>> "we extended our c++ client program with JNI. >> The client program then called a local wrapper >> class that used RMI"
> THAT SUCKS! Such program is fragile, non-portable, > pain to support and debug, no fault tolerance > and load balancing available with CORBA, > not extendable... As an architectural solution it > is ugly...
He said it was cheap and worked well. Those are very important redeeming qualities.
You are probably the kind of person that think that MS Access isn't used anywhere in critical applications. Ofthen in practice you have to make compromises. You can't always start from scratch, and you can't always do it the `clean, academic way'.
Perl has always used typed variable, but those are "dynamically typed" instead of "statically typed" like the.NET architecture is.
Also, PerlNET is no blasphemy: you can still write Perl code as you've always had. It will work, you only need a `[interface: pure]' pseudo custom attribute in the interface specification.
Still, PerlNET also supports statically typed variables: they are there as an extension. So of course, the language was not amputated, it was extended to make better use of the CLR architecture.
An interesting thing is that you still can use CPAN modules with PerlNET and they will work.
The article doesn't say anything, and is really aimed at manager-type people.
Example: Look at some of the other languages that have been ported to the CLR. In every case, those languages have had to lose something important that made them different to fit the common dominator offered by the CLR. Microsoft has brought the notion of skins to programming indeed. (emphasis mine)
What a gratuitous (and feeble) claim. The author obviously think that about 3 languages exists: C(and friends), Java and VB.
Some functionnal languages have been successfully ported to the CLR, and they didn't need to be amputated for that.
For example, Standard ML and Mercury. Both have been succesfully ported to the CLR without violence to those languages.
So, in conclusion, I agree that when you know only 3 procedural/OO languages you might be under the impression that all languages look alike.
Don't worry, you are not really responding to a troll here, and I think you make sense a lot.
Java is good for the fact that, as you say, it is well documented, clean and secure.
But the post here (which is a rant by Paul Graham) is somewhat taken out of context. Paul Graham dislikes Java, but it is because he is a Lisp hacker. Really, he is very good at what he is doing. He is working on a new language too (Arc) which looks very promising.
Paul is used to have a very, very flexible language in his hands that allows him to speak freely to a computer, while Java is more of a rigourous and "straight" language. It does have all the strengths it pretends to have (security, efficiency, portability...) but it lacks some expressivity that you can get in Lisp.
Ticalc.org is back up for business after the unfortunate incident in which "inapropriate Content" was pressed onto the CD's that Texas Instruments included in their "Fun Kit" graphlink kit from the Ticalc archives.
Uhh, maybe I wasn't there or something, but what was that "inapropriate content" that was on the CDs?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, I can't even imagine playing Street Fighter II without a long row of quarters balanced along the bottom edge of the screen.
I don't agree. Video games is like sex and software, it's much better when it's free.
I'm serious.
Well, that's a pretty strong metric for lawyer stuff... I'm really reassured, thanks.
funny post :-)
to the point but oh so mean...
damn good point buddy
Idiot. The peaceful protestor could be standing next to such a 'terrorist' and get burned. mmm I think I'm getting trolled right now...
>> "we extended our c++ client program with JNI.
>> The client program then called a local wrapper
>> class that used RMI"
> THAT SUCKS! Such program is fragile, non-portable,
> pain to support and debug, no fault tolerance
> and load balancing available with CORBA,
> not extendable... As an architectural solution it
> is ugly...
He said it was cheap and worked well. Those are very important redeeming qualities.
You are probably the kind of person that think that MS Access isn't used anywhere in critical applications. Ofthen in practice you have to make compromises. You can't always start from scratch, and you can't always do it the `clean, academic way'.
Thanks.
Also, PerlNET is no blasphemy: you can still write Perl code as you've always had. It will work, you only need a `[interface: pure]' pseudo custom attribute in the interface specification.
Still, PerlNET also supports statically typed variables: they are there as an extension. So of course, the language was not amputated, it was extended to make better use of the CLR architecture.
An interesting thing is that you still can use CPAN modules with PerlNET and they will work.
Example:
Look at some of the other languages that have been ported to the CLR. In every case, those languages have had to lose something important that made them different to fit the common dominator offered by the CLR. Microsoft has brought the notion of skins to programming indeed.
(emphasis mine)
What a gratuitous (and feeble) claim. The author obviously think that about 3 languages exists: C(and friends), Java and VB.
Some functionnal languages have been successfully ported to the CLR, and they didn't need to be amputated for that.
For example, Standard ML and Mercury. Both have been succesfully ported to the CLR without violence to those languages.
So, in conclusion, I agree that when you know only 3 procedural/OO languages you might be under the impression that all languages look alike.
Move along, nothing to see here.
algorhythm: a computer process making a computation that must be done repetively over a fixed period of time.
lots of love for you two
You put them on the head of those friggin sharks.
Don't worry, you are not really responding to a troll here, and I think you make sense a lot.
Java is good for the fact that, as you say, it is well documented, clean and secure.
But the post here (which is a rant by Paul Graham) is somewhat taken out of context. Paul Graham dislikes Java, but it is because he is a Lisp hacker. Really, he is very good at what he is doing. He is working on a new language too (Arc) which looks very promising.
Paul is used to have a very, very flexible language in his hands that allows him to speak freely to a computer, while Java is more of a rigourous and "straight" language. It does have all the strengths it pretends to have (security, efficiency, portability...) but it lacks some expressivity that you can get in Lisp.
I guess it is a question of audience...
The answer is 42.
That would be the age of the captain?
You forgot the 12 posts saying that "rolig liten hattgubbe" is Swedish, and it means "Funny little hat guy."
Yeah, it's called "diff"...
True. I have a 486/33Mhz acting as a router for 5 computers, and at 250 kb/s download using cable-modem the cpu usage is around 15-20% only.
Using adsl and pppoe though used to get much worse performance, the cpu being used at 95-100% for 100kb/s download.
I'd bet on Scheme too, for example Parrot (perl6 vm) already got an implementation of Scheme running on it. Scheme + Perl6 will rock my world.
Basically, Joel's take on a similar problem is: don't do it.
Unless you have a _really_ good reason to do huge change to a big codebase, don't bother, and make something more productive instead.
YHBT YHL HAND
Peter Beckman (ex]Founder of AdCritic.com) posted himself that news over FuckedCompany.com: see it and the following discussion here.
I actually know 2 of those... impressed? ;-)
Yeah, because cool chicks are attracted to server rooms like flies are attracted to shit...
Uhh, maybe I wasn't there or something, but what was that "inapropriate content" that was on the CDs?
TI's press release makes it sounds like pr0n...