Re:Why not?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No kidding. Look at the results of Aermika's evil imperalist nazi capatilist policies in post war Japan, West Germany and South Korea. Those nazi bastards!
Um. Well obviously there will be APIs to mark data regions as executable or to allocate executable data regions. The later would be better cause then you could better ensure that offflows from non-executable data regions won't overflow into executable data regions.
That t-mobile you talk about is a great device. It's a full pocket pc (with a 400Mhz Xscale processor), games, web browser, terminal services client etc, etc.
You don't have to hold it up to your ear (that would look silly), you get a tiny blue tooth headset and keep the phone in your hand or pocket.
The mono C# compiler isn't "a work of crap". It's a compiler. Use it, don't use it, but until TummyX has written a better one, I'd suggest you not denounce that with such fervor.
Why do *I* have to write a better one? Rhys has written a better one.
It's like saying I need to write a better Win95 in order to denounce Win95.
And I should have made it clear that MCS is a work of crap *compared* to cscc.
PNET C# compiler's features are to be lauded, to be sure, but I'm thinking that you may be overstating the impact of the facts. Is it really amazing that a compiler can emit (in your emphasis) *PURE* il? So does mcs. It just does it for a singular language. There are other compilers for.NET that emit il for other languages too, I just don't see it as an opportunity to flame others for their hard work.
The point is that it can compile Java and C to *PURE* IL as opposed to a combination of IL and unmanaged code (like MS Managed C++).
I Have downloaded the source to PNET and I've discovered that I'm going to be using Mono in the long run. I'm sorry that you feel one has to fail for the other to succeed.
No we can't (not without lots of effort). But I think our implementation will make *most* applications useful. We're expecting it to be used by X-platform developers. People wanting things like SAPI support etc will probably use MS.NET.
*SIGH*. My response was to the stupid assertion that you needed to reimplement Wine to implement SWF.
As for your theming issue, I can tell you that it is something important that we haven't forgotten. Here's a
screenshot of pnet's SWF using the QT theme. Themeing our SWF implementation is a whole lot easier than trying to theme wine. The QT theme p/invokes into QT so it'll use the current theme that QT is using. We'll do the same thing for OSX and XP.
WTF!!!. Who the hell modeded this guy up. The Mono C# compiler is a work of crap.
The Portable.NET C# compiler is a work of genius. It was written by Rhys Weatherly who is the guy who *INVENTED* treecc. The Portable.NET C# compiler (cscc) can also compile C and Java to *PURE* IL code. It is a properly designed compiler with pluggable frontends and backends (like gcc).
Downoad the source to Portable.NET and you'll discover which project will suceed in the long run. It just doesn't get much press.
As to the DotGNU approach vs the Mono approach, basically I think you'd have to be insane to want to reimplement what Wine has done. Nobody is going to use System.Windows.Forms on Linux because it blows goats, everybody will use GTK# or (maybe when it is mature) Qt# - therefore a SWF implementation is useful only for application compatibility.
*SIGH* You don't need to reimplment Win32 to get System.Windows.Forms going. Implementing SWF ontop of wine is LAME. We have SWF working nicely and written in pure C#. It has been designed to be abstract and uses different drawing toolkits for the backend (X for Unix/OSX systems and Win32 for windows systems).
Saddam filled the infamous mass graves with Shi'a encouraged to rise up against him by George HW Bush, who left them to die when they heeded him and called on him for aid.
Go spin your wheel of justifications for war in Iraq and let me know what you hit
There's something wrong with those two statements being made in the same post.
FYI, ECMAScript which is the new "standard" for javascript supports custom classes, static typing and at least one implemenation (JScript.NET) supports compiling down to byte code.
WinFS is just an abstraction above NTFS, but the core is still NTFS. So if Linux/etc can interact with NTFS, then I bet they can still work with Longhorn.
!?? Yeah, but maybe all they can see is C:\WINFS.db
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. Look at the results of Aermika's evil imperalist nazi capatilist policies in post war Japan, West Germany and South Korea. Those nazi bastards!
Also, if the activate function is virtual (no way to avoid it in Java).
Modern JVMs can actually inline many virtual method calls.
Because it's convenient and a method of communication that people are willing to pay that much for?
If the expensive overwhelmed the convenience then you'd see people calling (only 5c a minute after all) rather than txting.
Um. Well obviously there will be APIs to mark data regions as executable or to allocate executable data regions. The later would be better cause then you could better ensure that offflows from non-executable data regions won't overflow into executable data regions.
If your computer has frozen to the point where the keyboard lights won't respond then it's likely to be a hardware failure not windows.
