7:31PM

Happy Birthday, WELSH!

So, I noticed the other day that I started development on WELSH on March 1, 2009.  It is now March 9, 2010.  That means that WELSH is a year old!

The program has changed a lot.  Here is a bit of a retrospective on the features of the older versions...and a new, never before seen build!

Version 1.0 beta & 1.0

This was the first version that was publicly released.  This was the version that was shown off Southwestern University's Student Work Symposium.  It's a bit buggy, although the biggest version between 1.0 beta and 1.0 is the addition of a dependency checker.  As a result, here they are together.

The biggest change obviously is the lack in color.  There is no color.  In fact, color wasn't even planned to be implemented until the summer.

Interestingly enough, "config" , " server"  and "connect"  are valid commands in 1.0 beta, but not 1.0.  This was simply because I forgot to remove those from aliases, which caused the beta to recognize it.

1.0b/1.0 used the original parser, which was inspired by how WebOS manages multiple program.  Essentially, each statement the command sends a " card"  that contains a list of arguments, as well as other things (such if output should go to a file, etc.).  The problem with this is that the parser was a memory hog...and can be simply incorrect.

This version also had several obnoxious bugs that involve errors not being in the "strings" data file, causing confusing .NET errors.  One of which is "Parameter cannot be null", which is what you get when you try using "up"  from C:\.  It is null because there's nowhere to go up from the root - but, instead of saying that, it simply says that it's null, causing a problem.

I could've sworn I had an earlier version of WELSH - but I do not.  This actually made me very sad, as I like looking out how projects evolve over time.  

Really, there is no reason to use this version.  It's buggy and unexpected.

Version 1.3

Version 1.3 came about when I had some free time, and I wanted to fix some bugs.  Not only did I fix a lot of bugs (such as the previously mentioned 'up' bug, and a bug involving saving variables...unfortunately, not a bug involving rational numbers magically becoming integers), but gave WELSH colors, a time command, and several other useful features.

There are still some missing features, such as networking or even configurability.  

1.3 was a tad bit of a miracle was finished within a week.  Unfortunately, I wish I named it something different - this was the one that should be WELSH 1.0.  While it has its share of  bugs (must were, however, caused by the parser that was used at this time), it is very much usable and not as frustrating to use as the 1.0 versions.

Version 2.0: The In Progress Builds, Alpha

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but WELSH at this point has a new parser, configuration features (that were even rewritten once!), and even network communication between WELSH instances.  Output has been rewritten, and even better, the executable itself is smaller and uses less memory.

I would rather use the alpha for 2.0 than 1.3 at this point.  Heck, alpha is a misnomer.  It's not feature complete, but it works properly.

Version 2.0: Where We Are Right Now

Unfortunately, I can't give a screen shot.  I'm working on implementing tab completion, which means i have to mess with how input is dealt with - and right now, that's a mess.

But right now, we have even less bugs thanks to an integrated testing framework....and in the works, we have tab completion, better file protection, and a few other things.

So thank you for staying and using with WELSH.  We have much more tricks up our sleeves, which we will be glad to show you.

7:19AM

What I learned from the 2010 ACP Conference in Phoenix

Photo is of a art piece in the Phoenix Convention Center, taken by a member of our group.So, this last weekend, I went to a the Associated College Press conference moonlighting as a journalist. 

The experience was interesting, to say the least.  The only real emphasis in technology was through either search engine optimization, the rights of bloggers, or new multimedia techniques (such as soundslides, which is something I still don't get).

In fact, everything else was common sense - what people would learn from a basic Journalism 101 class, which was a class I took for fun.  There was information about technology, but no real information on how to integrate it with journalism.  We had fancy futuristic talks about Web 3.0 (which is apparently things like Pandora and Apple's Genius, which makes no sense to me), but nothing about why it was important.  

Essentially, most of the sessions were big picture - rather than educating the common journalist on why it is important to be online (which many of them know that it is, but there are numerous reasons why rather than "it's the future" and "everyone else is doing it), they talk about well, things like Web 3.0.  

One of the reasons why this is important is because of journalists, at least from my experience from this last conference and the conference this year, seem to put journalism and some sort of journalistic integrity above a web presence.  At the end of the session of search engine optimization, this one woman who sat behind me asked a question pretty much saying that when will it WON'T become necessary to use search optimization techniques so that the story is popular for what it is, rather than how well the people behind the story use these techniques.

