That's because there is no true "Web API". You've got multiple standards with multiple languages and multiple frameworks and multiple browsers all trying in multiple ways to be THE solution to web development.
It's a mess. Comparitively speaking developing "normal" applications, even massively parallel computational models, seems easy by comparison.
Hey, it's the free market! What do you expect? Why allow competition when you can crush it beneath your bootheel for hookers and blow to the right politicians?
I'm surprised this argument hasn't been used against Linux. "But you can watch porn with it!". Bet you Steve Ballmer is reading that article and kicking himself in the ass for not thinking of it first.
In essence Google has created, in Orifice's...er...Oracle's eyes, an "almost" Java. An "almost" Java does not enjoy the protections the open Java does, according to them. That means they think they can go after Google for patent infringement.
The problem is that the Javanistas won't admit it - that Java sometimes, beyond a certain size, introduces MORE complexity than lower-level languages that are more flexible.
Two things. First you make a mighty big claim about complexity. You're going to need to back that up. If object oriented languages introduce more complexity into an application, then why would anyone use them?
Second, you make the claim the lower level languages are more flexible. True. However, that isn't necessarily a good thing. A language like C gives you endless ways of shooting yourself in the foot, and sometimes it could be months or years before you realize (or worse, someone else) realizes you DID shoot yourself in the foot.
I've programmed in languages ranging from custom assembler to.NET. Languages like Java and.NET help mitigate the risk of shooting yourself in the foot (it is still possible, but it is harder to do). Languages like assembler and C allow you to get more performance, but with an increased risk of bugs. Any software engineer or programmer worth their salt will tell you that you always use the appropriate tool for the job at hand.
In c, it means that you get in the habit of typing free() right after typing malloc(), then asking yourself, where does the free() really belong? Who is going to "own" this memory. If it doesn't fit naturally within that block, you need to make sure that it's taken care of somewhere else. Move the free() there, and paste in a comment as to who frees it.
Which in a large complex application can become extremely tedious and/or prone to errors. A new programmer coming on board isn't going to know all the nuances of the code base. You're also depending on the comments to be reliable, which may or may not be the case. Then there is the case of multi-threaded and/or parallel applications, which can add a whole other world of hurt when it comes to manual memory management.
In c++, it means making sure that every object owns its own resources, or you enforce a contract with any object it serves as a "factory" to, that the recipient will free it, but not both.
Sure, C++ can be less error prone than C. But you're still responsible for the memory management, and memory mismanagement is still a leading source of bugs and vulnerability in applications that use non-managed memory.
It is possible to write leak-resistant (even leak-free) code. It just takes some attention to detail.
No one is saying it isn't, but it takes time and effort to do so. In some cases, a lot of effort. You have to weigh the costs vs. the benefits for your particular application.
But at that point, you have a deterministic program, not one whose performance is dependent on when/if a garbage collector decides to do some cleanup - and you can also do away with the whole {smart|weak}_ptr garbage.
Unless you are the ONLY software running on a system using a basic CPU your program is NOT deterministic. Modern CPUs do all sorts of crazy branch predictions and caching. Modern OS's do all kinds of scheduling and process manipulation. You can take an average but ultimately you are at the mercy of the CPU and OS.
If your using auto-gc languages for the correct domain, then the garbage collecting should have minimal to zero impact on your performance. If you actually know how to write code efficiently in a gc language, then you can reduce it even further. But that requires knowledge about how gc based languages work AND that you're using them in the right domain.
Not every application requires rocketing speed, and not every development project has the budget or schedule to hire a crack team of C/C++ programmers to write "perfect" code that's 100% cross-platform. You use the best tools for the job.
Of course, if all you have is a hammer then I guess everything looks like a nail.
No it isn't. It's because the average American has the IQ of a sack of potatoes and doesn't know the names of our own national monuments.
It is the LINCOLN MEMORIAL. There is no such place as the LINCOLN MONUMENT. The LINCOLN MEMORIAL has a LINCOLN MONUMENT, but there is no PLACE called LINCOLN MONUMENT. Google maps isn't always the most accurate and it's searching doesn't always give you what you'd expect. For example, try putting in WASHINGTON MEMORIAL instead of MONUMENT and see what you get.
I'm not privy to the inner details of how Google's search engine works, but it appears it is keying off "monument". No conspiracy or tricks needed. If you actually put in what it is called, the LINCOLN MEMORIAL, then it gives you the right location.
