This simply BS of the highest degree. When large organisation investigate open source technologies, they do not interface with the likes of your run of the mill or guru linux developer. They use commercial interfaces, wearing suits and selling oss as enterprise solutions. If you goto CA and they set you up with Linux, you are really unlikely to see a pair of sandels. If you are using enterprise Linux and paying $$$ for a support contract, you are not going to interact with penguin wearing hackers. We are an articulate bunch and those that go off dealing with high profile clients on large projects are sensible enough to wear formal trousers and at the very least a shirt. If you're lucky, there might be a penguin tie. That was jest. In reality you'll see suits and hear enterprise buzz words. And whether the employee wears sandels or not is down to company policy. A lot of high caliber oss developers wear suits to work. Yeah, I missed the days when I'd wear my vectorised BSD daemon t-shirt, but you have to write an adapter or standardise to whatever API is expected in a given situation. We do with code and we do it with clothes. Obviously you can spot the geek with the short tie and belly bulging shirt who has just been to an interview, but in a couple of years he'll refine his interfacing skills or remain in the background. That said, the person interfacing with large institutions is probably barely technical and mostly good at selling stuff.
A well managed project can suceed with both substandard and Elite developers. One likes to think that good OSS should come from skilled software engineers - the Children of computer science. We are building in the realm of a formal decipline and it's a shame that more projects are not built on the basis of their designers academic training. Sure it will take 10 times as a long as it should and be 50% less fun, but a well spec'd, designed, delgated, tested and implemented project is more likely to offer stability and do away with a lot of the issues which you have raised.
Rather than knocking yourself as a coder, you should be celbrating yourself as an engineer and become an advocate for correcting the process flaws which you have pointed out.
I think that there is no reason why writing the application in C++ should imply that it will be unstable. I like the idea of decoupling your processes and personally write off the 'managed code' concept unless you're building for.net land. Make sure that the separation between your components makes sense, and as someone else has said, unless you need to, there's nothing to imply that your whole system should be in C++. As long as your centralise your core functionality and dependencies on flaky libraries in one place. I built an application a couple of years ago which exposed some C++ functionality over soap, using gsoap. This interacted with perl and java soap clients. I've also in the past written applications which monitor the state of applications deemed to be unstable and recover them in failure. Obviously, this should be something which runs whilst you're resolving your bugs and if you test and develop towards a clean release, you should never need it in production.
One thing which I loath is the sound of colleagues whining when asked to use a new technology or solution. There seems to be a mind-set out there that if you adopt the use of new technologies, you 'should' be sent on training. There is a mind-set which says that this is a must 'before' you start anything new.
I admire your efforts to self-study and run a family at the same time, however I'm not sure that anyone of us are owed specific training unless it's stated somewhere on our contracts. I like to dive in and learn, utilise and exploit new technologies. You gain skills from experience, and finding out how to implement the 'best' solutions. If you are 'able' to get training then you usually you learn enough to set yourself off on more self-study. I've never been on training which has enabled me to do anything more than continue to educate myself, if somewhat more efficiently.
Feel free to b!tch it out with your manager, but unless you want to make a stand, it's something which 'will' infringe on your time.
I got used to this mindset until I got myself a girlfriend and moved in with her. It's great, but there's obviously less time to lock myself away and geek out. That said, when I do have something important to get on with, I make a point of letting it enter into my own time. It's part of my work ethic. I enjoy what I do and would be doing it anyway, even if it wasn't my occupation - perhaps less due to the whole g/f thing. I'm not sure what my point is.. well it is that you should only let work over-run into your personal time when it's something which you feel is interesting enough. If not, leave it for the office and learn on the job. Your solutions and abilities will evolve in time, and those above won't care as long as whatever you're doing works; yet you may later feel some embarrassment regarding the mode of your solution. That said, if you make a point of implementing a clean, efficient and scalable solution, you can never really go wrong. You'll still feel embarrassment down the line, no matter how you implement it. If you don't, then you're not learning and that's bad.
I can empathise with you on this one. I went into my current role a super developer in what then looked like a professional atmosphere. I went from working in a world where people cared about what they did and work was an extension of the hobby, except you got paid. I now live in an environment where the priority of the day is socialising and quality code is engineered from a verbal spec, duplicating the behaviour of every other application on the system. I miss having peers to grow ideas with. Perhaps there are no geniuses. Only Gardeners. We nurture ideas, sometimes collectively. It's the evolution of these ideas which sometimes yields proud gardeners or geniuses. If there isn't enough nurturing, from one or more gardeners, the genius never appears. Or worse. The idea dwindles away and the gardener fails.
