But for something like this, you're mainly limited by the contestants' familiarity with the problem domain. With this particular competition (which looks to consist of reading in a simple image format, like PPM then applying a couple of simple transformations then writing the new file back out), the code isn't going to be too terribly different between most languages, and therefore the higher expressiveness of something like Python or OCaml wouldn't really get a chance to shine.
You mean, like the ICFP Programming competitions? They often exercise a number of different ideals. The most recent one featured code reuse/flexible design as one of the primary goals.
Of course you're almost always going to have some element of coding speed featured in these contests as, well, they don't want to wait a year for the submissions to start rolling in.
"Google Web Toolkit (GWT) is a Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers who don't speak browser quirks as a second language."
Does this mean that Google will finally be able to get their apps working properly in all of the major browsers? Why am I not brimming with confidence?
Of course gems is no magic bullet either if developers aren't packaging their libraries for it.
For example, go looking for a crypto library with gems. gem search -b crypt turns up for results, an implementation of crypt(3), rot13 (did someone really need to create a rot13 gem?), crypt-fog, which is like rot13++, a PRNG, and finally, something that looks like a crypto library, ezcrypto. Although, when one looks at the docs for ezcrypto, he sees that this is just an AES (128) wrapper... whoo!
Thanks for all the help gems! You really saved me a lot of time there...
A centralized cupboard does no good if no one is stocking it with treats.
In fact, every time I look at Ruby, all I see is a pale reflection of Smalltalk.
Yep. I mean, it's a nice little language. Surely preferable to things like Perl or Python, but it's not particularly special. Most of the features that everyone seems to love about it are done much better in languages like Smalltalk and OCaml, but those languages just haven't been given the Nifty! label like Ruby and Python have.
But people see thing like 3.times do |blah| something with blah end and get a little swoony.
Actually this is one of the reasons I have no interest in things like topcoder. They restrict the languages you can use to C++, C#, VB.net, and Java. I have utterly no interest in coding in any of those languages. Now if they would look past their simple, bland worldview and actually let in some interesting languages, things would be a lot better.
I doubt it. I think the dozen or so Mac users I know are more typical than these supposed IT-experts the poster mentioned.
Have you been to many conferences or universities lately? Hell, last year at Crypto, nearly half the laptops in the audience were Apples (as was the machine that they used to record and stream the rump session talks). And I know that a good portion (about 60% last time I noticed) of this group use Apples as their standard machines.
Methinks you need to get out more.
How often do Apple market at the technologically savvy?
All the time?. Well, not on TV, but they have touted its unixesque abilities in a number of print ads.
If I release a badly documented v0.01 alpha release of a fabulous new file-transfer program, is it not FOSS because it's badly documented???
God, I wish that were the case... Then maybe the state of documentation in the FOSS world would rise even to the level of pathetic that exists in the rest of the software world.
If free software is badly documented, badly interfaced, or otherwise too hard to use/understand... well then fix it!!!
Of course that implies that you were ever able to figure out the software well enough to document it...
I have one of these at work and one at home and I agree, they were worth every penny. I have no idea what I'll do if they die on me.
As for them still being in business, as I understand it, they were bought up by some larger company for the technology, and that's why they're no longer around.
The reality is that Apple is in the business of making money.
A reality that is neither surprising, nor hidden.
Why do you think it's so difficult to download quicktime without itunes???
As has been covered hundreds of time here on/., it's fairly disingenuous to make this claim when there's a very clear link to the Quicktime Standalone Installer on the quicktime download page. One extra click is "so difficult"?
I just don't care for it's limited codec support
So what's missing? WMA? I'd assume someone with a dislike for the iTunes store would also dislike WMA on principle.
and inclusion of the itunes store (which I know can be disabled). I'm allowed to seek an alternative whether apple fan boys like it or not.
Absolutely. Never said you couldn't. All I ask is that if you're going to tout your reasons for not using it in public, that they not be silly and misrepresentative
iTunes is merely a carrier to interface the store to the iPod in order to provide a seemless experience, and because it's an intermediate step, it rips & plays music on your computer too.
Well... no. iTunes stared life as a ripper/player/manager. The store support was added after Apple opened the store, and I can't really blame them for this as it is the most logical place to put that functionality, rather than a separate app. Again, the store is completely optional. You never have to use it if you don't want to, but it is there if you do want it.
As for the other reasons why people might not like iTunes, those are at least valid personal preference -- if they are true.
You can't deny that some feel DRM is a burden while others look at it as a feature.
And you can't deny that ITunes does not require you to use DRM protected media. Yes. It supports Apple's DRM, but it doesn't force you to use it. Like I said, rip your CDs with iTunes... no DRM. Drag your non-DRM files onto ITunes, it doesn't add anything to them, but it will manage them just fine.
