> Speed - Wine, since it is an emulator, can never be as fast as ReactOS, a dedicated OS
Repeat after me.
WINE stands for Wine Is NOT an Emulator. WINE stands for Wine Is NOT an Emulator. WINE stands for Wine Is NOT an Emulator.
Did I mention that it is not an emulator:-) ? It is a compatibility layer.
That said, I agree with the rest of the post. I tried the VMWare version a few minutes ago. It booted in about 10 seconds on my old computer (Athlon 2000+). I reduced the VM memory to 64 MB and it booted as quickly (although it crashed with 32MB). This makes it great for those very old computers.
Driver compatibility sounds very promising if it actually works. The main problem is however that it still seems to crash a lot for now. A lot more than Win98 ever did for me.
On his blog, he returns back to gloating - that he recorded the video to just get out of the case - that it didn't cost him much. - that he got free publicity that would otherwise have cost him - that he will go back to his old ways.
"but the DMCA is but one of the many tools available these days. This was merely a battle in the war"
This guy is a bare faced liar. He does not seem to have learned a bit about basic decency and continues to remain the perfect example of a "griefer".
"I had an honest belief that one could control their image when it was used contrary to the original intent"
And what was the original intent of the posters Crook tricked into giving their private pictures. It is unbelievable that he expects people to believed all this while doing the exact opposite. He must live in some kind of bizzaro world.
"Who knew you can't control your own image?"
Wasn't it the same confidence that one can't, that allowed him to do this in the first place? And yet when it comes to him the rules don't apply.
"The appearance on Hannity and Colmes was very embarrassing for me"
And I thought all along that he did not know the meaning of embarrassment. Or maybe, he just lacked empathy. For those out of the loop, he called the troops "scumbags" and "pukes" on his web site for which he was called to the show where he was completely unprepared to give any valid response. Other quotes from Crook on the soldiers - "What idiots risk their life for a country...? Let 'em die in combat - we don't need their ilk in this country!".
"I firmly believe that he chose the photograph in an attempt to attack and unduly humiliate me"
Unlike his compassionate treatment his victims? Crook said "he's enjoying exposing the perverts" and "pathetic men".
Perhaps because sometimes these software offer something that people can't find a good open source alternative for (Quanta Plus is barely a replacement for say, Dreamweaver). Hence the firewall work around. I don't mind the calling home part so long as they specifically and unambiguously tell me what information they are passing back.
SOAP is typed. XML-RPC isn't. So SOAP is easier to work with in conjunction with stub generators in statically typed languages. Dynamically typed languages are better off with XML-RPC.
A better comparison is - Is SOAP any better than CORBA for what SOAP is being used for. It was initially sold with the "port 80" and "easier to debug than a binary protocol" arguments. Those don't hold much water any longer. Further, SOAP added a ton of extensions obliterating any ease of use promises, a trap that CORBA itself fell into. Heck, even the basic WSDL spec turned out to be difficult enough that stub generators aren't available for most languages. Python recently got one last week, but dynamic languages mostly went without.
If all that one does is typed stateless procedural calls, CORBA is hardly anymore complex than SOAP and heck of a lot more efficient than SOAP.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
First - standard tech != old tech
There are a certain languages that are well established currently in certain application domains as being reliable for that purpose (whether or not they actually are is unfortunately less relevant), not just because of the features but because many others are using it for the same use cases along side you. It gives more confidence when a new project is undertaken.
The Kota in Sriharikota is Telugu for "Fort". You are confusing it for Kutta, which is Hindi for dog. Telugu is the language spoken in the state of Andhra Pradesh where Sriharikota is located. It is one of the 2 main IT/outsourcing states (along with Karnataka) of India.
> Borland (maybe Inprise back then) made then a move: made it free, but only if the code produced with Kylix would be GPL. Then the user base rised kind of, but many Windows coders realised that linuzz is not Windows and the dependence nightmare began.
