Although still not fully stable, a revision system like bazaar-ng saves you to set up a listener/server (which in some occasions needs root privileges).
I like it quite a lot, expecially it's easiness to mirror changes to a remote server, even over ftp, sftp or rsync. Then it's even accessible over normal http.
What can you possibly patent about a FAT table? It's more or less a huge array! While the rest of the world is exploring new ways to implement filesystems and thus producing innovation, what one of the most rich and powerful software company in the world does?
It bloody well enforce patents about twenty-five-years old bloody technologies. Silly of me to think they were working to finish that WinFS of theirs, instead.
Look out for your helloworlds, they'll be knocking at your door with patent no. 1340032423 very soon.
PS: How much for these patents to expire? Fortunately I live in Europe, so I can keep FAT support in my GNU/Linux kernel;-)
So in "free pascal" the "property" keyword allows you even to give a check range? Or have you to code the function anyway, like you did? This is the point.
What would be the point of laying out a framework in the C++ standard when nobody would use this because they already do it their own way? We're talking about graphical toolkits with millions of users and bindings in a lot of different languages.
But new projects will not use the existing graphical toolkits, but the standard one.
This is utopia, and unlikely to happen. Moreover, if a feature is missing from whatever toolkit, it[the toolkit] can be adjusted and extended with some effort. But if you get it wrong in an ISO standard... what have you to expect? Year 2018?
We italians are quite creative with the english language... just another way to say that we invent new words when we don't know them off-hand.
Strange enough, the word "constness" exists, and it's a perfectly legal one in English. You can even google for that!:-)
Maybe also English people invent new words when they don't exist.;-)
If these are your points, then use another language, like Java.
I don't want C++ to look like Java.
I want C++ to solve a different kind of problems in an easy way.
Frankly _none_ of your points would be something that I'd like to see added to the language; it would be likely to introduce complexity and confuse users even more, instead of helping them; and maybe it would also break compatibility with old C++ programs. It seems that the ISO committee agrees with this idea.
Some of your points debated:
Garbage collection: making this the default would be utterly insane. GC has to run on another thread, thus making a program unpredictable.
the lack of import declarations: thanks God we don't have them! Keeping headers and implementation in two different files is a wonderful idea; and I can ship to the user directly my clean and documented header files. No Java-style cluttered and bloated source files. Btw, Java is different because it's compiled in bytecode. C++ isn't, so implementing an import semantic would break C++ ABI (yet) another time.
no standard GUI library: different systems get this done in different way. What would be the point of laying out a framework in the C++ standard when nobody would use this because they already do it their own way? We're talking about graphical toolkits with millions of users and bindings in a lot of different languages. Changing the way they do things without breaking binary compatibility for library users is just impossible.
No closures: I don't know if I understood your example correctly, but with Gtkmm + sigc++ I do what you said without particular problems.
No initialization of an object's fields at the point of their declaration: yes, this is left as a boulder for the programmer. No harm in that, you're just speaking about syntactic sugar.
properties: mark a member public if you want to spare some typing. Else use an IDE that generates accessors for you. All in all, it's just laziness...
No true message passing: use a library that provides them. As simple as that.
So please: change programming language and don't complain non-sensically trying to look cool because you can speak a little jargon.
a) If with "bit-arrays" you mean "bitsets", then I think that is a standard header b) I'm strongly opposed to keep in the same file interface and implementation. Having header files let you to ship to your users implementation-free documented classes and functions, following the principle of information hiding and making them clearer to read and document. Moreover, this speed up the pre-processing phase of compilation.
I'm not sure to understand this "property" keyword... what do you mean with the sentence "a property which calls [..] functions"?
As far as I can see: 1) people complaining here about C++ or its will-be features either aren't C++ users or don't understand much of C++; 2) people who have at least managed to RTFA to the end are complaining about new features of the _language_, that will be _few_, while the biggest efforts will be oriented towards extending the STL, which is the really important part.
Btw, only a C user that understand C++ poorly could complain about references. If you find yourself at ease with C, by all means, use it. But don't spit on another well engineered language without the necessary knowledge to do so.
By the way, about references: what's so different when passing to a C function a pointer to a struct, instead of a reference to a C++ one? Don't you have still to read the prototype to know you must pass a pointer indeed? There's just one small difference between C and C++: guess what, if the prototype is a const reference in C++ you've more guarantees the object won't change than with a const pointer in C, since C++ enforces constness. And you don't even have to worry about pointers referencing to free'd memory.