Besides, how on Earth could the Democratic party get this to happen? They can barely agree on a general direction for their party, let alone pull off a stunt like this.
Why 'general' but 'gear'? Or 'chair' but 'chlorine'? 'Put' but 'putty'? How the hell "Eugene Delacroix" is pronounced? Etc.
Yes, but if you were to spell "general" as "jeneral", or "chlorine" as "klorine" then an English reader would still be able to figure out what you were talking about. In other words, you can write words phonetically and a good portion of English readers would still be able to figure out what you're talking about. That doesn't work with written Chinese.
So.. 2010 is my year of the Linux desktop, and someone is saying "hey here's how to hose your system so that it looks like Microsoft fucked a penguin". I'll pass on that one..
The last time Microsoft fucked a penguin we got Mono.
You learned to program good, tight code and really, really thought about your data structures.
Which is great, but one should keep in mind that clever code does not necessarily mean good code. For classes and such, that's not necessarily a problem. But in any sort of production environment where your code is going to be reused or maintained by someone other than you at some point, its better for the code to be understandable.
I fully agree though that there should be more classes like this where they make students actually think about how a computer works.
Doing the smart/correct thing costs too much, so we will do the stupid/wrong thing until we can't do that anymore. By that time, doing the correct/smart thing from the start could have paid for itself but now will cost twice as much.
Sustainability. We've got to snap out of this daydream where we think we can just keep expanding and consuming. We can't, and probably within the next century or two we're going to learn the hard way that we can't. Continuing to ignore the issues like the Continent of Trash in the Pacific or trying to bury them under a metric assload of perfume like these clowns isn't doing anyone any favors.
Maybe there should be another sanitation strike so that people can see exactly how much trash they produce.
Saddam was a puppet for the US. He fought our proxy war against Iran. We supplied him with the weapons to do so. We turned a blind eye to all the atrocities that were committed.
Iraq has the taint of the US, an Iran has plenty of reasons to not like the US. Those in power might not want to share ties, but the people would probably get along just fine.
Then why just stop at "up to 6.7 Mbps"? Why not say "up to 100 Mbps"?
At what point exactly does it become an outright lie? When the claim is 3 standard deviations away from the mean? Or 6?
Is it a lie if that is the HYPOTHETICAL maximum speed but the only way you can get it is by sitting at their center plugged into their rack? Or by having no one else online?
What if it's impossible for anyone to ever attain that speed under anything but the most ridiculous and unlikely scenarios? Where can we draw the line at being optimistic and being dishonest?
If in practice no can or does achieve the "up to" limit, then it is misleading (at best).
That doesn't work so well when there is one provider for a critical service in your area. The internet has become so critical for business it's unlikely that you could convince an entire area to boycott the internet when only a single provider is in the area.
So all in all, I'd rather pay a company to protect my network access. At least if they violate our contract, I can sue them.
O RLY?
You got the bucks to go up against Comcast? Or do you have access to a pro bono lawyer with balls the size of church bells?
Unless it's an egregious breach that's so damn obvious even their lawyer agrees with you there's a very good chance Joe or Jane Sixpack would get their legal ass handed to them, even if they could gather up the resources to sue in the first place.
Or you could go class action, but now you're talking months to years for a resolution. Then there are appeals, loop holes, and all sorts of other legal crap that a company like Comcast has an army of lawyers poring over. Do you really honestly think you'd have a chance? Even IF you were vindicated you'd get some paltry settlement while the lawyers walk away to buy a new yacht.
So we give the power to the corporations, who have even more incentive to screw over the individual to improve the bottom line?
The government is at least supposed to serve the public good. Corporations have no such mandate and have frequently made point out of demonstrating just how much they are NOT interested in the public good.
My "ramblings" are based on the scientific findings of the IPCC report, along with multiple research papers and climatological projections. Even stopping all emissions now, the Earth would continue to warm as it adjusted to the new CO2 levels (something that happens over decades).
Apparently you can type so I assume you can use Google. This isn't new information.
Its alarmism 101.
No, alarmism is "OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST WHO WILL DESTROY THE COUNTRY!!11!!". As noted, repeating scientific results is not alarmism.
So lets to the most stoopid batshit crazy EXTREME thing we can, and we JUST MIGHT SLOW IT..
And where, exactly, do I suggest a "stoopid batshit crazy EXTREME" idea? That's right, I don't. Only in your crazed mind can you take what I said and construe it as such. Save your mad-dog skeptic routine for someone else.
There's a big difference between a hack and a solution.
