To be fair, although Python is quicker to develop, it's harder to verify due to having a less rigorous type system. I know this is part of the reason it is not used at my company. I quite like the approach taken by Boo in these terms, actually.
Real-time applications are better written in predictable languages (Esterel and Ada, for example), and much of the time when programming for mobile platforms, "safer" platforms are more than enough — my current job is programming applications for PDAs in.NET CF (obviously for MS-based ones), and it's more than quick enough for the job. There are obviously PDA applications where this doesn't apply, but the march of technology is making hand-optimisation (except, of course, in the platforms that applications are built on, which are the optimisations that largely make application optimisation unnecessary) less and less necessary all the time.
Again, I'm not saying there's not applications for optimisation, it's just that the number of applications are diminishing as time goes on, particularly when compared to the disadvantages of such an involved approach.
Well, there are languages specifically for embedded systems, but I think you're missing my point. I didn't say C was out of date (I was paraphrasing a quote in the parent post that didn't agree with it either), but it's just not got so many applications these days. It's quite rare that speed is a higher priority than development time, maintainability, stability, and so on. As you mention, though, when speed is your priority, optimised C is the way to get the best results. However if you don't have the time to put in on the optimisations, even then you might be better with something else.
To be fair, on the "C is out of date" side, the use of C has to be very well-justified to make a convincing case. It's not a language that is suitable for many applications these days.
Hahahaha, that wasn't my point. My point was it was a smear campaign, and a good example of one. My coverage of the issue was largely from non-"mainstream media" outlets though, since I have trouble trusting American news sources (they seem to all be biased to one side or another, if you know of a nonpartisan one that'd be great).
Don't mention the forged Texas National Guard documents - right asshole? Because it's only wrong if a Democrat gets his reputation hurt. Scum like you make me sick.
At the risk of feeding the troll, I'll put in my two cents or whatever here. I am not American, and I had heard of both of these, but the Swift Boat Veterans "thing" seemed to be far larger in scale (of both the smear and the controversy) than the Texas National Guard thing. So to choose one good example, a more prominent one would be the advisable one. The Swift Boat Veterans thing is a perfectly good example of people talking complete bullshit in a high-profile way for political gain, and a single example is enough.
I'm sure there are high-enough profile examples going the other way, but Swift Boat Veterans is a perfectly good example, is what I'm trying to say. "Scum like you make me sick" shows a fantastic level of complete ignorance.
Works for me. Windows XP SP2, Firefox 1.5 official. I'm not using the newer version of the Quicktime codecs, though, which many seem to be reporting as the problem.
Certainly doesn't seem to be a Firefox-specific bug, from the sibling posts here. Is there more information on this?
...now they are starting to scan in printed books and making them availible.
They're making them searchable, not "available". One can't just grab whole books off of the system. I believe this news article is about Google News (judging from other comments), not Google Print, though.
I still don't buy the argument of Google Print killing the industry on books though. It just doesn't seem based in logic.
Re:Thanks for Fixing the Problem
on
Google Fixes IE Bug
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well, to be fair, it is extremely comparable to a Firefox extension or plugin, which have similar rights. I don't think there's really a browser which is safe from this.
I'm not sure what the particular problem with ActiveX is other than the fact that its security model, particularly in old versions, was just pitifully weak (there just wasn't enough forcing people to check a component before installing it). If there's more specific problems, though, I'd like to hear them (always interested).
Well, the idea is that once they're "in" the system, they can basically do what the hell they like. Desktop Search is just a convenient index of data that is used by a large number of people — the only flaw pertaining to Google's product here is that it's good at its job.
Definately. I believe most of his purpose there was to make it easier for OSS projects to integrate with GTalk, but any UI stuff he took back would be most welcome.
I seem to remember reading that most of the development work for Gaim had been being directed at 2.0, so maybe some of this has been fixed already...
Possible. I haven't actually used it in depth. But really, I'm certain that Gaim has usability problems. It's finding a good way around them that's the problem. I have to say I fell in love with Google Talk — it's minimalist, and yet incredibly functional at the same time. I'd like to see Gaim do something like that (obviously more difficult, since it handles so many protocols).
I am a programmer, but I haven't looked at that particular code (I hate C and C++, and avoid them as much as possible). I did mean that it works very well though, yes, I wouldn't like to comment on the actual code quality!
