Your compiler is not obligated to keep the variable ordering. This means that some parts may not be saved.
Also, the data file can be "hacked", and your program can be convinced to take other paths (think security -- this includes arbitary code execution). Defending against this means checks on every data item anyway.
If you have C++ global objects, the function pointers in the objects can be overwritten (accidentally, by changing revisions of software, or maliciously).
Global variables are bad, because they introduce the POSSIBILITY of coupling. Generally, if you can do without them, its better. Because once the possibility of coupling is introduced, it is very difficult to prove that it/hasn't/ happened. It may not affect you (the Programmer) but will affect the Maintainer. She will spend considerable time wondering if a change is safe.
Things with global variables tend (I said *tend*) to be non-reentrant. Which makes reuse a pain. It also makes a conversion to threading painful.
Global variables can (accidentally or purposefully) provide communication channels/between/ parts of the program that are not documented, or are very difficult to document.
I tell my students: Rule 1: Global Variables are evil; Rule 2: See Rule 1.
As a Student, it is your responsibility to absorb as much Zen of Programming as you can. Believe your Teacher in this instance.
Seriously, the concept of "shrinkwrapped" software doesn't go with Enterprise -- a lot of customization and integration will need to be done. "QuickBooks" and its kin won't cut it. That's what I think of when "shrinkwrap" is mentioned. You are not going to find ADP software at your local computer store!
Now, if you are ARE talking enterprise accounting, the same number of solutions are going to be available on UNIX based platforms.
As to Windows "Enterprise" use... Microsoft does claim Enterprise ready software, but I haven't yet seen the hardware it would run on. My (old) clients don't have it either. Maybe its good, maybe not. I just don't know. That makes enterprise Windows the "risky" choice. Go buy an enterprise server from IBM or SUN; it works -- and both bundle hardware/software as a single stack. Microsoft doesn't, so you ALSO have the risk that the next version/patchset will render the server non-functional. (Yup, I can play the FUD game too!).
That said, Microsoft does have some interesting groupware and directory services offerings.
Anyway, thanks for the Troll endorsement -- it was, because I was feeling a mite impish.
"Sadly, Linux just isn't there yet when it comes to enterprise IT. Unless you're rolling your own core business applications, you're pretty much stuck with Windows. Want to run an integrated payroll/HRIS system from a shrinkwrapped package? No luck with Linux."
Just want to go over what you didn't say, but implied:
1 - Windows is an exterprise class system. 2 - You can buy a shrinkwrapped package for Windows that does integrated payroll/HRIS for that aformentioned enterprise.
Excuse me, I have to wipe the tears of laughter out of my eyes.
Probably BIG bi-level compression (load jbigkit from the web -- it will give you a starting point). Probably separate maps for each of the colours. Embedded command language for the rest -- look on the cable for details.
'K? [I think that covers most of the current crop of printers]. Next time, buy a PostScript device.
Get a copy of "UNIX Systems Programming for SVR4" from O'Reilly (ISBN 1-5659-163-1); that will describe the system that Linux is compatible with.
The same reference will cover "BSD"isms as well. "UNIX Network Programming" by W. Richard Stevens is also a good reference for "legacy" code.
Please note that the BEHAVIOUR of this legacy code is well known; making it easier to support. Not much question on what to do. Whereas, with Windows, there is/considerable/ wiggle-room (which is why "WINE" isn't finished yet, and may never be).
Yes, legacy code abounds in the Linux world; far more than in the Windows world. Open programs tend to live a long time. For example, "troff" is/still/ supported in Linux. Hey, its only 30ish years old! Same with "make", "ed" &etc. Most people don't want to rewrite or port these tools, so source compatibility is a very important thing.
The important thing is that the "legacy" bits are well-defined, which is a HUGE advantage for UNIX and UNIX-like systems. After all, program functions of the OS and even common utilities are/standardized/ (POSIX, SUS, et. al).
