But he never actually mentioned what his lecturer was actually teaching. I would say that if you were in a Theory of Computation course then it wouldn't be such a surprise if the teacher doesn't actively do a lot of coding.
"My favorite lecturer quote, "Oh, I don't really do any coding at all"."
That's not a big deal. Computer Science is not about coding in particular, but understanding the practices to design and implement solutions to a problem. Computer Science is more about applied math then writing in language X. I learned some of the most important concepts in a class that was all done in pseudocode. Understanding how to approach a problem and solve it efficiently is more important then learning a language. In fact, once you know how most things are working, with a few basic concepts such as pointers or how a computer interpret an instruction listing, you should be able to pick up almost any language fairly easily.
If you are not capable of learning things on your own without being handheld through a set of power point lectures, even if you knew C++ instead of Java you aren't going to be worthwhile in the real world anyways. You are destined to be a code monkey.
That is not nearly the same as the flexibility that the Blackberry Enterprise Server gives you. You can enforce filters on the user's phone based on your own filters. You can lock certain features down, such as when they can call, who they can call, all remotely.
Will the Blackberry allow the IT department control the device like they can with the Blackberry? One of the best features about the Blackberry is if a user loses their phone, IT can erase the device remotely, have the user go to the store, pick up a new phone and instantly have all their data back. On top of that the company can change security policies and have complete control of the device. These are all things the iPhone will need to even have a remote chance of breaking into the corporate world.
I work for a company who uses almost exclusively web apps inside the company. It works because having a small programming staff means it would be hard to constantly troubleshoot every user's machine. Lets face it, the average user is usually clueless on to how a new application will work, and putting it into a web page means that it's fairly simple for them to pick up. None of the apps use Java or anything besides CSS and HTML, and while CSS can be a bit finicky on different browsers, it's at least still usable.
However, I spend most of my time on the job fixing back end code that is absolutely horrendous. This is however, a product of 10 year old code, as well as the initial project having almost zero direction when the coding started. That's a problem that happens all across the board, not only on Web Applications.
I may be giving spammers and DDoSers too much credit here, but you would really have to be a lowlife scumbag to want to hack these laptops for personal gain.
Sometimes I cringe to click on an article that is related to Microsoft or Windows on slashdot. So many people jump on the "Linux is a superior OS for everything, ever, and always will be" bandwagon. I've been on both sides of the fence, I've used Windows and Linux as a desktop OS, and I run a headless FreeBSD server. I have to say, even though I don't always like it, I will continue to use Windows XP as a desktop over Linux just for the basic convenience of it. If I need to do various *nix related tasks, I will ssh into the FreeBSD machine, but if I need to browse websites, check e-mail, or write a document, Windows it is. Until there is a decent graphical interface (one where my acceleration is supported for my video card, last I checked Xorg did NOT do this, and made everything slower then hell), and I can perform tasks quickly on a Linux desktop, I see it lagging behind as a desktop.
Don't get me wrong, it works great for server environments (although I still prefer FreeBSD), I'm really sick of seeing so many people championing it like it's the second coming of open-sourced christ.
Exactly. You would never use string building in a stored procedure, as it just doesn't make sense (nor does it lead to good looking code). Now I don't have as much experience with MySQL as I do with MS SQL Server 2000, but I can tell you that with stored procedures, using the sproc makes a nice 'blackbox' type procedure. You simply call the sproc, and when using parameters, even if the user does anything to jump over your interface-level protection, the server will not have anything to do with improper values.
It's absolutely no suprise that many embedded system developers don't plan on, or don't want to, use embedded Linux. If you wan't to use the least amount of resources possible, you will design everything in hardware, and keep it that way, that's why it's an embedded system, it's designed for a single task, and there's no reason for it to change.
However, if you plan on designing some sort of resuable control component, such as a common controller for some sort of networking device(such as D-Link does, and others), then embedded Linux is not a bad idea, since you can change it to work in multiple tasks, and keep production costs down. However, by writing up all my VHDL, and designing my own circuits, I can produce smaller and faster devices without the need of an OS. A good engineer should be able to come up with a good datapath on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
But he never actually mentioned what his lecturer was actually teaching. I would say that if you were in a Theory of Computation course then it wouldn't be such a surprise if the teacher doesn't actively do a lot of coding.
