How many ways are there to dereference a pointer? you can use either *foo or foo[0] but why? Nothing is gained from having two ways to do it, it just makes the language more obscure.
Something is gained, though: self-documentation. The way you dereference a point (should) reflect what the pointer is being used for.
Nobody uses C or C++ because they love the language.
I do. I routinely use about a dozen different languages, but C++ remains my favorite by a longshot, followed closely by C.
And when C was developed, it was a HIGH-LEVEL language.
Umm, no, it wasn't. It was (and is) considered a mid-level language, one step above assembler. High level languages of the day were things like COBOL and Fortran.
Just to be clear, I didn't say there were things that couldn't be done through web interfaces, just that they apparently can't be done nearly as well. This is entirely based on my experiences with both web-based and native application UIs. In the best web-based UIs I've seen, the problem is usually that they're annoyingly slow and/or laggy. Most web-based UIs have additional issues on top of that (formatting problems, etc.) All web-based UIs share other really annoying problems, like when transient network errors happen right after you push a button or enter some text.
They all also have the problem that they have to operate within a browser window, which severely constrains UI design.
While it was all you had back in the days of 486's and Pentiums, the entire industry has evolved.
Since the cloud is nothing more than a return to the bad old days of client/server computing, I think that this is more properly stated as "the entire industry has devolved".
With FTL, JavaScriptCore can run C code compiled via Emscriptem to JavaScript at around 60% of the speed of the same C code compiled directly. That's not a huge overhead (40% is a generation old CPU, or a C compiler from 5 years earlier).
I strongly disagree. 40% is an absolutely horrendous amount of overhead. Comparing that loss to old CPUs and the like to argue that it's not doesn't make any sense at all.
I suspect many "desktop" software companies will hedge and build the app as a web app, BUT keep a "local virtual web server" option so that it can have quick access to local disk etc. if needed.
But that wouldn't solve the problem of having to use a web-based UI.
Right now the limits are in High End Graphic Processing, and Interfacing with external hardware.
And user interface in general. I've yet to see a web-based UI that even comes close to being as good as a well-developed native one.
Everyone thinks the cloud is great
Not everyone. I, for one, think that the cloud is the exact opposite of great. No third party provider can be trusted, by law.
Very unlikely. HIPAA only applies to specific entities. Apple is not one of those entities.
I don't blame apple for wanting to do this.
but I DO blame us, the consumers, for falling for every god damned privacy-invading scheme conceivable.
I blame both. This is such an obviously terrible idea that I blame Apple for not killing it as soon as the first person uttered it in the meeting. It shows a reckless disregard for their customers.
Sure, until insurance companies and governments start demanding access to it.
That's certainly something worth worrying about (it would really piss me off, that's for sure), but how does this make it significantly more likely?
Because it is creating what amounts to a massive DNA database. Once that is done, it is essentially inevitable that the data will be sued by insurance companies, governments, advertising agencies, hackers, and other ne'er-do-wells. This is a disaster in the making.
That's OK. I already avoid Chrome to the greatest extent that I can.
I believe this is a move in the right direction and can only help people be more secure, not less.
I'm very much in favor of end-to-end encryption of all things. That said, I think this is a seriously bad move on the part of Mozilla.
There's a pretty huge difference between helping people to be more secure and forcing people to be more secure. Mozilla is forcing people. This is Mozilla attacking people so they'll do what Mozilla has deemed to be The Right Thing. That it is indeed The Right Thing in no way excuses using the tactic of force.
But now if they block Firefox the reason will be widely known and the bank subject to public ridicule.
Haha haha. Most people won't understand why, and most people won't care.
And then there will be people like me: who understand why, and still don't care. If Firefox stops working with web sites I need to go to, I'll just stop using Firefox. I'm already a long way there: there is an increasing number of websites that Firefox doesn't work well with, and so I have to use a different browser for them.
Yes, the browser wars are on their way back.
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.
