Linux-Advocacy Digest #514, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 03:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Adam Warner")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: programming languages and design (Steve Mading)
Re: Everything's an object in OOPLs (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Power of the Future! (David M. Butler)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 01:31:52 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Is of course Linux.
> >
> > The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
> >
> > Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO!
>
> why do I think this will be the only thing we agree on?
>
> >
> > Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
> You missed: Is MS still growing? YES HELL YES!
>
> >
> > Are large corporate interests investing in it's growth?
> > Only if companies like IBM and HP are large in your opinion? How about
> > Corel or
> > Borland. You can't expect Microsoft to invest in their own death.
> > That's the job
> > of the giants and the ghosts.
>
> MS invested in Corel - kept it outta bankruptcy court.
>
> >
> > How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
> >
> > How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
>
> Well, lesse, 5-7% growth (better ask Rex, he'll tell you it's 20% or
> something) vs 1%. I think I would rather be part of 1% growth of $19 billion
> than 5-7% (or even 20%) of $0. And if yer counting installed seats: 1% of
> 100,000,000 is still kicking ass over 5-7-20% of a couple hundred thousand
> eh? It's got a long way to go and 8 more years won't be enough. It'll be so
> fragmented by then it'll just be another *nix variation.
>
> >
> > Has Linux encroachment on the commercial Unix market finally stopped.
> > Well, Caldera bought SCO. Rumor is Redhat is buing Novel or a chunk of
> > Novel?
> > So you have the mainframe companies and Sun left. And there still here
> > as they
> > made hardware to sell.
>
> Who cares...
>
> >
> > Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or
> > keyboard
> > is subcontracted out. They don't make anything but software.
> X-box ... but, who cares...
>
> >
> > Does Linux like to eat software companies? Why yes. That is the Linux
> > monsters
> > red meat!
> I can't think of any software company "eaten" by linux so this is weird
> statement...
> >
> > What software companies is left for us to eat? Microsoft.
> the fly dreams of eating the elephant eh?
>
> >
> > Does the Linux monster realize Bill Gates knows this and has been
> > mouthing
> > off in the press about it? Why yes! That's just like Gravey on your
> > Potatoes?
> > In fact, I'm developing an extra row of teeth which will be out by
> > December,
> > maybe first quater next year which are my Microsoft grinding molers and
> > fangs!!!!!
>
> umm... there are drugs that can help you, you know...
> >
> > Won't Microsoft take notice of this and attempt to stop you from eating
> > them?
> > Microsoft has been pooping on my head since I was a young monster. I
> > think
> > they will continue to poop until we are eye to eye. Then I think my
> > controlled
> > growth hormones which have been set at 5 - 7% per year will go wild.
>
> they poop ON your head and you think eventually you'll .. and then... umm,
> yer "controlled growht hormones" wil- um... no, stop db, don't even try to
> understand this...
> >
> > It's funny, it takes a human being 20 years to get fully grown and it
> > seems
> > Linux will be 20 before it's fully grown as an OS in terms of Market
> > use.
>
> I give up... yer nutz
Only problem is, according to IDC, Windows numbers
are slipping backward... ie: -3%, -15%, -10% (9X/ME,
IIShit, NT/2K) or perhaps the second one was -13%
on iDC and -15% on some web server monitoring
and stats page... and declining.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:57:04 +1200
Hi Drestin,
> > That's OK. I had wanted to do it with NT4 WS and at that time I found
> > Microsoft had disabled the feature.
> Not "disabled," "never included" is accurate.
Really? I think it's more likely that Microsoft designs the server edition
and then spends time crippling it. How do you think the ten client limit
gets in there? Microsoft has to expend time inserting code/changing registry
entries/removing applications/writing extra restrictive license
agreements/taking useful utilities and making you pay separately for the
administrative kits/etc.
> > Unfortunately I believe this is characteristic of Microsoft's respect
for
> > my data: In this case Microsoft has gone out of its way to make sure
that
> > I can't use a system of data protection that would save my data in event
> > of one of my hard disks failing. Why? Because they're not happy with me
> > just paying for a business OS for my computer.
