And for a lot of C++ programmers, the word JAVA triggers the thought "Lego coder". It will change, no doubt.
I understand your point, but I would argue that a really good programmer that only knows a single language does not exist. I don't see how one can become a good programmer without a little intellectual curiosity which would drive them to experiment and learn other languages. I started out many moons ago with Assembler, Basic, Fortran and COBOL, tried LISP (didn't like it), moved on to Pascal and PL/I, then picked up C, followed by C++, tried Objc-C (didn't like it) then Java, Perl and later C#, Groovy, Javascript and various scripting languages. I'm now kicking the tires or Scala, Python, PHP, Go and Erlang. Not one of these languages is "unworthy" of me. Every one has it's merits and is interesting for their unique attributes (even the ones I didn't like).
C++ programmers who dismiss others with experience in these other languages are showing their ignorance , inflated ego, or probably both. If a C++ programmer makes statements like "Java scripters are not real programmers", chances are they aren't nearly as good a C++ programmer as they think they are.
Java scripters, and yes they ARE scripters not real programmers
That's a typical example of what the GP is referring to. I do a good deal of both C++ and Java and you obviously don't know squat about either to make an idiotic statement like that.
It seems to me that most tasks that seem good for C++ would be better handled using a mix of an easier-to-program language (Ruby, Python, heck even lisp or smalltalk or anything else) with C extensions.
IMHO C++ seems not very good at very low-level programming; since with C++ it's not always obvious what a compiler might want to do with '+' thanks to operator overloading and rather convoluted implicit casting rules. In C you're using a pretty good tool for low-level programmings (especially with a dialect where you can sneak in a few assembly calls where you need to). In Ruby you're using a reasonably nice and efficient to develop in OO language. With the incredible ease of writing C extensions for Ruby, it's easy to use the best tool for each part of the job you're doing. The only compelling reason to use C++ I can think of is if some political policy forces you to use a single language for an entire project; and then I guess C++ not quite as clunky as java or c#.
( though I'm kinda repeating myself - a longer rant I made on slashdot about the pains of C++ years ago is here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100202&cid=8540772 . An even more condemning annoyance about C++ is that thanks to so many convoluted tricks in the language, most people who claim C++ knowledge don't actually know it, as evidenced by the comments in that old thread )
I disagree on several points. C is great for low level programming, but many times you want to use OO rather than procedural programming. C++ allows you to do exactly the same low level programming you can do in C (including inline-assembler if needed), but also offers the ability to design in OO. I can't think of a good reason not to use C++ rather than C unless it is a simple monolithic (preferably small) project. Mixing languages brings a whole other set of headaches (including staffing issues). Ruby, Python or other languages are fine and have their place, but I can't imagine using them for systems level programming anymore than I would use C++ to build a web application. Languages like Python, Ruby, (errr.. LISP? - there is considerable debate over whether LISP is even a true "programming language" but rather an alternate implementation of a Turing machine, but I digress) are orders of a magnitude too slow to be used as systems programming languages.
There's still a market for low level C programmers, and for Java, C#, Perl, Python, VB, and just about everything else, but who uses C++ these days? Games developers, a few corporate app maintainers and... uh... hang on...
Not sure if you're being facetious or not here, but C++ is consistently in the top 3 languages (the others being C and Java) in terms of popularity and usage. It's well above PHP, C#, Perl, Python, VB, Obj-C, and so on. I realize that stats from Tiobe index, Sourceforge, Langpop and other sources are merely an educated guess as to what people are really using, but the fact that nearly all agree on these three languages as being the top contenders seems to add credibility to their accuracy. It certainly beats the opinion of some individuals who are biased toward their favorite (or least favorite) languages.
kept alive by beardy wierdies and a few caffeine soaked kids who'll burn out and end up writing SQL for banks in a couple of years
99% of the worlds population prefers the walled garden,
I don't even know what that means.
antenna-gate was always a load of BS,
You think? Jobs disagreed. After 22 days of getting beat up about it with Apple denying there was a problem, Jobs himself stated "We've been working really, really hard for the last 22 days to try to understand what the real problem is, so that when we solve it, we actually solve it, rather than just putting a bandaid on it." Of course, they did wind up putting a band-aid on it in the form of a cover.
and there was never a problem with 4.2 on the 3GS.
