I have worked at a couple of closed-source firms, and the code was horrible. I have looked through many opensource projects' code, and most of the code is bad to horrible.
I have seen very little good code in very rare occassions.
I do blame bad code for failure, but maybe my standards are just too high.
How does Ruby know whether or not it has to free() the string returned from Curl.curl_version?
These things may look nice at first, but trying to automagically use low-level languages as if they were high is doomed to a painful failure:)
You may be aware of this, but your post is misleading in that it makes the reader think the programmer is freed from dealing with the pesky details of using a low-level language.
No, application developers have neither the time nor the resources to turn all the compute intensive core functionality in C/C++ code and then link that into Python. C# is a good middle ground.
Huh? I typically find that I don't have the time not to do this. Programming in Python takes me about 5 to 10 less time than programming the same functionality in C, and in the rare cases something is too slow even with Psyco, I use Pyrex for the inner loop, typically a single function or class.
CAD systems: I am not familiar with those, what exactly is too performance-critical for Python in CAD systems?
graphics systems: Huh?
image encoders/decoders/editors: Image encoders/decoders are typically very small projects - small enough to write in C or other low-level languages.
vector graphics renderers: Probably true
typesetting and layout software (including web browsers and editors): Python is fast enough for these, on non-antique hardware.
audio encoders/decoders: Similar to image encoders/decoders, these are small and should be implemented in a low-level language.
GIS systems and mapping programs: What is time-critical about these?
speech recognition engines: I suspect there's a small algorithm running in an inner loop and a lot of higher-order code. Only the inner loop needs C, and that only if you want Real-Time behavior.
Ever since I turned to write nearly all my code in Python, my productivity was boosted by hundreds of percents, and I am less surprised with time that Python is fast enough in almost all cases when it is used right.
Gee, too bad I have to use software that works, I can fix with someone actually listening to my bug reports, instead of having to use a closed program that is an industry standard. Tell me, how do you handle all the joy you get from using industry standards with bugs you are stuck with, cannot fix, and no direct contact with any of the developers?
I know quite a few "real coders" who don't like Java, me included. Sure, its better than C or the hellish crap which is C++, but I prefer when my language has:
Lexical Closures
Dynamic Typing or Type Inference
Nice syntax without noise
And Java fails to have the first 2, with a syntax much more noisy and less concise than that of Python, for example.
id Software lost over a million dollars to record-breaking piracy the weekend before Doom 3's release.
Please refer to "lost" in the dictionary (and note you can only lose what you once had).
For those with difficulties understanding my point, it is that those people would not buy the software whether they can copy it against the obselete laws of copyright or whether they don't. This way, at least, their enjoyment is maximized.
Release of Free Software attracts far more contributors that contribute back
Free Software is thus greater valued and attracs more hits for your site - allowing selling of ad-space
The attention raised by Free Software pays back with job offers and more likeliness of monetary contributions (Which do happen, ask the larger/more successful sourceforge projects).
If you had chosen to release your program as Free Software, under the GPL, then you would be far more likely to get donations and contributions from many people as well as job offerings and other goods.
If you had millions of users, then you could easily sell ad-space for your download site, and make some decent money as well, just from a few thousands hits per day.
In conclusion, if you had chosen to release your software with the public's good in mind (GPL) instead of only your own, you would end up better yourself.
All my life I have learned that copying is very useful and mostly good. I don't think copying should require permission, and therefore I don't wait for it:-)
Designing GUI's by generic principles instead of common sense is stupid.
Even if upholding the principle, the fix does not have to be irreversible (It could back up the corrected file), nor does it have to "check in" with the user by hiding the option in an obscure position (How about a dialog box question?)
There have been 'proof-of-concept' viruses written for Linux, Macintosh, even cellphones via BlueTooth.
And how many of them actually succeeded in infecting millions of machines?
Compare Microsoft to automobile makers. When they started, they were unsafe. So they added a 'fix' like seatbelts. Then they added crumple zones, an enhancement to make them safe. Airbags, side impact curtains, rear-sensors for backing up, and so on, and so on.
That analogy is useless. In computing, the OS can have near infinite control of all the computer's resources, including all of its outgoing connections/etc, while a car only has control of itself. Thus, in computing, if done right, an OS can use its power to limit unwanted use of its resources much more powerfully than a car can limit another from racing into it.
