Whole-program analysis at COMPILE-TIME... not run-time! That's the beauty of Eiffel, 99% of the super high level extremely cool features are never compiled! they're for debugging and such, once you're done with testing, the stuff isn't compiled in. because of how Eiffel is designed, this will never result in errors slipping through the cracks either...
Thanks man, this is great! I had read there were no free compilers available somewhere and just took that as truth, and this thing has been around since 95!
The reason why I said the world would listen when it was available for Linux even though I don't use it was because I figured software workshops making huge applications are just getting started for Linux and Eiffel is MADE for huge projects with large teams that need to compile down to extremely efficient executables. In win32 I assume most development teams are too entrenched in whatever they're using already to switch over to something like Eiffel (its not a bad thing, it would simplycost too much in retraining and the benefits would take too long to realize, it wouldn't be sensible)
Esperandi Everyone, go to the link this man posted and learn Eiffel!
I don't know much about wood, but that Pilot looks like it probably weighs about 10x than it originally did! Looks damn cool though. I'd like one made of plexiglass, but that's prolly a tad bit harder to work with than wood;)
Esperandi Upon reading the headline I expected a story about a guy who invented a PalmPilot back in 1963 and was bringing suit.... litigation on the brain
While Microsoft would argue that Visual J++ is their product and they have the right to extend it, I have to differ there. I usually side with Microsoft in most debates, but they're wrong on this one. You see, they extended C++ by adding MFC. That's fine, they did it within the confines of the language and they didn't destroy the languages marketability.
By altering the language itself, they directly affect the marketability of the language. Their product is not their implementation of Java, it is their IDE and if they choose to do something MFC-ish, then that would be their product too. The weird thing is, if they changed the C++ language no one could have sued them (but it still would have been wrong).
"In my opinion, bounds should NOT be part of the type system, but should be inferred by the compiler as optimizations (to remove dynamic checks where possible). It is very difficult for the programmer to do these kinds of analyses. (Imagine a notzero type of integer, and division is function type (int * notzero) -> int!) On the other hand, experience has shown that array bounds checks are one of the biggest cycle-wasters in modern languages, so this issue must certainly be addressed somewhere. "
You would find Eiffel very interesting, you ought to check it out!
Esperandi The second Linux gets a free Eiffel compiler, the world will start to listen.
Eiffel is the object oriented language at the forefront of object oriented development. It's not widely used, but whenever a new concept in object oriented computing comes around, Eiffel incorporates it. I don't know enough of Eiffel to know if it supports "virtual classes" yet, but I'm sure if its doesn't that its only a matter of time...
It does include something that will probably get included in whatever language comes down the pike in the future (and there are ugly hacks that try to do these things in C++ and Java that people actually SELL)... Design By Contract is one, and incremental compilation built into the language is another. The Design By Contract is where the gold is for me (then again I've never made a single change to a program and had to wait 2 hours for a recompile)... once the source code is done in Java and C++, once your classes are frozen and done, you have to write documentation. With Eiffel you just hit the "generate short form" button and it generates an astounding amount of information for your classes, variables types, bounds, everything. And it does it in every format imaginable. Setting hard code-level bounds on variables with a single keyword is golden, setting down the bounds of things being passed into a method and the things going out of it is wonderful.
Even better is that 99% of these really high level features cause NO code bloat, they're to speed debugging, facilitate actual code reuse, etc.
How many people do you know in C++ that are actually comfortable and practice the "black box" theory of classes?
I was 12 or 13 and writing in QuickBASIC (actually bought the compiler and actually sold 2 programs written in it.. paid for itself so I was happy) when I started playing ZZT. Thenn I printed out the programming manual. It was a whole new world. I had never heard of C++ or anything close to object-oriented technology but it all made sense. I truly loved ZZT.
There is one drawback and you might not want to hear this... ZZT has no throttling function... its basically impossible to run on anything much faster than a 486, everything runs too fast... sigh... I still play text-graphics based games almost daily (been playing Angband and variants for almost 10 years... i will beat one someday!) and ZZT would be a hoot to relive. If you or anyone else reading this knows of a program or some way that I can throttle my 350MHz machine to run this program in a decent manner, I would love to hear of it...
I wonder if Tim would still have/been able to release the ZZT source... ?
