Um. It also adds complexity to the runtime, and to the programmer.
Generics is not like a recompile and go situation. You have to rewrite all your code that uses lists and collections if you want to use the new generic features, otherwise you get new compile errors when useing the collections. This is not as bad for C# as compared to Java since C# is a much younger language and thus the API is also smaller (so far).
Since in.NET CLR a List is actually compiled into a list that only holds ints (and not objects), it actually has a completly different codepath then a List or List. Thus you have potentially hundreds of versions of the List code in memory. All to handle slightly different versions of the same code. So while you are getting gains from not having to box your Integers, you are losing gains from having a larger code footprint.
It's not a win-win situation with generics. Just by defining a HashMap in your code you get a whole new class that must be created and loaded into memory.
Generics is also a pita because it doesn't actually solve all your problems. It's nice for simple lists, but for hash maps it' just doesn't work. Most real life Maps that I've encountered can have a wide variety of objects in them, so you end up doing if instanceof.. then.. else if instanceof... on the value retreived from a Map. Not the best solution, but then again the best solution would be custom code for every map, with bounds checking on the inputs (which generic programming does NOT do, if it did some form of bounds checking then I might be impressed).
I personally don't think that generic programming is much good for data structures more complex then lists. If you have to generate a new class for every type of Map that the programmer might want to use then you will have many classes that do not need to be loaded.
Second, don't scoff at compile-time type checking - I've run into problems on large java projects where there's been some confusion as to what, actually, has been stored in certain collections. Generics prevent this.
I've run into this too, and you know what the solution is? To go to the programmer's cube who is responsible for the code and beat him/her with your clue stick until they wise up.
Maybe you've enabled another view or something in mail but in the default view, it's seperated pane, with the messages list on top and message preview on bottom. At least on the powerbook screen I would never want to make the mail client take up the entire width.
You're right that you can't STOP people from misusing their computers and the UI widgets that developers provide for them. However, it's the developers job to make it as easy for the user to use the application. It serves no purpose to make something hard to use 'just because'. I can see developers being lazy and whatnot, but it's just silly to do that for no reason.
Besides, in Mail where would you put the folder list in the application if it wasn't on the side? You could put it above the message list, but it's really more of a verticle list and not a horizontal list. Which is nice that it's a drawer. However, really I think that they should to have made it similar to the way that Netscape/Mozilla handles the sidebar, that is it's part of the window, but can shrink to a very small size at the click of a button.
you're right, what I should ( and ment to have said ) was that Windows supports more hardware (add-ons) then linux. At least when you go shopping you can tell if the hardware will work with Windows without having to do a google search or double check the driver list in Linux before you buy a device. It usually says that it supports Windows, and rarely Linux.
If you want a real calendar solution I would look elsewhere. iCal is much too young of a calendar to do things like that.
Lotus Notes, Exchange, all do real calendaring (well better then iCal). You probably need some sort of server if you want people to be able to edit your calendars properly.
If you've used a mac then you would know that neither do the developers that use them. Check out Tog's articles ffor references to how bad people can make drawers. (Quickeys for example)
Drawers are good when used as a supplement to the existing interface, but only on windows that should never be full screen. iCal is a perfect example of an application that people like to have be full screen. The Mail window is a perfect example of an application that when made full screen is silly and too wide. Thus drawers are nice in mail and crappy in iCal.
When they moved the interface to being in a drawer in the new iCal somepeople couldn't find the controls for it because their calendar was full screen! How great is a drawer then?
Pop-up floating pallettes are nice sometimes but can be overused. Drawers are one solution to this because they allow you to put the controls you need on the window rather then have them floating, unattached. But everyone has their own workflow and more options are rarely a bad thing.
If all developers made perfect drawers and windows then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but since they don't we have to give the user more options.
At least that's my opinion. Why again shouldn't drawers be detachable? Because the programmer is always right?
Apple should make detaching a drawer part of the OS! For those of you that like drawers, great, but some people like them to be floating. They are first class windows to the OS so it would be possible without re-writing the drawer code.
Well, maybe on second though they should rather create a sub-class of drawer that is detachable and thus all FUTURE drawers could be detachable.
Maybe you should think about that for a second. I'd say that Windows is more LCD then Linux because you can use it on more hardware, more people have an easier time to use it, the sheer number of people who use Windows should be enough to prove that point.
Broadband content is good, but turning the net into a push driven system is in my opinion, bad. The net should stay pull driven and stuff I didn't ask for shouldn't be downloaded (or should be easy to stop).
does have an intelligent agent that offers you susgestions based on your personal amazon.com browsing profile.