When the Windows API comes up for certification by a standards body; and Microsoft agrees (its been proposed in the past), let me know. That would be the beginning of a "Windows Standard" and proper "legacy" support.
"Half of learning assembly is testing it out on a *live* machine. You're not learning assembly if you're just using cross-assembling, and you're not *really* learning it if you're emulating."
In a word: wrong. In many ways.
First, emulation is *more* useful because more data can be (potentially) gathered during runs.
Second, being forced to cycle a power switch is "educational"?
Third, the student will *not* be required to know the COMPLETE ins-and-outs of the hardware (eg, register level access to an NVidia card) -- indeed, most programmers/even at the assembler level/ don't have this information.
Fourth, the information gained in an assembly class is/mostly/ of interest to people debugging. It is useful (while learning) to be able to access the "meta level" available in a good simulator.
Unless you can debug on a cycle level on your "AMD sempron" without adding an external ICE. If you/do/ use the hardware to learn machine level programming, I recommend the (more expensive than the machine) aquisition of a product known a "WinICE" (currently produced by CA... along with Windows -- and, no, a product like this does/not/ exist on Linspire).
Nope, this person would be best served by BOCHS with the built-in debug facility enabled. QEMU is a close second (except it isn't as "inspectable", but is faster). VMWARE pulls in around last, about the same as getting a "beige box PC".
Even/on/ the hardware itself, programmers were deploying simulators to illustrate machine level programming.
And, if you do run QEMU or BOCHS, you can run the tool-chain for x86 there as well (QEMU would be preferred, because the tools will simply integrate into the command-line and `make' correctly).
I find KDE to be fascinating. Obviously, the developers have *far* better graphics hardware, and *far* faster CPUs than I do. It seems to really like painting stuff. Gnome seems much "lighter" and more careful in that area, and seems faster on lower-end hardware.
Just an observation - you milage may vary, &etc. And, where it really matters (drawing and space-wise), I use twm.
"... rights holders expect to be paid for usage/ownership of a true copy."
Maybe they expect it, but it just isn't law. Copyright is the right to copy a work -- it has nothing to do with use. Of course, copy can (is) twisted to also mean "perform". But, a copy is allowed if necessary to use the material. (and, the "legal" state of the original doesn't come into it).
As to the issue of "physical vs. license" -- unless I entered into a contract, I own the physical work. And, if I *do* enter into a contract, I better get compensation of giving up my rights to the work.
Also, "downloading" being equated to copyright infringement: either the party who made the material available is infringing, or the person who downloaded the material. Can't be both. And, it can't be the downloader (how was she to know that infringement was taking place? If that is argued, Disney et. al. would need to give guarantees to customers that THEIR work doesn't infringe: including indemification).
It's uploading that infringes; or making a work available for download.
Once you HAVE the work, you can do whatever you want with it; within the bounds of law. Interesting that this includes SELLING the work (as long as you didn't copy it).
Now, this is what I want to see tested (or a comment for a member of the bar in some US jurisdiction):
A party puts a song on an FTP site.
B party downloads said song, and burns it to a CD, preparatory to listening to it on her stereo. She then destroys the electronic version.
B likes the song, and sells it (on the CD).
B decides to download/burn/destroy and sell again.
And, yes, IMO NeWS was a much better system -- but IBM/DEC/HP et al. didn't want to license the standard graphics subsystem from SUN (they were being forced to license NFS already!). So, politics won over function.
With X, primitives are sent over the wire, and events. This is at a higher level than Windows remote desktop.
On the current crop of uni-processor systems, X latency may be an issue. Not a big one, though... Seems worst with OS that is not "HT" aware running on a Xeon.
But, multi-CPU is the "wave of the future". On such systems, X will render on its own processor, and will seem to perform BETTER than the alternatives. X Windows "sweet spot" has always been either (1) at least 2 CPUs or (2) a dedicated X terminal with high-speed link.