Esperandi Would gladly pay for the ZZT source code and thinks its just fine if they wanna charge for it.
Yes, good idea, this is what my university does. We have to pay for our net access. I think they call it a technology fee or something. The good thing about it (instead of them just rolling it into the tuition where you can't opt out of it) is that if you don't like their service or restrictions on use, you don't have to pay for it. You can get local access. True its nowhere near as fast, but such is life. You weight the plusses and minuses. If you don't have utopia on one side of the scale, you don't whine about it, you make your choice. Fast but restricted access, or slow and free.
I'd recommend slow and free, because if enough people choose that and opt out of paying for that access, the fast access will become more free (not cost free, but freedom free) in order to compete and get your dollars. Money is a virtuous motivator in a lot of cases.
As for the taxpayers issue, if you really want to fight the idea that the university can't restrict access because the students are taxpayers, well, that doesn't work. because those taxpayers elected the guys trying to pass this legislation and its an argument for the other side - if you're going to be a taxpayer, you have to abide by what the majority of taxpayers want even when it involves slamming your dick in the door.
Esperandi Trying to get funding to start a 21st century university and will not accept government money and therefore won't have to worry about this junk;)
Would you be opposed to the filtering if it were part of the Terms Of Service that students have to agree to when they sign up for net access? If they are allowed to opt-out of net access and have that charge removed from their tuition of their bill or however it is charged, wouldn't it be a fair solution? Students that do not want to/intend to abide by the guidelines put out by the people who are footing the bill for this service could get access from a local ISP.
now, this may sound like I'm all in favor of the filtering, I'm not. But I do think that this is more valuable viewpoint than trying to argue that the colleges have no right to put limits on students net access. If students can opt out, an organized boycott can happen and it could really punch the university hard. If 10,000 students opt out of paying the fee, the university will be footing the bill for that fat pipe of their without enough help. Something would have to give soon.
Yes, the utopia is unlimited superfast access, but you have to consider how to get there. Arguing that someone should not be allowed to put restrictions on how the services they provide are used does not have a very good chance of working. You can picket all day long for them to stop making ugly brown cars, but if you keep buying them or if the charge for those cars is snuck into some other bill of yours, they'll keep making ugly brown cars and no legislator will listen to you. But if you boycott those cars and pay don't pay for them... well... how many ugly brown cars do you see on the showrooms sporting a 2000 year marker?
Is this only for Arizona University or every university in Arizona? The blurb said "all Arizona university campuses" so I am unclear. If this applies to all universities in Arizona, including private ones... whoa, this is downright evil.
If it applies just to Arizona University, its more understandable, its not privately owned. When you accept government money, you have to accept the strings. I would even think this was understandable for any student that gets money from the government that they don't have to pay back (grants, scholarships, etc). Just as before, you accept the money with considerations. If the considerations are unpleasant, you don't accept the money. You have no right to accept money on a set of conditions and then demand that those conditions are unfair.
Esperandi If this applies to private universities in Arizona as well and you live in that state, I would move. Fast.
Incorrect. 95% of people are of average intelligence giving a margin of one standard deviation. A school where 95% of the children get As means that the curriculum has been dumbed down so that the "average" students can master it and the students on the high end are wasted just so the average kids can feel good about themselves.
Take your exams when you're ready? You've never had a job, have you? You don't pick your deadlines, and its not just regurgitation. There's a reason why 95% of people aren't brain surgeons. 95% of people do not have the mental ability to DO these things. Letting them do them on their own time does not give them an advantage.
I think you almost hit on something when you said everyone has potential for As in "their chosen subjects"... yes, school should be specialized. Liberal arts education is poison. But again, there are people who do not have the mental ability to achieve "high ranks".
If everyone was taught from an early age to do the best, do what they're best at, and don't feel guilty about not being able to fit pipe or program a computer or make a fire in the woods. As well, don't feel bad when you get paid less as a janitor than a doctor does. Why can't people simply sit back and realize that they're being treated justly when they are? They always seem to want more. I'll tell you why, because they're not taught that justice is getting what you've earned, they're taught its about everyone getting the same amount.
He doesn't understand that in capitalism, dumbed down people don't get any money. Only in a socialist economy do you get "paid" (well, you at least get a check which was stolen from a productive person under penalty of imprisonment) for sitting around and getting nice and dumbed down do your "consumerism" is subsidized...
