5916935
story
Comments: 352 +- Technology: Windows 7 Touch, Dead On Arrival on Tuesday September 15, @09:33PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday September 15, @09:33PM
from the finger-prints dept.
from the finger-prints dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsoftware.gif); width:65px; height:65px;
software
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwindows.gif); width:49px; height:65px;
windows
snydeq writes "Ongoing Microsoft hype around its Surface touch technology has suggested that, with Windows 7, a touch-based UI revolution is brewing. Unfortunately, the realities of touch use in the desktop environment and the lack of worthwhile development around the technology are conspiring against the notion of touch ever finding a meaningful place on the desktop, as InfoWorld's Galen Gruman finds out reviewing Windows 7's touch capabilities. 'There's a chicken-and-egg issue to resolve,' Gruman writes. 'Few apps cry out for a touch UI, so Microsoft and Apple can continue to get away with merely dabbling with touch as an occasional mouse-based substitute. It would take one or both of these OS makers to truly touchify their platforms, using common components to pull touch into a great number of apps automatically. Without a clear demand, their incentive to do so doesn't exist.'"
Related Stories
Entertainment: Why Microsoft Surface Took So Long To Deploy 187 comments
: by
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
kinda like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:kinda like... (Score:5, Informative)
yeah except I am currently running Assassin's Creed, Prototype, Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X, UT3, Mirror's Edge and Bioshock all on Linux.
Parent
Re:kinda like... (Score:5, Funny)
I bet he isn't using "touch" interfaces with these, tho'.
Or, as I like to call them, "Smudge" interfaces.
Parent
Re:kinda like... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that it what I have always wondered about this whole "touch control" idea-who exactly out there is screaming "Hey I WANT to put big honking greasy fingerprints on my screen! Oh, and I want my kids to scratch the living hell out of my screen when they forget to wipe their hands and grind Cheetos funk into it as well! That's the ticket!"
I mean it is hard enough trying to keep your screen from getting funky, especially when you have relatives like my mom that have the nasty habit of touching the screen to point out what she is trying to get to (and Deity help me if mom ever got a touch screen with as bad as that woman drives a mouse. the thing would be flying all over the place while she pointed all over the thing) without adding this on top. Then of course there is the arm fatigue from pointing at the thing all damned day, it just seems like such a bad idea to me. Yeah, I can see it for like Kiosks, where you are only there a couple of minutes, but everyday?
So while I appreciate the desire to try out new ideas when it comes to interfaces, as we really haven't had a big change since the optical mouse (remember the fun of those damned ball mice?) to me this just seems like a Nintendo Powerglove level of stupid. Not quite Sega Activator level of stupid, but still pretty bad.
Parent
Re:kinda like... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it would probably make sense to make touch-enabled interfaces more table-like and less wall-like. That is to say, to make them horizontal.
Also, for people like artists I can definitely see how a large multitouch surface with the ability to switch between "hand mode" and "stylus mode" could be very useful, it would be like an oversized Cintiq with the ability to move things about with your hands.
Unfortunately most touchscreens coming out these days seem to be geared toward the same market segment that buys D-Link network equipment (that's the "cheaper is better even if it sucks compared to the competing product that costs 2% more" crowd) with pricing that resembles that of Wacom's professional products.
/Mikael
Parent
Re:kinda like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually....
Most touchscreens are fairly resilient. Part of my day-job involves putting touchscreen monitors in front of public safety dispatchers in place of physical buttons for them to mash their filthy hands onto 24 hours a day.
The finger grease isn't really very noticable at all on these things after years of use - I suspect the glass has been treated to some extent to reduce the problem. And it's tempered, and quite strong -- I read a spec on my own touchscreen of being able to drop something like a 1-kilogram weight from several feet onto the surface of the screen without visible damage. So far, none of the dozen or so that I've placed into 24-hour use has developed any scratches.
Go look at a friend's iPod Touch or iPhone for an example, if you can't fathom the notion of a durable touchscreen display. I haven't seen a scratched one of those, either.
Parent
Re:kinda like... (Score:5, Informative)
You know, that it what I have always wondered about this whole "touch control" idea-who exactly out there is screaming "Hey I WANT to put big honking greasy fingerprints on my screen
There are coatings [wikipedia.org] to somewhat alleviate that problem. Some newer mobile phones, which rely heavily on a touch screen interface, have this coating. It repels the natural grease from your hands and makes the display look less smudgy.
