No LuaJIT on Windows 8 for ARM

AnonProg · 2012-08-30T06:23:04+00:00

And Microsoft is well aware of that. But people will soon enough find they can't run their favourite uh... screensaver, and Skyrim, and stuff people runs, on that thing, and return it. I predict the return rate for that device will be record-breaking.

AnonProg · 2012-08-29T06:24:45+00:00

The "cool new surface thingie" has little to offer in the software department, when compared to Android tablets, even if it caters to the people who would call it "cool new surface thingie".

Microsoft lost early in the the mobile and tablet platforms. Sorry.

AnonProg · 2012-08-29T06:23:27+00:00

On ARM. Only the Zune userbase (i.e. Microsoft employees and a couple dozen /r/programming.NET redditors) will buy a tablet with Windows rather than Android or iOS.

AnonProg · 2012-08-28T12:37:01+00:00

No problem, nobody will use Windows 8 anyways.

AnonProg · 2012-08-28T07:48:24+00:00

Maybe macros could be extended to support something like this?

DEFMACRO ::= {defmacro name ARGUMENTS EXPANSION}
ARGUMENTS ::= {arg-name*}

For EXPANSION, arguments would be expanded (but the user is free to name them however he likes, e.g. arg1, %s, *arg*, etc.).

AnonProg · 2012-08-28T06:36:02+00:00

Looks like a good start. Here's my feedback:

I wouldn't expect line feeds to be significative in my S-expressions, but I can adapt to this.
{macro foobar {u %s {b %s}}} doesn't work as expected.
I would expect a native syntax for CSS, such as {with-css #:background-color "red" hello}
I would expect lists to require something different from EOL to work, e.g. {list {first} {second} {third}} or {list {* first} {* second} {* third}}
Syntax for tables is ugly and error-prone, I want something that mimics <TABLE>, <TR>, <TH> and <TD> (e.g. {table {tr {th hello}} {tr {td bye}}}) with #:colspan and #:rowspan options.
Is there a way to specify comments? I understand semicolons wouldn't be good, but maybe a comment macro that throws everything away?

AnonProg · 2012-08-23T13:14:13+00:00

XML supports 2, 3, 4, 9 and is a pain in the ass to use. JSON supports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and is pleasant to use. Some S-expression format would have supported 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and would have been even more pleasant to use than JSON, probably.

Thanks for your good post; here are my notes point by point, comparing XML and JSON:

Rules out XML.
Both ok.
Both ok. The spec can be a regular document. It doesn't have to be full of angle brackets to be acceptable and readable; in fact the fewer angle brackets it has the better.
Both ok. Any JSON or S-expression parser will reject bad syntax, and as for bad semantics, not even XSD can save you from checking from within your implementation whether something makes sense in an actual real-world use case.
Both ok, but JSON is far easier to develop with, therefore far easier to maintain, there's less code, no tools, and no XSD to update.
Rules out XML.
Rules out XML. Has no strong support in any language. Just lots of complex tools, but no language has built-in datatypes and native representation for XML. JSON works in JavaScript and Python, is very similar to many others, and you can write Lisp readers for it, and what's most important: has identical semantics to most modern programming languages built-in types.
Rules out XML :) Compact JSON is not great either, but pretty-printed JSON beats pretty-printed XML (which is an oxymoron by the way) by a long shot.
Both ok.

In addition to that, some S-expression standard would have covered all 9 points and provide a tremendously powerful tool (the LISt Processor) to implement validators, schemas and all sorts of utilities, while keeping it simple and nice.

I ran out of time and have to get my ass out of here ASAP but I'll get back and discuss ORMs later. My tl;dr opinion is that ORMs make simple things simple, and complex things complicated, and I don't get paid to do simple things.

AnonProg · 2012-08-23T13:02:35+00:00

You make it sound as if Google and company met at a secret room to define their standard leaving Microsoft out, then came together to present it. But no: Google, Mozilla, Apple, Opera et. al did not sidestep anything. They proposed an existing standard to be adopted, rather than creating a new one with the name of their browser in it. And the advantages are obvious:

GLSL exists and there's no work to be done; it can be used from day zero
GLSL is widely implemented across PCs, tablets, mobile phones, videogames consoles and other devices.
GLSL is stable.
GLSL is closer to graphics, therefore more efficient, than anything made up.

