Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Haskell also provides another kind of array which can be modified 
> in-place in the same sense that files can be written to - i.e., your 
> program returns a set of instructions to the runtime that says "hey, 
> create this array and modify its contents like this". Which makes sense 
> really. After all, what is a "file"? It's a named array of bytes that 
> can be modified [and reised] in-place! :-D

  Somehow I get the feeling that means:

  1) If you want to make a program which does some efficient calculations
using arrays, you have to jump through many useless hoops.

  2) Haskell is not pure regardless.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Somehow I get the feeling that means:
> 
>   1) If you want to make a program which does some efficient calculations
> using arrays, you have to jump through many useless hoops.
> 
>   2) Haskell is not pure regardless.

Well, you've seen code that does it, so you can see it's really not that 
hard. And the "hoops" are precisely what *makes* Haskell pure. To my 
mind, that makes them not "useless". Still, it is only to my mind... 
obviously what is or is not useful is in the eye of the beholder.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> >   Perhaps a bit surprisingly, Microsoft even has some open-source
> > projects, under OSI-compliant licenses. For example:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Template_Library

> I know. There's also WiX, a free toolset to make MSI-based installers 
> from XML configuration files. Released under the Common Public License.

> And probably many others.

  I just find this rather surprising, considering that they CEO considers
open source software a cancer and communism.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   I just find this rather surprising, considering that they CEO considers
> open source software a cancer and communism.
> 

"We're open-source friendly!" might be good marketing. Even though they 
really aren't.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:51:17 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Warp escribió:
>>   I just find this rather surprising, considering that they CEO
>>   considers
>> open source software a cancer and communism.
>> 
>> 
> "We're open-source friendly!" might be good marketing. Even though they
> really aren't.

Well, arguably they have an interoperability lab that they run with 
Novell (again, that's who I work for, so I'm perhaps biased - though I 
really do dislike Windows and pretty much always have - I preferred 
Desqview when it was around).

They're also working with the SAMBA team now.

So it seems that some things are changing, finally.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> They're also working with the SAMBA team now.

yeah, they probably want some hints at how to correctly handle their spec.  Not
first time it happened.

But truth be told, M$ only said GPL was a cancer, not general opens-source
software.  It's understandable.  They certainly would feel a lot happier to
just integrate BSD-covered code into their products without much legal fuss.
hey, more people working for free for their glory...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:59:49 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> They're also working with the SAMBA team now.
> 
> yeah, they probably want some hints at how to correctly handle their
> spec.  Not first time it happened.

Possibly.  But the SAMBA team agreeing to work with them is a significant 
thing as well, because they were so outspoken over the Novell/Microsoft 
agreement.  I mean, Jeremy Allison quit Novell over that deal.

> But truth be told, M$ only said GPL was a cancer, not general
> opens-source software.  It's understandable.  They certainly would feel
> a lot happier to just integrate BSD-covered code into their products
> without much legal fuss. hey, more people working for free for their
> glory...

Well, they've used a fair bit of BSD code already; their TCP/IP stack 
reportedly comes from the BSD implementation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escribió:
> Well, they've used a fair bit of BSD code already; their TCP/IP stack 
> reportedly comes from the BSD implementation.
> 

And also reportedly, they rewrote the whole TCP/IP stack for Vista. Lots 
of bugs reappeared (like many that had been fixed in Windows 95, ping of 
death anyone?).

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:13:55 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> Well, they've used a fair bit of BSD code already; their TCP/IP stack
>> reportedly comes from the BSD implementation.
>> 
>> 
> And also reportedly, they rewrote the whole TCP/IP stack for Vista. 

Huh, I hadn't heard that.

> Lots
> of bugs reappeared (like many that had been fixed in Windows 95, ping of
> death anyone?).

Great....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> And also reportedly, they rewrote the whole TCP/IP stack for Vista.

good code is old code.  passed the test of time.

good for them.

Post a reply to this message