Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: No rebuttal (Score 5, Interesting) 106

While this post is a valuable addition to Drew's analysis, I feel it's not really a rebutal at all.

Yes, JavaScript is slow for the reasons Drew mentioned and yes, the DOM is a nightmare to optimize for responsive UIs. They're both right.

While this blog also provides some nice insight into how you can have acceptable performance with a GC on mobile, it's not offering any workable alternative that would work for JavaScript. So Drew's article still comes out pretty strong, IMO.

Comment: Re:Duh, they are a publisher (Score 1) 463

by arendjr (#44029835) Attached to: MS To Indie Devs: You Have a To Have a Publisher

What's even more telling is how misplaced their "we're on top" attitude is. Xbox 360 may have had the lead for quite a while due to being released earlier, but the PlayStation 3 actually did surpass it in worldwide shipments. In total shipments, MS is actually behind both Nintendo and Sony.

Then again, I think they still do have an edge in the US (I'm in Europe, so I don't know the US numbers by head), and given that MS is a US company they must feel like they own the world.

Comment: Re:A good idea (Score 1) 81

by arendjr (#43129723) Attached to: Proof-of-Concept Port of XBMC to SDL 2.0 and Wayland

It seems to me you're making an issue out of nothing. You say "applications must talk to the Window system, so the Window system is as important as the kernel", but in practice this is not true. Applications talk to a toolkit/library like Qt or GTK, or (as what this article is about, and which you agree is a good idea) SDL. These libraries do the hard work because noone wants to talk to Xlib directly since it's a mess. Now, as long as these libraries all support X, Wayland, Mir or whatever will be around next week there simply won't be a problem.

You said it yourself. "It is always a good idea to use a platform independant library", and I agree. Yet you continue with the rest of your rant as if nobody actually does that.

PS.: I disagree Wayland should be in the LSB. As others already mentioned, let it first prove its worth. And not to forget X's network transparency is very valuable to some. Forcing Wayland into the LSB would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water, at the very least.

Comment: Re:More like... (Score 5, Informative) 347

by arendjr (#42862035) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Alternative To the Canonical Computer Science Degree?

It's getting a stupid meme, but again: this.

I got a job as a web developer (though the job title is actually Senior Software Engineer). I did a Bachelor's in Computer Science and a Master's in Software Engineering, and it sure paid off. Of course going to college didn't teach me how to do PHP or HTML or CSS, but it did teach me about time complexity, algorithms, data structures, and all the stuff needed to solve scalability problems. It taught me database design, which you better firmly grasp before even thinking about using a NoSQL solution. It taught me about testability, software processes and design patterns, all stuff which any developer should know, web or not.

I remember when I was young and just about to start going to college. I was a self-taught programmer, was working as a programmer part-time already, and I still had the arrogance to even doubt if college could still teach me anything useful. Boy, am I glad I finished my studies anyway.

Comment: Re:Having a strong competitor to GCC (Score 1) 360

by arendjr (#41909093) Attached to: FreeBSD Throws the Clang/LLVM Switch: Future Releases Use LLVM

Well, it seems to me the major forces driving the development of a compiler are the chip manufacturers and the developers of operating system. Both have an intrinsic desire to have a good compiler available to them. But what vested interest do they have that this compiler be GCC? If at some point in the future LLVM were to be become the one generating the most efficient code, and if the LLVM codebase is the more maintainable one, then why not switch?

And both chip manufacturers and OS developers seem to have a common goal of making their optimizations available to as many developers as possible. It does not seem to be in their interest to make their optimized versions prioprietary. After all, the compiler is not their money maker, it's simply a prerequisite of getting developers to support their OS or CPU in the first place!

You're right any GPL purists will likely stick to GCC, but personally I doubt they make up the majority of the GCC community.

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

Working...