Okay, it's an honorable question, with good intentions.  But when will a singer who is really good at singing become popular because she sings well, not because she's beautiful or insane?  When will a car be popular because it's a good car, not because it looks like it can go a million miles an hour?

But here's the fact though - you still have to trust the reader.  In a magazine or a newspaper, a reader is essentially forced to stick with a crappily written story, as they have nowhere else to turn to (except for maybe the television).  The reason for this is that it requires the reader to buy another magazine or newspaper to get a new story.

On the Web, there is no need to spend money to buy another source - you have the options of finding alternative sources.  So what if the first link that shows up in Google is crappy for a given news article?  Just go to the one below it.  And the one below that one.  And the one below that one.  But guess what?  Your story won't even be an option, unless you use SEO techniques to boost it up in the rankings, or at least get people to link to it in some way.

Furthermore, it is important for Journalists to trust technology nowadays, and move to the web.  Print is dying, and the reason why it's dying is not because of the economy (don't delude yourself there), but because of the presence of the web.  Hey, print never changes.  Hey, the web does.  You can get instant updates on breaking news, live streams of the event that is happening, you can get pictures that can go out the moment they were taking.  In print, the once dominant medium for the journalist, you can't do these things.  Print is an old medium that needs to be taken out and shot in the back alleyway!  It's also expensive, not earth friendly and just clumsy to design for.  It's completely antiquated.

So, that's essentially my rant regarding the conference.  At the end of the day, our little old website (which still doesn't render correctly on Macs for some reason which I have no idea about whatsoever) won an award.  Second place best in show!  Yeah!  We also won fifth place best in show for best multimedia package, for this article (which if you notice, is not SE optimized at all).

 

 

 

8:29AM

Apple's Big Ass iPod Touch

This was an article written for the 12/18 issue of the Megaphone.

A few weeks ago, Apple announced it was releasing a tablet known as the iPad. The iPad ended up being a giant iPod Touch, but with enhanced applications that make use of the bigger screen of the iPad, as well as having a version of iWorks. The only other difference is that it's running an entire new hardware (using Apple's own silicon which probably destroys the chance of someone running Linux on it). It runs an enhanced version of the iPhone OS, which means you get no multitasking capability. So, there goes the ability to listen to Pandora while writing up a Word document (or Pages document, in this case).

People range from blasé to downright angry to completely enthusiastic about the iPad.Engadget actually closed down their commenting for a good day because people were engaging in rather immature conversation about the iPad. Everyone has an opinion about it, and there are not a lot of people in the middle - people think that it's either the greatest thing since sliced bread, or they think it's the death of the computer.

For me, I was rather underwhelmed. I was underwhelmed because I wanted something that was even more minimalistic in design, like an edge-to-edge screen. I wanted something I could multitask with. I wanted something with a better name, for Christ's sake! There's no Flash, and the only reason for that is that Steve Jobs is extremely pissy and stubborn. Yes, Mr. Jobs. That one Mac that the Megaphone editors use that always break? Yeah, that thing freezes up whenever Safari is open to any page, Flash or not.

However, as time passed, I realized that Apple is simply an opportunist, a scavenger of sorts. During the presentation of the iPad, Jobs announced that Apple was trying to make something in between an iPhone/iPod Touch and the MacBook. However, believe it or not, the Apple tablet is not by a long shot the first tablet. In fact, tablet computing was spearheaded by Microsoft way back in 2001.

One thing that Apple excels at is taking an existing, dying industry and rejuvinating them. For some reason, the presence of Apple in a marketplace calls attention to not only Microsoft, but also the attention of open source enthusiasts. There were MP3 players before the iPod. There were all-in-ones before the iMac. And there were definitely phones before the iPhone. In the iPod/iPhone case, it was definitely a software issue. The software of MP3 players and smart phones before the iPhone was clunky, confusing and even worse, downright user-unfriendly. Apple, which is a god when it comes to user design, comes along, make things better, which brings about other competition. Competition is a good thing, especially in the computer business - it brings about innovation. In fact, if it wasn't for the iPhone, smart phones would still only be used by corporate businessmen and not whizkid college students. If it wasn't for the iPod, MP3 players would still be confusing little sticks that only offered 256 MB of storage and relied on a 16-character black and white LCD screen.

