In America: 200 times more people die every year in accidents than 9/11. Six times more people die of the flu than 9/11. 200 times more people die from heart attacks every year than 9/11. Your bathtub is more dangerous than multple 9/11 scale attacks EVERY YEAR. Even if they prevented EVERY terrorist attack ever, the NSA is PATHETIC and WORTHLESS, anyone who says otherwise should NEVER step a foot outside and only eat healthfood, because they're being delusional paranoid igroamouses.
The cost is too great. The benefit is pathetic. Fuck the NSA. Cast out the fucking fear mongerers who are poisoning us. Do you think the reputation our government has lost is worth protection from 0.00025 times the threat we've "suffered" from cars and fast food over the last decade? NO THAT'S FUCKING MORONIC.
I want to know what exactly they are paying in exchange for being able to look at yourself in the mirror.
It's more than not being able to look yourself in the mirror. You can also never see the light of day. Thus, I think what they pay must be the blood of virgins. No one would admit anything about their job then.
Else I'd consider asking the Roman Catholic Church on what they think about you using the term "canonical".
canonical adj. - Use of canon subject matter in a farcical or satirical manner as to be comical. "GNU/Linux operating systems respect your freedom; Ubuntu is the Canonical example."
Have you seen C++ lately? Same problem. When you try to decorate a turd, everything just ends up covered in shit.
What? I agree C++ is pretty shitty -- Language features with odd edge-cases newbs and intermediates rarely run into (diamond inheritance) but are severely limiting to advanced users who would wield the full set of language features at once but can't because they can't be used together without breaking (polymorphism + method overloading + multiple inheritance + template classes = NOPE). IMO, this means there is actually no complete implementation of C++, it can't be implemented because in many cases (diamond inheritance) implementation details have seeped up into the language itself (like an overfull septic tank), as more shit was addeded.
However, C is not the shit that's getting decorated here. Try to design the lowest level language for Von Neumann architecture machines that's still cross platform and you get C. I've done it before -- Created my own replacement for C to add co-routines. It ended up just like C in so many way's it's almost scary. In that regard C is a glorious product of its environment that gives you cross platform language features which describe the hardware features closely (like pointers / indexable arrays of memory, indirection via function pointers, etc). C++ can blame a lot of it's shittyness on having to bend to C's syntax, but that's not C's fault the C++ implementers were skid-marking along on its coat tails.
C may be in the shit, but it's not the shit that C++ is. C is the golden kernel of goodness left unmolested by the shit filled, broken by design, committee produced, cluster of crap. When you wash away the filth, it remains useful as ever -- just smells funny running it through a C++ composting compiler is all.
Morons. The movie is in line with the author's beliefs about military participation being the road to citizenship. That the film makers took it to an over the top level which could be mistaken as satirical of the books upon which it's based is surely confirmation bias on the part of the critic. Poes Law strikes again.
For the record: I think Heinlin is a fool. Dying for your courntry outside its border is NOT how you become a citizen, it's how you become it's bludgeon. Community service work could be extended to all fields of work, like programming or being a doctor or engineer; "Internship" is a thing already, so temporarily requiring such serving in a way that benefits your country's society and protection could indeed be a great way to prove you care about the country enough to be a citizen. Being a mercenary abroad or applying any techonolgy maliciously against others should never be the road to citizenship, certainly if such services are warranted they alone should not constitute citizinship.
Having a militia is fine, using it against your neighbors is not. In the future: Assume everyone is an idiot unless proven otherwise, especially film critics.
I agree with the general gist, but if you're marketing to the NSA, you're also marketing to all the other black market exploit buyers. The price can be far higher depending on the exploit. Interestingly, this means the NSA is helping support the exploit vector black market, and this is a threat to national security...
The minimum fine for hacking any component of the Internet is $5,000
There, fixed that for you.
Didn't you know? Hacking has become a criminal activity that sends you to court nowadays...
No, using the word hacking and automatically associating it with illegal activity is the true crime here.
And I want to start threatening it at a criminal level (in the same way someone would decree libel or slander) in order to get that fucking point across.
