FAQ
Not offering any personal opinion on this conjecture, but a lot of people
are saying that java has failed to become a widely accepted cross platform
language for applications.

These leaves the world defenseless against the Microsoft Borg.

But could Python do the trick? The python interpreter is smaller than the
JRE, and it's certainly a nicely structured language, with nearly all the
coding features of Java.

--
netvegetable at excite.com

Search Discussions

  • None at Aug 19, 2002 at 4:19 am
    In article <Xns926F8B90671A0AusYourStandingInIt at 130.133.1.4>, netvegetable
    says...

    Not offering any personal opinion on this conjecture, but a lot of people
    are saying that java has failed to become a widely accepted cross platform
    language for applications.

    No, a lot of people are NOT saying that!

    These leaves the world defenseless against the Microsoft Borg.

    But could Python do the trick? The python interpreter is smaller than the
    JRE, and it's certainly a nicely structured language, with nearly all the
    coding features of Java.

    --
    netvegetable at excite.com
  • Netvegetable at Aug 19, 2002 at 4:41 am

    none <none at nowhere.com> wrote in news:ajprke02ab9 at drn.newsguy.com:

    In article <Xns926F8B90671A0AusYourStandingInIt at 130.133.1.4>,
    netvegetable says...

    Not offering any personal opinion on this conjecture, but a lot of
    people are saying that java has failed to become a widely accepted
    cross platform language for applications.

    No, a lot of people are NOT saying that!
    Well here's just one reference among many ......

    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/16804.html

    --
    netvegetable at excite.com
  • Asj at Aug 19, 2002 at 5:00 am
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.


    netvegetable wrote:
    Well here's just one reference among many ......

    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/16804.html

    --
    netvegetable at excite.com
  • T. Max Devlin at Aug 20, 2002 at 7:56 pm
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard asj say:
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
    Don't bother. They have a serious denial-of-reality problem when it comes to
    the Microsoft monopoly. As far as they are concerned, there is no 'monopoly',
    it's just that everybody is stupid.

    --
    T. Max Devlin
    *** The best way to convince another is
    to state your case moderately and
    accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
  • GreyCloud at Aug 21, 2002 at 1:52 am

    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard asj say:
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
    Don't bother. They have a serious denial-of-reality problem when it comes to
    the Microsoft monopoly. As far as they are concerned, there is no 'monopoly',
    it's just that everybody is stupid.
    That's the problem going on over there now. A lot of them
    are now denying the monopoly. A never ending comedy with
    sewer_clown leading the pack.
  • T. Max Devlin at Aug 21, 2002 at 12:26 pm
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard GreyCloud say:
    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard asj say:
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
    Don't bother. They have a serious denial-of-reality problem when it comes to
    the Microsoft monopoly. As far as they are concerned, there is no 'monopoly',
    it's just that everybody is stupid.
    That's the problem going on over there now. A lot of them
    are now denying the monopoly. A never ending comedy with
    sewer_clown leading the pack.
    I was referring to the Linux advocates, not the wintrolls. ;-/

    --
    T. Max Devlin
    *** The best way to convince another is
    to state your case moderately and
    accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
  • GreyCloud at Aug 21, 2002 at 7:30 pm

    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard GreyCloud say:
    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard asj say:
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
    Don't bother. They have a serious denial-of-reality problem when it comes to
    the Microsoft monopoly. As far as they are concerned, there is no 'monopoly',
    it's just that everybody is stupid.
    That's the problem going on over there now. A lot of them
    are now denying the monopoly. A never ending comedy with
    sewer_clown leading the pack.
    I was referring to the Linux advocates, not the wintrolls. ;-/
    I still see the same problems. Yes I know, the advocates of
    linux don't understand. I'm still grappling with the
    monopoly arguments. I'm not good at the legal stuff so I
    just watch.
  • T. Max Devlin at Aug 21, 2002 at 10:46 pm
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard GreyCloud say:
    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard GreyCloud say:
    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard asj say:
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
    Don't bother. They have a serious denial-of-reality problem when it comes to
    the Microsoft monopoly. As far as they are concerned, there is no 'monopoly',
    it's just that everybody is stupid.
    That's the problem going on over there now. A lot of them
    are now denying the monopoly. A never ending comedy with
    sewer_clown leading the pack.
    I was referring to the Linux advocates, not the wintrolls. ;-/
    I still see the same problems.
    And you always will, old friend.
    Yes I know, the advocates of
    linux don't understand. I'm still grappling with the
    monopoly arguments. I'm not good at the legal stuff so I
    just watch.
    It is what is called a dialectic. Two sides of the same coin, arguing over
    how to identify the edge.

    Just for kicks, here's my take on the 'monopoly arguments': nobody is stupid,
    but everyone is clueless. And they have a right to be; a market is made up of
    clueless consumers and clueless producers, both hoping to find what they want.
    The problem with Microsoft's domination is not clueless consumers; if it were,
    the consumers wouldn't have such well-formed (even if ludicrous) ideas about
    What Microsoft Is Doing Wrong. And it can't be clueless producers, since
    Microsoft knows very well that it is protecting monopoly power; the ability to
    make things incompatible throughout the PC industry with anyone who doesn't
    support their monopoly power.

    There is no reason to 'grapple' with any 'monopoly arguments'; those that
    defend it are ignorant (which is bad), those that support it are clueless
    (which is their right), and those that don't believe in it are naive (which is
    stupid). Those that oppose it are as clueless as those who support it, and
    they are equally within their rights. But slightly more stupid; it is
    fiscally detrimental to oppose or attempt to compete with a monopoly, and that
    is why monopolies (or, rather, monopolizing) is illegal.

    You are a smart man, so you just watch. We are waiting, whether we know it or
    not, for the government to prove Adam Smith wrong, in a way.

    Does anyone know which way that is?

    --
    T. Max Devlin
    *** The best way to convince another is
    to state your case moderately and
    accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
  • GreyCloud at Aug 23, 2002 at 4:42 am

    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard GreyCloud say:
    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard GreyCloud say:
    "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard asj say:
    ROTFLOL.
    You have GOT to do better than that <g>

    java on the desktop was never that much of a priority for sun beyond the
    initial hype (unfortunately)...they're a server hardware company, and
    it's on that end that java is flourishing.

    today, java is also swamping the small device arena, its original target
    environment.

    lurker's guide to j2me:
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/
    http://www.blueboard.com/j2me/why.htm

    microsoft monopoly? i suggest posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
    Don't bother. They have a serious denial-of-reality problem when it comes to
    the Microsoft monopoly. As far as they are concerned, there is no 'monopoly',
    it's just that everybody is stupid.
    That's the problem going on over there now. A lot of them
    are now denying the monopoly. A never ending comedy with
    sewer_clown leading the pack.
    I was referring to the Linux advocates, not the wintrolls. ;-/
    I still see the same problems.
    And you always will, old friend.
    Yes I know, the advocates of
    linux don't understand. I'm still grappling with the
    monopoly arguments. I'm not good at the legal stuff so I
    just watch.
    It is what is called a dialectic. Two sides of the same coin, arguing over
    how to identify the edge.

    Just for kicks, here's my take on the 'monopoly arguments': nobody is stupid,
    but everyone is clueless. And they have a right to be; a market is made up of
    clueless consumers and clueless producers, both hoping to find what they want.
    The problem with Microsoft's domination is not clueless consumers; if it were,
    the consumers wouldn't have such well-formed (even if ludicrous) ideas about
    What Microsoft Is Doing Wrong. And it can't be clueless producers, since
    Microsoft knows very well that it is protecting monopoly power; the ability to
    make things incompatible throughout the PC industry with anyone who doesn't
    support their monopoly power.