Perhaps you missed the "until" portion of my statement above. 4.0 brought mine (and a lot of others) to it's knees, to the point that I had to restore back to 3.1.3 to have a usable phone. 4.1 still had issues (slow), but it at least worked. 4.2 was the release that the previous two should have been.
So I guess other than the fact that you made up all your problems, I agree with you.
Whoever decided that the browser scripting language should be "Javascript" needs to be taken out back and shot.
You prefer maybe VBScript? If it's the name you don't like, just call it ECMAScript (of which Javascript, JScript and ActionScript are dialects of). Or maybe you would just prefer no scripting at all in your browser. That's fair enough, but you'll have to give up the user experience that makes sites like Google maps, Gmail and the like so compelling.
The only complaint about the iPhone is you can only use it on AT&T.
The only complaint? Really? Do you read much? Does "walled garden", "antenna-gate" or "unusable 3G/3Gs with iOS 4 until 4.2" ring a bell? What about continuous problems with syncing, data restoration and lost contacts? Overall, iOS is much less buggy than Android I will agree, but claiming that the only complaint about the iPhone is AT&T is just bunk.
Funny, I was under the impression the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3Gs and iPhone 4 were different devices.:)
I agree, that the comparison should include ALL iOS devices vs ALL Android devices as we're really talking platform comparisons, not devices comparisons. iOS is probably still in the lead if that were the comparison being made. However, there is no denying that the momentum is in the Android camp and when Gingerbread devices begin hitting the market in Q1 2011, this will most likely increase it's momentum. In addition, there are many devices that have not made it to market yet (book readers, media devices, etc) for which Apple has no competing product. These will, in all likelihood adopt Android as their OS (it's certainly won't be iOS). This will again, increase Android penetration. Even devices not invented yet, when faced with the decision of what OS to run their device on, will most likely choose Android.
An operating system running on multiple phones surpassed the sales of a single phone? You don't say!
Interesting take. So let's see, let's just compare operating systems penetration then. iOS vs Android. Compare the numbers and get back to me.
Seems to me they'ed be exactly the same as comparing iPhone vs all Android devices.
Before anyone fires back, I do realize that this does leave out iPad and it should be counted in the iOS column for a truly OS to OS comparison, but the point here is that the lame excuse the parent is making (one phone vs muliple vendors) doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.
Here's a deal: you don't bogusly assume I'm a blind fanboy adherent of the Cult Of Apple and I won't bogusly assume you're one of those people who thinks buying an Android phone is somehow Striking A Blow Against The Empire.
Actually, I don't give a damn who or what you are. I merely posted my opinion on/. (as sometimes people have been know to do) and, as is always the case, if anything is said that can be construed as not pro-Apple, it's like watching the roaches scramble when the light comes on. I'd get less reaction if I posted "Jesus was gay" or "Rush Limbaugh is the new Saviour". It's ridiculous.
I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store.
And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?
If you actually read my previous posts, you'd understand (even if you didn't agree with) my reasoning. I'm not interested in covering the same ground again.
Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct)
...and you also believe that is, in fact, their reasoning...
Correct. It's called an opinion.
is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors.
...because, of course, once you have those "good" apps, there will never ever ever ever ever ever ever be any need for a new application ever again, other than the ones you think of.
No, there will always be new apps, but there will only be new apps that Apple deems are what people want/need and make available through their store, created either by them, by contractors or through licensing deals.
Maybe so. It won't be the first nor the last time.
They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.
"Tampering" in what sense? No, you can't write a kext or a program that requires, say, root privileges, but you can add new applications, and develop hardware that attaches to the dock connector.
You can add new application if you've purchased it through their app store and (i.e. it h
Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.
I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store. Sure, developers are welcome to come on board for now. Of course, it'll cost $99 for the privilege of placing their $0.99 product in the store and out of that they'll get $0.65 per sale. How generous. I'm sure a lot of software developers will hang around for that when they could pay a one-time $29 fee to put their wares on the Android store (or one of the many new stores popping up) and receive 100% of the proceeds.
Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct) is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors. They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.