Actually Borland did not make Kylix free for GPL. They had an "Open Edition" that was quite devoid of features and had a timed "SPLASH SCREEN" with every executable advertising that Kylix open edition was used. That is hardly a free product, more like a trial/nag-ware. I am still a happy Delphi 6 user from time to time though. After all these years, Delphi is still the best way to create tight native GUI apps with minimum effort. And most of them run fine on Wine. Another reason I did not care as much for Kylix was that I really did not need to deploy Linux GUI apps. I mostly need server side stuff on Linux for which I prefer dynamic languages far better anyway.
> Having programmed in C++, J2ee is a lifesaver. No more chasing down memory leaks. Life is good and recently java performance has been great. It's easy to whip out java code but few people know how to tune a java app. I'm learning things every day.
Anything is a life saver after you have been made to use what is primarily a systems programming language (C++) for business applications:-)
You are completely missing my point. No one is denying that these people are murdering civilians and doing other dispicable things. Nor did I ever state that our 911 response in Afghanistan was not justified. The point is WHY they do it. The reasons may be silly or not. But those are THEIR reasons. Our press misrepresents their "stated" position with phrases like "because they hate our freedom". Their main argument has been that US interests in the region are stifling their political determinations (those determinations may not be in anyone's best interests - but that is besides the point). Don't forget that these people loved us till 50s and trusted us far better than they trusted Europe.
The parent rebutted my post a lot better. You are just showing a knee-jerk reaction.
> basically a theological civil war of reformation- from a religion that espouses "kill the infidel"
Except that is not the reason they want to kill us. Sure, they throw around theological drivel for recruitment. But their main stated reason is our troops are in their part of the world and they don't like it.
> Agnosticism is logical. Instead of saying, er believing, a supreme diety, soul, or spirit does or doesn't exist Agnostics say they don't know, but when evidence either for or against such things are established then they will be willing to accept the existence or nonexistence of them. As for Agnostics having a "let's get along" point of view, POV, not all have the same POV.
Atheism is not "believing" a deity does not exist. It is "concluding" that it is exponentially more likely the people lied, cheated or were deluded with their divine/spiritual encounter claims rather than otherwise. When little Jimmy tells you about his invisible playmate, you don't go agnostic on him just because he says you can't see him. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs to be provided. Countless claims, each independent culture proposing an incompatible model of spiritual reality over thousands of years of recorded history and yet, not a single ounce of proof so far. An unexpected earth quake or hurricane might have convinced ancients (or Pat Robertson) as extraordinary proof. It won't convince me with a better understanding of the phenomenon.
When there are 2 alternative positions, they are not automatically 50% likely each. There is also something called evidence which tends to be disproportionately distributed. Rational humans "decide" on the preponderance of evidence and are willing to change their position when new evidence becomes available. But they do decide. Right now, ALL evidence points that theists made all this stuff up like little Jimmy (and would get terribly upset if argued for otherwise just like the kid).
I am being naive here. I can understand why it may be a bit difficult Joe Spammer who operates from basement and hides hides his identity. But a company like e360 should be easy to target. Right? Should not all we do be
1.) file a class action lawsuit 2.) ask them to show their full "client" email list to a judiciary (under NDA maybe) 3.) check with recipients of randomly selected emails - if they really did ask to be sent all these "advertisements".
They are not taking your money for nothing. It goes towards eventual payment of Wii. You are paying a small portion of the usual cost in advance, to be sold the product slightly in advance. Don't like it? Don't pre-order it. I am not.
> What would really take off is a web-based version of VB 6.0 or Delphi. I don't mean the language, but the IDE. People want to drag and drop widgets onto the screen and then set attributes and fill in events by right-clicking and editing Property grids.
> Let's take a look at some of the functions in stdio.h: "fputs", "getw", "scanf", "tmpnam", "ungetc". > They're unpronouncable, hard to remember, and syntax completion won't do you any good unless it also shows a short description of what these functions actually do.
The standard library of C is small. Small enough to easily remember everyone of the functions. For such a case, it is actually desirable to have short names. That is usually not the case with Java.
> To a programmer who's unexperienced in C/C++, these names don't give the slightest clue as to what these functions are good for.
C was never meant to be used by the inexperienced for casual purposes. They are more appropriate languages for that.