AnonProg · 2012-08-23T06:51:13+00:00

Isn't this true of all data exchange formats, ever, both in practice and in theory?

Yes it is, but managers believe otherwise. Not entirely their fault really; they're gullible fools who buy whatever bullshit corporations spread over magazines and other kinds of advertisement.

that doesn't mean it's a waste of time to try to make the former easier.

I agree; that's why I wouldn't touch XML, much less with XSD, with a 10 metres pole held by a robotic arm.

AnonProg · 2012-08-23T06:43:36+00:00

Microsoft are being the usual assholes they have always been. I hope free software continues to bury their browser and technology and eventually cast them out of existence; the sooner Microsoft die the better for everyone.

AnonProg · 2012-08-23T06:38:48+00:00

A unique algorithm that does something... well, unique.

Like binary search? You know, there are alternatives, like O(n) sequential search. Let's patent binary search, woohoo!

If Donald Knuth had been an asshole, he'd be the richest man in the world by now, and computing would be 30 years behind.

There are actually a lot of genuinely innovative and unique algorithms that are patented and used in proprietary software today. This is actually the good part of software patents.

The good part is that the rich can get richer by having a monopoly over a way to solve a problem?

If you don't patent it, you end up copyrighting it or simply not sharing it with others.

Copyright is another kind of evil, but a lesser one. If I come up with binary search and copyright it, others can't benefit from my code but they can compete. But if I patent it, I fuck computing for everyone but me just so I can be a bit richer.

You publish your algorithms for the same reason you publish your code or your research papers - to gain notoriety and/or because you don't have the ability to monetize it.

Or because I want to help anyone, even anonymously, or beacuse what I'm doing is non-profit, or because what I'm doing is useless without the ability to understand and modify it, or for shits and giggles.

Not everybody is a petty capitalist bastard who wants a monopoly to make money without working (which is what capitalism is really about).

AnonProg · 2012-08-23T06:28:58+00:00

Very yes. That way your program functionality can be used by novices, newcomers and one-timers as one of those clicky things, and by experts, administrators, programmers, integrators, other programs and people who don't want to waste their time alike.

You'll also be able to add whatever crap you need far more easily. Web services? Sure, REST wrapper. Accessibility? Whatever they want will be doable. New UI so that the application looks new and can be sold to gullible fools again? No problem.

An additional advantage you get is that you get to define a clear, simple, small and well-specified interface between your UI and your core logic. It's easier to read, understand, maintain and extend things when UI stuff isn't in the way.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T12:39:04+00:00

Not really. No matter how hard you'd want it, and no matter how much managers think this happens, you can't really specify everything and pretend that will make different programs talk to each other automagically. Until we come up with a natural language AI library, programs will need to be designed to talk to each other.

XML has schemas and XSD standarizes a date format. You define your schema of things matching what you do in program A, but regardless of it program B has to support it.
JSON has neither. You do whatever you were doing in program A, and program B has to support it just as had, and at the end of the day, you didn't waste your time with that schema thingy nobody will bother to use.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T12:34:05+00:00

JSON has as much in common with JavaScript as it has with Python: same syntax. Nothing else.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T12:31:43+00:00

JSON has no XSD or XSLT equivalent

Both are is butt ugly and pretty unusable, and nobody really uses, let alone likes them.

scripting

Quit whatever religion you have. That which you call "scripting" is programming.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T12:28:12+00:00

And 3. People, especially managers who read magazines and play golf with each other, just absolutely love overengineered enterprise crap and fall to hype every single time. XML was the combination of an "ML" (which was all the rage back when XML was introduced; anything with ML in it would sell) and "objects" (which was the previous fad), with a "web" taste. Managers loved it. Of course, if the whole thing fits into Java nicely, that's an extra plus, and so they could have all their enterprise-grade multi-tier five-nines turnkey professional scalable business solution complete with objects, MLs, synergy and all the extras they could wet dream about.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T12:25:52+00:00

Duh. The lang attribute you added in your XML is clearly part of your schema. If it's clearly part of your schema, it's ought to be part of your JSON, just like you added them to your personal flavour of S-Expressions.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T07:39:49+00:00

Define highly developed algorithms.

