Yes, how many incarnations of Batman have we had (even the embarrassing ones, right?). If he's being honest, and is retiring him even if they make a lot of money, then it must mean that it's a personal decision, and they're unwilling to simply milk a cash cow or popular brand name because it'll make money with potentially inferior product. **cough**GeorgeLucas**cough**
Possibly, but might it not backfire? People might not want to watch the new one because what's the point, there won't be a sequel so why invest the time and all the emotion? Why make such a huge intellectual investment?
Yeah, but for many people (especially CEOs, after a while) such decisions have nothing to do with pay. Many of these CEOs work up the ladder (or establish the company, in Dell's case) put in the effort and the hours, earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and don't see any reason to continue working, even though they might make $500K, $1M.
It says that he had softened his role previously, working on big picture issues, and all the things that are sort of fun to do and don't necessarily generate a hard product, so it probably won't change anything. Probably he just got burned out and wanted to do regattas, Larry Ellison-style.
Maybe not so poor. This might actually be somewhat successful as a not-too-expensive and semi-portable desktop.
My desktop at home is powerful enough (though getting a little old) with plenty of HD space and decent amounts of RAM (old, though), but it's aggravating how difficult it is to move it (in case I just want a change of scenery in my apartment). My laptop at work is by no means state-of-the-art, but it's small enough and, I suppose, light enough, but it's completely wimpy, and they can't really put too much into laptops without making it ridiculously expensive.
It seems like it might possibly succeed with those who would like a bit more power than a regular laptop, but are also looking for some more portability than a regular desktop. I'm trying to think, maybe gamers, or something?
It seems like this segment might be pitiably small, and I'll probably stick with desktops, but it'd be interesting to see who (if anybody) buys into this.
It's foolish, of course. Trying to protect silly "trade secrets" behind a poorly conceived law is the worst thing to happen to digital media (and the internet). It's like being a restauranteur and crying "No fair" and refusing to sell desserts to customers who taste a dessert and ask, "Is that cinnamon?"
If people are going to buy your product, and be exposed to it, they will naturally have to gain some familiarity with it. It's silly to want a food critic taste your food so he could publish a glowing review and then get upset when he writes what he (correctly) believes to be your ingredients.
The DVD-CAA wants the DVD format to be adopted and for it to be widespread and popular, but they complain about anything that comes from people using it and that would help distribution.
It's been said, but if they want their DVD encryption to be impenetrable (and hence popular with the MPAA) they should actually try to make it tough to crack instead of hiding behind a flimsy law that has apparently been dismissed in this particular case.
It's just like any software (i.e. IE) being lackadaisical about security and then complaining about people breaking the law by writing viruses. Yeah, it's a law, and people shouldn't do it, but then some people also don't care.
Yeah, unfortunately, gamers these days are from an entirely different generation than those of 10 - 20 years ago.
With MTV and flashy graphics and an emphasis on getting a quick hit, it seems like entertainment requiring "investment" is falling from our culture. Sports games are designed to have mere 5 minute quarters, there are FPS that allow you to jump in get 10 kills and bail, and many good television shows containing a consistent storyline (rather than the flavor-of-the-week variety) don't end up being so successful (running jokes/themes aside).
It's likewise no surprise that the old computer game staples (adventure games, text games, those ASCII RPGs) are becoming increasingly less popular.
But perhaps there is hope. Books (something I deem to be a yardstick for people's interest in imaginative entertainment and attention-span -- as true or not as it may be) have been selling increasingly more.
People say that books are a dying medium, but perhaps some life remains with the success of Harry Potter and perhaps the frequent coupling of Hollywood blockbusters with current novels.
But I guess we'll have to see if games start taking a new route, themselves.
I agree completely with your post. I can dig Wired for some "light reading" but I find it far too often panders to the casual techie who is more into what new gadgets they can buy to store phone numbers than what actually goes on inside them. Wired is technology not for the sake of technology (or knowledge, or whatever), but technology to be edgy and cool. Wired glorifies google because they are hip and hot, and vilifies Microsoft (not that I disagree, per se) because Microsoft is stodgy and megalomaniacal. Google is private and still independent, while Microsoft is public and capitalistic.
It will be interesting to see how Google and Microsoft handle the impending collision of egos as Microsoft will inevitably try to capture or dislodge Google.
I use google, but I'm more than a little cautious about their privacy policies. The fact search that you mention would be an amazing enhancement to google, so that I wouldn't have to scour through some dozens of online stores before I can get to some actual information. I hope it comes soon.
