Yeah, I don't understand the concept of not liking that movie. It wasn't perfect, and I guess if you're some candy-ass comic book nerd purist you can gripe. But not having read the comic and not being some kind of chimp who finds a blue dong shocking I thought the movie was god damn sweet.
Now it's going to be simpleminded child movies where you don't kill the bad guys, and instead let them escape or go on to murder a bunch more people, and where everyone has these childlike pure motives. Load of shit.
Guh? SOAP solves the problem of "how can I move the discussion of RPC communications to what's important - the contract." If you need high performance and SOAP doesn't cut it, by all means use something else.
You don't have to do anything to "set up" SOAP. I can make a SOAP service based in Java or.NET that can use secure communications using SSL, Kerberos, Certificates, or other mechanisms in a matter of minutes.
It can get extremely complicated, but so can any complex RPC implementation.
SOAP isn't going anywhere. Really the best thing about it is the tooling - most of the IDEs have good support for easily managing some of the complexities of a SOAP based web service.
Yeah, I should have said "always valuable", or just left that sentence off. If you're a poorly run company and want to put all your eggs in one basket, then these people are of course valuable. Let's say the guy isn't even an asshole, what if he gets hit by a beer truck?
Lol. Cite? Or to put it another way, "The
reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".
At this point it's just silly and uninformed to make such a claim, as if all you think would need to happen is "compile Windows on [whatever]", "Use linux!", "the web will make ISA irrelevent!" or whatever stunningly ridiculous claptrap people use as an explanation for why this will happen soon.
Have you ever used WPF? Ever used even old school MFC? It was very easy to create very nice looking GUI apps. There are similar design tools for Java. C++ - meh. In terms of GUI apps, C++ is probably only the right answer about 25% of the time.
You seem to think there's a debate here. There isn't. Developing for the web is demonstrably and provably more difficult, expensive, and slow than developing with the best GUI toolkits for the desktop.
A simple thought experiment proves you're simply wrong. Which target platform has more restrictions and compromises, a web browser or a desktop OS? Yeah, thought so.
Maybe you're thinking of whatever TrollTipTech Super-Cutie "technology" the Slashdot crowd thinks is hip? Yeah...no. That stuff is primitive shit.
The only web design ((HTTP/javascript/CSS - not Flash/Silverlight) platform that's reasonably efficient to develop in IMO is GWT. I guess ASP.NET / JSF type hacks are OK too.
Well, it's a myth that these great coders are valuable, as well. High level software development requires more than the ability to manage complexity. You won't find any Josh's developing high quality, vast enterprise applications. You won't find them developing a modern RDBMS, or anything that's _truly_ complex in terms of architecture, scope, and interaction with other systems.
You'll find Josh's hacking away on some custom application developed by a small or medium sized company and it'll be their one trick pony.
The reason is simple - to develop a large system it takes many people, you can't have a one-man show on large software products.
Probably at podunk little shit companies. No large company would even remotely put up with this laughable self-image. If there's one thing you learn working at a large company it's that absolutely anyone is replaceable and that life will go on for the company if you're fired.
Because web is, in theory, accessible from anywhere, from any kind of device, any kind of connection. It's easy to develop web applications. It's faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps.
Anywhere availability is nice in some domains, not so important in others. The corporate world is an area where people tend to use web apps overmuch.
As for it being faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps. Ahahaha. Seriously? Tell me you're joking? Not even in the same league - a good desktop GUI development toolkit will _always_ be much more effective.
Which is why web standards need to replace Flash, and that's exactly what Mozilla, Opera, Apple and others are working on with HTML5 and such.
I guess it's nice when some commercial entities anoint themselves standards makers. How nice for them. The problem is people are sick and tired of trying to make the web work. That's why things like Flash and Silverlight are popular with developers. People want to develop web apps the way they develop desktop apps.
Ahahaha. I find angry, impotent nerds to be absolutely hilarious.
Thank you. You've made me laugh. Please tell people who use Firefox about your righteous jihad against IE when they visit your page, I want to laugh then too.
Yeah. _Not_ in real time. I admit the article is confusing, but that Amiga anim was not done in real time.
The rendered images were encoded in the Amiga's HAM display mode and then assembled into a single data file using a lossless delta compression scheme similar to the method that would later be adopted as the standard in the Amiga's ANIM file format.
Ahh yes. The "different perspective" argument. Yeah, I had to take that class too. The one where diversity really helps us all because we get "different perspectives".
You, however, seem to have taken that claptrap seriously. You get "different perspectives" in computing because two people have different backgrounds and interests, not because of skin color differences or hormonal/chromosomal differences.
