Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #14077 > unrolled thread

C++ and Qt now making business news

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-15 13:57 -0800
    Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-02-16 07:04 +0000
      Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-16 06:33 -0800
        Re: C++ and Qt now making business news jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-02-16 16:08 +0100
          Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-16 20:42 +0000
            Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2012-02-16 21:37 -0800
              Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 09:32 +0000
                Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-17 13:26 -0800
                Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 14:06 -0800
                  Re: C++ and Qt now making business news gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-20 01:59 -0800
                    Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-21 05:13 -0800
            Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-17 02:37 -0800
            Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-17 02:47 -0800
              Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 08:16 -0800
          Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-16 13:05 -0800
        Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-16 13:02 -0800
      Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-16 12:39 -0800
        Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-02-16 22:11 +0000
    Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2012-02-16 19:41 +0100
      Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-16 13:01 -0800
        Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2012-02-17 07:29 +0100
          Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-17 13:20 -0800
            Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2012-02-18 07:43 +0100
              Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-19 15:07 -0800
                Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2012-02-20 20:17 +0100
                  Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-20 17:26 -0800
                    Re: C++ and Qt now making business news 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-02-21 01:22 -0800
                      Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-25 20:36 -0800
                    Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-21 09:55 +0000
                      Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-25 20:46 -0800
                        Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-26 10:12 +0000
                          Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-26 09:15 -0800
                        Re: C++ and Qt now making business news jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-02-26 19:56 +0100
                          Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-26 20:30 +0000
                            Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-27 09:36 +1300
                              Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2012-02-27 08:49 -0800
                          Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-27 11:42 -0800
                    Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-03-07 14:07 -0800
            Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:00 +0000
              Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-02-19 15:31 -0800
                Re: C++ and Qt now making business news Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-20 23:49 +0000
                  Re: C++ and Qt now making business news seasoned_geek <roland@logikalsolutions.com> - 2012-03-07 14:01 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#14131

Am 16.02.12 22:01, schrieb seasoned_geek:
>> While it's certainly true that the
>> signal/slot mechanism is nice to handle events in C++, it has
>> *absolutely nothing* to do with the portability issues. These issues are
>> rather an indication on how hard the developpers tried to eliminate the
>> platform differences. Also, the number of issues increases with the size
>> of the toolkit. Java and .NET are both really, really big frameworks.
>
> It has oceans to do with the portability issues.
>
> I have been doing cross platform, not cross-microsoft-platform, but
> actual cross platform since the days of DOS.  I also wrote the only
> two books on Zinc which was the best of a bad situation in its day.
> Zinc allowed you to develop on DOS, Windows, MAC, and OS/2, but the
> developer REALLY had to work at it ESPECIALLY if you needed to do any
> form of data storage or file creation.  In order to add serial
> communications and parallel IO to implement a scale-stoplight-
> cashdrawer application I had to completely re-develop the event loop
> of the library.  We had to do horrible things with "friends" and macro
> overloading AT THE APPLICATION LEVEL to port between environments and
> the massively different protection schemas between Borland, Watcom,
> Microsoft, Zortech, and Visual Age compilers.  Signals and slots fixed
> this.

I think you haven't got the point. Signal/slots are just one small 
aspect of QT, namely it's event loop. Let's take another real issue as 
an example. Suppose you develop on OSX using QT and use QSound to play 
an audio file. According to
http://developer.qt.nokia.com/doc/qt-4.8/QSound.html
QSound on OSX uses NSSound/Quicktime to play the file. This means it 
will happily accept any MP3/AAC you through at it. The first time you 
run this on Windows or X11 (aka Linux), the app will fail to play the 
sound because only the WAVE file format is supported. This issue is 
detected at runtime, not by the compiler. Now, how on earth do 
signals/slots help here???


>>
>> Later on, he writes:
>>
>> "Qt doesn’t care what OS or device. App developers no longer care what
>> OS or device." even with respect to mobile platforms. Who ever has tried
>> to use a standard website on a small mobile phone immediately agrees
>> that this is nonsense. Mobile apps must be tailored to the display size
>> and touch screen input methods and are very different to use than
>> desktop apps.
>
> Qt doesn't care.  If you develop your app narrow, neither do you.  Qt
> also hides the different input methods, but you have to understand the
> full scope and power of Signals and Slots.

Erm, it's not about *using* the touch screen as an input device, it's 
about *producing* a usable interface. The biggest input difference is, 
that hovering over UI elements is impossible with a touch screen. The 
biggest difference in layout is simply the size. The layout typically 
changes completely for mobile displays (not tablets, phones!). This 
means, the app is not portable between a mobile device and a desktop, 
and I'm pretty sure this is impossible with any given framework. 
Sometimes, an app has not much more functionality to offer than its GUI 
(think of a vector drawing program). Then, "porting" to a mobile phone 
means a complete rewrite, regardless of the toolkit. Yes, QT doesn't 
care, which means you have to do it yourself...


