"spoken like a true businessman. Let me know how happy you'll be when your job gets sent to India because coding has become so simple the cheapest of the unskilled can do it."
Oh my god, no, you called me a businessman! I'm deeply offended! No seriously, if the biggest insult you can come up with is that I'm basically someone who realises the reality of business then it shows you don't really have a point. More importantly, my job wont get sent to India precisely because I'm smart enough to stay ahead of the curve and not limit myself to one single language falsely believing it's the one, the saviour, the only language you would ever need.
"Those guys you libel are actually code professionals"
Monkeys, professionals, whatever, if they truly believe C++ is the be all and end all and the key for all development then they're shit whatever you prefer to call them.
"You'll see why the performance issues are an issue if you ever spoke to your users and saw them struggling"
Right, because I don't do that or anything. No seriously, it's another trait of a good developer- interacting with your users, and this is what's so utterly ironic about this comment- developers who stick to C++ for everything tend to be the same folks who don't really leave their desk to realise that their performance boosts in C++ haven't actually achieved any real world advantage over just getting the job done quicker, with greater stability, and greater security in another language.
"I've never really seen a decent Java application that didn't suck up RAM..."
Ah, you're one of those, those that doesn't understand that maximising RAM usage when there is free memory is a good thing because it means greater performance. You think it's good to just have lots of memory lying around unused not doing anything- tell me, why do you think you have RAM in your computer? Just for bragging rights about the amount of RAM you have or something?
"..., perform sluggishly, or scale dreadfully."
Right, I guess you never heard of eBay or Google, the former which uses Java pretty exclusively, the latter of much of whoms backend code is written in Java. I guess eBay and Google just never managed to scale well. Vuze is a decent example of a desktop application written in Java which performs just fine.
"but even then, I've seen the same kind of app written in PHP or Ruby or Perl that performs the same web-UI task just as well. That makes me think that you're right... the right tool for the job, and that's never going to be Java."
Which is quite amusing in the context of your previous comment about Java failing to scale- tell me, what language were they using at Facebook because it failed to scale? Oh yes, PHP. What language was Twitter using when it had an abundance of scalability issues in it's early days? Ah yes, RoR. If there's one thing Java does incredibly well, it's scale, and that's where it's really in it's prime- highly scalable server side applications.
The issue with script languages is that they truly are slow, if you don't understand the difference between such languages and JIT'd languages like Java and the.NET languages then there's your problem- you don't even understand the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue. You don't even seem aware in the slightest of numerous examples of managed code doing just fine, whether it's pretty muche very smartphone on the market today, or sites and services you probably used daily without even realising it from Google, eBay and Smartphones, to banking ATMs/sites, to stock control and checkout systems. All these things are often underpinned by Java. It's the single most used language in enterprise and has been for about the last 5 - 10 years with good reason.
I don't pretend there aren't a lot of skilled C++ developers out there, nor do I pretend Java is some be all and end all language. But in the world as it is now, Java is one of the better choices for much software development, just as C++ was 15 years ago, and I suspect
"That's not my experience at all, but its a few years since I was a full time C++ head."
How many is a few? If you haven't done it since the start of the last decade then maybe that's the problem, since at least the middle of the last decade Java has been easily capable of performing as well as most C++ apps.
"Standard java performs terribly because the whole culture encourages wasteful development"
This makes no sense, it enforces OO principles and has much more complete libraries as standard than C++. How is that in any way a culture that encourages wasteful development? That argument makes no sense.
"Games developers aren't developing in c++ for fun or even the cross platform issues, they're doing it because they want their games to compete with those put out by other companies."
This is completely wrong because they can compete with managed libraries too- as I've pointed out previously, some large studios have actually used XNA and C# for arcade games (MS has XNA extensions for full arcade developers). Really, C++ is used because a) there's already a massive code investment there and decades of libraries of C++ material, and b) all consoles support it. If you truly think things like.NET and Java aren't suitable for game development you've been out of the game far too long as there are plenty of published games using them. Also, if you haven't noticed, much of the current mobile phone revolution is using managed code- yes, we're talking about devices with far more limited resources than the desktop but where managed code is far more preferable and far more commonly used.
I tend to agree with you although I've not experienced the long console load times some reviews mention. I'm playing it on the 360 and haven't installed it to hard disk. It takes as long to load as most FPS games, and less than games like Portal 2 and Halo Reach for example.
I haven't run into any bugs mentioned in reviews either- certainly talk of tearing, dissapearing objects, graphics artifacts have failed to surface on my play through of the game.
To me I'd give it around 70%, it's not ground breaking, but it's an average shooter that can stand toe to toe with 90% of other shooters that come out. It aint Halo, or KillZone, or Resistance, or Call of Duty, but it's an amusing flashback as a DN3D player with much of the same humour, much of the same game features.
I think really the slating it's getting is from folks who never played the original DN3D when it came out, it's scary to think that a sizable number of games reviewers are now too young to have likely even caught DN3D when it came out so I suspect this is why many are attacking it- they don't really get the whole Duke Nukem thing. Certainly I can't see the game getting the same slating if it was released as something other than Duke Nukem with the characters name and look changed but everything else kept identical- it seems to be getting dropped by at least 20 - 40% in the reviews purely because it's DNF and has been a long running industry joke rather than because it's an inherently terrible game.
I think the "faults" mentioned in reviews are being exagerated with it for the same reason too- again, as I say, I've been playing it on the 360 and haven't encountered any of the issues some reviews claim.
"However, I think that the proposed deal was likely fair to Apple, because otherwise they would have sued Nokia in EU courts for anti-competitive practices, precisely because Nokia agreed to license patents under RAND; and these things are generally taken more seriously in Europe than in US. It's also likely why they have now settled."
From what I understand, the RAND terms only applied to GSM association members which Apple was not one of, and if this is the case, then Nokia did nothing wrong in this respect.
