... that we get a technical topic to discuss, but instead all we get is YAGS (Yet Another Gripe Session).
This is supposed to be a forum for geeks, yet it sounds more like a knitting club for old women (no offence to old women, but there is a caricature portrayed in "The Music Man" of older women coming together to gossip and gripe about the local town that seems fitting to my point).
If we aren't going to chat about the technical issues surrounding DX12, what it has to offer, what cards are likely to implement it, then who will? Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, and half a dozen other places allow chats of reviews, but they don't cover all the geek stuff so that leaves us here where we prefer to relive some real or imagined slight, bicker over preferred widgets etc.
Are you dis'ing teachers? What is wrong with being a teacher? You are employable because of them, so don't think that being a teacher is any less worthy than being a programmer.
BTW I write enterprise level applications for one of the world leading engineering companies - in Delphi. I out-code the companies C# programmers every day of the week, so don't tell me that Delphi isn't up for it.
Oh, also BTW: Delphi programmers still look down their noses at VB programmers in much the same way that C programmers look down their noses at Delphi programmers (and practically everyone else too). It's an entrenched pecking order based on the apparent power of the language. Don't feel bad about it, I don't.;)
In the immortal words of Weird Al Yankovic: "Everything you know is wrong...". Yeah, some of it was right in the Noughties, but we are now half a decade from then and Delphi has moved on. You should too.
While we are still waiting on Linux to be reintroduced (Kylix really isn't the solution you're looking for) you can get to Linux through Lazarus, but apart from that we target all the still viable platforms except Windows RT (though I think that is stretching "viable" to its limits). Perhaps if MS had allowed more than.Net apps to work on it (like they did with the ugly but-it-will-still-run-MS-Office hack) there would be sufficient apps around for it to be relevant. Hmmm giving Delphi (et al.) that platform to target apps for may have saved RT - ironic!
Yeah, I am a Pascal (Delphi) person. I admit it. I have tried other languages but I still prefer Delphi. I like Python, but don't write enough trivial code to really make use of it. There is no way I would use it on a 100,000+ line application.
I was trained in C# and can't for the life of me work out why I would want to use it over Delphi. I am over 3x more productive in Delphi than I am in C#, and I have proven to be more productive than a team of 3 C# programmers where I work.
As an application programmer I prefer the running speed of the applications I write over the slowness of Java and interpreted languages. The last time I tried C++ it felt too much like C with objects hacked into it, and I really don't like how slow C is to develop in.
I am happy that others like these other languages, but I just can't find a compelling reason to put Delphi down for them.
Most developers have a language preference. Whatever language you are most experienced in is usually the one you develop in the fastest (with a few rare exceptions). You can also expect to be more accustomed to the syntax, libraries etc. of your preferred language. The question wasn't "what language do you prefer?" it was "Is Pascal underrated?".
Given the comments that went along with the question I think any rational person, weighing Pascal's current standing against the other major languages would have to consider that it is. It still may not prompt you to use the language, but it might prompt a few to have a look at what is new.
I think the motive behind this post is to get all the ex-Delphi devs to go and have another look. If you have moved on to "more modern" languages it may surprise you to find that there are few if any features missing in the latest version. If you are in academics it may prompt you to use Delphi/Pascal as a teaching tool again (it was the language of choice for a long time because of its intuitive and accessible structure). If you are a sole programmer wanting to target an app to multiple platforms it is definitely worth looking at. Yes, there is Java, however Delphi XE7 is the first language that I know of that deals neatly with the UI differences between platforms, and even between form factors (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?...) let me know if another IDE has anything like this? (seriously, let me know!).
One other thing to consider: C is (according to some admittedly debatable language rating websites) the #1 most popular programming language, yet even C11 hasn't evolved as far as Pascal. Delphi is called, old, out-dated, past its prime. Its death has been called so many times Resurrection Man ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... ) is amazed at its survival. Yet it has practically every feature found in modern languages and its popularity is increasing (if you believe Embarcadero).
Is it underrated. I program in it, I hear the comments about it, and yeah - practically everybody underrates it.
Doesn't the existence of duplicate patents invalidate the whole premise of the patent? Protection for a limited time in exchange for enriching the public domain. If you ask me, I think the existence of a prior expired patent should invalidate any covering patent because of prior art. I am surprised that given the patent framework this is not the ultimate defense against patent trolls.
This is the same as the trouble we had with the Ozone layer which has mysteriously healed itself, either that or the CFCs flushed out of the atmophere faster than prunes through a short grandmother. We observe a trend for 5 minutes and predict the next century on it.
I've heard the retoric from both sides claiming what the norm was a century, millennium, eon etc, ago. The thing is, I could bring a glass of water into a room unobserved and the next day get any scientist to hazard the temperature the water was when I brought it in. They wouldn't be able to tell me if it were hotter, colder or the same temperature as it is now, yet we are supposed to believe all these models based on unobserved "facts" with hypothesis about what sediment, icebergs etc. look like when cross-sectioned and climate data that goes well beyond the observed and recorded facts. The only firm conclusion that can be drawn is that scientists can't be trusted to either get it right, indicate that their statements are highly dubious or even to tell the truth about the data they've collected!
The world could end tomorrow, but not one scientist is more enlightened on the subject than the wildest fantasy writer. They ask us to put our faith in their arm and disavow God, but don't compare their track records with the prophets!!! Personally I will continue to be prudent, listen to the prophets and ignore as much as the media will let me all this hokum both for and against climate change.
Practically every statement you made needs correcting so I will just quote all your errors in one place, then correct them below:
...the real reason the iPad succeeds where other laptops fail is that it's the first tablet that didn't suck. Every tablet before it has had a resistive touchscreen and a swivel-hinge keyboard, with the CPU under the keyboard. The iPad has the CPU with the display, and no keyboard. If you want a keyboard, you buy an external one.
Every tablet before the iPad had a hard drive. Hard drives are big, and draw a lot of power. That is, they suck.
Every tablet before the iPad had an Intel CPU. Intel CPUs are big, and draw a lot of power. That is, they suck.
Every tablet before the iPad ran Windows. Windows is designed for PCs. For tablets, it sucks.
