I don't think of the rapid decline as conspiracy, as much as a much of people who like to censor what conservatives have to say. Not that they are organized in any way, just as I said that there are a large number on Slashdot.
Again, I'll say: there's writing a conservative point, and there's writing conservative flamebait. That post is #2.
I'd expect a post that claimed that all conservatives were dirty goat-fuckers to get modded down in the exact same way.
Reasoned discourse between people who disagree benefits everyone. Posting "OMG if this bad thing that happened to my side happened to your side, you'd hate it instead of loving it, you dirty hypocritical bastards!" doesn't.
You can find a range of sanity levels on the Birther thing, whereas any Truther is pretty much for sure going to be well off the deep end in all sorts of other matters.
There again I have to disagree. I've met people who felt that the standard story of what happened on 9/11 doesn't add up in some way or in terms of physics doesn't make sense in some way, who haven't (as far as I can tell) made the leap to the idea that it's all Dick Cheney's evil conspiracy to grow the power of the executive branch and steal oil. But maybe you wouldn't call those people Truthers, in which case I'd say that your problem would be that you're trying to draw a false equivalence between two groups of people with differing levels of crazy. (And between two groups of vastly differing size.)
Try an experiment. Create a new account and make some stupidass post in the first remotely political article that is either anti-republican or anti-democrat. See what happens!
Well, my point is, if you make that post and it's not a stupidass post, i.e. you're backing up your position with facts and you're not just regurgitating talking points, it probably won't end up mod-bombed no matter what position it takes. It might get slapped with a negative mod or three, but in the long run it will end up at least where it started and probably higher.
The main thing that makes Java hard to replace isn't much about Java inherently at all, but all of the frameworks that have grown up around Java and simply do not exist for a Python or a Ruby.
When Ruby (or whatever) has a JUnit, a JSF, a Spring, a Hibernate, and so on ad nauseum, each as full-featured as Java's version, it can replace Java in the enterprise. Only C# is even really in the running in that race, and in many departments, it's still clearly losing that race to Java. Nothing else is even a serious contender at this point.
Yes; Java was never Microsoft's baby. At the time, the claim (which never actually materialized) was that it was going to make OSes irrelevant.
I don't trust them to not try to kill someone else's kids that they think might beat up their kids, but in this sense I trust them to not kill their own kids.
Huh. Granted, I haven't used VS2010 yet, but earlier editions of it run great on a decent laptop, whereas Eclipse has never failed to drive any system I've ever put it on -- including some with what I would have considered at the time to have ridiculous amounts of RAM -- straight to its knees.
So either VS2010 ups the bloat factor considerably or we're doing something really different.
I think your choice of the word destroy is more rooted in your biases than fact, and even giving you that I don't see it as relevant.
It's a big-ass corporation. Trying too hard to generalize their actions in a number of areas over the course of decades is about on the level of deciding that everyone who writes free software probably killed their wife. (And just so we're clear, I'm saying that second thing would be stupid.)
For this specific kind of thing, Microsoft has never been the kind of antagonist that Oracle is. It just hasn't been, and there isn't any reasonable and true set of facts you can pull to make it so.
Or are we just ignoring that because we hate Microsoft more than we like actually getting things done with our code?
If Perl, Python, and Ruby are unable to match Java's performance, I'll take their portability, ease of development, lack of overhead and succinctness over Java any day.
... for some tasks. I'm not arrogant enough to tack that on via FTFY, but really that's what the full statement should be.
Java's currently used for a lot of different things -- the scripting languages are a good fit to replace some, but not all and I wouldn't even really say most, of it.
I fail to see why folks couldn't find a way to fork Java.
In this case, I think it's an important to draw a distinction: there's really no reason why you couldn't, except that Oracle will attempt to (right or wrong, and probably wrong) sue whoever tries into bankruptcy.
They'll be able to put a good enough case together that won't initially appear frivolous, even if it would ultimately be doomed to failure with good legal representation, and lawyers aren't generally free.
Incidentally, I've worked in Java and.NET. Visual Studio is a big disappointment when you been working in NetBeans or Eclipse. Maybe I just don't see the appeal.
I'll give you that NetBeans is a pretty nice IDE, but Eclipse? Ugh. I much prefer VS to that. Maybe I just don't think you should need to spend a huge pile of time choosing, installing, and configuring plug-ins to get a halfway decent IDE (that will still run like shit on the world's heftiest desktop hardware.)
I know people who love Eclipse, but I've never been able to get a reason for why out of them that wasn't either objectively wrong or completely insane.
I think C# is well poised to scoop up the niche Java filled in businesses/enterprise -- when Java stagnated, it was the existence of a constantly-improving C# that forced Java to improve as well again. Similarly, I don't see any reason that C# isn't a good replacement for the kinds of web applications that previously would have been written in Java. (Note that this is not all web apps.)
