As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what is being lost by not being able to have files named file, File, fIle, fiLe, filE, etc...
That's not the problem. One problem is when you have some file called myawesomefile and the application tries to open MyAwesomeFile. Another problem is when you use the name of the file as the name of a symbol within that file, and the latter lookup is case-sensitive.
Are Adobe's programming practices the fault of Apple, the OS and the file system?
Clearly this is Adobe's bug, but the case-insensitive nature of HFS+ plus didn't help, nor did Adobe's apparent inability to test this code on a case-sensitive filesystem.
What's idiotic about wanting my software to run on case-sensitive filesystems too?
The fact that you didn't apparently know that you could format HFS to be case sensitive (I use Linux for development and even I knew that) should qualify you for dismissal due to ignorance.
I'm sure you can find lots of software developers who don't know configuration details about filesystems they don't use on platforms they don't use, especially when those configuration details have a good chance of rendering plenty of software written for that platform unusable... unless I missed the latest edition of the Super Sekrit Awesome Programmers Club for Cool People Oh Yeah! Newsletter with that specific trivia shibboleth. We're putting cover sheets on them. I'll forward you the memo.
Do you mean that your software must use a case sensitive file system to work or simply that your software can run on a case sensitive file system if need be?
The latter, of course. I've seen a fair few mistakes caused by code written by people using case-insensitive filesystems. For a silly example, take Perl code running on Windows. You can write use Strict; and Perl will happily load the file from the case-insensitive filesystem (as the interface to the filesystem is through system calls), but that statement will have no effect other than compiling the code.
I'm not most people. I'm just me. Like at least some of the "developers" mentioned in the title of this article I develop software that has to run on case-sensitive filesystems. HFS+ does me no favors.
I don't use a Mac anymore, but a colleague tried to use a case-sensitive filesystem and at least one application broke. I don't remember exactly which one it was, but it was part of Adobe's creative suite.
I saw a recent session where a third level wizard used Burning Hands to set some cots on fire in an enclosed room. The party closed the door and left... only to run into an ambush. The rogue character lured some enemies back to the room and used the smoke for superior cover, allowing several sneak attacks.
This was not a planned fire; the wizard is a pyro.
But it's basically a small improvement on interface specifications....
Read it again. Interfaces in Java are a sop to the fact that singly-rooted hierarchies are ineffective at modeling relationships. Interfaces are a degenerate case of roles, in the sense that you can provide interfaces with roles but not vice versa. (You can model inheritance relationships with roles, but not vice versa, unless you hack in anonymous class generation and derivation.)
Why do you Perl folk like to talk about every simple thing....
Hey look, a hasty generalization and a stereotype!
[Where] has a major application of Philosophy developed in Computer Science in the last 2.5 years?
Sometimes I like to think of roles (or Smalltalk traits) as an exploration of Platonic ideals and Kantian noumena, in the idea that our means of interaction between objects depends solely on our understanding of their phenomena.
Obviously, most people would have to change their mindset before it could happen.
If you learn nothing else from the 20th century, human nature doesn't change to make socialism, communism, objectivism, utopianism, or enlightened anarchy workable.
I hope that I'm exceedingly dense, and that was a joke. If not, please list casinos which allow slot machines that spend 360 days of the year in church basements and the garages of volunteers. I don't gamble, but that might tempt me to start.
Nothing will stop the customer from changing their mind about what they want, but getting enough information ahead of the planning stage will save you a world of hassle later.
That depends on what you mean by "enough". In my experience, the type of people which believes that "enough" is possible often tends to lock customers into "what you told me before I started designing".
But I have headed off innumerable problems by asking probing questions, clarifying what the customer wants (in his head and mine) and, thereby, minimizing dead-ends and unacceptable implementations.
Before you drew one little box or cloud on a whiteboard as part of the design process? Before your customer had a prototype to say "Oh, I don't like this at all"?
Are you asking if digging for requirements has turned every project I've touched into a paragon of ahead-of-schedule under-budget success?
No; I believe that ahead-of-schedule and under-budget have very little to do with success, unless there's no way in which you can delight the customer. In that case, I've seen projects cling to the budget and schedule, so they'll have delivered something.
