Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Microsoft, JBoss link server software

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft, JBoss link server software

 
 
Steve H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2005
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:14 +1200, Rob J wrote:

> In article <1d1rujdkrnu85$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:45:13 +1200, Ron McNulty wrote:
>>> My wish list for interoperability is short and sweet:
>>>
>>> 1. Change windows to use the '/' as the directory delimiter

>>
>> iirc, ntkrnl takes either - its the shell guys who **** that up (try it in
>> some shell windows, it barely works)
>>
>>> 2. Make Windows file names case-sensitive.

>>
>> again ntkrnl does it
>>
>> ntkrnl does a lot of what *some* people ask. the releaty is that normal
>> people (i count myself as one of them) dont care about this.txt & ThIS.tXt
>> being diffrent files.

>
> Most people don't want it to.
>
> Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are
> the most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.


ok, that is just crossing the line bud !!

i 'grew up' on visual basic, loved the fact that vAr = VaR no matter where
i put the capitals.

i used '_foo' for private variables and 'Foo' for their public getters /
mutators. i think at one stage i even used 'm_foo' for something - at least
i didnt go down the 'szFoo' route (ok it had its place a decade ago).

then i found the 'dark side', a place where 'foo' and 'Foo' (even 'fOo')
are compleatly diffrent things - to compound my new found love of the dark
side i reciently had a project (vb.net project) and lets just say iam happy
its over

bring on case sensitave programming languages

--------
Steven H

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:14 +1200, Rob J wrote:

> Most people don't want it to.
>
> Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are the
> most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.


Ambiguity is seldom a good thing in a programming language. All you are
doing is creating opportunities for inconsistancies that make a
programmers job harder. A coder scanning code for a certain name might
overlook ones written a different way.

Making programmers jobs harder also leads to greater chances of those
programmers producing bugs.

Having case sensitive variables, functions, classes etc makes enforcing
naming standards easier and any mistakes show up earlier. Do you want
obvious bugs or subtle bugs?

As for filesystems - it's neither here nor there really. I happily use
systems with both, and it's only when they have to interoperate that it
becomes a pain. And for interoperability, the best approach is to just
act like you're using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
AD. wrote:
> And for interoperability, the best approach is to just
> act like you're using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.


you sure about that?
I would tend to think it would be the other way around...

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> AD. wrote:
>> And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
>> using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

>
> you sure about that?
> I would tend to think it would be the other way around...


if the case sensitive filesystem strikes code written in non case
sensitive 'style' there'll be trouble

If the non case sensitive filesystem strikes case sensitive 'style' it
wont give a poo


Head hurts... somebody beer me :\

--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
Shane wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>
>
>>AD. wrote:
>>
>>>And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
>>>using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

>>
>>you sure about that?
>>I would tend to think it would be the other way around...

>
>
> if the case sensitive filesystem strikes code written in non case
> sensitive 'style' there'll be trouble
>
> If the non case sensitive filesystem strikes case sensitive 'style' it
> wont give a poo


see ADs reply, that is what I meant.

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:42:32 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> AD. wrote:
>> And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
>> using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.

>
> you sure about that?
> I would tend to think it would be the other way around...


OK my statement was a little vague or ambiguous* as to it's meaning. I can
see there would be a few possibly ways of acting like that that would
actually hurt interop.

Maybe I should've used an example like: always use the exact case when
referring to files elsewhere instead of relying on the OS to translate
your case for you.

* Another example of where clarity is better than ambiguity

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
AD. wrote:
>>>And for interoperability, the best approach is to just act like you're
>>>using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.


>>you sure about that?
>>I would tend to think it would be the other way around...