In a capitalist system, dumbing down of the consumers cannot happen. You see, in capitalism the "dumbed" people would soon find out that they can't get a job. They can't earn money. They can't consume.
Only if you subsidize their consumerism do you allow them to be dumbed down and survive.
Esperandi There is no such thing as a consumer. Everyone is either a producer or not.
Ahh, but Marx was wrong... well, he was right about rapid growth of capitalism, because it allows freedom and it allows the geniuses in a society to rise as far as people support them. It allows everyone to rise on their merits. But he was wrong about the dumbing down of the consumer. Why do you think the consumer has been dumbed down? Because things have been made easy and efficient? Well, screw me, but I like the mundane parts of my life to be easy and efficient so I can do more important things with my time.
But let's see, has society been dumbed down in capitalist countries? The Internet came from a capitalist country. Computers were invented in a capitalist country. Every form of communication in use today was invented in a capitalist country (excepting the written word). (radio, TV, telegraph, etc, etc) You see, the fact of humanity if a bell curve. If schools were run properly, 65% of people in school should be getting Cs, and only 2.35% should be getting As. Only 2.35% should be getting Fs too...
All dumbing down of society that has ever been performed was in the name of socialism. "Self-esteem" based schools, welfare that pays for cable TV, all that jazz, its all socialism. Capitalism means you get credit for what you do and if you don't do anything, you get what you've earned too - nothing.
Esperandi You have never been forced to purchase or use a product in your entire life.
Because its capitalism. The company would not be one giant monopoly because they had guns and a lot of "love your brother" preaching, it would be a giant monopoly because people paid them to do that. People wanted it. Also, if there was only one company, if you didn't like them you wouldn't buy from them. Capitalism makes it that simple. There is always a choice.
In communism, there is always a gun.
Esperandi You have never been forced to purchase or use any product in your entire life.
"The size of the company assured leverage with suppliers and brought incredible economies of scale to the market, but also created a bloated beast unable to cope with nimble competitors that would emerge from Japan during the 70's."
So you're saying that it worked out, right? Or do you not accept that this was an inevtiable result of a company becoming huge and bloated? I would go ahead and accept that idea. These mergers going on lately are like a death knell mostly as I see it. IBM got big, they missed the boat on the PC. Xerox got big, they missed the boat on the invention of air. It happens everywhere in every industry.
So should companies stay small? No, not unless you want a hand-made computer that fills a room. A small company can't buy a $120M fabrication plant.
What is the solution? Companies should stay focused. yeah, its tempting when you own a business selling a popular OS to start marketing applications, but you shouldn't. You should focus like a laser on your OS and make it the best in the world. Why? To eliminate your competitors, which is a very virtuous and noble pursuit if it is done MORALLY, ie, on merit. Not on ideaology like Linux is attempting to do, and not by buying every company in site, bloating your own, and putting out inferior products like Microsoft is doing.
Esperandi And I don't worship any single OS, I don't know of any that don't have horrendous, ugly problems.
People are profiting and doing something useful with their lives - this is offensive to most slashdotters. If you're not working a day job and doing the coding you love for less than slave wages in your "free time" (wake up people, your time is YOU, there's none that is free), you're doing something wrong. So when they see that these people are doing something, getting PAID for it, and making an impact on the world, they must shout "NO!" at the top of their lungs. Just watch some of the responses to this post, its gonna be a hoot. Half of the people won't even understand that in the corporate world, Company 1 + Company 2 = Company 1.25, not Company 3.
Slashdot Mirror
Whole-program analysis at COMPILE-TIME... not run-time! That's the beauty of Eiffel, 99% of the super high level extremely cool features are never compiled! they're for debugging and such, once you're done with testing, the stuff isn't compiled in. because of how Eiffel is designed, this will never result in errors slipping through the cracks either...
Esperandi
Thanks man, this is great! I had read there were no free compilers available somewhere and just took that as truth, and this thing has been around since 95!
The reason why I said the world would listen when it was available for Linux even though I don't use it was because I figured software workshops making huge applications are just getting started for Linux and Eiffel is MADE for huge projects with large teams that need to compile down to extremely efficient executables. In win32 I assume most development teams are too entrenched in whatever they're using already to switch over to something like Eiffel (its not a bad thing, it would simplycost too much in retraining and the benefits would take too long to realize, it wouldn't be sensible)
Esperandi
Everyone, go to the link this man posted and learn Eiffel!
