point is that XML is *completely and utterly useless* without complex and byzantine frameworks such as SAML and SOAP
Uh!
And Java (the language) is completely and utterly useless without the java class libraries. This must mean that Java is a useless language. The fact that it can be used as a standard way to build other technologies on top of is besides the point...
Re:Obligatory Anti-Pattern Viewpoint
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 1
They've already shown with.NET that they can make an entire programming framework (and at least 3 assocated languages) into an open standard and even have them ratified by the ECMA and maybe even ISO.
That's not true. Only C# has been submitted to ECMA. VB and JScript.NET have NOT.
The CLI submissions are only a small subset of the.NET framework. This is for a good reason, most of the.NET framework relies on Windows services (System.DirectoryServices, System.Windows.Forms, System.EnterpriseServices,...).
C# and the CLI does NOT make up a platform like Java. It's more like C. Both C# and C provide a basic set of classes. Anything more 'advanced' is provided through extension libraries that may or may not be cross platform (just like C). You could write a sound library for C# that uses DirectX and it would only work on Windows. On the other hand, you could write a sound library for C# that uses OpenAL. It would work on all platforms where OpenAL is supported.
Many features that Java has such as GUIs, Telephony, Speech, Sound, 3D etc aren't supported by.NET and certainly won't be standardised. Sound support will be added by Microsoft in the future but it will use DirectX (obviously NOT cross platform).
The cross platform hopes for C# pretty lie in OSS hands. It is up to the OSS community to write 'standard' cross platform libraries for C# (just like we have for C). C# interfaces nicely with C so it is likely that many cross platform libraries for C# will use the corresponding C libraries.
As you can see, the CLI is much more like C+GLIB than the "Java Platform".
Java is a meta-operating system. It a huge set of APIs consistantly on all platforms.
C#/CLI does not always provide a consistant API on all platforms but it allows and encourages you to rely and exploit on the native APIs available on the underlying operating system.
Which is better? It really depends on what you want. Java is obviously the only choice for cross platform development (atm). C# however appears to be a good replacement for C -- especially on the client side. It complements the underlying operating system whereas Java tends to hide it. That's why you will see a lot of C#/GTK# applications for Gnome in the future but not many Java/GTK applications.
The inner ear has three semicircular canals that each detect movement for each of the three different dimensions. This is required for you to be able to properly balance.
If software were built like hardware, and people weren't brainwashed into computer addiction, software would be small, fast and efficient. The implication is that it wouldn't take thousands of programmers years to churn out buggy code.
So show me some hardware that does what Office XP does please. How many years do you think it woudl take a team of ee-s to design one for me? (remember, no software allowed!).
Software is here because it solves complex problems that simply wouldn't be practical to do in hardware. Software has MANY, MANY more possible states than hardware. You simply can not compare hardware and software like that.
BTW, "small, fast and efficient" don't always go together. More often than not in software, you have to make a compromise between *size* and *speed* (e.g. hashing vs no hashing or quicksort vs bubblesort)....I could write a program to sort an array of random 32bit numbers in O(0) time (by comparison) and in O(2N) time (by access). Unfortunately, the program would consume over 32GB of memory.
The.NET class libary sucks. That's my biggest gripe with.NET. The runtime and language is BRILLIANT and class libaries absolutely SUCK.
Many of the classes are hard wired and tightly coupled meaning improvements can't be done without changing the original source code.
Java uses very good OO design patterns and principles. The class libaries are extensible..NET is quite the opposite. No use of the MVC design pattern (check our Windows Forms eww). No use of the strategy design pattern (check out System.Drawing eww).
Next ones are not on motherboards, but still...--- Analog joystick port (gameport) VGA output Audio ports Ethernet
You can get motherboards with all these onboard.
Re:Bob is a bit confused about MPEG4
on
Open Source TV
·
· Score: 1
The point he was making though was that RP and QT support the formats natively. No extra downlaods and installs nessesary...... and RealPlayer will play MPEG4 with the Envivio plugin
Of course something so closely tied to the kernel is definately going to be GPL. So, what would the benefit be of having the code available to be snagged by everyone and used legally without releasing their changes?
The benefit of allowing everyone to benefit from your code?