Every tablet before the iPad weighed in at over three pounds, because of the Intel CPU, the hard drive, the hinge, and the battery required to support all that. You couldn't hold them in your hands unsupported for ten minutes, much less an hour--you'd have to cradle them. They were designed to do too many things, so they sucked at the one thing tablets really need to do--replace a pad of paper or a book.
Every tablet before the iPad had a battery life of maybe five or six hours, if you were really careful, and two or three, if you weren't. The iPad's battery will last through a full work day of full time use. It doesn't suck.
That's why it's the first tablet to succeed in the market.
Your assertion of suckiness is based on the remainder of your statements which are flawed, my corrections will continuously refute your claim.
Actually, slate form factors (i.e. no keyboard) were around in 2001. I've been using slate style tablet PCs for over 5 years.
I could have bought a tablet PC that didn't require a pen, but that system didn't make for good handwriting. The iPad doesn't either.
You are almost right about the hard drive, flash hard drives weren't available in 2001, but they started to be used over a year before the iPad came out - they were a horendously expensive option at the time so I decided against it.
Every tablet PC had an IBM compatible (that includes AMD) CPU and they still do - it allows them to use any software written for Windows. Some use the new Atom processor, but I prefer a powerful processor and the new i5 seems to be a sweetspot.
Most tablets ran the Tablet edition or Vista and now Windows 7 - all of which were designed to be used by pen and with Windows 7, multi-touch too.
Slate form factor tablet PCs often weigh less than 1.5kg - my current one does, and so did the one before it - and they had A4 size screens! I have carried my tablets around, using them for hours and I am no muscle man.
I often tout the benefit of a tablet PC over paper, it's just as easy, has undo, allows me to move text I have written really simply. I can copy diagrams as easily as my lecturers could draw them. My work is backed up as soon as I arive home as One Note syncs with all my other PCs in the house. I can print and markup, take a picture and markup or even copy text and mark it up with my handwriting, on the page, in real time as the lecturer progresses through his lecture without breaking a sweat. I have over 3000 books on my tablet PC and read from the tablet every day.
My current tablet PC with a stock standard battery got me through an 8 hour tutorial on the first day. When that battery got old I replaced it with a larger one that gets me through 10 hours.
The iPad is not a tablet PC as it does not make minimum specification as defined by Microsoft who released the tablet PC in 2001. If you want to pin a claim to fame on the iPad, it is the best Apple Newton ever created, and Apple Newtons were first released in 1991
The iPad succeeds because it is NOT used in the workplace much. Battery life is irrelevent if you can't do what needs to be done, do it too slowly or haven'
There are hundreds of apps specifically designed for the tablet, there are millions more that can be used on it but are not specifically tablet oriented. I will concede the point that Microsoft didn't write them all, there are dozens of major software vendors and hundreds of independents that wrote apps specifically for the tablet PC. I will let your imagination come up with a suitably large number for all those who authored regular windows apps which can ALL be used on a tablet PC.
To apply the same benchmark to the iPad:
There may be some apps developed specifically for the iPad, but most were developed for the iPod and scaled up. There may be major third party software vendors writing for the iPad (I don't know of any, please enlighten me). There are thousands of indies though (again, if you include the iPod apps that are scaled up).
One question though: why rewrite something like outlook for the tablet PC when the original works perfectly well on it as is?
Three years ago when I was looking for a tablet PC I discovered a brand that was marketed to the medical profession. It was used to go around the ward and make notes, link it back to a central server and pull information from that server.
Now they are getting iPads instead. Only problem is getting information into the system. A pad and pencil was the old system, easy to use standing up with one hand under the pad and the other jotting notes.
Writing on the iPad is out, so they have to type, so either they find somewhere to rest the iPad, or type one handed - not much difference in speed because they are not typists. It takes about 10 time longer than writing on a pad of paper, or about 10 times as long as using the tablet PC equivalent (yes, that's right the tablet PC fit their previous system, but with the benefit of instant updates and information on demand).
The iPad they are now getting is giving them information on demand and instant update at the expense of getting information into the system.
In this case the iPad is false economy as the cost in doctor's time is more than the difference in price between an iPad and a tablet PC.
It is important not to overstate the iPad's case or these sorts of bad decisions are likely to be made regularly.
You bought an iPad because you could mail it in an envelope!
Who does that? It's a marketing gimmick - though you could, nobody in their right mind would do that.
I've seen "type on an onscreen keyboard". It was followed up by "have a nosebleed" trying to keep up with discussion when even typing skills were failing keep pace with conversation. Then we came to the diagram... oh well, at least ignoring it allowed the typing to catch up a bit.
Guys, the iPad is not a tablet PC. It is a PDA, or if you have the latest version a smartphone in A5 size.
The iPad is designed to consume content, not to generate it. It is very good at what it was designed for, but as a tablet PC it is the worst I have used. I create content, so the iPad is not for me. I also consume content, but luckily my tablet PC can do that as well. That's what you expect from a machine you paid nearly $3k for (don't laugh, that was the going rate for a tablet PC in Australia 3 years ago that was "penabled"). I paid the premium because it did what I needed. I know others that would use it that way too, but the price was too much. Getting an iPad instead was cool, until they tried to do what I was doing on the tablet PC. Others don't care what I can do, and think the iPad is fantastic - good for them; they paid the right price for the functionality they wanted.
I think that Apple knows more about marketing. Any company that for a decade could sell computers that were less powerful for more money has some crazy marketing skills.
What Apple noticed with the iPad is that there are more consumers than producers. They took the tablet and cut out as much functionality as they could while still letting the user consume and got the price to a point where anyone with a little disposable income could afford it.
Thing is, this forum is filled with producers of content and to them the iPad is a toy. I get really annoyed when someone asks if I have an iPad when I take out my slate tablet PC. I calmly explain to them, no this is a tablet PC. The technology is only one decade old. The iPad is 2 decades old (remember the Apple Newton if you are old enough to do so).
I've use a slate tablet for 5 years - it got me through a Masters degree. I take it everywhere; work, church, school, seminars and meetings; anywhere where I expect to take notes or use the information stored on it. The ability to run any windows program is a HUGE plus (especially since I am a Delphi developer), and I find that OneNote with its synchronisation opens up a whole new dimension of usability.
I've seen friends use the iPad and am amazed at what they can put up with! The struggle to take notes, the limitations on software. The only thing it does well I could do on my PDA 12 years ago.