>>
>> Then, "You get the snap and speed of a pure executable (which cannot be
>> matched by an interpreter no matter what Java developers claim)." Sure,
>> native compilation is good for performance, but interpreters and virtual
>> machines have become a lot better in the last ten years. Very often,
>> when designing GUIs, you don't need very high speed.
>
> Very often when designing GUIs for a production environment speed is
> everything.  Obviously you develop only for the personal user world
> with no real world high volume experience.  Whether it is stock
> trading (of which I've written trading floor systems for an actual
> stock exchange) or bill payment centers or coupon entry, speed is
> mandatory.  In the case of bill payment centers there are legal
> requirements now in place (particularly for credit card companies)
> regarding the maximum amount of time between the receipt time stamp on
> the envelop and the credit being applied.
>
> While this may come as a shock to you, many data entry people are paid
> via piecework.  They don't want to use a mouse, ever.  They both want
> and need all of the numeric entry optimized into one continuous
> portion of the screen and all text entry into another to minimize hand
> movements.  If you advance in your education you will find that there
> were and still are required courses for (then systems analysts which
> evolved from "efficiency experts") to now Application/Technical
> Architects.  You will spend weeks if not months covering design of
> efficient data entry and how to eliminate as much data entry as
> possible.  Phone bills used to come with a punched card to speed up
> the entry process, now they have barcodes on them.  All of it to
> eliminate hand movements.
>
> When you are entering stock trades where non-seconds mean serious
> differences in the price of a MKT order, speed is sacred.
>

You are talking about the speed of the human sitting in front of the 
machine. Most of the time, a computer running a GUI application is idle. 
I was talking about compiler/interpreter speed. To have a fluid GUI, all 
you need is a reaction within ~20 ms. This is approximately the time 
delay humans can percieve, e.g. when trying to play music with each 
other any larger delay is unacceptable. Much of the GUI code, i.e. 
checking entries for validity, disabling/enabling fields, runs in 
microseconds on todays hardware, so the difference between 1 microsecond 
and 10 microseconds simply doesn't matter. It only matters if it is 
1000x 10 microseconds.

You are right, I've never written stock trading applications. But I'd 
guess the (computer) speed there is uch more limited by the database 
servers and network connections than by the CPU. Otherwise, you would 
use Fortran, SIMD extensions or GPU acceleration, and not C++ (which is 
called "slow" by HPC people)

>
>>
>> All in all it's a very biased article that has not much to tell....
>>
>
> thankfully more to tell than this post.

Thank you for your opinion. To me, the article tells "QT is heaven and 
has NO portability issues, because it uses signals/slots!" - this is 
simply technically wrong. QT is good, signals/slots are also good, but 
neither can cover everything you need on any platform (including mobile 
devices) without portability issues.

	Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14197

On Feb 17, 12:29 am, Christian Gollwitzer <aurio...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I think you haven't got the point. Signal/slots are just one small
> aspect of QT, namely it's event loop. Let's take another real issue as
> an example. Suppose you develop on OSX using QT and use QSound to play
> an audio file. According tohttp://developer.qt.nokia.com/doc/qt-4.8/QSound.html
> QSound on OSX uses NSSound/Quicktime to play the file. This means it
> will happily accept any MP3/AAC you through at it. The first time you
> run this on Windows or X11 (aka Linux), the app will fail to play the
> sound because only the WAVE file format is supported. This issue is
> detected at runtime, not by the compiler. Now, how on earth do
> signals/slots help here???
>
Signals & Slots are a major factor in portability.  Your example shows
just how little you understand them and business development in
general.  QSound::play() is a slot.  If you don't like the default
sound engine on your platform you can create a new slot to catch the
signal using any other sound engine you want.


>
>
> >> Later on, he writes:
>
> >> "Qt doesn’t care what OS or device. App developers no longer care what
> >> OS or device." even with respect to mobile platforms. Who ever has tried
> >> to use a standard website on a small mobile phone immediately agrees
> >> that this is nonsense. Mobile apps must be tailored to the display size
> >> and touch screen input methods and are very different to use than
> >> desktop apps.
>
>
> Erm, it's not about *using* the touch screen as an input device, it's
> about *producing* a usable interface. The biggest input difference is,
> that hovering over UI elements is impossible with a touch screen.

Really????  Your touch screen doesn't follow a light finger and when
it stops interpret that as hover?

>
> > When you are entering stock trades where non-seconds mean serious
> > differences in the price of a MKT order, speed is sacred.
>
> You are talking about the speed of the human sitting in front of the
> machine. Most of the time, a computer running a GUI application is idle.

Most of the time a GUI is the last thing you want and a mouse is
definitely the last thing which should be designed in.

> I was talking about compiler/interpreter speed. To have a fluid GUI, all
> you need is a reaction within ~20 ms. This is approximately the time
> delay humans can percieve, e.g. when trying to play music with each
> other any larger delay is unacceptable. Much of the GUI code, i.e.
> checking entries for validity, disabling/enabling fields, runs in
> microseconds on todays hardware, so the difference between 1 microsecond
> and 10 microseconds simply doesn't matter. It only matters if it is
> 1000x 10 microseconds.