If I'm running a hip marketing company or writing sitcoms you bet your ass I want men and women, and people of different races. Writing software - those things are meaningless.
Agreed. The problem is that all the large governments in the world are proven liars. At this point the situation is mostly untenable because you can't believe _anything_ they say.
My solution is that any government which uses a nuclear weapon is to have its leadership summarily executed at cessation of hostilities. A good leadership would be as willing to sacrifice itself for its country as it is to sacrifice a few million people somewhere else in the world.
I hear you, it's just unclear what your point is. If I can absolutely prevent my family from coming to harm by killing a family half a world away I certainly would too.
This is of course a non-existent dilemma, though, in real life. In real life a more likely scenario is that family halfway around the world shares some attribute (ethnicity, religion, regional homeland) with a real threat, so your government tells you that killing them will make you safer. Your government is, most of the time, lying.
Uhh.. yeah. It won't cost you $4 a night to charge your batteries unless you're in an area with bizarrely expensive power. Try 1/3 or 1/4 that, probably less.
The issue is that the original requirement is stunningly stupid and retarded on every level. In the fact of such idiocy, appeasement is the only option. Wanting them to remove IE from Windows is just dipped in shit stupid.
Come on. It takes 30 seconds of thought to see this line of reasoning for the laughable sophistry it is. There are all kinds of vectors for attack in the Windows (and any other) OS. Should Microsoft let you uninstall all RPC libraries? All desktop rendering libraries? All network stacks?
Your argument is preposterous on its face. HTML rendering became an important aspect of the OS and provides services to applications which want to easily embed a browser. If there are security holes, they need to be fixed just like if there were holes in any other aspect of the user-land runtime environment of any other OS.
That's like saying libc is a library only libc uses. The IE libraries provide HTML rendering to applications, so many different applications use them.
IE was "coupled" into the OS because any idiot could see the benefit of providing a common API to embed a browser into an application. This API is used by the OS apps and many other applications, ergo it can't be removed from the OS without breaking stuff.
Yeah... The main problem is most of that is false. OO maps to relational databases quite well (see: LINQ, ADO Entities, Hibernate/NHibernate, and the dozens of other tools for doing this). OO is fine at parallel tasks, as well. It also doesn't have to be all or nothing - you can use OO analysis and design, and languages suited to implementing OO designs and then use functional tools where it fits.
"Standards" are a shifty thing, though. Who defines them? What happens if I release a program and it becomes hugely popular. Then someone releases a "standard" for it and other applications target that "standard" now? I'm supposed to scrap my program because a bunch of assholes came and thought they'd write a "standard" when I already have the de facto standard?
Case in point, the Word document battle. I mean it takes a lot of gall for these dweebs to get all worked up over their precious "standard" when Microsoft _is_ the standard setter in the word processor document format space.
Seriously - those dweebs had a lot of nuts making MS out to be the bad guy in that whole debacle.
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
OK, let's start slow trying to unprogram you.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS? Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
Yeah. I love when these indignant nerds craft their carefully formatted replies. I used to read them, now I know what they say within a few scanned words.
It's really become too tedious, really. They're so dramatic about it all, too. Like a piece of intellectual property and which browser people use is the most important thing to the free world.
They never choose to argue over logic - they accept the Status Quo as sacrosanct because it fits their insane vendetta against MS. Try to engage one of them in a real conversation about what a monopoly really is in relation to when it should be regulated, the real benefits to society of this regulation weighed against rights, the role of government, etc...
I'll tell you right now what they'll do. Jedi Mind Trick. Babble about antitrust law. Babble about antitrust cases. Babble about "findings of law". Etc... They're robots, unthinking robots.
If MS had not been found a monopoly in the findings of fact, they'd be railing about how the judge was wrong. As it is, they answer any argument by just saying "this old fart clueless judge said they are a monopoly, and the money-grubbing EU protectionist/socialist douchebags found them one, so they are! I can't hear you, NA NA NA NA..
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I don't understand the concept of not liking that movie. It wasn't perfect, and I guess if you're some candy-ass comic book nerd purist you can gripe. But not having read the comic and not being some kind of chimp who finds a blue dong shocking I thought the movie was god damn sweet.
Now it's going to be simpleminded child movies where you don't kill the bad guys, and instead let them escape or go on to murder a bunch more people, and where everyone has these childlike pure motives. Load of shit.
Guh? SOAP solves the problem of "how can I move the discussion of RPC communications to what's important - the contract." If you need high performance and SOAP doesn't cut it, by all means use something else.
