As pointed out by others above, with no real constitution or bill of rights in the UK, can we claim to have Freedom at all?
Yes. Bits of paper are widely overrated. Britain has had one of the more consistently free and democratic governments in the world for quite a while.
It's interesting to see that the Home Office spokesman sounds a bit nervous about how legitimate this would be under European Law. Just saying there have been no successful challanges doesn't mean it's legal. Does anyone know of any challanges?
No. But if you want to mount one, I'll gladly help.
But how would you call it if the army is involved in a violent long time fight between two groups (divised by the church)
The British army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the nationalist population against unionists who were burning their houses. Would you not do the same thing ?
Officially Britain believes terrorists on both sides are just simple criminals (although of an especially dangerous kind). While some elements of the British state (especially the RUC, and N Irelands last effort at local governance) have sometimes sided with unionism to the extent of overlooking its nasty side, the official policy has never been to do so. The Downing Street Declaration recognised the principle of self-determination for N Ireland, and disowned any "selfish strategic or economic interest" in the province on the part of the British government.
You can call it a war only if you believe a war does not have to involve a state on either side, or the conquest and occupation of territory.
Oh, and N Irish terrorists kill in the name of politics, not religion. You will find a scattering of protestant republics and catholic loyalists if you look hard enough.
Damm! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Why don't we tap the phones of everyone in Manhattan cause one of those people committed a crime once! I think it was the pooper scooper law someone broke.
I think you might find that if half the population of Manhattan had historical greivances to the effect that they should actually be part of Canada and not the USA, and a small group of them were prepared to go around blowing things up to prove the point, you might change your mind. Especially when the other half of the population of Manhattan started arming themselves and shooting at the Canadian faction.
Hey, don't blame the entire country because of one person not knowing his history.
My apolgoies for over-generalising. I guess I was just fulfilling the opposing stereotype of the condescending European.:-) Ireland is so complicated that most mainland Brits cannot talk coherently on the subject without offending someone.
Northern Ireland may accept it as a "necessary evil", but I could never accept that here in the States. Times are seldom to turbulent as to necessitate such measures.
The US is lucky in having rather less history to contend with than most Europeans, though you might want to watch those Injuns (that is a joke, by the way). There are, at least in theory, pretty good safegaurds to ensure that when N Ireland finally finds a formal way of peacefully running itself the anti-terrorist laws will be dismantled. A surprising amount of similar legislation (for wiretaps, etc) does exist in the US, BTW.
This is correct. All of Northern Ireland (often referred to as "the six counties" by people in the Republic) is in Ulster. But not all of Ulster is in Northern Ireland.
It is, however, very common practice in Northern Ireland (mostly on the part of unionists, I would guess) to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster. For instance, they have "Ulster Television", "Ulster says no", "Ulster Unionist Party", "Ulster Defense Regiment", and so on. Its my understanding that many nationalists find this usage intimidating, and that many unionists find the name "the six counties" to be demeaning. Therein lies an example of the complexities of Irish politics... I remember the girls at my primary school were alowed to wear any color of gingham in summer as long as it wasn't green.
I think I remember hearing that the current (Labour) Government were planning to bring in a Bill of Rights or a Citizen's Charter or something along those lines. Anyone else more knowledgable about politics than me?
The government plans to integrate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, and empower the House of Lords (in its capacity as the highest court) to enforce it.
Regrettably the House of Lords powers are not well separated from those of the government, and therefore what happens if it comes to a fight remains to be seen.
Would'ya stop with this stuff please ? I've seen this so many times, reading it again makes me want to scream.
Our rights and liberties are protected by just the same things yours are - by convention. You wrote yours down, we didn't. Big deal. In any country, if the populace stop believing in its liberties, the state will take them away. Bits of paper make no difference to that at all.
There is absolutely nothing more irritating than listening to (or reading) Americans talking about Britain, especially when they go on about politics, and most especially when it comes to Ireland.
1. Braveheart is about William Wallace, who is a Scottish national hero, and not Irish.
2. The Scots, after considerable losses, and the death of Wallace, won that round, for all it matters today, and retained their independance until three or four centuries later when they voluntarily merged first the crown then the parliament with England's. Modern Scottish nationalism has nothing to do with historical conquest, and only a little to do with repression, except perhaps on the part of some extremely ignorant people.
3. England did let Ireland go. EIRE, the Irish republic, the Catholic majority part of the country (for historical and political reasons) is independant. Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted it that way.