The only difference between "hacking" and "research and development" is legality and/or sponsorship (Government would be in the "or" category, for they don't give a fuck about laws. Ref. NSA).
They control the discourse, and the media is not your friend. You should have considered them the enemy long ago. Now it's too late. The system is full of maliciousness. I'm afraid you'll have to wipe the platters, reboot and rebuild from a known good state.
It's pretty pathetic when you consider the Internet was build for decentralized peer to peer information exchanges -- Capable of routing around cities vaporized by nuclear attacks in moments. Combined with the fact that information silohs are stupid. Everyone values sending data to eachother and publishing a bit of data to their friends, and all the computers are fully capable of connecting directly to the sources of information -- Hell, a DHT for celeb info if you absolutely must.
The problem with social networking is that it's centralized when we've never needed it to be. I blame moronic OS vendors for not installing servers by default. MS's fuck-up with no firewall and file sharing on by default was actually the right way to go -- In the general vacinity anyway. What we primarily lack is a popularity (read: installed by default) of a distributed identity service -- Like PGP trust graphs. Everyone from OS providers to Email providers to Content producers and ISPs wants to centralize the fucking web. It's infuriating what you morons have done with the robust decentralized free information exchange we gave you -- Starting with DNS. Gah. IDIOTS, all of you.
The cycle will continue because time after time you million monkeys actually get damn close at writing Shakespere, but to get it right will take a billion years at this rate.
Fuck, it's just jail people. Hell, I once went to jail on purpose to get seen by a doctor when I was homeless and having heart palpitations. Admission and Release are shitty -- a day or more in concrete rooms with "benches" that are purposefully too narrow to support an adult's ass. However, once you get bunk and shower, shit's not half bad. Beats homelessness or bootcamp any day.
Fucking scared little morons. Yeah, I know it's common on the internet to heap scorn, but this is why I never give you fearful little quivering twats any respect.
To be fair, it's because the game is pure cerebral memoization and lacks and true skill component or even the mildest hand-eye coordination. The devs have all but abandoned the game after the queen and bishop patches. IMO, I liked the preivous versions when the queen was no more special than the king. At least it was more accessible to checkers players.
From a game designer perspective the complexity level of chess is painfully low, so much that computer "AI" opponents consists of better ways to organize a tree of known moves, hardly anything like machine learning at all. It's only slightly less boring than checkers to most folks. It's not like other more complex (and fun) turn based strategy games don't exist. Try out one of the flavors of Ogre Battle, or Final Fantasy Tactics -- Hell, even Advance Wars.
If the "digital vs board game" component is throwing you for a loop: It shouldn't. I implement tactics games as paper cutouts and dice to ensure they're fun before spending a bunch of time fleshing out the tedius combat details you'll only concentrate on in rare instances, in favor of the larger game. See? Chess even lacks the levels of complexity an average videogame has. Humans are cybernetic beings, as such they can allocate their attention across a wide ranging field, then bore down into problem spots; A good game provides interesting detail at all levels of play with enough varriation that even without dice you'll never get the exact same game twice -- With chess? There's basically right and wrong moves starting at the 2nd move -- no emergent properties at all, and an environment complexity of precicely ZERO. Whomever can think far enough ahead wins. That's why Chess is a solved game.
Oh sure the game's got history and an over inflated sense of prestige. Look down your nose at other games and play that shitty one. You die-hard elitist chess fans are fucking ridiculous from an information theory and cybernetics vantagepoint. Computers can just help precicely manage more variables and thus allow us to play games with more breadth and depth than a 64 cell grid overlaid with 6 -- COUNT THEM: SIX -- movement patterns. A kid playing halo competively has more shit going on in their brain than a chessmaster. Don't believe me? Whip out the FMRI and see.
Bunch of pompus morons. I'm fine with chess having it's circlejerk. What pisses me off is how folks who tend to like these "ancient" games see everyone else as childish, when their game requires the least cognitive ability to master comparatively. Pokemon would be a step up, though I reccomend Magic: The Gathering instead.
Perhaps it's not America that sucks at chess, but Chess that sucks at America?