For a bit of fun (well...), check out this link: iPhone 3G S Oleophobic Screen Passes the Ear Grease Test [gearlog.com]. Utterly disgusting.
Note I don't disagree with your other points.
Parent
Re:kinda like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows Seven is just not ready for the touchtop ...
Parent
Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:5, Funny)
Why would I ever want to sit up from my comfy chair to poke at a screen?
Re:Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. In fact I'd say more along the lines of "nothing, ever." Touchscreens are a fun idea but except for very specific cases (pocketable computers, public terminals a la ticket machines at train stations for instance) they're horrible in practice. You get grubby fingerprints all over your screen and the ergonomics are bad - extended use will require either a weird sitting position or severe shoulder strain. On top of that, you always have your fingers/hands in front of whatever you're trying to select.
What I really want to see is the idea that was floating around a few years ago for iPhone-style tablet devices, where the back of the device is a multitouch sensor and the touch points are displayed as cursors on the screen. No grubby fingerprints, no fat fingers in the way.
Parent
Re:Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:5, Funny)
There's also the interplay between human psychology and human finger oil as you first start using the touchscreen. You slide the damn thing out of the box and it has a plastic sleeve on it to keep it totally pristine, from a land of sunshine and happiness and less than 100 airborne particles per cubic meter. As if you have no dust in your own house. And it's got that sticky no-stick plastic there on the screen, with no bubbles under it yet to leave evidence of already being touched. You impulsively rip it off, and there's your glistening new touchscreen, with nary a speck of fingerprint grease to be found on it, reflecting your slobbering face recognizably. And there you are, with your filthy greasy thumb, about to lower its resale value by $50. You'll never see it this clean again. Wiping your fingers on your shirt, you reluctantly push on the screen afraid to break it... "I Agree"... and it's all over. They could make it easier for customers by selling them pre-filthy from the factory. I'm picturing a guy on the assembly line fondling phones and eating chips all day.
Parent
Re:Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:5, Interesting)
Who says you have to touch the screen? OS X (10.6) and my MacBook Pro are an amazing blend of this technology.
I have 1, 2, 3 and 4 finger gestures right on my track pad. Switch applications, show the desktop, Expose, launch, rotate, zoom, scroll. Everything is rather intuitive.
The only thing is that it took me about 1 week to come from a standard button/trackpad concept to one large button and the surface feeling is a bit ... different.
Parent
Re:Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:5, Funny)
I often use a 1 finger gesture on my computer but it really doesn't do much, except make me feel better sometimes.
Parent
Re:Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:4, Funny)
I often use a 1 finger gesture on my computer but it really doesn't do much, except make me feel better sometimes.
I once made a mouse cursor for Windows that replaced the hour glass with a hand making the middle finger salute. It didn't make me feel any better but I did get some laughs out of installing it on other people's computers.
Parent
Re:Laptop yes. Desktop never. (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wish Apple would sell a desktop keyboard with a multi-touch pad attached to it.
I really like it on the laptop, but then I switch to my desk, and... nada.
Parent
Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah thats right. It takes very little energy to use a mouse. Very small hand gestures can make big things happen on the screen. Imagine how tired your arm would get if you had to touch the screen all day to make anything happen. Even if the screen was closer to you, possibly lying flat on the desk, it would still be harder.
Parent
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:5, Funny)
Bet you'd have rockin' shoulders though, from holding your arms up all day.
Parent
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah no.
Touch is great for fairly narrow types of usage. Industrial machine interfaces for one. I'd like to see OSs integrate some touch functionailty, or at least make it possible to set the thing up to be touch friendly, just to get the improvements for those narrow uses. As it is HMI packages usually look and work like cobbled together shit and you end up having to keep a keyboard in a desk drawer somewhere even if you don't want one. Or even if you manage to put together a truly touch only HMI you still
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Parent deserves mod points. The keyboard came first, after all. It took me some time to get used to the idea of a mouse, but today, they coexist on the very same computer. Imagine that, huh?
So, go ahead, put the touch stuff up there. There are times when a stylus or a finger can do something that I will NEVER accomplish with that stupid mouse. Just don't kill my mouse off. I hate the little bastid, but I can't get along without him!!