As far as my projected future of google, they're going to go public someday (because they will become very very rich), and then they'll turn into every other corporation in America, losing their edge for conservatism and becoming too big for anybody's good (or are they already too big?)
Right, and those risks are incorporated into the fair market value (deceptive, though, because Google is still private). Microsoft is a huge corporation with a huge pool of self-interested investors run by people who only seek to increase shareholder value (viva capitalistas!). You make a good point about the risk of $10 billion, but the fact that Microsoft made the offer (regardless of what fraction of cash reserves this offer represents) means that Microsoft assessed the risk (I'm sure they did) and either deemed it not too risky, or a risky investment with potential payoffs that made it worthwhile.
Additionally, there don't even necessarily need to be any assurances about the payoffs. All that matters is the NPV (including factors such as volatility, discount rates, etc.) is positive. It doesn't matter if they pay $10 billion now and the $20 billion payoff comes 10 years down the road, if the present value of that $20 billion 10 years from now is $10 billion and one penny then (technically) it's a good investment.
The fact that the payoff is 10 years from now does not matter at all to the investor because he/she can always sell it for what it's worth today in the free market (though it is almost always -- excluding deflation -- true that a $20 bn payoff tomorrow will be worth more than a $20 bn payoff in 10 years).
I agree, mostly, but I'm an engineer as you (probably?) are. We see the practicality and functionality of google for what it is, and don't need the bells and whistles and all those other things that might make it "cool". But we (as engineers) might prefer a Unix command prompt over a flashier Windows GUI, but then Windows happens to be the present dominant OS out there.
Obviously google has become a huge success and that success is most likely due to it's performance (results and speed, fraud-busting, etc.), but I'm not sure how the "general populace" would feel about any visual enhancements or additional features. Perhaps the average user might be intimidated by all sorts of other bizarre features, or maybe they would appreciate them because (as the author Michael Chabon said) they'd get the opportunity to catch new links to potentially interesting information (or maybe the map might save them a trip to mapquest, or something).
I think google is fine and I use it and everything, but I did think the map feature was interesting (of course, not for a standard search, but perhaps as a special search). I'm sure that there are some other features that would be popular with the computer users who aren't all business either.
I mean, there's a reason why so many people go to huge portals like cruel.com or joke sites like the Spark, because they're looking for a distraction, and some of these "enhancements" would provide just that.
Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?
Economics says that $10 billion is what Google's worth (in Microsoft's perception) or, more likely, since Google rejected the offer, $10 billion is less than what they believe Google's value to be. That's why.
It doesn't matter if it's half their money or all of their money, if Microsoft assesses a certain value to a company, they'll be willing to make the corresponding offer. (They've done so before).
Yeah, the sad truth seems to be that when prioritizing general and regression testing seems to rank low on the list because it doesn't actually create new product (though it is of course necessary, we aren't selling our testing, we're selling our new code).
With marketers and product managers and sales people all pushing our product and making wild promises about delivery dates and patch dates it becomes a fruitless effort to keep on top of the regression testing, and I've found that with the software at my company, it's sort of ramped up until it'll reach a breaking point where we'll just need to scrap big portions of our system and release a whole new build, likely using "Buzzwords" or cryptic acronyms that are supposed to indicate progress.
Yeah, I can't tell you how many times, at all levels of my company, we are told simply to try it again, and to change the parameters and how the error must be "configurational".
Try telling the client that what they want to do with our software and how they want to use it is a "configurational" problem and they're using our software incorrectly, and 9 times out of 10 the clients (in our case, major banks) will drop our software.
But then again, Microsoft uses the "configuration" argument all the time with its customers, so I guess it works sometimes.
Re:I don't need a book...
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yeah who needs a book?
System.out.println("1");
ComplexClassInstantiator _cci = new ComplexClassInstantiator((UtilType)ClassGrabber.ge tObjectFromDefaults(_a, _b, _kl1, _z56), new UtilSocket(_p23876, _p5541), new Runnable() { public void run() { runDataSetAnalysis(_p1, _p2, _paramClass); } });
System.out.println("2");
Output: 1
[Error message]
So obviously the error is in the line between the two print statements.
Well, I loved Wash U... I thought it was a great education without all of the attitude (i.e. of any of the Ivies, Stanford, Northwestern), and so sue me, I didn't miss the major athletics (I'm a purist, I consider them great and all, but also a bastardization of academia -- as evidenced by Colorado right now). Splendid school and I miss it a lot.
