I do not disagree with that at all. I have played with VS of various versions and overall, its nice. Now, its real problem is being tied to that dreaded library. Although, my opinion is bias. I have not touched the platform since the MFC days when it came to C++ GUI development, and I know there have been improvements. But truth be told, the more I play with it, the more I realise that nothing comes close to the power of a bash script combined with a few other tools like make, sed, awk, and perl (not to mention the basic tools such as echo cat & grep). Since these were designed from the grounds up to tie your system together, I'm finding that I can script in any IDE I want using any component.
I have recently begun to seriously utilise autoconf and automake in my development, and have found myself to be almost on the same level as any IDE in capability. Again, biggest difference being really the interface (CLI) and the lack of code completion in the text editor.
What kind of consistency are you looking for? These concepts are fundamentally different. They are represented by different primitives and contextual language. I really do not understand what kind of overlap you are expecting.
The problem is windows is a very awesome developer friendly platform.
As a developer that started out programming on windows, I whole heartedly disagree. There is nothing simpler than turning a text file's execute bit to "on"... chances are any unix system will just figure out how to do it with automagical consistency.
If you don't believe then you wont understand why people don't like to write code for linux.
I don't have to put my faith into anything. This is completely testable and repeatable by anyone.
I would imagine people that don't write programs for linux simply do not know how to in the first place. If the expectation is to simply jump ship and find yourself in the exact same ship, then you make no sense.
Most of the API's - networking, sound, filesystem, gui have no cohesion and are basically duct-taped together. It does not have.NETs simplicity and ease of use. Since.NET ties in the client, server and web through various technologies
What you're failing to mention is that networking, sound, filesystem, gui... have nothing in common other than being API's. They've been in development for about 40 years now (obviously some longer than others), redesigned and re-factored over and over again. I'm pretty sure most of the usability kinks have been implemented already, and what we have today is the aggregated result of that process. You mention.NET but often times its like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. The problem simply isn't big enough.
Even the Mac was a horrible platform until OS X... And even OSX was buggy as hell until recently...
So... until it became a unix system?
What OS, in your mind, does not contain rather large flaws?
Cue fanbois ranting...
Oh the irony...
Contrary to the parent's quote that the only motivation would be fandom... I think I'm only doing this cause I'm bored and maybe for the benefit of anyone who wouldn't know better.
Your question presupposes that there's something missing. Thus you force to frame an answer on your terms in a way that forces it to be rather weak and uninformative.
I propose that there are no "missing links". The notion thereof is frivolous.
Understand that finding a complete skeleton is rather rare occurrence as most animals are eaten by scavengers when they die. Only sometimes a body is entombed in a way that prevents complete destruction.
Additionally, you're ignoring DNA evidence that clearly points to common lineage with primates.
Not trusting Obama because he was raised Muslim: Absurd and pointless. What are you stating about yourself by doing that? That you can't handle someone who isn't like you?
Trying to get a librarian fired because of a disagreement of what should other people read: Absurd and disturbing. Not only are you stating something, you're also forcing your opinion on others through action.
Each of these just shows pointless human behaviour that does nothing for anyone.
What happened to "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"?
The same thing that happens when these people drive the cost up and deprive others from perusing life, let alone liberty and happiness.
Forcibly taking away someone's productivity (in the form of money) is no different from theft.
You're joking, right? Theft!? You know... you could just buy a salad instead a greasy burger. Here's an idea, bring your own god-damn-lunch. Seriously.
Yes you have a right to your grease, I'm not saying don't eat it. What I am saying is "Piss off if you want me to pay for your health problems after, cause you really did this to yourself... so you pre-pay for it, k? k.". This really isn't that complicated.
P.S. We do have universal health-care here (or... at least we call it that) so there isn't really a choice to be part of or apart from the system, and I like it that way, because if I break an arm, I can actually get it taken care of. This is what health care is for in the first place. (And if someone breaks their limbs on purpose... they should seek psychiatric help).
If we are willing to open up the can of worms of risk assignment, then why should we ignore science and not surcharge those people who have doomed genetics?
This isn't insightful, it's pseudo-logic. This ignores one very important aspect: CHOICE.
Living an unhealthy lifestyle is a CHOICE. When you do so, you choose, unnecessarily, to impose higher premiums. Having defective genes is not, in any way, a choice, its shitty luck. Just like catching a cold and dying from it. Coincidentally, that's what health care is actually for.
Only the dumbest Linux users would do something like that. I would imagine that the OS of choice is not so much the issue. But the dumbness of a person would certainly play a crucial role. Or are you just flaming?
In retrospect, you are not paying for other people's kids. You are paying for education that you got as a child. Your parents were paying for themselves, etc.
I think that asking the question of "how to measure intelligence" is like asking "what's infinity plus one". It's moot, and couldn't actually produce any data. I do not see any sidestepping in the approach taken by Turing, it's simply avoidance of a quite illogical, and also irrelevant, question.