More realistically I think Apple is beginning to realise it's fighting on multiple front not just other companies over patent/trademark violations but even become a target of regulators now. I'd imagine it just wanted to get cases like this that it stood a much lesser chance of winning done and dusted so it could focus it's lawyers on other threats that it might have a more reasonable chance of winning.
That said, it's also worth noting that Nokia is basically just a Microsoft subsidiary right now for all intents and purposes with Elop at the helm and his ousting of everyone who wasn't happy with thw WP route. It's quite possible that because Microsoft has hedged it's bets on Nokia as it's vessel for pushing Windows Phone it also stuck it's oar in and made it clear to Apple that it was willing to get involved with it's patents too.
I've come to realise over the years that when a politician or industry figure says "We don't have enough X" what they actually mean is that "X is a very sought after talent, and because of that they're expecting reasonable wages for that talent, can we please do something to flood the market to make their skillset dirty cheap?".
The US probably does have enough engineers, I mean, you've got like 20million unemployed or something, let's be realistic- there's sure as hell going to be lots of engineers in there, just by sheer virtue of the size of the figure. The real issue is companies don't want to pay them a fair wage, they want the talent, but they want it dirt cheap, so they make up a myth about lack of candidates.
Take Mathematics, for years I've heard about how the UK has a severe shortage, but I'm a maths graduate and having been job hunting myself for a new role this last week and having spoken to 39 agencies it seems to confirm my suspicion, that there's not actually really many companies looking for maths skills, it's my programming skills they're all seeking. If math skills were in such short supply shouldn't I have plenty of offers for interviews for more mathematical roles? I wont complain as I'm riding the.NET gravy train which seems to be having a real boom right now in terms of pay, but certainly what politicians and businesses say about skill shortages, doesn't actually tally up with reality whatsoever.
So we have a math shortage, what do they want the government to do, train more mathematicians so that there'll be hundreds of us fighting over the one largely mathematics based job that comes along once in a blue moon, willing to undercut each other rather than just me going for it and asking a fair wage? Yeah, I thought so.
Agreed, really the goal should be to spend more money on improving Math education in the West to make it more attractive, more interesting, and just generally taught to better standards.
I'm a programmer, and have loved and lived computing most my life, but really, taking a maths degree was the best thing I ever did. It made learning and applying computer science stuff as well as many other things easier than ever.
I agree with the GP that those abilities are important, but I agree with your point more that the question should then be what's the best way to teach those abilities, and IMO it's math because it underlies everything- and teaches problem solving in a far more generic and more widely applicable manner.
The problem for C++ is that even the "bad code" qualifier is generous, even average, or moderately well written code performs better in Java as standard, and it's only when you venture into the realms of extremely well written code that C++ starts to pull ahead.
But there's another caveat too, under real world pressures of deadlines and cost constraints even the best developers in the world would struggle to find time to make sure their C++ code fits in the extremely well written box.
So ultimately, unless specific performance enhancements are budgeted for within a project, which only really occurs incredibly rarely in specific performance sensitive projects, then C++'s ability to outperform Java only ever really arises in purely academic circumstances. C++ has it's advantages and place for sure, but the performance argument has become so irrelevant to most real world software development it's just meaningless. Even with the growth of complexity of computer games, the amount of time to develop is a far bigger issue than squeezing every less processor cycle out of the game such that even there C++'s performance advantages are becoming ever less relevant- it's the fact it's got strong cross platform support (i.e. the only language supported by all of the PS3, Wii, DS, PSP, 360, PC) that really gives it the advantage there rather than it's performance potential nowadays.
No they're not, they just better understand the argument than you do apparently, and Google's conclusion doesn't disagree with them.
I think everyone agrees C++ can theoretically perform faster, but as Google notes you need to perform a lot of optimisations by hand which requires a lot of time, and a high degree of skill to perform.
The argument for Java is that it performs as well as C++ when you either do not have the time to do these optimisations, or do not have the skill to do these optimisations. There is a further argument that in this day and age there is no point doing such optimisations because the performance edge is small enough to be not worth investing the time in.
The fundamental point is that an extremely skilled developer, with no deadlines, will always be able to produce better performing code in C++ than Java, but:
- Time is money - Skills cost money - The code may be harder to read and maintain due to optimisation - The software will be inherently more prone to developer errors that can lead to security vulnerabilities
So in the real world C++'s performance advantages are more often than not, irrelevant. That is, the real world doesn't really care about performance penis waving C++ developers 99.99% of the time, because they'd rather have code that's portable, easily maintainable, has a smaller potential attack area, and is developed in a cost effective manner. It is these real world factors that give Java the edge, and under these real life factors that C++ struggles to compete. That is why Java, and other languages like C# and.NET have eaten massively into C++'s marketshare in the last decade.
The arguments implying C++ is the one true language are produced only by those lifelong code monkeys who never got passed that role because they simply never understood the practical or business side of things, and without a doubt whilst they can write great code that performs well, there will be inherent disadvantages- their code will over time simply by nature of humans inability to be 100% consistent in avoiding mistakes be more prone to security vulnerabilities, will be less maintainable, and will cost more to develop.
It's really about the best tool for getting the job done without worrying about some performance gain only noticable to a user if they see the sub-second comparison metrics listed for them, and I'm glad to see others point that out too- knowing when to and not to use a certain tool is the sign of a great developer, not dismissing dissenting opinions as vocal idiots without apparently even understanding the argument they make.
"Why does anyone think that NET users are any less disposable then the GIS users?"
Because the loss of GIS users via Microsoft flight sim to Microsoft was inconsequential in that they numbered so few that the financial loss was more than made up for in the gain of no longer having to fund MS flight sim's development.
In contrast, the loss of.NET developers forced to move to something like Java would completely destroy Microsoft's indie games strategy, their web strategy, their client development strategy, and their phone strategy.