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a lot less of an effort to use a mouse than it is to use a touchscreen.
Sign your name with a stylus on a touch screen. Now try to do the same thing with a mouse. You can see why some graphic artists like tablets.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sign your name with a stylus on a touch screen.
I do that all the time after using a credit card at Walmart and everytime I'm sure they are thinking that another drunkard must have entered their store just based on what my signature looks like.
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, a stylus and tablet are also nothing, at all, like a touchscreen.
The millions of office workers out there really do not want to sit for eight hours a day holding their arms in front of them like mummies. I'd say it's likely to be physically impossible for a human to do that for more than a few minutes without the muscles fatiguing to the point where they are nonfunctional.
This touchscreen garbage keeps coming up every so often, usually with a tone of regret, lamenting the fact that the technology hasn't made any real inroads. There's a reason it's made no inroads, and that's a lack of demand. The reason the lack of demand is there is because touchscreens pretty much suck.
You iPhone-loving kids deal with touchscreens in a very specific, limited, handheld system for reasons I can't quite fathom but I will acknowledge that the technology seems to work for that very specific, limited, handheld system. Anything more complex and touchscreens seriously start to bite, and all attempts at integrating them into a normal computing experience have been met with failure because they bite.
Other than the iPhone, which I still don't even like, I've only seen one useful, real-world application where touchscreens were a good idea, and that's POS systems, particularly in restaurants. As a waiter I could wander over to one, tap the screen a few times, and place or modify an order. But those were also severely limited systems, with a user interface designed with a small number of very specific functions arranged into large, easy-to-tap buttons. It didn't need to do anything else, it didn't do anything else, and so the touchscreen worked well for one-handed operation (and no risk of spilling crap all over a keyboard).
Given the totally limited places touchscreens have ever been useful, I have to say WHO CARES if it never really goes anywhere?
Parent
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:4, Interesting)
The big advantage of a touchscreen is that you don't have to find the cursor/pointer to start manipulating. With a mouse or a trackpad every action you perform has to start where the last action left off. This means a lot of repetitive moving of the cursor/pointer to get from point a to b to c back to a back to b, etc. WIth a touch screen you avoid all of this repetitive input.
For point and click users a touch screen could actually reduce the amount of input activity they have to do by 50% or potentially even more as touch gestures tend to be much more effective than having to click multiple buttons or keys to achieve the same results.
The reality is that very few people are *constantly* interacting with the GUI. More typical is for people to manipulate a window (scroll) then read for 2 minutes, then repeat. On my laptop I could do that while resting my hand on the lower surface, touch the bottom scroll arrow with a finger or my thumb and not think twice about it. It would be no different than resting my finger above a down arrow key. Move a window, resize or minimize... these are very brief actions that occur every hour or so and a lot of people already avoid them with multi-touch input or key combinations.
The question to ask is "What do we do repetitively and frequently with a mouse that would be a burden with a touch screen?"
I honestly can't think of much. There are some accuracy issues with specific GUIs which would not work well with a touch screen if fingers were the only input option (a stylus would solve that) - but otherwise I just can't think of any job related or leisure time activity on a computer that is so repetitive and frequent that it would cause muscle fatigue if a touchscreen were used instead.
If you are referring to typing - well everyone knows that a keyboard is the best interface for that activity, why would a touchscreen device not have a keyboard? We're not talking exclusively about Tablet PCs here... that's just one form factor.
I think all laptops should be touchscreen and all monitors should also be touchscreen. They should both still have keyboards of course and potentially a trackpad or mouse for when you need very accurate input. However I think people would adopt the touch interface for 99% of their activities without breaking a sweat and in fact will work less hard and be less mentally fatigued at the end of the day as they will be able to relax that part of their mind which currently controls the mouse... something not everyone is good at.
Parent
Re:Desktop multitouch: a tool looking for a purpos (Score:4, Interesting)
Jeez. The obvious solution would be to use computers the way they are, until some serious shift in the nature of human-computer interaction is required. It works fine the way it is.
Right now I can kick back in my chair, sit upright, slouch around, glance at the screen while talking to people, and so forth. It works fine for basically every computer user with two functional arms, and many with only one. In fact, right now my feet are on my desk as I type this on a laptop, and I can move one hand to control the workstation sitting on the desk if I need to.
