That's more true than you know, and I have seen it mentioned explicitly by developers on Eclipse mailing lists. For example, Eclipse uses the same "run level" concept to start up the plugins. The core plugins such as install/update manager (configurator in Eclipse-speak) and extension manager get started on lower runlevels and the rest later on. You can even get a console prompt (for OSGi) if you run it with just the bare-bones framework.
I would answer "not until we get off this rock." I'm ambivalent to this and other species-engineering changes such as machine implants. I respect the basic argument that this is choice and that you have the right to choose. I would, however, insist on the consequences of those choices to be put into trial far and away from the one and only cradle of life we know. Let the immortals and cyborgs have their colonies so the rest of the population who want to play it safe can see how they fare and adopt what they like later.
This reminds me of a book I read some time ago, Perdido Street Station from China Mieville. There was an avian race whose only crime in their justice system was differing levels of "choice theft". The argument went like this: if you steal something from someone, you take away her potential choices in using what you have stolen, choices she would have had the opportunity to make. Murder is the worst, since you have, in effect, stolen all her choices for a lifetime, and of others who would have had her in *their* life. It was a neat, elegant way of looking at crime and justice from a fresh point of view.
Exactly. There are already a bunch of licenses that will make sure the source in original or modified form will stay open, but allow its use in all software. Complaining about viral characteristics of GPL immediately is little more than knee-jerk action on Gosling's part since it's one extreme of a whole spectrum of possibilities, and we, as fellow geeks, feel he should know better. It's hard to imagine that he doesn't know there are other options to open sourcing Java.
On the other hand, it always seemed to me that it's close to impossible finding a middle ground if you want to argue with RMS, and people just don't try it anymore.
If you look at where the technology is leading to, you can see that smaller, cheaper servers have consistently encroached on the land of big iron. Yes, they aren't capable of replacing a Sun E15000, not yet. But you have to ask yourself if large scale grids, more seamless distributed computing and other advances will gradually eat away at all the advantages of the big boxes. Just look at Google and their 100,000 node cluster of clusters, and you'll see a glimpse of what will eventually constrain the big boxes to a very small niche, if not outright kill them.
The aspect of the GPL that he seems to be remarking on with his "viral infection clause" comment is that it permits you to modify and redistribute the software licensed under it, provided the new work is also licensed under the GPL.
No, this is not what he's talking about. He's referring to the fact that if you link with a GPL'd library, even without modification, your software needs to be licensed with GPL. In this case, if Java was licensed in GPL, all software written would also have to be licensed in GPL.
Oy... that doesn't make me feel good about this new Atlantis thing. Andromeda has been a smoldering wreck for a long time now, I hope this guy is not actually one of the responsible ones.
I like this season (last night being an exception) overall...
Last night's episode was one of the best I've seen in all the seasons, and this season actually has some of the worst episodes, which got me worried for a time that SCI-FI had screwed up another series. I was actually taken aback by the intensity of Carter's reaction to the death of the doctor and the quality to some of the dialogue. The ambiguity of the documentary maker's intentions and the crew's reactions were nicely done. There's always some cheekiness in SG-1 and a few things that make you cringe, but I'd say the last two episodes have surpassed all the previous seasons in quality.
Since when do we need the blessing of JCP to write libraries or frameworks? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of JCP (yes, I said it) but it is absurd to think of it as the Vatican of Java software. SWT happens to be a GUI toolkit that's used by Eclipse, it's not even a library that you need for Java programs written using Eclipse, which would be a Very Bad Thing. As for all the fanboys eager to see Swing go, you should know that there's a as large a gap between SWT and Swing as between AWT and Swing in terms of functionality.
What Eclipse is bringing to the table with its latest 3.0 version though, is RCP (Rich Client Platform). Instead of building client applications from scratch, you would use the (very elegant, in my opinion) plug-in framework and the UI framework (based on SWT). This is more like building it from standard parts in the frameworks, custom parts you develop yourself and a whole bunch of connecting glue and actions and business logic as needed. I've done it, and it works very nicely once you get over the (admittedly high, bu still easier than NetBeans) learning curve.
