Yep, it's a sad day when stuff that would on other topics pass for trolling is close to the truth when talking about the democratic system. The thing is that there doesn't seem to be any outrage about this sort of stuff.
so his comments don't apply here. An electronic system in the US that statisfies the owners of the democracy in the US needs to staisfy the Republican party and its big money supporters. The Diebold system is perfect for this and hence is the choice in the US. Why bother how people vote when you can control how the votes are counted? So long as the difference between the opinion polls and exit polls and the official "results" aren't too large you can get away with stealing elections for as long as you want.
The guy himself said "We Stalked", what more does he have to do. Luskin is a dick, or if not, is certainly making himself look like one. If he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen, not go crying to his mummy.
It's a replacement. It's just not a fully functional one. It doesn't do as much as CORBA. There's a reason the CORBA specs so big. It has to be in order to fully specify all of the stuff that it needs to specify to describe a working system. As D-BUS approaches CORBA in functionality either the spec will approach CORBA's in length, or, more likely, there will be lots of badly documented or undocumented features in D-BUS that no one really understands and that preclude more that one implementation or any sort of interop.
looks very similar to all the other wheels that are already out there but this one's newer and shinier.
OK, this may be the greatest thing since sliced bread but why does it have to be done? I know it's more fun to go off and implement something from scratch than to incrementally fix something that's already out there so that existing users get the benefits as well but is that reason enough to do it?
If the author want's to do this that's great, after all this is their time they're spending on their own software. Making it out to be a great boon to the rest of us, well that's pushing it.
There are lots of rough edges in linux desktop world at the moment. Smoothing them off isn't as glamorous as building a new init system but it's probably more useful.
My major object to whitespace instead of { and }, or similar, is that it makes generating code using XSLT an absolute nightmare. It may not be a big problem to other people but it is to me. Using { and } you don't have to worry about the indentation, which is a pain in the ass to get right with XSLT. For hand written code it's not a problem, any decent IDE, i.e. emacs, will solve the problem. For autogenerated code I think it's a real minus.
I tend to agree. Start again without all of the existing syntax baggage. Being able to reuse exsiting perl libraries would be, imho, the only requirement for a next version of perl. Larry, just write a new language the way you though it should be done, don't "waste" time building more onto the already over complex and weird perl structure you have already.
If I had mod points now I would. What this article provides is a good attempt to cut throught the FUD and make clear that it's the kernel that's under attack, and that the term "IP" is very misleading. People commenting on SCO need to think more clearly, and explain more clearly, what the issues are, what the GPL claims etc. SCO and it's lawyers will try to muddy the waters at every turn, copyright is different from patents is different from...
BTW, what is it with your critisism of the way RMS looks? When you've contributed enough to the community that people will care to listen to your opinion then you can have a little picture of you posted next to your articles and we can all have a good laugh about the way you look.
Because the BBC is government subsidized it tries extra hard to be "independent". Unlike, perhaps, FOX, which is "idenpendent" but toes the Bush line most closely. Just look at the Jessica Lynch coverage from the BBC and compare with what you see in the US. Them complain about bias, and compain to FOX
I think part of his point was that "all the rest" should be written in terms of the "fundamental operators". He's not against large libraries of useful functions but saying that they should be implemented in terms of a smaller set of fundamental ops. Perhaps the fundamental operations set doesn't include even an array but its possible to write a library to support arrays. Also, the support for arrays provided by such a library should be indistinguishable from the support that would be provided if arrays were part of the set of fundamental operations. The language should be transparently extendable using it own operators, no dropping into C in order to implement a new construct.
Sure emacs is good for editing everything but IntelliJ really shines for Java. I think that in the future languages will have better support for editing and development environments. For example, a language that knows which types are appropriate at what point in an expression and what variables currently in scope have those types makes it possible for an IDE to present that info to the developer. Sure dynamic typing looks like it's cool for hacking stuff together but I find now I can solve a problem faster in IntelliJ + Java than in Emacs + perl/python just because the info I need is at my fingertips, even though in emacs perl would be the clear winner because it's less verbose. Using verbosity as a test for language goodness is counter productive when you have decent IDE support. I'd like a verbose/easy to read language that is also easy to write when you have decent IDE support.
Different level of patterns. Less discussion of the simpler things like MVC and more on the "enterprise" things like SessionFacade, BusinessDelegate etc. I read the drafts when they were publically available on Mr. Fowler's site and it was all useful stuff.
Not free but ... IntelliJ is by far the best
on
Eclipse 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I know we're meant to be talking about Eclipse but if you're in the market for an IDE and you don't look at IntelliJ IDEA you're missing out. At work we have saved the purchase price ($700, far less than so called "Enterprise" tools) many times over. The whole tool works so cleanly and unobtrusively it doesn't get between you and your code. The only downside is it tends to turn its users into partisans in the same way that emacs does. If you're worried that you'll end up posting to Slashdot praising a commercial product then stay away.