As to "X-lite", the networking is already bypassed if running on the same box.
I get no enjoyment out of "playing" these games. I may get enjoyment out of hacking the game.
I buy the game with the intent of hacking it -- and, AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE have not entered into a license preventing this; I am allowed to do it. Now, there may be an "on-line" component that may be under separate license. If its on the box as a feature, and I paid for it up-front, I am still allowed. DMCA doesn't come into it ("unauthorized computer access", may, however, apply in some jurisdictions).
If I supply a "nudie-hack" that does NOT violate copyright -- well, come and sue me. Let's play! And if the "on-line" component was optional, no question about the legality (in that the hack is for local operation only). Interestingly, if the "on-line" component was NOT optional, and the license was not entered at the time of sale, the ONLY problem would be "authorization" -- which is itself a stupid law (and I am far too lazy to come up with a cite right now).
As to what I teach my children -- don't play violent games, and try to avoid video games as much as possible -- if you are interested in taking them apart to see what makes them tick -- go ahead.
I am seriously questioning what you are teaching YOUR children: shooting people in effigy is ok, wasting your life playing video games is ok, but hacking isn't?
Yes, Palladium will secure data. One of the aims is to allow "time-sensitive" data, etc. Microsoft, as the platform vendor (for both Linux and Windows) of Palladium will then have control on the keys, and will be able to rescind keys (rendering documents unusable). This may be a "good thing" in that things like child porn can be nipped. But, political speech could be suppressed by the same mechanism.
If a secure system is put into use, by Microsoft, how will Microsoft behave vis. Linux? How will Microsoft behave vis. governments? Is there a plan in place?
Because Linux is the project ("product?") that has moved to being a "threat" to Microsoft; even though Microsoft has a monopoly of desktop OSs.
How did this happen? What can Microsoft do to retain their position? What do Linux contributors think about Microsoft and Microsofts offerings. What would it take to move Linux developers to the Microsoft platform?
You are buying a vehicle. You want something fun, fast and sporty. You go and buy a 3/4 ton pickup. Mistake!
Select your OS based on what you want to run. If what you are running is "Windows Games", examine the first word -- Windows -- and run them on that platform. If you want to run Linux, go and buy VMWARE, and run Linux on the same box. No big sweat, and no particular problem.
Or, use the money you would spend on VMWARE, and buy another box for Linux.
I am sure that you will get a lot of "Red Hat sucks", "Gentoo rules", "SuSe rules", "Mandrake is the schiznit" answers.
Ignore them. Again, pick a REASON as to why you want to use Linux -- is it a hobby? if so, Gentoo or "Linux from Scratch" may be suitable. Do you want to do real work? Red Hat/Fedora Core or SuSe. Whatever, its your choice.
If you *do* explore VMWARE, you may want to pick a VMWARE supported system.
Anyway, the OS is a commodity (at least in the Linux world, with Microsoft, it tends to be forced on you based on applications -- it's the platform). So don't sweat it.
Why are we asking him about anything? He should be asking/us/.
On second thought, I do have some questions, which I can wrap into a single bundle:
"Is Microsoft going to pursue a Palladium philosophy in the next 5 years? And, if this the strategy, what guarantees will Microsoft make that protect Free Speech?"
Its easier to "throw something together in no time at all that can access databases, websites, and so forth" in Smalltalk.
Really. LOOK AT SQUEAK. A web browser is "built-in". Written completely in Smalltalk; standard part of the language. So is an email client. So is sound synthesis, voice synthesis, 3D, standard GUI, multi-threading, networking. Note that Kay does NOT consider Smalltalk good. Maybe "so-so". And, if you do a web server in Squeak (I imagine its already there), the "scripting" language you would NATURALLY use would be Smalltalk. Why? its there, and it works. Indeed, Squeak is WRITTEN in Squeak, and translates ITSELF to C to target a new platform.