4. Irish republicans in the north are in a tiny minority, especially in their use of violence, and the British governments behaviour in the north has been essentially blameless since 1990, and can probably only be blamed with being stupid even before that. Anti-terrorist measures are accepted even by most Irish nationalists as a necessary evil.
5. The traditional Scottish dress is a long piece of plaid cloth wrapped around the torso and waist. The kilt (not skirt, or dress) is a modern invention, which is smaller and more practical, and only goes around the waist.
I challenge you, Mr AC, to point out what I said that is elitist. I said what the author proposed was not only a bad idea but also unworkable. However, in doing that I was not challenging the idea that Linux should be easier for 'ordinary folk' to use. I agree with that wholeheartedly and said so in another post. I was challening two ideas - firstly that in order to be kind to users you need to be actively hostile to hackers. This is false, and will alienate the people who keep Linux alive - and secondly that 'usability' is best defined as being more like Windows.
Your rantings about 'elitists' and the evil sysadmin conspiracy to deprive the public of Linux are laughable. Network sysadmins are skilled (and sometimes even creative) people. Their job emphatically cannot be done by 'trained monkeys' even with a pretty GUI.
It looks from the posts here as if most people (myself included) haven't bothered to read the author's other writings linked at the bottom of the article. I suggest you do so, it makes things a bit clearer.
It seems that the author was deliberately being extreme in writing this, but has also written another article supporting the oposite extreme !
There's a horrible attitude that's quite pervasive in the threads above and it's one of pointless elitism: that Linux should be for geeks only, if you make it easier to use then you get more and stupider users and you lose configurability and the ability to do the complex things you can do now.
I haven't actually seen much elitism on this thread. There is a serious problem with the approach the author is advocating though, and perhaps you are mistaking this for elitism. The point is that Linux has succeeded because it is a good operating system for geeks. If we do what the author wants, and ditch the open source thing, and all the choice in toolkits/wms/shells etc., to pander to the lowest possible common denominator (and let me point out here that I have a higher opinion of the competence of most users than the author does) we will lose the very people who keep Linux going. The people who actually care what OS they use.
This is not only a reason why the approach being advocated is a bad idea. Its also exactly the reason why it won't happen. Linux developers are going to keep developing things they like, not things for 'average users'
First let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with the author's underlying goal of creating a "system your mother could use". I do, however, have a lot of concerns about the approach being advocated.
My most important concern is that, while the author seems to know there are many different groups of user, he proceeds to outline a scheme that caters only to those who are most technically naive.
He seems to be advocating eliminating all the diversity and choice than exists in Linux at the moment, in order to simplify the lives of the one group that doesn't use Linux, hasn't heard of Linux, and doesn't care what OS they use. In the process following his scheme (getting rid of all but one distribution, all but one window manager, all but one toolkit, and every single command line shell) everone else, all the people currently using Linux, all the people who actually care and keep the community alive, would be alienated. Even if it were possible to do this, which obviously it isn't, would it really be worth it ?
My point it this: linux is not designed poorly - it is designed for technical people, and only technical people are going to care enough to keep it alive.
I have no problem at all with a "Linux for the Masses" like the author proposes existing (although I don't really see who wants a warmed over Windows clone). Its the idea that all other Linux systems must be sacrificed and the entire existing user community alienated, to attract the people who care least , that I find disturbing.
On a somewhat more minor point, 'usability' means a lot more than UI design, and is not that easy to disentangle from implementation issues. Some of the worst systems I've seem had their UI developed separately by a 'user centered' individual who unfortunately had not understanding of the application domain. Users are not all the same - probably the only person who can do UI design well is someone who understands the application from the user's perspective, not someone who just thinks they understand 'users'. Oddly enough, that person is sometimes the programmer.
Now for some pickiness. Windows is really a pretty poor example of how to do UI design. Most Mac applications, and lots of NeXT ones are much better. The point of window managers is to manage windows, not to read mail, therefore to demonstarte a window manger you show a picture of lots of windows. Seems kind of obvious - even the author's typical user (who seems much stupider than anyone I've ever met, if he gets information overload from looking at 10 pictures on the same screen) should be able to deal with that.
I guess all the C++ code I wrote in the last 10 years is not viable then. I will instruct the financial companies and telcos who use it daily to throw it all out immediately.
