Apple has class. It's probably one of the main reasons I use their software. I mean, they're a flawed company, but there's something about using a product that makes you feel better for using it.
Anyway, here's my latest example. They replaced their front page with a tribute to Gregory Hines for around 2 or 3 days a few weeks ago.
Of course you could say this is crass commercialism taking advantage of emotions over someone's death. But in this case, Hines was an avid Mac user (he was an "AppleMaster", or registered celebrity mac user) so it makes sense.
Here's the link to the tribute.
In reference to, "why distributed computing? August 31, 2003, I agree totally and also some one at Microsoft must agree, as follows from MSDN below:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnmts/html/msdn_state.asp
How true, it seems that that stateless objects or possibly objects in general, have more to do with job creation and retention at a programmer level, rather than any thing practical at a software level.. It seems a lot of software is written to prove the object paradime and to be usefull is totally a secondary consideration.
best regards Michael O'Halloran
I think you might misunderstand me. My point is that the object paradigm is not the correct one for distributed computing. It has, on the other hand, proven an invaluable and practical means of organizing the design of software that resides within a process boundary.
There certainly is a lot of snake oil in the object technology industry, especially from a decade past. But the ideas introduced by Simula and Smalltalk: message passing, polymorphism, inheritance, separation of protocol from type (i.e. interface vs. implementation), etc. are rivaled only by Lisp in their importance to raising the bar of expressiveness in software.