I remember 2003, back then in Java world we had a wealth of OpenSource libraries, Spring, nice web frameworks, Eclipse and IDEA, Hibernate. Even EJB3 was shaping to become a decent standard.
Then C# generics came. And then WPF. And then LINQ.
"I've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years, and trialed ReSharper, and Eclipse is still far better."
Eclipse is clumsy, IDEA is much better for Java. And ReSharper is now as good as IDEA. ASP.NET now has MVC extensions, so it's as good as Spring Web (I know, I use both of them).
I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects. Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it. Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.
Oh, and Microsoft _really_ supports multi-language programming. MSVS 2010 has full official support for F# (Ocaml clone) and extensions for dynamic languages in the CLI. And even plain C# is _much_ nicer than Java (LINQ, anonymous types, type inference, real generics, closures, etc.).
It wouldn't be as bad if Java was improving. But right now it's stagnating fast.
Oh, of course there's Scala. But it exists mostly to prove that JVM is not really for Java, but it's also suitable for horrible hacks required to run other languages. And in any case, there are no good IDEs for Scala development.
"as if nothing happens behind closed doors in coalition governments and nothing happens in the open in two party systems"
That's irrelevant. You're telling about virtues of two-party system, when in fact you're proposing a lame multi-party system in disguise.
"two parties is simply the fate of all democracies. its actually superior and inevitable in all democracies."
Again, wrong. Look at France, Germany, Australia and a whole lot of other European countries. So I don't see anything 'inevitable' in a two party system.
"If you're referring to the other benchmarks they performed, FreeBSD significantly surpasses Linux as often as not."
Yes, I'm referring to other pages. You're reading benchmark results incorrectly. Sometimes lower benchmark result is better and sometimes lower value is worse.
Ok. Let me rephrase it: "The design of btrfs is better than the design of ZFS".
And it's true, actually. Read the linked article. Btrfs right now has the most features of ZFS: O(1) snapshots, built-in RAID support, easy administration, extents, etc. I've used it in a test environment with great results.
Well, ZFS was declared 'stable' in FreeBSD only this year. Considering Debian release schedule, btrfs might be 'stable' by the time the Squeeze+1 is released.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear, hear.
I remember 2003, back then in Java world we had a wealth of OpenSource libraries, Spring, nice web frameworks, Eclipse and IDEA, Hibernate. Even EJB3 was shaping to become a decent standard.
Then C# generics came. And then WPF. And then LINQ.
And suddenly, Java started to look ancient.
Yep. Big iron, COBOL and now Java.
Sure, you can yearn your bread and butter programming for BigEnterprises.
"I've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years, and trialed ReSharper, and Eclipse is still far better."
Eclipse is clumsy, IDEA is much better for Java. And ReSharper is now as good as IDEA. ASP.NET now has MVC extensions, so it's as good as Spring Web (I know, I use both of them).
WAR deployments are nice, but just that.
And .NET now has almost as many libraries as Java.
Microsoft Windows Server is a viable server platform.
So this excuse doesn't work anymore.
So what?
I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects. Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it. Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.
Oh, and Microsoft _really_ supports multi-language programming. MSVS 2010 has full official support for F# (Ocaml clone) and extensions for dynamic languages in the CLI. And even plain C# is _much_ nicer than Java (LINQ, anonymous types, type inference, real generics, closures, etc.).
It wouldn't be as bad if Java was improving. But right now it's stagnating fast.
Oh, of course there's Scala. But it exists mostly to prove that JVM is not really for Java, but it's also suitable for horrible hacks required to run other languages. And in any case, there are no good IDEs for Scala development.
OK. I'm buying this app and then I'm going to rob your house. You did promise not to sue anyone who buys your app, right? :)
How is installing a legally bought copy consitutes a copyright infringement?
Imagine that IBM had specified that all x86 software could be run only on IBM-branded computers.
Use snail-mail to send SD cards to yourself. Works like a charm.
"as if nothing happens behind closed doors in coalition governments and nothing happens in the open in two party systems"
That's irrelevant. You're telling about virtues of two-party system, when in fact you're proposing a lame multi-party system in disguise.
"two parties is simply the fate of all democracies. its actually superior and inevitable in all democracies."
Again, wrong. Look at France, Germany, Australia and a whole lot of other European countries. So I don't see anything 'inevitable' in a two party system.
"A range of candidates can exist under the umbrella of one party"
How's that different from multiple parties?
Coalition governments are good, since coalition agreements are made in the open, not behind close doors like in two-party systems.
Yet it has been shown that preferential voting with multi-party system results in most optimal outcomes for constituents: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/06/0649217
Bad idea. Fonts and antialiasing systems are designed for RGB subpixel orientation. Vertical RGB plays hell with text rendering.
Do you realize that gasoline prices in the US are among the lowest in the _world_ (except for countries with subsidized gasoline)?
"If you pride yourself on being intellectual you should be capable of drawing reasonable conclusions from information presented to you."
Here's your 25 GB of data. You're welcome to draw reasonable conclusions. Being an expert means also _knowing_ much about the field.
"I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion."
The lack of plate tectonics on Mars is a common knowledge. Just look at its map.
Well, and the Moon _is_ dead. There's are meaningful tectonics there, just some small quakes caused by tidal forces.
'Volcanic activity' on the Moon is luaghable, it's limited to outgassing.
Possible, but unlikely. Mars tectonics had stopped a loooong time ago.
And without plate tectonics it's pretty hard to imagine how geologic traps for organic material could have formed.
"If you're referring to the other benchmarks they performed, FreeBSD significantly surpasses Linux as often as not."
Yes, I'm referring to other pages. You're reading benchmark results incorrectly. Sometimes lower benchmark result is better and sometimes lower value is worse.
Read it, there are various benchmarks there. And FreeBSD loses in all but one of them. Sometimes badly.
OpenSolaris depends on one vendor. And the future of this vendor right now is very uncertain.
Ok. Let me rephrase it: "The design of btrfs is better than the design of ZFS".
And it's true, actually. Read the linked article. Btrfs right now has the most features of ZFS: O(1) snapshots, built-in RAID support, easy administration, extents, etc. I've used it in a test environment with great results.
ZFS wins in stability, but that's only for now.
Yet the project needs to have a future. Given that it's still in the pre-1.0 state, it might have been a wise choice.
It's pretty clear that Linux is the focal point of efforts in the OpenSource universe right now.
Well, ZFS was declared 'stable' in FreeBSD only this year. Considering Debian release schedule, btrfs might be 'stable' by the time the Squeeze+1 is released.
It's possible for ZFS, but not really wanted. And it's also a HUGE job.
Btrfs (a work in progress for now) is better than ZFS: http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
"Not only that, but FreeBSD is a far more reliable and higher-quality core than even Debian could ever hope to be."
[citation needed]
Linux is definitely faster and more feature-rich than FreeBSD. About the only advantage of FreeBSD is ZFS, and that's being fixed by btrfs.
You are repeating old denialists' crap.
Do you want me to find refutations for all of your talking points in 1 min. of Google search?