I used to think that perl might become the new COBOL. Now it looks like it's going to be the new ADA. Lots of nice features but such complexity and cleverness that even the people who use it don't like it. ADA's a good language, but no one uses it. It would be a shame if perl 6 went the same way.
Perhaps the cleverness of the ideas are not being tempered by real use at this point. A language does not become great by adding new syntax and semantics for each feature but by refining it to the essential units needed to express all the rest. We should not celebrate the fact that "will" and "is" are very similar ways to express traits in perl 6. We should ask instead why do we need both? Further, is it possible for me to define a new "wont" statement in perl, or are "will" and "is" special things only language designers can implement?
I agree. If you actually watch construction projects you'll often see them put in sidewalks one week only to tear them up the next to lay pipe. Programming has been beaten up too much be people saying it should be more like construction, people who've clearly never even seen a road being built.
OT. but that's the first Ken MacLeod sig I've seen. Cassini Division is a great book. Interesting to compare the socialists in space in Cassini Division with the libertarians on Mars in Stone Canals. Also like the lead character doing the right thing for the wrong and prejudiced reasons.
It mostly reminds me of Horation Hornblower in space. Certainly in the earlier books the battles were from the age of sail. Long waits while moving into position, gun decks on the side etc. It emerges "naturally" from the propulsion systems Webber sets up but it's basically the Hornblower story arc.
"The whole point of GPL was to make it impossible to charge for software by flooding the market with free software"
Yep, you're right, you know nothing about the GPL or why the FSF was started. Also "no I am not about to find out" you apparently don't want to find out.
BTW If you don't like the GPL, write your own damm code. There's nothing saying you have to use GPLed code, it's your choice.
It's the feeling I got as well. The change Gray suggests might be good or they might be bad. What I liked about Paul's write up was that he determined practically that it worked for him. Sure the theory may not be perfect but, to use a broad analogy, you don't need general relativity to work out how fast a ball rolls down a slope, Newtonian theory works fine. It may not be worth it to get the extra.1% of accuracy, especially if, as you point out, it increases false positives. Only testing will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, it's a sad day when stuff that would on other topics pass for trolling is close to the truth when talking about the democratic system. The thing is that there doesn't seem to be any outrage about this sort of stuff.
so his comments don't apply here. An electronic system in the US that statisfies the owners of the democracy in the US needs to staisfy the Republican party and its big money supporters. The Diebold system is perfect for this and hence is the choice in the US. Why bother how people vote when you can control how the votes are counted? So long as the difference between the opinion polls and exit polls and the official "results" aren't too large you can get away with stealing elections for as long as you want.
The guy himself said "We Stalked", what more does he have to do. Luskin is a dick, or if not, is certainly making himself look like one. If he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen, not go crying to his mummy.
It's a replacement. It's just not a fully functional one. It doesn't do as much as CORBA. There's a reason the CORBA specs so big. It has to be in order to fully specify all of the stuff that it needs to specify to describe a working system. As D-BUS approaches CORBA in functionality either the spec will approach CORBA's in length, or, more likely, there will be lots of badly documented or undocumented features in D-BUS that no one really understands and that preclude more that one implementation or any sort of interop.
No, it's not always a bad thing. I just sometimes think it's done too often, and for the wrong reasons.
You are so right. Some things are complex and reinventing the wheel isn't going to make the road any smoother.
looks very similar to all the other wheels that are already out there but this one's newer and shinier.
OK, this may be the greatest thing since sliced bread but why does it have to be done? I know it's more fun to go off and implement something from scratch than to incrementally fix something that's already out there so that existing users get the benefits as well but is that reason enough to do it?
If the author want's to do this that's great, after all this is their time they're spending on their own software. Making it out to be a great boon to the rest of us, well that's pushing it.
There are lots of rough edges in linux desktop world at the moment. Smoothing them off isn't as glamorous as building a new init system but it's probably more useful.
IntelliJ/IDEA proves you don't need SWT for Java GUI speed. Just give it a go. Very fast, yet written in Swing. The latest NetBeans is also no slouch.
My major object to whitespace instead of { and }, or similar, is that it makes generating code using XSLT an absolute nightmare. It may not be a big problem to other people but it is to me. Using { and } you don't have to worry about the indentation, which is a pain in the ass to get right with XSLT. For hand written code it's not a problem, any decent IDE, i.e. emacs, will solve the problem. For autogenerated code I think it's a real minus.
I tend to agree. Start again without all of the existing syntax baggage. Being able to reuse exsiting perl libraries would be, imho, the only requirement for a next version of perl. Larry, just write a new language the way you though it should be done, don't "waste" time building more onto the already over complex and weird perl structure you have already.
