and I've used Windows, BeOS, and MacOS (9 & 10), as well as various Linuxes and Unixes.
X is fine for when you need it. I seldom need it, and I could run it as a separate app (inside a real windowing system) when I do. Anyhow, these days everything is migrating to the browser. X's approach is obsolete.
I admit to not caring about console games (I don't like the interface), but I doubt seriously that they don't use libraries. Even old DOS games used libraries for some things.
It used to be that most PC applications were written in assembly (circa, say, 1984-1985). Things change. I would guess that they will change for consoles as well, and for the same reasons.
A lot of what current games do is talk to the graphics card (via Direct 3D or whatever). That's all done through libraries.
If the Java 3D libraries (which can be and probably are written in C) are fast enough, Java might be adequate for many games.
There will always be games that push the edge of performance and require more. Most games don't (think Civ 3, or Warcraft, or even Everquest).
I could see Java working for games if they get the libraries right. Time to market is just as important for games as other products, and Java has significant time-to-market advantages over C++.
Then Mac OS is doomed to be a niche product, because most users are already too heavily invested in Intel hardware and software to want to switch. If Mac OS ran on Intel, I could at least reboot to play my old games. I don't have the space to keep an old box and a new box on my desk....
Windows sucks, but the software that runs under it doesn't.
What I read was 1) People hassle you when you use GPL but don't provide source for free, 2) Closed source allows distribution to store shelves, which gets the software "in front of" people, 3) Whining that not everyone likes commercial Linux companies.
The only remotely insightful point was (2), and it was pretty feeble. (How many Linux users look for software in stores? That sure isn't where I'd go first for Linux...)
As for GPL zelots hassling him or saying unpleasant things, yeah, so? Not everyone out there is going to appreciate you, and the Linux community is less commercially oriented than most. I'm not defending the zelots (who are often a**holes), but this isn't exactly a great revelation.
C got a huge boost as a language for programming PCs in the mid 80s. Prior to that, everyone used assembler... they didn't have much choice. PC processors weren't powerful enough for the desired applications. C's claim to fame was that it was fast.
In the same time period, Smalltalk's slowness and relatively exhorbitant memory requirements relegated it into a niche from which it has yet to recover.
Nowadays, Smalltalk would run fine on common desktop PCs -- certainly as well as Java for all but hardcore mathematical applications. But those first impressions still linger.
It's great to choose a language for its denotational properties if you are writing a one-off script, but it can be a lousy idea if you are planning a major project and scaling issues are important. What do you do if the language captures the essence of your problem well but runs like a pig? (Come to think of it, this is what happened to Stroustrup with Simula... remembering this experience, he created that C++.)
Denotational properties do matter. However, so do the operational properties. Which of the two is more important depends on the characteristics of the problem at hand.
The problem isn't that there aren't better languages than C/C++/Java/C#/Perl (whatever the next ugly language in this chain might be), the problem is that they are familiar and most folks don't want to venture outside the familiar. (And there's the little detail that a lot of source is already IN those languages.)
That's life. Folks eat at McDonald's too for some reason.
I think maybe you need to manage your anger or aggression a little better. There is nothing wrong with writing a post asking whether folks like their jobs.
I have to agree; I work for a non-profit and while it doesn't solve everything, in general they _are_ better to work for. The managers are more humane, and there is more emphasis on solving the problem rather just slapping something together to hit a deadline. They are in it for the long haul and that makes a big difference.
But... there is a noticable reduction in the rate of pay. Can't have everything.
Yes, I remember those days. Now they make you buy new versions of JBuilder just to get the bugs patched. (Fortunately, there are some good alternatives.)
Game companies don't choose their development platform based on what is easiest to program, the choose it based on what is practical to sell.
It's a chicken-and-egg situation. I've used MacOS X and like it, but I won't switch at home because MacOS is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind on games. Game companies can't switch because so many of their customers are on PCs.
Well, _some_ gamers buy consoles. If you like sports games, or driving games, consoles are great. If you like RPGs with depth of gameplay, or strategy games, consoles kind of suck.
Most gamers I know are neutral or even hostile to Windows. But we're stuck with it because that's where the games are.
I bought a few Linux games from Loki. They did a good job, but Linux is not a strong gaming platform. Transgaming will not help the situation; why bother with Linux if I'm playing Windows games? Only the truly committed will play them on Linux.
What Linux needs is a strong technical advantage to games running on it. Right now, no such advantage exists. The graphical APIs are behind Windows. The driver support is obviously weaker. I cannot imagine why a game would be better on Linux. (And I like Linux... for what it is.)
I think Windows has got this market locked up at the moment. It's sad.
... for most software. Most software projects are late because:
1) The customers or product manager(s) can't decide what features they want and the project keeps changing.
2) Internal organizational politics.
3) Poor project management practices.
4) Internal organizational politics.
5) Inadequate staff.
6) Internal organizational politics.
Most programming projects are IT-related rather than "Computer Science"-related and have modest algorithmic complexity. It isn't figuring out the algorithm that's the problem; it's figuring out the problem to be solved itself, in many many cases. And, even in shrinkwrap (not my area of expertise), I think that dreaming up killer features is a lot harder than implementing them.
