Before. Remember Netscape was the platform Microsoft did all that stuff to kill. And all that ActiveX vs. Java stuff.
But implementing your own widgets isn't as bad as its made out. It all depends on how well you do it. Look at MS Word et al or the old "Internet Explorer comes with all new UI DLLs". Many programs want to be able to distinguish themselves from others and often use novel user-interfaces to do so. Kai's Power things for instance. There are however platform standards in certain areas that need to be adopted so as to not confuse the user and sure using the native libraries makes
it easier and far less work but also restricts you in the process (depending on the library
abilities of course).
The popularity of skinning applications such as media players and having reconfigurable menus and toolbars in applications is
pretty strong evidence that people do
not always want a standard user-interface.
They often want to be able to tailor their
environment. If they could tailor more of
their environment some of them will, it's
really related to the ease of use of the tools
(or lack of tools) for mucking with the UI
rather than any lack of desire. If UI's allowed
users to radically alter the presentation
and input mechanisms we would see a
far greater variety of personal interfaces.
The functions of the systems
would have some commonality of course.
An ex-colleague (I changed companies)
often used to say "Imagine if people complained that all houses were different... The toilet's in a different place in all of them!"
Re:We CAN punish the hijackers!
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
clone them and put their clones on trial!
No. That won't happen. You want the DNA destroyed permanently so the bad "unit" can't breed. Think Gattaca.
No, the convention was a ^Z, but only if the
file didn't end on a block boundary. CP/M
didn't keep track of file sizes, just blocks
used so there was no way of knowing where the
last character in the file was. Unless it
fell at the end of the last block in the
file.
No. Because that isn't "scripting". The run-tume support specified for C is minimal, C doesn't really have strings - a bit of syntactic sugar for initializing arrays and some library functions that go along with the convention really doesn't cut it - there's no automatic checking and reporting of errors, etc, etc...
What you want from a "scripting" language are things like,
Automatic memory management
Automatic error handling
Good string processing support
The abliity to access other programs/libraries
Lots of modules that do all sorts
of things and are easy to use and slap together in
different ways.
Not have to be too concerned with efficiency
and still not have to stay up all night waiting for
programs
And loads more. The whole point of these languages is
to make it easier for the programmer to write programs,
sometimes at the expense of performance (sometimes not,
when lots of regex or string or hash processing is done
the scripting langauge performance is often comparable
to the ad hoc C/C++ programs). So we get the computer
to do something for a change and have look after memory and
check things etc.. rather than us doing it time and time again
(you now, after you've been doing it for as long as I have you
get bored with checking malloc's and stuff, you long for a
simpler way for the 80% of the programs you whip up that
don't really matter that much - the little toys or calculators or text hacks you need from time to time). It's all part of "Simple things should
be simple and complex things should be possibe" (although not
all scripting languages scale that well).
Oh, and if people want a C interpreter they should see what we used to use in Unix land - Saber C (aka Centerline C). Didn't really cope too well with the ANSI C changeover but it was a fantastic product for those wanting real C in an interpreter.
You're right. C's data model and lack of run-time support isn't what you want for scripting. You don't want to worry about laying things out in memory or checking everything for errors etc... That's why my favorite little language - ICI - uses a Lisp-ish data model with garbage collection and automatic variable definitions (if desired). The environment does things to make it easier for the programmer. No writing the "mechanics". ICI however uses the C expression syntax and its works really well with the data model. ICI has been about for ages and is used in a few commercial products (its in the public domain). Worth a look (even though I'm biased, I wrote bits of it and maintain [ha!] those pages).
For all the noble intent the problem was, and is, that such
schemes can't work. Ignoring the theoretical issue (it can't be done, communications networks exist to communicate information) and concentrating on the actual -
sites just re-locate to a colo site elsewhere - tar up the site, FTP it over, un-tar and go (in the best case), the transfer is the slowest bit, say 100KB/s, that 200MB (or whatever, wild guess) is gone in under an hour, smaller sites go in minutes. DNS could slow em down but they may bave some room to play there - is it illegal to serve DNS?
The government was told this - CSIRO, who do know their stuff - but the govt. go ahead anyway, to placate some rabib morons who probably didn't even read the reports and
wouldn't understand them if they did. Consequence is we blow a chunk of money on essentially nothing (sounds like government doesn't it).
I suppose it isn't all bad. At least those public servants who got paid to surf porn at work were actually doing their job.