The last figures I saw, the desktop/laptop segment only accounted for around 15% of Apple's revenue. By a wide margin, the iPod, iPhone and iPad markets are the real money makers for Apple and the real markets they are interested in. If they extended the walled garden to the desktop/laptop market (they've already all but given up on the server market, discontinuing the XServe line) they surely would lose some some business but they might well reason that the amount loss was justifiable to regain absolute control of their platform.
It's not just me speculating that OS/X will merge with iOS at some point in the near future, that's been on the Mac blogs for some time. The app store for OSX is a reality - it's not speculation anymore. There is also speculation that Apple is planning on shipping machines for use in their cloud initiative without CD/CD-ROM drives. This will further prevent users from loading apps from outside sources.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Won't be the first time either. I actually hope I am wrong. I find it comforting that Apple fanbois stay in Apple land, far away from roads I travel.
Slashdot Mirror
And for a lot of C++ programmers, the word JAVA triggers the thought "Lego coder". It will change, no doubt.
I understand your point, but I would argue that a really good programmer that only knows a single language does not exist. I don't see how one can become a good programmer without a little intellectual curiosity which would drive them to experiment and learn other languages. I started out many moons ago with Assembler, Basic, Fortran and COBOL, tried LISP (didn't like it), moved on to Pascal and PL/I, then picked up C, followed by C++, tried Objc-C (didn't like it) then Java, Perl and later C#, Groovy, Javascript and various scripting languages. I'm now kicking the tires or Scala, Python, PHP, Go and Erlang. Not one of these languages is "unworthy" of me. Every one has it's merits and is interesting for their unique attributes (even the ones I didn't like).
C++ programmers who dismiss others with experience in these other languages are showing their ignorance , inflated ego, or probably both. If a C++ programmer makes statements like "Java scripters are not real programmers", chances are they aren't nearly as good a C++ programmer as they think they are.
Java scripters, and yes they ARE scripters not real programmers
That's a typical example of what the GP is referring to. I do a good deal of both C++ and Java and you obviously don't know squat about either to make an idiotic statement like that.
It seems to me that most tasks that seem good for C++ would be better handled using a mix of an easier-to-program language (Ruby, Python, heck even lisp or smalltalk or anything else) with C extensions.
IMHO C++ seems not very good at very low-level programming; since with C++ it's not always obvious what a compiler might want to do with '+' thanks to operator overloading and rather convoluted implicit casting rules. In C you're using a pretty good tool for low-level programmings (especially with a dialect where you can sneak in a few assembly calls where you need to). In Ruby you're using a reasonably nice and efficient to develop in OO language. With the incredible ease of writing C extensions for Ruby, it's easy to use the best tool for each part of the job you're doing. The only compelling reason to use C++ I can think of is if some political policy forces you to use a single language for an entire project; and then I guess C++ not quite as clunky as java or c#.
( though I'm kinda repeating myself - a longer rant I made on slashdot about the pains of C++ years ago is here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100202&cid=8540772 . An even more condemning annoyance about C++ is that thanks to so many convoluted tricks in the language, most people who claim C++ knowledge don't actually know it, as evidenced by the comments in that old thread )
I disagree on several points. C is great for low level programming, but many times you want to use OO rather than procedural programming. C++ allows you to do exactly the same low level programming you can do in C (including inline-assembler if needed), but also offers the ability to design in OO. I can't think of a good reason not to use C++ rather than C unless it is a simple monolithic (preferably small) project. Mixing languages brings a whole other set of headaches (including staffing issues). Ruby, Python or other languages are fine and have their place, but I can't imagine using them for systems level programming anymore than I would use C++ to build a web application. Languages like Python, Ruby, (errr.. LISP? - there is considerable debate over whether LISP is even a true "programming language" but rather an alternate implementation of a Turing machine, but I digress) are orders of a magnitude too slow to be used as systems programming languages.
There's still a market for low level C programmers, and for Java, C#, Perl, Python, VB, and just about everything else, but who uses C++ these days? Games developers, a few corporate app maintainers and... uh... hang on...
