You may not have noticed, but a good amount of the things any decent programming will do normally are design patterns. Just because you didn't write a block of code and say to yourself, "it looks like I am using the visitor pattern!" does not mean you aren't already using design patterns. Last time I checked, many core libraries in several languages comes to mind. The Visitor Pattern as I mentioned is the basis of many Smalltalk methods in the standard libraries in just about every flavor. Have fun writing an interpreter or playing back a series of commands/undo list without design patterns. How do you propose to solve some of the glorious C/C++ pointer issues without things like double-dispatch?
It seems to me you are likely one of those people who is bitter that some stupid co-worker decided that every connection known to man must be created using something like the factory pattern. There is a lot more to patterns than cutting and pasting. The reason they work is because they are object-oriented. A good majority of design patterns existed long before Java as well, so are you saying that all languages that use design patterns suck?
It seems like you have some buried desire to work in a procedural language rather than an object-oriented one.
Where to start...
I'm no fan of Java, in fact I'd wager to say it's one of my least favorite languages, but it does have its strengths. As a typed language, it's pretty good considering the options. Many of the existing and older libraries might suck, but most major things have since been corrected or there is a better 3rd party library available.
There is pretty much no reason to ever use multiple inheritance. Many languages such as Smalltalk are far more expressive and OO than C++, Ruby, and Java and have never needed it. Multiple inheritance is an anti-pattern. You can achieve the same results with simple code.
Mixins are a Ruby feature and are not needed either. It is a crutch for a poorly designed language. Mind you I like Ruby and use it daily, but it's still very immature and has serious problems.
Functional properties? Why do you need these? They are sugar at best. It's an inconvenience but hardly something that cripples the language.
Operator overloading? Why would you want to do this 99.9% of the time. C style languages proved this was a bad idea. True, there are some mathematical cases where it is incredibly useful, but in that case I think you made the wrong choice using something like Java anyway if you're dealing with most of the things that require this feature.
It seems to me you hate Java because it is a typed language. I too hate typed languages but they have their place and uses. Like anything, you pick the best tool for the job. C# has a lot of what you want but I think if you tried to use it, you'd still complain, Microsoft hate aside. The fact that you propose that Python is a great fix is laughable. I love Python as well but the language has almost as many serious issues as Ruby. Just ask google and the numerous mods they've made to things internally. Much of the language is confused and disorganized, but thankfully many of these things have been fixed in the past few years. Python is an incredibly bad tool for certain things. Threading comes to mind as a major issue in Python *STILL*.
Why is it that whenever anyone bashes a language, they suggest some other language is the panacea? Further, why does everyone forget some of the older, better architected, and well-tested languages such as Lisp and Smalltalk? It seems if it doesn't have a wiz-bang framework attached and you actually have to lift a finger to code anything, it's no good. That argument isn't even valid anymore with Smalltalk given the emergence of Seaside.
If you think Java sucks and Python is so elegant, try Smalltalk in particular. Look through the standard libraries. You will rarely find any method over 5 lines and everything is built on decades of computer science knowledge, design patterns, and object-orientation. It makes Python's libraries look like filth. The same can be said for Lisp and the myriad of functional programming languages out there as well (albeit they are for a different task).
21,770 stupid people
1,758 stupider people
Countdown until years from now, consumers allege that HD DVD should have won the format wars begins....now. "What ifsters" rejoice....
It's bad enough to say Java, C#, and C++ are object oriented. It is a crime to say the same thing about PHP. This is book is yet more firewood.
When I interview someone and they say they are a PHP programmer, it's usually a "thanks, we'll be in touch." It is today's equivalent of ASP or VB (classic) programmer. As an aside, anyone who considers themselves a "insert language programmer" (like many here) needs to find a new career. Any decent programmer should be able to work in any language to do the job. There's no excuse anymore for not learning at least 3 languages. If you work on real systems, it's tough to get by not knowing at least more than one anyway.
Try picking up Smalltalk or Lisp and getting a taste what a real OO language can do. I recommend any of the Smalltalk books by Kent Beck as a good start. Smalltalk (also Lisp and others) is infinitely more stable and better designed than PHP. It also has its own development environments that are amazing and integrate perfectly. Most other languages are about 20+ years behind. It never ceases to amaze me how all the Ruby zombies especially have no idea what a pale imitation the language is and what insane syntax it uses vs. Smalltalk. C# is perhaps worse as it tries to mimic Java, C++, and now Smalltalk (predicates, lambda expressions, anonymous functions). It just goes to show you what is popular is not what is better. All the people that use that as justification I am sure would have made Hitler a very happy man and never owned a beta VCR.