Politics kills projects all the time. Boss A has a vendetta against Boss B and sticks him with a project that requires 10 stud programmers for a year, but only gives him 5 weak programmers. Or, Bob is jealous that Dave is going out with Cindy so he won't cooperate and does a lot of passive aggressive crap. Or... well, you get the idea. People matter more than everything else and so politics matters a lot.
Many failed projects exhibit a "random walk" across the solution landscape, as programmers fart around with ideas that are fun to program but only modestly related to the problem at hand. Good project managers do not let the project drift.
And I've seen a lot of cases where I was committed 50% on project A, 50% on project B, 50% on project C, 40% on project D,... etc. Needless to say, this leads to late projects.
But it isn't that most of these projects are that hard. Database programming (or web development, or building an editor, or...) is not rocket science.
Yeah, I'm forced to agree. X is there for historical reasons, but it's hard for me to imagine Linux becoming a really fast graphical desktop OS using X. KDE has made Linux more appealing, but X is still a huge downside.
But I've long since realized that Linux is destined to remain a geek OS because that's what most of its developers/fanboys want it to be.
Having been involved in decisions to use Java over Smalltalk (and I agree that Smalltalk is the better language), I would say that
1) The fact that there is one standard Java vs. many dialects of Smalltalk works to Java's advantage. Companies fear being "stuck" with a particular Smalltalk vendor.
2) Java covers such a broad range of technologies that it makes the suits more comfortable. Sure, you can find app servers for Smalltalk -- but nothing like the level of vendor support that exists for Java. And, of course, there isn't any common standard like J2EE (see point 1).
3) Java is more C-like. Lots of folks know a C-like language. This makes Java easier to learn, and a more comfortable fit. (Sure, it would be better to learn Smalltalk -- but a surprising number of programmers don't seem to want to learn new languages.)
Sad to say, but I think the Smalltalk vendors had their chance and dropped the ball. The current explosion of Java tools and libraries is amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather fragment and have something better. Sorry, I've been using X for years. I still think it sucks.
and I've used Windows, BeOS, and MacOS (9 & 10), as well as various Linuxes and Unixes.
X is fine for when you need it. I seldom need it, and I could run it as a separate app (inside a real windowing system) when I do. Anyhow, these days everything is migrating to the browser. X's approach is obsolete.
...since the biggest weakness in Linux as a desktop is X and its window managers. (KDE has made the situation much better, but.)
An open BeOS in top of the Linux kernel sounds terrific.
I admit to not caring about console games (I don't like the interface), but I doubt seriously that they don't use libraries. Even old DOS games used libraries for some things.
It used to be that most PC applications were written in assembly (circa, say, 1984-1985). Things change. I would guess that they will change for consoles as well, and for the same reasons.
Most of the RPG's I've played in the last 3 years are not available on the Mac. I could not care less about games like Quake.
A lot of what current games do is talk to the graphics card (via Direct 3D or whatever). That's all done through libraries.
If the Java 3D libraries (which can be and probably are written in C) are fast enough, Java might be adequate for many games.
There will always be games that push the edge of performance and require more. Most games don't (think Civ 3, or Warcraft, or even Everquest).
I could see Java working for games if they get the libraries right. Time to market is just as important for games as other products, and Java has significant time-to-market advantages over C++.
Then Mac OS is doomed to be a niche product, because most users are already too heavily invested in Intel hardware and software to want to switch. If Mac OS ran on Intel, I could at least reboot to play my old games. I don't have the space to keep an old box and a new box on my desk....
Windows sucks, but the software that runs under it doesn't.
What I read was
1) People hassle you when you use GPL but don't provide source for free,
2) Closed source allows distribution to store shelves, which gets the software "in front of" people,
3) Whining that not everyone likes commercial Linux companies.
The only remotely insightful point was (2), and it was pretty feeble. (How many Linux users look for software in stores? That sure isn't where I'd go first for Linux...)
As for GPL zelots hassling him or saying unpleasant things, yeah, so? Not everyone out there is going to appreciate you, and the Linux community is less commercially oriented than most. I'm not defending the zelots (who are often a**holes), but this isn't exactly a great revelation.
it was funny ;-)
Speaking only for myself, here. I would resign immediately, and report the abuse to the FSF.
Life is too short to work for lowlife scum.
Some examples:
C got a huge boost as a language for programming PCs in the mid 80s. Prior to that, everyone used assembler... they didn't have much choice. PC processors weren't powerful enough for the desired applications. C's claim to fame was that it was fast.
In the same time period, Smalltalk's slowness and relatively exhorbitant memory requirements relegated it into a niche from which it has yet to recover.
Nowadays, Smalltalk would run fine on common desktop PCs -- certainly as well as Java for all but hardcore mathematical applications. But those first impressions still linger.
It's great to choose a language for its denotational properties if you are writing a one-off script, but it can be a lousy idea if you are planning a major project and scaling issues are important. What do you do if the language captures the essence of your problem well but runs like a pig? (Come to think of it, this is what happened to Stroustrup with Simula... remembering this experience, he created that C++.)
