Computer time -> Developer time -> User time?
Beth
Perhaps the rest of you have already realised this but it just hit me
as a kind of "Eureka!" moment (but, no, don't get excited...I ain't going
to be running around naked ;)...you know, it's been staring me in the face
here all along...but, yet, I only just realised it...in case it is
something other people ain't noticed either, just making it "explicit"
can't hurt (ironically, it's from the perspective of NOT seeing Rene and
Randy as "opposites" at all...if you forget that they are always fighting
and _COMBINE_ their arguments, then it becomes revealed :)...
Right, it's the "coming together" of a few concepts that are thrown around
here all the time...so, I'll present each one and then point out the new
thing that "Eureaka'd" me about their "interaction" together...
First, there's an argument Randy makes...it can be found in the "Great
Debate" (http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Articles/GreatDebate/index.html) and his
radio interview
(http://www.lets-talk-computers.net/ram/2004/12_dec/12-18-04/121804b.ram)..
.
To summarise, it works like this...earlier in software development,
"computer time" cost the most...programmers had to "book" time on the
machine...and its resources (being so expensive) had to be used
"maximally"...the "oldies" here will probably have a tale to tell about
coding programs "on paper" because it cost so much to "book" the machine,
you did as much as possible "off" the machine...
Thanks to hardware developments, the cost of computers got cheaper and
cheaper...catching out IBM, the "mini" and "mainframe" has increasingly
given way to the "micro" (now "personal computer"...or "desktop" by the
"new jargon" ;)...that is, the resources become so (relatively) cheap that
the assumptions _reversed_...now, you had "one person, one machine"...
"Computer time" now came to cost next-to-nothing...instead, the "expensive"
factor shifted...now the thing costing a lot in software development became
the developer themselves..."developer time" became the "most precious"
thing...
And, as Randy notes, this has meant lots of "time to market", "use
libraries", "buy more RAM" mentalities...the "age of bloatware" arose...at
this point, Randy's argument then goes onto using assembly language to
counter this and promoting his "Write Great Code" books for HLL programmers
to do the same thing...
That's the first argument...next, comes Rene's "specific philosophy" (as
detailed - sort of - in his B_U_ASM help file that comes with his RosAsm
tool...well, it's not detailed exactly like this there but, on this
newsgroup, we've also had the benefit that Rene details it here too, to
"extrapolate" :)...
This is an extreme "anti-bloatware" philosophy...those who follow the group
will know of it...admittedly, I will point out that this is _my_
"interpretation" of Rene's philosophy (he doesn't necessarily point out all
these things himself but it's the "gist" of it and I'm "expanding" on it,
for the purposes of "tying it in" with Randy's points to make this "Eureka"
thing clear :)...
"Libraries" are "black box"...the problem is that "black boxes" are used
without really knowing what's in them (yes, that is the point, of
course...but, like everything else in this universe, it has "drawbacks", as
well as "advantages")..."black boxes" used on top of "black
boxes"...abstraction on top of abstraction..."portability" applied to
"portability"...and so forth..."bloat" and bad performance being
"accumulated" as we go through all this "overhead"...in this context, Rene
takes an "extreme" view and simply _prohibits_ libraries completely with
his RosAsm tool...
Also, related to this, is "specific philosophy" from the context of writing
something "specifically" for a particular platform...his RosAsm assembler
is written specifically for ReactOS (we'll ignore the Redmond "clone" in
this context :)...the reason simply being to code _specifically_ for the
platform and screwing "portability" and other things because, if you can
simply say to yourself "look, I'm only interested in this working on
ReactOS and couldn't give a crap about other OSes", then you can take the
more "direct" route, kick out "portability" stuff that's just "bloating"
and slowing things down...
That is, if you can, at the start, make a _firm decision_ to say "this is
just for Windows / ReactOS / Linux" (some applications, this doesn't make
sense to do so...but, where possible, then you can think of using "specific
philosophy" on it :)...then you can, well, "get to the point" in your
coding...
Taking Linux as an example (wouldn't apply to Rene with ReactOS but it's a
nice, clear example because of how Linux works :)...you are only interested
in code for Linux / x86...this is your "firm decision" in the design
("portability" is nice but you've decided instead to priortise
"performance" rather than "portability" and just _accept_ that it's
"non-portable")...and then you can use the lower-level interfaces like "int
80h" or whatever, rather than the portable "printf" interface (and I ran
that "test" before of "int 80h" versus the C-level "wrappers" to system
calls and where the C test took about 8 seconds to run a tight loop of a
few million "time" calls, switching it to "int 80h" come in consistently
half a second faster...a sixteenth or 6.25% might not be a great deal...and
no program actually just calls a syscall in a tight loop a few million
times like this...BUT half a second is within the "user visible"
range...and the ultimate point here is that _IF_ you've already decided
that "portability" just ain't for you this time around, then using the
"more direct" route kicks off that half second...the point being, simply,
there's _NO POINT_ in using the "portable"...you've decided you don't want
"portable" earlier..._WHY_ use the slower interface to gain something
you've pre-decided is something you don't want? This would be, in a sense,
the definition of "redundent" :)...
Anyway, some pointed out that if Rene is serious about "defeating
Microsoft" and "being ethical and moral" in software development (where
Microsoft represent the opposite "inethical" / "immoral" approach) then why
is he working with ReactOS? It's a Windows clone, after all...much
leg-pulling insued to have some "fun" with annoying Rene about this...and
people were saying "you should really be doing this for Linux...that's an
'ethical', not-Microsoft OS already"...Rene was a touch mocking in response
(not thinking a great deal about Linux himself) but named this
"theoretical" Linux assembler: "LuxAsm"...
The original jokes turned to seriousness, though...Frank popped to
Sourceforge and started the "LuxAsm" project...as time has progressed, it's
now different to being "RosAsm for Linux"...but it is designed to be that
"Linux-specific" assembler...same "specific philosophy" (with regard to the
assembler itself...the "change" for LuxAsm, in fact, is that it's the
_assembler_ that's "specific" but it does not "force" software using it to
also be "specific" too...Rene does attempt to do that with RosAsm and
excludes library support and introduces the "clip file" for his alternative
to libraries (making "source code libraries" instead, basically)...pointing
out that machines are so fast that he thinks "redoing" it all from source
each time, rather than using "object code" and MAKE-like practices, is
something he thinks is "okay" to do :)...
At first, the LuxAsm team did look to RosAsm to see if there was something
that could be "salvaged" from its source code for LuxAsm...BUT, of course,
part of the "specific philosophy" is that Rene hasn't been "portable" at
all...his source code calls into Win32 directly, is designed / written with
only the "ReactOS" situation in mind...it very much is "specific" to Win32
(again, this is the entire point here, of course...not at all "suprising"
;)...also, for LuxAsm to be equally "specific" to Linux, it should really
be following the same approach, anyway...hence, LuxAsm isn't using RosAsm's
source code at all - written from scratch - and, as time progressed, LuxAsm
is now completely different in design too...Rene's methods of "forcing"
software created with RosAsm to also be "specific" has been "disagreed"
with...LuxAsm won't do that...library support is added...other different
ideas too...so, they aren't really connected anymore...
BUT, the point of mentioning this, is that they _COULD_ have been...we
could just have written "RosAsm for Linux"...used RosAsm's syntax, lack of
library support...you know, just basically re-wrote the code for Linux but
it's the same assembler tool, effectively..."portability" by "standard", we
could see this as being (not greatly different to how X works, as a
"standard" and then "implementations" work to the "standard"...the
implementation itself need not necessarily be "portable" - my criticism of
"XFree86" that they do so, even despite their name having "86" in it and
suggesting the complete opposite...but that's a different story I won't go
into here - so long as it follows the "standard", which has the
"portability" built into its "client / server" thingy implicitly instead
:)...
Leading to an interesting "alternative" approach to "portability"...instead
of trying to write "one size fits all" source code that inherently becomes
a "lowest common denominator" solution calling "printf" and other
"portability" things (all this often at the expense of "performance"...you
know, it becomes - in the non-careful "buy more RAM" / "don't care"
programmer's hands - "bloatware", basically...big, slow, poor use of
resources)...
But the "implementation" itself need not be "portable"...indeed, by
"specific philosophy", the "alternative" approach is NOT to make any
implementation have "portable source code"...each one is delibrately coded
_specifically_ to the platform...exploiting the "specific" to employ
"straight to the point" coding...as I like to say, "optimal is always
specific"...
[ In fact, you could look at this in the light of how computer games used
to be coded back in "ye olde days"...some arcade game would be "converted"
(indeed, that's the word I'm looking for...this is "conversion", not
"portability") to the Spectrum, C64, ST, Amiga and so forth...each version
was written "specifically" for that platform and, yeah, on the Amiga
version, then the graphics were improved...to "exploit" the better hardware
available..._IF_ using a "portable" approach to this instead, then you'd
rather basically create "portable source code" that could be compiled for
the Spectrum, C64, ST, Amiga and so forth...this approach could be used
back then...this would have lead to having Spectrum quality graphics (8
colours? UDGs? A total non-use of the Amiga's hardware ;) because of
needing to be "lowest common denominator" so it works on each platform
equally...it would also have compiled to more "bloated" and "slow" code
(because of "abstractions" and "indirections" and so forth)...basically,
with this hardware, such an approach would have been infeasible at the
time...the game would have crawled and been completely
unplayable...couldn't be done...in a sense, applying "conversion" and
"portability" to these earlier machines - if you know them - kind of
highlights the difference in the approaches...Spectrum graphics for the
Amiga version? I think NOT! ;) ]
But is this approach feasible in the "modern age"? Does it make sense?
And here's where Randy's argument comes back in...and we "extend" it...
"Developer time" reigns supreme because the "developer" (and their wages)
costs so much to a development...just as "computer time" once did but
hardware developments eventually changed that...
Well, simply, doesn't the internet and "open source" change this situation
once again? Hasn't it _ALREADY HAPPENED_, so to speak, but we've not
noticed it and are still working to "developer time is most important"
commercial considerations? People are still talking of "time to market" and
"buy more RAM!" and "assumptions" from the _bloatware_ mentality...
It's rather simple, laying in "plain sight" and completely "obvious"...but
it was a "Eureka!" simply because I didn't see it at first at all...in a
sense, perhaps "too obvious" to see? Ah, well...one could perhaps say the
same about Archimedes getting into his bath...after all, _everyone_ must
have seen that the water rises when they got into the bath...it's right
there for anyone to see...not a "trade secret" of some "bath conspiracy" or
anything...the "Eureka!" was Archimedes realising how this could actually
be a _USEFUL_ thing for a problem he was having...
In an "open source" project, what is "developer time"? Well, it's beginning
to become the same next-to-nothing cost as "computer time" has become
(depending, yes, on how many "interested developers" are involved...but
presuming it's an "interesting project" and we've got that "in the bag"
with what we are doing :)...
The "paradigm" shifts once more...my "Eureka" simply being that my mind has
now noticed it and has made the "paradigm shift" to this new conclusion...
Indeed, with the LuxAsm proposal, we were kind of _already doing it_
without noticing...the "alternative" methodology NOT being "portability"
but "conversion"...
And, immediately, those who are still stuck in the commercial "developer
time" mentality are saying "Can't do that! Think of the costs of all the
re-writing!!"...WHAT re-writing? No, instead, Rene and his contributors
works on "RosAsm for ReactOS", another "project" (of Linux enthusiasts :)
starts to code the "RosAsm for Linux" version (okay, LuxAsm isn't now this
but the point is that it _COULD_ have been very easily...and, originally,
that was going to be the idea :), other "projects" open up to write the
BeOS, QNX, etc. versions? Quite possibly, not a single "overlap" between
developers at all (though maybe a "co-ordinator" overlap might be
_preferred_ to make sure everyone's "reading from the same script"...but
only needs to be one or two people, really, just to "manage" ;)...and we're
not talking "portable" but rather that old style "conversion" that those
old computer games used to use...each "implementation" is implementing the
same "design" (so, note, the "design" - at its highest level - is
applicable to all...this need not be repeated for each "sister project")
but to the machine's best abilities...
And, Randy, if you include "open source" then the argument for "user time"
is now complete...with "open source", the "developer time" has headed the
way of "computer time" towards next-to-nothing...and the "user time" has,
eventually, legitimately and naturally become "King"...the "bloatware"
arguments begin to fall away...
And, Rene, this now puts "specific philosophy" in the forefront...you're
one "good point" _has_ managed to sneak through...feel free to start the
"told you so" assault ;)...
And, Eric (cross-posted), an alternative way to look at "open source"
development?
If "developer time" vanishes away with "open source" methodology, then the
case for "portability" can equally be seen to be crumbling away with
it...and here's the point we all can agree on:
If, through "open source", we could move "bloatware" to one side, then
software will _perform_ better...it'll not require such high "minimum
requirements" on the "side of the box"...it'll reach a larger market
through that...it'll not constantly ask the user to sit staring at blank,
unpainted windows while disks thrash around (because you really haven't got
enough RAM and as the program really is demanding 3GB before it stops doing
this - and by the time you "upgrade", the new version requiring twice as
much again has been released - you've _NEVER_ got enough RAM for it ;)...
Taking out a mortgage just to afford to run your Email program? Ah-ha!
"User time" _HAS_ become the most important, _MOST EXPENSIVE_ thing...it
always was, mind you, but now developers have to put their "crown" down and
realise that it's legitimately the new "King" and we should be developing
with that in mind...
Perhaps "open source" generally needs to start seeing this...it is a
development methodology that's already proved to be able to do things "as
good as" the commercial "closed source" vendors...really scared them...but
have we been "missing a trick" all along? That "open source" has within it,
the means to _EXCEED_ them? In getting used to not having a "King", the new
Democracies "of the people" take a while to realise not just "we can do as
well without them"...but that "we can do _BETTER_ without them"?
Imagine a new OS...at first, there's "OS86" (well, attack the biggest
market first, eh? ;)...this is "specifically coded"...it's just for the
x86...no "portability" in the source code (it, though, can possess as much
"compatibility" as it likes...XHTML browsers and what-not...that is,
"portability" is by standard, not by "one size fits all" source code
:)...because it's been delibrately cranked to be "specific", it's chasing
after _performance_...while Windows is sitting there, requiring 100GB of
RAM to churn the disk thrashing away, windows "hanging" in the middle of
the screen blank and unpainted, with no "responsiveness" at all...all
because it's rushing around inside "abstractions" and "portability
constructs" and calling libraries to call libraries to call layers to call
layers to call goodness knows what else...picking up "overhead"
cumulatively all the way along and all the way back...while Windows does
this, "OS86" is targetted at _performance_...it runs rings around
Windows..._VISIBLY SO_...OBVIOUSLY SO_...it is designed, if you like, to
make Windows _look pathetic_...Microsoft's PR having a real hard time
convincing people that they have "superior technology" when it's clearly a
load of crap, next to this high-performing "open source" alternative...
The "open source" alternative with, ooh, no price tag attached, no
"proprietary formats" playing havoc with the user getting any work done
because they can't get it from one machine to another ("portability, my
arse!", so to speak ;), no sitting around waiting minutes for things to
load and unload, that isn't asking you to constantly "please wait" because
you haven't bought a very expensive 500GHz monster (which is the "minimum",
thanks to sloppy "bloatware" coding)...
I said it before...the truth is, "as good as" isn't a good enough
"sell"...because, simply, Microsoft "win" as they are "pre-installed"...you
have two pieces of software...no real appreciable difference...both have
much the same functionality, both are "bloatware" (unfortunately) with "RAM
requirements" and disk thrashing and waiting forever for some "abstraction
library" to get itself together...one is _already_ on your disk, one
requires downloading, installing and so forth (for an OS, this is a complex
thing to do, unfortunately, for our "average user"...you say "boot disks",
"format", "partition" and so forth to them and they reply "huh?!? What the
frack you talking about?")...
[ There are "political" considerations...but, truth is, users in the main
_ignore_ them...if you "appeal" to that, then expect
_disappointment_..."me" preceeds "us" (and, to be fair, that's not always
the wrong "moral" decision...things are never that simple...for example,
doctors _SHOULD_ look after their health because what use will they be
constantly "on the sick" to their patients? They _should_ "look after
number one" because it's _PART_ of being able to look after others...they
can only "help" when they themselves are in a good personal position to be
able to do so...if a surgeon catches AIDS, for example, then they will have
to be struck off performing surgery completely) in the "standard
thinking"...the "trick" is to demonstrate the "moral" choice the best, only
choice...it _does_ make the best "economic" argument, the best "end result"
argument, overall :) ]
All things considered, "as good as" won't sell..."power users" happily take
on this crap even when something's "slightly better" and install
Linux...but "Johnny Average User" won't do it, basically, until they see
_revolution_, not merely "evolution"...and the user doesn't see the source
code...they don't care...it's irrelevent...the "development method"? Who
gives a crap? Is the software any good to use?
This "alternative" methodology (something "open source" can feasibly
consider - okay, needs a lot of developers "on board" and "reading from the
same script" (not always that easy a thing to achieve in the "open source"
community always...but it does happen with the "good stuff" :) but the
"economics" and such aren't any part of the problem - commercial vendors
are _screwed_, though...for once, here's something which works in
reverse...Microsoft _can't follow_ rather than the other way around when
Microsoft try to make everything "proprietary" so that "open source" can't
follow...if they are going to "de-commoditise", then shall we hit them back
with something _they_ can't deal with? The GPL screws them up
already...time to reveal "secret weapon #2"? Still reeling from the first,
out comes the second - BANG! - double-whammy! If you like, "open source"
can "form shapes" of development practice that commercial development can't
consider at all :) has the "potential", perhaps?
It can target the thing which is in short supply (but which users _DO_
"demand"...so we can "supply" the "demand" that others - like "bloatware"
Microsoft - aren't doing particularly well at doing at the moment)...that
of "lean and mean", "no wait" software that _REALLY_ is exploiting the
hardware - that the user, after all, paid a bit of money to buy - for what
it _really_ can do when pushed to its true capabilities..."no compromises",
"take no prisoners" stuff :)...
It requires a "paradigm shift", though...because "developer time" cost so
much under "closed source" commercial methods, everyone's been
"indoctrinated" in the constant cries of "portability! Portability!"...of
rejecting assembly language (note: my points are more generalised than a
"sell" of assembly language BUT I am an ASM coder and posting to an ASM
group...expect "bias" ;)...using "portability libraries" and so on and so
forth...and this is to actually NOT do so...quite delibrately...
Instead, we go for those old-skool "conversions" that the old computer
games used to do all the time...start with, say, "Open86" (an OS, in this
case, for "illustrative example" :) to grab the biggest market with a
"screamingly fast" OS that makes Windows and others look a little
"pathetic" whirring the disk to no avail all the time...if that works out
as intended, then - almost "naturally" - Apple users might think "hey, we'd
like that kind of performance over here too!"...well, sure, open up your
own "open source" project to do the same thing ("OpenMac" :) but specific
to your hardware...and we're all "friends" here so that the "design" is
completely shared with "user interface style" and so forth...the Apple
users will _recognise_ it completely as being "the same thing" as "Open86"
in use (whatever's "under the hood")...
Indeed, it can also be a "saver" perhaps: If you write "Open86" and turns
out that no-one likes it, then you don't need to waste any time or effort
on "OpenMac" or anything else...Hollywood use a similar strategy with their
movies...first release in America...if it does well in the "box office" in
the US, then they know it's worth bothering to spend a few million
advertising it in Europe and Japan and so forth...the "staged release"
thing...if it turns out it's a "flop", then, fine, ditch it and you've
saved lots of effort (that, in a sense, with a "portable" solution, you're
paying "all wrapped up" in the effort you're making for
"portability"...it's still there with "portability" but, unlike
"conversion", you can't split it up and "stage" it...you're trying to
simultaneously write all 50 or so "versions" in one go)...you know, go
"straight to video", so to speak...and don't bother spending time and
effort on "versions" and "portability" that it turns out you'll never be
able to actually _sell_...it might be nice "theory" that your program works
on an Alpha and a washing machine embedded system...
But, well, is it worth making something "portable" for the sake of those
users? Who's names, by the way, are Bob, Peter, Phillip and Sarah...okay, a
little "exaggeration for emphasis" there...but you get my point, yeah? This
is putting a lot of effort to "support" 0.01% of your audience, that is
_LIMITING_ and _CRIPPLING_ the software for the remaining 99.99% of your
audience...is that really sensible strategy? Of course, depends on how many
people on "other platforms" you actually will be able to target...how well
it does on different platforms and so forth (might be that the x86 version
"flops" but does okay elsewhere...in an interview, Tarantino talks about
how "Reservoir Dogs" did rather crap in America on first release
(considered obscure "art house" by many) but did so well in the
"mainstream" elsewhere in the world that it made America "re-assess" that
and take another look...but this usually isn't the case :)...but thinking
of NASM's portability and then hearing comments like "I think someone
(_one_ person) has attempted to compile it for Macs" mentioned on the NASM
lists and things...no criticism of the skill required to make that work -
keeping yourself with the "C99" standards and what-not...very good,
impressive stuff - but is it possibly a _waste_ of skill? That could be put
into something like "more features" or "screaming performance" or something
else that the _USER_ wants (again, no specific criticism of NASM - we kind
of _need_ at least _one_ assembler that can do this sort of thing for when
it _is_ what we need to get done (just do we need 97 of them doing it?) -
but just an "illustration" of a general point in the "thinking" here :)...
"User-centric", of course, ultimately makes the most sense...if you want
users, then - as the show biz motto says - "give 'em what they want" ("make
'em laugh, make 'em cry" ;)...and they don't really want "technology" for
technology's sake (if the "technology" is "handy", then, sure, roll out the
technology :)...they don't want "portable source code" that they never even
see (or even comprehend what the purpose of it is)...they want to be able
to shift from window to window without delay...oh, indeed, users are very
"modest" in their requirements, really...that's it: An OS that _DOESN'T_
get in their way...coincidentally, programmers (especially those who want
to write "performance" software) also like OSes that do that, rather than
lots of "voodoo" rituals with "libraries" to get anything to work...
The "model" changed when "computer time" ceased to cost...with the internet
and "open source" development, it's changed again...now, "developer time"
isn't that important either...perhaps the "paradigm" should shift
accordingly once more..."portability" was a "patch"..."evolution", despite
what some bad teachers might have "implied", isn't necessarily "linear" and
always "forward-moving"...no, "evolution" is always "fit your
environment"...that environment has been _radically_ altered with the
internet (I think far, far more than people have realised...Eric mentions a
possibility that it could even make governments "obselete" one day...that's
the kind of "foresight" I approve of...someone with the imagination that
Ada - the original programmer of them all - had when she looked at the
"Difference Engine" and thought "hmmm, you know, these things could be
really useful for communications, maybe"...oh, brother...did she
"underestimate" a touch there! As that infamous "first program" would say:
"Hello, world!" ;)...
Well, it's a "meme" to play around with, anyway...throw it to the lions...
"I...I wish you could swim
Like the dolphins, like dolphins can swim
Though nothing, nothing will keep us together
We can beat them, for ever and ever
Oh, we can be Heroes, just for one day
I...I will be king
And you, you will be queen
Though nothing will drive them away
We can be Heroes, just for one day
We can be "us", just for one day
I...I can remember (I remember)
Standing, by the wall (by the wall)
And the guns, shot above our heads (over our heads)
And we kissed, as though nothing could fall (nothing could fall)
And the _SHAME_, was on the _OTHER_ side
Oh, we can beat them, for ever and ever
Then we could be Heroes, just for one day
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
Just for one day
We can be Heroes
Though nothing, will keep us together
We could steal time, just for one day
We can be Heroes, for ever and ever
...what d'you say?"
[ "Heroes", David Bowie ]
Beth :)
Betov
news:DL9Hd.694$Mo....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
> [...]
-> Computer time
-> Developer time
-> User time
-> Beth's posts' readers' time
Betov.
NoDot
> -> Computer time
> -> Developer time
> -> User time
> -> Beth's posts' readers' time
Time? What time? I have plenty of time.
> Betov.
> < http://rosasm.org/ >
--
The above was written by NoDot.
Visit the Website of NoDot:
<www.geocities.com/nodot1989/>
NoDot
> Hi,
Ah, nice to see you're out and about still. (I've been wanting to see your opinion on the DotOS
initial design. Shall I presume 'bad'?)
> Perhaps the rest of you have already realised this but it just hit me
> as a kind of "Eureka!" moment
Actually, it hadn't hit me either. I tend to look at the less likely rather than the obvious.
> BUT, the point of mentioning this, is that they _COULD_ have been...we
> could just have written "RosAsm for Linux"...used RosAsm's syntax, lack of
> library support...you know, just basically re-wrote the code for Linux but
> it's the same assembler tool, effectively...
Thank goodness otherwise.
> And, Rene, this now puts "specific philosophy" in the forefront...you're
> one "good point" _has_ managed to sneak through...feel free to start the
> "told you so" assault ;)...
Well, dimonds can only form in high-temperature, high-pressure environments, and you have to be
brave to find _fresh_ dimonds. Nice to know you have that bravery.
> Imagine a new OS...at first, there's "OS86"
Have a look at the DotOS design...
> (well, attack the biggest
> market first, eh? ;)...
(Who wouldn't?)
> this is "specifically coded"...it's just for the
> x86...
...like DotOS...
> no "portability" in the source code
...written in HLA where applicable (and possible)...
> (it, though, can possess as much
> "compatibility" as it likes...XHTML browsers and what-not...
...which reminds me, I forgot to mention the "Window Manager", so to speak, possibility, as the
terminals boot to a command line.
> that is,
> "portability" is by standard, not by "one size fits all" source code
> :)...because it's been delibrately cranked to be "specific", it's chasing
> after _performance_...while Windows is sitting there, requiring 100GB of
> RAM to churn the disk thrashing away, windows "hanging" in the middle of
> the screen blank and unpainted, with no "responsiveness" at all...
Meanwhile, OS86/DotOS/whatever is using that 100GB and moving as fast as lightning with absolutly
*no* slowdown.
> asking you to constantly "please wait" because
> you haven't bought a very expensive 500GHz monster (which is the "minimum",
> thanks to sloppy "bloatware" coding)...
Soon to be 1THz.
> Beth :)
The /\\o//\annabee
<no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:
> Betov wrote:
>> -> Computer time
>> -> Developer time
>> -> User time
>> -> Beth's posts' readers' time
>
> Time? What time? I have plenty of time.
Trust me. You DONT have that much time :)
>
>> Betov.
>> < http://rosasm.org/ >
>
Evenbit
Beth wrote:
[quoted Beth's entire original post but then snipped the entire thing
to save viewers the trouble of reading it again...but just to be clear
I am responding to Beth's initiation of a thread titled "Computer time
-> Developer time -> User rime?" and am not responding to Bartlett's
"Graphics Cards" thread or any other thread {because if I were, this
post would *obviously* appear under that thread, right?}]
Well, if you really want to see OS86 happen, then follow the enumerated
steps below:
1) Put down that tempting cig...bad cig, BAD! Resist the desire to
give in to that addiction.
2) Stop posting to ALA...bad ALA, BAD! Resist the desire to give in
to that addiction.
3) Stop watching horribly-written shows on the tube...bad tube, BAD!
Resist the desire to give in to that addiction.
4) Start using all that time you freed-up to actually write assembly
code [Eurika! What a NOVEL idea!!!] and grab some self-esteem-building
glory moments.
5) Corral together some creative and productive characters [like
Debbie Demon (http://www.dwiles.demon.co.uk/) or Not-A-Dot
(http://www.geocities.com/nodot1989/) etc.] and insist that they
collaborate on the project. Tada ... OS86 V0.01a is born!
That is my two copper pieces on the subject anyway...
Nathan.
NoDot
> Well, if you really want to see OS86 happen, then follow the enumerated
> steps below:
>
> 1) Put down that tempting cig...bad cig, BAD! Resist the desire to
> give in to that addiction.
Always good advise.
> 2) Stop posting to ALA...bad ALA, BAD! Resist the desire to give in
> to that addiction.
I'm not so sure about this. Being here is still somewhat fun.
> 3) Stop watching horribly-written shows on the tube...bad tube, BAD!
> Resist the desire to give in to that addiction.
Are you talking about Stargate?
> 4) Start using all that time you freed-up to actually write assembly
> code [Eurika! What a NOVEL idea!!!] and grab some self-esteem-building
> glory moments.
[No comment.]
> Not-A-Dot
LOL
> (http://www.geocities.com/nodot1989/)
Publicity is always welcome.
> Nathan.
The /\\o//\annabee
<no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:
>
>> (http://www.geocities.com/nodot1989/)
>
> Publicity is always welcome.
Well, how about having an actual article on the article page ?
I love reading articles. After reading you theories, I looked much forward
to
reading your articles. Just to discover that the main theme of the only
article is
to point out that there aint no articles. That one is a bit redundant if
you ask me :)
>> Nathan.
>
NoDot
> Well, how about having an actual article on the article page ?
> I love reading articles. After reading you theories, I looked much
> forward to
> reading your articles. Just to discover that the main theme of the only
> article is
> to point out that there aint no articles. That one is a bit redundant if
> you ask me :)
Have a look at the article page. Better yet, I'll copy the portion here for you:
"Others are private, so I need to give you the web address of those files for you to view them."
This means that there may be articles there, I just don't have a link to it on my the page.
(Yes, there's one, and if you like Starcraft, I'll send you an e-mail with the address.)
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> [quoted Beth's entire original post but then snipped the entire thing
> to save viewers the trouble of reading it again...but just to be clear
> I am responding to Beth's initiation of a thread titled "Computer time
> -> Developer time -> User rime?" and am not responding to Bartlett's
> "Graphics Cards" thread or any other thread {because if I were, this
> post would *obviously* appear under that thread, right?}]
My, my...who got out of bed the wrong side?
In typical "childish disagreement" mode, you go from one extreme (must
quote everything!) to the other (quote nothing at all!)...when all I
suggested was that the use of some relevent, useful quotation to provide
"context" was something I agreed with (as also given as a "guideline" in
the "netiquette" RFC)...that's all...no "federal case"...
Do whatever you like...I was only "agreeing" and "discussing" the various
"pros" and "cons" of quotation...do that "summary" thing instead, if you
insist...that can work too (you _might_ find that using "summaries" could
lead to the odd person saying "hey, I never said that!" which quotation, by
definition of being someone's own words as they wrote them, can't...but,
yeah, accepting that, it works for the "context" thing just as well :)...a
nice "novel" approach...well done...
> Well, if you really want to see OS86 happen, then follow the enumerated
> steps below:
>
> 1) Put down that tempting cig...bad cig, BAD! Resist the desire to
> give in to that addiction.
>
> 2) Stop posting to ALA...bad ALA, BAD! Resist the desire to give in
> to that addiction.
>
> 3) Stop watching horribly-written shows on the tube...bad tube, BAD!
> Resist the desire to give in to that addiction.
>
> 4) Start using all that time you freed-up to actually write assembly
> code [Eurika! What a NOVEL idea!!!] and grab some self-esteem-building
> glory moments.
>
> 5) Corral together some creative and productive characters [like
> Debbie Demon (http://www.dwiles.demon.co.uk/) or Not-A-Dot
> (http://www.geocities.com/nodot1989/) etc.] and insist that they
> collaborate on the project. Tada ... OS86 V0.01a is born!
> That is my two copper pieces on the subject anyway...
Oh me, oh my...I only "agree" to a "recommendation" of a "guideline" and
pop up some "bullet points" about why I agree and why I'd "recommend" it
too...that's all...
In response, I'm being hounded with the "Five Commandments" and ordered
with a touch of "high and mighty" moralising...mind you, I completely agree
about giving up the smoking...and, yeah, at least a "cutting down" on ALA
might actually help me to get around to doing some work now and again (and
the observant may note that I have been doing a little of that since the
New Year)...
I don't really watch much TV (be wary of Annie's "black propoganda", as she
basically lies outright to get her own way repeatedly...in fact, if you
want a "self-esteem problem" case study, then she would tend to be the more
interesting subject for the "amateur psychology" thing)...indeed, that's
kind of why I get "enthusiastic" about it...I have my "set programmes" at
"set times" and I shut out the world, enjoy the "escapism" and
relax...pardon if that bothers you...but, to be brutually honest, I really
couldn't give a crap what you think...that's my "five minutes"...I enjoy
it...frack you...
And I was being completely "hypothetical" about the OS thing...I'm already
engaged in another project...indeed, I haven't really got around to NoDot's
"OS proposals" because discussions here, work there and so forth is
juggling more plates than I can manage, anyway...haven't had the time to
look at it...especially because, if I did, I'd want to do it properly and
not rush off some "two minute" reply that's not useful to NoDot at all
(because that would end up a waste of everyone's time...I waste so much
writing it, NoDot wastes more reading it and it doesn't have anything
useful to say - nothing NoDot couldn't have worked out himself and probably
already has - because it's a "rush job"...so what would be the point of
writing it or reading it? A classic case of "more haste, less speed" :)...
As for "self-esteem building"...please, don't go "projecting" your problems
onto me..._YOU_ are the one getting really pissed off and "personally
attacking" at a simple "quotation recommendation", not unlike the RFC
"guideline" on the matter...
In summary: Take deep breaths and come back when you've got something
actually useful to say...it's in your own interests...you're really not
doing yourself too many favours with this "grudge" stuff...looks a bit
"petty", you know?
Beth :)
The /\\o//\annabee
<no_...@msn.remove_this.com>:
> The /\\o//\annabee wrote:
> (Yes, there's one, and if you like Starcraft, I'll send you an e-mail
> with the address.)
No, need I found it. I got bored with StarCraft some 3-4 years or so ago.
Some time back I installed it just to have a few hours of past fun, but
when I saw the menu interface, I got sick and didnt actually play.
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
think I got it but it was mostly gibberish.
The /\\o//\annabee
<a...@hotmail.com>:
> I had to print out all 11 pages to try and figure out what you said. I
> think I got it but it was mostly gibberish.
Maybe you'll have more luck if you read this page first ????
:-))))))))))) Could be.
--
Beth
> I had to print out all 11 pages to try and figure out what you said. I
> think I got it but it was mostly gibberish.
Ummm, sorry...who are you again? Should I actually care that you can't
read?
Beth :)
Betov
@fe04.lga:
> I had to print out all 11 pages to try and figure out what you said. I
> think I got it but it was mostly gibberish.
