 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escribió:
>> Lots
>> of bugs reappeared (like many that had been fixed in Windows 95, ping of
>> death anyone?).
>
> Great....
...bugs that were of course fixed long before the final Vista release! I
thought I'd better clarify that :)
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#51
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:46:10 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>>> Lots
>>> of bugs reappeared (like many that had been fixed in Windows 95, ping
>>> of death anyone?).
>>
>> Great....
>
> ...bugs that were of course fixed long before the final Vista release! I
> thought I'd better clarify that :)
>
> http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#51
Yeah, I understood that, but it seems that some didn't. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Why not disallow diamond inheritance?
>
>> Technically, you can't, since there's a common base type for all objects
>> in those languages.
>
> No, there isn't: The so-called "interfaces" are not inherited from the
> common base class.
Interfaces aren't objects. They're types.
The rest snipped, because I agree with you. I'm not saying MI is
especially hard to get right. I'm just saying you can't disallow diamond
inheritance in a language where everything inherits from the same base
class.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> One really has two choices: Run different versions of the runtime and
>> use up those resources, or have DLL hell where upgrading the runtime
>> breaks working programs. The "upgrade the runtime and maintain 100%
>> backward compatibility" eventually turns into a nightmare.
>
> Third choice: Design the system so that you don't *have* to upgrade
> ever. ;)
That's really bad for a commercial company. ;-)
Seriously, lots of systems do that. You upgrade by throwing away the
entire old system and buying a new one.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> It also offered a way to
>> access Microsoft functionality from within Java.
>
> Isn't that precisely breaking standards?
No. Is providing OpenGL breaking the ANSI C standard?
> If Microsoft's version of Java didn't break any Java specifications,
> how come Sun sued and won?
The same reason Alcoa lost their anti-trust case?
The fact that some company loses an anti-trust case says nothing about
their behavior, in the USA. One of the first lawsuits under the Sherman
anti-trust act was against Alcoa Aluminum company. They lost, not
because they did anything wrong, but because the judge said "if you have
most of the customers, you must be doing something wrong."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Depends. How good are the .NET libraries? [I hope to God they're better
> than the Java ones!]
They're actually surprisingly good for what they do. Far, far better
than the Java stuff. Much of the Java stuff was designed to be
oh-so-flexible, with three or four layers of abstraction between
"socket" and "network connection", for example, so much so that it's
almost unusable. It might have been worthwhile if people actually wrote
code that was as flexible as the specs, but that never happened either.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> ....so they implemented Java's flawed MI-but-not-MI model? How is that
>>> fixing the flaws from other major programming languages?
>
>> Probably fixing what they saw as flawed MI in C++. :-)
>
> They "fixed the problems" by removing multiple inheritance completely?
I just want to clarify the smiley-face means I was being at least
somewhat sarcastic.
> Maybe MI in C++ has some problems. I has never stopped me from using
> MI in C++ efficiently and for really useful stuff, though.
Remember that C# also allows reflection, dynamic loading of precompiled
libraries, and runtime code generation, as well as supporting a couple
dozen other languages. All of this might have some effect on the decisions.
> Without this possibility each program would have to be statically linked
> with all the system libraries, and thus the same system libraries would be
> loaded into memory multiple times. If there's eg. a huge library used by all
> programs, it would be loaded to memory as many times as there are programs
> running.)
It depends. Some systems had non-dynamic loadable libraries that were
indeed shared between programs using them. They just got linked at
specific addresses. (I think Multics did this, IIRC.) For example, on
the first mainframe I used, the fortran library was at 0x1FF00 or
something like that. When you started a program that needed the fortran
runtime, it got mapped into your address space.
I.e., "linked" but not "dynamically under programmer control".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Depends. How good are the .NET libraries? [I hope to God they're
>> better than the Java ones!]
>
> They're actually surprisingly good for what they do. Far, far better
> than the Java stuff.
That's not hard. :-S
> Much of the Java stuff was designed to be
> oh-so-flexible, with three or four layers of abstraction between
> "socket" and "network connection", for example, so much so that it's
> almost unusable. It might have been worthwhile if people actually wrote
> code that was as flexible as the specs, but that never happened either.
Tell me, have *you* ever seen a non-empty catch{} block in Java? ;-)
BTW, I especially love the way Java, an "object oriented language", uses
lots of procedural techniques in it's class library. Neat...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Because it's not a feature of the functional programming paradigm,
>> but the imperative programming paradigm.
>
> Huh? Since when? I think you're mistaken here, but I'm happy to learn
> otherwise.
As posted elsewhere, what Warp *really* means is "arrays with in-place
update". Which *is* strictly speaking against functional style. (But
that doesn't stop you using it even in a pure functional language such
as Haskell...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A purely functional programming language doesn't have side-effects.
The trick is to embed the purely functional programming language into a
larger system that does the I/O. For example, have a CGI script that
takes its input and generates output from that functionally, and let the
web server do the I/O part. POV-Ray could be purely functional, except
for a small shell that reads the input file into a buffer (ignoring
includes and such) and another that takes the calculated pixels and
outputs them to the destination file.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