Also, he reported that quite a few people thought that undergrad programming ed was becoming vocational: I tend to agree. Implementing a compiler? Not difficult, tuple calculus and normalization? Yes, I consider these things "vocational" if someone has an undergrad degree.
My questions tend to be more like: "What do you consider the WORST feature of Java, and why?". Or (in a database realm): "Please discuss the importance of idempotent designs in multiuser databases".
The hallmark of "beauty" in a programming language is being able to express youself.
Of course, Kay doesn't KNOW everything about programming, and thus what to express. Which is where the comment about designed decent languages comes from.
Wrong. The original Pentium (P54C) had separate U/V pipes and could execute 2 instructions per cycle. All Pentiums since have had this ability to go "superscalar". Just not with separate execution pipes; I'll leave the details for you to discover on your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Your compiler is not obligated to keep the variable ordering. This means that some parts may not be saved.
/hasn't/ happened. It may not affect you (the Programmer) but will affect the Maintainer. She will spend considerable time wondering if a change is safe.
/between/ parts of the program that are not documented, or are very difficult to document.
Also, the data file can be "hacked", and your program can be convinced to take other paths (think security -- this includes arbitary code execution). Defending against this means checks on every data item anyway.
If you have C++ global objects, the function pointers in the objects can be overwritten (accidentally, by changing revisions of software, or maliciously).
Global variables are bad, because they introduce the POSSIBILITY of coupling. Generally, if you can do without them, its better. Because once the possibility of coupling is introduced, it is very difficult to prove that it
Things with global variables tend (I said *tend*) to be non-reentrant. Which makes reuse a pain. It also makes a conversion to threading painful.
Global variables can (accidentally or purposefully) provide communication channels
I tell my students: Rule 1: Global Variables are evil; Rule 2: See Rule 1.
As a Student, it is your responsibility to absorb as much Zen of Programming as you can. Believe your Teacher in this instance.
Ratboy.
It's a Troll, and I'm happy with it!
Seriously, the concept of "shrinkwrapped" software doesn't go with Enterprise -- a lot of customization and integration will need to be done. "QuickBooks" and its kin won't cut it. That's what I think of when "shrinkwrap" is mentioned. You are not going to find ADP software at your local computer store!
Now, if you are ARE talking enterprise accounting, the same number of solutions are going to be available on UNIX based platforms.
As to Windows "Enterprise" use... Microsoft does claim Enterprise ready software, but I haven't yet seen the hardware it would run on. My (old) clients don't have it either. Maybe its good, maybe not. I just don't know. That makes enterprise Windows the "risky" choice. Go buy an enterprise server from IBM or SUN; it works -- and both bundle hardware/software as a single stack. Microsoft doesn't, so you ALSO have the risk that the next version/patchset will render the server non-functional. (Yup, I can play the FUD game too!).
That said, Microsoft does have some interesting groupware and directory services offerings.
Anyway, thanks for the Troll endorsement -- it was, because I was feeling a mite impish.
Ratboy.
"Sadly, Linux just isn't there yet when it comes to enterprise IT. Unless you're rolling your own core business applications, you're pretty much stuck with Windows. Want to run an integrated payroll/HRIS system from a shrinkwrapped package? No luck with Linux."
Just want to go over what you didn't say, but implied:
1 - Windows is an exterprise class system.
2 - You can buy a shrinkwrapped package for Windows that does integrated payroll/HRIS for that aformentioned enterprise.
Excuse me, I have to wipe the tears of laughter out of my eyes.
Ratboy.
There are laws about "unauthorized" use of computer resources. Cite 18 U.S.C. 1030.
/is/ overboard here.
And that's what US Federal Law actually is. I agree with you -- US law
Deep linking can run afoul of those laws.
So, oblige them, and DON'T DO IT. Indeed, remove all links. Link to other travel sites instead.
Just a suggestion.
Probably BIG bi-level compression (load jbigkit from the web -- it will give you a starting point). Probably separate maps for each of the colours. Embedded command language for the rest -- look on the cable for details.