The ideas put forth so far are hacks. It doesn't solve the problem, but it might work as a band aid. That's all well and good except there may be other issues caused by implementing the hacks. Regardless, they are just covering up the real problem.
Actually, the earth receives on average about 1367 Watts/m^2.
You're numbers aren't quite right, but the general premise is sound. The more "stuff" preventing radiation from leaving the Earth the more of it stays in the system.
So I don't hold out much hope for society to change before it's too late. And it's not too late...
Correction. It IS too late. Even if we were to completely halt all our emissions, the Earth would continue to warm. Short of taking incredibly massive steps to reverse the effects, some amount of climate change will still occur.
The discussion is not about how to stop climate change. We simply don't have the technology to do so. Reversing some 200 years of industrialization in the span of a decade or two just isn't going to happen. Weaning ourselves of fossil fuels isn't going to happen in a decade or two. The discussion now is about the likely impacts and possible ways to mitigate/utilize those changes.
It should be noted that there will be some positives that come out of climate change. However, at the moment the negatives outweigh the positives to the best of our knowledge. Hence all the research in determining what is likely to happen and how to prepare for it.
Rather than high-tech indiscriminate non-lethal weapons, the US should invest much more in intelligence gathering and infiltration.
That's all well and good, but what happens when the intelligence you gather tells you what you don't want to hear?
Analyst: Well, our intelligence indicates that you shouldn't get involved in a land war in Asia. POTUS: Well general, what do you think? General: We got the best bombs money can buy. Blow them back to the stone age! Then we can take their oil...er...I mean install a new democratic government. Or at least a friendly dictatorship. Analyst: I really don't think that's a good idea. Besides, the report shows conclusively that.... POTUS: (eyes glaze over) Analyst: (10 minutes later)...And so, you see, this could cause all sorts of problems. POTUS: (Snaps out of it) Oh, thank you for that information. I will take it into consideration. General, you may fire when ready. Analyst: Here we go again.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because there is no true "Web API". You've got multiple standards with multiple languages and multiple frameworks and multiple browsers all trying in multiple ways to be THE solution to web development.
It's a mess. Comparitively speaking developing "normal" applications, even massively parallel computational models, seems easy by comparison.
Hey, it's the free market! What do you expect? Why allow competition when you can crush it beneath your bootheel for hookers and blow to the right politicians?
I'm surprised this argument hasn't been used against Linux. "But you can watch porn with it!". Bet you Steve Ballmer is reading that article and kicking himself in the ass for not thinking of it first.
In essence Google has created, in Orifice's...er...Oracle's eyes, an "almost" Java. An "almost" Java does not enjoy the protections the open Java does, according to them. That means they think they can go after Google for patent infringement.
This "almost" makes sense.
And memory leaks.
The problem is that the Javanistas won't admit it - that Java sometimes, beyond a certain size, introduces MORE complexity than lower-level languages that are more flexible.
Two things. First you make a mighty big claim about complexity. You're going to need to back that up. If object oriented languages introduce more complexity into an application, then why would anyone use them?
Second, you make the claim the lower level languages are more flexible. True. However, that isn't necessarily a good thing. A language like C gives you endless ways of shooting yourself in the foot, and sometimes it could be months or years before you realize (or worse, someone else) realizes you DID shoot yourself in the foot.
I've programmed in languages ranging from custom assembler to .NET. Languages like Java and .NET help mitigate the risk of shooting yourself in the foot (it is still possible, but it is harder to do). Languages like assembler and C allow you to get more performance, but with an increased risk of bugs. Any software engineer or programmer worth their salt will tell you that you always use the appropriate tool for the job at hand.
In c, it means that you get in the habit of typing free() right after typing malloc(), then asking yourself, where does the free() really belong? Who is going to "own" this memory. If it doesn't fit naturally within that block, you need to make sure that it's taken care of somewhere else. Move the free() there, and paste in a comment as to who frees it.
Which in a large complex application can become extremely tedious and/or prone to errors. A new programmer coming on board isn't going to know all the nuances of the code base. You're also depending on the comments to be reliable, which may or may not be the case. Then there is the case of multi-threaded and/or parallel applications, which can add a whole other world of hurt when it comes to manual memory management.
In c++, it means making sure that every object owns its own resources, or you enforce a contract with any object it serves as a "factory" to, that the recipient will free it, but not both.
Sure, C++ can be less error prone than C. But you're still responsible for the memory management, and memory mismanagement is still a leading source of bugs and vulnerability in applications that use non-managed memory.
