chestnut-tree
Joined 14 years ago
Karma
1,881
Submissions
564
Member since
Dec 25
Recent submissions
Comment · 9 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
This is a quote by Niklaus Wirth, a Swiss computer scientist who has created many programming languages, most famously Pascal. It's a long quote, but I like it very much:
"Many people tend to look at programming styles and languages like religions: if you belong to one, you cannot belong to others. But this analogy is another fallacy. It is maintained for commercial reasons only. Object-oriented programming (OOP) solidly rests on the principles and concepts of traditional procedural programming (PP). OOP has not added a single novel concept, but it emphasizes two concepts much more strongly that was done with procedural programming.
The first such concept is that of the procedure bound to a composite variable called object. (The binding of the procedure is the justification for it being called a method). The means for this binding is the procedure variable (or record field), available in languages since the mid 1970s. The second concept is that of constructing a new data type (called subclass) by extending a given type (the superclass).
It is worthwhile to note that along with the OOP paradigm came an entirely new terminology with the purpose of mystifying the roots of OOP. Thus, whereas you used to be able to activate a procedure by calling it, one now sends a message to the method. A new type is no longer built by extending a given type, but by defining a subclass which inherits its superclass. An interesting phenomenon is that many people learned for the first time about the important notions of data type, of encapsulation, and (perhaps) of information hiding when introduced to OOP. This alone would have made the introduction to OOP worthwhile, even if one didn't actually make use of its essence later on.
Nevertheless, I consider OOP as an aspect of programming in the large; that is, as an aspect that logically follows programming in the small and requires sound knowledge of procedural programming. Static modularization is the first step towards OOP. It is much easier to understand and master than full OOP, it's sufficient in most cases for writing good software, and is sadly neglected in most common languages (with the exception of Ada).
In a way, OOP falls short of its promises. Our ultimate goal is extensible programming (EP). By this, we mean the construction of hierarchies of modules, each module adding new functionality to the system. EP implies that the addition of a module is possible without any change in the existing modules. They need not even be recompiled. New modules not only add new procedures, but - more importantly - also new (extended) data types. We have demonstrated the practicality and economy of this approach with the design of the Oberon System."
Taken from: http://www.eptacom.net/pubblicazioni/pub_eng/wirth.html
Comment · 10 years ago
I agree that many non-fiction titles could be shorter (although probably not the length of a blog post).
I confess I am an impatient reader, and many non-fiction titles I read feel padded out with unnecessary verbiage. I do wonder if the tools we use to write have some bearing on this. When using a computer to write, the ease of editing means it's much easier to just write and write and write.
Imagine if you were forced to write your manuscript by hand. I'm guessing the length of your non-fiction manuscript would be shorter, sharper and more to the point.
Comment · 10 years ago
The Labour Party's abstention on this bill is unforgivable. We need to hold the Conservative government to account for their deceit and utter incompetence. We need a strong opposition party now more than ever. But Labour have completely failed in that regard.
Yes, I realise Labour is up against our mostly Labour-hating right-wing national press who seem as culpable as our politicians in perpetuating lies and untruths to push their own agenda. (Is there any country in Europe that has a national press as vile, racist, and nasty as our national press in the UK?)
Labour should be pummelling the Conservative party for their endless lies and dishonesty. They should have ripped the Conservatives to shreds over this bill (as they should have for Brexit too).
Politics in the UK has never felt so oppressive, depressing and dysfunctional in recent memory than it is now. And it's probably only going to get worse.
Comment · 10 years ago
The BBC recently released a video codec called Turing (named after Alan Turing):
"...an open source software HEVC video encoder that allows highly efficient compression of video content with low computational complexity."
Comment · 10 years ago
A real barrier to a decentralised web is the difficulty of installing software on a server. I know that sounds really mundane and inconsequential in the broader debate about a decentralised web, but consider the following...
Imagine if installing a server-side chat app, message board, project management app, or CMS were as easy as installing a desktop app. In a desktop app, it's usually one click to start the install and then, if necessary, you're guided through a few screens to complete the install. Want to uninstall? The OS (operating system) will provide a feature to manage that.
Now consider how complicated installing on a server is in contrast. Upload you files to a folder or directory, enable permissions, set configurations not just for your server but also the language the program is written in - the list goes on. No wonder SaaS (Software as a Service) is thriving like never before. Who, other than technical folks, could possibly have the time, interest or inclination to set up a self-hosted solution when the barrier is so high? Perhaps some in the tech field would like to keep it that way? Would Saas be less attractive if installing a self-hosted solution was simple, easy, quick and secure?
Surely an essential part of a decentralised web is that companies, organisations and individuals choose to run their own software using open protocols and data formats. But until the ease, security and simplicity of installation improves for web software, it simply won't happen on a large scale.
Comment · 10 years ago
Microsoft has a long history of providing accessibility options in their products (long before Apple or Google started taking accessibility seriously).
Microsoft have never been very good with visual and interaction design in their desktop operating system. However, Windows Phone is the exception. It's visually attractive, and has nice, well thought-out interactions. I think it's superior to Android and iOS in many ways. It's obvious that both Apple and Google took some cues from Windows Phone in the updates to their own mobile operating systems. (Undoubtedly, all these companies look at each others products when designing new features).
Microsoft rightly gets skewered for tracking user behaviour in Windows 10. A few years ago, Canonical was heavily criticised for sending anonymous data from Ubuntu to Amazon. Meanwhile, Google captures more user data than possibly any other tech company - we're talking gargantuan levels of data - and yet on matters of privacy, the tech community gives Google a free pass. Why such double standards?