«

On 25-10-2010 00:39, ClassCastException wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:30:12 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 24-10-2010 08:05, ClassCastException wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:25:21 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23-10-2010 03:02, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:37:24 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
>>>>>> And, .NET is lightyears ahead of the technology it replaced.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the criteria you use to measure software technology advancement is
>>>>> "how much disk space does it chew up when you install it" then you
>>>>> could be right.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what decade ones PC is from.
>>>>
>>>> It takes disk space worth 5-10 cent.
>>>
>>> The cost of the disk space was immaterial.
>>>
>>>>>> I never want to go back to VB6 or Classic ASP again
>>>>>
>>>>> Who the hell would? Java/Clojure and JSP/Compojure are vastly
>>>>> superior.
>>>>
>>>> Since .NET replaced VB6& ASP not various Java technologies then that
>>>> is not so relevant.
>>>
>>> Eh, they're all ways of serving dynamic server content. From the user's
>>> perspective it makes no difference as long as the thing speaks plain
>>> understandable HTTP 1.1/HTML 4.0 Transitional to their web browser.
>>
>> That does still not change the point
>
> And your post still does not change *my* point, which appears to actually
> be on topic for this newsgroup.

Irrelevant comments that just happens to mention something Java
related is not on topic.

Arne

On 26-10-2010 11:34, Peter Duniho wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 26-10-2010 04:08, Peter Duniho wrote:
>>> I think more to the point re: Arne's statement is that Apple products
>>> are selling "fine", but that doesn't mean they are going to be able to
>>> remain dominant in any of their markets
>>
>> The stock market is betting billions that they will.
>
> Right. And we know how reliable an indicator the stock market is. No
> one's ever lost money betting with the stock market.

If you think you can do better, then you should not waste
your time here. Warren Buffet seems to be able to make 1 B$
per year.

Arne

On 26-10-2010 12:44, Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Arne Vajhøj" <> wrote in message
> news:4cc6f114$0$23755$...
>> On 26-10-2010 04:08, Peter Duniho wrote:
>>> I think more to the point re: Arne's statement is that Apple products
>>> are selling "fine", but that doesn't mean they are going to be able to
>>> remain dominant in any of their markets
>>
>> The stock market is betting billions that they will.
>
> Of course, it bet trillions on CDOs being a sound investment.

They happen to make mistakes.

But who is better to predict the future of businesses?

And why are they not in the stock market??

Arne

On 26-10-2010 21:07, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 26-10-2010 19:35, Steve Sobol wrote:
>> In article<4cc6fd41$0$23759$> ,
>> says...
>>>
>>> And for those interested:
>>> http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/macjdk
>>
>> Signed!
>>
>> I'm going to go download the BSD port of OpenJDK.
>>
>> It runs under X. I'm assuming that means that my Java apps will not use
>> the Cocoa UI, as they do now when running in the Apple JVM.
>
> Sounds likely. Code for *BSD would not come with anything
> Apple specific.
>
> It would be a fair guess that this stuff is among the relevant
> parts to get open sourced.

I have not seen this link posted, but here it is:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/11/12openjdk.html

Arne

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:26:42 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 25-10-2010 00:39, ClassCastException wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:25:20 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 24-10-2010 07:58, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:12:58 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23-10-2010 02:49, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:50:47 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22-10-2010 00:26, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:23:59 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21-10-2010 21:40, Steve Sobol wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article<i9q0bo$u2r$>,
>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>> MS essentially killed off their own Java implementation as
>>>>>>>>>>> well, and
>>>>>>>>>> no one
>>>>>>>>>>> noticed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was different. Microsoft Java was a bastardized version of
>>>>>>>>>> Java based on a 1.1 JVM with some M$-specific extensions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not only extensions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also a few things removed that MS did not want there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The latter has a pretty bad impact on portability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So do non-standard extensions: developers use them (sometimes
>>>>>>>> unwittingly) and then their code isn't portable to the whole rest
>>>>>>>> of the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that happens all the time both in Java (and other languages).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A standard does not prevent non-portable code. A standard makes it
>>>>>>> possible to write portable code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can avoid using non standard extensions and other ways of
>>>>>>> writing non-portable code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can not do anything to protect against somebody not
>>>>>>> implementing the full standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can not do anything to protect against another developer using
>>>>>> a non standard extension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever heard of code review?
>>>>
>>>> So, maybe your boss can. You still can't.
>>>
>>> Why do you think it is called peer review and not boss review?
>>
>> You didn't say "peer review", you said "code review".
>
> Code reviews are supposed to be peer reviews.