    There is no reason to 'grapple' with any 'monopoly arguments'; those that
    defend it are ignorant (which is bad), those that support it are clueless
    (which is their right), and those that don't believe in it are naive (which is
    stupid). Those that oppose it are as clueless as those who support it, and
    they are equally within their rights. But slightly more stupid; it is
    fiscally detrimental to oppose or attempt to compete with a monopoly, and that
    is why monopolies (or, rather, monopolizing) is illegal.

    You are a smart man, so you just watch. We are waiting, whether we know it or
    not, for the government to prove Adam Smith wrong, in a way.
    That's the best I've read yet Max. To the point and covered
    concisely.
  • Paul Boddie at Aug 19, 2002 at 5:26 pm
    netvegetable <deathtospam43423 at altavista.com> wrote in message news:<Xns926F906924CBFAusYourStandingInIt at 130.133.1.4>...
    Well here's just one reference among many ......

    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/16804.html
    But this article just seems to be yet another shallow analysis of the
    industry published on some Web site by someone who has made the
    incorrect assumption (of many incorrect assumptions) that, for
    example, most people choose their operating system. In fact, many
    consumers probably couldn't care less about their operating system and
    might not even know what it is if you asked them.

    One thing that the author does recognise is that applications do
    motivate people, but in the "consumer space" as marketing types might
    classify it, it may well be the *type* of applications that matter
    rather than the brand names themselves. For example, does the average
    punter demand Microsoft Outlook Express or do they just want to "do
    e-mail"? Meanwhile, there are other motivating factors in the
    "corporate space" that override brand name software, too, in many
    cases.

    Where this crosses over into programming languages such as Python and
    Java is that many developers with a certain degree of choice in the
    matter (as opposed to end-users who often don't have much choice) are
    likely to choose their language on the basis of how much they like the
    paradigm and the available functionality for programs written in that
    language, rather than which brand name is stamped on a language or a
    library, although the standardisation that goes on with Java APIs does
    tend to legitimise that language for development of certain kinds of
    systems.

    Just as I find it hard to believe that the majority of consumers walk
    into their local computer superstore and insist on Microsoft purely
    out of brand obedience, so do I also find it difficult to believe that
    informed developers choose languages on the basis of the name alone.
    It's surely far more important even to consider the reputation of that
    language amongst developers in the same situation as yourself, for
    example.

    I believe that Python could do with a bit more standardisation in
    certain domains, if only for increased interoperability within those
    domains rather than for "corporate endorsement" purposes, but it
    remains a very useful tool to be familiar with, and with Jython you
    can certainly enhance your Java development experiences without
    necessarily betraying your belief in the eventual dominance of the
    Java virtual machine. ;-)

    Paul
  • T. Max Devlin at Aug 20, 2002 at 8:05 pm
    In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard Paul Boddie say:
    netvegetable <deathtospam43423 at altavista.com> wrote in message news:[...]
    Just as I find it hard to believe that the majority of consumers walk
    into their local computer superstore and insist on Microsoft purely
    out of brand obedience, so do I also find it difficult to believe that
    informed developers choose languages on the basis of the name alone.
    It's surely far more important even to consider the reputation of that
    language amongst developers in the same situation as yourself, for
    example.
    The fact is, developers who want to make money choose their language based on
    interoperability, industry support, how common or popular it is amongst
    developers. They need to do this to ensure they have a ready supply of
    programmers to create and support their product.

    So they choose Microsoft's whatever-they're-pushing-today. "Developers,
    developers, developers, developers," a famous quote from Balmer. But it is
    really no different than the user consumer, who may not insist on MS out of
    brand obedience, but they insist on it nevertheless.
    I believe that Python could do with a bit more standardisation in
    certain domains, if only for increased interoperability within those
    domains rather than for "corporate endorsement" purposes, but it
    remains a very useful tool to be familiar with, and with Jython you
    can certainly enhance your Java development experiences without
    necessarily betraying your belief in the eventual dominance of the
    Java virtual machine. ;-)
    While your response may be more in the spirit of veg's attempt at a cross-post
    troll, the reality is that developers don't choose a language; they use the
    one they know best if they can.

    --
    T. Max Devlin
    *** The best way to convince another is
    to state your case moderately and
    accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
  • D2002xx at Aug 19, 2002 at 4:44 am

    Not offering any personal opinion on this conjecture, but a lot of
    people are saying that java has failed to become a widely accepted
    cross platform language for applications.
    What!? Those guys don't know java projects in sourceforge.net are
    growing much faster than python and C++!
    These leaves the world defenseless against the Microsoft Borg.
    Hmmm... Don't argue with pigs...
    But could Python do the trick?
    Currently in investigation :)
    The python interpreter is smaller
    than the JRE, and it's certainly a nicely structured language, with
    nearly all the coding features of Java.
    "all" coding features? Nooo! python language is better! except for
    built-in language support for multi-threading... Will python add it in
    future? Something like "synchronize:"?
  • Gerhard Häring at Aug 19, 2002 at 8:53 am
    an anonymous coward "d2002xx" wrote in comp.lang.python:
    [proper attribution missing here, correcting]
    an anonymous coward "netvegetable" said:
    Not offering any personal opinion on this conjecture, but a lot of
    people are saying that java has failed to become a widely accepted
    cross platform language for applications.
    What!? Those guys don't know java projects in sourceforge.net are
    growing much faster than python and C++!
    Freshmeat and Sourceforge are nowadays a gigantic junk heap. So I'd
    rather not judge a language by the number of SF projects using it ;-)
    The python interpreter is smaller than the JRE, and it's certainly
    a nicely structured language, with nearly all the coding features
    of Java.
    "all" coding features? Nooo! python language is better! except for
    built-in language support for multi-threading... Will python add it
    in future? Something like "synchronize:"?
    Dunno. My guess is that this won't happen, as Java's syntax sugar for
    multithreading doesn't make it particularly flexible in multithreading
    environments, IMO. Does the Java standard library even have something
    equivalent to Queue.Queue?

    [trimming supposedly MS bashing newsgroup]

    Gerhard
    --
    mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239
    web: http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/ OpenPGP public key id AD24C930
    public key fingerprint: 3FCC 8700 3012 0A9E B0C9 3667 814B 9CAA AD24 C930
    reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
  • Tim Tyler at Aug 19, 2002 at 12:12 pm
    In comp.lang.java.advocacy Gerhard H?ring wrote:

    :> [...] built-in language support for multi-threading... Will python add
    :> it in future? Something like "synchronize:"?

    : Dunno. My guess is that this won't happen, as Java's syntax sugar for
    : multithreading doesn't make it particularly flexible in multithreading
    : environments, IMO.

    I've never heard synchronisation described as "syntax sugar" before.
    --
    __________
    im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at tt1.org
  • Getwellness4uxxx at Aug 19, 2002 at 5:03 pm
    What about Tcl/Tk?

    You can tie in C or C++ with Tcl/Tk if you want "strong" syntax
    checking in C or C++ parts with the 'glue' of Tcl/Tk?

    There are many extensions or add-ons to Tcl/Tk to extend it.

    js
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:12:57 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

    In comp.lang.java.advocacy Gerhard H?ring wrote:

    :> [...] built-in language support for multi-threading... Will python add
    :> it in future? Something like "synchronize:"?

    : Dunno. My guess is that this won't happen, as Java's syntax sugar for
    : multithreading doesn't make it particularly flexible in multithreading
    : environments, IMO.

    I've never heard synchronisation described as "syntax sugar" before.
    --
    __________
    im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at tt1.org
    // signature ------------------------------------
    Take the xxx out of my email address.

