Hear, hear. I don't know of a single moderatly common desktop user task that requires the commandline, and that is the way it should be.
That said, the commandline is an exceptional tool, and while it has some shortcomings that could be adressed, there is no reason to remove it. Microsoft tried, realised their mistake and plan to release a next-generation shell to correct it. Let's not try to copy their mistake, especially not after their indirect admission of this mistake by creating the Monad shell.
At my old university, there used to be a huge old dot-printer with a really heavy printer head. One day someone figured out that the table it was standing on was pretty unstable, and that when printing a carefully crafted file, called 'devil.ps', the printer head would move at the right speed overturn the table.
What I'd like to know about this 'research' is who was the sick bastard who 'infected' the crocodile. I've heard of people doing these things to sheep, but this is a whole new level of sickness.
IANAL, but I seem to remember that the DVD consortium tried to make the CSS encryption both patented and a trade secret by patenting _some bits_, and keeping other bits secret. But then again, see how well that worked out...
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Firefox lets you move the menus/toolbars/etc. around . I have toolbars, menus, etc all onb the same line in FF. If I remember correctly, I could do the same with IE5. My guess is that the author of the article is a deranged luntac who _wants_ his menus below his buttons, since text is heavier than images, and simply decided to move things around.
I'm not trying to say that the high level concepts (like Tabs) or the specifics of the user interface (like how to close tabs) where invented by FireFox, I'm merely trying to say that the author of the original article is wrong in saying that the IE7 specifics of the user interface is new and innovative, it is mostly a straight of copy of features in Safari/FirFox.
The original article talked at length about how the closing of tabs was different and new, I pointed out that FireFox does it the same way. I did not claim that FireFox got there first or that this makes IE 'lame copying shit'.
Didn't read the article, did you? The author admits to only beeing experienced in the use of the 'Crazy browser' browser. He states that the new features in IE7 are not copies of features from other browsers. It is obvious from this that he hasn't used Safari or Firefox, which combined have implement every feature he lists except for the merged history. Even the design decisions on tabs, like the single close button at the right, is stolen verbatim from Firefox, which the author is obviously oblivious to.
I seriously doubt that the reason for AMDs sucess in the _server_ market is their 64-bit _consumer_ chips. As to whether the G5 and the 64-bit Pentium 4 are consumer chips or not, that distinction is pretty arbitrary, but since the 64-bit G5 can be found in the $1299 iMacs, I don't think you have a very strong case.
I don't understand Intels pricing of the Pentium M. It is like they really don't want anybody buying it. Quite a lot of people want to trade in a tiny amount of performance for a huge decrease in wattage. But the way Intel price the Pentium M and associated motherboard circuts, that option is far to expensive for most people. Why not diversify the processor line by selling both fast low wattage processors and slightly cheaper fast high wattage processors?
That is a very good analysis of why the original article was 100% navelgazing. But given your talent for critical analysis, you're last sentence seems a bit off.
You are thinking about this in the wrong way. A compiler implementor can choose to add special compiler hooks to make sure performance critical library calls are handled directly by the compiler in the most efficient way possible. GCC does this with loads of C functions like string handling and memory copying functions.
Last one was released by a group of people who scanned and proofed one chapter each four hours after official release. Why would this one take six times longer?
As you confess to yourself, you are only repeating things others have already said. But since most people seem to have missed it, it should clearly be repeated more often.;-) Video playback is at best a nice side benefit from creating a convergence device, not a killer app. An iPod that is also a tiny digital video camera, that also happens to play videos might be a killer app. Or Mozilla, with the claws that scratch and the jaws that bite, standing 100 feet tall, tearing down buildings and devouring humans by the hundreds, that is a killer app.
My interpretation of Stroustrups article is that he agrees with you, the standard library should be much larger and develop faster. The biggest possible addition according to Stroustrup would be a standard widget set. I'm not convinced that one is coming, but if it does, it should be a pretty big help for platform independent GUI software. But a standardized GC, a few more containers, more templated algorithms, XML handling, networking and loads of other major additions would also be benificial.
There are lots of GCs for C++. They are not part of the language, they are implemented as libraries. Hopefully, a future version of the C++ standard will have a GC in the standard library. But never as a part of the language.
The point about introspection in Java is that it _always_ costs you in performance and memory/disc use. Even if you're not using it.
Hmmm, the C standard are called C90 and C99. C++ follows this pattern as well with C++98, and the current C++0x, which on release will be renamed C++06 +- 1. Neat, consistent and predictable. Only6 you think it's geeky. Are you a marketer by any chance?;-)
If you would read the actual article, you would see that the edges Stroustroup talks about are little warts like:
whitespace sensitvity in templates, i.e. vector> is a syntax error, since >> is a single token.
Type declarating iterator variables can be a huge pain when using STL since the names are so long, i.e. the type 'vector >::const_iterator' is a bit of a mouthfull. Such variables can be guessed from the return type, so you could use a type 'auto' for this.
Java does not remove a few warts from C++, it forces you to use a Garbage collector, OO design, type introspection, etc, etc. Those are pretty fundamental changes.
If you read the _whole_ article, it ends with a clarification that Mac desktop computers will be a part of Apples roadmap for a long, long time, but that their main revenue stream is _already_ comiong from iPods, iTMS, etc..
No. Volume discounts are not illegal. Only offering volume discounts to customers who stay away from your competitors products might be, but that is not the same thing.