'K? [I think that covers most of the current crop of printers]. Next time, buy a PostScript device.
Ratboy
gus goose:
/considerable/ wiggle-room (which is why "WINE" isn't finished yet, and may never be).
/still/ supported in Linux. Hey, its only 30ish years old! Same with "make", "ed" &etc. Most people don't want to rewrite or port these tools, so source compatibility is a very important thing.
/standardized/ (POSIX, SUS, et. al).
The "legacy" that Linux supports is:
BSD 4+ and SVR4
Get a copy of "UNIX Systems Programming for SVR4" from O'Reilly (ISBN 1-5659-163-1); that will describe the system that Linux is compatible with.
The same reference will cover "BSD"isms as well. "UNIX Network Programming" by W. Richard Stevens is also a good reference for "legacy" code.
Please note that the BEHAVIOUR of this legacy code is well known; making it easier to support. Not much question on what to do. Whereas, with Windows, there is
Yes, legacy code abounds in the Linux world; far more than in the Windows world. Open programs tend to live a long time. For example, "troff" is
The important thing is that the "legacy" bits are well-defined, which is a HUGE advantage for UNIX and UNIX-like systems. After all, program functions of the OS and even common utilities are
When the Windows API comes up for certification by a standards body; and Microsoft agrees (its been proposed in the past), let me know. That would be the beginning of a "Windows Standard" and proper "legacy" support.
Ratboy.
Oh boy,
/even at the assembler level/ don't have this information.
/mostly/ of interest to people debugging. It is useful (while learning) to be able to access the "meta level" available in a good simulator.
/do/ use the hardware to learn machine level programming, I recommend the (more expensive than the machine) aquisition of a product known a "WinICE" (currently produced by CA... along with Windows -- and, no, a product like this does /not/ exist on Linspire).
/on/ the hardware itself, programmers were deploying simulators to illustrate machine level programming.
"Half of learning assembly is testing it out on a *live* machine. You're not learning assembly if you're just using cross-assembling, and you're not *really* learning it if you're emulating."
In a word: wrong. In many ways.
First, emulation is *more* useful because more data can be (potentially) gathered during runs.
Second, being forced to cycle a power switch is "educational"?
Third, the student will *not* be required to know the COMPLETE ins-and-outs of the hardware (eg, register level access to an NVidia card) -- indeed, most programmers
Fourth, the information gained in an assembly class is
Unless you can debug on a cycle level on your "AMD sempron" without adding an external ICE. If you
Nope, this person would be best served by BOCHS with the built-in debug facility enabled. QEMU is a close second (except it isn't as "inspectable", but is faster). VMWARE pulls in around last, about the same as getting a "beige box PC".
Even
And, if you do run QEMU or BOCHS, you can run the tool-chain for x86 there as well (QEMU would be preferred, because the tools will simply integrate into the command-line and `make' correctly).
Ratboy
I find KDE to be fascinating. Obviously, the developers have *far* better graphics hardware, and *far* faster CPUs than I do. It seems to really like painting stuff. Gnome seems much "lighter" and more careful in that area, and seems faster on lower-end hardware.
Just an observation - you milage may vary, &etc. And, where it really matters (drawing and space-wise), I use twm.
Ratboy
The Internet rises to the challenge!
x t
RFC 1149 'IP Over Avian Carriers'
http://klubkev.org/~ksulliva/rfc-april1/rfc1149.t
"... rights holders expect to be paid for usage/ownership of a true copy."
Maybe they expect it, but it just isn't law. Copyright is the right to copy a work -- it has nothing to do with use. Of course, copy can (is) twisted to also mean "perform". But, a copy is allowed if necessary to use the material. (and, the "legal" state of the original doesn't come into it).
As to the issue of "physical vs. license" -- unless I entered into a contract, I own the physical work. And, if I *do* enter into a contract, I better get compensation of giving up my rights to the work.