>> Sure, it's verbose, but syntax completion and a decent resolution on your monitor practically negate that problem. The added clarity more than makes up for it.
>No. They don't. "Syntax completion" helps me write code, not read it. Verbosity != Clarity Here is the dictionary meaning of Verbose Verbosity: long-winded: using or containing too many words
> Let's not be pedantic over definitions please. You know what I meant with "verbose", which is that identifiers are descriptive and thus tend to be long. That helps when reading code, but is a pain when writing it, unless you have syntax completion.
I am not being pedantic. You and I have very different understanding of the word "verbose" and it is important to have a common accepted definition rather than subjective interpretations of it. For me, it means "redundant". For you, it means "descriptive".
Using tell-tale identifiers and profuse comments is not my idea of verbose. That's good. Nor does it have anything to do with language design. It is a matter of how it is used by specific programmers. C programmers use descriptive identifiers too. Take a look at GTK for example. Here is one. gtk_button_new_with_label. I am not going to call the language verbose for that descriptive name.
> That is just utter nonsense. Java wasn't designed for the least common denominator, it was designed to be clean.
Adopting C++ syntax to avoid syntax shock. Stripping down useful features like generics (and eventually realizing the folly). "Protecting" programmers with checked exceptions.
Clean means something else. It implies consistancy. I don't disagree. Java was largely consistant.
Sun resisted adding features till they were challenged by C#. Till then the response was "You don't need that feature. you can get around that limitation by this (long wound) approach".
>Java was released in 1995. Is Java better than C++? Maybe. Depends on how you look at it. But Java was a step backwards in every way compared to any serious language released from around that time onwards.
> That is just an opinion. And one that you don't even provide arguments in favor of, at that.
>> Disclaimer: YMMV, and yes, I do know that you can use verbose identifiers in C/C++. That doesn't help much if nobody else does so.
>I think you are confusing language features vs language culture. Language culture has more to do with it's application. Business logic obviously will be written quite differently than bit twiddling.
> I would call the standard libraries an important feature (positive or negative) of any language.
I wasn't talking about standard libraries anywhere there.
> Both the CLR and JVM are written in C, so I guess you're saying there's no advantage at all?
Just about every language is written in C at some point. That's not the point. When you code in a CLR implemented language, you have straight forward access to libraries targetting CLR as you do with C wrapped libraries with CPython. Yes, you can access libraries from any platform from any platform through some interop mechanism but the principle reason why people implement a language over popular managed environments is to gain access to their respective code base and provide a scripting option for that platform. It is rarely for performance reasons. Likewise, most of the time C wrappers are created for your favorite dynamic language, it is not for performance reasons but rather to gain access to the codebase. Performance gains in this case is merely incidental.
> Please spare me the dreaded Jim Hugunin quote, it doesn't matter how many times it's copied and pasted into a discussion, it's still only an opinion.
In case you haven't noticed, most the programming language talk is opinion. We care about it here because it is expert opinion. Jim Hugunin is the implementor of a very popular language on two of the most popular VMs. His opinion counts. I will listen to your opinion too when you... 1. Stop being an AC. 2. Actually provide arguments why these platforms are not good for dynamic languages. 3. Show experience with language implementation either academically or in practice and prove that you are just as credible.
> Ruby (which is slow as molasses)
But here you demonstrate complete lack of understanding on why dynamic languages are chosen at all. The execution speed of dynamic languages is largely irrelevant. They would still be useful even if they were an order of magnitude slower than in their current implementations.
> Another big advantage is the fact that java identifiers (variable/procedure/class/etc. names) actually make sense.
???
> Sure, it's verbose, but syntax completion and a decent resolution on your monitor practically negate that problem. The added clarity more than makes up for it.
No. They don't. "Syntax completion" helps me write code, not read it. Verbosity != Clarity Here is the dictionary meaning of Verbose Verbosity: long-winded: using or containing too many words
Java is verbose because it lacks features that ought to be there in modern languages in the first place to properly express the logic at the appropriate level of abstraction. And that is by design. It was intentionally created for the least common denominator - initially for web monkeys (applet rage) and later for cheap commodity coders for the the enterprise (J2EE craze). Of course, I am not belittling Java coders. Smart people do work with Java. And there are other reasons for it than the language - more jobs, critical mass advantage etc.