Slashdot Mirror
Also Tom Lehrer. Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone from Monty Python worked on the anti-XP book.
I've rarely found that writing silly songs is a sign of intellectual rigor.
James Turner and James Shore are two very different authors.
That's not the problem. One problem is when you have some file called myawesomefile and the application tries to open MyAwesomeFile. Another problem is when you use the name of the file as the name of a symbol within that file, and the latter lookup is case-sensitive.
Clearly this is Adobe's bug, but the case-insensitive nature of HFS+ plus didn't help, nor did Adobe's apparent inability to test this code on a case-sensitive filesystem.
What's idiotic about wanting my software to run on case-sensitive filesystems too?
I'm sure you can find lots of software developers who don't know configuration details about filesystems they don't use on platforms they don't use, especially when those configuration details have a good chance of rendering plenty of software written for that platform unusable... unless I missed the latest edition of the Super Sekrit Awesome Programmers Club for Cool People Oh Yeah! Newsletter with that specific trivia shibboleth. We're putting cover sheets on them. I'll forward you the memo.
The latter, of course. I've seen a fair few mistakes caused by code written by people using case-insensitive filesystems. For a silly example, take Perl code running on Windows. You can write use Strict; and Perl will happily load the file from the case-insensitive filesystem (as the interface to the filesystem is through system calls), but that statement will have no effect other than compiling the code.
I'm not most people. I'm just me. Like at least some of the "developers" mentioned in the title of this article I develop software that has to run on case-sensitive filesystems. HFS+ does me no favors.
I don't use a Mac anymore, but a colleague tried to use a case-sensitive filesystem and at least one application broke. I don't remember exactly which one it was, but it was part of Adobe's creative suite.
... as long as case-insensitivity is fine.
When your DM allows it.
I saw a recent session where a third level wizard used Burning Hands to set some cots on fire in an enclosed room. The party closed the door and left... only to run into an ambush. The rogue character lured some enemies back to the room and used the smoke for superior cover, allowing several sneak attacks.
This was not a planned fire; the wizard is a pyro.
Multiple WarioWare incarnations already having covered sniffing in detail....
No.
Read it again. Interfaces in Java are a sop to the fact that singly-rooted hierarchies are ineffective at modeling relationships. Interfaces are a degenerate case of roles, in the sense that you can provide interfaces with roles but not vice versa. (You can model inheritance relationships with roles, but not vice versa, unless you hack in anonymous class generation and derivation.)
Hey look, a hasty generalization and a stereotype!
Sometimes I like to think of roles (or Smalltalk traits) as an exploration of Platonic ideals and Kantian noumena, in the idea that our means of interaction between objects depends solely on our understanding of their phenomena.
Based on media reports? There's an epistemological problem.
Is the word "pimp" more accurate? Read your Chaucer (Troilus, not Canterbury).
I prefer Neil Gaiman's take. In a tragedy, the characters get what they deserve. In a comedy, they get what they need.
If you learn nothing else from the 20th century, human nature doesn't change to make socialism, communism, objectivism, utopianism, or enlightened anarchy workable.
You should alert Dr. Simons; she's under the apparent delusion that this happens.
I hope that I'm exceedingly dense, and that was a joke. If not, please list casinos which allow slot machines that spend 360 days of the year in church basements and the garages of volunteers. I don't gamble, but that might tempt me to start.
Casinos seem to manage.
No, that's a false dilemma.
That depends on what you mean by "enough". In my experience, the type of people which believes that "enough" is possible often tends to lock customers into "what you told me before I started designing".
Have you ever personally seen those work on any project?
You're the liason between programmers and customers, because you're good with people. Did I get it right?
Before you drew one little box or cloud on a whiteboard as part of the design process? Before your customer had a prototype to say "Oh, I don't like this at all"?
No; I believe that ahead-of-schedule and under-budget have very little to do with success, unless there's no way in which you can delight the customer. In that case, I've seen projects cling to the budget and schedule, so they'll have delivered something.
Wait, are you talking about MSDN?