    "Some will believe and rightly so, that there are other
    forms of riches more desireable than money. Yes, there
    are riches which can not be measured in terms of
    dollars, but there are millions of people who will
    say, 'Give me all the money I need, and I will find
    everything else I want.' "
    Napoleon Hill
    See http://www.lifeforce-intl.com/134808

    Improve your life, health and wealth awaits for you.
    // ---------------------------------------------------
  • Gerhard Häring at Aug 20, 2002 at 6:29 am

    An anonymous coward "getwellness4uxxx at yahoo.ca" wrote:
    On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:12:57 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
    In comp.lang.java.advocacy Gerhard H?ring wrote:
    [...] built-in language support for multi-threading... Will python add
    it in future? Something like "synchronize:"?
    Dunno. My guess is that this won't happen, as Java's syntax sugar for
    multithreading doesn't make it particularly flexible in multithreading
    environments, IMO.
    I've never heard synchronisation described as "syntax sugar" before.
    What about Tcl/Tk?

    You can tie in C or C++ with Tcl/Tk if you want "strong" syntax
    checking in C or C++ parts with the 'glue' of Tcl/Tk? [...]
    If you use Python, and I believe the same is true for Tcl, Perl, Ruby, etc.
    then you'll normally only use lower-level languages like C or even C++ if
    you _need_ to. There are normally only two reasons for doing so:

    1) interfacing libraries
    2) performance

    I have no idea what you mean with using C or C++ for "strong syntax
    checking", as any compiler/interpreter will check the syntax for you. If
    you mean statical typing, then yes, C++ is one option. I cannot imagine why
    anyone would use C unless it's necessary :-)

    Gerhard
    --
    Gerhard H?ring
    OPUS GmbH M?nchen
    Tel.: +49 89 - 889 49 7 - 32
    http://www.opus-gmbh.net/
  • D2002xx at Aug 21, 2002 at 7:48 am
    I cannot imagine why anyone would use C unless it's necessary :-)
    Hmmm... Because gcc is much faster than g++...
  • Tim Tyler at Aug 21, 2002 at 8:46 am
    In comp.lang.java.advocacy d2002xx wrote:

    :> I cannot imagine why anyone would use C unless it's necessary :-)

    : Hmmm... Because gcc is much faster than g++...

    Compilation time?

    If you're a developer - and this is a problem - you buy a faster computer.
    --
    __________
    im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at tt1.org
  • Gerhard Häring at Aug 21, 2002 at 9:16 am

    In article <H16r29.KxE at bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler wrote:
    In comp.lang.java.advocacy d2002xx wrote:

    :> I cannot imagine why anyone would use C unless it's necessary :-)

    : Hmmm... Because gcc is much faster than g++...

    Compilation time?

    If you're a developer - and this is a problem - you buy a faster
    computer.
    And/or a faster compiler. g++ is about the slowest I know. Though it's
    still not bad for its price :-)
    --
    Gerhard H?ring
    OPUS GmbH M?nchen
    Tel.: +49 89 - 889 49 7 - 32
    http://www.opus-gmbh.net/
  • Bo M. Maryniuck at Aug 21, 2002 at 9:26 am

    On Wednesday 21 August 2002 11:16, Gerhard H?ring wrote:
    And/or a faster compiler. g++ is about the slowest I know. Though it's
    still not bad for its price :-)
    What you mean by "slowest" -- runtime or compile time. I remember the best
    C/C++ compilers from the TopSpeed: they had very slow compile time, but at
    the runtime they are still fastest and also provides smallest binaries.

    --
    Regards, Bogdan

    Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.
    -- Niels Bohr
  • Gerhard Häring at Aug 21, 2002 at 9:54 am

    * Bo M. Maryniuck [2002-08-21 11:26 +0200]:
    On Wednesday 21 August 2002 11:16, Gerhard H?ring wrote:
    And/or a faster compiler. g++ is about the slowest I know. Though it's
    still not bad for its price :-)
    What you mean by "slowest" -- runtime or compile time.
    Compile time - I measured Visual C++ is faster, and my feeling is that
    Borland C++ and Intel C++ are faster, too (and freely available for at
    least noncommercial use).

    My uninformed guess is that it's the lack of precompiled headers and the
    generic backend for creating the actual machine code that's slowing gcc
    down.
    --
    Gerhard H?ring
    OPUS GmbH M?nchen
    Tel.: +49 89 - 889 49 7 - 32
    http://www.opus-gmbh.net/
  • Bo M. Maryniuck at Aug 21, 2002 at 10:13 am

    On Wednesday 21 August 2002 11:54, Gerhard H?ring wrote:
    Compile time - I measured Visual C++ is faster, and my feeling is that
    Borland C++ and Intel C++ are faster, too (and freely available for at
    least noncommercial use).
    I'm wondering how to use Visual C++ (shortly always called "WC") under Linux.
    Concerning Borderland C++ you're right about *compile* time, but *runtime*
    there is horrible. Probably it is slowest (and most bloated) compiler over
    the world. ;-) And example is Delphi, Borderland C++ Builder and all
    Kylix'es. Last one (Kylix) produses modules for Apache, which is so ugly, so
    bloated and so slow. OTOH, I know nothing about Kylix 3... Maybe it is better
    a little for today...

    --
    Regards, Bogdan

    If something has not yet gone wrong then it would ultimately have been
    beneficial for it to go wrong.
  • D2002xx at Aug 21, 2002 at 5:54 pm

    What you mean by "slowest" -- runtime or compile time. I remember
    the best C/C++ compilers from the TopSpeed: they had very slow
    compile time, but at the runtime they are still fastest and also
    provides smallest binaries.
    Compile time, of course. Especially when compiling with -O3, I
    remember that it's because the inline optimizator that g++ used is
    older than what gcc uses.
  • Lvirden at Aug 21, 2002 at 12:47 pm
    According to Tim Tyler <tim at tt1.org>:
    :In comp.lang.java.advocacy d2002xx wrote:
    :
    ::> I cannot imagine why anyone would use C unless it's necessary :-)
    :
    :: Hmmm... Because gcc is much faster than g++...
    :
    :Compilation time?
    :
    :If you're a developer - and this is a problem - you buy a faster computer.

    If you're a developer, in all likelihood you can't afford to buy a
    faster computer. And many employers have decided that the next computer
    they are going to buy is a Windows machine, which is certainly developer-hostile
    enough to cause many a developer to consider a career change into veterinary
    medicine, environmental recyling engineer (aka garbage pickup and disposal),
    or perhaps kindergarten herder ...
    --
    Tcl'2002 Sept 16, 2002, Vancouver, BC http://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2002/
    Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
    should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
    <URL: mailto:lvirden at yahoo.com > <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/ >
  • Dan Johnson at Aug 21, 2002 at 9:15 pm
    <lvirden at yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ak025t$p8q$2 at srv38.cas.org...
    According to Tim Tyler <tim at tt1.org>:
    :In comp.lang.java.advocacy d2002xx wrote:
    :
    ::> I cannot imagine why anyone would use C unless it's necessary :-)
    :
    :: Hmmm... Because gcc is much faster than g++...
    :
    :Compilation time?
    :
    :If you're a developer - and this is a problem - you buy a faster computer.
    If you're a developer, in all likelihood you can't afford to buy a
    faster computer.
    I suspect he meant an *employed* developer. :D
    And many employers have decided that the next computer
    they are going to buy is a Windows machine, which is certainly
    developer-hostile
    enough to cause many a developer to consider a career change into
    veterinary
    medicine, environmental recyling engineer (aka garbage pickup and
    disposal),
    or perhaps kindergarten herder ...
    Serious question:

    What is so developer-hostile about Windows?

    Are you sure it isn't really Microsoft you find.. hostile? :D
  • Goose at Aug 21, 2002 at 9:53 pm
    Dan Johnson wrote:
    <snip>
    Serious question:

    What is so developer-hostile about Windows?
    Serious Answer(tm):
    1. No development tools come installed with it. Without
    even a single compiler, how does a "developer" develop ?
    The result is usually to download/purchase a development
    tool.