When Linux or Mac or Mozilla or whatever becomes the primary player, they will be found out to have just as many liabilities in the security department, I'm sure..
Your statements sum up to:
A. Windows is more targeted by attackers than other operating systems B. Other operating systems are just as insecure
And you attempt to make B sound as the logical continuation of A. Well, it isn't, and B is only your personal opinion.
The whole point of your comment's parent was to redefine + itself, not extend the integer object. The difference is huge, and is that users of your object need not know that they are using the object.
There's no real point to polymorphism if the users of your code disambiguate the call (choose the exact method to run) themselves.
Also, the "self" in __add__ is exactly because the parent poster did prevent the recursion and to do that explicitly identified the parent class's method implementation which is not recursive. This means that both the superclass and the current instance have to be mentioned, instead of just the current instance (as in your lesser example of "self+.."). The mentioning of both is exactly what happens in the example: int.__add__(self, b)
In essence you wrote a lot of code that does less and tried to show that it is superior because it was simpler in the one certain aspect in which it does less.
I've never set up a firewall on Linux and I am not sure there is an easy way to do so. But then again, it was never necessary as Linux is safe enough from silly worms and such as it is.
Basically, KDE comes with great samba client support, meaning you can connect and browse Windows shares easily. Having Linux serve as the samba server is much more difficult in my experience, but I have not tried to do this recently. Mostly I much-prefer Linux's desktop usability so I haven't tried setting it up to serve Windows clients.
Huh? Debian unstable doesn't break often at all. In fact it hasn't broken anything for me in more than 6 months, and I do it at least weekly. Lower frequency updates obviously break things even less frequently. I have other Operating Systems break far more often when tinkering with installed packages or upgrading stuff.
How do you know how much people will write? How do you know that there will be noone willing to pay authors to write, even without copyright? Books were written since before copyright, and probably after it.
How do you decide if the limitation of copying information on every person in society, especially as it becomes easier and more accessible with time, is worth the extra incentive for creators? This limitation on freedom is commonly underestimated, especially considering that copyright law was founded when individuals could not practically copy, and thus barely limited freedom.
Where do you bring your facts about the irresistable temptations?
I can bring a simple and powerful counter-example.
A friend of mine is a talented coder, who happens to code really fast (and well:) and posseses quite a bit of knowledge about Linux (as he did go under the hood, many times).
He went and created CoLinux, it took him about 1 or 2 months to get something running, and 5 months to get to a damn-stable release, working almost exclusively by himself. Let me assure you that his reason for not attempting/thinking about going commercial are not the "money to be made", but simply ideals of Free Software.
Indeed, what makes this easier, is that by creating such oss code, you are effectively advertising yourself as a super-talented developer to hundreds/thousands of employee-hunters who seek to pay you a lot of money to code, some of them willing to pay you for free code (Opensourced drivers, or a non-software-centric business).
In fact, I do believe that putting the title "Collected Robot Stories by the man Asimov" is not violating any copyright at all, if the contents are japenese gay porn. I am not sure this has anything at all to do with copyright.
Why do copyright supporters always make the assumption that in a copyright-ridden world, people will somehow be unaware that there are no copyrights, and say "damn, they ripped off my latest work again!" every time?
In a copyright-ridden world, people will simply create books for the love of creating books, and nobody will "rip it off" because by definition, copying it will not be ripping anyone off.
You are akin to the person who says: I hate pickles! I am glad I hate pickles because if I liked pickles, I'd eat pickles all the time, and I just hate pickles!
A lot of the people here that are claiming the GPL places more restrictions and thus less free are missing a very simple fact: Copyright law is in itself a restriction - that the GPL effectively disables.
Since the GPL restrictions actually disable the ability to use the restrictions applied by the government via copyright law, it does not only add restrictions, but by adding these restrictions, removes other restrictions.
Basically the question is whether the freedom to apply the copyright restrictions to the code and restrict others is more or less important than the freedom to share, copy, learn from and modify the code. I believe that since the first is only artificially possible because of copyright law, the second is in fact more important - making the GPL more free.
Slashdot Mirror
I hardly ever see good code being written.
I have worked at a couple of closed-source firms, and the code was horrible. I have looked through many opensource projects' code, and most of the code is bad to horrible.
I have seen very little good code in very rare occassions.
I do blame bad code for failure, but maybe my standards are just too high.