The difference between 1 microsecond and 10 is the difference between
making $8million and losing $12million on an MKT order.

>
> You are right, I've never written stock trading applications. But I'd
> guess the (computer) speed there is uch more limited by the database
> servers and network connections than by the CPU. Otherwise, you would
> use Fortran, SIMD extensions or GPU acceleration, and not C++ (which is
> called "slow" by HPC people)

Quite the contrary, we moved from VAX BASIC to C++.  Trades are never
ever limited by database speeds at any stock exchange which will be in
business 6 months from now.  ALL open orders, quotes, and last sales
are live in RAM.  Trades are only written to a database AFTER
execution and "print to tape."  That last is a trade term for a remote
electronic transaction being sent to the central reporting agency for
inclusion in consolidated last sale.

> Thank you for your opinion. To me, the article tells "QT is heaven and
> has NO portability issues, because it uses signals/slots!" - this is
> simply technically wrong. QT is good, signals/slots are also good, but
> neither can cover everything you need on any platform (including mobile
> devices) without portability issues.

Unlike Java and all other predecessors, Qt has eliminated all
portability issues for business applications.  While some people may
be interested in watching videos and playing music, those are not the
applications which will be written by any of the Fortune 1000 for use
by their employees.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14223

Am 17.02.12 22:20, schrieb seasoned_geek:
> On Feb 17, 12:29 am, Christian Gollwitzer<aurio...@gmx.de>  wrote:
>>
>>  Suppose you develop on OSX using QT and use QSound to play
>> an audio file. According tohttp://developer.qt.nokia.com/doc/qt-4.8/QSound.html
>> QSound on OSX uses NSSound/Quicktime to play the file. This means it
>> will happily accept any MP3/AAC you through at it. The first time you
>> run this on Windows or X11 (aka Linux), the app will fail to play the
>> sound because only the WAVE file format is supported. This issue is
>> detected at runtime, not by the compiler. Now, how on earth do
>> signals/slots help here???
>>
> Signals&  Slots are a major factor in portability.  Your example shows
> just how little you understand them and business development in
> general.  QSound::play() is a slot.  If you don't like the default
> sound engine on your platform you can create a new slot to catch the
> signal using any other sound engine you want.

That again was not the point - of course I can add another sound engine 
(platform dependent!) and call it, when the signal (lets say button 
press) is emited. For this example, it doesn't matter whether you 
connect() them, use virtual functions by deriving from a common 
soundclass, or simply #ifdef it. The only advantage of signals (be it 
QT, boost::signal or libsigc++) is that you can connect them at runtime. 
This does NOT resolve the portability issue. The issue is, that you can 
compile and link your application, but it fails at runtime, only if 
executed on another platform. If you are not aware of the issue, and 
fail to test for it, your customers will complain.


> Most of the time a GUI is the last thing you want and a mouse is
> definitely the last thing which should be designed in.
>
[...]
> Unlike Java and all other predecessors, Qt has eliminated all
> portability issues for business applications.  While some people may
> be interested in watching videos and playing music, those are not the
> applications which will be written by any of the Fortune 1000 for use
> by their employees.

It seems that I have misunderstood your use of "business" in this 
discussion and in the original article. If GUIs are not the point, and 
if you are talking just about "business software" in the meaning of 
"high volume stock trading", I'm not qualified to talk about portability 
issues.  But if you include, lets say, 3D CAD software, GUIs are a very 
big part of it. And OpenGL, for instance, *has* portability issues 
between ATI, nVidia and Intel graphics cards. QtOpenGL is the last thing 
to resolve those being mere wrapper to OpenGL. And don't tell me I can 
include my own 3D engine and connect() the corresponding signals to it...

	Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14299

On Feb 18, 12:43 am, Christian Gollwitzer <aurio...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> That again was not the point - of course I can add another sound engine
> (platform dependent!) and call it, when the signal (lets say button
> press) is emited. For this example, it doesn't matter whether you
> connect() them, use virtual functions by deriving from a common
> soundclass, or simply #ifdef it. The only advantage of signals (be it
> QT, boost::signal or libsigc++) is that you can connect them at runtime.
> This does NOT resolve the portability issue. The issue is, that you can
> compile and link your application, but it fails at runtime, only if
> executed on another platform. If you are not aware of the issue, and
> fail to test for it, your customers will complain.

1)  A business application isn't going to be developed for MAC first,
period.  A business application isn't going to let a "user" choose an
MP3 or other file.  A business application is going to include its own
sound files and no matter what form they originated in, is going to
convert it to WAV and be done.  Even a cell phone provider is going to
try to lock customers into ringtones they sell.

2)  Before signals and slots you had no method what-so-ever of hacking
in support for other devices without completely redeveloping the event
handler from scratch.  Period.  It was a massive undertaking.  Been
there, done that, even wrote a book on it.  Post signals and slots you
have a convenient method of adding support for anything.