So let see? The MacBook comes out in February, yet in January they are still demo'ing a non-final prototype. Now, it's either me or it's rather worrying that they don't have a finalised model to demo one month before release. At the very least, they should have a proven and 'hammered' production to demonstrate a month prior to release. And really.. they shouldn't be making changes.. any changes..in that final month before roll-out, because that would leave you with a very small window in which to test and debug. I suppose the nano was initially a bit of "no-no," for the very same reason. I respect the engineers at Apple, but perhaps not so much in this particular case.
This is super. I work in finance, and figure that given the mess which is IT architecture and lack of development practices, we wouldn't be so huge if it wasn't for the alert and geeky traders below. I always saw it as a shame that where it matters most, the geek is suppressed until needed in a dire situation. The rest of the time it's the man in the suite with the head full of - well redundant grey matter - that manages to string lots of random 8859 letters together and place these into elementary sentences, which become policy, dictate and mind-less dogma. I think that the interviewee in the interview was just gob-smacked that he actually had to 'produce' sound, as opposed to conventional wisdom. I was refused a job at another bank, where the job was obviously mine, for being technically excellent but 'too' geeky. I LOVE the Google caste system and the second I can convince my other half ( oddly I have one ), to hop countries again, I'll be knocking on their ports.
I just get nervous and start feeling guilty if someone asks me a question. Especially if she's a female in uniform. With every honest answer, I feel like I'm lying and trying to convince the questioner otherwise. If the guy is himself an unaware victim with a filled cargo-hold, this will yield little.
Bad idea. I'm in favour of the millimeter wave solution, even though it might embarrass some people. It sees through your clothes - you know so that you can detect bits and pieces which shouldn't be there. I look forward to the wearable visor edition.
A typical transaction: Phone: Ring Ring Son: BEGIN TRANSACTION! Mum: Oh, hi dear. How have you been? Did you know that.. Son: *cough* Work, remember? Mum: Yes, dear. Son: WRITE_DOWN into notepad ADDRESSES. fname='John'. sname='Smith' Mum: Wait, i have to look up the next identity number thingie. Oooh, that's a big number, I can't even recite it. Son: Hush! address='12 Rover Roa.. Mum: Oh, dear. My pencil broke. Son: Ok, Roll back! Mum: That's fine for you to say. I don't have any erasers.
You don't really get to be one of the wealthiest men in the world by being a 'different person' outside of the office. You simply have to look at his early writing to see this.
As much as I despise him, I have to rate him as being someone for whom "it's more than just a job". Yes, I 'REALLY' do rate him for that. I hate 9-5'ers in IT. It's a domain for the passionate and I have no time for those who punch-clock. Unfortunately, all that work of his is built on a slushy foundation of dog poop.
Should I surprise you further? I actually rate MS higher than I rate the great overlord himself. MS Research, being a prime example of computational Mecca. I know MS guys, and I think that with a good shuffle up from all sides, a little revolution, some sound engineering and architectural practices and power-back-to-the-technologically-informed, you could have a pretty hot company, producing good software - and all without 'my' condemnation. It'll never happen. They have the talent pool; the only problem is that they are not utilising it.
That said, I still fart in the general direction of all things Windoze. You can't really be that high up the food chain and not expect to have cheap shots made at your expense. He does good philanthropic work (although it's expected for people in that income bracket), but his general attitude is just plain bad for the future of development, IT and the world in general.
I remember a company named Search Space, a couple of years ago. I was talking to someone who worked there and they were firing all sorts of random data into neural nets and all sorts of hybrid emergent learning engines. The goal - well it was to detect and learn patterns of user behaviour, categorising these into good/bad actions. You wonder though, with so much info out there on your search habits, perhaps we'd be able to do the same thing as hand-writing analysis. Let a guy google for ten minutes and then assess his nature.
User:Bill Gates Assessment:You are a power hungry, closed minded, egotistical b@stard. You ability to view the world without glasses which highlight you as the centre of all things is impaired. You goal is to dominate the world with substandard products. If it weren't for the legality of such things, you'd bomb the houses of every open source developer on the planet. You are also keen on donkies and young monkies dressed in bondage ware.
Jobs Selling Out?
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Is it me or is Steve Jobs morphing into some kind of Billie-the-Goats wannabe? He's rapidly moved from an idealist, visionary, out to make a better and more accessible world for the masses into a profiteer, who is out to appeal with the obvious.
