A good software developer writes applications that are meant to be run as binaries. Sorry web folks, you're not software developers.
Your post is filled with stereotypes such as these, and shows you have little understanding of the other types of software development that exists. Web development, as the elitist non-web developers would like to believe, is not as simple as alert boxes and bold tags. As you start doing advanced things like AJAX, you find that it requires far more expertise than most people realize.
I do not see the categorization between programmers as compiled vs scripted. That's narrow-minded. Both require logic. Both require understanding of the platform. Both require uses of things like variables, functions, and classes. And sometimes, syntactically, they are extremely similar.
There are plenty of really bad compiled language programmers, just as there are many amateur web developers who call themselves programmers because they made a confirmation dialog box on a delete button.
Don't confuse differences in computer languages with developer ability. They're all developers, and they're all writing software. C/C++ is not the only valid language that makes somebody a programmer. Especially a good programmer.
In fact, a good programmer is able to swap between these different languages and environments quickly, a challenge you seem to think only misguided individuals try.
The reason Bush will never be impeached is BECAUSE his ratings are so low.
There is little gain in impeaching a president who is doing so badly, especially when the impeachment process comes with a huge risk of public backlash. The Democrats are already getting what they want: public disdain for the Republicans thanks to Bush. The Democrats have little to gain by doing an impeachment and a lot to lose if something goes wrong.
i believe he was trying to point out that despite having a fully graphical interface, there are TWO DIGITAL BUTTONS at the bottom. He wasn't saying physical buttons are bad, just that the phone maker is still stuck in the 2-button navigation menu that plagues the current cell phone market due to physical constraints. The whole point of a digital interface is to be able to make available any number of buttons as necessary -- something this phone's software developers are clearly missing.
How come you read about companies violating patents one day and then finding "work arounds" the next? Seriously, if a patented technology is a crucial component in an application, how is it that the expected reaction is to bypasses it and yet keep the application functioning *exactly* like it was before.
If that doesn't show that software patents are bogus, I don't know what will.
I disagree. If your goal is to write a website for mom, it is overkill to look at Prototype (maybe). However, anybody who is comparing frameworks is probably way beyond the simple stuff.
As for the bloat issue, this is where libraries like Scriptaculous are doing it right by keeping classes of components in separate libraries. Second, this is why browsers cache JS files. Third, if you want cool effects that are cross-browser compatible, you simply have to accept that such effects come with bloat. If bloat is a show stopper, then you probably shouldn't use fading transitions with scaling div boxes anyway.
And if the argument is that these add way too much *unused* bloat, this comes back to the "mom's website" argument I made above. If people want to use machine guns to hunt cockroaches, that's their call. Unlike with a machine gun, if Prototype is too much, you can always cut out the small pieces you need. That's right -- people seem to conveniently forget that if they only really need one small, tiny part of a much larger library, they're always free to simply cut and paste that component out (MIT license is a great thing, huh).
What? But you need the rest, just in case? Then don't complain about the bloat you are willfully accepting. But in all honesty, Prototype's foot print is tiny -- about the size of an extra image banner -- and it gets cached.
I have been using Prototype extensively lately, and I have found it as a major time saver. By using it, I don't have to remember the various undocumented "gotchas" across browers. I'd much rather deal with the well documented show/hide issue than trying to figure out how to make transparent text in all of the browsers. On that note, did you know Prototype tries to prevent the very "gotchas" you talk of? For example, stopping event propogation is the same method no matter what browser you are using, and the Element.setStyle/getStyle methods correctly convert the 'opacity' property depending on the browser being used. So for whatever "gotchas" you are using to discredit Prototype, I think you are conveniently ignoring the hundreds of others that Prototype strives to fix, silently, without the developer ever knowing.
And lastly, about the notion of writing your own custom library -- that's hardly an option for most people. First of all, most web developers are not JavaScript experts. In fact, I've almost never seen someone use exception handling in JavaScript, short of in libraries like these. More importantly, even if you were some kind of JavaScript guru, are you going to test all of your methods in all of the browsers out there? Can you guarantee your AJAX calls work the same in all browsers? What happens if I trigger a second one during the first one? Is your implementation really more efficient than Prototype's? How long is it going to take to design this custom library? Is it extensible? Does it respect the global namespace? Does it play nice with other JS files I include? Does it work in strict/quirks mode? Like I said, writing such a library isn't an option for most people. Prototype is as close as it gets to a "patch" library, which is why so many other frameworks are built on it. That, and it has been extensively tested, which is a requirement for most companies rolling out technologies like it.