    2. No proper scripting environment to do nightly
    build & test cycles (cron'd to run at midnight).
    (IDE's are nice if you're gonna sit at your desk and click
    on the buttons, but on a 20 person project, I want to be
    able to get everyone to save their work to a server, and
    have *everything* recompiled from scratch, so that if
    anyone made a change that broke someone else component, we'd
    find out the next morning, not six weeks later when we are
    trying to integrate our code together). The lack of a system
    provided make utility is depressing.

    3. The inability to easily let everyone use *the* *same* *machine*
    to compile, all at the same time (via an ssh shell, or an xterm
    if the developer likes GUI IDE's). This way it is possible to make
    sure that no developer is using a compiler which could possibly
    be patched to a different version than the others (autoupdate?).

    4. The lack of a single decent editor ... 'nuff said.

    Basicly, after you jump the flaming hoops to install your OS,
    it is frustrating to sit in front of it without being able to
    write a single line of code because the OS assumes that the
    person using it is not a developer. No other system that I've
    installed has this "feature" ... the first thing I do after an
    installation is run 'cc -v' ... and everthing from linux to
    sco to solaris to iris allows me to start writing code.

    Windows lets me play solitaire :-(

    Are you sure it isn't really Microsoft you find.. hostile? :D
    no, I can stand solitaire for a few minutes while my
    development tools load :-)



    --
    goose
    ruse at webmail dot co dot za
  • Chad Myers at Aug 21, 2002 at 10:59 pm
    "goose" <spammenotguse at hobbiton.org> wrote in message
    news:3D640BCE.4090201 at hobbiton.org...
    Dan Johnson wrote:
    <snip>
    Serious question:

    What is so developer-hostile about Windows?
    Serious Answer(tm):
    1. No development tools come installed with it. Without
    even a single compiler, how does a "developer" develop ?
    The result is usually to download/purchase a development
    tool.
    That's largely irrelevant. First, because there are many
    freely downloadable tools, second because most tools
    shipped with the OS are out of date by the time they're
    pressed to the CD and require updates anyhow, third because
    most developers are commercial and paying for development
    software is not a bad thing.

    MS got where it was by cowtowing to the developers. Why
    do you think Win9x hung around so long? If MS was
    interested in purely pleasing end users, they would've
    ditched Windows at 3.1 and gone immediately to Windows NT.
    Instead, developers wanted to continue writing their crappy
    code which hooked into all parts of the OS and caused all
    sorts of instability (which they promptly blamed on MS).
    Only recently has MS been taking a tough stance on developers
    with 2K/XP, security initiatives, logo programs, etc to
    get them to stop shipping crap code and making MS look so
    bad in the process.

    Windows may not be as C friendly as Linux, but it is
    developer friendly and, indeed, many developers develop
    products for it. This is as obvious as sun light.
    2. No proper scripting environment to do nightly
    build & test cycles (cron'd to run at midnight).
    Task manager supports scheduled tasks. That was in
    Windows 98, or IE 4 for Win95, IIRC.

    Also, NT 3.1 (or maybe 3.51) had the 'at' command
    which would schedule commands to run. So I'm not
    sure where you get your information, because you're wrong.
    If you must type 'cron', then you can either make a batch
    file to call at, or download cygwin.
    (IDE's are nice if you're gonna sit at your desk and click
    on the buttons, but on a 20 person project, I want to be
    able to get everyone to save their work to a server, and
    have *everything* recompiled from scratch, so that if
    anyone made a change that broke someone else component, we'd
    find out the next morning, not six weeks later when we are
    trying to integrate our code together). The lack of a system
    provided make utility is depressing.
    It's not like it is impossible to make on Windows. You can
    get make from numerous sources, and nmake comes with VS.
    Not to mention numerous build tools like Ant for java
    (which is superior to make anyhow), and NAnt for .NET.

    As far as the multi-developer argument, you must be living
    in a hole, because there are far more multi-developer
    projects on Windows than any other OS. I mean, just about
    every Fortune 500 company has armies of VB, VC++, Java
    or other developers working on Windows as their dev platform.
    In fact, most companies I've seen, at least here in Austin,
    including and especially Java houses, use Windows exclusively
    for the desktop and then mixed server environments, or Windows
    only, or Unix only. But Windows on the desktop is an invariant.
    3. The inability to easily let everyone use *the* *same* *machine*
    to compile, all at the same time (via an ssh shell, or an xterm
    if the developer likes GUI IDE's).
    Hrm, I've worked for 4 companies now that have build machines or
    build farms using Terminal Services or a combination of other
    utilities. 2 of them had automated build and integration
    environments for eXtreme Programming that would monitor VSS or
    CVS for changes and automatically build and integrate changes.
    All Windows.
    This way it is possible to make
    sure that no developer is using a compiler which could possibly
    be patched to a different version than the others (autoupdate?).

    4. The lack of a single decent editor ... 'nuff said.
    Um... Visual Studio 6? Visual Studio .NET for .NET. Much more
    consistency than the thousand or so editors on *nix.
    I've heard the horror stories of vi, emacs, IDEs, etc all trying
    to cooperate. I know many companies using VS to integrate and
    collaborate and it works very well, especially with integrated
    VSS support.

    Seems like you really don't know what you're talking about.

    -c
  • Goose at Aug 21, 2002 at 11:36 pm

    Chad Myers wrote:
    "goose" <spammenotguse at hobbiton.org> wrote in message
    news:3D640BCE.4090201 at hobbiton.org...
    Dan Johnson wrote:
    <snip>
    Serious question:

    What is so developer-hostile about Windows?
    Serious Answer(tm):
    1. No development tools come installed with it. Without
    even a single compiler, how does a "developer" develop ?
    The result is usually to download/purchase a development
    tool.

    That's largely irrelevant. First, because there are many
    freely downloadable tools,
    true, but that doesn't make it irrelevant ... you buy the
    OS and then have to go find tools ??????

    what kind of a system is that ? every system I've worked on
    (other than windows) came with at least *ONE* compiler ...
    and most let you rebuild the kernel as well ...
    second because most tools
    shipped with the OS are out of date by the time they're
    pressed to the CD and require updates anyhow,
    no. I'm still using VC5.something at home for windows work,
    and I am STILL using gcc 2.95.something at home for all other
    work ... no need to patch them, they work just fine ...

    When I need more language conformance, bugs fixed etc, I'll
    upgrade, right now it all works ...
    third because
    most developers are commercial
    no. You must back this up if you want me to believe it.
    Of the <20 regular friends I have, only 1 has never
    programmed. all of them, given access to SOME sort of a
    development tool, will write something (already have
    as a matter of fact)
    and paying for development
    software is not a bad thing.
    not in itself, no, but the system HAS to come with something.
    even my commodore 64 let me program it out the box, msdos
    came with qbasic ... the only computer system in existence
    that I can think of that does not come with ANYTHING is the
    current windows line-up. If systems are developer-hostile, then
    windows surely leads the rest of the field, as the others at
    the very least install SOMETHING to let you write programs
    for your machine.
    MS got where it was by cowtowing to the developers.
    no, they got to where they were by OEM licensing.
    period.
    they *never* cowtowed to developers for as long as I
    remember.
    If someone else developed something nice, they promptly
    got it (where do you think scandisk for DOS came from ???
    Microsoft ?, remember stacker ?)
    Why
    do you think Win9x hung around so long?
    OEM licensing. read the latest news in the intel site.
    If MS was
    interested in purely pleasing end users, they would've
    ditched Windows at 3.1 and gone immediately to Windows NT.
    Instead, developers wanted to continue writing their crappy
    code which hooked into all parts of the OS and caused all
    sorts of instability (which they promptly blamed on MS).
    there were apps that did this, but not all of them ... 95
    could fall down on it's own if left running for more than 46,7
    days (or something like that) ... some timer bug ...
    (search google, should find something)

    95 did not need an application program to crash it.
    Only recently has MS been taking a tough stance on developers
    with 2K/XP, security initiatives, logo programs, etc to
    get them to stop shipping crap code and making MS look so
    bad in the process.