I wonder how this is going to affect the implementation of Java and cross platform UI toolkits (SWT, QT etc) on Windows. Once the primary Windows API's are on.NET instead of Win32 these folks will have to figure out how to integrate with the.NET runtime as closely as they use Win32 in C/C+. In the case of Java and.NET, you have two managed environments and parts of one is supposed to be implemented in terms of the other. It's going to be a mess straightening this one out...
If you read the articles on Avalon and other UI bits, it looks like Windows Forms (the client UI API's in.NET) is being left behind in Longhorn. Leave it to Microsoft to pull the rug out from under an API that's just two years old. And don't forget to congratulate the Mono crowd for investing all that effort into duplicating a completely proprietary API that now looks destined to be dumped in a few years time.
Jobs are fleeing to "India and a number of other countries" (I love Eddie Izzard, if you can't tell) because people can not move as easily as jobs can. This is not an inherent limitation; it's the way things have been left because of fear, ignorance and short-sightedness. You have to realize that the market for "places to live" is one of the least open markets; all countries limit movement of people across borders. Unfortunately, free trade necessitates free (as in free to move) labor if you don't want to deal with the results of skewed feedback loops.
The way things are now, jobs will shift away from US, resulting in domestic economy having to deal with all the job losses immediately, while the potential gain from increased demand by the newly formed middle class in developing countries will only start to have an effect in middle or long term. Meanwhile, we will all have to go through a painful adjustment period.
In the alternative fantasy world where we didn't have our heads up in our asses, we would open up the borders for people who can have jobs here (ooh, what a scary thing to do, I hear you say) and benefit from the stimulus to the domestic economy an influx of talented people can bring. Yes, it will become more crowded, but then the world is a crowded place. It's time we realize we can't have our cake and eat it too; if we want open world markets then we will have to open ours or our own jobs will desert us.
I don't know about you but Windows XP consistently gets sluggish when copying large amounts of data (>5GB) on my Dell Inspiron 8100. I do agree though that OS has a bigger impact than the hardware for being responsive. In fact, my iMac 17" at home running OS X is much more responsive than Windows XP is on faster hardware. Just goes to show you how much Windows sucks, but we knew that already...
Re:What's with all of the bellyaching about speed?
on
Does C# Measure Up?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This is one of the specific things you can't really do with JNI and Java anymore. Java graphics is now really complicated. There's no way you'll be able to use low level OS rendering methods and have them integrate with Java2D and Swing.
Sure there is. Have a look at jawt.h header file that's included in your SDK installation. It allows you to access native window system primitives from JNI.
This sucks. I just replaced my old 10GB model with a 15GB iPod two days ago. I'll replace the damn thing with the 20GB model by paying the return fee, but man, am I ticked off...
How rare are they actually? I've read more than a few posts that state diamonds are not as rare as they seem to be, but no one says ( or knows?) to what extent they occur naturally. If the diamond supply was free, what would a carat of diamond cost?
Have a look at Eclipse web site. IBM develops and sells WSAD and uses the open-source Eclipse framework for base functionality. FAQ's have a few scenarios under which you can use Common Public License (roughly the same as MPL) with commercial software.
There is nothing left to innovate in software itself...
Nothing left to innovate in software? We've been at this for, let me see, about thirty years now, and you think we've done all that can be done? That sounds like saying we've seen the end of history. I'd say we'll be seeing a whole lot of different ways to build software, and fifty years from now, people won't even notice that's what they are doing. Just look at them using spreadsheets today.
I guess the idea is to use the explicit form if you need to fumble with the iterators themselves. You might want to use the filtering iterators in Commons Collections or actually remove items, then you need the iterator itself.
"iterator()" is actually less special than Object.toString(), which is called in string concatanation. At least it's defined in an interface. Now, you could call the use of "Iterable" interface a special default too, but again it would be no more special then the way "TypeName.class" syntax is used to get a "Class" object. In a general sense, it's syntax directly hardwired to a special class, which Java has a lot of examples for. Unless we can define our own syntax in our programs (like Mathematica patterns, Lisp macros?) these things will continue to be pushed as "features", no way around it...