Dutch researchers conducted a 10-week sting, using a life-like, computer-generated 10-year-old Filipino girl named 'Sweetie.' During this time, 20,000 men contacted her. 1,000 of these men offered money to remove clothing (254 were from the U.S., 110 from the U.K. and 103 from India).
... and not a single women? Interesting. Very very interesting. I would be interested to see the age distribution of these supposed "men" as well.
SHA-2 is a family of hashes including SHA-256, SHA-512, etc. you dolt. Additionally: Keystretching is fine, so is key stretching and recording the resultant hashes into a chunk of RAM, then hashing that and continuing the process for your keystretching to make it memory hard. SHA-2 can be every bit as effective as any other option you'd go for. You're clearly an ignorant fuck.
My current project takes two hours to compile from scratch, and uses around 20% CPU when it runs. So yes, compile time can be more important than how fast the code runs.
I had a C++ project like that once... It was a tightly coupled scripting language that could be compiled down to the host language if parts needed to be sped up. I noticed that I was mostly avoiding C++ features since they didn't exist ( eg: using multiple inheritance with non-pure virtual base classes -- Which the scripting lang allowed by allowing variables to be virtual ) and implementing them in C instead. So, I ditched C++ and coded to C99 instead. When I got all the C++ out of the codebase (thus making it compilable in either) the compile time dropped from an hour and a half in C++ to 15 minutes in C. Since I absolutely must have scripting and the VM lang optionally allows GC transparently across C or script (by replacing malloc and friends), and it has more flexible OOP (entities can change "state" and thus remap method behaviors (function pointers) making large improvements over jump-tables (switch statements) for my typically highly stateful code: I avoid C++ like the plague.
In fact, since the scripting language can translate itself into C, I don't touch C much either for my projects unless I'm extending the language itself. Over the years I've ported the "compiled" output to support Java and Perl, and Javascript (and am working on targeting ASM.js). It's grueling work just for my games and OS hobby projects, but I really can't bring myself to use a compilable language that doesn't double as its own scripting language -- That's asinine, especially if it compiles an order of magnitude slower.
Don't get me wrong, I get the utility of a general purpose OOP language built around the most general purpose use cases possible; However when you design something for everyone, you've actually designed it for no one at all. I'll take a language with full language features applicable to its templating (code generation), like my scripting language (or Lisp) over C++ or Java any day. (Note: Rhino or Lua JIT + Java is a close contender as far as usability goes, but nothing beats native compiled code for my applications' use case.)
WRT to the "insightful" commenter above: Deadlines are far more important to code being able to run than the distributed minute performance gains on end user systems which are influenced by moore's law. Release date is far more significant: The code has 0% usability if I can't produce it in time. Unfortunately, some project depend on emergent behaviors and thus require fast revisions to tweak (this goes doubly for me, hence the scripting component requirement).
Maybe you don't? Proof of work is something you do that requires work and there must be an easy way to check that the work is done.
What sha1 hash salted with ABCDEF ends in the hex: 01234? 01235? 01236? Please show your work, and explain why your average workload to solve this type of problem will not be consistent?
the dichotomy between masters and slaves. I have always felt that he was wrong, that while those two groups may exist, there is a third group, the technical/creative, who does not want to be master and refuses to be slave.
As a Cyberneticist I disagree. They are all one in the same, each in different phases of existence. The master is a slave to duty. The Slave can be a master manipulator who "tops from the bottom" as they say. The dedicated and zealous creator is as the builder who labored to make great things, slaves to their evolutionarily emerged instinct to to create and explore, serving as mere slaves to the overarching master of complexity progression itself -- Without which we would have succumb in totality to entropy long ago. Everything Flows. Without chaos there could be no mutation, no progress, only crystals.
You widen your eyes: Your view is a slice of a given complexity level, slice higher and you'll find information theory describing the process whereby racial prejudice and greed are genetically beneficial -- Then you will realize why humans have nearly stopped evolving; Slice again and you may cogitate upon the emergence of complexity itself, realize the function of all life carrying out in all things, even your machines, and come to know your culture as a living entity; Yourself as a mere neuron in the network of neural network networks; The earth our body, the stars our home. At another level you'll find you don't even exist as a singular entity: You have ameobas as blood and serve as host to the digestive bacteria colonies that dictate whether you'll be fat or thin, diabetic or not -- A walking virus pustule, living only to infect others with pathogens and ideas, or to further the infection for others.