Also, "downloading" being equated to copyright infringement: either the party who made the material available is infringing, or the person who downloaded the material. Can't be both. And, it can't be the downloader (how was she to know that infringement was taking place? If that is argued, Disney et. al. would need to give guarantees to customers that THEIR work doesn't infringe: including indemification).
It's uploading that infringes; or making a work available for download.
Once you HAVE the work, you can do whatever you want with it; within the bounds of law. Interesting that this includes SELLING the work (as long as you didn't copy it).
Now, this is what I want to see tested (or a comment for a member of the bar in some US jurisdiction):
A party puts a song on an FTP site.
B party downloads said song, and burns it to a CD, preparatory to listening to it on her stereo. She then destroys the electronic version.
B likes the song, and sells it (on the CD).
B decides to download/burn/destroy and sell again.
Is B guilty of copyright infringement; or is A?
Ratboy.
You are right about NeWS; wrong about the others.
And, yes, IMO NeWS was a much better system -- but IBM/DEC/HP et al. didn't want to license the standard graphics subsystem from SUN (they were being forced to license NFS already!). So, politics won over function.
With X, primitives are sent over the wire, and events. This is at a higher level than Windows remote desktop.
We mourn the loss of NeWS...
Ratboy
On the current crop of uni-processor systems, X latency may be an issue. Not a big one, though... Seems worst with OS that is not "HT" aware running on a Xeon.
But, multi-CPU is the "wave of the future". On such systems, X will render on its own processor, and will seem to perform BETTER than the alternatives. X Windows "sweet spot" has always been either (1) at least 2 CPUs or (2) a dedicated X terminal with high-speed link.
As to "X-lite", the networking is already bypassed if running on the same box.
Ratboy
It's a freakin' game!
I get no enjoyment out of "playing" these games. I may get enjoyment out of hacking the game.
I buy the game with the intent of hacking it -- and, AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE have not entered into a license preventing this; I am allowed to do it. Now, there may be an "on-line" component that may be under separate license. If its on the box as a feature, and I paid for it up-front, I am still allowed. DMCA doesn't come into it ("unauthorized computer access", may, however, apply in some jurisdictions).
If I supply a "nudie-hack" that does NOT violate copyright -- well, come and sue me. Let's play! And if the "on-line" component was optional, no question about the legality (in that the hack is for local operation only). Interestingly, if the "on-line" component was NOT optional, and the license was not entered at the time of sale, the ONLY problem would be "authorization" -- which is itself a stupid law (and I am far too lazy to come up with a cite right now).
As to what I teach my children -- don't play violent games, and try to avoid video games as much as possible -- if you are interested in taking them apart to see what makes them tick -- go ahead.
I am seriously questioning what you are teaching YOUR children: shooting people in effigy is ok, wasting your life playing video games is ok, but hacking isn't?
Ratboy
Yes, Palladium will secure data. One of the aims is to allow "time-sensitive" data, etc. Microsoft, as the platform vendor (for both Linux and Windows) of Palladium will then have control on the keys, and will be able to rescind keys (rendering documents unusable). This may be a "good thing" in that things like child porn can be nipped. But, political speech could be suppressed by the same mechanism.
If a secure system is put into use, by Microsoft, how will Microsoft behave vis. Linux? How will Microsoft behave vis. governments? Is there a plan in place?
Ratboy.
Because Linux is the project ("product?") that has moved to being a "threat" to Microsoft; even though Microsoft has a monopoly of desktop OSs.
How did this happen? What can Microsoft do to retain their position? What do Linux contributors think about Microsoft and Microsofts offerings. What would it take to move Linux developers to the Microsoft platform?
Ratboy.
Run the Windows version of VMWARE, and run Linux under that, of course.
Ratboy.
Let me put it this way:
You are buying a vehicle. You want something fun, fast and sporty. You go and buy a 3/4 ton pickup. Mistake!
