Nobody that you read maybe:) There are references to functional programming in the earlier posts (one by me, of course). Functional programming is sweet. Makes programs cleaner (when its used well of course), it shows your intent better to the code's reader, it takes fewer lines of code to do a lot of "loop heavy" operations, makes a tons of OO design patterns easier to implement, AND it is easier to optimize for multi core, weee!
Though while theoritical functional programming may be side effect free, the real world stuff isn't. Many languages that have functional paradigms still have the standard features in them that allows a function to reach for stuff out of scope (let say, a Singleton), so that mess things up. But it is still FAR easier to handle than regular stuff.
By "a lot of processing can potentially be converted into DB queries", what you discovered is functional programming:) LINQ in.NET 3.5/C# 3.0 is an example of functional programming that is made to look like DB queries, but it isn't the only way. It is a LOT easier to convert that stuff and optimize it to the environment (like how SQL is processed), since it describes the "what" more than the "how". It is already done, and one (out of many examples) is Parallel LINQ, which smartly execute LINQ queries in parallel, optimized for the amount of cores, etc. (And I'm talking about LINQ in the context of in memory process, not LINQ to SQL, which simply convert LINQ queries into SQL ones).
Functional programming, tied with the concept of transactional memory to handle concurency, is a nice medium term solution to the multi-core problem.
Hahaha... I'm the worse when it comes to freudian slips:( Sometimes its worth than that... I pushed an application I just finished to the QA department today, and the error page had, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, the name of a -totally different application-, because I was thinking about two things at the time... I'm hopeless.
So yes, they paid me back every last dime. I didn't lose much time either... they called me, said "It seems from the activity in your account that your card got cloned!", I look at my account report, indeed, a bunch of transactions I didn't make (the transactions were made -minutes- before they called). They asked a few questions, totalling 2 minutes or so, then said they'd fill the application to get my cash back for me from my answers. (Well, they called me, asked for the info, I said "Errr... I'm not giving that info to someone who calls", so they said to just call the number behind my card).
So they didn't reimburse my time, but I didn't lose any in the first place. Guess it works out:)
Banks make money from it? Could have fooled me. Last time I got my cards stolen, the bank reimbursed EVERY LAST TIME i lost because of it. They took the entire blame and responsability, I lost -nothing-....
Just playing devil's advocate, but when defining the basic units (so stuff like volume and mass, but not speed) of measurements in the metric system except for time and universal constants (speed of light), aren't they actively trying to always keep the definition "pure", as in unrelated to the others? A kg has nothing to do with volume, yet you'd need to define the unit of volume first.
I know in some cases there's no choice, but in THIS one, I feel like there is, and the scientists responsible for it probably feel that way too.
Java works beautifully across platforms... thats funny... (I'm a big Java fan, but its simply not that simple...)
That said, the -good- ajax librairies do not modify the DOM. (or at least, do not in any way that would conflict). I think Prototype makes a royal mess out of things? Never tried it, but if thats true, that would be a big no no.
Also, HTML existed before the W3C took it in, and it was originally quite limited... Netscape and MS had to extend it to make it useful at first. The W3C just took the extensions that were good and made a standard out of them. Heck, its true for CSS too... opacity control wasn't there in CSS originally... the DX filters, moz-opacity, etc came first, and THEN it was made part of the standard.
Besides, until the W3C makes reference implementations like Sun did with Java, its always going to be a joke spec.
Because its 1 liter of pure h2o at 4 deg C -at the sea level-, (remember, pressure isn't the same at the top of a mountain than it is at the bottom...and it changes everything). It is also not universal... if the earth was to go boom, (and somehow live), we'd lose our reference.
That is in opposition to, let say, a meter, which is a fraction of the distance light travels in a specific amount of time. Fairly universal. (I beleive it USED to be a fraction of the earth's size... which was quite bad too).
JS and HTML for RIA only sucks for the people making the frameworks:) (I really pity them). For the rest of us, well... let just say ExtJS is really, really sweet.
I agree, just saying that the webkit stuff isn't all that special for something that came out quite a decent bit later. Also, you've seen them on web sites tons of times: transparency effects on IE, for example. Back in the days also, a lot of stuff that is now possible with standard CSS could only be done with em... same deal with the javascript CSS expressions of IE.
Indeed. That stuff back then was invaluable, because it was before the DHTML/Ajax techniques were perfected... now? Between a popup in a resized window, and a carefully crafted DHTML floating div with drag & drop support, I think both the devs and the users will choose the later...