Peer deep down into the chaotic and uncertain quantum world and realize you exist at your size because it is the scale where enough complexity can first pool to form such reflective thoughts. Do NOT remain trapped in this layer of cognition -- At the eye level, where all appearances are most deceptive and of which you only appear to know best. You ignorantly thumb your nose at one group dichotomy while glibly defining another.
Well, when I was naive I was pissed off a lot too. When I had about 10 years of code under my belt all Major version numbers in my codebases indicated a complete re-write / major design overhaul and API breakage as far as the eye can see. That same reasoning was what Linus was going by when he said there'd never be a 3.x.x release -- v3 would mean he when insane and wrote the whole thing in a message passing version of VB; I'm paraphrasing.
What's interesting is that I follow the Unix Way(tm): "Do one thing and do it well"; So my "Applications" are actually just that: Application of multiple smaller modules each with their own names / codenames and version numbers. The Editor application "Sledge 0.4.x" is a UI layer stack provided by Core v3.0.x leveraging Sterling v1.6.x for rendering, Vaporworks v1.13.x for a scripting VM, CFG9000 v5.2.x for INI/.conf persistence, etc. Git submodules makes building other programs that target disparate points in the independent module versions simple. Eg: A server for providing HTTP interface to other game-engines/servers via remote console utilizes Core, Vaporworks, and CFG9k. My code editor, audio assemblers, etc. use a different group of modules, but the same common codebase. So, the major application version of an application may not change even if I use a different subsystem or rewrite a module (eg: to get my rendering engine using Wayland natively); Major module version changes translate to minor Application version changes.
Each of the modules is like a library with its own test suite, but provides a small set of associated (terminal) tools (eg: My "Core" library provides a platform abstraction layer and provides a virtual file/network system where local / remote / archived paths can be mounted and mapped to the installed system, allowing me to "cd", "cp", "mv" across the network and OS barriers; Vaporworks provides a scripting environment, but also provides a compiler / bytecode translator and debugger / profiler tools. For these individual modules and their smaller tools the "Major version change = Rewrite" method makes sense.
However with larger applications (say, a distributed versioned 3D game development environment), or a browser, or a Monolithic Kernel: Full / Majority code rewrites aren't occurring. So after having created some sprawling and immense applications I came around to the idea that it doesn't make sense to require the same level of change for a major version number in the application as the module -- Why even have a major version number if it never changes? The game dev studio always has the same interface: It must always interface at the human / machine level. Eg: There's a few ways to create a multi-threaded event pump, but the API for them all will be the same. There's different ways to handle pointer input (esp. on Win32 vs X11 vs Wayland to reduce input latency), but the pointer API is not going to change (it did have to change years ago to support multiple pointers / multi-touch, and that was a major version bump in Core.UI, and in apps that use it). It's not like I scrapped pointers for eye tracking, context awareness and vocalizations or gestures... yet, but that was a substantial addition to the system.
The Linux Kernel is in the same boat. It's to the point now that it's got to provide largely the same interface to its users i.e. programs; ergo: ABI stability; There's not going to be a full rewrite because that would be death -- It wouldn't be "Linux" anymore. Nothing that depends on it would be able to function, and all the dependent applications / modules / systems -- A huge chunk of the ecosystem -- would have to be rewritten given the level of change that warrants a rewrite. Especially if we actually want to improve on operating systems -- Say, eschew POSIX in favor of Agent oriented operating environment with byte-code program modules linkable into machine code at install time, or runnable via VM if untrusted (sandboxing that actually works
Slashdot Mirror
In America: 200 times more people die every year in accidents than 9/11. Six times more people die of the flu than 9/11. 200 times more people die from heart attacks every year than 9/11. Your bathtub is more dangerous than multple 9/11 scale attacks EVERY YEAR. Even if they prevented EVERY terrorist attack ever, the NSA is PATHETIC and WORTHLESS, anyone who says otherwise should NEVER step a foot outside and only eat healthfood, because they're being delusional paranoid igroamouses.