Your solution would require us to all sit hunched over our desks, staring straight down so we could see the screen, train ourselves to limit our eye movement, spread our hands on both sides of the desk like we're having trouble holding up our body weight (which, after sitting hunched over like that, we might)...
I fail to see what is wrong with the current desktops and laptops as they stand today.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its a lot less of an effort to use a mouse than it is to use a touchscreen.
I think that depends very much where the touch is. For example, the touchpad on my laptop takes very little effort to use.
On the other hand, I absolutely cannot play FPS reasonably on the thing, so maybe you're right.
I actually like this idea (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that with laptops/desktops the screen isn't really in a good position to accurately touch.
But I like the idea of getting rid of the persistent cursor. You just leave it lying somewhere on screen when you're not using it.. there's no reason to leave it sitting there, or have to navigate awkwardly between controls, when you can just touch.
I'm reminded of the PC vs console gaming argument about how mice are better because you can snap directly to a target instead of holding the control stick and having to wait as you pan around. Well touch vs mouse it's the same argument. With the mouse you have to start pushing your mouse across the mousepad, wait for it to reach its destination, and then fire. With touch you just tap the spot
Obviously touch would never work for FPS controls but desktop controls are similar.. "aiming" at the little 5-pixel high link may be harder than it has to be
Re:I actually like this idea (Score:5, Insightful)
On the computer I'm typing this on, I'm looking at a 20 inch panel, 1680x1050, at approximately arm's length from my face. If I were using a touch interface, the worst case delay between interacting with two points on the screen would be the time it takes to move my hand the full 20 inches. With the mouse, the same corner to corner motion occupies more like 4 or 5 inches(on your basic cheap OEM optical, nothing fancy). I can move my hand at roughly the same speed in either case so, while the touch sounds simpler, it is actually a fair bit slower.
For small devices, where the entire screen is at your fingertips, touch is acceptably fast; but the bigger the screen gets, the worse it becomes compared to an ordinary optical mouse, in addition to the usual disadvantages of blocking part of the screen and leaving fingerprints.
Parent
Re:I actually like this idea (Score:4, Interesting)
With the mouse you have to start pushing your mouse across the mousepad, wait for it to reach its destination, and then fire. With touch you just tap the spot
You're forgetting the huge speed amplification you get with a mouse, and the fact that you still need to move something (your finger, or your cursor) to that spot to tap it. Moving my mouse about 2 inches moves my cursor through about 15 inches. Moving my finger 15 inches to press a button requires moving my whole arm 15 inches.
What I want to see is accurate gaze tracking. If I stare at the center of a button, it stays static in my field of view - even if my eye's making microscopic movements, it should be possible to reverse-engineer the pattern to determine the point of gaze. Couple that with a physical switch to 'click' (I like the idea of making a 'click' noise with your tongue for a simple, intuitive, self-contained interface) and you have the only point-and-click device that will beat a mouse (no, you with the track ball sit down, it's just an upside down mouse).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I actually like this idea (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I want to sit in an office full of tongue-clicking nimrods. And that'd be really great for doing computer tasks while you're talking to someone or on the phone, too.
Parent
it's just useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Touch and multitouch have been around for decades; the reason people aren't using them is because they simply aren't all that useful, outside maybe consumer phones and systems like ATMs. It's the same with 3D movies and interfaces; like flu epidemics, these dead ideas keep coming back every decade-and-a-half.
annoying format (Score:3, Informative)
article in one page [infoworld.com]
Not to worry. (Score:5, Insightful)
That should make the greasy fingerprints and nasty case of aching gorilla arm entirely worthwhile.
LCARS anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
A solution (Score:5, Interesting)
AKA: A solution in search of a problem.
Having used touch screens for a variety of applications, I'm having a hard time envisioning it's use in a home environment. We're all used to the precision offered by a mouse, and no one wants a touch screen TV.
It would take a radically new appliance to thrust touch technology in to the lime light.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>A solution in search of a problem.
What are you complaining about?? Many wonderful problems have been discovered that way!
Linux needs to innovate here (Score:3, Interesting)
I see X as able to support all sorts of input devices... touch screen support should be standard..
We should get touch features in common apps, they should be done in a way that makes the experience superior to anything Windows can muster.