-1? I guess you guys don't know much about girls then, eh? I hate Microsoft, a beowulf cluster with spotting, is that funnier? A guy can't make a joke around here anymore unless you want -99 from Bob with the fat gut with his boxen down in IT? Burn karma.
I agree with you somewhat, but disagree on the webservices issue.
Maybe if there's a huge overhaul with browsers, http, TCP/IP, and webservices, that might work. Have you ever tried writing lots of web services, particularly for demanding apps? It's terribly slow, bug ridden, and a headache to debug. I can't see developers jumping to something that barely works right now for a simple hello world. What about differences in browsers? Isn't it hard enough to write javascript and css that works cross-browsers? People want stability, consistency, and speed. They'll take that on any platform if you give them enough apps that make their workplace a better place, but the browser is the wrong tool for that.
I've written some performant, nice web services for clients, but for anything real-time with load time considerations this doesn't work too well with the technology we have today. The amount of effort that goes into just calling a handful of functions, serializing some data, sending it back and forth with proper encoding, worrying about marshalling, etc makes web services unrealistic for anything but small apps. This just won't cut it for a power app. Java was supposed to be the platform panacea for deelopers and look how that has turned out.
If I'm saying this and I write a lot of web services even when not mandated to do so (I like the idea of a thin and thick client for business apps), how is anyone else going to buy into this? I hate MS as much as the next guy, but they don't do everything wrong. You are correct saying that want you to use their webservices, but that's mainyl because they want you to become a.NET developer. It's actually not such a bad thing, I have to say that I love it but I would rather write.NET stuff on UNIX (thank you for mono).
No, you still misunderstand. Again, probably from bad writing on my part. I am saying as a result of people using overlapping functionality, load time increases. If you use an extra namespace, load time will increase. Period. Not sure why we are debating this.
Java's free, so feel welcome to apply for those jobs asking for 25 years of Java experience. Don't you love HR. You might as well send electronic resumes with nothing but keywords and no real content if you want to even get a call for an interview.
FYI, you do know that even in Microsoft's own documentation recommends using C# instead of SQL. The aim is not to lock you in but to help you with some tasks that were often obnoxious in SQL 2000. For example, if you need a job to run and email something out dynamically, you could use C# w/ SQL 2005's own mail services to help you instead of having to write a windows service or something that might be overkill for a small task. Behold:
Even without CLR support, it is important to recognize that database applications should use the declarative query language as much as possible. This portion of the language is able to leverage the power of the query processor, which is best able to optimize and perform bulk operations. Database applications should only resort to procedural programming to express logic that cannot be expressed within the query language.
I've used MySQL, PostGRE, SQL 2000/2005, Informix, DB2, and Oracle 6-10 all in PRODUCTION situations. For anything but a personal website, I do hope you are joking. Repeat after me....MySQL is a good DB, but not an enterprise DB.
FYI, there are some benchmarks out where SQL 2005 even beats Oracle 10 in tests. MySQL wouldn't even make it on the graph, sorry. You obviously have not done enterprise development, administration, and deployment of databases. I appreciate MySQL but it has its purpose. I'm not going to list all the features in SQL 2005 that aren't in MySQL because I'd be here 1/2 the day. A simple example is the query engine. SQL Server has a highly optimized query engine that generates execution plans with sophisticated caching, MySQL doesn't even come close. Don't get me started about join performance, constraints, indexed views, etc.
There are other studies where the Darts win with larger sample sizes. Should I spend more time hunting them down for you since you refuse to believe basic financial theory. Go to any Finance 101 class and learn something instead of mouthing off at someone that was actually agreeing with you and adding to your discussion.
You seem to be quite hostile to concepts from basic finance.
It does not show the analysts picks were bad. It shows that you cannot reliably pick good stocks despite your skill. All these techniques we have are often rendered useless and irrelevant by the way the market reacts.
