BTW, I believe that 'Code Complete' is not just published by M$, but that its author is a M$ employee.
I don't have my copy handy, but I believe that it's published by Microsoft Press.
My problem with Code Complete was not with its being a Microsoft product, but that it completely ignored Object-Oriented programming issues. On the other hand, having seen some of the MFC C++ source code, it's probably just as well.
Scott Meyers counsels us (More Effective C++ Item 6) to prefer preincrement to postincrement...
Not exactly. What Scott counsels us about postfix and prefix operators is to know the difference, especially that they return different values (including const vs non-const). The only sense in which he counsels a preference is when he says that the postfix operator should be defined in terms of the prefix operator, because these operators are supposed to be exactly the same except for their return values. A fine example of the rock-solid common sense underlying his terrific C++ books.
Besides, he was talking about the writing of operators, as would be required if creating an Abstract Data Type. Nowhere did he say that in using these operators should you prefer one to the other. Quite the opposite, in fact: his advice that postfix should be defined in terms of prefix would ensure that users of the ADTs could use either safely. Clearly the reasoning is that users should be able to use either with preference.
Frank Hecker, the person who wrote the paper that led to Netscape's release of the source code, has written a birthday piece on Mozilla
I'm confused. I thought Cathedral and the Bazaar was the paper that led te Netscape's release of the Mozilla source. CandB was by ESR. Has the poster misidentified the paper, or is there another paper I don't know about?
I'm not going to get into that kind of flamefest with you. MacOS has its advantages and disadvantages just like any OS.
Besides, I wasn't talking about the developer's standpoint. MacOS was and still is a great way to use a computer. Linux is the most stable way to use a computer. MacOS and linux could learn a lot from each other.
JWZ laid down a kind of challenge to you, didn't he, Mozilla? He said you had failed. Your own leader, and he said you failed. What are you gonna do now?
I see two choices.
One, you can ignore him. Maybe Jamie was impatient; maybe, as he said, his own goals were unrealistic. Do you believe in the course you're on? Are you mature enough, collectively, not to get impatient -- to stay the course and see your product through to the end? Do you have confidence in your vision, and in the plan you've chosen to realize that vision? If so, then you won't let Jamie's departure distract you too much from the task at hand.
Two, you can listen to Jamie. You can reexamine your goals and your plan. Was your vision the right one? Was Jamie's vision the right one? Or maybe the vision was right, but the plan has led you astray... or bogged you down. Perhaps you need to focus on different goals: more frequent smaller releases instead of less frequent larger ones. Maybe you need to look at what can be removed (for now) from the project rather than what can be added.
Either way, I urge you to make your choice, make it now, and get on with things. I for one believe in the Mozilla project and its vision; I'd be working on it myself if not for other commitments. I want you to succeed, and I hope you succeed soon before AOL pulls the plug.
Don't let the loss of your evangelist distract you unnecessarily. Get on without one if you can, or promote a new one if someone steps up. But above all, please focus like the proverbial laser beam on your goals. Mozilla still has a chance to Win Big, and many of us are counting on you. Go get 'em!
...but the claim isn't outrageous enough. If the claim were that Linus were being hired to port linux to the new Turbotron2000 plasma-based quantum CPU, now that would be a good April Hack's Day joke!
The problem is that RMS is asking for recognition on his own terms -- no one else's will do. So it's not good enough for Linus and other Linux proponents to credit GNU when they talk about Linux; instead RMS insists that we must use the politically correct name GNU/linux. This seems unfair to the Linux community; by and large, Linux people credit GNU's role when they talk about Linux's heritage -- it's the twits in the press who lump all the credit on Linus's plate.
I like the suggestion that people who accumulate scores above a certain threshold should automagically become a moderator because that lets the system call attention to people who have been posting Thoughtful Comments. But I think you'd also want some control over how many moderators there are total, perhaps expressed as some percentage of the number of active users.
Or you could go to a slightly less-automated version in which posters with high scores are automatically nominated for moderatorship. Rob and/or the Mammals can then choose from the top of this list when they want to expand the moderator pool.
...from this point of view: I've always felt that my PalmPilot bears a kind of spiritual kinship to the old Macs. To start with both are Insanely Great. Then there's the Motorola CPU, the small monochrome display, the cool GUI with its menus and oval buttons. When I dug into the database that the PalmOS uses to store information, it felt a lot like the resource database stored in the System and resource forks of files in MacOS.