Java was released in 1995. Is Java better than C++? Maybe. Depends on how you look at it. But Java was a step backwards in every way compared to any serious language released from around that time onwards.
> Disclaimer: YMMV, and yes, I do know that you can use verbose identifiers in C/C++. That doesn't help much if nobody else does so.
I think you are confusing language features vs language culture. Language culture has more to do with it's application. Business logic obviously will be written quite differently than bit twiddling.
> However, I don't understand the technical advantage of these dynamic languages being ported to runtimes designed to host static languages.
The "technical advantage" is the more or less same as implementing them over the more common "C platform".
"It was a little less than a year ago that I first started investigating the Common Language Runtime (CLR). My plan was to do a little work and then write a short pithy article called, "Why.NET is a terrible platform for dynamic languages". My plans changed when I found the CLR to be an excellent target for the highly dynamic Python language. Since then I've spent much of my spare time working on the development of IronPython."
- Jim Hugunin (primary author of IronPython and Jython)
Slashdot Mirror
> Speed - Wine, since it is an emulator, can never be as fast as ReactOS, a dedicated OS
:-) ? It is a compatibility layer.
Repeat after me.
WINE stands for Wine Is NOT an Emulator.
WINE stands for Wine Is NOT an Emulator.
WINE stands for Wine Is NOT an Emulator.
Did I mention that it is not an emulator
That said, I agree with the rest of the post. I tried the VMWare version a few minutes ago. It booted in about 10 seconds on my old computer (Athlon 2000+). I reduced the VM memory to 64 MB and it booted as quickly (although it crashed with 32MB). This makes it great for those very old computers.
Driver compatibility sounds very promising if it actually works. The main problem is however that it still seems to crash a lot for now. A lot more than Win98 ever did for me.
As mentioned earlier, the apology was a sham.
On his blog, he returns back to gloating
- that he recorded the video to just get out of the case
- that it didn't cost him much.
- that he got free publicity that would otherwise have cost him
- that he will go back to his old ways.
"but the DMCA is but one of the many tools available these days. This was merely a battle in the war"
http://www.michaelcrook.org/thedmcacase.html
This guy is a bare faced liar. He does not seem to have learned a bit about basic decency and continues to remain the perfect example of a "griefer".
"I had an honest belief that one could control their image when it was used contrary to the original intent"
And what was the original intent of the posters Crook tricked into giving their private pictures. It is unbelievable that he expects people to believed all this while doing the exact opposite. He must live in some kind of bizzaro world.
"Who knew you can't control your own image?"
Wasn't it the same confidence that one can't, that allowed him to do this in the first place? And yet when it comes to him the rules don't apply.
"The appearance on Hannity and Colmes was very embarrassing for me"
And I thought all along that he did not know the meaning of embarrassment. Or maybe, he just lacked empathy. For those out of the loop, he called the troops "scumbags" and "pukes" on his web site for which he was called to the show where he was completely unprepared to give any valid response. Other quotes from Crook on the soldiers - "What idiots risk their life for a country...? Let 'em die in combat - we don't need their ilk in this country!".
"I firmly believe that he chose the photograph in an attempt to attack and unduly humiliate me"
Unlike his compassionate treatment his victims? Crook said "he's enjoying exposing the perverts" and "pathetic men".
I guess in this case it is STFV (See The Friggin Video) :-)
I followed links and came up with the game his main company is making.
http://www.d6.com/games/pic1.jpg
We have seen better graphics on PS1. And surely this does not need much in AI.
Sure, he is working for the Spore project but is that all he is credible for?
Perhaps because sometimes these software offer something that people can't find a good open source alternative for (Quanta Plus is barely a replacement for say, Dreamweaver). Hence the firewall work around. I don't mind the calling home part so long as they specifically and unambiguously tell me what information they are passing back.
