HP loses another large customer

In article <5r2f47F12a2f9U1@mid.individual.net>, [email]billg999@cs.uofs.edu[/email] (Bill Gunshannon) writes:[color=blue]
> In article <$DXUdbVgbWzC@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> [email]Kilgallen@SpamCop.net[/email] (Larry Kilgallen) writes:[color=green]
>> In article <pSPJKTxKU26P@eisner.encompasserve.org>, [email]koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org[/email] (Bob Koehler) writes:[color=darkred]
>>> In article <474AFAED.5040108@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> The idea behind OO is that you represent an "object" as a package
>>>> consisting of a data structure and all the allowed operations, called
>>>> methods, on that data structure. If the language in use requires OO,
>>>> you can't easily do stupid things like trying to add two windows or
>>>> multiply a window by a file!
>>>
>>> I'm quite sure I could do both of those in C++. 8([/color]
>>
>> Those are _not_ easy to do in Ada 83, which did not have the big
>> Object Oriented upgrade of Ada 95. So while Object Oriented
>> features might be appropriate for some purposes, they are not
>> needed to avoid adding two windows or multiplying a window by a file.[/color]
>
> And, of course, neither covers the case when you actually did want to
> add two windows or multiply a window by a file. :-)[/color]

Anyone who finds themself wanting to add two windows should actually
be programming direct to the XQP and setting up cathedral windows !

Bill Gunshannon wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <$DXUdbVgbWzC@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> [email]Kilgallen@SpamCop.net[/email] (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>[color=green]
>>In article <pSPJKTxKU26P@eisner.encompasserve.org>, [email]koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org[/email] (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>In article <474AFAED.5040108@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The idea behind OO is that you represent an "object" as a package
>>>>consisting of a data structure and all the allowed operations, called
>>>>methods, on that data structure. If the language in use requires OO,
>>>>you can't easily do stupid things like trying to add two windows or
>>>>multiply a window by a file!
>>>
>>> I'm quite sure I could do both of those in C++. 8([/color]
>>
>>Those are _not_ easy to do in Ada 83, which did not have the big
>>Object Oriented upgrade of Ada 95. So while Object Oriented
>>features might be appropriate for some purposes, they are not
>>needed to avoid adding two windows or multiplying a window by a file.[/color]
>
>
> And, of course, neither covers the case when you actually did want to
> add two windows or multiply a window by a file. :-)
>
> bill
>[/color]

If you DO actually want to add two windows or multiply a window by a
file, I DON'T want you anywhere near my systems! You have been WARNED!

Bill Gunshannon wrote:[color=blue]
> And, of course, neither covers the case when you actually did want to
> add two windows or multiply a window by a file. :-)[/color]

Actually, i could see "adding two windows" being implemented.

You would create a new window and populate it with widgets from both the
original windows and create new callbacks for each function that was
common to both original windows (such as File -> Open) that would end up
doing a callback for that function for each of the original window.
Would make for some most interest results.


And in terms of multiplying windows, this has been done before. Think
about javascript sites that would pop up adverts constantly to your
window and whenever you close one of those adverts, it caused 2 more
adverts to pop up :-)

:-) :-) :-) :-)

In article <63575$474c8bee$cef8887a$4385@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:[color=blue]
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:[color=green]
>> And, of course, neither covers the case when you actually did want to
>> add two windows or multiply a window by a file. :-)[/color]
>
> Actually, i could see "adding two windows" being implemented.
>
> You would create a new window and populate it with widgets from both the
> original windows and create new callbacks for each function that was
> common to both original windows (such as File -> Open) that would end up
> doing a callback for that function for each of the original window.
> Would make for some most interest results.
>[/color]

Which is why you can't overload operators in Java. When people read
"+" they thing arithmetic. Using "+" for all kinds of other things
makes some really unmaintainable code.

Too bad they didn't follow through. "+" in String is not arithmetic.
Surely there were already many examples in other languages of using
other special characters to mean "concatenate".

On Nov 26, 7:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:[color=blue]
> That is utterly absurd. Businesses have been running their operations
> on Unix for decades. Until the advent of cheap PC's capable of running
> Unix it was frequently done with the entire business on one machine.
> Heck, Dennis Ritchie shared the machine he was developing Unix on with
> people doing real business applications!!!
>[/color]

Point of order. When he did that the PDP was running RSX.

On Nov 26, 10:05 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:[color=blue]
> Just becuase it needs the roor password to write things like
> startup info in tot /etc (or other directories) does not mean
> it is "reconfiguring the OS". I would bet that most applications
> (like Oracle) require system access on VMS as well. I know
> installing any compiler does. Are they also "reconfiguring the OS"?
>[/color]

Some modify SYSGEN parameters, others show you lines for you to
modify.