Oh!!!... You added "Printer Time" to the list!!!...
Congratulation.
Betov.
Betov
@individual.net:
> Evenbit wrote:
>> [...]
>
>> (http://www.geocities.com/nodot1989/)
>
> Publicity is always welcome.
>
>> Nathan.
There is some point, in there, that should be
a great enlightment helping Beth at understanding
why it is so deaply shocking, to have an ass-hole
like NoDot, saying "we", when talking of LuxAsm.
Too bad Beth is that stupid...
Betov.
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
have grammatical "pointers" that go nowhere, incomplete sentences, improper
punctuation, etc. You write in a halting manner and I believe all 11 pages
could be condensed into one if one could understand what the heck you said.
Betov
news:wyuHd.18$pw...@fe06.lga:
I have to say that, as my name is evocated in the Original
Post, i have read it entirely and slowly... with the same
failure, in matter of understanding, as yours. As i am not
native english speacker, i cannot comment on the grammar,
but, even for the partial points i got some understanding,
all i understood was that those were, either so trivial,
that it was ridicoulous (like the "Computer time cost
thingies) or wrong (like her interpretation of my "specific"
thingie concept) or risky interpretation (like the opposition
between "Specific" and "Portability", that is way less simple
than that).
Well...
Betov.
Phil Carmody
> You
Ah, another newly-arrived poster who addresses no-one in particular.
What's the date? Is it 4159th September 1993 or December 50th 2004?
Phil
--
The answer to life's mystery is simple and direct:
Sex and death. -- Ian 'Lemmy' Kilminster.
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
isn't it obvious I'm responding to Beth?
Beth
> You should care that I can read but that you can't write intelligibly.
No, sorry, you're wrong...I shouldn't care at all...
Perhaps, you may assert that I can't write intelligibly...but I certainly
can _think_ intelligibly...and I know _exactly_ what game you're trying to
play...to win that game, you require "opposition" to play against...I
plainly refuse to be that opponent, sorry...
There's always Solitaire...that's a single player game...
> You have grammatical "pointers" that go nowhere, incomplete sentences,
improper
> punctuation, etc.
Correct; And yet I'm still a whole lot more interesting a read in my worst
writing - complete with all its grammatical mistakes, incomplete sentences,
"technical inaccuracy", etc. - than you'll ever manage to attain in your
entire life...kind of "sucks", don't it?
I'm sorry that this is the case...but, sorry, that's not my fault...
> You write in a halting manner and I believe all 11 pages
> could be condensed into one if one could understand what the heck you
said.
But that would NOT be what I intended to write...
A strange "phantom book review" (but surprisingly not atypical these
days)...reviewing NOT what it is but what one would liked it to have been:
"In reading the introductory chapter written by Stephen King, I could not
help but think it should have been written by Clive Barker instead...on the
first page, the author uses the word 'maybe' while I personally would have
preferred the use of the word 'perhaps' in its place because it would have
made me look ten times more intelligent...the book has 12 chapters but I
would have only had 7 chapters, were I writing it, because 7 is my lucky
number...upon reading the plot, I decided that a vampire story is not
fashionable and wouldn't adhere me, if I were writing the piece, to the
high-brow artistic classes and critics I regret so much that I'm unable to
mingle with socially...hence, this book is absolutely no good because it
isn't what I would have written, if I were the author...which I'm not...but
I so wish I could have been"...
So...who are you again? And why should I care if you'd have written it
differently?
Yes, if I were to have left out 90% of the content, then you'd be right
that it would have been much shorter...but that would have been a
completely different post...so, essentially, your criticism is: "if I were
writing it, then it would have been shorter"...yes, very
interesting...fortunately, you weren't writing it...so this criticism is
quite, quite irrevelent...
You're contending that the grammar is bad? Well, very possibly...in any
"toss up" being grammar or content, I freely admit content wins and bad
grammar may result...
But this is what I _INTENDED_ to write...the fact that you may yourself
have written it differently is, perhaps, an interesting point but it seems
to have no relevence to anything...almost "surreal" that you randomly bring
it up...
Look, if you can't or don't want to read my posts, then the solution is
very simple: _DON'T_...I have no gun and I wouldn't point it at your head
to read my posts, even if I did own one...
But this rather bizarre reply of posting "I won't read this!" is bordering
on surreal performance art or something...okay, fine, you either can't or
won't read it...very interesting...no-one really cares...it's your own
business and, to be honest, it can stay that way...
---
Anyway, people aren't completely stupid, you know...if you have a problem
with what the _CONTENT_ is saying, then come straight out and say so...
If you're worried by a promotion of "open source" development because you
have a lucrative income from commercial developments, then come straight
out and debate things on those points...
But trying to "mask" this in some other complaint about the way I write
posts, in order to "discredit" the post and poster, rather than address the
content?
Oh, come on...I often write _multiple_ posts of 20KB+ in a day and have
done so quite regularly for _YEARS_...and only _NOW_ you choose to comment
on the "bad grammar"?
In doing so, I regularly converse with people who's first language isn't
English...and _they_ seem more than able - even coming from a linguistical
disadvantage - to comprehend my posts perfectly happily...indeed, if you're
really having such difficulty reading, then you actually sound more like a
blithering idiot than the "superbrain authority of everything" you appear
to be setting yourself up as being...
It really doesn't come across as too credible a criticism, you know?
You're worried about a post that promotes "open source" development for
some reason...some people are in this position, true enough...perfectly
understood and respected...come out and give us your _ACTUAL_ criticisms of
the content in that regard...and we can debate it...would Love to do so, in
fact...
But this "discredit the post and poster" / "put off Beth from writing
anymore on the subject" tactic has been used repeatedly on me for years
now...I really can't even be bothered to "play along" anymore...it's
utterly illogical to the point of surrealism...
Yes, right...I've written many, many posts for years...all with this same
"style"...and _NOW_ you choose to criticise it? I confess, I'm not totally
unaware of who you are...I've seen your name on posts before, to know that
you're not someone who's just walked up for the first time...you've seen my
posts like this before plenty of times and only _NOW_ can you be bothered
to say anything? And this is supposed to be credible? We're supposed to
"fall" for this stupid trick?
Okay, here it is: "Yes, I is a dreadful writer...mine grammar are awful...I
always write incomplete sentences that"...there, you "win"...I completely
acknowledge I'm crap at writing posts...but, then again, I don't recall
that USENET postings are automatically entered into some "writing
competition"...or are taken and used as "role model examples of grammatical
usage" for English textbooks...I was not aware that this was some kind of
"exam" I was sitting here...I do apologise for failing...but, okay, I've
failed the "exam"...I didn't realise I was even sitting one...and, to be
honest, don't really care too greatly that I've failed it, anyway...
Right, that's now over and done with...did you have anything more to add?
No? Good...you can shut up now, then, eh?
Beth :)
Beth
> Newly arrived? True, I haven't been here for months, but hardly new.
BANG!
You've just given yourself away, sunshine...
So you're "hardly new"? Well, you must have seen _PLENTY_ of my posts that
all employ exactly the same style of writing as this one...I write them all
the time...
And only _NOW_ you choose to voice a criticism?
Bullcrap; Your complaint is NOT about "bad grammar" at all (and even if it
was: Okay, I have bad grammar in the post...I was not trying to win any
"best grammar" prizes...who gives a flying frack?)...
Your true complaint - to which you're far too cowardly to actually make -
is that you don't like or want the promotion of "open source" developments
as anything more than some "obscure hobby" that people do from time to
time...probably because you make money from the current commercial
development climate...
BUT you don't want to criticise this outright...because that would demand
making a credible _opposing_ case on the matter...and you really don't have
one...oh, indeed, you read my post perfectly well..._TOO_ well...you've
realised what it could mean and that you can't yet think up a valid
counter-argument...
Hence, you "mask" your true complaint behind some rather irrelevent,
useless "you can't write" complaint instead...the twofold consequences of
which, you dearly Hope, is that other people will read "unintelligible
post" and NOT read what I have to say...also, if you can "bully" me that
I'm such an awful, dreadful writer, then you might be able to trigger a
"depression" in me to feel worthless and feel that I cannot ever write on
this subject again...
The complaint you voice is illogical...you are "hardly new" but have chosen
to say absolutely nothing about the way I have written posts - often
daily - for _YEARS_...until - randomly, arbitrarily, out of the blue,
etc. - you decide to choose this one post? Now, you see, if you _were_
"new" then you'd have an excuse...it would be credible...but you've just
confessed from your own mouth: You're "hardly new", so you've seen possibly
hundreds of my posts...all of which were written in the exact same
"style"...and this caused you no reason to comment on all that tons and
tons of "bad grammar" that I must have written by now...until, randomly,
you thought this post you might say something?
Bullcrap; It doesn't add up...and, regardless, I am a bad author of posts?
Okay, fine...that may very well be true...BUT, fair's fair, I'm hardly the
sole example...there are non-native English speakers reading and writing to
this group regularly...they have no problems reading what I write...by
consequence that this isn't their language, you can sometimes see a few
bits of "bad grammar" here and there (more than understandable; I, for
sure, could not achieve anywhere near the same level in return)...this is
never a reason to kick up a song and dance about anything, though...
Well, I presume it's not because - "coincidence of coincidences" - there's
not a single "you can't write" criticism attached to any other post or
poster (even if the poster actually can't write particularly well) _UNLESS_
it happens to be making "contravertial" points that "certain parties" would
rather not be spoken aloud...well, who'd believe that "coincidence"? I
surely _don't_...
You see, I'm "hardly new" to the group too...I've picked up a few of the
"tricks" and "techniques" people use to try to silence people when they
have no useful counter-argument but don't want that poster to have their
opinion aired publicly...
It's a particularly _nasty_ little "trick" too...morally dubious when part
of the "plan" is to make me feel so "inferior" and "inadequate" at writing
that I don't post anything more on the subject (or, perhaps, nothing more
at all)...an attempt to _trigger_ "depression" in a person,
basically...highly contemptuous tactics, really...indeed, if this is what
you're attempting, then please recognise it makes you a complete shit to do
so...the first few times it was employed on me, it kind of worked (not
completely, obviously, as I'm still here posting)...but one grows "wise"
when one is "hardly new", as I'm sure you'll realise...
I may be no good at writing but I am good at learning...you will only
manage to get away with such "tricks" _ONCE_...then, like a Borg, I
"assimilate" it and you'll just have to think up a new way...then I'll
learn that "trick"...and then the next one...until, oh dear, you'll run out
of "tricks", long before I get tired of springing them harmlessly that they
don't work anymore...
What you say about "hardly new" completely contradicts your "you can't
write" criticism...unless you would have us believe that you've been
reading posts in this newsgroup all this time and "didn't notice" how I
wrote posts until now...yeah, right..."credible" your argument ain't...
Better luck next time...though, I will be prepared...
Of course, one other aspect of this "strategy" is to try to draw the thread
"off-topic" to be about "Beth's writing style" rather than about what I
originally wrote about the possible fall of the importance of "developer
time" under the "open source" model (see? I can write it "concise" when I
need to...the first time it _NEEDS_ all the details so that people can
follow the argument...thereafter, though, I can perfectly well "abbreviate"
it...kind of like a dictionary...the "definition" has to be rather long to
explain what the word means...but, yes, thereafter, we can just use that
word - because now we understand what it means - for "brevity")...I won't
allow that strategy to succeed and will re-post the topic again and again -
no matter how many times you attempt to "distract" - until you give up and
start debating _honestly_...I like to call it "the Paxman approach" (UK
readers may be aware of what the "reference" refers to :)...
Beth :)
Beth
Originally, "computer time" was most expensive...as hardware got cheaper,
"developer time" (programmer wages) became more expensive than "computer
time"...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer "productivity" came to
the fore: "portable source code", "black box libraries", etc....this has
lead to "bloatware"...
With the advent of "open source" development, projects are developed in a
way that renders "developer time" inexpensive...hence, under the "open
source" methodology, the "bloatware" practices for develop "productivity"
need NOT apply anymore..."developer time" is inexpensive...
For example, Rene and his contributors has spent around 5 years on
RosAsm...NASM has been developed for many more years and more
developers...Linux similarly...GCC too...and so forth...the "developer
costs" are so neglible as to warrant developers taking this on personally
as a "hobby"...similar, indeed, to how we all have "home PCs" because
"computer time" is effectively next-to-nothing (a very different situation
from when machines had to have time "booked")...
In consequence, the most expensive thing has become "user time"...the costs
of them waiting for slow "bloatware"...the costs of them paying for
expensive hardware all the time to meet constantly increasing "minimum
specifications"...
Hence, the "developer time" assumptions that tend to "bloatware" are
arguably now _ERADICATED_ completely under the "open source" development
paradigm...
Making the final "leap" to complete Randy's argument in promotion of
"machine understanding" (and to also complete some arguments Eric Raymond
similarly makes in promotion of "open source"), "open source" makes Rene's
_SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY_ practices a serious economic possibility...
Ironcially, Randy's argument - now completed - has gone and proved Rene to
be absolutely right about "specific philosophy" all along...it's also a
route for "open source" to delibrately start taking in order to be able to
not only _match_ commercial development but "to boldy go where no developer
has gone before" (complete with obligatory "split infinitive"...I do
apologise for the "bad grammar" but blame Captain Kirk for that, not me
;)...
Gotta Love that "deep irony", eh?
Beth :)
P.S. If this is still not sufficiently "concise", then I'm sure I can
create really complex, incomprehensible "crammed" sentences that packs in
all the information to fewer sentences again...but, really, that'll just
make it _HARDER_, not easier to read...you shouldn't believe everything
your English teacher told you: They only say "write concisely" and "write
less than 500 words" because they have to read through 100 essays from all
their students in an evening...and, basically, if you "limit" the amount
people write, then they can get this done in plenty of time not to take up
their whole evening...
After all, let's look at bestsellers, shall we? Stephen King never writes
small books...J.K.Rowling's Harry Potter gets larger and larger that the
final book in the series will single-handedly destroy 3 rainforests just to
publish the darn thing...yes, Orwell wrote "pamphlets", didn't he? "War and
Peace" is small enough to write on the side of a matchbox...the Bible ways
in at only 3 pages..."Complete Works of Shakespeare"? Yeah, just twelve
strokes of his quill and nothing more...sure, yeah...whatever...the
bestselling writers who're acclaimed for what they do are just "pamphlet"
writers, yes? "Conciseness is next to godliness"...even though all evidence
is completely and utterly to the contrary, by all observable examples in
writing...but you were "told" that this is the case...oh well...must place
"theory" ahead of reality every single time, obviously...
Don't you realise when you're being scammed, folks? No, probably not...half
of you probably still think Bush is a "swell guy"...he told you he was,
after all (and he tells you that God told him so...and there's no disputing
it if Bush tells you that God says so, of course :)...always a trustworthy
source to ask the salesman what you should buy...it's "honest" advice, I'm
sure...it's merely "coincidence" that they advise the most expensive thing
they are selling that carries the largest "commission" for them selling
it...pure "coincidence"...and there's no relation to teachers and bosses
who have to read essays and reports, making out "conciseness is next to
godliness" with the fact that the boss has a round of golf to play and that
the teacher was Hoping to catch the 9 millionth "Nazi documentary" on the
"History channel" on the same day they have to read through all your
prose...pure "coincidence"...no relation to one another at all...suckers!
Oh, by the way, did I mention I was the "magic wish fairy"? Competitive
rates...buy two for the price of ten...only 900% APR...just send me all
your bank details (and your PIN and "password", if you like :) and I'll
deposit a million dollars in your bank accounts (no, no...I won't steal any
money from them..."honest"! ;)...you know, like those "helpful" Emails you
get sent from people in Nigeria who have an "unclaimed inheritance" that
they randomly want to give to people on a spam list...
Actually, some people probably might...look: NO! Don't really send me your
bank details or PIN number...it was just a joke...
Beth
> drhowarddrfinedrhoward wrote:
> > I had to print out all 11 pages to try and figure out what you said. I
> > think I got it but it was mostly gibberish.
>
> Oh!!!... You added "Printer Time" to the list!!!...
"There is no spooling"
> Congratulation.
Just _one_ "congratulation"? A bit stingy...most people give a few at a
time...
Beth :)
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
quite funny but they were more intelligable than this one.
I knew I had to print it out (mostly because I was going somewhere) to try
and understand it because I knew you had good ideas. But this post was the
talk of a crazy woman.
Listen to yourself. You fly off the handle on some paranoid diatribe that
I'm out to get you. I think you may have degenerated over the months since
I've last been here.
I stopped coming here because of the Randy v. Betov wars but I see those are
still going on. And now this!
Well, I've been published and referenced by organizations like the ACM.
I've been on television and in the movies. I've worked for SGI, Pixar and
some of the finest medical equipment contains my designs. I hardly need
cred from you.
And now that I'm reminded why I don't come here, I bid you all adieu.
The /\\o//\annabee
<a...@hotmail.com>:
> And now that I'm reminded why I don't come here, I bid you all adieu.
Oh please dont go dr. Howard. We need you !!!! We're a bunch of mentally
sick people, except for me, and if you leave there seems to be no hope yet
for any of the others !
Please dont Go mr. Howard, Please ... Please .... Please dont go.
Damn!
He just walked out on us. I never forget this !
Phil Carmody
> Well, I've been published and referenced by organizations like the ACM.
And as you're just another pseudonymous nobody on an online forum, that's
an entirely unverifiable claim. We can all do those. I manage the Pope's
stock portfolio, my girlfriend is a hitman for Mosad, and Beth here - she
was a body-double for Bill Clinton at public occasions where the president's
safety was considered to be at risk. She's very brave, you know.
> I've been on television and in the movies. I've worked for SGI, Pixar and
> some of the finest medical equipment contains my designs. I hardly need
> cred from you.
And your son has a "world famous trainer".
http://www.dietchat.org/Dont_Die_on_Atkins_call_911-980878-61-a.html
(Note - son's has an apostrophe, HTH).
And you "can get [someone's] commercial shown on any network, prime time/any time."
http://filmmaker.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=search&search_author=drhowarddrfinedrhoward
Why does someone as unimaginably important as you seem to actually _do_
nothing apart from posting to online fora? ACM don't love you any more?
Good luck with the butter and vinegar,
Frank Kotler
> ... but "to boldy go where no developer
> has gone before" (complete with obligatory "split infinitive"...I do
> apologise for the "bad grammar" but blame Captain Kirk for that, not me
> ;)...
The spelling, however, is your own original contribution :)
> P.S.
[...]
You were doin' so good, too! (at being concise, I mean)
Best,
Frank
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Herbert Kleebauer
>
> [ Roughly One Page Summary: ]
>
> Originally, "computer time" was most expensive...as hardware got cheaper,
> "developer time" (programmer wages) became more expensive than "computer
> time"...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer "productivity" came to
> the fore: "portable source code", "black box libraries", etc....this has
> lead to "bloatware"...
>
> With the advent of "open source" development, projects are developed in a
> way that renders "developer time" inexpensive...hence, under the "open
> source" methodology, the "bloatware" practices for develop "productivity"
> need NOT apply anymore..."developer time" is inexpensive...
It's like making a movie. First the equipment was very expensive,
so any scene had to be rehearsed many times, so the first take was
ok. Then the equipment was cheap, but the actors where expensive.
Anything had to be prepared when the actors arrive, so no time
of the actors was wasted. Now you tell us, there are plenty
hobby actors and hobby directors with a cheap high quality digicam,
which are happy to produce a movie for free so we don't need all
this expensive professional actors anymore. Yes, there is one
sort of movies, where a private movie can be more interesting than
a professional one, but can't imagine a software where a hobby
programmer can competed with a professional programmer. This doesn't
mean, that free software (even when released with the GNU license)
never is programmed by a professional programmer, but there are not
many professional programmers and only a few of them give away there
code for free. Thousands of hobby scientists doesn't make an
Einstein.
As you shouldn't waste the time of a consumer with a bad made
hobby movie, you also shouldn't waste his time with a bad
designed and buggy hobby software. And writing a complete
application in assembler is (in most cases) nothing but a bad
design.
Betov
news:vdGHd.18$PZ1...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:
> [ Roughly One Page Summary: ]
>
> Originally, "computer time" was most expensive...as hardware got
> cheaper, "developer time" (programmer wages) became more expensive
> than "computer time"...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer
> "productivity" came to the fore: "portable source code", "black box
> libraries", etc....this has lead to "bloatware"...
Sure, but the real question is, then, did it _really_
came to reduce the devs time? The _whole_ avarage devs
time?
> With the advent of "open source" development, projects are developed
> in a way that renders "developer time" inexpensive...hence, under the
> "open source" methodology, the "bloatware" practices for develop
> "productivity" need NOT apply anymore..."developer time" is
> inexpensive...
Twisted logic, to me.
The sentence "Time is money" might affect you the wrong
way. The real thing is _TIME_, not money. The money can
just be an _image_ for time. So, the thing to consider is
as well the volunteers work time as the commercial devs
work time. Time is time for each, and the volunteers
are not going to spend much more time for nope, if they
are given a faster and more effective alternative.
The point where the GPL Mouvement really hits the target
is that, when you compare its production to, say, FreeWare,
the massive and evident difference is that, whereas FreeWares
were written and re-written no-end, the GPL Softs, tend to
be written _ONCE_. If you recall of the good DOS old days,
at that time we had, for example, one new Graphic Editor
each Month, when not each week(!!!...). This was ridiculous.
Now, compare, say, to the Linux Graphic Editor. They have
one major one, and there are few reason why a programmer
should want to restart it again from scratch. This, also,
would be ridicoulous, unless he would have a very good
reason, for some specific purpose, not matching with the
already done work.
By this point, the GPL Mouvement changes radicaly the value
of the devs time itself. The GPL Dev time is, so to say, more
"dense", more "weight". So, talking in term of time cost,
here, does not fit very well, IMHO.
> For example, Rene and his contributors has spent around 5 years on
> RosAsm...NASM has been developed for many more years and more
> developers...Linux similarly...GCC too...and so forth...the "developer
> costs" are so neglible as to warrant developers taking this on
> personally as a "hobby"...similar, indeed, to how we all have "home
> PCs" because "computer time" is effectively next-to-nothing (a very
> different situation from when machines had to have time "booked")...
As you know, it's not a "hobby": It is a WAR ! :)) :)) :))
> In consequence, the most expensive thing has become "user time"...the
> costs of them waiting for slow "bloatware"...the costs of them paying
> for expensive hardware all the time to meet constantly increasing
> "minimum specifications"...
Not considering the antiquity IBM Mainframe thingies, the
"user time", since the oncoming of popular "PC"s, did not
change that much. I am afraid this is something rather
"stable" now, and that will no more be dramaticaly reduced.
Though i still fail to understand where is your "Eureka",
with this trivial consideration.
> Hence, the "developer time" assumptions that tend to "bloatware" are
> arguably now _ERADICATED_ completely under the "open source"
> development paradigm...
???...
> Making the final "leap" to complete Randy's argument in promotion of
> "machine understanding" (and to also complete some arguments Eric
> Raymond similarly makes in promotion of "open source"), "open source"
> makes Rene's _SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY_ practices a serious economic
> possibility...
As you start insulting me, again, by putting my name and "Randy",
in the same sentence, i will not comment.
> Ironcially, Randy's argument - now completed - has gone and proved
> Rene to be absolutely right about "specific philosophy" all
> along...
Same.
> it's also a route for "open source" to delibrately start
> taking in order to be able to not only _match_ commercial development
> but "to boldy go where no developer has gone before" (complete with
> obligatory "split infinitive"...I do apologise for the "bad grammar"
> but blame Captain Kirk for that, not me ;)...
You mean "Specific Programming should be the way to go
for the Open Sources Mouvement"? If yes, this is what
i think, but i am afraid you have a particular view of
"Specific Programming" that does not entirely match with
mine.
My view of "Specific Programming" is neither something
very fixed, nor something clearly defined, but, for sure,
it is anything but that simple, as your own view seems
to be.
Mind you, in fact, RosAsm could perfectly be ported to
Linux while keeping with the "Specific Programming idea",
and, at a principle point of view it would not be much
different (it would, in fact, be _strangely_ identical).
Of course, yes, the "OS Non-Portability" is part of
the Specific programming thingie, but there are several
other things, and going the "OS Portability" way, would
not _necesserary_ kill "Specific Programming".
I notice that you have a way of thinking that always
tends to abusive generalization, like you do, with
your "Unified Model" thingie. It seems to me that, the
main pitfalls of the Programming history are, exactly
coming with such generalizations. I never thought, nor
said, for example, that OOP, or Structured Programming
were bad. I said that their _generalizations_ were bad.
This is, for example, why there is a long chapter, in
B_U_Asm, about "Spagetti Style Programming". _Yes_ the
Spagetti style _MAY_ be good and accurate...
______ IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCIES ______
and same is it for all the other concepts and Methods.
Limiting the "Specific" concept to "OS Non-Portability"
is also missing the programming Style... another story,
as i am not sure wether or not you are thinking of this
in your post... and as i am even way less sure about the
real intention of your post...
Betov.
NoDot
> As you shouldn't waste the time of a consumer with a bad made
> hobby movie, you also shouldn't waste his time with a bad
> designed and buggy hobby software. And writing a complete
> application in assembler is (in most cases) nothing but a bad
> design.
Where did she say to write it in assembler. You could write DotOS in C and (if you stick to my
design) it'll still be 80x86 specific.
Evenbit
In typical "childish disagreement" mode, you go from one extreme (must
quote everything!) to the other (quote nothing at all!)...when all I
provide
"context" was something I agreed with (as also given as a "guideline"
in
the "netiquette" RFC)...that's all...no "federal case"...
EB>
Just picking on you. And, in a way, mimicking you: making a
"Federal case" out of something trivial.
BS>
In response, I'm being hounded with the "Five Commandments" and ordered
with a touch of "high and mighty" moralising...
EB>
My five bullet points are not related to the tiff about the quoting.
The quoting thing was an afterthought that I attached to the top. You
read too much into things...including assuming someone is being a
"high and mighty" moralist. The first four points were actually
poking fun at a stylized ASMer stereotype.
BS>
I don't really watch much TV (be wary of Annie's "black propoganda", as
she
basically lies outright to get her own way repeatedly.
EB>
Uh, actually it is you who give that impression with your posts. In
fact, you've recently given us a Top Dozen Sci-Fi movie review.
Annie? Who is she?
Nathan.
Evenbit
BANG!
You've just given yourself away, sunshine...
So you're "hardly new"? Well, you must have seen _PLENTY_ of my posts
that
all employ exactly the same style of writing as this one...I write them
all
the time...
And only _NOW_ you choose to voice a criticism?
EB>
Holly Crap, Batman! I feel very sorry for this DRHoward dude...the
poor bastard didn't see it coming.
Nathan.
Evenbit
drhowarddrfinedrhoward wrote:
[snip]
> And now that I'm reminded why I don't come here, I bid you all adieu.
Oh, don't pay any attention to that ankle-biting dog trying to chase
you out of the ALA clubhouse. She's a harmless pooch.
Nathan.
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > ... but "to boldy go where no developer
> > has gone before" (complete with obligatory "split infinitive"...I do
> > apologise for the "bad grammar" but blame Captain Kirk for that, not me
> > ;)...
>
> The spelling, however, is your own original contribution :)
Oh, yes...oops...a typo...too many "L"s for my typing fingers to process!
Murphy's Law, eh? To make a typo at that exact point...I tell you, it's
some kind of "universal law": Everything, in the end, is deeply ironic
;)...
> > P.S.
> [...]
>
> You were doin' so good, too! (at being concise, I mean)
Hey, I'd _done_ "concise", as asked, for the main argument...the "P.S.",
though, is under no such restrictions...the _summary_ was "roughly one
page"...wasn't saying anything about the size of any other parts of the
posting at all :)
Beth :)
Beth
> Yes I do recall your mile long posts from months ago and thought they
were
> quite funny but they were more intelligable than this one.
No, no...I think you'll find they weren't any more intelligable at all...
> I knew I had to print it out (mostly because I was going somewhere) to
try
> and understand it because I knew you had good ideas. But this post was
the
> talk of a crazy woman.
You're lying...sorry, but it's as plain as day...you're really bad at
it..."talk of a crazy woman"? Is that with or without the "hilly-billy
redneck" accent? Just so I can mentally read it back as
intended..."dangnabit! You sure is a crazy woman!"...
There is NOTHING in any way substantially different about this posting than
any other I have made...it employs the same "style"...it's another "wacky
idea"...
In fact, the only difference was the rather remarkable fact that I didn't
digress into a discussion about flying saucers or the correct length of
time for boiling an egg and remained, for once, (mostly) on-topic...but
that would be a plus point, not a negative one...
Oh, and the fact that it makes an economic point about "open source"
development...you clearly have a problem with that...tried to "mask"
it...but now that you've dug yourself into this hole and I've exposed it,
you can't dig yourself back out without everyone seeing you walk the "walk
of shame" for having lied...not my fault, though, you should have been
honest to begin with...but, simply, no other explanation makes any logical
sense for why you posted your "literary critique"...
No other "variable" is different about this post than any other post I have
ever made...
And, yes, "talk of a crazy woman"..._ALL_ my posts are the "talk of a crazy
woman" by extension of the fact that I'm somewhat "crazy" at times,
admittedly, and it's my "talk"...
Again, what is your _REAL_ point here?
You can try the "paranoia" thing but it's based on simple logic that anyone
and everyone else in the newsgroup can follow...
You've seen plenty of my posts before by your own admission...there was
NOTHING substantially different in this post than any other post I've ever
made before...the point I was making people might disagree with - fair
enough, I'll happily debate it - but it's a simple, logical "extension" of
a well-known economic argument about software development...the majority of
the post, in fact, does not do much more than simply relate what _other
people_ have said as "background information"...
No other "variable" in this posting varies from any other posting I've ever
made...a majority of it is "background" of what others have said (and
no-one complains about that)...
There is _nothing else_ remaining that you could validly be complaining
about...
And, also, you've now changed your story...you think we wouldn't notice?
Your original complaint was "bad grammar", "incomplete sentences" and so
forth...that it was a badly written...okay, I addressed that: You're right,
it probably is crap...I was not trying to win any "best grammar" prizes in
writing it...but now your complaint has become "Crazy woman!" and so
forth...a totally different complaint from the original...
You've changed your story from "you can't write" to "you are
insane!"...these are completely _different_ complaints...this is completely
inconsistent...if you really were arguing these points, then your argument
would have remained _consistent_...it hasn't...you're only further proving
my point here...
> Listen to yourself. You fly off the handle on some paranoid diatribe
that
> I'm out to get you.
No, I accused you of lying...that is, to present one argument about "bad
grammar" to "mask" the fact that you really don't like me making a
promotion case for "open source" software development...this is based on
logical deduction that your "case" otherwise is utterly surreal, irrelevent
and illogical (it's also _CHANGED_...from "bad grammar" to "it's insane!",
which are _different_ complaints...if you were telling the truth, then your
complaint would remain _CONSISTENT_ throughout, logically enough)...no
other "variable" in this posting was different from any other posting I've
ever made _EXCEPT_ for the content...it promotes an alternative "open
source" development paradigm...it's the only thing that remains...this must
be what you're lying about...
It's simple detective work: "Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains,
however unlikely, must be the truth"...your stated arguments were illogical
(as I've detailed now a number of times), so it was impossible that this
was your true complaint...
> I think you may have degenerated over the months since I've last been
here.
No, I'm slightly less insane at the moment than previously...
> I stopped coming here because of the Randy v. Betov wars but I see those
are
> still going on. And now this!
You started it; Well, you did...what, even if you were entirely correct,
was the point of attaching the reply "I can't read this properly" to my
post? Seems as useful and logical a comment as "this page is intentionally
blank"...
> Well, I've been published and referenced by organizations like the ACM.
Congratulations...pardon my ignorance (perhaps it's a "cultural" thing),
who are the ACM?
I presume it's not related to "ACME" products in all those Bugs Bunny
cartoons? ;)
> I've been on television and in the movies.
Cool...in front of the camera? What were you doing?
> I've worked for SGI, Pixar
In what capacity? As an animator or just a technician?
> and some of the finest medical equipment contains my designs.
To which, I take my hat off to you for good service to humankind...
> I hardly need cred from you.
At absolutely no point whatsoever did I suggest that you did...you're just
making that up so that you can give this list of what an "authority" you
are...
Unfortunately, I don't care if you're an "authority" or not...I have no
respect for "authority" for authority's sake, you see...none
whatsoever...you gain respect when you _EARN_ it...you gain trust when you
_EARN_ it...and so forth...everyone on this entire planet - big or small -
is just a human being in my eyes...and I don't believe in any form of
"hierarchy" like that at all...
So, indeed, you can tell me all you like that you're my "superior"...and
perhaps you are by "social convention" or whatever...I won't dispute it at
all...but I don't believe in such things, anyway, so it's completely
irrelevent..._EVERYONE_ - from King to beggar - can sometimes act like a
dick...everyone can get things wrong from time to time...everyone has their
"agendas"...at NO point am I ever going to bow down to a list of "reasons
why I'm higher up the social hierarchy", as if it were a "guarantee" that
you weren't ever "wrong"...no-one is perfect, whatever their
"qualification"...
BUT, if you come to me with a _logical_ argument - whoever you are - then
I'll listen...if you have _useful_ comment than we'll discuss it...
The only "authority" you (or anyone else) can have is to present a sound,
logic case for something...the truth is the _ONLY_ "authority", in the
end...possess it and deploy it: I pay attention...just try to weasel your
way out of actually having a valid argument by claiming "I am a King, I
have been all round the world, I have lots of money, I have certificates"
or whatever...nope, sorry...what does that mean to me and my life?
Absolutely nothing...I congratulate you on a rich and interesting
life...nice to see some "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" in
action...
But, when all is said and done, the _ONLY_ "authority" is truth...as simple
as that...if what you're telling me is logical, sound and wise, then I'll
listen...if it's nonsense, then I won't...you don't require any work with
SGI or Pixar to understand that fairly simple "rule" and its underlying
logic, I trust?
Simply, if you think you can "brow-beat" your way around me, then you're
wrong...come to me with a _CASE_ and argue it on merit and we'll discuss
it...
For instance, what particular pieces of bad grammar were you referring to?
