Easier said then done, but hey, that's object oriented.
----
I run Windows, and I do not have the moronic problems of the above posters probably poorly configured computer with probably even worse shortcut schemes.
Say it, you know you want to: touche.
I do not run a spyware scanner and I do not run a virus scanner aside from Panda Software infrequently (twice in the past two years) to make sure something did not slip through a port while I may have been unpatched after a vacation from Windows Update for awhile (I don't even use auto update). I have never had a virus on my own computer and my MOTHER has never had a virus on her computer; she is far from tech savy. I have also never had spyware on my computer, though admittedly my mother has (but that actually came from getting her to install AIM..., and I have yet to upgrade to that version luckily; I use GAIM on Linux...).
The only computer I run a spyware scanner or virus scanner on are my work laptop and work desktop. That is only because of company policy (heh, though my company is four people strong), and the risk of the computer being jeopardized is too great.
Windows XP SP2 made blocking IE spyware so easy that the problem is laughable, including ActiveX spawned problems. The only problem I see with the update is that the popup blocker is not perfect, but neither is Google's. The only spyware currently not stopped is that that is installed with reputable software, which is what I used to think AIM was.
So I guess I have to ask, how tech savy are you if you are required to lock down your system in order to save you from yourself? Is that ActiveX [Yes/No] screen just too tempting? Do you install everything and never uncheck that "Install Spyware" feature? Do you never check your startup (not that I expect the not-so-savy people to do this, but come on, it's you with the low, low Slashdot ID of 153816. Aren't you hacking me by now on my inferior Windows box? You probably read this post before the Slashdot database even INSERTed it)?
On to the only significant point you pretty much made:
No, it's not really up for debate. There are more Linux servers than there are Windows servers. The number of hacked Linux servers was MUCH higher last year than Windows servers. There are more Windows desktops than there are Linux desktops. The number of hacked Linux desktops was MUCH lower last year than Windows desktops. Now, again, I guess I will resort to name calling because I will at the end of the day be pointed to as 'not having an argument,' but I guess either I am a genius or you are ignorant (or both? I like how that one sounds, personally... or at least let me be a genius... come on!), but it is obvious that when the entry points exist, which they do on Linux exactly as they do on Windows, that people will break into them AS THEY SEE FIT. MySQL had a nice tunneling worm that was exactly like the MS SQL worm of recent fame, yet I did not even see it on Slashdot's main page. I guess that one is up for the debate? Maybe those MySQL admin's wanted their database comprimised, but quite obviously the MS SQL databases were comprimised because of proprietary code?Thanks for the enlightenment, 153816.
Personally, I thought the interview was pretty bad. Not so much in substance, but whoever typed it up and posted it did as poor of a job as they possibly could. Also, the interviewer was a jerk, interrupting Martin and even throwing in his own two cents when he obviously did not know what he was talking about on a business level, which I guess most people won't notice here because most posters on Slashdot have zero business sense.
You could easily follow that logic right into the open source world; not everyone is perfect and some people are downright ruthless.
I guess we see where Michael's possy of blind followers resides, which keeps his extremely biased postings on Slashdot's front page.As a side note, when these posts are made I generally first consider the companies history and in this case I had never heard of anything bad coming from Quicken, so I honestly assumed that this was just another complaint from a disgruntled customer that was probably caught doing something he shouldn't (look at all of the baseless lawsuits against everything for my reasoning there, even though this was not a lawsuit). After reading Intuit's own website on sunsetting or whatever they called it, the policy does seem harsh, but in order to keep pace with technology I do admit it may be necessary (as crappy as that sounds). Banks don't want out dated and unnecessary duplication and we don't need multiple routes into the bank. Now, I say that more from the banking perspective than the user's perspective because I would be just as pissed if I did my own finances with Quicken. As a programmer, the idea of removing features that are not broken sounds a bit rediculous and I cannot imagine Intuit getting away with this policy. The company is making a mistake here, in my opinion, and it would seem more honest and make more sense if they asked the banks to make the announcement that the banks would stop supporting older versions of Quicken. Long story short, that's the only morally acceptable route in my book on this page, but I do feel Michael has a problem with posting extreme bias that usually defies logic.
The end.
Regards, Picky
He is not management material? That would answer your question.
Signed,
Captain Obvious
Woops. :)
Could you imagine flying on it and getting close to no fuel? Suddenly the pilot tells everyone, "we are looking for large patches of flies in the air to maintain the flight course, but we have no fuel left." Then boom, you crash land in an apple farm only to have the plain eat them before you do, even though it is unable to fly?
Damn tricky plains.
"M$"
I wonder if anyone else ignored the rest of the post?