I had always heard uncertain things about the Engineering there, that it was dubious and couldn't remotely compare to MIT, Stanford, whatever, and I guess I agree... from my experience, they do go through a more rigorous academic experience (not to say that WashU is easy).
When I was there just recently they were in their mid-thirties for engineering. However, WashU has been going on an across-the-board buying spree, hiring all sorts of big Law and Business profs, and at the time they were building I think 3 classroom buildings and 1 new dormitory. Not to mention there's all sorts of MetroLink expansion around the area. I'd say a major up-and-coming school indeed (recently broke Top 10). Anyway, I think they're doing the same with Engineering, hiring many big-shot profs and planning new buildings on the already cramped campus. So I'd say they're really pushing the engineering rather than letting it slide down the tubes. It's not the med school, but respectable.
The problem is that I don't feel that Wash U enjoys the same sort of recognition that other schools (like Northwestern, the Ivies, or the dreaded Notre Dame) enjoy. Granted, this is in some part due to their athletic programs, which I earlier scorned, but I wish that WashU had a higher profile (maybe they do have a high profile and I just don't know it).
Though it's a moot point for me (I'm a 4-year grad), a good rule of thumb might be: "Any place that offers completion of the high school diploma as well as a high-tech degree..." Well, you know the rest.
These places are clearly businesses first, with the "Starbucks mentality" of sprouting campuses everywhere and hoping that the disenfranchised see it as a way into the executive washroom.
I have a friend who works for the company that markets University of Phoenix. He confesses that they are clearly just a business using the typical (dubious) marketing techniques (Disclaimer: Quinstreet is essentially a SPAM/Pop-Up design company, so unleash your wrath). He doesn't like what his company does but his rationale is what everybody else's is. It's a job.
But, then again, my "real" University resorted to, if I recall, a lot of mass mailings (like many colleges), and it's not a bad school.
I've coded projects in both Java and C++ (and benchmarked them, actually), and in my experience (which is just that) the C++ ran more quickly than Java. You're entitled to disagree. Where I work we use OptimizeIt which does help things out, but our software still runs absolutely dreadfully (I won't deny that likely much of it is the programming itself). But I still stand by my contention that C++ allows you to run faster than Java. It allows you greater control (directly) and doesn't impose any of the overhead of hierarchy that Java does.
I enjoy Java and program in Java and will confess that the stuff they include is usually useful (our software would probably be fscked if we didn't have GC or any of these other features, they just degrade performance (and I believe they have to). I would love to hear your response.
When I describe the mark and sweep method, it is the most common, and will likely be the most frequently used. However check here for an analysis of the other types. If garbage collection were a lightweight, trivial process, then why would Java need to implement 6 different schemes?
Incidentally, we tried testing the various different schemes here and it was a mess trying to get anything out of it.
Yeah, all you have to do is null the object and it'll be collected. Keep in mind, though, that in C++ you just do a delete (or a dealloc) and it's gone, you don't need to scan the whole environment doing reference counts and then doing the corresponding deallocs.
I agree that Java is fine, and it's sturdy, and it's a delight to use, it's just that (all the way up to the great-grandparent) I think that he got it right when Java programmers are (rightfully so) more concerned about all these optimizations (why do you think they're necessary?) than about any sort of run-time security.
The two things probably work in coordination. From my experience, Java does generally represent a performance drop from, say, C++. And so I think that's true regardless.
I think on top of that, Java does so much stuff, like garbage collection, that programmers don't need to worry about it. But the Java optimizations are always implemented conservatively. If I did my own garbage collection, I could free the memory as soon as I'm done with it, but under Java GC is done only periodically, and only sweeps items that fulfill certain qualities (so it might not get everything as soon as it should).
But you're right, a big part of it is that under Java many developers might be able to code sloppily and not worry too much because they have the defense that "it's the Java that's making it slow".
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, how many incarnations of Batman have we had (even the embarrassing ones, right?). If he's being honest, and is retiring him even if they make a lot of money, then it must mean that it's a personal decision, and they're unwilling to simply milk a cash cow or popular brand name because it'll make money with potentially inferior product. **cough**GeorgeLucas**cough**
Possibly, but might it not backfire? People might not want to watch the new one because what's the point, there won't be a sequel so why invest the time and all the emotion? Why make such a huge intellectual investment?