That t-mobile you talk about is a great device. It's a full pocket pc (with a 400Mhz Xscale processor), games, web browser, terminal services client etc, etc.
You don't have to hold it up to your ear (that would look silly), you get a tiny blue tooth headset and keep the phone in your hand or pocket.
The mono C# compiler isn't "a work of crap". It's a compiler. Use it, don't use it, but until TummyX has written a better one, I'd suggest you not denounce that with such fervor.
Why do *I* have to write a better one? Rhys has written a better one.
It's like saying I need to write a better Win95 in order to denounce Win95.
And I should have made it clear that MCS is a work of crap *compared* to cscc.
PNET C# compiler's features are to be lauded, to be sure, but I'm thinking that you may be overstating the impact of the facts. Is it really amazing that a compiler can emit (in your emphasis) *PURE* il? So does mcs. It just does it for a singular language. There are other compilers for
The point is that it can compile Java and C to *PURE* IL as opposed to a combination of IL and unmanaged code (like MS Managed C++).
I Have downloaded the source to PNET and I've discovered that I'm going to be using Mono in the long run. I'm sorry that you feel one has to fail for the other to succeed.
Any reasons?
No we can't (not without lots of effort). But I think our implementation will make *most* applications useful. We're expecting it to be used by X-platform developers. People wanting things like SAPI support etc will probably use MS.NET.
*SIGH*. My response was to the stupid assertion that you needed to reimplement Wine to implement SWF.
As for your theming issue, I can tell you that it is something important that we haven't forgotten. Here's a screenshot of pnet's SWF using the QT theme. Themeing our SWF implementation is a whole lot easier than trying to theme wine. The QT theme p/invokes into QT so it'll use the current theme that QT is using. We'll do the same thing for OSX and XP.
WTF!!!. Who the hell modeded this guy up. The Mono C# compiler is a work of crap.
The Portable.NET C# compiler is a work of genius. It was written by Rhys Weatherly who is the guy who *INVENTED* treecc. The Portable.NET C# compiler (cscc) can also compile C and Java to *PURE* IL code. It is a properly designed compiler with pluggable frontends and backends (like gcc).
Downoad the source to Portable.NET and you'll discover which project will suceed in the long run. It just doesn't get much press.
As to the DotGNU approach vs the Mono approach, basically I think you'd have to be insane to want to reimplement what Wine has done. Nobody is going to use System.Windows.Forms on Linux because it blows goats, everybody will use GTK# or (maybe when it is mature) Qt# - therefore a SWF implementation is useful only for application compatibility.
*SIGH* You don't need to reimplment Win32 to get System.Windows.Forms going. Implementing SWF ontop of wine is LAME. We have SWF working nicely and written in pure C#. It has been designed to be abstract and uses different drawing toolkits for the backend (X for Unix/OSX systems and Win32 for windows systems).
Check out the screenshots
Well they did buy the guys who write Virtual PC.
But yet if I called Bush an evil Nazi Jewish dictator then I would be a free thinker?
Thanks for clearer that up for me.
WTF?
I suppose you think it's ok for your doctor to publish your medical records in the name of "free speech"?
I'm sick of people not understanding the intended purpose of free speech.
Yeah, and method calls into an object in another AppDomain is a thousand times slower than a locla method call isn't it?
Try eating a steak dinner with chopsticks...or even with chopsticks and a knife. It's not easy.
There's a big difference between doing something wrong and wanting to fix it, and doing something wrong and wanting to keep it that way forever.
Kind of like how Bush is trying to correct all the wrongs of the US in the past (like when the USGOV supported Iraq and Afghanistan?).
Pssst. The patriot act passed through congress with almost no resistance. Last I looked, there were democrats in congress at the time.
I see they have a list of previous submissions. I wonder how long it'll be before someone submits goatse man.
Saddam filled the infamous mass graves with Shi'a encouraged to rise up against him by George HW Bush, who left them to die when they heeded him and called on him for aid.
Go spin your wheel of justifications for war in Iraq and let me know what you hit
There's something wrong with those two statements being made in the same post.
FYI, ECMAScript which is the new "standard" for javascript supports custom classes, static typing and at least one implemenation (JScript.NET) supports compiling down to byte code.
WinFS is just an abstraction above NTFS, but the core is still NTFS. So if Linux/etc can interact with NTFS, then I bet they can still work with Longhorn.
!?? Yeah, but maybe all they can see is C:\WINFS.db
That doesn't work very well if you have more than one set of parenthesis.
Perhaps they don't want to depreciate the value of the car by increasing the milage on the clock.