Is not applicable to information. Please use accurate wording.
What about when pointer semantics is less clear?
:)
How does Ruby know whether or not it has to free() the string returned from Curl.curl_version?
These things may look nice at first, but trying to automagically use low-level languages as if they were high is doomed to a painful failure
You may be aware of this, but your post is misleading in that it makes the reader think the programmer is freed from dealing with the pesky details of using a low-level language.
Huh? I typically find that I don't have the time not to do this. Programming in Python takes me about 5 to 10 less time than programming the same functionality in C, and in the rare cases something is too slow even with Psyco, I use Pyrex for the inner loop, typically a single function or class.
CAD systems: I am not familiar with those, what exactly is too performance-critical for Python in CAD systems?
graphics systems: Huh?
image encoders/decoders/editors: Image encoders/decoders are typically very small projects - small enough to write in C or other low-level languages.
vector graphics renderers: Probably true
typesetting and layout software (including web browsers and editors): Python is fast enough for these, on non-antique hardware.
audio encoders/decoders: Similar to image encoders/decoders, these are small and should be implemented in a low-level language.
GIS systems and mapping programs: What is time-critical about these?
speech recognition engines: I suspect there's a small algorithm running in an inner loop and a lot of higher-order code. Only the inner loop needs C, and that only if you want Real-Time behavior.
Ever since I turned to write nearly all my code in Python, my productivity was boosted by hundreds of percents, and I am less surprised with time that Python is fast enough in almost all cases when it is used right.
Gee, too bad I have to use software that works, I can fix with someone actually listening to my bug reports, instead of having to use a closed program that is an industry standard. Tell me, how do you handle all the joy you get from using industry standards with bugs you are stuck with, cannot fix, and no direct contact with any of the developers?
:)
Hey, you also mentioned Accountability.
That's a good one
Lexical Closures
Dynamic Typing or Type Inference
Nice syntax without noise
And Java fails to have the first 2, with a syntax much more noisy and less concise than that of Python, for example.
I "pirate" because I believe the laws of copyright are obselete, must be abolished, and only kept alive because of corrupted law makers.
I do not obey laws that are a result of such corruption.
id Software lost over a million dollars to record-breaking piracy the weekend before Doom 3's release.
Please refer to "lost" in the dictionary (and note you can only lose what you once had).
For those with difficulties understanding my point, it is that those people would not buy the software whether they can copy it against the obselete laws of copyright or whether they don't. This way, at least, their enjoyment is maximized.
Release of Free Software attracts far more contributors that contribute back
Free Software is thus greater valued and attracs more hits for your site - allowing selling of ad-space
The attention raised by Free Software pays back with job offers and more likeliness of monetary contributions (Which do happen, ask the larger/more successful sourceforge projects).
If you had chosen to release your program as Free Software, under the GPL, then you would be far more likely to get donations and contributions from many people as well as job offerings and other goods.
If you had millions of users, then you could easily sell ad-space for your download site, and make some decent money as well, just from a few thousands hits per day.
In conclusion, if you had chosen to release your software with the public's good in mind (GPL) instead of only your own, you would end up better yourself.
Copying and taking are not the same thing...
:-)
All my life I have learned that copying is very useful and mostly good. I don't think copying should require permission, and therefore I don't wait for it
Will this not be anticipated and get the documents destroyed before hand?
Will IBM really be vengeful against the people involved?
Designing GUI's by generic principles instead of common sense is stupid.
Even if upholding the principle, the fix does not have to be irreversible (It could back up the corrected file), nor does it have to "check in" with the user by hiding the option in an obscure position (How about a dialog box question?)
There have been 'proof-of-concept' viruses written for Linux, Macintosh, even cellphones via BlueTooth.
And how many of them actually succeeded in infecting millions of machines?
Compare Microsoft to automobile makers. When they started, they were unsafe. So they added a 'fix' like seatbelts. Then they added crumple zones, an enhancement to make them safe. Airbags, side impact curtains, rear-sensors for backing up, and so on, and so on.
That analogy is useless. In computing, the OS can have near infinite control of all the computer's resources, including all of its outgoing connections/etc, while a car only has control of itself. Thus, in computing, if done right, an OS can use its power to limit unwanted use of its resources much more powerfully than a car can limit another from racing into it.
When Linux or Mac or Mozilla or whatever becomes the primary player, they will be found out to have just as many liabilities in the security department, I'm sure..
