Or just ignore them and actually rank by the content!!! line they're supposed to do?
Have you used a search engine before? Have you noticed while you're scrolling through the search results they don't show you the entire content of the page?
The value of optimisation is so that those machines will be a reality. That's of monumental value to humanity, far overshadowing efforts at optimisation.
That's a self-correcting problem. a.) The specs of cell phones are dramatically rising every year. b.) When it makes sense to optimize your app to reach a greater audience, the time and money is put into doing it. Just doing it now willy nilly will do little more than lengthen the time to develop and possibly even create more defects to correct.
What you describe isn't some imminent problem. It's a problem we've already gotten past.
...that is the proper place for optimisation...
Settle down, man. It's not like I'm arguing against optimization.
My point was never that we can't have both. It was that the value of that extra optimization was way higher back then. This is true even for NeXT developers. Getting that 10meg app down to 100k meant more when we had 16 megs of RAM than it does with what we have now. Our computing resources are growing faster than we can use them. The flexibility we've gained and the time we're not spending on these apps is worth way more.
I agree, though, bonus points if it's more efficient. That's one of the reasons I use Opera over FF.
Okay, I think you're right, I'm confused by your question. Are you saying that things were just as good for NeXT programmers back then as it is for programmers today, or are you saying that that NeXT offered more bang for the bit? If it's the latter, I have no issue with that statement. If it's the former, I don't understand where you are coming from.
How are those glorious days we live now, which you described, that much different from what NeXtSTEP (or however it should be spelled...) offered?
With respect, I don't see why that isn't obvious. But I'll answer:
- There's internet ubiquity which has made finding sample code etc much easier to find and, therefore, learn from.
- CPU, disc access, and Memory resources are proportionately way better than what we had back in the NeXT days.
- Interpreted languages are way better. Want to do threading in Python? import threading; Want to do networking? MD5 checksums? Google search for python MD5 or python networking etc. Heck, you can even do OpenGL now. Cross-platform support? No problem.
- Want your code to run on your cell phone or other mobile devices? No problem. Wanna memory manage them? No?? No problem!
- Wanna do 3D? Google OpenGL or Direct X. Wanna do 3D on a NeXT box? Get a big thick book with descriptions on how to do hidden wire removal.
And so on. It's amazing how much less you need a full on programming language/compiler these days.
You are obviously too old to understand why programmers don't spend all those man-hours writing optimized and intelligent code anymore. These days all of the old farts that call themselves programmers don't appreciate how much more they get done thanks to abstraction, pre built libraries/modules, nicely designed IDEs, and interpreted languages.
It's easy to criticize when you conveniently forget that that hello world app has a mouse-supported window wrapped around it complete with an OK and [X] buttons and that it's run without affecting anything else on the machine.
This is not a troll. Just look around! Programming is not only a lot more accessible than it was back in the C64 days, but it's also much much quicker to get things written than it used to be. Shake your head and mod me down if you like, that doesn't change the fact that the percentage of people scripting in various forms out there skyrocketed after the internet became ubiquitous. This shouldn't have to be explained just because somebody is whistful over the good ol' days where you actually had to send data directly to memory addresses.
Ya this attitude of "Something should have tons of features but no bloat," has always confused me. There seem to be far too many technical people who think that you should be able to have software with all the features in the world, yet that takes up only a tiny sliver of memory and disk space.
If I had a time machine I'd send you back in time to about 1995 so you could use a 60mhz Mac with 16 meg of RAM vs. a 486-33 with 8 meg of RAM. Then I'd tell you to load up an image in Photoshop and print it. After picking up drying print from the Windows machine while waiting for the Mac to finish loading all it's extensions, fonts, and other crap it thought it needed to have in RAM before even showing you a clickable interface you'd understand the point of views on this topic much more clearly.
You are obviously too young to remember the days when programmers wrote optimised and intelligent code.
You are obviously too old to understand why programmers don't spend all those man-hours writing optimized and intelligent code anymore. These days all of the old farts that call themselves programmers don't appreciate how much more they get done thanks to abstraction, pre built libraries/modules, nicely designed IDEs, and interpreted languages.
It's easy to criticize when you conveniently forget that that hello world app has a mouse-supported window wrapped around it complete with an OK and [X] buttons and that it's run without affecting anything else on the machine.
One of these days I hope to see a "SIMPLE SOLUTION!" post by somebody who actually understands the topic they're talking about. But, I suppose if they did that, then they'd understand why the simple solution isn't a solution.
"My arm hurts when I raise it!" "Simple solution: Don't raise your arm!" "It's hard to type this with a cast on, but my doctor says you're a moron."
Next week, maybe we'll see 5,000 stories on Google news about how somebody stole a lawnmower.
If it was the highly anticipated successor to John Deere's line of lawnmowers that has generated over 10 billion in income, yes you would see 5,000 stories on Google News about it.