Yeah, but for many people (especially CEOs, after a while) such decisions have nothing to do with pay. Many of these CEOs work up the ladder (or establish the company, in Dell's case) put in the effort and the hours, earn hundreds of millions of dollars, and don't see any reason to continue working, even though they might make $500K, $1M.
It says that he had softened his role previously, working on big picture issues, and all the things that are sort of fun to do and don't necessarily generate a hard product, so it probably won't change anything. Probably he just got burned out and wanted to do regattas, Larry Ellison-style.
[insert sexual innuendo or crude comment here]
Okay.
You're sister's the laptop version of your sister.
She's on top of my lap right now, actually.
The only thing thats actually big about this notebook (other than the size ofcourse) is the hard-drive
How about your wang when all the chicks see you in the airport working spreadsheets on this thing?
Maybe not so poor. This might actually be somewhat successful as a not-too-expensive and semi-portable desktop.
My desktop at home is powerful enough (though getting a little old) with plenty of HD space and decent amounts of RAM (old, though), but it's aggravating how difficult it is to move it (in case I just want a change of scenery in my apartment). My laptop at work is by no means state-of-the-art, but it's small enough and, I suppose, light enough, but it's completely wimpy, and they can't really put too much into laptops without making it ridiculously expensive.
It seems like it might possibly succeed with those who would like a bit more power than a regular laptop, but are also looking for some more portability than a regular desktop. I'm trying to think, maybe gamers, or something?
It seems like this segment might be pitiably small, and I'll probably stick with desktops, but it'd be interesting to see who (if anybody) buys into this.
I got it wrong.
...
So sue me.
Wait, I shouldn't have said that
It's foolish, of course. Trying to protect silly "trade secrets" behind a poorly conceived law is the worst thing to happen to digital media (and the internet). It's like being a restauranteur and crying "No fair" and refusing to sell desserts to customers who taste a dessert and ask, "Is that cinnamon?"
If people are going to buy your product, and be exposed to it, they will naturally have to gain some familiarity with it. It's silly to want a food critic taste your food so he could publish a glowing review and then get upset when he writes what he (correctly) believes to be your ingredients.
The DVD-CAA wants the DVD format to be adopted and for it to be widespread and popular, but they complain about anything that comes from people using it and that would help distribution.
It's been said, but if they want their DVD encryption to be impenetrable (and hence popular with the MPAA) they should actually try to make it tough to crack instead of hiding behind a flimsy law that has apparently been dismissed in this particular case.
It's just like any software (i.e. IE) being lackadaisical about security and then complaining about people breaking the law by writing viruses. Yeah, it's a law, and people shouldn't do it, but then some people also don't care.
Yeah, unfortunately, gamers these days are from an entirely different generation than those of 10 - 20 years ago.
With MTV and flashy graphics and an emphasis on getting a quick hit, it seems like entertainment requiring "investment" is falling from our culture. Sports games are designed to have mere 5 minute quarters, there are FPS that allow you to jump in get 10 kills and bail, and many good television shows containing a consistent storyline (rather than the flavor-of-the-week variety) don't end up being so successful (running jokes/themes aside).
It's likewise no surprise that the old computer game staples (adventure games, text games, those ASCII RPGs) are becoming increasingly less popular.
But perhaps there is hope. Books (something I deem to be a yardstick for people's interest in imaginative entertainment and attention-span -- as true or not as it may be) have been selling increasingly more.
People say that books are a dying medium, but perhaps some life remains with the success of Harry Potter and perhaps the frequent coupling of Hollywood blockbusters with current novels.
But I guess we'll have to see if games start taking a new route, themselves.
I agree completely with your post. I can dig Wired for some "light reading" but I find it far too often panders to the casual techie who is more into what new gadgets they can buy to store phone numbers than what actually goes on inside them. Wired is technology not for the sake of technology (or knowledge, or whatever), but technology to be edgy and cool. Wired glorifies google because they are hip and hot, and vilifies Microsoft (not that I disagree, per se) because Microsoft is stodgy and megalomaniacal. Google is private and still independent, while Microsoft is public and capitalistic.
It will be interesting to see how Google and Microsoft handle the impending collision of egos as Microsoft will inevitably try to capture or dislodge Google.
I use google, but I'm more than a little cautious about their privacy policies. The fact search that you mention would be an amazing enhancement to google, so that I wouldn't have to scour through some dozens of online stores before I can get to some actual information. I hope it comes soon.
As far as my projected future of google, they're going to go public someday (because they will become very very rich), and then they'll turn into every other corporation in America, losing their edge for conservatism and becoming too big for anybody's good (or are they already too big?)