Maybe 'not viable' was a bit extreme (not to mention vague), but you cannot suggest (as a previous poster did) that C++ plus a bit of discipline and a copy of purify is as good as a language which is inherently proof against many of the errors C++ programmers produce so regularly. Did I say it was impossible to write decent C++ ? I've used purify, and I've written plenty of C++. There are other things you can do to make it a saner development language as well as using Purify. The point is that you shoudln't have to. If the language had been designed better, none of this cruft would be necessary. I won't suggest you made the wrong language choice (not 10 years ago at least) or that your employers should chuck the code out, but its possible they could have saved a lot of time and money.
Face it - some people know how to design code and some people (regardless of language) will never know.
That will always be true, with the caveat that most of the issues WRT to C++ primarily concern implementation and reuse, although they do affect design. Tracking garbage, for instance, is nothing to with OO design, but warps the construction of many C++ programs beyond all recognition.
The industry as a whole has to accomodate lower quality programmers though. Not everyone can afford to hire geniuses and recognising them is notoriously difficult. C++ hinders the necessary compromise by making it possible for those who are going to write bad code to do that much more damage.
Whether competence is measured by ability to wrestle C++ to the ground is another matter entirely.
Firstly, I should stress that I'm a Java programmer, and while I have some affection for some "completely unsupported languages" I'd use C++ ahead of them for pragmatic reasons. You replied to my post by repeating exactly the points I thought I'd just dealt with. So I'll repeat myself as well.
1. Featuritis. C++'s feature-overload is not bad because it bloats the code - they managed to avoid that. Its bad because it makes the code hard to read and the language complicated. C++ bares no relation to any other object orriented language, least of all Java, whose design is quite sane, at any level other than syntax. The designers have headed off in a distinctly odd direction, whose value is very dubious.
You can keep saying "you don't understand it, you're just STUPID" as much as you like, but it won't make C++ better. The point is that I have to understand the complexities of every single spaced-out language feature, from templates to pass by value to inadequate operator overloading and their wacky implementations in every single compiler before I can be sure of understanding someone else's code. None of that contributes one bit to the work of programming. Its just cruft. It makes it hard to reuse code and hard to organise project teams.
C++'s design violates the "worse is better" principle. They just keep throwing more stuff in, in the hope of making it into a usable language, and it just never works, because the problem is it was hopelessly ill-conceived to start with. Languages are like applications - they should do something and do it well. C++ tries to be all things to all people and does none of them well. "There is more than one way to do it" is all well and good for Perl, but for systems languages it doesn't cut the mustard.
2. Missing features C++ claims to be an object orriented language for large-scale projects. Compared with C, I won't deny that, but compared with anything else it is laughable. Its not viable to rely on programmer competence or diligence or the SW engineering process to prevent memory leaks, pointer errors, fencepost errors or any of the other problems that dog C++ developers. The only way to fix these things is to build features into the language that make them impossible.
There are several reasons why C++ is a bad language. People not understanding it is one of them, oddly enough. When a language becomes complex enough that someone who has read the standard reference work has trouble reading other people's well written code, you know you have a bad language. Its that simple.
Other reasons why C++ is bad: The handling of templates is just plain wrong. Do proper generic types or do nothing. Operator overloading makes code hard to read, especially when the set of operators is fixed (as in C++). There are legal constructs whose behaviour is undefined. There is no real support for garbage collection, whatever Stroustrup may claim. The standard libraries are template obsessed and hopelessly incomplete. It is pass by value, which is inappropriate for an OO language. Compilers differ massively in even fairly simple things. Multiple inheritance is usually unnecessary and the C++ form of it is overcomplicated.... I could go on.
To pick you up on two specifics: It is never sufficient to say "you just don't understand it". If it is that hard to understand, it sucks.
Similarly, language features that are brain-damaged cannot be compensated for just by not using them. Other people, including your colleagues, will use them, and you will have to deal with their code.
Can someone *knowledgeable* (other than the author) please give their take on the article linked to above. If all the implications are true, its no wonder Linux lost the Mindcraft benchmark tests.
Frankly the fact that only 16% of sites are indexed is something of a relief until the search engines can get their indexing better sorted out. Google does the best job of prioritising away obviously irrelevant results, but it still gets it wrong a depressing amount of the time.
It seems to me that the only way we're ever going to get away from ever-deteriorating keyword searches and ever more corruptible and less competent cataloging sites is to switch over to better (ie. more logical, more meaningful) forms of mark up than HTML provides. XML anyone ?
