Are we heading the correct direction??

El Corazon

Germyan wrote:

Hardware is getting relatively slow every day though they say they are increasing the power.. Software also getting slow every day though they say they are user friendly..

I don't agree with that. I guess it all comes down to what YOU do with what YOU are given. You can say what ever you want, that is your right. Or you can parrot what ever you have been told, that is your right. But don't think you don't have a part in things. The Virtual Test Range: (Unix) In 1994 I did my prototype on a 2 processor SGI reality engine (unknown processor) In 1996 we ran full scale at 20hz 350 real-time objects on an SGI R10000, 16processor, $1 million machine We ran 10m B&W imagery or 30m Color, 120m elevation posting Common Console Advanced Graphics Engine (first Windows) In 1999 we ran on a 4 processor 500Mhz (Specialized workstation) at 30m color, 120m elevation data, same land area, but a 1km per pixel earth drawn behind, same speed, same inputs. In 2001, we ran on a 2 processor Commercial Off The Shelf hardware, finally! We boosted the resolution to 4m B&W and color, 30m elevation, and extended the land area 50%, boosted the speed up to 30hz and the number of inputs to 500 real-time objects transitioned from CCAVE to Real-time Advanced Graphics Engine (RAGE) 2001 to 2003 In 2005, we were running full color 4m, 30m elevation with 1m high resolution "patches" at "interesting" locations, extended the area another 50% and extended depth precision on rendering to full double precision and beyond, still running 30hz. In late 2005 (Nov) we unvieled the first fielded, augmented graphics system, embedding live video directly into the 3D environment at 30hz without dropping frames on either live or virtual, while boosting the number of real-time inputs to 1000. Now we are running the same thing on laptops, and dual core gaming machines. Say what ever you want, but you will never convince me that things have "slowed" down, only that YOU have slowed down. I eat technology for breakfast. :)

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

Germyan

that is why I said Relatively slow...

Germyan

Narrow minded... think out of the box.. think what can be done.. don't think that what you have done is the most complex thing ever done.. Selection of building computer base on the famous tool "Abacus" is the first mistake,, second would be the 0, 1 bit and it's all related stuff, third is choosing hardware to build computers.. I don't no what option we have but I see that end is not far away.. if not we have to change the direction G

Germyan

Mike Ellison wrote:

few bad programmers.

mmm really.. You being good does matter when the *majority* is doing it worng..

Mike Ellison wrote:

more efficient. Many others are doing the same. Is that what you mean by "fool"?

hahaha.... this is where I called people does not think out of the box.. why is that *more*, have you ever thought what would have done if you have much much faster systems.. G

Germyan

fdsfsdf'dsd jfgdsafh's bfsd'df fsdf--- fdsfghhj-90ufsdjf G

Germyan

probably yes if it is damp fast.. G

Germyan

I am thinking man... every day.. morning to evening... G

Germyan

Marc Clifton wrote:

Really? I couldn't tell.

You know, I have not found any body to tell when some one else thinking.. but I guess I just found a one who can.... stick to the main point!!

Marc Clifton wrote:

Um, no. We are actually all running in different directions, and what we do in our direction is sometimes useful in someone elses direction. Eventually, a lot gets done by everyone. Something may not be the best fit (like XML), but it's the best choice at the moment.

Very good... you will very well fit to the current system.. you will never ever think out of the box.. once some thing is given with its definitions, you will show your mastery inside that box... but never think to change the definitions or the box... people like you also needed

Marc Clifton wrote:

Speak for yourself.

You mean like you did here... :-) G

Germyan

ohooo.. let me try... after 8 hours writting.. I just tried and found that it is even slower.. :-( G

Nirosh

I agree that any one who is good at his/her profession is a one who know how to use the available tool set to his maximum adavantage.. but..

Mike Ellison wrote:

Nope. Good developers, like any artist, understand the tools and techniques available to them and competently choose which to use under which circumstances. Perhaps your thinking is too limited here. Perhaps you find yourself among a few bad programmers.

I think "G" is talking about the tools and techniques but not the way we are using them.. and he is asking whether the way, we build these tool and techiniques are correct... I think the base system architecture (hardware as well as software) seems to have their limitations.. even thought I am not fully agree with what Germyan is telling I think we all agree that we are going on a journey, with not knowing the end .. When too many descrete resource get involve in finding some thing, it more often than not spoil the soup.. as he pointed out.. XML is invented by some one with a purpose, but at the other end of the world some one else (descretely) is using it for something else.. Again some one may introduce a new concept with a one goal (Is OKI - Open Knowledge Initiative still in use??) but some one else may use it to acheive a goal totally oposite to the initial goal look at what happen by year 2000, Y2K issue ... I think what initial poster is telling have much more depth than most of the repliers think.. but I can be a fool :-)

L.W.C. Nirosh, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Marc Clifton

Germyan wrote:

you will never ever think out of the box

:laugh: Have you even looked at the articles I've written, or my website, or the open source MyXaml project, or my Interacx architecture? I'll tell you something. I'm known for not thinking in the box. Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

Germyan

Yes I have seen and noticed some.. Let me tell you something. There are two ways a missiles use to hit a fighter jet.. one is base on the history (missile is droped on to the heat path of the jet and base on that missile find the jet and attack) of the jet and other is evaluating its current movement and predicting the future (missile always targeting at a predicted location and never take its way based on the history of the jet).. I do judge people by using the second way.. and according to that I only read what you just said and I do *not* care about your history, is that unfair?? so based on what you said you are not thinking out of the box.. Finally,, I just went to http://www.myxaml.com/ and read it. It just proved me how good you are... That also proved me that you are still inside the box, but the bad thing about it is, that you don't know about it. You want more info....? you wouldn't like it G

Marc Clifton

Germyan wrote:

You want more info....?

