Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Internet Explorer (Score 2) 98

It wasn't impossible to write cross platform browser stuff in the late 1990s, when most corporations started this whole "We'll standardize on browser X" policy making, but it required a discipline that had most developers throwing their hands up in the air in disgust.

I had these arguments many times back then. It was laziness more than anything else. We were writing cross-platform web applications without problems at that time. We were trying to convince other developers to follow the same route, but their attitude was mainly "IE has 90%+ market share, why bother?" They didn't believe a time would come when proprietary IE code wouldn't work - even if other browsers caught on, they were expecting them to copy the IEisms. They certainly didn't believe that even later versions of Internet Explorer wouldn't support their crappy code.

- IE4+ was the most standard. Yes, really. Those versions had a relatively complete implementation of CSS.

Let's not overstate things. Netscape bet on JSSS and when the W3C selected CSS as the standard instead, they scrambled to fix Netscape 4 to convert from CSS to JSSS on the fly. So Netscape 4 was exceptionally bad at CSS. Internet Explorer 4 was merely very bad at CSS. Opera was ahead at that time. I don't think you can call IE4 "relatively complete" unless you only compare it to Netscape 4, which was unusually bad.

Comment: Re:Better Link (Score 5, Insightful) 188

by Bogtha (#48893597) Attached to: WhatsApp vs. WhatsApp Plus Fight Gets Ugly For Users

reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action.

Just because reverse engineering is legal, it doesn't mean WhatsApp are legally obligated to provide their services to third-party clients.

The legal matter here is the blatant trademark infringement by WhatsApp Plus.

Comment: Re:Any actual examples? (Score 1) 598

by Bogtha (#48738377) Attached to: Tumblr Co-Founder: Apple's Software Is In a Nosedive

he doesn't give a single example of any of that. He just makes the unsubstantiated claim.

Because the point of the blog post wasn't to prove that this was the case, but to offer an opinion on how bad it's gotten and why it may be happening. His audience is very familiar with Apple gear, spelling everything out from first principles is unnecessary and a distraction from the meat of the article. Know your audience.

Comment: Re:Of Course (Score 2) 145

by Bogtha (#48683891) Attached to: Google and Apple Weaseling Out of "Do Not Track"

I'm talking about Facebook and Google, two of the companies explicitly listed in the article. You did RTFA right? Or are you one of those tards who manufactures the least charitable interpretation of what someone says and goes to town on them with a straw man?

The title of this submission: Google and Apple. The summary: Google and Apple. The article: Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. You said "both companies". Only two companies were singled out, Google and Apple. So yeah, to a reasonable person, it looks very much like you started off talking about Google and Apple, then expanded your point by talking about Facebook, and then to the other companies. Don't call me a "tard" because you fucked up what you were saying and I interpreted it in the most reasonable manner.

They are like google

The two companies have entirely different business models. Analytics is central to Google's business model. It's barely a blip on Apple's radar, and is insignificant compared with the way they use it as a differentiator.

Sure, Apple has business lines that generate income from hardware sales

That's so understated it's downright misrepresentative. They make billions of dollars a quarter from hardware sales. Even the amount of money they could theoretically make from analytics would be a drop in the bucket compared with that, let alone any earnings they might actually have. The potential chilling effect on their real business is far more relevant than any theoretical profits there. And you mention it like "oh yeah, they make money from hardware too"? Come on.

Comment: Re:Of Course (Score 4, Insightful) 145

by Bogtha (#48682669) Attached to: Google and Apple Weaseling Out of "Do Not Track"

Both company's entire business models are 100% predicated on tracking people.

What are you talking about? Apple's business model revolves around selling people hardware. They've just launched a digital payment scheme with privacy being a major differentiator. If you think that Apple's business model is "100% predicated on tracking people", you don't know the first thing about their business model.

There is simply no way these companies will ever agree to not track anyone when there is that kind of money on the line.

Apple are positioning themselves to use privacy as a selling point. Their business model is entirely different to Google's and they can make more money by going in the opposite direction.

Comment: Re:Ignored Niches (Score 2) 269

by Bogtha (#48588459) Attached to: Apple's iPod Classic Refuses To Die

Apple does not want you to own and store your own music/media.

Take off your Apple blinders and think about this rationally. What you are saying doesn't resemble reality in the slightest. Apple have been the world's largest music retailer for years. They have been selling DRM-free music for years. They make billions of dollars a year doing this. They are clearly very, very happy to sell you music and they make a hell of a lot of money doing what you claim they don't want to do.

Comment: Re:Looks pretty impressive... (Score 3, Informative) 115

by Bogtha (#48551409) Attached to: Google Releases Android Studio 1.0, the First Stable Version of Its IDE

The proof will be in the pudding -- I wonder how usable it will be as a day to day tool for app developers and coding houses, especially with multiple people doing check-ins and such.

It's already in wide-scale use. Most Android developers I know have been using it for a while; it surpassed Eclipse a long time ago. It was unstable, sure, but Eclipse was a pain in the arse. Android Studio was purpose-built for Android development, and it really shows.

That's not to say it's perfect - it's slow in a lot of places, and the emulator is excruciatingly slow. But it's been quite a bit better than most of the alternatives for a while now.

Comment: Re:America, land of the free... (Score 4, Insightful) 720

by Bogtha (#48542897) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?

what's the problem with the loss of the voting franchise?

Aside from the fact that it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, wasn't a huge part of the American revolution the idea that there should be no taxation without representation? Those felons are taxpayers, aren't they?

Comment: Re:Good reasons for Swift and Go (Score 1) 161

by Bogtha (#48538373) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

even in cases where the extra length clarifies what's going on, you can do the same thing in other languages, i.e. every language supports use of meaningful names.

But Objective-C is very unusual in that it interleaves method parameters with the method name. The best alternative to that is using named parameters, and hardly anybody uses those all the time, so developers end up having to memorise the arguments and their order for every method if they want to be able to read code quickly.

Can you seriously argue that concatenating a string in Objective C is elegant?

No, but it is consistent, and that's very important to readability and maintainability too. If you knew nothing about NSString, but you were familiar with the rest of Objective-C, then you could easily guess how to concatenate strings.

The only substantial way of improving on string concatenation in Objective-C would be to introduce custom operators, and that brings its own set of issues. The other alternatives sacrifice consistency.

Comment: Re:Algorithms (Score 1) 161

by Bogtha (#48538243) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

A computer scientist can implement any algorithm in any language.

Just because it's possible, it doesn't mean it's effective. Developers could write applications with Brainfuck or Whitespace, but they'd take far longer, have a lot more bugs, and be incredibly unhappy.

There's a lot of variation between programming languages, and it makes a big difference in how productive programmers are. Better programming languages are valuable.

Why are these companies using their own languages?

Because they saw an opportunity to provide better tools for their developers. Take a look at the bridges between Objective-C and other languages. They are pretty clumsy. Apple designed Swift with Objective-C interoperability in mind, and this means using the system libraries is easier with Swift than other languages.

Work a few years at XYZ company working on their proprietary algorithms in their ABC programming language?

Good luck getting another job.

All of the decent developers I know can make those kinds of leaps without a problem. There are always transferrable skills and there are always non-transferrable skills. Using one language doesn't lock developers into that language in the future, and using a common language doesn't avoid lock in. If iOS developers used Java, they'd still struggle with Android development at first because the majority of the knowledge you need relates to the platform, not the language. And likewise, just because iOS developers work with Objective-C, it doesn't mean they can't make the leap to Android.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...