Even C++ had this much right... - Page 7


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Even C++ had this much right...

  1. #91
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Even C++ had this much right...

    Hi Dave --

    > > > I think the only place rational users should object to another 20MB for an
    > > > app, in an era of cheap 20GB hard drives, is in an Internet-download over
    > > > narrowband scenario.

    > >
    > > What about disk-thrashing brought on by a user running a dozen or so apps,
    > > each dependent on a different 20+Mb of runtime? (How many icons are in
    > > your taskbar, on average?)

    >
    > That seems unlikely.


    Maybe. Maybe not. I don't have stats to argue either side, nor do I think anyone
    could pretend to. Remember too, "we" have the best machines around, on average.
    Those poor sods running Win98 or ME, well... it doesn't take much to push them over
    the edge in the best of all worlds! <g>

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  2. #92
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Even C++ had this much right...

    Karl,

    >> 1. He didn't say it's overrated he said it was secondary to providing
    >> functionality to end-users.

    >
    >Right. But the use of a term like "buzzword" tends to be a dimunition by its very
    >utterance, no?


    If, as he was, you're trying to make the point that languages and tools
    should be chosen for how well they achieve the goal of providing
    functionality then his use of the buzzword 'buzzword' can be understood to
    be diminutive _in context_.


    >> 2. 1992

    >
    >Yep, it was already far overblown -- **** near ten years ago! Get with the program,
    >eh? ;-)


    Well Karl, considering that in 1992 few programmers actually knew anything
    about object-oriented programming,and considering that MS didn't have vc++
    yet or if they did it was relatively recent, I hardly take a nearly
    ten-year old quote - given as an appeal to authority - as informative.
    Pronouncements are not analysis and argument, no matter who the source is.

    I'd been drooling over the prospect of having OO tools for just about a
    decade prior to that quote and am very pleased to see that the .net system
    provides a very nice OO programming environment. And, I'm experiencing
    the benefits of having it - as I've known for 20 years I would.


    --
    Zane Thomas
    www.mabry.com/dotnet

  3. #93
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Even C++ had this much right...

    Hi Zane --

    > >> 1. He didn't say it's overrated he said it was secondary to providing
    > >> functionality to end-users.

    > >
    > >Right. But the use of a term like "buzzword" tends to be a dimunition by its very
    > >utterance, no?

    >
    > If, as he was, you're trying to make the point that languages and tools
    > should be chosen for how well they achieve the goal of providing
    > functionality then his use of the buzzword 'buzzword' can be understood to
    > be diminutive _in context_.


    <chuckle>

    > >> 2. 1992

    > >
    > >Yep, it was already far overblown -- **** near ten years ago! Get with the

    program,
    > >eh? ;-)

    >
    > Well Karl, considering that in 1992 few programmers actually knew anything
    > about object-oriented programming,and considering that MS didn't have vc++
    > yet or if they did it was relatively recent, I hardly take a nearly
    > ten-year old quote - given as an appeal to authority - as informative.


    Actually, it was given mainly in the jocular manner in which the original post
    (Jonathan's) was offered. But you knew that. I think. Right? <g>

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  4. #94
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Even C++ had this much right...

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:52:09 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >Actually, it was given mainly in the jocular manner in which the original post
    >(Jonathan's) was offered. But you knew that. I think. Right? <g>


    Nah, don't think I even read the original post. :-)


    --
    Zane Thomas
    www.mabry.com/dotnet

  5. #95
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Even C++ had this much right...

    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3be3fbbc.28820484@news.devx.com...
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:52:09 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Actually, it was given mainly in the jocular manner in which the original post
    > >(Jonathan's) was offered. But you knew that. I think. Right? <g>

    >
    > Nah, don't think I even read the original post. :-)


    Ah, I see. It's all context, man. Nothing but. :-)
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center