Sure it does have that Apple bling, but when you get down to actually doing stuff its pretty ordinary. The main reason they are so popular is that it looks like you should be able to do the same things on it as on a tablet PC and it is half (or less) of the price of a tablet.
I've seen some touch-only tablet PCs and wouldn't buy them either. I need to take notes and a pen works better than anything else I have tried; touch is just too awkward (that's why I don't take notes on my smartphone if I have my tablet with me).
So when you say "try it" I can quite happily say that years of experience between touch and pen has taught me that the pen is mightier than the finger (unless all you want to do is consume).
I am glad the iPad has lowered the cost of tablet PCs in Australia though - I can get a really sweet tablet for half the price I paid three years ago!
I have a Tablet PC so I was really intrigued by the calligraphy. First I have to configure my hardware to be pressure sensitive, except it doesn't recognise my tablet.:(
Saddest part: my tablet PC uses a Wacom tablet just like in their example!
Hmmm, Inciteful is probably a more apt description (in which case it probably does deserve a 4).
I agree wholeheartedly that you cannot change facts, you can just choose to ignore them, however I usually don't use the statement in a post completely devoid of facts.
It's quite easy to make a palpably false claim then refute it:
e.g. "Scientists have proven that apples evolved from bananas since they are the more popular of the two, and have recently disproved the widely held belief in the scientific community that apes descended from apricots as a 3 year study found that apricots were much more prolific and hence the evolutionary path must have worked in the opposite direction.
"This is clearly false since the bible states that fruits were made after their own kind and animals were created separately!"
In the above example the more reasonable statements come from the bible, while the absurd comes from the scientific community, except for the real fact that I just made it all up! In order to substantiate claims against religion you need to start with genuine facts, not ones you make up.
For instance - the bible does not mention dinosaus - nothing about them whatsoever. However dead-sea scrolls and Naghamadi texts do show that ancient Israel and Christians alike both believed the earth was not created ex-nilo - that idea is a later fabrication formed along the same lines as the big bang. They believed in existing matter being taken from dead worlds to form the earth.
Its a pity that the scientific community used as a base hypothosis that the earth was created new - spat out of a star with no history other than nuclear fision. If they didn't, imagine what we might have "proved" today. I guess the scientific community is not at all perturbed by the fact (in this case a real fact) that no-one has observed the birth of a plant and documented it. Since they had no opposition from other current belief systems that it could be otherwise it has been taken as a given despite science claiming to be based on creating and testing theories about observable fact.
Somehow I have become sceptical about the ability of science to "predict" the past. A lecturer at uni once noted to me that you could take a glass of cold water into a lecture theatre, leave it there overnight and in the morning not one scientist could tell what temperature the water was (hot, cold, room temperature or even frozen) when it entered the room, yet they try to tell us what happened at the formation of the earth, the solar system, and even the begining of the universe. What gets me is the extreme egotism that allow them to pass off theory for fact to the exclusion of all else until someone finally spots the flaw.
There was an observer to the creation of the earth, but since He hasn't been seen in a while, lets discount it and make up our "facts" ourselves. Since we're the ones doing it who is there to say it's wrong;)
Having used real SQL92 compliant DBs and Oracle I know where time is wasted.
<Soapbox> Don't get me wrong Oracle has its place - in fact many places (including the 80's). Apparently accounting and straight forward business systems run great on Oracle, but for those with engineering needs (like me) the work-arounds and hacks to get it to do what you want are very tedious.
Being a DB developer and a part-time DBA may have tainted my view slightly, but even administering Oracle (at least on Windows) was not fun - I found it so much easier to skip the UI and go straight to the files when I could. </Soapbox>
Actually, the Al Jazeera brand is the middle-eastern equivalent of Mitsubishi; they do everything - shops, appliances, electronics, TV stations,...
Its just that they are pretty much exclusive to arab nations. The only thing the west hear about is the terrorist tapes.
Interestingly though, when I was in the middle east the feeling about the brand by the locals is something like "well at least we are getting ripped off by one of our own".
Creationism is banned from being taught in public schools.
C'mon, work with me here, we are talking about the public system aren't we?
..."not endorsing atheism" as "endorsing theism"
"theism" is not a religion. However you are right, science' true position about God is much the same as its position about any theory; we don't know, but we want to find out. Science is a search for truth as much as religion is, the methodologies differ through.
Should aliens having created us be presented as an equally probable source of intelligent design?
SETI seems to think so, not that they created us per se, but that there may be intelligent extra-terrestrial life is a large part of the basis for their search, so it has to sit on the probability curve somewhere. What we are talking about here is theory, not fact and definitely not truth. If a theory is not sufficiently researched, to the point of breaking the theory, then it is still possible that the truth lies along that path; so the scientific community really can't afford to overlook any viable theory, just because there is a "better model" out there. Occam's razor is great for philosophy, but really sucks as discovering the truth and navigating mazes (why go left when there is a viable path directly in front heading more closely in the direction of the exit).
String theory is interesting, but its predictive value is somewhat questionable.
This is an example of what I am talking about. Quantum theory is like Copernicus' theory on the movement of planets; it is a good predictive model but has flaws, so it obviously isn't true. So we can either keep adding "epi-cycles" to a theory, or innovate and look for another explanation. String theory may turn out to be true, then again it may be just one more step towards the real truth. One thing is sure, until we hit the truth we aren't going to get a perfectly working model.
Genetic engineering is a product of our research on how species evolve.
It's a pretty big stretch to say that evolution was responsible for genetic engineering.
If a student hears the scientific view at school and the theological view at church, how are they deprived of a choice through reasoning?
Now we are back to the start; what people may or may not do out of school is not an excuse for what is or is not in the curriculum.
e.g. Perhaps we should teach nothing in school at all because there are study groups that people can attend in their own time which discuss any subject which is taugt in schools, there are private schools and there are tutors. Since we have it all covered, there's really no need for public schools.
Now obviously that is a bit extreme, but I am sure you get my point. There are some who will "go the extra mile";) but public schools should not be geared just for them. There is a study on the loss of creativity from western culture and a lot of it points to school and teaching methodology which encourage, even demand conformity. I am not an anarchist, but I do believe we need to teach creativity in every discipline at school, not just in the arts.