If I had mod points now I would. What this article provides is a good attempt to cut throught the FUD and make clear that it's the kernel that's under attack, and that the term "IP" is very misleading. People commenting on SCO need to think more clearly, and explain more clearly, what the issues are, what the GPL claims etc. SCO and it's lawyers will try to muddy the waters at every turn, copyright is different from patents is different from ...
BTW, what is it with your critisism of the way RMS looks? When you've contributed enough to the community that people will care to listen to your opinion then you can have a little picture of you posted next to your articles and we can all have a good laugh about the way you look.
Because the BBC is government subsidized it tries extra hard to be "independent". Unlike, perhaps, FOX, which is "idenpendent" but toes the Bush line most closely. Just look at the Jessica Lynch coverage from the BBC and compare with what you see in the US. Them complain about bias, and compain to FOX
I think part of his point was that "all the rest" should be written in terms of the "fundamental operators". He's not against large libraries of useful functions but saying that they should be implemented in terms of a smaller set of fundamental ops. Perhaps the fundamental operations set doesn't include even an array but its possible to write a library to support arrays. Also, the support for arrays provided by such a library should be indistinguishable from the support that would be provided if arrays were part of the set of fundamental operations. The language should be transparently extendable using it own operators, no dropping into C in order to implement a new construct.
Sure emacs is good for editing everything but IntelliJ really shines for Java. I think that in the future languages will have better support for editing and development environments. For example, a language that knows which types are appropriate at what point in an expression and what variables currently in scope have those types makes it possible for an IDE to present that info to the developer. Sure dynamic typing looks like it's cool for hacking stuff together but I find now I can solve a problem faster in IntelliJ + Java than in Emacs + perl/python just because the info I need is at my fingertips, even though in emacs perl would be the clear winner because it's less verbose. Using verbosity as a test for language goodness is counter productive when you have decent IDE support. I'd like a verbose/easy to read language that is also easy to write when you have decent IDE support.
Different level of patterns. Less discussion of the simpler things like MVC and more on the "enterprise" things like SessionFacade, BusinessDelegate etc. I read the drafts when they were publically available on Mr. Fowler's site and it was all useful stuff.
I know we're meant to be talking about Eclipse but if you're in the market for an IDE and you don't look at IntelliJ IDEA you're missing out. At work we have saved the purchase price ($700, far less than so called "Enterprise" tools) many times over. The whole tool works so cleanly and unobtrusively it doesn't get between you and your code. The only downside is it tends to turn its users into partisans in the same way that emacs does. If you're worried that you'll end up posting to Slashdot praising a commercial product then stay away.
Like when Sideshow Bob was elected mayor:
"Oh no, the dead have come back to life and they're voting republican."
yea, I know Chicago was historically Democratic but from Judge Dread to the Simpsons was too good to miss.
As Judge Death discovered "all crime is comitted by the living, therefore we outlawed life".
I used to think that perl might become the new COBOL. Now it looks like it's going to be the new ADA. Lots of nice features but such complexity and cleverness that even the people who use it don't like it. ADA's a good language, but no one uses it. It would be a shame if perl 6 went the same way.
Perhaps the cleverness of the ideas are not being tempered by real use at this point. A language does not become great by adding new syntax and semantics for each feature but by refining it to the essential units needed to express all the rest. We should not celebrate the fact that "will" and "is" are very similar ways to express traits in perl 6. We should ask instead why do we need both? Further, is it possible for me to define a new "wont" statement in perl, or are "will" and "is" special things only language designers can implement?
I agree. If you actually watch construction projects you'll often see them put in sidewalks one week only to tear them up the next to lay pipe. Programming has been beaten up too much be people saying it should be more like construction, people who've clearly never even seen a road being built.
Yep, Halo Jones is my favourite too. Of his recent stuff I'd say Top Ten is the best.
OT. but that's the first Ken MacLeod sig I've seen. Cassini Division is a great book. Interesting to compare the socialists in space in Cassini Division with the libertarians on Mars in Stone Canals. Also like the lead character doing the right thing for the wrong and prejudiced reasons.
It mostly reminds me of Horation Hornblower in space. Certainly in the earlier books the battles were from the age of sail. Long waits while moving into position, gun decks on the side etc. It emerges "naturally" from the propulsion systems Webber sets up but it's basically the Hornblower story arc.
"The whole point of GPL was to make it impossible to charge for software by flooding the market with free software"
Yep, you're right, you know nothing about the GPL or why the FSF was started. Also "no I am not about to find out" you apparently don't want to find out.
BTW If you don't like the GPL, write your own damm code. There's nothing saying you have to use GPLed code, it's your choice.
It's the feeling I got as well. The change Gray suggests might be good or they might be bad. What I liked about Paul's write up was that he determined practically that it worked for him. Sure the theory may not be perfect but, to use a broad analogy, you don't need general relativity to work out how fast a ball rolls down a slope, Newtonian theory works fine. It may not be worth it to get the extra .1% of accuracy, especially if, as you point out, it increases false positives. Only testing will tell.