So the Pilot has always had a Mac-like feel to me, so the suggestion that Apple might put their logo on it just seems to "fit".
A friend of mine, a fellow who loves the Pilot but hates Macintosh with a passion, was extremely distressed when I pointed out the similarities. I thought the poor fellow was going to be ill.
The customizable slashdot won't cut down on figurative-cross-burning. The people who flame Jon will probably continue to do so. What's new is that you now have a figurative-burning-cross-filter (unless some figurative-cross-burner has a high score, which is unlikely, but could happen). Anyway, I like the new system, but it's important to point out that nothing is banned or censored, just filtered.
So, in it least some cases, Apple took CMU code, and added their own copyright and licensing terms? A copyright is a statement of ownership; by implication, it asserts a claim of intellectual property on the copyrighted material. In other words, Apple is claiming the CMU work as their own! If this happened with students and term papers, it would be called plagiarism, and would incur a stiff penalty. Not only do I agree with Bruce that the original license should be restored to these slightly-modified files, but I would also like to see Apple given a great big F for this project. And since ESR has endorsed the project, he gets an F too. Come on guys, you can both do better than this.
Why do authors of furry/sci-fi/erotic journal entries need to use the { and } keys?;-)
I've been coding C++ for about 8 years now, and using the Dvorak layout for about 5-6 years of that. I do find that I have trouble with my right pinky. It's not so much because of the special symbols for the pinky -- most of those symbols are also mapped to the pinky for the QWERTY keyboard, they're just rearranged a little for Dvorak.
My pinky problems are twofold: first is that not all Dvorak mappings lay the keys out the same way, not even all "ANSI" Dvoraks are the same. The most recent example was, I think, the Redhat 5.2 Dvorak layout for console mode; the "=" and one other key are in the wrong place. I've seen the same in X keyboard mappings. Of course, these layouts can usually be changed, but that's a pain.
My other complaint is with keyboards that are physically different in the area of the pinky: some have a small "enter" key, whereas others have the L-shaped enter key. Then there's the Backspace key that's not always in the same place. This causes the Dvorak mapping of the pinky keys to move around in inconsistent ways. Really a pain for touch-typing, but then again, the QWERTY folks would have the same complaints.
First, I have to say that the remarks about "communism" and "collectivism" are absurd. I'm not proposing that we set up a new economic system -- capitalism works fine, thank you. But there are forces within capitalism other than just buying and selling. Grants, donations, foundations, endowments, charitable agencies -- aren't such entities already functioning within our capitalist society?
On the other hand, the idea that we could "collect" our funds and put them to good use is right on the money. If you want to call that "collectivism", so be it. The point is, that by joining forces, we can help *some* projects that would be (and frequently are) worse off without monetary help.
A case in point: the post above, asking why not just buy equipment and donate it a project I want to support? Well, what if I can't afford the equipment by myself? Or take the example of the IrDA membership. I'll bet you can find 15 people willing to donate $100 each *much* faster than you can find one person willing to pony up the entire $1500.
About the question of wanting to control what happens with my money... I do, to some extent want to control where my money goes; after all, I worked hard to earn it. Once it goes to buy a piece of equipment or other support, though, it's gone -- that's the end of my control, and I recognize that fact. But if there were an established agency that I could trust to see that my money makes at least the *first* part of its journey safely, then I as J. Random Donor am going to be more willing to contribute in the first place.
Convenience has a big part to play in donating money. An established agency could set up a web site, take credit card donations, allow me to designate my recipient on-line. In other words, make it *really* easy for me to part with my dollars. This is another counter-argument to the question of why don't I just send a money order or buy some equipment and mail it: because the average person wants his charity to be *easy*.
Make it easy for donors. Give them confidence in where their money goes. Publicize. I think it would work.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I believe that 'Code Complete' is not just published by M$, but that its author is a M$ employee.
I don't have my copy handy, but I believe that it's published by Microsoft Press.
My problem with Code Complete was not with its being a Microsoft product, but that it completely ignored Object-Oriented programming issues. On the other hand, having seen some of the MFC C++ source code, it's probably just as well.
--JT
Clearly the reasoning is that users should be able to use either with preference.