3)  A business developer is going to have 100% portability because
they are going to design the application to allow in ONLY those files
supported on all targets.

Qt has only had a couple of years on the hand held platform, Nokia and
the OpenSource community will shake out the last of any minor issues
in a short period of time.  From a business application perspective,
100% of the portability issues are gone.  It's an astounding feet
especially for applications which must create and remember file
locations.
C:\MyApp\DATA
/home/fred/MyApp/data
DISK$USER1:[FRED.MYAPP.DATA]
etc.
Qt completely hides this from the application.  I have been doing
cross platform development since the late 1980s and have encountered
NO cross platform library or language which could completely hide such
information while removing hundreds of other platform specific
oddities.

"apps" for smartphones have really only been around for a couple of
years.  Yes, there were various forms and flavors of smartphones for
years, but they didn't really take off until recently...mostly with
iPhone.  I fully expect Qt5 to remove the last little bit of
portability issues there...but I don't expect "apps" to last.  More
accurately, I don't expect users to throw good money at a 4" screen
much longer.  Either these screens which can coil up will become more
reliable or people will deal with a blue-tooth headset and a tablet
computer which hides their phone.  Most Web sites aren't setup to
display on 4" screens and most will never be modified to support that
user.

Keep these things in mind.

5 1/4" floppies used to rule the land.
People used to be happy with a 15" VGA monitor.

Personally I'm not so certain the "smartphone" isn't a multi-year fad
like the PDA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14331

Am 20.02.12 00:07, schrieb seasoned_geek:
> On Feb 18, 12:43 am, Christian Gollwitzer<aurio...@gmx.de>  wrote:
>>
>> That again was not the point - of course I can add another sound engine
>> (platform dependent!) and call it, when the signal (lets say button
>> press) is emited. For this example, it doesn't matter whether you
>> connect() them, use virtual functions by deriving from a common
>> soundclass, or simply #ifdef it. The only advantage of signals (be it
>> QT, boost::signal or libsigc++) is that you can connect them at runtime.
>> This does NOT resolve the portability issue. The issue is, that you can
>> compile and link your application, but it fails at runtime, only if
>> executed on another platform. If you are not aware of the issue, and
>> fail to test for it, your customers will complain.
>
> 1)  A business application isn't going to be developed for MAC first,
> period.  A business application isn't going to let a "user" choose an
> MP3 or other file.  A business application is going to include its own
> sound files and no matter what form they originated in, is going to
> convert it to WAV and be done.

I have proven you wrong with a simple example I could quickly come up 
with. Trolltech doesn't advertise the portability issues on its front 
page, so I won't spend time reading the docs or forums now until I find 
an example that starts from X11 and has issues on other platforms.

It seems to me that you have a very focused view, to say it politely. 
Maybe QT solves all issues for your use cases, but that doesn't 
generalize, as pointed out by me and others. If 3D CAD doesn't count as 
a business application to you, and by business you mean high volume 
stock trading, you should have defined your use of business before.

As a side note, many people including me, regard that kind of high 
volume trading unethical, where you can win 8 millions in a microsecond 
by making 10000 people starving because they can't afford the wheat 
anymore. In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of gambling, e.g. 
with a transaction tax.

> 2)  Before signals and slots you had no method what-so-ever of hacking
> in support for other devices without completely redeveloping the event
> handler from scratch.  Period.  It was a massive undertaking.  Been
> there, done that, even wrote a book on it.  Post signals and slots you
> have a convenient method of adding support for anything.

Loose coupling existed before QT. As mentioned by Rui, this is the 
observer pattern. You might be surprised that the wikipedia page for 
this design pattern demonstrates it in Java, and QT is listed as only 
one of 11 different implementations in C++.

>
> 3)  A business developer is going to have 100% portability because
> they are going to design the application to allow in ONLY those files
> supported on all targets.

;)))) Yes, it's portable if you use the portable subset of the 
framework, good joke, thanks. Ah, I forgot you have written "The minimum 
you need to know about logic to work in IT."

>  I fully expect Qt5 to remove the last little bit of
> portability issues there...

Maybe between Android (Java!!!) and iPhone (ObjectiveC), but not between 
smartphones and desktop, that is impossible.

I will happily believe that you are actually able to do cross platform 
development, but your arguments in this debate sound very naive. For me 
this is EOD. Have fun with QT

	Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14345

On Feb 20, 2:17 pm, Christian Gollwitzer <aurio...@gmx.de> wrote:

> As a side note,

Oh. Side notes.  Goody. I want to write a side note too.

> many people including me,

Is that a majority then?

> regard that kind of high volume trading unethical,

But done in the small it's ok?


> where you can win 8 millions in a microsecond

Just eight million?  That doesn't sound like he's doing a good job.
Should be more.  What if it took longer than a microsecond.  Suppose
it was an entire day? Ok then?

> by making 10000 people starving because they can't afford the wheat
> anymore.