SOAP is typed. XML-RPC isn't. So SOAP is easier to work with in conjunction with stub generators in statically typed languages. Dynamically typed languages are better off with XML-RPC.
A better comparison is - Is SOAP any better than CORBA for what SOAP is being used for. It was initially sold with the "port 80" and "easier to debug than a binary protocol" arguments. Those don't hold much water any longer. Further, SOAP added a ton of extensions obliterating any ease of use promises, a trap that CORBA itself fell into. Heck, even the basic WSDL spec turned out to be difficult enough that stub generators aren't available for most languages. Python recently got one last week, but dynamic languages mostly went without.
If all that one does is typed stateless procedural calls, CORBA is hardly anymore complex than SOAP and heck of a lot more efficient than SOAP.
> prices for a computer can't go below about $200 no matter what is in them due to component count and size
= ItemDetail&item=COM10685
I see stuff like this all the time. Sure it is a sale, but a frequent one.
866 MHz 128 MB PC for $60
http://www.surpluscomputers.com/store/main.aspx?p
First - standard tech != old tech
There are a certain languages that are well established currently in certain application domains as being reliable for that purpose (whether or not they actually are is unfortunately less relevant), not just because of the features but because many others are using it for the same use cases along side you. It gives more confidence when a new project is undertaken.
The Kota in Sriharikota is Telugu for "Fort". You are confusing it for Kutta, which is Hindi for dog.
Telugu is the language spoken in the state of Andhra Pradesh where Sriharikota is located. It is one of the 2 main IT/outsourcing states (along with Karnataka) of India.
> Borland (maybe Inprise back then) made then a move: made it free, but only if the code produced with Kylix would be GPL. Then the user base rised kind of, but many Windows coders realised that linuzz is not Windows and the dependence nightmare began.
Actually Borland did not make Kylix free for GPL. They had an "Open Edition" that was quite devoid of features and had a timed "SPLASH SCREEN" with every executable advertising that Kylix open edition was used. That is hardly a free product, more like a trial/nag-ware. I am still a happy Delphi 6 user from time to time though. After all these years, Delphi is still the best way to create tight native GUI apps with minimum effort. And most of them run fine on Wine. Another reason I did not care as much for Kylix was that I really did not need to deploy Linux GUI apps. I mostly need server side stuff on Linux for which I prefer dynamic languages far better anyway.
> Having programmed in C++, J2ee is a lifesaver. No more chasing down memory leaks. Life is good and recently java performance has been great. It's easy to whip out java code but few people know how to tune a java app. I'm learning things every day.
:-)
Anything is a life saver after you have been made to use what is primarily a systems programming language (C++) for business applications
You are completely missing my point. No one is denying that these people are murdering civilians and doing other dispicable things. Nor did I ever state that our 911 response in Afghanistan was not justified. The point is WHY they do it. The reasons may be silly or not. But those are THEIR reasons. Our press misrepresents their "stated" position with phrases like "because they hate our freedom". Their main argument has been that US interests in the region are stifling their political determinations (those determinations may not be in anyone's best interests - but that is besides the point). Don't forget that these people loved us till 50s and trusted us far better than they trusted Europe.
The parent rebutted my post a lot better. You are just showing a knee-jerk reaction.
> basically a theological civil war of reformation- from a religion that espouses "kill the infidel"
Except that is not the reason they want to kill us. Sure, they throw around theological drivel for recruitment. But their main stated reason is our troops are in their part of the world and they don't like it.
> Agnosticism is logical. Instead of saying, er believing, a supreme diety, soul, or spirit does or doesn't exist Agnostics say they don't know, but when evidence either for or against such things are established then they will be willing to accept the existence or nonexistence of them. As for Agnostics having a "let's get along" point of view, POV, not all have the same POV.
Atheism is not "believing" a deity does not exist. It is "concluding" that it is exponentially more likely the people lied, cheated or were deluded with their divine/spiritual encounter claims rather than otherwise. When little Jimmy tells you about his invisible playmate, you don't go agnostic on him just because he says you can't see him. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs to be provided. Countless claims, each independent culture proposing an incompatible model of spiritual reality over thousands of years of recorded history and yet, not a single ounce of proof so far. An unexpected earth quake or hurricane might have convinced ancients (or Pat Robertson) as extraordinary proof. It won't convince me with a better understanding of the phenomenon.