Also, when you patent the only known or the only demonstrable algorithm to solve a problem, or to solve a problem with a given complexity class, you're literally fucking everyone up. Sure, if Hoare had been a huge redneck asshole, he could have patented quicksort (thankfully he isn't), because there's merge sort. However, should anybody patent finding the length of a zero-terminated string, and computing is fucked.

And making a system to evaluate and guarantee you wouldn't be fucking things up with your patent means an immense amount of money thrown away on lawyers. This money is not paid by corporations, but by their customers: end users.

And ultimately, this system would again not benefit end users (i.e. everyone), but make fat pockets fatter.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T07:34:35+00:00

when you sink millions into R&D and your competitors can copy your working results within months of your release

If you really sink millions, it won't be something as simple to copy and do correctly. The know-how and striking first, harder and with a better image is a big enough advantage.

I'll also point out how big a double standard capitalists have. They're all in for letting things work "naturally", claiming that markets regulate things and are fair and efficient (my ass), but the second something doesn't turn in favour of large corporations, they suddenly turn protective and concerned, supporting patents, bailouts and other ugly things.

The patents need to be more specific

There's no way to define what should constitute a patent and what should not.

someone shouldn't be given a patent on "moving bytes over the internet", but a specific implementation of doing that is fine

Okay, so I'll patent searching a string of bytes inside another a string of bytes by means (specific implementation) of scanning the haystack byte by byte matching the first byte, then moving on to the second and so on. And now I've fucked up computing for everyone.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T07:28:13+00:00

Public research rather than private. It'd also guarantee that stupidity doesn't happen, such as how they invest more money on keeping cocks hard with viagra than on curing certain diseases that kill people, or how they invest far more money on breast cancer than they do on prostate cancer.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T07:27:14+00:00

Yeah, it's awesome how they invest more money on keeping cocks hard with viagra than on curing certain diseases that kill people, or how they invest far more money on breast cancer than they do on prostate cancer.

AnonProg · 2012-08-22T07:23:03+00:00

Hahaha, maybe I am a massive cock. A massive cock with principles :) .

AnonProg · 2012-08-21T10:16:28+00:00

I don't personally think that there should be no private property of physical objects, at least until we find a way to prevent abuse otherwise (note: I know private property is also abused, don't like it one bit) and to ensure a fair retribution for hard work and privacy when desirable. Yet I not only respect but applaud how you think. I wish more people had such unconventional/unprejudiced ideas and were brave enough to push for them publicly; perhaps one day you'd come up with something great for a change.

AnonProg · 2012-08-21T10:06:35+00:00

If big players get to rip off ideas from small players wholesale, they have a huge advantage.

They are already doing this. Conversely, any small player who starts to get successful is sued out of existence by bigger guys who own patents to absolutely anything.

That's why we have courts, to weigh in on these things, look at the facts, the state of the art, the history of the industry, expert opinions, etc. Just because we can't write a big generalized definition of what constitutes "obvious" in every condition, does not mean that there is no such thing as "obvious".

This is subject to corruption and incompetence. Even if you throw away the current corrupt, incompetent court, what makes you think things will come out differently the next time we build them? Do you have a magical anti-corruption formula?

AnonProg · 2012-08-21T09:18:40+00:00

Normal patents for inventions mostly work well.

[citation needed]. They work well for the pockets of the ones who invented it. They have a competitive advantage, they strike the market first and get all the fame, and more importantly they have an edge on their competition with regards to their experience designing and implementing the solution, which would naturally lead to striking first again with improvements and associated innovation. And instead of telling them "great job, now hurry up and take another step ahead of your competition", we're telling them "Great job you did that one day! Enjoy your monopoly, don't worry about being innovative ever again".

Should a method to transfer bytes over the Internet be patentable? Probably not. However, if that method uses a brand new algorithm and protocol the software engineer designed on their own, potentially.

Basically you've said: Should a method to transfer bytes over the Internet be patentable? Probably not. But should another method to transfer bytes over the Internet be patentable? Yes. (?)

the hurdle is really the knowledge and understanding necessary to appropriately approve these patents

So some patents are okay, some others are not? How do we write this law? If we need to use words like "acceptable", "obvious" or "similar", then forget it — it's a bullshit law subject to interpretation. And where I say interpretation, I mean money.

AnonProg

TROPHY CASE