Why do you assume it will be paid for by tax dollars?
Do you also complain that your tax dollars are helping to maintain roads you never use?
Communications is a necessity, and quite frankly, I'm glad my city is rolling out FTTH. It will give me an alternative to Adelphia's "service", which is already overwhemled. Not only is the internet net as fast as it should be, you got alot of visual artifacts while watching TV also!
We're using different definitions. Mid-sized projects take a few months. Large projects are the ones than span years.
If you're taking years between releases, you're doing something wrong. At any rate it shouldn't matter at all. C# is C#, no matter how much of it you have.
The point behind this is that you cannot be using deprecated classes, because if you were, you'd still be targetting.NET 1.1
Um, sorry, where does it say using a class that's depreciated means you're targeting 1.1? It doesn't; the fact that you CAN still use those classes means you can target 2.0. So if i have some old code that uses an obsoleted class and i add into it some new code that uses newer classes, which framework am I targeting?
Or to put this another way- the author isn't asking how they can compile their code with the.NET 2.0 toolchain, but how they can "keep up" with the changes that were introduced with.NET 2.0.
He said 'move to.net 2,' which i read as 'run under the 2.0 framework.' That doesn't mean you have to rewrite your existing code; after all, just because a class is marked as obsoleted doesn't mean you can't use it. Its not at the point yet where they declare the class 'dead.'
Keeping up should be easy; there isn't much to be done to move to non-obsoleted changes. Except for removing references to obsoleted classes, why would you revisit code that works just include one of the newer classes? If it works now, leave it alone. If you run across it later, and something in 2.0 can make the code simplier, fine. But to recode just for the sake of recoding isn't smart.
I didn't say working, I said it's in production and development. That means it's still maintained, improved, and etc, to keep up with the growing demands from our customers.
So? My point was i could deliver those new features faster in C# than you can in C. You didn't adress it at all.
Come see me in 8 more years, and we'll be able to compare some 10 year old C with 10 year old C#.
What would be the point? Unless it would be to demonstrate that in those 10 years your product has a lot less functionality than the C# one... good way to miss the point.
Because otherwise the concept of jury nullification wouldn't be a key part of our court system? The framers have said many times that it is well within the rights of the jury to judge the law. If they feel a law (or charge) is unjust, they can vote not guilty, even if its clear the defendant violated the law.
The reason this is so important is that it's meant to be the last defense against tyranny; a corrupt gov't could pass any laws they like, but in the end a jury can choose to ignore the law, giving real power to the people.
You don't need self powered speakers. As far as devices go, you only need a single receiver. Yes, cabling can be a pain, it depends on how you go about setting everything up. You can even find wireless speakers so you don't have to worry about cables (not sure how they stack up sound wise though).
It really isn't that big of a deal, and you don't need to spend thousands of dollars. I had a decent setup for $500; that was a receiver, sub woofer, 5 speakrs and speaker wire. The sound really did add alot to the movie and made quite a difference.
You're forgetting one thing though; most movies are recording in a x.1 format.. they set it up to sound good with that center channel, not to have it spread to front left and right.
The idea is that you're trying to replicate a theater experience at home (minus the 14 yr old girls that can't shut up). Given how the film is put together and how an actual theater is setup, saying you can accomplish that with 2.0 is a bit silly.
Indeed. I for one would prefer to have two decent speakers driven by amps with a frequency range of 4Hz-20kHz +/-1dB at 1%THD, than to have any number of crappy speakers driven by amps with a frequency response of 100Hz-10kHz +/-6dB at 10%THD.
If you're into surround sound, you likely won't be making the distinction between having two good speakers vs. 5 (or 7) crappy ones; you'll invest the money to do it right, and all your speakers will be high quality.
And no, stereo doesn't come close to the effects a good surround system can provide.
Are you saying that having only version 2.0 of the framework installed, I can run apps developed for.Net 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0? Or does it require to have multiple versions of the framework?
You can do either; its your choice.
And what if I have a 1.0 or 1.1 application and want to take advantage of one new feature in 2.0 in one (and only one) of my classes? Why should I have to convert the entire application?
I doubt there's one new feature that you'd want to use in just one class. That's just a silly thing to ask. BTW, the 'conversion' is usually just converting the project files and may some config files (if you tied your app to a specific version, for example, it will undo that.. why convert if you are only going to support the older runtime?). There's also a list of breaking changes, so you'll be able to easily 'fix' any code.
You might call it bashing, but it is not. Backward compatibility is a very important requirement, almost as much important as the feature set. It makes evolving a platform harder, but it can be done. Microsoft took the easy path, at expense of its customers. That is easy to do when you have vendor lock-in.