My point was that price is typically dictated by perceived value. You just reiterated the point of the analyses I mentioned, which is to compare the market price with your projection for the future market price. I can definitely price almost any stock in favor or against any of my predictions, even with justification. This is why you'll often see 3 big firms saying different things. They all have their own case, but no one really knows what is going to happen. You look like a great analyst if you prediction is good, a dog if it is way off. There is no way to predict a stock price, but there are ways to perhaps statistically increase your chances of picking better on AVERAGE, hence an analysis of future price.
If you want a source, please pickup just about any finance textbook written in the past 20 years. The source = Wall Street Journal. Alternatively, I can search for my old graduate thesis in finance that has some good examples related to forecasting. I suggest you do some reading from an old profession of mine at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/.
The stock market has always been about perceived value. An important component to this that most seem to be missing is that it is perceived value in the future. Unfortunately, personal investors seem to invest in what is commonly hot today, not looking closely enough at growth. Firms on the other hand tend towards the future, but end up be tempted by hype and here and now just like the personal investor. It's a lot of chaos all lumped together.
This is why there have been companies that actually have been profitable and doing quite well, but have a falling stock price. Commonly, hype creates situations where the perceived value is incorrectly evaluated and a bloated price is produced. Trying to forecast a stock price in the future is a key function of financial firms. A good analyst will price a stock by looking at the company's past, present, and future and then formulate a price accordingly based on the evidence in financials, press releases, etc. These analyses often contribute to driving the market to bubble or bust in a variety of ways, for example creating an era of good feelings in a given industry.
It is important to note that a proper analysis justifies each step with writeup and calculations. For example, I might believe nVidia's stock price will rise because every year they have gained x% of market share and with a new production acquisition, the increased capacity will translate into more revenue. I must provide evidence and forecasts to include this component in the future stock price.
Unfortunately, this type of analysis is time consuming and expensive and as a result, people cut corners and release shoddy work that many people take in as cannon. Such mistakes contribute to bubbles, combined with the reality that analysis is not perfect.
Remember the stock market is NOT by any stretch of the imagination and perfect. Investor panic, world events, etc can dramatically change prices far above or below their actual value, which is why perceived value matters so much. A good illustration of how unpredictable things can be is that every year the wall street journal used to (not sure if now) ask some of the best minds in wallstreet to pick stocks. After 1 year, they would compare the hot shot picks with stocks that were selected by throwing darts at the financial page. The darts won consistently, about 52-60% of the time on average. This concept of chaos I am referring to is also called "Random Walk."
Unfortunately I think you misunderstood my first comment so you also need to get a clue with all due respect. Perhaps I should have been more clear.
Namespace 1: used all over Namespace 2: 1 function call that could be substituted with call in namespace for function 1.
This commonly props up when using 3rd party library. 3rd party library contains all you need, but then person decides to add yet another import to call something they didn't realize was in 3rd party library. result-> bloat -> load time.
I don't think he would have been depressed about his name being in there. It's just all the "unreleased" material. He was the Tupac of the ancient world.
I think the article is making a pretty bold claim. Most of these situations tend to resolve themselves eventually and something as trivial as a website doesn't cause death. This reminds me of the days when a major local warez bbs got busted and the scene was declared "dead." Yeah right.
What especially strikes me is about the part "webmasters who rely on open source design." If you're a real designer, you shouldn't have to rely on anything like this except your own talent. Things like this site are certainly a great help and can speed things along, but I do not see how anyone can attach "designer" to their name and then feel the world is over when a website they use is down. Furthermore, there are other websites out there that may be smaller, but do a good job catering to this audience.
Forgive my ignorance, but design sites were around before this site and will be after. Apparently their design didn't accomodate actually hosting content reliably -- perhaps that should be included in their next template.
I speed up my java load times by using this tecnique that I like to call C++.
On a more serious note, one of the problems with load times I have noticed in a lot of Java is that people unnecessarily include namespaces where they don't need/use them. Sometimes there's no reason to go into another library when there's an equivalent function in one you're already using and there's certainly no need to reference things you don't use. That also creates a design problem in addition to the performance issue IMO because although it's not hurting too bad, it's a violation of least privilege.
This post reminds me of some other related problems that occur in other languages both design and performance related. Although the issue with.NET is somewhat different, the design part is still the same. It gets worse in VB.NET (please don't start flaming) where people can have project level imports. It even bothered me in C++ when someone would lets say remove functionality but leave all the imports/#define behind. Today I came accross this problem in ASP.NET an webpage:
While I agree that MS is not an entirely healthy copany, you statements are not entirely correct. Please check your facts and actually involve yourself in MS's business. MSFT makes money in a lot of markets. What about XBox, Development tools/languages, Databases, Training, and Consulting. Maybe these don't count because this is Slashdot.