It is possible to write leak-resistant (even leak-free) code. It just takes some attention to detail.
No one is saying it isn't, but it takes time and effort to do so. In some cases, a lot of effort. You have to weigh the costs vs. the benefits for your particular application.
But at that point, you have a deterministic program, not one whose performance is dependent on when/if a garbage collector decides to do some cleanup - and you can also do away with the whole {smart|weak}_ptr garbage.
Unless you are the ONLY software running on a system using a basic CPU your program is NOT deterministic. Modern CPUs do all sorts of crazy branch predictions and caching. Modern OS's do all kinds of scheduling and process manipulation. You can take an average but ultimately you are at the mercy of the CPU and OS.
If your using auto-gc languages for the correct domain, then the garbage collecting should have minimal to zero impact on your performance. If you actually know how to write code efficiently in a gc language, then you can reduce it even further. But that requires knowledge about how gc based languages work AND that you're using them in the right domain.
Not every application requires rocketing speed, and not every development project has the budget or schedule to hire a crack team of C/C++ programmers to write "perfect" code that's 100% cross-platform. You use the best tools for the job.
Of course, if all you have is a hammer then I guess everything looks like a nail.
No it isn't. It's because the average American has the IQ of a sack of potatoes and doesn't know the names of our own national monuments.
It is the LINCOLN MEMORIAL. There is no such place as the LINCOLN MONUMENT. The LINCOLN MEMORIAL has a LINCOLN MONUMENT, but there is no PLACE called LINCOLN MONUMENT. Google maps isn't always the most accurate and it's searching doesn't always give you what you'd expect. For example, try putting in WASHINGTON MEMORIAL instead of MONUMENT and see what you get.
I'm not privy to the inner details of how Google's search engine works, but it appears it is keying off "monument". No conspiracy or tricks needed. If you actually put in what it is called, the LINCOLN MEMORIAL, then it gives you the right location.
Besides, how on Earth could the Democratic party get this to happen? They can barely agree on a general direction for their party, let alone pull off a stunt like this.
Why 'general' but 'gear'? Or 'chair' but 'chlorine'? 'Put' but 'putty'? How the hell "Eugene Delacroix" is pronounced? Etc.
Yes, but if you were to spell "general" as "jeneral", or "chlorine" as "klorine" then an English reader would still be able to figure out what you were talking about. In other words, you can write words phonetically and a good portion of English readers would still be able to figure out what you're talking about. That doesn't work with written Chinese.
I'm a senator! I'll stand in between you two.
*pauses*
So...which one of you is going to donate to my campaign the most? I've got a blank piece of paper here just waiting to be turned into a bill.
So.. 2010 is my year of the Linux desktop, and someone is saying "hey here's how to hose your system so that it looks like Microsoft fucked a penguin". I'll pass on that one..
The last time Microsoft fucked a penguin we got Mono.
*runs for cover*
You learned to program good, tight code and really, really thought about your data structures.
Which is great, but one should keep in mind that clever code does not necessarily mean good code. For classes and such, that's not necessarily a problem. But in any sort of production environment where your code is going to be reused or maintained by someone other than you at some point, its better for the code to be understandable.
I fully agree though that there should be more classes like this where they make students actually think about how a computer works.
Doing the smart/correct thing costs too much, so we will do the stupid/wrong thing until we can't do that anymore. By that time, doing the correct/smart thing from the start could have paid for itself but now will cost twice as much.
Sustainability. We've got to snap out of this daydream where we think we can just keep expanding and consuming. We can't, and probably within the next century or two we're going to learn the hard way that we can't. Continuing to ignore the issues like the Continent of Trash in the Pacific or trying to bury them under a metric assload of perfume like these clowns isn't doing anyone any favors.
Maybe there should be another sanitation strike so that people can see exactly how much trash they produce.
I can't wait for this! This would be totally awesome to hack!
Wait a sec. This is another "example of how the FDA fails to protect the public."?
Isn't the free market supposed to solve issues like this?
Saddam was a puppet for the US. He fought our proxy war against Iran. We supplied him with the weapons to do so. We turned a blind eye to all the atrocities that were committed.
Iraq has the taint of the US, an Iran has plenty of reasons to not like the US. Those in power might not want to share ties, but the people would probably get along just fine.
Then why just stop at "up to 6.7 Mbps"? Why not say "up to 100 Mbps"?
At what point exactly does it become an outright lie? When the claim is 3 standard deviations away from the mean? Or 6?