You don't have to do anything to "set up" SOAP. I can make a SOAP service based in Java or .NET that can use secure communications using SSL, Kerberos, Certificates, or other mechanisms in a matter of minutes.
It can get extremely complicated, but so can any complex RPC implementation.
SOAP isn't going anywhere. Really the best thing about it is the tooling - most of the IDEs have good support for easily managing some of the complexities of a SOAP based web service.
Yeah, I should have said "always valuable", or just left that sentence off. If you're a poorly run company and want to put all your eggs in one basket, then these people are of course valuable. Let's say the guy isn't even an asshole, what if he gets hit by a beer truck?
A better scenario, even, is if people would quit pretending there's anything wrong with x86.
If x86 dies, which it is in the process of doing
Lol. Cite? Or to put it another way, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".
At this point it's just silly and uninformed to make such a claim, as if all you think would need to happen is "compile Windows on [whatever]", "Use linux!", "the web will make ISA irrelevent!" or whatever stunningly ridiculous claptrap people use as an explanation for why this will happen soon.
Have you ever used WPF? Ever used even old school MFC? It was very easy to create very nice looking GUI apps. There are similar design tools for Java. C++ - meh. In terms of GUI apps, C++ is probably only the right answer about 25% of the time.
You seem to think there's a debate here. There isn't. Developing for the web is demonstrably and provably more difficult, expensive, and slow than developing with the best GUI toolkits for the desktop.
A simple thought experiment proves you're simply wrong. Which target platform has more restrictions and compromises, a web browser or a desktop OS? Yeah, thought so.
Maybe you're thinking of whatever TrollTipTech Super-Cutie "technology" the Slashdot crowd thinks is hip? Yeah...no. That stuff is primitive shit.
The only web design ((HTTP/javascript/CSS - not Flash/Silverlight) platform that's reasonably efficient to develop in IMO is GWT. I guess ASP.NET / JSF type hacks are OK too.
Well, it's a myth that these great coders are valuable, as well. High level software development requires more than the ability to manage complexity. You won't find any Josh's developing high quality, vast enterprise applications. You won't find them developing a modern RDBMS, or anything that's _truly_ complex in terms of architecture, scope, and interaction with other systems.
You'll find Josh's hacking away on some custom application developed by a small or medium sized company and it'll be their one trick pony.
The reason is simple - to develop a large system it takes many people, you can't have a one-man show on large software products.
Probably at podunk little shit companies. No large company would even remotely put up with this laughable self-image. If there's one thing you learn working at a large company it's that absolutely anyone is replaceable and that life will go on for the company if you're fired.
Because web is, in theory, accessible from anywhere, from any kind of device, any kind of connection. It's easy to develop web applications. It's faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps.
Anywhere availability is nice in some domains, not so important in others. The corporate world is an area where people tend to use web apps overmuch.
As for it being faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps. Ahahaha. Seriously? Tell me you're joking? Not even in the same league - a good desktop GUI development toolkit will _always_ be much more effective.
Which is why web standards need to replace Flash, and that's exactly what Mozilla, Opera, Apple and others are working on with HTML5 and such.
I guess it's nice when some commercial entities anoint themselves standards makers. How nice for them. The problem is people are sick and tired of trying to make the web work. That's why things like Flash and Silverlight are popular with developers. People want to develop web apps the way they develop desktop apps.
Ahahaha. I find angry, impotent nerds to be absolutely hilarious.
Thank you. You've made me laugh. Please tell people who use Firefox about your righteous jihad against IE when they visit your page, I want to laugh then too.
blah blah...usual meaningless drivel..blah blah
...Microsoft's friendly veiner...
My creepy uncle once told me he had a friendly veiner. I believe he called it Mr. Blue Veiner. Let me tell you something. It wasn't so friendly.
Yeah. _Not_ in real time. I admit the article is confusing, but that Amiga anim was not done in real time.
The rendered images were encoded in the Amiga's HAM display mode and then assembled into a single data file using a lossless delta compression scheme similar to the method that would later be adopted as the standard in the Amiga's ANIM file format.
Ahh yes. The "different perspective" argument. Yeah, I had to take that class too. The one where diversity really helps us all because we get "different perspectives".
You, however, seem to have taken that claptrap seriously. You get "different perspectives" in computing because two people have different backgrounds and interests, not because of skin color differences or hormonal/chromosomal differences.
If I'm running a hip marketing company or writing sitcoms you bet your ass I want men and women, and people of different races. Writing software - those things are meaningless.