In other words it'd basically kill off the vast majority of the company. Microsoft depends on the likes of ASP.NET to shift many of it's MS SQL Server licenses and Windows Server licenses, it depends on.NET developers to build it's entire range of Windows Phone applications to develop some XBL Indie and Arcade games. It depends on.NET to push Windows Desktop as a platform in that companies can build bespoke apps easier for it than any other platform.
The MS Flight Sim user base just isn't comparable to the.NET userbase, the former was an inconsequential loss making business unit, the latter is fundamental to the vast majority of Microsoft's strategy and very existence.
I understand you're trying to make a positive contribution to the conversation but it's also sad to see you modded +4 insightful as your post is one of the most blatant examples I've seen in recent years about how misinformed some Slashdot comments are and how many ignorant moderators there are that will mod any old completely wrong falsehood up.
"HTML5 excels at the GUI"
Fuck no it doesn't. No, not in any way shape or form, it's in fact quite terrible for it in the grand scheme of things. What it is at least is the next iteration of HTML - something that's been hacked way beyond it's original purpose of displaying largely static hyperlinked content. The very fact HTML has been mangled into a tool to create full blown interfaces is both it's strength and weakness- it's brought the web forward, but it also means it's far weaker than a purpose designed set of tools for producing web applications would be. XAML in WPF is an example of markup designed specifically for GUIs and it does it far better than HTML ever will be able to.
".NET is mainly used for server-side processing."
No, it's not. That's one of many things it's used for but it's also used for everything from desktop applications to XBox games (indie, and some arcade games use.NET), pretty much the whole Windows Phone 7 platform application layer, amongst all the server side uses which range far and wide from HPC to simple dynamic web pages.
Your sentiment isn't wrong, but it seems obvious you're way out of your depth with the subject in general.
I think really they're just trying to show how utterly hopeless it is of governments trying to regulate the web. They've been on about it for years, and people have told them it's futile yet still they legislate.
I think they're hoping that by repeated, regular, high profile hacks like this it will show governments they cannot win, they're going to have to accept, whatever they think, the web is out of their reach, it's a new concept for them- for the first time it's something they can't really control.
I don't disagree that undocumented labour is a problem, but it's only an excuse in some areas- the number of illegal immigrants isn't high enough to excuse all those complaining "they took our jobs!", the numbers just don't stack up for that.
But really it's a problem made worse in America by poor enforcement, other nations tend to deal with it better, what are the fines for employing unregistered workers in the US? In some European countries they're business crippling so any company employing such workers will find itself hit with a fine so high it can write off a year or more of profits and sometimes enough to even have the business shut down. Also personal fines for the people in charge of hiring them and for the owners of a business are an effective deterrent. If you pursue this kind of route then some member of staff is going to prefer to whistleblow about their employer than risk having a hefty fine to pay.
But really, why didn't you specialise? Why didn't you aim for the skills that aren't easily outsourced because they're in short supply? Why didn't you move towards the skills that need physical prescience (i.e. building/maintaining networks)?
The point is that people should recognise that automation or replacement is always a threat, and strive to make sure they go down a route where that is not a problem.
What are you on about? The hacking bit is what you do once you've proxied through to somewhere, the use of proxies just hides your true IP whilst you actually do some kind of hacking.
Well said, the GP is a fucking idiot blaming Europe for these things, when the problems stem from national governments.
Look at BT's spying on it's customers with Phorm, the British government white-washed it and it had to be the EU that stepped in and told them it wasn't acceptable.
Look at any number of human rights cases where the ECHR has done the right thing where national governments wouldn't.
Look at all the pro-consumer stuff like limiting mobile telco roaming profits which were rediculously high and gross profiteering to the detriment of business and personal users alike.
Sure the British government past and present are too quick to take away our freedoms and too slow to return others, sure Sarkozy is a little Napolean wannabe ruling France like a proper dictator, sure Berlusconi wants to restrict citizens to the nth degree. I agree all these governments are shit.
But the EU/ECHR? No, the EU and ECHR has done more to protect, return, and increase my freedoms than any individual nation state within it has.
The GP is a special kind of 'tard to relate the EU to the Third Reich, an idiot of the highest order no doubt.
Agreed, those who see their jobs automated are usually only in those jobs because they're too lazy to learn anything more complex anyone.
It's really the same with immigration- if any immigrant takes your job you're doing something wrong, because most immigrants move from poor to rich countries. Those in rich countries losing their jobs to immigrants will have had a wealthier upbringing, a better education system, and will know the customs, language and accents of their native country better so have an inherent advantage over immigrants. The only way the immigrant can thus take their job is if the immigrant either accepts lower wages because they believe the job can be done cheaper, or because they're simply more competent.
The only people who lose out with these sorts of things are the lazy who have thrown away numerous opportunities to better themselves, thus I don't have much sympathy.
I agree, if your job can be automated, you've only got yourself to blame for not keeping your skillset ahead of the automation curve.
There generally seems to be two types of members of anonymous when it comes to this type of thing, there's those who just hope on the DDOS bandwagon from their home computer and hope the sheer number of users involved in the DDOS will protect them in an "I'm spartacus!" kind of way, then there's those who actually know how to hack.
Those getting arrested seem to be the former type, because they're easily traced from a single IP. It's these folk I believe who attacked Visa, Mastercard and so forth.
In contrast, those who actually know how to hack will proxy through a number of machines before ever connecting with their target. If they're routing through a number of systems like this, in a number of jurisdictions, then it's unlikely they'll be caught. Say they hop from their PC in the US, through a system in China, then one in Russia, one in Venezuela, one in Colombia, one in France and then hit their end target then anyone wishing to trace them will only see the French IP. This means they have to either check the logs on the French system and trace back, or hope the hacker has left some kind of clue behind. If the logs do not exist for the system, if the authorities in charge of the country which the system resides in are not interested in helping the investigation, and if the hacker has left no clues, then what exactly can be done to trace them? Even one system for which no logs are stored in a country like Venezuela which may not support say a US investigation might be enough to avoid ever being caught, but each additional hop is going to give you an additional layer of security.