Denotational properties do matter. However, so do the operational properties. Which of the two is more important depends on the characteristics of the problem at hand.
Check out http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html
The problem isn't that there aren't better languages than C/C++/Java/C#/Perl (whatever the next ugly language in this chain might be), the problem is that they are familiar and most folks don't want to venture outside the familiar. (And there's the little detail that a lot of source is already IN those languages.)
That's life. Folks eat at McDonald's too for some reason.
I think maybe you need to manage your anger or aggression a little better. There is nothing wrong with writing a post asking whether folks like their jobs.
I have to agree; I work for a non-profit and while it doesn't solve everything, in general they _are_ better to work for. The managers are more humane, and there is more emphasis on solving the problem rather just slapping something together to hit a deadline. They are in it for the long haul and that makes a big difference.
But... there is a noticable reduction in the rate of pay. Can't have everything.
Yes, I remember those days. Now they make you buy new versions of JBuilder just to get the bugs patched. (Fortunately, there are some good alternatives.)
Game companies don't choose their development platform based on what is easiest to program, the choose it based on what is practical to sell.
It's a chicken-and-egg situation. I've used MacOS X and like it, but I won't switch at home because MacOS is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind on games. Game companies can't switch because so many of their customers are on PCs.
It's really a shame.
Well, _some_ gamers buy consoles. If you like sports games, or driving games, consoles are great. If you like RPGs with depth of gameplay, or strategy games, consoles kind of suck.
Most gamers I know are neutral or even hostile to Windows. But we're stuck with it because that's where the games are.
I bought a few Linux games from Loki. They did a good job, but Linux is not a strong gaming platform. Transgaming will not help the situation; why bother with Linux if I'm playing Windows games? Only the truly committed will play them on Linux.
What Linux needs is a strong technical advantage to games running on it. Right now, no such advantage exists. The graphical APIs are behind Windows. The driver support is obviously weaker. I cannot imagine why a game would be better on Linux. (And I like Linux... for what it is.)
I think Windows has got this market locked up at the moment. It's sad.
... for most software. Most software projects are late because:
... etc. Needless to say, this leads to late projects.
1) The customers or product manager(s) can't decide what features they want and the project keeps changing.
2) Internal organizational politics.
3) Poor project management practices.
4) Internal organizational politics.
5) Inadequate staff.
6) Internal organizational politics.
Most programming projects are IT-related rather than "Computer Science"-related and have modest algorithmic complexity. It isn't figuring out the algorithm that's the problem; it's figuring out the problem to be solved itself, in many many cases. And, even in shrinkwrap (not my area of expertise), I think that dreaming up killer features is a lot harder than implementing them.
Politics kills projects all the time. Boss A has a vendetta against Boss B and sticks him with a project that requires 10 stud programmers for a year, but only gives him 5 weak programmers. Or, Bob is jealous that Dave is going out with Cindy so he won't cooperate and does a lot of passive aggressive crap. Or... well, you get the idea. People matter more than everything else and so politics matters a lot.
Many failed projects exhibit a "random walk" across the solution landscape, as programmers fart around with ideas that are fun to program but only modestly related to the problem at hand. Good project managers do not let the project drift.
And I've seen a lot of cases where I was committed 50% on project A, 50% on project B, 50% on project C, 40% on project D,
But it isn't that most of these projects are that hard. Database programming (or web development, or building an editor, or...) is not rocket science.
Yeah, I'm forced to agree. X is there for historical reasons, but it's hard for me to imagine Linux becoming a really fast graphical desktop OS using X. KDE has made Linux more appealing, but X is still a huge downside.
But I've long since realized that Linux is destined to remain a geek OS because that's what most of its developers/fanboys want it to be.
"They that can give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
We must fight this.
Somebody please mod this up. This is one of most interesting posts I've ever seen on slashdot.
Having been involved in decisions to use Java over Smalltalk (and I agree that Smalltalk is the better language), I would say that
1) The fact that there is one standard Java vs. many dialects of Smalltalk works to Java's advantage. Companies fear being "stuck" with a particular Smalltalk vendor.
2) Java covers such a broad range of technologies that it makes the suits more comfortable. Sure, you can find app servers for Smalltalk -- but nothing like the level of vendor support that exists for Java. And, of course, there isn't any common standard like J2EE (see point 1).
3) Java is more C-like. Lots of folks know a C-like language. This makes Java easier to learn, and a more comfortable fit. (Sure, it would be better to learn Smalltalk -- but a surprising number of programmers don't seem to want to learn new languages.)
Sad to say, but I think the Smalltalk vendors had their chance and dropped the ball. The current explosion of Java tools and libraries is amazing.
Not when they are right.
X sucks. It's slow and uses a ton of memory. Sorry, I like Linux, but X is vastly inferior to Windows or Mac OS.
The reason we're stuck with X is history... and the fanboy attitude of many Linux users.
I agree with you about enums, but there are many C++ features I miss more. (Stack allocated objects and destructors, templates, the STL...)
Still, Java is a great tool for some problems.