Yes, when shopping for say baby toys it's going to give you more baby toys that other people had looked for but it might also give you baby toys that you might like, and this list comes from a search that uses your browsing profile as an input.
Amazon is trying to give you reccomendations that you will buy. It's an active solution to an active problem ( shopping).
What the parent poster is talking about (more so) is for people who goto say ebay ( since it's a better example) and search everyday for the newest auctions on Mac Classic computers. Get's the updates and then logs off. If google could store a search that you want ( say on all sites about Mac Classic computers) and send you a list of updates to that like ( once a week,month,day etc..) Then would that not be useful? Rather then having to goto Google every week and doing a similar search all the time.
Take that to the next level where Google can do this search and also send you searches that are about information related to your search for you to look at later (via email). It could be useful, course it might not. Googling right now is an interactive process whereby you start with a simple query ( 'ducks' ) and narrow down to a specific thing you want ( 'hockey players on the mighty ducks' ). Adding and removing keywords until you get the site you want.
Your comment about the trash being hidden is I think a major reason that WindowShade was invented. So that you could actually access the trash while you had a large window open.
Think about it, in OS 9 or below, lets say you had some large window in the finder (like your main hard drive window like so many had). Then you explore deep into your hard drive (opening lots of little windows), find a file you want to delete. then oh no, you can't delete it because you have to drag it to the trash (forget about keyboard shortcuts for a minute, were talking about the trash). So WindowShade was invented to temporarly hide a window (since mac didn't have the minimize feature that windows has only shade, close and maximize). Thus you could uncover the trash.
I like the new trash system in OSX, wish that Windows supported is OOTB as well.
I'm fairly sure that it will produce code that will run fine on a G3, especially because the G4 is basically a G3 with Altivec.
These compilers will produce better code then GCC for the PPC chips in macs, so maybe next year we will have a OS compiled on XLC and not GCC (another speed-up). But I don't know how reliant Apple is on GCC for compiling (extensions and whatnot).
I do remember what you are talking about and I don't remember liking it much. Can't you get it back under classic in osx? I'll have to try it when I get home on my mac.
But why do you need that when you can use the dock to switch applications?
The only reason in my mind that the application widget you are talking about is better is because it's always in the same spot and size ( Fitt's law) and had text titles for the icons.
I guess it would be nice to have text titles in the dock as well but then it takes even more space. Which others have noted as well.
Apple always charged you for the applications, but you just didn't know you were paying for them.
It's an upgrade fee, I don't understand how people can be so mad about this. Are people angry about paying to upgrade their Photoshop?
"I bought Photoshop, that means they should give me the next version for free! Stupid Adobe!"
According to Apple, iPhoto is much better, (faster, less buggy and has new features) and the GarageBand application is brand new!
I know that I sound like an Apple apologist, but come on, you didn't actually think that when you bought an Apple computer that they will solve all your problems with software updates for no cost?
You can have your application menu. To me it was a complete failure as a good UI device.
I'm assuming that you mean the menu that the multi-finder brought us, the menu in the upper right hand corner that lets you switch applications.
It was a pain then and still is a pain.
The dock is much better for switching applications, as you only need to click once on an icon to switch applications rather then click->drag. And the order of the applications was dependent on the order in which you opened your applications which generated many rituals I'm sure of opening your applications in the same order so they would always appear in the same order on that menu.
The only problem with the dock is that it can'h handle more then 15-20 applications.
Right, but you'd need ten hard drives to equal the data capacity of one normal Lap top hard drive and a 1" hard drive is not 1/10th the size of a 2.5" laptop hard drive.
So you would actually need like 15-20 hard drives to be able to raid them.
So it's a silly idea. I don't know why so many people think that RAID in a laptop is such a great idea. Laptops are supposed to be small and have long lasting batterys, something which RAID gets rid of.
Maybe for some but most people are used to large hard drives in their laptop. I bought a laptop last year that has a 40 GB drive. These new drives are only 4, you would need ten of them to equal the size. There is no way that ten small hard drives are anywhere near as reliable as one large one. Even if there is a RAID array to stop the data loss.
Ten hard drives would be larger then 1 regular one. Probably bigger then 2 regular laptop drives, so why not just get a RAID 1 Array of normal laptop hard drives?