It would also have been nice if this./ discussion were about the new features of C++0x instead of the old "C is better than C++", "python is better than C" and "x86-assembly beats the pants off both". Oh, well: it's Slashdot after all. What was I expecting. Sigh.
Believing in an ECMA standard is like believing to a restaurant rating on the Michelin Guide.
In other words, ECMA is driven by industry leaders. How can you be sure they aren't eager to swallow everything MS and its pockets throws at them? Just the same with IEEE...
This is not the case for ISO and IEC standards, for example (which have other problems anyway, see the SUN/Java affair...).
And don't even think to cite JavaScript (ECMAScript), please...
I don't see the problem; OpenDocument is royalty-free, thus everybody can implement it without having to pay anybody. This lets everybody compete; the contrarywise of excluding someone from the competition just because he _can't_ race without following some oligarchic rules.
If paying zillions of dollars to those Big Companies isn't enough to have them snatch in a new feature, I wonder what shore we landed...
... oh, well. Marketing & lawsuits' dep. People that are even able to _use_ handicapped people to reach their filthy targets.
Plus, installing software only via your packaging system (apt, emerge, yum, urpmi...) probably lowers a lot the odds of getting worms/virii/trojans into it; you don't have to surf the internet on suspicious and never-heard-before sites to get program-that-performs-some-little-action-windows-d oesn't-let-you-to-do.zip.
When they tell me that GNU/Linux apps are a mess, and there are far too many to choose from, it makes me wonder about that time that, in order to rename a list of files on some of my dirs, I got to go and download no less than three different windows programs, of which one was freeware, one shareware, and one with spyware bundled into it.
Gosh.
The point isn't that I didn't tried three different programs in GNU/Linux too to accomplish some obscure task. The point is that it took me a quarter of the time, they were all free (as in freedom) software programs, they got installed and removed really cleanly, they summed up in 1Mb space (and they didn't need any crappy installer), and they even actually worked!
I could go a whole way long citing a lot of these muddy situations on Windows (AVii, download managers, photo retouching programs, zillions of multimedia players -- usually one per codec, image viewers...). Thanks God I'm completely Windows free since 2yrs and a half and not looking behind (just to say that it *is* possible, not that you *must* do the same).
PS : Before Mac zealots start cheering, note that also OSX suffer from the same problem as MS Windows here.
Yes, but if the virus comes from a package shipped by so-called "trusted sources", you're gonna install it, and in order to install it on GNU/Linux, you need to be root.
So, if you run a server, it is a really good idea to install and run as a daemon ClamAV or F-Prot or whatever. GNU/Linux clients will be mostly okay living without a AV burden for quite some time, given that distribution servers are protected, imho.
The only thing I'd like to know, is who infected the Korean server in the first place. It isn't unintentional, that's for sure... and discrediting the Mozilla Foundation could become the next (inter)national sport in the forthcoming months/years.
Now, I just wonder why they asked the Lawyers Guild to sort things out with the Clacks Guild, "Vetinari's method" being that of letting Guild to enforce law by themselves by using, at option, a pointy stick or a big club.
But perhaps it's just a --ing polite way to say they don't --ing want the books to be read by everybody. Just from those willing to pay some good dollars the right people.
Anyway, I'll just believe that Google will bring the Authors' Guild kicking and screaming out of the Century of the Fruitbat.
(Sorry for the useless Discworld parallel, but I couldn't resist anyway.)
-- "The Truth shall make ye fret'"
Mr. Goodmountain doing one of the first movable typo.
Whoops, my fault. Wrongly crafted words from my part, you're right.
Anyway, having all those ActiveX problems around, and being "Active Desktop" so eager to use them [ActiveX programs], sure you must admit that IE isn't an application like the others.
Btw, isn't explorer.exe the first application started within a Windows session? Just asking, eh.
You know what, they have large revenues from a MS Windows-related market, and they produce Norton Antivirus, Norton Utilities, and all the damn product line.
If they start saying that a free (as in beer) OpenSource browser (maybe one that works even on GNU/Linux, sheesh!) is able to actually lower the number of virus/malware you get, people may start considering the switch.
If people get less virii/malware, this means less revenues for them. And what if people discover things like ClamAV, which also works on GNU/Linux? What next?