I get the feeling that his return to Apple was 'sweet-as,' right up to the release of OS-X and the eventual world dominance of the i-pod. There after, it appears that his ethos for doing things 'best,' both technically and ergonomically have gone out the window. He's selling off the back of his brand and coming up with, praise worthy, but obvious pitches. I think the whole move to x86 and early release of the flaky nano are both good examples of power getting the better of him. The selling of Pixar is another pin in that cushion. Apple doesn't need to be Microsoft and Steve doesn't need to be Bill. In spite of this, he's gone from wanting to be a pioneer with standards to being a business man with greed in his eye.
We really need Woz to come back and shake him up a tad!
A developer's release will make it easy for people like myself to work on our own environments when our employers have forked out thousands for commercial licenses. The home ground for postgres and MySQL is really the smaller firm/academic institution where you really have to justify spending. Smaller software houses, code-shops and projects will still continue to gravitate towards MySQL and Postgres. The realm where ideology is still cost-effective will not change - and a good thing too.
I feel rather sorry for the rats. Do you think they dressed them up in suits, choked them with ties and shoved them into cubicles with tiny keyboards? It's just plain wrong. I'd hope that most would think twice before repeating the same experiment on human subjects.
I just succeeded in making governance people realise that Perl is in fact a language used for development and has long grown out of its early scripting days. I fight for advocacy wherever I work and always insist on there being an element of perl.
Why use Perl over other languages? Why not use both?
o Perl is a super/fast language for prototyping
o Perl is accessible to both lame-brains and software engineers.
o The language provides self-governed constructs for object orientation - yet in the fashion of all things perl - this can be violated to your hearts content.
o The idea of a large repository of re-usable components, all having to adhere to (moderately) high standards, is unique to Perl. CPAN, together with CPAN+, make reuse and dependency management a breeze.
o XS, Inline::* give perl developers the flexibility to easily integrate legacy/vendor libraries into perl applications.
o Perl's reg-exp engine is father of many modern day implementations and combined with the ease of the language makes an excellent tool for text processing
o SOAP::Lite makes for quick integration and prototyping of applications consuming data from web services
There is bad also (although point 2 above is not exactly al. that great). I have never worked in a place where a wannabe perl developer hadn't left a legacy of poorly written, bloated and suffocating code. I think that Larry Wall once compared Perl to English. He stated that in English an infant can communicate in the same language as a Professor of Linguistics. The only difference being the elegance with which they communicate their message. The same goes for Perl, but more so than other languages. To draw another similarity with linguistics, Perl has the danger of allowing newbies to code in in-coherent slang. As an emergent property of the language, they usually manage to get their message out - some of the time.
Use the right tool for the right job. It's not bad to be honest and admit that sometimes, or in many cases, perl, python, ruby, lisp or some other unfashionable language are suited to your solution. Or than once started the language will open itself up to us. In industry people argue that they have to focus on some industry saturated skill and utilise this for 'everything' - all for the sake of utilising their skills pool. I'm sure that a 'good' developer can utilise whatever technology she considers suited to the problem at hand. Especially with languages like Perl and Python. 10 minutes with a man page and she'll be building you your very own HAL.
It's the fastest tool I know for knocking 'just about anything' out 'very' quickly.
Arthur was a very early incarnation of RISC-OS. I remember pulling the ROMS out to upgrade. Since then RISC-OS has taken various incarnations and revisions, until Acorn went belly up and RISC-OS ltd. tried in vain to keep the OS alive.
The problem today is this:
The (desktop) hardware platform is pretty much dead - who uses strong arm outside of the embedded world? Who supports an embedded device using RISC-OS?
The OS is kept in the hands of supplier which does not have the clout to develop it further or realise that good old Acorn days are over. You can't even buy Acorn User anymore!
Making RISC-OS - or even an earlier incarnation free ( as in source ) is the only way to re-kindle what was probably the big-daddy of all OS's and keep its Mid-Life Crisis turning into an Early retirement. Give us the freedom to fork an early RISC-OS release and keep the OS alive. He needn't sacrifice their current liquidator-ware - but let us branch off from some earlier incarnation - no I'm not suggesting Arthur. There are a lot of good coders who had their start in the Acorn world - actually some of the best 'engineers' out there - and a lot of us would be interested in keeping the OS alive. I'm sure that, equally, a lot of other projects would be keen to learn and utilise concepts found in RISC-OS. An idea would be to port it to more current RISC based architectures - like my iBook.:) To start with, let's move it out of ROM-ware. RISC-OS ltd, seem to have some ideological notion that it should live in ROM for all time - let them do that with their own branch. Releasing the source is the only thing which can revive an OS which might dwindle away as closed off, forgotten, commoditised IP.