What people are saying is it's fucking silly of him to whine about it, and that if he doesn't understand why Google is loathe to replace it then perhaps he's not hot shit like he thinks he is.
There's good reason why he can't get what he wants out of Google, and if he doesn't understand those reasons (i.e. tried and tested stability) then perhaps he's just a shit developer seeking attention. In which case, why the fuck should anyone care what he has to say?
It's so short sighted though. This quote from the summary just makes me shake my head:
"There are those that are content with the status quo because they believe that they have a formula 'that works' and thereâ(TM)s no good reason to risk a major change when they already successful with what theyâ(TM)re doing."
Isn't this the same industry that's already whining about decreasing revenues and AAA studios whining that innovative new mobile games are a danger to them?
I don't understand how on one hand they can use the excuse that the formula works and they're succesful and the on the other whine about how they're struggling, complain for tax breaks, impose DRM to prevent second hand sales and so forth.
If anything it seems clear their model isn't working from the amount they bitch and moan. Either way they can't have it both ways- claim everything is rosy when consumers say they want something new, and claim these are dark days when they want more profits.
I can't find anything whatsoever on the net to back that up and that age distribution seems highly unlikely. Only 30% of gamers on XBox Live being in the 25+ range doesn't seem realistic whatsoever.
Have you ever stopped to think that you perceive there to be more youngsters in games because they're the ones screaming down the headset on XBox live to you and spamming like the children they are on chat channels in WoW and so forth, whilst the older ones who are a bit more mature quietly just keep to enjoying themselves?
It's likely also that teenagers spend more time in games simply because they have more spare time, which may also give the perception that they're more common, but this is about numbers of gamers in certain age groups rather than gaming time per age group.
"It's exactly as GP said. Medvedev sure talks a lot, but when it comes to actually getting things done, his track record so far is practically non-existing. Russia still has routine violations of human rights, still has political prisoners, and still represses journalists critical of the regime."
Absolutely, but you can't change things overnight, especially in a country like Russia. Russia has many competing factions- ex-KGB/current FSB, the Mafia, the Russian Orthodox Church, the communists, the intellectuals, the military and so on. For some time it is of course the spies that have held the power.
You have to realise that in Yeltsin's era things were quite different, the country was in an era of turmoil as the whole USSR had fallen, and those factions were finding their feet in the new Russia, just as Russia was trying to find it's feet in the world again. Since Yeltsin's departure, the FSB has had over 10 years to install puppets throughout government, public, and private sector institutions. Not only that but Putin has instilled the idea of himself as a hero in the minds of many of the Russian public over the same period. Those aren't the sorts of things you can take down over night, it requires a prolonged period of chipping away at both the installed puppets across the country and the image Putin has built for himself.
The instances I linked are clear actions by Medvedev that work towards this goal. There's a very difficult balance involved in that if he moves too fast to dismantle the work Putin has done to cement his authority he risks having it all rallied against him and losing power before he's done any good. In contrast, if he moves too slowly, he wont be able to chip away enough of Putin's support in time for elections.
But note this, importantly, the polls, and interim local elections show clearly that Putin's support is waning.
You may be right, but I wouldn't write off Medvedev just yet, he's made some bold moves recently that without a doubt weaken the standing of Putin, the FSB, and it's allies as a political force in Russia.
"I think it's hardly fair to compare western social problems like "I don't like DRM" to the deep problems of Libya "The police raped my wife and 3 daughters"."
No without a doubt they're not on the same scale, that's not my point at all, my point is that they're both born of private citizens reaching boiling point such that they don't care about the law in pursuing the best option to act to put the problems right that their elected (or unelected) representatives will not. People have had enough, boiling point has been reached and now they're beginning to lash back.
"No corporate body is all powerful in today's society."
No but they are disproportionately powerful, a lobby group like the RIAA can get laws passed such as the DMCA that the vast majority of the population simply do not want. That is entirely undemocratic, and entirely unacceptable.
"They're not providing a public service, they're not making the world a better place."
Oh but they are. Sony has been one of the major backers of anti-consumer laws, one of the major lobbying organisations behind getting to the US government to pressure foreign nations to reduce consumer rights. Without a doubt, weakening a company like Sony makes the world a better place- not to the extent of the overthrow of the likes of Gaddaffi of course, but for Western consumers, there's no doubt that forcing companies like Sony to focus on making good products at reasonable prices rather than lobbying for legal protections to allow them to sell bad products at high prices makes the world a better place. Sure it's trivial compared to problems in the likes of the middle east, but relative to Western society? It's still an issue that consumers want to see solved, and if the government wont do it and the people do then so be it.
Granted I'm in the UK so unions are somewhat different to the US here, but almost without fail I've found those who join unions do so to protect them from their own incompetence as being in a union makes it incredibly hard to sack you, particularly in public sector.
In contrasts those who are hard working and competent have no reason to join a union- they're good enough to ensure they'll keep their job or find another one if their employer had to make redundancies, or if they just got fed up of working for their employer.
Part the problem in the UK is that unions serve no purpose anymore, the reasons for their original existence is now enshrined in law- minimum wage, high minimum health and safety standards, anti-discrimination laws, minimum notice and redundancy periods, governance of disciplinary procedures, maximum working hours, and so on. As such the Unions no longer have purpose for their core staff so act as little more than organisations dedicated to pushing their wages above fair and sensible levels, protecting the unjustifiable (i.e. people off sick for 3 months but whose doctor wouldn't write them a sick note as there was nothing to write a note about) and acting as political lobbying organisations.
Perhaps unions are different over there, but certainly here in the UK unions really are without question self-serving bastions of incompetence, laziness, and greed.
Slashdot Mirror
"spoken like a true businessman. Let me know how happy you'll be when your job gets sent to India because coding has become so simple the cheapest of the unskilled can do it."
