Re: Maximum String size in Java?

gswork_at_mailcity.com
Date: 03/16/05 

Date: 16 Mar 2005 00:50:02 -0800

Programmer Dude wrote:
> gswork@mailcity.com writes:
>
> > two different angles on the same theme, two different perspectives
from
> > two different backgrounds. Both the 'correct' approach in their
> > contexts.
> >
> > i think we can apply standard programming answer #1 to the question
> > "should code always be portable?", namely: "it depends."
>
> The above are your closing paragraphs, but I thought they were worth
> starting off with, because what they say is important to keep in
mind.

I'd also see that encompassing 'infobahn's "portable if you can, not if
you can't" version - which once applied would generate pretty much the
same outcomes, imo.

> > MS-DOS : roughly mid-late 80's (a bit of Win16 later)
>
> We glommed onto IBM PCs pretty early, so there was a lot of Lotus 123
> and WordStar and Word Perfect in the corporate environment. (Our
> service division even did 3rd party service for them for a while--at
> one point I did some instructor work training field techs.)

i still like DOS. Perhaps it's the tiny-ness and simplicity, the three
floppy disks i needed for DR-DOS7.03 'lite' recently gave new life to
an old 486-25 and didn't intrude too much on the 200mb HDD! It's an
interesting environment (partly because it's one of the few 486's with
no copro) to test code for it's true slowness! And it's just somehow
satisfying to turn 'junk' into something that can be of use. It does
for a couple of old DOS games too, the kind that use the speaker! I
suppose i could use Wordstar on it too. there are some enthusiasts
who delight in cramming the most impressive level of functionality into
ancient PC's.

> A thing to understand is that when you control the environment it
> makes good economic sense to be unified. In the olden days, each
> division had their own email system, and exchanging data was a major
> problem--if it was possible at all. Now--for better or worse--we
have
> one that--despite its flaws--allows message and data exchange with
> very little thought.
>
> This is a *huge* win from the corporate point of view. Easier to
> maintain and administer AND it allows your people to get on with
their
> work.

this huge point is lost of some advocates of more 'interesting' setups,
as is the sheer 'training inertia' of employees previous experience
with a given OS and set of apps.

> > And then there's all the "can we make Excel pick up that data,
generate
> > the trend analysis then put it on our powerpoint charts and email
the
> > team that they're ready..." type of stuff you get in organisations,
> > there's no point even trying to be portable then!
>
> Yep. And for all the Microsoft bashing that goes on, this is a
capability
> that nothing else--to my knowledge--provides in anything approaching
the
> seamlessness or ease that MS does. And both of those--seamlessness
and
> ease--are vital qualities at the corporate level.
>
> When I think back to how it used to be I shudder. We expended so
much
> effort on *technique* rather than on *task* it was sad--a testiment
to
> the infant stage of corporate user computing. Now we don't waste
time
> on *how*...we waste time on "What color? What font?" :-)
>
> But seriously,... I may have personal feelings about Bill Gates'
tactics
> or the Microsoft Monopoly, but I gotta respect the heck out of their
> products. They do the job and pretty damn well.

i've noticed you pointing this out before and i'd have to agree. I've
used, and would recommend for home or small company users, office
suites like 'Ability Office', '602', 'EasyOffice', 'Open Office' and
others - they're all pretty good.

Where they all fall down is automation and seamless inter-operability,
even lotus smartsuite (or whatever name it goes by now) can't match MS
Office. I can see that buying MS Office for yourself or a one office
company isn't a good deal, but when it's spread out over more users and
someone takes the effort to take advantage of all the seamless stuff it
saves a huge amount of time automating tasks and so pays for itself.

Of course, many organisations buy it then use it as though it doesn't
have those abilities, but that's down to them.