You provided no examples...if you provide examples, then I can see what
you're talking about and endeavour to rectify it in future...if you just
write "you're crap" then, well, okay, maybe...but that provides no
information by which I can cease to be "crap" in future...similarly, if
I've been "crazy!" then how exactly?
A variation on what Phil said: _Anyone_ can say "I worked for Pixar" under
a pseudonym...claiming something does not make it so...you can say "bad
grammar" but you've got to _show_ that this is the case (I don't, by the
way, dispute that it was full of bad grammar...I confess I see instances of
it myself too)...you've got to have a _REASON_ for wanting to point this
out...
For example, were you telling me I had "bad grammar" to tell me I'm a
mental retard? Or were you trying to be helpful and suggest I pay more
attention to grammar in future (would, though, have helped, in that
context, to have provided examples, so that I could see what I did wrong
and how you suggest I should do it right in future)?
I mean, "you're crap!"...easily said...what on Earth does it mean, though?
Crap at what? Why are you saying it? What is the purpose of doing so? And
so forth...
Go get yourself a _case_ for us to discuss and, logically enough, we can
start talking...but what you were doing was in no way constructive, useful,
logical, discussable or anything...it was just a random "you're crap!"
insult and then you ran away...how else did you think I'd react?
> And now that I'm reminded why I don't come here, I bid you all adieu.
If you have the expertise you mention, then that will be missed...but,
again, don't think I'm going to drop to my knees and beg you to stay...it's
completely your decision...you know the situation, you have the brain
capacity to make your own judgements...do whatever the hell you
like...nothing to do with me...I'll be happy to speak with you at any
point, just so long as you say something useful and truthful...
So, if that is your decision, then, indeed: "adieu"...
Beth :)
The /\\o//\annabee
<BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com>:
Great Beth. It was fracking beautiful :)
(tickle)
>
> Beth :)
>
>
Beth
> Where did she say to write it in assembler.
Correct; In the original posting, I specifically pointed out that it was
NOT necessarily about writing in ASM (but confessed that I might be
"biased" to "recommend" that ;)...but that I was talking in general
terms...
Beth :)
Beth
> It's like making a movie.
[ Effectively, yes...nice analogy, in fact...I'm impressed...and, thank
goodness _someone_ is actually finally wanting to address the post's
_CONTENT_...I was thinking it was doomed to be "drowned out" with all those
other "distractions" that had nothing to do with anything...as always,
Herbert, we may disagree on the topics but you're always making a good,
valid argument for what you say and I utterly respect the fact that you
consistently do this every time...it does you credit :) ]
> First the equipment was very expensive,
> so any scene had to be rehearsed many times, so the first take was
> ok. Then the equipment was cheap, but the actors where expensive.
> Anything had to be prepared when the actors arrive, so no time
> of the actors was wasted.
Yes, correct; There are other places where this "trend" has happened
too...it's a general "trend" to be found for any practice that requires
"expensive equipment" and then, as time goes on, the equipment gets
cheaper...
You can also see something similar with musicial recording artists...studio
time is expensive...artists would, thus, develop and practice their music
outside the studio and then only go into the recording studio to record the
track...
But, as time has moved on, the technology that was once only available in a
recording studio, is now available with synthesisers and MIDI sequencers
and so forth...hence, artists are increasingly developing their music at
home on their PC...they may still travel to the recording studio to get
that "state of the art" recording (because a recording studio isn't only
the "technology", it's the special "sound proofing" to properly record
vocals without, say, the hum of the PC's fan accidentally being recorded in
the background too :)...but they could have developed a very complex,
highly "technical" musical track at home...
And, finally, thanks to "Napster" and "file sharing", there are
"independent" artists - unsigned...with no "recording contract" - who are
creating their music totally at home and using the internet for
distribution...and one should NOT underestimate this because some
"unsigned" artists _have_ now begun to clock more "downloads" than big,
established artists...which, considering they _don't_ have the "publicity
machine" behind them, is quite an astonishing achievement...
Also, especially with dance music, lots of musical tracks _are_ done at
home with a "four track" and have gone on to become number one...Seal's
career started in putting vocals onto Adamski's "Killer" (which he
re-recorded later)...that was an "underground hit" originally but it
reached number one...there was also White Town's "Your Woman" which was
noteworthy in more than one way...first, it was completely developed on a
home PC (what you hear on the CD is _exactly_ what was burned to the CD
writer...it was NOT re-recorded in a studio for release)...second, it was
the first (openly) gay Love song to reach number one (perhaps Freddie
Mercury _was_ doing the same but he "hid" it in metaphor...this one doesn't
hide it at all)...but it isn't just the "dance music" stuff (though, there
are _many_ examples of "independent" and "underground" stuff breaking
through to number one)...P.J.Harvey recorded one of her albums completely
on a simple "four track"...more and more, because the technology is getting
cheaper (and now the internet acts as "distributor" that the once holy
"record contract" isn't necessarily needed anymore...or, indeed, what'll
probably happen is that if you do well as an unsigned artist with many,
many downloads, EMI or Virgin or whoever will walk up and want to offer you
a "contract" because you're clearly "connecting with the public" from your
download figures :)...
> Now you tell us, there are plenty
> hobby actors and hobby directors with a cheap high quality digicam,
> which are happy to produce a movie for free so we don't need all
> this expensive professional actors anymore.
NO! This is a minor _distortion_ of what I was saying...
Following your "movie" analogy here, I was saying that as there are plenty
of hobby movie-makers and the "digicams" and such are cheap, people _can_
develop movies very cheaply (not necessarily "for free" but that the costs
are small so the movie-maker is willing to pay for it..."hobbies" are not
all "for free", after all...but you're willing to pay for them - when the
costs are modest - because you enjoy doing it :)...
I was _NOT_ saying that professional actors are now somehow "redundent"
because of this...
It was a "promotion" that "amateurs" can now make a difference because the
technology is available to them cheaply...it was NOT to say "professional"
is no longer needed or "doesn't work anymore" or any such thing...and the
two are not "mutually exclusive", of course...having better "amateur"
movies, does not mean that the professional ones must somehow "get
worse"...of course, it doesn't work like that...indeed, this is the "good
news": _ALL_ movies are getting better because of the technology being
available to more people...
Also, this analogy is a _little_ flawed...with a movie, there are
inherently expensive things involved...for instance, if you wanted to do
some "Gladiator" movie, there's those big expensive "Colloseum" sets and
expensive "wardrobe" in making all those "period" costumes...sending in
lions to the arena? Well, that's going to be costly to do it all properly
(hiring lions, meeting "safety standards", etc.)...
Indeed, no "hobby" movie-maker is going to be filming "Waterworld" anytime
soon...though, with improving computers, of course, perhaps you _could_
start considering putting in the "sets" using computer graphics...okay,
hardly going to be Pixar quality...but, increasingly, more things will
become possible...there are _PLENTY_ of people who do computer animations
of a very impressive standard for a "hobby" (admittedly, "shorts"
usually...perhaps little "adverts" to "show off" their skills to see if
they can grab Pixar's attention to offer them a job ;)...
BUT this analogy doesn't exactly correspond...software doesn't have "sets"
or "actors" or that kind of thing...those things in movies are still
expensive because they are _real-world_ things...it's the _equipment_ that
got cheaper, not the cost of building a life-size replica of the Sphinx as
a backdrop to "Tomb Raider 6" (and then blowing it up for the final scene
or something ;)...the price of those things hasn't gone down because they
are "real-world" stuff, not "technology" stuff...
Hence, the "hobbyists" are, indeed, doing their movies with much more
"modest" stuff...BUT this doesn't mean it's no good...
Ever seen Spielberg's "Duel"? That was a "student film"...his first film to
act as a kind of "advert" for work...but being from Spielberg, even his
first "student film" was so good that they still like to show it
today...it's very clever, in fact...Spielberg didn't have the greatest
"budget" making it (okay, more than many a "hobby" movie-maker but this was
a few decades back :) so the plot is designed to not require anything too
expensive (the costs seem to be: actors, some boxes, one truck and one
car...permission to film in a "roadside diner"..and the cost of celluloid
film because this is pre-digicam days :)...
Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" is similar...it's "low budget" but it's all
about the actors and the script...and, to be honest, even when handed the
big money for "Pulp Fiction", he doesn't seem to spend it on anything too
extravagent (by Hollywood standards, where they explode billion-dollar
battleships, just for the "fun" of it ;)...
This is, indeed, still out of the "hobbyist with a digicam" range...but NOT
on the "technical" side...it's all to do with the cost of "sets", good
actors, costumes, lighting rigs, etc....
Note that Lucas' Star Wars is now a _majority_ of computer graphics and is
entirely filmed with digital cameras (mostly in front of "green screens",
where the graphics will be placed later ;)...
So, the analogy is _unfair_ in the sense that movies have "other costs" -
sets, actors, wardrobe, etc. - besides the technology alone...that's why
these are still expensive and out of the range of "hobbyists"...though many
still try and their work isn't necessarily bad at all...remember, just
because you've not heard of these films (and why would you? Unlike
Hollywood movies, there's no multi-million dollar publicity campaign :),
doesn't mean they are all "bad"...you have to go _looking_ for them because
there's no "publicity" or "distribution" on these things (but the internet
has already broken this barrier down somewhat with music...movies are
naturally the next target...more to do with better "broadband"...indeed, as
Hollywood is now complaining about "file sharing", then this is starting to
be the "barrier" broken here too...I know I've downloaded some funny
"hobby" movies...nothing Earth-shattering but nicely done...indeed, being
"parody" and exploiting their "low budget", while that is still a problem
:)...
BUT this is NOT the same with software...the costs are _technology_ and
_time_...the "hobbyists" can and _do_ match the "professionals" in this
area...
The "obvious" is to point out the main "open source" triumphs: Linux, GCC,
NASM...with regards to GCC, it is certainly _PROFESSIONAL QUALITY_ and
outstrips them in capabilities...Linux is also good (indeed, the problem
people may have with Linux is usually more to do with the way it
works...you know: "too geeky", "not user-friendly enough for desktops",
etc....that's a _design_ thing, though...not a quality thing...the package
is professional quality...though, true, some people might not like what it
implements, it is implemented to _professional_ quality...indeed,
remembering that the "professionals" are Microsoft, the quality is actually
_BETTER_ in many regards)...
> Yes, there is one
> sort of movies, where a private movie can be more interesting than
> a professional one, but can't imagine a software where a hobby
> programmer can competed with a professional programmer.
GCC? In benchmarking, GCC's output quality is sitting comfortably among the
professional offerings (indeed, better than some...Intel usually wins (on
the x86) but then *ahem* they do have a little "unfair advantage" what with
also being the chip manufacturers ;)...GCC _does_ hold its own against the
"professional" compilers and beats many of them, where not at least
"equal"...
BUT when it comes to all the other things GCC can do...oh, brother...they
kick "professional" right out of the picture...they _outstrip_
them...versions for nearly all processors, modular design, cross-compiling,
etc....not just C and C++ but objective C and a whole bunch of other
languages...
There is no need to "imagine"; GCC is _better_ than the professional
offerings...it can match (and sometimes exceed) their "output generation"
but has far, far more possibilities, capabilities and features...indeed,
one could actually complain of "too many features" on GCC...
Linux also qualifies...it is not "popular", perhaps, but this relates to
competiting against a "monopoly", to what many regard as a
"non-user-friendly" design (but this relates to being a UNIX clone, more
than anything), etc....the _quality_, though, is a match for the
"professionals", no problem...
And we can also include NASM...born from this and the CLAX newsgroup, so
that demonstrates it's not just possible but one good example _COMES_ from
this very newsgroup...
There are other "open source" offerings of good, "professional"
quality...maybe not all "open source" development is "destined" to be that
way...indeed, a majority of them fail...but then, as I pointed out before,
a majority of a lot of things fail...the majority of new business
"startups" fail in their first year...a majority of people going to
Hollywood to be a famous "actor" fail...a majority of people who form
musical "bands" to get a "record contract" fail...a majority of published
authors fail to make a profit (this is a natural part of the publishing
industry, in fact...the "bestsellers" actually tend to "subsidise" some of
the other books they publish...as the publisher doesn't know what will and
won't be a "bestseller", they have to publish them all and, simply, work to
a "probability" kind of thing...a bit like a "bookmaker" or "casino"
does...publish 5 books, only 1 is successful...but a good "bestseller" -
say, Harry Potter - sells enough to "cover" those other 4 and still provide
a big profit :)...generally speaking, a majority of _ANYTHING_ fails...and
that _INCLUDES_ the "professionals" just as much as everyone else...
> This doesn't
> mean, that free software (even when released with the GNU license)
> never is programmed by a professional programmer, but there are not
> many professional programmers and only a few of them give away there
> code for free. Thousands of hobby scientists doesn't make an
> Einstein.
It depends; Indeed, mentioning "science" might undermine your case,
actually...
When did physicists become multi-millionaires from their work? No, such
scientists (the _MAJORITY_ of scientists) are working for scientific
progress in the main...that is, they aren't "working for free" maybe but
this is hardly a "profit" motivated career decision...you've got to
"scrounge" your "grants" to get things done...you're generally not going to
be living like a King from that "grant" to do research into something but
it keeps you alive and well...you enjoy the work...you want to help with
"scientific progress"...
NOT generally a "fame and fortune" kind of career, basically...indeed, it's
_BETTER_ than that...it actually _DOES SOMETHING USEFUL_...
I know this argument doesn't go down well with some people...they've been
brought up to consider "profit" as the highest motivation in the
universe...but it's not...
Indeed, fireman tend to get rather crap pay (they went on strike about it
here...and when the news revealed how much they get - _LESS_ than most
people, despite what their job entails that you'd think they deserve _far
more_ than most (I mean, "danger money", at least...they could, after all,
_DIE_ in the course of their work) - it was hard to disagree with their
strike, even if you're not one who believes in unions and striking...their
pay really is disgracefully bad in comparison to the work they are
doing...which, let's not forget the "job description" is risking life and
limb in very serious situations to save other people's lives...they deserve
_far better_ than this crap, for sure)...teachers also tend to get crap
pay...being a nurse is also not going to make you richer than a rock
star...
Indeed, there is a touch of "disgraceful behaviour" here...the jobs that
really deserve a lot more tend NOT to have particularly good pay because
they are, in a sense, depending on the fact that people do it out of
"duty"...that the firemen and nurses react out of conscience that they
can't just let people die...and leave them often suffering in
silence...taking disgraceful "advantage" from the fact that these are good
people, to trample all over them for "increased profits"...
There's a kind of "darkness" behind the way these people are praised as
"heroes" - and everyone Loves them when they save their lives - but then
are otherwise treated like shit...
Profit is NOT the only motivation...money is NOT the only "solution"
possible...
Admittedly, I already know that this is going to be a very "hard sell" for
some people because it is "brain-washed" into people...but, in a sense,
"watch this space"...the internet is a lot, lot, lot more than most people
credit it as being...in the words of Turner Overdrive: "You ain't seen
nothing yet"...this is still "infancy" and it's tearing apart all kinds of
things in fundamental ways...
"Knowledge is power"; Money actually comes a poor second...
> As you shouldn't waste the time of a consumer with a bad made
> hobby movie, you also shouldn't waste his time with a bad
> designed and buggy hobby software. And writing a complete
> application in assembler is (in most cases) nothing but a bad
> design.
"Shouldn't waste the time of the consumer"?
Oh, poor argument, Herbert...where have those conservative values gone?
The consumer _CHOOSES_ where they wish to "waste" their time...it is their
"consumer choice"...the market (if healthy) should provide _ALL_ options
from which the _CONSUMER_ makes their choice...
You speak as if someone comes and holds gun to the consumer's head to
"download this or else!"...no, no, no...that is _Microsoft_ who do that
kind of thing...a true healthy, "free market" has a range of competitive
choices for the _CONSUMER_ to choose from...they "demand" and we
"supply"...
Consumers "demand" professional _QUALITY_, sure enough...but if "hobbyists"
can match that _quality_, consumers will not care a two-penny-damn who does
that "best job", only that it is done and available to them...
Also, the contention of "bad and buggy" software is just plain unfounded
"elitism"...a "FUD" to try to maintain "dominance" for
professionals...nope, sorry...we're doing this the true "Capitalist" way:
If you want to stay "top of the scale", then you _WORK_ at remaining in
that position...
Beth :)
Randall Hyde
"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:vdGHd.18$PZ1...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> [ Roughly One Page Summary: ]
>
> Originally, "computer time" was most expensive...as hardware got cheaper,
> "developer time" (programmer wages) became more expensive than "computer
> time"...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer "productivity" came to
> the fore: "portable source code", "black box libraries", etc....this has
> lead to "bloatware"...
No, the thing that has lead to bloatware is the insistence on the user's
part
that their software have more features than the "Jones' software".
Money talks. People won't pay more money for software that has the
same features as the software they had last year. If they're going to pay
more money to the developer, they want more features. Bloatware, then,
is an economic side-effect of the current software economic model.
Alas, even when you take money away (e.g., freeware), the problem
still exists (the payment may be in ego units rather than dollars, but
it's still an economic issue).
>
> With the advent of "open source" development, projects are developed in a
> way that renders "developer time" inexpensive...hence, under the "open
> source" methodology, the "bloatware" practices for develop "productivity"
> need NOT apply anymore..."developer time" is inexpensive...
Works great for small projects. Not for large projects. Remember when
the Linux crowd used to brag about how much faster they produced OS
revisions than commercial concerns (e.g., Microsoft and Sun)? Well,
as Linux has gotten larger, the time between releases has stretched
*waaaaay*
out. Seems that the open software development model has its own problems.
Managing all those inputs is a *huge* problem for large projects.
For small projects, chaos works great. But for large projects, it seems that
traditional software engineering practices still work best.
>
> For example, Rene and his contributors has spent around 5 years on
> RosAsm...NASM has been developed for many more years and more
> developers...Linux similarly...GCC too...and so forth...the "developer
> costs" are so neglible as to warrant developers taking this on personally
> as a "hobby"...similar, indeed, to how we all have "home PCs" because
> "computer time" is effectively next-to-nothing (a very different situation
> from when machines had to have time "booked")...
Don't forget, there have been some *very* major contributions to
large projects like Linux and GCC from huge commercial firms.
Firms like IBM, HP, Sun, and so on.
>
> In consequence, the most expensive thing has become "user time"...the
costs
> of them waiting for slow "bloatware"...the costs of them paying for
> expensive hardware all the time to meet constantly increasing "minimum
> specifications"...
The problem, of course, is that one man's bloat is another man's essential
feature.
When you've got a product that has wide acceptance, it's going to have to
contain a considerable feature set in order to please everyone. Hence the
bloat. Charles Simyoni once gave a talk about Microsoft Word and put
it most succintly -- "Sure Word is big and bloated. But that's what people
want. They won't pay for apps without a lot of features..." (paraphrased)
There's a lot of truth to that. Dom't believe me, compare Linux and Minix
sometime. Minix is small and efficient. Linux is bloated. Which is more
popular?
>
> Hence, the "developer time" assumptions that tend to "bloatware" are
> arguably now _ERADICATED_ completely under the "open source" development
> paradigm...
Linux release dates are in complete opposition to this statement.
>
> Making the final "leap" to complete Randy's argument in promotion of
> "machine understanding" (and to also complete some arguments Eric Raymond
> similarly makes in promotion of "open source"), "open source" makes Rene's
> _SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY_ practices a serious economic possibility...
What is Rene's "Specific Philosophy?"
I've never really seen it explained other than as this "nebulous" excuse
about
the limitations of his product. If Spasm/Rosasm development is any
indication
of what can be achieved by that, then Open Source using specific software
development is in serious trouble :-)
>
> Ironcially, Randy's argument - now completed - has gone and proved Rene to
> be absolutely right about "specific philosophy" all along...it's also a
> route for "open source" to delibrately start taking in order to be able to
> not only _match_ commercial development but "to boldy go where no
developer
> has gone before" (complete with obligatory "split infinitive"...I do
> apologise for the "bad grammar" but blame Captain Kirk for that, not me
> ;)...
Specificity has nothing to do with open source or open development.
Worse, the more specific a piece of code is, the less likely it is that it
will
develop a "critical mass" of developers who are willing to carry it forward.
As much as we might want to change the world, the truth is that most
open source projects are highly *portable*. This is what allows different
people on different machines to contribute to the project. Start making
it specific, and you start eliminating the help. The two ideas aren't
quite mutually exclusive, but they certainly aren't bedfellows.
>
> Gotta Love that "deep irony", eh?
Don't know about the irony. I have trouble seeing the connection.
Specificity for specificity's sake is a waste of effort.
For example (as long as you've used RosAsm as the example), what
does the *user* of a "specific" product like RosAsm gain from the
fact that it is specific to PE/COFF? There is little the *assembler*
component of RosAsm can do that cannot be done by other,
more general, assemblers (indeed, most other assemblers are more
capable than RosAsm). Rene claims RosAsm is faster (though defects
in the system prevent running a full suite of tests on the product, so
the claims are dubious), but even if "RosAsm is the fastest of all
actual assemblers" is a true statement, what does this really buy you
over using "bloatware" assemblers like HLA v1.x? Rene claims,
for example, that RosAsm self-compiles itself in something like
3 seconds. Okay. Most people don't compile projects that large.
Most compiles take about 20 ms or less with RosAsm, I'd bet.
If another assembler takes *10 TIMES AS LONG* we're talking
about 200 ms - just into the realm of being noticeable. Now you
could misapply my arguments in "The Great Debate" to claim that
this is a good thing, those extra 180ms could be used by a different
process in a multi-tasking environment, but the truth is, how many
assemblies does the average person do per minute? Is that user
really saving a significant amount of time because they use RosAsm
rather than some other, slower, assembler?
Again, what are the benefits of RosAsm's specificity? Certainly
not speed. RosAsm's performance has nothing to do with the
fact that it specifically generates PE/COFF. For example, FASM
has comparable performance, yet FASM is capable of generating
several different object file formats. RosAsm is fast because of the
features it is lacking (as Rene himself has pointed out, assemblers
with fewer features tend to be much faster than those with lots of
features). RosAsm is fast because:
1. It doesn't optimize displacements (requiring multiple passes over the
code).
2. It is a very simple assembly language, requiring very little from the
parser
and code generator.
3. It (now) has a fast symbol table lookup routine (this change is what led
to the recent performance boosts in RosAsm).
4. It compiles from memory, not having to load data from disk files.
5. It doesn't support (natively) includes, external objects, linking, etc.
None of these things have anything to do with being specific to the PE/COFF
(or Win32) platform. Were Rene to change the code generator to
emit ELF formatted output, I seriously doubt it would affect the performance
of the product at all.
Again, I ask, what is the benefit to the user for "specificity".
Yes, specifically written code *can* be very fast. Most most of that
coding style died with DOS. You want to see the RosAsm editor
run like a bat out of hell? Write your own screen drivers with fixed fonts
that take advantage of the *specific* hardware on a *specific* video card.
Anyone who makes Win32 API calls is *not* writing specific code.
My essays on the Great Debate are probably in need of revision.
With CPU speeds failing to increase at an exponential rate as they have in
the past, it is now, once again, the programmer's responsibility to write
fast code. But the solution isn't to write "Specific Code", rather, the
solution
is to understand the ramifications of one's code. Except for certain
embedded applications, it's not practical to write specific code anymore.
Machines are vastly different and you'll limit your abilities to disseminate
your code by making it specific to a given platform.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > [ Roughly One Page Summary: ]
> >
> > Originally, "computer time" was most expensive...as hardware got
> > cheaper, "developer time" (programmer wages) became more expensive
> > than "computer time"...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer
> > "productivity" came to the fore: "portable source code", "black box
> > libraries", etc....this has lead to "bloatware"...
>
> Sure, but the real question is, then, did it _really_
> came to reduce the devs time? The _whole_ avarage devs
> time?
I would agree, Rene; Whether the strategies "succeeding" in doing so is
somewhat debatable...
BUT it's a "memetic" thing again...this is what people _BELIEVED_ so this
was how they "reacted" to it...in a sense, whether it was true or not,
doesn't really matter...people _believed_ it reduced their development time
so they used these things to "reduce development time"...and then, not
trying the other approach at all (because they have been "told" that it
would increase their development time and just take that as true...again, a
"belief" thing), they simply _presume_ that however long they take using
these devices, it would be ten times worse without them...that's a
"belief"...and though not totally a fabrication (you _can_ put together
simple programs with Delphi faster than ASM...and, yes, we can debate
whether this is the _language_ or is it, more likely, the toolset and
"visual programming" paradigm? That is, if there were also a "jigsaw piece
/ drag-n-drop visual programming" ASM toolset, then Delphi may still win
but _by how much_? Is it this "vast canyon of a gap" that's often
suggested...I too am "sceptical" about that :), how valid it actually is,
is another topic...
You know, it's a bit like that earlier discussion...whether there is a God
or not, the people who believe there is a God, _ACT_ according to that
belief...the point being that, as human beings, we're often NOT dealing
with "truth" at all...we're dealing with a "memetic" approximation to the
truth...you know, perhaps you _could_ do it slightly faster with a HLL
(but, as I've noted before, you don't do as good a job...the extra time is
like any other "extra time" put into creating things...to do the best job
does, unfortunately, _take time_)...but the "truth" is blown up, twisted
around and it suddenly becomes "if you use ASM instead, then it will take
10 Ice Ages!"...
It's a general problem with humans...there is the actual truth...and then
there is the "perceived truth", the "believed truth" and so on...these are
not necessarily accurate to the actual truth but are "approximations" to
it...often - especially when people are using "propoganda" to force a
point - this gets exaggerated drastically...
Unfortunately, _rarely_ are we dealing with "actual truth"...but rather the
"vague approximations" people have to it..."terrible illusions", you might
say :)...
> > With the advent of "open source" development, projects are developed
> > in a way that renders "developer time" inexpensive...hence, under the
> > "open source" methodology, the "bloatware" practices for develop
> > "productivity" need NOT apply anymore..."developer time" is
> > inexpensive...
>
> Twisted logic, to me.
Huh?!? Rene, you do realise that I'm promoting "open source",
"anti-bloatware" practices, "specific philosophy" and so forth?
I'm trying to prove _YOUR_ case and even you are attacking it?
The logic is clear...if "bloatware" was developed because "developer time"
needed to be kept down because it was expensive...then as "developer time"
is no longer "expensive" in the "open source" methodology, we don't need
"bloatware" practice to keep the "developer time" down anymore...
Remebering that "open source" is a "parallel" development method (or is
supposed to be) so developers may be taking more time (but that results in
a "better job") but this is "cancelled out" overall because of the numbers
of developers working on it...
> The sentence "Time is money" might affect you the wrong
> way. The real thing is _TIME_, not money. The money can
> just be an _image_ for time. So, the thing to consider is
> as well the volunteers work time as the commercial devs
> work time. Time is time for each, and the volunteers
> are not going to spend much more time for nope, if they
> are given a faster and more effective alternative.
Ah, but that is a point of "adoption", not of whether it's inherently right
to do it or not...
Yes, just because the "bloatware" is no longer needed, doesn't mean that
people will not still go on using it...quite correct...
But I was talking about whether it was "necessary" to do so anymore, not
whether people will or won't, in practice, do it...they probably won't...at
least, they certainly won't all go "running" to do this...I'm aware of
that...I was talking about whether it had _actual merit_ or not...whether
people will, upon seeing the argument, decide to "adopt" it is another
thing entirely...
Oh, indeed...it's logically a good idea not to smoke, for instance...wastes
money, damages health...so, smoking is bad, as a general point...now, this
is a completely _different_ topic again to discuss whether people will
actually give up smoking, just because it says "SMOKING KILLS" on the side
of the packet in large black letters...generally, yeah, quite true, they
won't give up smoking...but it's clear that they probably _SHOULD_ do so...
> The point where the GPL Mouvement really hits the target
> is that, when you compare its production to, say, FreeWare,
> the massive and evident difference is that, whereas FreeWares
> were written and re-written no-end, the GPL Softs, tend to
> be written _ONCE_. If you recall of the good DOS old days,
> at that time we had, for example, one new Graphic Editor
> each Month, when not each week(!!!...). This was ridiculous.
> Now, compare, say, to the Linux Graphic Editor. They have
> one major one, and there are few reason why a programmer
> should want to restart it again from scratch. This, also,
> would be ridicoulous, unless he would have a very good
> reason, for some specific purpose, not matching with the
> already done work.
Yes; To try to "summarise" that, the "open source" stuff tends to "pool"
together the "hobby" developers to work on, as you say, _one_ tool to do a
particular job, rather than it "diffusing" and they all go off and write
their own editors...a new one every week, as you put it :)...
Of course, that's kind of "part and parcel" of what I was talking
about...indeed, I think I recall saying something about "presuming we can
get enough devlopers" and acknowledging that this isn't necessarily "in the
bag"...but that is the essential point of "open source"...that is what it's
"good at doing"...so, on the _presumption_ that it's an interesting project
that developers want to be involved with, then the rest of my argument
follows...
> By this point, the GPL Mouvement changes radicaly the value
> of the devs time itself. The GPL Dev time is, so to say, more
> "dense", more "weight". So, talking in term of time cost,
> here, does not fit very well, IMHO.
Ah; Perhaps you're not getting it...my point was that the "time cost" was
now irrelevent...
In a sense, you're right...talking in terms of "time cost" doesn't fit
well...kind of what I was doing here was talking in terms of "time cost",
just because that's how people talk of _commercial_ development...and then
showing that what was true with commercial development - talking of it all
in "developer time cost" - _DOES_ no longer "fit well"...
Exactly; It's just a way of making the argument...talk "their" language and
show that it _doesn't_ "fit" anymore to talk in those terms...then,
Hopefully, they say "ah, yes...talking in 'developer time cost' doesn't fit
anymore...perhaps we should stop talking in those terms for these kinds of
projects"...
> > For example, Rene and his contributors has spent around 5 years on
> > RosAsm...NASM has been developed for many more years and more
> > developers...Linux similarly...GCC too...and so forth...the "developer
> > costs" are so neglible as to warrant developers taking this on
> > personally as a "hobby"...similar, indeed, to how we all have "home
> > PCs" because "computer time" is effectively next-to-nothing (a very
> > different situation from when machines had to have time "booked")...
>
> As you know, it's not a "hobby": It is a WAR ! :)) :)) :))
:)
> > In consequence, the most expensive thing has become "user time"...the
> > costs of them waiting for slow "bloatware"...the costs of them paying
> > for expensive hardware all the time to meet constantly increasing
> > "minimum specifications"...
>
> Not considering the antiquity IBM Mainframe thingies, the
> "user time", since the oncoming of popular "PC"s, did not
> change that much. I am afraid this is something rather
> "stable" now, and that will no more be dramaticaly reduced.
But isn't that a "self-fulfilling prophecy"?
It would be like doctors saying "oh, I think we've done as much advances in
medicine as we can expect to be able to do...let's stop developing medical
advances"...and then, lo and behold, medical advances stop
happening...well, _of course they do_...the doctors have "given up"
trying...
As you youself put it, Rene:
Courage :)
> Though i still fail to understand where is your "Eureka",
> with this trivial consideration.
Oh, come on...you're only half-way through the post...give me a chance :)
> > Hence, the "developer time" assumptions that tend to "bloatware" are
> > arguably now _ERADICATED_ completely under the "open source"
> > development paradigm...
>
> ???...
This is it and you're not understanding it, judging by the "???"...
How can I put it simply?
"Developer time" was expensive...so, we want to keep "developer time" down,
to keep the expenses down...to do this, "shortcuts" were introduced so that
developers could do more in a shorter time (e.g. libraries, HLLs,
abstractions, etc.)...
Note that the "bloatware" was brought in to solve the "developer time"
problem...
Now, if "developer time" is very cheap, then we don't need to keep
"developer time" down, to keep costs down...so, we don't need "shortcuts"
to speed it up...
That is, the "developer time" is not a problem, so the "bloatware" (brought
in to "solve" developer time) is not needed...after all, if you don't have
a "problem", then you don't need its "solution", right?
So, if "open source" really makes "developer time" a non-issue, then the
"economic argument" for creating "bloatware" vanishes...
"User time" becomes most important because it's now the most expensive
thing...this might not be easy to see initially because, of course,
developers don't pay "user time" at all...this happens _AFTER_
development...the users pay this time...
BUT, now that "developer time" is gone, the consequences of "user time" are
now no longer "drowned out" by the weight of "developer time" in
costs...because "user time" _DOES_ indirectly effect the developer...
Simply, if a user has a program that's "bloated" and "slow"...and they have
a program (same functionality) that does it all lightning fast and fits on
a floppy and uses resources well (so they can fit more work or bigger work
onto the machine without any penalty, like disk thrashing around because of
"disk swapping")...the users will tend to naturally gravitate to the
_BETTER_ product...
This is not insignificant...if there are two products but only one is
getting all the users, then the other development is increasingly a _waste
of time_...you write the program, no-one wants to use it...because the
other program which _HAS_ gone out of its way to be significantly _better_,
kicks the arse out of the "bloatware"...
Indeed, at the extreme, the division is so large that NO users consider the
"bloatware" at all because it's so awful and they hate it...they all go to
the "lean and mean" product...this makes the _ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT_ of the
"bloatware" pointless...if you have not even a single user, then your
development is a complete waste of time...
And this is the point...if "open source" exploits the fact that it _CAN_
take more time to develop "lean and mean" software that obliterates its
competition, then the "bloatware" won't be able to compete...you can blow
the "bloatware" out of the water with a succession of _GOOD_ "killer
apps"...
I'm not saying it will happen...I am noting the "possibility" that it
_could_ be made to happen...
> > Making the final "leap" to complete Randy's argument in promotion of
> > "machine understanding" (and to also complete some arguments Eric
> > Raymond similarly makes in promotion of "open source"), "open source"
> > makes Rene's _SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY_ practices a serious economic
> > possibility...
>
> As you start insulting me, again, by putting my name and "Randy",
> in the same sentence, i will not comment.
As you've stopped being sensible and talking nonsense, I also will not
comment on your reply either...
> > Ironcially, Randy's argument - now completed - has gone and proved
> > Rene to be absolutely right about "specific philosophy" all
> > along...
>
> Same.
Ditto...
> > it's also a route for "open source" to delibrately start
> > taking in order to be able to not only _match_ commercial development
> > but "to boldy go where no developer has gone before" (complete with
> > obligatory "split infinitive"...I do apologise for the "bad grammar"
> > but blame Captain Kirk for that, not me ;)...