You are right however in saying that Windows and Office are cash cows. MS however has services to match its products and a lot of money comes in via this pipe, ex: Microsoft Federal.
SELECT DISTINCT is often very slow. On a lot of systems it will bring back ALL the results, then filter them. This is often terribly slow vs. joining results out on a well designed database.
Oracle also has syntax for essentially putting together a stored hierarchy, but does not bring it back as a hierarchy. You can essentially glue it together into a flat result set and query over n levels of the hierarchy.
I would say though that it is not particularly useful on the front-end to have a hierarchy as your results. What data structure would you store this as? Even if you create a hierarchial data structure, they aren't particularly efficient and don't warrant themselves well to direct display on a webpage without some work anyway.
I would say the major issue for me is a standard way amongst almost all databases to query n levels deep in a hierarchy and bring back the results flat with the depth level and/or parent/child without me having to store all this info in the DB or do expensive queries to produce the results. No, recursive queries are terrible and not the answer and don't dare use a cursor.
There are plenty of bad coders to go around in any language. More languages, better for Linux.
I will say in defense of VB programmers that VB.NET and C# differ very little in what you can accomplish and the syntax isn't that far apart. VB.NET is not cripplewear and full of bad practices like VB 6. Any VB.NET programmer should be able to write C# and vice versa. C# is a great language, anyone who uses it professionally can attest. Whether you like the.NET framework is another story, but both languages are good for Linux.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of VB.NET programmers that try to write in the 6.0 style. I thought they should have completely renamed the language somehow because it's so different. Backward compatibility is the culprit in this case. Aren't there a lot of bad C++ programmers out there (I have some bad C++ code open right now!).
Slashdot Mirror
You may not have noticed, but a good amount of the things any decent programming will do normally are design patterns. Just because you didn't write a block of code and say to yourself, "it looks like I am using the visitor pattern!" does not mean you aren't already using design patterns. Last time I checked, many core libraries in several languages comes to mind. The Visitor Pattern as I mentioned is the basis of many Smalltalk methods in the standard libraries in just about every flavor. Have fun writing an interpreter or playing back a series of commands/undo list without design patterns. How do you propose to solve some of the glorious C/C++ pointer issues without things like double-dispatch? It seems to me you are likely one of those people who is bitter that some stupid co-worker decided that every connection known to man must be created using something like the factory pattern. There is a lot more to patterns than cutting and pasting. The reason they work is because they are object-oriented. A good majority of design patterns existed long before Java as well, so are you saying that all languages that use design patterns suck? It seems like you have some buried desire to work in a procedural language rather than an object-oriented one.
Where to start... I'm no fan of Java, in fact I'd wager to say it's one of my least favorite languages, but it does have its strengths. As a typed language, it's pretty good considering the options. Many of the existing and older libraries might suck, but most major things have since been corrected or there is a better 3rd party library available. There is pretty much no reason to ever use multiple inheritance. Many languages such as Smalltalk are far more expressive and OO than C++, Ruby, and Java and have never needed it. Multiple inheritance is an anti-pattern. You can achieve the same results with simple code. Mixins are a Ruby feature and are not needed either. It is a crutch for a poorly designed language. Mind you I like Ruby and use it daily, but it's still very immature and has serious problems. Functional properties? Why do you need these? They are sugar at best. It's an inconvenience but hardly something that cripples the language. Operator overloading? Why would you want to do this 99.9% of the time. C style languages proved this was a bad idea. True, there are some mathematical cases where it is incredibly useful, but in that case I think you made the wrong choice using something like Java anyway if you're dealing with most of the things that require this feature. It seems to me you hate Java because it is a typed language. I too hate typed languages but they have their place and uses. Like anything, you pick the best tool for the job. C# has a lot of what you want but I think if you tried to use it, you'd still complain, Microsoft hate aside. The fact that you propose that Python is a great fix is laughable. I love Python as well but the language has almost as many serious issues as Ruby. Just ask google and the numerous mods they've made to things internally. Much of the language is confused and disorganized, but thankfully many of these things have been fixed in the past few years. Python is an incredibly bad tool for certain things. Threading comes to mind as a major issue in Python *STILL*. Why is it that whenever anyone bashes a language, they suggest some other language is the panacea? Further, why does everyone forget some of the older, better architected, and well-tested languages such as Lisp and Smalltalk? It seems if it doesn't have a wiz-bang framework attached and you actually have to lift a finger to code anything, it's no good. That argument isn't even valid anymore with Smalltalk given the emergence of Seaside. If you think Java sucks and Python is so elegant, try Smalltalk in particular. Look through the standard libraries. You will rarely find any method over 5 lines and everything is built on decades of computer science knowledge, design patterns, and object-orientation. It makes Python's libraries look like filth. The same can be said for Lisp and the myriad of functional programming languages out there as well (albeit they are for a different task).