Right, and those risks are incorporated into the fair market value (deceptive, though, because Google is still private). Microsoft is a huge corporation with a huge pool of self-interested investors run by people who only seek to increase shareholder value (viva capitalistas!). You make a good point about the risk of $10 billion, but the fact that Microsoft made the offer (regardless of what fraction of cash reserves this offer represents) means that Microsoft assessed the risk (I'm sure they did) and either deemed it not too risky, or a risky investment with potential payoffs that made it worthwhile.
Additionally, there don't even necessarily need to be any assurances about the payoffs. All that matters is the NPV (including factors such as volatility, discount rates, etc.) is positive. It doesn't matter if they pay $10 billion now and the $20 billion payoff comes 10 years down the road, if the present value of that $20 billion 10 years from now is $10 billion and one penny then (technically) it's a good investment.
The fact that the payoff is 10 years from now does not matter at all to the investor because he/she can always sell it for what it's worth today in the free market (though it is almost always -- excluding deflation -- true that a $20 bn payoff tomorrow will be worth more than a $20 bn payoff in 10 years).
I agree, mostly, but I'm an engineer as you (probably?) are. We see the practicality and functionality of google for what it is, and don't need the bells and whistles and all those other things that might make it "cool". But we (as engineers) might prefer a Unix command prompt over a flashier Windows GUI, but then Windows happens to be the present dominant OS out there.
Obviously google has become a huge success and that success is most likely due to it's performance (results and speed, fraud-busting, etc.), but I'm not sure how the "general populace" would feel about any visual enhancements or additional features. Perhaps the average user might be intimidated by all sorts of other bizarre features, or maybe they would appreciate them because (as the author Michael Chabon said) they'd get the opportunity to catch new links to potentially interesting information (or maybe the map might save them a trip to mapquest, or something).
I think google is fine and I use it and everything, but I did think the map feature was interesting (of course, not for a standard search, but perhaps as a special search). I'm sure that there are some other features that would be popular with the computer users who aren't all business either.
I mean, there's a reason why so many people go to huge portals like cruel.com or joke sites like the Spark, because they're looking for a distraction, and some of these "enhancements" would provide just that.
Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?
Economics says that $10 billion is what Google's worth (in Microsoft's perception) or, more likely, since Google rejected the offer, $10 billion is less than what they believe Google's value to be. That's why.
It doesn't matter if it's half their money or all of their money, if Microsoft assesses a certain value to a company, they'll be willing to make the corresponding offer. (They've done so before).
There's another, less interesting, article with the headline:
"Microsoft's Linux Strategist Speaks on Platform"
Trust me, it's a really boring story.
Damn, kids are so spoiled these days, when I was a kid all we got to play with was a stick and a warning not to poke your eye out.
Or another old toy reference...
Do NOT taunt HAPPYFUNBALL!
... either that or add a comment right before the pertinent code:
/* Code used with permission: Microsoft Corporation */
...)
(Not that your clients would have your source code to look at, but
Yeah, the sad truth seems to be that when prioritizing general and regression testing seems to rank low on the list because it doesn't actually create new product (though it is of course necessary, we aren't selling our testing, we're selling our new code).
... and it doesn't help that a big chunk of our source code was recently leaked.
With marketers and product managers and sales people all pushing our product and making wild promises about delivery dates and patch dates it becomes a fruitless effort to keep on top of the regression testing, and I've found that with the software at my company, it's sort of ramped up until it'll reach a breaking point where we'll just need to scrap big portions of our system and release a whole new build, likely using "Buzzwords" or cryptic acronyms that are supposed to indicate progress.
Yeah, I can't tell you how many times, at all levels of my company, we are told simply to try it again, and to change the parameters and how the error must be "configurational".
Try telling the client that what they want to do with our software and how they want to use it is a "configurational" problem and they're using our software incorrectly, and 9 times out of 10 the clients (in our case, major banks) will drop our software.
But then again, Microsoft uses the "configuration" argument all the time with its customers, so I guess it works sometimes.
Yeah who needs a book?
e tObjectFromDefaults(_a, _b, _kl1, _z56), new UtilSocket(_p23876, _p5541), new Runnable() { public void run() { runDataSetAnalysis(_p1, _p2, _paramClass); } });
System.out.println("1");
ComplexClassInstantiator _cci = new ComplexClassInstantiator((UtilType)ClassGrabber.g
System.out.println("2");
Output: 1
[Error message]
So obviously the error is in the line between the two print statements.