If the TCP/IP stack been released under GPL Microsoft would not have used it AT ALL and Windows would have been stuck with an inferior stack. Because the BSD stack was under a more free license (than GPL), all of Microsoft's customers benefitted. You seee, there was a benefit for everyone because it was under a BSD license. Had it been under GPL, the modifications/improvements microsoft made would not even exist for ANYONE because microsoft never would have used it.
There is such a thing as giving without FORCEFULLY taking back.
All algorithm theory should be taught in assembly.
That's the silliest thing I've heard today. When learning algorithms, you shouldn't even be worried about what language you're implementing them it (that's of little consequence). You should be more concerned about understanding HOW and WHY the algorithm works. This can be done with good old pen and paper.
And if any language was better for learning algorithms in it would be something high level and non procedural like HASKELL (NOT something stupidly low level).
qsort [] = [] qsort (x:xs) = (qsort left) ++ [x] ++ (qsort right)
where
left = filter (<x) x
right = filter (>x) xs
See how clearly that defines quicksort?
It's easier to understand than quicksort written in C, Java and definitely asssembly.
It basically just says the sorted list (x:xs) is the sorted list consisting of the [sorted list left] ++ x ++ [sorted list right] where left is everything less than x and right is everything greater than x. x is obviously the pivot (and yes i know using the first element as the pivot can be bad - we're talking about understanding here).
Beyond the fact that C# isn't by any stretch the best language to teach concerning the basics of computer programming (and as such is a disservice to the students at large)
So how is it any worse than Java for learning the basics of computer programming?
Universities have never been concerned about languages. It's the CONCEPTS which are more important.
With Open Source, the answer is always out there, usually. It isn't always so when trying to navigate a vendors website. With Open Source,if Red Hat, SuSE or say Debian doesn't have an answer for your problem, someone else usually does!
This is mostly true for Windows as well. When I need an answer to a problem, I never visit microsoft.com first but use Google/Groups instead.
There are millions of Windows users and communities out there. For example, CodeProject is a very popular windows developer site.
Slashdot Mirror
point is that XML is *completely and utterly useless* without complex and byzantine frameworks such as SAML and SOAP
Uh!
And Java (the language) is completely and utterly useless without the java class libraries. This must mean that Java is a useless language. The fact that it can be used as a standard way to build other technologies on top of is besides the point...
Exactly. That's what I was wondering.
I have yet to see anti-gravity that doesn't have these sorts of problems.
Um. A plane?
Are you implying that ALL forms of antigravity you've read about use antigravity shields that don't consume energy? LOL.
Except that the licenses would have been NON transferable. I don't think you can outsmart Microsoft's legal department that easily.
Um. Just cause it's nanotech doesn't mean it's millions of tiny robots that can destroy living matter.
I believe the heads on your harddisk are made using nanotech.
They've already shown with
That's not true. Only C# has been submitted to ECMA. VB and JScript.NET have NOT.
The CLI submissions are only a small subset of the
C# and the CLI does NOT make up a platform like Java. It's more like C. Both C# and C provide a basic set of classes. Anything more 'advanced' is provided through extension libraries that may or may not be cross platform (just like C). You could write a sound library for C# that uses DirectX and it would only work on Windows. On the other hand, you could write a sound library for C# that uses OpenAL. It would work on all platforms where OpenAL is supported.
Many features that Java has such as GUIs, Telephony, Speech, Sound, 3D etc aren't supported by
The cross platform hopes for C# pretty lie in OSS hands. It is up to the OSS community to write 'standard' cross platform libraries for C# (just like we have for C). C# interfaces nicely with C so it is likely that many cross platform libraries for C# will use the corresponding C libraries.
As you can see, the CLI is much more like C+GLIB than the "Java Platform".
Java is a meta-operating system. It a huge set of APIs consistantly on all platforms.
C#/CLI does not always provide a consistant API on all platforms but it allows and encourages you to rely and exploit on the native APIs available on the underlying operating system.
Which is better? It really depends on what you want. Java is obviously the only choice for cross platform development (atm). C# however appears to be a good replacement for C -- especially on the client side. It complements the underlying operating system whereas Java tends to hide it. That's why you will see a lot of C#/GTK# applications for Gnome in the future but not many Java/GTK applications.
Stop doing that. I thought you were selling..
Uh. Did you even read the article? It runs Windows CE for Automotive.
Microsoft has been developing "AutoPCs" for ages.
Wrong.
The inner ear has three semicircular canals that each detect movement for each of the three different dimensions. This is required for you to be able to properly balance.
wtf kind of logic is that?
