Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Shoot the Schoolmaster CIO (Score 1) 89

by raboofje (#37576434) Attached to: Battle For Open Standards In Dutch Public Education

Really? I remember reading Magister has a respectable-but-far-from-monopolistic market share of 10%, and there seem to be various options available, including the web-based SOM (formerly Vocus, ). Of course they'll differ in scope, but there certainly seems to be competition.

(full disclosure: i work for a sister-company of the company that develops SOM)

Comment: Re:Epic type system fail - universal covariance (Score 1) 330

by raboofje (#34180472) Attached to: Gosu Programming Language Released To Public

I concur exactly with your null/NPE observations. The next addition I want to the Java spec is the ability to mark a method as never returning null.

JSR 305 defines a set of annotations that allow you to do this (including '@NonNull' for method return values).

The weakness of this is that you can formally specify a method should never return 'null' with this, but the compiler does not check whether you live up to this promise. There are tools that can do some basic checks against blatant mistakes (Eclipse does this nowadays), and tools that are a bit more advanced and find even more subtle mistakes (FindBugs comes to mind).

Really proving correctness without a doubt is an unsolved problem - even when adding additional annotations it's a tough nut to crack - check out research projects like ESC/Java if you're interested in the gory details


Comment: Re:Some insight from one of the bigger customers.. (Score 1) 641

by raboofje (#34158008) Attached to: Oracle To Monetize Java VM

Stallman wrote the Java trap, and we all laughed. Sun is nice we thought, it'll be ok. We were all wrong. Stallman saw further, he saw that even if Sun was ok, if someone bought Sun, then things could get messy. Welcome to messy.

Actually, most of the platform has been open-sourced by Sun before the takeover under the 'OpenJDK' name.

Indeed, GNU now carries a 'headnote' to the article explaining the new situation:

The situation is still messy - but not for the original reasons laid out in that article. If worst came to worst, the JVM can be forked - but forking a widely-used platform is a whole other can of worms, of course.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".