DOH! That should read "...without preference."
--JT
Scott Meyers counsels us (More Effective C++ Item 6) to prefer preincrement to postincrement...
Not exactly. What Scott counsels us about postfix and prefix operators is to know the difference, especially that they return different values (including const vs non-const). The only sense in which he counsels a preference is when he says that the postfix operator should be defined in terms of the prefix operator, because these operators are supposed to be exactly the same except for their return values. A fine example of the rock-solid common sense underlying his terrific C++ books.
Besides, he was talking about the writing of operators, as would be required if creating an Abstract Data Type. Nowhere did he say that in using these operators should you prefer one to the other. Quite the opposite, in fact: his advice that postfix should be defined in terms of prefix would ensure that users of the ADTs could use either safely. Clearly the reasoning is that users should be able to use either with preference.
--JT
I'm confused. I thought Cathedral and the Bazaar was the paper that led te Netscape's release of the Mozilla source. CandB was by ESR. Has the poster misidentified the paper, or is there another paper I don't know about?
--JTI'm not going to get into that kind of flamefest with you. MacOS has its advantages and disadvantages just like any OS.
Besides, I wasn't talking about the developer's standpoint. MacOS was and still is a great way to use a computer. Linux is the most stable way to use a computer. MacOS and linux could learn a lot from each other.
--JT
JWZ laid down a kind of challenge to you, didn't he, Mozilla? He said you had failed. Your own leader, and he said you failed. What are you gonna do now?
I see two choices.
One, you can ignore him. Maybe Jamie was impatient; maybe, as he said, his own goals were unrealistic. Do you believe in the course you're on? Are you mature enough, collectively, not to get impatient -- to stay the course and see your product through to the end? Do you have confidence in your vision, and in the plan you've chosen to realize that vision? If so, then you won't let Jamie's departure distract you too much from the task at hand.
Two, you can listen to Jamie. You can reexamine your goals and your plan. Was your vision the right one? Was Jamie's vision the right one? Or maybe the vision was right, but the plan has led you astray... or bogged you down. Perhaps you need to focus on different goals: more frequent smaller releases instead of less frequent larger ones. Maybe you need to look at what can be removed (for now) from the project rather than what can be added.
Either way, I urge you to make your choice, make it now, and get on with things. I for one believe in the Mozilla project and its vision; I'd be working on it myself if not for other commitments. I want you to succeed, and I hope you succeed soon before AOL pulls the plug.
Don't let the loss of your evangelist distract you unnecessarily. Get on without one if you can, or promote a new one if someone steps up. But above all, please focus like the proverbial laser beam on your goals. Mozilla still has a chance to Win Big, and many of us are counting on you. Go get 'em!
--JT
Yeah, but K-9 was a twit; I always wanted to kill him.
Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate the canine!
--JT
...but the claim isn't outrageous enough. If the claim were that Linus were being hired to port linux to the new Turbotron2000 plasma-based quantum CPU, now that would be a good April Hack's Day joke!
--JT
The problem is that RMS is asking for recognition on his own terms -- no one else's will do. So it's not good enough for Linus and other Linux proponents to credit GNU when they talk about Linux; instead RMS insists that we must use the politically correct name GNU/linux. This seems unfair to the Linux community; by and large, Linux people credit GNU's role when they talk about Linux's heritage -- it's the twits in the press who lump all the credit on Linus's plate.
--JT
I like the suggestion that people who accumulate scores above a certain threshold should automagically become a moderator because that lets the system call attention to people who have been posting Thoughtful Comments. But I think you'd also want some control over how many moderators there are total, perhaps expressed as some percentage of the number of active users.
Or you could go to a slightly less-automated version in which posters with high scores are automatically nominated for moderatorship. Rob and/or the Mammals can then choose from the top of this list when they want to expand the moderator pool.
Either way, it's a decent idea.
--JT
...from this point of view: I've always felt that my PalmPilot bears a kind of spiritual kinship to the old Macs. To start with both are Insanely Great. Then there's the Motorola CPU, the small monochrome display, the cool GUI with its menus and oval buttons. When I dug into the database that the PalmOS uses to store information, it felt a lot like the resource database stored in the System and resource forks of files in MacOS.
So the Pilot has always had a Mac-like feel to me, so the suggestion that Apple might put their logo on it just seems to "fit".