"Supposed to be" being the operative words here.

On 22/10/2010 16:38, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee<>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> As of the release of Java for Mac OS X 10.6 Update 3, the version
>> of Java that is ported by Apple, and that ships with Mac OS X, is
>> deprecated.
>
> Apple is doing this all over. They now want to lock users in, and
> ensure apps for Apple won't run or cannot be easily be made to run
> elsewhere. Now they are getting bigger, they are mimicking IBM's old
> strategies.

That's why we are not developing for the iPad, but waiting for the
upcoming Android devices, particularly Advent Vega.

Android would seem to be the future

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 25/10/2010 15:30, Nigel Wade wrote:
> On 25/10/10 14:06, The Frog wrote:
>> I thought it worth a mention that Apple are also dropping Adobe
>> Flash / Shockwave from their standard build too. Looks like a new set
>> of apple tools are about to be pumped into the market. So much for
>> industry standards......
>>
>> The Frog
>
> The only industry "standards" Apple wants are those over which it
> exercises complete control.
>
> Applications (sorry, apps), such as those written in Java, which can be
> run on systems other than those under the dominion of The House of Jobs
> are to be cast out as unworthy. Programmers who develop for such systems
> should be cast down as unclean. Only the truly virtuous, who develop
> applications exclusively on His systems, for the sole use of disciples
> who are in possession of one of His systems, will be welcome in The
> House of Jobs.
>
> So it is foretold.

Where you can only develop Apple programs with Apple software and buy
Apple programs from the Apple store and only media from iTunes and the
whole lot locked down with DRM crapware.

At some point even the biggest Apple fan is going to smell a (expensive)
rat.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 18/11/2010 12:09 AM, ClassCastException wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:26:42 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 25-10-2010 00:39, ClassCastException wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:25:20 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24-10-2010 07:58, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:12:58 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23-10-2010 02:49, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>>>> You can not do anything to protect against another developer using
>>>>>>> a non standard extension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of code review?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, maybe your boss can. You still can't.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it is called peer review and not boss review?
>>>
>>> You didn't say "peer review", you said "code review".
>>
>> Code reviews are supposed to be peer reviews.
>
> "Supposed to be" being the operative words here.

Arne is using the phrase in its original, technical sense -- the one I'd
expect to be the default on a programmer's newsgroup. IIRC the early
literature on code reviews found it is significantly less effective if
there is any suspicion it's also being used as personnel review. Just
because your boss calls it a code review doesn't make it one.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:48:19 -0500, David Lamb wrote:

> On 18/11/2010 12:09 AM, ClassCastException wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:26:42 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 25-10-2010 00:39, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:25:20 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24-10-2010 07:58, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:12:58 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23-10-2010 02:49, ClassCastException wrote:
>>>>>>>> You can not do anything to protect against another developer
>>>>>>>> using a non standard extension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever heard of code review?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, maybe your boss can. You still can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think it is called peer review and not boss review?
>>>>
>>>> You didn't say "peer review", you said "code review".
>>>
>>> Code reviews are supposed to be peer reviews.
>>
>> "Supposed to be" being the operative words here.
>
> Arne is using the phrase in its original, technical sense -- the one I'd
> expect to be the default on a programmer's newsgroup. IIRC the early
> literature on code reviews found it is significantly less effective if
> there is any suspicion it's also being used as personnel review. Just
> because your boss calls it a code review doesn't make it one.

All of this is wandering pretty far from the original point, which is
right at the top of the quoted material:

>>>>>>>> You can not do anything to protect against another developer
>>>>>>>> using a non standard extension.

If your boss reviews code he can. If your institution imposes peer review
of code, then maybe you can. If your institution doesn't, it's again on
your boss to maybe change that, though.

On 18-11-2010 07:17, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> On 22/10/2010 16:38, Roedy Green wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee<>
>> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>
>>> As of the release of Java for Mac OS X 10.6 Update 3, the version
>>> of Java that is ported by Apple, and that ships with Mac OS X, is
>>> deprecated.
>>
>> Apple is doing this all over. They now want to lock users in, and
>> ensure apps for Apple won't run or cannot be easily be made to run
>> elsewhere. Now they are getting bigger, they are mimicking IBM's old
>> strategies.
>
> That's why we are not developing for the iPad, but waiting for the
> upcoming Android devices, particularly Advent Vega.
>
> Android would seem to be the future

Apple is doing fine and probably will for quite some time.

But if you are into Java, then Android makes a lot more
sense - objectiveC is not Java.

Arne