21,770 stupid people 1,758 stupider people Countdown until years from now, consumers allege that HD DVD should have won the format wars begins....now. "What ifsters" rejoice....
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
It's bad enough to say Java, C#, and C++ are object oriented. It is a crime to say the same thing about PHP. This is book is yet more firewood. When I interview someone and they say they are a PHP programmer, it's usually a "thanks, we'll be in touch." It is today's equivalent of ASP or VB (classic) programmer. As an aside, anyone who considers themselves a "insert language programmer" (like many here) needs to find a new career. Any decent programmer should be able to work in any language to do the job. There's no excuse anymore for not learning at least 3 languages. If you work on real systems, it's tough to get by not knowing at least more than one anyway. Try picking up Smalltalk or Lisp and getting a taste what a real OO language can do. I recommend any of the Smalltalk books by Kent Beck as a good start. Smalltalk (also Lisp and others) is infinitely more stable and better designed than PHP. It also has its own development environments that are amazing and integrate perfectly. Most other languages are about 20+ years behind. It never ceases to amaze me how all the Ruby zombies especially have no idea what a pale imitation the language is and what insane syntax it uses vs. Smalltalk. C# is perhaps worse as it tries to mimic Java, C++, and now Smalltalk (predicates, lambda expressions, anonymous functions). It just goes to show you what is popular is not what is better. All the people that use that as justification I am sure would have made Hitler a very happy man and never owned a beta VCR.
-1? I guess you guys don't know much about girls then, eh? I hate Microsoft, a beowulf cluster with spotting, is that funnier? A guy can't make a joke around here anymore unless you want -99 from Bob with the fat gut with his boxen down in IT? Burn karma.
I agree with you somewhat, but disagree on the webservices issue.
.NET developer. It's actually not such a bad thing, I have to say that I love it but I would rather write .NET stuff on UNIX (thank you for mono).
Maybe if there's a huge overhaul with browsers, http, TCP/IP, and webservices, that might work. Have you ever tried writing lots of web services, particularly for demanding apps? It's terribly slow, bug ridden, and a headache to debug. I can't see developers jumping to something that barely works right now for a simple hello world. What about differences in browsers? Isn't it hard enough to write javascript and css that works cross-browsers? People want stability, consistency, and speed. They'll take that on any platform if you give them enough apps that make their workplace a better place, but the browser is the wrong tool for that.
I've written some performant, nice web services for clients, but for anything real-time with load time considerations this doesn't work too well with the technology we have today. The amount of effort that goes into just calling a handful of functions, serializing some data, sending it back and forth with proper encoding, worrying about marshalling, etc makes web services unrealistic for anything but small apps. This just won't cut it for a power app. Java was supposed to be the platform panacea for deelopers and look how that has turned out.
If I'm saying this and I write a lot of web services even when not mandated to do so (I like the idea of a thin and thick client for business apps), how is anyone else going to buy into this? I hate MS as much as the next guy, but they don't do everything wrong. You are correct saying that want you to use their webservices, but that's mainyl because they want you to become a
Could we pick a better term than spotting? It sounds like a feminine hygene product.
No, you still misunderstand. Again, probably from bad writing on my part. I am saying as a result of people using overlapping functionality, load time increases. If you use an extra namespace, load time will increase. Period. Not sure why we are debating this.
Java's free, so feel welcome to apply for those jobs asking for 25 years of Java experience. Don't you love HR. You might as well send electronic resumes with nothing but keywords and no real content if you want to even get a call for an interview.
LIMIT is not very efficient either in comparrison to writing some decent T-SQL.