Select your OS based on what you want to run. If what you are running is "Windows Games", examine the first word -- Windows -- and run them on that platform. If you want to run Linux, go and buy VMWARE, and run Linux on the same box. No big sweat, and no particular problem.
Or, use the money you would spend on VMWARE, and buy another box for Linux.
I am sure that you will get a lot of "Red Hat sucks", "Gentoo rules", "SuSe rules", "Mandrake is the schiznit" answers.
Ignore them. Again, pick a REASON as to why you want to use Linux -- is it a hobby? if so, Gentoo or "Linux from Scratch" may be suitable. Do you want to do real work? Red Hat/Fedora Core or SuSe. Whatever, its your choice.
If you *do* explore VMWARE, you may want to pick a VMWARE supported system.
Anyway, the OS is a commodity (at least in the Linux world, with Microsoft, it tends to be forced on you based on applications -- it's the platform). So don't sweat it.
Ratboy.
speedplan:
I am not making a public outcry against Palladium.
Just wondering how you got that from my post?
Ratboy.
Why are we asking him about anything? He should be asking /us/.
On second thought, I do have some questions, which I can wrap into a single bundle:
"Is Microsoft going to pursue a Palladium philosophy in the next 5 years? And, if this the strategy, what guarantees will Microsoft make that protect Free Speech?"
Ratboy.
Leadhyena
/am/ a real jackass.
Its easier to "throw something together in no time at all that can access databases, websites, and so forth" in Smalltalk.
Really. LOOK AT SQUEAK. A web browser is "built-in". Written completely in Smalltalk; standard part of the language. So is an email client. So is sound synthesis, voice synthesis, 3D, standard GUI, multi-threading, networking. Note that Kay does NOT consider Smalltalk good. Maybe "so-so".
And, if you do a web server in Squeak (I imagine its already there), the "scripting" language you would NATURALLY use would be Smalltalk. Why? its there, and it works. Indeed, Squeak is WRITTEN in Squeak, and translates ITSELF to C to target a new platform.
Also, he reported that quite a few people thought that undergrad programming ed was becoming vocational: I tend to agree. Implementing a compiler? Not difficult, tuple calculus and normalization? Yes, I consider these things "vocational" if someone has an undergrad degree.
My questions tend to be more like: "What do you consider the WORST feature of Java, and why?". Or (in a database realm): "Please discuss the importance of idempotent designs in multiuser databases".
And yes, I
Ratboy.
MosesJones:
The hallmark of "beauty" in a programming language is being able to express youself.
Of course, Kay doesn't KNOW everything about programming, and thus what to express. Which is where the comment about designed decent languages comes from.
Ratboy.
Wrong. The original Pentium (P54C) had separate U/V pipes and could execute 2 instructions per cycle. All Pentiums since have had this ability to go "superscalar". Just not with separate execution pipes; I'll leave the details for you to discover on your own.
Not just "perceived". Real.
Ratboy.
To all the young un's out there:
FORTRAN doesn't use space to delimit tokens:
d0 18 i = 1, n
is not a DO statement (intended), but is:
D018I = 1, N
An assignment to D018I, which is a REAL (implicitly created).
the following "," is then an error, which most compilers would catch, as a bad assignment statement.
And THAT'S THE WAY WE LIKED IT.
Ratboy.
Bwha, ha, ha ha!!
What you're telling me is (wiping tears from my eyes) -- is that a security system that is insecure can't be fixed because it is too popular!
What a field-day for the black-hats!
Let me... make... sure. (gasping for air, here). Lots of documents are presumed safe, and are not, and that's why future documents won't be safe?
Bwa, ha, ha, ha!
Ratboy.
Most companies *do* have multiple versions of "the same document".
Most documents are boilerplate, from common templates. Making documents the same except for where they are different.
Effectively like having multiple versions of the same document. Coupled with RC4 used incorrectly = goldmine. For somebody, anyway.
Ratboy.