No, its bashing. Much of the changes are new additions to the framework and you have a list of breaking changes. If you want to take advantage of the new features you'll need to port. If you don't then leave it. Just like people that want to take advantage of the newest directx will need to target that library, or the newest java. Much of the framework is untouched from.Net 1.1.
Not wanting to sound as a fan boy here, but Java is a great counter-example - I don't know of any deprecated API that had actually been removed or stopped working.
That doesn't happen with moving to.Net 2 either. Look up the ObsoleleAttribute. There's nothign Obsoleted that will cause a compile error. You'll have plenty of time before those changes come.
Meanwhile, you're looking at how to deprecate a big chunk of your company's development value after only two years- and although you haven't said it, I wonder if you've even gotten your value back from all that work?
Bull. All of the work should go over smoothly. I ported several mid sized applications over, and they went just fine. you'll get some warning as you'll likely be using some depreciated classes, but you can continue to use them just fine.
In fact the only problems I had were because the project files an.config files weren't checked out before i tried to convert them (it doesn't check them out, although it says it will). Other than that, everything worked fine in.Net 2 as it did in 1.1.
That 10 year old code may still be working, but I'll be I can add new features alot easier in my C# code than you could in plain C.
It is illegal to sell new VHS decks without autotracking in the United States.
While I agree with your post, please provide backup that its illegal to sell such a deck in the US. You probably can't find one because people don't want to have to deal with that tracking knob, and it became a hugely popular feature. But i don't think it was legislated out of existance.
How will it lock to your player? Will the player be able to burn an id to the disc the first time its inserted? Do you really think that would fly? You can't even watch the disc on another player in your house if what you say is true.
You were wrong. IF they wanted to include a media player, they wouldn't need to develop their own. What's more, they wouldn't deliberately leave out codecs for ripping CDs in the most popular audio format, mp3. It's fairly easy to see their motives if you examine their choices.
You make sense if you're talking about anything other than a software development company. Why should MS pay licenes fees to use the MP3 codec when they can build their own? The cost of building their own is probably far less then just licensing the codec for shipping in ALL copies of Windows. You can have a one time fee of developing your own codec, or you can lose a percentage of every sale to licensing the codec from someone else. Which would you pick?
If firefox can grow inspite of IE being bundled because of its superiority, than Netscape should have remained the leader, if it was superior, dispite IE being bundled.
The lawyer did offer to work for free. But I'm sure he doesn't only take pro-bono cases. In this particular case, the judge was so annoyed that the city wasted time fighting the suit that she included that the lawyer be compensated at his normal rate.
First, your browser limits you to horrid controls (from a developers standpoint). Check boxes, radio buttons, buttons, text entry anda drop down.. whoopie. Have you found a good tree view that works on almost all browsers? I haven't..
Second, the responsiveness will NEVER equal that of a desktop. There will always be a noticable delay.
Copying a netflix movie and netflix implementing a throttling are not necessarly related. It could be that someone watches a movie the day they get it, and return it immediately.
Likely, they do this because the more movies they watch on $20 / month, the more value they are getting from Netflix. With the changes though, its possible that it becomes more expensive to rent from Netflix than your local video retailer.
I always laugh at the commercial that says 'keep them as long as you want.' Of course they want you to do that, if you only rent 2 movies a month, thats $10 per movie..
Not to get into a car thread either.. but quality (for me anyway) includes much more than reliablity. It also includes features, safety, etc.
Does a Lexus has more features and fancy things than BMW? Maybe, I haven't compared the two side by side. I was pretty sure though that Lexus was in the same price range as a BMW. Again, its been a few years since I researched.
I think my point still stands; I'd say a Lexus is a higher quality car (and much more deserving of its price) than a Ford.
I know you're joking, but there are other things that can cause greenhouse gasses besides what we're doing. I think if enough volcanos erupted, it could have a big impact on CO2.
Now, if it is true that the earth warms as CO2 levels rise (which can shut down the Atlantic converyer, etc) and we are causing them to rise as quickly as some think we are, I think that we should reduce the emissions.
People that say 'well the earth was warming x years ago, so its just a cycle' are ignoring that there are other things in nature that could cause CO2 to rise..
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume it will be paid for by tax dollars?
Do you also complain that your tax dollars are helping to maintain roads you never use?
Communications is a necessity, and quite frankly, I'm glad my city is rolling out FTTH. It will give me an alternative to Adelphia's "service", which is already overwhemled. Not only is the internet net as fast as it should be, you got alot of visual artifacts while watching TV also!