>
> oh, excuse me? so, you believe that ANY OS that doesn't provide RAID
> natively demonstrates a lack of respect for your data?
NO! Being able to provide software RAID but intentionally "never including"
the support does though.
> Does your equipment/OS fail you so regularly that the lack of RAID
built-in to the OS is such a concern?
NO IT'S THE *DATA* THAT IS IMPORTANT DRESTIN. DO YOU GET IT?
OK I understand. Software RAID is no longer important because you've
discovered that Windows 2000 Professional doesn't support it.
> wow... given that only someone looking to get by cheaply would use
software raid, only someone who has just a passing care for their data and
performance would use software raid.
Actually Drestin, with UDMA IDE drives and fast processors software RAID
performance can be rather impressive. Sorry I should want to save money and
not have to rearrange hardware if Microsoft doesn't want me to.
> So, you are more concerned that an OS include RAID built-in and to hell
with performance and features [...]
> Guess MS just ain't perfect. Maybe you should save your >
> lunch money, buy a cheap promise IDE controller and use the 30
> minute patch to convert it to their RAID controller and mirror
> your cheap IDE drives instead. Won't cost you anything
> more than $30...
>
> lame...
LOL. This is truly fun Drestin. I hadn't realised MS wasn't perfect. Thanks
for putting me straight.
Adam
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 02:18:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Oh, come on Erik, it's much more entertaining to get Max so exasperated by
>> >> >constantly requesting he prove his outlandish claims so that he killfiles
>> >> >you :).
>> >>
>> >> That won't get you killfiled.
>> >
>> >Because you fit the definition of insanity: doing the same thing, time after
>> >time, expecting a different result.
>>
>> Because _I_ fit the definition of insanity, what...? My getting
>> exasperated with trolls demanding proof of minuscule and trivial points
>> of fact in order to reduce the discussion to ankle-biting and
>> kill-filling them (which I've done three times in ten years) makes me
>> insane? Boy, are you confused!
>
>You said "That won't get you killfiled." Instead of killfiling you choose to do the
>same thing time after time expecting different results. [...]
No, that's you trolls. I am simply consistent. Accurate and practical,
as well, as much as I can. Its you idiots that 'do the same thing time
after time'. I don't know if you're expecting different results. Seems
to me you're expecting the same results; distracting discussion from
real issues in petty ankle-biting, insults, and ad hominem. That's why
we call you trolls.
Except you Mike. I'm still half convinced you're an astro-turfer.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 8 Oct 2000 06:29:41 GMT
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Perhaps you missed the post I was responding to, where it was
:>said that these features were kept ONLY because of the motive of
:>making it easy for people who knew C to use C++. I was countering
:>this, saying that the features were kept because that was the
:>easiest way to incorporate the *necessary* functionality they
:>provide, not out of some need to make it easy to learn. I would have
:>been just as happy with a system that had the same functionality
:>through new techniques. In other words it wasn't a major selling
:>point that it achived the functionality through the same techniques,
:>if there were some other good way, it would have been just as worthy.
:>It was chosen to keep the old C interface not for ease of learning,
:>but for ease of implementation on the part of the compiler writers.
:>That's what I was trying to say.
: I don't think that was the major reason either. It wouldn't
: have been hard to write a whole new language that is equivalent
: in terms of functionality yet is more consistent. I think the
: crucial reason was to allow C++ to be able to freely interface
: with existing C code-base, while also allowing higher-level
: features. And that there were plenty of existing C programmers
: probably influenced the decision somewhat. I highly doubt that
: implementing C++ is that much easier (if at all) than
: implementing a simpler language with equivalent functionality,
: but without much of the C-ism.
Re-using the code base is part if what I had in mind. See, part
of implementing a language is the standard libraries. It would
take a lot of work to re-do libc in some new language. So use
of old code *is* part of making it simpler to implement a new
language.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Everything's an object in OOPLs
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:33:53 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 19:38:58 GMT, Richard wrote:
> >Alan Kay summarized five basic characteristics of Smalltalk [...]
> >These characteristics represent a pure approach to object-oriented programming:
>
> Yes, I agree with this. Note the use of the word "pure".
>
> And I'd agree if you said that C++ was not a "pure object oriented programming
> language". Clearly, it isn't.