Actually, what compounds the problem is that IE7's CSS/HTML support is still very far from the standards. This makes you have to test against the standards, IE6, AND IE7 since they each do wildly different things depending on what you're doing.
As a former principal, you'd think any potential future employers would understand that a myspace profile is:
a) not real b) made by an angry student c) a common joke against those in the profession d) all of the above
This is why slander is harder to prove if you're famous. If this guy decided to serve in the public eye, he should be willing to accept that the eye will sometimes draw people who don't like him. The point is, if I find a profile about a congressman on myspace, I don't believe what I read.
This is not the same as a PRINCIPAL doing something to a student. One is a MINOR with no public image, while the other is a public servant (oh, and an adult) with a public image. One is already in the public eye (and paid to be there), one is not.
Not trying to troll, but in all honesty with tons of other proven languages out there, why did blizzard bank on this one? what makes this language so great? i read the wiki article, but it seems like this is a relative new comer with very limited documented use in the production world (no pun intended), let alone a scaling application like WoW. Does anybody know?
How do you distinguish parody, commentary, and other forms of fair use?
Also, what happens when people catch on and start getting around the TEXT BASED filters by using more cryptic titles:
"c0lber rep. interving ____" "fami1ygu_1y"
Or what about non-descriptive titles that humans can easily distinguish but robots can't:
"peter goes to vegas" "marge arguing with bart"
If you use text based filters to filter video content, you will fail as soon as the community catches on. And worse yet, you will inadvertently hit people that are uploading fair game:
"funny situation that happened in my office" -- FLAGGED BECAUSE IT USES THE TERM "OFFICE" "my encounter with Steven Colbert in real life!" -- FLAGGED BECAUSE THIS IS LIKELY COLBERT REPORT "parody of SNL" -- FLAGGED FOR "SNL"
It would become a monumental pile of "pending review" videos. And a pending status would be necessary since not using such a status would essentially keep things exactly where they are now: bad content goes live immediately for sharing and further distribution. But if legit videos are getting stuck in pending, people would have a strong (and very real) incentive to get around the filters, even if they aren't uploading copyrighted content.
It's impossible to detect copyrighted content on any large scale. Expecting YouTube* be the enforcer** of their content is naive at best. Machines can't tell if something was uploaded by its owner or a stranger. If they employ people to investigate this, each person would need to be able to instantly recognize copyrighted stuff*** from any producer in the world (impossible). That means somebody would have to see a video or song and know if it's owned by ABC****, NBC*****, Viacom******, Sony*******, the Discovery Channel********, etc. This doesn't even touch upon fair use, which not even the terminator********* could recognize with confidence**********. Then there's the issue of a false alarm***********
[POST TERMINATED DUE EXCESSIVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT]
My friend's parents bought a brand new computer. At first they liked the new graphics. But a day later, my friend had to go over and put XP on it because the machine was just *too slow*. It was funny because the first day, my friend was explains how "Vista is kinda cool," and the next day, he says, "Vista is retarded. I'm sticking with XP as long as I can."
As a side note, it took him most of two days to wipe the machine. I didn't ask for details, but apparently Vista is not as cut-and-dry as XP in terms of removing.
The industry isn't the same as it was in 2001. Bloat will be Microsoft's down fall this time around.
MS should focus on its core competency, which is hardware. Drop all these other side projects like the search engine, the news site, the OS.. Go back to making great mice, keyboards and joysticks. They used to be the best, and now that they are sidetracked with all these other projects they are losing focus, and it's starting to show.
Yeah, and Slashdot needs to focus on its core competency too, which is being CmdrTaco's blog. Drop all these other side projects like news, comments, and job listings. Go back to making a great blog for CmdrTaco. It used to be the best, and now that we are sidetracked with all these other projects the site is losing focus, and it's starting to show.
Fast forward to November. Nintendo knocks of $50 from the Wii and launches a new marketing campaign, showing off upcoming games in all their "impossible on any other system" glory. Kids all over the US and Europe *continue to* beg their parents for a Wii. Parents cave because they want one too.
Fast forward to November. Microsoft knocks $100 off their console, finally kills XBox, and launches an insanely intensive marketing campaign, showing off upcoming games in all their "just-as-good as PS3" glory. Kids all over the US and Europe beg their parents for an XBOX360. Parents cave because it still costs $200 less than the PS3.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is filled with stereotypes such as these, and shows you have little understanding of the other types of software development that exists. Web development, as the elitist non-web developers would like to believe, is not as simple as alert boxes and bold tags. As you start doing advanced things like AJAX, you find that it requires far more expertise than most people realize.