So, I repeat, who needs a book?
Well, I loved Wash U ... I thought it was a great education without all of the attitude (i.e. of any of the Ivies, Stanford, Northwestern), and so sue me, I didn't miss the major athletics (I'm a purist, I consider them great and all, but also a bastardization of academia -- as evidenced by Colorado right now). Splendid school and I miss it a lot.
... from my experience, they do go through a more rigorous academic experience (not to say that WashU is easy).
I had always heard uncertain things about the Engineering there, that it was dubious and couldn't remotely compare to MIT, Stanford, whatever, and I guess I agree
When I was there just recently they were in their mid-thirties for engineering. However, WashU has been going on an across-the-board buying spree, hiring all sorts of big Law and Business profs, and at the time they were building I think 3 classroom buildings and 1 new dormitory. Not to mention there's all sorts of MetroLink expansion around the area. I'd say a major up-and-coming school indeed (recently broke Top 10). Anyway, I think they're doing the same with Engineering, hiring many big-shot profs and planning new buildings on the already cramped campus. So I'd say they're really pushing the engineering rather than letting it slide down the tubes. It's not the med school, but respectable.
The problem is that I don't feel that Wash U enjoys the same sort of recognition that other schools (like Northwestern, the Ivies, or the dreaded Notre Dame) enjoy. Granted, this is in some part due to their athletic programs, which I earlier scorned, but I wish that WashU had a higher profile (maybe they do have a high profile and I just don't know it).
Just my thoughts, from a fellow grad.
Though it's a moot point for me (I'm a 4-year grad), a good rule of thumb might be: "Any place that offers completion of the high school diploma as well as a high-tech degree ..." Well, you know the rest.
These places are clearly businesses first, with the "Starbucks mentality" of sprouting campuses everywhere and hoping that the disenfranchised see it as a way into the executive washroom.
I have a friend who works for the company that markets University of Phoenix. He confesses that they are clearly just a business using the typical (dubious) marketing techniques (Disclaimer: Quinstreet is essentially a SPAM/Pop-Up design company, so unleash your wrath). He doesn't like what his company does but his rationale is what everybody else's is. It's a job.
But, then again, my "real" University resorted to, if I recall, a lot of mass mailings (like many colleges), and it's not a bad school.
Each business has it's target demographic.
I've coded projects in both Java and C++ (and benchmarked them, actually), and in my experience (which is just that) the C++ ran more quickly than Java. You're entitled to disagree. Where I work we use OptimizeIt which does help things out, but our software still runs absolutely dreadfully (I won't deny that likely much of it is the programming itself). But I still stand by my contention that C++ allows you to run faster than Java. It allows you greater control (directly) and doesn't impose any of the overhead of hierarchy that Java does.
I enjoy Java and program in Java and will confess that the stuff they include is usually useful (our software would probably be fscked if we didn't have GC or any of these other features, they just degrade performance (and I believe they have to). I would love to hear your response.
When I describe the mark and sweep method, it is the most common, and will likely be the most frequently used. However check here for an analysis of the other types. If garbage collection were a lightweight, trivial process, then why would Java need to implement 6 different schemes?
Incidentally, we tried testing the various different schemes here and it was a mess trying to get anything out of it.
Yeah, all you have to do is null the object and it'll be collected. Keep in mind, though, that in C++ you just do a delete (or a dealloc) and it's gone, you don't need to scan the whole environment doing reference counts and then doing the corresponding deallocs.
I agree that Java is fine, and it's sturdy, and it's a delight to use, it's just that (all the way up to the great-grandparent) I think that he got it right when Java programmers are (rightfully so) more concerned about all these optimizations (why do you think they're necessary?) than about any sort of run-time security.
Again, just my opinion.
The two things probably work in coordination. From my experience, Java does generally represent a performance drop from, say, C++. And so I think that's true regardless.
I think on top of that, Java does so much stuff, like garbage collection, that programmers don't need to worry about it. But the Java optimizations are always implemented conservatively. If I did my own garbage collection, I could free the memory as soon as I'm done with it, but under Java GC is done only periodically, and only sweeps items that fulfill certain qualities (so it might not get everything as soon as it should).
But you're right, a big part of it is that under Java many developers might be able to code sloppily and not worry too much because they have the defense that "it's the Java that's making it slow".
Yeah, it's like adding another lock on a door.
All you need to do is figure out the scheme that the obfuscator uses and reverse engineer that. Ad finitum.