I have a Windows box that Gaim just won't run on (just crashes randomly occasionally), so I suppose it's just not as great as I perhaps give it credit for. But yeah, I was trying to say that it's demonstrable that Gaim can have a good interface bolted onto it, rather than focussing on its warts.
Well, yes, I never use it either, but I'd argue to take away all of the buttons (or move them away from the bottom of the panel) before anything else. They're just not necessary, and I feel they get in the way a lot of the time, too.
I posted about this in another post, I'm going to try and (uncharacteristically!) avoid splitting this into loads of different places.
Basically though, I just think it's non-obvious, and I think it's fixable. I'd "fix it myself" but I don't like writing in C/C++ and I wouldn't force my code in those languages on anyone.
I think Gaim features can be implemented pretty easily in Adium, it's a matter of whether they decide to or not, really. My main gripe with Gaim isn't so much that it's ugly, as such, more that it's just difficult to use and really not refined at all. I don't want or need a row of gigantic buttons which are used rarely if at all, at an equal size to the send button. In particular these are given more precedence than the text input box — MSN rows buttons like this across the top where they're obvious but less intrusive... that would be a simple change that would make a big difference, I think. And I don't like the right-aligned (but you have to have the list gigantic) user pictures.
That said, I've recently gained back a little respect for Gaim after using Kopete, which while swish in many respects has the worst case of overcomplication in a user interface I've seen in a while.
I know that, it's a fact that's painfully clear to me since I don't have a Mac. I'm just comparing — most people who use Adium probably use it because it's a nice IM client to use, not because it has a shit-hot back-end. So saying to people to use Gaim if they don't have a Mac and like Adium doesn't really work, since a large part of the appeal of Adium is the UI, which Gaim doesn't really compare to at present.
Thing with Gaim is that the interface isn't as polished as that of Adium — it could use a bit of work. The back-end (which, as you say, Adium uses) is top-notch, though.
That's the point — inline comments tend to be bad at this ("thingy.Add(whatever);// add whatever to thingy" aids noone and damages the maintainability of the code), but it's important to write down why you are doing something, and what, on a large scale, you are trying to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice one. If the topic comes up again I'll make sure to mention that, at least. :)
Nice one, thanks for that. I think that the Python typesystem is still a little less inherently checkable, though, is it not?
To be fair, although Python is quicker to develop, it's harder to verify due to having a less rigorous type system. I know this is part of the reason it is not used at my company. I quite like the approach taken by Boo in these terms, actually.
Real-time applications are better written in predictable languages (Esterel and Ada, for example), and much of the time when programming for mobile platforms, "safer" platforms are more than enough — my current job is programming applications for PDAs in .NET CF (obviously for MS-based ones), and it's more than quick enough for the job. There are obviously PDA applications where this doesn't apply, but the march of technology is making hand-optimisation (except, of course, in the platforms that applications are built on, which are the optimisations that largely make application optimisation unnecessary) less and less necessary all the time.
Again, I'm not saying there's not applications for optimisation, it's just that the number of applications are diminishing as time goes on, particularly when compared to the disadvantages of such an involved approach.
Well, there are languages specifically for embedded systems, but I think you're missing my point. I didn't say C was out of date (I was paraphrasing a quote in the parent post that didn't agree with it either), but it's just not got so many applications these days. It's quite rare that speed is a higher priority than development time, maintainability, stability, and so on. As you mention, though, when speed is your priority, optimised C is the way to get the best results. However if you don't have the time to put in on the optimisations, even then you might be better with something else.
To be fair, on the "C is out of date" side, the use of C has to be very well-justified to make a convincing case. It's not a language that is suitable for many applications these days.
Hahahaha, that wasn't my point. My point was it was a smear campaign, and a good example of one. My coverage of the issue was largely from non-"mainstream media" outlets though, since I have trouble trusting American news sources (they seem to all be biased to one side or another, if you know of a nonpartisan one that'd be great).
At the risk of feeding the troll, I'll put in my two cents or whatever here. I am not American, and I had heard of both of these, but the Swift Boat Veterans "thing" seemed to be far larger in scale (of both the smear and the controversy) than the Texas National Guard thing. So to choose one good example, a more prominent one would be the advisable one. The Swift Boat Veterans thing is a perfectly good example of people talking complete bullshit in a high-profile way for political gain, and a single example is enough.
I'm sure there are high-enough profile examples going the other way, but Swift Boat Veterans is a perfectly good example, is what I'm trying to say. "Scum like you make me sick" shows a fantastic level of complete ignorance.