When there are 2 alternative positions, they are not automatically 50% likely each. There is also something called evidence which tends to be disproportionately distributed. Rational humans "decide" on the preponderance of evidence and are willing to change their position when new evidence becomes available. But they do decide. Right now, ALL evidence points that theists made all this stuff up like little Jimmy (and would get terribly upset if argued for otherwise just like the kid).
> It's unfortunate though that atheists insist on maintaining the intellectual high ground when agnosticism is the most logical perspective on life.
Agnosticism is not even close to being logical. It is simply a "lets get along" view point.
> Hey it was more stable and easier to write for
It was NOT easy to write for. If it was at all easy, it was because people did not expect much in their programs in the DOS days.
> and you didn't need 10+ gig to install it.
Nor could it handle a meaningfully more than half a Gig of RAM.
I am being naive here. I can understand why it may be a bit difficult Joe Spammer who operates from basement and hides hides his identity. But a company like e360 should be easy to target. Right? Should not all we do be
1.) file a class action lawsuit
2.) ask them to show their full "client" email list to a judiciary (under NDA maybe)
3.) check with recipients of randomly selected emails - if they really did ask to be sent all these "advertisements".
> rather than taking my money for nothing?
They are not taking your money for nothing. It goes towards eventual payment of Wii. You are paying a small portion of the usual cost in advance, to be sold the product slightly in advance. Don't like it? Don't pre-order it. I am not.
> What would really take off is a web-based version of VB 6.0 or Delphi. I don't mean the language, but the IDE. People want to drag and drop widgets onto the screen and then set attributes and fill in events by right-clicking and editing Property grids.
.NET Web Forms / JSF is about?
Isn't that what
> I'd have to say that most of the Daily Show watchers are also fairly well informed, otherwise they wouldn't understand the majority of the jokes.
o litics/
Actually Daily Show viewers are the most informed in this study.
'Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz
Survey reveals late-night TV viewers better informed
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.p
John's take on this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pTIpqAV82ng
> Let's take a look at some of the functions in stdio.h: "fputs", "getw", "scanf", "tmpnam", "ungetc".
_ timeline#1990s
> They're unpronouncable, hard to remember, and syntax completion won't do you any good unless it also shows a short description of what these functions actually do.
The standard library of C is small. Small enough to easily remember everyone of the functions. For such a case, it is actually desirable to have short names. That is usually not the case with Java.
> To a programmer who's unexperienced in C/C++, these names don't give the slightest clue as to what these functions are good for.
C was never meant to be used by the inexperienced for casual purposes. They are more appropriate languages for that.
>> Sure, it's verbose, but syntax completion and a decent resolution on your monitor practically negate that problem. The added clarity more than makes up for it.
>No. They don't. "Syntax completion" helps me write code, not read it.
Verbosity != Clarity
Here is the dictionary meaning of Verbose
Verbosity: long-winded: using or containing too many words
> Let's not be pedantic over definitions please. You know what I meant with "verbose", which is that identifiers are descriptive and thus tend to be long. That helps when reading code, but is a pain when writing it, unless you have syntax completion.
I am not being pedantic. You and I have very different understanding of the word "verbose" and it is important to have a common accepted definition rather than subjective interpretations of it. For me, it means "redundant". For you, it means "descriptive".
Using tell-tale identifiers and profuse comments is not my idea of verbose. That's good. Nor does it have anything to do with language design. It is a matter of how it is used by specific programmers. C programmers use descriptive identifiers too. Take a look at GTK for example. Here is one. gtk_button_new_with_label. I am not going to call the language verbose for that descriptive name.
> That is just utter nonsense. Java wasn't designed for the least common denominator, it was designed to be clean.
Adopting C++ syntax to avoid syntax shock.
Stripping down useful features like generics (and eventually realizing the folly).
"Protecting" programmers with checked exceptions.
Clean means something else. It implies consistancy. I don't disagree. Java was largely consistant.