I don't know much about wood, but that Pilot looks like it probably weighs about 10x than it originally did! Looks damn cool though. I'd like one made of plexiglass, but that's prolly a tad bit harder to work with than wood ;)
Esperandi
Upon reading the headline I expected a story about a guy who invented a PalmPilot back in 1963 and was bringing suit.... litigation on the brain
While Microsoft would argue that Visual J++ is their product and they have the right to extend it, I have to differ there. I usually side with Microsoft in most debates, but they're wrong on this one. You see, they extended C++ by adding MFC. That's fine, they did it within the confines of the language and they didn't destroy the languages marketability.
By altering the language itself, they directly affect the marketability of the language. Their product is not their implementation of Java, it is their IDE and if they choose to do something MFC-ish, then that would be their product too. The weird thing is, if they changed the C++ language no one could have sued them (but it still would have been wrong).
Esperandi
Its not copyrights or anything, but according to the official ZZT webpage (www.epicgames.com/zzt.htm) Tim lost the code in a crash! Damn!
Esperandi
Thanks! if I were a moderator, you'd be +2, Informative ;)
I don't have to worry about dosemu. Now I just gotta go do some searching for moslo!
Esperandi
Going to relive ZZT if he has to go buy a 386/SX33
"In my opinion, bounds should NOT be part of the type system, but should be inferred by the compiler as optimizations (to remove dynamic checks where possible). It is very difficult for the programmer to do these kinds of analyses. (Imagine a notzero type of integer, and division is function type (int * notzero) -> int!) On the other hand, experience has shown that array bounds checks are one of the biggest cycle-wasters in modern languages, so this issue must certainly be addressed somewhere. "
You would find Eiffel very interesting, you ought to check it out!
Esperandi
The second Linux gets a free Eiffel compiler, the world will start to listen.
"How many thousands of lines of code would you have to write in C++ just to get this functionality? "
Well, none if you use MFC, this is built in...
BTW, Eiffel is great, I have to learn it, I'm glad to see someone else is watching it!
Esperandi
It could be used in a game?
Ever had garbage collection start churning in the middle of a VSync?
Esperandi
Eiffel is the object oriented language at the forefront of object oriented development. It's not widely used, but whenever a new concept in object oriented computing comes around, Eiffel incorporates it. I don't know enough of Eiffel to know if it supports "virtual classes" yet, but I'm sure if its doesn't that its only a matter of time...
It does include something that will probably get included in whatever language comes down the pike in the future (and there are ugly hacks that try to do these things in C++ and Java that people actually SELL)... Design By Contract is one, and incremental compilation built into the language is another. The Design By Contract is where the gold is for me (then again I've never made a single change to a program and had to wait 2 hours for a recompile)... once the source code is done in Java and C++, once your classes are frozen and done, you have to write documentation. With Eiffel you just hit the "generate short form" button and it generates an astounding amount of information for your classes, variables types, bounds, everything. And it does it in every format imaginable. Setting hard code-level bounds on variables with a single keyword is golden, setting down the bounds of things being passed into a method and the things going out of it is wonderful.
Even better is that 99% of these really high level features cause NO code bloat, they're to speed debugging, facilitate actual code reuse, etc.
How many people do you know in C++ that are actually comfortable and practice the "black box" theory of classes?
Esperandi
I was 12 or 13 and writing in QuickBASIC (actually bought the compiler and actually sold 2 programs written in it.. paid for itself so I was happy) when I started playing ZZT. Thenn I printed out the programming manual. It was a whole new world. I had never heard of C++ or anything close to object-oriented technology but it all made sense. I truly loved ZZT.
There is one drawback and you might not want to hear this... ZZT has no throttling function... its basically impossible to run on anything much faster than a 486, everything runs too fast... sigh... I still play text-graphics based games almost daily (been playing Angband and variants for almost 10 years... i will beat one someday!) and ZZT would be a hoot to relive. If you or anyone else reading this knows of a program or some way that I can throttle my 350MHz machine to run this program in a decent manner, I would love to hear of it...
I wonder if Tim would still have/been able to release the ZZT source... ?