Works for me. Windows XP SP2, Firefox 1.5 official. I'm not using the newer version of the Quicktime codecs, though, which many seem to be reporting as the problem.
Certainly doesn't seem to be a Firefox-specific bug, from the sibling posts here. Is there more information on this?
They're making them searchable, not "available". One can't just grab whole books off of the system. I believe this news article is about Google News (judging from other comments), not Google Print, though.
I still don't buy the argument of Google Print killing the industry on books though. It just doesn't seem based in logic.
Well, to be fair, it is extremely comparable to a Firefox extension or plugin, which have similar rights. I don't think there's really a browser which is safe from this.
I'm not sure what the particular problem with ActiveX is other than the fact that its security model, particularly in old versions, was just pitifully weak (there just wasn't enough forcing people to check a component before installing it). If there's more specific problems, though, I'd like to hear them (always interested).
Must be speaking relatively...
Well, the idea is that once they're "in" the system, they can basically do what the hell they like. Desktop Search is just a convenient index of data that is used by a large number of people — the only flaw pertaining to Google's product here is that it's good at its job.
It's significant. It enhances the user experience quite a lot, and makes updating less of a hassle, a big problem with Windows as it stands.
It's new. It's not a feature that's been in Windows before.
It's clearly not FUD, since it's not casting Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt on anything.
...so if you'd care to explain why it is "m$ fud" and is not "a significant new feature for Windows Vista", that'd be awesome. :)
Definately. I believe most of his purpose there was to make it easier for OSS projects to integrate with GTalk, but any UI stuff he took back would be most welcome.
I seem to remember reading that most of the development work for Gaim had been being directed at 2.0, so maybe some of this has been fixed already...
Possible. I haven't actually used it in depth. But really, I'm certain that Gaim has usability problems. It's finding a good way around them that's the problem. I have to say I fell in love with Google Talk — it's minimalist, and yet incredibly functional at the same time. I'd like to see Gaim do something like that (obviously more difficult, since it handles so many protocols).
I am a programmer, but I haven't looked at that particular code (I hate C and C++, and avoid them as much as possible). I did mean that it works very well though, yes, I wouldn't like to comment on the actual code quality!
I have a Windows box that Gaim just won't run on (just crashes randomly occasionally), so I suppose it's just not as great as I perhaps give it credit for. But yeah, I was trying to say that it's demonstrable that Gaim can have a good interface bolted onto it, rather than focussing on its warts.
So I have to manually change the interface so it's good? :D
Well, yes, I never use it either, but I'd argue to take away all of the buttons (or move them away from the bottom of the panel) before anything else. They're just not necessary, and I feel they get in the way a lot of the time, too.
I posted about this in another post, I'm going to try and (uncharacteristically!) avoid splitting this into loads of different places.
Basically though, I just think it's non-obvious, and I think it's fixable. I'd "fix it myself" but I don't like writing in C/C++ and I wouldn't force my code in those languages on anyone.
I think Gaim features can be implemented pretty easily in Adium, it's a matter of whether they decide to or not, really. My main gripe with Gaim isn't so much that it's ugly, as such, more that it's just difficult to use and really not refined at all. I don't want or need a row of gigantic buttons which are used rarely if at all, at an equal size to the send button. In particular these are given more precedence than the text input box — MSN rows buttons like this across the top where they're obvious but less intrusive... that would be a simple change that would make a big difference, I think. And I don't like the right-aligned (but you have to have the list gigantic) user pictures.
That said, I've recently gained back a little respect for Gaim after using Kopete, which while swish in many respects has the worst case of overcomplication in a user interface I've seen in a while.
I know that, it's a fact that's painfully clear to me since I don't have a Mac. I'm just comparing — most people who use Adium probably use it because it's a nice IM client to use, not because it has a shit-hot back-end. So saying to people to use Gaim if they don't have a Mac and like Adium doesn't really work, since a large part of the appeal of Adium is the UI, which Gaim doesn't really compare to at present.
Thing with Gaim is that the interface isn't as polished as that of Adium — it could use a bit of work. The back-end (which, as you say, Adium uses) is top-notch, though.
That's the point — inline comments tend to be bad at this ("thingy.Add(whatever); // add whatever to thingy" aids noone and damages the maintainability of the code), but it's important to write down why you are doing something, and what, on a large scale, you are trying to do.
Hmm — Mono worked fine on FreeBSD for me when I was running it, but this was a while ago now. Weird. Hope they sort it out, anyway!