> (Recall that Java isn't like C; the source files have to have particular 
> names, and have to be located in particular folders, and so on.)

As so the IDE is not really to blame then if you haven't followed the Java 
rules exactly.

> Well, it's not like anybody showed us how to use the software...

LOL.  Reminds me of when you said that 3D Studio was rubbish, but it turns 
out you were just guessing how to use it and got stuck (surprise surprise!).

> Who knows? Perhaps in the 7 years since then, VS has become actually 
> useful in some way. But I doubt it...

Yeh I doubt it too, I guess all those companies than spend tens of thousands 
of dollars on VS licenses are just doing it for fun.  I guess all their 
employees are secretly using notepad...

Post a reply to this message

> It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive 
> to the casual user than IE already is 

BINGO!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> Do you also think Coca-Cola is wrong for banning pubs and restaurants
> >>> from selling Pepsi?
> >>
> >> Yes. (It's news to me that they can legally do this...)
> >
> >     Both Pepsi and Coca Cola do this in the US. They offer a nice rate
> > if the business signs an exclusive contract. It really, really sucks.
>
> They offer a nice rate if the business signs an exclusive contract? Or
> they won't sell to the business at all if they don't sign an exclusive
> contract?


Coca-Cola Enterprises ATM. If a customer wants a Coca-Cola cooler (fridge) for
Coca-Cola products then they get it free of charge. If they want it for other
products they get charged a rental fee. If they want a vendor (can/bottle
dispensing machine), either it belongs to CCE and it is stocked by CCE then the
customer gets a percentage of the profit or they can rent it from CCE and stock
it themselves. The fountains (those terrible machines that you see in pubs and
MacDoughnuts etc.) are owned by CCE and rented to the customers, they buy the
syrup themselves.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> (Recall that Java isn't like C; the source files have to have 
>> particular names, and have to be located in particular folders, and so 
>> on.)
> 
> As so the IDE is not really to blame then if you haven't followed the 
> Java rules exactly.

I did follow Java's rules. Apparently not VS's rules though...

>> Well, it's not like anybody showed us how to use the software...
> 
> LOL.  Reminds me of when you said that 3D Studio was rubbish, but it 
> turns out you were just guessing how to use it and got stuck (surprise 
> surprise!).

It's an IDE. It edits text files. How hard should that be?

>> Who knows? Perhaps in the 7 years since then, VS has become actually 
>> useful in some way. But I doubt it...
> 
> Yeh I doubt it too, I guess all those companies than spend tens of 
> thousands of dollars on VS licenses are just doing it for fun.  I guess 
> all their employees are secretly using notepad...

Well, I'm sure if they've spent money on licences for something, people 
are going to use it, no matter how lame it is. (Where I work, people use 
Word...)

I'm just saying. Word hasn't changed noticably since 1995 or so. I see 
no particular reason to except VS to have changed drastically. (It 
probably supports quite a few languages that it didn't back then, mind 
you...)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> From what I heard, Internet Explorer was stolen from a company called 
>> Spyglass.
>>
>> Spyglass were selling a web browser, M$ licenced the code from them, 
>> developed IE, and then gave it away for free (in violation of the 
>> terms of the licence with Spyglass). Spyglass promptly went bankrupt 
>> before they could sue M$.
> 
> Oh joy, another one of your completely made-up stories bashing MS :-)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.

...this page does not exist?

>> The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or 
>> you can't have our product".
> 
> That's impossible, because as pointed out you can just go to a normal 
> shop and buy it if you can't get it directly from MS.  The worst MS 
> could do was "you will agree to these terms or you will have to buy it 
> at the normal price the public pays for it".

I was under the impression that they could put terms into their licence 
to prevent companies doing this. But IANAL...

>> Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people 
>> aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get 
>> government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no".
> 
> Or offer 2000 GBP for your old cars if you buy a new one :-)

I have no idea who came up with that one, but it seems like a pretty 
dumb idea to me...

>> Like, if Tesco decided to start giving away a free bestselling book 
>> with every purchase, they'd have a problem because they'd be using 
>> grocery sales to put book sellers out of business.
> 
> That's not illegal.  In fact it's common practise for supermarkets to 
> use "loss leaders" like petrol and milk/sugar that actually lose them 
> money, to encourage people to come in and spend on the more profitable 
> items.  What *is* illegal is if the manufacturer tries to tell Tesco 
> what price they should sell at.

Tesco might sell petrol at a loss, but they don't give it away *for 
free* to get you through the door, do they?

> Charities are for being fair, businesses are for making money and 
> crushing the competition.

Well, fortunately not everybody thinks like that. Otherwise nobody would 
bother making any actual *products* at all, they'd all just find ways to 
screw customers out of their money without providing anything in return.

>> Oracle didn't get to be where they are now 
>> by stealing other people's stuff,
> 
> Oh really:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Oracle

Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.

> As I said, pretty much any large company is going to have done some 
> "unfair" things, otherwise they wouldn't have grown to be a large company.

So your basic premise is that the only way to be successful in business 
is to lie, cheat, steal and try to fob customers off with cheap 
defective goods at extortionate prices?

Post a reply to this message

> It's an IDE. It edits text files. How hard should that be?

LOL.  Editing the text files is a fairly minor part of an IDE, and as you 
say shouldn't be that hard.  The complicated parts come when you start 
configuring the build tools, using the debugger, and of course the form 
designer.  If you don't know how to use them properly it's going to be hard 
work and very frustrating.