The cost is too great. The benefit is pathetic. Fuck the NSA. Cast out the fucking fear mongerers who are poisoning us. Do you think the reputation our government has lost is worth protection from 0.00025 times the threat we've "suffered" from cars and fast food over the last decade? NO THAT'S FUCKING MORONIC.
I want to know what exactly they are paying in exchange for being able to look at yourself in the mirror.
It's more than not being able to look yourself in the mirror. You can also never see the light of day. Thus, I think what they pay must be the blood of virgins. No one would admit anything about their job then.
Else I'd consider asking the Roman Catholic Church on what they think about you using the term "canonical".
canonical adj. - Use of canon subject matter in a farcical or satirical manner as to be comical.
"GNU/Linux operating systems respect your freedom; Ubuntu is the Canonical example."
Have you seen C++ lately? Same problem. When you try to decorate a turd, everything just ends up covered in shit.
What? I agree C++ is pretty shitty -- Language features with odd edge-cases newbs and intermediates rarely run into (diamond inheritance) but are severely limiting to advanced users who would wield the full set of language features at once but can't because they can't be used together without breaking (polymorphism + method overloading + multiple inheritance + template classes = NOPE). IMO, this means there is actually no complete implementation of C++, it can't be implemented because in many cases (diamond inheritance) implementation details have seeped up into the language itself (like an overfull septic tank), as more shit was addeded.
However, C is not the shit that's getting decorated here. Try to design the lowest level language for Von Neumann architecture machines that's still cross platform and you get C. I've done it before -- Created my own replacement for C to add co-routines. It ended up just like C in so many way's it's almost scary. In that regard C is a glorious product of its environment that gives you cross platform language features which describe the hardware features closely (like pointers / indexable arrays of memory, indirection via function pointers, etc). C++ can blame a lot of it's shittyness on having to bend to C's syntax, but that's not C's fault the C++ implementers were skid-marking along on its coat tails.
C may be in the shit, but it's not the shit that C++ is. C is the golden kernel of goodness left unmolested by the shit filled, broken by design, committee produced, cluster of crap. When you wash away the filth, it remains useful as ever -- just smells funny running it through a C++ composting compiler is all.
Morons. The movie is in line with the author's beliefs about military participation being the road to citizenship. That the film makers took it to an over the top level which could be mistaken as satirical of the books upon which it's based is surely confirmation bias on the part of the critic. Poes Law strikes again.
For the record: I think Heinlin is a fool. Dying for your courntry outside its border is NOT how you become a citizen, it's how you become it's bludgeon. Community service work could be extended to all fields of work, like programming or being a doctor or engineer; "Internship" is a thing already, so temporarily requiring such serving in a way that benefits your country's society and protection could indeed be a great way to prove you care about the country enough to be a citizen. Being a mercenary abroad or applying any techonolgy maliciously against others should never be the road to citizenship, certainly if such services are warranted they alone should not constitute citizinship.
Having a militia is fine, using it against your neighbors is not. In the future: Assume everyone is an idiot unless proven otherwise, especially film critics.
Places you would never expect!
The Spanish Inquisition!
And they admit you to the death chamber via orange iPads with rounded rectangle designs...
No they will not. They will pay the rate going on the black market, for the exploits they purchase.
I agree with the general gist, but if you're marketing to the NSA, you're also marketing to all the other black market exploit buyers. The price can be far higher depending on the exploit. Interestingly, this means the NSA is helping support the exploit vector black market, and this is a threat to national security...
The minimum fine for hacking any component of the Internet is $5,000
There, fixed that for you.
Didn't you know? Hacking has become a criminal activity that sends you to court nowadays...
No, using the word hacking and automatically associating it with illegal activity is the true crime here.
And I want to start threatening it at a criminal level (in the same way someone would decree libel or slander) in order to get that fucking point across.
The only difference between "hacking" and "research and development" is legality and/or sponsorship (Government would be in the "or" category, for they don't give a fuck about laws. Ref. NSA).
I agree with you. However, it's too fucking late.