I think we are on the same page here, although we got there by different routes.
The way to teach about a religion is to invite a person of that religion who is knowledgeable of it to speak. Questions can be asked by students and there are multiple monitors from opposing, or independent religions - much the same way referees are chosen for sporting events. Rules of conduct are set out. Even with a system like that there would be problems, but are those problems worse than the misunderstanding between religions? What really is the Athiest position? What are the differences between the Christian religions? Are there similarities between Eastern and western religions?
I guess the problem is that the subject becomes emotionally charged and objectivity breaks down unless someone really wants to understand, and like you said, most people would enter that forum with a barrow to push. Hence it is in the too hard basket. As a result we have religious intollerance, misunderstanding and accusation.
With the information you have added about the change to the currency I agree with you. Motives, however noble do not justify the violation of the constitution. As for the additional rights, I remember a somewhat tongue-in-cheek paper called the bill of no rights which outlines some areas where people claim rights that obviously aren't theirs. Its worth a read, if I can tract down the URL I will post it.
On a similar topic to the original, there has been a recent advert in Australia where a commercial was said to denegrate vegitarians because it said it was patriotic to eat lamb on Australia day.
It seems the madness over interpreting what is not written is not limited to the US. I think a distinction should be made at the line of what was actually said.
So far as I know, although there is an outcry the advert was not pulled from air.
Back to your last post, I also agree that removing the balance of power is a dangerous thing. Very few who find themselves unopposed have the integrity to hold themselves in check. I think you may be right, but hope you are not.
Thankyou for your comments, I understand how you must feel about my statements, and perhaps some of the problem is that I am not clearly defining what is a critique on your previous comments and what is a general statement on the issue of government bodies becoming increasingly subjective in their decisions on this matter. I apologise for my lack of clarity.
Now to your critique:
If you want to make things equal for the Atheists then the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is the Atheist's God, or perhaps money is, or power, or fame
Nonsense. None of that is religion.
Yes none of that is religion, but I was referring to the term "God" it relates to religion in that a religious persons "God" should be the same as that person's religion's "God". However the term "God" can be applied to whatever is paramount in someone's life, not just to a being. That was the point I was trying to make. I think we are in agreement on this one too, once religious conotations are removed. So far as I know the Athiest position is that there is no all powerful being - a direct opposition to the Christian position. This may not be correct, but in my experience Atheists don't seem to directly oppose non-christian beliefs. I have listened to quite a number of Athiests and have drawn my conclusions from them (nothing that you have said, I don't even know if you are an Atheist)
Since your next statement on banning Math was predicated on the notion I have just clarified it may be ignored for the same reasons.
Your next couple of points hinge on a differentiation I was trying to make between general religion and a specific religion. The UK has a specific religion of state - "Anglican". The US has religion in general, protecting the rights of every belief. My concern in this case is not about you but about the government overcompensating to the point that that the pendulum has swung the other way; in much the same way that feminists a decade or two ago were attempting to be dominant over men, over compensating where the position that is now becoming dominant is true equality, no domination. Using that analogy the position that should be adopted for equality is allowing each religion to pray in schools, not none. Allowing religion to be discussed while ensuring that no religion is denegrated or oppressed in the discussion. Being open and accurate as each religion is discussed. Allowing such classes to be options in schools, not mandatory, available but not overt. I think you are with me on this one too, based on your prolog.
This is a general comment: I believe that religious intollerance comes from a lack of understanding which is encouraged by the government because it is too difficult to tread the path I have just outlined. The fear of litigation is huge and real as seen in the article that prompted this discussion. That is what I am most annoyed at, not you. I believe more cases like these should be thrown out of court with the order "Get some common sense - All of you!". But if we did that, a lot of lawyers and judges would be out of work.;)
My next comment is on the "In God we Trust" section. Does the "we" actually refer to the American people? It could refer to the signers of the constitution or the declaration of independance, it could refer to the founding fathers. I notice an illuminati symbol on the bill, I don't think the American people all belong to the illuminati (sorry I am getting a bit facitious here but I couldn't help myself:) ).
If it does refer to the whole of the American people, then it is having a bit of a go at atheists, unless the atheists adopt the position I outlined above and say "well yes, in my case I do put my trust in my [insert pride and joy here]".
I don't think its having a go at native Americans since the tribes that I am aware of are mono-theistic. The few that are not can feel free to use the term to include their whole pantheon.
God is not religion, therefore you've just shot your own argument. If you want to make things equal for the Atheists, then the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is the Atheist's God, or perhaps money is, or power, or fame - it's pretty clear that any particular God doesn't need to be all powerful, have created anything or done anything for anyone (or even exist) in order for it to be called a God and then worshipped. When you think about it, Atheists probably have more Gods than most religions.
That being the case, since Atheism is considerred a religion it cannot be favoured by the state to the exclusion of all others (since that would contravene separation of state and religion). i.e. the state's formal religion would be atheism - no, hold on, I thought only communist states (socialist states really, but who is splitting hairs) like the now defunked USSR sponsored atheism as the state religion - is that where the US is heading?
What you are not realising is that just because there is no state religion does not proclude general religious beliefs. The US was founded on religious freedom, its in the constitution. However you try to twist it, the principal of religious belief IS tied to the state; it is the states job to protect it! The state just can't favour one religion over another.
"In God we trust" is an expression of freedom from religious oppression, a tip of the hat to the founding fathers and a consession to the constitution.
It never ceases to astound me how a country that prides itself on freedom of expression and freedom of religion seeks, when combining the two principals, to ban the right to express your religious belief freely just in case someone might have a differing opinion - I think it would take a very good lawyer indeed to twist logic past the breaking point to that conclusion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the "Land of the Free" Creationism is banned from being taught in schools. (Ah, now know the origin for the word "oxymoron")
As I understand it the separation of Church and State was intended to promote the freedom of religion by not endorsing a particular religion over another. In this case (and a number of others) I have to agree that the religion of Atheism has been endorsed above all others.
Creationism is not a religion but an alternative to evolution which should be taught in schools. It does not violate church and state since it is not a tenet of a single religion or even just of christianity as a whole.
I feel that the two concepts, though opposing should both be taught in state schools. I also believe that the theory of gravity, quantum theory and string theory should also be taught in schools despite their conflicting ideas.