Agreed. The problem is that all the large governments in the world are proven liars. At this point the situation is mostly untenable because you can't believe _anything_ they say.
My solution is that any government which uses a nuclear weapon is to have its leadership summarily executed at cessation of hostilities. A good leadership would be as willing to sacrifice itself for its country as it is to sacrifice a few million people somewhere else in the world.
I hear you, it's just unclear what your point is. If I can absolutely prevent my family from coming to harm by killing a family half a world away I certainly would too.
This is of course a non-existent dilemma, though, in real life. In real life a more likely scenario is that family halfway around the world shares some attribute (ethnicity, religion, regional homeland) with a real threat, so your government tells you that killing them will make you safer. Your government is, most of the time, lying.
Uhh.. yeah. It won't cost you $4 a night to charge your batteries unless you're in an area with bizarrely expensive power. Try 1/3 or 1/4 that, probably less.
The issue is that the original requirement is stunningly stupid and retarded on every level. In the fact of such idiocy, appeasement is the only option. Wanting them to remove IE from Windows is just dipped in shit stupid.
Come on. It takes 30 seconds of thought to see this line of reasoning for the laughable sophistry it is. There are all kinds of vectors for attack in the Windows (and any other) OS. Should Microsoft let you uninstall all RPC libraries? All desktop rendering libraries? All network stacks?
Your argument is preposterous on its face. HTML rendering became an important aspect of the OS and provides services to applications which want to easily embed a browser. If there are security holes, they need to be fixed just like if there were holes in any other aspect of the user-land runtime environment of any other OS.
That's like saying libc is a library only libc uses. The IE libraries provide HTML rendering to applications, so many different applications use them.
IE was "coupled" into the OS because any idiot could see the benefit of providing a common API to embed a browser into an application. This API is used by the OS apps and many other applications, ergo it can't be removed from the OS without breaking stuff.
Most decent modern languages have exactly this (well, "if (ptr != null)" is required and you can't cast a pointer to a boolean).
Yeah... The main problem is most of that is false. OO maps to relational databases quite well (see: LINQ, ADO Entities, Hibernate/NHibernate, and the dozens of other tools for doing this). OO is fine at parallel tasks, as well. It also doesn't have to be all or nothing - you can use OO analysis and design, and languages suited to implementing OO designs and then use functional tools where it fits.
Yeah, those OO languages are just flashes in the pan. Those, and "algorithms". Flashes in the pan. Also, "the web" - another flash in the pan.
"Standards" are a shifty thing, though. Who defines them? What happens if I release a program and it becomes hugely popular. Then someone releases a "standard" for it and other applications target that "standard" now? I'm supposed to scrap my program because a bunch of assholes came and thought they'd write a "standard" when I already have the de facto standard?
Case in point, the Word document battle. I mean it takes a lot of gall for these dweebs to get all worked up over their precious "standard" when Microsoft _is_ the standard setter in the word processor document format space.
Seriously - those dweebs had a lot of nuts making MS out to be the bad guy in that whole debacle.
Hint: The standard is .doc and/or .docx. Period.
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
OK, let's start slow trying to unprogram you.
Simple question: Do you think it was a valid technical decision, when the web was first gaining popularity, to decide to provide a common web browser layer in the OS and use it to provide things like help files, embedded web browsers, etc.. using a common API any developer can assume will be in the OS? Do you feel such a facility would benefit customers of and developers for this OS?
Answer that question honestly and your whole silly house of cards tumbles.
Yeah. I love when these indignant nerds craft their carefully formatted replies. I used to read them, now I know what they say within a few scanned words.
convicted monopolist (dramatically spoken)...
we really care about capitalism..
monopolist..blah blah
choice...
Monopoly..blah blah..protect consumer choice...blah blah..
It's really become too tedious, really. They're so dramatic about it all, too. Like a piece of intellectual property and which browser people use is the most important thing to the free world.
They never choose to argue over logic - they accept the Status Quo as sacrosanct because it fits their insane vendetta against MS. Try to engage one of them in a real conversation about what a monopoly really is in relation to when it should be regulated, the real benefits to society of this regulation weighed against rights, the role of government, etc...
I'll tell you right now what they'll do. Jedi Mind Trick. Babble about antitrust law. Babble about antitrust cases. Babble about "findings of law". Etc... They're robots, unthinking robots.
If MS had not been found a monopoly in the findings of fact, they'd be railing about how the judge was wrong. As it is, they answer any argument by just saying "this old fart clueless judge said they are a monopoly, and the money-grubbing EU protectionist/socialist douchebags found them one, so they are! I can't hear you, NA NA NA NA..