Hey, if that ever happens, it could be the year of the Linux desktop :)
Microsoft Over-promises and Under-delivers (Score:5, Insightful)
We have been learning this lesson for years now. Does anyone recall the long list of features that never made it into Vista and what a useless pile Vista ended up as?
Let's just agree that it doesn't exist until Microsoft actually releases it -- until then, everything Microsoft says should be taken with a grain of vaporware salt.
Exercise (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple and Touch (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume that what the author's comment about Apple "merely dabbling" in touch interfaces was in reference to desktops only? Apple runs circles around Microsoft when it comes to successful touch interfaces built onto their OS's back end; look at the iPhone. Microsoft's own Windows Mobile platform makes almost no effort whatsoever by comparison.
touch is all over the Mac OS (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a Windows user, so I can't comment on Gruman's take on Windows 7, but he seems to be missing a lot about the Mac. Ever since the iPhone and the advent of CocoaTouch, Apple has been migrating touch elements into the desktop Cocoa framework and the laptop trackpad hardware. Today's MacBooks have trackpads that are, essentially, as sensitive as the iPhone. Two-finger scrolling has been joined by other gestures, most recently four-finger strokes to invoke Expose and the like. Application in Cocoa can (and many do) take advantage of two finger "spread" and "squeeze" gestures to zoom in and out, or "twist" gestures to rotate.
Gruman identifies the chicken and egg problem correctly enough, but misses the fact that Apple has a great advantage in the way Cocoa is architected. Many of these features can be implemented by Apple in such a way that Cocoa apps inherit these behaviors "for free." At this point the Mac OS is quite "touchy" and this drives some of the tablet rumors we hear. There is very little to prevent Apple from making the Mac screen itself an input device with gestures that many (if not most) Mac apps would have no trouble interpreting.
The other advantage for Apple in all this is CocoaTouch itself. Apple has a touch interface already widely deployed and is on its third generation of the framework that drives it. The iPhone/iPodTouch has many more users than MS Surface and Apple is learning from every one of them. Just because a casual user of the Mac OS does not get confronted by a host of touch options does not mean the potential is not present, after all, this is the company that ships a five button mouse configured to act like a one button mouse!
Failed marketing slogans (Score:5, Funny)
"Touch me, I'm 7!"
Ok, here comes my teacher's hat (Score:5, Interesting)
I work at MSFT and just happen to work on the Advanced Design Team that designs Natural User Interfaces for several products around the Org. I myself specialize in touch and multi-touch devices and gestural languages. The thing you have to remember, is that Touch, Multi-Touch, and Pen are all already supported in the core of the Windows 7 operating system. This isn't a small feat. No other OS has that today. The bigger fact is that we have had that for over a year now. The API recognizing the difference, and the ability to track so many targets is monumental in the input field. Ask any interaction designer and if they know the history, it will all go back to input devices and drivers "tricking" the OS into thinking it was something different rather than for what it truly is. Silverlight 3 also has this functionality already built in. These are core functions that allow any software developer around the globe to start building multi-touch applications right NOW. Not next year, but right now. The code is there.. build it.
We are by far not "merely dabbling" I think that's ludicrous. Do you have a multi-touch device and is it working right now? Yes. That is not dabbling. There is a lot of great stuff that Microsoft has put out with this release and so many more great things to come. The one thing to remember though, is that as a platform, we have to do things thinking of other developers in mind. I came from the Surface Team before going to ADT and want to clarify something. Surface does respond to touch, but remember that it is a vision based system and WAY ahead of the competition. It has hover, item recognition, and so many other capabilites that other companies can also build on. Once again, it is a platform. Don't confuse them, they are separate devices but both with very rich interactions and uses.
I also see all this about Apple and the iPhone. If you want to give credit where credit is due.... you should all say Wayne Westerman and not Apple. He is the genius that Apple bought and brought over to save their failing tablet and turn it into a phone. His company, Fingerworks, made an incredible product that still has very loyal fans.
I stopped using a mouse 2 years ago, and have never looked back.
PS: If any of you are in Seattle and would like a demonstration of Surface's capabilities along with a Win7 touch demonstration, please drop me a line, contact info is at my blog. I would be happy to show you around campus as long as you write about it here. Thanks for reading.
Re:Ok, here comes my teacher's hat (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you miss the point then.