I do not see the categorization between programmers as compiled vs scripted. That's narrow-minded. Both require logic. Both require understanding of the platform. Both require uses of things like variables, functions, and classes. And sometimes, syntactically, they are extremely similar.
There are plenty of really bad compiled language programmers, just as there are many amateur web developers who call themselves programmers because they made a confirmation dialog box on a delete button.
Don't confuse differences in computer languages with developer ability. They're all developers, and they're all writing software. C/C++ is not the only valid language that makes somebody a programmer. Especially a good programmer.
In fact, a good programmer is able to swap between these different languages and environments quickly, a challenge you seem to think only misguided individuals try.
The reason Bush will never be impeached is BECAUSE his ratings are so low.
There is little gain in impeaching a president who is doing so badly, especially when the impeachment process comes with a huge risk of public backlash. The Democrats are already getting what they want: public disdain for the Republicans thanks to Bush. The Democrats have little to gain by doing an impeachment and a lot to lose if something goes wrong.
i believe he was trying to point out that despite having a fully graphical interface, there are TWO DIGITAL BUTTONS at the bottom. He wasn't saying physical buttons are bad, just that the phone maker is still stuck in the 2-button navigation menu that plagues the current cell phone market due to physical constraints. The whole point of a digital interface is to be able to make available any number of buttons as necessary -- something this phone's software developers are clearly missing.
Unlike their other projects they may have abandoned in the past, Gears is open source. If it gets picked up by the community, it won't just die.
The iPhone has two batteries. One is exclusively for making calls.
How come you read about companies violating patents one day and then finding "work arounds" the next? Seriously, if a patented technology is a crucial component in an application, how is it that the expected reaction is to bypasses it and yet keep the application functioning *exactly* like it was before.
If that doesn't show that software patents are bogus, I don't know what will.
Unless you're IBM, and the fight is over patents.
The guy burns stuff down?
The "many" would be prosecuted. Anybody who's name appears on the bills gets prosecuted. Anybody who sticks out in the community gets prosecuted.
Most people use these sites, but have no interest in retaining ownership or the liabilities.
I disagree. If your goal is to write a website for mom, it is overkill to look at Prototype (maybe). However, anybody who is comparing frameworks is probably way beyond the simple stuff.
As for the bloat issue, this is where libraries like Scriptaculous are doing it right by keeping classes of components in separate libraries. Second, this is why browsers cache JS files. Third, if you want cool effects that are cross-browser compatible, you simply have to accept that such effects come with bloat. If bloat is a show stopper, then you probably shouldn't use fading transitions with scaling div boxes anyway.
And if the argument is that these add way too much *unused* bloat, this comes back to the "mom's website" argument I made above. If people want to use machine guns to hunt cockroaches, that's their call. Unlike with a machine gun, if Prototype is too much, you can always cut out the small pieces you need. That's right -- people seem to conveniently forget that if they only really need one small, tiny part of a much larger library, they're always free to simply cut and paste that component out (MIT license is a great thing, huh).
What? But you need the rest, just in case? Then don't complain about the bloat you are willfully accepting. But in all honesty, Prototype's foot print is tiny -- about the size of an extra image banner -- and it gets cached.
I have been using Prototype extensively lately, and I have found it as a major time saver. By using it, I don't have to remember the various undocumented "gotchas" across browers. I'd much rather deal with the well documented show/hide issue than trying to figure out how to make transparent text in all of the browsers. On that note, did you know Prototype tries to prevent the very "gotchas" you talk of? For example, stopping event propogation is the same method no matter what browser you are using, and the Element.setStyle/getStyle methods correctly convert the 'opacity' property depending on the browser being used. So for whatever "gotchas" you are using to discredit Prototype, I think you are conveniently ignoring the hundreds of others that Prototype strives to fix, silently, without the developer ever knowing.
And lastly, about the notion of writing your own custom library -- that's hardly an option for most people. First of all, most web developers are not JavaScript experts. In fact, I've almost never seen someone use exception handling in JavaScript, short of in libraries like these. More importantly, even if you were some kind of JavaScript guru, are you going to test all of your methods in all of the browsers out there? Can you guarantee your AJAX calls work the same in all browsers? What happens if I trigger a second one during the first one? Is your implementation really more efficient than Prototype's? How long is it going to take to design this custom library? Is it extensible? Does it respect the global namespace? Does it play nice with other JS files I include? Does it work in strict/quirks mode? Like I said, writing such a library isn't an option for most people. Prototype is as close as it gets to a "patch" library, which is why so many other frameworks are built on it. That, and it has been extensively tested, which is a requirement for most companies rolling out technologies like it.
