Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Java killer? (Score 2) 623

by cakoose (#35805292) Attached to: Red Hat Uncloaks 'Java Killer': the Ceylon Project

In a perfect world probably. But have you considered that there's a reason why primitive types are left as primitives even in C# (which had the opportunity to correct the mistakes Java made).

I'm not suggesting that primitive types be implemented using the mechanics of regular objects. I'm just saying that they could be made to appear to the programmer like regular objects. Combined with certain restrictions (e.g. no extending from primitives) and some compiler tricks, this can be made to work efficiently. The fact that Java's primitive types are all immutable makes this even easier -- immutable objects are very well-behaved.

And sure, your performance might suffer if you're not careful, but I don't think that's necessarily worse than having to force people to deal with the primitive/object difference even when they don't particularly care. It's kind of like the autoboxing situation today. If you're not careful you could end up with a bunch of unwanted boxing/unboxing operations. So when I need to be careful, I am. But when I just want to get something done, it's way easier to just let the autoboxing happen.

Comment: Re:Java killer? (Score 4, Insightful) 623

by cakoose (#35803446) Attached to: Red Hat Uncloaks 'Java Killer': the Ceylon Project

My favorite part about the post is that he points to C# as an example of a "good" language, as if C# and Java were not essentially the same language.

C# started out essentially the same as Java. But at this point it's way better.

  • Function types and closures. This alone makes it way better.
  • More efficient generics (no boxing/unboxing).
  • Local variable type inference.
  • Coming in C# 5.0: automatic CPS transformation (async/await).

Comment: Re:Java killer? (Score 5, Insightful) 623

by cakoose (#35803288) Attached to: Red Hat Uncloaks 'Java Killer': the Ceylon Project

Any experienced c++ programmer will tell you that "classes if necessary, but not necessarily classes" is the way to go. Class explosion is not pretty, and makes for over-complex stupid implementations.

When trying to design a new, clean, high-level programming language, I probably wouldn't pay much attention to C++ rules of thumb.

Making everything behave like an object can make things much cleaner. It all depends on how exactly this is done, but a lot of complexity in Java comes from the fact that primitive types behave differently. C# did a bit better, but there's still the value-vs-class distinction which can trip you up in subtle ways.


AT&T Wireless Data Still Growing At 1000% 137

Posted by samzenpus
from the big-and-bigger dept.
XBox (Games)

The Inside Story of Microsoft's 'Project Natal' 130

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the dance-for-your-joy dept.
Lanxon writes "Wired has published a lengthy behind-the-scenes feature documenting the inception, development and technological struggles of Microsoft's Project Natal, now known as Kinect. The feature is the result of conversations the magazine had with a number of key developers and researchers behind the project, and unprecedented access to Microsoft Research in a number of countries, over the course of three years."

Chemistry Tasks For the Computer Lab? 154

Posted by timothy
from the just-the-basics dept.
soupman55 writes "I teach Chemistry to students completing their last two years of high school. Basically it's a 'teach and test' course with a few experiments thrown in. I want to jazz up the course using computer and internet resources. For instance, I could set some tasks that require Excel spreadsheet calculations. Or I could set some web quests where students search for information online. One of the decisions to be made is: Do I use computer/internet tasks to help the students grasp the material that is already in the course, or do I help them become aware of ideas that are extensions to their course? Also, when I compare Chemistry classes with Accounting classes, it strikes me that unlike Accounting where learning to use software like Quick Books is an integral part of the course, that there is no particular software that a chemistry student must learn to use. Or is there? What in terms of chemistry and computers worked for you? Or what is there computer-wise that wasn't in your high school chemistry course but should have been?"

Comment: Re:Say goodbye for XML (Score 1) 272

by cakoose (#30531448) Attached to: Microsoft Ordered To Pay $290M, Stop Selling Word

I think you're wrong. From the coverage I've read, it's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents, and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.

News coverage of technical things is so effing horrible. Most tech articles are written by people who don't understand programming but don't see why that should stop them from broadcasting their misinterpretation of technical information. You should just read the patent; most of it is very clearly-written.

It does not predate XML, and has nothing to do with XML-based standards.