Just because Apple doesn't want to be the only maker of mp3 playing devices this is seen as a problem. (And of personal computers)
Apple's goal is not to win and have everyone and their mother carry around an iPod. That would be crazy. Their product is good, but not everyone can use an iPod. Not everyone has a large investment in music. The iPod is only really good for those people who have lots (thousands) of songs and like to organize them. It's not good for anyone who is an 'audiophile' because you have to use lossy compression to listen to your music (though I guess you could just store all your music as aiffs).
People who only like one type of music or who like the limited playlists of radio can and will continue to do so.
Apple's strategy is not to become the Walmart of the mp3 world. They have never made anything for 'the common man' since they started to make the Mac. The Original Apple I and Apple II were marketed for the common man but since the Macintosh appeared 20 years ago they have increasingly become the cool hip computer company. Not the only computer company (which is how MS would have it).
I think that people are dissapointed by the mini iPod because they really wanted a cheap iPod and the mini iPod is another high end mp3 player. People wanted a $99 iPod and instead we have a tiny iPod.
Is there another product on the market that is physically smaller then the mini iPod yet offers more storage space? (Keeping all the other features that the iPod has like battery life, backlighting, etc... )
With infinite clock speed your electrons wouldn't be able to move. Thus you would never get any information in or out of the chip. (even if you could get infinite clock speed) Also clock speed is in no way related to the 'bitness' of a chip, so if you could have an infinite clock speed chip it wouldn't matter what 'bit' it was.
Regardless your point is nonsense because there are real limitations to how things work.
The reason that bits of chips keep increasing is because we keep doubling the transistor density, and lo and behold it's better to be able to actually process 128-bits of information at once if we actually want to be able to process that much information.
True, you can do math on 32-bit (or really any length of bits assuming lots of ram) numbers with only 16-bit ALUs, but its obsiously more efficient to do it with larger ALUs.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. It also adds complexity to the runtime, and to the programmer.
.NET CLR a List is actually compiled into a list that only holds ints (and not objects), it actually has a completly different codepath then a List or List. Thus you have potentially hundreds of versions of the List code in memory. All to handle slightly different versions of the same code. So while you are getting gains from not having to box your Integers, you are losing gains from having a larger code footprint.
.. then.. else if instanceof... on the value retreived from a Map. Not the best solution, but then again the best solution would be custom code for every map, with bounds checking on the inputs (which generic programming does NOT do, if it did some form of bounds checking then I might be impressed).
Generics is not like a recompile and go situation. You have to rewrite all your code that uses lists and collections if you want to use the new generic features, otherwise you get new compile errors when useing the collections. This is not as bad for C# as compared to Java since C# is a much younger language and thus the API is also smaller (so far).
Since in
It's not a win-win situation with generics. Just by defining a HashMap in your code you get a whole new class that must be created and loaded into memory.
Generics is also a pita because it doesn't actually solve all your problems. It's nice for simple lists, but for hash maps it' just doesn't work. Most real life Maps that I've encountered can have a wide variety of objects in them, so you end up doing if instanceof
I personally don't think that generic programming is much good for data structures more complex then lists. If you have to generate a new class for every type of Map that the programmer might want to use then you will have many classes that do not need to be loaded.
Second, don't scoff at compile-time type checking - I've run into problems on large java projects where there's been some confusion as to what, actually, has been stored in certain collections. Generics prevent this.
I've run into this too, and you know what the solution is? To go to the programmer's cube who is responsible for the code and beat him/her with your clue stick until they wise up.
That's what will happen in C# generics (supposedly).
It will be neat, but it adds more complexity to the system.
Maybe you've enabled another view or something in mail but in the default view, it's seperated pane, with the messages list on top and message preview on bottom. At least on the powerbook screen I would never want to make the mail client take up the entire width.
You're right that you can't STOP people from misusing their computers and the UI widgets that developers provide for them. However, it's the developers job to make it as easy for the user to use the application. It serves no purpose to make something hard to use 'just because'. I can see developers being lazy and whatnot, but it's just silly to do that for no reason.
Besides, in Mail where would you put the folder list in the application if it wasn't on the side? You could put it above the message list, but it's really more of a verticle list and not a horizontal list. Which is nice that it's a drawer. However, really I think that they should to have made it similar to the way that Netscape/Mozilla handles the sidebar, that is it's part of the window, but can shrink to a very small size at the click of a button.
Dude, you're building a custom computer, do you really think it was going to be cheap?
If you're not going to use off the shelf componenets as they were designed to be used then it's going to get expensive and fast.
you're right, what I should ( and ment to have said ) was that Windows supports more hardware (add-ons) then linux. At least when you go shopping you can tell if the hardware will work with Windows without having to do a google search or double check the driver list in Linux before you buy a device. It usually says that it supports Windows, and rarely Linux.