Oh my god, no, you called me a businessman! I'm deeply offended! No seriously, if the biggest insult you can come up with is that I'm basically someone who realises the reality of business then it shows you don't really have a point. More importantly, my job wont get sent to India precisely because I'm smart enough to stay ahead of the curve and not limit myself to one single language falsely believing it's the one, the saviour, the only language you would ever need.
"Those guys you libel are actually code professionals"
Monkeys, professionals, whatever, if they truly believe C++ is the be all and end all and the key for all development then they're shit whatever you prefer to call them.
"You'll see why the performance issues are an issue if you ever spoke to your users and saw them struggling"
Right, because I don't do that or anything. No seriously, it's another trait of a good developer- interacting with your users, and this is what's so utterly ironic about this comment- developers who stick to C++ for everything tend to be the same folks who don't really leave their desk to realise that their performance boosts in C++ haven't actually achieved any real world advantage over just getting the job done quicker, with greater stability, and greater security in another language.
"I've never really seen a decent Java application that didn't suck up RAM..."
Ah, you're one of those, those that doesn't understand that maximising RAM usage when there is free memory is a good thing because it means greater performance. You think it's good to just have lots of memory lying around unused not doing anything- tell me, why do you think you have RAM in your computer? Just for bragging rights about the amount of RAM you have or something?
"..., perform sluggishly, or scale dreadfully."
Right, I guess you never heard of eBay or Google, the former which uses Java pretty exclusively, the latter of much of whoms backend code is written in Java. I guess eBay and Google just never managed to scale well. Vuze is a decent example of a desktop application written in Java which performs just fine.
"but even then, I've seen the same kind of app written in PHP or Ruby or Perl that performs the same web-UI task just as well. That makes me think that you're right... the right tool for the job, and that's never going to be Java."
Which is quite amusing in the context of your previous comment about Java failing to scale- tell me, what language were they using at Facebook because it failed to scale? Oh yes, PHP. What language was Twitter using when it had an abundance of scalability issues in it's early days? Ah yes, RoR. If there's one thing Java does incredibly well, it's scale, and that's where it's really in it's prime- highly scalable server side applications.
The issue with script languages is that they truly are slow, if you don't understand the difference between such languages and JIT'd languages like Java and the .NET languages then there's your problem- you don't even understand the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue. You don't even seem aware in the slightest of numerous examples of managed code doing just fine, whether it's pretty muche very smartphone on the market today, or sites and services you probably used daily without even realising it from Google, eBay and Smartphones, to banking ATMs/sites, to stock control and checkout systems. All these things are often underpinned by Java. It's the single most used language in enterprise and has been for about the last 5 - 10 years with good reason.
I don't pretend there aren't a lot of skilled C++ developers out there, nor do I pretend Java is some be all and end all language. But in the world as it is now, Java is one of the better choices for much software development, just as C++ was 15 years ago, and I suspect
"That's not my experience at all, but its a few years since I was a full time C++ head."
How many is a few? If you haven't done it since the start of the last decade then maybe that's the problem, since at least the middle of the last decade Java has been easily capable of performing as well as most C++ apps.
"Standard java performs terribly because the whole culture encourages wasteful development"
This makes no sense, it enforces OO principles and has much more complete libraries as standard than C++. How is that in any way a culture that encourages wasteful development? That argument makes no sense.
"Games developers aren't developing in c++ for fun or even the cross platform issues, they're doing it because they want their games to compete with those put out by other companies."
This is completely wrong because they can compete with managed libraries too- as I've pointed out previously, some large studios have actually used XNA and C# for arcade games (MS has XNA extensions for full arcade developers). Really, C++ is used because a) there's already a massive code investment there and decades of libraries of C++ material, and b) all consoles support it. If you truly think things like .NET and Java aren't suitable for game development you've been out of the game far too long as there are plenty of published games using them. Also, if you haven't noticed, much of the current mobile phone revolution is using managed code- yes, we're talking about devices with far more limited resources than the desktop but where managed code is far more preferable and far more commonly used.
I tend to agree with you although I've not experienced the long console load times some reviews mention. I'm playing it on the 360 and haven't installed it to hard disk. It takes as long to load as most FPS games, and less than games like Portal 2 and Halo Reach for example.
I haven't run into any bugs mentioned in reviews either- certainly talk of tearing, dissapearing objects, graphics artifacts have failed to surface on my play through of the game.
To me I'd give it around 70%, it's not ground breaking, but it's an average shooter that can stand toe to toe with 90% of other shooters that come out. It aint Halo, or KillZone, or Resistance, or Call of Duty, but it's an amusing flashback as a DN3D player with much of the same humour, much of the same game features.
I think really the slating it's getting is from folks who never played the original DN3D when it came out, it's scary to think that a sizable number of games reviewers are now too young to have likely even caught DN3D when it came out so I suspect this is why many are attacking it- they don't really get the whole Duke Nukem thing. Certainly I can't see the game getting the same slating if it was released as something other than Duke Nukem with the characters name and look changed but everything else kept identical- it seems to be getting dropped by at least 20 - 40% in the reviews purely because it's DNF and has been a long running industry joke rather than because it's an inherently terrible game.
I think the "faults" mentioned in reviews are being exagerated with it for the same reason too- again, as I say, I've been playing it on the 360 and haven't encountered any of the issues some reviews claim.
"However, I think that the proposed deal was likely fair to Apple, because otherwise they would have sued Nokia in EU courts for anti-competitive practices, precisely because Nokia agreed to license patents under RAND; and these things are generally taken more seriously in Europe than in US. It's also likely why they have now settled."
From what I understand, the RAND terms only applied to GSM association members which Apple was not one of, and if this is the case, then Nokia did nothing wrong in this respect.
More realistically I think Apple is beginning to realise it's fighting on multiple front not just other companies over patent/trademark violations but even become a target of regulators now. I'd imagine it just wanted to get cases like this that it stood a much lesser chance of winning done and dusted so it could focus it's lawyers on other threats that it might have a more reasonable chance of winning.
