| Home | Forums | Reviews | Guides | Newsgroups | Register | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>>> >>>>>> What operating system was it? >>>>> >>>>> OpenVMS >>>>> >>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>>> of the general population? >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>>> them non-existing. >>>> >>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>>> imminent. >>> > >>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >>> >>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >>> >>> That is what people in general use. >> >> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >> suffices for that. > > You need to decide what you want to talk about. > > If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for > Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. > > If you want to consider something else the say what it is. What about "the vast majority of non-singletasking machines it's likely to encounter, given it doesn't have an unusual specialized problem domain, and that it can fairly easily be made to support"? >>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >> >> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >> we're all ****ed.  > > Yes. Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. -- Hexapodia is the key insight. |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 1/6/2013 10:00 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What operating system was it? >>>>>> >>>>>> OpenVMS >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>>>> of the general population? >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>>>> them non-existing. >>>>> >>>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>>>> imminent. >>>> > >>>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >>>> >>>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >>>> >>>> That is what people in general use. >>> >>> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >>> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >>> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >>> suffices for that. >> >> You need to decide what you want to talk about. >> >> If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for >> Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. >> >> If you want to consider something else the say what it is. > > What about "the vast majority of non-singletasking machines it's likely to > encounter, given it doesn't have an unusual specialized problem domain, and > that it can fairly easily be made to support"? Sure. But the fact that "the vast majority" is most relevant is pretty trivial. >>>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >>> >>> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >>> we're all ****ed. >> >> Yes. > > Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. The fact that a platform agnostic OS features do not exist proves that I am right. You can not get PID in a platform agnostic way. Arne |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 1/6/2013 8:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote:
> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and > covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you > want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F > suffices for that. As someone who has worked with cross-platform native projects, I will truthfully say that covering all Unixes can be much harder than just OS X, since OS X uses different graphics libraries, filesystem conventions, desktop environment APIs, and even a different linker/loader than the most common Unix-based varieties. >> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. > > If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then > we're all ****ed. Low-level platform details--like filesystems--are surprisingly different, even between platforms claiming to confirm to POSIX; that's why there exists massive libraries to try to paper over these differences. Even where there are standards, there are cases where some implementations purposefully ignore them (the NFS atomic file creation issue is a famous one). -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:11:39 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/6/2013 10:00 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:00 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/2013 9:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:19:59 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:58:45 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 8:46 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:24:29 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2013 7:22 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:56:37 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 1:44 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The concept of a PID is platform-agnostic -- all Unices seem to have it, >>>>>>>>>>>> MacOS is a Unix nowadays, and newer Windowses have PIDs. It'd be surprising >>>>>>>>>>>> if there isn't a platform-agnostic way to get at PIDs -- a POSIX call that >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows supports, most likely. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *nix and Windows support does not mean platform-agnostic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. When was the last time you, or anyone you know, bought or saw anyone >>>>>>>>>> using a computer or other gadget that wasn't either Apple, Windows, or >>>>>>>>>> some flavor of Unix? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yesterday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What operating system was it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OpenVMS >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think your experience at all typical >>>>>>>> of the general population? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the fact that some platforms are not widely known does not make >>>>>>> them non-existing. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does make them non-relevant. Planning for them is like planning for >>>>>> waking up tomorrow and finding that everyone else on Earth has mysteriously >>>>>> disappeared, leaving you the last person on the planet. It's not >>>>>> theoretically *impossible*, but it's so unlikely it's not worth considering >>>>>> unless it actually happens or you have specific knowledge to suggest it's >>>>>> imminent. >>>>> > >>>>>> In this case, if you're designing a program for OpenVMS, consider OpenVMS. >>>>>> If you're designing a program for generic use by the general civilian >>>>>> population, consider Unix derivatives and Windoze. >>>>> >>>>> You mean consider Windows and MacOS X. >>>>> >>>>> That is what people in general use. >>>> >>>> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >>>> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >>>> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >>>> suffices for that. >>> >>> You need to decide what you want to talk about. >>> >>> If you want to consider "general civilian population" then go for >>> Windows and MacOS X - they don't know what a server is. >>> >>> If you want to consider something else the say what it is. >> >> What about "the vast majority of non-singletasking machines it's likely to >> encounter, given it doesn't have an unusual specialized problem domain, and >> that it can fairly easily be made to support"? > > Sure. > > But the fact that "the vast majority" is most relevant is > pretty trivial. Then why are you harping on and on endlessly about it? >>>>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>>>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >>>> >>>> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >>>> we're all ****ed. >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Then you recognize the ridiculousness of your position. Good. > > The fact that a platform agnostic OS features do not exist > proves that I am right. > > You can not get PID in a platform agnostic way. Using your very rigid definition of "platform agnostic", you can't do anything in a platform agnostic way, not even add two and two. Using a *useful* definition of "platform agnostic" -- say "runs on anything that has an ANSI-compliant C compiler for it" or "runs on anything that has a JLS-compliant JVM for it" -- it could conceivably be another story. -- Hexapodia is the key insight. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:39:27 -0600, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 1/6/2013 8:31 PM, Twirlip of the Mists wrote: >> Linux is used enough, especially on the server side, to cover, too, and >> covering all Unixes isn't much harder than covering MacOS X, unless you >> want a normal-looking native GUI, and with Java, using the native L&F >> suffices for that. > > As someone who has worked with cross-platform native projects, I will > truthfully say that covering all Unixes can be much harder than just OS > X, since OS X uses different graphics libraries, filesystem conventions, > desktop environment APIs, and even a different linker/loader than the > most common Unix-based varieties. > >>> But there are still a big difference between what has to work on all >>> platforms and what happens to work on the most popular platforms. >> >> If anything genuinely and literally "has to work on all platforms" then >> we're all ****ed. > > Low-level platform details--like filesystems--are surprisingly > different, even between platforms claiming to confirm to POSIX; that's > why there exists massive libraries to try to paper over these > differences. Even where there are standards, there are cases where some > implementations purposefully ignore them (the NFS atomic file creation > issue is a famous one). Well, yes, if you try to make it work even on platforms that flagrantly violate the relevant standards, then you're going to have problems. Making a program that will work on systems that claim to support relevant standards even if they in fact violate those standards is, in general, AI complete; it's equivalent to making it work on arbitrary systems, since a system that claims to follow, but violates, a standard is, when the opcodes hit the CPU, no different from one that didn't even claim to follow any standard at all. And no system, short of a human programmer's brain, is known that's smart enough to port some code (itself, or something it's acting as an installer for) to an arbitrary and novel system. So the best you can typically do is program for a standard being respected, and expect the code to be prone to fail on a system where the standard is violated. -- Hexapodia is the key insight. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Custom Taglib problems - instead of a single instance per page, I have a single instance per application. | chris brat | Java | 1 | 05-10-2006 11:16 AM |
| Problem when subclass instance changes base class instance variable | Gerry Sutton | Python | 1 | 04-16-2005 06:06 AM |
| Accessing an instance via its memory address (instance at ...) | Kent Johnson | Python | 4 | 11-13-2004 07:42 PM |
| converting base class instance to derived class instance | Sridhar R | Python | 14 | 02-10-2004 02:47 PM |
| Cannot refer to an instance member of a class from within a shared method or shared member initializer without an explicit instance of the class. | DJ Dev | ASP .Net | 3 | 02-08-2004 04:19 PM |