The sticker was merely pointing out a glaring omission in the textbook. I agree with the other stickers mentioned - when other theories are available, teaching one is depriving our students of the ability to make a choice through reasoning. This leaves us with very few creative thinkers, causing a decline in the use of creative intellect as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
... that we get a technical topic to discuss, but instead all we get is YAGS (Yet Another Gripe Session). This is supposed to be a forum for geeks, yet it sounds more like a knitting club for old women (no offence to old women, but there is a caricature portrayed in "The Music Man" of older women coming together to gossip and gripe about the local town that seems fitting to my point).
If we aren't going to chat about the technical issues surrounding DX12, what it has to offer, what cards are likely to implement it, then who will? Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, and half a dozen other places allow chats of reviews, but they don't cover all the geek stuff so that leaves us here where we prefer to relive some real or imagined slight, bicker over preferred widgets etc.
so sad...
Are you dis'ing teachers? What is wrong with being a teacher? You are employable because of them, so don't think that being a teacher is any less worthy than being a programmer.
;)
BTW I write enterprise level applications for one of the world leading engineering companies - in Delphi. I out-code the companies C# programmers every day of the week, so don't tell me that Delphi isn't up for it.
Oh, also BTW: Delphi programmers still look down their noses at VB programmers in much the same way that C programmers look down their noses at Delphi programmers (and practically everyone else too). It's an entrenched pecking order based on the apparent power of the language. Don't feel bad about it, I don't.
In the immortal words of Weird Al Yankovic: "Everything you know is wrong...". Yeah, some of it was right in the Noughties, but we are now half a decade from then and Delphi has moved on. You should too.
.Net apps to work on it (like they did with the ugly but-it-will-still-run-MS-Office hack) there would be sufficient apps around for it to be relevant. Hmmm giving Delphi (et al.) that platform to target apps for may have saved RT - ironic!
While we are still waiting on Linux to be reintroduced (Kylix really isn't the solution you're looking for) you can get to Linux through Lazarus, but apart from that we target all the still viable platforms except Windows RT (though I think that is stretching "viable" to its limits). Perhaps if MS had allowed more than
Yeah, I am a Pascal (Delphi) person. I admit it. I have tried other languages but I still prefer Delphi. I like Python, but don't write enough trivial code to really make use of it. There is no way I would use it on a 100,000+ line application.
I was trained in C# and can't for the life of me work out why I would want to use it over Delphi. I am over 3x more productive in Delphi than I am in C#, and I have proven to be more productive than a team of 3 C# programmers where I work.
As an application programmer I prefer the running speed of the applications I write over the slowness of Java and interpreted languages. The last time I tried C++ it felt too much like C with objects hacked into it, and I really don't like how slow C is to develop in.
I am happy that others like these other languages, but I just can't find a compelling reason to put Delphi down for them.
I think we need to focus on the question at hand.
Most developers have a language preference. Whatever language you are most experienced in is usually the one you develop in the fastest (with a few rare exceptions). You can also expect to be more accustomed to the syntax, libraries etc. of your preferred language. The question wasn't "what language do you prefer?" it was "Is Pascal underrated?".
Given the comments that went along with the question I think any rational person, weighing Pascal's current standing against the other major languages would have to consider that it is. It still may not prompt you to use the language, but it might prompt a few to have a look at what is new.
I think the motive behind this post is to get all the ex-Delphi devs to go and have another look. If you have moved on to "more modern" languages it may surprise you to find that there are few if any features missing in the latest version. If you are in academics it may prompt you to use Delphi/Pascal as a teaching tool again (it was the language of choice for a long time because of its intuitive and accessible structure). If you are a sole programmer wanting to target an app to multiple platforms it is definitely worth looking at. Yes, there is Java, however Delphi XE7 is the first language that I know of that deals neatly with the UI differences between platforms, and even between form factors (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?...) let me know if another IDE has anything like this? (seriously, let me know!).
One other thing to consider: C is (according to some admittedly debatable language rating websites) the #1 most popular programming language, yet even C11 hasn't evolved as far as Pascal. Delphi is called, old, out-dated, past its prime. Its death has been called so many times Resurrection Man ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... ) is amazed at its survival. Yet it has practically every feature found in modern languages and its popularity is increasing (if you believe Embarcadero).
Is it underrated. I program in it, I hear the comments about it, and yeah - practically everybody underrates it.
Doesn't the existence of duplicate patents invalidate the whole premise of the patent? Protection for a limited time in exchange for enriching the public domain. If you ask me, I think the existence of a prior expired patent should invalidate any covering patent because of prior art. I am surprised that given the patent framework this is not the ultimate defense against patent trolls.
I've heard the retoric from both sides claiming what the norm was a century, millennium, eon etc, ago. The thing is, I could bring a glass of water into a room unobserved and the next day get any scientist to hazard the temperature the water was when I brought it in. They wouldn't be able to tell me if it were hotter, colder or the same temperature as it is now, yet we are supposed to believe all these models based on unobserved "facts" with hypothesis about what sediment, icebergs etc. look like when cross-sectioned and climate data that goes well beyond the observed and recorded facts. The only firm conclusion that can be drawn is that scientists can't be trusted to either get it right, indicate that their statements are highly dubious or even to tell the truth about the data they've collected!
The world could end tomorrow, but not one scientist is more enlightened on the subject than the wildest fantasy writer. They ask us to put our faith in their arm and disavow God, but don't compare their track records with the prophets!!! Personally I will continue to be prudent, listen to the prophets and ignore as much as the media will let me all this hokum both for and against climate change.
...the real reason the iPad succeeds where other laptops fail is that it's the first tablet that didn't suck. Every tablet before it has had a resistive touchscreen and a swivel-hinge keyboard, with the CPU under the keyboard. The iPad has the CPU with the display, and no keyboard. If you want a keyboard, you buy an external one.
Every tablet before the iPad had a hard drive. Hard drives are big, and draw a lot of power. That is, they suck.
Every tablet before the iPad had an Intel CPU. Intel CPUs are big, and draw a lot of power. That is, they suck.
Every tablet before the iPad ran Windows. Windows is designed for PCs. For tablets, it sucks.
