• Embedded Linux Powers the M-100 Mini-Box
• SolarPC
• Mini-Box M-100
• Hush Technologies
• Slashdot: A Truly Silent Desktop PC

Some alternatives to ant/make are

• cook [auug.org.au] (probably the best contender),
• Mk [pzi.net] (which is like bitkeeper+make),
• Jam [freetype.org],
• cake [mu.oz.au] (does anyone use this any more?), and
• the Plan 9 mk [cminusminus.org].

There's also something called Cons, but it needs perl to work. See this [gnu.org].

I haven't found a good alternative to autoconf yet. There used to be Metaconfig, but I don't know who maintains it any more (or where). It produces configure scripts similar to what you see when you configure perl. This guy [cr.yp.to] uses some unreleased software package for his build systems that tend to work really well -- for C code under Unix.

It lists a number of other out-of-print books which're of interest to geeks (and some which are in print such as the .tex source (which one may not process save under specific circumstances) for _The TeXBook_ and _The METAFONT Book_ by Dr. Donald E. Knuth). Books of interest include:

• _Unix Text Processing_
• Norman Walsh's _Making TeX Work_ (which is on Sourceforge)
• Eckel's book on programming Java
• and for those with kids, _The Great Logo Adventure_

From the article: Why does Haskell matter?

So if Haskell is so great, how come it isn't "mainstream"? Well, one reason is that the operating system is probably written in C or some other imperative language, so if your application mainly interacts with the internals of the OS, you may have an easier time using imperative languages. Another reason for the lack of Haskell, and other functional languages, in mainstream use is that programming languages are rarely thought of as tools (even though they are). To most people their favorite programming language is much more like religion - it just seems unlikely that any other language exists that can get the job done better and faster.

There is a paper by Paul Graham called Beating the Averages describing his experience using Lisp, another functional language, for an upstart company. In it he uses an analogy which he calls "The Blub Paradox".

It goes a little something like this:

If a programmer's favorite language is Blub, which is positioned somewhere in the middle of the "power spectrum", he can most often only identify languages that are lower down in the spectrum. He can look at COBOL and say "How can anyone get anything done in that language, it doesn't have feature x", x being a feature in Blub.

However, this Blub programmer has a harder time looking the other way in the spectrum. If he examines languages that are higher up in the power spectrum, they will just seem "weird" because the Blub programmer is "thinking in Blub" and can not possibly see the uses for various features of more powerful languages. It goes without saying that this inductively leads to the conclusion that to be able to compare all languages you'll need to position yourself at the top of the power spectrum. It is my belief that functional languages, almost by definition, are closer to the top of the power spectrum than imperative ones.

So languages can actually limit a programmers frame of thought. If all you've ever programmed is Blub, you may not see the limitations of Blub - you may only do that by switching to another level which is more powerful.

One of the reasons the mainstream doesn't use Haskell is because people feel that "their" language does "everything they need". And of course it does, because they are thinking in Blub! Languages aren't just technology, it's a way of thinking. And if you're not thinking in Haskell, it is very hard to see the use of Haskell - even if Haskell would allow you to write better applications in a shorter amount of time!

Hopefully this article has helped you break out of the Blub paradox. Even though you may not yet "think in Haskell", it is my hope that you are at least aware of any limitations in your frame of thought imposed by your current "favorite" language, and that you now have more motivation to expand it by learning something new.

If you are committed to learn a functional language (to get a better view of the power spectrum) then it is my belief that Haskell is your best bet.

Posted by michael on Tuesday April 15, @04:44PM

Kallahar writes "American Scientist has an article up about Computing Science: The Post-OOP Paradigm. The article has a great overview of how OOP works, and then goes on to a brief outline of the possible successors to OOP such as Aspect, Pattern, and Extreme Programming. Also a pretty picture of OOP Spaghetti."

Also:

Compare the best prices on: Software/Programming Development
Kallahar
Computing Science: The Post-OOP Paradigm
pretty picture
More on Programming

Posted by CowboyNeal on Saturday April 19, @12:30PM

Roland Piquepaille writes "Mitch Betts asked this question to many technology leaders in the field of business intelligence. Here is one selected prediction. 'In five years, 100 million people will be using an information-visualization tool on a near-daily basis. And products that have visualization as one of their top three features will earn $1 billion per year,' says Ramana Rao, founder and chief technology officer, Inxight Software Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif. Check this column for more forecasts and an update on the adoption of so-called 'executive dashboards.' You also can read the original Computerworld article for even more information."

Also:

Roland Piquepaille
more forecasts
original Computerworld article
More on Businesses

Posted by michael on Saturday April 19, @06:43PM

KamehamehaWarrior writes "Peter B. Lloyd, author of Taking The Red Pill: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in The Matrix, believes that many of the plot developments in "The Matrix" that seem to contradict the laws of physics, biology, etc. can actually be explained with a closer look at the science. He addresses issues such as "Can humans really be an energy source? How does the Matrix know what fried chicken taste like? Why do the rebels have to enter and exit the Matrix via a telephone system (that doesn't actually exist)?""
Also:

Taking The Red Pill: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in The Matrix
be explained
More on The Matrix