Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] XP and .NET popularity

Expand Messages
  • cg@cdegroot.com
    ... Heretical? Well, maybe in the Church Of Linux. I think he s mostly right. Apart from the fact that the distribution vendors are important parties and quite
    Message 1 of 219 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> said:
      >John Dvorak had some heretical things to say in
      >
      > Microsoft, Innovation, and Linux
      > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,762868,00.asp
      >
      Heretical? Well, maybe in the Church Of Linux.

      I think he's mostly right. Apart from the fact that the distribution vendors
      are important parties and quite instrumental in steering especially the
      various desktops (KDE, GNOME). He forgets to mention that there are actual
      companies with actual customers and that most project leads are quite
      interested in hearing what these companies have to say.

      And, of course, it is still miles better as a server OS, especially because it
      is quite well componentized (what is a weakness on the desktop, is a strength
      on the server).

      But, yes, something better is needed. And in the works, it seems. On the one
      side, Eros OS which is charting a new course in the security realm; on the
      other side, Squeak which is charting a new course in the UI/interaction
      between people realm. Something that merges the best features of both could be
      a killer OS.

      http://www.eros-os.org/
      http://www.squeak.org/ and especially http://www.opencroquet.org/


      --
      Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg@...>
      GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
      Cogito ergo evigilo
    • Daniel Sheppard
      ... If the language isn t doing type-checking on you, you wouldn t have had to refactor that test to make it compile. You would have run your tests and see
      Message 219 of 219 , Jan 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > > Well, you had a test that did "new Car(owner)" and asserted
        > that this object
        > > returned what you expected from toString() before you
        > refactored. So you break
        > > your unit test.
        >
        > Yes, that test is in the unit tests for Car. When refactoring
        > Car, I of
        > course changed that one to take an OwnerList, rather than an
        > owner. The
        > problem is with someone who *calls* that method. I'm supposing that I
        > forgot about refactoring DmvImporter as well.

        If the language isn't doing type-checking on you, you wouldn't have had to refactor that test to make it compile.

        You would have run your tests and see that it fails, and your first thought at that point should not be "how do I change the test to make it work?" but "how do I change the code to make it work?". This would have led you to change your toString() method operates correctly regardless of it being an owner or an ownerlist. If you don't have control of all the calling code, or you can't trust yourself to change it all, this is the only solution you should be entertaining.

        Daniel Sheppard

        daniels at pronto.com.au
        #####################################################################################
        This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
        #####################################################################################
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.