Filed in 1994, it does predate XML. It doesn't predate SGML, though, and since core XML is essentially the same thing, it's probably safe. However, I it does affect XML-based standards -- specifically the ones that separate content from structure/presentation.

The Patent

It's a way to separate content from structure. So, for example, where and SGML document would store data like "<p>Hi <i>friend</i></p>", they store it as two separate pieces of data. The content piece would be "Hi friend", the structure piece would be "0:p, 3:i, 9:/i, 9:/p" (roughly). So now if you wanted to format that document differently, you could just use a different structure piece; the content piece doesn't change.

This exact technique obvious, so I don't think it should have been awarded a patent. But maybe what's obvious to us in 2009 may not have been obvious to the patent examiner in 1994 and, in any case, it doesn't look like any of the affected parties are going to try and argue obviousness. The important question is how generally will their technique be interpreted?

Taken narrowly, it's a way of putting XML-like tags in a separate file, mapping them back into the content using byte offsets. This is easy enough to work around. Taken broadly, it's a way of separating content from structure. So, any time you augment the content in one file by some kind of annotations in another, you're violating their patent. So HTML and CSS are problematic because the style information is in a separate file, even though the mapping is done using tag and class names and not using byte offsets.

I don't know much about patent litigation, so I don't know how much leeway they give plaintiffs. But I doubt Microsoft Word uses their exact technique; they probably do something similar to HTML+CSS or XSLT. So this victory could indicate that the courts are interpreting the technique broadly. Which sucks. Man, patents like this are killing the industry.


Best Man Rigs Newlyweds' Bed To Tweet During Sex 272 Screenshot-sm

Posted by samzenpus
from the nice-feed dept.

Intel Shows 48-Core x86 Processor 366

Posted by timothy
from the soon-will-be-in-calculators dept.
Vigile writes "Intel unveiled a completely new processor design today the company is dubbing the 'Single-chip Cloud Computer' (but was previously codenamed Bangalore). Justin Rattner, the company's CTO, discussed the new product at a press event in Santa Clara and revealed some interesting information about the goals and design of the new CPU. While terascale processing has been discussed for some time, this new CPU is the first to integrate full IA x86 cores rather than simple floating point units. The 48 cores are set 2 to a 'tile' and each tile communicates with others via a 2D mesh network capable of 256 GB/s rather than a large cache structure. "

Comment: The BetaNews article is horrible (Score 1) 332

by cakoose (#24106331) Attached to: Google Open Sources Its Data Interchange Format

Man, the BetaNews article is horrible. Practically everything — except for the direct quotes from the Google blog post — is incorrect. I somehow expect more from someone who goes by "Scott M. Fulton, III".

Google's public documentation shows Protocol Buffers (which has yet to be formally abbreviated) is indeed conceptually different from XML, in that it's rooted more in procedural logic than structural declaration. In XML, there's a schema which defines the structures of tables and recordsets, which is separate from the document that relates the contents of records in that structure.

Nope, they're conceptually the same. The ".proto" files are like DTD or XSD. The actual document data is stored in a binary format (though there's also a text representation). The data manipulation API is similar what you get from Castor or JAX-B.

But here, in an unusual departure from the norm, the default values for these members are set to digits (for strings or literals) or values (for numerals) that define their place in a sequence -- where they fall within a record. Imagine if data were streamed onto recording tape, the way it used to be in the late 1960s and '70s. It's that streaming of the data sequence, without all the fenceposts, that differentiates XML from Protocol Buffers, by taking out all those markups that say when an entry or a record starts and stops.

The "= number" at the end of a field definition is not a "default value". It is a numeric tag that identifies that field. That said, "= number" is quite unintuitive syntax; maybe something like "@number" would have been less confusing.

Looking at some of the documentation, I don't think the aforementioned numbers directly index the field's location in the record. They lay down the present fields one after another, probably putting each field's tag number before the field data. This also allows them to avoid sending fields that use the default value. So they still need to specify how long each record is — either with "fenceposts" between records or a "length" specifier before each record.


Google Open Sources Its Data Interchange Format 332

Posted by kdawson
from the it's-fast-that's-why dept.

Gaining System-Level Access To Vista 412

Posted by kdawson
from the seems-too-simple-somehow dept.

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.