They control the discourse, and the media is not your friend. You should have considered them the enemy long ago. Now it's too late. The system is full of maliciousness. I'm afraid you'll have to wipe the platters, reboot and rebuild from a known good state.
It's pretty pathetic when you consider the Internet was build for decentralized peer to peer information exchanges -- Capable of routing around cities vaporized by nuclear attacks in moments. Combined with the fact that information silohs are stupid. Everyone values sending data to eachother and publishing a bit of data to their friends, and all the computers are fully capable of connecting directly to the sources of information -- Hell, a DHT for celeb info if you absolutely must.
The problem with social networking is that it's centralized when we've never needed it to be. I blame moronic OS vendors for not installing servers by default. MS's fuck-up with no firewall and file sharing on by default was actually the right way to go -- In the general vacinity anyway. What we primarily lack is a popularity (read: installed by default) of a distributed identity service -- Like PGP trust graphs. Everyone from OS providers to Email providers to Content producers and ISPs wants to centralize the fucking web. It's infuriating what you morons have done with the robust decentralized free information exchange we gave you -- Starting with DNS. Gah. IDIOTS, all of you.
The cycle will continue because time after time you million monkeys actually get damn close at writing Shakespere, but to get it right will take a billion years at this rate.
OK. You go first.
Fuck, it's just jail people. Hell, I once went to jail on purpose to get seen by a doctor when I was homeless and having heart palpitations. Admission and Release are shitty -- a day or more in concrete rooms with "benches" that are purposefully too narrow to support an adult's ass. However, once you get bunk and shower, shit's not half bad. Beats homelessness or bootcamp any day.
Fucking scared little morons. Yeah, I know it's common on the internet to heap scorn, but this is why I never give you fearful little quivering twats any respect.
To be fair, it's because the game is pure cerebral memoization and lacks and true skill component or even the mildest hand-eye coordination. The devs have all but abandoned the game after the queen and bishop patches. IMO, I liked the preivous versions when the queen was no more special than the king. At least it was more accessible to checkers players.
From a game designer perspective the complexity level of chess is painfully low, so much that computer "AI" opponents consists of better ways to organize a tree of known moves, hardly anything like machine learning at all. It's only slightly less boring than checkers to most folks. It's not like other more complex (and fun) turn based strategy games don't exist. Try out one of the flavors of Ogre Battle, or Final Fantasy Tactics -- Hell, even Advance Wars.
If the "digital vs board game" component is throwing you for a loop: It shouldn't. I implement tactics games as paper cutouts and dice to ensure they're fun before spending a bunch of time fleshing out the tedius combat details you'll only concentrate on in rare instances, in favor of the larger game. See? Chess even lacks the levels of complexity an average videogame has. Humans are cybernetic beings, as such they can allocate their attention across a wide ranging field, then bore down into problem spots; A good game provides interesting detail at all levels of play with enough varriation that even without dice you'll never get the exact same game twice -- With chess? There's basically right and wrong moves starting at the 2nd move -- no emergent properties at all, and an environment complexity of precicely ZERO. Whomever can think far enough ahead wins. That's why Chess is a solved game.
Oh sure the game's got history and an over inflated sense of prestige. Look down your nose at other games and play that shitty one. You die-hard elitist chess fans are fucking ridiculous from an information theory and cybernetics vantagepoint. Computers can just help precicely manage more variables and thus allow us to play games with more breadth and depth than a 64 cell grid overlaid with 6 -- COUNT THEM: SIX -- movement patterns. A kid playing halo competively has more shit going on in their brain than a chessmaster. Don't believe me? Whip out the FMRI and see.
Bunch of pompus morons. I'm fine with chess having it's circlejerk. What pisses me off is how folks who tend to like these "ancient" games see everyone else as childish, when their game requires the least cognitive ability to master comparatively. Pokemon would be a step up, though I reccomend Magic: The Gathering instead.
Perhaps it's not America that sucks at chess, but Chess that sucks at America?
Dutch researchers conducted a 10-week sting, using a life-like, computer-generated 10-year-old Filipino girl named 'Sweetie.' During this time, 20,000 men contacted her. 1,000 of these men offered money to remove clothing (254 were from the U.S., 110 from the U.K. and 103 from India).