    Windows may not be as C friendly as Linux, but it is
    developer friendly and, indeed, many developers develop
    products for it.
    yes, many developers develop for it, but as you've pointed
    out in a different thread, the reason developers write for
    it is because it is so popular, never mind whether the developers
    are writing apps or viruses ...

    (yes, I know, I *am* that sneaky:-)
    you've got to retract one of your two conflicting views now ...
    either
    1. People develop for windows because it is popular.
    OR
    2. Popularity hasn't much to do with it, therefore windows
    is naturally virus-prone or easily exploitable.
    This is as obvious as sun light.
    <evil grin>
    yeah, do u see ?

    2. No proper scripting environment to do nightly
    build & test cycles (cron'd to run at midnight).

    Task manager supports scheduled tasks. That was in
    Windows 98, or IE 4 for Win95, IIRC.

    Also, NT 3.1 (or maybe 3.51) had the 'at' command
    which would schedule commands to run. So I'm not
    sure where you get your information, because you're wrong.
    If you must type 'cron', then you can either make a batch
    file to call at, or download cygwin.
    thats not what I was talking about ... I know you can
    *schedule*, but you cannot *script* (properly) re-read my
    sentence above, I never complained about the scheduling
    of stuff under windows, just the scripting
    (IDE's are nice if you're gonna sit at your desk and click
    on the buttons, but on a 20 person project, I want to be
    able to get everyone to save their work to a server, and
    have *everything* recompiled from scratch, so that if
    anyone made a change that broke someone else component, we'd
    find out the next morning, not six weeks later when we are
    trying to integrate our code together). The lack of a system
    provided make utility is depressing.

    It's not like it is impossible to make on Windows.
    I never said it was impossible, I just said that it doesn't
    come with windows, if you're a developer you have to put
    half the system together yourself.
    You can
    get make from numerous sources, and nmake comes with VS.
    Not to mention numerous build tools like Ant for java
    (which is superior to make anyhow), and NAnt for .NET.

    As far as the multi-developer argument, you must be living
    what multi-developer argument ? I used an example above, but
    never said that it could not be done under windows. the
    question is "i want to run one command, on one machine, that
    will cleanly recompile the other 19 peoples projects and link
    it with my bits of the projects and run a test cycle on it

    the lack of a proper scripting environment means that the
    rebuild and test process cannot be automated.
    in a hole,
    <confused>
    are you getting angry with me ? I've refrained
    from rude remarks to you, would yuo possibly do the same ?
    quote from a colleague at work -
    "the only times rude remarks seem to fly around are
    when the losing half of an argument realises that it
    is losing"
    because there are far more multi-developer
    projects on Windows than any other OS.
    you must prove it, or back it up in some way.
    I mean, just about
    every Fortune 500 company has armies of VB, VC++, Java
    or other developers working on Windows as their dev platform.
    anecdotal evidence is not all that convincing, but I'll
    concede it to you anyway.
    In fact, most companies I've seen, at least here in Austin,
    including and especially Java houses, use Windows exclusively
    for the desktop and then mixed server environments, or Windows
    only, or Unix only. But Windows on the desktop is an invariant.
    that's usually 'cos windows is the only choice for these
    companies on the desktop. Every probably keeps sending them
    mail in MSWord format, so they can't do without it. a common
    form of lock-in.

    3. The inability to easily let everyone use *the* *same* *machine*
    to compile, all at the same time (via an ssh shell, or an xterm
    if the developer likes GUI IDE's).

    Hrm, I've worked for 4 companies now that have build machines or
    build farms using Terminal Services or a combination of other
    utilities. 2 of them had automated build and integration
    environments for eXtreme Programming that would monitor VSS or
    CVS for changes and automatically build and integrate changes.
    All Windows.
    remember, i said "out-the-box" way above ... out-the-box, windows
    does not let you do this ... period ... of all the systems
    in existence, windows is the only one where you have to pay more
    just to get more developers onto it.
    This way it is possible to make
    sure that no developer is using a compiler which could possibly
    be patched to a different version than the others (autoupdate?).

    4. The lack of a single decent editor ... 'nuff said.

    Um... Visual Studio 6? Visual Studio .NET for .NET. Much more
    consistency than the thousand or so editors on *nix.
    yeah, but they dont come with windows. so that story is out the
    window (pun intended :-) ... the reason that other systems are MORE
    developer friendly, is because they COME with most of what a developer
    needs to develop. windows comes with NOTHING that a developer needs
    in order to develop, which is why I consider it to be the *least*
    friendly to developers.
    I've heard the horror stories of vi, emacs, IDEs, etc all trying
    to cooperate. I know many companies using VS to integrate and
    collaborate and it works very well, especially with integrated
    VSS support.

    Seems like you really don't know what you're talking about.
    seems to me like that's bait :-) (or am i wrong ?)

    of all the systems I've worked on, only windows needs help to turn it
    into a development machine, all the others install tools (or prompt
    you on installation asking if you want to install)

    so, can you answer this question:
    Which is the only system to come without a *SINGLE* development tool ?

    <insert drumroll here>
    and the answer IS ______________


    --
    goose
    ruse at webmail dot co dot za
  • Darren New at Aug 21, 2002 at 11:50 pm

    goose wrote:
    what kind of a system is that ? every system I've worked on
    (other than windows) came with at least *ONE* compiler ...
    and most let you rebuild the kernel as well ...
    You just haven't worked on many different kinds of systems.
    second because most tools
    shipped with the OS are out of date by the time they're
    pressed to the CD and require updates anyhow,
    no. I'm still using VC5.something at home for windows work,
    and I am STILL using gcc 2.95.something at home for all other
    work ... no need to patch them, they work just fine ...
    Then what's the problem with needing a compile server to make sure
    everyone's using the same version? ;-)
    and paying for development
    software is not a bad thing.
    not in itself, no, but the system HAS to come with something.
    Windows Scripting Language. The .NET compiler.
    they *never* cowtowed to developers for as long as I
    remember.
    You've never bought MSDN, have you?
    I never said it was impossible, I just said that it doesn't
    come with windows, if you're a developer you have to put
    half the system together yourself.
    Why would "make" come with Windows when it comes with every compiler that
    needs something like Make? Most languages don't need Make, so what's the
    point?
    the lack of a proper scripting environment means that the
    rebuild and test process cannot be automated.
    No, it just means you use whatever comes with the compiler, download it for
    free, or pay for it.
    remember, i said "out-the-box" way above ... out-the-box, windows
    does not let you do this ... period ... of all the systems
    in existence, windows is the only one where you have to pay more
    just to get more developers onto it.
    Uh, you've not used a lot of development environments. You think the
    compiler for (say) your cell phone's software runs on the cell phone?
    yeah, but they dont come with windows. so that story is out the
    window (pun intended :-) ... the reason that other systems are MORE
    developer friendly, is because they COME with most of what a developer
    needs to develop.
    Depends. If you're programming in the language that comes with the computer,
    yes. Otherwise, no.
    of all the systems I've worked on, only windows needs help to turn it
    into a development machine, all the others install tools (or prompt
    you on installation asking if you want to install)
    Solaris doesn't come with a C compiler, last I looked. CP-V didn't come with
    compilers. CP/M didn't come with compilers. Neither your cell phone nor your
    TiVo come with a compiler installed. Nor does your Palm Pilot. Nor does the
    cash register at the store where you bought the computer.
    Which is the only system to come without a *SINGLE* development tool ?
    Palm Pilot. CP/M. SunOS.