Your argument against iTunes is a bit like saying that you don't like to drink out of a glass because you don't like grape juice.
Why can I not view my music in a tree view? I *hate* having to scroll through 1000's of songs to find what I'm looking for. So, I want to be able to view the tree by artist, genre, year, and that should just about do it.
See that eyeball looking thing in the upper right hand corner that says "Browse"? Click on it.
Well did you stick that $1200 hunk of wood in the corner to dampen the unpleasant vibrations? That'll synergise with the sand to really sweeten the room and color even the corners.
Audiophiles are some of the dumbest people on the planet...
People don't like itunes because it's essentially a gateway to the itunes store.
So, because I've been using iTunes for years without ever buying anything from the iTunes music store means I'm somehow using it wrong?
This argument is really just beyond silly. If you don't want to use it to visit the music store... well don't. It's like complaining about some TV channel because you don't like one of their shows. If you want to use your non-"drm laden" tracks with iTunes, just drag and drop to import and you're golden. Or, you can use another player if you want, it's no skin off my nose, just don't use such a silly damn argument for your reasoning...
Well, not to get too nitpickety (especially since it's your FAQ), but it says:
Can I use C++ instead of C?
If you actually want to do something like that, then sure.
No COBOL, please.
Which to me reads as "Sure. We will accept other languages. Well... not COBOL." You may want to rewrite it in a more specific manner if you want to limit the languages involved.
Actually, I think it would be more interesting, as it might require some cleverness instead of the tricks you describe above.
However, according to the FAQ, you can submit solutions in other languages, so why not try your hand at Java? I've actually got an idea for this contest that uses OCaml, which is just as tight as Java with regard to these tricks. I just have to work a couple of small details first.
The only problem with this approach is that the difference between O(n log n) and O(n^2), or O(1) and O(n) would likely require a fairly large data set before you see serious practical performance degradation, and I'm not sure you'll get that with their test data. You'd likely need a boneheaded data structure that goes from O(poly) to O(exp) time to see a significant time difference, which I think they're shooting for.
So unique it can be done with a one line shell script...
Really? Can you show me your one line shell script that will autogen a random selection of songs of specific length ranges (within 5 seconds of being 3, 4, or 5 minutes in length) that limits the total time to, say, 30 minutes, but can be easily set by the user, and also has the option of pulling only files that have been tagged as being good songs to run to?
Oh, and while you're at it, make sure that I haven't heard any of the 4 minute songs in the past two weeks, and none of the five minute songs in the past month.
Sure, it can be done (probably not in one line), but how easy is it to do? And how many shell scripts do you need to have lying around to do everything you want? The nice thing about iTunes is the ability to easily create throwaway playlist specifications that will fire over to the player when you plug it in. Can you slap together a Tk (or something less ass-looking) front-end for a shell script generator that does the same thing? Sure, if you know what you're doing. But the question then becomes... is it worth it?
No, the idea of smart playlists isn't even that unique, but the implementation of them in ITunes is pretty well done (though they could use some improvements, like allowing general boolean formulas), and well done inside a program that manages and plays a user's audio collection in a mostly straight forward manner. Sometimes (usually?) that's enough.
As always, in the fervor to slam the iPod, a slashdotter forgets to consider the use case. No, the iPod is not the ideal mp3 player. It actually ranges on a spectrum from utter piece of shit to the best possible solution depending on who is doing the evaluation and what they are looking for in a player. You seem to rank it low on the scale of quality and utility, whereas I (at the time I bought it) ranked the iPod Shuffle as the ideal player for my needs. Sometimes a restriction of options is the most convenient solution.
Yes. Some people are more than happy with a one way quick sync solution that requires you to use (god forbid) some decent looking, closed-source software package that pretty much does what you expect with a minimum of fuss. Yes, some people like that they can just generate a playlist (smart or otherwise) and have that list fire over to their device when they plug it in. Yes some people couldn't give a rats ass about recording, FM receiving, or vorbis playback. Yes some people want all or some of those options. Yes, you are not everybody.
Here's an idea. Pick what's best for you and be happy. Let others pick what's best for them and be happy. And if someone thinks something is right for them -- try to find out if it's actually right for them before you tell them how wrong they are. And even then, you might want to ask them if they've considered points X, Y, and Z, rather than intimating that they are blithering idiots who know only trends and marketing. If you do, people might stop calling you names behind your back...
Slashdot Mirror
But for something like this, you're mainly limited by the contestants' familiarity with the problem domain.
With this particular competition (which looks to consist of reading in a simple image format, like PPM then applying a couple of simple transformations then writing the new file back out), the code isn't going to be too terribly different between most languages, and therefore the higher expressiveness of something like Python or OCaml wouldn't really get a chance to shine.
