Posted on 11/04/2014 10:25:38 PM PST by Swordmaker
And a Tile and Brick company a thousand miles away from Foxconn has exactly WHAT to do with a high tech company making Apple products?
You mean that specific company?
Foxconn is great by comparison to some of those other factories. Which is why they never run out of applicants for jobs.
Foxconn’s current basic salary ($350) per month is already higher than the RMB 1,500 ($240) statutory minimum wage per month in the city of Shenzhen this year. The latter is also the highest statutory minimum wage throughout China, which is higher than that in Beijing ($200) and Shanghai ($230).
At the end of 2013, FoxConn raised its basic pay to RMB 4,400 ($700) per month. By contract, workers on Apple's assembly lines get about twice that. That is one of the reasons why workers mob the hiring office when there are openings for Apple assembly line openings. From those pay levels, FoxConn deducts a monthly rent and board payment of about $110 and the workers can also work 20 hours per week overtime up to 40 hours per month at regular rates at their option.
Most workers choose to put in the maximum overtime. The overtime used to allow 60 hours per month.
My understanding is that Foxconn has an onsite nurseries for children of workers. . . but most workers are single without children. They work to send money to their families at home.
So they are better off than average in China
It's considered an entry level job but not a career path job.
I see you’ve doubled down on your ignorance and incompetence. Congratulations?
I’ll discuss a couple of your errors in the hope that it penetrates your brain (doubtful, but hope springs eternal...).
Swift is based on Obj-C simply because the entire runtime it uses is written in Obj-C. It is completely interoperable with Obj-C.
Secondly, ARC is preferable to “nondeterministic GC” because it is deterministic. Users of interactive programs won’t be confronted with often perceptible, and sometimes lengthy GC pauses. Those are unacceptable even in soft realtime applications like games. Apple did experiment with GC, but determined, correctly, that it’s not optimal for interactive applications.
I hope this helped with your limited understanding of these issues. :-)
Profits are high because they offer a superior product and refuse to compromise on price point in order to achieve more market share.
Apple didn't use a non-deterministic GC because they couldn't, a fact you would have known if you had the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Why couldn't they? Because of the limitations of the Objectless-C run-time, which cannot handle a real GC. Once again, Apple spins some crap about the limitations of their technology, and once again the clueless fanboi sucks it right up, and parrots it back to the world.
You're in way over your head here, clown. But by all means, keep making a fool of yourself in front of the whole world.
"C#, Managed C++, and VB.Net are no more "based on each other" because they use the same CLR than [not so-]Swift is "based on Obsolete-C" simply because it uses the same runtime."
Except those are completely different cases. Obj-C doesn't run on a runtime/VM - it's a native language. Those native libraries directly interoperate with Swift, and Swift must implement all Obj-C concepts, including advanced capabilities like categories and posing. I was referring to it being "conceptually based", not "syntactically based" - obviously. Like Obj-C, Swift is a dynamic, natively compiled language, which uses ARC for memory management.
"Apple didn't use a non-deterministic GC because they couldn't, a fact you would have known if you had the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Why couldn't they? Because of the limitations of the Objectless-C run-time, which cannot handle a real GC."
Yep, obstinate ignorance is the worst kind.
Objective-C Release Notes. Note the first item: Garbage Collection. It's now been deprecated in favor of ARC determinism.
Enjoy your Veteran's Day weekend. :-)
Please learn some basic concepts. CLR is an execution engine, not a VM; it's JIT compiled at run time and does not run bytecode. Obsolete-C is not a "native language" gcc compiles it to native code. The only difference is when the backend compiler runs. That's all. Obstructive-C It is still sitting on top of a run-time, just like a real, useful language does. That doesn't change anything about your bogus description that Swift is "based" on Obsolete-C. That's a semantic and runtime implementation, which really doesn't have anything to do with the language as a language. Is Objective-C "based on" C, just because it's a proper superset of C? No. Was Fortran-77 "based" on C because the first F77 compilers output C as in intermediary? No.
Could someone implement [notso]Swift without Objective-C? Easily. Nobody will, though, because unlike Java and .Net, no programmer coding for any platform outside of Appleworld is the least bit interested in having Swift on his desktop or server. Never happened with Obsolete-C, and isn't going to happen this time around, either.
"Posing" advanced? Please.
It's so advanced it's deprecated.
Objective-C Release Notes. Note the first item: Garbage Collection. It's now been deprecated in favor of ARC determinism.
What do you expect the losers who've cranked this turkey out to say in their own propaganda documents? I know they tried to do non-deterministic garbage collection. I know the whole history quite well -- and that is why I made the comments I made. They failed, because they couldn't figure out how to do it. So, they put the best spin on it they could.
Mono runs just fine on iOS; maybe the losers who came up with [notso]Swift should have just stolen Xamarin's GC [that's considered an Apple Best Practice, after all.] The truth is, millions of desktops and hundreds of thousands of servers run Java and .Net applications with non-deterministic garbage collection, and interestingly, they've figured out how to make it work. Apple hasn't, because their language technology, as I said before, sucks. It's always sucked. And [notso]Swift is just the NeXT generation of suck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.