    Windows, on the other hand, comes with .NET compilers and the Windows
    Scripting Language. That you don't like *those* development tools doesn't
    mean they aint there.

    --
    Darren New
    San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

    Try our EbolaBurgers...
    So tender they melt in your mouth.
  • Gerhard Häring at Aug 21, 2002 at 11:57 pm

    Darren New wrote in comp.lang.python:
    [somebody claiming Windows comes with no development tools]
    Windows Scripting Language. The .NET compiler.
    So a C# or VB.NET to MSIL compiler comes with which version of
    Windows? AFAIK it doesn't come with Windows XP, and I suppose it
    doesn't come with Windows .NET Server (beta) either.

    Also there's no so thing as a Windows Scripting Language, you probably
    mean Windows Scripting Host, which AFAIK comes with two scripting
    languages (JScript and VBScript).
    --
    mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239
    web: http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/ OpenPGP public key id AD24C930
    public key fingerprint: 3FCC 8700 3012 0A9E B0C9 3667 814B 9CAA AD24 C930
    reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
  • Darren New at Aug 21, 2002 at 11:59 pm

    Gerhard H?ring wrote:
    So a C# or VB.NET to MSIL compiler comes with which version of
    Windows?
    It's part of the Windows Update.
    Also there's no so thing as a Windows Scripting Language, you probably
    mean Windows Scripting Host, which AFAIK comes with two scripting
    languages (JScript and VBScript).
    Yeah. That. So what's the problem?

    --
    Darren New
    San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

    Try our EbolaBurgers...
    So tender they melt in your mouth.
  • Gerhard Häring at Aug 22, 2002 at 12:42 am

    Darren New wrote in comp.lang.python:
    Gerhard H?ring wrote:
    So a C# or VB.NET to MSIL compiler comes with which version of
    Windows?
    It's part of the Windows Update.
    Really? The SDK or just the runtime?
    --
    mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239
    web: http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/ OpenPGP public key id AD24C930
    public key fingerprint: 3FCC 8700 3012 0A9E B0C9 3667 814B 9CAA AD24 C930
    reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
  • Bo M. Maryniuck at Aug 22, 2002 at 8:14 am

    On Thursday 22 August 2002 01:50, Darren New wrote:
    You just haven't worked on many different kinds of systems.
    Actually yes, these systems came without the compilers: TR-DOS on Z80
    Sinclair, MS-DOS on i386, BASIC embedded in ROM and calculators... But we
    talking about the professional systems. And if Win32 still claim itself
    "Professional" then should be at least with one compiler. For example, I
    still can't find any big difference between "Windows 2000 Personal" and
    "Windows 2000 Professional Advanced". If that different just in few options
    in Control Panel and really BIG price, than only lamers and last idiots can
    buy crappy trashware with 63.000 of bugs whom place only in the rain
    forest...
    Windows Scripting Language. The .NET compiler.
    Yes, d00d, please let me know where I can find it in the box with Win2K which
    has a Linux Mandrake skin and called "Windows XP Professional"? There is *NO*
    any usefull tool to develope, no any WinScrewLanguage and no any .NET
    compiler...
    No, it just means you use whatever comes with the compiler, download it for
    free, or pay for it.
    Ah, DIY. Thank you MUCH, I have impressed! :-* But I'll rather buy SuSE Linux
    (really Professional), install it on every machine in my office and use all
    what I need.
    Depends. If you're programming in the language that comes with the
    computer, yes. Otherwise, no.
    Actually, programming the language usually comes with the OS. But in fact,
    there should be at least one compiler and language which can be installed
    optionally. OTOH, Linux brings me lots of languages, even more than I use. ;)
    Solaris doesn't come with a C compiler, last I looked.
    Sorry, Solaris mostly server OS. But if you want *workstation* there is,
    AFAIK.

    --
    Regards, Bogdan

    "I'll be Bach." -- Johann Sebastian Schwarzenegger
  • D2002xx at Aug 22, 2002 at 9:40 am

    goose wrote:
    what kind of a system is that ? every system I've worked on
    (other than windows) came with at least *ONE* compiler ...
    and most let you rebuild the kernel as well ...
    You just haven't worked on many different kinds of systems.
    But you didn't answer about rebuilding the kernel, or you just can't
    answer?
    second because most tools
    shipped with the OS are out of date by the time they're
    pressed to the CD and require updates anyhow,
    no. I'm still using VC5.something at home for windows work,
    and I am STILL using gcc 2.95.something at home for all other
    work ... no need to patch them, they work just fine ...
    Then what's the problem with needing a compile server to make sure
    everyone's using the same version? ;-)
    Why everyone's using the same version? It's just nonsense.
    and paying for development
    software is not a bad thing.
    not in itself, no, but the system HAS to come with something.
    Windows Scripting Language. The .NET compiler.
    Shipped with Windows?
    they *never* cowtowed to developers for as long as I
    remember.
    You've never bought MSDN, have you?
    Shipped with Windows?
    I never said it was impossible, I just said that it doesn't
    come with windows, if you're a developer you have to put
    half the system together yourself.
    Why would "make" come with Windows when it comes with every compiler
    that needs something like Make? Most languages don't need Make, so
    what's the point?
    Most *languages* don't need, but most *programs* need because they are
    mostly written in C/C++.
    the lack of a proper scripting environment means that the
    rebuild and test process cannot be automated.
    No, it just means you use whatever comes with the compiler, download
    it for free, or pay for it.
    Shipped with Windows?
    remember, i said "out-the-box" way above ... out-the-box, windows
    does not let you do this ... period ... of all the systems
    in existence, windows is the only one where you have to pay more
    just to get more developers onto it.
    Uh, you've not used a lot of development environments. You think the
    compiler for (say) your cell phone's software runs on the cell
    phone?
    Funny! So you use your PC as only a cell phone?
    yeah, but they dont come with windows. so that story is out the
    window (pun intended :-) ... the reason that other systems are
    MORE developer friendly, is because they COME with most of what a
    developer needs to develop.
    Depends. If you're programming in the language that comes with the
    computer, yes. Otherwise, no.
    But none of them come with windows.
    of all the systems I've worked on, only windows needs help to turn
    it into a development machine, all the others install tools (or
    prompt you on installation asking if you want to install)
    Solaris doesn't come with a C compiler, last I looked. CP-V didn't
    come with compilers. CP/M didn't come with compilers. Neither your
    cell phone nor your TiVo come with a compiler installed. Nor does
    your Palm Pilot. Nor does the cash register at the store where you
    bought the computer.
    So the windows' ability is as poor as Palm Pilot? Or some used in cell
    phones?
    Which is the only system to come without a *SINGLE* development
    tool ?
    Palm Pilot. CP/M. SunOS.
    Palm Pilot is not used in PC, it's too poor, why not say embedding
    linux?
    CP/M is ..... never heard, what's it?
    SunOS is ..... dying... There is no need to use it. It's neither
    better than linux nor supporting more applications as well as windows.
    Windows, on the other hand, comes with .NET compilers and the
    Windows Scripting Language. That you don't like *those* development
    tools doesn't mean they aint there.
    "Comes with"? Are you sure?
  • Dan Johnson at Aug 22, 2002 at 9:24 pm
    "d2002xx" <d2002xx at myrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:20020822174056.529082d7.d2002xx at myrealbox.com...
    You just haven't worked on many different kinds of systems.
    But you didn't answer about rebuilding the kernel, or you just can't
    answer?
    You can't do that without paying Microsoft a whole lot
    of money.