By the way, I don't know how you could ever write a program without using 
the debugger, but hey maybe I just make lots of mistakes...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> It's an IDE. It edits text files. How hard should that be?
> 
> LOL.  Editing the text files is a fairly minor part of an IDE, and as 
> you say shouldn't be that hard.  The complicated parts come when you 
> start configuring the build tools, using the debugger, and of course the 
> form designer.  If you don't know how to use them properly it's going to 
> be hard work and very frustrating.

Mercifully, VS seemed to already know how to compile stuff, so that 
wasn't too hard. (Persuading it to build a JAR file was another matter...)

> By the way, I don't know how you could ever write a program without 
> using the debugger, but hey maybe I just make lots of mistakes...

The debugger, at least, was relatively intuivite to use. IIRC, the only 
tricky thing was figuring out how the hell to invoke it in the first 
place. (Oh, and the fact that the bug is almost never where you think it 
was, so you invariably put the breakpoints in the wrong place...)

Can you see why I like statically-typed programming languages? ;-)

On an unrelated note, the debugger that comes with GHC is... unhelpful, 
to put it generously.

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh joy, another one of your completely made-up stories bashing MS :-)
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.
>
> ...this page does not exist?

Make sure you include the final full stop.

> Tesco might sell petrol at a loss, but they don't give it away *for free* 
> to get you through the door, do they?

No, but there's no law stopping them if they wanted to.  Like when petrol 
stations give away glasses or model cars or oil for free when you buy 
petrol.  WHSmith gave me a free newspaper last time I went to get some food 
in there, I guess if there was a newspaper shop next door they might be out 
of business by now?

> Well, fortunately not everybody thinks like that. Otherwise nobody would 
> bother making any actual *products* at all, they'd all just find ways to 
> screw customers out of their money without providing anything in return.

Generally you go bankrupt pretty quickly if you try to do that.

> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.

Oh I see, so when you're talking about MS, "stole" means "bought", but when 
you're talking about Oracle "stole" really does mean "stole" as in acquired 
illegally without paying for it.  Hmmm ok whatever.

> So your basic premise is that the only way to be successful in business is 
> to lie, cheat, steal and try to fob customers off with cheap defective 
> goods at extortionate prices?

You can't be general like that, most of those things generally lose you 
customers and profit, but you can use your judgment in certain situations. 
(eg if MS had told the people they were buying DOS from that they were 
planning to license it to IBM, they likely wouldn't have been able to buy it 
or been charged 100x more, and then MS probably wouldn't have existed 
today).

Post a reply to this message

> Mercifully, VS seemed to already know how to compile stuff, so that wasn't 
> too hard. (Persuading it to build a JAR file was another matter...)

Yes it has pretty good defaults that work straight out of the box (debug and 
release).  But there is a huge amount you can configure, especially if you 
start adding custom build events and more complicated projects with 
installers, dlls, database servers etc.

> The debugger, at least, was relatively intuivite to use. IIRC, the only 
> tricky thing was figuring out how the hell to invoke it in the first 
> place. (Oh, and the fact that the bug is almost never where you think it 
> was, so you invariably put the breakpoints in the wrong place...)

The DirectX debugger is pretty cool too, it can actually record every single 
call to the GPU each frame and store it in a file while your program is 
running.  Then you can go back into the debugger and step through each frame 
or call and see what is rendered on each call, check the textures and vertex 
buffers etc.  I found out I was drawing the terrain in my game 4 times each 
frame this way :-)

Post a reply to this message

>>> Oh joy, another one of your completely made-up stories bashing MS :-)
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.

OK, well here we have a question of facts. One Internet source asserts 
that Microsoft licenced a browser from Spyglass and then released it for 
free in violation of the licence terms, and it put Spyglass out of 
business before they could sue. Another Internet source asserts that 
this was not in fact a violation of the licence terms, and that it 
didn't kill Spyglass. At this point, I'm not sure who to believe.

>> Well, fortunately not everybody thinks like that. Otherwise nobody 
>> would bother making any actual *products* at all, they'd all just find 
>> ways to screw customers out of their money without providing anything 
>> in return.
> 
> Generally you go bankrupt pretty quickly if you try to do that.

Unless you're Microsoft, at least...

>> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.
> 
> Oh I see, so when you're talking about MS, "stole" means "bought", but 
> when you're talking about Oracle "stole" really does mean "stole" as in 
> acquired illegally without paying for it.  Hmmm ok whatever.

If you pay to use some code in a certain way, and you use it in that 
way, that would be "buying" it. If you pay to use some code in a very 
limited way, and then go on to use it in a completely different way 
while denying that you're doing so, that would be "stealing". Much like 
all those DVD players which secretly use GPL code for their video 
decoding in violation of the licence terms...

>> So your basic premise is that the only way to be successful in 
>> business is to lie, cheat, steal and try to fob customers off with 
>> cheap defective goods at extortionate prices?
> 
> You can't be general like that, most of those things generally lose you 
> customers and profit, but you can use your judgment in certain 
> situations. (eg if MS had told the people they were buying DOS from that 
> they were planning to license it to IBM, they likely wouldn't have been 
> able to buy it or been charged 100x more, and then MS probably wouldn't 
> have existed today).

Well, all I'm saying is that lots of other large companies seem to get 
by without having to resort to cheating to stay in business...

Post a reply to this message