| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> > I take it you have little respect for people who develop on MS platforms
> > for a living...? I'm not sure I should be offended.
> I just hate MS platforms, that's all. I wish they didn't exist and I wish
> MS had never existed; I believe the world may have been a better place.
> It's like hating guns, but not hating people who own guns. Or like hating
> slide-rules, but not hating people who still choose to use them. Or (this
> is the best example) like hating seafood, but not hating people who eat
> seafood. That's all.
Hey! I *like* seafood! What are you saying, Todd? :-D
> > It can also be argued that Perl on a Mac is equally evil: the OS doesn't
> > even offer a shell, and its file system is incredibly -- no, radically --
> > different from that of UNIX. Thus, should Macs die a horrible death also?
> It's funny you should mention Macs. :) I actually posted that message from
> a Mac. :)
I know. :-, That's why I chose the platform to pick on.
> In my mind, Macs are simply hard to use, but not evil. Microsoft and all
> of its products are evil, but not hard to use. I *much* prefer to use
> Windows products over Mac products (because they have far superior keyboard
> interfaces), but I still hate Windows and I don't hate Macs. (That probably
> all sounds like a massive sequence of contradictions. :-)
Okay, it's actually starting to make sense.
You're morally opposed to the evilness of Windows, not its usefulness. I'm
guessing that that evilness is spawned from two factors: the money-grubbing
empire that is Microsoft; and the buggy software that is Windows. Am I
correct in assuming that this is it, in a nutshell?
With that assumption, I'll make one more just 'cause it's late. Noting that
UNIX was formed by a money-grubbing empire (Bell labs and later AT&T), and
that it was buggy as all git out for the longest time (basically until BSD
surpassed System V in usability), one might ascertain that had you been born
twenty years earlier, you'd hate UNIX. But fortunately, UNIX changed, went
open, evolved into something not only extremely useful but also incredibly fun
for perhaps millions of computer hobbyists world-wide.
(I'm not saying that this would save Windows, but it sure as hell can't hurt.
Come to think of it, one fundamental difference between early UNIX and
Windows is that UNIX's source was always available. I'm not sure that'll ever
happen with any MS product, and this doesn't help my argument at all. :-P
But, there are currently products which emulate Windows -- hopefully the same
path will be chosen.)
> > I think not. Macs bring in their own set of benefits over UNIX -- as does
> > Windows. If it weren't for both of these platforms, the computing world
> > would still be dominated by UNIX mainframes reached mainly via dumb
> > terminals. GUI would not have had such a success.
> I disagree. If Microsoft and Apple hadn't "stolen" all the PARC work from
> Xerox, someone else would have. And not only would we have everything we
> have today, it would be better if Microsoft had never been in the picture.
It's probably as likely that PARC "borrowed" the most popular GUI concepts
(windowing and menus) from a scientist they were "borrowing" from Apple; he
brought his ideas in with him from Apple, who liked the idea but liked being
able to use XEROX's resources even better. (Arg. I have the guy's name, but
it's in a book on my shelf at work...grumble.)
> (My opinion. Of course some other evil giant could always have come up in
> MS's place, and maybe it even would be worse! :-)
Probably Apple, had they not shot themselves in the leg numerous times.
> Some believe that Microsoft and Intel have dual-handledly set back the
> entire microcomputing industry approximately ten years. Having worked with
> Wintel products for nearly 20 years, I find this assertion difficult to
> dispute.
Someone's got to do it. It sucks, I know, but survival of the fittest will
win out. Hey -- we learned from VMS, we learned from Amiga, we'll learn from
Windows.
> > The rapid growth of the Internet would have never happened.
> Doesn't that assume that nothing else would have filled in the demand if
> those two players hadn't been there?
Nothing would have filled the demand. Without the immensly popular Wintel
platform saturating the market, client/server wouldn't have taken off,
mainframes would be the big thing, and we'd all be reading this through a dumb
terminal right now.
Of course, if you *like* mainframe computing, then my arguments won't really
matter much. :-,
> > All of these things have, arguably, had a positive effect on society.
> Good for society, bad for the long-term of the computer industry.
Ah. Okay. An important distinction.
> Look at
> how much stuff was pioneered in the 60's and 70's and only now being re-
> discovered (the mouse, the GUI, OOP, string-based programming languages,
> the list goes on and on). A whole generation of hacks grew up around the
> microcomputer and stunted everything.
The computer industry has always been slow. Look at what Babbage and Lady Ada
accomplished what, a hundred some-odd years ago? Digital encoding a hundred
years ago, but it took us until the '50s to figure out that it would work just
as well in digital computers as well as a loom?
The problem has always been finding a practical application for these new
toys. What use would a GUI have been, when it was created? What use did OOP
have without the GUI to help it mature? The mouse has always had a practical
use, however -- as a trackball.
These things didn't get lost because of the microcomputer.
> > And let's not forget LDraw -- written for a MS platform. This one app has
> > done much to bring together many Internet Legomaniacs.
> I'm sure James could've written LDraw on any platform if DOS hadn't been
> around. (What if there had been a Turbo Pascal for Linux at that time?
> Would LEdit have limits like 1000 parts and 8-character filenames and small
> screen resolutions?) I certainly don't mean that as a Jab toward James --
> only as a Jab toward DOS.
Yeah, I withdraw that point. LDraw would've worked just as well if we were
all using Apple II's.
> > Cross-platform is a *good* thing.
> It is? Always?
Yes, always. What is the main benefit of cross-platform? It helps promote a
diversity of hardware and OS architectures. Why should I use BeOS if it
doesn't run my network applications? What good does TOS do me if I can't get
it to work with my VAX? Without cross-platform, we'd be stuck using the same
OS for everything. No OS cross-pollenation would occur, and software would
ultimately stagnate.