Sun resisted adding features till they were challenged by C#. Till then the response was "You don't need that feature. you can get around that limitation by this (long wound) approach".
>Java was released in 1995. Is Java better than C++? Maybe. Depends on how you look at it. But Java was a step backwards in every way compared to any serious language released from around that time onwards.
> That is just an opinion. And one that you don't even provide arguments in favor of, at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language
Humor me. Baring special purpose languages and language updates, which general purpose languages do you think are worse off than Java by features.
>> Disclaimer: YMMV, and yes, I do know that you can use verbose identifiers in C/C++. That doesn't help much if nobody else does so.
>I think you are confusing language features vs language culture. Language culture has more to do with it's application. Business logic obviously will be written quite differently than bit twiddling.
> I would call the standard libraries an important feature (positive or negative) of any language.
I wasn't talking about standard libraries anywhere there.
> Both the CLR and JVM are written in C, so I guess you're saying there's no advantage at all?
Just about every language is written in C at some point. That's not the point. When you code in a CLR implemented language, you have straight forward access to libraries targetting CLR as you do with C wrapped libraries with CPython. Yes, you can access libraries from any platform from any platform through some interop mechanism but the principle reason why people implement a language over popular managed environments is to gain access to their respective code base and provide a scripting option for that platform. It is rarely for performance reasons. Likewise, most of the time C wrappers are created for your favorite dynamic language, it is not for performance reasons but rather to gain access to the codebase. Performance gains in this case is merely incidental.
> Please spare me the dreaded Jim Hugunin quote, it doesn't matter how many times it's copied and pasted into a discussion, it's still only an opinion.
In case you haven't noticed, most the programming language talk is opinion. We care about it here because it is expert opinion. Jim Hugunin is the implementor of a very popular language on two of the most popular VMs. His opinion counts. I will listen to your opinion too when you...
1. Stop being an AC.
2. Actually provide arguments why these platforms are not good for dynamic languages.
3. Show experience with language implementation either academically or in practice and prove that you are just as credible.
> Ruby (which is slow as molasses)
But here you demonstrate complete lack of understanding on why dynamic languages are chosen at all. The execution speed of dynamic languages is largely irrelevant. They would still be useful even if they were an order of magnitude slower than in their current implementations.
> Another big advantage is the fact that java identifiers (variable/procedure/class/etc. names) actually make sense.
???
> Sure, it's verbose, but syntax completion and a decent resolution on your monitor practically negate that problem. The added clarity more than makes up for it.
No. They don't. "Syntax completion" helps me write code, not read it.
Verbosity != Clarity
Here is the dictionary meaning of Verbose
Verbosity: long-winded: using or containing too many words
Java is verbose because it lacks features that ought to be there in modern languages in the first place to properly express the logic at the appropriate level of abstraction. And that is by design. It was intentionally created for the least common denominator - initially for web monkeys (applet rage) and later for cheap commodity coders for the the enterprise (J2EE craze). Of course, I am not belittling Java coders. Smart people do work with Java. And there are other reasons for it than the language - more jobs, critical mass advantage etc.
Java was released in 1995. Is Java better than C++? Maybe. Depends on how you look at it. But Java was a step backwards in every way compared to any serious language released from around that time onwards.
> Disclaimer: YMMV, and yes, I do know that you can use verbose identifiers in C/C++. That doesn't help much if nobody else does so.
I think you are confusing language features vs language culture. Language culture has more to do with it's application. Business logic obviously will be written quite differently than bit twiddling.
> However, I don't understand the technical advantage of these dynamic languages being ported to runtimes designed to host static languages.
.NET is a terrible platform for dynamic languages". My plans changed when I found the CLR to be an excellent target for the highly dynamic Python language. Since then I've spent much of my spare time working on the development of IronPython."
The "technical advantage" is the more or less same as implementing them over the more common "C platform".
"It was a little less than a year ago that I first started investigating the Common Language Runtime (CLR). My plan was to do a little work and then write a short pithy article called, "Why
- Jim Hugunin (primary author of IronPython and Jython)