Every tablet before the iPad weighed in at over three pounds, because of the Intel CPU, the hard drive, the hinge, and the battery required to support all that. You couldn't hold them in your hands unsupported for ten minutes, much less an hour--you'd have to cradle them. They were designed to do too many things, so they sucked at the one thing tablets really need to do--replace a pad of paper or a book.
Every tablet before the iPad had a battery life of maybe five or six hours, if you were really careful, and two or three, if you weren't. The iPad's battery will last through a full work day of full time use. It doesn't suck.
That's why it's the first tablet to succeed in the market.
Your assertion of suckiness is based on the remainder of your statements which are flawed, my corrections will continuously refute your claim.
Actually, slate form factors (i.e. no keyboard) were around in 2001. I've been using slate style tablet PCs for over 5 years.
I could have bought a tablet PC that didn't require a pen, but that system didn't make for good handwriting. The iPad doesn't either.
You are almost right about the hard drive, flash hard drives weren't available in 2001, but they started to be used over a year before the iPad came out - they were a horendously expensive option at the time so I decided against it.
Every tablet PC had an IBM compatible (that includes AMD) CPU and they still do - it allows them to use any software written for Windows. Some use the new Atom processor, but I prefer a powerful processor and the new i5 seems to be a sweetspot.
Most tablets ran the Tablet edition or Vista and now Windows 7 - all of which were designed to be used by pen and with Windows 7, multi-touch too.
Slate form factor tablet PCs often weigh less than 1.5kg - my current one does, and so did the one before it - and they had A4 size screens! I have carried my tablets around, using them for hours and I am no muscle man.
I often tout the benefit of a tablet PC over paper, it's just as easy, has undo, allows me to move text I have written really simply. I can copy diagrams as easily as my lecturers could draw them. My work is backed up as soon as I arive home as One Note syncs with all my other PCs in the house. I can print and markup, take a picture and markup or even copy text and mark it up with my handwriting, on the page, in real time as the lecturer progresses through his lecture without breaking a sweat. I have over 3000 books on my tablet PC and read from the tablet every day.
My current tablet PC with a stock standard battery got me through an 8 hour tutorial on the first day. When that battery got old I replaced it with a larger one that gets me through 10 hours.
The iPad is not a tablet PC as it does not make minimum specification as defined by Microsoft who released the tablet PC in 2001. If you want to pin a claim to fame on the iPad, it is the best Apple Newton ever created, and Apple Newtons were first released in 1991
The iPad succeeds because it is NOT used in the workplace much. Battery life is irrelevent if you can't do what needs to be done, do it too slowly or haven'
There are hundreds of apps specifically designed for the tablet, there are millions more that can be used on it but are not specifically tablet oriented. I will concede the point that Microsoft didn't write them all, there are dozens of major software vendors and hundreds of independents that wrote apps specifically for the tablet PC. I will let your imagination come up with a suitably large number for all those who authored regular windows apps which can ALL be used on a tablet PC.
To apply the same benchmark to the iPad:
There may be some apps developed specifically for the iPad, but most were developed for the iPod and scaled up. There may be major third party software vendors writing for the iPad (I don't know of any, please enlighten me). There are thousands of indies though (again, if you include the iPod apps that are scaled up).
One question though: why rewrite something like outlook for the tablet PC when the original works perfectly well on it as is?
Now they are getting iPads instead. Only problem is getting information into the system. A pad and pencil was the old system, easy to use standing up with one hand under the pad and the other jotting notes.
Writing on the iPad is out, so they have to type, so either they find somewhere to rest the iPad, or type one handed - not much difference in speed because they are not typists. It takes about 10 time longer than writing on a pad of paper, or about 10 times as long as using the tablet PC equivalent (yes, that's right the tablet PC fit their previous system, but with the benefit of instant updates and information on demand).
The iPad they are now getting is giving them information on demand and instant update at the expense of getting information into the system.
In this case the iPad is false economy as the cost in doctor's time is more than the difference in price between an iPad and a tablet PC.
It is important not to overstate the iPad's case or these sorts of bad decisions are likely to be made regularly.
You bought an iPad because you could mail it in an envelope!
Who does that? It's a marketing gimmick - though you could, nobody in their right mind would do that.
I've seen "type on an onscreen keyboard". It was followed up by "have a nosebleed" trying to keep up with discussion when even typing skills were failing keep pace with conversation. Then we came to the diagram... oh well, at least ignoring it allowed the typing to catch up a bit.
Guys, the iPad is not a tablet PC. It is a PDA, or if you have the latest version a smartphone in A5 size.
The iPad is designed to consume content, not to generate it. It is very good at what it was designed for, but as a tablet PC it is the worst I have used. I create content, so the iPad is not for me. I also consume content, but luckily my tablet PC can do that as well. That's what you expect from a machine you paid nearly $3k for (don't laugh, that was the going rate for a tablet PC in Australia 3 years ago that was "penabled"). I paid the premium because it did what I needed. I know others that would use it that way too, but the price was too much. Getting an iPad instead was cool, until they tried to do what I was doing on the tablet PC. Others don't care what I can do, and think the iPad is fantastic - good for them; they paid the right price for the functionality they wanted.
What Apple noticed with the iPad is that there are more consumers than producers. They took the tablet and cut out as much functionality as they could while still letting the user consume and got the price to a point where anyone with a little disposable income could afford it.
Thing is, this forum is filled with producers of content and to them the iPad is a toy. I get really annoyed when someone asks if I have an iPad when I take out my slate tablet PC. I calmly explain to them, no this is a tablet PC. The technology is only one decade old. The iPad is 2 decades old (remember the Apple Newton if you are old enough to do so).
I've seen friends use the iPad and am amazed at what they can put up with! The struggle to take notes, the limitations on software. The only thing it does well I could do on my PDA 12 years ago.
Sure it does have that Apple bling, but when you get down to actually doing stuff its pretty ordinary. The main reason they are so popular is that it looks like you should be able to do the same things on it as on a tablet PC and it is half (or less) of the price of a tablet. I've seen some touch-only tablet PCs and wouldn't buy them either. I need to take notes and a pen works better than anything else I have tried; touch is just too awkward (that's why I don't take notes on my smartphone if I have my tablet with me).