That's how it exactly works, go look at the spec. 'SimpleIterator" is a read only iterator interface that does not have the "remove" method, java.util.Iterator now extends that. Any expression that has a type of Iterable, including arrays, will work in the enhanced for-loop.
Built-in support for iteration does not depend on packages other than java.lang, they specifically mention this in the documentation. There is a new Iterable interface in java.lang that the collections implement, so you can make your own classes participate in the same mechanism if you want.
Cleaning up the core libraries should never mean rearranging them according to some fleeting sense of pure aesthetics. Even a cleaned-up Java has to provide some amount of backward compatibility for existing code. Changing the collections' package just doesn't make anyone's job easier.
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
I'm assuming the photons resulting from this transition would have a single and known wavelength, so you could say the mass equivalent to N photons resulting from this transition is a kg. IANAP, but this seems possible to me. It would also define mass in terms of time, which is apparently desirable. Then again, people much smarter than me have thought about this...
Great point. In fact, I think it was pretty clear from the architect scene that there weren't an onion-like series of matrixes. Apparently, the architect guy and the Oracle (revealed to be an "intuitive" AI developed to analyze human psyche, btw) came up with the idea of Zion and the prophecy in order to prevent the last 0.5 percent of humanity that refused to be convinced of the false reality of Matrix from destabilizing it.
This way, they could intentionally channel the unruly minority to Zion over a number of years and destroy the whole bunch of them in one shot, then get a new cycle to begin by letting The One choose a bunch of people, go away and start the whole thing over. By giving them one obvious exit, they make sure the effects are controllable. In fact, the verbose architect guy tells us that they're getting pretty efficient at destroying Zion since this is like the 6th or so cycle.
I think it was a rather brilliant plot move. Unfortunately, the verbosity of the scene reduced the impact greatly for a lot of people when I saw it. It's also a huge turn of events in the movie, and it could have used more time for the consequences to sink in the minds of the audience. The Oracle was setting up Morpheus and the gang from the start and their "choice" to revolt against machines was nothing but a precisely calculated and executed turn of events masterminded by the Architect up until now. Of course, Neo had to throw a wrench into the whole thing (so there would be something for the third movie) by not making the choice expected of him and chose to save gorgeous girlfriend instead of preventing the whole of human race to go extinct (I forget how this was supposed to happen, something to do with the Matrix crashing completely and killing everyone connected to it).
Man, this was such a nerdy thing to write. I feel like my chances of successfully bumping uglies with a member of the opposite sex is getting lower every time geek out like this...
Slashdot Mirror
Does the Eject key work? It always pisses me off that there are no PC keyboards with an eject key, for some reason I find that very useful.
That's more true than you know, and I have seen it mentioned explicitly by developers on Eclipse mailing lists. For example, Eclipse uses the same "run level" concept to start up the plugins. The core plugins such as install/update manager (configurator in Eclipse-speak) and extension manager get started on lower runlevels and the rest later on. You can even get a console prompt (for OSGi) if you run it with just the bare-bones framework.
I would answer "not until we get off this rock." I'm ambivalent to this and other species-engineering changes such as machine implants. I respect the basic argument that this is choice and that you have the right to choose. I would, however, insist on the consequences of those choices to be put into trial far and away from the one and only cradle of life we know. Let the immortals and cyborgs have their colonies so the rest of the population who want to play it safe can see how they fare and adopt what they like later.
Japan spends nearly $50 billion a year on its military (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2067rank.html). Mitsubishi actually manufactures a custom version of F-15 for the Japanese (defense) air force (http://www.mhi.co.jp/aero/english/productf/b02.ht m). Get your facts straight.
This reminds me of a book I read some time ago, Perdido Street Station from China Mieville. There was an avian race whose only crime in their justice system was differing levels of "choice theft". The argument went like this: if you steal something from someone, you take away her potential choices in using what you have stolen, choices she would have had the opportunity to make. Murder is the worst, since you have, in effect, stolen all her choices for a lifetime, and of others who would have had her in *their* life. It was a neat, elegant way of looking at crime and justice from a fresh point of view.