A crime that deserves worldwide news coverage that goes on for weeks and weeks? Please.
That's an interesting thing for somebody who commented in the middle of the comments section of one of these 5,000 news stories to say. Not newsworthy at all, right?
Does anyone else think this whole thing is pretty fucking ridiculous for a lost prototype by a careless worker? A CELL PHONE prototype - not plans for a nuke or plans for a sub or for a stealth fighter - a stupid fucking cell phone....
Really, does anyone else think this is an idiotic waste of police and tax payer money to "protect" the property rights of some corporation?
They've sold over thirty million iPhones and it's still hugely popular. The success of that product helps keep roofs over many Californian heads and has accounted for a significant amount of badly needed tax income. I agree that this specific case is waste of taxpayer money, but your argument that it isn't a stealth bomber is a sign that you really understand what any of this is about. It isn't a 'STUPID FUCKING CELL PHONE' it's an entire product line.
I'm not crazy about "does this mean that...?" style of journalism. Speculation is fine - but it isn't news.
People use predictions to try to make themselves look smarter. A few days ago somebody was posting here about how the future of Nintendo was gloomy because Sony is attempting to replicate the Wii's controller. This sort of broken logic works because of a general lack of understanding of what went into the success of the product. Journalists do this too, afterall, their relevance is dependent on the respect people have of their command of the topic. It works because nobody holds these guys to anything they say.
Seriously though. If you have to extra on top of the data plan to get a "Truly Unlimited" data plan. Sprint would find it very difficult in court to justify any cap.
It should be difficult in court to justify unlimited not really meaning unlimited, but alas, they have shaken our faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah and what bit do you end up reading to decide what to click on?
Or just ignore them and actually rank by the content!!! line they're supposed to do?
Have you used a search engine before? Have you noticed while you're scrolling through the search results they don't show you the entire content of the page?
The value of optimisation is so that those machines will be a reality. That's of monumental value to humanity, far overshadowing efforts at optimisation.
That's a self-correcting problem. a.) The specs of cell phones are dramatically rising every year. b.) When it makes sense to optimize your app to reach a greater audience, the time and money is put into doing it. Just doing it now willy nilly will do little more than lengthen the time to develop and possibly even create more defects to correct.
What you describe isn't some imminent problem. It's a problem we've already gotten past.
...that is the proper place for optimisation...
Settle down, man. It's not like I'm arguing against optimization.
My point was never that we can't have both. It was that the value of that extra optimization was way higher back then. This is true even for NeXT developers. Getting that 10meg app down to 100k meant more when we had 16 megs of RAM than it does with what we have now. Our computing resources are growing faster than we can use them. The flexibility we've gained and the time we're not spending on these apps is worth way more.
I agree, though, bonus points if it's more efficient. That's one of the reasons I use Opera over FF.
Okay, I think you're right, I'm confused by your question. Are you saying that things were just as good for NeXT programmers back then as it is for programmers today, or are you saying that that NeXT offered more bang for the bit? If it's the latter, I have no issue with that statement. If it's the former, I don't understand where you are coming from.
How are those glorious days we live now, which you described, that much different from what NeXtSTEP (or however it should be spelled...) offered?
With respect, I don't see why that isn't obvious. But I'll answer:
- There's internet ubiquity which has made finding sample code etc much easier to find and, therefore, learn from.
- CPU, disc access, and Memory resources are proportionately way better than what we had back in the NeXT days.
- Interpreted languages are way better. Want to do threading in Python? import threading; Want to do networking? MD5 checksums? Google search for python MD5 or python networking etc. Heck, you can even do OpenGL now. Cross-platform support? No problem.
- Want your code to run on your cell phone or other mobile devices? No problem. Wanna memory manage them? No?? No problem!
- Wanna do 3D? Google OpenGL or Direct X. Wanna do 3D on a NeXT box? Get a big thick book with descriptions on how to do hidden wire removal.
And so on. It's amazing how much less you need a full on programming language/compiler these days.
Opera is also proprietary; users give up their software freedom...
Hear hear! I installed Opera and now I can't develop for Open Source anymore!
You are obviously too old to understand why programmers don't spend all those man-hours writing optimized and intelligent code anymore. These days all of the old farts that call themselves programmers don't appreciate how much more they get done thanks to abstraction, pre built libraries/modules, nicely designed IDEs, and interpreted languages.
It's easy to criticize when you conveniently forget that that hello world app has a mouse-supported window wrapped around it complete with an OK and [X] buttons and that it's run without affecting anything else on the machine.
This is not a troll. Just look around! Programming is not only a lot more accessible than it was back in the C64 days, but it's also much much quicker to get things written than it used to be. Shake your head and mod me down if you like, that doesn't change the fact that the percentage of people scripting in various forms out there skyrocketed after the internet became ubiquitous. This shouldn't have to be explained just because somebody is whistful over the good ol' days where you actually had to send data directly to memory addresses.