That said, it's also worth noting that Nokia is basically just a Microsoft subsidiary right now for all intents and purposes with Elop at the helm and his ousting of everyone who wasn't happy with thw WP route. It's quite possible that because Microsoft has hedged it's bets on Nokia as it's vessel for pushing Windows Phone it also stuck it's oar in and made it clear to Apple that it was willing to get involved with it's patents too.
I've come to realise over the years that when a politician or industry figure says "We don't have enough X" what they actually mean is that "X is a very sought after talent, and because of that they're expecting reasonable wages for that talent, can we please do something to flood the market to make their skillset dirty cheap?".
The US probably does have enough engineers, I mean, you've got like 20million unemployed or something, let's be realistic- there's sure as hell going to be lots of engineers in there, just by sheer virtue of the size of the figure. The real issue is companies don't want to pay them a fair wage, they want the talent, but they want it dirt cheap, so they make up a myth about lack of candidates.
Take Mathematics, for years I've heard about how the UK has a severe shortage, but I'm a maths graduate and having been job hunting myself for a new role this last week and having spoken to 39 agencies it seems to confirm my suspicion, that there's not actually really many companies looking for maths skills, it's my programming skills they're all seeking. If math skills were in such short supply shouldn't I have plenty of offers for interviews for more mathematical roles? I wont complain as I'm riding the .NET gravy train which seems to be having a real boom right now in terms of pay, but certainly what politicians and businesses say about skill shortages, doesn't actually tally up with reality whatsoever.
So we have a math shortage, what do they want the government to do, train more mathematicians so that there'll be hundreds of us fighting over the one largely mathematics based job that comes along once in a blue moon, willing to undercut each other rather than just me going for it and asking a fair wage? Yeah, I thought so.
Agreed, really the goal should be to spend more money on improving Math education in the West to make it more attractive, more interesting, and just generally taught to better standards.
I'm a programmer, and have loved and lived computing most my life, but really, taking a maths degree was the best thing I ever did. It made learning and applying computer science stuff as well as many other things easier than ever.
I agree with the GP that those abilities are important, but I agree with your point more that the question should then be what's the best way to teach those abilities, and IMO it's math because it underlies everything- and teaches problem solving in a far more generic and more widely applicable manner.
The problem for C++ is that even the "bad code" qualifier is generous, even average, or moderately well written code performs better in Java as standard, and it's only when you venture into the realms of extremely well written code that C++ starts to pull ahead.
But there's another caveat too, under real world pressures of deadlines and cost constraints even the best developers in the world would struggle to find time to make sure their C++ code fits in the extremely well written box.
So ultimately, unless specific performance enhancements are budgeted for within a project, which only really occurs incredibly rarely in specific performance sensitive projects, then C++'s ability to outperform Java only ever really arises in purely academic circumstances. C++ has it's advantages and place for sure, but the performance argument has become so irrelevant to most real world software development it's just meaningless. Even with the growth of complexity of computer games, the amount of time to develop is a far bigger issue than squeezing every less processor cycle out of the game such that even there C++'s performance advantages are becoming ever less relevant- it's the fact it's got strong cross platform support (i.e. the only language supported by all of the PS3, Wii, DS, PSP, 360, PC) that really gives it the advantage there rather than it's performance potential nowadays.
No they're not, they just better understand the argument than you do apparently, and Google's conclusion doesn't disagree with them.
I think everyone agrees C++ can theoretically perform faster, but as Google notes you need to perform a lot of optimisations by hand which requires a lot of time, and a high degree of skill to perform.
The argument for Java is that it performs as well as C++ when you either do not have the time to do these optimisations, or do not have the skill to do these optimisations. There is a further argument that in this day and age there is no point doing such optimisations because the performance edge is small enough to be not worth investing the time in.
The fundamental point is that an extremely skilled developer, with no deadlines, will always be able to produce better performing code in C++ than Java, but:
- Time is money
- Skills cost money
- The code may be harder to read and maintain due to optimisation
- The software will be inherently more prone to developer errors that can lead to security vulnerabilities
So in the real world C++'s performance advantages are more often than not, irrelevant. That is, the real world doesn't really care about performance penis waving C++ developers 99.99% of the time, because they'd rather have code that's portable, easily maintainable, has a smaller potential attack area, and is developed in a cost effective manner. It is these real world factors that give Java the edge, and under these real life factors that C++ struggles to compete. That is why Java, and other languages like C# and .NET have eaten massively into C++'s marketshare in the last decade.
The arguments implying C++ is the one true language are produced only by those lifelong code monkeys who never got passed that role because they simply never understood the practical or business side of things, and without a doubt whilst they can write great code that performs well, there will be inherent disadvantages- their code will over time simply by nature of humans inability to be 100% consistent in avoiding mistakes be more prone to security vulnerabilities, will be less maintainable, and will cost more to develop.
It's really about the best tool for getting the job done without worrying about some performance gain only noticable to a user if they see the sub-second comparison metrics listed for them, and I'm glad to see others point that out too- knowing when to and not to use a certain tool is the sign of a great developer, not dismissing dissenting opinions as vocal idiots without apparently even understanding the argument they make.
"Why does anyone think that NET users are any less disposable then the GIS users?"
Because the loss of GIS users via Microsoft flight sim to Microsoft was inconsequential in that they numbered so few that the financial loss was more than made up for in the gain of no longer having to fund MS flight sim's development.
In contrast, the loss of .NET developers forced to move to something like Java would completely destroy Microsoft's indie games strategy, their web strategy, their client development strategy, and their phone strategy.
In other words it'd basically kill off the vast majority of the company. Microsoft depends on the likes of ASP.NET to shift many of it's MS SQL Server licenses and Windows Server licenses, it depends on .NET developers to build it's entire range of Windows Phone applications to develop some XBL Indie and Arcade games. It depends on .NET to push Windows Desktop as a platform in that companies can build bespoke apps easier for it than any other platform.