>
> You mean "Specific Programming should be the way to go
> for the Open Sources Mouvement"? If yes, this is what
> i think, but i am afraid you have a particular view of
> "Specific Programming" that does not entirely match with
> mine.
I think I _DID_ point out in my original post that "this is _MY_
interpretation of Rene's specific philosophy"...I did make it clear in the
original post that this was not necessarily _your_ "version" of specific
philosophy...but my "more general" version...
Unfortunately, people complained about the first post being too long and
full of things that didn't need to be said...so I cut it out of the
"concise" version...you've just proved that, in fact, it _WAS_ there for a
reason and that the "concise" version isn't better at all...it left out
this very important point, as far as _you_ are concern...
The original post, though, _DID_ say "this is _MY_ interpretation, which
isn't quite the same as Rene's version"...I did put in the "caveat" and try
to "disassociate" it from you...that is, to point out that when I say
"specific philosophy", I meant _MY_ variant of the basic ideas, not your
version necessarily...
I _DID_ try to make this clear in the original post...the "concise" version
left it out because, well, it was being "concise", of course...well, I do
try to tell people that "concise" isn't always "best" (it could leave out
important details to some people like this :)...
> My view of "Specific Programming" is neither something
> very fixed, nor something clearly defined, but, for sure,
> it is anything but that simple, as your own view seems
> to be.
Ah, okay...it's a "mystery", is it?
Indeed, saying "it's a mystery" isn't, to my mind, a particularly
"convincing" way to make the point, you see...so, yes, I have "simplified"
the points to something that's easy to explain to other people...
Your version may be "more complicated" or whatever...but I made mine _less_
complicated delibrately so that people might be able to follow it
along...some people do not take "it's a mystery how it works...not
fixed...keeps on changing" as an unconvincing argument...I "simplified" for
these people, if you like :)...
> Mind you, in fact, RosAsm could perfectly be ported to
> Linux while keeping with the "Specific Programming idea",
I agree; I think that was _ALSO_ a point I made in the original post...
You people should stop "diagonal reading" all the time...you're missing out
that I _have_ already made these points in the original posting...indeed,
that's why it's so long...I'm trying to make sure I don't forget any
"caveats" or "loopholes", if you know what I mean...to "represent" it
properly, it needs all these details...
The "concise" version didn't bother because it was meant to be "smaller" by
only concentrating on the "main points"...now do we see the difference
between "long" and "concise"? The "concise" isn't necessarily better...I
actually _write_ it "concise" and then all it generates is "why did you not
say this? Why did you not say that?"...ah, well, in the "long" version, I
did..._THAT_ is why it's so bloody long! I'm NOT "abstracting" out too many
of the details so that it's better "understandable" what I mean ;)
> and, at a principle point of view it would not be much
> different (it would, in fact, be _strangely_ identical).
Well, I did say "this, ironically, proves Rene's point"...
The "irony" because this argument just "follows on" from one Randy
made...now I've mentioned his name, you won't reply - because you're a very
silly person like that - but this is the "irony" that Randy is very nearly
proving you correct...I wonder if he knows that? :)
> Of course, yes, the "OS Non-Portability" is part of
> the Specific programming thingie, but there are several
> other things, and going the "OS Portability" way, would
> not _necesserary_ kill "Specific Programming".
Again, I agree; The "OS" example was just that...an example...something to
"illustrate" the point...I'm not saying it has to be an OS or that if it
were "portable" then it couldn't be "specific" or anything...it was just
one possible example...not the only example...
> I notice that you have a way of thinking that always
> tends to abusive generalization, like you do, with
> your "Unified Model" thingie.
Look at it _more closely_...I'm being more _CAREFUL_ about that than you
give me credit for...indeed, than anyone seems to be giving me credit
for...
My "modular architecture" is used to _IMPROVE_ the performance...to allow
_more direct_ communication that _gets rid_ of many pointless
"layers"...you see, it is possible - when you're being careful about it -
to use "generalisations" to _help_ make things perform better...
Indeed, it is a (bad) generalisation itself to say all generalisations are
bad...
The point with making all the "modules" identical is that then there is no
different talking _DIRECTLY_ to _ANY_ "modules" or to the "main
module"...hence, the "main module" does NOT need to be a "layer" in between
things anymore...it actually _helps_ to "cut out the crap"...
No, not all generalisations will do that...I perfectly agree...but it's
wrong to presume that because some generalisations do "bad things" that
they all do...it all depends on what is trying to be achieved and how
"careful" you're being about what you're doing...
All the "generalisations" I've presented with LuxAsm are to _IMPROVE_
performance or capability _WITHOUT_ "compromising" other things...it's a
"delicate balance", in fact...that's why some of C's "modifications" are
difficult to accept...they may "break" the "balancing act" I'm trying to do
there...I know you won't credit it - too much "political capital" in using
it against LuxAsm - but the "fight" was exactly about trying to make sure
that the "generalisation" wasn't accidentally turned into a "bad
generalisation"...
[ By the way, LuxAsm-ers, I've been trying to send posts to the
mailing-list and they are "bouncing" back all the time...I can see Frank
and NoDot talking but my "microphone" appears not to be working there...I
did try to reply but it "bounced"...I will attempt to fix the problem and
then "re-send" or something :) ]
> It seems to me that, the
> main pitfalls of the Programming history are, exactly
> coming with such generalizations.
Again, I'm not completely disagreeing...BUT just because _some_
generalisations have brought "pitfalls" doesn't mean they all do...this
would be like considering that just because _some_ black people are
arseholes, they all must be...that's nonsense thinking...
One has to be "careful", yes...but they shouldn't all be ruled out...some
"generalisations" can work in the other direction and make things less
bloated, better performing and so forth...
The point is that "generalisation" ("abstraction") is a tool...if you use
the tool in the correct way for the correct job, it's a Good Thing...if you
just use the tool randomly all over the place regardless (which has,
indeed, often happened), then it can quickly become a Bad Thing...
You know, someone can bash someone's brains out and kill them with a
hammer...this doesn't mean that the hammer is a bad tool...it does a good,
useful job when used correctly...
I ain't scared of the guns themselves...I'm scared of the paranoid wackos
who're holding the trigger wanting to shoot everyone in sight...What's the
saying? "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people" ;)...
> I never thought, nor
> said, for example, that OOP, or Structured Programming
> were bad.
I don't recall saying that you said that...
> I said that their _generalizations_ were bad.
Yes, I understand this...
> This is, for example, why there is a long chapter, in
> B_U_Asm, about "Spagetti Style Programming". _Yes_ the
> Spagetti style _MAY_ be good and accurate...
>
> ______ IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCIES ______
>
> and same is it for all the other concepts and Methods.
Completely agreed; What you might be missing - but was very important to
the design - is that the "Unified Model" allows _BOTH_ styles...it's not
"mandatory" but "optional"...and that's important there...
If you're wondering "why add it at all?"...it's preventative...if I didn't
add this _OPTIONAL_ method then we'd have "structure support" with
non-optional braces...and all those other things...
If I don't jump in first with this "optional" device to do these
things...then they would have been done with _NON-OPTIONAL_ devices
instead...a "pre-emptive strike" to jump in with an _optional_ way of doing
the "HLLisms" so that we didn't end up with the usual _NON-OPTIONAL_
variety (which is what normally happens, yes?)...
The "Unified Model" is keeping it all as a "user choice"...keeping it all
100% "user-defined"...because if I didn't do that, then, likely, we'd
either have "no choice whatsoever" and the HLLisms are _mandatory_...or
we'd end up with "no choice whatsoever" and the HLLisms are completely
impossible...it would typically have gone to an "extreme"...neither of
which would have been useful...
> Limiting the "Specific" concept to "OS Non-Portability"
> is also missing the programming Style... another story,
> as i am not sure wether or not you are thinking of this
> in your post... and as i am even way less sure about the
> real intention of your post...
It's not "missing" your point...I simply don't agree with everything you
say...I'm making my own point about that kind of thing, different to
yours...
Can you accept someone who only "half-agrees" with your points or not?
I know the answer already...because I also "half-agree" with some of
Randy's points, the answer is "no"...because of your silly "inherited evil"
nonsense...this is fair enough, though...I'm not the one losing out because
of that decision...it's the _two of you_ who lose out because of your
"war"...no-one else does...
Beth :)
Betov
news:Z%1Id.153$RK1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:
> [...]
>
> Huh?!? Rene, you do realise that I'm promoting "open source",
> "anti-bloatware" practices, "specific philosophy" and so forth?
>
> I'm trying to prove _YOUR_ case and even you are attacking it?
>
> [...]
>
> I think I _DID_ point out in my original post that "this is _MY_
> interpretation of Rene's specific philosophy".
>
> [...]
:)) Pshittttt!!!... Pshittttt!!!... :))
>> My view of "Specific Programming" is neither something
>> very fixed, nor something clearly defined, but, for sure,
>> it is anything but that simple, as your own view seems
>> to be.
>
> Ah, okay...it's a "mystery", is it?
Up to now, there are only two short sentences of mines,
in B_U_Asm, where i introduce this concept, in RosAsm /
[OverView], as concerning a Tool devoted to output only
one type of executables (PEs), and as a Programming Style
not taking care of the usual Portability claims.
Evidently way too short for making this concept something
"clearly defined" :)) but too much for making it a "mystery".
:))
Indead, this concept would deserve a complete Chapter,
but, up to now, the fact is, that, this concept is _not_
"achieved", in my own mind. Of course, i know what i mean,
but this is not yet neither fixed enough, nor clear enough,
in my mind for providing a serious paper, and i am afraid
this is exactly the same for you (one of the reason why,
first, nobody understood the purpose of your initial post).
Maybe, one other day, either you or me will be able to do
this...
Another thing, that everybody failed to see in your post,
is about the "intention". If this is sweet dream, this
is OK to me: Let us all wish so. If this is a serious hope
that facts will win on propaganda and illusions selling,
i am afraid this will be way more painfull than providing
facts, real Tools, effective methods, and so on...
If it was only facts, good ideas, valid concepts, and the
like, the Assembly Rebirth would have been way faster done.
Today, nobody would any more use MASM, we would not hear
any more of Randall Hyde, most Programmers on earth would
be Asmers, and most Application would be as fast and easy
as RosAsm is. :)) :)) :))
Why do you think that an intelligent and honest guy, like
Herbert, goes on claiming that Asm is _not_ the language
for Applications programming, and that C is the Tool?
Do you believe that, after you will have explained to him
that "Developements time is no more a problem, because the
GPL makes it out of thread" he will be driven to the real
consideration that Asm devs are _effectively_ not longer
time than HLLs ones? If this was possible to convince him
that way, he would have changed his opinion since years.
Betov.
Herbert Kleebauer
Wasn't the complete posting (your "Eureka!") about assembly programming?
You said:
"Developer time" reigns supreme because the "developer" (and their wages)
costs so much to a development...just as "computer time" once did but
hardware developments eventually changed that...
Therefore it is not possible to implement applications as fast and
small assembler programs.
But now:
In an "open source" project, what is "developer time"? Well, it's beginning
to become the same next-to-nothing cost as "computer time" has become
(depending, yes, on how many "interested developers" are involved...but
presuming it's an "interesting project" and we've got that "in the bag"
with what we are doing :)...
This allows us to avoid the bloatware and make the "user time" the king:
And, Randy, if you include "open source" then the argument for "user time"
is now complete...with "open source", the "developer time" has headed the
way of "computer time" towards next-to-nothing...and the "user time" has,
eventually, legitimately and naturally become "King"...the "bloatware"
arguments begin to fall away...
How else should I interpret this than writing the code in assembler?
Herbert Kleebauer
> Herbert wrote:
> > Now you tell us, there are plenty
> > hobby actors and hobby directors with a cheap high quality digicam,
> > which are happy to produce a movie for free so we don't need all
> > this expensive professional actors anymore.
> BUT this is NOT the same with software...the costs are _technology_ and
> _time_...the "hobbyists" can and _do_ match the "professionals" in this
> area...
How can a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"? A professional is somebody
who has learned all about his job and exactly knows what he does. A
hobbyist is somebody who wants do do something, has never learned it
properly, but does it anyhow. If a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"
then he no longer is a hobbyist but a professional.
> > Yes, there is one
> > sort of movies, where a private movie can be more interesting than
> > a professional one, but can't imagine a software where a hobby
> > programmer can competed with a professional programmer.
>
> GCC?
GCC surely wasn't written by hobby programmer. As I said below, there
is some free professional software. And GCC surely belongs to the
Top Ten in this field. There are even some "simple" free programs
(written by a single person) which I wouldn't like to miss, like
HAMSTER or the small Visual Basic program SCANMAIL.
> And we can also include NASM...born from this and the CLAX newsgroup, so
> that demonstrates it's not just possible but one good example _COMES_ from
> this very newsgroup...
I don't think that a professional programmer is needed to write
an assembler. It is just a line by line translator with maybe
some macro support. You need a professional programmer to design
a perfect user interface and the internal structure of a complex
software. For actual implementing (writing the code) a "normal"
programmer is sufficient. And there is neither a big user
interface nor a complex internal structure for an assembler.
> > This doesn't
> > mean, that free software (even when released with the GNU license)
> > never is programmed by a professional programmer, but there are not
> > many professional programmers and only a few of them give away there
> > code for free. Thousands of hobby scientists doesn't make an
> > Einstein.
>
> It depends; Indeed, mentioning "science" might undermine your case,
> actually...
No, it doesn't depend.
> "Knowledge is power"; Money actually comes a poor second...
As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single person
with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
> > As you shouldn't waste the time of a consumer with a bad made
> > hobby movie, you also shouldn't waste his time with a bad
> > designed and buggy hobby software. And writing a complete
> > application in assembler is (in most cases) nothing but a bad
> > design.
>
> "Shouldn't waste the time of the consumer"?
>
> Oh, poor argument, Herbert...where have those conservative values gone?
May I quote you?
And, Randy, if you include "open source" then the argument for "user time"
is now complete...with "open source", the "developer time" has headed the
way of "computer time" towards next-to-nothing...and the "user time" has,
eventually, legitimately and naturally become "King"...the "bloatware"
arguments begin to fall away...
"User time" has become "King". So don't waste the user time with
crappy hobby software. I'm rather willing to buy a faster PC to use
a well designed high quality software than using a bad designed
free piece of software running on an old 486.
> The consumer _CHOOSES_ where they wish to "waste" their time...it is their
> "consumer choice"...the market (if healthy) should provide _ALL_ options
> from which the _CONSUMER_ makes their choice...
But it's hard to make a choose. There are many gems in the big pot
of free- / shareware. You can spend month to test all the software
and maybe find nothing worth to use. And this time can be more
expensive than to buy a professional software.
The /\\o//\annabee
> Why do you think that an intelligent and honest guy, like
> Herbert, goes on claiming that Asm is _not_ the language
> for Applications programming, and that C is the Tool?
>
> Do you believe that, after you will have explained to him
> that "Developements time is no more a problem, because the
> GPL makes it out of thread" he will be driven to the real
> consideration that Asm devs are _effectively_ not longer
> time than HLLs ones? If this was possible to convince him
> that way, he would have changed his opinion since years.
What Herbert said, was IM_humble_ opinon _completly_ idiotic.
- He didnt even mention one socalled proffessional application.
- there are MANY examples to counter his claim about "proffesional" vs
"amateur"
- He didnt even mention a thing about the resources available to
hobbyprogrammers,
- He didnt even touch the problem of not having beta-users-test (extremly
important)
- And when it comes to devs speeds, C is actually the WORST of tools.
So if Herbert is intelligent, then this must be a very local intelligence.
(pun intended).
This is my Humble option.
> Betov.
>
> < http://rosasm.org/ >
>
>
>
>
Robert Redelmeier
> How can a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"?
Very easily. I think you misunderstand the English definitions:
> A professional is somebody who has learned all about his
> job and exactly knows what he does.
No. A professional is someone who does something for pay,
commercially. It implies _nothing_ about competence, and
in fact 100 years ago (especially in the UK) the implication
was incpetence or undedication, especially for sports.
> A hobbyist is somebody who wants do do something, has never
> learned it properly, but does it anyhow.
Again, not in English. A hobbyist is someone who does something
because it interests them, something they like to do. They do
not do it for money, although some people turn hobbies into
professions. Almost always people practice their hobbies to the
best of their abilities, and the results are startlingly good.
> GCC surely wasn't written by hobby programmer.
Stallman is a talented programmer, but AFAIK, gcc was written
as a "hobby" project. He wasn't paid to write it specifically.
> As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single
> person with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
No ... they'll do far too much work! :)
> big pot of free- / shareware. You can spend month to test
> all the software and maybe find nothing worth to use. And
> this time can be more expensive than to buy a professional
> software.
Certainly. But you also have to test commercial software,
and it often comes up lacking.
-- Robert
Betov
news:opskyh1x...@news.broadpark.no:
> What Herbert said, was IM_humble_ opinon _completly_ idiotic.
> - He didnt even mention one socalled proffessional application.
> - there are MANY examples to counter his claim about "proffesional" vs
> "amateur"
> - He didnt even mention a thing about the resources available to
> hobbyprogrammers,
> - He didnt even touch the problem of not having beta-users-test
> (extremly important)
> - And when it comes to devs speeds, C is actually the WORST of tools.
>
> So if Herbert is intelligent, then this must be a very local
> intelligence. (pun intended).
>
> This is my Humble option.
I agrea on these points. Herbert post, up there, where he
talks of the difference between "professional" and "hobbyist",
is particulary stupid, and as ridicoulous as when we hear
Master Pdf using the expression "professinoal quality".
Nevertheless, Herbert has shown himself able to do and
to show real things, in the past. So, maybe i over-estimate
him, but, even if true, this is not the real problem. What
i was meaning is that, in all case, Herbert is much enough
intelligent and much enough honest, intellectualy, for _not_
taking the faultive choices he _does_ take. The question is
_WHY?_. Why does he take the wrong choice?. To say the truth,
i do not know. I fail to understand what can motivate this
type of opinion, that defeats so many real facts, as well
at a pratical, as at a theorical point of view.
These are such observations that makes me think that Beth
ideas and propositions will certainaly be nothing but free
speach. If facts have no weight to face propaganda, illusion
selling, and so on, how could a "bright idea" change a thing?
When it comes out from definitive idiots, like, for example,
NoDot, thinking that HLA is an Assembler, everything is not
hopeless, as idiots count for nope, even if they are the
majority. But, for sure, Herbert is not an idiot, and, in
such cases, this is pushing me to a very pessimist view of
the futur of Programming. When i read such posts, from a
guy like Hebert, this is discouraging me, and i come to
ask myself "Why on earth do not they _see_?". "What fact
could have any effect?"...
Betov.
Percival
>> "Knowledge is power"; Money actually comes a poor second...
>
> As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single person
> with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
There is power in numbers. 1000 hobbyists + 1 leading professional means
much more power than the single pro can do alone.
I think the point is, the army size has increased, now Open Source
developers got management issues. The projects with strong leaders and
large user bases tend to flourish, Linux and several of the GNU projects
for example. And those with smaller user bases tend to be slower, but
progress is still made quickly. (The BSD systems)
Percival
Evenbit
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> How can a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"? A professional is
somebody
> who has learned all about his job and exactly knows what he does. A
> hobbyist is somebody who wants do do something, has never learned it
> properly, but does it anyhow. If a "hobbyists" match the
"professionals"
> then he no longer is a hobbyist but a professional.
There are plenty of "VB code monkeys" who have multiple degrees and 15
years of experience and yet they still don't understand the basic
nature of the languages they use. I've had debates with these
so-called "professionals" who are still convinced that the CD-tray is a
cup-holder. The real difference between a professional and a hobbyist
is that the professional simply followed orders to get his degree (no
learning required, just follow orders) and used good social skills to
land a comfortable job (not necessarily the best qualified candidate
for the position from an objective point-of-view). Hobbyists tend to
have an inner thirst for knowledge and honestly enjoy what they do.
They certainly have no desire to be a brain-dead "monkey" simply
following orders to maintain their comfortable surroundings.
Nathan.
Herbert Kleebauer
> _WHY?_. Why does he take the wrong choice?. To say the truth,
> i do not know. I fail to understand what can motivate this
> type of opinion, that defeats so many real facts, as well
> at a pratical, as at a theorical point of view.
Maybe you should check your position. It's like you
are driving on the autobahn and hear from the car
radio a warning, that there is a wrong-way driver.
And you think, only one wrong-way driver, I have
met hundreds of wrong-way drivers in the last 10
minutes.
Herbert Kleebauer
> Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de> wrote:
> > How can a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"?
>
> Very easily. I think you misunderstand the English definitions:
Sorry, then replace any occurrence of "professional" by
"expert" and "hobbyist" by "amateur". I mean this in the
sense, that you can't compare an expert (or professional?)
tennis player who is one of the top ten players with
an amateurish (or hobby) player who is playing tennis
just for fun with his friends.
> > As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single
> > person with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
>
> No ... they'll do far too much work! :)
I prefer to watch one tennis match between two top ten players
instead of 1000 matches between hobby players. And I also
prefer a program designed by one expert than a program
hacked together by 1000 amateurish programmers.
Betov
@unibwm.de:
? And then ? I perfectly know, since day one, that
i am rowing against the stream, and this is not a
problem to me. My question is not about where you
go. It is why you choose such a demential direction,
dispiting all facts, all demonstrations, all logics...
Even if 100% of the other Programmers would ignore Asm
and say the right opposite of what i say, it would not
change a thing about the fact that i am right and that
the others would be wrong.
Your allegory implies that you are viewing the
SoftWare Programming history, as a flow of events
that make sense (something like a "Progress" concept
and associated mythology). Given the real facts, and
the number of incredible definitive absurdities we have
seen having some impressive success, along this history,
such a view does not even deserve any counter-argument.
I don't ask you to explain to me why the main stream
goes HLL. I ask you the reason why you fail to see
the reality, and the evident capacity of Asm to be
the best and easiest Applications Programming Language
we have ever seen.
Betov.
Beth
and then looked here to notice you've already done it for me, Robert :)...
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> > How can a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"?
>
> Very easily. I think you misunderstand the English definitions:
>
> > A professional is somebody who has learned all about his
> > job and exactly knows what he does.
>
> No. A professional is someone who does something for pay,
> commercially. It implies _nothing_ about competence, and
> in fact 100 years ago (especially in the UK) the implication
> was incpetence or undedication, especially for sports.
Indeed, quite simple, really:
A "professional" is someone who does it as their paid "profession"...
You see the "hidden" clue in there, Herbie? Profession ->
professional...add an "-al" to "profession"..."profession" means
"job"..."professional" is the person who does that job...hence,
"professional"...
Just means it's your job and you get paid to do it...that's all the word
means...
> > A hobbyist is somebody who wants do do something, has never
> > learned it properly, but does it anyhow.
>
> Again, not in English. A hobbyist is someone who does something
> because it interests them, something they like to do. They do
> not do it for money, although some people turn hobbies into
> professions. Almost always people practice their hobbies to the
> best of their abilities, and the results are startlingly good.
Correct; Again, we can find a "hidden clue" in the word itself:
"hobby" -> "hobbyist"..."hobby" is an interest someone does in their spare
time..."hobbyist" is the person that engages in that interest...
You see, Herbert, this English thing isn't that complicated once you
understand how it works :)...
As Robert notes, no implication of "quality" made whatsoever...I just meant
the word in the context of "not doing it as paid work"...a "juxtaposition"
against the "professional" from earlier...
Anyway, this is a completely nonsense argument...because the "hobbyist" and
the "professional" in this statement could, indeed, _BE THE SAME
PERSON_...it's kind of like Superman or something...in the day, they pull
on their suit and are "professional"...but, by night, they pull off their
suit and become..."Hobbyist-man!" *cue fanfare*...fighting Monsanto Nazi
evil in the cause of truth and justice!
So, if "hobbyist" meant "incompetent" then how is this person magically
losing all their skill and knowledge?
Is it like some special "magical crystal" over the software house offices?
It powers their "professional super powers"...but, as they leave the
office, their "super powers" fade because of the increased distance from
their "power source"? Or perhaps it's some "Kryptonite" deal...with
Superman, it's an alien material...with "professional man", his inherent
weakness is to be surrounded by "domestic residences"...which kind of makes
him a crap superhero...can't help out with homes buring down or
anything...that old "domestic" weakness just zaps his "powers" out of
there...
[ Mind you, I do find it hard to believe Herbert is really that stupid not
to know what these words actually mean...it's not his first language but
English and Germanic structure is nigh-on identical and he otherwise wields
the language with sufficient skill not to make rudimentary errors like this
(and if not confident, then why argue a case on the basis of the
definitions of words? I mean, we all clearly have access to the internet -
or we wouldn't be talking to each other at all - to look it up :)...which
suggests possible _malicious_ misunderstanding?? ]
> > GCC surely wasn't written by hobby programmer.
>
> Stallman is a talented programmer, but AFAIK, gcc was written
> as a "hobby" project. He wasn't paid to write it specifically.
Also, do you like the contradictory reports?
Herbert tells me that I'm wrong because GCC _isn't_ written by
professionals...
Then Randy posts to tell me that I'm wrong because GCC _WAS_ written by
professionals (IBM, HP, Sun, etc.)...
I like this style of argument...it basically means I'm wrong whatever I
say...like Rene says: "coherent...very coherent" ;)
> > As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single
> > person with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
>
> No ... they'll do far too much work! :)
As "hobbyist" / "professional" has NOTHING to do with "competence", then
this argument is clearly nonsense, Herbert...
> > big pot of free- / shareware. You can spend month to test
> > all the software and maybe find nothing worth to use. And
> > this time can be more expensive than to buy a professional
> > software.
>
> Certainly. But you also have to test commercial software,
> and it often comes up lacking.
Yeah, basically, if we cut to the chase, then Herbert's argument boils down
to "if someone has a 'certificate' or some money in their pocket, then we
must all bow down and become their eternal unquestioning slaves"...
All "authority" is inherently unquestionable...if you took a sheet of paper
and wrote "please deposit 50 Euros into the bucket" on it and cellotaped it
to a tree in the park with a bucket underneath it, the bucket would be full
by the end of the day because it was a _SIGN_...and signs have
"authority"...you may NOT disobey the "sign" but the sign is your
"superior"...all "authority" is completely unquestionable...
If anyone doubts the sign, then you simply say "I have a theory...I am a
theorist and here are some random, arbitrary 'statistics' that prove
nothing useful whatsoever...so, you see, I have 'authority' because I have
numbers here on my clipboard...look, I'm wearing a long white lab coat
(that I just hired from a fancy dress shop)...I must be 'authority', yeah?
Now, obey the sign, mortal!"...that should work...50 more Euros in the
bucket...
Excuse me for a moment, I've just got to go write a "give me all your
money" sign...won't be long...they like to call it "chaos" to "degrade" the
concept of individuals having freedom and exercising their _brains_ to
think for themselves...of course, in the name of their so-called "order",
wars, the Holocaust, marketing scams, impossible debts to keep people
permanently in slavery, terrorist threats, chornic obesity killing people
like clockwork, pandemic world poverty, environmental destruction, etc.,
etc. have all been perpertrated by their "blind sheep" so-called "order"
against the so-called "liberal chaos" which founded America, abolished
slavery, brought equal sufferage, founded the basis of the rule of law,
brought down Kings with unfair taxations, etc. which is sooo bad because,
ummm, the kids listen to "satanic" rock n' roll music (strange; "disco
dancing" is _non-contact_...unlike the "wholesome" flesh-rubbing "waltz",
they claim, ummm, keeps kids from "lust"...utterly illogical...no, the
problem was that they stopped smiling with inane "Shoo-bopping" lyrics that
meant nothing...and started crying POLITICAL ANGER at the screwed up world
their parents created for them...yes, they WERE angry...and they had - and
still have (more so; Now they have "no future" to look forward to, that a
lifetime of vile drug addiction is the best society offers as "fun" and a
means out of this political shit wrapped up as "leisure time") - every
single _right_ to be angry...they are not angry enough, in fact...they've
pacified the masses with cheap tricks and nonsense nobody needs...sorry,
Straussian neo-cons...your "plan" had one flaw: _YOU_ were - and ARE - the
greatest immoral enemy to the American nation on the entire face of the
planet...the America that was is now dead...they killed it because, ooh,
they didn't like "rock n' roll" music...absurd? Totally...even more absurd
is that it's what actually went and happened)...
"Culture sucks down words
Itemise loathing and feed yourself smiles
Organise your 'safe' tribal war
Hurt, maim, kill and enslave the ghetto
Each day living out a LIE
Life sold cheaply...forever, ever, ever...
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Life lies a slow suicide
Orthodox dreams and symbolic myths
From feudal serf to spender
This 'wonderful world of purchase power!'
Just like lungs sucking on air
Survival's natural...as sorrow, sorrow, sorrow...
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
'All we want from you are the kicks you've given us'
'All we want from you are the kicks you've given us'
'All we want from you are the kicks you've given us'
'All we want from you are the kicks you've given us'
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Drive away and it's the same
EVERYWHERE death row, EVERYONE a victim
_YOUR JOYS ARE COUNTERFEIT_
This 'happiness' corrupt political shit
Living life like a COMATOSE
Ego-loaded...and swallow, swallow, swallow...
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Under neon loneliness: motorcycle emptiness
Under neon loneliness...
...EVERLASTING NOTHINGNESS"
[ "Motorcycle Emptiness", Manic Street Preachers ]
Beth :|
Percival
>> > As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single
>> > person with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
>>
>> No ... they'll do far too much work! :)
>
> I prefer to watch one tennis match between two top ten players
> instead of 1000 matches between hobby players. And I also
> prefer a program designed by one expert than a program
> hacked together by 1000 amateurish programmers.
What about a program designed by one expert AND THEN hacked together by
1000 amateur programmers led by the one expert? That is the ideal Open
Source model.
With 1000 programmers, someone is bound to be good out there, real good.
So you probably don't even have to search for an expert.
Percival
Beth
> Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> > Herbert wrote:
> > > How can a "hobbyists" match the "professionals"?
> >
> > Very easily. I think you misunderstand the English definitions:
>
> Sorry, then replace any occurrence of "professional" by
> "expert" and "hobbyist" by "amateur". I mean this in the
> sense, that you can't compare an expert (or professional?)
> tennis player who is one of the top ten players with
> an amateurish (or hobby) player who is playing tennis
> just for fun with his friends.
Yes...BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I WROTE...hence, you're talking about a
completely different topic to what I was talking about...if I'd meant
"expert" and "amateur" then I would have used those words...
So, your case against what I was saying _doesn't_ hold because you're
trying to divine a meaning in my words that _I DID NOT PUT THERE_...oh,
sure, easy to "prove" someone wrong when you alter everything they said to
whatever you want them to say to _make_ them "wrong"...
Yes, I re-arranged your post into an anagram which read "I am a
donkey"...clearly, as this twisted interpretation of your words is a
confession that you're an animal who would know nothing about this topic at
all, then "I win"...total nonsense, yes?
Please come back with a _real_ argument...thanks :)
> > > As you say, knowledge is power. You can't replace a single
> > > person with knowledge (the professional) by 1000 hobbyists.
> >
> > No ... they'll do far too much work! :)
>
> I prefer to watch one tennis match between two top ten players
> instead of 1000 matches between hobby players.
So? You're a "glory-hunter" and not a true tennis fan at all...what's that
prove about anything?
> And I also
> prefer a program designed by one expert than a program
> hacked together by 1000 amateurish programmers.
Strange; Because your header reveals that you use Mozilla on Windows 98...
Mozilla is an "open source" project of the kind you claim cannot work and
no-one wants...you don't seem to know what "professional" means...but,
perchance, do you know what the word "HYPOCRITE" means?
And as for preferring one expert programmer over a 1000 amateurish
programmers, then how on Earth are you running Windows and not Linux?
Windows is put together by large teams of "amateurish" student programmers
scooped up to "hack out" that pile of crap...the only "experts" they've
ever had on it were the ex-VMS programmers who put together the first
Windows NT (and, yes, that's the _ONLY_ decent bit of OS code Microsoft
have ever released ;)...
On the other hand, Linux was originally developed by one "expert"
alone...who still "co-ordinates" it all...you might want to dispute
"expert", perhaps, but it doesn't hold considering the quality and extent
of the software he's produced (originally single-handedly)...and enough
people think it's that good enough because of the swamp of commercial
companies trying to "head hunt" Linus (which he only agreed to, so long as
a "you can still work on Linux" clause was put into his
contract...considered "expert" enough to have the companies _negotiating_
his contract)...
So, again, "hypocrite" is a word that springs to mind when you say this
posting from an OS put together by that proverbial "1000 amateurish"
student programmers hacking away...while there's an OS that was started by
an "expert" (based on work by "experts", as the UNIX guys surely aren't
"amateurs" by your reckoning, yes?)...that, Randy assures us, has had many
contributions by teams of "experts"...is just sitting there and you're not
using it...
And, worse, you're _USING_ "open source" software - Mozilla (or derivative,
if they all identify themselves the same) - in order to criticise it!?!
Yeah, it's so "bad"...so "can't work"...so "amateurish"...so much so, like
Victor Kayam, "you bought the company"...that makes so much sense,
Herbert...NOT! ;)...
[ Worse still, if you're using Mozilla, then you've consciously _REJECTED_
Internet Explorer and Outlook Express because those come "pre-installed"
with your Windows 98 there, so much so to the extent of _lawsuits_ on the
distinct unfairness...so, you've made a _CHOICE_ to _PREFER_ "open source"
to Microsoft...yet, you use the software to try to suggest that you think
"open source" _isn't_ something users prefer to have? The contradiction is
almost _TANGIBLE_ here, Herbert ;) ]
Both examples (plucked from your own post headers) are _CONTRARY_ to what
you've just claimed, Herbert...
So, like the other illogical critics, what is your _REAL_ argument? If it's
"hey, I make my money that way! Don't promote the 'opposition'!" then
that's more than understandable...but come out and _SAY IT_, rather than
these "tricks"...your own software has betrayed you...the illogical
irrelevence of that last "complainant" betrayed what he was really thinking
too...if you've got a problem then come out and say it...please, no more of
these "tricks"...put up or shut up...
Beth :)
Beth
Turn up your car radio, Herbert...