Corporate culture of the people who work there. I didn't work for either, but I'd expect a higher percentage of OSS fanatics at Google than at Microsoft, and working with people who constantly go "OMG OMG OMG F/OSS or die!!!" can be awkward if you don't think that way... it is almost a religion (and that can go both way, so don't take THAT as a OSS cheap shot).
The person may have been tired of hearing that open source was better, regardless of the actual software's quality, all the time, and thus jumped ship. I've seen it happen a lot in smaller companies too. (Of course, again, the other way around obviously happens a lot too)
No, don't get your hopes up. I -am- a supporter of MS (Well, by that I mean i'm not an MS basher, and I like their products, nothing more), but they're still a company. The thing is, there's just so many times they can be hit with hundreds of millions in fines before they start being scared of it. So they're giving up everything that can without being in a world of hurt, in the hope of avoiding further fines.
I'm no experts, but looking around, it seems like these games aren't purely SDL or whatsnot, and complement it to go around the places where it lacks. In other words, they still do have a lot of platform specific code, be it at the engine level or whatever. Not saying it doesn't help, it most likely certainly does, but again: much higher barrier of entry.
Not that raw DX9/10 does everything either... but when it comes to top end features, it will be more "complete", and its certainly easier to use.
Isn't SDL not even object oriented? That would make the barrier for entry pretty high. Also, its really lacking in the feature department. Fine for a small game like this one though, I'll give you that. Total joke for most real applications though (there are exceptions).
And for all of the modules that are discontinued in DX, there are replacements.
Because its quite a decent bit easier, if for nothing else that DirectX covers everything from image to sound to input. The alternative is to combine multiple librairy... so that raise the barrier of entry right there. Also (I don't know if its what they did), but for simpler games, you can use Managed Direct X in.NET with performance more than good enough to make a game like this one (and then some), with 1/10th the effort.
You do realise that in this day and age, C/C++ programmers are by far the minority? So the gain is to make the toolkit attractive to other devs, and the mess that is C++ isn't the best bet for that.. That being said, Objective C has been around for ages, so meh. C++0x would be ok, but that doesn't have the same track record as Objective C and isn't ready anyhow.
There won't be. As in the past, when people were doing too well, great plagues would put the population numbers in check, we'll see it happen again. Heck, there's already some to some extent... if it wasn't for STDs, the sexual liberalisms of the hippies would probably still be going quite strong, and a boom would still go on (if only from the idiots who don't know about contraception).
Its only a matter of time before stuff like bird flu (but worse) wipe half the population out. I wouldn't be surprised to see it before I die (or die from it).
In Java you can just go and hack it up JSP style if you want, and it will be similar to PHP. The thing is, that way of doing thing sucks. It sucks in Java, it sucks in PERL, it sucks in PHP, it sucks, period. As with any serious application development, you need to structure things a bit. People don't agree on the best way, though in Java, the community is very oriented toward "There's the main way, and then there's other ways in case that doesn't work for you". In general, thats a MVC pattern like strut, a dependency injection/inversion of control container (spring), a persistance framework (hibernate). Then you have t he other stuff when that doesn't work for you (JSF for composite applications, for example).
All languages that matter are like that. Ruby has Rails (package of the stuff I mentionned above), and when that doesn't work, there's a bunch of other frameworks. If you just go in straight PHP and go for it, you're doing it wrong, even from a PHP point of view. PHP has templating frameworks, object relational mappers, containers, etc, too. Lots and lots of them, and for a serious app, you need to pick too.
The only difference, is that PHP is used for "quick and dirty" much more often, while Java is usually used for "enterprise/production scale development", so you'll more rarely see PHP devs using the frameworks, and more rarely see java devs going straight JSP.
Thats it. And if you think developing real world application can be split up with desktop, mobile and web, you're leaving out 2 third of enterprise developments. Not everything ends up in the face of a user, and only a part of what actually does falls in those categories. What about services/deamons? Reporting processes? SOA middlewares? Business workflow processing? Messaging/Reliable systems (I'm not talking about MSN here, I'm talking about message queues). Java and.NET are 2 environments that deal with all of that, but even with everything they provide (much more than a single human can learn), they still don't even provide half of what we need in all situations (especially.NET, until 3.0).
Most of the big web work at Google is in Java and Python, as far as I understand, but I don't beleive its GWT either (though thats used a lot for internal web applications, for sure). No reference, just talk with people who worked there, so take it with a grain of salt.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody that you read maybe :) There are references to functional programming in the earlier posts (one by me, of course). Functional programming is sweet. Makes programs cleaner (when its used well of course), it shows your intent better to the code's reader, it takes fewer lines of code to do a lot of "loop heavy" operations, makes a tons of OO design patterns easier to implement, AND it is easier to optimize for multi core, weee!