See other posts; i was commenting on the 4 in 4.1, so x >= 5. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks, guess I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be.. but that's exactly it.
Yes, .1 is the sub. I put in x for 5,6 or 7..
We're using different definitions. Mid-sized projects take a few months. Large projects are the ones than span years.
.NET 1.1
.NET 2.0 toolchain, but how they can "keep up" with the changes that were introduced with .NET 2.0.
.net 2,' which i read as 'run under the 2.0 framework.' That doesn't mean you have to rewrite your existing code; after all, just because a class is marked as obsoleted doesn't mean you can't use it. Its not at the point yet where they declare the class 'dead.'
If you're taking years between releases, you're doing something wrong. At any rate it shouldn't matter at all. C# is C#, no matter how much of it you have.
The point behind this is that you cannot be using deprecated classes, because if you were, you'd still be targetting
Um, sorry, where does it say using a class that's depreciated means you're targeting 1.1? It doesn't; the fact that you CAN still use those classes means you can target 2.0. So if i have some old code that uses an obsoleted class and i add into it some new code that uses newer classes, which framework am I targeting?
Or to put this another way- the author isn't asking how they can compile their code with the
He said 'move to
Keeping up should be easy; there isn't much to be done to move to non-obsoleted changes. Except for removing references to obsoleted classes, why would you revisit code that works just include one of the newer classes? If it works now, leave it alone. If you run across it later, and something in 2.0 can make the code simplier, fine. But to recode just for the sake of recoding isn't smart.
I didn't say working, I said it's in production and development. That means it's still maintained, improved, and etc, to keep up with the growing demands from our customers.
So? My point was i could deliver those new features faster in C# than you can in C. You didn't adress it at all.
Come see me in 8 more years, and we'll be able to compare some 10 year old C with 10 year old C#.
What would be the point? Unless it would be to demonstrate that in those 10 years your product has a lot less functionality than the C# one... good way to miss the point.
Because otherwise the concept of jury nullification wouldn't be a key part of our court system? The framers have said many times that it is well within the rights of the jury to judge the law. If they feel a law (or charge) is unjust, they can vote not guilty, even if its clear the defendant violated the law.
The reason this is so important is that it's meant to be the last defense against tyranny; a corrupt gov't could pass any laws they like, but in the end a jury can choose to ignore the law, giving real power to the people.
You don't need self powered speakers. As far as devices go, you only need a single receiver. Yes, cabling can be a pain, it depends on how you go about setting everything up. You can even find wireless speakers so you don't have to worry about cables (not sure how they stack up sound wise though).
It really isn't that big of a deal, and you don't need to spend thousands of dollars. I had a decent setup for $500; that was a receiver, sub woofer, 5 speakrs and speaker wire. The sound really did add alot to the movie and made quite a difference.
You're forgetting one thing though; most movies are recording in a x.1 format.. they set it up to sound good with that center channel, not to have it spread to front left and right.
The idea is that you're trying to replicate a theater experience at home (minus the 14 yr old girls that can't shut up). Given how the film is put together and how an actual theater is setup, saying you can accomplish that with 2.0 is a bit silly.
Indeed. I for one would prefer to have two decent speakers driven by amps with a frequency range of 4Hz-20kHz +/-1dB at 1%THD, than to have any number of crappy speakers driven by amps with a frequency response of 100Hz-10kHz +/-6dB at 10%THD.
If you're into surround sound, you likely won't be making the distinction between having two good speakers vs. 5 (or 7) crappy ones; you'll invest the money to do it right, and all your speakers will be high quality.
And no, stereo doesn't come close to the effects a good surround system can provide.
Are you saying that having only version 2.0 of the framework installed, I can run apps developed for .Net 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0? Or does it require to have multiple versions of the framework?
.Net 1.1.
.Net 2 either. Look up the ObsoleleAttribute. There's nothign Obsoleted that will cause a compile error. You'll have plenty of time before those changes come.
You can do either; its your choice.
And what if I have a 1.0 or 1.1 application and want to take advantage of one new feature in 2.0 in one (and only one) of my classes? Why should I have to convert the entire application?
I doubt there's one new feature that you'd want to use in just one class. That's just a silly thing to ask. BTW, the 'conversion' is usually just converting the project files and may some config files (if you tied your app to a specific version, for example, it will undo that.. why convert if you are only going to support the older runtime?). There's also a list of breaking changes, so you'll be able to easily 'fix' any code.
You might call it bashing, but it is not. Backward compatibility is a very important requirement, almost as much important as the feature set. It makes evolving a platform harder, but it can be done. Microsoft took the easy path, at expense of its customers. That is easy to do when you have vendor lock-in.