I ain't saying that Symantec is creating new virii by itself (that's an urban legend like alligators in sewers), but I ain't saying they want to lose customers too.
I'll just wait a less biased source than Symantec, or "Microsoft Watch". It's like Microsoft saying that the TCO of Windows is less than the one of GNU/linux (or vice-versa, for what matters).
PS: this doesn't mean that Firefox is "the most secure" thing around. It isn't. But it is free software and works really well for me. I won't switch to Opera now because of this stupid report, nor because Opera has gone free as in beer. A lot of/.-ters make a tragedy out of a rumor (speaking in general). We're a bunch of chattering mothers-in-law...:-)
Anyway, the damage a Firefox bug can do is limited to user space; a hole in IE, which is tightly tied with Windows kernel... brrr.
-- Premise : school in Italy starts when you're six, you take five years of primary school, three of middle school, and three or five of high school. You must have done five years of high school to go to university, and usually a course is 3 (~Bachelor's Degree) + 2(~Master Degree) years long. Doctorate takes another 3yrs at least.
In Italy trigonometry is more or less "compulsory" at the 3rd class of every high school conceivable (private schools aren't a lot, and statal school are required to teach it), so _every_ student has to face it sooner or later (since you _must_ go to school until you're at least 16 in Italy, soon it'll be 'til 18).
By the way, I've always found trigonometry a bit sterile. We are used to do geometrical and algebraic (simple) theorem demonstrations at high schools here, now _that_ opens your mind, imho. You usually ends the fifth year working with integration and differentials.
Note that here in Italy you cannot choose what subjects you want, you know all the subjects you're gonna attend in the 3/5-years-long program when you start high school. At least Math, Italian, English and History are always there. Chemistry, Physics, Latin, Phylosophy, Law & Economy, Biology, French and/or Deutsch, Greek and Geography are often there too (not one or two of those at once, the _most_ of those), plus of course PE.
I never understood the American model much. We're brough up to try and follow the biggest number of subjects while we're young, so we can better decide what to do of our lives, and we can adapt to different situation without being tied to a specific work / situation.
How you can do without a strong Math course at high school, is beyond me and most Europeans.
Slashdot Mirror
The evolution and Big Bang theories accepted in Italy? You just forget we've Vatican City and the Pope, here.
It's creationism all the way. The right-wing government just sliced out of school programmes Darwinism a year and a half ago.
However... it didn't use to be like it. Sniff.
I had this idea *years* ago!!! Why didn't I patent it? I would be rich by now!
Damn.
(Sorry, I just felt I had to tell the world)
Not to be harsh, but this theory is around since at least middle '80s. They taught it to me at primary school, here in Italy.
Although still not fully stable, a revision system like bazaar-ng saves you to set up a listener/server (which in some occasions needs root privileges).
I like it quite a lot, expecially it's easiness to mirror changes to a remote server, even over ftp, sftp or rsync. Then it's even accessible over normal http.
And now Congress will vote to make freely-editable online encyclopedias illegal. Freedom of speech loses in a landslide.
Move them servers to Canada or Europe... US isn't the only nation in the world, you know, although sometimes people forget.
What can you possibly patent about a FAT table? It's more or less a huge array!
;-)
While the rest of the world is exploring new ways to implement filesystems and thus producing innovation, what one of the most rich and powerful software company in the world does?
It bloody well enforce patents about twenty-five-years old bloody technologies.
Silly of me to think they were working to finish that WinFS of theirs, instead.
Look out for your helloworlds, they'll be knocking at your door with patent no. 1340032423 very soon.
PS: How much for these patents to expire? Fortunately I live in Europe, so I can keep FAT support in my GNU/Linux kernel
The guy removes one line of code and becomes famous almost instantly. Why didn't anyone a Microsoft think of this solution?
And if every guy at Microsoft removed a line of code, probably the final product would be far better.
Whohooo! Look, I've this new OS in mind which will solve all the problems of the world... it's called Hurd on L4... oh, no, wait...
So in "free pascal" the "property" keyword allows you even to give a check range? Or have you to code the function anyway, like you did? This is the point.
But new projects will not use the existing graphical toolkits, but the standard one.