The Acorn spirt lives on. A great piece of a software can now have its source branched and ported to multiple platforms. For non-m$ products, this kind of life span is a sign of software quality. More choice is always a good thing. Hats off!
And the beauty here is that with the sources available, it is not just a linux version which is being made available, but they've also created the opportunity for the community to port Xara to multiple platforms.
So, I for one will bill busy trying to get it to build on my Acorn A4. Memories..:)
Ok, so it doesn't run with strict. -w will give you a bollocking. But:
$you == $::you == $main::foo
So the package name is reall implicity implied.
Agreed though. Most perl poetry is to perl and Larry what C/C++ is to C++ and Bjarne.
The problem is that many write perl code like poetry - bad poetry.
Slashdot Mirror
This simply BS of the highest degree. When large organisation investigate open source technologies, they do not interface with the likes of your run of the mill or guru linux developer. They use commercial interfaces, wearing suits and selling oss as enterprise solutions. If you goto CA and they set you up with Linux, you are really unlikely to see a pair of sandels. If you are using enterprise Linux and paying $$$ for a support contract, you are not going to interact with penguin wearing hackers. We are an articulate bunch and those that go off dealing with high profile clients on large projects are sensible enough to wear formal trousers and at the very least a shirt. If you're lucky, there might be a penguin tie. That was jest. In reality you'll see suits and hear enterprise buzz words. And whether the employee wears sandels or not is down to company policy. A lot of high caliber oss developers wear suits to work. Yeah, I missed the days when I'd wear my vectorised BSD daemon t-shirt, but you have to write an adapter or standardise to whatever API is expected in a given situation. We do with code and we do it with clothes. Obviously you can spot the geek with the short tie and belly bulging shirt who has just been to an interview, but in a couple of years he'll refine his interfacing skills or remain in the background. That said, the person interfacing with large institutions is probably barely technical and mostly good at selling stuff.
A well managed project can suceed with both substandard and Elite developers. One likes to think that good OSS should come from skilled software engineers - the Children of computer science. We are building in the realm of a formal decipline and it's a shame that more projects are not built on the basis of their designers academic training. Sure it will take 10 times as a long as it should and be 50% less fun, but a well spec'd, designed, delgated, tested and implemented project is more likely to offer stability and do away with a lot of the issues which you have raised. Rather than knocking yourself as a coder, you should be celbrating yourself as an engineer and become an advocate for correcting the process flaws which you have pointed out.
That's my 0.2 EU's.
I admire your efforts to self-study and run a family at the same time, however I'm not sure that anyone of us are owed specific training unless it's stated somewhere on our contracts. I like to dive in and learn, utilise and exploit new technologies. You gain skills from experience, and finding out how to implement the 'best' solutions. If you are 'able' to get training then you usually you learn enough to set yourself off on more self-study. I've never been on training which has enabled me to do anything more than continue to educate myself, if somewhat more efficiently.
Feel free to b!tch it out with your manager, but unless you want to make a stand, it's something which 'will' infringe on your time.
I got used to this mindset until I got myself a girlfriend and moved in with her. It's great, but there's obviously less time to lock myself away and geek out. That said, when I do have something important to get on with, I make a point of letting it enter into my own time. It's part of my work ethic. I enjoy what I do and would be doing it anyway, even if it wasn't my occupation - perhaps less due to the whole g/f thing. I'm not sure what my point is.. well it is that you should only let work over-run into your personal time when it's something which you feel is interesting enough. If not, leave it for the office and learn on the job. Your solutions and abilities will evolve in time, and those above won't care as long as whatever you're doing works; yet you may later feel some embarrassment regarding the mode of your solution. That said, if you make a point of implementing a clean, efficient and scalable solution, you can never really go wrong. You'll still feel embarrassment down the line, no matter how you implement it. If you don't, then you're not learning and that's bad.
Very incoherent.. but that's how I approach it
I can empathise with you on this one. I went into my current role a super developer in what then looked like a professional atmosphere. I went from working in a world where people cared about what they did and work was an extension of the hobby, except you got paid. I now live in an environment where the priority of the day is socialising and quality code is engineered from a verbal spec, duplicating the behaviour of every other application on the system. I miss having peers to grow ideas with. Perhaps there are no geniuses. Only Gardeners. We nurture ideas, sometimes collectively. It's the evolution of these ideas which sometimes yields proud gardeners or geniuses. If there isn't enough nurturing, from one or more gardeners, the genius never appears. Or worse. The idea dwindles away and the gardener fails.