They can't afford the wheat anymore anyway.  I suspect that even
before they're done with the PIIGS the Germans will run out of a)
money b) patience.  Maybe they'll remind the Greeks of that story by
Aesop about The Ant and the Grasshopper.  Or was that The Frog and the
Scorpion? Oh well, never mind.  Doesn't really make much of a
difference.

Maybe China will give you the money. Go ahead. Ask them.


> In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of

In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.

> gambling,

Yes.  Those who can't make money that way and at the same time provide
a free service of market signals, don't like it very much. And truly,
it is a lot of trouble to take responsibility for one's own economic
condition when some government is eager to promise to give you you
what you'll have to produce on your own anyway.

The idea of a person owning their own labor and being able to
voluntarily make transactions with other people is really horrible
isn't it? You ought to think about burning the books that say
otherwise.

> e.g. with a transaction tax.

EG?  Hmmm... I wonder what the other ways to deal with this are.
Riot?  Anarchy? Communism?  Socialism?  Wasn't the last century
painful enough?

Rinse. Wash. Repeat?

Here endeth my "side note".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14352

Quint Rankid於 2012年2月21日星期二UTC+8上午9時26分01秒寫道：
> On Feb 20, 2:17 pm, Christian Gollwitzer <aurio...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> > As a side note,
> 
> Oh. Side notes.  Goody. I want to write a side note too.
> 
> > many people including me,
> 
> Is that a majority then?
> 
> > regard that kind of high volume trading unethical,
> 
> But done in the small it's ok?
> 
> 
> > where you can win 8 millions in a microsecond
> 
> Just eight million?  That doesn't sound like he's doing a good job.
> Should be more.  What if it took longer than a microsecond.  Suppose
> it was an entire day? Ok then?
> 
> > by making 10000 people starving because they can't afford the wheat
> > anymore.
> 
> They can't afford the wheat anymore anyway.  I suspect that even
> before they're done with the PIIGS the Germans will run out of a)
> money b) patience.  Maybe they'll remind the Greeks of that story by
> Aesop about The Ant and the Grasshopper.  Or was that The Frog and the
> Scorpion? Oh well, never mind.  Doesn't really make much of a
> difference.
> 
> Maybe China will give you the money. Go ahead. Ask them.
> 
> 

I believe that captalism is suitable for the north America now. 
It is not the same other continents.
 
> > In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
> 
> In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
> Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
> some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
> that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
> fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
> consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.
>
Europe is not self-sufficient in producing food or fuels.

 
> > gambling,
> 
> Yes.  Those who can't make money that way and at the same time provide
> a free service of market signals, don't like it very much. And truly,
> it is a lot of trouble to take responsibility for one's own economic
> condition when some government is eager to promise to give you you
> what you'll have to produce on your own anyway.
> 
> The idea of a person owning their own labor and being able to
> voluntarily make transactions with other people is really horrible
> isn't it? You ought to think about burning the books that say
> otherwise.
> 
> > e.g. with a transaction tax.
> 
> EG?  Hmmm... I wonder what the other ways to deal with this are.
> Riot?  Anarchy? Communism?  Socialism?  Wasn't the last century
> painful enough?
> 
> Rinse. Wash. Repeat?
> 
> Here endeth my "side note".

If the supply side is not solved, then look at the revolutions in north
Africa recently. The question is who can supply the shortages will step in the region in the upper hand in the gambling, either food or labor of products.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14502

On Feb 21, 4:22 am, 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Quint Rankid於 2012年2月21日星期二UTC+8上午9時26分01秒寫道：

> I believe that captalism is suitable for the north America now.
> It is not the same other continents.

Free markets and minds are good for everyone everywhere.
>
> > > In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
>
> > In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
> > Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
> > some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
> > that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
> > fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
> > consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.
>
> Europe is not self-sufficient in producing food or fuels.

Which has exactly what to do with anything?

> If the supply side is not solved, then look at the revolutions in north
> Africa recently. The question is who can supply the shortages will step in the region in the upper hand in the gambling, either food or labor of products.

There are no guarantees.  Anyone who makes guarantees about the supply
of fuel, wheat, snow or medical care is telling a fib.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14360

Quint Rankid wrote:

<snip/>
>> In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
> 
> In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
> Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
> some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
> that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
> fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
> consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.

You are either making stuff as you go along or simply trolling.

<snip/>


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14504

On Feb 21, 4:55 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quint Rankid wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
>
> > In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
> > Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
> > some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
> > that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
> > fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
> > consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.
>
> You are either making stuff as you go along or simply trolling.

A fascinating accusation.  I wasn't going to respond to anything in
this thread again, but you got me.

Please tell me exactly what "stuff" you think I'm making up as I go
along. Please be specific.