Man, you're a pedant.
Did you consider that they might have rewritten things, basically adding an
editorial comment, by calling it "pure"?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:37:01 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Whatever language you choose, you are forced to program a certain way.
> >Get over it.
>
> This sounds like you're contradicting what Donovan said without any
> explanation, which means you haven't made a point at all. Sorry.
Which is exactly what your entire article amounts to. In fact, this
is exactly what most of your articles amount to.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:38:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> I fail to see why either of these would be considered in any way
> incorrect statements. If a sub-domain uses new words, then English is
> well-suited to it because you can define new words that are well-suited
> to the sub-domain. English is a beautiful language when beautiful
> things are written in it, as much as ny language can be considered
> beautiful for any other reason. Feel free to disagree. (He says,
> knowingly.)
You obviously were never in the position where you had to learn a
language ....
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 02:45:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The following are the opinions of the author, nothing more, nothing
>> less.
>
>Quite implausible opinions in most cases at that.
>
>> The two biggest components of ".net" are the use of XML to replace HTML,
>
>Sorry, but XML can't replace HTML. XML and HTML complement each other, not
>replace each other. In any event, the use of XML is not central to the .net
>platform, though it is a major piece.
XML, as a broader standard which also implements SGML, would naturally
encompass HTML, a more specific implementation of SGML, wouldn't it?
Microsoft's bogus .NET 'platform' involves ensuring, according to
unicat, who's opinion I'd trust more than yours because I've never read
anything he wrote, that XML is going to be used predatoraly by Microsoft
to replace the more widely supported HTML presentation of Internet
documents.
>> and then putting your applications on the server and using a thin client
>> to get to them. The XML langauage lets web pages have "dynamic"
>
>That's only a small piece of .net.
Yes, whatever someone says to criticize it, that always seems to be the
response. Interesting, considering how vaguely the thing is defined.
[...]
>> in other words, MS has reinvented Java and Java clients.
>
>Except that .NET isn't limited to one language. [...]
No, its just limited to one vendor. Guffaw.
>On top of that, Microsoft is not allowed to update their Java implementation
>anyways.
Which is to say that you are aware of precisely why Microsoft "is not
allowed to update their Java implementation", which is because it is not
a Java implementation.
>So MS's only other choice is to write it's own multiplatform VM.
Or support Java, which they apparently refuse to do because they cannot
lock out competition.
>Sun is only screwing itself by being the hard ass that it is.
By refusing to allow anti-competitive use of their competitive
development? Hardly. I think we all know that MS is the one screwing
itself. It has, after all, folded on the Caldera case, begged off of
the Sun case, lost two cases in the EU, and been convicted of federal
felonies. I mean, how much more do you really need?
[...]
>Yeah, some poor sucker which MS hired with stock options and is now a
>multi-billionaire because of it.
Not this week, no, I don't think so. <grin>
>> They obtained the source code for the Mac OS by promising to
>> port MSWORD to it, then used it to create the first commercial
>> version of Windows instead.
>
>That's a laugh. Ever seen some of the source to the original MacOS?
You apparently don't recognize what 'unicat' is referring to. Its
really quite astute that he is so familiar with the truth of the matter.
MS had a licensing agreement to 'use' the MacOS in order to support
Excel and MS-Word development on Apple's platform, which they later used
to defend their cloning of the Mac OS in Windows, when Apple sued them
in the 'look and feel' case.
>It was
>all written in Pascal. [...]
Oh, yea, that's relevant. <g>
>> Some of us think that Internet Explorer is a rip-off of Netscape, and
>> that the new MS directory services are an imitation of Novell Directory
>> services....
>
>You're crazy if you think that. Internet Explorer was based on the Spyglass
>NCSA Mosaic code base.
And said Mosaic code was, in fact, the creation of the guy who wrote
Netscape. Spyglass, on the other hand, was a different
re-implementation (which was much more similar to the source, I think).
So I'm not sure why someone would be 'crazy' if they recognize that
Spyglass Mosaic was merely a hasty and poor re-implementation of the
original Mosaic code created after Netscape had created the market for
web browsers, having done Mosaic itself one better.