In fact, here's about a bazillion ways to do it easy
FYI, you do know that even in Microsoft's own documentation recommends using C# instead of SQL. The aim is not to lock you in but to help you with some tasks that were often obnoxious in SQL 2000. For example, if you need a job to run and email something out dynamically, you could use C# w/ SQL 2005's own mail services to help you instead of having to write a windows service or something that might be overkill for a small task. Behold:
Even without CLR support, it is important to recognize that database applications should use the declarative query language as much as possible. This portion of the language is able to leverage the power of the query processor, which is best able to optimize and perform bulk operations. Database applications should only resort to procedural programming to express logic that cannot be expressed within the query language.
Straight from the beast
How is the parent modded to interesting?
I've used MySQL, PostGRE, SQL 2000/2005, Informix, DB2, and Oracle 6-10 all in PRODUCTION situations. For anything but a personal website, I do hope you are joking. Repeat after me....MySQL is a good DB, but not an enterprise DB.
FYI, there are some benchmarks out where SQL 2005 even beats Oracle 10 in tests. MySQL wouldn't even make it on the graph, sorry. You obviously have not done enterprise development, administration, and deployment of databases. I appreciate MySQL but it has its purpose. I'm not going to list all the features in SQL 2005 that aren't in MySQL because I'd be here 1/2 the day. A simple example is the query engine. SQL Server has a highly optimized query engine that generates execution plans with sophisticated caching, MySQL doesn't even come close. Don't get me started about join performance, constraints, indexed views, etc.
There are other studies where the Darts win with larger sample sizes. Should I spend more time hunting them down for you since you refuse to believe basic financial theory. Go to any Finance 101 class and learn something instead of mouthing off at someone that was actually agreeing with you and adding to your discussion.
You seem to be quite hostile to concepts from basic finance.
It does not show the analysts picks were bad. It shows that you cannot reliably pick good stocks despite your skill. All these techniques we have are often rendered useless and irrelevant by the way the market reacts.
My point was that price is typically dictated by perceived value. You just reiterated the point of the analyses I mentioned, which is to compare the market price with your projection for the future market price. I can definitely price almost any stock in favor or against any of my predictions, even with justification. This is why you'll often see 3 big firms saying different things. They all have their own case, but no one really knows what is going to happen. You look like a great analyst if you prediction is good, a dog if it is way off. There is no way to predict a stock price, but there are ways to perhaps statistically increase your chances of picking better on AVERAGE, hence an analysis of future price.
If you want a source, please pickup just about any finance textbook written in the past 20 years. The source = Wall Street Journal. Alternatively, I can search for my old graduate thesis in finance that has some good examples related to forecasting. I suggest you do some reading from an old profession of mine at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/.
Darts can be found at http://www.investorhome.com/darts.htm
The stock market has always been about perceived value. An important component to this that most seem to be missing is that it is perceived value in the future. Unfortunately, personal investors seem to invest in what is commonly hot today, not looking closely enough at growth. Firms on the other hand tend towards the future, but end up be tempted by hype and here and now just like the personal investor. It's a lot of chaos all lumped together. This is why there have been companies that actually have been profitable and doing quite well, but have a falling stock price. Commonly, hype creates situations where the perceived value is incorrectly evaluated and a bloated price is produced. Trying to forecast a stock price in the future is a key function of financial firms. A good analyst will price a stock by looking at the company's past, present, and future and then formulate a price accordingly based on the evidence in financials, press releases, etc. These analyses often contribute to driving the market to bubble or bust in a variety of ways, for example creating an era of good feelings in a given industry. It is important to note that a proper analysis justifies each step with writeup and calculations. For example, I might believe nVidia's stock price will rise because every year they have gained x% of market share and with a new production acquisition, the increased capacity will translate into more revenue. I must provide evidence and forecasts to include this component in the future stock price. Unfortunately, this type of analysis is time consuming and expensive and as a result, people cut corners and release shoddy work that many people take in as cannon. Such mistakes contribute to bubbles, combined with the reality that analysis is not perfect. Remember the stock market is NOT by any stretch of the imagination and perfect. Investor panic, world events, etc can dramatically change prices far above or below their actual value, which is why perceived value matters so much. A good illustration of how unpredictable things can be is that every year the wall street journal used to (not sure if now) ask some of the best minds in wallstreet to pick stocks. After 1 year, they would compare the hot shot picks with stocks that were selected by throwing darts at the financial page. The darts won consistently, about 52-60% of the time on average. This concept of chaos I am referring to is also called "Random Walk."