Please tell me how the stuff you suggest I'm making up differs from
someone saying that "many people" think that making a profit in a free
market is unethical. Even if "many people" feel that way, aren't the
ethical beliefs they have made up? Or are those ethics some sort of
fact with a basis in physical reality?  Please tell me why you didn't
accuse the poster who suggested an ethical problem of making stuff up
and being a troll too. TIA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14510

Quint Rankid wrote:

> On Feb 21, 4:55 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Quint Rankid wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> >> In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
>>
>> > In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
>> > Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
>> > some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
>> > that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
>> > fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
>> > consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.
>>
>> You are either making stuff as you go along or simply trolling.
> 
> A fascinating accusation.  I wasn't going to respond to anything in
> this thread again, but you got me.
> 
> Please tell me exactly what "stuff" you think I'm making up as I go
> along. Please be specific.
> 
> Please tell me how the stuff you suggest I'm making up differs from
> someone saying that "many people" think that making a profit in a free
> market is unethical. 

The concept of being right by proxy doesn't exist, particularly when your 
claim is patently absurd.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14513

On Feb 26, 5:12 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quint Rankid wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 4:55 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Quint Rankid wrote:
>
> >> <snip/>
>
> >> >> In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
>
> >> > In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
> >> > Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
> >> > some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
> >> > that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
> >> > fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
> >> > consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.
>
> >> You are either making stuff as you go along or simply trolling.
>
> > A fascinating accusation.  I wasn't going to respond to anything in
> > this thread again, but you got me.
>
> > Please tell me exactly what "stuff" you think I'm making up as I go
> > along. Please be specific.
>
> > Please tell me how the stuff you suggest I'm making up differs from
> > someone saying that "many people" think that making a profit in a free
> > market is unethical.
>
> The concept of being right by proxy doesn't exist, particularly when your
> claim is patently absurd.

Ah, well, more the fool me!  I ought to have been able to anticipate
the sort of response you'd make based on what you previously posted,
but I do appreciate the fabulous hand waving you've displayed, I
really do. Although, it's not as impressive as an actual argument
would have been but I suppose accusations often substitute for
substantive argument on usenet and you're certainly a good example of
that.

But look on the bright side.  You got me.


Have a nice and thoughtful day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14514

Le 26/02/12 05:46, Quint Rankid a écrit :
> On Feb 21, 4:55 am, Rui Maciel<rui.mac...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Quint Rankid wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> In Europe we discuss to counteract this way of
>>
>>> In Europe they've been opposed to free markets ever since, well, ever.
>>> Maybe a free market is inconsistent with philosophies that assert that
>>> some people are better than others. Maybe it's because "many" believe
>>> that things have an intrinsic value that can be set by government
>>> fiat. Maybe there's some other reason. It seems to have some awful
>>> consequences no matter which side you're on. Just ask Anastasia.
>>
>> You are either making stuff as you go along or simply trolling.
>
> A fascinating accusation.  I wasn't going to respond to anything in
> this thread again, but you got me.
>
> Please tell me exactly what "stuff" you think I'm making up as I go
> along. Please be specific.
>
> Please tell me how the stuff you suggest I'm making up differs from
> someone saying that "many people" think that making a profit in a free
> market is unethical.

You and your masters manipulate and control the "free" market as you
have well described in your previous messages. Those markets aren't
"free" but rigged for your masters, that give you some crumbs to you.

You feel happy, well fed, and ignore the misery all around you because
you have swallowed all that ideology from your masters into your being
until nothing is left but a mere slave, or... better, a "free agent".


> Even if "many people" feel that way, aren't the
> ethical beliefs they have made up?

Hey wait a minute pal... to speak about "ethics" you have to have one.
ALL your "ethics" can be described in one word:

MONEY

For instance you say:
 > I suspect that even before they're done with the PIGS
 > the Germans will run out of a) money b) patience.

Who are the "PIGS"?

Well, financial slaves call Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain
PIGS in a nice acronym to make us forget WHO ARE THE REAL PIGS!

> Or are those ethics some sort of
> fact with a basis in physical reality?

The big banks/financial institutions (your masters) have discovered
how to rig a previously open market into a rigged one with the help
of people like you.

If they win they keep their money, if they loose we have to pay their
debts and clean up after them so that they can start again.

And I am not talking about "many people think" here. I am signing
with MY name, this is what I think and I believe.


Jacob Navia
Paris, France

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14515

jacob navia wrote:

> > I suspect that even before they're done with the PIGS
> > the Germans will run out of a) money b) patience.
> 
> Who are the "PIGS"?
> 
> Well, financial slaves call Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain
> PIGS in a nice acronym to make us forget WHO ARE THE REAL PIGS!

As a side note, there is an interesting pattern regarding the use of the 
infamous P.I.G.S. acronym.  

When the accusations of economic woes were only tacked on Portugal, Ireland, 
Greece and Spain, it was used extensively, along with any detrimental and 
insulting pun that anyone could muster and a string of blanket accusations 
of incompetence attributed to entire countries, eventhough there is nothing 
in common between those countries' problems.

When Italy also found its public finances in shambles, the media was quick 
to expand the acronym to include them, and so the same string of insulting 
accusations were extended to also include them, and the P.I.I.G.S. was born.