Once again, with the iPad, Apple is rejuvenating the barely alive tablet industry. Here's the problem however - now they are competing directly with PC manufacturers hardware wise (Dell, HP, Lenovo and Fujitsu mainly), and Microsoft on the software-wise. They are also competing against Amazon and Barnes & Noble for some reason. Who in their right minds would read a book on an LCD screen anyways? Screw the fact that the iBook app is pretty. It's still a pain to spend a long period of time reading on an LCD screen. That's why electronic text books have not been as popular as they should be! Here's the biggest thing - for the cost of today's tablet or convertible laptop (i.e. a laptop that can easily turn into a tablet), you get the tablet, an operating system that mostly everyone knows how to use and is comfortable with, a camera, the ability to multitask AND a DVD drive (or even a Blu-Ray drive!). You also get Flash support! Because it's (usually) Windows, you can run much more the number of applications in the Apple App Store. Of course, not half of them are fart machine applications. You do, however, have to do some research to make sure you're not downloading malware, though.

The biggest thing is multitasking. As of iPhone OS 3.5.3, there is no multitasking (the ability to run more than one program at once) or backgrounding ( the ability to run more than one program at once, but they are not displayed to you) are not present, and any attempt to circumvent this will result in your app being banned in Apple's App Store. Only Apple apps can have backgrounding, and they do it in varying ways. Having a single-tasking operating system on a phone or an MP3 player is okay - it is not okay in something that is trying to be full fledged computer.

This wouldn't normally be a problem. It's okay to write the iPad off as "baby's first computer." However, there are people are trying to replace their work PC or laptop with the iPad. Here's the problems with this - your Mac or PC will not have all the applications available on a iPad. Second of all, your computer is surprisingly upgradeable. You can change out the battery on laptops or change the RAM. On desktops, you can pretty much swap out the internals of one system to another. Anyone can work on a laptop or a desktop. My guess that if your iPad breaks somehow, you'll have to send in to Apple. Which is bad for you, as you'll probably have to pay somewhat. Computers, including existing Macs, you can at least teach yourself to fix, at a much lower cost than Geek Squad will be happy to bill you.

There is no reason at all for a consumer to replace their laptop with an iPad or even buy an iPad to supplement their computer fleet. There's a reason to have a phone, a reason to have an MP3 player and even a reason to have a computer. There's no reason to have an overpriced product with such a limited feature set. My current laptop is an Asus EeePC 1005PEB that I bought at Best Buy for $320. It has 10 hours of battery life. I run all the programs I need on it - Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Visual Studio 2008 and even SimTower! I can even run Windows Movie Maker, Skype, and a bevy of other applications. I can even go to websites that serve Flash content and even websites that have Silverlight content. Oh, and I can even read books, thanks to Kindle for PC. Sure, I may not always be connected onto the Internet, but I usually use my laptop where WiFi is present anyways. Do I really need to be on the internet when I'm on a country farm? Or out in the middle of nature?

Even then, the cheapest iPad is $499, and just like me, you're only on the internet if you get a WiFi connection. And guess what? You're paying $180 extra for a slower processor and an inferior (no multitasking, no camera support, less applications) OS. Good consumer choice. The only thing that will make it better is if Apple comes out to release an updated iPhone OS with multitasking capability - then maybe, just maybe, it'll be a wise choice.

To be honest though, the iPad will be successful, because it has Apple's name on it. However, I do believe that one market that the iPad will succeed in is in the education market. Schools were waiting for something like this to come along. Something that students can carry around instead of an expensive book bag, take notes, and if they really wanted to, sneak a game of Bejeweled in. But still, my point remains: There is no point for a real consumer to buy this, unless they want to show how much money they make. Let the schools buy it, save your own damn money, for heaven's sake.

5:32PM

Closed Application Stores are a User's Best Friend

Recently, there has been a lot of rhetoric regarding the closed Apple App Store found on the iPhone and the (underwhelming) iPad

Some people say that a closed App Store is bad for developers, not giving them freedom, and furthermore, the users do not have the freedom to install what they want.  This is somewhat true -to develop apps natively on the iPhone you must use Objective-C (although there are alternatives out there, such as Appcelerator or Novell's Mono-Touch).  

