Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Similar to Flash (Score 1) 451

Same. That's why I use Qt. Just as easy to write as Java, and better platform integration and performance.

Qt might be as easy to work with as Swing, but that doesn't mean that programming in C++ is the equivalent of programming in Java.

There are not nearly as many thread-safe, easy-to-use, open source, cross-platform programming libraries for C++ as there are for Java, surely.

Comment Re:Plenty of heads up. (Score 1) 451

If they had a large number of Cocoa/Java developers and it were possible, they would have to do it. Neither of those is the case though: they're making this move in large part because cross-platform Java development and Mac development were different enough that if you were using Java it was because you wanted it to run on other platforms and therefore didn't care if it looked like a good Mac app. So in practice, almost nobody would use it.

Unless you were writing custom line-of-business software that you expected your internal users to be able to run, whether they were on Windows, Mac, or Linux.


Submission + - Apple Deprecates Java on Mac OS X (apple.com) 1

An anonymous reader writes: Well, here's a surprise. In the release notes for the Java update that Apple released today, they are announcing that Java on Mac OS X is now deprecated, and that it may not be supported in future versions of Mac OS X. Guess all the users of my in-house Java app on Mac will just have to plan on foregoing Lion. Maybe they can switch to Windows or Linux.

Comment Only later models (Score 3, Informative) 82

The original PS3 models probably don't suffer from this, as they use on-board flash ram chips to hold the firmware.

Later versions of the PS3 cut out those flash ram chips as a cost-saving measure, in favor of bootstrapping the firmware from the hard drive. These models store the firmware on the drive, and these are the ones that might have this problem.

Comment Further idiotic errors (Score 2, Insightful) 229

Point the first: 1^1020 = 1.

Point the second: 1/1 = 1, which is greater than a trillionth.

Point the third: The cited article calculates 2.55453 X 10^20, and a trillion is 10^12, so the trillionth guess was only off by 8 orders of magnitude, not 1,020 orders, as I thought when I wrote that.

Point the main: I should not try to show off my math on the Internet.

Comment Re:Photon pressure wildly, ludicrously off (Score 1) 229

And while I'm confirming my hand-waving stupidity, I'd like to cite http://cubesat.wikidot.com/opticalflux, which has a quick calculation showing on the order of 2.55453 x 1020 photons.s-1.m-2, so when I cleverly said 'less than a trillionth of that amount', you should read 'less than 1^1020th' of that amount instead.

Fortunately for me, 1^1020 is more than a trillionth, so dividing it out would result in 1/1^1020, which is less than a trillionth. So it kind of works out.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rate at which a disease spreads through a corn field is a precise measurement of the speed of blight.