Yet, mysteriously, when the economy of Great Britain made the news for its 
equally disastrous state, suddenly the use of the P.I.G.S. acronym (or 
P.I.I.G.G.S.) simply ceased.  No one refers to the P.I.G.S. anymore.  
Instead we are dealing with a world financial crisis, a global recession, an 
unfortunate twist of fate which no one could ever foresee, and simply a 
natural, cyclical economic event which could happen to any state, no matter 
how ingenious, competent and exemplary their leaders are.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14516

On 02/27/12 09:30 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
> Yet, mysteriously, when the economy of Great Britain made the news for its
> equally disastrous state, suddenly the use of the P.I.G.S. acronym (or
> P.I.I.G.G.S.) simply ceased.  No one refers to the P.I.G.S. anymore.
> Instead we are dealing with a world financial crisis, a global recession, an
> unfortunate twist of fate which no one could ever foresee, and simply a
> natural, cyclical economic event which could happen to any state, no matter
> how ingenious, competent and exemplary their leaders are.

Maybe the acronym generator was written in Java and the VM exhausted all 
available memory?  Now if it had been written in C++...

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14551

On Feb 26, 2:36 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/27/12 09:30 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yet, mysteriously, when the economy of Great Britain made the news for its
> > equally disastrous state, suddenly the use of the P.I.G.S. acronym (or
> > P.I.I.G.G.S.) simply ceased.  No one refers to the P.I.G.S. anymore.
> > Instead we are dealing with a world financial crisis, a global recession, an
> > unfortunate twist of fate which no one could ever foresee, and simply a
> > natural, cyclical economic event which could happen to any state, no matter
> > how ingenious, competent and exemplary their leaders are.
>
> Maybe the acronym generator was written in Java and the VM exhausted all
> available memory?  Now if it had been written in C++...
>

I encourage people to get out of debt and stay out of debt...
rent or buy a place you can afford to pay cash for.  Thanks to
George W. and Obama the US is in as big a mess as the PIGS.
Will Germany survive?  By trying to help some others it may
be pulled under also.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14564

On Feb 26, 1:56 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 26/02/12 05:46, Quint Rankid a écrit :
>

> You and your masters manipulate and control the "free" market as you
> have well described in your previous messages. Those markets aren't
> "free" but rigged for your masters, that give you some crumbs to you.
>
> You feel happy, well fed, and ignore the misery all around you because
> you have swallowed all that ideology from your masters into your being
> until nothing is left but a mere slave, or... better, a "free agent".
>
> > Even if "many people" feel that way, aren't the
> > ethical beliefs they have made up?
>
> Hey wait a minute pal... to speak about "ethics" you have to have one.
> ALL your "ethics" can be described in one word:
>
> MONEY
>
> For instance you say:
>  > I suspect that even before they're done with the PIGS
>  > the Germans will run out of a) money b) patience.
>
> Who are the "PIGS"?
>
> Well, financial slaves call Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain
> PIGS in a nice acronym to make us forget WHO ARE THE REAL PIGS!
>
> > Or are those ethics some sort of
> > fact with a basis in physical reality?
>
> The big banks/financial institutions (your masters) have discovered
> how to rig a previously open market into a rigged one with the help
> of people like you.
>
> If they win they keep their money, if they loose we have to pay their
> debts and clean up after them so that they can start again.
>
> And I am not talking about "many people think" here. I am signing
> with MY name, this is what I think and I believe.
>
> Jacob Navia
> Paris, France

Even though I disagree with much of what you've written, I applaud you
for your honesty.  Sigh. Yes, it's true, as time has gone by my
country has started to abandon its free market principles and has
substituted something that is starting to look a lot like crony
capitalism.

History suggests this sort of thing tends not to turn out well.

In other news, Germany is starting to realize that it's important to
select lenders that will repay. Perhaps they're learning from the
mistakes, that monument of corruption, the US mortgage industry, made.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,816903,00.html

No. Probably not.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,817881,00.html
I wonder if this repeat of history is the tragedy or the farce?

Ah well, c'est la guerre.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14820

On Feb 20, 7:26 pm, Quint Rankid <qbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:17 pm, Christian Gollwitzer <aurio...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > As a side note,
>
> Oh. Side notes.  Goody. I want to write a side note too.
>

Goody!  I want to write a side note too.  When your application IS the
STOCK EXCHANGE it has to process all of the volume it receives in a
near instantaneous manner.

Of course, when it doesn't, then it is the London Stock Exchange and
it is running a trading floor system developed by Arthur
Andersen...errr...Accenture using their high class off-shore labor,
Microsoft Windows, and Visual Basic.

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3267801/london-stock-exchange-declares-millennium-it-migration-successful/

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/the-london-stock-exchange-moves-to-novell-linux/8285

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14229

seasoned_geek wrote:

> Signals & Slots are a major factor in portability.  Your example shows
> just how little you understand them and business development in
> general.

Why do you believe Qt's implementation of the observer pattern, which they 
refer as "signals and slots", is "a major factor in portability"?