So let see? The MacBook comes out in February, yet in January they are still demo'ing a non-final prototype. Now, it's either me or it's rather worrying that they don't have a finalised model to demo one month before release. At the very least, they should have a proven and 'hammered' production to demonstrate a month prior to release. And really.. they shouldn't be making changes.. any changes ..in that final month before roll-out, because that would leave you with a very small window in which to test and debug. I suppose the nano was initially a bit of "no-no," for the very same reason. I respect the engineers at Apple, but perhaps not so much in this particular case.
This is super. I work in finance, and figure that given the mess which is IT architecture and lack of development practices, we wouldn't be so huge if it wasn't for the alert and geeky traders below. I always saw it as a shame that where it matters most, the geek is suppressed until needed in a dire situation. The rest of the time it's the man in the suite with the head full of - well redundant grey matter - that manages to string lots of random 8859 letters together and place these into elementary sentences, which become policy, dictate and mind-less dogma. I think that the interviewee in the interview was just gob-smacked that he actually had to 'produce' sound, as opposed to conventional wisdom. I was refused a job at another bank, where the job was obviously mine, for being technically excellent but 'too' geeky. I LOVE the Google caste system and the second I can convince my other half ( oddly I have one ), to hop countries again, I'll be knocking on their ports.
Bad idea. I'm in favour of the millimeter wave solution, even though it might embarrass some people. It sees through your clothes - you know so that you can detect bits and pieces which shouldn't be there. I look forward to the wearable visor edition.
A typical transaction: ..
Phone: Ring Ring
Son: BEGIN TRANSACTION!
Mum: Oh, hi dear. How have you been? Did you know that
Son: *cough* Work, remember?
Mum: Yes, dear.
Son: WRITE_DOWN into notepad ADDRESSES. fname='John'. sname='Smith'
Mum: Wait, i have to look up the next identity number thingie. Oooh, that's a big number, I can't even recite it.
Son: Hush! address='12 Rover Roa..
Mum: Oh, dear. My pencil broke.
Son: Ok, Roll back!
Mum: That's fine for you to say. I don't have any erasers.
As much as I despise him, I have to rate him as being someone for whom "it's more than just a job". Yes, I 'REALLY' do rate him for that. I hate 9-5'ers in IT. It's a domain for the passionate and I have no time for those who punch-clock. Unfortunately, all that work of his is built on a slushy foundation of dog poop.
Should I surprise you further? I actually rate MS higher than I rate the great overlord himself. MS Research, being a prime example of computational Mecca. I know MS guys, and I think that with a good shuffle up from all sides, a little revolution, some sound engineering and architectural practices and power-back-to-the-technologically-informed, you could have a pretty hot company, producing good software - and all without 'my' condemnation. It'll never happen. They have the talent pool; the only problem is that they are not utilising it.
That said, I still fart in the general direction of all things Windoze. You can't really be that high up the food chain and not expect to have cheap shots made at your expense. He does good philanthropic work (although it's expected for people in that income bracket), but his general attitude is just plain bad for the future of development, IT and the world in general.
User:Bill Gates
Assessment:You are a power hungry, closed minded, egotistical b@stard. You ability to view the world without glasses which highlight you as the centre of all things is impaired. You goal is to dominate the world with substandard products. If it weren't for the legality of such things, you'd bomb the houses of every open source developer on the planet. You are also keen on donkies and young monkies dressed in bondage ware.
I always thought it resembled a noose.
I get the feeling that his return to Apple was 'sweet-as,' right up to the release of OS-X and the eventual world dominance of the i-pod. There after, it appears that his ethos for doing things 'best,' both technically and ergonomically have gone out the window. He's selling off the back of his brand and coming up with, praise worthy, but obvious pitches. I think the whole move to x86 and early release of the flaky nano are both good examples of power getting the better of him. The selling of Pixar is another pin in that cushion. Apple doesn't need to be Microsoft and Steve doesn't need to be Bill. In spite of this, he's gone from wanting to be a pioneer with standards to being a business man with greed in his eye.
We really need Woz to come back and shake him up a tad!
