Angry much you went to the local community college. The problem with your assertion is that thats its the cv and reputation that get you the job is they tend to correlate to having gone to a good school more often than not. That's obvious.
To even suggest ruby or php or perl for real enterprise applications is utterly laughable and comes from dynamic script kiddies or system admins who know nothing else, not true enterprise programming and development.
This is completely idiotic. All logic works based on algorithms, whether it's in your head or in a computer. Only a monkey or someone with an agenda would write such article. "The Gradual Public Awareness of the Might of Algorithms" eh???????????????????
Here you go, imagine away... Thanks. Virtualization has to go through a hypervisor layer for everything. That will obviously have an impact as demonstrated below. The impact varies by what you're doing of course, but as a median it appears to be around a 33% loss running parallels.
http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/windows_on_ma c/faq/parallels-speed-compared-to-boot-camp.html
Using Parallels on the Macs, the overall WorldBench test score is about two-thirds of what it is for the same machine booted natively into Windows via Boot Camp. Some portions of our testing, such as multitasking, show a big divide in performance. Other portions show only slight differences. In our Office 2002 test, for example, Parallels was only about 10 percent slower than in native mode. Overall, our results indicate that, using Parallels, you'll get about two-thirds of the speed you'll get using Boot Camp.
>It's not incorrect and you just cited a few reasons why. very careful, complicates bookmarking
Actually no. In my use cases, it hasn't affected bookmarking at all.
>Also, I've never heard of anyone referring to HTML as bloating for an XML message;)
I'm struggling with grasping what you are referring to here. Not quite sure where you got this from.
And yes, of course, a desktop app has more functionality overall. That simply isn't a question. But Ajax has closed the gap some. Some projects that weren't possible before are now possible on the web. Also web apps bring significant advantages over desktop apps in other areas. From changing versions, accessability, scalability (depends on the architecture of your desktop app), platform independence (yes multiple browsers but that is far easier than writing multiple versions of an app for multiple operating systems).... Anyway, as always, it comes down to the particular project needs. If I run into a piece of this very large system I can't implement as a web app, I write a desktop version for it (java web start most likely). I hardly think I'm going to regret anything. We have steadily over the last 8 years been moving apps to a web environment where we can and there are huge payoffs (centralizing the applications both from a hardware perspective, software prespective, accessability to the user, easier linking between applications, on and on). Sure we have some desktop apps that are data intensive (I'm at a biotech in research), but a majority by far have been implemented as web applications and it's been very, very, very successful.
>It's not incorrect and you just cited a few reasons why. very careful, complicates bookmarking
Actually no. In my use cases, it hasn't affected bookmarking at all.
>Also, I've never heard of anyone referring to HTML as bloating for an XML message;)
I'm struggling with grasping what you are referring to here. Not quite sure where you got this from.
And yes, of course, a desktop app has more functionality overall. That simply isn't a question. But Ajax has closed the gap some. Some projects that weren't possible before are now possible on the web. Also web apps bring significant advantages over desktop apps in other areas. From changing versions, accessability, scalability (depends on the architecture of your desktop app), platform independence (yes multiple browsers but that is far easier than writing multiple versions of an app for multiple operating systems).... Anyway, as always, it comes down to the particular project needs. If I run into a piece of this very large system I can't implement as a web app, I write a desktop version for it (java web start most likely). I hardly think I'm going to regret anything. We have steadily over the last 8 years been moving apps to a web environment where we can and there are huge payoffs (centralizing the applications both from a hardware perspective, software prespective, accessability to the user, easier linking between applications, on and on). Sure we have some desktop apps that are data intensive (I'm at a biotech in research), but a majority by far have been implemented as web applications and it's been very, very, very successful.
this is entirely correct and obvious. Iframes and addressing the window.opener allowed you to do some of the same things but it would be incredibly ugly way to control content in the window opener. But you have far more a framework built up now for handling sending parameters, handling errors, controlling the layout better... It's far different than submitting a simple url via an iframe.
I apologize for the typos above...reformatted
XML is a waste of time for my applications actually and a huge number of developers. Take a look at the last Ajax conference. Google also choose to not use xml for googlemaps. I've actually spoken to their developers face to face about it. XML was just a processing nightmare and generally not feasible depending on your application. The overhead is just too high. Someone in house here did in fact do the timing comparisons you listed here. There are trade-offs depending on the complexity of the data coming back. If the data isn't complex and is frequently requested, JSON is clearly the way to go. When you return data in a complex struture, xml probably makes the most sense, but then i wouldn't be using Ajax for such a thing personally. It's just not a good use case. So I have no use for xml really.
XML is a waste fo time for my applicatiosn actually and a huge mumber fo develops. take a look at the last Ajax conference. Google also choose to not usexml for googlemaps. I've actually spoken to their developers face to face about it. XML was just a processing nightmare and generally not feasible depending on your application. The overhead is just too high.
Someone in house here did in fact do the timing comparisons you listed here. There are trade-offs depending on the complexity of the data coming back. If the data isn't complex and is frequently requested, JSON is clearly the way to go. When you return data in a complex struture, xml probably makes the most sense, but then i wouldn't be using Ajax for such a thing personally. It's just nto a good use case. So I have no use for xml really.
Google definitely didn't invent it. At this point I think more people are using JSON for the data format versus xml. There is just way too much overhead associated with xml. There are a host of javascript and other programming langauge libraries built up to make mall this more easy. For example, the dojo toolkit for javascript has functions for sending the request and decoding the JSON for you automatically. It also provides some framework for passing parameters, handlign errors, and more. Then JSON.org has a host of built up libraries in Java, Perl, C++, Ruby,...(many many more) for encoding the data to send back. It's all very easy to do now.
i'd say this is complete and utter bullshit. I hope these sites like digg and mysapce die their internet deaths soon. It's almost time where the basic code for these types of sites will be freeware anyway.
Lets be candid. As long as China remains Chinese they could never fully compete with an open mixed culture like the United States. We have dominated precisely because we are a melting pot. We mix in the best and the brightest of the world. We don't retrict ourselves to jews, chinese, blacks. The culture in the United States is simple eveolution. Eventually all nations will become more or less mixed over time, it's simple evolution driving us. But while some cultures remain closed, they can't hope to dominate or meet the US innovation. Our diversity is what drives our evolution so quickly. China is destined for a rapid self-destruction in the following tens of years is my guess.
oh please. Ypu spout garbage. The chinese have been behind for a long, long time. The only reason they have cash now is becasue of American investment in factories there. Eventually, they learned they could steal the technology and start companies there. They started to send monkeys here to steal more technology. They have been behind for a long, long time. Please, spare the commenst about Marco Polo. The west has dominated the backward chinese the moment we met them. They have progressed only due to us. They long to be western adn steal what they can.
LOLL. China's innovation comes from sending their scientists here, stealing the technology, sending them back home to start Chinese companies with stolen technology. Comical. When the Chinese people wake up and realize their being used in factories for no pay to make a few others rich, the country will be in trouble. It's a matter of time before union's start there and their money begin's to flow out the doors.
By the way, I'm only talking about enterprise level software that has shared libraries. There are certainly one-off cases where perl, ruby, python etc. are very useful. I use them a lot depending on the task. It's foolish to not use a static type-safe language for shared code at an enteprise level. You would be hard pressed to find example where it isn't used, but there are always exceptions.
LOL monkey. You must be an academic or hobbyist. Java is alive and well in the enterprise. Any real programmer in an enterprise environment knows that dynamic langauges like perl, python, ruby, etc etc are not used for shared enterprise level code and never will be in their current form. It is foolish (and therefore why 99% of enterprise software) to use a dynamic lagunage unless you're willing to create endless amounts of documentation of what each function actually does. Static type languages like Java, C#, C++, C etc are still used for enterprise level shared code because it is far easier to understand what each function does, maintain and share. What is far more likely to happen is that staic typed languages like Java will adopt more dynamic behavior in limited cases where it makes sense, and at the same time increase static type-checking in other areas (eg Genereic in Java).
Slashdot Mirror
This is a joke and nonsensical.
Angry much you went to the local community college. The problem with your assertion is that thats its the cv and reputation that get you the job is they tend to correlate to having gone to a good school more often than not. That's obvious.
To even suggest ruby or php or perl for real enterprise applications is utterly laughable and comes from dynamic script kiddies or system admins who know nothing else, not true enterprise programming and development.
This is completely idiotic. All logic works based on algorithms, whether it's in your head or in a computer. Only a monkey or someone with an agenda would write such article. "The Gradual Public Awareness of the Might of Algorithms" eh???????????????????
Here you go, imagine away... Thanks. Virtualization has to go through a hypervisor layer for everything. That will obviously have an impact as demonstrated below. The impact varies by what you're doing of course, but as a median it appears to be around a 33% loss running parallels. http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/windows_on_ma c/faq/parallels-speed-compared-to-boot-camp.html
Using Parallels on the Macs, the overall WorldBench test score is about two-thirds of what it is for the same machine booted natively into Windows via Boot Camp. Some portions of our testing, such as multitasking, show a big divide in performance. Other portions show only slight differences. In our Office 2002 test, for example, Parallels was only about 10 percent slower than in native mode. Overall, our results indicate that, using Parallels, you'll get about two-thirds of the speed you'll get using Boot Camp.
Argh the returns got stripped above.
;)
>It's not incorrect and you just cited a few reasons why. very careful, complicates bookmarking Actually no. In my use cases, it hasn't affected bookmarking at all.
>Also, I've never heard of anyone referring to HTML as bloating for an XML message
I'm struggling with grasping what you are referring to here. Not quite sure where you got this from.
And yes, of course, a desktop app has more functionality overall. That simply isn't a question. But Ajax has closed the gap some. Some projects that weren't possible before are now possible on the web. Also web apps bring significant advantages over desktop apps in other areas. From changing versions, accessability, scalability (depends on the architecture of your desktop app), platform independence (yes multiple browsers but that is far easier than writing multiple versions of an app for multiple operating systems).... Anyway, as always, it comes down to the particular project needs. If I run into a piece of this very large system I can't implement as a web app, I write a desktop version for it (java web start most likely). I hardly think I'm going to regret anything. We have steadily over the last 8 years been moving apps to a web environment where we can and there are huge payoffs (centralizing the applications both from a hardware perspective, software prespective, accessability to the user, easier linking between applications, on and on). Sure we have some desktop apps that are data intensive (I'm at a biotech in research), but a majority by far have been implemented as web applications and it's been very, very, very successful.
>It's not incorrect and you just cited a few reasons why. very careful, complicates bookmarking Actually no. In my use cases, it hasn't affected bookmarking at all. >Also, I've never heard of anyone referring to HTML as bloating for an XML message ;)
I'm struggling with grasping what you are referring to here. Not quite sure where you got this from.
And yes, of course, a desktop app has more functionality overall. That simply isn't a question. But Ajax has closed the gap some. Some projects that weren't possible before are now possible on the web. Also web apps bring significant advantages over desktop apps in other areas. From changing versions, accessability, scalability (depends on the architecture of your desktop app), platform independence (yes multiple browsers but that is far easier than writing multiple versions of an app for multiple operating systems).... Anyway, as always, it comes down to the particular project needs. If I run into a piece of this very large system I can't implement as a web app, I write a desktop version for it (java web start most likely). I hardly think I'm going to regret anything. We have steadily over the last 8 years been moving apps to a web environment where we can and there are huge payoffs (centralizing the applications both from a hardware perspective, software prespective, accessability to the user, easier linking between applications, on and on). Sure we have some desktop apps that are data intensive (I'm at a biotech in research), but a majority by far have been implemented as web applications and it's been very, very, very successful.
this is entirely correct and obvious. Iframes and addressing the window.opener allowed you to do some of the same things but it would be incredibly ugly way to control content in the window opener. But you have far more a framework built up now for handling sending parameters, handling errors, controlling the layout better... It's far different than submitting a simple url via an iframe.
I apologize for the typos above...reformatted XML is a waste of time for my applications actually and a huge number of developers. Take a look at the last Ajax conference. Google also choose to not use xml for googlemaps. I've actually spoken to their developers face to face about it. XML was just a processing nightmare and generally not feasible depending on your application. The overhead is just too high. Someone in house here did in fact do the timing comparisons you listed here. There are trade-offs depending on the complexity of the data coming back. If the data isn't complex and is frequently requested, JSON is clearly the way to go. When you return data in a complex struture, xml probably makes the most sense, but then i wouldn't be using Ajax for such a thing personally. It's just not a good use case. So I have no use for xml really.
XML is a waste fo time for my applicatiosn actually and a huge mumber fo develops. take a look at the last Ajax conference. Google also choose to not usexml for googlemaps. I've actually spoken to their developers face to face about it. XML was just a processing nightmare and generally not feasible depending on your application. The overhead is just too high. Someone in house here did in fact do the timing comparisons you listed here. There are trade-offs depending on the complexity of the data coming back. If the data isn't complex and is frequently requested, JSON is clearly the way to go. When you return data in a complex struture, xml probably makes the most sense, but then i wouldn't be using Ajax for such a thing personally. It's just nto a good use case. So I have no use for xml really.
Google definitely didn't invent it. At this point I think more people are using JSON for the data format versus xml. There is just way too much overhead associated with xml. There are a host of javascript and other programming langauge libraries built up to make mall this more easy. For example, the dojo toolkit for javascript has functions for sending the request and decoding the JSON for you automatically. It also provides some framework for passing parameters, handlign errors, and more. Then JSON.org has a host of built up libraries in Java, Perl, C++, Ruby, ...(many many more) for encoding the data to send back. It's all very easy to do now.
i'd say this is complete and utter bullshit. I hope these sites like digg and mysapce die their internet deaths soon. It's almost time where the basic code for these types of sites will be freeware anyway.
Lets be candid. As long as China remains Chinese they could never fully compete with an open mixed culture like the United States. We have dominated precisely because we are a melting pot. We mix in the best and the brightest of the world. We don't retrict ourselves to jews, chinese, blacks. The culture in the United States is simple eveolution. Eventually all nations will become more or less mixed over time, it's simple evolution driving us. But while some cultures remain closed, they can't hope to dominate or meet the US innovation. Our diversity is what drives our evolution so quickly. China is destined for a rapid self-destruction in the following tens of years is my guess.
oh please. Ypu spout garbage. The chinese have been behind for a long, long time. The only reason they have cash now is becasue of American investment in factories there. Eventually, they learned they could steal the technology and start companies there. They started to send monkeys here to steal more technology. They have been behind for a long, long time. Please, spare the commenst about Marco Polo. The west has dominated the backward chinese the moment we met them. They have progressed only due to us. They long to be western adn steal what they can.
LOLL. China's innovation comes from sending their scientists here, stealing the technology, sending them back home to start Chinese companies with stolen technology. Comical. When the Chinese people wake up and realize their being used in factories for no pay to make a few others rich, the country will be in trouble. It's a matter of time before union's start there and their money begin's to flow out the doors.
By the way, I'm only talking about enterprise level software that has shared libraries. There are certainly one-off cases where perl, ruby, python etc. are very useful. I use them a lot depending on the task. It's foolish to not use a static type-safe language for shared code at an enteprise level. You would be hard pressed to find example where it isn't used, but there are always exceptions.
LOL monkey. You must be an academic or hobbyist. Java is alive and well in the enterprise. Any real programmer in an enterprise environment knows that dynamic langauges like perl, python, ruby, etc etc are not used for shared enterprise level code and never will be in their current form. It is foolish (and therefore why 99% of enterprise software) to use a dynamic lagunage unless you're willing to create endless amounts of documentation of what each function actually does. Static type languages like Java, C#, C++, C etc are still used for enterprise level shared code because it is far easier to understand what each function does, maintain and share. What is far more likely to happen is that staic typed languages like Java will adopt more dynamic behavior in limited cases where it makes sense, and at the same time increase static type-checking in other areas (eg Genereic in Java).