I'm less sure about C# in the embedded/mobile space -- I don't have a lot of expertise with either, and these have been huge markets for Java.
OP: Can you get all those things to work together? Sure, technically it is possible. What you are naively not weighing is the office politics.
Will the people who work at the company hate and/or fire you? Bet on it. Understand that if there is any problem with (for example) GMail, and I mean any problem, up to and including any problem that would have happened the exact same way in Exchange, it will be your fault in the eyes of anyone who matters. Random VP can't play Minesweeper because you swapped his Windows 7 box for a Linux box? He will hate your guts. He will find reasons why the switch was a shitty business decision even if he has to fabricate them. He will share these reasons with people above your pay grade and you will never have a chance to defend yourself.
Will the IT people at the company attempt to kill you? Likely. This is still true if you're the IT department.
I'm surprised you didn't instead refer to the part when King David was old and infirm, so they found a pretty young lady to keep him warm at night. Or maybe the story about how crazy Lot's daughters were...
Well, the conversation upthread was Solomon, so it seemed more topical.
Good for you (I'm not being sarcastic, in case that's lost in text) for having actually read your holy book -- I run into too many people who haven't.
Out of curiousity, does it also come up that Solomon had a pile of wives and that means he had a different definition of marriage than our current/mainstream one?
I kind of assume most of the conservative Southern Baptist megachurches would take to the implications of that like snails take to salt.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason they don't is because .NET is not widespread enough.
... have you looked for a job recently?
It's the most popular development skill in my market (in terms of frequency in job postings), with Java very close behind.
I've lived/worked other places where that shakes out a little differently, but unpopular it's not.
No one believed you the first time you said it (including yourself), so why did you think repeating it would help?
Wrong!
I don't think of the rapid decline as conspiracy, as much as a much of people who like to censor what conservatives have to say. Not that they are organized in any way, just as I said that there are a large number on Slashdot.
Again, I'll say: there's writing a conservative point, and there's writing conservative flamebait. That post is #2.
I'd expect a post that claimed that all conservatives were dirty goat-fuckers to get modded down in the exact same way.
Reasoned discourse between people who disagree benefits everyone. Posting "OMG if this bad thing that happened to my side happened to your side, you'd hate it instead of loving it, you dirty hypocritical bastards!" doesn't.
You can find a range of sanity levels on the Birther thing, whereas any Truther is pretty much for sure going to be well off the deep end in all sorts of other matters.
There again I have to disagree. I've met people who felt that the standard story of what happened on 9/11 doesn't add up in some way or in terms of physics doesn't make sense in some way, who haven't (as far as I can tell) made the leap to the idea that it's all Dick Cheney's evil conspiracy to grow the power of the executive branch and steal oil. But maybe you wouldn't call those people Truthers, in which case I'd say that your problem would be that you're trying to draw a false equivalence between two groups of people with differing levels of crazy. (And between two groups of vastly differing size.)
So I ask again, why do conservatives insist on using his middle name when neither he, nor most others refer to him in that manner?
Because it makes him sound scarier and less "mainstream America."
Er, I hope that wasn't a rhetorical question.
Try an experiment. Create a new account and make some stupidass post in the first remotely political article that is either anti-republican or anti-democrat. See what happens!
Well, my point is, if you make that post and it's not a stupidass post, i.e. you're backing up your position with facts and you're not just regurgitating talking points, it probably won't end up mod-bombed no matter what position it takes. It might get slapped with a negative mod or three, but in the long run it will end up at least where it started and probably higher.
Hmmm... no.
The main thing that makes Java hard to replace isn't much about Java inherently at all, but all of the frameworks that have grown up around Java and simply do not exist for a Python or a Ruby.
When Ruby (or whatever) has a JUnit, a JSF, a Spring, a Hibernate, and so on ad nauseum, each as full-featured as Java's version, it can replace Java in the enterprise. Only C# is even really in the running in that race, and in many departments, it's still clearly losing that race to Java. Nothing else is even a serious contender at this point.
Though I'll bet you think it was a conservative conspiracy that has modded his statement up...
It's sitting at 2: Flamebait right now, so... no.
As an example, Birthers (wrongly) think Obama doesn't have a valid certificate, but do not think there's a massive cover-up.
Really? Where are you finding your Birthers, and how can I get the ones I know to be that sane?
Heh. And I bet you'll think it's a partisan conspiracy when that comment gets modded down.
It's possible to make even a fairly partisan point without it being flamebait. Your comment doesn't achieve that possibility.
Yes; Java was never Microsoft's baby. At the time, the claim (which never actually materialized) was that it was going to make OSes irrelevant.
I don't trust them to not try to kill someone else's kids that they think might beat up their kids, but in this sense I trust them to not kill their own kids.