The MS Flight Sim user base just isn't comparable to the .NET userbase, the former was an inconsequential loss making business unit, the latter is fundamental to the vast majority of Microsoft's strategy and very existence.
I understand you're trying to make a positive contribution to the conversation but it's also sad to see you modded +4 insightful as your post is one of the most blatant examples I've seen in recent years about how misinformed some Slashdot comments are and how many ignorant moderators there are that will mod any old completely wrong falsehood up.
"HTML5 excels at the GUI"
Fuck no it doesn't. No, not in any way shape or form, it's in fact quite terrible for it in the grand scheme of things. What it is at least is the next iteration of HTML - something that's been hacked way beyond it's original purpose of displaying largely static hyperlinked content. The very fact HTML has been mangled into a tool to create full blown interfaces is both it's strength and weakness- it's brought the web forward, but it also means it's far weaker than a purpose designed set of tools for producing web applications would be. XAML in WPF is an example of markup designed specifically for GUIs and it does it far better than HTML ever will be able to.
".NET is mainly used for server-side processing."
No, it's not. That's one of many things it's used for but it's also used for everything from desktop applications to XBox games (indie, and some arcade games use .NET), pretty much the whole Windows Phone 7 platform application layer, amongst all the server side uses which range far and wide from HPC to simple dynamic web pages.
Your sentiment isn't wrong, but it seems obvious you're way out of your depth with the subject in general.
I think really they're just trying to show how utterly hopeless it is of governments trying to regulate the web. They've been on about it for years, and people have told them it's futile yet still they legislate.
I think they're hoping that by repeated, regular, high profile hacks like this it will show governments they cannot win, they're going to have to accept, whatever they think, the web is out of their reach, it's a new concept for them- for the first time it's something they can't really control.
I don't disagree that undocumented labour is a problem, but it's only an excuse in some areas- the number of illegal immigrants isn't high enough to excuse all those complaining "they took our jobs!", the numbers just don't stack up for that.
But really it's a problem made worse in America by poor enforcement, other nations tend to deal with it better, what are the fines for employing unregistered workers in the US? In some European countries they're business crippling so any company employing such workers will find itself hit with a fine so high it can write off a year or more of profits and sometimes enough to even have the business shut down. Also personal fines for the people in charge of hiring them and for the owners of a business are an effective deterrent. If you pursue this kind of route then some member of staff is going to prefer to whistleblow about their employer than risk having a hefty fine to pay.
But really, why didn't you specialise? Why didn't you aim for the skills that aren't easily outsourced because they're in short supply? Why didn't you move towards the skills that need physical prescience (i.e. building/maintaining networks)?
The point is that people should recognise that automation or replacement is always a threat, and strive to make sure they go down a route where that is not a problem.
What are you on about? The hacking bit is what you do once you've proxied through to somewhere, the use of proxies just hides your true IP whilst you actually do some kind of hacking.
Well said, the GP is a fucking idiot blaming Europe for these things, when the problems stem from national governments.
Look at BT's spying on it's customers with Phorm, the British government white-washed it and it had to be the EU that stepped in and told them it wasn't acceptable.
Look at any number of human rights cases where the ECHR has done the right thing where national governments wouldn't.
Look at all the pro-consumer stuff like limiting mobile telco roaming profits which were rediculously high and gross profiteering to the detriment of business and personal users alike.
Sure the British government past and present are too quick to take away our freedoms and too slow to return others, sure Sarkozy is a little Napolean wannabe ruling France like a proper dictator, sure Berlusconi wants to restrict citizens to the nth degree. I agree all these governments are shit.
But the EU/ECHR? No, the EU and ECHR has done more to protect, return, and increase my freedoms than any individual nation state within it has.
The GP is a special kind of 'tard to relate the EU to the Third Reich, an idiot of the highest order no doubt.
Agreed, those who see their jobs automated are usually only in those jobs because they're too lazy to learn anything more complex anyone.
It's really the same with immigration- if any immigrant takes your job you're doing something wrong, because most immigrants move from poor to rich countries. Those in rich countries losing their jobs to immigrants will have had a wealthier upbringing, a better education system, and will know the customs, language and accents of their native country better so have an inherent advantage over immigrants. The only way the immigrant can thus take their job is if the immigrant either accepts lower wages because they believe the job can be done cheaper, or because they're simply more competent.
The only people who lose out with these sorts of things are the lazy who have thrown away numerous opportunities to better themselves, thus I don't have much sympathy.
I agree, if your job can be automated, you've only got yourself to blame for not keeping your skillset ahead of the automation curve.
There generally seems to be two types of members of anonymous when it comes to this type of thing, there's those who just hope on the DDOS bandwagon from their home computer and hope the sheer number of users involved in the DDOS will protect them in an "I'm spartacus!" kind of way, then there's those who actually know how to hack.
Those getting arrested seem to be the former type, because they're easily traced from a single IP. It's these folk I believe who attacked Visa, Mastercard and so forth.
In contrast, those who actually know how to hack will proxy through a number of machines before ever connecting with their target. If they're routing through a number of systems like this, in a number of jurisdictions, then it's unlikely they'll be caught. Say they hop from their PC in the US, through a system in China, then one in Russia, one in Venezuela, one in Colombia, one in France and then hit their end target then anyone wishing to trace them will only see the French IP. This means they have to either check the logs on the French system and trace back, or hope the hacker has left some kind of clue behind. If the logs do not exist for the system, if the authorities in charge of the country which the system resides in are not interested in helping the investigation, and if the hacker has left no clues, then what exactly can be done to trace them? Even one system for which no logs are stored in a country like Venezuela which may not support say a US investigation might be enough to avoid ever being caught, but each additional hop is going to give you an additional layer of security.
The Spanish arrests were simply of people who used LOIC, the DDOS tool directly from their home PC making them trivially traceable by their PC.