Thats what google (www.google.com) does. Its pretty good when you use good search terms. It still sucks when your search turns up a bunch of irrelevant links and they also end up in the indexing process along with the relevant ones.
In the end, the only solution is to structure the data better than HTML allows. XML here we come...
The author of the Slate article is quite right. When you spend you time reacting to 'user demands' from users you cannot get in touch with to try to question their requirements, which have probably also been filtered through a couple of layers of management and tech support staff somewhat less competent in the use of the software than the user, you do get big, ugly, baroque, bloated software. Especially when you burn on in there and make all those changes in a codebase that was never designed for them, because, of course, redesigning code you've already written doesn't provide any new marketing check boxes.
In short, users do not cause bloat. Mismanaged software companies cause bloat by trying to provide what users ask for, rather than what they really want, and by separating the users from the engineers who actually write the code behind a million walls of beauracrats.
Contrary to popular opinion, libertarians of any sophistication acknowledge the need for cooperation and community. Many, including the original founders and operators of Wired, have no great passion for big-business nor the desire to read or write about the doings of successful businessmen that the modern Wired exhibits. Its only those who've been infected with some kind of Ubermensch superiority syndrome who feel libertine politics is a way to isolate themselves from society. Many of the leader of the free/open software movement are libertarians. How do you explain that ?
I used to read Hotwired, and to a lesser extent wired, quite religiously, but both of them have sucked quite badly for some time now. Wired is exclusively for clueless junior businesssmen who want to be cool, and HotWired has gone from interesting and sometimes controversial to be a low quality 'web design for dummies'. A shame.
Slashdot and its ilk seem to be filling the niche though. Giving the somewhat clueful and interested somewhere to hang out.
256K is almost 50 times more than you can get with the best modems. If you don't want it I'll have it. NTLs cable modems are charged by bandwidth and limited to 512K. I'll pay my 30 quid a month thank you.
Britain's telephone infrastructure is pretty good. Its fibre (though not admittedly packet switched) for everthing apart from the local loop. Cable companies used fibre to the end of the street and coax from there as I understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
As pointed out by others above, with no real constitution or bill of rights in the UK, can we claim to have Freedom at all?
Yes. Bits of paper are widely overrated. Britain has had one of the more consistently free and democratic governments in the world for quite a while.
It's interesting to see that the Home Office spokesman sounds a bit nervous about how legitimate this would be under European Law. Just saying there have been no successful challanges doesn't mean it's legal. Does anyone know of any challanges?
No. But if you want to mount one, I'll gladly help.
But how would you call it if the army is involved in a violent long time fight between two groups (divised by the church)
The British army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the nationalist population against unionists who were burning their houses. Would you not do the same thing ?
Officially Britain believes terrorists on both sides are just simple criminals (although of an especially dangerous kind). While some elements of the British state (especially the RUC, and N Irelands last effort at local governance) have sometimes sided with unionism to the extent of overlooking its nasty side, the official policy has never been to do so. The Downing Street Declaration recognised the principle of self-determination for N Ireland, and disowned any "selfish strategic or economic interest" in the province on the part of the British government.
You can call it a war only if you believe a war does not have to involve a state on either side, or the conquest and occupation of territory.
Oh, and N Irish terrorists kill in the name of politics, not religion. You will find a scattering of protestant republics and catholic loyalists if you look hard enough.
Damm! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Why don't we tap the phones of everyone in Manhattan cause one of those people committed a crime once! I think it was the pooper scooper law someone broke.
I think you might find that if half the population of Manhattan had historical greivances to the effect that they should actually be part of Canada and not the USA, and a small group of them were prepared to go around blowing things up to prove the point, you might change your mind. Especially when the other half of the population of Manhattan started arming themselves and shooting at the Canadian faction.
Hey, don't blame the entire country because of one person not knowing his history.
My apolgoies for over-generalising. I guess I was just fulfilling the opposing stereotype of the condescending European. :-) Ireland is so complicated that most mainland Brits cannot talk coherently on the subject without offending someone.
Northern Ireland may accept it as a "necessary evil", but I could never accept that here in the States. Times are seldom to turbulent as to necessitate such measures.
The US is lucky in having rather less history to contend with than most Europeans, though you might want to watch those Injuns (that is a joke, by the way). There are, at least in theory, pretty good safegaurds to ensure that when N Ireland finally finds a formal way of peacefully running itself the anti-terrorist laws will be dismantled. A surprising amount of similar legislation (for wiretaps, etc) does exist in the US, BTW.
