Re: LLVM--Low Level Virtual Machine--and Ada

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

> Now, Linux and the GNU forces are still just playing catch up.  With  

I don't think there is any effort to "catch" Windows: The plan is not to buil

> alot of software functionabillty being that of Win 98, almost ten
> years outdated.

I think, that is nonsense. Security-wise: Linux and Unix had Kerberos
long before Windows. Security-wise: Separation of user and
administrative rights. Stability-wise: Only with Windows 2000 Windows
really achieved the stability (>100s of days of uptime) that even
patchy Linux servers had 5 years before. Networking-wise: Remote
Desktops and application never where a problem from the very beginning
(Windows: CALs, Terminal services in the desktop version only since
XP, AFAIK no simple way to remote single apps). And so on.

> The problem is that some want to reinvent the wheel over and over.

Absolutely right. Seing Mikrosoft stealing other peoples wheels and
the "inventing" them (does anybody remember the Halloween documents
...?): Pathetic.


> Its one thing to do this in a classroom environment, but it 
> is another to waste one time staying in a place that has limited 
> growth.  An example is KDE and GOME which are the two main 
> DeskTop for Linux and if you look at them, they are just a GNU 
> version on Microsoft Windows Desktop.  

I agree they are far to Windows-like in some sspects: Usually the bad
ones. But by no means identical: There is a lot in Gnome, you'll be
looking for in vain in the MS desktop.

> Linux need it own Dektop but the Linux designers are just playing
> catch up with Microsoft.

But you know, that the desktop is not alone what defines usability?

> If these programmers put half of their time in writing code for the 

Which programmers? Writing code instead of what? You lost me there.

> future functionabillty of Linux and GNU, they would help push 
> Microsoft off the mountain with a black eye to boot. And who 
> does not want to give Microsoft a black eye.

Me. The Anti-MS-wars are not really interesting. What I see with
concern are the hidden costs of a MS-environment: Like people buying a
3 Ghz processor and after installing certain Antivirus software get a
performance and percieved response latency worse than with a 400 Mhz
processor. This doesn't awaken the desire to hit back, but more to
extricate one's infra structure from that morass before everything
(data and all) is irretrievably bogged down in proprietary formats and
wasteful online-licensed software which needs to be activated: I still
want to be able to access my data 10 years from now (indeed I have to:
the IRS in my country requires one to retain business related data for
that time). There is no desire to blacken any eyes: Only to steal
oneself silently away and let history have it's course.

> Now, most programmers write code for two reasons: love of 
> programming, and money. Love of programming is great and when it 
> done with the future in mind or a purpose in the future it can bring a 
> lot of profit with it.  But reinventing the wheel has no profit and can 
> actually leave you alone and homeless.

And now, what are your conclusions? Shall we forbid other people to
program? Because they do it for the wrong reason or shortsighted?
Shall we refuse to use GNome and KDE and use Windows instead just to
demonstrate our opposition against Gnome (according to you) being a
clone of the windows desktop. I'm sure _that_ will hurt Windows like
hell ...

Or ist it you that will come and rescue us where others fail? I have
to admit I fail to see your take home message: Which changes do you
want and how do you propose to put them in effect?


> As for FPGA.  They are like summertime TV just something to pass 
> the time until ZISC processors are out in force.  Those who use the FPGA 

OK. Everything is clear now. And because FPGA are like summertime TV
(which should be clear to every thinking person!), they will go away
in winter and ZISC will rule.

Is it possible that you're just replacing a missing argument by a bad
metaphor? 

> as deciated processors will be OK for the time begin.  But as the ZISC 
> comes out these programmers will be put out to paster, like a lame 
> horse.  Not to stud, but to wait for the glue factor.  And for those who 
> are learning and writting code for the future like ZISC will be the leaders 
> of tomorrow! Or even the next Bill Gates!

Well, well: If you tell that to everybody, everybody will do it: And
then you won't be the next Bill Gates (at least not alone). How about
keeping your profound analysis secret and exploiting it yourself?

> Of course, you might use FPGA to make a ZISC procesor, but I guess 
> the true invening should be left up to Microsoft.  

Because MS is known for it's leadership in hardware design?

> Or IBM which created the 8 / 7 operational processors on a chip in
> the Playstation 3 which they have stated will be out in a general
> processor system design in the future.

> But I guess that writtng programs for a emulator that has no
> farseeable future is more exciting than writting code for a 7 o
> perational processors system. Which will lead somewhere. People who
> will pay for code wants multi-processors code, not some outdated
> emulator code.

You're sure you're not just a school kid? Or Xah Lee? Or David
Wallace? Recently you pretended that you had a long history in
programming / software developement. But reading your overgeneralizing
statements I really wonder wether you have ANY idea how markets work.

Regards -- Markus