> The difference between 1 microsecond and 10 is the difference between
> making $8million and losing $12million on an MKT order.

If that is the case then maybe Qt is not the best option at all.  Their 
implementation of the observer pattern doesn't rely on pure callback 
functions, such as the ones implemented in libsigc++.  Therefore its 
performance is notoriously lacking, to the point they even try to downplay 
that in Qt's marketing.  See "calling performance is not everything" in:

http://developer.qt.nokia.com/doc/qt-4.8/templates.html


> Unlike Java and all other predecessors, Qt has eliminated all
> portability issues for business applications.  

This is simply wrong.  To start off, by "platform-independent", in this 
context, it can only mean a program that may be successfully compiled for 
more than one platform, which hardly means that there is any independence.  

With that in mind, to be able to develop platform-independent software with 
Qt, the developers must take very close attention to how they write their 
code, which library they rely on, how they use that library, etc..  A 
programmer cannot simply make a call to a library which isn't omnipresent, 
and Qt simply does not cover every aspect of computing.

And to claim that Java has somehow more portability issues than C++ software 
relying on Qt, you surely don't know what Java is, nor do you know what 
developing software with C++ using Qt.

It appears you are trying to pull the wool over this newsgroup's eyes, and 
the way you are trying to achieve that is based on the idea that everyone 
here is nieve, gullible and never used C++, Qt or Java at all.  I don't know 
if you are clueless or a marketing shill, but either way your shoving a 
heavy load of nonsense.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14301

On Feb 18, 4:00 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you believe Qt's implementation of the observer pattern, which they
> refer as "signals and slots", is "a major factor in portability"?

Spend 20 years in IT working with all of these products claiming to be
"cross platform".

Go back to the early days of C++ cross platform libraries (or even
later days).  The ones which did not have signals and slots.  Take a
damned good look at how the compiler and the language specification
were abused with "friends" and preprocessor macros.  Signals and Slots
was an intervention by the hand of God.  If you don't believe this you
either have zero experience in IT or have never worked in the cross
platform world.


>
> > Unlike Java and all other predecessors, Qt has eliminated all
> > portability issues for business applications.
>
> This is simply wrong.  To start off, by "platform-independent", in this
> context, it can only mean a program that may be successfully compiled for
> more than one platform, which hardly means that there is any independence.

This is simply correct.  You can and I have compiled a single set of
source full business application which ran on Windows 98, Windows XP,
Windows Vista, Windows 7, 32-bit OpenSuSE, 64-bit OpenSuSE, 32-bit
Ubuntu, 64-bit Ubuntu, and Mac.  Not just some tiny little example but
a full ERP product containing customer maintenance, order entry,
invoicing, and inventory management to identify some of its portions.
The type of application most businesses have to have.


>
> and Qt simply does not cover every aspect of computing.

I don't mean to offend, but that statement makes it sound like you've
never worked a day in your life.  You certainly have never supported
production applications.

What SPECIFIC business functionality does Qt not provide?  It has the
GUI, it has report creation, it has universal file handling, it has
classes to access relational databases and classes to interface via
IP.  If you are developing in an MQ Series type of environment you
would need to call the IBM provided MQCONNECT MQOPEN MQGET MQPUT
MQCOMMIT MQCLOSE MQDISCONNECT, but MQ is available on every business
platform and not all businesses are currently utilizing message
delivery.  Many are using raw IP and socket services to deal with
Internet communications.


>
> And to claim that Java has somehow more portability issues than C++ software
> relying on Qt, you surely don't know what Java is, nor do you know what
> developing software with C++ using Qt.

Java has OCEANS of portability issues.  I have written 3 books on Java
and more JNI code than I care to remember trying to work around the
pathetic excuse for the Java specification.  You need to try running
Java on something other than a PC, then you will realize what a train
wreck that specification really is.  Try running Java on an IBM
mainframe, or an OpenVMS midrange, or a Tandem computer.  Good (^)(&*)
(*ing luck being able to do anything useful with it.  Try getting the
same non-trivial Java applet to run on FireFox, Opera, Konqueror,
Arora, and Chrome.  If you do magically get it to run on 32-bit
systems you will definitely be shot down by the 64-bit versions.  Not
to mention each and every one of those browsers have different default
security settings so even if there is no syntax error what-so-ever,
the applet couldn't run on a bet.  Oh you are soooooo correct, Java
has no portability issues what-so-ever....<cough><cough><hack><hack>
I'm even going to leave off getting it to run on a Windows machine
which, since the lawsuits, doesn't install Java by default, at least
many flavors don't.


>
> It appears you are trying to pull the wool over this newsgroup's eyes, and
> the way you are trying to achieve that is based on the idea that everyone
> here is nieve, gullible and never used C++, Qt or Java at all.  I don't know
> if you are clueless or a marketing shill, but either way your shoving a
> heavy load of nonsense.


It appears you haven't ever had a real job in IT, or you wouldn't make
such uneducated statements.

Hopefully you will know more about programming in general once you
attend college.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web