Because, if we look, _ONLY YOU_ have made this point...and no-one has come
to "second" that point at all...
Whereas, me, Robert, Rene, Wannabee, Percival, Nathan have written against
your point (and, of significance is the fact that me, Rene, Wannabee,
Robert, Nathan and Percival are 99% of the time found to be disagreeing
with each other but we're _united_ that you're clearly talking crap...this
also says something significant too, in qualitative terms, as well as the
simple quantities here)...
So, you are the _ONLY_ person heading down the road in this
direction...every car you're driving passed has the driver shouting "you're
going the wrong way!"...
Have you considered _YOU'RE_ the "wrong-way driver" here?
By the way, are you enjoying the _Mozilla_ "open source" software you're
using to post this?
Care to explain to us how this apparently hypocritical contradiction of
saying all "open source" is incompetent, while (as you're also running
Windows 98, according to your headers) you've _CHOSEN_ to abandon the
pre-installed Microsoft commercial software and _CHOSEN_ an "open source"
based software package instead, works exactly?
Beth :)
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > NoDot wrote:
> > > Where did she say to write it in assembler.
> >
> > Correct; In the original posting, I specifically pointed out that it
was
> > NOT necessarily about writing in ASM (but confessed that I might be
> > "biased" to "recommend" that ;)...but that I was talking in general
> > terms...
>
> Wasn't the complete posting (your "Eureka!") about assembly programming?
No, it wasn't...it includes the following specifically addressing this
within it:
Beth wrote:
> of rejecting assembly language (note: my points are more generalised than
a
> "sell" of assembly language BUT I am an ASM coder and posting to an ASM
> group...expect "bias" ;)...
As we can see, I _EXPLICITLY STATED_ that, I quote, "my points are more
generalised than a 'sell' of assembly language"...
> You said:
>
> "Developer time" reigns supreme because the "developer" (and their
wages)
> costs so much to a development...just as "computer time" once did but
> hardware developments eventually changed that...
>
> Therefore it is not possible to implement applications as fast and
> small assembler programs.
Oh, you are _SO_ quoting out of context here, it's criminal...this was all
stated in the context of "commercial development"...and my whole point was
that, under "open source", this _ISN'T_ the case anymore...
Right, now I _KNOW_ it...it was "suspicious" that you write what you've
done there while doing so from software that labels itself as "Mozilla",
which is an "open source" project...it was "suspect" that you were trying
to make a case based on "definitions" of words that had no correspondence
to their usual meanings (A.K.A. "twisting my words")...
But now you've claimed that I was talking about assembly language when I
_EXPLICITLY STATED_ that this was not the case in that post..._AND_ you've
now maliciously quoted me seriously "out of context" that no person
honestly reading my post could have done (because the _ENTIRE POINT_ was to
say "under open source development, that is no longer true")...
You're protecting something (like that other poster was) and are "hiding"
behind other "objections" to invalidate the posting rather than a _direct_
statement of your _real_ complaint...
And it's obvious enough what that _true_ complaint actually is, based on
the content here...you don't want an argument that might suggest "open
source" outweighs "commercial" development in any way because, most likely,
you have "financial interests" in not seeing that case made...in short,
"Hey! I make my living that way! Don't go promoting the opposition!"...
In that context, I more than perfectly understand (indeed, _why_ are you
trying to "hide" any such motivation behind arguments that, by their
inconsistent logic, can't really be what you really object to?)...as I
stated to Rene, I'm not saying that people should adopt this...nor am I
saying this the way things will go...indeed, I'm sure, so long as _money_
is involved, then there will be no general change in development
methodologies made at all...none...money is too big a "factor"...the only
way to overcome "money" is with a promise of _MORE MONEY_ in its place...I
can't give that because, currently, it would be a lie...
Rene asks my "intention" (interesting; Because, in a sense, this is what
all these replies are boiling down to, eh? Complaints from those who fear
my "intention" is to "kill commercial development"...oh, calm down,
folks...as if one obscure posting by me - that many claim they can't even
read properly to understand - is ever going to have any effect beyond a
little "argument" here for a week...perhaps two, at most? And Rene's gone
all "suspicious" because he's surprised I'm arguing more from his side of
the fence this time around...he appears to really not comprehend someone
who could be very much "pro" open source but won't do that "refuse
everything Randy says" paradigm of "inherent evil" he's bizarrely
invented...I know you don't believe it but there really is NO "mutual
exclusion" there at all...it's a figment of his imagination he's created
for himself so that he can have an "enemy" to fight against...basically
because Microsoft nor Monsanto show their faces around the newsgroup to
directly fight against them...frustrating to be a "Jihadist" when those you
want to fight, you just can't see anywhere that you can attack...ah,
Rene...you should have joined me taking it to Microsoft...you know that
SourceForge project Microsoft started? They had a "public forum" there...it
was all great fun :)...
The "intention" is simple...a statement of fact...that's all...
I'm not saying what should happen...what people should "believe"...what
they should do...what development methods they should follow...NONE OF
THOSE THINGS...the "intention" is _SOLELY_ "statement of fact" (as I
believe to be the case)...that's it...nothing "mysterious" at all...
> But now:
>
> In an "open source" project, what is "developer time"? Well, it's
beginning
> to become the same next-to-nothing cost as "computer time" has become
> (depending, yes, on how many "interested developers" are involved...but
> presuming it's an "interesting project" and we've got that "in the bag"
> with what we are doing :)...
>
> This allows us to avoid the bloatware and make the "user time" the king:
>
> And, Randy, if you include "open source" then the argument for "user
time"
> is now complete...with "open source", the "developer time" has headed
the
> way of "computer time" towards next-to-nothing...and the "user time"
has,
> eventually, legitimately and naturally become "King"...the "bloatware"
> arguments begin to fall away...
>
> How else should I interpret this than writing the code in assembler?
You should interpret it as meant...
I did not mention "assembly language" (other than, indeed, to _EXPLICITLY
STATE_ that: "my points are more generalised than a 'sell' of assembly
language" ;)...
I did mention the prevailing commercial development paradigm, I mentioned
"open source", I mention "computer time", "developer time" and "user
time"...I mentioned "bloatware"...
Hence, it is not unreasonable to assume that the point was about the
prevailing commercial development paradigm, "open source" development,
"computer time", "developer time", "user time" and "bloatware"...and the
absence of any mention of assembly language (except in a statement to say:
This has nothing to do with assembly language...explicit enough for you?
;), might suggest it was not about assembly language...
You should interpret it as a general point about the development of, aptly
enough, development methods themselves...that's what it's about...this
_CAN_ be applied to "assembly language"...but it can also be applied to C
programming or similar...it was more about "low-level programming" (defined
by the paradigm of low-level programming constructs, NOT about whether you
use ASM or C or anything to do so)...
I might "recommend" assembly language from a "personal opinion" (yes, even
"biased") angle...but the post and what it was stating were _more
generalised_...talking about "development methods", not programming
languages...
Is this simple and explicit enough for you to now comprehend...or are you
going to "invent" a new "objection" just to keep this nonsense going? I put
$5 on the latter...
Beth :)
Frank Kotler
> And now that I'm reminded why I don't come here, I bid you all adieu.
Well, FINE, Dr. Howard!
(and Nathan, maybe you ought to google for some of the fine
Doctor's earlier posts... :)
L,P,&H,
Frank
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Frank Kotler
>
> Ah, good...I started writing the "professional doesn't mean that" response
> and then looked here to notice you've already done it for me, Robert :)...
I pretty much agree with you and Robert here, but there
*are* other ways of looking at it. In one sense, certain
occupations would be considered "professions" and others
not. In this sense, a doctor would be considered a
"professional", a ditch-digger wouldn't, even though he's
being paid for digging ditches.
But Herbert made it quite clear what *he* meant by it. A
"professional" is someone who knows what (s)he's doing, a
"hobbyist" doesn't, but does it anyway (like me :). Hard to
disagree with his argument, if you accept these meanings.
I disagree with Herbert's "terminology" in other areas, as
well. If I say, "I'm going for a ride on my bike.", I'm not
planning on pedalling! Herbert feels that "motor bike"
shouldn't be included under "bike". If Herbert and I wanted
to discuss "bikes", we'd have to agree on whose terminology
we're going to use. Otherwise, we'd deteriorate to "yes it
is!", "no it isn't!" - and we'd both be right!
> You see the "hidden" clue in there, Herbie?
Patronizing, Beth! I doubt if you do it intentionally, but
you frequently "come across" as if you're addressing a group
of small children. I, for one, find it "offensive"!
...
> You see, Herbert, this English thing isn't that complicated once you
> understand how it works :)...
More of same...
> ...which suggests possible _malicious_ misunderstanding??
Now you're catching "Betov's disease". Let's drag this out
in the middle of the floor and let the cat sniff it. Exactly
what do you think Herbert's "malicious" motives are? What's
in it for him?
> "hobbyist" / "professional" has NOTHING to do with "competence", then
> this argument is clearly nonsense, Herbert...
But Herbert clearly indicated that this *is* what *he* meant
by the terms! In a sense, *you're* (we're) the one who's
changing the definitions.
I *don't* agree that those involved in the open source
movement are folks who "don't know what they're doing, but
do it anyway". Might be true in some cases, but often,
people who do it "for the love of it" educate themselves -
because they "care" - and are *more* knowledgeable than
someone who does it "just for the pay". Someone who does it
for a "job" must have known enough to get the job, and keep
it, but that isn't necessarily a very high standard. That
shouldn't be taken to mean "job" == "incompetent" - I just
don't think there's a reliable correlation...
I *do* think you're onto something, with your basic
argument. The value of developer time may not have gone to
zero, but the relative value of the various factors involved
*do* change over time, and it would be a mistake to use
"obsolete values" to figure out what makes sense.
Best,
Frank Kotler
>
> "Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote
> > ...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer "productivity" came to
> > the fore: "portable source code", "black box libraries", etc....this has
> > lead to "bloatware"...
>
> No, the thing that has lead to bloatware is the insistence on the user's
> part
> that their software have more features than the "Jones' software".
I don't doubt that this is true, but I don't think it tells
the whole story. I don't think that the reasons Beth gives
provide a complete explanation, either. Sure, "portability"
is going to increase the code size, but to the extent that
it provides "functionallity", and isn't just a "mantra",
that isn't what I'd call "bloat". "Black box libraries"
*can* be bloated, but not necessarily so. There *is* a
difference between libraries, and a "concise" library would
be just as effective in reducing developer time as a
"bloated" one.
It seems to me that to account for the size of "modern
apps", I have to assume that needed/desired features are
being implemented in a "bloated" fashion, and thoughtlessly
pasted onto already "bloated" code. This *may* be
intentional - the "average software consumer" may think that
a program that takes 3 CDs to install is a "better value"
than one that fits on a floppy, even if the functionallity
and "feature set" is identical. I recall reading a post -
long ago - from the author of a "password recovery" program,
intended (nominally) to recover encrypted files to which the
owner had forgotten the password (for some specific word
processor, IIRC). He stated that his algorithm was so fast
that he'd added a delay, so that his customers would think
the program was "doing something".
> Money talks.
Yes, and what the "money spenders" like (apparently) might
not match what someone who actually *knows* something about
software would like. Money talks in another way, too:
advertising. That has to be a factor in what people buy...
or use. If Windows and Linux were compared on the basis of
"users per advertising dollar spent", I'll bet Linux would
look pretty good!
...
> "Sure Word is big and bloated. But that's what people
> want. They won't pay for apps without a lot of features..."
I don't know how big Word actually is, or exactly what
features it has (I understand that, unless told otherwise,
it'll execute any macro it encounters, possibly executing
malicious code - not a feature I'd put on my "must have"
list, but thats a different argument...) So perhaps Word
isn't a good one for me to use as an example... but I'll
take the chance. I don't think anyone is going to write a
"feature for feature clone" of Word in "carefully
hand-crafted assembly". Wouldn't have to be all that
"hand-crafted" - such a thing might be done using the
high-level features of HLA, for example - not the smallest
possible code, but not that bad (it's "not so humble" of me
to have *any* opinion of Randy's code, perhaps... but I do)
Even using C - in the manner that Herbert suggests: *learn*
assembly so you understand what you're asking the processor
to do, *know* your compiler well enough to understand what
code it will emit (Herbert sometimes neglects to mention
this part), and then write "thoughtful" C based on that
knowledge - would do the trick.
"Just suppose" that someone wrote a "feature for feature
clone" of Word - not necessarily squeezing out every byte,
as the "smallest code" contestants do, but with *some*
thought to writing "reasonably concise" code - *some*
thought to avoiding obvious bloat... Any guess - just a
rough estimate - of how the size would compare? I'd bet on
"half" - possibly much less - without even knowing how big
Word is now. Do you think I'm wrong?
Beth
> There are plenty of "VB code monkeys" who have multiple degrees and 15
> years of experience and yet they still don't understand the basic
> nature of the languages they use. I've had debates with these
> so-called "professionals" who are still convinced that the CD-tray is a
> cup-holder. The real difference between a professional and a hobbyist
> is that the professional simply followed orders to get his degree (no
> learning required, just follow orders) and used good social skills to
> land a comfortable job (not necessarily the best qualified candidate
> for the position from an objective point-of-view). Hobbyists tend to
> have an inner thirst for knowledge and honestly enjoy what they do.
> They certainly have no desire to be a brain-dead "monkey" simply
> following orders to maintain their comfortable surroundings.
The other point is that a hobbyist often _PAYS_ for pursuing their
hobby...the "professional", on the other hand, is only doing the work
because they get paid for doing what they are told...
The hobbyist _CHOOSES_ the work that interests them...the "professional"
does whatever crap they are "ordered" to do, so long as they get paid...
The hobbyist you _KNOW_ enjoys what they do...the "professional" _might_
have been lucky enough to land a job they also coincidentally like
doing...not everyone is in work they are necessarily greatly enthusiastic
about (yeah, all those students in McDonald's...it's their "dream
job"...they took "fast food and meat re-processing studies" and everything,
in the Hopes of a life-long career in the industry...it's not that they
need money and this braindead job is easy to land and can be done part-time
to supplement their student loans and, where these still exist, government
grants to manage their fees, bills and enough for a few drinks on the
weekends)...as a student, I heard enough people say "I heard there's money
in this" (admittedly, not said as much as it used to be said, since,
indeed, the subject has been _swamped_ by "VB code monkeys" who think
"there's money in this" to have got all "qualified")...
Hobbyists, for sure, have a _passion_ for what they do..."professionals"
_might_...or might not...
With "open source", the development costs are taken on-board by the
developers themselves...they _PAY_ for what they are doing...admittedly,
the whole point, though, is that this cost is negligable (internet access
costs and electricity costs...stuff that would be _being paid anyway_, most
likely, if they weren't working on "open source" because they'd probably
still be accessing the internet for doing something else...remembering that
these are normally "hobbyists", so that whole "do it because they enjoy it"
suggests someone who'd be on the internet, anyway)...
Also, you, of course, realise that you've got yourself a "catch-22",
anyway, Herbert...even _MICROSOFT_ started an "open source" project on
SourceForge (some "Windows installer" thing)...and their top executives
praised the "open source" model (for its capacity to "pester" them and that
it is sufficient "threat" to their monopoly to attempt to wipe it out by
quite delibrately destroying industry standards) when the Halloween
documents were leaked...
Plus, if an "open source" project co-ordinated itself, then they could
develop a project "open source" and then, just as Red Hat do, make some
money dealing in "distributing" and "supporting" their project...also, an
"open source" project could also be made into a "shareware open source"
project, perhaps...then, you have to ask yourself, what's the difference?
You could consider them to simply be a "self-employed co-operative of
telecommuting entrepreneurs"...that this is a "commercial" venture but of a
more modest means...that these people are "professionals" (in the "paid
work" sense) but are simply a "self-employed co-operative" of workers
"working from home"...
Indeed, if, as some companies suggest, they employ their developers to
"telecommute" to do their work (reduces costs), then the exact same
mechanisms to manage such a project would be brought into play...just
attaching to the company "intranet", so that the source code _isn't_ "open"
(but to employees with the passwords and such)...they could even be using
the exact _same_ kind of software SourceForge make available to "open
source" developers...just without the "public" aspect...
It's all a matter of perspective...but, rightly, everyone's knocking you
down over the "implication" that commercial work isn't buggy but "open
source" automatically is, somehow (because they are all "clueless newbies"
working on it, apaprently)...how anyone can say that posting from Windows
98 (how many minutes ago was your last BSOD? Fifteen? Twenty minutes
maximum? Win98 must be the _worst_ platform from which to make such
assertions...at least XP's NT kernel is slightly more respectable in the
"stability" stakes), goodness knows, but the Linux users with some "7
months of uptime" are finding it all rather amusing, for sure...
Beth :)
Betov
$qC6...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
> And Rene's gone
> all "suspicious" because he's surprised I'm arguing more from his side
of
> the fence this time around...he appears to really not comprehend
someone
> who could be very much "pro" open source but won't do that "refuse
> everything Randy says" paradigm of "inherent evil" he's bizarrely
> invented...
_YES_.
Though i disagrea on the "bizarrely". All the contrary,
i am afraid that, here, the "bizarrely" stands on your
side. This is _YOU_ who should have to explain why on
earth you are continously defending this...
* Right-Wing-Christian-Creationist-Conservator dement.
* The fucky one who calls a weird Pre-Parser an Assembler.
* The ultimate fucky one who deliberately choosed an on
purpose uncompatible syntax for his damned "Tutorial",
in order to misslead the beginners as much as possible.
* The utterly incompetent swindler and liar, who never
did anything for Assembly. Not even any small Demo. Nothing.
* The swindler who claims loud and clear to be an Asm
expert, whereas he is not even able to write his poor
Pre-Parser in Asm, and used VHLLs instead.
* The swindler who introduces himself as a _Teacher_,
whereas he has been, at best, an occasional Lecturer.
* The Anti-GPL Leader who never shows him as such, but who
never miss an occasion for contributing to the Anti-GPL
propaganda, aside Hutch--.
* The MASM regular propagandist.
* The definitive winner in matter of self-selling, with
ego problems that beat, hands down, everything i ever
observed in the area (and i have observed a lot!...).
... and so on...
So, as long as _YOUR_ position on that important issue
will remain utterly _INCOHERENT_ and _ABSURD_, you can
go on defending what you like, i will keep more than
"suspicious" about your motivations, as i am about your
mental health.
An individual supporting Master Pdf is an idiot. If you
are not a definitive idiot, then, you are a criminal.
What do you prefer?
Betov.
Herbert Kleebauer
>
> I *don't* agree that those involved in the open source
> movement are folks who "don't know what they're doing, but
> do it anyway".
Never said this. I myself prefer free (not only open
source) software. I think knowledge and numbers (programs
are nothing but numbers) should be free and nobody should
be allowed to own them. Therefore I hate any form of patent
or copyright. But there is a big problem with free
software. If a commercial software is crap, the company
will go bankrupt, so this is some sort of a self regulating
system. But if somebody develops a program as a hobby, then
he can't go bankrupt even if this is the worst program
ever written and nobody want's to use it. And that
makes it so hard to find the gems in the sea of all the
freeware/shareware programs (just take a look at simtel).
It's a little like Beth's posts. It is hard to find the
information in all this words. And it doesn't help at all
if there are plenty other people who are willing to
add more words for free.
> I *do* think you're onto something, with your basic
> argument. The value of developer time may not have gone to
> zero, but the relative value of the various factors involved
> *do* change over time, and it would be a mistake to use
> "obsolete values" to figure out what makes sense.
I will not answer to Beth posts because she takes any
argument as a personal attack, but I will make a short
summarize how I understood Beth original post. And I will
also not use the terms "professional", "amateur", "expert"
"hobby" programmer, but use instead class A, B and C
programmer. Compared to cooks this would be the few
4 stars cooks, the cooks of all the noble restaurants
and the rest of the cooks (including most of the house
wives).
It is hard to find the essential point in the many
words of Beth's posts. But as I understood her original
post, the "Eureka!" was:
1. At the beginning the equipment was the cost factor.
Therefore the programmer spent much time for programming
with paper an pencil, not wasting expensive CPU time.
2. When the hardware become cheap, the time of the programmer
was the main cost factor. To keep the cost for program
development low, it was necessary to use the time of
the programmers as efficient as possible with two
main results: programming in HLL (faster coding speed and
better maintainable code) and code reuse (write and debug
it once, use it many times). This leads to unnecessary big
and slow programs [I don't think so].
3. With the "open source movement" the time of the programmers
isn't anymore a big cost factor. So we can go back and
create small and fast applications by writing a special
versions for any system (CPU and OS). [I don't understand
why she now says, that this has nothing to do with a return
from HLL to assembler).
Now, this "Eureka!" is a mirage. We didn't get this "unnecessary
big and slow programs" because of HLL and code reuse, but
because, in due to the IT boom, so many programmers were
needed, that most programs now are written by class B and C
programmers instead of class A programmers. And most of
the class A programmers have well paid jobs and don't have
the time to join the "open source movement". Yes, there
are a few of this class A programmers developing free
software and the time of this few people is much more
valuable that the time of the persons mentioned in point
2 above (because there it is only money and here it ia
the lack of class A programmers), so the have to do anything
to use there time as efficient as possible (which means to
program in HLL and to reuse code). And it doesn't help
at all, if there are thousands of class C programmer which
are willing to help for free. The quality of a program
doesn't depend on the quantity of programmers but on
the quality of the programmers. Just put 100 house wives in
a kitchen and compare the result with a class A cook.
As I always said, we don't need assembly programmers,
we need class A programmers. And in order to become
a class A programmer you also have to understand the
processor and learn assembly programing. And a class
A programmer exactly knows which language is the
appropriate for a certain task, and I suppose, in
most cases it will not be the assembly language.
Herbert Kleebauer
> So, like the other illogical critics, what is your _REAL_ argument? If it's
All I can say is:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
@echo off
echo Bj@jzh`0X-`/PPPPPPa(DE(DM(DO(Dh(Ls(Lu(LX(LeZRR]EEEUYRX2Dx=>elli.com
echo 0DxFP,0Xx.t0P,=XtGsB4o@$?PIyU WwX0GwUY Wv;ovBX2Gv0ExGIuht6>>elli.com
echo @e{f~~c~K??_?DWB?MOwO?D?D_MMMO?_?DgBEzO?q?AOwB@kL?QoMyOwDw>>elli.com
echo BGgnB{~BU`FM?oJME?p???~slJJSyA?@xALZp{AN`_w@TADN@bN@NASEuA>>elli.com
echo lHJos_wPokN?{_q@[vHCIujLjE@{okOB{]q@YvHC@LBMjEH}I{@Bj=txtH>>elli.com
echo xIAFBM~f@}E~}NCJM?_{o?{euHaskctz{OLBDwZj~n{}HMQtrD@igBJQbA>>elli.com
echo @cgBJObAAngF~zhvte{SSgpKQb@GMJJGPJMojshv_NE_`NF_ArgJ?=gNgB>>elli.com
echo H}H?wbEgDNpa@{B@gB_NE_`NF_{GjN\tkD?1gNJebA?XgNJcbA?RgNJ_bA>>elli.com
echo ?LgNJ]bA@JgB{fjJ]tbD?}gJG_@NBMyMVEnRKEMA?xJGGBcx~p~r1jrZDj>>elli.com
echo Fktv{S[gfkiE?OeF?PEBe?e?kPsAHmUL@KsEs`UL?KeGjRUze?v?kPjFkr>>elli.com
echo o{RRzet`pAtBNAHBjAtpIBCfyBFcmBGr\gA\am?{fjy~B?Q?FBS??wW?d{>>elli.com
echo ?O{Ks@CtDT[EFB~~J{FEjrJ[E?g?@ob?t_gJkob?n_gJiob?h_gJgob?b_>>elli.com
echo gJeob?\_gJcob?V_gJaob?P_gJ_ob?J_gJ]ohAFpj~G}E@Lw@?}b}~e~vN>>elli.com
echo e`wBCkL?Bo@BOk@_zN@ir`A?=JecrPZv_=_B@}Zh@sH?S`Bemfe_L1@Tv~>>elli.com
echo @DmreAeRjNe_`egSBxO}`_edjJc?J]E?eWeXJmbAETNwAQNwFa?NFi@NJe>>elli.com
echo `A_Ej?WeJcqbeHTNJ_QNFbb?B~j@F{RHDovuNgeCmPEvNGeJ]OMvNGeJeO>>elli.com
echo @nNwvNe`J_U?vNe`JcM?nNe`hePFbeOfJJu_J]m?_]JAagJ[ir~Vcmz?Et>>elli.com
echo JCe]z?]sJSBMMdRNeReUTTx~ilB?B?C}kEM[BgNeCCeBv]EnNGeJmOTvNw>>elli.com
echo nNe`JqU?OhepEBe@xJuOveBsYeWVeQeTrOx[CBGwTRISOeUT}kjW[jC_EC>>elli.com
echo MQeBExvaNk]WeTjZ\t`ePU?BOMG????????C??KEA?IM??@?@?????~~~~>>elli.com
echo ~~~~@???????@?@??@??~??o~~~~P~~1OMJA`@Jws?~RBjIK?UgFgza~X?>>elli.com
echo AO_eBVE_NGM`NgJKE?I?pkJQe?BMyM_znzS}@W~p?o?SxAlced?C=ATIeG>>elli.com
echo ?@e=LiGWatt=EBlztJCS_Ncb`NF_p?pKSx~JjrNlO`ed_eBVenj1NE_@NF>>elli.com
echo gAuphqx~pkrNSs~ddh=?S`x@_be?SODJdhe~k]DJd`e?SPTJdHJdede{\\>>elli.com
echo YkNwHe@CdeOVeTJQ\JdXNeCC@YcMOHepHee@FBDwHaC{CFBM?tLtO`ed_e>>elli.com
echo BV~1gzf_xE?S~EeZp[DJcHOve=bee@deDSeDxOAsjEa~r}ZGhrgYt=e~i[>>elli.com
echo BO`x`_edjJg?J]E?JyzA@FgNJ_`AiEj?IzJWygJkc`@GEjJ?zJ]_gJYp`@>>elli.com
echo lajJe?JiE?JizE@_gJaUJA?wJgOh?oJyzE@PgJGOHMDx?F@?wAzOhkgJIq>>elli.com
echo J@?aJkU???wIzOhkgJYqH@p`?GOrwDx`h@??izOj_gJ[g`@GEzJ?sJ]Oi`>>elli.com
echo aGEzJ?sJ_Ok`PGEzJ?tJaOrxWwDgGkUjAKHtxEA=gFxMjbgH@rjAtpLxEG>>elli.com
echo lgI[mJAGJJc_Je]?Fup{JYE?F?GoJUE?gFOrj=H{CgeLBN=b~?[rJUM?SC>>elli.com
echo NweB?G~J[osCwTM~GKHJ[_JWu?]mz?EtJC_]z?KsJCgmz?stJCi]z?mtJC>>elli.com
echo WeBAN~JK?aGIcmJA]JJGJJe_JWu?WMBAB~JkBGEbjNermzK?tJcO]zE?sJ>>elli.com
echo eOMM=TNeBMYMJAEFJKBJY?TR?SBRUdz~GngKYrZ?IQ}kBW[BC_RCMQWHUx>>elli.com
echo iEj?IzJwrgK[gH?w]Ej?yzJgfgK[xP?cgI\rX@eQKY}MKi~M?=gFrZ]TCB>>elli.com
echo RwTRESURUTKi}MKYzM?[gBjZ]DC}kEM[jgEECSNeBMetHdZ\]T~\hrO`ed>>elli.com
echo NeBFeZv]uvNweOeTxePd??B?ef?SMCJaHefdeJCWqxHteXeTeBW\ZvNweO>>elli.com
echo eTPeQTBxeH????eWeXefXUJCHaOHexxHeTXesVeYeTeBW\uvNwvNe`Oe~V>>elli.com
echo ePeTfHp[CJeHefNUMCz_eOtP@e@d?CxBq??OefhVMCz_eXeTeBW\ZvNwvN>>elli.com
echo e`NeuFe~v]PeOTxewf??B?ef?SNCJaRefDfMCWCHeHHeJUelx\WeXTNeBF>>elli.com
echo eZv]uvNwvNe`Oe~VwPetBxeH????JefdfNCWCZe@efMUJCHaxHeTXelVBW>>elli.com
echo etBFuF@t?ENeBFeZv]PeOTxewf??B?we?c????ef?SJCZ_HefdeJCWkxHt>>elli.com
echo eXeTeBW\ZvNwvNe`NeuFe~v]pe_Dxe?f??B?ef?SJCHaxHeTxevf??B?pe>>elli.com
echo ?CHeQfefLVNCJafQeTcveLefmUcCB?Q@ex????ef?SjC@_Q@ex????We?S>>elli.com
echo xLeTBeUfeCERGxHtO`edNeBFfHv]@JeHB@BMwBexks~F?XgBgUH}H?S_Ng>>elli.com
echo VNRH?w_Bex~fMsGhOMj??oAHVzg@e=aBEwa@~{A@CwBJyojF{qGHFCYG`?>>elli.com
echo ?AGwO?PwF\P_?BG{O@P{V\P_?AG{V[Po??@sf[Ps??@{V[Pw?@Hwf[Pc@@>>elli.com
echo GsP?Pov\P_A?GsP[PsA@Po`[PoF\PG??@ss[POsOP??I@oP[PsAJPoF[PS>>elli.com
echo DS@O?IXsP[PoAJPsf\P??SHsS?Pof[PSdU@W?QXoS@PoV[PSTT@S~~X{C~>>elli.com
echo ~~EP@R[PPRC?FaDO`aIOpAJO?BBOOr1PobQPa_1Xc?1Pq?1PRPUPb`IXd`>>elli.com
echo [P?bKPObGP?b]P_rLPor1Q?O[IVO\HWBV@Gp~Htp~~~~P@CNPPEL?F[HO`>>elli.com
echo DIOpDJO?ILOOJLPoAMPA1FXDSCPq1?Pb1DPR1CXTTDP?JNPO[NP?LNP_GN>>elli.com
echo Po]MQ?KAIV1@HW[L@g\?HtVF~~~~@C~~PEPsF\P_V\?__?GCqaQC@?QoP@>>elli.com
echo Psf[Ps?]@s`[Pg@?OwP@P{f[Ps?]@op[Pc?@OsQ[PowaPw@1@o`[PwF]Ps>>elli.com
echo ???oQ[Po@1Ps`[P{V]Ps?A?o_[Hw?BOso[H{??O{W[Pw?@Hwf[PsG]H{RK>>elli.com
echo Pwf\PoBLH{F[PGGAH{O[P{BIPwf[PsRJ@{V]PCAO@wRPPof\P?wO@KsRPK>>elli.com
echo AOX{RPPsF\PO?@@sQ[PsC\PsS[PwO\@OTTPS??XoQ[PsC\PsT[Po_\@SdU>>elli.com
echo PWGaX{s[PS~~P{Q~~N[PEBTPUBRPEB]PeRUPuRSPeR_QEO[QUOZ@va[@Fr>>elli.com
echo \@VR[@GrZ@tq~`uq~~~~_??_0x>>elli.com
echo>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 1 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 15c 180,175 180,330 l 180,210,20 130,225 180,250,236 e
echo>>_.dat 260,210,20 210,225 260,250,236 E 300,175 300,285 l
echo>>_.dat 350,175 350,250 l 300,250,0 325,285 350,250,0 e
echo>>_.dat 375,300 375,330 l 420,200 420,330 l 420,200,0 445,175
echo>>_.dat 470,200,0 e 400,285 440,285 l 7 0 s
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 1 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 90 w
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 2 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 15c 200,240,0 320,400 440,240,0 E 230,300,50 270,310
echo>>_.dat 310,300,206 e 230,300,206 270,290 310,300,50 e
echo>>_.dat 330,300,50 370,310 410,300,216 e 330,300,206 370,290
echo>>_.dat 410,300,50 e 240,140,30 320,180 400,140,216 e
echo>>_.dat 320,200 320,270 l 8 0 s
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 2 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 90 w
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 3 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 15c 250,175 250,330 l 250,200,220 300,235 250,270,36 e
echo>>_.dat 370,200,36 320,235 376,235,0 e 320,235 376,235 l 7 0 s
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 3 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 90 w
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 4 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 15c 180,240,0 320,385 460,240,0 E 230,290,20 270,310
echo>>_.dat 310,290,236 e 230,290,236 270,270 310,290,20 e
echo>>_.dat 330,290,20 370,310 410,290,236 e 330,290,236 370,270
echo>>_.dat 410,290,20 e 320,190 320,260 l 8 0 s 240,190,216
echo>>_.dat 320,150 400,190,30 e 240,190,226 320,130 400,190,20 e
echo>>_.dat 320,140 4 f 3 0 s 255,290,0 270,305 285,290,0 E
echo>>_.dat 355,290,0 370,305 385,290,0 E 270,300 370,300 3 f 1 0 s
echo>>_.dat ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; picture 4 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
echo>>_.dat 90 w
elli.com <_.dat
del elli.com
del _.dat
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The /\\o//\annabee
<kl...@unibwm.de>:
Hehe. Funny. Nevertheless. Your statements that asm is not useful for
fulltime productions by mediocre programmers is simply wrong. And proven
wrong, btw (by me). Asm would be the best language for any form of
programming, and it would make C-class programmers (as you call it) become
better programmers as well. It did this to me. It would make us all better
programmers. And it would mean that applications written by theese
programmers would become much faster, better, much more maintainable and
in all possible senses better. And I mean better, than what that
programmer would do earlier. So I speak relatively, to this programmers
(mine) earlier achivements, not absolute. Asm programming is simply
easier. When it comes to devicing good solutions, or of beeing less lazy
and etc, this is sideissues, and diffrent between programmers. I am
terrible lazy, and could certainly learn to spend more time with each
problem, but still asm is much better suited for my work.
VB was, back when I tried it, USELESS. Delphi, is not useless, but
compared to RosAsm its a laughing matter, or at least a terrible choice,
when given RosAsm on the other hand. I would argue C, or at least C++ to
be about equal to Delphi in this regard. Actually from an OOP only
viewpoint, they are simply identical.
Your maintainance claim is completly wrong. This has to do with
organization on the programmer, and nothing todo with language. It could
have something, but not much, todo with selection of tools.