A very nice little language. I am biased but for a reason
(no i didn't write it, just an enthuastic user who's helped
a bit over the years). ICI embodies
many of the Lisp ideas - it's author having written C, Lisp
and Postscript implementations - in its object-based data model. It, however, adopts C's expression syntax and control structures (with additions to both). It has OOP constructs (classes, methods), native code modules, autoloading, regexps, reasonable performance, etc... Worth a look. See the
ICI web site.
This is actually a serious point. In order to meet
timeouts specified in numerous protocols (e.g, TCP) the birds need to travel pretty quickly, either that or your
network radius is severly limited. I much prefer to think
of large networks which gives us reason to modify the
network media a bit. Afterall Ethernet is now running
at a thousand times its original speed. Why not
pigeons? With our increasing
abilities in genetic manipulation (Mephisto, I hear you)
this would make an excellent project.
Another time related problem is the speed of attaching the datagrams to the pigeons and then reading them.
We need pigeons with detachable legs so we can easily pop the data on and off of the transport mechanism (a bit like a physical implementation of mbufs, the pigeon being analogous to an Ethernet frame).
We could try little rockets or shooting them out
of cannons (reduces latency) but this can lead to
excessive packet loss if you try to push the birds
past their limits. Routing is also an issue, you've
got to give them some initial aim otherwise all
that energy is just wasted. Topological routing
is now appearing which could come in handy
for this but does anyone have a driver for a
turret mounted pigeon cannon handy?
Try the
ABC instead. Even
as I'm typing this they're talking about it and noting it would
remove the hostage issue from the recent happenings.
There's bucket loads about it. You're just not looking
in the right places. What are 9 showing? I Desparately
Want To Be Rich?
Re:Slashdot: News for Stoners?
on
First Arcology?
·
· Score: 1
Not bad. BTW The shrinking Chinese idea is, of course, Kurt Vonegut's.
And Quantel have been doing it for 15 years on their
video equipment. But we're in a circle game where
everything old is new again so it doesn't matter. Oh,
knowing Quantel they probably patented it too.
Look at his employer - a known Microsoft collaborator. Now they've got Linus in on
things to help push Windows XP over Mac OS X
by having him spout off about Mach being crap.
He just wants Joe Public to buy Transmeta/Windows-XP web tablets rather than nice new Macintoshes!
Linus' MS-inspired FUD tatics are really just a poorly
disguised attack on consumer's freedom of choice!
This isn't all too surprising given his previous actions.
By developing a new OS for outmoded, poorly designed hardware, typically accompanied by an enforced payment to Microsoft (unsurprisingly his employer's new found ally), he ensured the
dominance of a deficient computer architecture.
Then he ends up working for people who will
happily sell you things to make it work better.
Typical embrace and extend. Lock the consumer
in and then make sure you can extract money
from their wallet.
Isn't it great. The old BSD vs. VMS wars recast
in a 21C footing (Mach & Mica). One interesting difference is neither uses X11 as its native window system anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Mephisto's five-arsed monkey might be more appropriate.
Remember the "S" in SMTP is for "simple".
But implementing your own widgets isn't as bad as its made out. It all depends on how well you do it. Look at MS Word et al or the old "Internet Explorer comes with all new UI DLLs". Many programs want to be able to distinguish themselves from others and often use novel user-interfaces to do so. Kai's Power things for instance. There are however platform standards in certain areas that need to be adopted so as to not confuse the user and sure using the native libraries makes it easier and far less work but also restricts you in the process (depending on the library abilities of course).
The popularity of skinning applications such as media players and having reconfigurable menus and toolbars in applications is pretty strong evidence that people do not always want a standard user-interface. They often want to be able to tailor their environment. If they could tailor more of their environment some of them will, it's really related to the ease of use of the tools (or lack of tools) for mucking with the UI rather than any lack of desire. If UI's allowed users to radically alter the presentation and input mechanisms we would see a far greater variety of personal interfaces. The functions of the systems would have some commonality of course.
An ex-colleague (I changed companies) often used to say "Imagine if people complained that all houses were different... The toilet's in a different place in all of them!"
No, the convention was a ^Z, but only if the file didn't end on a block boundary. CP/M didn't keep track of file sizes, just blocks used so there was no way of knowing where the last character in the file was. Unless it fell at the end of the last block in the file.
Stories about switches.
What you want from a "scripting" language are things like,
- Automatic memory management
- Automatic error handling
- Good string processing support
- The abliity to access other programs/libraries
- Lots of modules that do all sorts
of things and are easy to use and slap together in
different ways.