However, some say that that a closed application store is good for developers and consumers, because they allow for the developer's publicity, and the consumer doesn't have to worry about nasty bugs or programs that steal information.

The point of a closed App store is looking at a computer as an appliance rather than a computer.  The appliance style of thought requires a set of activities that the computer is allowed to do, rather than allowing the user to understand these commands.

While this seems bad for the user and the developer, I do believe this is the computer will end up being an appliance.  I believe this is best for the user and the developer.

A closed application store (and thus the computer as an appliance) means that for the most part, the user is safe from installing bad software, and thus ties the developer's hands behind their back to prevent them from coming out with shoddy software.  In fact, I honestly believe that Apple should tighten their app store even more to prevent subpar or buggy software from coming in.  I do believe that some of their rejections are complete nightmarish though (such as blocking a dictionary app for having naughty language).  

In the end, the user is not only safe, but also saves time - no more researching on what applications are the king in the sea of subpar apps (for an example of this, take a look at the sea of CD Burning software that is available for Windows).  Furthermore, it just works.  There's no need to worry about installation (a process that really needs to die) or worry whether or not what you downloaded is actually a rogue antivirus. 

I also believe that this is good for developers.  Yes, it removes them from having complete freedom, but that can actually pay off.  It inspires creativity from solving the additional problem of not being able to access the file system, for instance, as well as inspires more education to make their applications up to snuff.  This would increase the quality of developers, and inspire more competition in the marketplace, especially regarding price.  Furthermore, the tools are right there. For instance, with the iPad, you need to use 

I am, however, not going to engage in the doublespeak that I've seen regarding how a closed app store actually gives developers or users more freedom.  It doesn't, but it does make users more secure, and it makes developers produce high quality apps (in a perfect universe).

For instance, I asked my father to go and download Microsoft Security Essentials on his new laptop.  He asked what it was, I said it was an antivirus.  He downloaded an antivirus, but it was the infamous Antivirus 2008.  Now when I go back home, I not only get to deal with that infection, but any other infection he picked up while not having an antivirus on.  What I should've said was go to Ninite and told him to download MSE there.  While Ninite is not an app store, it's a repository of apps that are chosen by the owners of the site, and probably the best compromise of what is out there - safe, reliable apps that are chosen to be there because they are of high quality.

9:07AM

The iPad Underwhelms Me

So, the iPad was announced and launched yesterday, and I was very, very wrong with my predictions of it.

And as a result, I'm a bit...underwhelmed.  

The design is the same as the iPhone.  We're running off of a design for the last 3 years.  I was expecting something even more minimalistic from Apple.

Yeah, it's thin, but it's still not pocket-friendly (unless you wear JNCOs).  

It can run all software that the iPhone can run...but in a tiny square in the middle of the screen, or double the pixel size.  Which is good in games, terrible at text based applications.  The Facebook demo just looked disgusting.

This is not a paradigm shift or anything similar.  The people who know about technology are slightly turned off, but they are doing what Apple goes best - go after the people who think they are technology savvy, but are truly just following a crowd.  They are not developers or programmers, but are simply know the Apple name, understand that they provide a good user expereince, and that's it.

Why pay $499 for an ebook reader, when you can buy a great one for half that cost, AND you get free 3G (without a contract, as well)?  Why pay $499 for a tiny, 16 GB consumter when you can pay $320 for a computer with 250 GB of memory, the ability to MULTITASK (a feature that's been in OSes since the Xerox SPARC), and the ability to run much more than 180k apps (and half of them aren't stupid little "hello world" apps or fart machine apps).  Oh, and the $320 device can be customizable, and you can run whatever OS or software you want on it.  

Why pay $499 for a music player, when the $320 device can also act as a music player, or you can simply buy an iPod touch for at least 200 less, and get pretty much just a smaller version of the iPad.

The only reason why the iPad should be interesting is the fact it uses Apple's own chip, instead of something Intel or Qualcomm did.  

This device is really Apple's folly, something where there are much better and cheaper alternatives out there.  And what depresses me is that it will STILL sell like hotcakes.