No, its bashing. Much of the changes are new additions to the framework and you have a list of breaking changes. If you want to take advantage of the new features you'll need to port. If you don't then leave it. Just like people that want to take advantage of the newest directx will need to target that library, or the newest java. Much of the framework is untouched from
Not wanting to sound as a fan boy here, but Java is a great counter-example - I don't know of any deprecated API that had actually been removed or stopped working.
That doesn't happen with moving to
Meanwhile, you're looking at how to deprecate a big chunk of your company's development value after only two years- and although you haven't said it, I wonder if you've even gotten your value back from all that work?
.config files weren't checked out before i tried to convert them (it doesn't check them out, although it says it will). Other than that, everything worked fine in .Net 2 as it did in 1.1.
Bull. All of the work should go over smoothly. I ported several mid sized applications over, and they went just fine. you'll get some warning as you'll likely be using some depreciated classes, but you can continue to use them just fine.
In fact the only problems I had were because the project files an
That 10 year old code may still be working, but I'll be I can add new features alot easier in my C# code than you could in plain C.
It is illegal to sell new VHS decks without autotracking in the United States.
While I agree with your post, please provide backup that its illegal to sell such a deck in the US. You probably can't find one because people don't want to have to deal with that tracking knob, and it became a hugely popular feature. But i don't think it was legislated out of existance.
How will it lock to your player? Will the player be able to burn an id to the disc the first time its inserted? Do you really think that would fly? You can't even watch the disc on another player in your house if what you say is true.
Assuming things haven't changed since then, there's definitely something wrong with that pricing model.
Not at all. Compare the price of a 20 oz soda bottle with a two liter. Typically, the two liter is the same price.
I've just forced you to buy a product you didn't want. You paid me for SuckoProduct.
No, I always have the option of not buying the bundle at all..
You were wrong. IF they wanted to include a media player, they wouldn't need to develop their own. What's more, they wouldn't deliberately leave out codecs for ripping CDs in the most popular audio format, mp3. It's fairly easy to see their motives if you examine their choices.
You make sense if you're talking about anything other than a software development company. Why should MS pay licenes fees to use the MP3 codec when they can build their own? The cost of building their own is probably far less then just licensing the codec for shipping in ALL copies of Windows. You can have a one time fee of developing your own codec, or you can lose a percentage of every sale to licensing the codec from someone else. Which would you pick?
If firefox can grow inspite of IE being bundled because of its superiority, than Netscape should have remained the leader, if it was superior, dispite IE being bundled.
I'm not sure i follow your logic.. by all accounts it seems that Firefox use is growing, despite the fact that IE is already on most Windows desktops.
The lawyer did offer to work for free. But I'm sure he doesn't only take pro-bono cases. In this particular case, the judge was so annoyed that the city wasted time fighting the suit that she included that the lawyer be compensated at his normal rate.
No, apps won't catch on either.
First, your browser limits you to horrid controls (from a developers standpoint). Check boxes, radio buttons, buttons, text entry anda drop down.. whoopie. Have you found a good tree view that works on almost all browsers? I haven't..
Second, the responsiveness will NEVER equal that of a desktop. There will always be a noticable delay.
Glass is a horrible insulator. Ever put your hand on a single pane window in the dead of winter?
Copying a netflix movie and netflix implementing a throttling are not necessarly related. It could be that someone watches a movie the day they get it, and return it immediately.
Likely, they do this because the more movies they watch on $20 / month, the more value they are getting from Netflix. With the changes though, its possible that it becomes more expensive to rent from Netflix than your local video retailer.
I always laugh at the commercial that says 'keep them as long as you want.' Of course they want you to do that, if you only rent 2 movies a month, thats $10 per movie..
Not to get into a car thread either.. but quality (for me anyway) includes much more than reliablity. It also includes features, safety, etc.
Does a Lexus has more features and fancy things than BMW? Maybe, I haven't compared the two side by side. I was pretty sure though that Lexus was in the same price range as a BMW. Again, its been a few years since I researched.
I think my point still stands; I'd say a Lexus is a higher quality car (and much more deserving of its price) than a Ford.
Volcanic eruptions, lots of wild fires...
I know you're joking, but there are other things that can cause greenhouse gasses besides what we're doing. I think if enough volcanos erupted, it could have a big impact on CO2.
Now, if it is true that the earth warms as CO2 levels rise (which can shut down the Atlantic converyer, etc) and we are causing them to rise as quickly as some think we are, I think that we should reduce the emissions.
People that say 'well the earth was warming x years ago, so its just a cycle' are ignoring that there are other things in nature that could cause CO2 to rise..