Esperandi
Would gladly pay for the ZZT source code and thinks its just fine if they wanna charge for it.
Yes, good idea, this is what my university does. We have to pay for our net access. I think they call it a technology fee or something. The good thing about it (instead of them just rolling it into the tuition where you can't opt out of it) is that if you don't like their service or restrictions on use, you don't have to pay for it. You can get local access. True its nowhere near as fast, but such is life. You weight the plusses and minuses. If you don't have utopia on one side of the scale, you don't whine about it, you make your choice. Fast but restricted access, or slow and free.
;)
I'd recommend slow and free, because if enough people choose that and opt out of paying for that access, the fast access will become more free (not cost free, but freedom free) in order to compete and get your dollars. Money is a virtuous motivator in a lot of cases.
As for the taxpayers issue, if you really want to fight the idea that the university can't restrict access because the students are taxpayers, well, that doesn't work. because those taxpayers elected the guys trying to pass this legislation and its an argument for the other side - if you're going to be a taxpayer, you have to abide by what the majority of taxpayers want even when it involves slamming your dick in the door.
Esperandi
Trying to get funding to start a 21st century university and will not accept government money and therefore won't have to worry about this junk
Would you be opposed to the filtering if it were part of the Terms Of Service that students have to agree to when they sign up for net access? If they are allowed to opt-out of net access and have that charge removed from their tuition of their bill or however it is charged, wouldn't it be a fair solution? Students that do not want to/intend to abide by the guidelines put out by the people who are footing the bill for this service could get access from a local ISP.
now, this may sound like I'm all in favor of the filtering, I'm not. But I do think that this is more valuable viewpoint than trying to argue that the colleges have no right to put limits on students net access. If students can opt out, an organized boycott can happen and it could really punch the university hard. If 10,000 students opt out of paying the fee, the university will be footing the bill for that fat pipe of their without enough help. Something would have to give soon.
Yes, the utopia is unlimited superfast access, but you have to consider how to get there. Arguing that someone should not be allowed to put restrictions on how the services they provide are used does not have a very good chance of working. You can picket all day long for them to stop making ugly brown cars, but if you keep buying them or if the charge for those cars is snuck into some other bill of yours, they'll keep making ugly brown cars and no legislator will listen to you. But if you boycott those cars and pay don't pay for them... well... how many ugly brown cars do you see on the showrooms sporting a 2000 year marker?
Esperandi
Is this only for Arizona University or every university in Arizona? The blurb said "all Arizona university campuses" so I am unclear. If this applies to all universities in Arizona, including private ones... whoa, this is downright evil.
If it applies just to Arizona University, its more understandable, its not privately owned. When you accept government money, you have to accept the strings. I would even think this was understandable for any student that gets money from the government that they don't have to pay back (grants, scholarships, etc). Just as before, you accept the money with considerations. If the considerations are unpleasant, you don't accept the money. You have no right to accept money on a set of conditions and then demand that those conditions are unfair.
Esperandi
If this applies to private universities in Arizona as well and you live in that state, I would move. Fast.
"If schools were run properly 95% would get A's"
Incorrect. 95% of people are of average intelligence giving a margin of one standard deviation. A school where 95% of the children get As means that the curriculum has been dumbed down so that the "average" students can master it and the students on the high end are wasted just so the average kids can feel good about themselves.
Take your exams when you're ready? You've never had a job, have you? You don't pick your deadlines, and its not just regurgitation. There's a reason why 95% of people aren't brain surgeons. 95% of people do not have the mental ability to DO these things. Letting them do them on their own time does not give them an advantage.
I think you almost hit on something when you said everyone has potential for As in "their chosen subjects"... yes, school should be specialized. Liberal arts education is poison. But again, there are people who do not have the mental ability to achieve "high ranks".
If everyone was taught from an early age to do the best, do what they're best at, and don't feel guilty about not being able to fit pipe or program a computer or make a fire in the woods. As well, don't feel bad when you get paid less as a janitor than a doctor does. Why can't people simply sit back and realize that they're being treated justly when they are? They always seem to want more. I'll tell you why, because they're not taught that justice is getting what you've earned, they're taught its about everyone getting the same amount.