If anything, the word intelligence is what we, humans, use to describe how we do, or try to, behave or speak. No one likes to admit stupidity, though we all often are quite stupid. The key factor is that we find ways to "measure" intelligence currently through ability (IQ tests, debates, etc...), but any of these samples also contain pollution (cheaters, various fabricators of "truth", etc...).
What Turing did is quite elegant, concise, and simple given the above circumstances: He merely used the only variables of the problem of creating an intelligent machine that were necessary, and concluded, quite logically, that if a human being, that is by default intelligent because we always attribute intelligence to ourselves, cannot tell that the machine is in fact a machine rather than a human, then it may as well be intelligent.
If you see a flaw with conclusion please present it. All I gathered so far is that you claim that he didn't include these extra variables about which I've already commented at the beginning of my post.
Imagine that you are always dreaming, but you never sleep, and it's a nightmare. You hear things, you feel things, and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for it all in the context of your dream. You cannot be reasoned with because you perceive everything from the context of that dream, and therefore everything is nonsense accept for what you are thinking. You can't relate to anyone, the government is after you just because.
Actually it's hell for the people having to deal with someone schizophrenia as well.
You suspicions would be most incorrect... Please don't assume things about someone on the internet. It tends to be a fruitless effort. Metallica is a poor example because they do not represent all artists, they are by far the minority. They are one of the few bands that have decided to take that mind boggling stance. "Pretty darn similar"? Sorry, the fundamental concept at work here is that individual songs are assumed to have tangible properties, but that is simply not the case. The main reason being that this kind of an assumption has no bounds. This kind of logic can easily be extended to cover me playing that song on the guitar in my back yard with some friends over a bbq. We see this in software all the time, where simple algorithms (just like simple riffs) are said to be someone's "property". That is preposterous, because now, all of a sudden, a thought I could have easily conceived had I been working on a similar problem, "belongs" to someone else. That, my friend, is the definition of bullshit.
I will grant you that there are roles that middlemen fit quite well. This is just not one of them. In this case money is going to the most useless of antisocial endeavors, and that sickens me.
The funny bit is that the only people who complain of "theft" are the middle men who do absolutely nothing of value to anyone and leach off of society. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm not paying anyone who simply stomps their feet claiming I owe them something for nothing. Next.
This statement comes contrary to fact. Most "OpenSource" projects aren't hobbies feeding ones ego, they are developed within company walls for paid salaries (read redhat).
Slashdot Mirror
I do not disagree with that at all. I have played with VS of various versions and overall, its nice. Now, its real problem is being tied to that dreaded library. Although, my opinion is bias. I have not touched the platform since the MFC days when it came to C++ GUI development, and I know there have been improvements. But truth be told, the more I play with it, the more I realise that nothing comes close to the power of a bash script combined with a few other tools like make, sed, awk, and perl (not to mention the basic tools such as echo cat & grep). Since these were designed from the grounds up to tie your system together, I'm finding that I can script in any IDE I want using any component.
I have recently begun to seriously utilise autoconf and automake in my development, and have found myself to be almost on the same level as any IDE in capability. Again, biggest difference being really the interface (CLI) and the lack of code completion in the text editor.
What kind of consistency are you looking for? These concepts are fundamentally different. They are represented by different primitives and contextual language. I really do not understand what kind of overlap you are expecting.
The problem is windows is a very awesome developer friendly platform.
As a developer that started out programming on windows, I whole heartedly disagree. There is nothing simpler than turning a text file's execute bit to "on"... chances are any unix system will just figure out how to do it with automagical consistency.
If you don't believe then you wont understand why people don't like to write code for linux.
I don't have to put my faith into anything. This is completely testable and repeatable by anyone.
I would imagine people that don't write programs for linux simply do not know how to in the first place. If the expectation is to simply jump ship and find yourself in the exact same ship, then you make no sense.
Most of the API's - networking, sound, filesystem, gui have no cohesion and are basically duct-taped together. It does not have .NETs simplicity and ease of use. Since .NET ties in the client, server and web through various technologies
What you're failing to mention is that networking, sound, filesystem, gui... have nothing in common other than being API's. They've been in development for about 40 years now (obviously some longer than others), redesigned and re-factored over and over again. I'm pretty sure most of the usability kinks have been implemented already, and what we have today is the aggregated result of that process. You mention .NET but often times its like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. The problem simply isn't big enough.
Even the Mac was a horrible platform until OS X... And even OSX was buggy as hell until recently...
So... until it became a unix system?
What OS, in your mind, does not contain rather large flaws?
Cue fanbois ranting...
Oh the irony...
Contrary to the parent's quote that the only motivation would be fandom... I think I'm only doing this cause I'm bored and maybe for the benefit of anyone who wouldn't know better.
