351–360 of 434 posts
As I understand it, Microsoft has copied the Linux kernel system call interfaces and provided their own underlying implementation. Given that Microsoft supported Oracle's view that the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java programming interfaces were covered by copyright law, then surely they would also agree that the same holds true for the Linux kernel system call interfaces. I don't like the APIs-are-c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying we shouldn't store software as text. Just saying we don't need to make software with text.
Get a better editor - one that lets you operate on semantic units. And/or get a better programming language - one that lets you operate on code as AST.
One other advantage of directly manipulating AST - it's very easily converted into any language runtime you want. It won't matter if you are targeting the JVM, V8 or native bytecode; you can do it all from the same AST. This same thing is possible with plain text code, but not quite as common.
As I understand it, Microsoft has copied the Linux kernel system call interfaces and provided their own underlying implementation. Given that Microsoft supported Oracle's view that the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java programming interfaces were covered by copyright law, then surely they would also agree that the same holds true for the Linux kernel system call interfaces. I don't like the APIs-are-c…
Not sure your understanding is correct, but in any case is that not precisely what Wine does on Linux when running Windows apps? Are you worried about Windows copyright violations with Wine? From Wine webpage, "Wine translates Windows API calls into POSIX calls on-the-fly. . ." [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if we really believe the bot was AI, then it wasn't Microsoft's bot. It was was it's own "artificial intelligence". But the rest of those have nothing to do with their legal team. They wouldn't implement a copy of another OS into this OS without making sure it was legal to do so.
I think the AI comment was more to the fact that, they didn't safeguard against seemingly obvious outcomes - such as internet trolls trying to get the bot to say bad things. Many companies put no-go words during username creation, hitler, racist words, etc - so why didn't Microsoft? It might not have been simple to do, but still - hard not to see the outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will they pick up the crowd who chooses their OS because it's mostly FOSS and not a branch of the NSA used for mass data collection? Most devs I know care about privacy and it was one of the main reasons they switched from Windows. Most Linux programmers I know aren't Windows devs as much as the MS shill team would like everyone on social media to believe. You don't have to be part of the FOSS crowd to support FO…
Except if you expect a snappy UI. OS X and Linux with X11 or even Wayland are easily 20 years behind windows in terms of UI responsiveness and snappiness. The constant input lag of unix desktops always drives me back to windows for my workstations, although I am a fullheart windows server hater and despite everything that comes with it. It's stable, extremely fast and when edited/hacked right also privacy aware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will they pick up the crowd who chooses their OS because it's mostly FOSS and not a branch of the NSA used for mass data collection? Most devs I know care about privacy and it was one of the main reasons they switched from Windows. Most Linux programmers I know aren't Windows devs as much as the MS shill team would like everyone on social media to believe. You don't have to be part of the FOSS crowd to support FO…
Except if you expect a snappy UI. OS X and Linux with X11 or even Wayland are easily 20 years behind windows in terms of UI responsiveness and snappiness. The constant input lag of unix desktops always drives me back to windows for my workstations, although I am a fullheart windows server hater and despite everything that comes with it. It's stable, extremely fast and when edited/hacked right also privacy aware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a better editor - one that lets you operate on semantic units. And/or get a better programming language - one that lets you operate on code as AST.
I think you're making good points, but please let me know when semantic editors are available for Go, Rust, JavaScript and Python. One other advantage of directly manipulating AST - it's very easily converted into any language runtime you want. It won't matter if you are targeting the JVM, V8 or native bytecode; you can do it all from the same AST. This same thing is possible with plain text code, but not quite as co…
I think there are ports of paredit-like features to those languages in Emacs too, and all the other semantic features of Emacs itself work with those. As long as the language's major mode properly defines what is e.g. a function, a symbol, etc. you can use semantic navigation and editing.
> One other advantage of directly manipulating AST - it's very easily converted into any language runtime you want. It won't matter if you are targeting the JVM, V8 or native bytecode; you can do it all from the same AST. This same thing is possible with plain text code, but not quite as common.
I don't think this is something that AST gives you. AST is just a more machine-friendly representation of what you typed in the source code. Portability between different platforms depend on what bytecode/machine code gets generated from that AST. And since AST is generated from the compiled source anyway as one of the first steps in compilation, getting it to emit a right set of platform-specific instructions means you can compile the original source there too.
And AST doesn't solve the problem of calling platform-specific functions and libraries anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could easily build an AST with gestures and speech rather than tapping buttons, and I think in 10-20 years time that's how we'll make software. I doubt it. Perhaps we'll be making ASTs by writing (i.e. drawing symbols with styli or pens), but I don't think we'll be doing it via gestures and speech. There's a reason that we don't teach math via interpretive dance.
There's also a reason people in the same room don't communicate by tapping buttons with letters on them.
I am a little scared from the distinction we are start to make between "computers" and "developers' computers" In most computer nowadays you cannot code (tables and smartphones), are computers doomed to be an expensive tool for few "nerd" ? What will be the impact on computer literacy ?
What do you mean? I pick up my Android phone and I've got an app that gives me a python shell, "terminal ide" which includes tons of cli developer tools like a C compiler and various editors, a full debian install I use for more secure SSH (using real openssh) and development and even some operations on various servers. There are full out Java IDEs on Android that you can install even. So here's just a few ways you c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do that a lot; for technical stuff it is often many times more efficient than talking. Edit: And easier to search, remember, read again and the less nice variant of that; 'you never said that to me' 'I did: ' copy/paste.
Obviously people occasionally do talk in person via pressing buttons. That doesn't mean it's generally preferred. Recorded speech is also searchable so not sure that's relevant.
It is ; recorded speech is not very searchable, especially if you are talking in a group in a conference where people can be from different countries with different dialects (which is the normal situation for our group talks). Also it is not convenient and sometimes not possible to record every (conference) meeting (too much noise etc). With text it's automatically recorded and perfectly searchable...
Also some of my colleagues are not good at English listening but are very good technically; if I type what I mean they understand while if I/we tell them, everything has to be translated and/or repeated many times.
I think the tech is not there yet to say it's not relevant.