Huh. Granted, I haven't used VS2010 yet, but earlier editions of it run great on a decent laptop, whereas Eclipse has never failed to drive any system I've ever put it on -- including some with what I would have considered at the time to have ridiculous amounts of RAM -- straight to its knees.
So either VS2010 ups the bloat factor considerably or we're doing something really different.
But since we're talking about replacing Java, is that relevant?
I mean, I wouldn't write anything that had to be extremely resource lean in C#, but I wouldn't write it in Java, either.
I think your choice of the word destroy is more rooted in your biases than fact, and even giving you that I don't see it as relevant.
It's a big-ass corporation. Trying too hard to generalize their actions in a number of areas over the course of decades is about on the level of deciding that everyone who writes free software probably killed their wife. (And just so we're clear, I'm saying that second thing would be stupid.)
So Larry Ellison has to be the Emperor
Great. Like he wasn't dangerous enough without shooting lightning out of his frickin' hands!
Are you saying Microsoft doesn't have a past history of being an abusive monopoly? Are you saying Microsoft has never sued anybody over patents?
With respect to its languages and development tools, no, not so much.
For this specific kind of thing, Microsoft has never been the kind of antagonist that Oracle is. It just hasn't been, and there isn't any reasonable and true set of facts you can pull to make it so.
Or are we just ignoring that because we hate Microsoft more than we like actually getting things done with our code?
If Perl, Python, and Ruby are unable to match Java's performance, I'll take their portability, ease of development, lack of overhead and succinctness over Java any day.
... for some tasks. I'm not arrogant enough to tack that on via FTFY, but really that's what the full statement should be.
Java's currently used for a lot of different things -- the scripting languages are a good fit to replace some, but not all and I wouldn't even really say most, of it.
I fail to see why folks couldn't find a way to fork Java.
In this case, I think it's an important to draw a distinction: there's really no reason why you couldn't, except that Oracle will attempt to (right or wrong, and probably wrong) sue whoever tries into bankruptcy.
They'll be able to put a good enough case together that won't initially appear frivolous, even if it would ultimately be doomed to failure with good legal representation, and lawyers aren't generally free.
Incidentally, I've worked in Java and .NET. Visual Studio is a big disappointment when you been working in NetBeans or Eclipse. Maybe I just don't see the appeal.
I'll give you that NetBeans is a pretty nice IDE, but Eclipse? Ugh. I much prefer VS to that. Maybe I just don't think you should need to spend a huge pile of time choosing, installing, and configuring plug-ins to get a halfway decent IDE (that will still run like shit on the world's heftiest desktop hardware.)
I know people who love Eclipse, but I've never been able to get a reason for why out of them that wasn't either objectively wrong or completely insane.
I think C# is well poised to scoop up the niche Java filled in businesses/enterprise -- when Java stagnated, it was the existence of a constantly-improving C# that forced Java to improve as well again. Similarly, I don't see any reason that C# isn't a good replacement for the kinds of web applications that previously would have been written in Java. (Note that this is not all web apps.)
I'm less sure about C# in the embedded/mobile space -- I don't have a lot of expertise with either, and these have been huge markets for Java.
Outlook's a horrid mail client. I'd actually say that Outlook 2010 is significantly worse than 2003.
Yet, it's pretty much the best* client for scheduling/calendaring/meetings. Most businesses care a lot about this.
*Note that best != good.
+1 to this.
OP: Can you get all those things to work together? Sure, technically it is possible. What you are naively not weighing is the office politics.
Will the people who work at the company hate and/or fire you? Bet on it. Understand that if there is any problem with (for example) GMail, and I mean any problem, up to and including any problem that would have happened the exact same way in Exchange, it will be your fault in the eyes of anyone who matters. Random VP can't play Minesweeper because you swapped his Windows 7 box for a Linux box? He will hate your guts. He will find reasons why the switch was a shitty business decision even if he has to fabricate them. He will share these reasons with people above your pay grade and you will never have a chance to defend yourself.
Will the IT people at the company attempt to kill you? Likely. This is still true if you're the IT department.
Eh. To some degree, yes, but the game industry is typically a step above (or below, depending on your point of view.)
I'm surprised you didn't instead refer to the part when King David was old and infirm, so they found a pretty young lady to keep him warm at night. Or maybe the story about how crazy Lot's daughters were...
Well, the conversation upthread was Solomon, so it seemed more topical.
Good for you (I'm not being sarcastic, in case that's lost in text) for having actually read your holy book -- I run into too many people who haven't.
When you start forming family units that are no longer capable of producing the primary mission, you are the one that has fucked up
And when we persecute heterosexual couples who either choose to have no children or are sterile, your point of view will seem less comical.
Out of curiousity, does it also come up that Solomon had a pile of wives and that means he had a different definition of marriage than our current/mainstream one?
I kind of assume most of the conservative Southern Baptist megachurches would take to the implications of that like snails take to salt.