I think it's a combination of bad initial impressions and the all-too common programmer tendency to look for small optimizations too early. A bit like the treatment Java gets.
To me, the need for that kind of tooling support is a sign that the language is poorly designed for expressiveness.
You don't need to do it and how you use it tells something to the reader. An unencapsulated field says "this is a throwaway class, do not reuse". An encapsulated field with default getters and setters says "this class participates in a bean framework, renaming the field and its getters and setters may break code without compile-time errors". Customized getters and setters, with or without an associated field say something else.
In every case, IDE support for generating those getters and setters is something you either don't use, use as-is or use as a basis to build on. Which brings us to the age-old debate on whether the reduction in source code size is worth the reduction in IDE support.
"Write exactly as much" NOT BY A LONG SHOT.(MyClass class1 = new MyClass() versus class1 = MyClass() just for a start)
Write new MyClass(), press Shift-Home, Shift-Alt-L, Enter produces MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); That's less key presses and the IDE will automatically create an unused name.
Re:Any objective critisism drowns in FUD.
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget the "Patch please" replies from developers.
If the filesystem is a few percents faster but then your disk sits idle half of the time and then you have a crash and lose a file that takes two hours to recreate, have you actually gained any performance?
But in their scheming, they made a terrible mistake. You see, once they released ZFS under CDDL, they could no longer take it back. So all that the GPL folks needs to do is to get rid of the virality clauses to spite Sun and incorporate their crown jewel into Linux. Boy will Sun's face be red when ZFS is under the GPL despite their attempts!
Not necessary, you say? And what's to say the behavior doesn't change in the future to take advantage of the leeway in the API? I bet KDE developers didn't think it necessary to do things properly either.
/System/Settings/passwd isn't any more intuitive than/etc/passwd: It's still the same file, with the same weird formatting and editing requirements (keeping shadow in sync)
That's because you know what it's for. If you look at it with a new user's eyes:
/System/Settings/passwd is something to do with the system's settings, probably some system password file from the looks of it.
/etc/passwd is one of those "et cetera" files when the "programmers" just couldn't put it anywhere else, and if I had to guess, I'd say it stores the passwords I use to go to websites and thus it should be deleted when I clear my private data.
1) If the OSS software is truly worse, either the system using it will be worse, or someone needs to do the work for fix it up or hammer it into shape -> jobs.
This is the broken windows fallacy rephrased: it's good to build a house with broken windows, because fixing windows creates jobs.
Not status, but join date. He joined slashdot when it was new. Curious how the early adopters of yesterday seems to be the biggest conservatives of today.
The FSF makes available Free and Open software. They have a website promoting Free and Open software. It is a reasonable expectation that the FSF has figured out the legalities of Free and Open software and is willing to communicate them in a Free and Open manner. Seeing how it's all Free and Open[1].
Slashdot Mirror
Neither do I need oxygen if I've just taken a deep breath, but it's nice to have.
I think it's a combination of bad initial impressions and the all-too common programmer tendency to look for small optimizations too early. A bit like the treatment Java gets.
To me, the need for that kind of tooling support is a sign that the language is poorly designed for expressiveness.
You don't need to do it and how you use it tells something to the reader. An unencapsulated field says "this is a throwaway class, do not reuse". An encapsulated field with default getters and setters says "this class participates in a bean framework, renaming the field and its getters and setters may break code without compile-time errors". Customized getters and setters, with or without an associated field say something else.
In every case, IDE support for generating those getters and setters is something you either don't use, use as-is or use as a basis to build on. Which brings us to the age-old debate on whether the reduction in source code size is worth the reduction in IDE support.
"Write exactly as much" NOT BY A LONG SHOT.(MyClass class1 = new MyClass() versus class1 = MyClass() just for a start)
Write new MyClass(), press Shift-Home, Shift-Alt-L, Enter produces MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); That's less key presses and the IDE will automatically create an unused name.
Don't forget the "Patch please" replies from developers.
If you used an std::vector, you couldn't have a bottleneck, for the simple reason that the std::vector is an array.
If you say so, but try to tell that to the compiler. Or rather, try to let the compiler figure that out.
If the filesystem is a few percents faster but then your disk sits idle half of the time and then you have a crash and lose a file that takes two hours to recreate, have you actually gained any performance?
But in their scheming, they made a terrible mistake. You see, once they released ZFS under CDDL, they could no longer take it back. So all that the GPL folks needs to do is to get rid of the virality clauses to spite Sun and incorporate their crown jewel into Linux. Boy will Sun's face be red when ZFS is under the GPL despite their attempts!
Which part of "arms race" do you not understand?
Not necessary, you say? And what's to say the behavior doesn't change in the future to take advantage of the leeway in the API? I bet KDE developers didn't think it necessary to do things properly either.
Example: My eldest son, at the age of *5*, could turn on a Win 95 PC
OK, that's your error is right there. You should have installed NT 3.51.
[citation needed]
Many people argue that UNIX is more secure than Windows. When pressed, however, they find it very hard to point at vulnerabilities in the NT kernel. Indeed, on paper the Windows security model is obviously superior; every object has an associated access control list, and this list is checked by the kernel on every access.
There have been security holes that have worked thru TCP/IP. Is that low-level-enough for you?
How could they do it? O, perhaps they should design a system for granting priveledge escelation.
But that's what UAC does. The program that requested the priviledges is allowed to continue without them.
You know that most security holes needing little to no user interaction require JavaScript to function properly.
Yes, and even more security holes need HTTP to function properly. I hear you can surf the web using daemons and email; I'd rather use Firefox.
/System/Settings/passwd isn't any more intuitive than /etc/passwd: It's still the same file, with the same weird formatting and editing requirements (keeping shadow in sync)
That's because you know what it's for. If you look at it with a new user's eyes:
/System/Settings/passwd is something to do with the system's settings, probably some system password file from the looks of it.
/etc/passwd is one of those "et cetera" files when the "programmers" just couldn't put it anywhere else, and if I had to guess, I'd say it stores the passwords I use to go to websites and thus it should be deleted when I clear my private data.
There is a difference between being easy-to-use-first-time and usable.
Well, yes, but one implies the other. I'll let you work out which one.
1) If the OSS software is truly worse, either the system using it will be worse, or someone needs to do the work for fix it up or hammer it into shape -> jobs.
This is the broken windows fallacy rephrased: it's good to build a house with broken windows, because fixing windows creates jobs.
Firefox is open source, so WorksForMe and PatchPlease.
I just copy-pasted a snippet of code from one class to another and Eclipse added the correct import statements automatically. Does Emacs do that?
No system can defeat social engineering.
How about a system which has no humans in it?
Not status, but join date. He joined slashdot when it was new. Curious how the early adopters of yesterday seems to be the biggest conservatives of today.
The FSF makes available Free and Open software. They have a website promoting Free and Open software. It is a reasonable expectation that the FSF has figured out the legalities of Free and Open software and is willing to communicate them in a Free and Open manner. Seeing how it's all Free and Open[1].
[1] some disclaimers may apply.
If all computers were 64 bit and had at least 500-1000GB of non-volatile fast RAM, computers could do exactly what Grandma wanted.
Or if all computers had a working hibernate feature.