So when you say "try it" I can quite happily say that years of experience between touch and pen has taught me that the pen is mightier than the finger (unless all you want to do is consume). I am glad the iPad has lowered the cost of tablet PCs in Australia though - I can get a really sweet tablet for half the price I paid three years ago!
Saddest part: my tablet PC uses a Wacom tablet just like in their example!
Tell you what, be patient and in 80 years or less I will introduce you to Him.
Hmmm, Inciteful is probably a more apt description (in which case it probably does deserve a 4).
;)
I agree wholeheartedly that you cannot change facts, you can just choose to ignore them, however I usually don't use the statement in a post completely devoid of facts.
It's quite easy to make a palpably false claim then refute it:
e.g. "Scientists have proven that apples evolved from bananas since they are the more popular of the two, and have recently disproved the widely held belief in the scientific community that apes descended from apricots as a 3 year study found that apricots were much more prolific and hence the evolutionary path must have worked in the opposite direction.
"This is clearly false since the bible states that fruits were made after their own kind and animals were created separately!"
In the above example the more reasonable statements come from the bible, while the absurd comes from the scientific community, except for the real fact that I just made it all up! In order to substantiate claims against religion you need to start with genuine facts, not ones you make up.
For instance - the bible does not mention dinosaus - nothing about them whatsoever. However dead-sea scrolls and Naghamadi texts do show that ancient Israel and Christians alike both believed the earth was not created ex-nilo - that idea is a later fabrication formed along the same lines as the big bang. They believed in existing matter being taken from dead worlds to form the earth.
Its a pity that the scientific community used as a base hypothosis that the earth was created new - spat out of a star with no history other than nuclear fision. If they didn't, imagine what we might have "proved" today. I guess the scientific community is not at all perturbed by the fact (in this case a real fact) that no-one has observed the birth of a plant and documented it. Since they had no opposition from other current belief systems that it could be otherwise it has been taken as a given despite science claiming to be based on creating and testing theories about observable fact.
Somehow I have become sceptical about the ability of science to "predict" the past. A lecturer at uni once noted to me that you could take a glass of cold water into a lecture theatre, leave it there overnight and in the morning not one scientist could tell what temperature the water was (hot, cold, room temperature or even frozen) when it entered the room, yet they try to tell us what happened at the formation of the earth, the solar system, and even the begining of the universe. What gets me is the extreme egotism that allow them to pass off theory for fact to the exclusion of all else until someone finally spots the flaw.
There was an observer to the creation of the earth, but since He hasn't been seen in a while, lets discount it and make up our "facts" ourselves. Since we're the ones doing it who is there to say it's wrong
- Scott -
The real problem is not the OS but Oracle ;)
Having used real SQL92 compliant DBs and Oracle I know where time is wasted.
<Soapbox>
Don't get me wrong Oracle has its place - in fact many places (including the 80's). Apparently accounting and straight forward business systems run great on Oracle, but for those with engineering needs (like me) the work-arounds and hacks to get it to do what you want are very tedious.
Being a DB developer and a part-time DBA may have tainted my view slightly, but even administering Oracle (at least on Windows) was not fun - I found it so much easier to skip the UI and go straight to the files when I could.
</Soapbox>
Actually, the Al Jazeera brand is the middle-eastern equivalent of Mitsubishi; they do everything - shops, appliances, electronics, TV stations, ...
Its just that they are pretty much exclusive to arab nations. The only thing the west hear about is the terrorist tapes.
Interestingly though, when I was in the middle east the feeling about the brand by the locals is something like "well at least we are getting ripped off by one of our own".
Creationism is banned from being taught in public schools.
..."not endorsing atheism" as "endorsing theism"
;) but public schools should not be geared just for them. There is a study on the loss of creativity from western culture and a lot of it points to school and teaching methodology which encourage, even demand conformity. I am not an anarchist, but I do believe we need to teach creativity in every discipline at school, not just in the arts.
C'mon, work with me here, we are talking about the public system aren't we?
"theism" is not a religion. However you are right, science' true position about God is much the same as its position about any theory; we don't know, but we want to find out. Science is a search for truth as much as religion is, the methodologies differ through.
Should aliens having created us be presented as an equally probable source of intelligent design?
SETI seems to think so, not that they created us per se, but that there may be intelligent extra-terrestrial life is a large part of the basis for their search, so it has to sit on the probability curve somewhere. What we are talking about here is theory, not fact and definitely not truth. If a theory is not sufficiently researched, to the point of breaking the theory, then it is still possible that the truth lies along that path; so the scientific community really can't afford to overlook any viable theory, just because there is a "better model" out there. Occam's razor is great for philosophy, but really sucks as discovering the truth and navigating mazes (why go left when there is a viable path directly in front heading more closely in the direction of the exit).
String theory is interesting, but its predictive value is somewhat questionable.
This is an example of what I am talking about. Quantum theory is like Copernicus' theory on the movement of planets; it is a good predictive model but has flaws, so it obviously isn't true. So we can either keep adding "epi-cycles" to a theory, or innovate and look for another explanation. String theory may turn out to be true, then again it may be just one more step towards the real truth. One thing is sure, until we hit the truth we aren't going to get a perfectly working model.
Genetic engineering is a product of our research on how species evolve.
It's a pretty big stretch to say that evolution was responsible for genetic engineering.
If a student hears the scientific view at school and the theological view at church, how are they deprived of a choice through reasoning?
Now we are back to the start; what people may or may not do out of school is not an excuse for what is or is not in the curriculum.
e.g. Perhaps we should teach nothing in school at all because there are study groups that people can attend in their own time which discuss any subject which is taugt in schools, there are private schools and there are tutors. Since we have it all covered, there's really no need for public schools.
Now obviously that is a bit extreme, but I am sure you get my point. There are some who will "go the extra mile"
I think we are on the same page here, although we got there by different routes.
The way to teach about a religion is to invite a person of that religion who is knowledgeable of it to speak. Questions can be asked by students and there are multiple monitors from opposing, or independent religions - much the same way referees are chosen for sporting events. Rules of conduct are set out. Even with a system like that there would be problems, but are those problems worse than the misunderstanding between religions? What really is the Athiest position? What are the differences between the Christian religions? Are there similarities between Eastern and western religions?
I guess the problem is that the subject becomes emotionally charged and objectivity breaks down unless someone really wants to understand, and like you said, most people would enter that forum with a barrow to push. Hence it is in the too hard basket. As a result we have religious intollerance, misunderstanding and accusation.