Unfortunately I think you misunderstood my first comment so you also need to get a clue with all due respect. Perhaps I should have been more clear.
Namespace 1: used all over
Namespace 2: 1 function call that could be substituted with call in namespace for function 1.
This commonly props up when using 3rd party library. 3rd party library contains all you need, but then person decides to add yet another import to call something they didn't realize was in 3rd party library. result-> bloat -> load time.
I don't think he would have been depressed about his name being in there. It's just all the "unreleased" material. He was the Tupac of the ancient world.
I think the article is making a pretty bold claim. Most of these situations tend to resolve themselves eventually and something as trivial as a website doesn't cause death. This reminds me of the days when a major local warez bbs got busted and the scene was declared "dead." Yeah right.
What especially strikes me is about the part "webmasters who rely on open source design." If you're a real designer, you shouldn't have to rely on anything like this except your own talent. Things like this site are certainly a great help and can speed things along, but I do not see how anyone can attach "designer" to their name and then feel the world is over when a website they use is down. Furthermore, there are other websites out there that may be smaller, but do a good job catering to this audience.
Forgive my ignorance, but design sites were around before this site and will be after. Apparently their design didn't accomodate actually hosting content reliably -- perhaps that should be included in their next template.
I speed up my java load times by using this tecnique that I like to call C++.
.NET is somewhat different, the design part is still the same. It gets worse in VB.NET (please don't start flaming) where people can have project level imports. It even bothered me in C++ when someone would lets say remove functionality but leave all the imports/#define behind. Today I came accross this problem in ASP.NET an webpage:
On a more serious note, one of the problems with load times I have noticed in a lot of Java is that people unnecessarily include namespaces where they don't need/use them. Sometimes there's no reason to go into another library when there's an equivalent function in one you're already using and there's certainly no need to reference things you don't use. That also creates a design problem in addition to the performance issue IMO because although it's not hurting too bad, it's a violation of least privilege.
This post reminds me of some other related problems that occur in other languages both design and performance related. Although the issue with
imports System.Web.UI (only namespace used)
imports System.Text (not used!)
imports System.XML.Serialization (not used!)
imports System.Threading (not used!)
You mean you actually look at the keyboard when you type? Your 7th grade typing teacher would be most disappointed.
My similar low-tech solution is called Lite Brite. Turn on the magic of shining light!
While I agree that MS is not an entirely healthy copany, you statements are not entirely correct. Please check your facts and actually involve yourself in MS's business. MSFT makes money in a lot of markets. What about XBox, Development tools/languages, Databases, Training, and Consulting. Maybe these don't count because this is Slashdot. You are right however in saying that Windows and Office are cash cows. MS however has services to match its products and a lot of money comes in via this pipe, ex: Microsoft Federal.
SELECT DISTINCT is often very slow. On a lot of systems it will bring back ALL the results, then filter them. This is often terribly slow vs. joining results out on a well designed database.
Oracle also has syntax for essentially putting together a stored hierarchy, but does not bring it back as a hierarchy. You can essentially glue it together into a flat result set and query over n levels of the hierarchy.
I would say though that it is not particularly useful on the front-end to have a hierarchy as your results. What data structure would you store this as? Even if you create a hierarchial data structure, they aren't particularly efficient and don't warrant themselves well to direct display on a webpage without some work anyway.
I would say the major issue for me is a standard way amongst almost all databases to query n levels deep in a hierarchy and bring back the results flat with the depth level and/or parent/child without me having to store all this info in the DB or do expensive queries to produce the results. No, recursive queries are terrible and not the answer and don't dare use a cursor.
There are plenty of bad coders to go around in any language. More languages, better for Linux. I will say in defense of VB programmers that VB.NET and C# differ very little in what you can accomplish and the syntax isn't that far apart. VB.NET is not cripplewear and full of bad practices like VB 6. Any VB.NET programmer should be able to write C# and vice versa. C# is a great language, anyone who uses it professionally can attest. Whether you like the .NET framework is another story, but both languages are good for Linux.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of VB.NET programmers that try to write in the 6.0 style. I thought they should have completely renamed the language somehow because it's so different. Backward compatibility is the culprit in this case. Aren't there a lot of bad C++ programmers out there (I have some bad C++ code open right now!).