Sure. Enlighten me. :) Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

Dan Neely

Mine means something, does yours?

Germyan

While appreciating the effort

Marc Clifton wrote (at http://www.myxaml.com):

The wealth of possibilities that a developer now has with MyXaml is truly amazing. And the best part is, with MyXaml there's no need to wait for Longhorn's release in 2005 6 7 ??? to take advantage of the XAML technology. Give your development team a jumpstart into the future of Windows programming and your customers a more rewarding experience today!

This it self prove that where you are going, aren't you going after microsoft here.. is this what you called think out of the box.. G

Marc Clifton

Germyan wrote:

This it self prove that where you are going, aren't you going after microsoft here.. is this what you called think out of the box..

:laugh: You fell right into that one. First off, I didn't write that, a friend of mine did, and I enjoyed the way he spin-doctored the whole thing so much that I just left it as it was. You're looking at the surface. Look here[^]. So, I have a question for you. Why do say we are all heading in the wrong direction. Surely some people are not. For example, since you're so enlightened, I would assume you are trying to do something in a different direction. So, what would you describe as being the "right" direction? What are doing about it? Marc

Thyme In The Country

People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith

J4amieC

The only bit I got was Cthulhu :laugh:

--- How to get answers to your questions[^]

Mike Ellison

You only quoted me writing "few bad programmers". The actual quote was "Perhaps you find yourself among a few bad programmers". You sounded very depressed in your post, and throwing out a generalization without any specifics to back it up (the tiny bit about XML wasn't specific - you didn't mention specifically how you think it is being misused). In my experience, when someone starts throwing out depressed generalizations without any specifics to back it up, he or she is usually feeling trapped in their own situation. There was nothing in your original post that backs up the statement "the *majority* is doing it wrong". I haven't seen anything you've written since to back that up with specifics. I responded based on my experience - the people I'm working with are using XML quite well, and very appropriately.

Germyan wrote:

hahaha.... this is where I called people does not think out of the box.. why is that *more*, have you ever thought what would have done if you have much much faster systems..

I'm trying to understand what you are saying - I realize there may be a language barrier, so forgive me - this makes no sense at all. I have no idea what you are getting at. As far as having faster systems - they've gotten faster every year as far as I can tell.

Mike Ellison

Nirosh wrote:

I think "G" is talking about the tools and techniques but not the way we are using them.. and he or she is asking whether the way, we build these tool and techiniques are correct...

I didn't get that at all. He or she didn't list one specific issue he or she had with how current tools and techniques are being used. He or she just said the *majority* are using them wrong. I still don't have a clue as to what he thinks "wrong" is! And he hasn't offered what he thinks "right" is either.

Nirosh wrote:

I think the base system architecture (hardware as well as software) seems to have their limitations

You're right, but it always does, doesn't it? But aren't there also all kinds of people working to improve base system architecture? When quantum computing is out is mass, it too will have its own limitations (once we reach them)... but then, I'm sure there will be researchers working on the next advances. I'm supposed to agree that everyone is going in the wrong direction, with someone who won't say what the right direction is?

Nirosh wrote:

XML is invented by some one with a purpose, but at the other end of the world some one else (descretely) is using it for something else

My short response is: so what? Are *you* using it appropriately in your projects? I think that's the more appropriate question for each. XML was invented by several groups of people, and I'm sure as they did they recognized many areas of applicability. In your opinion (or the original poster's, for that matter) how is the someone you're referring to at the other end of the world misusing it? I think a discussion on specific misuses of XML is likely to be more productive, and get better responses, than pining that "the *majority* of developers" are doing it wrong.

Nirosh wrote:

I think what initial poster is telling have much more depth than most of the repliers think

That may well be true. I can only respond to what he or she has written, not what's in his or her head. What he or she wrote lacked specifics and made depressed generalizations that run counter to my own experience. -- modified at 10:16 Thursday 26th October, 2006

Dan Neely

from wikipedia. Cthulhu is depicted as having a worldwide cult centered in Arabia, with followers in regions as far-flung as Greenland, Louisiana, and New Zealand.[10] Cthulhu is described by some of these cultists as the "great priest" of "the Great Old Ones who lived ages before there were any men, and who came to the young world out of the sky."[11] The cult is noted for chanting its "horrid phrase or ritual: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", which translates as "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."[12] This is often shortened to "Cthulhu fhtagn", which appears to mean "Cthulhu waits".[13]