Exactly. There are already a bunch of licenses that will make sure the source in original or modified form will stay open, but allow its use in all software. Complaining about viral characteristics of GPL immediately is little more than knee-jerk action on Gosling's part since it's one extreme of a whole spectrum of possibilities, and we, as fellow geeks, feel he should know better. It's hard to imagine that he doesn't know there are other options to open sourcing Java.
On the other hand, it always seemed to me that it's close to impossible finding a middle ground if you want to argue with RMS, and people just don't try it anymore.
If you look at where the technology is leading to, you can see that smaller, cheaper servers have consistently encroached on the land of big iron. Yes, they aren't capable of replacing a Sun E15000, not yet. But you have to ask yourself if large scale grids, more seamless distributed computing and other advances will gradually eat away at all the advantages of the big boxes. Just look at Google and their 100,000 node cluster of clusters, and you'll see a glimpse of what will eventually constrain the big boxes to a very small niche, if not outright kill them.
Oy... that doesn't make me feel good about this new Atlantis thing. Andromeda has been a smoldering wreck for a long time now, I hope this guy is not actually one of the responsible ones.
Since when do we need the blessing of JCP to write libraries or frameworks? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of JCP (yes, I said it) but it is absurd to think of it as the Vatican of Java software. SWT happens to be a GUI toolkit that's used by Eclipse, it's not even a library that you need for Java programs written using Eclipse, which would be a Very Bad Thing. As for all the fanboys eager to see Swing go, you should know that there's a as large a gap between SWT and Swing as between AWT and Swing in terms of functionality.
What Eclipse is bringing to the table with its latest 3.0 version though, is RCP (Rich Client Platform). Instead of building client applications from scratch, you would use the (very elegant, in my opinion) plug-in framework and the UI framework (based on SWT). This is more like building it from standard parts in the frameworks, custom parts you develop yourself and a whole bunch of connecting glue and actions and business logic as needed. I've done it, and it works very nicely once you get over the (admittedly high, bu still easier than NetBeans) learning curve.
I wonder how this is going to affect the implementation of Java and cross platform UI toolkits (SWT, QT etc) on Windows. Once the primary Windows API's are on .NET instead of Win32 these folks will have to figure out how to integrate with the .NET runtime as closely as they use Win32 in C/C+. In the case of Java and .NET, you have two managed environments and parts of one is supposed to be implemented in terms of the other. It's going to be a mess straightening this one out...
If you read the articles on Avalon and other UI bits, it looks like Windows Forms (the client UI API's in .NET) is being left behind in Longhorn. Leave it to Microsoft to pull the rug out from under an API that's just two years old. And don't forget to congratulate the Mono crowd for investing all that effort into duplicating a completely proprietary API that now looks destined to be dumped in a few years time.
Jobs are fleeing to "India and a number of other countries" (I love Eddie Izzard, if you can't tell) because people can not move as easily as jobs can. This is not an inherent limitation; it's the way things have been left because of fear, ignorance and short-sightedness. You have to realize that the market for "places to live" is one of the least open markets; all countries limit movement of people across borders. Unfortunately, free trade necessitates free (as in free to move) labor if you don't want to deal with the results of skewed feedback loops.
The way things are now, jobs will shift away from US, resulting in domestic economy having to deal with all the job losses immediately, while the potential gain from increased demand by the newly formed middle class in developing countries will only start to have an effect in middle or long term. Meanwhile, we will all have to go through a painful adjustment period.
In the alternative fantasy world where we didn't have our heads up in our asses, we would open up the borders for people who can have jobs here (ooh, what a scary thing to do, I hear you say) and benefit from the stimulus to the domestic economy an influx of talented people can bring. Yes, it will become more crowded, but then the world is a crowded place. It's time we realize we can't have our cake and eat it too; if we want open world markets then we will have to open ours or our own jobs will desert us.
