I was wondering if they would be "built" planets instead. Would there be an advantage to building around a metal-poor star, if you possessed the technology to do it? Is the kind of radiation emitting from such a star of better quality, or more conducive to life-expectancy, or something?
If you had written it in C++ you could natively use C++ objects and libraries fluently.
C++ is pretty finicky when it comes to linking libraries with C++ objects. It's all platform-specific, and some quirks may make certain builds of your libraries incompatible with different builds on the same platform with different settings (e.g. iterator debugging settings, CRT linking, static members in static libraries linked to multiple DLLs in the same exe...). Is it hard? No, not really, it's perfectly manageable for for someone who is an expert at C++ internals.
It takes more skill and system-programming knowledge to deal with the tricky interfaces between the internals of a Python interpreter and an external C++ program. The object structure in Python is obviously alien to the C++ object system.
Since the object structure of C++ can be alien to C++ itself if you're not careful (see above), that's obviously true. So you'd try to keep your Python/C (not C++) interface as tight and limited as possible, ideally a single C function call which is actually very easy to wrap (as long as you don't need complex objects in or out). A lot of the things that Guido is referring to would be covered by that one use-case. Not all of them of course.
Your single C function or a few of them can of course call into C++ objects once across the Python/C boundary.
Of course there is always workarounds, but they are inconvenient and require arcane knowledge. Somebody who is an expert at Python internals doesn't think this is hard. Somebody who is an expert at computational algorithms but not compilers does think this is hard, and especially thinks this is something that they really do not have a desire to learn. Me, I have far more interest in spending my time reading a machine learning research paper rather than learning about some crufty programming interface.
I suggest you take a look at boost::python. I have - it works well enough. It's not perfect but it provides an awful lot of the "difficult" scaffolding to expose C++ objects to Python and vice-versa. Once you get it set up it's actually relatively straightforward to use - the first class is the hardest.
What didn't help is that a movie DVD on the whole was (and probably still is) cheaper than most CDs to buy. DVDs have more content, the original content is much more expensive to produce, and yet a DVD movie costs less money to buy than a CD. For any economically savvy person that was a clear indication that we were being gouged on CD prices.
TBH - at an hour of talking, no. A summary or argument with diagrams would be worth looking at, but a video? I am actually getting tired of this fad of posting videos to make a case. Very inefficient and can usually be summed up in something that only takes 10 minutes to read. I get the feeling the people who do things pieces just like hearing their own voice....
Maybe someone could come up with a better way to make a video.
Is this legal? Does anyone know if that sort of action violates the law?
I have no idea about the actual legally, but have a strong feeling that right now Google doesn't really have to care a lot about whether this is legal - as long as it is "grey area" enough to drag the process out until most developers have complied anyway. At which point Google Wallet will be a de-facto standard for Google Play.
No, I have no idea the cryptographic details of GIT works - I was responding to the information in the post above mine with a hypothetical evil genius scenario in my limited understanding of DVCS (i.e. copies of stuff in multiple places). I am happy to read that it seems the developers of GIT are smarter than those that developed Sourcesafe. Which isn't a herculean feat.
Fortunately, git is a distributed version control system, meaning that, usually, there is a copy of the sources and history information elsewhere.
The truly malicious might blatantly compromise the main repository, and "helpfully" provide poisoned recovery source from multiple already-compromised external sources.
Re:The devs were notified and ignored it
on
GitHub Hacked
·
· Score: 2
Apparently GitHub's own admin isn't "pro" enough...
I tried reading that thread but the language is convoluted and I know next-to-nothing about rails - am I reading it right - the devs were essentially saying "pro users know how to secure their installs!" and then got pwned themselves with the exact hack that Homakov had reported?
Now be careful, because inheritance was not really intended for code reuse. If it does help with code reuse, that's a positive consequence, but it's not what inheritance is for, first and foremost. See Liskov substitution principle and all that jazz.
Be even more careful, because public inheritance is definitely not intended for code reuse, but protect and private inheritance are!
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering if they would be "built" planets instead. Would there be an advantage to building around a metal-poor star, if you possessed the technology to do it? Is the kind of radiation emitting from such a star of better quality, or more conducive to life-expectancy, or something?
Maybe it's just a froody place?
If you had written it in C++ you could natively use C++ objects and libraries fluently.
C++ is pretty finicky when it comes to linking libraries with C++ objects. It's all platform-specific, and some quirks may make certain builds of your libraries incompatible with different builds on the same platform with different settings (e.g. iterator debugging settings, CRT linking, static members in static libraries linked to multiple DLLs in the same exe...). Is it hard? No, not really, it's perfectly manageable for for someone who is an expert at C++ internals.