On Nov 26, 10:46 am, Hein RMS van den Heuvel
<heinvandenheu...@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> And any half-decent Oracle install is likely to prompt system
> configuration tweaks, but that's no different for OpenVMS either. I've
> installed SAP and Oracle on the same (unix, and windows) boxes. Both
> are major apps. Both require/encourage system config tweaks but those
> mostly do not fight, but complement.[/color]

/action ponders "half-decent" and Oracle being used in the same
sentence.[color=blue]
>
> My gutfeel is that at this point in time OpenVMS is more nasty to set[/color]


Your gut would be wrong.

In article <5481e772-e9be-446f-804f-4d30e3c8ab78@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
yyyc186 <yyyc186@hughes.net> writes:[color=blue]
> On Nov 26, 7:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:[color=green]
>> That is utterly absurd. Businesses have been running their operations
>> on Unix for decades. Until the advent of cheap PC's capable of running
>> Unix it was frequently done with the entire business on one machine.
>> Heck, Dennis Ritchie shared the machine he was developing Unix on with
>> people doing real business applications!!!
>>[/color]
>
> Point of order. When he did that the PDP was running RSX.[/color]

Sorry, but no.

Extracted from:

The Evolution of the Unix Time-sharing System
Dennis M. Ritchie
Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, 07974

At the time of the placement of the order for the PDP-11, it had
seemed natural, or perhaps expedient, to promise a system dedicated
to word processing. During the protracted arrival of the hardware,
the increasing usefulness of PDP-7 Unix made it appropriate to
justify creating PDP-11 Unix as a development tool, to be used in
writing the more special-purpose system. By the spring of 1971, it
was generally agreed that no one had the slightest interest in
scrapping Unix. Therefore, we transliterated the roff text formatter
into PDP-11 assembler language, starting from the PDP-7 version that
had been transliterated from McIlroy's BCPL version on Multics, which
had in turn been inspired by J. Saltzer's runoff program on CTSS. In
early summer, editor and formatter in hand, we felt prepared to fulfill
our charter by offering to supply a text-processing service to the
Patent department for preparing patent applications. At the time,
they were evaluating a commercial system for this purpose; the main
advantages we offered (besides the dubious one of taking part in an
in-house experiment) were two in number: first, we supported Teletype's
model 37 terminals, which, with an extended type-box, could print most
of the math symbols they required; second, we quickly endowed roff
with the ability to produce line-numbered pages, which the Patent
Office required and which the other system could not handle.

During the last half of 1971, we supported three typists from the
Patent department, who spent the day busily typing, editing, and
formatting patent applications, and meanwhile tried to carry on
our own work.



bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
[email]bill@cs.scranton.edu[/email] | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Bob Koehler wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <474a3981$0$90270$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:[color=green]
>> Some of the most popular OO languages (C++, Java and C#) are 3GL
>> languages.[/color]
>
> Some of the best OO code I've ever seen was written in Macro-32
> decades before the term was coined.[/color]

It is true that you can write OO code in any language.

But it it becomes a bit easier if the language support it.

I believe the term OO was first used about Smalltalk which
was release to the public in 1980.

Arne

Larry Kilgallen wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <pSPJKTxKU26P@eisner.encompasserve.org>, [email]koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org[/email] (Bob Koehler) writes:[color=green]
>> In article <474AFAED.5040108@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:[color=darkred]
>>> The idea behind OO is that you represent an "object" as a package
>>> consisting of a data structure and all the allowed operations, called
>>> methods, on that data structure. If the language in use requires OO,
>>> you can't easily do stupid things like trying to add two windows or
>>> multiply a window by a file![/color]
>> I'm quite sure I could do both of those in C++. 8([/color]
>
> Those are _not_ easy to do in Ada 83, which did not have the big
> Object Oriented upgrade of Ada 95. So while Object Oriented
> features might be appropriate for some purposes, they are not
> needed to avoid adding two windows or multiplying a window by a file.[/color]

The entire Pascal/Modula-2/Ada/Oberon family has a more
strict point of view on type safeness than C/C++ (and also partly
newer languages like Java and C#).

Arne

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
[color=blue]
> I believe the term OO was first used about Smalltalk which
> was release to the public in 1980.[/color]

While this came after 1980, the Macintosh (1984) was very much object
oriented and the programming was originally designed for Pascal as the
pain language.

When you look at the original drawing programs such as MacDraw, they
were very much object oriented with different functions available to
different types of objects (lines, circles, text, squares, polygons etc).

Also, the GUI was quite object oriented by the standards of that time
since windows/widgets were identified by some opaque value and
programmers didn't have to know about what was behind the scenes.


(After a few years on VMS desktops, this is my first post back on a MAC)