Ya this attitude of "Something should have tons of features but no bloat," has always confused me. There seem to be far too many technical people who think that you should be able to have software with all the features in the world, yet that takes up only a tiny sliver of memory and disk space.
If I had a time machine I'd send you back in time to about 1995 so you could use a 60mhz Mac with 16 meg of RAM vs. a 486-33 with 8 meg of RAM. Then I'd tell you to load up an image in Photoshop and print it. After picking up drying print from the Windows machine while waiting for the Mac to finish loading all it's extensions, fonts, and other crap it thought it needed to have in RAM before even showing you a clickable interface you'd understand the point of views on this topic much more clearly.
You are obviously too young to remember the days when programmers wrote optimised and intelligent code.
You are obviously too old to understand why programmers don't spend all those man-hours writing optimized and intelligent code anymore. These days all of the old farts that call themselves programmers don't appreciate how much more they get done thanks to abstraction, pre built libraries/modules, nicely designed IDEs, and interpreted languages.
It's easy to criticize when you conveniently forget that that hello world app has a mouse-supported window wrapped around it complete with an OK and [X] buttons and that it's run without affecting anything else on the machine.
Does it really count as a donation if they foresee these AHA-branded games generating at least that much in profit?
Yes.
a.) The definition of 'donation' doesn't have anything to do with motivation.
b.) They don't actually have the money until they get it. Their prediction of the future may be correct, but it's still a guess.
c.) There's nothing to single out Nintendo over any other company in this context.
I mean no offense, but I honestly don't understand why anybody spent their hard-earned mod points on your post.
And while you're at it, lets see if we can get Steve Jobs to jerk off once on his iPad.
"The iPad gets too much hype so I'm gonna bring it up in a totally unrelated thread!"
Simple solution: TURN THE DEVICE OFF!
One of these days I hope to see a "SIMPLE SOLUTION!" post by somebody who actually understands the topic they're talking about. But, I suppose if they did that, then they'd understand why the simple solution isn't a solution.
"My arm hurts when I raise it!" "Simple solution: Don't raise your arm!" "It's hard to type this with a cast on, but my doctor says you're a moron."
...but using your computer requires some interaction and mental processing.
That's why the last thing I do before I go to sleep is post on Slashdot!
How would we have the same balance after Apple taxes both before and after the raid?
I'm not quite following what I was 'wrong' about...
The only thing newsworthy is how a bunch of people who want to blow Steve Jobs claim...
That is very true... for a certain demographic, anyway.
When somebody says 'truck' do you say "don't you mean car"?
Next week, maybe we'll see 5,000 stories on Google news about how somebody stole a lawnmower.
If it was the highly anticipated successor to John Deere's line of lawnmowers that has generated over 10 billion in income, yes you would see 5,000 stories on Google News about it.
A crime that deserves worldwide news coverage that goes on for weeks and weeks? Please.
That's an interesting thing for somebody who commented in the middle of the comments section of one of these 5,000 news stories to say. Not newsworthy at all, right?
Does anyone else think this whole thing is pretty fucking ridiculous for a lost prototype by a careless worker? A CELL PHONE prototype - not plans for a nuke or plans for a sub or for a stealth fighter - a stupid fucking cell phone. ...
Really, does anyone else think this is an idiotic waste of police and tax payer money to "protect" the property rights of some corporation?
They've sold over thirty million iPhones and it's still hugely popular. The success of that product helps keep roofs over many Californian heads and has accounted for a significant amount of badly needed tax income. I agree that this specific case is waste of taxpayer money, but your argument that it isn't a stealth bomber is a sign that you really understand what any of this is about. It isn't a 'STUPID FUCKING CELL PHONE' it's an entire product line.
Who the heck is going to have a kid with an expensive iPhone on an expensive data plan.
iPod Touch.
I'm not crazy about "does this mean that...?" style of journalism. Speculation is fine - but it isn't news.
People use predictions to try to make themselves look smarter. A few days ago somebody was posting here about how the future of Nintendo was gloomy because Sony is attempting to replicate the Wii's controller. This sort of broken logic works because of a general lack of understanding of what went into the success of the product. Journalists do this too, afterall, their relevance is dependent on the respect people have of their command of the topic. It works because nobody holds these guys to anything they say.
So...?
Seriously though. If you have to extra on top of the data plan to get a "Truly Unlimited" data plan. Sprint would find it very difficult in court to justify any cap.
It should be difficult in court to justify unlimited not really meaning unlimited, but alas, they have shaken our faith.
This is well earned distrust.
Way back when I had 2k, installing Linux borked all my games. So I switched to Windows XP.
Just sayin'.