It takes more skill and system-programming knowledge to deal with the tricky interfaces between the internals of a Python interpreter and an external C++ program. The object structure in Python is obviously alien to the C++ object system.
Since the object structure of C++ can be alien to C++ itself if you're not careful (see above), that's obviously true. So you'd try to keep your Python/C (not C++) interface as tight and limited as possible, ideally a single C function call which is actually very easy to wrap (as long as you don't need complex objects in or out). A lot of the things that Guido is referring to would be covered by that one use-case. Not all of them of course.
Your single C function or a few of them can of course call into C++ objects once across the Python/C boundary.
Of course there is always workarounds, but they are inconvenient and require arcane knowledge. Somebody who is an expert at Python internals doesn't think this is hard. Somebody who is an expert at computational algorithms but not compilers does think this is hard, and especially thinks this is something that they really do not have a desire to learn. Me, I have far more interest in spending my time reading a machine learning research paper rather than learning about some crufty programming interface.
I suggest you take a look at boost::python. I have - it works well enough. It's not perfect but it provides an awful lot of the "difficult" scaffolding to expose C++ objects to Python and vice-versa. Once you get it set up it's actually relatively straightforward to use - the first class is the hardest.
What didn't help is that a movie DVD on the whole was (and probably still is) cheaper than most CDs to buy. DVDs have more content, the original content is much more expensive to produce, and yet a DVD movie costs less money to buy than a CD. For any economically savvy person that was a clear indication that we were being gouged on CD prices.
I'd call it "subjugative C".
What reading are we getting from the Rape-Your-Customers-O-Meter?
The needle seems to be pegged on "incessant whining but still a roaring success".
Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing.
I periodically get asked by JP Morgan if I want to come and work on the Smalltalk system that feeds all of their other in-house software.
Dude. That's code speak for "can you please come and use your people skills to sweet-talk our secretaries into doing their job".
TBH - at an hour of talking, no. A summary or argument with diagrams would be worth looking at, but a video? I am actually getting tired of this fad of posting videos to make a case. Very inefficient and can usually be summed up in something that only takes 10 minutes to read. I get the feeling the people who do things pieces just like hearing their own voice....
Maybe someone could come up with a better way to make a video.
legally -> legality. Bloody friday mornings before sufficient caffeine intake. Me fail english? That's unpossible!
Is this legal? Does anyone know if that sort of action violates the law?
I have no idea about the actual legally, but have a strong feeling that right now Google doesn't really have to care a lot about whether this is legal - as long as it is "grey area" enough to drag the process out until most developers have complied anyway. At which point Google Wallet will be a de-facto standard for Google Play.
Rule of thump? Is that the one where if you have a software problem, you thump the system, and if the problem persists it's now a hardware problem?
I'm glad the author never tried to argue that C++ has internal consistency (I do love C++, but...).
Wrong. C++ is consistently inconsistent, except when it isn't!
If Israelis were actually running American security, it would actually be WORKING. Ergo, you're nuts.
GP is saying it *is* working - for THEM.
you don't have any idea how GIT works, do you ? or maybe you are FUDding ?
two words: distributed and Cryptographic authentication of history
No, I have no idea the cryptographic details of GIT works - I was responding to the information in the post above mine with a hypothetical evil genius scenario in my limited understanding of DVCS (i.e. copies of stuff in multiple places). I am happy to read that it seems the developers of GIT are smarter than those that developed Sourcesafe. Which isn't a herculean feat.
Fortunately, git is a distributed version control system, meaning that, usually, there is a copy of the sources and history information elsewhere.
The truly malicious might blatantly compromise the main repository, and "helpfully" provide poisoned recovery source from multiple already-compromised external sources.
Apparently GitHub's own admin isn't "pro" enough...
I tried reading that thread but the language is convoluted and I know next-to-nothing about rails - am I reading it right - the devs were essentially saying "pro users know how to secure their installs!" and then got pwned themselves with the exact hack that Homakov had reported?
42.
Hey! My MS4000 keyboard and MS mouse are working jut fine.
I see what you did there.
Kuwait is at #12 in the list you linked.
Now be careful, because inheritance was not really intended for code reuse. If it does help with code reuse, that's a positive consequence, but it's not what inheritance is for, first and foremost. See Liskov substitution principle and all that jazz.
Be even more careful, because public inheritance is definitely not intended for code reuse, but protect and private inheritance are!
It's not dead, it's resting.
The moon has been upgraded from "harmless" to "mostly harmless" then?
really? based on those requirements, i think origami would be a bit much for him.
The project might fold.
But hey, at least it looked good on paper.
You misunderstand - The "Serious Organised Crime" part refers to the various rights-holder conglomerates.
I feel sorry for the elephant.