With the information you have added about the change to the currency I agree with you. Motives, however noble do not justify the violation of the constitution. As for the additional rights, I remember a somewhat tongue-in-cheek paper called the bill of no rights which outlines some areas where people claim rights that obviously aren't theirs. Its worth a read, if I can tract down the URL I will post it.
On a similar topic to the original, there has been a recent advert in Australia where a commercial was said to denegrate vegitarians because it said it was patriotic to eat lamb on Australia day.
It seems the madness over interpreting what is not written is not limited to the US. I think a distinction should be made at the line of what was actually said.
So far as I know, although there is an outcry the advert was not pulled from air.
Back to your last post, I also agree that removing the balance of power is a dangerous thing. Very few who find themselves unopposed have the integrity to hold themselves in check. I think you may be right, but hope you are not.
Thankyou for your comments, I understand how you must feel about my statements, and perhaps some of the problem is that I am not clearly defining what is a critique on your previous comments and what is a general statement on the issue of government bodies becoming increasingly subjective in their decisions on this matter. I apologise for my lack of clarity.
;)
:) ).
Now to your critique:
If you want to make things equal for the Atheists then the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is the Atheist's God, or perhaps money is, or power, or fame
Nonsense. None of that is religion.
Yes none of that is religion, but I was referring to the term "God" it relates to religion in that a religious persons "God" should be the same as that person's religion's "God". However the term "God" can be applied to whatever is paramount in someone's life, not just to a being. That was the point I was trying to make. I think we are in agreement on this one too, once religious conotations are removed. So far as I know the Athiest position is that there is no all powerful being - a direct opposition to the Christian position. This may not be correct, but in my experience Atheists don't seem to directly oppose non-christian beliefs. I have listened to quite a number of Athiests and have drawn my conclusions from them (nothing that you have said, I don't even know if you are an Atheist)
Since your next statement on banning Math was predicated on the notion I have just clarified it may be ignored for the same reasons.
Your next couple of points hinge on a differentiation I was trying to make between general religion and a specific religion. The UK has a specific religion of state - "Anglican". The US has religion in general, protecting the rights of every belief. My concern in this case is not about you but about the government overcompensating to the point that that the pendulum has swung the other way; in much the same way that feminists a decade or two ago were attempting to be dominant over men, over compensating where the position that is now becoming dominant is true equality, no domination. Using that analogy the position that should be adopted for equality is allowing each religion to pray in schools, not none. Allowing religion to be discussed while ensuring that no religion is denegrated or oppressed in the discussion. Being open and accurate as each religion is discussed. Allowing such classes to be options in schools, not mandatory, available but not overt. I think you are with me on this one too, based on your prolog.
This is a general comment: I believe that religious intollerance comes from a lack of understanding which is encouraged by the government because it is too difficult to tread the path I have just outlined. The fear of litigation is huge and real as seen in the article that prompted this discussion. That is what I am most annoyed at, not you. I believe more cases like these should be thrown out of court with the order "Get some common sense - All of you!". But if we did that, a lot of lawyers and judges would be out of work.
My next comment is on the "In God we Trust" section. Does the "we" actually refer to the American people? It could refer to the signers of the constitution or the declaration of independance, it could refer to the founding fathers. I notice an illuminati symbol on the bill, I don't think the American people all belong to the illuminati (sorry I am getting a bit facitious here but I couldn't help myself
If it does refer to the whole of the American people, then it is having a bit of a go at atheists, unless the atheists adopt the position I outlined above and say "well yes, in my case I do put my trust in my [insert pride and joy here]".
I don't think its having a go at native Americans since the tribes that I am aware of are mono-theistic. The few that are not can feel free to use the term to include their whole pantheon.
Essentially, I fee
If the state were pushing bibles you might have a point. As it is, complain to your parents if they pushed religion on you.
If I may offer a few words of advice, don't knock what you don't understand, it just makes you look ignorant.
God is not religion, therefore you've just shot your own argument. If you want to make things equal for the Atheists, then the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is the Atheist's God, or perhaps money is, or power, or fame - it's pretty clear that any particular God doesn't need to be all powerful, have created anything or done anything for anyone (or even exist) in order for it to be called a God and then worshipped. When you think about it, Atheists probably have more Gods than most religions.
That being the case, since Atheism is considerred a religion it cannot be favoured by the state to the exclusion of all others (since that would contravene separation of state and religion). i.e. the state's formal religion would be atheism - no, hold on, I thought only communist states (socialist states really, but who is splitting hairs) like the now defunked USSR sponsored atheism as the state religion - is that where the US is heading?
What you are not realising is that just because there is no state religion does not proclude general religious beliefs. The US was founded on religious freedom, its in the constitution. However you try to twist it, the principal of religious belief IS tied to the state; it is the states job to protect it! The state just can't favour one religion over another.
"In God we trust" is an expression of freedom from religious oppression, a tip of the hat to the founding fathers and a consession to the constitution.
It never ceases to astound me how a country that prides itself on freedom of expression and freedom of religion seeks, when combining the two principals, to ban the right to express your religious belief freely just in case someone might have a differing opinion - I think it would take a very good lawyer indeed to twist logic past the breaking point to that conclusion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the "Land of the Free" Creationism is banned from being taught in schools. (Ah, now know the origin for the word "oxymoron")
As I understand it the separation of Church and State was intended to promote the freedom of religion by not endorsing a particular religion over another. In this case (and a number of others) I have to agree that the religion of Atheism has been endorsed above all others.
Creationism is not a religion but an alternative to evolution which should be taught in schools. It does not violate church and state since it is not a tenet of a single religion or even just of christianity as a whole.
I feel that the two concepts, though opposing should both be taught in state schools. I also believe that the theory of gravity, quantum theory and string theory should also be taught in schools despite their conflicting ideas.
The sticker was merely pointing out a glaring omission in the textbook. I agree with the other stickers mentioned - when other theories are available, teaching one is depriving our students of the ability to make a choice through reasoning. This leaves us with very few creative thinkers, causing a decline in the use of creative intellect as a whole.
I am a church goer and I forgive him for his lapse in judgement - I just hope it doesn't continue so long he loses his job over it. ;)