Not sure if you're being facetious or not here, but C++ is consistently in the top 3 languages (the others being C and Java) in terms of popularity and usage. It's well above PHP, C#, Perl, Python, VB, Obj-C, and so on. I realize that stats from Tiobe index, Sourceforge, Langpop and other sources are merely an educated guess as to what people are really using, but the fact that nearly all agree on these three languages as being the top contenders seems to add credibility to their accuracy. It certainly beats the opinion of some individuals who are biased toward their favorite (or least favorite) languages.
kept alive by beardy wierdies and a few caffeine soaked kids who'll burn out and end up writing SQL for banks in a couple of years
Hey wait a minute! I resemble that remark!
Maybe they accidentally embedded the MyLifeBits http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/mylifebits/ software in WP7 and it's sending the results home.
I'm not qualified to have much of an opinion about these things.
Well, that really set's you apart from the rest of the folks here!
Sorry, I what I meant was:
It would be interesting to see if BG can come back and kick Jobs' butt a second time.
It would be interesting to see if BG can come back and kick Jobs a second time.
99% of the worlds population prefers the walled garden,
I don't even know what that means.
antenna-gate was always a load of BS,
You think? Jobs disagreed. After 22 days of getting beat up about it with Apple denying there was a problem, Jobs himself stated "We've been working really, really hard for the last 22 days to try to understand what the real problem is, so that when we solve it, we actually solve it, rather than just putting a bandaid on it." Of course, they did wind up putting a band-aid on it in the form of a cover.
and there was never a problem with 4.2 on the 3GS.
Perhaps you missed the "until" portion of my statement above. 4.0 brought mine (and a lot of others) to it's knees, to the point that I had to restore back to 3.1.3 to have a usable phone. 4.1 still had issues (slow), but it at least worked. 4.2 was the release that the previous two should have been.
So I guess other than the fact that you made up all your problems, I agree with you.
All praise our thought leader "Jobs"!
the common-day philosopher tends to stare at their naval
You mean a TV? Oh, wait, that has a keyboard. Does your system count if the keyboard only has numbers and an enter key on it?
Absolutely it counts. If the users have a button (any button) to press, they'll find a way to hose the system.
You'd have the same problem then. People would just equate HTML to HTMLScript.
This is like watching 1940's porn, knowing damn well that what you are seeing is only an image of what grandmother nature looked like long ago!
Build something that's foolproof, and only a fool will use it.
No need to take the drastic step of getting rid of users. Simply provide them with computers with no input devices (mice, keyboards, etc).
Whoever decided that the browser scripting language should be "Javascript" needs to be taken out back and shot.
You prefer maybe VBScript? If it's the name you don't like, just call it ECMAScript (of which Javascript, JScript and ActionScript are dialects of). Or maybe you would just prefer no scripting at all in your browser. That's fair enough, but you'll have to give up the user experience that makes sites like Google maps, Gmail and the like so compelling.
It would put an end to the old trick of placing a cockroach (half of a cockroach even better) on your plate in order to get a free meal.
The only complaint about the iPhone is you can only use it on AT&T.
The only complaint? Really? Do you read much? Does "walled garden", "antenna-gate" or "unusable 3G/3Gs with iOS 4 until 4.2" ring a bell? What about continuous problems with syncing, data restoration and lost contacts? Overall, iOS is much less buggy than Android I will agree, but claiming that the only complaint about the iPhone is AT&T is just bunk.
Gartner? Who are they?
Our thought leaders. Without them how could we make decisions?
I agree, that the comparison should include ALL iOS devices vs ALL Android devices as we're really talking platform comparisons, not devices comparisons. iOS is probably still in the lead if that were the comparison being made. However, there is no denying that the momentum is in the Android camp and when Gingerbread devices begin hitting the market in Q1 2011, this will most likely increase it's momentum. In addition, there are many devices that have not made it to market yet (book readers, media devices, etc) for which Apple has no competing product. These will, in all likelihood adopt Android as their OS (it's certainly won't be iOS). This will again, increase Android penetration. Even devices not invented yet, when faced with the decision of what OS to run their device on, will most likely choose Android.
Yeah, and everyone remembers what a flop Windows 95 was!
An operating system running on multiple phones surpassed the sales of a single phone? You don't say!
Interesting take. So let's see, let's just compare operating systems penetration then. iOS vs Android. Compare the numbers and get back to me.
Seems to me they'ed be exactly the same as comparing iPhone vs all Android devices.