This is correct. All of Northern Ireland (often referred to as "the six counties" by people in the Republic) is in Ulster. But not all of Ulster is in Northern Ireland.
It is, however, very common practice in Northern Ireland (mostly on the part of unionists, I would guess) to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster. For instance, they have "Ulster Television", "Ulster says no", "Ulster Unionist Party", "Ulster Defense Regiment", and so on. Its my understanding that many nationalists find this usage intimidating, and that many unionists find the name "the six counties" to be demeaning. Therein lies an example of the complexities of Irish politics ... I remember the girls at my primary school were alowed to wear any color of gingham in summer as long as it wasn't green.
I think I remember hearing that the current (Labour) Government were planning to bring in a Bill of Rights or a Citizen's Charter or something along those lines. Anyone else more knowledgable about politics than me?
The government plans to integrate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, and empower the House of Lords (in its capacity as the highest court) to enforce it.
Regrettably the House of Lords powers are not well separated from those of the government, and therefore what happens if it comes to a fight remains to be seen.
Would'ya stop with this stuff please ? I've seen this so many times, reading it again makes me want to scream.
Our rights and liberties are protected by just the same things yours are - by convention. You wrote yours down, we didn't. Big deal. In any country, if the populace stop believing in its liberties, the state will take them away. Bits of paper make no difference to that at all.
"No selfish strategic or economic interest"
There is absolutely nothing more irritating than listening to (or reading) Americans talking about Britain, especially when they go on about politics, and most especially when it comes to Ireland.
1. Braveheart is about William Wallace, who is a Scottish national hero, and not Irish.
2. The Scots, after considerable losses, and the death of Wallace, won that round, for all it matters today, and retained their independance until three or four centuries later when they voluntarily merged first the crown then the parliament with England's. Modern Scottish nationalism has nothing to do with historical conquest, and only a little to do with repression, except perhaps on the part of some extremely ignorant people.
3. England did let Ireland go. EIRE, the Irish republic, the Catholic majority part of the country (for historical and political reasons) is independant. Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted it that way.
4. Irish republicans in the north are in a tiny minority, especially in their use of violence, and the British governments behaviour in the north has been essentially blameless since 1990, and can probably only be blamed with being stupid even before that. Anti-terrorist measures are accepted even by most Irish nationalists as a necessary evil.
5. The traditional Scottish dress is a long piece of plaid cloth wrapped around the torso and waist. The kilt (not skirt, or dress) is a modern invention, which is smaller and more practical, and only goes around the waist.
I challenge you, Mr AC, to point out what I said that is elitist. I said what the author proposed was not only a bad idea but also unworkable. However, in doing that I was not challenging the idea that Linux should be easier for 'ordinary folk' to use. I agree with that wholeheartedly and said so in another post. I was challening two ideas - firstly that in order to be kind to users you need to be actively hostile to hackers. This is false, and will alienate the people who keep Linux alive - and secondly that 'usability' is best defined as being more like Windows.
Your rantings about 'elitists' and the evil sysadmin conspiracy to deprive the public of Linux are laughable. Network sysadmins are skilled (and sometimes even creative) people. Their job emphatically cannot be done by 'trained monkeys' even with a pretty GUI.
It looks from the posts here as if most people (myself included) haven't bothered to read the author's other writings linked at the bottom of the article. I suggest you do so, it makes things a bit clearer.
It seems that the author was deliberately being extreme in writing this, but has also written another article supporting the oposite extreme !
There's a horrible attitude that's quite pervasive in the threads above and it's one of pointless elitism: that Linux should be for geeks only, if you make it easier to use then you get more and stupider users and you lose configurability and the ability to do the complex things you can do now.
I haven't actually seen much elitism on this thread. There is a serious problem with the approach the author is advocating though, and perhaps you are mistaking this for elitism. The point is that Linux has succeeded because it is a good operating system for geeks. If we do what the author wants, and ditch the open source thing, and all the choice in toolkits/wms/shells etc., to pander to the lowest possible common denominator (and let me point out here that I have a higher opinion of the competence of most users than the author does) we will lose the very people who keep Linux going. The people who actually care what OS they use.