What is the main drawback of cross-platform? Reduced performance while
conducting multiple OS checks. It's not that bad a thing when we're getting
close to a billion calculations per second, IMO.
> Those types of things should happen 100%
> transparently in the compiler/interpreter; you should be able to say
> open FOO, "<bar/blat/gonk" or die;
> on any platform (Unix, Mac, Windows, VMS, you name it) without having to
> write
> open FOO, "<bar\\blat\\gonk" or die;
> for Windows or
> open FOO, "<bar:blat:gonk" or die;
> for MacOS. I *think* it's perfectly transparent for Windows, but I seem to
> remember hearing about some problem with the Mac ports (I could be wrong).
> But in either case, even if the arguments to standard functions accept "/"
> universally, what about the results of standard functions? Will they all
> report back "/" and *NEVER* report back "\\" or ":" for directory separators?
> What does File::Find return? (I'm afraid to look. :-)
AHA! Ignorance is getting the better of you here, Todd. :-, These things
happen transparently on Win32. I can't speak for DOS or VMS or Mac, but I
would be genuinely surprised if they didn't exhibit similar behavior. In
fact, if they did introduce such atrocious incompatibilities, that would be
the fault of the Perl guys, and not the platform.
> Those are some of the things that start ruining portability and then in the
> long-run, the language itself -- if they're not watched closely. From there,
> it only gets worse, like checking the OS and accessing CreateProcess()
> directly instead of emulating fork(), etc. Yeuck.
This, alas, is the fault of the OS, for not following a well-defined and
popular POSIX standard. Perl 5.005_5x or 5.006 will allow native Win32
fork(), I am happy to report.
> > For open source, about the best thing you can ever do is widen your
> > audience while maintaining control over source code check-in.
> I agree with that. But I think some tough decisions need to be made
> sometimes when deciding what to accept and what to reject. If the original
> authors are cool with MS-specific stuff being checked in, then good for
> them. But if that grosses them out, then I hope they can continue to keep
> it out.
They've been pretty good about it. The biggest (only) complaint I have with
them, is that they should've exerted more control when allowing ActiveState's
PerlObject embedding API. This, too, will be fixed soon, which I would guess
is the Perl maintainers properly flexing some muscle.
> > Something running on MS == bad?
> I meant that it's bad for Perl even if it's good for you. [...]
> But it's bad for Perl because it helps make MS look that much more like a
> reasonable OS choice for someone who's still deciding whether to go with NT
> or, say, Linux for, say, their webserver.
Someone who chooses NT over Linux probably wears a suit to work, and hasn't
done their research and has chosen to go with the ads. This is the fault of
the Linux guys for committing Poor Marketing Practices.
> Later this year or next year
> MS will release some bogo MS-Perl piece of garbage and really start ruining
> it. I think I'll cry when that day comes. Again, that'll still probably be
> better for propagation per se of Perl, but not (in my mind) for the language
> itself.
They (MS) already have. In a (IMO) surprising move, MS has funded ActiveState
to implement more of the POSIX functions lacking today, such as fork() and a
decent select(). The surprising part is, that MS is allowing ActiveState to
continue working with the Patch Pumpkin Guy (forget who it is right now)
within the Perl license, instead of trying to create "Microsoft Visual P++".
Downside = Perl in the next version of IIS, a most heinous piece of software.
Upside = A better Win32 Perl, still for free.
> > Sorry, but things change, man. They change because something muddied the
> > waters, and eventually, it's even a Good Thing.
> I suppose I could agree that Perl on Win32 is better for the world than
> Visual BASIC on Win32 (for certain types of tasks, of course)...even if it
> may not be good for the continued purity of Perl itself. (sigh)
There is a Win32 Perl extension from ActiveState, which allows interaction
with OLE objects. In other words, I'll never write another line of VB code
again! That, in my view, has helped stike the death blow against VB.
> In
> my experience (and this was in a brutally high-expectation environment, so
> my view of things may be skewed as well), suck-ups and goof-offs eventually
> hang themselves on their own if you leave them alone. But if the environment
> and philosophy of upper management doesn't see the problems like that and fix
> them, then there's probably little hope for improvements like that. The best
> thing you can do then is make someone's life miserable until they quit. ;-)
Treat 'em like droids. Like the idiot behind the desk at the bank when
they've accidentally closed your checking account. Never argue with them,
because you'll only waste your time and annoy the droid.
No, just spend your time bossing them around and expecting nothing. It's the
most gratifying feeling in the world, second only to sex. Wait, it's the
second most gratifying feeling in the world, closely following sex and
chocolate. Okay, it's the third... :-P
Cheers,
- jsproat
p.s. Wow, it's late, isn't it? I can tell, because the neighbors have
stopped doing that noisy thing that neighbors do at 1:30 AM... That, and I
mentioned sex in .debate...
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) I don't care if MS is a money-grubbing empire as long as they make great products. The problem I have with it is that they're only making good (not great) products and that, in combination with their monopolistic nature, hurts the other guys (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| Sproaticus wrote in message ... (...) that (...) born (...) fun (...) My current experience with UNIX is limited to IBM's AIX, but I find it infinitely more painful to use than Windows for some of the following reasons: X-Windows: sorry, in many (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) Our chief weapon is Open Source. And freedom. Our two chief weapons are Open Source, freedom, and emacs. Oh. Our three chief weapons are Open Source, freedom, emacs, and vim. Oh, sod it. Jasper "Nobody expects... Richard Stallman!" Janssen (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) No, not at all! First, I support someone's choice of platform they have chosen to develop for. Second, I understand that MS platforms are the chief money makers in the microcomputer software industry, and that there's a lot to be said for (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