A developer's release will make it easy for people like myself to work on our own environments when our employers have forked out thousands for commercial licenses. The home ground for postgres and MySQL is really the smaller firm/academic institution where you really have to justify spending. Smaller software houses, code-shops and projects will still continue to gravitate towards MySQL and Postgres. The realm where ideology is still cost-effective will not change - and a good thing too.
I feel rather sorry for the rats. Do you think they dressed them up in suits, choked them with ties and shoved them into cubicles with tiny keyboards? It's just plain wrong. I'd hope that most would think twice before repeating the same experiment on human subjects.
Managers suck and we'd all be so much better off - and more advanced - without them!
Hmm. Why do I do perl? Because Perl is my B!tch!
I just succeeded in making governance people realise that Perl is in fact a language used for development and has long grown out of its early scripting days. I fight for advocacy wherever I work and always insist on there being an element of perl.
Why use Perl over other languages? Why not use both?
o Perl is a super/fast language for prototyping
o Perl is accessible to both lame-brains and software engineers.
o The language provides self-governed constructs for object orientation - yet in the fashion of all things perl - this can be violated to your hearts content.
o The idea of a large repository of re-usable components, all having to adhere to (moderately) high standards, is unique to Perl. CPAN, together with CPAN+, make reuse and dependency management a breeze.
o XS, Inline::* give perl developers the flexibility to easily integrate legacy/vendor libraries into perl applications.
o Perl's reg-exp engine is father of many modern day implementations and combined with the ease of the language makes an excellent tool for text processing
o SOAP::Lite makes for quick integration and prototyping of applications consuming data from web services
There is bad also (although point 2 above is not exactly al. that great). I have never worked in a place where a wannabe perl developer hadn't left a legacy of poorly written, bloated and suffocating code. I think that Larry Wall once compared Perl to English. He stated that in English an infant can communicate in the same language as a Professor of Linguistics. The only difference being the elegance with which they communicate their message. The same goes for Perl, but more so than other languages. To draw another similarity with linguistics, Perl has the danger of allowing newbies to code in in-coherent slang. As an emergent property of the language, they usually manage to get their message out - some of the time.
Use the right tool for the right job. It's not bad to be honest and admit that sometimes, or in many cases, perl, python, ruby, lisp or some other unfashionable language are suited to your solution. Or than once started the language will open itself up to us. In industry people argue that they have to focus on some industry saturated skill and utilise this for 'everything' - all for the sake of utilising their skills pool. I'm sure that a 'good' developer can utilise whatever technology she considers suited to the problem at hand. Especially with languages like Perl and Python. 10 minutes with a man page and she'll be building you your very own HAL.
It's the fastest tool I know for knocking 'just about anything' out 'very' quickly.
Hence the possibilities which can arrise from OSS'ing the OS.
The problem today is this:
Making RISC-OS - or even an earlier incarnation free ( as in source ) is the only way to re-kindle what was probably the big-daddy of all OS's and keep its Mid-Life Crisis turning into an Early retirement. Give us the freedom to fork an early RISC-OS release and keep the OS alive. He needn't sacrifice their current liquidator-ware - but let us branch off from some earlier incarnation - no I'm not suggesting Arthur. There are a lot of good coders who had their start in the Acorn world - actually some of the best 'engineers' out there - and a lot of us would be interested in keeping the OS alive. I'm sure that, equally, a lot of other projects would be keen to learn and utilise concepts found in RISC-OS. An idea would be to port it to more current RISC based architectures - like my iBook. :) To start with, let's move it out of ROM-ware. RISC-OS ltd, seem to have some ideological notion that it should live in ROM for all time - let them do that with their own branch. Releasing the source is the only thing which can revive an OS which might dwindle away as closed off, forgotten, commoditised IP.
The Acorn spirt lives on. A great piece of a software can now have its source branched and ported to multiple platforms. For non-m$ products, this kind of life span is a sign of software quality. More choice is always a good thing. Hats off!
So, I for one will bill busy trying to get it to build on my Acorn A4. Memories.. :)
$you == $::you == $main::foo
So the package name is reall implicity implied.
Agreed though. Most perl poetry is to perl and Larry what C/C++ is to C++ and Bjarne. The problem is that many write perl code like poetry - bad poetry.
for ($you=('like');open(LY,read('ing',$_,('perl')));){ do{};you();}
Wow. Understand for C++ looks awesome. Then I looked at the pricing. Hmm. Do you really think that a team of students will be able to afford this?
Hmm. I was sure I'd posted under the guy who joked that they had to improve their grammer..