But I claim that it has todo with experience, and with the sizes of
project you had to maintain. If you ever needed to write singlehandedly a
large project, so large, that you could not in any way estimate the size
at the outset, and maybe didnt know how to implement it, then you will by
experience teach yourself to have some sort of order. You know, if you
read about programming, in journals and etc, there have been many voiced
strategies for how to become a better programmer, like for instance
Xtreme-programming. Voiced by HLL programmers. Why ? Because current
strategies fail, again and again.
It maybe, that you yourself, are some genious, and a star-programmer, but
this doesnt mean everybody is. Asm will help all "less"
experienced/talented programmers become seriously better programmers.
If you still claim that asm is useless for huge projects, then I be happy
to try prove you wrong. Since january last year, I have spent maybe a
total of 5 months on my code. Maybe even less. I am terribly lazy at the
moment (not fully healthy). But still I am now allready half the way to my
goal. I know for 100% sure that I am way less experienced than many
programmers, and way less smart than many, and I can still do it.
Heres a link to my current work :
http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/MMEXBlue.Zip
and here :
http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/CurrentProject.Zip
Each day i add, remove & change code, and find new bugs and fix them. Its
far from bugfree yet, and far from best code, but still useful, and should
at least give you the clue you need that full asm production is fully
possible, even for hobbylevel programmers.
This is very verbose code. about 6 times as verbose as plain asm, due to
use of extremly long labels. (A bad newbie choise actually). The code is
about a megabyte. I have absolutly null problem myself, finding and
reusing the code. The CurrentProject is just copied to a new exe, and then
I add what I need for the new functionality. When I am settled, I remove
unused code using the unused_symbol scanner in the compilation status
dialog.
This has sofar worked pretty well for me I think. So than it would work
even better for better programmers.
To see some (one _day_ work, + scanning later) take a look at theese apps.
http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/DiskFree.Zip
http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/RebootWindows.Zip
Theese two wore written in one day, reusing code from the StartUp called
CurrentProject.
The reason why the code is so big, is that it include its own GUI, and do
not use any of windows own gui functionality, except for the needed
window. Also, some parts of the code is disabled because of setbacks
needed to fix bugs that where discovered later.
I know for sure, that theese projects will grow, assuming my health stays
somewhat good. And I know for sure, that they are no less maintainable now
than at the outset. In fact they are more maintainable now.
Herbert Kleebauer
> To see some (one _day_ work, + scanning later) take a look at theese apps.
> http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/DiskFree.Zip
> http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/RebootWindows.Zip
>
> Theese two wore written in one day, reusing code from the StartUp called
> CurrentProject.
Have downloaded DiskFree.Zip and took a brief look at diskfree.exe
with a hex editor. I really hope that all this "mailto:" don't
send mails to the author without notifying the user. And what is
the purpose of the program? Is it really just a graphical program
which reports the free disk space? If yes, then this is a perfect
example for all the freeware programs which are pretty useless but
hide the gems of freeware programs in a mass of useless programs.
If I want to use a graphical program which requires user interaction
to get the free disk space, I can also use the Windows Explorer.
No need for an external 250 kByte (!!!!) program. And if I need
a program to report the free disk space as part of a batch
installation routine, then this has to be a commandline tool
and not GUI program. And such a program you can write in a few
lines:
winmain::
move.l #TotalNumberOfFreeBytes,-(sp)
move.l #TotalNumberOfBytes,-(sp)
move.l #FreeBytesAvailable,-(sp)
moveq.l #0,-(sp)
jsr.l (GetDiskFreeSpaceExA)
or.l r0,r0
beq.b _error
move.l #_set,r5
_40: eor.l r0,r0
add.b (r5),r0
beq.b _30
inc.l r5
bsr.l putc
br.b _40
_30: move.l FreeBytesAvailable ,r0
move.l FreeBytesAvailable+4,r1
dsr.l #20,r1>r0
eor.l r2,r2
_10: eor.l r1,r1
divu.l _c10,r1|r0
add.b #'0',r1
move.l r1,-(sp)
inc.l r2
or.l r0,r0
bne.b _10
_20: move.l (sp)+,r0
bsr.l putc
dbf.l r2,_20
_exit: moveq.l #0,-(sp)
jsr.l (ExitProcess) ; exit program
_error: moveq.l #0,-(sp)
move.l #_text,-(sp)
move.l #_text,-(sp)
moveq.l #0,-(sp)
jsr.l (MessageBoxA)
br.b _exit
_text: dc.b 'GetDsikFreeSpaceEx error',0
_c10: dc.l 10
_set: dc.b 'set free=',0
@echo off
echo Bj@jzh`0X-`/PPPPPPa(DE(DM(DO(Dh(Ls(Lu(LX(LeZRR]EEEUYRX2Dx=>free.com
echo 0DxFP,0Xx.t0P,=XtGsB4o@$?PIyU WwX0GwUY Wv;ovBX2Gv0ExGIuht6>>free.com
echo T}{z}~@GwkCG@OEKcUt`}}@MqqCsy?seHC}_Phxr?@zAB`LrPEyoDt@Cj?>>free.com
echo pky_jN@QEKpEt@ij?jySjN@REKpEt@jj?jyGjN@SEKkjtlGuNw?p@pjirz>>free.com
echo RFvAWVU?_YLTU@@?~UCo_R~RDW@?aW?@MU_AMy1GHs?Gw`LbLK@shM`S_d>>free.com
echo bD_nsDddlTr_sPdlnTcnaTv_xP_ngD_rhDhsrT_kkDhrtT_fmDRNCTILk?>>free.com
echo staThg_So_rPfnqTl`qTdq_ShtpTrdqThV_Sqrm@ILm?O?cOKRDP?@@?dx>>free.com
echo OdFWu?N?_B@J@??KD?HWA?UO[B_UO?R?VCAUO?WCR?WCE?U_F?DWA?CWB?>>free.com
echo ORO?ROV?DWO?IWO?RO[?RW{O[RO?mYW?wdsTGUs@OUA?UAU?LWA?_R_ok~>>free.com
echo WODWO?RO[AROiAROyAWOEBOcDCWHWOOUO?OGRGyHWOGRO?TWO?DRTTqrQ@>>free.com
echo kcmSkRkPFWO?rdLTf`rTnAdT?@wDQDJTKDMTmqr?kkcTO[RGOiRGOyRGOE>>free.com
echo RKDFWOshwTnqOTrdbTFUrPRsdTGcsTcm`TVdkDhqVTEdsTdkhTdFUShCsT>>free.com
echo EjrTddqT`oRTDdbT?@wDQ?g@g??P?PwRog?s??PC~?ipOST?H??@Ds?VPn>>free.com
echo }Ep??@EA?BEGsPUpgF`qjn?PoRTJ?G?PsRkN?_pSOBQpHrjtvR??PCoA?M>>free.com
echo H@QDnt?vFgW\waU{~?ipOGT?i??PQg?S??PCPQgDi??PT~?K?O?Oaj?{sd>>free.com
echo FThrCTqEjTRddTb`oTwDdTqd_SqnqTUI??sdrTqe_S=ddDa_?c?PYR?p?o>>free.com
echo gDBo??PCiLtPT~tN?OKOgb?w??PCg?iP?PkR@i?CPYgLO??POT~B??OCt?>>free.com
echo H[?i[CPZgLg??P?PZR?i?C?T~B??OC~?ipOGT?@??`Pk=K@??@WtUsBO`x>>free.com
echo qv?SdshTqd_SqnqTqXWO0x>>free.com
free.com>free.exe
del free.com
free.exe>free.bat
del free.exe
call free.bat
del free.bat
echo The current drive has %free% MByte free.
The /\\o//\annabee
<kl...@unibwm.de>:
> The /\\\\o//\\annabee wrote:
>
>> To see some (one _day_ work, + scanning later) take a look at theese
>> apps.
>> http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/DiskFree.Zip
>> http://www.szmyggenpv.com/downloads/RebootWindows.Zip
>>
>> Theese two wore written in one day, reusing code from the StartUp called
>> CurrentProject.
>
> Have downloaded DiskFree.Zip and took a brief look at diskfree.exe
> with a hex editor. I really hope that all this "mailto:" don't
> send mails to the author without notifying the user.
:-))) Of course not. Why didnt you use RosAsm to view the Code :)))))) The
code is included in the exefile for christ sake. Where you spend the last
6 years ? On the moon ?
> And what is
> the purpose of the program? Is it really just a graphical program
> which reports the free disk space? If yes, then this is a perfect
> example for all the freeware programs which are pretty useless but
> hide the gems of freeware programs in a mass of useless programs.
Yes. I guess. Actually, its not complete yet. It will print labels and
also delta space beeing added or remove per second. I used it like this to
become aware of the activcity of a worm once. Its serves a purpose in that
it demonstate the progressbar. (It was the test app for implementing it)
But basically I agree.
But you are avoiding the point. Which is that rad asm application
programming is achieved for theese two small apps at least. What can you
use a Delphi generated form for ? Nothing as well. You need to write code
to make it useful. This takes just as much time, for same application, as
it took writing this demo. Actually it take longer time. You had to write
the GUI first :-))))))))))
> If I want to use a graphical program which requires user interaction
> to get the free disk space, I can also use the Windows Explorer.
> No need for an external 250 kByte (!!!!) program.
Thats the source code, its inside the app. Its no more than about 70K,
really. The Delphi version would be 600K, even without the source code.
But of course, I agree otherwise. Its a testcase for sure. But if you dont
see my point here, you should consider that those 600K is redundant for
many generated delphi apps as well.
The MMExBlue which is a very useful mediaplayer, and can be used by
absolute newbie enduser, is also from the same startup. Its also a demo,
and is actually useful. When its completed it will include a peer to peer
filesharing module, with chat possibilities for under 200K of actuall code
(theres a lot of dead, unused code that can be deleted in there).
> And if I need
> a program to report the free disk space as part of a batch
> installation routine, then this has to be a commandline tool
> and not GUI program. And such a program you can write in a few
> lines:
Maybe so ;-))))))) Only this one below doesnt run here. Just messes up the
screen :-))
Beth
> Randy wrote:
> > Beth wrote:
> > > ...hence, tactics used to maximise programmer "productivity" came to
> > > the fore: "portable source code", "black box libraries", etc....this
has
> > > lead to "bloatware"...
> >
> > No, the thing that has lead to bloatware is the insistence on the
user's
> > part that their software have more features than the "Jones' software".
But isn't that an industry "self-fulfilling prophecy" rather than a true
"user demand"?
You know: Swamp the stores with "version 2"...brand new users can't buy
anything else because they don't stock anything else...these move to
"version 2"...the stores threaten others with "it will be obselete!
Obselete, I tell you! Change now!" (in a grim-reaper-dressed "Ghost of
Christmas Future" kind of way: "Buy version 2 for tiny Tim, Scrooge, or
this grave you see before you shall have your name carved into it!"
;)...people "panic" and move to "version 2"...well, lo and behold! Now that
everyone's been "herding" and "panicked" onto "version 2" (and the store
isn't even stocking "version 1", so, even if you _wanted_ it, how can you
get it?), there's few sales on "version 1"...they discontinue it and make
it "obselete"...then a year or two later, repeat the cycle...
A demonstration of this is Microsoft's "5 year rule"...basically, Microsoft
retract "support" for each of their OSes, 5 years after release...
Now, first, if this is a "reaction" to user "demands" then how on Earth can
they declare when it'll be "obselete" _BEFORE_ they've even released it!
The way the "5 year rule" works is simple...if Longhorn is released this
year - 2005 - then it'll be officially "obselete" (and Microsoft then
refuse to "support" it in any way) in the year 2010...just add 5...as
simple as that...
It's a "prediction"? Then it's not a terribly good one because, for Windows
98, they've had to _break_ the "5 year rule" and extended the
"support"...why? Because, completely _contrary_ to this "users are in a mad
rush to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade!" theory, far too many people _WEREN'T_
upgrading from 98...a sufficiently large number weren't upgrading to be
significant to Microsoft to "extend" the "support"...the retraction of
"support", in truth, is a "threat" to force "constant forward motion"...if
everyone refused to "upgrade", then they'd be forced - as in the Windows 98
example - to stay "supporting" it, otherwise they'd be cutting off their
own nose despite their face...while 90% of users are still on Win98, they'd
"retract" all "support"? No, they wouldn't...they'd be risking their
"monopoly"...
Sir Bill has used this "poker bluff" repeatedly to make himself a
billionaire...developing software for Apple (for their original Mac) ready
for "launch date", Bill used another "threat": We will not provide you any
of the software...Apple panicked at a "launch party" where they couldn't
actually show the machine doing much of anything because there were no
software applications and they didn't call his "bluff"...worse, part of the
"extra terms and conditions" Sir Bill demanded? "Some" rights to Apple GUI
technologies...
He "threatens" retracting his software and then people panic that it might
disappear and leave them in a terrible situation so "surrender" to his
demands...but, really, people should start calling that "bluff"...a
software company that refuses to sell any of its software? You can't keep
up that "spoilt brat" attitude for long...unfortunately, Bill will keep
getting away with it because most people are not "wise" to his "poker
bluff" tactics...and there's no way to get this message across and for
everyone to believe it, in order to get the whole world to "call that
bluff"...so, he'll get away with it...
Users _DO_ want _better_ features...but they don't want "random, completely
arbitrary features, so long as there are numerically more features than
before"...
The "feature bloat" is caused by one thing...and it's not users "demanding"
it...the industry wants to make profits...if it did this in the more
"honest" way, then they would release a good application and then the next
upgrade may not happen for many years (and the "new version" isn't simply,
unlike Windows, a case of "better graphics, USB support and that's it" -
after all, why exactly do you need to buy a boxed copy of that? Microsoft
can upload the "new bitmaps" onto "Windows Update" or a few DLLs for the
"USB support"...it _could_ all be done by "Windows Update" but that's free
and they want to make money...so, they draw a "line in the sand" and it's
at those points they change the graphics to make it look "brand new" and
sell it under a new title with a new logo - but an actual fundamentally
significant improvement of functionality)...
But that doesn't make too much money...so, they turn what should be like
buying a house into what's more like buying your weekly
groceries..."threaten" things going "obselete"...bring out "new versions"
that aren't appreciable that different from what you've already bought
(let's look at it...Windows 95...+ USB support + IE built-in...= Windows
98...umm, did ME have _ANYTHING_ new to it at all from 98? All superficial,
anyway...ME -> XP? An illusion, really...XP is simply 2K "in disguise"
(though not disguised too well when 2K binaries are totally compatible and
it can even be found identifying itself as the same as 2K)...hence, really,
they are just "herding" the "home" users over to the "business" NT kernel
and have just added "backwards compatibility" support...of course, this
"support" isn't a "new feature" at all...it's a "must make sure there's no
barriers to forcing people to upgrade to XP" feature _ONLY_ to support
their "forward constant motion" plans...if you didn't "upgrade" then you
would need no "backwards compatibility feature"...in short, just like the
ten years before 95 (where they remained "16-bit" far too long - on the
"home" front (the fact OS/2 and NT weren't like that shows they _could_
have it...because, in fact, _THEY DID_! But only sold it to "business" ;) -
despite the hardware having been perfectly capable for a decade...this also
sheds light on "commercial software develops faster"...not by Windows
standards, it doesn't! It takes them 10 years to write a new OS...that
easily sounds like _less_ than "hobbyist" rates of production (accounted
for by the "extra work" needed to create the in-between "false progress"
versions ready for release)...the "versions" in between have all been
superficial modifications to make it _look_ "different" for the purposes of
duping users into believing they aren't doing what they actually are doing:
Paying for something they already own)...
Users don't care for "technology for technology's sake" (well, "geeks" do
but they are a minor fraction of the "audience" here)...users just want to
get their work done...in fact, the less "nonsense" from the OS in doing so,
the better (features that "enable" work to be done, great...features that
are never used and "bloat" and slow it down and get in the way of doing
work because it's all far, far too confusing: Nope, no-one wants
that...absolutely no-one...even Microsoft would wish that upon
themselves...they put it in because it "justifies" the next version so they
can sell it to make profits...as simple as that)...
You're usually the one with the statistics, Randy...what are the statistics
about _USER PRODUCTIVITY_ since all this "feature bloat" has been
increasingly introduced? Well, lo and behold, it's getting _WORSE_, despite
the bold advertising claims, used to push people onto the new
version...there's "memetic reality" - a constructed self-delusion of "how
we would like things to be" - and then there's the _real thing_...a
"connection" between the two, apparently, is not always necessary when
"profits" are involved ;)...
It is an industry "self-fulfilling prophecy" to keep pushing this "constant
forward motion" hard because you can double, triple your profits by selling
some "technology" in "baby steps" over a decade with minor "version
enhancements" rather than just sell a new version when there is a
_significant_, fundamental change and improvement to the product...this
isn't merely a personal opinion, it has been investigated as charges in law
courts against Microsoft (typically, the ones that ended up as "out of
court settlement" that we never heard the court's verdict on this
practice)...
Users "demand" it? Well, they "demand" getting something worth the money
they hand over...they are _EXPECTING_ actually better software...what they
are typically supplied is an "illusion" of this...and all the "extra
features" are a "blind them with science" tactic (because most users don't
really know what 90% of these claims on the side of the box actually refer
to), to "convince" them that they really are buying a "significantly
improved" product...once bought, though, actually listen to them _voice
their opinions_ on what they bought...if you don't outrightly "hate"
Microsoft, then you're certainly "disappointed" in what they do...I have
met _ONE_ person who defended them and was enthusiastic (who suspiciously
has an incredibly detailed knowledge of NT kernels, that one wonders if
he's an ex-employee or being "hired" by Microsoft to "be on the look-out"
for the "next Linux" developing on the OS development groups ;)...and
challenging that enthusiasm demonstrates no actual solid logical base for
it, anyway...indeed, comes across more like some kind of S&M "fetish" or
something...enjoying being pissed upon by contemptuous Microsoft
policies)...
One has to be careful of "industry theories" from the perspective that, for
instance, the industry is grossly unlikely to suddenly say: "you know what,
we should make ourselves less money because, really, it isn't
justified"...or a developer declare: "There's too many developers here...so
you should fire me in order to do things properly"...money is a poweful
motivator and it motivates as many (if not more) _LIES_ and "self-delusion"
than it does "competitive progress"...it has to work this way, of
course...but, as always, the presumption of something that's 100%
"advantages" and 0% "disadvantages"? Not anything that exists in this
universe, sorry...money isn't the root of all evil - that _IS_ an
exaggeration - but it's certainly not the root of "only good" either...
The industry as a whole might not have quite the same levels of "contempt"
that Microsoft specifically do...but we're all "motivated" in the same
direction, so to speak...indeed, Microsoft are "king of the pile" almost
certainly because they were the ones _without_ "conscience" or "guilt" to
push it all the way "to the max"...right up to 11...an unfortunate "strange
attractor" in the system we build for ourselves, it does actually favour
"bastards", so long as they are smart and devious enough to "get away with
it" (because so long as they remain _legal_ "bastards" - and even then,
money can "oil the wheels" that various things are "overlooked" - they are
allowed to be that way as much as they like)...
> I don't doubt that this is true, but I don't think it tells
> the whole story.
It doesn't...now that Randy has brought this "jigsaw piece" into the
picture, it brings the topic around for me to introduce another "jigsaw
piece" above that not all of this "progress" is actually "demanded" by
users but is rather "persuaded" for "constant forward motion" because,
simply, you only make money when you _SELL_ the software, so you want to be
_selling_ as much software as possible...a simple "trick" is, therefore, to
basically sell the same thing over and over with "minor modifications" and
"more features" - pretending in the glossy adverts that it's some kind of
"revolution", not "minor evolution", that you're selling - to keep
generating that money...the "dealers" also make their money that way, so
they support you on the other end of things in ceasing to stock the older
software and to "push" the newer software for you in the stores...
Not that this is any "conspiracy" (well, looking at Microsoft's "Halloween"
documents, perhaps it _IS_ a "conspiracy" in their case ;)...it's just the
natural "strange attractor" to this "chaotic system"...that is, dealers
make money selling software, developers make money selling
software...marketing agencies make money _pushing_ the sale of
software...it's all _pushing hard_ to "sell software"...the user is
"swamped" by various "constant forward motion" tricks (sometimes, of
course, they are willingly going along...I mean, sometimes the software
developers actually _DO_ have something worth paying money to "upgrade"
to...but, often, this is a "forced" thing...one needs to not solely "look
at the figures" but also "sample" the user opinions voiced...you know,
sure, they bought it but did they actually _LIKE_ what they bought? It's
not solely programmers and "technical" users who voice anger (and sometimes
hatred) at Microsoft or joke / complain about the "constant push forward"
tactics and that they _DON'T_ feel they really are getting much of anything
that useful out of it :)...
You know, if I set up a "system" where you get $50 every time you jump in
the air, it's not unusual to find big crowds jumping up and down...not an
actual indication that jumping up and down is a "good" or "right" thing,
it's just a way to make a living under this kind of "system"...it's a
"strange attractor", so to speak, to borrow terminology from "chaos
theory"...systems inevitably have their "natural attractors"...things tend
to "settle down" in certain "patterns" (oh, and the word "strange" only
refers to the fact that in "chaotic" systems, these attractors aren't
necessarily "simple" or "obvious"...put them into a graph and the shapes
can look rather "strange"...hence the name...with a "simple" non-chaotic
system, the "attractor" might be obvious...some "all the 'virtual ants'
following these simple rules, all end up gathered together in the top-left
corner of the screen" conclusion...you can even work that out pretty easily
from looking at the "rules"...but with "chaotic systems", the same thing
inevitably happens, it's just not "simple" and the "shape" of this
"attractor" not "obvious" at all...but it's the same thing...indeed, the
underlying point in "chaos theory" is that these "systems" _LOOK_ "random"
and "unpredictable" but they aren't really...they just become "far too
complex" to defy attempts at "prediction" and come out _looking
"random"...they actually ain't...there is no inherent difference between
"order" and "chaos" (this is the "chaos theory revelation", so to
speak...don't go by "appearances" because they _are_ the same thing, just
poor measurement, complexity, interaction, etc. all conspire to make it "go
wild" sometimes ;))...
Hence, these things aren't "conspiracies" and you _DON'T_ need any
"conspiracy" (not to say these don't actually happen from time to
time...the Holocaust is a clear "conspiracy"...the neo-con agenda of
"control through fear to 'unite' the American people against the 'chaos' of
the liberal society" is also another "conspiracy", though being "on-going",
some people refuse to see it)...but when a number of "personal agendas" all
match up, they create a "thrust" in a certain direction...everyone is
making their money through "selling software", so the "thrust" becomes "get
these users to buy things! Buy! Buy! I need to feed my kids, darn it! BUY
SOMETHING!!"...and, on the "making a living", then who can blame them? BUT,
this doesn't mean that it's a "reality" that we actually really do "need"
to buy these things...very often, we don't need to do any such thing at
all...but the media and advertising agencies create a climate of
"consumerism" to constantly convince of this false "need" to "buy" all the
time...
They all make their money that way...you can't really "blame" them...but
this does not translate that users "demand" this or "need" it...they get
it, like it or not...
> I don't think that the reasons Beth gives
> provide a complete explanation, either.
Well, it wasn't meant to be some "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Entire
Universe" or anything in one post...even if *ahem* the size of my posts
sometimes make it look that way ;)...
> Sure, "portability"
> is going to increase the code size, but to the extent that
> it provides "functionallity", and isn't just a "mantra",
> that isn't what I'd call "bloat".
Neither is it what I'd call "bloat" either...the distinction hinges on that
"isn't just a mantra" clause...
After all, with LuxAsm, I'm proposing "modular architecture" (that's NOT
going to be "flat", "specific" and "simple" but, for the "integration" of
the project (and as "foundations"), I do believe it's _NEEDED_ to make sure
the project can reach its objectives :)...we also have the "Unified
Model" - which really annoys the "master of specific", Rene...so it's not
meeting his "specific" approval - which is inherently placing a highly
generic abstraction tool (capable of being used - especially with macros -
to create very "HLL" HLLisms ;) _NATIVELY_ into the syntax of the tool
itself...again, I consider this _NEEDED_ (that's why I put it in) in order
to reach the objective of simultaneously pleasing "real assembly" coders as
much as HLA users (that is HLA as in "high-level assembler" as a
_category_, not solely Randy's tool...hence, yes, HLA but also MASM, TASM,
etc. :)...without - this is what I tried to "delicately balance" - this
"compromising" one for the other...make it all 100% "user-defined" then the
_programmer_ writes their code in the "style" they like and it should
Hopefully result in both being able to use it in their preferred "style"
without this ever "getting in the way" of other people using the "other
style"...not just that you aren't being "forced" to do any of it...but the
"extension" I've also added is that you're also not "forced" to do it in
any particular way, either...it's all "user-defined"...
Hence, in practice, we can see (as well as the fact that I have said this
many times too...nearly every time I criticise "portability for the sake of
portability", I pop in the "condition" that I'm not criticising the
practice itself but that I'm criticising the _ABUSE_ of that
practice)...that I don't have a problem with "abstraction" or other such
things...indeed, that it requires "abstract thinking" to even notice these
things...
> "Black box libraries"
> *can* be bloated, but not necessarily so. There *is* a
> difference between libraries, and a "concise" library would
> be just as effective in reducing developer time as a
> "bloated" one.
Ah, but the point is not so much the "library" part, as the "black box"
part...and it's not that it's "inherently bad" (whatever Rene says ;)...
It's all to do with what Randy says in his radio interview: The difference
comes when the programmer _CARES_...
And the problem can exist that the "black box library" is employed exactly
because the programmer _DOESN'T CARE_...but, true, it is a _symptom_, not a
"cause"...when you see the smoke, it's usually coming from a fire...
Plus, there is something to note about "black box"...in order to
"modularise" and "encapsulate", this typically demands
"indirection"...every "indirection" is working through a "proxy"...going
"via", not direct...and, simply, you know the equation, yes? "speed =
distance / time"...well, works for "logic" distances, as well as physical
ones...the computer runs at a set "speed", it has a certain "distance"
(measured in "instructions to complete" rather than miles or kilometers but
it can still be thought of as a "distance to travel")...thus, it's going to
take such-and-such a time...if you "indirect", then you increase the
"distance" but the "speed" does not change (that is, the 3GHz machine keeps
ticking away at 3 billion (American) ticks a second...indeed, the only
speed changes are _downward_ - waiting for I/O devices - never
upward)...hence, the "time" takes longer...
It's a minor thing in a single instance (usually) but it's an
_accumulative_ thing...indirection to indirection to indirection to
indirection, then loop back round and do it all again...and again...and
again...you need the "indirection" to keep the "black box" "decoupled" from
the other code...you know, you can't jump straight into the other
module...you call via a "jump table" to an entry-point that makes a
"transition" to a "layer" which communicates to a "library" (with another
call via a jump table to an entry-point that makes its own "transition"
which returns) which returns to call another "library" (which calls via a
jump table to an entry-point which makes a "transition" and returns) and
then returns...
Of course, there is nothing "inherent" about "black box" or "libraries"
that demands things work this way...BUT, inevitably, that's actually how
it's working...
Basically, let's "anthropomorphise" this...you're working in a "team" of
people...each "team member" does some work...BUT the other team members
actually _DON'T_ know what they are doing...indeed, it's a "secret"
("information hiding")...perhaps you need a hammer ("printf") to do your
work and so do they...but you don't talk to each other, so you both might
go and buy two hammers when only one is really needed..."team members" are
only permitted to know what the others are doing at certain "key points" of
interaction between them...
In such a situation, how do make sure they are working to maximum
efficiency? _CAN_ you ensure this when you have this "information hiding"
secret that no-one knows what the other is doing?
Well, it is at least "slightly possible" from the perspective of one person
having an "overview" of the whole process and co-ordinating the "team" to
work efficiently (they don't necessarily need to know everything the other
people are doing, so long as _someone_ has sat down and worked this out
:)...indeed, you could think of this as one of those "top secret" military
projects where they get commercial companies to build the various "parts"
but as each has no idea what the others are doing and are under "secret
orders" then only the military themselves know what all the bits are
destined to be used for (some new "fighter plane" design or
something...like the radar-invisible Stealth bomber / fighter...or, if you
believe those "flying saucer" fanatics (the Earth-bound ones, not "space
aliens" ones...though, the "Roswell" folks would insist that "space aliens"
told them how to build these UFOs ;), the "flying saucer" craft they are
building at Area 51...oh, and boiling an egg? 3 minutes, of course ;)...
But if the programmer doesn't care - doesn't take that "overview" - then
these things can't be expected to necessarily work well together...
It's not the "cause", true enough...but it's often a "symptom"...and, of
course, there's "theory" (where it's "not so bad") and then there's
_practice_ (where it can often get bad, as libraries are used to access
libraries which use libraries to call libraries and the whole thing
"bloats"...not because any particular "library" itself is necessarily bad
but because the programmer has stopped taking that "overview" and caring
about what's going on...
> It seems to me that to account for the size of "modern
> apps", I have to assume that needed/desired features are
> being implemented in a "bloated" fashion, and thoughtlessly
> pasted onto already "bloated" code.
Yes; Because you have to think about how modern instruction sets can do
more (more "addressing modes", atomic single instruction "exchange", etc.)
in a single instruction than those older 8-bit instruction sets could
do...the machine has more things "offloaded" from the CPU too...and _code_
is actually a typically _very compact_ thing...
It just doesn't seem right that _code_ (as in _instructions_) for some not
terribly complicated "feature" is bloated the size by 1MB or
something...that's a _lot_ in the physical code terms...but these
applications seem to be throwing away MBs and MBs on "extra features"...
It's not, of course, possible to "generalise" because of all the different
applications with different "features"...other than to say that it
"intuitively" doesn't seem right...doesn't seem right at all...
> This *may* be
> intentional - the "average software consumer" may think that
> a program that takes 3 CDs to install is a "better value"
> than one that fits on a floppy, even if the functionallity
> and "feature set" is identical.
Mind you, though they may want to make their software seem "better", this
can only extend so far...what I mean is, if it's 1 CD rather than 3 CD then
the _price_ can be lower...and I think a user will find a lower price
"better value"...
After all, even if it fits on a floppy, they could put it on a CD
_anyway_...just waste most of the space on it...why not? The CD typically
doesn't have anything else on it...and, to be honest, it's probably cheaper
to buy CDs than floppies these days, anyway...less materials, easier
construction...not that this is any great cost, anyway...as think how cheap
blank floppies and CDs are to consumers and we ain't buying "in bulk" of a
few thousand they will be buying in (which reduces it further: "economy of
scale" :)...plus, they are getting it "wholesale" rather than "retail" too,
I guess...no, this _ISN'T_ a big cost at all...
So, sure, it fits on a floppy but stick it on a CD, anyway...you can put a
better "picture" on the CD...they, to be honest, are more "convenient"
too...you don't have to fill up the CD, in order to give the user the
"impression" that it's "better value" than a floppy disk...
And, you can "change strategies" too, anyway...if it only takes up a
floppy, then make a "compilation" of small programs and put them all on one
CD...now, if the users sees "DOOM, DOOM 2, DOOM 3 plus 27 mission packs
(and bonus Space Invaders, Asteroids and 100 card games)" all on _ONE_ CD?
Well, I think no-one's going to then think 3 CDs for just the one game is
"better value", eh?
Plus there are other simple tricks...put on the cover: "New
Supersqueeze(tm) compression technology! Exclusive to this CD! Squeezes 3
CDs' worth of data on 1 CD!!"...wow! It's got 3 CDs' worth of data on just
the 1 CD because of "better technology"? That means I'm getting the "better
value" of 3 CDs _AND_ it's all on just 1 CD (much more convenient :) _AND_
they must be "geniuses" to be able to come up with this really clever new
"technology" that can do all this! (It's just programmed properly - no
"bloat" - and ZIPped up with ZLib or something...that's all...but your
users will think you're the greatest genisues of "compression technology"
there ever was! ;)...
[ Did you ever download that "the product" demo thing? Basically, it's a
64KB file but it uncompacts itself, then it "dynamically creates" all the
graphics and sound...and manages to compress what's effectively 9GB of data
into *ahem* a 64KB file...30,000:1 compression! 15 minutes of high quality
music on just one of the demos alone...now, if anyone asks me what is
"better value" then these guys win hands down without any hesitation...and
it's not just being "technically" impressed by it...I let some
"non-technical" friends know about the demos and could stick _tons of them_
on a single floppy disk (about 23 of them if all just 64KB big :)...yet, it
provides _HOURS_ of demo "entertainment" of a very good quality...they were
jaw-droppingly impressed at all of this...and, ever since, I've never had
to explain why I keep complaining about "bloody Microsoft!"
thereafter...they now get the point perfectly well...they've seen what
_could_ be possible...that the problem is not their hardware but the
fracking bloated software they are running on top of it...remember, we all
know this but this is "revelation" to many an "average user", who always
thinks it's that they didn't buy the more expensive processor - the
hardware - not that the software ain't using it properly...well, it makes
sense from everything else they encounter...if the picture is crap on your
TV? Well, that's "bad reception"...a "hardware" problem...if the car won't
start on a cold morning? Well, that's an ignition problem...a "hardware"
problem...when they see that the window is just sitting there hanging,
unpainted, unresponsive while the disk is whirring? Ah, must be a "hardware
problem"...the disk can't be fast enough or something...need to buy a
better disk...and, of course, if they phone the "support line", what do
they say: "hmm, yes, you need to buy more RAM and a better disk
drive"...they "confirm" it all...it's a _cruel_ illusion because the user
is basically being _deceived_ into thinking that their "hardware is no
good" when it's perfectly good...but just isn't being used
correctly...indeed, perhaps Rene is at least correct to start bringing up
words like "moral" and "ethical"...I mean, if we willingly indulge
ourselves in supporting and continuing this _deception_, do we deserve to
sleep snuggly at night? Think of those parents working hard in order to
_only just_ be able to pay for a reasonable PC for their kid's
"education"...then they are _scammed_ to buy this thing (which isn't
needed) and then convinced that their "hardware is not good enough"...and
they both work _overtime_ and stuff like that, in order to
"upgrade"...because they can see their kid likes and has an "aptitude" for
computers (the computers teacher at school says so too :), so they want to
"encourage" their kid to get on in life...to do what they like
doing...starting to feel like shit yet? To screw them out of every last
penny _unnecessarily_, just to afford what for yourself? A bigger "plasma
TV" or something you don't really need and you know you don't really
need....but the truth is that this probably _IS_ a "true story" many times
out there...but, on the other hand, if you do the best job possible and are
selling software on the fact that it _factually is_ "good" then you've
nothing to be guilty for because you've not let anyone down...certainly not
yourself either (yeah, go on, feel smug...you've _earnt_ it, so why
not?)...then, in that case, get richer than Captain Kirk...honest day's
work...you've _raised_ yourself and others, not let anyone down at
all...ever see those Spiderman movies? This is the "hero" in everyone:
"with great power comes great responsibility"...people who take that on -
without fear, without "cheating", without "avoidance" - and triumph are
"little heroes" :) ]
And all this doesn't quite add up with "reviews", anyway...what I'm
thinking is, if Half-life 2 came on a CD rather than a DVD (they squeeze it
into a CD)...then I don't think anyone would think "this is not good
value"...but they are going to be judging it by magazine reviews, "preview
movies" on the website, friend's "word of mouth" and so forth...I can't see
any user picking up a CD of, say, DOOM 3 and then throwing it away: "Huh!