Set a simple task and see if the code performed that simple task.
Kind of like what they did here.
You mean, like the ICFP Programming competitions?
They often exercise a number of different ideals. The most recent one featured code reuse/flexible design as one of the primary goals.
Of course you're almost always going to have some element of coding speed featured in these contests as, well, they don't want to wait a year for the submissions to start rolling in.
"Google Web Toolkit (GWT) is a Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers who don't speak browser quirks as a second language."
Does this mean that Google will finally be able to get their apps working properly in all of the major browsers?
Why am I not brimming with confidence?
Of course gems is no magic bullet either if developers aren't packaging their libraries for it.
For example, go looking for a crypto library with gems. gem search -b crypt turns up for results, an implementation of crypt(3), rot13 (did someone really need to create a rot13 gem?), crypt-fog, which is like rot13++, a PRNG, and finally, something that looks like a crypto library, ezcrypto. Although, when one looks at the docs for ezcrypto, he sees that this is just an AES (128) wrapper... whoo!
Thanks for all the help gems! You really saved me a lot of time there...
A centralized cupboard does no good if no one is stocking it with treats.
In fact, every time I look at Ruby, all I see is a pale reflection of Smalltalk.
Yep. I mean, it's a nice little language. Surely preferable to things like Perl or Python, but it's not particularly special. Most of the features that everyone seems to love about it are done much better in languages like Smalltalk and OCaml, but those languages just haven't been given the Nifty! label like Ruby and Python have.
But people see thing like 3.times do |blah| something with blah end and get a little swoony.
Actually this is one of the reasons I have no interest in things like topcoder. They restrict the languages you can use to C++, C#, VB.net, and Java. I have utterly no interest in coding in any of those languages. Now if they would look past their simple, bland worldview and actually let in some interesting languages, things would be a lot better.
So, I'm going to have to agree that the majority of Mac^H^H^H computer owners just don't think in terms of computer security, networking, etc.
Fixed that for you. Hell, I'd wager that even the majority of Linux users just don't think in terms of computer security.
I doubt it. I think the dozen or so Mac users I know are more typical than these supposed IT-experts the poster mentioned.
Have you been to many conferences or universities lately?
Hell, last year at Crypto, nearly half the laptops in the audience were Apples (as was the machine that they used to record and stream the rump session talks). And I know that a good portion (about 60% last time I noticed) of this group use Apples as their standard machines.
Methinks you need to get out more.
How often do Apple market at the technologically savvy?
All the time?. Well, not on TV, but they have touted its unixesque abilities in a number of print ads.
Is not that they need to give people excuses, they may very well cancel the SoC program if they'd want.
Of course, there's a difference between what you need to do and what you should do.
IOW: Be polite.
If I release a badly documented v0.01 alpha release of a fabulous new file-transfer program, is it not FOSS because it's badly documented???
God, I wish that were the case... Then maybe the state of documentation in the FOSS world would rise even to the level of pathetic that exists in the rest of the software world.
If free software is badly documented, badly interfaced, or otherwise too hard to use/understand... well then fix it!!!
Of course that implies that you were ever able to figure out the software well enough to document it...
I have one of these at work and one at home and I agree, they were worth every penny. I have no idea what I'll do if they die on me.
As for them still being in business, as I understand it, they were bought up by some larger company for the technology, and that's why they're no longer around.
The reality is that Apple is in the business of making money.
/., it's fairly disingenuous to make this claim when there's a very clear link to the Quicktime Standalone Installer on the quicktime download page. One extra click is "so difficult"?
A reality that is neither surprising, nor hidden.
Why do you think it's so difficult to download quicktime without itunes???
As has been covered hundreds of time here on
I just don't care for it's limited codec support
So what's missing? WMA? I'd assume someone with a dislike for the iTunes store would also dislike WMA on principle.
and inclusion of the itunes store (which I know can be disabled). I'm allowed to seek an alternative whether apple fan boys like it or not.
Absolutely. Never said you couldn't. All I ask is that if you're going to tout your reasons for not using it in public, that they not be silly and misrepresentative
iTunes is merely a carrier to interface the store to the iPod in order to provide a seemless experience, and because it's an intermediate step, it rips & plays music on your computer too.
Well... no.
iTunes stared life as a ripper/player/manager. The store support was added after Apple opened the store, and I can't really blame them for this as it is the most logical place to put that functionality, rather than a separate app. Again, the store is completely optional. You never have to use it if you don't want to, but it is there if you do want it.
As for the other reasons why people might not like iTunes, those are at least valid personal preference -- if they are true.
You can't deny that some feel DRM is a burden while others look at it as a feature.