>Netscape also essentially sprouted from the same
>code base (though they claim they didn't use any Mosaic code, the same
>people wrote much of both applications).
As opposed to some different person merely re-implementing Mosaic. :-)
>If anything, IE and Netscape are
>brothers, rather than one copying the other.
So we then look at the actual products. IE followed Netscape, and after
Netscape was successful in a substantial share of the market and IE
couldn't compete, Microsoft decided they needed to tie it to their
monopoly OS. We've been through all this, as have the federal courts.
[...]
>Sun is hardly MS's most successful competitor. In fact, they weren't even a
>competitor (at least according to Judge Jackson).
How about according to MS? They're the ones who seem to be trying to
prevent Sun from developing interoperable software so they can sell more
hardware. Microsoft is the one who realized that this would prevent
monopolization, and is trying to prevent it.
>How about Novell? THAT
>was MS's most successful competitor.
Only until Win95.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html
"Discussing the project codenamed "Chicago," which would years later
become Windows 95, a June 1992 internal "Chicago Strategy Document"
stated: "Novell is after the desktop.... This is perhaps our biggest
threat. We must respond in a strong way by making Chicago a complete
Windows operating system, from boot-up to shut-down. There will be no
place or need on a Chicago machine for DR-DOS (or any DOS)."
[...]
>> MS stock started falling when Win2K was announced, and took a 10-point
>> nosedive when Win ME came out.
>> WHY?
>
>Because a federal judge ordered them broken up.
>
>> Could be because people realized that Microsoft has run out of gas.
>
>And the legal judgement had nothing to do with it. Right.
Yea, I'd agree with you, Erik. Hoo-yee. :-)
>> [...]Think of the
>> last decade or so. It used to take a 16Mhz 386 PC with 4MB of RAM
>> and a 120MB hard drive to allow you to run WORD, Excel, and a
>> project planner, and to send and receive e-mail. Since then we've thrown
>> out our hardware and replaced our software five or six times, and for what?
>> The same basic office functions!
>
>And you can still run Word, Excel and a project planner on such a machine.
Yes, that's his point.
>It's just that our expectations of what software should do and how fast it
>should do it has risen since then.
You might want to think so. Seems to me that five years ago, people
weren't afraid to try new features because they'd cause their software
to crash, and they knew they had to stick to the few procedures they've
learned will work...
>Go ahead, Crank up Windows 3.0 on a
>16Mhz 386 with 4MB or RAM and run Word, then compare it to running Word on
>computer today and tell me you don't find the old way virtually unuseable by
>comparison.
To be honest, I find the new software to be virtually unusable by
comparison, but then, I spent a lot of time learning the old software.
>> And support staff demands have probably doubled at the same time. Some
>> people are fed up. They're tired of the MS churn-and-burn cycle that
>> pumpscash out of their wallets and delivers nothing but hype in return.
>
>I guess that's why people keep upgrading. They're so tired of it, they run
>right out and do it some more.
Yea, that's pretty much it. The only chance they have, they're told, of
getting software that works, is to keep buying more software. Funny how
well that works out for Microsoft.
[...]
>> So the next gen windows may be an Xbox client, accessing applications on
>> an MSN server by subscription. With the buzz that MS has for eating its
>> own children, if I worked for a PC manufacturer right now I would be hitting
>> the panic button!
>
>Good thing you don't. They'd go out of business.
Yea, right. Nobody has a problem with Microsoft. Uh-huh.
>> Of course, If your users LIKE the PC centric model of computing, and you
>> don't want to have to rewrite all your business apps into a whole
>> new computing paradigm, and you don't want to pay, say, $50/user/month
>> in "software rent" to MS, you can always use Linux!
>
>Or you can continue to use Windows 2000 and Windows ME. People certainly
>did so after the introduction of Windows NT in 1993. People continued to do
>so after IBM introduced OS/2 2.0, which contained Windows 3.0. The public
>clearly doesn't buy something unless they want to.
The public clearly can't buy what they want to. You seem to forget
precisely *why* Microsoft has been convicted in federal court.
