Comment Re:About time... (Score 1) 158
Funnily enough I went through that phase where liked ruby, but am now back to the point where I'd rather just use perl with "use strict;". If I'm going to do OO development, I'm going to do it in C++ or Java.
Funnily enough I went through that phase where liked ruby, but am now back to the point where I'd rather just use perl with "use strict;". If I'm going to do OO development, I'm going to do it in C++ or Java.
Oh and when I say they work great, I was kind of lying. I have a favorite example. A while back a developer I was working with wrote some Spring/Hibernate code to pull records in from the database and print a billing report. Soon as he handed it off to me, I thought "What happens if I throw 100000 records at this?" Well what happened is that it crashed. So I cut the number in half and it still crashed. Down around 30000 records, it started taking about half an hour and THEN crashing.
Turns out he was using the framework to pull all the records from a couple of different tables and doing the join in Java. The SQL join I wrote to test the code took a couple of minutes to run on a million records and returned the correct output. On a hundred thousand it was neighborhood of 10 seconds.
Now the Spring/Hibernate people will be quick to point out that you can edit some XML file or something and make the framework do a join for you, thus solving that problem. And that is true, if you know a fair bit about the framework. And you'd have to know a fair bit about all the other frameworks they used on that project, too. By the time you got done learning all the frameworks they were using to the level of detail where you could actually be that effective with them, you could have written the application they'd built 10 times over.
Fortunately this story has a happy ending. The team ended up deciding to run the original developer's code against the billing database several times a day so that it would never have so many records to process that it would crash, thus solving the problem once and for all!
I don't understand why people are expected to buy more software on their phone then on their PC
But they DO! For a majority of PC users software is scary, many worry about installing *anything* as it could "break" their computer. They lack the savvy to recognize fake vendors and malware apps. Also plain software incompatibility is a huge problem for them to understand. Even if they do buy something, many cant even find where their downloads go.
Now compare this to a smartphone App Store. Your CC goes to one place, Apple or Google who they already trust more than random developers. Installs are single click, generally can't mess up th system and are easily removed if you didn't like it.
All stores are MUCH safer and comfortable for general computer users. This is WHY there are millions of apps, finally non-technical folks are empowered to try out and explore software largely without fear. It's been a huge experience for them and finally showing them the potential of computers that WE have been claiming for decades.
So yes, people most definitely do pay more for apps on their phones than their computers, and they like it that way.
Meanwhile in Europe where one party's politicians don't spend as much effort trying to use global warming as a bludgeon against their political enemies (and an excuse to funnel public money to their friends) popular acceptance of "climate change is a real thing to worry about" seems to be higher. How about that, hmm?
If all else fails, lower your standards.