And you can't deny that ITunes does not require you to use DRM protected media. Yes. It supports Apple's DRM, but it doesn't force you to use it. Like I said, rip your CDs with iTunes... no DRM. Drag your non-DRM files onto ITunes, it doesn't add anything to them, but it will manage them just fine.
Your argument against iTunes is a bit like saying that you don't like to drink out of a glass because you don't like grape juice.
Why can I not view my music in a tree view? I *hate* having to scroll through 1000's of songs to find what I'm looking for. So, I want to be able to view the tree by artist, genre, year, and that should just about do it.
See that eyeball looking thing in the upper right hand corner that says "Browse"? Click on it.
Well did you stick that $1200 hunk of wood in the corner to dampen the unpleasant vibrations? That'll synergise with the sand to really sweeten the room and color even the corners.
Audiophiles are some of the dumbest people on the planet...
People don't like itunes because it's essentially a gateway to the itunes store.
So, because I've been using iTunes for years without ever buying anything from the iTunes music store means I'm somehow using it wrong?
This argument is really just beyond silly. If you don't want to use it to visit the music store... well don't. It's like complaining about some TV channel because you don't like one of their shows. If you want to use your non-"drm laden" tracks with iTunes, just drag and drop to import and you're golden. Or, you can use another player if you want, it's no skin off my nose, just don't use such a silly damn argument for your reasoning...
If I'm wrong, nobody loses anything. If I'm right, you lose for eternity.
Be careful not to trip over that middle you've excluded...
Well, not to get too nitpickety (especially since it's your FAQ), but it says:
Can I use C++ instead of C?
If you actually want to do something like that, then sure.
No COBOL, please.
Which to me reads as "Sure. We will accept other languages. Well... not COBOL."
You may want to rewrite it in a more specific manner if you want to limit the languages involved.
Actually, I think it would be more interesting, as it might require some cleverness instead of the tricks you describe above.
However, according to the FAQ, you can submit solutions in other languages, so why not try your hand at Java? I've actually got an idea for this contest that uses OCaml, which is just as tight as Java with regard to these tricks. I just have to work a couple of small details first.
The only problem with this approach is that the difference between O(n log n) and O(n^2), or O(1) and O(n) would likely require a fairly large data set before you see serious practical performance degradation, and I'm not sure you'll get that with their test data. You'd likely need a boneheaded data structure that goes from O(poly) to O(exp) time to see a significant time difference, which I think they're shooting for.
So unique it can be done with a one line shell script...
Really? Can you show me your one line shell script that will autogen a random selection of songs of specific length ranges (within 5 seconds of being 3, 4, or 5 minutes in length) that limits the total time to, say, 30 minutes, but can be easily set by the user, and also has the option of pulling only files that have been tagged as being good songs to run to?
Oh, and while you're at it, make sure that I haven't heard any of the 4 minute songs in the past two weeks, and none of the five minute songs in the past month.
Sure, it can be done (probably not in one line), but how easy is it to do?
And how many shell scripts do you need to have lying around to do everything you want? The nice thing about iTunes is the ability to easily create throwaway playlist specifications that will fire over to the player when you plug it in. Can you slap together a Tk (or something less ass-looking) front-end for a shell script generator that does the same thing? Sure, if you know what you're doing. But the question then becomes... is it worth it?
No, the idea of smart playlists isn't even that unique, but the implementation of them in ITunes is pretty well done (though they could use some improvements, like allowing general boolean formulas), and well done inside a program that manages and plays a user's audio collection in a mostly straight forward manner. Sometimes (usually?) that's enough.
convenient <> flexible
As always, in the fervor to slam the iPod, a slashdotter forgets to consider the use case. No, the iPod is not the ideal mp3 player. It actually ranges on a spectrum from utter piece of shit to the best possible solution depending on who is doing the evaluation and what they are looking for in a player. You seem to rank it low on the scale of quality and utility, whereas I (at the time I bought it) ranked the iPod Shuffle as the ideal player for my needs. Sometimes a restriction of options is the most convenient solution.
Yes. Some people are more than happy with a one way quick sync solution that requires you to use (god forbid) some decent looking, closed-source software package that pretty much does what you expect with a minimum of fuss. Yes, some people like that they can just generate a playlist (smart or otherwise) and have that list fire over to their device when they plug it in. Yes some people couldn't give a rats ass about recording, FM receiving, or vorbis playback. Yes some people want all or some of those options. Yes, you are not everybody.
Here's an idea. Pick what's best for you and be happy. Let others pick what's best for them and be happy. And if someone thinks something is right for them -- try to find out if it's actually right for them before you tell them how wrong they are. And even then, you might want to ask them if they've considered points X, Y, and Z, rather than intimating that they are blithering idiots who know only trends and marketing. If you do, people might stop calling you names behind your back...
Well... knowledge and herpes.