 | |
Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing?
Jeep and Willys Vehicles Discussions on Jeep and Willys vehicles. (rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? -
07-03-2003
, 05:17 PM
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have never been a fan of Java. Over hyped, under performing. It is not cross platform. The VM is cross platform, but you could write a VM for C++, VB, Fortran, ADA or any other language |
p-system?
Java is basically just C++ with all the useful features removed... It's a
fad that I keep hoping will go away... A step backwards in programming in my
opinion... Designed for the idiots who can't keep from shooting themselves
in the foot when they use pointers...
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:57:59 -0800, Marc <whineryy (AT) yifan (DOT) net> wrote: 'nuther Bob <not_really (AT) anywhere (DOT) com> wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:49:30 -0800, Marc <whineryy (AT) yifan (DOT) net> wrote: There isn't any food allowed in my current car, and it isn't that nice of a car. I'd expect that I'd not let food in my Ferrari as well, if I had one. That's like removing your shoes when you enter the house, or not allowing eating in the living room. You gotta kick back a little more. I allow eating in the living room. Wood floors wipe easily. The shoes come off when you come in the house, but that is a normal thing here. There is no reason to eat in the car. If you need to eat, stop. Where is the problem? No problem, but you have a phobia. Asking folks to remove their shoes when entering the house is the first sign. |
an estimate, but would be easy to convinced that far more
cultures and sheer numbers of people remove their shoes
than don't.
As for eating in the car, it prevents giving both activities
the attention they deserve. And with children, tends to
create unusual and unwelcome interior fragrances.
#34
| |||
| |||
|
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:08 GMT, "Dave Milne" jeep (AT) _nospam_milne (DOT) info> wrote: "DTJ" <dtj (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message news:non8gvkb42m6r00f3atbm8dogpnmmogjes (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... : On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob : <not_really (AT) anywhere (DOT) com> wrote: : : >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and : >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking : >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The : >list goes on, those are two major issues. : : This is so bullshit though. It is impossible to "keep things secret" : in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should : know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to : look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly : DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone. Not at all bullshit - any programmer with a few days experience knows that he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which is supported. Different issue. You are talking about best practices, while the original point was about keeping things secret. You do understand the difference, I presume. |
Win/2000 and such, but there were several companies that
had full source code for NT: Siemens, Samsung, Dec, etc.
Also available for Solaris. Don't recall any such arrangement
for MacOS [which means I have actually worked with the
microsoft and solaris source, but don't know of any company
that had Mac code...except IBM].
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
I dunno if Microsoft still offers source code licenses for Win/2000 and such, but there were several companies that had full source code for NT: Siemens, Samsung, Dec, etc. Also available for Solaris. Don't recall any such arrangement for MacOS [which means I have actually worked with the microsoft and solaris source, but don't know of any company that had Mac code...except IBM]. If you want to talk about undocumented APIs MacOS is a good target... |
Earle
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message news:8DDNa.110793$R73.12221 (AT) sccrnsc04 (DOT) .. SNIPPY I dunno if Microsoft still offers source code licenses for Win/2000 and such, but there were several companies that had full source code for NT: Siemens, Samsung, Dec, etc. Also available for Solaris. Don't recall any such arrangement for MacOS [which means I have actually worked with the microsoft and solaris source, but don't know of any company that had Mac code...except IBM]. If you want to talk about undocumented APIs MacOS is a good target... |
truss available, tcpdump or snoop, and if all else
fails, adb, gdb, mdb, and crash. Honestly the reason
why I prefer unix to VM/CMS, MVS, IMS, OS/390, Windows*,
AmigaDOS, or older MacOS... the ability to ask the
!@#!@#$ operating system just what in the heck it
thinks is going on, complete with all arguments, environment
args, system calls, and return values. Other than that,
In My Non Humble Opinion, all operating systems suck
canal water and so do all programming and scripting
languages.
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
We come at the same opinion from different ends - I dislike Java because it carries all the C++ crap around with it, instead of being a pure OO language like Smalltalk :-). Its not as fast as Smalltalk either, as people have been writing Smalltalk VMs since the 70s and they have got quite good at it.. I like C though ; simple and fast. |
systems that I write for do not even have an ANSI compiler, much less a
POSIX or C++ one... I like to have one piece of code that will compile on
all the machines, so I often end up writing straight K&R 'C'... No function
prototyping, no bells and whistles... C++ has a few neat features, but there
are a lot of features in it that I never use... If I'm writing a MS Windows
interface, then I use C++, but still not all the bells and whistles... Most
of my programs tend to be true client-server / distributed systems (daemons
on UNIX machines, services on WinNT/2K machines) that communicated with each
other and client user interfaces via TCP/IP sockets... I might have 5 or
more different types of UNIX machines in the system and there is no way that
I want to maintain a code base for each of them... In many cases, I can
combine the Windows service with the UNIX daemon into a single code base
with judicious use of '#ifdef's...
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
In My Non Humble Opinion, all operating systems suck canal water and so do all programming and scripting languages. |
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
We come at the same opinion from different ends - I dislike Java because it carries all the C++ crap around with it, instead of being a pure OO language like Smalltalk :-). Its not as fast as Smalltalk either, as people have been writing Smalltalk VMs since the 70s and they have got quite good at it.. I like C though ; simple and fast. Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara "Grumman-581" <grumman581 (AT) DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM (DOT) houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:XmDNa.45657$xg5.19438 (AT) twister (DOT) austin.rr.com... : <crossposting-crap-deleted : : "DTJ" wrote ... : > I have never been a fan of Java. Over hyped, under performing. It is : > not cross platform. The VM is cross platform, but you could write a : > VM for C++, VB, Fortran, ADA or any other language : : And VMs have been written for many of those languages... Remember the UCSD : p-system? : : Java is basically just C++ with all the useful features removed... It's a : fad that I keep hoping will go away... A step backwards in programming in my : opinion... Designed for the idiots who can't keep from shooting themselves : in the foot when they use pointers... : : : |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.