Is it a lie if that is the HYPOTHETICAL maximum speed but the only way you can get it is by sitting at their center plugged into their rack? Or by having no one else online?
What if it's impossible for anyone to ever attain that speed under anything but the most ridiculous and unlikely scenarios? Where can we draw the line at being optimistic and being dishonest?
If in practice no can or does achieve the "up to" limit, then it is misleading (at best).
That doesn't work so well when there is one provider for a critical service in your area. The internet has become so critical for business it's unlikely that you could convince an entire area to boycott the internet when only a single provider is in the area.
So all in all, I'd rather pay a company to protect my network access. At least if they violate our contract, I can sue them.
O RLY?
You got the bucks to go up against Comcast? Or do you have access to a pro bono lawyer with balls the size of church bells?
Unless it's an egregious breach that's so damn obvious even their lawyer agrees with you there's a very good chance Joe or Jane Sixpack would get their legal ass handed to them, even if they could gather up the resources to sue in the first place.
Or you could go class action, but now you're talking months to years for a resolution. Then there are appeals, loop holes, and all sorts of other legal crap that a company like Comcast has an army of lawyers poring over. Do you really honestly think you'd have a chance? Even IF you were vindicated you'd get some paltry settlement while the lawyers walk away to buy a new yacht.
So we give the power to the corporations, who have even more incentive to screw over the individual to improve the bottom line?
The government is at least supposed to serve the public good. Corporations have no such mandate and have frequently made point out of demonstrating just how much they are NOT interested in the public good.
Your ramblings really have no basis in fact.
My "ramblings" are based on the scientific findings of the IPCC report, along with multiple research papers and climatological projections. Even stopping all emissions now, the Earth would continue to warm as it adjusted to the new CO2 levels (something that happens over decades).
Apparently you can type so I assume you can use Google. This isn't new information.
Its alarmism 101.
No, alarmism is "OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST WHO WILL DESTROY THE COUNTRY!!11!!". As noted, repeating scientific results is not alarmism.
So lets to the most stoopid batshit crazy EXTREME thing we can, and we JUST MIGHT SLOW IT..
And where, exactly, do I suggest a "stoopid batshit crazy EXTREME" idea? That's right, I don't. Only in your crazed mind can you take what I said and construe it as such. Save your mad-dog skeptic routine for someone else.
There's a big difference between a hack and a solution.
The ideas put forth so far are hacks. It doesn't solve the problem, but it might work as a band aid. That's all well and good except there may be other issues caused by implementing the hacks. Regardless, they are just covering up the real problem.
Actually, the earth receives on average about 1367 Watts/m^2.
You're numbers aren't quite right, but the general premise is sound. The more "stuff" preventing radiation from leaving the Earth the more of it stays in the system.
So I don't hold out much hope for society to change before it's too late. And it's not too late...
Correction. It IS too late. Even if we were to completely halt all our emissions, the Earth would continue to warm. Short of taking incredibly massive steps to reverse the effects, some amount of climate change will still occur.
The discussion is not about how to stop climate change. We simply don't have the technology to do so. Reversing some 200 years of industrialization in the span of a decade or two just isn't going to happen. Weaning ourselves of fossil fuels isn't going to happen in a decade or two. The discussion now is about the likely impacts and possible ways to mitigate/utilize those changes.
It should be noted that there will be some positives that come out of climate change. However, at the moment the negatives outweigh the positives to the best of our knowledge. Hence all the research in determining what is likely to happen and how to prepare for it.
If you want to know about the future, ask a comedian. Only they have a wide enough grasp of the stupidity of people to know what the future will hold.
Rather than high-tech indiscriminate non-lethal weapons, the US should invest much more in intelligence gathering and infiltration.
That's all well and good, but what happens when the intelligence you gather tells you what you don't want to hear?
Analyst: Well, our intelligence indicates that you shouldn't get involved in a land war in Asia. ...And so, you see, this could cause all sorts of problems.
POTUS: Well general, what do you think?
General: We got the best bombs money can buy. Blow them back to the stone age! Then we can take their oil...er...I mean install a new democratic government. Or at least a friendly dictatorship.
Analyst: I really don't think that's a good idea. Besides, the report shows conclusively that....
POTUS: (eyes glaze over)
Analyst: (10 minutes later)
POTUS: (Snaps out of it) Oh, thank you for that information. I will take it into consideration. General, you may fire when ready.
Analyst: Here we go again.
The millimeter wave does nothing. You will most likely be eaten by a grue.