Must be total crap because it's not on a 27 DVD boxset format!"...
On the contrary, people with only CD drives and not a DVD player (okay,
very few these days probably :), which will be saying "Great! I can still
play this without upgrading to a DVD player!"...
I mean, at the end of the day, it's quite simple...all these "illusions"
might be "clever" but they can't beat something that actually _IS_ "better
value", "superior work", "high performance", "small footprint"...rather
than just "pretending" to be so...in the words of Vic Reeves, "you can't
compete with concrete!"...
> I recall reading a post -
> long ago - from the author of a "password recovery" program,
> intended (nominally) to recover encrypted files to which the
> owner had forgotten the password (for some specific word
> processor, IIRC). He stated that his algorithm was so fast
> that he'd added a delay, so that his customers would think
> the program was "doing something".
Missing a trick, really...people ought to learn a touch of
"marketing"...simply market it as "the FASTEST recovery program on Earth!
No program does it faster!"...then leave the "delay" out...
Study "P.T. Barnum"...when his show was crap, he actually _SOLD IT ON THAT
FACT_: "Come see this terrible show! See how fake the illusions are!
Witness how hilariously bad the magician is!"...and so forth...you know, if
it's bad, then sell it as a "parody"...if it's short, then sell it as
"minimalist art"...if it's incomprehensible, sell it as a "mystery"! A
"riddle to be solved" ;)
The customers will see that it's "doing something" from the fact that the
recovered files have re-appeared, for Pete's sake...sell it as being "super
fast!" and then they won't be in the slightest way
"disappointed"...basically, the Barnum "trick" is simply to "prepare"
people for what to expect...when your "show" meets that expectation (or
beats it), they are impressed by it...
Anyway, the most obvious "trick" of them all is to put up a
_prompt_...something like "file XYZ has been found, shall we recover
(Y/N)?"...then the "delay" is the customer's own reaction...
Nope, this is just stupid to make your program seem _WORSE_ by adding a
"delay" into it...I mean, if the files weren't there and then you run the
program and the files are recovered (and presumes that you're "recovering"
the files because you, you know, want to _USE_ them or something ;)...then
that's all you need to tell the customer it's "doing something"...
Indeed, in a sense, this is just how _BAD_ things have gotten...when
someone does a _GOOD JOB_ then they are "frightened" that because it's so
much better than everyone else's program, they should _RUIN_ it and _MAKE_
it _WORSE_, of all things, so that it doesn't "stand out" as being, you
know, good and fast...?!? People have become so "brain-washed" to expect
slow programs that they are "disorientated" by programs that don't take
forever? Scared that customers will reject programs that _WORK PROPERLY_?!?
This is a demonstration of why this industry problem has gotten so, so
serious that it can't really be "overlooked" anymore...that's just severely
_twisted_...
Now, I understand something like a "dealer" in "luxury items" like sports
cars or perfumes or whatever, delibrately keeping the price high (so it
doesn't come across as "cheap" = "tacky"...you know, it's the standard
"Lottery win" dream: Go out and buy a Ferrari or Porsche with your
millions...so, these things should always actually _delibrately_ remain
"out of reach" so that they stay as "dreams" for people :)...but it's just
_TWISTED_ to ruin the _quality_ of a product to make it "the same as all
the other crap out there"...you know, the customer wants a plasma
TV...quick! Crack the screen and cover it in dirt and pull the power chord
until there's a "loose connection"! "Could I take a look at your hifi
players?"...quick! Pour coffee all over it! Smash up the radio component
with a hammer so it doesn't work!! We can't sell the customer a good
product because it might "look out of place" against all the other crap
around here...
Totally and utterly _TWISTED_...if this is what the industry is coming to,
then it has a _mental disease_...it needs _treatment_ fast...that's not
normal...that's not natural thinking at all...if this is what the industry
is coming to - delibrately creating _crap_ products, just because they are
"frightened" of "looking out of place" amongst the "rogue's gallery" of
utter crap - then these points aren't minor things to make...the industry
must be diseased and rotting to think in these terms...to be creating
people who think this is "normal" thinking...something that they "should"
do...it needs a "cure" and it needs one _FAST_...and, no, this time, I
think we _shouldn't_ be adding any "delay" for that "cure" to come ;)...
> > Money talks.
>
> Yes, and what the "money spenders" like (apparently) might
> not match what someone who actually *knows* something about
> software would like.
No, sorry...I just don't buy this crap at all...and "crap" it is...
It's all "self-fulfilling prophecy"...developers, as noted, are delibrately
putting in a "delay" to make a program _WORSE_ and then offering it to
customers...I bet if you _ASKED_ the customer: "Should I unnecessarily
delay the program?", then they'd say "huh?!? Are you mad? You were
seriously going to delay it for no good reason? Why on Earth did you think
I wanted to be slowed down? Look, I can tell it's working from the fact
that my recovered files have returned...that's what it's supposed to do,
the fact that it's clearly happened tells me that it worked...the 'delay'
tells me nothing"...
The industry wants to sell software (that's where money is made)...it's NOT
about what the "customer wants"...indeed, if it was, then we'd simply be
_ASKING THEM_ what they want...I mean, they aren't going to object to being
listened to for making better software...
But, no, instead, as the industry _wants_ to hear "add more features! add
more features! Doesn't matter what they are! Just add more features so
there's a new version I can spend more money on!"...so it convinces itself
that this is what users want...
But they don't...
And there's a simple way to prove this to your own satisfaction...find
"average users" then _ASK THEM_...of course, do it properly with "unbiased"
questions...
I _did_ try this out before and the suggestion of "faster operation" / "no
'please wait' messages" / "faster loading of programs" was _UNIVERSALLY
APPROVED_ (not a single objector to it at all...logical enough, though, why
would anyone _want_ a program to run more slowly than it needs to? Only
"twisted" people who get "frightened" that their programs are doing a good
job (?!?) ;)...contravertially for this discussion, there was _NOT_ any
significant call for "more features" at all in any of those I asked...or,
at least, the point was that "more features" _ONLY_ rated when it was
suggested that they were "useful features"...
On the contrary, the industry has been trying to sell people the "universal
device" which has all the MP3 player, TV, video phone, text messaging,
personal organiser, calculator, tea-maker and so forth...only "geeky"
people ever buy them...because people prefer the _SIMPLE_ concept of "one
device, one purpose"...
The "3G" phones are having a _HARD TIME_ being shifted...and many were
trying to blame "technical problems put people off buying it"...ummm, NO!
Because the people who haven't bought "3G phones" would _HAVE NO IDEA_ that
the "network went down" last Tuesday...you only find out such things _once
you've already bought_...
It's a _MYTH_...it's an "urban legend" that the industry "self-deludes"
itself with...
It works like this: One makes money buy selling software...someone gets the
clever idea of: "hey! If I just add on two extra features, change the
bitmaps then I can sell it all over again and market it as 'new and
improved'...most users will fall for this"...so they do it and they,
indeed, "hype" well and sell more copies of something that isn't really
substantially improved at all from the last version...this person _KNOWS_
that it's an "illusion" and a "scam"...they've _delibrately_ chosen to do
it...but when they are successful, everyone asks "what is the secret of
your success?"...well, the developer ain't going to reply: "By
contemptuously deceiving my users with an illusion that things are better
and new when, really, they ain't"...not least, the developer _can't_ say
that _publicly_...their future customer might be listening in on the
interview, after all...they want to be able to "get away" with the trick
once more...that won't work if they admit openly that it's a
"trick"...others thus _COPY_ what they see...why, look, if Gill Bates is
successful with this strategy then it must be "what customers want"...we
should do this too...
And then it becomes this grand "myth": Customers want random, arbitrarily
"more features" so long as it is numerically more than the last version and
the bitmaps are different...
Now - STOP! - apply logic..._WHY_ on Earth would a customer want that? You
know, they would want it for a _REASON_, yes? What is the logical _REASON_
that they want "more features" for no useful purpose? Why do they want to
be confused with too many buttons and options?
Ever helped out a "clueless newbie" with their computer? Do you know what
causes all of their troubles? _TOO MANY_ buttons..._TOO MANY_
"options"..._TOO MANY_ "features"...it confuses the hell out of them...I
don't blame them...it often confuses the hell out of me too and I'm
supposed to "know" about this stuff...
And, as I say, the matter _CAN_ easily be settled...construct a proper
_unbiased_ set of simple questions to ask users about "what they want" and
then see what the results are...one thing that might surprise is that the
"wants" _DON'T_ differ that vastly from what "technical" users want...the
only really difference is technical people say "I don't want automatic"
while the "newbies" say "automatic would be nice" (but, even then, they
don't want things so "automatic" that they have no idea what's going on)...
And this "abstraction helps them"? That's Sandra Bullocks too...I often go
and help "newbies" with their computer problems...and it's amazing how the
things that supposedly "help" do the _complete opposite_...for instance,
they put in the CD and suddenly everything is running automatically and
they are like "no! Stop! Why are doing that? I didn't want you to do that!
How do I stop it?"...
Despite what Microsoft think is "useful" and "helpful", I found that if I
made a series of "shortcuts" to each individual drive (labelling them with
"hard drive", "floppy disk", "DVD drive" and then one "icon" to open up
their internet connection and so forth :) then turned off "autoplay", it
was _MUCH MORE USEFUL_ to the "newbies"...exactly like it's much more
useful to me - it's what I have too - because it's much more logical...
If you want to play a DVD then put the DVD into the DVD player...then
double-click on the DVD icon I've created on the desktop...there, that's
it...
And they are perfectly happy with this...users are NOT stupid...they are
simply _CONFUSED_ by all this "autoplay abstraction" nonsense...you know,
they put a DVD in and it starts playing...no, no...I don't want you playing
now...they hit the "close" button...right, okay, _now_ I want to play
you...ummm, there's no "icon" for the DVD player...how do I start this? All
this has done is play things when they didn't want it to play...and then,
when they do, the means to be able to do that has been "abstracted" away...
Look, it's on the front of the box...there, see? A DVD player...it has
"DVD" written on it...in order to play a DVD, the user has _GOT TO KNOW_
which slot is the DVD player and how to put a DVD into the DVD player...
So, as the user _HAS TO KNOW_ what slot is the DVD player in order to use
it...and it's a _PHYSICAL_, _VISIBLE_ thing right there in front of their
nose...how on Earth is it "useful" to "hide" this in an "abstraction"? It
isn't...this is not only "nannying" and highly patronising...it is so much
so that it defies all logic...the user does not find it "helpful", they
find it vastly confusing...they fracking _KNOW_ what a DVD is and which
slot is the DVD player! If they didn't know this, then there's no fracking
way they could ever actually play their DVD movies, right? You can't wave
the disc around in front of the monitor and pray it'll work...you've _GOT
TO KNOW_ which is the DVD player and you've _GOT TO KNOW_ how to put it in
because that's a _PHYSICAL_ thing...once they know which _PHYSICAL_ thing -
that they can plain see right there in front of them on the front of the
box - is the DVD player, what is the point of "hiding" this from them on
the desktop? That just confuses them because they can see the _PHYSICAL_
player right there but they can't see anything on the screen that
corresponds to the player to click on...
_ASK_ the users...go _HELP_ the users with their problems...the truth is,
what they want does NOT that vastly differ from what you'd logically expect
(_IF_ you are in possession of any logic at all ;)...
> Money talks in another way, too:
> advertising. That has to be a factor in what people buy...
> or use. If Windows and Linux were compared on the basis of
> "users per advertising dollar spent", I'll bet Linux would
> look pretty good!
Agreed; I did, a while back, suggest that perhaps something like Linux
might actually try selling itself at a "modest" price (perhaps as
"shareware"...those who really can't afford it could *ahem* just kind of
"overlook"...those that can...well, come on, pay up! ;)...and this isn't
for "profit" or "wages" (although, if any developer _were_ to "fork out" on
something resources for the project, then they could be "compensated" back
:)...but is put into a "pot"...if you like, it's not the developer's
money...it's the "project's" money...this could be used to take out adverts
in magazines or TV or whatever...to fund "support"...that kind of thing...
Now, bringing "money" into "open source" would alter the "dynamic"...you
know, money has a strange way of changing people's behaviour (just check
out how families suddenly start ripping each other to shreds over an
"inheritance" from a dead relative...and, bizarrely, they do this even when
the amount is next-to-nothing...all that "I was closer to them than you
were!" / "You call yourself a relative! Where were you?" / "I was with my
own family...we _need_ the money, unlike you greedy lot, because I have a
family to support...that's why I didn't get in contact all those years, I
was working to make enough money for my family" / "A likely story! You're
just trying to steal it all when everyone knows I was the 'favourite'" /
"So? None of you came to visit her in her final days at the home! I was
there every day" / "No, you weren't! You only turned up on weekends! I did
visit and the nurse told me so!"...blah-blah-blah...they fight and
fight...then, in the end, the "inheritance" of only $1000 is shared 10 ways
between them...the family is destroyed forever...well worth $100, eh? ;)...
But it's a "thought", anyway...you know, kind of like how Red Hat
commercially sell Linux...but, instead, the Linux developers themselves did
that kind of thing...then the money is used for "support" and
"advertising"...probably is, what happens if the money generated becomes
more than needed for such things? Perhaps an agreement that anything deemed
"excess" is given to, ooh, the "Tsunami Relief fund" or an AIDS charity or
something?
Ah, it's a possibility...but getting something like that to work in
_practice_, however "nice" it sounds in "theory"...well, I'm not deluded
that it would be "easy" to get this to work, especially when the developers
are on 4 continents or whatever ;)...
> ...
> > "Sure Word is big and bloated. But that's what people
> > want. They won't pay for apps without a lot of features..."
>
> I don't know how big Word actually is,
[ Massive; Especially when you consider it's only a word processor...heck,
it's not even a DTP program, where you'd kind of expect it might be
bigger...there's a _reason_ why it is the "proverbial bloatware" in
everyone's examples ;) ]
> or exactly what
> features it has (I understand that, unless told otherwise,
> it'll execute any macro it encounters, possibly executing
> malicious code - not a feature I'd put on my "must have"
> list, but thats a different argument...)
You know the "proverbial" toolbar button that "makes tea"? If any
application will eventually include the "make tea" toolbar button then
it'll be Word that gets there first...indeed, I haven't seen the latest
version, perhaps it's already got there...put it this way, Word had so many
"features" (90% of which are of "dubious" value...or make you think: "Oh,
for frack sake, if you want to be a DTP package then become a DTP package
and stop trying to this weird "highly extended word-processor" thing ;)
that if someone did say "it now has a 'make tea' button" then this wouldn't
raise an eyebrow or anything...not at all surprising...
Indeed, I'd even say: Microsoft are getting _DESPARATE_ in thinking up "new
features" to constantly "justify" why they need "new versions"...because
they don't, of course...it's just that "constant forward motion"
thing...indeed, they change the file format every version...do they do this
because of "new features"? Nope, they do it just to introduce
"incompatibility" to force people to "upgrade" all the time...
Oh, remember, "Clippy" was one of the "features" of "Office" and
"Word"...have you ever met little old "Clippy" the paperclip? I think this
annoying little pest makes the case all alone about the dubious quality of
how Word features "help" the user, eh? Enough said ;)
> So perhaps Word
> isn't a good one for me to use as an example... but I'll
> take the chance. I don't think anyone is going to write a
> "feature for feature clone" of Word in "carefully
> hand-crafted assembly".
Perhaps not in assembly language but Star Office and Open Office - both
free...while "Office XP" was some £400 on release here...£400? Microsoft
software is the only software that _DEFIES_ the "economy of scale"...being
the most popular software in the entire world (other than Windows in order
to run the darn thing), they should be generating this thing in _massive_
"bulk" to get "bulk discount", "amortised costs" and so forth...on the
contrary, though, Microsoft's "off the shelf" stuff with the largest sales
of any software on the entire planet is almost costing more than "custom
software" (okay, not quite...but it's close when it should, by almost
rights, be "no contest" and a massive division by all "mass-production" /
"economies of scale" arguments) - might not manage "feature for feature"
(but, to be honest, with the amount of useless bloated "features" on Word,
that's a _GOOD THING_) but if had these then you wouldn't in any way miss
"Office"...it can read all their files, do the job just as well...
BUT - here's the point - if there are no "developer time costs", then,
sure, it's going to take longer to develop at a "lower-level" to get the
better quality program...but the whole point is: Still costs
next-to-nothing...this is all "hobby time"...
It's a _change of paradigm_ here...that's kind of the point I was
making...instead of "bloatware" every year or two, there's one "kick arse"
version every 4 or 5 years that has _taken_ that "extra time" to do a far,
far better job...
Yes, it takes more time...but, in "open source", time isn't an expensive
cost anymore...hence, that's the "paradigm shift" itself...release
"versions" less frequently because you are putting _MORE EFFORT_ into each
version...remember, the "commercial" needs the semi-frequent release to
_MAKE MONEY_ to pay all those "developer wages"...again, not applicable to
"open source"...
Okay, not the best example maybe (though, it's more "design" we disagree
with than "implementation") but Rene has put together RosAsm _IN ASSEMBLY
LANGUAGE_ in 5 years (and was doing it single-handedly for a while too...he
has "contributors" now, though :)...this isn't a good enough "rate" for
"competiting" but it's a "hint"...and, as noted, I'm not talking "assembly
language" but just more "low-level programming", "careful programming",
"optimising code" and so forth...you can do it in C...it's more the
"attitude", not the programming language...
If you like, the comparison is: The commercial releases every two years and
adds on "some new features" each time...bloated and tends to get more
"bloated" all the time...they _need_ to release these frequently to make
the money to afford the "developer time" and make a profit...
"Open source" has different costs and priorities...so _should_ "open
source" be otherwise following the exact same commercial assumptions and
practices? Why "release frequently"? Why care about "rushing" because of
"time"? Releasing frequently is needed in commercial development to make
money to afford it all...of course, with "open source", it's kind of
"constantly released" because anyone can dive in to download the source as
it is being developed...but you know what I mean?
The "paradigm shift", in a sense, is to realise that Rene could work on
RosAsm for the next 20 years, if he liked...and they'd still be no
"developer time costs" for him to really worry about...so, how about -
because of the changed "priorities" in "open source" - traded some of that
"rush" for "quality" instead? The idea is instead of "bloatware with some
extra features" every year or two, we have "leanware with fundamentally
improved performance and features" every 4 to 5 years...you see what I
mean? As there is no "developer time costs" to consider then there's the
possibility of thinking more _LONG-TERM_...taking that "extra time" to the
better job...
> Wouldn't have to be all that
> "hand-crafted" - such a thing might be done using the
> high-level features of HLA, for example - not the smallest
> possible code, but not that bad (it's "not so humble" of me
> to have *any* opinion of Randy's code, perhaps... but I do)
Ah, yes...the point is that things have got so "bloated" everywhere else
that even with every possible "bloat" you could try to incur using HLA's
most "HLL" features, it'll still kick the "bloatware" size and
performance...I mean, getting that confession out of Rene might be
impossible but, as "bad" as HLA is in his eyes, it's still not as bad as
using Java or VisualBASIC or whatever instead...doing our _WORST_ with
proper "low-level programming" is still typically going to weigh in better
than the majority of HLLs (C / C++ is an "exception" here because it may be
a "HLL" but it's one with a distinctly "low-level attitude"...indeed, some
call it "medium-level language" to point out this little "exceptional"
place it holds...it is a HLL but it's almost as if it's trying its best NOT
to be as far as it can - except for that "portability" clause it needs to
keep to)...
Indeed, I sometimes tempted to "re-classify" to consider C as being more on
"our side" than the _TRUE_ HLL side...the interpreted Java running
"scripts" on top of "virtual machines" on top of "scripts" type of
nonsense...
> Even using C - in the manner that Herbert suggests: *learn*
> assembly so you understand what you're asking the processor
> to do, *know* your compiler well enough to understand what
> code it will emit (Herbert sometimes neglects to mention
> this part), and then write "thoughtful" C based on that
> knowledge - would do the trick.
I completely agree; I did note that my points were more about "low-level
programming"...in which I would include "thoughtful C"...indeed, C without
the "standard libraries" is just a kind of "machine-independent ASM" in
some regards..."what the compiler does" is somewhat trivial from C to
ASM...indeed, when MASM and HLA introduce their "IF", "WHILE", "PROC" stuff
then they, in fact, almost make the "jump" up to what C does in reverse
(but without the "portability")...
> "Just suppose" that someone wrote a "feature for feature
> clone" of Word - not necessarily squeezing out every byte,
> as the "smallest code" contestants do, but with *some*
> thought to writing "reasonably concise" code - *some*
> thought to avoiding obvious bloat... Any guess - just a
> rough estimate - of how the size would compare? I'd bet on
> "half" - possibly much less - without even knowing how big
> Word is now. Do you think I'm wrong?
No; You're basically "getting the point" generally...
Redo Word with "careful programming" instead...no, as you say, not
necessarily "all in ASM"...but you're not just grabbing any old "bloatware
libraries"...you're taking your time to select things carefully to do a
_good job_...you optimise, you work on "squeezing" it down (but, again, no
need to necessarily be "every last byte"...indeed, Microsoft's Word is so
bloated, you don't need to go anywhere near "every last byte" to kick their
arses over the Moon ;)...this might squeeze it down to half size, to take
your "estimate", and it runs quickly (the only "delays" are the ones
waiting for the user to type things in...word-processors aren't naturally
"high performance" things - as it's all "user input" driven - but, anyway,
it's better performance where that applies :)...
And here's the comparison...Microsoft release a new version two years later
(call it "Version 10" for discussion...version "9" was that which was
released when you started your project :)...it's much more "bloated" and
slow once more again...then they release another version ("version 11") -
even more bloated and slow yet again - another two years later...
In this time, you've worked on just _one_ equivalent "version" but taking
the extra time to _DO A GOOD JOB_...right, Microsoft's "version 11" has
been "bloated" to the order of _two versions worth of continually
increasing bloat_...this ain't just "bloated", it's "double-bloated" since
version 9...the performance is not fairing any better...
And, against this, you are offering something that's _half-bloated_ of
version 9 and _double-speed_ of version 9...
Hence, by the time you release (and Microsoft release "version 11") you've
got an _EIGHTFOLD_ decrease in size (version 11 is "double-bloat" of
version 9...your "clone" is "half-bloat" of version 9)...and, though Word
isn't a "performance" kind of application, if it was and the ratios were
similar (that is, your "clone" is "double-speed" of V9...while Microsoft's
V11 is "quarter-speed" of V9) then you could have _EIGHTFOLD_ on the
"performance" too...
Do you also see the little "trick"? Because it's a _relative_
measure...Microsoft are doing nothing and simply getting worse and
worse...while you're taking steps to _improve_ and make software
_better_...yes, you take twice as long but you're getting _EIGHTFOLD_ the
"spoils" for doing so...and the fact you take twice as long to do this
better job has no "cost" implications like with the commercial
stuff...Microsoft _NEEDS_ to release that fast and, in a sense, "rush" the
job because it has mouths to feed...this isn't applicable in the same way
to "open source", so, perhaps it's time "open source" _TOOK ADVANTAGE_ of
its "differences" to do what these "bloatware" coders can't do?
Of course, these numbers are all made up...so purely "illustrative"...
Also, there is the "features" argument...the "V11" would have "more
features"...then again, who said your "clone" couldn't also "add more
features" while it's being developed...BUT, again, I'd suggest a "paradigm
shift" here too: Not "more features" but _BETTER FEATURES_...for example,
taking the time to add "incremental" operation and "modular architecture"
and such to LuxAsm for _better_ features...rather than just add on lots of
toolbar buttons...or, to take some "bias" out of it, to use Rene's
"right-click feature" for "easy navigation" in the text editor - take the
time to put that in - rather than just add in lots of "search this",
"search that", "advanced search" option in the "search" menu...indeed, add
_smart_ "features" or don't add any at all...
There _IS_ such thing as "feature overload" (some believe it's a "myth" but
it's NOT)...a point where you've got so many features, it becomes "top
heavy" and starts working _in reverse_: The user is now _CONFUSED_ by too
many buttons and options and dialogue boxes...what does that button do
again? Oh, crap, where was that dialogue box option again? And their
productivity vanishes as they are trying to "re-learn" or are
systematically going through each "dialogue box" and every "tab" to find
the option they are looking for (to be honest, I often get this problem
with Windows itself...someone says "can you switch this off?" and I say
"sure" but then it's like "oh, crap...I know it's in a dialogue box...ummm,
is it 'display properties'? Nope, then is it in 'control panel'? Nope, what
about 'administrative tools'?"...going through it all, trying to find out
where the option is (I remember there _is_ an option for it...just can't
remember where Microsoft have "hidden" it anymore ;)...
And, indeed, if it's getting "monolithic" then you should be considering
"divide and conquer", not bolting on "more features" yet again...similarly,
"open source" has different considerations...not all of that which apply to
"commercial" continue to make sense with "open source"...
This, in a sense, is the underlying point...it _works_ differently, it has
different "expenses", different "objectives", etc., etc....therefore, we
probably _SHOULDN'T_ - in "open source" mode - be thinking of projects
necessarily in the same "commercial" terms that we usually do...for
instance, a more "specific" version? A more "long-term vision"? A different
"attitude" to using "bloatware features" (basically, umm, just "don't" ;)?
And so on...
It's a thought to ponder - a "meme" to "inherit" - anyway ;)
Beth :)
NoDot
> [I don't understand
> why she now says, that this has nothing to do with a return
> from HLL to assembler).
Answer: because it *doesn't*!
--
The above was written by NoDot.
Visit the Website of NoDot:
<www.geocities.com/nodot1989/>
Randall Hyde
"Frank Kotler" <fbko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41F1F3C4...@comcast.net...
".
>
> I don't doubt that this is true, but I don't think it tells
> the whole story. I don't think that the reasons Beth gives
> provide a complete explanation, either. Sure, "portability"
> is going to increase the code size, but to the extent that
> it provides "functionallity", and isn't just a "mantra",
> that isn't what I'd call "bloat". "Black box libraries"
> *can* be bloated, but not necessarily so. There *is* a
> difference between libraries, and a "concise" library would
> be just as effective in reducing developer time as a
> "bloated" one.
A large percentage of bloat, in modern applications, is due
more to "cut & paste" programming than via the use of
generic library functions :-)
>
> It seems to me that to account for the size of "modern
> apps", I have to assume that needed/desired features are
> being implemented in a "bloated" fashion, and thoughtlessly
> pasted onto already "bloated" code.
Yeah, like cutting some large piece of code elsewhere in
your program, changing a few lines, and pasting the result
back into the program. You'd be surprised how often this
occurs in bloated programs. It's one of the main reasons
good library support is *essential* for efficient program
development -- to avoid bloating your programs.
Yep, libraries can be misused. And once in a while, the
"cut & paste" specific approach is best. But, by and large,
people who program using "cut & paste" methodologies
(the "specific model") write bloated code.
> This *may* be
> intentional - the "average software consumer" may think that
> a program that takes 3 CDs to install is a "better value"
> than one that fits on a floppy, even if the functionallity
> and "feature set" is identical. I recall reading a post -
> long ago - from the author of a "password recovery" program,
> intended (nominally) to recover encrypted files to which the
> owner had forgotten the password (for some specific word
> processor, IIRC). He stated that his algorithm was so fast
> that he'd added a delay, so that his customers would think
> the program was "doing something".
:-)
>
> > Money talks.
>
> Yes, and what the "money spenders" like (apparently) might
> not match what someone who actually *knows* something about
> software would like. Money talks in another way, too:
> advertising. That has to be a factor in what people buy...
> or use. If Windows and Linux were compared on the basis of
> "users per advertising dollar spent", I'll bet Linux would
> look pretty good!
Actually, Linux is starting to look a whole lot like Windows.
Both in terms of money spent on it, acceptance, and software
delivery times. Like the Who once said, "meet the new boss,
same as the old boss." When (if) Linux finally displaces Windows
as *the* OS, all the elitists supporting Linux today will simply
move on to something else. It's just in their nature to want to
complain about the status quo.
>
> ...
> > "Sure Word is big and bloated. But that's what people
> > want. They won't pay for apps without a lot of features..."
>
> I don't know how big Word actually is, or exactly what
> features it has (I understand that, unless told otherwise,
> it'll execute any macro it encounters, possibly executing
> malicious code - not a feature I'd put on my "must have"
> list, but thats a different argument...) So perhaps Word
> isn't a good one for me to use as an example... but I'll
> take the chance. I don't think anyone is going to write a
> "feature for feature clone" of Word in "carefully
> hand-crafted assembly".
Word is a *large* software system. It has required
100s of programmers to develop. Developers with
average skills (think bell curve when we're talking
about these kinds of numbers). Getting that many
*great* programmers who know and are willing to
use assembly language to write several million lines of
code and get it all working together would be a bit
of a challenge, to say the least. Assembly programmers
are also notoriously independent. This is the major
failing in any attempt to use the Open Source Development
Model to claim that 100s of assembly programmers could
work together to create a large app like Word. It's hard
enough getting *two* independently-minded programmers
to work together. 100s of them? They'd spend all their
time arguing about how macros out to be implemented
in LuxAsm, er, Word :-)
> Wouldn't have to be all that
> "hand-crafted" - such a thing might be done using the
> high-level features of HLA, for example - not the smallest
> possible code, but not that bad (it's "not so humble" of me
> to have *any* opinion of Randy's code, perhaps... but I do)
Again, IMO the "bloat" in modern programs is due to poor
design and implementation (e.g., "cut & paste coding"), not to
the language being used. One can write a short and efficient
program in Perl. One can write a bloated program in assembly.
It's the developer, not the language, that determines the result.
> Even using C - in the manner that Herbert suggests: *learn*
> assembly so you understand what you're asking the processor
> to do, *know* your compiler well enough to understand what
> code it will emit (Herbert sometimes neglects to mention
> this part), and then write "thoughtful" C based on that
> knowledge - would do the trick.
I believe that this is the complete argument I make in my
new book series "Write Great Code". It doesn't matter what
language you use -- if you don't understand the low-level
operation of the machine, you're not in a good position to
write great code. Learning low-level coding is important to
anyone who wants to write great, efficient, code.
>
> "Just suppose" that someone wrote a "feature for feature
> clone" of Word - not necessarily squeezing out every byte,
> as the "smallest code" contestants do, but with *some*
> thought to writing "reasonably concise" code - *some*
> thought to avoiding obvious bloat... Any guess - just a
> rough estimate - of how the size would compare? I'd bet on
> "half" - possibly much less - without even knowing how big
> Word is now. Do you think I'm wrong?
Of course you're correct.
Anytime you start over on your code base and get to
learn from the mistakes of the past, you'll end up with
a better product. I don't recall if it was Dijkstra who
once said "Plan on writing your code twice, you will."
This is why, for example, my plans for HLA always
centered around creating a prototype first and a
real version as HLA v2.0. The v1.x release allowed
me to develop the language and make the mistakes that
could be corrected the second time around. The big
problem with large projects is that it isn't cost effective
to rewrite them from scratch. As a result, they keep building
on old code (and poor architecture). Hence, bloat.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Percival
> "Just suppose" that someone wrote a "feature for feature
> clone" of Word - not necessarily squeezing out every byte,
> as the "smallest code" contestants do, but with *some*
> thought to writing "reasonably concise" code - *some*
> thought to avoiding obvious bloat... Any guess - just a
> rough estimate - of how the size would compare? I'd bet on
> "half" - possibly much less - without even knowing how big
> Word is now. Do you think I'm wrong?
>
> Best,
> Frank
>
Abiword clocks in at 6.5 Megs. It isn't as featured , but it is
portable (GTK+) and holds a few features word doesn't have (auto-word
completion), and support for quite a lot of file formats (including
support for .doc files, and its own .abw file).
I haven't used MSword in ages. The constant upgrades that obsolete the
current version constantly angered me to the point where I just don't use
MS Office to any extent anymore.
Percival
Percival
> As I always said, we don't need assembly programmers, we need class A
> programmers. And in order to become a class A programmer you also have
> to understand the processor and learn assembly programing. And a class A
> programmer exactly knows which language is the appropriate for a certain
> task, and I suppose, in most cases it will not be the assembly language.
I'll have to say yes to this one.
A good example when I was helping some newbie programmer (not saying I am
not a newbie, but just a more experianced newbie :) )
They had an entire sequence of code written in C that used nothing but
bit-shifts and adds. I questioned what he was thinking about when he wrote
it and he replied that it is more efficient to do bit-shifts and adds than
to multiply a number.
After experimenting with the compiler, it ended up that the compiler
emitted the relatively same assembly code with multiplies as his bitshift
code. As impressive the feat was, (a newbie efficiently writing the
bit-shifts without knowing assembly) it was a waste because modern
compilers already translate the code into its most efficient form.
Actually, I think the compiler beat him because of the use of the lea
instruction with multiplies.
Anyway, back to the point. The programmer had an incomplete knowledge of
the computer and didn't really understand the compiler either. Thus, he
wrote less efficient and less readable and harder to write code because of
this lack of understanding.
A good programmer writes good code, and uses the correct language for that
code. (I will never use perl outside of regex for example, and never use
anything else but perl for regex tasks)
Percival
Herbert Kleebauer
> Maybe so ;-))))))) Only this one below doesnt run here. Just messes up the
> screen :-))
Can you please tell me, what exactly happens? Did you start it
from the command line or within the Explorer (insert a pause
command at the end of the batch if the Window is closed before
you can read the output)?
