Here is an interesting problem with making C++ style concepts a real type in a programming language.

This is a very simple statement, but I don't like what C++ does with it.

I've been working on this since the first post of this example; you can see that the code has been completely rewritten and (I think) greatly improved, both in terms of the generics and the performance tests themselves.

At OSCON I rewrote one of the earliest Python graphics demos I ever did, this time in Tkinter -- a colorful clock. Miguel de Icaza thinks it's cool!

I found this in my drafts, dated Feb 6 2005. I 'll just push it out now unedited. Original summary: I thought it was clear that we should add interfaces to Python, but Phillip Eby reminded me that years ago I rejected them in favor of Abstract Base Classes (ABCs). Why? I don't remember! Which do you prefer?

A few years ago, close on the heels of the dot-com bust, Rational basically imploded. IBM felt that there was still value in what was left of the company, and paid an exorbitant amount for the remains.

I am in the middle of implementing the Heron standard library, and I have found two techniques for implementing container concepts. One is more object-oriented and the other is more generic. Which should I use?

One of my pet peeves is when people reference Wikipedia as an authoritative source for computer science defintions.

Eric Armstrong's recent article on Artima caught my eye and made me think a bit about the evolution of distributed programming techniques. In the beginning, there was the message. But what now?

I am conducting a survey to find out what it would take for a new programming language to impress people.

This entry is a replacement for "When Generics Fail" (which was deleted). In that, I began with casting solution, thinking that there wasn't a generic solution, then Krzysztof Sobolewski corrected me. So instead, I will compare the two solutions.

I like little programming languages. The sad thing about designing one is that people expect you to have a purpose.

A message-based design is fundamentally the right way to think about building a distributed system, as opposed to code sharing, remote procedure calls, and the like. This article explains why.

Their last update is almost a year ago.

A comment to an article by Craig Larman posted last year.