Probably because iCal is not real groupware....
If you want a real calendar solution I would look elsewhere. iCal is much too young of a calendar to do things like that.
Lotus Notes, Exchange, all do real calendaring (well better then iCal). You probably need some sort of server if you want people to be able to edit your calendars properly.
Yeah, but when you close the drawer, it doesn't resize to the larger size you had it before you opened the drawer. That would be sweet.
Sigh... so close but yet so far.
If you've used a mac then you would know that neither do the developers that use them. Check out Tog's articles ffor references to how bad people can make drawers. (Quickeys for example)
Drawers are good when used as a supplement to the existing interface, but only on windows that should never be full screen. iCal is a perfect example of an application that people like to have be full screen. The Mail window is a perfect example of an application that when made full screen is silly and too wide. Thus drawers are nice in mail and crappy in iCal.
When they moved the interface to being in a drawer in the new iCal somepeople couldn't find the controls for it because their calendar was full screen! How great is a drawer then?
Pop-up floating pallettes are nice sometimes but can be overused. Drawers are one solution to this because they allow you to put the controls you need on the window rather then have them floating, unattached. But everyone has their own workflow and more options are rarely a bad thing.
If all developers made perfect drawers and windows then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but since they don't we have to give the user more options.
At least that's my opinion. Why again shouldn't drawers be detachable? Because the programmer is always right?
Apple should make detaching a drawer part of the OS! For those of you that like drawers, great, but some people like them to be floating. They are first class windows to the OS so it would be possible without re-writing the drawer code.
Well, maybe on second though they should rather create a sub-class of drawer that is detachable and thus all FUTURE drawers could be detachable.
Linux is Lowest Common Denominator?
Maybe you should think about that for a second. I'd say that Windows is more LCD then Linux because you can use it on more hardware, more people have an easier time to use it, the sheer number of people who use Windows should be enough to prove that point.
Broadband content is good, but turning the net into a push driven system is in my opinion, bad. The net should stay pull driven and stuff I didn't ask for shouldn't be downloaded (or should be easy to stop).
does have an intelligent agent that offers you susgestions based on your personal amazon.com browsing profile.
Yes, when shopping for say baby toys it's going to give you more baby toys that other people had looked for but it might also give you baby toys that you might like, and this list comes from a search that uses your browsing profile as an input.
Amazon is trying to give you reccomendations that you will buy. It's an active solution to an active problem ( shopping).
What the parent poster is talking about (more so) is for people who goto say ebay ( since it's a better example) and search everyday for the newest auctions on Mac Classic computers. Get's the updates and then logs off. If google could store a search that you want ( say on all sites about Mac Classic computers) and send you a list of updates to that like ( once a week,month,day etc..) Then would that not be useful? Rather then having to goto Google every week and doing a similar search all the time.
Take that to the next level where Google can do this search and also send you searches that are about information related to your search for you to look at later (via email). It could be useful, course it might not. Googling right now is an interactive process whereby you start with a simple query ( 'ducks' ) and narrow down to a specific thing you want ( 'hockey players on the mighty ducks' ). Adding and removing keywords until you get the site you want.
Why must this remain a pipe dream?
;)
Maybe cause no matter what you will look like a tool when you wear said aparatus?
Gaming has finally gotten 'cool' don't spoil it by making VR a reality.
Your comment about the trash being hidden is I think a major reason that WindowShade was invented. So that you could actually access the trash while you had a large window open.
Think about it, in OS 9 or below, lets say you had some large window in the finder (like your main hard drive window like so many had). Then you explore deep into your hard drive (opening lots of little windows), find a file you want to delete. then oh no, you can't delete it because you have to drag it to the trash (forget about keyboard shortcuts for a minute, were talking about the trash). So WindowShade was invented to temporarly hide a window (since mac didn't have the minimize feature that windows has only shade, close and maximize). Thus you could uncover the trash.
I like the new trash system in OSX, wish that Windows supported is OOTB as well.
I'm fairly sure that it will produce code that will run fine on a G3, especially because the G4 is basically a G3 with Altivec.
These compilers will produce better code then GCC for the PPC chips in macs, so maybe next year we will have a OS compiled on XLC and not GCC (another speed-up). But I don't know how reliant Apple is on GCC for compiling (extensions and whatnot).