If bulk discounts where illegal, Wallmarts would be out of buisness and everyone would have to shop at 7-11.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear, hear. I don't know of a single moderatly common desktop user task that requires the commandline, and that is the way it should be.
That said, the commandline is an exceptional tool, and while it has some shortcomings that could be adressed, there is no reason to remove it. Microsoft tried, realised their mistake and plan to release a next-generation shell to correct it. Let's not try to copy their mistake, especially not after their indirect admission of this mistake by creating the Monad shell.
What? You mean they give you used money? I just took a bath in my money pool! Gah! I feel so dirty. I need to take a shower!!!
At my old university, there used to be a huge old dot-printer with a really heavy printer head. One day someone figured out that the table it was standing on was pretty unstable, and that when printing a carefully crafted file, called 'devil.ps', the printer head would move at the right speed overturn the table.
What I'd like to know about this 'research' is who was the sick bastard who 'infected' the crocodile. I've heard of people doing these things to sheep, but this is a whole new level of sickness.
IANAL, but I seem to remember that the DVD consortium tried to make the CSS encryption both patented and a trade secret by patenting _some bits_, and keeping other bits secret. But then again, see how well that worked out...
Firefox lets you move the menus/toolbars/etc. around . I have toolbars, menus, etc all onb the same line in FF. If I remember correctly, I could do the same with IE5. My guess is that the author of the article is a deranged luntac who _wants_ his menus below his buttons, since text is heavier than images, and simply decided to move things around.
I'm not trying to say that the high level concepts (like Tabs) or the specifics of the user interface (like how to close tabs) where invented by FireFox, I'm merely trying to say that the author of the original article is wrong in saying that the IE7 specifics of the user interface is new and innovative, it is mostly a straight of copy of features in Safari/FirFox.
The original article talked at length about how the closing of tabs was different and new, I pointed out that FireFox does it the same way. I did not claim that FireFox got there first or that this makes IE 'lame copying shit'.
Didn't read the article, did you? The author admits to only beeing experienced in the use of the 'Crazy browser' browser. He states that the new features in IE7 are not copies of features from other browsers. It is obvious from this that he hasn't used Safari or Firefox, which combined have implement every feature he lists except for the merged history. Even the design decisions on tabs, like the single close button at the right, is stolen verbatim from Firefox, which the author is obviously oblivious to.
You want IE7? Use Safari or Firefox.
I seriously doubt that the reason for AMDs sucess in the _server_ market is their 64-bit _consumer_ chips. As to whether the G5 and the 64-bit Pentium 4 are consumer chips or not, that distinction is pretty arbitrary, but since the 64-bit G5 can be found in the $1299 iMacs, I don't think you have a very strong case.
I don't understand Intels pricing of the Pentium M. It is like they really don't want anybody buying it. Quite a lot of people want to trade in a tiny amount of performance for a huge decrease in wattage. But the way Intel price the Pentium M and associated motherboard circuts, that option is far to expensive for most people. Why not diversify the processor line by selling both fast low wattage processors and slightly cheaper fast high wattage processors?
That is a very good analysis of why the original article was 100% navelgazing. But given your talent for critical analysis, you're last sentence seems a bit off.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
How about a link to the Slashdot article about the unveiling of the low power G5, aka 970FX, that uses as little as 13 watts.
You are thinking about this in the wrong way. A compiler implementor can choose to add special compiler hooks to make sure performance critical library calls are handled directly by the compiler in the most efficient way possible. GCC does this with loads of C functions like string handling and memory copying functions.
Last one was released by a group of people who scanned and proofed one chapter each four hours after official release. Why would this one take six times longer?
As you confess to yourself, you are only repeating things others have already said. But since most people seem to have missed it, it should clearly be repeated more often. ;-) Video playback is at best a nice side benefit from creating a convergence device, not a killer app. An iPod that is also a tiny digital video camera, that also happens to play videos might be a killer app. Or Mozilla, with the claws that scratch and the jaws that bite, standing 100 feet tall, tearing down buildings and devouring humans by the hundreds, that is a killer app.
My interpretation of Stroustrups article is that he agrees with you, the standard library should be much larger and develop faster. The biggest possible addition according to Stroustrup would be a standard widget set. I'm not convinced that one is coming, but if it does, it should be a pretty big help for platform independent GUI software. But a standardized GC, a few more containers, more templated algorithms, XML handling, networking and loads of other major additions would also be benificial.
Hmmm, the C standard are called C90 and C99. C++ follows this pattern as well with C++98, and the current C++0x, which on release will be renamed C++06 +- 1. Neat, consistent and predictable. Only6 you think it's geeky. Are you a marketer by any chance? ;-)
Java does not remove a few warts from C++, it forces you to use a Garbage collector, OO design, type introspection, etc, etc. Those are pretty fundamental changes.
I'd guess the'll be called Macs, iBleh, etc.. Apple has never been very big on empasizing the name of their contractors.
If you read the _whole_ article, it ends with a clarification that Mac desktop computers will be a part of Apples roadmap for a long, long time, but that their main revenue stream is _already_ comiong from iPods, iTMS, etc..
No. Volume discounts are not illegal. Only offering volume discounts to customers who stay away from your competitors products might be, but that is not the same thing.
If bulk discounts where illegal, Wallmarts would be out of buisness and everyone would have to shop at 7-11.
You know, if you haven't RTFA, you should avoid trying to summarize it. That is in no way, shape or form what the article says.
The second coming of Newton, a video iPod or perhaps a PSP killer. Or all of the above, but with an integrated cellphone. And a pony!