Java is not lacking in object files. An object file on my linux box is a file that has (more-or-less) a bunch of instructions in the "instruction set" of my processor and a function table for linking to that code. In the case of my linux box, that instruction set is the x86 instruction set. In the case of a ".class" file in Java, the instruction set is for the JVM....is pretty much forced to distribute source
I think you'll have to explain where you're going with this. I use libraries that I receive in object form all the time when I put a jar of class files in my CLASSPATH. No source required.
Although the linking mechanism is dynamic, it isn't shared,
I think that's implementation-dependent. Apple's JVM, for example, does some aggressive resource-sharing, perhaps exactly of this kind (but I'm not certain). There's nothing in the specs that would prevent the code segments of classes from being shared, at least.
Re:The phrase in question seems to be:
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Strange. This entire panic appears to have been created by an overly-literal interpretation of the word "interface" in the LGPL...as if it must be what Java programmer's think of as interfaces (method signatures without implementation). I'm willing to bet dollars-to-donughts that this is not what was intended in the context of the LGPL, and that any method-signature-compatible and namespace-compatible concrete classes would count as being "interface-compatible".
Well, speaking as someone who actually met and talked to these people, I can say with confidence that they were happy to see our parade entry. They, and the various bullhorn operators along the route all said that our presence was an important part of the July 4th celebration, regardless of which candidate we were for, even encouraging the spectators to give us a round of applause for that point alone.
Now these are Iowans, mind you, and they take their politics fairly seriously because of the strategic importance of the Iowa caucuses. On the whole I was really impressed with their understanding and respect for Independence Day.
And, speaking as someone who grew up in a small town not too far away I can tell you that those people are not the two-faced people you make them out to be: being kind to our faces and secretly mumbling behind our backs. You're thinking of a different part of America, friend.
If the parade officials had a policy of not allowing candidate entries and we "crashed the party",then you would have a point. They didn't, so you don't.
I should also add that I've never seen in my many decades of going to parades, an advertisement for a Republican candidate on the State or Federal level.
The reason for that is that republican candidates have such good support from the corporations and rich individuals that they no longer need to appeal to citizens on an individual level. I don't think that's a Good Thing(tm), but I'm happy for you if what you really want is for the unsightly political process in our country to just stay out of your face.
It's not a parsing problem; you overgeneralized the word "commercial" where it's not appropriate. No biggie. I understand what you're saying: you don't like the public expressions of other American citizens unless they happen to agree with you both in choice of forum and in content.
I hope some day that you can make more enlightened political decisions than those based on your disgust at my expression.
It was a political expression only. No part of the expression involved commerce.
It's my understanding that the foundational documents of our nation guarantee my freedom to be active in this way, even on Independence Day.
Could you explain to me how an Independence Day parade can be "ruined" by having people in it who love their freedoms so much that they are actually willing to exercise them?
I celebrated July 4 by getting off my ass and carrying placards in parades and handing out literature for Howard Dean in two small towns in Iowa. I had never done anything like that before. I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning to do it, and it was worth it.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't exactly caught Dean Fever yet, although we see eye-to-eye on many issues and I'm really impressed with the level of grassroots support that he has. It would be nice to have a president that isn't already owned before getting into office.
But, then, I'd settle for a president that can use the word "imminent" correctly. I think Dean rises to that challenge.
NeXTstep/Intel became available in Fall 1992, and was 32-bit clean at the time. Since OSX inherited from this codebase and is still largely controlled by the same developmers, you can expect a timely transition to 64-bit.
The same passage popped out at me too, but it's far from being an argument for a creator. Nature has a bajillion ways of making camouflage for different environments, and many of them dynamically adjustable. This one is cool only because the environment is so extreme and alien to us. If we were deep sea creatures, we'd probably think a chameleon was bizarre and otherworldy.
Java shines in problem domains where you have a long-running service that needs to be secure, robust, scalable, and quickly mutable to changing requirements. If you don't live in that world, your confusion is understandable. Your post is not too different from usenet posts back in the day where Mac/Windows users didn't understand the appeal of unix. From their perspective, nobody used unix and it was extremely unfriendly. What they didn't know was that sometimes large organizations need to create large, custom internal systems that live long and adapt quickly. Java is no panacea there, but it's better than the alternatives.
That's an interesting possibility. My first thought was that maybe the technique for manipulating the knotted string in one's hands required three fingers (thum, index, middle on one hand?) leaving the remainder for state management.
It's noble of you to want to protect the hapless, casual readers. That is an understandable preference. It is an arbitrary preference, though, not one firmly grounded in a defensible philosophy of the way things ought be. Other preferences exist. I'd prefer that every casual reader becomes a hardened skeptic, painful as the process may be.
Thanks for sharing, and for allowing me to use this open forum to share also.
Of course I also consume media that appears neutral. I consume lots of media. I just don't think that any given media outlet is obligated to provide containment between opinion and information. My brain works just fine, thank you -- I have already mastered the art of detecting statements of opinion. I don't need every media outlet to spoonfeed me strained peas. There are plenty of places to read uncritical propagations of competing press releases. Slashdot doesn't need to be one of them.
