|
Apple wants you to buy some expensive extra hardware for copying your photos from an apple device to something else. Because only iPhoto knows where and how your photos are stored, you can only use the devices accepted by iPhoto for that purpose. What a great world! And so many people buy that apple crap!
|
|
|
|
|
30 years on and Apple are still stealing ideas from Smalltalk-80 and presenting them as innovation.
One day, the vision of everything as an Object may actually take off.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: One day, the vision of everything as an Object may actually take off.
Well until they get down to the turtles anyway.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
You're forgetting of course that Turtles are objects too!
|
|
|
|
|
It's an issue of tagging and content. Since the filename is often not enough, additional information is required to figure out what goes where. The future is automatic content extraction for searching/indexing of images so that you simply ask for e.g. "pictures of my daughter in Madrid" and the system returns those photos that show that person in that place by means of sophisticated pattern-recognition algorithms.
|
|
|
|
|
But a smart user puts those photos on a directory named "pictures of my daughter in Madrid", done.
Last night I was looking for some old pictures and I didn't even know what pictures I had so asking by description would be useless.
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason this article really annoyed me. While I agree that there could be some improvement to the file systems we're using now, I'm not quite sure how, and every alternative I've ever seen has been, in my opinion, worse - not the Glorious Answer to All our Problems.
Files as the UI work, even if it's sometimes annoying to have to remember where you put something and how you named it, which is more than what can be said for the alternatives (which, at best, appear to work with less effort until you want to do something even slightly out of the ordinary, and it will simply not work at all).
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: Are the days of hierarchichal file systems numbered?
Again?
Terrence Dorsey wrote: a file system can be thought of as a structured way of mapping lots of pieces of separate data to a physical disk.
It has a real-world analogue. It can be seen as a physical "file system". With files in folders.
Terrence Dorsey wrote: You shouldn’t have to worry about where photos are stored in your photo library;
"It has to be accessible anywhere, whether it's stored on your PC with 60 Terabye harddisk, your phone, or your car-key."
Photo's are an overly simple example. What about Visual Studio solutions? And should it really not matter whether I open it from a test-folder or a production-folder? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Fran went all-out with her reverse engineering of the Apollo Saturn V LVDC board. Regular readers will remember that she was showing of the relic early this year when she took the board to her Dentist’s office to X-ray the circuit design. Since then she’s been hard at work trying to figure out how the thing functions using that look inside the board and components. When we say ‘hard at work’ we really mean it. Not only did she explore many different theories that resulted in dead ends, she also built her own version of the circuits to make sure they performed as she theorized. Want to launch your own rocket? You'll need a Saturn booster and one of these: a Launch Vehicle Digital Computer.
|
|
|
|
|
If there was one course I could add to every engineering education, it wouldn’t involve compilers or gates or time complexity. It would be Realities Of Your Industry 101, because we don’t teach them and this results in lots of unnecessary pain and suffering. This post aspires to be README.txt for your career as a young engineer. The goal is to make you happy, by filling in the gaps in your education regarding how the “real world” actually works. It took me about ten years and a lot of suffering to figure out some of this, starting from “fairly bright engineer with low self-confidence and zero practical knowledge of business.” I wouldn’t trust this as the definitive guide, but hopefully it will provide value over what your college Career Center isn’t telling you. You are not defined by your chosen software stack!
|
|
|
|
|
Binary Technologist has a better ring to it!
Just like Vision Technologist sounds better than Window Cleaner.
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAuld wrote: Window Cleaner
Would that be someone who does programming under Microsoft Windows? ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
That article can also be read as: "Do not become a business programmer."
|
|
|
|
|
The designers of Go agree with the collective experience of the last twenty years of programming that there are three basic data types a modern language needs to provide as built-ins: Unicode strings, variable length arrays (called “slices” in Go), and hash tables (called “maps”). Languages that don’t provide those types at a syntax level cannot be called modern anymore. (And what’s up with all the languages that claim all you need are linked lists? I’m sorry, this is not 1958, and you are not John McCarthy.) Go strings are UTF-8 because Go was designed by the guys who invented UTF-8, so why not? Everybody's talking about Go this week. What do you think about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: Go strings are UTF-8 because Go was designed by the guys who invented UTF-8, so why not?
You learn something new everyday!
=====
\ | /
\|/
|
|-----|
| |
|_ |
_) | /
_) __/_
_) ____
| /|
| / |
| |
|-----|
|
=====
===
=
|
|
|
|
|
"the directory the fundamental unit of packaging"
"this leads to the convention of using domain names as directory names"
The code still has to be stored in the file system? I thought he said this wasn't 1958.
I prefer to be able to have all the code in one directory.
And the ability to have all the code in one file (for trivial stuff at least).
Seriously, we shouldn't need to store code in files anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point, I particularly dislike the use of domain names for packages.
I work on some of my own projects, and shouldn't haven't to register for a domain name to follow naming conventions.
|
|
|
|
|
I hear some of you, already. Just when you were over with that mess that it is to manipulate the DOM and that sneaky JavaScript language. Just when you learned to love the highly architected Android classes and managers or iOS’s beautiful method naming, why would we be back to that mayhem that is writing web applications? Didn’t we agree that HTML was not, after all, good enough for making real and performing apps? WebAPI will free you... except for all that pesky platform API stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Whether you like XML or not, we’re stuck with it for a long time. These days, the only new XML-based projects being started up are document-centric and publishing-oriented. Thank goodness, because that’s a much better fit than all the WS-* and Java EE config puke and so on that has given those three letters a bad name among so many programmers. XML for your document database is actually pretty hard to improve on. <adjective>Happy</adjective><noun>Birthday</noun><punctuation>!</punctuation>
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: <adjective>Happy</adjective><noun>Birthday</noun><punctuation>!</punctuation>
There is an error in XML document:
="1.0"="UTF-8"="yes"
<sentence>
<adjective>Happy</adjective>
<noun>Birthday</noun>
<punctuation>!</punctuation>
<sentence>
|
|
|
|
|
No question that XML is good, but it is also bad, and can ugly. The bad I would say is the it is verbose. Part of probably what should have been the spec should have be a standard for compression. The ugly: comments. Basically the syntax for comments sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
What one Microsoft program or product that was never fully developed or released do you wish had made it to market? Gates: "We had a rich database as the client/cloud store that was part of a Windows release that was before its time. This is an idea that will remerge since your cloud store will be rich with schema rather than just a bunch of files and the client will be a partial replica of it with rich schema understanding." For those who may not know, Gates was referencing WinFS, or Windows Future Storage. ...and other tidbits from Bill Gates' first-ever Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with putting words like "future" in names is that even 5 years down the road, it seems a silly name. A bit like calling a road "New Road".
=====
\ | /
\|/
|
|-----|
| |
|_ |
_) | /
_) __/_
_) ____
| /|
| / |
| |
|-----|
|
=====
===
=
|
|
|
|
|
Remember new college in oxford, england. There you have several 100 years
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