> OK my statement was a little vague or ambiguous* as to it's meaning. I can
> see there would be a few possibly ways of acting like that that would
> actually hurt interop.
> Maybe I should've used an example like: always use the exact case when
> referring to files elsewhere instead of relying on the OS to translate
> your case for you.
> * Another example of where clarity is better than ambiguity


heh, thanks for that... I was thinking as a user of an Os that doesnt
care about upper and lower that it would be kinda stupid to code for a
case sensitive system, if it is to be used on both... as when it came to
mine, if there were both upper and lower in the same directory, it would
just over write one with the other... I think I see what was meant
however with say always coding in lower case, and making sure all is in
lower case, and all will work on all systems... unless it is some gay
arse system that only works with caps, in which case your errr, buggered.

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
In article <1127953477.9f11dd9ab6ea97ab9272c9b7538e9c51@teran ews>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:40:14 +1200, Rob J wrote:
>
> > Most people don't want it to.
> >
> > Case sensitive file names and case sensitive programming languages are the
> > most moronic concepts ever invented in computing.

>
> Ambiguity is seldom a good thing in a programming language. All you are
> doing is creating opportunities for inconsistancies that make a
> programmers job harder. A coder scanning code for a certain name might
> overlook ones written a different way.
>
> Making programmers jobs harder also leads to greater chances of those
> programmers producing bugs.
>
> Having case sensitive variables, functions, classes etc makes enforcing
> naming standards easier and any mistakes show up earlier. Do you want
> obvious bugs or subtle bugs?
>
> As for filesystems - it's neither here nor there really. I happily use
> systems with both, and it's only when they have to interoperate that it
> becomes a pain. And for interoperability, the best approach is to just
> act like you're using a case sensitive filesystem all the time.


Most of my comment is based on my encounter with the C programming
language.

As far as case sensitive function names go, you are forced to use the
coding standard devised by the author of the function library you are
using. Compare toupper and ToUpper and tell me which is the more
readable. The former being the built in standard in C and pretty typical
of the standard of C in general.

Case sensitive filenames and case sensitive variable or constant names
have the same limitations. Morons decide it is clever to have two
variables or files that have the same name with different case. Then,
apart from the obvious ambiguity in English (they sound the same when
you pronounce them), you can easily stuff up by using the wrong one in
places in your software or filesystem.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2005
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:08:34 +1200, Rob J wrote:

> Most of my comment is based on my encounter with the C programming
> language.
>
> As far as case sensitive function names go, you are forced to use the
> coding standard devised by the author of the function library you are
> using. Compare toupper and ToUpper and tell me which is the more readable.
> The former being the built in standard in C and pretty typical of the
> standard of C in general.
>
> Case sensitive filenames and case sensitive variable or constant names
> have the same limitations. Morons decide it is clever to have two
> variables or files that have the same name with different case. Then,
> apart from the obvious ambiguity in English (they sound the same when you
> pronounce them), you can easily stuff up by using the wrong one in places
> in your software or filesystem.


So you're really complaining about a bad case of naming standards in
one language and working with moron prgrammers - not case sensitivity.

Say you did actually implement a more readable naming system - A case
sensitive language stops those moron same programmers breaking the naming
system by using the unreadable versions because their code will stop
working.

And most case sensitive languages these days do use readable naming
conventions in their libraries.

I don't see the problem.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2005
In article <uXj_e.14754$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Ron McNulty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Integrating Active Directory is good if you want to run on Windows - but
>goes against the Java philosophy of write once, run anywhere.


Well, Java itself doesn't exactly conform to that philosophy, so no big
loss.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Application in JBoss Portal on Liferay JBoss LprzemekL Java 0 04-10-2008 12:03 PM
Eclipse/Lomboz/JBoss: Cannot Start JBoss (Debug) Server from Eclipse Using Lomboz Plugin Jubz Java 0 05-30-2006 10:24 PM
jboss 4.0.3 jboss portal 2.2.1 han Java 0 05-08-2006 10:35 AM
RE: Link Link Link =?Utf-8?B?REw=?= Windows 64bit 0 05-17-2005 12:15 PM
Re: Link Link Link DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! Kevin Spencer ASP .Net 0 05-17-2005 10:41 AM



Advertisments