So, in other words, no burning CD's on your Powerbook without being plugged in.
Actually, what compounds the problem is that IE7's CSS/HTML support is still very far from the standards. This makes you have to test against the standards, IE6, AND IE7 since they each do wildly different things depending on what you're doing.
I find it remarkable that 13.3% is considered "low."
As a former principal, you'd think any potential future employers would understand that a myspace profile is:
a) not real
b) made by an angry student
c) a common joke against those in the profession
d) all of the above
This is why slander is harder to prove if you're famous. If this guy decided to serve in the public eye, he should be willing to accept that the eye will sometimes draw people who don't like him. The point is, if I find a profile about a congressman on myspace, I don't believe what I read.
This is not the same as a PRINCIPAL doing something to a student. One is a MINOR with no public image, while the other is a public servant (oh, and an adult) with a public image. One is already in the public eye (and paid to be there), one is not.
Exactly. It is not a religion! The nerve of some people...
I prefer to call it a cult.
Not trying to troll, but in all honesty with tons of other proven languages out there, why did blizzard bank on this one? what makes this language so great? i read the wiki article, but it seems like this is a relative new comer with very limited documented use in the production world (no pun intended), let alone a scaling application like WoW. Does anybody know?
How do you distinguish parody, commentary, and other forms of fair use?
Also, what happens when people catch on and start getting around the TEXT BASED filters by using more cryptic titles:
"c0lber rep. interving ____"
"fami1ygu_1y"
Or what about non-descriptive titles that humans can easily distinguish but robots can't:
"peter goes to vegas"
"marge arguing with bart"
If you use text based filters to filter video content, you will fail as soon as the community catches on. And worse yet, you will inadvertently hit people that are uploading fair game:
"funny situation that happened in my office" -- FLAGGED BECAUSE IT USES THE TERM "OFFICE"
"my encounter with Steven Colbert in real life!" -- FLAGGED BECAUSE THIS IS LIKELY COLBERT REPORT
"parody of SNL" -- FLAGGED FOR "SNL"
It would become a monumental pile of "pending review" videos. And a pending status would be necessary since not using such a status would essentially keep things exactly where they are now: bad content goes live immediately for sharing and further distribution. But if legit videos are getting stuck in pending, people would have a strong (and very real) incentive to get around the filters, even if they aren't uploading copyrighted content.
The entire system would collapse in days.
It's impossible to detect copyrighted content on any large scale. Expecting YouTube* be the enforcer** of their content is naive at best. Machines can't tell if something was uploaded by its owner or a stranger. If they employ people to investigate this, each person would need to be able to instantly recognize copyrighted stuff*** from any producer in the world (impossible). That means somebody would have to see a video or song and know if it's owned by ABC****, NBC*****, Viacom******, Sony*******, the Discovery Channel********, etc. This doesn't even touch upon fair use, which not even the terminator********* could recognize with confidence**********. Then there's the issue of a false alarm***********
[POST TERMINATED DUE EXCESSIVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT]
Yeah, jack shit.
Yeah, because that worked...
I have a similar story:
My friend's parents bought a brand new computer. At first they liked the new graphics. But a day later, my friend had to go over and put XP on it because the machine was just *too slow*. It was funny because the first day, my friend was explains how "Vista is kinda cool," and the next day, he says, "Vista is retarded. I'm sticking with XP as long as I can."
As a side note, it took him most of two days to wipe the machine. I didn't ask for details, but apparently Vista is not as cut-and-dry as XP in terms of removing.
The industry isn't the same as it was in 2001. Bloat will be Microsoft's down fall this time around.
Yeah, and Slashdot needs to focus on its core competency too, which is being CmdrTaco's blog.
Drop all these other side projects like news, comments, and job listings.
Go back to making a great blog for CmdrTaco.
It used to be the best, and now that we are sidetracked with all these other projects the site is losing focus, and it's starting to show.
I'm not done...
Fast forward to November. Nintendo knocks of $50 from the Wii and launches a new marketing campaign, showing off upcoming games in all their "impossible on any other system" glory. Kids all over the US and Europe *continue to* beg their parents for a Wii. Parents cave because they want one too.
I can play your fantasy scenario game too...
Fast forward to November. Microsoft knocks $100 off their console, finally kills XBox, and launches an insanely intensive marketing campaign, showing off upcoming games in all their "just-as-good as PS3" glory. Kids all over the US and Europe beg their parents for an XBOX360. Parents cave because it still costs $200 less than the PS3.