This is not only a reason why the approach being advocated is a bad idea. Its also exactly the reason why it won't happen. Linux developers are going to keep developing things they like, not things for 'average users'
First let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with the author's underlying goal of creating a "system your mother could use". I do, however, have a lot of concerns about the approach being advocated.
My most important concern is that, while the author seems to know there are many different groups of user, he proceeds to outline a scheme that caters only to those who are most technically naive.
He seems to be advocating eliminating all the diversity and choice than exists in Linux at the moment, in order to simplify the lives of the one group that doesn't use Linux, hasn't heard of Linux, and doesn't care what OS they use. In the process following his scheme (getting rid of all but one distribution, all but one window manager, all but one toolkit, and every single command line shell) everone else, all the people currently using Linux, all the people who actually care and keep the community alive, would be alienated. Even if it were possible to do this, which obviously it isn't, would it really be worth it ?
My point it this: linux is not designed poorly - it is designed for technical people, and only technical people are going to care enough to keep it alive.
I have no problem at all with a "Linux for the Masses" like the author proposes existing (although I don't really see who wants a warmed over Windows clone). Its the idea that all other Linux systems must be sacrificed and the entire existing user community alienated, to attract the people who care least , that I find disturbing.
On a somewhat more minor point, 'usability' means a lot more than UI design, and is not that easy to disentangle from implementation issues. Some of the worst systems I've seem had their UI developed separately by a 'user centered' individual who unfortunately had not understanding of the application domain. Users are not all the same - probably the only person who can do UI design well is someone who understands the application from the user's perspective, not someone who just thinks they understand 'users'. Oddly enough, that person is sometimes the programmer.
Now for some pickiness. Windows is really a pretty poor example of how to do UI design. Most Mac applications, and lots of NeXT ones are much better. The point of window managers is to manage windows, not to read mail, therefore to demonstarte a window manger you show a picture of lots of windows. Seems kind of obvious - even the author's typical user (who seems much stupider than anyone I've ever met, if he gets information overload from looking at 10 pictures on the same screen) should be able to deal with that.
I guess all the C++ code I wrote in the last 10 years is not viable then. I will instruct the financial companies and telcos who use it daily to throw it all out immediately.
Maybe 'not viable' was a bit extreme (not to mention vague), but you cannot suggest (as a previous poster did) that C++ plus a bit of discipline and a copy of purify is as good as a language which is inherently proof against many of the errors C++ programmers produce so regularly. Did I say it was impossible to write decent C++ ? I've used purify, and I've written plenty of C++. There are other things you can do to make it a saner development language as well as using Purify. The point is that you shoudln't have to. If the language had been designed better, none of this cruft would be necessary. I won't suggest you made the wrong language choice (not 10 years ago at least) or that your employers should chuck the code out, but its possible they could have saved a lot of time and money.
Face it - some people know how to design code and some people (regardless of language) will never know.
That will always be true, with the caveat that most of the issues WRT to C++ primarily concern implementation and reuse, although they do affect design. Tracking garbage, for instance, is nothing to with OO design, but warps the construction of many C++ programs beyond all recognition.
The industry as a whole has to accomodate lower quality programmers though. Not everyone can afford to hire geniuses and recognising them is notoriously difficult. C++ hinders the necessary compromise by making it possible for those who are going to write bad code to do that much more damage.
Whether competence is measured by ability to wrestle C++ to the ground is another matter entirely.
Structure hierarchy is nice, but can lead to all kinds of unproductivity. :-)
Simon
Firstly, I should stress that I'm a Java programmer, and while I have some affection for some "completely unsupported languages" I'd use C++ ahead of them for pragmatic reasons. You replied to my post by repeating exactly the points I thought I'd just dealt with. So I'll repeat myself as well.
1. Featuritis. C++'s feature-overload is not bad because it bloats the code - they managed to avoid that. Its bad because it makes the code hard to read and the language complicated. C++ bares no relation to any other object orriented language, least of all Java, whose design is quite sane, at any level other than syntax. The designers have headed off in a distinctly odd direction, whose value is very dubious.
You can keep saying "you don't understand it, you're just STUPID" as much as you like, but it won't make C++ better. The point is that I have to understand the complexities of every single spaced-out language feature, from templates to pass by value to inadequate operator overloading and their wacky implementations in every single compiler before I can be sure of understanding someone else's code. None of that contributes one bit to the work of programming. Its just cruft. It makes it hard to reuse code and hard to organise project teams.