This is utopia, and unlikely to happen. Moreover, if a feature is missing from whatever toolkit, it[the toolkit] can be adjusted and extended with some effort. But if you get it wrong in an ISO standard... what have you to expect? Year 2018?We italians are quite creative with the english language... just another way to say that we invent new words when we don't know them off-hand. Strange enough, the word "constness" exists, and it's a perfectly legal one in English. You can even google for that! :-)
Maybe also English people invent new words when they don't exist. ;-)
So, for example: class C { public: int x; }; int a = foo.x; foo.x = a; would produce the same results, no?
If these are your points, then use another language, like Java.
I don't want C++ to look like Java.
I want C++ to solve a different kind of problems in an easy way.
Frankly _none_ of your points would be something that I'd like to see added to the language; it would be likely to introduce complexity and confuse users even more, instead of helping them; and maybe it would also break compatibility with old C++ programs. It seems that the ISO committee agrees with this idea.
Some of your points debated:
So please: change programming language and don't complain non-sensically trying to look cool because you can speak a little jargon.
a) If with "bit-arrays" you mean "bitsets", then I think that is a standard header
b) I'm strongly opposed to keep in the same file interface and implementation. Having header files let you to ship to your users implementation-free documented classes and functions, following the principle of information hiding and making them clearer to read and document. Moreover, this speed up the pre-processing phase of compilation.
I'm not sure to understand this "property" keyword... what do you mean with the sentence "a property which calls [..] functions"?
As far as I can see:
./ discussion were about the new features of C++0x instead of the old "C is better than C++", "python is better than C" and "x86-assembly beats the pants off both".
1) people complaining here about C++ or its will-be features either aren't C++ users or don't understand much of C++;
2) people who have at least managed to RTFA to the end are complaining about new features of the _language_, that will be _few_, while the biggest efforts will be oriented towards extending the STL, which is the really important part.
Btw, only a C user that understand C++ poorly could complain about references. If you find yourself at ease with C, by all means, use it. But don't spit on another well engineered language without the necessary knowledge to do so.
By the way, about references: what's so different when passing to a C function a pointer to a struct, instead of a reference to a C++ one? Don't you have still to read the prototype to know you must pass a pointer indeed? There's just one small difference between C and C++: guess what, if the prototype is a const reference in C++ you've more guarantees the object won't change than with a const pointer in C, since C++ enforces constness. And you don't even have to worry about pointers referencing to free'd memory.
It would also have been nice if this
Oh, well: it's Slashdot after all. What was I expecting. Sigh.
In other words, ECMA is driven by industry leaders. How can you be sure they aren't eager to swallow everything MS and its pockets throws at them? Just the same with IEEE...
This is not the case for ISO and IEC standards, for example (which have other problems anyway, see the SUN/Java affair...).
And don't even think to cite JavaScript (ECMAScript), please...
A match won each, what's fair is fair...
I don't see the problem; OpenDocument is royalty-free, thus everybody can implement it without having to pay anybody. This lets everybody compete; the contrarywise of excluding someone from the competition just because he _can't_ race without following some oligarchic rules.
If paying zillions of dollars to those Big Companies isn't enough to have them snatch in a new feature, I wonder what shore we landed ...
... oh, well. Marketing & lawsuits' dep. People that are even able to _use_ handicapped people to reach their filthy targets.
The developers hope to use this with video games and other entertainment
Did anybody ever play ''Syndacate wars''?
Plus, installing software only via your packaging system (apt, emerge, yum, urpmi...) probably lowers a lot the odds of getting worms/virii/trojans into it; you don't have to surf the internet on suspicious and never-heard-before sites to get program-that-performs-some-little-action-windows-d oesn't-let-you-to-do.zip.
When they tell me that GNU/Linux apps are a mess, and there are far too many to choose from, it makes me wonder about that time that, in order to rename a list of files on some of my dirs, I got to go and download no less than three different windows programs, of which one was freeware, one shareware, and one with spyware bundled into it.
Gosh.
The point isn't that I didn't tried three different programs in GNU/Linux too to accomplish some obscure task. The point is that it took me a quarter of the time, they were all free (as in freedom) software programs, they got installed and removed really cleanly, they summed up in 1Mb space (and they didn't need any crappy installer), and they even actually worked!
I could go a whole way long citing a lot of these muddy situations on Windows (AVii, download managers, photo retouching programs, zillions of multimedia players -- usually one per codec, image viewers...). Thanks God I'm completely Windows free since 2yrs and a half and not looking behind (just to say that it *is* possible, not that you *must* do the same).