I do remember what you are talking about and I don't remember liking it much. Can't you get it back under classic in osx? I'll have to try it when I get home on my mac.
But why do you need that when you can use the dock to switch applications?
The only reason in my mind that the application widget you are talking about is better is because it's always in the same spot and size ( Fitt's law) and had text titles for the icons.
I guess it would be nice to have text titles in the dock as well but then it takes even more space. Which others have noted as well.
It works fine in 10.3, you just have to restart the dock in someway (reboot, log out/in, or kill the dock manually).
Apple always charged you for the applications, but you just didn't know you were paying for them.
It's an upgrade fee, I don't understand how people can be so mad about this. Are people angry about paying to upgrade their Photoshop?
"I bought Photoshop, that means they should give me the next version for free! Stupid Adobe!"
According to Apple, iPhoto is much better, (faster, less buggy and has new features) and the GarageBand application is brand new!
I know that I sound like an Apple apologist, but come on, you didn't actually think that when you bought an Apple computer that they will solve all your problems with software updates for no cost?
You can have your application menu. To me it was a complete failure as a good UI device.
I'm assuming that you mean the menu that the multi-finder brought us, the menu in the upper right hand corner that lets you switch applications.
It was a pain then and still is a pain.
The dock is much better for switching applications, as you only need to click once on an icon to switch applications rather then click->drag. And the order of the applications was dependent on the order in which you opened your applications which generated many rituals I'm sure of opening your applications in the same order so they would always appear in the same order on that menu.
The only problem with the dock is that it can'h handle more then 15-20 applications.
Right, but you'd need ten hard drives to equal the data capacity of one normal Lap top hard drive and a 1" hard drive is not 1/10th the size of a 2.5" laptop hard drive.
So you would actually need like 15-20 hard drives to be able to raid them.
So it's a silly idea. I don't know why so many people think that RAID in a laptop is such a great idea. Laptops are supposed to be small and have long lasting batterys, something which RAID gets rid of.
Sure, when you post as non-anonymous?
What's your point exactly? If you want technical verbage precision, then don't come to slashdot.
Maybe for some but most people are used to large hard drives in their laptop. I bought a laptop last year that has a 40 GB drive. These new drives are only 4, you would need ten of them to equal the size. There is no way that ten small hard drives are anywhere near as reliable as one large one. Even if there is a RAID array to stop the data loss.
Ten hard drives would be larger then 1 regular one. Probably bigger then 2 regular laptop drives, so why not just get a RAID 1 Array of normal laptop hard drives?
Why is this a problem though?
Just because Apple doesn't want to be the only maker of mp3 playing devices this is seen as a problem. (And of personal computers)
Apple's goal is not to win and have everyone and their mother carry around an iPod. That would be crazy. Their product is good, but not everyone can use an iPod. Not everyone has a large investment in music. The iPod is only really good for those people who have lots (thousands) of songs and like to organize them. It's not good for anyone who is an 'audiophile' because you have to use lossy compression to listen to your music (though I guess you could just store all your music as aiffs).
People who only like one type of music or who like the limited playlists of radio can and will continue to do so.
Apple's strategy is not to become the Walmart of the mp3 world. They have never made anything for 'the common man' since they started to make the Mac. The Original Apple I and Apple II were marketed for the common man but since the Macintosh appeared 20 years ago they have increasingly become the cool hip computer company. Not the only computer company (which is how MS would have it).
I think that people are dissapointed by the mini iPod because they really wanted a cheap iPod and the mini iPod is another high end mp3 player. People wanted a $99 iPod and instead we have a tiny iPod.
Is there another product on the market that is physically smaller then the mini iPod yet offers more storage space? (Keeping all the other features that the iPod has like battery life, backlighting, etc... )
because you can't use Guitar Port with a Mac.
I mean the guitar port is cool, I almost bought one, but then I realized that I didn't like any of the software on the PC.
With infinite clock speed your electrons wouldn't be able to move. Thus you would never get any information in or out of the chip. (even if you could get infinite clock speed) Also clock speed is in no way related to the 'bitness' of a chip, so if you could have an infinite clock speed chip it wouldn't matter what 'bit' it was.
Regardless your point is nonsense because there are real limitations to how things work.
The reason that bits of chips keep increasing is because we keep doubling the transistor density, and lo and behold it's better to be able to actually process 128-bits of information at once if we actually want to be able to process that much information.
True, you can do math on 32-bit (or really any length of bits assuming lots of ram) numbers with only 16-bit ALUs, but its obsiously more efficient to do it with larger ALUs.