C++'s design violates the "worse is better" principle. They just keep throwing more stuff in, in the hope of making it into a usable language, and it just never works, because the problem is it was hopelessly ill-conceived to start with. Languages are like applications - they should do something and do it well. C++ tries to be all things to all people and does none of them well. "There is more than one way to do it" is all well and good for Perl, but for systems languages it doesn't cut the mustard.
2. Missing features C++ claims to be an object orriented language for large-scale projects. Compared with C, I won't deny that, but compared with anything else it is laughable. Its not viable to rely on programmer competence or diligence or the SW engineering process to prevent memory leaks, pointer errors, fencepost errors or any of the other problems that dog C++ developers. The only way to fix these things is to build features into the language that make them impossible.
There are several reasons why C++ is a bad language. People not understanding it is one of them, oddly enough. When a language becomes complex enough that someone who has read the standard reference work has trouble reading other people's well written code, you know you have a bad language. Its that simple.
Other reasons why C++ is bad: The handling of templates is just plain wrong. Do proper generic types or do nothing. Operator overloading makes code hard to read, especially when the set of operators is fixed (as in C++). There are legal constructs whose behaviour is undefined. There is no real support for garbage collection, whatever Stroustrup may claim. The standard libraries are template obsessed and hopelessly incomplete. It is pass by value, which is inappropriate for an OO language. Compilers differ massively in even fairly simple things. Multiple inheritance is usually unnecessary and the C++ form of it is overcomplicated
To pick you up on two specifics: It is never sufficient to say "you just don't understand it". If it is that hard to understand, it sucks.
Similarly, language features that are brain-damaged cannot be compensated for just by not using them. Other people, including your colleagues, will use them, and you will have to deal with their code.
Can someone *knowledgeable* (other than the author) please give their take on the article linked to above. If all the implications are true, its no wonder Linux lost the Mindcraft benchmark tests.
Simon
Frankly the fact that only 16% of sites are indexed is something of a relief until the search engines can get their indexing better sorted out. Google does the best job of prioritising away obviously irrelevant results, but it still gets it wrong a depressing amount of the time.
It seems to me that the only way we're ever going to get away from ever-deteriorating keyword searches and ever more corruptible and less competent cataloging sites is to switch over to better (ie. more logical, more meaningful) forms of mark up than HTML provides. XML anyone ?
Thats what google (www.google.com) does. Its pretty good when you use good search terms. It still sucks when your search turns up a bunch of irrelevant links and they also end up in the indexing process along with the relevant ones.
...
In the end, the only solution is to structure the data better than HTML allows. XML here we come
The author of the Slate article is quite right. When you spend you time reacting to 'user demands' from users you cannot get in touch with to try to question their requirements, which have probably also been filtered through a couple of layers of management and tech support staff somewhat less competent in the use of the software than the user, you do get big, ugly, baroque, bloated software. Especially when you burn on in there and make all those changes in a codebase that was never designed for them, because, of course, redesigning code you've already written doesn't provide any new marketing check boxes.
In short, users do not cause bloat. Mismanaged software companies cause bloat by trying to provide what users ask for, rather than what they really want, and by separating the users from the engineers who actually write the code behind a million walls of beauracrats.
Contrary to popular opinion, libertarians of any sophistication acknowledge the need for cooperation and community. Many, including the original founders and operators of Wired, have no great passion for big-business nor the desire to read or write about the doings of successful businessmen that the modern Wired exhibits. Its only those who've been infected with some kind of Ubermensch superiority syndrome who feel libertine politics is a way to isolate themselves from society. Many of the leader of the free/open software movement are libertarians. How do you explain that ?
I assumed 256k meant 256kbytes per second, whereas 56k refers to bits. I don't know what is right.
I used to read Hotwired, and to a lesser extent wired, quite religiously, but both of them have sucked quite badly for some time now. Wired is exclusively for clueless junior businesssmen who want to be cool, and HotWired has gone from interesting and sometimes controversial to be a low quality 'web design for dummies'. A shame.
Slashdot and its ilk seem to be filling the niche though. Giving the somewhat clueful and interested somewhere to hang out.
256K is almost 50 times more than you can get with the best modems. If you don't want it I'll have it. NTLs cable modems are charged by bandwidth and limited to 512K. I'll pay my 30 quid a month thank you.
Britain's telephone infrastructure is pretty good. Its fibre (though not admittedly packet switched) for everthing apart from the local loop. Cable companies used fibre to the end of the street and coax from there as I understand it.