Esperandi
He doesn't understand that in capitalism, dumbed down people don't get any money. Only in a socialist economy do you get "paid" (well, you at least get a check which was stolen from a productive person under penalty of imprisonment) for sitting around and getting nice and dumbed down do your "consumerism" is subsidized...
Esperandi
In a capitalist system, dumbing down of the consumers cannot happen. You see, in capitalism the "dumbed" people would soon find out that they can't get a job. They can't earn money. They can't consume.
Only if you subsidize their consumerism do you allow them to be dumbed down and survive.
Esperandi
There is no such thing as a consumer. Everyone is either a producer or not.
The book on the "next generation" you want to name yourself has already been written and they're called Gen13. So's the book.
Esperandi
Ahh, but Marx was wrong... well, he was right about rapid growth of capitalism, because it allows freedom and it allows the geniuses in a society to rise as far as people support them. It allows everyone to rise on their merits. But he was wrong about the dumbing down of the consumer. Why do you think the consumer has been dumbed down? Because things have been made easy and efficient? Well, screw me, but I like the mundane parts of my life to be easy and efficient so I can do more important things with my time.
But let's see, has society been dumbed down in capitalist countries? The Internet came from a capitalist country. Computers were invented in a capitalist country. Every form of communication in use today was invented in a capitalist country (excepting the written word). (radio, TV, telegraph, etc, etc) You see, the fact of humanity if a bell curve. If schools were run properly, 65% of people in school should be getting Cs, and only 2.35% should be getting As. Only 2.35% should be getting Fs too...
All dumbing down of society that has ever been performed was in the name of socialism. "Self-esteem" based schools, welfare that pays for cable TV, all that jazz, its all socialism. Capitalism means you get credit for what you do and if you don't do anything, you get what you've earned too - nothing.
Esperandi
You have never been forced to purchase or use a product in your entire life.
Because its capitalism. The company would not be one giant monopoly because they had guns and a lot of "love your brother" preaching, it would be a giant monopoly because people paid them to do that. People wanted it. Also, if there was only one company, if you didn't like them you wouldn't buy from them. Capitalism makes it that simple. There is always a choice.
In communism, there is always a gun.
Esperandi
You have never been forced to purchase or use any product in your entire life.
"The size of the company assured leverage with suppliers and brought incredible economies of scale to the market, but also created a bloated beast unable to cope with nimble competitors that would emerge from Japan during the 70's."
So you're saying that it worked out, right? Or do you not accept that this was an inevtiable result of a company becoming huge and bloated? I would go ahead and accept that idea. These mergers going on lately are like a death knell mostly as I see it. IBM got big, they missed the boat on the PC. Xerox got big, they missed the boat on the invention of air. It happens everywhere in every industry.
So should companies stay small? No, not unless you want a hand-made computer that fills a room. A small company can't buy a $120M fabrication plant.
What is the solution? Companies should stay focused. yeah, its tempting when you own a business selling a popular OS to start marketing applications, but you shouldn't. You should focus like a laser on your OS and make it the best in the world. Why? To eliminate your competitors, which is a very virtuous and noble pursuit if it is done MORALLY, ie, on merit. Not on ideaology like Linux is attempting to do, and not by buying every company in site, bloating your own, and putting out inferior products like Microsoft is doing.
Esperandi
And I don't worship any single OS, I don't know of any that don't have horrendous, ugly problems.
Let's see...
Warner Music and EMI.
Which of the above is AOL or an Internet company?
Esperandi
People are profiting and doing something useful with their lives - this is offensive to most slashdotters. If you're not working a day job and doing the coding you love for less than slave wages in your "free time" (wake up people, your time is YOU, there's none that is free), you're doing something wrong. So when they see that these people are doing something, getting PAID for it, and making an impact on the world, they must shout "NO!" at the top of their lungs. Just watch some of the responses to this post, its gonna be a hoot. Half of the people won't even understand that in the corporate world, Company 1 + Company 2 = Company 1.25, not Company 3.
Esperandi
A mathematical invention involves finding a certain arrangment of concepts (numbers, variables, operands, etc) to solve a problem.
Other inventions involve finding a certain arrangment of atoms to solve a problem.
Are they different? Why?
Esperandi
Ideals are things like "Give someone lots of stuff for free for a really long time and eventually they'll want to get a job to stop it."
And they can be wrong.
Esperandi