Though while theoritical functional programming may be side effect free, the real world stuff isn't. Many languages that have functional paradigms still have the standard features in them that allows a function to reach for stuff out of scope (let say, a Singleton), so that mess things up. But it is still FAR easier to handle than regular stuff.
By "a lot of processing can potentially be converted into DB queries", what you discovered is functional programming :) LINQ in .NET 3.5/C# 3.0 is an example of functional programming that is made to look like DB queries, but it isn't the only way. It is a LOT easier to convert that stuff and optimize it to the environment (like how SQL is processed), since it describes the "what" more than the "how". It is already done, and one (out of many examples) is Parallel LINQ, which smartly execute LINQ queries in parallel, optimized for the amount of cores, etc. (And I'm talking about LINQ in the context of in memory process, not LINQ to SQL, which simply convert LINQ queries into SQL ones).
Functional programming, tied with the concept of transactional memory to handle concurency, is a nice medium term solution to the multi-core problem.
Hahaha... I'm the worse when it comes to freudian slips :( Sometimes its worth than that... I pushed an application I just finished to the QA department today, and the error page had, in BIG BOLD LETTERS, the name of a -totally different application-, because I was thinking about two things at the time... I'm hopeless.
So yes, they paid me back every last dime. I didn't lose much time either... they called me, said "It seems from the activity in your account that your card got cloned!", I look at my account report, indeed, a bunch of transactions I didn't make (the transactions were made -minutes- before they called). They asked a few questions, totalling 2 minutes or so, then said they'd fill the application to get my cash back for me from my answers. (Well, they called me, asked for the info, I said "Errr... I'm not giving that info to someone who calls", so they said to just call the number behind my card).
So they didn't reimburse my time, but I didn't lose any in the first place. Guess it works out :)
Very, since there was no merchant involved. They had taken money straight from the account, and made purchases using debits, not credit.
Banks make money from it? Could have fooled me. Last time I got my cards stolen, the bank reimbursed EVERY LAST TIME i lost because of it. They took the entire blame and responsability, I lost -nothing-....
Just playing devil's advocate, but when defining the basic units (so stuff like volume and mass, but not speed) of measurements in the metric system except for time and universal constants (speed of light), aren't they actively trying to always keep the definition "pure", as in unrelated to the others? A kg has nothing to do with volume, yet you'd need to define the unit of volume first.
I know in some cases there's no choice, but in THIS one, I feel like there is, and the scientists responsible for it probably feel that way too.
yeah, and your employer will also say that you may not WORK for him anymore either =P
Java works beautifully across platforms... thats funny... (I'm a big Java fan, but its simply not that simple...)
That said, the -good- ajax librairies do not modify the DOM. (or at least, do not in any way that would conflict). I think Prototype makes a royal mess out of things? Never tried it, but if thats true, that would be a big no no.
Also, HTML existed before the W3C took it in, and it was originally quite limited... Netscape and MS had to extend it to make it useful at first. The W3C just took the extensions that were good and made a standard out of them. Heck, its true for CSS too... opacity control wasn't there in CSS originally... the DX filters, moz-opacity, etc came first, and THEN it was made part of the standard.
Besides, until the W3C makes reference implementations like Sun did with Java, its always going to be a joke spec.
Because its 1 liter of pure h2o at 4 deg C -at the sea level-, (remember, pressure isn't the same at the top of a mountain than it is at the bottom...and it changes everything). It is also not universal... if the earth was to go boom, (and somehow live), we'd lose our reference.
That is in opposition to, let say, a meter, which is a fraction of the distance light travels in a specific amount of time. Fairly universal. (I beleive it USED to be a fraction of the earth's size... which was quite bad too).
JS and HTML for RIA only sucks for the people making the frameworks :) (I really pity them). For the rest of us, well... let just say ExtJS is really, really sweet.
Its shrinking. Losing incredibly small pieces over long periods of times. No object can realistically stay -exactly- the same forever.
I agree, just saying that the webkit stuff isn't all that special for something that came out quite a decent bit later. Also, you've seen them on web sites tons of times: transparency effects on IE, for example. Back in the days also, a lot of stuff that is now possible with standard CSS could only be done with em... same deal with the javascript CSS expressions of IE.
Indeed. That stuff back then was invaluable, because it was before the DHTML/Ajax techniques were perfected... now? Between a popup in a resized window, and a carefully crafted DHTML floating div with drag & drop support, I think both the devs and the users will choose the later...
Technically, IE had that for years in the form of the dx CSS filters. Can do some nifty stuff too, but thats also proprietary.