Office XP is ver 10
Toshiba will be selling a Bluetooth enabled 5 gig external hard disk called the "Hopbit".
Is the firewire version called the "Sauron"?
If software were built like hardware, and people weren't brainwashed into computer addiction, software would be small, fast and efficient. The implication is that it wouldn't take thousands of programmers years to churn out buggy code.
So show me some hardware that does what Office XP does please. How many years do you think it woudl take a team of ee-s to design one for me? (remember, no software allowed!).
Software is here because it solves complex problems that simply wouldn't be practical to do in hardware. Software has MANY, MANY more possible states than hardware. You simply can not compare hardware and software like that.
BTW, "small, fast and efficient" don't always go together. More often than not in software, you have to make a compromise between *size* and *speed* (e.g. hashing vs no hashing or quicksort vs bubblesort)....I could write a program to sort an array of random 32bit numbers in O(0) time (by comparison) and in O(2N) time (by access). Unfortunately, the program would consume over 32GB of memory.
How can we forget cygwin?
The .NET class libary sucks. That's my biggest gripe with .NET. The runtime and language is BRILLIANT and class libaries absolutely SUCK.
.NET is quite the opposite. No use of the MVC design pattern (check our Windows Forms eww). No use of the strategy design pattern (check out System.Drawing eww).
.NET class libary SUCKS.
Many of the classes are hard wired and tightly coupled meaning improvements can't be done without changing the original source code.
Java uses very good OO design patterns and principles. The class libaries are extensible.
Compared to Java, the
all your base-pairs are belong to us!
m = mass not matter
Next ones are not on motherboards, but still...---
Analog joystick port (gameport)
VGA output
Audio ports
Ethernet
You can get motherboards with all these onboard.
The point he was making though was that RP and QT support the formats natively. No extra downlaods and installs nessesary
and RealPlayer will play MPEG4 with the Envivio plugin
That doesn't sound like native support to me.
The episode was called "The Visitor" and it ROCKS.
What has shell sort of TCP/IP got to do with OSS developers?
BTW, Microsoft currently employees Tony Hoare (aka inventor of quicksort).
Of course something so closely tied to the kernel is definately going to be GPL. So, what would the benefit be of having the code available to be snagged by everyone and used legally without releasing their changes?
The benefit of allowing everyone to benefit from your code?
If the TCP/IP stack been released under GPL Microsoft would not have used it AT ALL and Windows would have been stuck with an inferior stack. Because the BSD stack was under a more free license (than GPL), all of Microsoft's customers benefitted. You seee, there was a benefit for everyone because it was under a BSD license. Had it been under GPL, the modifications/improvements microsoft made would not even exist for ANYONE because microsoft never would have used it.
There is such a thing as giving without FORCEFULLY taking back.
If it was GPL, Microsoft would have been forced to release the source for Windows, Office and any other applications that link with Winsock.
Geee...that makes a heap of sence. Now I know why GPL is 'viral'.
All algorithm theory should be taught in assembly.
That's the silliest thing I've heard today. When learning algorithms, you shouldn't even be worried about what language you're implementing them it (that's of little consequence). You should be more concerned about understanding HOW and WHY the algorithm works. This can be done with good old pen and paper.
And if any language was better for learning algorithms in it would be something high level and non procedural like HASKELL (NOT something stupidly low level).See how clearly that defines quicksort?
It's easier to understand than quicksort written in C, Java and definitely asssembly.
It basically just says the sorted list (x:xs) is the sorted list consisting of the [sorted list left] ++ x ++ [sorted list right] where left is everything less than x and right is everything greater than x. x is obviously the pivot (and yes i know using the first element as the pivot can be bad - we're talking about understanding here).
Gee hard.
Beyond the fact that C# isn't by any stretch the best language to teach concerning the basics of computer programming (and as such is a disservice to the students at large)
So how is it any worse than Java for learning the basics of computer programming?
Universities have never been concerned about languages. It's the CONCEPTS which are more important.
With Open Source, the answer is always out there, usually. It isn't always so when trying to navigate a vendors website. With Open Source,if Red Hat, SuSE or say Debian doesn't have an answer for your problem, someone else usually does!
This is mostly true for Windows as well. When I need an answer to a problem, I never visit microsoft.com first but use Google/Groups instead.
There are millions of Windows users and communities out there. For example, CodeProject is a very popular windows developer site.