    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.

    [snip]
    no. I'm still using VC5.something at home for windows work,
    and I am STILL using gcc 2.95.something at home for all other
    work ... no need to patch them, they work just fine ...
    Then what's the problem with needing a compile server to make sure
    everyone's using the same version? ;-)
    Why everyone's using the same version? It's just nonsense.
    There is something to be said for keeping all developers
    on the same version of the tools; in particular differences
    in the libraries, header files, and so on can be quite obnoxious,
    if you let them get out of sync.

    Though I'd be surprised if running everyone on
    terminal services was a common solution to this-
    surely it's far simpler to just have the same tools
    installed on all the developer machines in a team,
    and upgrade them together.

    You don't have to do it perfectly. You just
    have to keep things from getting completely
    out of control.
    and paying for development
    software is not a bad thing.
    not in itself, no, but the system HAS to come with something.
    Windows Scripting Language. The .NET compiler.
    Shipped with Windows?
    Two scripting languages are. The .NET compilers are not,
    and probably will never be. The C# compiler and the C++
    compiler are both free downloads, I believe. I don't think
    the VB compiler is.

    [snip]
    Why would "make" come with Windows when it comes with every compiler
    that needs something like Make? Most languages don't need Make, so
    what's the point?
    Most *languages* don't need, but most *programs* need because they are
    mostly written in C/C++.
    I think you may find you are mistaken on this point;
    while it is undoubtable true that most Linux programs
    are written that way, Visual Basic is depressingly common
    on Windows.

    [snip]
  • D2002xx at Aug 23, 2002 at 1:03 am

    You just haven't worked on many different kinds of systems.
    But you didn't answer about rebuilding the kernel, or you just
    can't answer?
    You can't do that without paying Microsoft a whole lot
    of money.
    Hmmmm.... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.
    No, it's just for fun. But why I *can't* do this on my box?
    Why everyone's using the same version? It's just nonsense.
    There is something to be said for keeping all developers
    on the same version of the tools; in particular differences
    in the libraries, header files, and so on can be quite obnoxious,
    if you let them get out of sync.

    Though I'd be surprised if running everyone on
    terminal services was a common solution to this-
    surely it's far simpler to just have the same tools
    installed on all the developer machines in a team,
    and upgrade them together.

    You don't have to do it perfectly. You just
    have to keep things from getting completely
    out of control.
    OK, thanks.
    Why would "make" come with Windows when it comes with every
    compiler that needs something like Make? Most languages don't
    need Make, so what's the point?
    Most *languages* don't need, but most *programs* need because they
    are mostly written in C/C++.
    I think you may find you are mistaken on this point;
    while it is undoubtable true that most Linux programs
    are written that way, Visual Basic is depressingly common
    on Windows.
    .... damned... VB.... (I just hate any thing derived from basic, don't
    mind :)
  • Darren New at Aug 23, 2002 at 1:37 am

    d2002xx wrote:
    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.
    No, it's just for fun. But why I *can't* do this on my box?
    You can, when you write your own kernel. Feel free. :-) But you knew that
    already, so why did you ask?

    --
    Darren New
    San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

    Try our EbolaBurgers...
    So tender they melt in your mouth.
  • D2002xx at Aug 23, 2002 at 10:34 am

    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.
    No, it's just for fun. But why I *can't* do this on my box?
    You can, when you write your own kernel. Feel free. :-) But you knew
    that already, so why did you ask?
    Ah! lost words, it's "But why I *can't* do this on my box if I use
    windows as OS?"
  • Darren New at Aug 23, 2002 at 4:04 pm

    d2002xx wrote:
    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.
    No, it's just for fun. But why I *can't* do this on my box?
    You can, when you write your own kernel. Feel free. :-) But you knew
    that already, so why did you ask?
    Ah! lost words, it's "But why I *can't* do this on my box if I use
    windows as OS?"
    Because you don't have the source code to Windows as an OS. I'm not sure I
    understand why you'd even ask such a question.

    Oh, and to answer your next series of dumb questions:

    - You don't have the source because Microsoft doesn't sell it.

    - Microsoft doesn't sell it because they own it and decided not to.

    - Microsoft decided not to because they'd like to stay in business and
    be able to pay their employees.

    Soo..... What's hard about this concept?

    --
    Darren New
    San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

    Try our EbolaBurgers...
    So tender they melt in your mouth.
  • D2002xx at Aug 23, 2002 at 6:42 pm

    Ah! lost words, it's "But why I *can't* do this on my box if I use
    windows as OS?"
    Because you don't have the source code to Windows as an OS. I'm not
    sure I understand why you'd even ask such a question.

    Oh, and to answer your next series of dumb questions:

    - You don't have the source because Microsoft doesn't sell it.

    - Microsoft doesn't sell it because they own it and decided not to.

    - Microsoft decided not to because they'd like to stay in business
    and
    be able to pay their employees.

    Soo..... What's hard about this concept?
    No hard, nothing wrong, but I just hate this, and that's all :)
  • Darren New at Aug 23, 2002 at 6:49 pm

    d2002xx wrote:
    No hard, nothing wrong, but I just hate this, and that's all :)
    This whole thread could be summarized, then, as
    "I don't like Windows, so I'm going to post about it to a variety of
    inappropriate newsgroups to see how much of a flamefest I can start. Oh, and
    I'll configure my newsreader to ignore the followup-to headers that people
    put on their responses."

    --
    Darren New
    San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

    Try our EbolaBurgers...
    So tender they melt in your mouth.
  • Dan Johnson at Aug 23, 2002 at 10:50 am
    "d2002xx" <d2002xx at myrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:20020823090320.1fbe50af.d2002xx at myrealbox.com...
    You just haven't worked on many different kinds of systems.
    But you didn't answer about rebuilding the kernel, or you just
    can't answer?
    You can't do that without paying Microsoft a whole lot
    of money.
    Hmmmm.... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
    You do realize that that paper is not a serious argument,
    right? It's more an insult than an argument, pouring contempt
    on people who earn a living in software.

    It's also strongly divorced from reality.
    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.
    No, it's just for fun. But why I *can't* do this on my box?
    Because you haven't paid for it. I know you want
    to enjoy the benefits of Microsoft's work without
    paying them more than a nominal sum for it, but
    there's no way a very large project like Windows NT
    could be viable if Microsoft didn't have the power
    to forbid that.

    I know, RMS says programmers will write software
    even if not paid for it as such. And we will, too, but it
    won't be Windows NT. You might want to visit my
    web page:

    [http://www.vzavenue.net/~danieljohnson/]

    You will find there such software as I write for
    free. Also various rants, but never mind those.

    But it's all odds and ends, experiments in
    technology. Such are the things that catch
    my imagination.

    On the other hand, when I write for free, I
    mean it: no string attached, do anything you
    want with it.

    And that's more than RMS can say, what he
    writes is always under a highly restrictive
    license, which would be meaningless but for
    the intellectual property rights he condemns.

    [snip]
    I think you may find you are mistaken on this point;
    while it is undoubtable true that most Linux programs
    are written that way, Visual Basic is depressingly common
    on Windows.
    .... damned... VB.... (I just hate any thing derived from basic, don't
    mind :)
    It's a bit of a throwback to Microsoft's roots. Fear
    not, MS seems to be favoring C# these days.
  • D2002xx at Aug 23, 2002 at 6:40 pm

    You do realize that that paper is not a serious argument,
    right? It's more an insult than an argument, pouring contempt
    on people who earn a living in software
    ok, different views.
    It's also strongly divorced from reality.
    Hmmm... At least RedHat gets success, nor?
    But then again, you really shouldn't have to. If
    kernel hacking is required as a normal development
    practice, something is deeply wrong.
    No, it's just for fun. But why I *can't* do this on my box?
    Because you haven't paid for it. I know you want
    to enjoy the benefits of Microsoft's work without
    paying them more than a nominal sum for it, but
    there's no way a very large project like Windows NT
    could be viable if Microsoft didn't have the power
    to forbid that.
    very large project? hmm... GNU/Linux?
    I know, RMS says programmers will write software
    even if not paid for it as such. And we will, too, but it
    won't be Windows NT. You might want to visit my
    web page:

    [http://www.vzavenue.net/~danieljohnson/]

    You will find there such software as I write for
    free. Also various rants, but never mind those.