Corporate culture of the people who work there. I didn't work for either, but I'd expect a higher percentage of OSS fanatics at Google than at Microsoft, and working with people who constantly go "OMG OMG OMG F/OSS or die!!!" can be awkward if you don't think that way... it is almost a religion (and that can go both way, so don't take THAT as a OSS cheap shot). The person may have been tired of hearing that open source was better, regardless of the actual software's quality, all the time, and thus jumped ship. I've seen it happen a lot in smaller companies too. (Of course, again, the other way around obviously happens a lot too)
No, don't get your hopes up. I -am- a supporter of MS (Well, by that I mean i'm not an MS basher, and I like their products, nothing more), but they're still a company. The thing is, there's just so many times they can be hit with hundreds of millions in fines before they start being scared of it. So they're giving up everything that can without being in a world of hurt, in the hope of avoiding further fines.
I'm no experts, but looking around, it seems like these games aren't purely SDL or whatsnot, and complement it to go around the places where it lacks. In other words, they still do have a lot of platform specific code, be it at the engine level or whatever. Not saying it doesn't help, it most likely certainly does, but again: much higher barrier of entry.
Not that raw DX9/10 does everything either... but when it comes to top end features, it will be more "complete", and its certainly easier to use.
Isn't SDL not even object oriented? That would make the barrier for entry pretty high. Also, its really lacking in the feature department. Fine for a small game like this one though, I'll give you that. Total joke for most real applications though (there are exceptions).
And for all of the modules that are discontinued in DX, there are replacements.
Yeah, right up until they screw up the company itself the way they screwed the school :)
Because its quite a decent bit easier, if for nothing else that DirectX covers everything from image to sound to input. The alternative is to combine multiple librairy... so that raise the barrier of entry right there. Also (I don't know if its what they did), but for simpler games, you can use Managed Direct X in .NET with performance more than good enough to make a game like this one (and then some), with 1/10th the effort.
You do realise that in this day and age, C/C++ programmers are by far the minority? So the gain is to make the toolkit attractive to other devs, and the mess that is C++ isn't the best bet for that.. That being said, Objective C has been around for ages, so meh. C++0x would be ok, but that doesn't have the same track record as Objective C and isn't ready anyhow.
There won't be. As in the past, when people were doing too well, great plagues would put the population numbers in check, we'll see it happen again. Heck, there's already some to some extent... if it wasn't for STDs, the sexual liberalisms of the hippies would probably still be going quite strong, and a boom would still go on (if only from the idiots who don't know about contraception).
Its only a matter of time before stuff like bird flu (but worse) wipe half the population out. I wouldn't be surprised to see it before I die (or die from it).
Except that if I understand well, Havok == Intel since they purchased it... so ATI is between a rock and a hard place :)
In Java you can just go and hack it up JSP style if you want, and it will be similar to PHP. The thing is, that way of doing thing sucks. It sucks in Java, it sucks in PERL, it sucks in PHP, it sucks, period. As with any serious application development, you need to structure things a bit. People don't agree on the best way, though in Java, the community is very oriented toward "There's the main way, and then there's other ways in case that doesn't work for you". In general, thats a MVC pattern like strut, a dependency injection/inversion of control container (spring), a persistance framework (hibernate). Then you have t he other stuff when that doesn't work for you (JSF for composite applications, for example).
All languages that matter are like that. Ruby has Rails (package of the stuff I mentionned above), and when that doesn't work, there's a bunch of other frameworks. If you just go in straight PHP and go for it, you're doing it wrong, even from a PHP point of view. PHP has templating frameworks, object relational mappers, containers, etc, too. Lots and lots of them, and for a serious app, you need to pick too.
The only difference, is that PHP is used for "quick and dirty" much more often, while Java is usually used for "enterprise/production scale development", so you'll more rarely see PHP devs using the frameworks, and more rarely see java devs going straight JSP.
Thats it. And if you think developing real world application can be split up with desktop, mobile and web, you're leaving out 2 third of enterprise developments. Not everything ends up in the face of a user, and only a part of what actually does falls in those categories. What about services/deamons? Reporting processes? SOA middlewares? Business workflow processing? Messaging/Reliable systems (I'm not talking about MSN here, I'm talking about message queues). Java and .NET are 2 environments that deal with all of that, but even with everything they provide (much more than a single human can learn), they still don't even provide half of what we need in all situations (especially .NET, until 3.0).
Most of the big web work at Google is in Java and Python, as far as I understand, but I don't beleive its GWT either (though thats used a lot for internal web applications, for sure). No reference, just talk with people who worked there, so take it with a grain of salt.