I have tested the code in win98, W2k and XP.
Herbert Kleebauer
> ...how anyone can say that posting from Windows
> 98 (how many minutes ago was your last BSOD? Fifteen? Twenty minutes
> maximum? Win98 must be the _worst_ platform from which to make such
> assertions...at least XP's NT kernel is slightly more respectable in the
> "stability" stakes), goodness knows, but the Linux users with some "7
> months of uptime" are finding it all rather amusing, for sure...
I never had any problem with Win98 (nor Win3.1). I used it for 6
years as my main OS and had also installed it on my new PC, but
because I was not able to get a working driver for the video card I
had to switch to XP. The problem is not the OS but the many bad
designed programs which many people install. I always have a parallel
installation of Windows on a pC. On version is used as a stable
working version (with only a minimal set of installed programs)
and the other for installation and testing additional programs.
Herbert Kleebauer
> Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de> écrivait news:41F15F48.BC5D3C47
> Even if 100% of the other Programmers would ignore Asm
> and say the right opposite of what i say, it would not
> change a thing about the fact that i am right and that
> the others would be wrong.
And you never have any doubts that the other could
be right and you wrong?
> I don't ask you to explain to me why the main stream
> goes HLL. I ask you the reason why you fail to see
> the reality, and the evident capacity of Asm to be
> the best and easiest Applications Programming Language
> we have ever seen.
If you refuse to use other languages, how can you
say that assembler is the "best and easiest Applications
Programming Language". This is like saying, this is the best
wine that exist, when you never have drunk any other
sort of wine.
I'm not a programmer at all, but I like to think at the
processor level, so from time to time I enjoy to write
at least a simple assembler program. But I can distinguish
between this programming for fun and programming for
solving a problem. In the latter case assembler mostly
is the wrong choose. I don't hesitate to even use the
good old QBASIC if appropriate. I don't like C++ (but
I have at least took a look at it) or other HLL above the
C/FORTRAN level and I hope I never have to use them.
But I would not contradict if somebody claims, that this
modern HLL are much more efficient for implementing
applications than the old C, because I'm not familiar
with this languages. But I think I can estimate the
advantages and disadvantages of C compared to assembler.
And if you only know the world of assembly programming,
you should stop to tell anybody, that assembly programming
is superior to any HLL.
You can formulate a solution for a problem at different
abstraction levels and I don't see what's so special
about the assembler level. Take a look at Handle-C
(mostly a normal C extended by parallel constructs).
The source is not compiled to any processor instructions
but down to the gate level which then is loaded into a
FPGA and directly executed in hardware. A FPGA doesn't
have any processor instructions (it's nothing but a sea
of gates and FlipFlops) so you can't program it in
assembler. But you can program it in a HLL language
which is automatically converted to a layout for the chip.
And in the future we will see more and more computing
elements based on reconfigurable hardware, which completely
eliminates the assembler level programming.
The /\\o//\annabee
<kl...@unibwm.de>:
> The /\\\\o//\\annabee wrote:
>
>> Maybe so ;-))))))) Only this one below doesnt run here. Just messes up
>> the
>> screen :-))
>
> Can you please tell me, what exactly happens? Did you start it
> from the command line or within the Explorer (insert a pause
> command at the end of the batch if the Window is closed before
> you can read the output)?
Oki. for measure I do it once more now
I find you post.....
then I copy and paste this into notepad :
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I save it as Herbert4.bat
Then I double click the icon in explorer.
Somethings happening, a message is printed and then its gone.
So I go into CMD.EXE. I paste the directory from the explorer to the
dospromt,
and tweak, and cd to the directoy were I store you gimmicks. in a cmd
window.
I type Herbert4 <enter>
Hmm. Now it works. I did something wrong earlier then. It works now.
the current drive has so and so much free space.
Its a cool program for sure Herbert. But I fail to see how I could use
your (excellent) program to test my gui objects, which was the purpose of
that program. Thats a testcase app. A RAD, assmebly test case app.
I see your point. But the purpose of this app was never really to serve
any enduser job. It is "useful", still, in another sense, as it contains
the code, and it shows one way to do OOP in assembly, and how to build a
simple gui.
It also shows, to you, that rad programming is fully possible in asm. And
that is one major point. Some extra time for startup, the basics, but this
is insignificant to what you need to learn about Delphi to use its object
library. Or MFC.
You need to read and learn about all those methods you use, and then have
to live with the desisions of other programmers. One way. I like my way
better.
The /\\o//\annabee
<kl...@unibwm.de>:
> Betov wrote:
The pains of _C_ (the language) will only become evident when you try to
create something involving with it. If you even think that you can compare
a few bytes demo with a grown application, running in a multitasking
environment, than truley, you have no clue what it is like to program. And
in this case you best option to not look stupid is just zip up. Did you
not understand, I knew this from the first time you opened up you mouth ?
Dont you ever try to speak of C is better than assembly. Man, you are
fully fully out of your league. You even admit you havent even tried. You
are actually worse than Randall Hyde. He at least did something quite
involving in a C language. I dont care if you have 200 IQ, your still
committing the biggest error that any man can make and that is to talk out
of your ass, when not having even built something. God, I knew I should
have trusted my instincts... You are like that architect. You never built
houses. You built a table, and think you know anything about carpenters
work.
You should not speak about programming in asm vs HLL again. You are
incompetent !
Percival
> The pains of _C_ (the language) will only become evident when you try to
> create something involving with it.
[snip]
I should note here that there is a distinct advantage to using C. There is
a possibility of writing very portable code in C, platforms that not even
Java would support. (the *BSDs for example, without the Linux
compatibility layer i mean.)
The second advantage is that simply, everyone knows it. You cannot find
many assembly programmers on the net, and finding a partner for a project
is much easier if you both agree on the same language. Nearly every
programmer I have met (aside from the beginners) know C.
However, I don't see that many bad things in C (from the shallow
perspective) Perhaps you can enlighten me? C++ is well given why I dislike
it, the Object oriented has nothing to do with it either (far too many
features in the language, too many nuances in it) But I find C much better
than that. The "ambiguous" statements that I have seen in C can be avoided
(and should be) and pointer arithmetic, while it looks horrible, still
works relatively okay.
Not saying C is perfect, I just don't see what makes it "horribly" bad.
(horribly bad is Brainfuck or intercal)
Percival
Randall Hyde
"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:I8wId.612$Z71...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> A demonstration of this is Microsoft's "5 year rule"...basically,
Microsoft
> retract "support" for each of their OSes, 5 years after release...
Actually, this isn't Microsoft. IIRC, The US FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
requires companies to maintain spare parts and what-not for their products
for
at least five years after they discontinue selling a product. I suspect that
the
Microsoft "Five-Year Rule" is related to this issue.
>
> Now, first, if this is a "reaction" to user "demands" then how on Earth
can
> they declare when it'll be "obselete" _BEFORE_ they've even released it!
Our government at work!
> The way the "5 year rule" works is simple...if Longhorn is released this
> year - 2005 - then it'll be officially "obselete" (and Microsoft then
> refuse to "support" it in any way) in the year 2010...just add 5...as
> simple as that...
People still use (and install!) Windows 98. All "obsolete" means is that
Microsoft is not going to be providing free updates for it any longer.
Most people who care about things aren't using Windows 98, anyway.
Also, most people who use Windows 98 don't care about the lack of
updates -- for if they did, they would certainly have gotten a later OS.
As for new users not being able to buy Win98, just keep in mind that
it won't run on many modern machines. So it's not like they've got a
choice, anyway.
>
> It's a "prediction"? Then it's not a terribly good one because, for
Windows
> 98, they've had to _break_ the "5 year rule" and extended the
> "support"...why? Because, completely _contrary_ to this "users are in a
mad
> rush to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade!" theory, far too many people _WEREN'T_
> upgrading from 98...a sufficiently large number weren't upgrading to be
> significant to Microsoft to "extend" the "support"...the retraction of
> "support", in truth, is a "threat" to force "constant forward motion"...if
> everyone refused to "upgrade", then they'd be forced - as in the Windows
98
> example - to stay "supporting" it, otherwise they'd be cutting off their
> own nose despite their face...while 90% of users are still on Win98,
they'd
> "retract" all "support"? No, they wouldn't...they'd be risking their
> "monopoly"...
???
>
> Sir Bill has used this "poker bluff" repeatedly to make himself a
> billionaire...developing software for Apple (for their original Mac) ready
> for "launch date", Bill used another "threat": We will not provide you any
> of the software...Apple panicked at a "launch party" where they couldn't
> actually show the machine doing much of anything because there were no
> software applications and they didn't call his "bluff"...worse, part of
the
> "extra terms and conditions" Sir Bill demanded? "Some" rights to Apple GUI
> technologies...
Actually, the true story is the Bill got screwed by Apple with respect to
the
release of AppleBasic. Bill thought for sure the imminent release of
AppleBasic
for the Mac would spell the end of Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace.
So he agreed to Apple's terms on the condition that they'd kill AppleBasic.
Apple didn't think the Mac was a programmer's machine, so they were more
than happy to drop AppleBasic. In the end, the presence of AppleBasic would
have made no difference to Microsoft, but Apple got concessions from
Microsoft for dropping it (this is all part of the historical record, if you
want
to check it out).
>
> He "threatens" retracting his software and then people panic that it might
> disappear and leave them in a terrible situation so "surrender" to his
> demands...but, really, people should start calling that "bluff"...a
> software company that refuses to sell any of its software? You can't keep
> up that "spoilt brat" attitude for long...unfortunately, Bill will keep
> getting away with it because most people are not "wise" to his "poker
> bluff" tactics...and there's no way to get this message across and for
> everyone to believe it, in order to get the whole world to "call that
> bluff"...so, he'll get away with it...
So where are the other vendors ready to step in?
Linux has had some presence felt, but where is everyone else?
>
> Users _DO_ want _better_ features...but they don't want "random,
completely
> arbitrary features, so long as there are numerically more features than
> before"...
Again, one person's essential feature is another person's bloat.
What seems random by one person is a good design by another.
>
> The "feature bloat" is caused by one thing...and it's not users
"demanding"
> it...the industry wants to make profits...if it did this in the more
> "honest" way, then they would release a good application and then the next
> upgrade may not happen for many years (and the "new version" isn't simply,
> unlike Windows, a case of "better graphics, USB support and that's it" -
> after all, why exactly do you need to buy a boxed copy of that? Microsoft
> can upload the "new bitmaps" onto "Windows Update" or a few DLLs for the
> "USB support"...it _could_ all be done by "Windows Update" but that's free
> and they want to make money...so, they draw a "line in the sand" and it's
> at those points they change the graphics to make it look "brand new" and
> sell it under a new title with a new logo - but an actual fundamentally
> significant improvement of functionality)...
This is a fundamental problem. How do companies make money without
a continuous stream of upgrades? Sure, Microsoft is rich, but what about
the rest of the industry? What is Microsoft doing that everyone else isn't
with respect to these upgrades? People always have the choice, don't
bother upgrades. I, for one, am perfectly happy With Win2K. I've got
XP on a couple of new machines, but I'm not bothering to upgrade
to XP on the machine I'm typing this on. When the machine dies, then
I'll use whatever OS comes on the new machine. Till then, I don't have
to give Bill any more money for this machine. I'm not forced to upgrade
at all, even when the "five years" are up.
>
> You're usually the one with the statistics, Randy...what are the
statistics
> about _USER PRODUCTIVITY_ since all this "feature bloat" has been
> increasingly introduced? Well, lo and behold, it's getting _WORSE_,
despite
> the bold advertising claims, used to push people onto the new
> version...there's "memetic reality" - a constructed self-delusion of "how
> we would like things to be" - and then there's the _real thing_...a
> "connection" between the two, apparently, is not always necessary when
> "profits" are involved ;)...
User productivity leveled out after Win95 appeared. Certainly after
Win2K showed up (based on NT rather than 3.1), there has been
very little progress made. Combined with the fact that machines
haven't been getting much faster the past several years, productivity
has failed to increase. Computers have done about all they can
>
> It is an industry "self-fulfilling prophecy" to keep pushing this
"constant
> forward motion" hard because you can double, triple your profits by
selling
> some "technology" in "baby steps" over a decade with minor "version
> enhancements" rather than just sell a new version when there is a
> _significant_, fundamental change and improvement to the product...this
> isn't merely a personal opinion, it has been investigated as charges in
law
> courts against Microsoft (typically, the ones that ended up as "out of
> court settlement" that we never heard the court's verdict on this
> practice)...
You've got it.
But don't blame Microsoft. Blame the people who keep paying for all this.
They could easily choose not to bother.
>
> Users "demand" it? Well, they "demand" getting something worth the money
> they hand over...they are _EXPECTING_ actually better software...what they
> are typically supplied is an "illusion" of this...and all the "extra
> features" are a "blind them with science" tactic (because most users don't
> really know what 90% of these claims on the side of the box actually refer
> to), to "convince" them that they really are buying a "significantly
> improved" product...once bought, though, actually listen to them _voice
> their opinions_ on what they bought...if you don't outrightly "hate"
> Microsoft, then you're certainly "disappointed" in what they do...I have
> met _ONE_ person who defended them and was enthusiastic (who suspiciously
> has an incredibly detailed knowledge of NT kernels, that one wonders if
> he's an ex-employee or being "hired" by Microsoft to "be on the look-out"
> for the "next Linux" developing on the OS development groups ;)...and
> challenging that enthusiasm demonstrates no actual solid logical base for
> it, anyway...indeed, comes across more like some kind of S&M "fetish" or
> something...enjoying being pissed upon by contemptuous Microsoft
> policies)...
Why is this any different than car manufaturers expecting you to buy a new
vehicle every three years or so? Heck, Apple expects you to buy a *new*
iPod when the battery in it goes bad (okay, they backpedalled after getting
some bad press, but...). Microsoft is entitled to make money anyway they
can (legally, anyway). Consumers *don't* have to pay for it, if they don't
want it.
However, were Microsoft to just sit on their rears and not bother updating
their OS on a regular basis, other OSes that do get regular upgrades would
start getting all the good press and MSOS sales would go down. So they
have to keep producing upgrades.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Evenbit
Beth wrote:
> Anyway, this is a completely nonsense argument...because the
"hobbyist" and
> the "professional" in this statement could, indeed, _BE THE SAME
> PERSON_...it's kind of like Superman or something...in the day, they
pull
> on their suit and are "professional"...but, by night, they pull off
their
> suit and become..."Hobbyist-man!" *cue fanfare*...fighting Monsanto
Nazi
> evil in the cause of truth and justice!
Cool! Now we've got the player character for ALA Adventure. We just
need two ASCII pics: one by day with glasses, and one by night with
cape.
> [ Mind you, I do find it hard to believe Herbert is really that
stupid not
> to know what these words actually mean...it's not his first language
but
> English and Germanic structure is nigh-on identical and he otherwise
wields
> the language with sufficient skill not to make rudimentary errors
like this
> (and if not confident, then why argue a case on the basis of the
> definitions of words? I mean, we all clearly have access to the
internet -
> or we wouldn't be talking to each other at all - to look it up
:)...which
> suggests possible _malicious_ misunderstanding?? ]
Now don't be chewing Herby's head off...he built the roof for our
clubhouse!
>
> All "authority" is inherently unquestionable...if you took a sheet of
paper
> and wrote "please deposit 50 Euros into the bucket" on it and
cellotaped it
> to a tree in the park with a bucket underneath it, the bucket would
be full
> by the end of the day because it was a _SIGN_...and signs have
> "authority"...you may NOT disobey the "sign" but the sign is your
> "superior"...all "authority" is completely unquestionable...
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.
Do this. Don't do that.
Can't you read the sign.
Nathan.
Randall Hyde
"Evenbit" <nbake...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1106456410.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Cool! Now we've got the player character for ALA Adventure. We just
> need two ASCII pics: one by day with glasses, and one by night with
> cape.
Someday, I will post the documentation for AGE around here.
AGE (Adventure Game Engine) v1.0 *is* now available on
Webster at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/adv.zip
>
> Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.
> Do this. Don't do that.
> Can't you read the sign.
Or the ApologetiX version:
"Lions, Lions, in the den of Lions,
Talking about carnivorous,
Great Big Wild Lions
Vicious golden cats, don't you feed the lions..."
(The story of Daniel in the Lion's Den,
to the tune of "Signs",
found on Apologetix' "Isn't Wasn't Ain't"
retrospect CD. http://www.apologetix.com)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Betov
@unibwm.de:
> Betov wrote:
>> Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de> écrivait news:41F15F48.BC5D3C47
>
>
>> Even if 100% of the other Programmers would ignore Asm
>> and say the right opposite of what i say, it would not
>> change a thing about the fact that i am right and that
>> the others would be wrong.
>
> And you never have any doubts that the other could
> be right and you wrong?
No. Facts are facts.
>> I don't ask you to explain to me why the main stream
>> goes HLL. I ask you the reason why you fail to see
>> the reality, and the evident capacity of Asm to be
>> the best and easiest Applications Programming Language
>> we have ever seen.
>
> If you refuse to use other languages, how can you
> say that assembler is the "best and easiest Applications
> Programming Language". This is like saying, this is the best
> wine that exist, when you never have drunk any other
> sort of wine.
I began programming in 1968, Herbert. Can you seriously
suppose that i never used any HLL?
For 3 years, i have been writing the "advanced Programation"
tricks, in a french computers' review, for all the languages
available, at that time.
> I'm not a programmer at all, but I like to think at the
> processor level, so from time to time I enjoy to write
> at least a simple assembler program. But I can distinguish
> between this programming for fun and programming for
> solving a problem. In the latter case assembler mostly
> is the wrong choose. I don't hesitate to even use the
> good old QBASIC if appropriate. I don't like C++ (but
> I have at least took a look at it) or other HLL above the
> C/FORTRAN level and I hope I never have to use them.
> But I would not contradict if somebody claims, that this
> modern HLL are much more efficient for implementing
> applications than the old C, because I'm not familiar
> with this languages. But I think I can estimate the
> advantages and disadvantages of C compared to assembler.
> And if you only know the world of assembly programming,
> you should stop to tell anybody, that assembly programming
> is superior to any HLL.
I effectively did not gave a try to the newest Language.
I have no reason for doing so, as they are, by definition,
absurd. For example, proposing a Programming Tool, that
is call "++", (hear, a Language, where everything is an
Object), is so absurd and so shocking, that the only
question is about the impressive validity of the selling
methods that have made such aberations have some real
success.
There is no problem about the advantages of programming
in Assembly. They so important, so massive, so evident
that i do no more need to develop.
There is a problem about HLL. Where could HLLs be "more
appropriated"???
I have a doubt... Did you ever took a look at RosAsm?
> You can formulate a solution for a problem at different
> abstraction levels and I don't see what's so special
> about the assembler level. Take a look at Handle-C
> (mostly a normal C extended by parallel constructs).
> The source is not compiled to any processor instructions
> but down to the gate level which then is loaded into a
> FPGA and directly executed in hardware. A FPGA doesn't
> have any processor instructions (it's nothing but a sea
> of gates and FlipFlops) so you can't program it in
> assembler. But you can program it in a HLL language
> which is automatically converted to a layout for the chip.
> And in the future we will see more and more computing
> elements based on reconfigurable hardware, which completely
> eliminates the assembler level programming.
This is possible. If this is made real, one day, the
Programming art will be destroyed. Simply. This will
be the final victory of the Crime&Co Majors, and there
will no more be any human culture alive on earth.
Betov.
Betov
news:pan.2005.01.23....@yahoo.com:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:06:38 +0100, The /\\o//\annabee wrote:
>
>> The pains of _C_ (the language) will only become evident when you try
>> to create something involving with it.
>
> [snip]
>
> I should note here that there is a distinct advantage to using C.
> There is a possibility of writing very portable code in C, platforms
> that not even Java would support. (the *BSDs for example, without the
> Linux compatibility layer i mean.)
Mythology. Yes, you can: If you do nothing (just like
with the HLA bullshit).
> The second advantage is that simply, everyone knows it. You cannot
> find many assembly programmers on the net, and finding a partner for a
> project is much easier if you both agree on the same language. Nearly
> every programmer I have met (aside from the beginners) know C.
:)) :)) :))
Sure! And as most Programmers use... MASM, let us all
use that shit!!!...
:)) :)) :))
> However, I don't see that many bad things in C (from the shallow
> perspective) Perhaps you can enlighten me? C++ is well given why I
> dislike it, the Object oriented has nothing to do with it either (far
> too many features in the language, too many nuances in it) But I find
> C much better than that. The "ambiguous" statements that I have seen
> in C can be avoided (and should be) and pointer arithmetic, while it
> looks horrible, still works relatively okay.
>
> Not saying C is perfect, I just don't see what makes it "horribly"
> bad. (horribly bad is Brainfuck or intercal)
C is simply unacceptable. The syntax is absurd. The
writing convention is unacceptable. It has no advantage
on Asm in matter of developements, as _everything_ done
in C is doable in Asm the exact same way. Where C is the
best is for writing bugs (because of its syntax).
Betov.
Phil Carmody
> "stability" stakes), goodness knows, but the Linux users with some "7
> months of uptime" are finding it all rather amusing, for sure...
phil@nonospaz:phil$ ssh megaspaz uptime
Password:
13:56:01 up 607 days, 2:11, 13 users, load average: 1.07, 0.99, 0.99
Had a SIMM failure on the machine that was up to 691 days last week :-(
(And 691 days before that, my (2nd hand) UPS blew up (in a huge blue ball
of lightning, quite cool if it wasn't for the fact that it wiped out 350
days of uptime). 350 days before that, we had a power cut, that wiped out
310 days of uptime.)
Phil
--
Excerpt from Geoff Bulter's Proscriptive Dictionary:
aaa Don't use this, there's no such word
aaaa Don't use this, there's no such word
aaaaa Don't use this, there's no such word
Evenbit
Someday, I will post the documentation for AGE around here.
AGE (Adventure Game Engine) v1.0 *is* now available on
Webster at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/adv.zip
EB>
I haven't abandoned it...just that my coding time is taken up by
another project at the moment. I've got stories and maps I want to try
out in AGE, just haven't gotten around to writing them down and pluging
them in yet.
RH>
"Lions, Lions, in the den of Lions,
Talking about carnivorous,
Great Big Wild Lions
Vicious golden cats, don't you feed the lions..."
EB>
Courage to stand on the truth,
when everone else is a lion. ;-)
Nathan.
Percival
> Percival <dragont...@yahoo.com> écrivait
> news:pan.2005.01.23....@yahoo.com:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:06:38 +0100, The /\\o//\annabee wrote:
>>
>>> The pains of _C_ (the language) will only become evident when you try
>>> to create something involving with it.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I should note here that there is a distinct advantage to using C.
>> There is a possibility of writing very portable code in C, platforms
>> that not even Java would support. (the *BSDs for example, without the
>> Linux compatibility layer i mean.)
>
> Mythology. Yes, you can: If you do nothing (just like
> with the HLA bullshit).
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html#Platforms
http://www.libsdl.org/index.php
http://www.gtk.org/
Portable and powerful software is possible with C.
I listed how you can make portable windows, portable graphics layer, and a
super text editor in C. C is quite portable indeed, more than "nothing"
>> The second advantage is that simply, everyone knows it. You cannot
>> find many assembly programmers on the net, and finding a partner for a
>> project is much easier if you both agree on the same language. Nearly
>> every programmer I have met (aside from the beginners) know C.
>
> :)) :)) :))
>
> Sure! And as most Programmers use... MASM, let us all
> use that shit!!!...
>
> :)) :)) :))
And the advantages to using something that everyone knows is huge, from
learning material that is available to simply who can do it.
Percival
Ro
wrote:
>Betov wrote:
>> Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de> écrivait news:41F15F48.BC5D3C47
>
>
>> Even if 100% of the other Programmers would ignore Asm
>> and say the right opposite of what i say, it would not
>> change a thing about the fact that i am right and that
>> the others would be wrong.
>
>And you never have any doubts that the other could
>be right and you wrong?
>
>
>> I don't ask you to explain to me why the main stream
>> goes HLL. I ask you the reason why you fail to see
>> the reality, and the evident capacity of Asm to be
>> the best and easiest Applications Programming Language
>> we have ever seen.
>
>If you refuse to use other languages, how can you
>say that assembler is the "best and easiest Applications
>Programming Language". This is like saying, this is the best
>wine that exist, when you never have drunk any other
>sort of wine.
>
>I'm not a programmer at all, but I like to think at the
Are you an engineer?
What is your 'schools path' ?
I think that a complex language (like C)
where is possible to write
{unsigned x, y, z;
x=f(); y=f();
z= x*y+x+y;
..
}
has the change to cause error on overflow in the last expression
but asm not
a=f(); b=f(); c=a;
mul b
r!=0#.over
a+=c;jc .over
a+=b;jc .over
..
..
.over:
but I'm a poor beginner amateur etc etc
so don't know if this is right
Betov
4ax.com:
> I think that a complex language (like C)
> where is possible to write
>
> {unsigned x, y, z;
>
> x=f(); y=f();
> z= x*y+x+y;
> ..
> }
>
> has the change to cause error on overflow in the last expression
> but asm not
>
> a=f(); b=f(); c=a;
> mul b
> r!=0#.over
> a+=c;jc .over
> a+=b;jc .over
> ..
> ..
> .over:
>
> but I'm a poor beginner amateur etc etc
> so don't know if this is right
Yes, you are perfectly right, here: This is one of the many
reasons why C is a very bad language, and why Assembly is
_way_ more readable, easier to write and easier to maintain
and to debug, than C.
It is just a pity that it does seem to be evident to _all_
"poor beginner amateur etc etc"s, because of Mythology
and propaganda. :)
Betov.
Herbert Kleebauer
> I think that a complex language (like C)
> where is possible to write
> z= x*y+x+y;
> has the change to cause error on overflow in the last expression
> but asm not
There can't be an overflow in a modulo 2**n arithmetic.
main()
{unsigned char i=200,j=200,k;
unsigned int a1,a2,m1,m2;
a1=k=i+j; a2=i+j;
m1=k=i*j; m2=i*j;
printf("a1=%d a2=%d m1=%d m2=%d",a1,a2,m1,m2);
}
With the output:
a1=144 a2=400 m1=64 m2=40000
.file "test.c"
.section .text
LC0:
.ascii "a1=%d a2=%d m1=%d m2=
.globl _main
_main:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
subl $24, %esp
andl $-16, %esp
movl $0, %eax
subl %eax, %esp
movb $-56, -1(%ebp)
movb $-56, -2(%ebp)
movb -2(%ebp), %al
addb -1(%ebp), %al
movb %al, -3(%ebp)
movb -3(%ebp), %al
andl $255, %eax
movl %eax, -8(%ebp)
movl $0, %edx
movb -1(%ebp), %dl
movl $0, %eax
movb -2(%ebp), %al
leal (%eax,%edx), %eax
movl %eax, -12(%ebp)
movb -2(%ebp), %al
mulb -1(%ebp)
movb %al, -3(%ebp)
andl $255, %eax
movl %eax, -16(%ebp)
movl $0, %edx
movb -1(%ebp), %dl
movl $0, %eax
movb -2(%ebp), %al
imull %edx, %eax
movl %eax, -20(%ebp)
subl $12, %esp
pushl -20(%ebp)
pushl -16(%ebp)
pushl -12(%ebp)
pushl -8(%ebp)
pushl $LC0
call _printf
addl $32, %esp
leave
ret
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.3.4"
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > "stability" stakes), goodness knows, but the Linux users with some "7
> > months of uptime" are finding it all rather amusing, for sure...
>
> phil@nonospaz:phil$ ssh megaspaz uptime
> Password:
> 13:56:01 up 607 days, 2:11, 13 users, load average: 1.07, 0.99, 0.99
>
> Had a SIMM failure on the machine that was up to 691 days last week :-(
> (And 691 days before that, my (2nd hand) UPS blew up (in a huge blue ball
> of lightning, quite cool if it wasn't for the fact that it wiped out 350
> days of uptime). 350 days before that, we had a power cut, that wiped out
> 310 days of uptime.)
Correction: Those Linux users who have _YEARS_ of "uptime" are finding it
all rather amusing ;)...
Beth :)
Evenbit
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> Maybe you should check your position. It's like you
> are driving on the autobahn and hear from the car
> radio a warning, that there is a wrong-way driver.
> And you think, only one wrong-way driver, I have
> met hundreds of wrong-way drivers in the last 10
> minutes.
"We're driving, driving, driving on the Autobahn.
We turn on the radio and what do we hear?
{click}
'We're driving, driving, driving on the Autobahn.'"
[rough translation of small section of the 22-minute long Autobahn by
Kraftwerk]
Nathan.
Jim Carlock
> I never had any problem with Win98 (nor Win3.1). I used
> it for 6 years as my main OS and had also installed it on my
> new PC, but because I was not able to get a working driver
> for the video card I had to switch to XP.
Video card drivers can be complicated to install. I've gone
through hoops with video drivers. Even with XP, if one of
the settings gets changed to a refresh rate that the monitor
doesn't support... getting the system back to normal is
sometimes a reboot and pray your clicking on the right icon,
or memorizing how to get to the "video adapter" software,
as it's the video adapter software, not the XP drivers that
configure the refresh rate. Setting up a macro key to
activate the software helps.
It's enough to make your eyes see fuzzy stuff. <g>
--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.
Ro
wrote:
>Ro wrote:
>
>> I think that a complex language (like C)
>> where is possible to write
>
>> z= x*y+x+y;
>
>> has the change to cause error on overflow in the last expression
>> but asm not
>
>There can't be an overflow in a modulo 2**n arithmetic.
So how do you call (unsigned char)64 * (unsigned char 4)?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
{unsigned char i=64,j=4,k;
unsigned int a1,a2,m1,m2, m3;
a1=k=i+j; a2=i+j;
m1=k=i*j; m2=i*j;
m3=(unsigned char)(i*j);
printf("a1=%d a2=%d m1=%d m2=%d m3=%d\n",
a1, a2, m1, m2, m3);
return 0;
}
with output here:
a1=68 a2=68 m1=0 m2=256 m3=0
(it seems in m1 the result of overflow)
but what I don't understand is why m2=256
if i=64 is uchar and j=4 is uchar => i*j=256=0 in uchar
so why here m2=256 ? Why m2!=m3?
[So m2=((unsigned)i)*j; and not m2=(unsigned)(unsigned char)(i*j);]
Thank you
pete
"Overflow" is where the result of an
operation can't be represented by the type.
Signed integer overflow is like that.
That's undefined behavior.
With unsigned types, when the correct result can't be
represented by the type, then an adjusted result can be.
In C, the word "overflow" is not used to
describe what happens to unsigned types.
--
pete
Phil Carmody
> Maybe you should check your position. It's like you
> are driving on the autobahn and hear from the car
> radio a warning, that there is a wrong-way driver.
> And you think, only one wrong-way driver, I have
> met hundreds of wrong-way drivers in the last 10
> minutes.
Right, where's my screen-cleaning cloth?
Phil Carmody
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:30:17 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
>
> So how do you call (unsigned char)64 * (unsigned char 4)?
If you view unsigned char as a model of the natural
numbers, then yes, it's an overflow. However, unsigned
char is a model of Z/(2^b)Z for some b>=8, and not
the natural numbers. It's not an overflow, it's wrapping,
and as such is perfectly acceptible. However, like Eminem,
it can be annoying if you didn't want it.
Herbert Kleebauer
> "Herbert Kleebauer" <kl...@unibwm.de> wrote:
> > I never had any problem with Win98 (nor Win3.1). I used
> > it for 6 years as my main OS and had also installed it on my
> > new PC, but because I was not able to get a working driver
> > for the video card I had to switch to XP.
>
> Video card drivers can be complicated to install. I've gone
Don't think so. It's just a mouse click on the install
routine. Either it works or not, you can't do anything.
The problem with Win98 was, that Win98 has a problem
with more than 2 GByte RAM. There is a workaround,
but the video driver seems didn't like it.
> through hoops with video drivers. Even with XP, if one of
> the settings gets changed to a refresh rate that the monitor
> doesn't support... getting the system back to normal is
> sometimes a reboot and pray your clicking on the right icon,
You can always boot in save mode where the normal VGA
resolution is used.
Lawrence Kirby
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:30:17 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
> wrote:
>>Ro wrote:
>>
>>> I think that a complex language (like C)
>>> where is possible to write
>>
>>> z= x*y+x+y;
>>
>>> has the change to cause error on overflow in the last expression
>>> but asm not
>>
>>There can't be an overflow in a modulo 2**n arithmetic.
>
> So how do you call (unsigned char)64 * (unsigned char 4)?
If you interpret (unsigned char)64 * (unsigned char)4 you will get the
result 256 because unsigned char operands would (typically) be pronoted to
int before the operation is performed and the result of the operation
would then also have type int.
But speaking in mathematical terms in a modulo 256 number system the
result of 64 * 4 is 0. This is not because of overflow, it is simply the
natural result in that mathematical system. Consider the simpler case of
255+1 In modulo 256 arithmetic the number after 255 is 0, there is no
boundary as such to "overflow".
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {unsigned char i=64,j=4,k;
> unsigned int a1,a2,m1,m2, m3;
>
> a1=k=i+j; a2=i+j;
> m1=k=i*j; m2=i*j;
> m3=(unsigned char)(i*j);
In this case the code is converting an int value of 256 back to unsigned
char. To do that we apply C's rules for converting out of range values.
This happens to be consistent, also producing a zero result where
CHAR_BIT is 8.
> printf("a1=%d a2=%d m1=%d m2=%d m3=%d\n",
> a1, a2, m1, m2, m3);
> return 0;
> }
>
> with output here:
> a1=68 a2=68 m1=0 m2=256 m3=0
>
> (it seems in m1 the result of overflow)
> but what I don't understand is why m2=256
>
> if i=64 is uchar and j=4 is uchar => i*j=256=0 in uchar so why here
> m2=256 ? Why m2!=m3?
> [So m2=((unsigned)i)*j; and not m2=(unsigned)(unsigned char)(i*j);]
The multiplications are performed in int arithmetic. Without the
assignment to k as in the case of m1, or the case in m3, the result isn't
shorted back to character width.
Lawrence