>> It has free office suites (like Star Office, and KOffice) which will let
>> you keep all your data in its CURRENT format, instead of the absurdly
>> difficult task of converting ALL your data to XML, and with the WINE
>> (www.winehq.com) windows environment it will even let you keep
>> running the office suites that you already OWN!
>
>Wake me when Office 2000 runs on Wine.
Wake me when Office 2000 is a humorous memory.
[...]
>Oh, would those be the computer makers which claimed there was no
>alternative to Windows?
No *commercial* alternative to Windows. This is what clinched the
conviction.
>> But if you really want to convert your whole enterprise to the Sun
>> vision of "The network is the computer" network-server-centric
>> computing, why not
>> use the time-tested, standards-based, enterprise approved original from
>> Sun,
>> instead of being a guinea pig for MS as they struggle to survive into
>> the post-PC era???
>
>Standards based? Since when is Java a standard? Since when is sun's NFS a
>standard?
Sun's NFS is a standard since about 1993, I think. After Sun developed
NIS, they also released that to a public standards body. This was just
before they released NIS+, so I think it must have been about 1994 or 5.
Java isn't a standard yet, because no standard's body has been able to
provide any reason to believe that they are capable of ensuring it
remains a "non-de-commoditized" standard.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 02:46:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8recrj$kmf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >That's a laugh. Ever seen some of the source to the original MacOS? It
>> was
>> >all written in Pascal. What good would that do MS, who write everything
>in
>> >Assembler at the time. Besides, Windows 1.0 was absolutely nothing like
>> >MacOS. If they had used the MacOS source, it would have been much much
>> >better.
No, I think he was right. Windows 1.0 was nothing like MacOS. It was
Windows 3.0 which 'copied' the MacOS desktop presentation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 02:54:06 -0400
Jim Richardson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:51:27 -0500,
> Tom Elam, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
> >Why can't your mighty, all-powerul, Linsux box even run a spell-checker?
> >
> >HUH?
> >
>
> It's allways amusing to see a spelling flame with a spelling error...
What, never heard of a powerul computer? I'm sure that was intentional,
since obviously he wouldn't have complained about someone not using a spell
checker, and then not use one himself... that would be absurd.
Or something.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 8 Oct 2000 06:44:17 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : classes and primitive types are not objects). Objects in Smalltalk cannot
:> : access each other's parts (in C++ friends can access each other's private
:> : parts).
:>
:> So, that's one less useful feature.
: Good riddance. "friends" is only useful to the lazy or non-OO
: programmers.
Question: Does Smalltalk have security mechanisms to make certain
methods only usable by some objects and not others? (I'm not
familiar with it, so I'll have to trust whatever you say here).
:> Am I to assume from this that the expression x + 3 * y would be
:> interpeted in left-to-right order, which is plain wrong from an
:> algebraic standpoint? If so, then that's one less feature.
: You are correct, that "feature" is absent in Smalltalk. And good riddance!
: Why the hell would I *want* to switch from a programming mindset to an
: algebraic mindset in the middle of programming ??
Because it *IS* math, duh. Notice the example I gave? It *WAS*
an algebreic expression. To make it work any way other than in
algebreic precidence is silly.
:> : OO means "everything's an Object" not "polymorphism and inheritance".
:> So apparently OO means less useful features then? More pain in
: Incorrect. OO means less *useless* features, less clutter, less junk,
: less garbage. A well-crafted tool that does exactly what you want and
: nothing more as opposed to a Rube Goldberg machine imposed on you.
It should be trivially obvious to everyone except the most egotistical
prick that one's own judgement of whether or not a feature is
*useless* is going to be heavily laced with predjudice and emotion.
*I* am the one that gets to decide in a feature is useless in my
program, not the language designer.
I despise languages where the language designer had the hubris to
assume that he can think of everything that could ever possibly
be useful to do, and therefore provides no mechanism to break out
of the limiting shell he builds for programmers. (Case in point:
Pascal with it's use of features that it refused to pass on to
users of the language. - Note how writeln() has varying args, yet
you can't make your own varying arg functions in Pascal.)
Can you write Smalltalk in Smalltalk? If not, then it's such a
hubris-laced language. If you can, then I'll have to consider
looking into it.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