- Not have to be too concerned with efficiency
and still not have to stay up all night waiting for
programs
And loads more. The whole point of these languages is to make it easier for the programmer to write programs, sometimes at the expense of performance (sometimes not, when lots of regex or string or hash processing is done the scripting langauge performance is often comparable to the ad hoc C/C++ programs). So we get the computer to do something for a change and have look after memory and check things etc.. rather than us doing it time and time again (you now, after you've been doing it for as long as I have you get bored with checking malloc's and stuff, you long for a simpler way for the 80% of the programs you whip up that don't really matter that much - the little toys or calculators or text hacks you need from time to time). It's all part of "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possibe" (although not all scripting languages scale that well).Oh, and if people want a C interpreter they should see what we used to use in Unix land - Saber C (aka Centerline C). Didn't really cope too well with the ANSI C changeover but it was a fantastic product for those wanting real C in an interpreter.
You're right. C's data model and lack of run-time support isn't what you want for scripting. You don't want to worry about laying things out in memory or checking everything for errors etc... That's why my favorite little language - ICI - uses a Lisp-ish data model with garbage collection and automatic variable definitions (if desired). The environment does things to make it easier for the programmer. No writing the "mechanics". ICI however uses the C expression syntax and its works really well with the data model. ICI has been about for ages and is used in a few commercial products (its in the public domain). Worth a look (even though I'm biased, I wrote bits of it and maintain [ha!] those pages).
Of course it's a hoax. It should read "one ex-employee".
And let us be .oz (again)
You're too young to remember right?
Replicate the repositories using CVSup. It works quite well for FreeBSD.
I sometimes call Java "Gosling's Revenge". But remember the Blit came before.
Man, reading all these replies, I may as well be reading Shockwave Rider. Straight out of the book.
Read the full disclosure report. They used four machines.
The government was told this - CSIRO, who do know their stuff - but the govt. go ahead anyway, to placate some rabib morons who probably didn't even read the reports and wouldn't understand them if they did. Consequence is we blow a chunk of money on essentially nothing (sounds like government doesn't it).
I suppose it isn't all bad. At least those public servants who got paid to surf porn at work were actually doing their job.
Funny. I always though Unix was the place holder until all the other OS's got "up to speed".
A very nice little language. I am biased but for a reason (no i didn't write it, just an enthuastic user who's helped a bit over the years). ICI embodies many of the Lisp ideas - it's author having written C, Lisp and Postscript implementations - in its object-based data model. It, however, adopts C's expression syntax and control structures (with additions to both). It has OOP constructs (classes, methods), native code modules, autoloading, regexps, reasonable performance, etc... Worth a look. See the ICI web site.
Another time related problem is the speed of attaching the datagrams to the pigeons and then reading them. We need pigeons with detachable legs so we can easily pop the data on and off of the transport mechanism (a bit like a physical implementation of mbufs, the pigeon being analogous to an Ethernet frame).
We could try little rockets or shooting them out of cannons (reduces latency) but this can lead to excessive packet loss if you try to push the birds past their limits. Routing is also an issue, you've got to give them some initial aim otherwise all that energy is just wasted. Topological routing is now appearing which could come in handy for this but does anyone have a driver for a turret mounted pigeon cannon handy?
Try the ABC instead. Even as I'm typing this they're talking about it and noting it would remove the hostage issue from the recent happenings. There's bucket loads about it. You're just not looking in the right places. What are 9 showing? I Desparately Want To Be Rich?
Not bad. BTW The shrinking Chinese idea is, of course, Kurt Vonegut's.
And Quantel have been doing it for 15 years on their video equipment. But we're in a circle game where everything old is new again so it doesn't matter. Oh, knowing Quantel they probably patented it too.
Linus' MS-inspired FUD tatics are really just a poorly disguised attack on consumer's freedom of choice! This isn't all too surprising given his previous actions. By developing a new OS for outmoded, poorly designed hardware, typically accompanied by an enforced payment to Microsoft (unsurprisingly his employer's new found ally), he ensured the dominance of a deficient computer architecture. Then he ends up working for people who will happily sell you things to make it work better. Typical embrace and extend. Lock the consumer in and then make sure you can extract money from their wallet.
And we trust this guy with the kernel sources?
:) if you don't get it)
(oh, here's a big
Don't move, stay and help vote the fscker out!
Isn't it great. The old BSD vs. VMS wars recast in a 21C footing (Mach & Mica). One interesting difference is neither uses X11 as its native window system anymore.