"My favorite lecturer quote, "Oh, I don't really do any coding at all"." That's not a big deal. Computer Science is not about coding in particular, but understanding the practices to design and implement solutions to a problem. Computer Science is more about applied math then writing in language X. I learned some of the most important concepts in a class that was all done in pseudocode. Understanding how to approach a problem and solve it efficiently is more important then learning a language. In fact, once you know how most things are working, with a few basic concepts such as pointers or how a computer interpret an instruction listing, you should be able to pick up almost any language fairly easily. If you are not capable of learning things on your own without being handheld through a set of power point lectures, even if you knew C++ instead of Java you aren't going to be worthwhile in the real world anyways. You are destined to be a code monkey.
That is not nearly the same as the flexibility that the Blackberry Enterprise Server gives you. You can enforce filters on the user's phone based on your own filters. You can lock certain features down, such as when they can call, who they can call, all remotely.
Will the Blackberry allow the IT department control the device like they can with the Blackberry? One of the best features about the Blackberry is if a user loses their phone, IT can erase the device remotely, have the user go to the store, pick up a new phone and instantly have all their data back. On top of that the company can change security policies and have complete control of the device. These are all things the iPhone will need to even have a remote chance of breaking into the corporate world.
I work for a company who uses almost exclusively web apps inside the company. It works because having a small programming staff means it would be hard to constantly troubleshoot every user's machine. Lets face it, the average user is usually clueless on to how a new application will work, and putting it into a web page means that it's fairly simple for them to pick up. None of the apps use Java or anything besides CSS and HTML, and while CSS can be a bit finicky on different browsers, it's at least still usable. However, I spend most of my time on the job fixing back end code that is absolutely horrendous. This is however, a product of 10 year old code, as well as the initial project having almost zero direction when the coding started. That's a problem that happens all across the board, not only on Web Applications.
I may be giving spammers and DDoSers too much credit here, but you would really have to be a lowlife scumbag to want to hack these laptops for personal gain.
Sometimes I cringe to click on an article that is related to Microsoft or Windows on slashdot. So many people jump on the "Linux is a superior OS for everything, ever, and always will be" bandwagon. I've been on both sides of the fence, I've used Windows and Linux as a desktop OS, and I run a headless FreeBSD server. I have to say, even though I don't always like it, I will continue to use Windows XP as a desktop over Linux just for the basic convenience of it. If I need to do various *nix related tasks, I will ssh into the FreeBSD machine, but if I need to browse websites, check e-mail, or write a document, Windows it is. Until there is a decent graphical interface (one where my acceleration is supported for my video card, last I checked Xorg did NOT do this, and made everything slower then hell), and I can perform tasks quickly on a Linux desktop, I see it lagging behind as a desktop. Don't get me wrong, it works great for server environments (although I still prefer FreeBSD), I'm really sick of seeing so many people championing it like it's the second coming of open-sourced christ.
Exactly. You would never use string building in a stored procedure, as it just doesn't make sense (nor does it lead to good looking code). Now I don't have as much experience with MySQL as I do with MS SQL Server 2000, but I can tell you that with stored procedures, using the sproc makes a nice 'blackbox' type procedure. You simply call the sproc, and when using parameters, even if the user does anything to jump over your interface-level protection, the server will not have anything to do with improper values.
It's absolutely no suprise that many embedded system developers don't plan on, or don't want to, use embedded Linux. If you wan't to use the least amount of resources possible, you will design everything in hardware, and keep it that way, that's why it's an embedded system, it's designed for a single task, and there's no reason for it to change. However, if you plan on designing some sort of resuable control component, such as a common controller for some sort of networking device(such as D-Link does, and others), then embedded Linux is not a bad idea, since you can change it to work in multiple tasks, and keep production costs down. However, by writing up all my VHDL, and designing my own circuits, I can produce smaller and faster devices without the need of an OS. A good engineer should be able to come up with a good datapath on their own.