SHA-2 is a family of hashes including SHA-256, SHA-512, etc. you dolt. Additionally: Keystretching is fine, so is key stretching and recording the resultant hashes into a chunk of RAM, then hashing that and continuing the process for your keystretching to make it memory hard. SHA-2 can be every bit as effective as any other option you'd go for. You're clearly an ignorant fuck.
Which one produced the fastest code?
My current project takes two hours to compile from scratch, and uses around 20% CPU when it runs. So yes, compile time can be more important than how fast the code runs.
I had a C++ project like that once... It was a tightly coupled scripting language that could be compiled down to the host language if parts needed to be sped up. I noticed that I was mostly avoiding C++ features since they didn't exist ( eg: using multiple inheritance with non-pure virtual base classes -- Which the scripting lang allowed by allowing variables to be virtual ) and implementing them in C instead. So, I ditched C++ and coded to C99 instead. When I got all the C++ out of the codebase (thus making it compilable in either) the compile time dropped from an hour and a half in C++ to 15 minutes in C. Since I absolutely must have scripting and the VM lang optionally allows GC transparently across C or script (by replacing malloc and friends), and it has more flexible OOP (entities can change "state" and thus remap method behaviors (function pointers) making large improvements over jump-tables (switch statements) for my typically highly stateful code: I avoid C++ like the plague.
In fact, since the scripting language can translate itself into C, I don't touch C much either for my projects unless I'm extending the language itself. Over the years I've ported the "compiled" output to support Java and Perl, and Javascript (and am working on targeting ASM.js). It's grueling work just for my games and OS hobby projects, but I really can't bring myself to use a compilable language that doesn't double as its own scripting language -- That's asinine, especially if it compiles an order of magnitude slower.
Don't get me wrong, I get the utility of a general purpose OOP language built around the most general purpose use cases possible; However when you design something for everyone, you've actually designed it for no one at all. I'll take a language with full language features applicable to its templating (code generation), like my scripting language (or Lisp) over C++ or Java any day. (Note: Rhino or Lua JIT + Java is a close contender as far as usability goes, but nothing beats native compiled code for my applications' use case.)
WRT to the "insightful" commenter above: Deadlines are far more important to code being able to run than the distributed minute performance gains on end user systems which are influenced by moore's law. Release date is far more significant: The code has 0% usability if I can't produce it in time. Unfortunately, some project depend on emergent behaviors and thus require fast revisions to tweak (this goes doubly for me, hence the scripting component requirement).
Maybe you don't? Proof of work is something you do that requires work and there must be an easy way to check that the work is done.
What sha1 hash salted with ABCDEF ends in the hex: 01234? 01235? 01236? Please show your work, and explain why your average workload to solve this type of problem will not be consistent?
I what you did there...
I have trained OCR programs to recognize patterns. If they discover something from the data I give them, do I not take the credit?
It's almost like the Democratic-Republican party was never dissolved...
Came here for this post. Thanks Anon.
the dichotomy between masters and slaves. I have always felt that he was wrong, that while those two groups may exist, there is a third group, the technical/creative, who does not want to be master and refuses to be slave.
As a Cyberneticist I disagree. They are all one in the same, each in different phases of existence. The master is a slave to duty. The Slave can be a master manipulator who "tops from the bottom" as they say. The dedicated and zealous creator is as the builder who labored to make great things, slaves to their evolutionarily emerged instinct to to create and explore, serving as mere slaves to the overarching master of complexity progression itself -- Without which we would have succumb in totality to entropy long ago. Everything Flows. Without chaos there could be no mutation, no progress, only crystals.
You widen your eyes: Your view is a slice of a given complexity level, slice higher and you'll find information theory describing the process whereby racial prejudice and greed are genetically beneficial -- Then you will realize why humans have nearly stopped evolving; Slice again and you may cogitate upon the emergence of complexity itself, realize the function of all life carrying out in all things, even your machines, and come to know your culture as a living entity; Yourself as a mere neuron in the network of neural network networks; The earth our body, the stars our home. At another level you'll find you don't even exist as a singular entity: You have ameobas as blood and serve as host to the digestive bacteria colonies that dictate whether you'll be fat or thin, diabetic or not -- A walking virus pustule, living only to infect others with pathogens and ideas, or to further the infection for others.