PS : Before Mac zealots start cheering, note that also OSX suffer from the same problem as MS Windows here.
Yes, but if the virus comes from a package shipped by so-called "trusted sources", you're gonna install it, and in order to install it on GNU/Linux, you need to be root.
So, if you run a server, it is a really good idea to install and run as a daemon ClamAV or F-Prot or whatever. GNU/Linux clients will be mostly okay living without a AV burden for quite some time, given that distribution servers are protected, imho.
The only thing I'd like to know, is who infected the Korean server in the first place. It isn't unintentional, that's for sure... and discrediting the Mozilla Foundation could become the next (inter)national sport in the forthcoming months/years.
America has still an Authors' Guild? Cool!
Now, I just wonder why they asked the Lawyers Guild to sort things out with the Clacks Guild, "Vetinari's method" being that of letting Guild to enforce law by themselves by using, at option, a pointy stick or a big club.
But perhaps it's just a --ing polite way to say they don't --ing want the books to be read by everybody. Just from those willing to pay some good dollars the right people.
Anyway, I'll just believe that Google will bring the Authors' Guild kicking and screaming out of the Century of the Fruitbat.
(Sorry for the useless Discworld parallel, but I couldn't resist anyway.)
-- "The Truth shall make ye fret'"
Mr. Goodmountain doing one of the first movable typo.
Whoops, my fault. Wrongly crafted words from my part, you're right. Anyway, having all those ActiveX problems around, and being "Active Desktop" so eager to use them [ActiveX programs], sure you must admit that IE isn't an application like the others. Btw, isn't explorer.exe the first application started within a Windows session? Just asking, eh.
It's Symantec, boys!
/.-ters make a tragedy out of a rumor (speaking in general). We're a bunch of chattering mothers-in-law... :-)
You know what, they have large revenues from a MS Windows-related market, and they produce Norton Antivirus, Norton Utilities, and all the damn product line.
If they start saying that a free (as in beer) OpenSource browser (maybe one that works even on GNU/Linux, sheesh!) is able to actually lower the number of virus/malware you get, people may start considering the switch.
If people get less virii/malware, this means less revenues for them. And what if people discover things like ClamAV, which also works on GNU/Linux? What next?
I ain't saying that Symantec is creating new virii by itself (that's an urban legend like alligators in sewers), but I ain't saying they want to lose customers too.
I'll just wait a less biased source than Symantec, or "Microsoft Watch". It's like Microsoft saying that the TCO of Windows is less than the one of GNU/linux (or vice-versa, for what matters).
PS: this doesn't mean that Firefox is "the most secure" thing around. It isn't. But it is free software and works really well for me. I won't switch to Opera now because of this stupid report, nor because Opera has gone free as in beer. A lot of
Anyway, the damage a Firefox bug can do is limited to user space; a hole in IE, which is tightly tied with Windows kernel... brrr.
-- Premise : school in Italy starts when you're six, you take five years of primary school, three of middle school, and three or five of high school. You must have done five years of high school to go to university, and usually a course is 3 (~Bachelor's Degree) + 2(~Master Degree) years long. Doctorate takes another 3yrs at least.
In Italy trigonometry is more or less "compulsory" at the 3rd class of every high school conceivable (private schools aren't a lot, and statal school are required to teach it), so _every_ student has to face it sooner or later (since you _must_ go to school until you're at least 16 in Italy, soon it'll be 'til 18).
By the way, I've always found trigonometry a bit sterile. We are used to do geometrical and algebraic (simple) theorem demonstrations at high schools here, now _that_ opens your mind, imho.
You usually ends the fifth year working with integration and differentials.
Note that here in Italy you cannot choose what subjects you want, you know all the subjects you're gonna attend in the 3/5-years-long program when you start high school.
At least Math, Italian, English and History are always there.
Chemistry, Physics, Latin, Phylosophy, Law & Economy, Biology, French and/or Deutsch, Greek and Geography are often there too (not one or two of those at once, the _most_ of those), plus of course PE.
I never understood the American model much. We're brough up to try and follow the biggest number of subjects while we're young, so we can better decide what to do of our lives, and we can adapt to different situation without being tied to a specific work / situation.
How you can do without a strong Math course at high school, is beyond me and most Europeans.