Your statements sum up to:
A. Windows is more targeted by attackers than other operating systems
B. Other operating systems are just as insecure
And you attempt to make B sound as the logical continuation of A. Well, it isn't, and B is only your personal opinion.
Psyco speeds up some Python code to nearly the speed of the C counterpart, surpassing in some cases even statically-typed Java code.
The whole point of your comment's parent was to redefine + itself, not extend the integer object. The difference is huge, and is that users of your object need not know that they are using the object.
There's no real point to polymorphism if the users of your code disambiguate the call (choose the exact method to run) themselves.
Also, the "self" in __add__ is exactly because the parent poster did prevent the recursion and to do that explicitly identified the parent class's method implementation which is not recursive. This means that both the superclass and the current instance have to be mentioned, instead of just the current instance (as in your lesser example of "self+.."). The mentioning of both is exactly what happens in the example: int.__add__(self, b)
In essence you wrote a lot of code that does less and tried to show that it is superior because it was simpler in the one certain aspect in which it does less.
I've never set up a firewall on Linux and I am not sure there is an easy way to do so. But then again, it was never necessary as Linux is safe enough from silly worms and such as it is.
Basically, KDE comes with great samba client support, meaning you can connect and browse Windows shares easily. Having Linux serve as the samba server is much more difficult in my experience, but I have not tried to do this recently. Mostly I much-prefer Linux's desktop usability so I haven't tried setting it up to serve Windows clients.
Huh? Debian unstable doesn't break often at all. In fact it hasn't broken anything for me in more than 6 months, and I do it at least weekly. Lower frequency updates obviously break things even less frequently. I have other Operating Systems break far more often when tinkering with installed packages or upgrading stuff.
How do you know how much people will write?
How do you know that there will be noone willing to pay authors to write, even without copyright? Books were written since before copyright, and probably after it.
How do you decide if the limitation of copying information on every person in society, especially as it becomes easier and more accessible with time, is worth the extra incentive for creators?
This limitation on freedom is commonly underestimated, especially considering that copyright law was founded when individuals could not practically copy, and thus barely limited freedom.
Where do you bring your facts about the irresistable temptations?
:) and posseses quite a bit of knowledge about Linux (as he did go under the hood, many times).
I can bring a simple and powerful counter-example.
A friend of mine is a talented coder, who happens to code really fast (and well
He went and created CoLinux, it took him about 1 or 2 months to get something running, and 5 months to get to a damn-stable release, working almost exclusively by himself. Let me assure you that his reason for not attempting/thinking about going commercial are not the "money to be made", but simply ideals of Free Software.
Indeed, what makes this easier, is that by creating such oss code, you are effectively advertising yourself as a super-talented developer to hundreds/thousands of employee-hunters who seek to pay you a lot of money to code, some of them willing to pay you for free code (Opensourced drivers, or a non-software-centric business).
There are other laws against such things.
In fact, I do believe that putting the title "Collected Robot Stories by the man Asimov" is not violating any copyright at all, if the contents are japenese gay porn. I am not sure this has anything at all to do with copyright.
Why do copyright supporters always make the assumption that in a copyright-ridden world, people will somehow be unaware that there are no copyrights, and say "damn, they ripped off my latest work again!" every time?
In a copyright-ridden world, people will simply create books for the love of creating books, and nobody will "rip it off" because by definition, copying it will not be ripping anyone off.
You are akin to the person who says: I hate pickles! I am glad I hate pickles because if I liked pickles, I'd eat pickles all the time, and I just hate pickles!
The Unix way of piping utilities is powerful.
It is great, and at the time perhaps revolutionary.
But it is not object orientation, by even the most vague definitions.
A lot of the people here that are claiming the GPL places more restrictions and thus less free are missing a very simple fact: Copyright law is in itself a restriction - that the GPL effectively disables.
Since the GPL restrictions actually disable the ability to use the restrictions applied by the government via copyright law, it does not only add restrictions, but by adding these restrictions, removes other restrictions.
Basically the question is whether the freedom to apply the copyright restrictions to the code and restrict others is more or less important than the freedom to share, copy, learn from and modify the code. I believe that since the first is only artificially possible because of copyright law, the second is in fact more important - making the GPL more free.
No dependencies? Simple tar.gz with no metadata?
You say that like its a good thing...