I don't know about you but Windows XP consistently gets sluggish when copying large amounts of data (>5GB) on my Dell Inspiron 8100. I do agree though that OS has a bigger impact than the hardware for being responsive. In fact, my iMac 17" at home running OS X is much more responsive than Windows XP is on faster hardware. Just goes to show you how much Windows sucks, but we knew that already...
Sure there is. Have a look at jawt.h header file that's included in your SDK installation. It allows you to access native window system primitives from JNI.
This sucks. I just replaced my old 10GB model with a 15GB iPod two days ago. I'll replace the damn thing with the 20GB model by paying the return fee, but man, am I ticked off...
How rare are they actually? I've read more than a few posts that state diamonds are not as rare as they seem to be, but no one says ( or knows?) to what extent they occur naturally. If the diamond supply was free, what would a carat of diamond cost?
Have a look at Eclipse web site. IBM develops and sells WSAD and uses the open-source Eclipse framework for base functionality. FAQ's have a few scenarios under which you can use Common Public License (roughly the same as MPL) with commercial software.
Nothing left to innovate in software? We've been at this for, let me see, about thirty years now, and you think we've done all that can be done? That sounds like saying we've seen the end of history. I'd say we'll be seeing a whole lot of different ways to build software, and fifty years from now, people won't even notice that's what they are doing. Just look at them using spreadsheets today.
"iterator()" is actually less special than Object.toString(), which is called in string concatanation. At least it's defined in an interface. Now, you could call the use of "Iterable" interface a special default too, but again it would be no more special then the way "TypeName.class" syntax is used to get a "Class" object. In a general sense, it's syntax directly hardwired to a special class, which Java has a lot of examples for. Unless we can define our own syntax in our programs (like Mathematica patterns, Lisp macros?) these things will continue to be pushed as "features", no way around it...
That's how it exactly works, go look at the spec. 'SimpleIterator" is a read only iterator interface that does not have the "remove" method, java.util.Iterator now extends that. Any expression that has a type of Iterable, including arrays, will work in the enhanced for-loop.
Cleaning up the core libraries should never mean rearranging them according to some fleeting sense of pure aesthetics. Even a cleaned-up Java has to provide some amount of backward compatibility for existing code. Changing the collections' package just doesn't make anyone's job easier.
I'm assuming the photons resulting from this transition would have a single and known wavelength, so you could say the mass equivalent to N photons resulting from this transition is a kg. IANAP, but this seems possible to me. It would also define mass in terms of time, which is apparently desirable. Then again, people much smarter than me have thought about this...
Great point. In fact, I think it was pretty clear from the architect scene that there weren't an onion-like series of matrixes. Apparently, the architect guy and the Oracle (revealed to be an "intuitive" AI developed to analyze human psyche, btw) came up with the idea of Zion and the prophecy in order to prevent the last 0.5 percent of humanity that refused to be convinced of the false reality of Matrix from destabilizing it.
This way, they could intentionally channel the unruly minority to Zion over a number of years and destroy the whole bunch of them in one shot, then get a new cycle to begin by letting The One choose a bunch of people, go away and start the whole thing over. By giving them one obvious exit, they make sure the effects are controllable. In fact, the verbose architect guy tells us that they're getting pretty efficient at destroying Zion since this is like the 6th or so cycle.
I think it was a rather brilliant plot move. Unfortunately, the verbosity of the scene reduced the impact greatly for a lot of people when I saw it. It's also a huge turn of events in the movie, and it could have used more time for the consequences to sink in the minds of the audience. The Oracle was setting up Morpheus and the gang from the start and their "choice" to revolt against machines was nothing but a precisely calculated and executed turn of events masterminded by the Architect up until now. Of course, Neo had to throw a wrench into the whole thing (so there would be something for the third movie) by not making the choice expected of him and chose to save gorgeous girlfriend instead of preventing the whole of human race to go extinct (I forget how this was supposed to happen, something to do with the Matrix crashing completely and killing everyone connected to it).
Man, this was such a nerdy thing to write. I feel like my chances of successfully bumping uglies with a member of the opposite sex is getting lower every time geek out like this...