    But it's all odds and ends, experiments in
    technology. Such are the things that catch
    my imagination.
    Sounds interesting, I'll take a look tomorrow.
    On the other hand, when I write for free, I
    mean it: no string attached, do anything you
    want with it.

    And that's more than RMS can say, what he
    writes is always under a highly restrictive
    license, which would be meaningless but for
    the intellectual property rights he condemns.
    again, different views, and I prefer to RHS'. (and I think that not
    only software should be free, though it's far from reality)
    .... damned... VB.... (I just hate any thing derived from basic,
    don't mind :)
    It's a bit of a throwback to Microsoft's roots. Fear
    not, MS seems to be favoring C# these days.
    No, because I hate its language syntax, not about M$.
  • Darren New at Aug 23, 2002 at 6:52 pm

    d2002xx wrote:
    Hmmm... At least RedHat gets success, nor? No.
    again, different views, and I prefer to RHS'. (and I think that not
    only software should be free, though it's far from reality)
    If everything else were free, it would make sense that software is free.

    --
    Darren New
    San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
    ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

    Try our EbolaBurgers...
    So tender they melt in your mouth.
  • Dan Johnson at Aug 23, 2002 at 9:05 pm
    "d2002xx" <d2002xx at myrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:20020824024050.04de9d40.d2002xx at myrealbox.com...
    You do realize that that paper is not a serious argument,
    right? It's more an insult than an argument, pouring contempt
    on people who earn a living in software
    ok, different views.
    It's also strongly divorced from reality.
    Hmmm... At least RedHat gets success, nor?
    I am not persuaded that RedHat has a viable
    business model yet. Yes, they are doing much
    better than the average open source business, but
    it's not clear that this will continue; the business
    tends to see lots of changes, and it's not obvious
    that RedHat will adapt.

    We'll see.

    [snip]
    Because you haven't paid for it. I know you want
    to enjoy the benefits of Microsoft's work without
    paying them more than a nominal sum for it, but
    there's no way a very large project like Windows NT
    could be viable if Microsoft didn't have the power
    to forbid that.
    very large project? hmm... GNU/Linux?
    As I said, programming wil write *something* even
    if not paid. But you won't get NT, you get GNU/Linux.

    And I see that as a bad thing. :D

    [snip]
    But it's all odds and ends, experiments in
    technology. Such are the things that catch
    my imagination.
    Sounds interesting, I'll take a look tomorrow.
    Cool. I'll actually get a visitor. That'll be different. :D

    [snip]
    And that's more than RMS can say, what he
    writes is always under a highly restrictive
    license, which would be meaningless but for
    the intellectual property rights he condemns.
    again, different views, and I prefer to RHS'. (and I think that not
    only software should be free, though it's far from reality)
    I'm glad you prefer my notion of a "free" license to
    RMS's, but sadly it's a minority view: the GPL is
    awfully popular.
    .... damned... VB.... (I just hate any thing derived from basic,
    don't mind :)
    It's a bit of a throwback to Microsoft's roots. Fear
    not, MS seems to be favoring C# these days.
    No, because I hate its language syntax, not about M$.
    Well, C# has a different syntax, one a bit less
    antedeluvian.
  • Cousin Stanley at Aug 23, 2002 at 4:46 pm
    ( I just hate any thing derived from basic, don't mind :)
    Cousin d2002xx ...

    Before you write off ALL Basic derivations ,
    you might check out xBasic ...
    http://www.xbasic.org

    Following is a short blurb from the xBasic docs ...

    Cousin Stanley

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for minor touchups, most of this documentation was written when XBasic
    was originally designed and implemented, which was 1988 - 5 & 7 years before
    WindowsNT & Windows95 were first released.

    XBasic was designed to be portable between UNIX and whatever 32-bit operating system
    became popular for PCs - which ended up being Windows95/98/NT and Linux.

    The first implementation of XBasic was developed on a Motorola 88000 RISC CPU workstation
    running UNIX in 1988, then on 80386+ UNIX in 1991-1992, then on WindowsNT & Windows95
    during alpha developer pre-release in 1992 & 1994, and finally on Linux in 1995.
  • Goose at Aug 22, 2002 at 10:48 am
    Darren New wrote:
    <snip>
    Solaris doesn't come with a C compiler, last I looked. cc
    CP-V didn't come with
    compilers. CP/M didn't come with compilers.
    both came on machines that had either
    1. basic,
    2. scripting language
    Neither your cell phone nor your
    TiVo come with a compiler installed.
    yeah, thats why they are developer-hostile
    Nor does your Palm Pilot. Nor does the
    cash register at the store where you bought the computer.
    developer-hostile
    Which is the only system to come without a *SINGLE* development tool ?

    Palm Pilot.
    developer hostile
    CP/M. SunOS.
    both install with something
    Windows, on the other hand, comes with .NET compilers and the Windows
    Scripting Language.
    no it doesn't, you have to get them seperately ...



    --
    goose
    ruse at webmail dot co dot za
  • Will Newton at Aug 22, 2002 at 11:36 am

    On Thursday 22 Aug 2002 11:48 am, goose wrote:

    Palm Pilot.
    developer hostile
    Don't be silly. Palm distributes an SDK for cross development. No-one is
    going to write software directly on a Palm.
  • Lvirden at Aug 23, 2002 at 4:48 pm
    According to goose <spammenotguse at hobbiton.org>:
    :Darren New wrote:
    :<snip>
    :> Solaris doesn't come with a C compiler, last I looked.
    :
    :cc

    Define 'come with' - I believe that Solaris 8 has, for several years now,
    came with a CD-ROM with several hundred megabytes of development software
    that one can load at configure time if one is configuring a development
    machine (gcc, make, etc.)


    :developer hostile
    :> CP/M. SunOS.
    :
    :both install with something
    :
    :>
    :> Windows, on the other hand, comes with .NET compilers and the Windows
    :> Scripting Language.
    :
    :no it doesn't, you have to get them seperately ...


    If we are defining something as developer friendly if there is software
    somewhere in the world that can be downloaded, then most of the machines
    and systems mentioned above are developer friendly.

    However, as I read in newsgroups about the platforms on which developers
    have problems with system crashes, development application crashes,
    developing application crashes, etc. I tend to see Windows listed as
    the platform being used more than I see other platforms.
    --
    Tcl'2002 Sept 16, 2002, Vancouver, BC http://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2002/
    Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
    should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
    <URL: mailto:lvirden at yahoo.com > <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/ >
  • Donal K. Fellows at Aug 22, 2002 at 2:16 pm

    Darren New wrote:
    goose wrote:
    of all the systems I've worked on, only windows needs help to turn it
    into a development machine, all the others install tools (or prompt
    you on installation asking if you want to install)
    Solaris doesn't come with a C compiler, last I looked.
    I thought it was an optional package. I could be wrong though.

    Donal (This IRIX box might as well be without a compiler; there are several
    present, and they all conspicuously fail to compile anything... :^/ )
    --
    Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ donal.fellows at man.ac.uk
    -- I'm curious; where does this statistic come from? Does its home, perchance,
    ever see sunlight? -- Jason A Williams <jason+usenet at compsoc.man.ac.uk>

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase