viable only because they're used extensively is *also* absurd.
Only viable because of that? Where did I say that? I'm not going to debate why Java/.Net is good because, frankly, I don't have to. Its a well established fact (which was my point). May as well start debating why breathing is good.
Macromedia/Adobe needs to clean up its act.
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
With any luck, in 10 years, maybe their documentation won't be disgraceful. Their support system is terrible and their platform support is more or less non-existent. Likewise, their product frankly is just very unpolished and bloated/buggy.
"Client satisfaction" and "higher revenue" don't always imply the project was coded well. Now, I'm not suggesting designing decisions should be based on technically ill-informed politics, but the "ends justifying the means" school of thought makes for messy software.
That's quite a leap to take from what I was saying (notably, the ends always justify the means). Additionally, maintainability is typically a factor in client satisfaction, and one not to be neglected. I'd like to know, precisely, how Java makes for messier solutions than C++.
Ironically, I'd take the exact opposite standpoint.
...so the "everyone else is doing it" mentality is always a good argument?
The topic isn't cocaine usage, we're talking about tried and proven technologies used in high stress environments. The poster whom I was responding to was indicating that "Java's closed-sourcedness and Microsoft's ECMA standards" preclude them from being viable choices, which is absurd. If you'd like to make a real argument against them, go for it.
In my case, getting the job done in a way that satisfies our clients and earns us revenue is greater than caring about politics. Java's closed-sourceness or.Net's ECMA standards don't prevent them from being used widely to the benefit and profit of many corporations across the globe. Go figure.
Like any other innovation to programming languages its about decreasing the costs of the development cycle. If you asked most project managers why they want projects done in managed languages its to cut down on memory leaks. I think its rather silly to not even acknowledge that the pointer based world of C++ is more prone to memory leaks than managed systems.
There are exceptions, but not everyone who writes software is writing massive enterprise systems. For most projects that come cross my desk, whipping out C/C++ would just be an unnecessary headache, not to mention those developers cost more and the QA profiling becomes a pain in the ass. Try to bear in mind not every software development environment is a clone of every other one.
Microsoft is notorious for horribly misleading and vague error messages. Anyone whose dealt with Sharepoint's "Catastrophic error." message (and that's all it tells you, might I add, with no event log details or anything) can attest to that.
That being said, despite being a.Net programmer I tend to find open source pretty intuitive and straight forward. I could make the argument that lower level languages like C++/C and things like Php/Perl scripts are more complicated and granular than would be convenient for me, but then.Net's Linux version (Mono) and Java/JSP satisfy that dilemna.
Its more of a matter of a misconception due to people having limited experience in a non-Windows environment. Support is the big issue people have with open source software, typically, and accountability. I don't think complexity is a huge problem, though I will say its probably slightly harder to find experienced Red Hat admins compared to NT/2k admins. Marginally at least.
Yeah, you're right. Just because they compete in limited sectors doesn't mean Google is going to start writing IDE's and OS's. Best you'd see from Google is some support of an existing established software product, like if they went and through their branding behind Ubuntu or something. Or, maybe if you're lucky, a buyout.
I think people who are business savvy but not at all tech savvy talk about Google toppling Microsoft, but Google and Microsoft do entirely separate things. Microsoft just happens to do a LOT of things, and being the empire it is, wants to have a piece of everything. Google on the other hand does one specific things. They have a centralized environment and they aggregate information, analyze it and disseminate it in order to gain marketing revenue.
Honestly, I think this is something the Linux crowd is being wishful thinkers about. The idea being, MS would offer a free, ad-populated version of Windows while increasing the costs of non-ad-populated Windows, thereby pissing off every customer they have that doesn't pirate their software.
As a person who uses Linux religiously at home, I'd love this myself, because it would hopefully give Linux more regular desktop users, which in turn would increase attention game programmers and more importantly, hardware vendors would give to it. Alas, I'd have trouble being even MS is that stupid. People hate ads more than they hate Jar Jar Binks and thats saying something.
Any stock machine (yes, even Windows) will block any attack you're likely to encounter if you do some common things.
1) Keep it patched. 2) Don't log in as root/administrator, ever. 3) Don't use the same password as root/administrator. 4) Your main login account should have LIMITED privileges and NOT any installation privileges. 5) Make a secondary administrator account with a 10+ digit password and use that to install things/perform maintenance only. 6) Do not download keygens, cracks, warez software, etc. Actually *gasp* purchase legitimate software and music. 7) Do not open email attachments that you're not expecting to get or from people you do not trust. 8) Limit your open ports to the bare minimum required (Use IPSec on Windows to enforce this).
For Linux/Mac/Unix : Most of this stuff happens already. Kudos.
For Windows : Run Internet Explorer in the highest security mode and add "Trusted Sites" for sites you trust, ONLY.
Additionally, Microsoft should have most of this set up when you first install Windows, but alas it defaults to a very lax security setting, especially things like XP Home which will default you to an administrator. Microsoft would rather be "convenient" than "secure" which, while its a usability thing, annoys the crap out of us engineers/techs.
Slashdot Mirror
Only viable because of that? Where did I say that? I'm not going to debate why Java/.Net is good because, frankly, I don't have to. Its a well established fact (which was my point). May as well start debating why breathing is good.
With any luck, in 10 years, maybe their documentation won't be disgraceful. Their support system is terrible and their platform support is more or less non-existent. Likewise, their product frankly is just very unpolished and bloated/buggy.
They need to clean up their act.
That's quite a leap to take from what I was saying (notably, the ends always justify the means). Additionally, maintainability is typically a factor in client satisfaction, and one not to be neglected. I'd like to know, precisely, how Java makes for messier solutions than C++.
Ironically, I'd take the exact opposite standpoint.
The topic isn't cocaine usage, we're talking about tried and proven technologies used in high stress environments. The poster whom I was responding to was indicating that "Java's closed-sourcedness and Microsoft's ECMA standards" preclude them from being viable choices, which is absurd. If you'd like to make a real argument against them, go for it.
Like any other innovation to programming languages its about decreasing the costs of the development cycle. If you asked most project managers why they want projects done in managed languages its to cut down on memory leaks. I think its rather silly to not even acknowledge that the pointer based world of C++ is more prone to memory leaks than managed systems.
There are exceptions, but not everyone who writes software is writing massive enterprise systems. For most projects that come cross my desk, whipping out C/C++ would just be an unnecessary headache, not to mention those developers cost more and the QA profiling becomes a pain in the ass. Try to bear in mind not every software development environment is a clone of every other one.
Microsoft is notorious for horribly misleading and vague error messages. Anyone whose dealt with Sharepoint's "Catastrophic error." message (and that's all it tells you, might I add, with no event log details or anything) can attest to that.
.Net programmer I tend to find open source pretty intuitive and straight forward. I could make the argument that lower level languages like C++/C and things like Php/Perl scripts are more complicated and granular than would be convenient for me, but then .Net's Linux version (Mono) and Java/JSP satisfy that dilemna.
That being said, despite being a
Its more of a matter of a misconception due to people having limited experience in a non-Windows environment. Support is the big issue people have with open source software, typically, and accountability. I don't think complexity is a huge problem, though I will say its probably slightly harder to find experienced Red Hat admins compared to NT/2k admins. Marginally at least.
Yeah, you're right. Just because they compete in limited sectors doesn't mean Google is going to start writing IDE's and OS's. Best you'd see from Google is some support of an existing established software product, like if they went and through their branding behind Ubuntu or something. Or, maybe if you're lucky, a buyout.
I think people who are business savvy but not at all tech savvy talk about Google toppling Microsoft, but Google and Microsoft do entirely separate things. Microsoft just happens to do a LOT of things, and being the empire it is, wants to have a piece of everything. Google on the other hand does one specific things. They have a centralized environment and they aggregate information, analyze it and disseminate it in order to gain marketing revenue.
Honestly, I think this is something the Linux crowd is being wishful thinkers about. The idea being, MS would offer a free, ad-populated version of Windows while increasing the costs of non-ad-populated Windows, thereby pissing off every customer they have that doesn't pirate their software.
As a person who uses Linux religiously at home, I'd love this myself, because it would hopefully give Linux more regular desktop users, which in turn would increase attention game programmers and more importantly, hardware vendors would give to it. Alas, I'd have trouble being even MS is that stupid. People hate ads more than they hate Jar Jar Binks and thats saying something.
Any stock machine (yes, even Windows) will block any attack you're likely to encounter if you do some common things.
1) Keep it patched.
2) Don't log in as root/administrator, ever.
3) Don't use the same password as root/administrator.
4) Your main login account should have LIMITED privileges and NOT any installation privileges.
5) Make a secondary administrator account with a 10+ digit password and use that to install things/perform maintenance only.
6) Do not download keygens, cracks, warez software, etc. Actually *gasp* purchase legitimate software and music.
7) Do not open email attachments that you're not expecting to get or from people you do not trust.
8) Limit your open ports to the bare minimum required (Use IPSec on Windows to enforce this).
For Linux/Mac/Unix :
Most of this stuff happens already. Kudos.
For Windows :
Run Internet Explorer in the highest security mode and add "Trusted Sites" for sites you trust, ONLY.
Additionally, Microsoft should have most of this set up when you first install Windows, but alas it defaults to a very lax security setting, especially things like XP Home which will default you to an administrator. Microsoft would rather be "convenient" than "secure" which, while its a usability thing, annoys the crap out of us engineers/techs.