A friend of mine, a fellow who loves the Pilot but hates Macintosh with a passion, was extremely distressed when I pointed out the similarities. I thought the poor fellow was going to be ill.
--JT
The customizable slashdot won't cut down on figurative-cross-burning. The people who flame Jon will probably continue to do so. What's new is that you now have a figurative-burning-cross-filter (unless some figurative-cross-burner has a high score, which is unlikely, but could happen). Anyway, I like the new system, but it's important to point out that nothing is banned or censored, just filtered.
--JT
So, in it least some cases, Apple took CMU code, and added their own copyright and licensing terms? A copyright is a statement of ownership; by implication, it asserts a claim of intellectual property on the copyrighted material. In other words, Apple is claiming the CMU work as their own! If this happened with students and term papers, it would be called plagiarism, and would incur a stiff penalty. Not only do I agree with Bruce that the original license should be restored to these slightly-modified files, but I would also like to see Apple given a great big F for this project. And since ESR has endorsed the project, he gets an F too. Come on guys, you can both do better than this.
--jt
Slashdot's not the only place in the world where discussions like this go on.
Why do authors of furry/sci-fi/erotic journal entries need to use the { and } keys? ;-)
I've been coding C++ for about 8 years now, and using the Dvorak layout for about 5-6 years of that. I do find that I have trouble with my right pinky. It's not so much because of the special symbols for the pinky -- most of those symbols are also mapped to the pinky for the QWERTY keyboard, they're just rearranged a little for Dvorak.
My pinky problems are twofold: first is that not all Dvorak mappings lay the keys out the same way, not even all "ANSI" Dvoraks are the same. The most recent example was, I think, the Redhat 5.2 Dvorak layout for console mode; the "=" and one other key are in the wrong place. I've seen the same in X keyboard mappings. Of course, these layouts can usually be changed, but that's a pain.
My other complaint is with keyboards that are physically different in the area of the pinky: some have a small "enter" key, whereas others have the L-shaped enter key. Then there's the Backspace key that's not always in the same place. This causes the Dvorak mapping of the pinky keys to move around in inconsistent ways. Really a pain for touch-typing, but then again, the QWERTY folks would have the same complaints.
Jim
First, I have to say that the remarks about "communism" and "collectivism" are absurd. I'm not proposing that we set up a new economic system -- capitalism works fine, thank you. But there are forces within capitalism other than just buying and selling. Grants, donations, foundations, endowments, charitable agencies -- aren't such entities already functioning within our capitalist society?
On the other hand, the idea that we could "collect" our funds and put them to good use is right on the money. If you want to call that "collectivism", so be it. The point is, that by joining forces, we can help *some* projects that would be (and frequently are) worse off without monetary help.
A case in point: the post above, asking why not just buy equipment and donate it a project I want to support? Well, what if I can't afford the equipment by myself? Or take the example of the IrDA membership. I'll bet you can find 15 people willing to donate $100 each *much* faster than you can find one person willing to pony up the entire $1500.
About the question of wanting to control what happens with my money... I do, to some extent want to control where my money goes; after all, I worked hard to earn it. Once it goes to buy a piece of equipment or other support, though, it's gone -- that's the end of my control, and I recognize that fact. But if there were an established agency that I could trust to see that my money makes at least the *first* part of its journey safely, then I as J. Random Donor am going to be more willing to contribute in the first place.
Convenience has a big part to play in donating money. An established agency could set up a web site, take credit card donations, allow me to designate my recipient on-line. In other words, make it *really* easy for me to part with my dollars. This is another counter-argument to the question of why don't I just send a money order or buy some equipment and mail it: because the average person wants his charity to be *easy*.
Make it easy for donors. Give them confidence in where their money goes. Publicize. I think it would work.
Jim Thompson (using "kzinti", his slashdot logon)
Taking a look at the image URL, it appears to be a series of cameras looking around Montreal. The URL is:
http://www.montrealcam.com/cgi/cam.cgi?p=cam10
Replace those last two digits with numbers 1 through 11, and you get other views. Neat.
JT
Pournelle hasn't been relevant in years. The last time I read him was at least five years ago; I see he hasn't acquired a single clue since then.
JT
Surf over to the ElectricalFire site, and read its FAQ -- especially the part near the end about the project's code name. What a riot!