Multitouch is niche. Taking a percentage of, say, Windows 7 users: Hardly anybody has the equipment. Hardly anybody has the software to support it(not just OS but applications, etc.). Hardly anybody has a practical use for it - yeah, you can use gestures etc. but one-finger/cursor gestures are just as easy and been around for longer and nobody really uses them at all. The common ground on those three is inherently small.
It's so niche that despite being the "only OS" with it (I would contend that it depends merely on your definition of multitouch - multitouch support in software from a *user's* point of view has been there for years, it may be that Windows now has some *proper* interfacing for the code behind it, that's all) and having API's and trying to get people to use it, not many do.
There just aren't that many practical applications for it that aren't fulfilled more simply, cheaply, efficiently and easily by other means (i.e. just using a normal single-point touchscreen). It might make a cool interface for a Star Trek game. It might let you use *more* gestures if you can be bothered to learn them all, but it certainly does not replace a mouse on the average business desktop, or average home user. I don't even know of any business that *knows* what multitouch is - they don't really care either.
It's a niche piece of technology - like stereoscopic 3D games/movies, like cool Wii controller addons, like £1000 sound systems. Yes, it's fun. Yes, loads of people will play with a demo. No, you're not going to run the world on it and including it in the standard OS is a bit of a waste of development time. Personally, I'd have been happier if MS hadn't spent so much time on it in their main OS and had just released it as a pay-for addon for those who wanted it (public kiosks, possibly? Air-traffic controllers? I don't know).
If you stopped using a mouse, you're really too blinkered. Tell me how one plays a fast-paced FPS effectively on a multitouch screen without breaking their arm? Or drags and drops without rubbing their finger raw and/or dropping things all over the desktop? iPhones, etc. use multitouch because the screen space is limited and gestures are required to save "interface bandwidth" (i.e. the amount of things you can put on the screen at once). Desktops don't have those problems.
It's not even that revolutionary a technology - nowhere NEAR what touchscreen was originally. It's a tiny addition from the user's point of view. I'm really unimpressed, to be honest. I'm actually more impressed by GlovePIE which has had a form of software multitouch for ages (i.e. multiple active cursors on an unmodified Windows desktop, each independently controlled by a vast array of possible hardware).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Java adds something as simple as anonymous functions, I'll concede your point.
And no, I'm not an MS fan. I like Ruby. But I think you're crazy if you don't at least see how a lambda closure -- especially a dirt simple lambda closure, in a tiny bit of syntax instead of a class and a half -- is not at all like Java.
Re:Microsoft Afraid of Pioneering Boo (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that is wanted by the community will likely find its way in.
Unless the community gets bored and moves on to languages like Scala, Clojure, Ruby, etc, which already have what they want.
You see, the Java world runs like a Democracy. People don't like Swing and eventually there's SWT.
And this is different than anything except Delphi, how?
In the MS world, you're just plain stuck.
...until you realize there's Mono.
Also, half the things you mentioned (Swing, SWT, JSP, Struts, EJB, Hibernate...) are just frameworks. Just because .NET comes from Microsoft and ASP comes from Microsoft doesn't mean you can't write web services in .NET without ASP -- or without IIS, for that matter.
But again -- anonymous fucking functions. Javascript has it. Lisp has it. Ruby has it. Perl has it. C# has it. Smalltalk has it. Hell, even C has it -- this is not exactly a new idea.
Java can sort of kludge it together with anonymous classes. And it looks absolutely nothing like it does in C# -- even Javascript manages to make it look better than Java.
Seriously, show me the Java equivalent to:
Or maybe:
Contrived examples? Sure. But I'm sorry, your "language that looks 99% the same as Java" actually looks nothing like Java, unless you claim JavaScript "looks 99% the same as Java", in which case:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPod was a 20-year-later elaboration of the Sony Walkman.
*facepalm*
You know, there used to be this thing called an mp3 player, and later a portable music player. They're still around, but as soon as the iPod got popular, these other things like the Rio and the Nomad were suddenly seen as "iPod clones", even when they predated the iPod.
The innovation of the iPod was making it simple enough for everyone to use, not inventing the thing itself. The innovation of the Walkman was making it portable in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone knows that no new technology can succeed without the endorsement of the pr0n industry.
And this requires a whole different approach to 'touch' technology ;)