Of course you can give feedback for a bad burger, but that's not what's happening here. A bad burger could make you ill. Mixed information & opinion only makes you stronger: it forces you to engage your brain while reading.
In a world where so many brains could use a good workout, this is a good thing.
Ok, so you're an idealist. You think that if something has the superficial appearance of being unbiased that it must somehow represent the truth. That's very cute, and I wish you well. My idea of "truth" is a bit different. I feel that if the publisher doesn't hide their bias from me then I'm getting a more truthful representation of it. I feel that if I read something that appears to be unbiased then the publishers political agenda is merely lurking unseen -- not absent as you tacitly assume -- and that I'm therefore getting less truth in some sense. I decide what the truth is, by having a practiced, skeptical mind.
If you want a news source like the one you describe, I suggest you go find one, and never return here to consume a product you dislike. Vote for your belief in an appearance of objectivity and truth with your page hits. Do not return. It is the utter hypocrisy lend this site power by your presence if you hate its editorial policy so much.
Honestly, folks, it's just like anything else you consume. It makes no sense to be sanctimonious about how "meat is murder" only to keep buying cheeseburgers for lunch every day.
So far nobody has given any good argument (moral, ethical, or otherwise) about why one ought not mix editorial content with informative content. Until somebody does, your claim that it is "better" not to mix them is only as meaningful as one's claim that it's wrong to mix peas with mashed potatoes. I would prefer a world where the onus is on the reader to detect bias. Why is your way better?
I think it's just a matter of expectations. I expect that opinion will be in the top-level slashdot articles, because it has always been that way...since the "chips & dips" days. It was part of the site's original appeal. If that changed, I'd probably go drink from another trough.
It's naive to think that editorial opinion is confined to editorial pages. Astute readers can detect it everywhere, including in the mere selection of which stories to print out of the myriad candidate stories. This is true for newspapers, magazines, and (of course) cable news networks, who wear their editorial bias on their sleeves, right out in plain view. Those who have been paying attention know that the journalism industry has realized that it's just a business, and they'll offer up a trough full of whatever the people are willing to consume. It is not a branch of government...just a business. It's silly to criticize slashdot for not living up to standards that even "real" journalists don't live up to these days.
I don't remember the role of the editor including giving personal opinions over and above those stated in linked articles.
That's curious. I wonder why newspapers use the word "editorial" to describe opinion pieces. Maybe you've got an etymological theory to account for that?
Slashdot Mirror
Java is not lacking in object files. An object file on my linux box is a file that has (more-or-less) a bunch of instructions in the "instruction set" of my processor and a function table for linking to that code. In the case of my linux box, that instruction set is the x86 instruction set. In the case of a ".class" file in Java, the instruction set is for the JVM. ...is pretty much forced to distribute source
I think you'll have to explain where you're going with this. I use libraries that I receive in object form all the time when I put a jar of class files in my CLASSPATH. No source required.
I think that's implementation-dependent. Apple's JVM, for example, does some aggressive resource-sharing, perhaps exactly of this kind (but I'm not certain). There's nothing in the specs that would prevent the code segments of classes from being shared, at least.
Strange. This entire panic appears to have been created by an overly-literal interpretation of the word "interface" in the LGPL...as if it must be what Java programmer's think of as interfaces (method signatures without implementation). I'm willing to bet dollars-to-donughts that this is not what was intended in the context of the LGPL, and that any method-signature-compatible and namespace-compatible concrete classes would count as being "interface-compatible".
Well, speaking as someone who actually met and talked to these people, I can say with confidence that they were happy to see our parade entry. They, and the various bullhorn operators along the route all said that our presence was an important part of the July 4th celebration, regardless of which candidate we were for, even encouraging the spectators to give us a round of applause for that point alone.
Now these are Iowans, mind you, and they take their politics fairly seriously because of the strategic importance of the Iowa caucuses. On the whole I was really impressed with their understanding and respect for Independence Day.
And, speaking as someone who grew up in a small town not too far away I can tell you that those people are not the two-faced people you make them out to be: being kind to our faces and secretly mumbling behind our backs. You're thinking of a different part of America, friend.
If the parade officials had a policy of not allowing candidate entries and we "crashed the party",then you would have a point. They didn't, so you don't.
The reason for that is that republican candidates have such good support from the corporations and rich individuals that they no longer need to appeal to citizens on an individual level. I don't think that's a Good Thing(tm), but I'm happy for you if what you really want is for the unsightly political process in our country to just stay out of your face.
It's not a parsing problem; you overgeneralized the word "commercial" where it's not appropriate. No biggie. I understand what you're saying: you don't like the public expressions of other American citizens unless they happen to agree with you both in choice of forum and in content.
I hope some day that you can make more enlightened political decisions than those based on your disgust at my expression.
It's our day, genius...not your day.
It was a political expression only. No part of the expression involved commerce.
It's my understanding that the foundational documents of our nation guarantee my freedom to be active in this way, even on Independence Day.