Peer deep down into the chaotic and uncertain quantum world and realize you exist at your size because it is the scale where enough complexity can first pool to form such reflective thoughts. Do NOT remain trapped in this layer of cognition -- At the eye level, where all appearances are most deceptive and of which you only appear to know best. You ignorantly thumb your nose at one group dichotomy while glibly defining another.
Mr. Bickford, it's time to grow Up.
Tested fine on minesweeper and solitaire.
Well, when I was naive I was pissed off a lot too. When I had about 10 years of code under my belt all Major version numbers in my codebases indicated a complete re-write / major design overhaul and API breakage as far as the eye can see. That same reasoning was what Linus was going by when he said there'd never be a 3.x.x release -- v3 would mean he when insane and wrote the whole thing in a message passing version of VB; I'm paraphrasing.
What's interesting is that I follow the Unix Way(tm): "Do one thing and do it well"; So my "Applications" are actually just that: Application of multiple smaller modules each with their own names / codenames and version numbers. The Editor application "Sledge 0.4.x" is a UI layer stack provided by Core v3.0.x leveraging Sterling v1.6.x for rendering, Vaporworks v1.13.x for a scripting VM, CFG9000 v5.2.x for INI/.conf persistence, etc. Git submodules makes building other programs that target disparate points in the independent module versions simple. Eg: A server for providing HTTP interface to other game-engines/servers via remote console utilizes Core, Vaporworks, and CFG9k. My code editor, audio assemblers, etc. use a different group of modules, but the same common codebase. So, the major application version of an application may not change even if I use a different subsystem or rewrite a module (eg: to get my rendering engine using Wayland natively); Major module version changes translate to minor Application version changes.
Each of the modules is like a library with its own test suite, but provides a small set of associated (terminal) tools (eg: My "Core" library provides a platform abstraction layer and provides a virtual file/network system where local / remote / archived paths can be mounted and mapped to the installed system, allowing me to "cd", "cp", "mv" across the network and OS barriers; Vaporworks provides a scripting environment, but also provides a compiler / bytecode translator and debugger / profiler tools. For these individual modules and their smaller tools the "Major version change = Rewrite" method makes sense.
However with larger applications (say, a distributed versioned 3D game development environment), or a browser, or a Monolithic Kernel: Full / Majority code rewrites aren't occurring. So after having created some sprawling and immense applications I came around to the idea that it doesn't make sense to require the same level of change for a major version number in the application as the module -- Why even have a major version number if it never changes? The game dev studio always has the same interface: It must always interface at the human / machine level. Eg: There's a few ways to create a multi-threaded event pump, but the API for them all will be the same. There's different ways to handle pointer input (esp. on Win32 vs X11 vs Wayland to reduce input latency), but the pointer API is not going to change (it did have to change years ago to support multiple pointers / multi-touch, and that was a major version bump in Core.UI, and in apps that use it). It's not like I scrapped pointers for eye tracking, context awareness and vocalizations or gestures... yet, but that was a substantial addition to the system.
The Linux Kernel is in the same boat. It's to the point now that it's got to provide largely the same interface to its users i.e. programs; ergo: ABI stability; There's not going to be a full rewrite because that would be death -- It wouldn't be "Linux" anymore. Nothing that depends on it would be able to function, and all the dependent applications / modules / systems -- A huge chunk of the ecosystem -- would have to be rewritten given the level of change that warrants a rewrite. Especially if we actually want to improve on operating systems -- Say, eschew POSIX in favor of Agent oriented operating environment with byte-code program modules linkable into machine code at install time, or runnable via VM if untrusted (sandboxing that actually works
Students who never develop these skills and rely on memorization of formula are often unsuccessful in physics courses,
More correctly: The Physics and "orgo" courses teach an incomplete subject since there is no framework for approaching and solving their problems.
In other words: Morons who don't get information theory are allowed to teach.
We just don't have a separate contraction (i.e. wiln't)
... Thanks once again to Microsoft's over zealous intellectual property & trademarks.