Before anyone fires back, I do realize that this does leave out iPad and it should be counted in the iOS column for a truly OS to OS comparison, but the point here is that the lame excuse the parent is making (one phone vs muliple vendors) doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.
Here's a deal: you don't bogusly assume I'm a blind fanboy adherent of the Cult Of Apple and I won't bogusly assume you're one of those people who thinks buying an Android phone is somehow Striking A Blow Against The Empire.
Actually, I don't give a damn who or what you are. I merely posted my opinion on /. (as sometimes people have been know to do) and, as is always the case, if anything is said that can be construed as not pro-Apple, it's like watching the roaches scramble when the light comes on. I'd get less reaction if I posted "Jesus was gay" or "Rush Limbaugh is the new Saviour". It's ridiculous.
I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store.
And what exactly is it about a store to sell third-party applications that's an indication that Apple can do without third-party developers? If they didn't want third-party developers, they, err, umm, wouldn't have published an SDK and created an app store. Or do you mean that so many third-party apps have been developed that Apple has figured out that they don't need them?
If you actually read my previous posts, you'd understand (even if you didn't agree with) my reasoning. I'm not interested in covering the same ground again.
Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct)
...and you also believe that is, in fact, their reasoning...
Correct. It's called an opinion.
is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors.
...because, of course, once you have those "good" apps, there will never ever ever ever ever ever ever be any need for a new application ever again, other than the ones you think of.
No, there will always be new apps, but there will only be new apps that Apple deems are what people want/need and make available through their store, created either by them, by contractors or through licensing deals.
If Apple starts thinking that all the smart people work for them, they're fucked.
Maybe so. It won't be the first nor the last time.
They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.
"Tampering" in what sense? No, you can't write a kext or a program that requires, say, root privileges, but you can add new applications, and develop hardware that attaches to the dock connector.
You can add new application if you've purchased it through their app store and (i.e. it h
Look, don't mind me. Follow the leader. No skin off my back.
I've followed Jobs & Co for nearly 35 years and I've seen how he operates. Apple only lets others play in their game when they have no other choice. Jobs compulsion to control everything is legendary. If they have to, they'll let others play, as long as they play by Apple's rules. The minute they feel they can survive without third party developers, believe me, they'll cut them out. However, never before has the opportunity presented itself where Apple could do without third party developers. This began to change with the iPhone and the App store. Sure, developers are welcome to come on board for now. Of course, it'll cost $99 for the privilege of placing their $0.99 product in the store and out of that they'll get $0.65 per sale. How generous. I'm sure a lot of software developers will hang around for that when they could pay a one-time $29 fee to put their wares on the Android store (or one of the many new stores popping up) and receive 100% of the proceeds.
Apple has already reached critical mass and they don't really need any more fart apps in the store. Apple's reasoning (and I believe they are correct) is that most people (outside the tech world) will buy the iPhone because of the brand and whether there are 300,000 apps in the app store or just a few thousand "good" apps won't matter. They will still maintain their market share. Once the "app envy" fad passes and Apple decides which apps are worth keeping in the store (for marketing, financial or other reasons) they can simply buy out, set up royalty agreements with, or make any number of other arrangements with the "good" apps and they can then easily shut the doors to outside vendors. They've already made it abundantly clear that the iOS devices are intended to be seen as "appliances" that they really don't want outsiders tampering with.
The last figures I saw, the desktop/laptop segment only accounted for around 15% of Apple's revenue. By a wide margin, the iPod, iPhone and iPad markets are the real money makers for Apple and the real markets they are interested in. If they extended the walled garden to the desktop/laptop market (they've already all but given up on the server market, discontinuing the XServe line) they surely would lose some some business but they might well reason that the amount loss was justifiable to regain absolute control of their platform.
It's not just me speculating that OS/X will merge with iOS at some point in the near future, that's been on the Mac blogs for some time. The app store for OSX is a reality - it's not speculation anymore. There is also speculation that Apple is planning on shipping machines for use in their cloud initiative without CD/CD-ROM drives. This will further prevent users from loading apps from outside sources.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Won't be the first time either. I actually hope I am wrong. I find it comforting that Apple fanbois stay in Apple land, far away from roads I travel.
Just wait and see.