Could you explain to me how an Independence Day parade can be "ruined" by having people in it who love their freedoms so much that they are actually willing to exercise them?
I celebrated July 4 by getting off my ass and carrying placards in parades and handing out literature for Howard Dean in two small towns in Iowa. I had never done anything like that before. I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning to do it, and it was worth it.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't exactly caught Dean Fever yet, although we see eye-to-eye on many issues and I'm really impressed with the level of grassroots support that he has. It would be nice to have a president that isn't already owned before getting into office.
But, then, I'd settle for a president that can use the word "imminent" correctly. I think Dean rises to that challenge.
NeXTstep/Intel became available in Fall 1992, and was 32-bit clean at the time. Since OSX inherited from this codebase and is still largely controlled by the same developmers, you can expect a timely transition to 64-bit.
The same passage popped out at me too, but it's far from being an argument for a creator. Nature has a bajillion ways of making camouflage for different environments, and many of them dynamically adjustable. This one is cool only because the environment is so extreme and alien to us. If we were deep sea creatures, we'd probably think a chameleon was bizarre and otherworldy.
I think he "gets" the internet perfectly. He just doesn't like it because it's not in his best interest.
Java shines in problem domains where you have a long-running service that needs to be secure, robust, scalable, and quickly mutable to changing requirements. If you don't live in that world, your confusion is understandable. Your post is not too different from usenet posts back in the day where Mac/Windows users didn't understand the appeal of unix. From their perspective, nobody used unix and it was extremely unfriendly. What they didn't know was that sometimes large organizations need to create large, custom internal systems that live long and adapt quickly. Java is no panacea there, but it's better than the alternatives.
That's an interesting possibility. My first thought was that maybe the technique for manipulating the knotted string in one's hands required three fingers (thum, index, middle on one hand?) leaving the remainder for state management.
I wonder if these folks would be interested in any of the exciting marketing opportunities that Alan Ralsky received.
The bold word (intended) should be replaced with "expected". Then the definition of ironic is satisfied.
Thanks for posting this. I've actually seen this term used "in the wild", now that you mention it. I wish I could recall where.
It's noble of you to want to protect the hapless, casual readers. That is an understandable preference. It is an arbitrary preference, though, not one firmly grounded in a defensible philosophy of the way things ought be. Other preferences exist. I'd prefer that every casual reader becomes a hardened skeptic, painful as the process may be.
Thanks for sharing, and for allowing me to use this open forum to share also.
Of course I also consume media that appears neutral. I consume lots of media. I just don't think that any given media outlet is obligated to provide containment between opinion and information. My brain works just fine, thank you -- I have already mastered the art of detecting statements of opinion. I don't need every media outlet to spoonfeed me strained peas. There are plenty of places to read uncritical propagations of competing press releases. Slashdot doesn't need to be one of them.
Of course you can give feedback for a bad burger, but that's not what's happening here. A bad burger could make you ill. Mixed information & opinion only makes you stronger: it forces you to engage your brain while reading.
In a world where so many brains could use a good workout, this is a good thing.
Ok, so you're an idealist. You think that if something has the superficial appearance of being unbiased that it must somehow represent the truth. That's very cute, and I wish you well. My idea of "truth" is a bit different. I feel that if the publisher doesn't hide their bias from me then I'm getting a more truthful representation of it. I feel that if I read something that appears to be unbiased then the publishers political agenda is merely lurking unseen -- not absent as you tacitly assume -- and that I'm therefore getting less truth in some sense. I decide what the truth is, by having a practiced, skeptical mind.
If you want a news source like the one you describe, I suggest you go find one, and never return here to consume a product you dislike. Vote for your belief in an appearance of objectivity and truth with your page hits. Do not return. It is the utter hypocrisy lend this site power by your presence if you hate its editorial policy so much.
Honestly, folks, it's just like anything else you consume. It makes no sense to be sanctimonious about how "meat is murder" only to keep buying cheeseburgers for lunch every day.
So far nobody has given any good argument (moral, ethical, or otherwise) about why one ought not mix editorial content with informative content. Until somebody does, your claim that it is "better" not to mix them is only as meaningful as one's claim that it's wrong to mix peas with mashed potatoes. I would prefer a world where the onus is on the reader to detect bias. Why is your way better?
I think it's just a matter of expectations. I expect that opinion will be in the top-level slashdot articles, because it has always been that way...since the "chips & dips" days. It was part of the site's original appeal. If that changed, I'd probably go drink from another trough.
It's naive to think that editorial opinion is confined to editorial pages. Astute readers can detect it everywhere, including in the mere selection of which stories to print out of the myriad candidate stories. This is true for newspapers, magazines, and (of course) cable news networks, who wear their editorial bias on their sleeves, right out in plain view. Those who have been paying attention know that the journalism industry has realized that it's just a business, and they'll offer up a trough full of whatever the people are willing to consume. It is not a branch of government...just a business. It's silly to criticize slashdot for not living up to standards that even "real" journalists don't live up to these days.
That's curious. I wonder why newspapers use the word "editorial" to describe opinion pieces. Maybe you've got an etymological theory to account for that?