It's possible these arrests in Turkey are precisely the same type.
The people who have been doing the real hacks for anonymous like the HBGary hack are probably much less likely to be caught.
No one is saying he's wrong in wanting that.
What people are saying is it's fucking silly of him to whine about it, and that if he doesn't understand why Google is loathe to replace it then perhaps he's not hot shit like he thinks he is.
There's good reason why he can't get what he wants out of Google, and if he doesn't understand those reasons (i.e. tried and tested stability) then perhaps he's just a shit developer seeking attention. In which case, why the fuck should anyone care what he has to say?
It's so short sighted though. This quote from the summary just makes me shake my head:
"There are those that are content with the status quo because they believe that they have a formula 'that works' and thereâ(TM)s no good reason to risk a major change when they already successful with what theyâ(TM)re doing."
Isn't this the same industry that's already whining about decreasing revenues and AAA studios whining that innovative new mobile games are a danger to them?
I don't understand how on one hand they can use the excuse that the formula works and they're succesful and the on the other whine about how they're struggling, complain for tax breaks, impose DRM to prevent second hand sales and so forth.
If anything it seems clear their model isn't working from the amount they bitch and moan. Either way they can't have it both ways- claim everything is rosy when consumers say they want something new, and claim these are dark days when they want more profits.
Source?
I can't find anything whatsoever on the net to back that up and that age distribution seems highly unlikely. Only 30% of gamers on XBox Live being in the 25+ range doesn't seem realistic whatsoever.
Have you ever stopped to think that you perceive there to be more youngsters in games because they're the ones screaming down the headset on XBox live to you and spamming like the children they are on chat channels in WoW and so forth, whilst the older ones who are a bit more mature quietly just keep to enjoying themselves?
It's likely also that teenagers spend more time in games simply because they have more spare time, which may also give the perception that they're more common, but this is about numbers of gamers in certain age groups rather than gaming time per age group.
"It's exactly as GP said. Medvedev sure talks a lot, but when it comes to actually getting things done, his track record so far is practically non-existing. Russia still has routine violations of human rights, still has political prisoners, and still represses journalists critical of the regime."
Absolutely, but you can't change things overnight, especially in a country like Russia. Russia has many competing factions- ex-KGB/current FSB, the Mafia, the Russian Orthodox Church, the communists, the intellectuals, the military and so on. For some time it is of course the spies that have held the power.
You have to realise that in Yeltsin's era things were quite different, the country was in an era of turmoil as the whole USSR had fallen, and those factions were finding their feet in the new Russia, just as Russia was trying to find it's feet in the world again. Since Yeltsin's departure, the FSB has had over 10 years to install puppets throughout government, public, and private sector institutions. Not only that but Putin has instilled the idea of himself as a hero in the minds of many of the Russian public over the same period. Those aren't the sorts of things you can take down over night, it requires a prolonged period of chipping away at both the installed puppets across the country and the image Putin has built for himself.
The instances I linked are clear actions by Medvedev that work towards this goal. There's a very difficult balance involved in that if he moves too fast to dismantle the work Putin has done to cement his authority he risks having it all rallied against him and losing power before he's done any good. In contrast, if he moves too slowly, he wont be able to chip away enough of Putin's support in time for elections.
But note this, importantly, the polls, and interim local elections show clearly that Putin's support is waning.
You may be right, but I wouldn't write off Medvedev just yet, he's made some bold moves recently that without a doubt weaken the standing of Putin, the FSB, and it's allies as a political force in Russia.
"I think it's hardly fair to compare western social problems like "I don't like DRM" to the deep problems of Libya "The police raped my wife and 3 daughters"."
No without a doubt they're not on the same scale, that's not my point at all, my point is that they're both born of private citizens reaching boiling point such that they don't care about the law in pursuing the best option to act to put the problems right that their elected (or unelected) representatives will not. People have had enough, boiling point has been reached and now they're beginning to lash back.
"No corporate body is all powerful in today's society."
No but they are disproportionately powerful, a lobby group like the RIAA can get laws passed such as the DMCA that the vast majority of the population simply do not want. That is entirely undemocratic, and entirely unacceptable.
"They're not providing a public service, they're not making the world a better place."
Oh but they are. Sony has been one of the major backers of anti-consumer laws, one of the major lobbying organisations behind getting to the US government to pressure foreign nations to reduce consumer rights. Without a doubt, weakening a company like Sony makes the world a better place- not to the extent of the overthrow of the likes of Gaddaffi of course, but for Western consumers, there's no doubt that forcing companies like Sony to focus on making good products at reasonable prices rather than lobbying for legal protections to allow them to sell bad products at high prices makes the world a better place. Sure it's trivial compared to problems in the likes of the middle east, but relative to Western society? It's still an issue that consumers want to see solved, and if the government wont do it and the people do then so be it.
Why would that be the case?
Granted I'm in the UK so unions are somewhat different to the US here, but almost without fail I've found those who join unions do so to protect them from their own incompetence as being in a union makes it incredibly hard to sack you, particularly in public sector.
In contrasts those who are hard working and competent have no reason to join a union- they're good enough to ensure they'll keep their job or find another one if their employer had to make redundancies, or if they just got fed up of working for their employer.
Part the problem in the UK is that unions serve no purpose anymore, the reasons for their original existence is now enshrined in law- minimum wage, high minimum health and safety standards, anti-discrimination laws, minimum notice and redundancy periods, governance of disciplinary procedures, maximum working hours, and so on. As such the Unions no longer have purpose for their core staff so act as little more than organisations dedicated to pushing their wages above fair and sensible levels, protecting the unjustifiable (i.e. people off sick for 3 months but whose doctor wouldn't write them a sick note as there was nothing to write a note about) and acting as political lobbying organisations.
Perhaps unions are different over there, but certainly here in the UK unions really are without question self-serving bastions of incompetence, laziness, and greed.