Your question presupposes that there's something missing. Thus you force to frame an answer on your terms in a way that forces it to be rather weak and uninformative.
I propose that there are no "missing links". The notion thereof is frivolous.
Understand that finding a complete skeleton is rather rare occurrence as most animals are eaten by scavengers when they die. Only sometimes a body is entombed in a way that prevents complete destruction.
Additionally, you're ignoring DNA evidence that clearly points to common lineage with primates.
I suspect you're giving us too much credit for this to ever happen.
Not trusting Obama because he was raised Muslim: Absurd and pointless. What are you stating about yourself by doing that? That you can't handle someone who isn't like you?
Trying to get a librarian fired because of a disagreement of what should other people read: Absurd and disturbing. Not only are you stating something, you're also forcing your opinion on others through action.
Each of these just shows pointless human behaviour that does nothing for anyone.
Ironically, that's how Free Software got started
you HAVE to declare your destructor virtual
No, you don't. It's a good idea to, but you DON'T HAVE TO, hence, the language does not force you to.
In case you're missing it: you can forgo the late binding mechanism if you know that you'll never destroy your object through a base class pointer.
Sure, that would be poor design, but what you present is essentially a straw-man argument.
Right... those people with diabetes I keep hearing about aren't real?
What happened to "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"?
The same thing that happens when these people drive the cost up and deprive others from perusing life, let alone liberty and happiness.
Forcibly taking away someone's productivity (in the form of money) is no different from theft.
You're joking, right? Theft!? You know... you could just buy a salad instead a greasy burger. Here's an idea, bring your own god-damn-lunch. Seriously.
Yes you have a right to your grease, I'm not saying don't eat it. What I am saying is "Piss off if you want me to pay for your health problems after, cause you really did this to yourself... so you pre-pay for it, k? k.". This really isn't that complicated.
P.S. We do have universal health-care here (or... at least we call it that) so there isn't really a choice to be part of or apart from the system, and I like it that way, because if I break an arm, I can actually get it taken care of. This is what health care is for in the first place. (And if someone breaks their limbs on purpose... they should seek psychiatric help).
If we are willing to open up the can of worms of risk assignment, then why should we ignore science and not surcharge those people who have doomed genetics?
This isn't insightful, it's pseudo-logic. This ignores one very important aspect: CHOICE.
Living an unhealthy lifestyle is a CHOICE. When you do so, you choose, unnecessarily, to impose higher premiums. Having defective genes is not, in any way, a choice, its shitty luck. Just like catching a cold and dying from it. Coincidentally, that's what health care is actually for.
No one is opening anything here. Move along.
You don't need 99.9% of people to create a port. You just need at least 1 capable person willing to do it.
sarcasm?
In retrospect, you are not paying for other people's kids. You are paying for education that you got as a child. Your parents were paying for themselves, etc.
If anything, the word intelligence is what we, humans, use to describe how we do, or try to, behave or speak. No one likes to admit stupidity, though we all often are quite stupid. The key factor is that we find ways to "measure" intelligence currently through ability (IQ tests, debates, etc...), but any of these samples also contain pollution (cheaters, various fabricators of "truth", etc...).
What Turing did is quite elegant, concise, and simple given the above circumstances: He merely used the only variables of the problem of creating an intelligent machine that were necessary, and concluded, quite logically, that if a human being, that is by default intelligent because we always attribute intelligence to ourselves, cannot tell that the machine is in fact a machine rather than a human, then it may as well be intelligent.
If you see a flaw with conclusion please present it. All I gathered so far is that you claim that he didn't include these extra variables about which I've already commented at the beginning of my post.
It may as well be a strawman argument.
"Not all drugs are good. Some ... are great.... You just have to know your way around them."
They most definitely do. My mother is one.
Imagine that you are always dreaming, but you never sleep, and it's a nightmare. You hear things, you feel things, and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for it all in the context of your dream. You cannot be reasoned with because you perceive everything from the context of that dream, and therefore everything is nonsense accept for what you are thinking. You can't relate to anyone, the government is after you just because.
Actually it's hell for the people having to deal with someone schizophrenia as well.
I will grant you that there are roles that middlemen fit quite well. This is just not one of them. In this case money is going to the most useless of antisocial endeavors, and that sickens me.
The funny bit is that the only people who complain of "theft" are the middle men who do absolutely nothing of value to anyone and leach off of society. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm not paying anyone who simply stomps their feet claiming I owe them something for nothing. Next.
Good ol' Hicks... sigh.
You wake up, and you get baked.
Hicks, is that you? Did you find your contact lens?
I'm from Latvia, you insensitive clod :). (I've been there, but I was too young to remember the trip)
This statement comes contrary to fact. Most "OpenSource" projects aren't hobbies feeding ones ego, they are developed within company walls for paid salaries (read redhat).