Generally, I mean sustained heavy calculation with large blocks of data. ' Sure, you *can* write those operators and templates, but they tend to already be there in Fortran. And if they're not, it's near certain that you can find existing, well-tested libraries.
The "less code" was my own experience several years ago while still using both for this kind of work. It's been long enough that I"m straining to remember specifics, but the dusty brain cells want to say [no, scratch this example; it make no sense].
Whether you use pointers or not, the C compiler may be forced to make allowances for it. Fortran pointers are far more limited, and the compiler needn't consider the extra possibilities.
And as for goto? Why is it any worse that one exists in Fortran than C? I've used one twice in the last ten years (or is it once). The alternative was setting a status variable to be checked to skip the block of code (for the general case) immediately following the select case structure. I *could* have avoided the goto, but the code was much clearer by using it.
For certain purposes (including most of what I do), fortran is unmatched.
It is *possible* to write C that runs as fast as Fortran for heavy math. However, it involves hand-optimizing your C until this happens.
Fortran handles calculations quite well, thank you. It take less Fortran code to handle many common operations, and array options are built in and optimized to high heaven.
With Fortran 90 and 95, the grammars that led to the CS horror (e.g., computed gotos) are marked either deleted or obsolescent (meaning expect deletion in another standard or two).
Also, due to the selection of which features are included in Fortran and which are not, Fortran compilers can make much stronger assumptions than, for example, C compilers working with pointers.
There's nothing unfortunate at all about Fortran's (not FORTRAN any more) role in scientific computing. The tragedy is the number of people who bought into those silly C campaigns.
What killed DEC wasn't the changing market, but recto-cranial inversion in the upper layers of management.
Listen to someone from there describe the demise and changes (Cutler's regime seems to be a common cutoff point).
They out-appled apple.
DEC was even more efficient than VW (though the same basic story) at cutting off limbs. After the two previous attempts to kill off the bug failed as people didn't buy the new models, they insured that the third *would* be their new main model by refusing to produce their most popular product.
Usually, comapanies don't own *any* shares in themsleves. (though some keep "treasury shares" around).
However many shares there are, they represent 100% of the company. (Which is why expensing options is just plain silly--the balance sheet is for the company as a whole, and isn't affected by the number of shares or potential shares--adding more just makes each exisitng share of lower value, leaving the company untouched. It's just a redistribution of ownership).
>Of course, since the US cent is worth less than the >UK (new) penny, it would make real sense for them >just to ditch everything below a nickel (5c IIRC)
The half-penny was worth more than today's dime when we dropped it. So maybe kill everything below a quarter:)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you're considering getting legal advice on the web, get your head checked.
>However KDE would still be able to distribute directly themselves.
It's even broader than that: KDE was QGPL, not GPL, no matter how many times the authors claimed otherwise.
The clear intent of the authors *was* distribution. Their invitation to do so overrides any conflicting statements in boilerplate (in this case, the GPL). Even terms in that boilerplate saying they couldn't be overridden would be overridden.
The flip side of this is that if they incorporated actual GPL sofwtare into their Quasi-GPL product, they would be violating the license of that software. Not "violating the GPL," but violating the software of the other license, which happens to be GPL.
The clones were all made with apple-designed motherboards (or was there one that wasn't) running hte Apple OS. The cloners wanted apple to do all the R&D whiel they continued to pay minimal royalties.
No, there just haven't been any for several years.
Apple did *not* refuse to renew the cloning licenses. They *did* insist on larger fees on upper end machines, and the cloners refused.
The more expensive machines with fatter margins for apple had always paid the bulk of the R&D costs. The cloners weren't paying any of that under the old deal.
Add to that that we pretty much *know* that interest rates will be rising in the near term in the U.S., which will make the dollar stronger wrt the Euro. Given the points you mention about fluctuating prices, Apple would be foolish not to take this into account.
OSX isn't FreeBSD, but it's closer to that than to linux.
I have 1G in the dual processor machine next to me. Even with outrageous options, such as -j12 on a buildworld (which drove the load well above 50 for an extended period), it *still* wasn't using swap.
Err, is this before or after he tells little brother Zack, out flying in their Vipers, to hit reverse thrusters and "maximum braking flaps" to drop behind the cylons on theri tails?
Fortunately, I wasn't drinking when I saw that a couple of days ago . ..
>Adama's rank is equivalent to an O-6, making him a >Navy captain or a Marine colonel.
But in the original series, his rank was far higher than that. He and the other members of the Council of Twelve, the planetary executives (of some form; I'm not sure it was ever clear) each commanded a Battlestar.
> if you tuned out during the first 3 seasons, you >should tune in and give it a shot).
And just how are we supposed to do that???
Of course it has a small audience--the stubborn and gleeful choice of UPN for the program is just another round of spite over being cut by the big 3 over thirty years ago.
The problem is that UPN just doesn't reach many households. I *can't* get it unless I switch from satellite to cable. Large portions of the country can't get it. But they sure got their dig in by keeping it for themselves . ..
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, I mean sustained heavy calculation with large blocks of data.
'
Sure, you *can* write those operators and templates, but they tend to already be there in Fortran. And if they're not, it's near certain that you can find existing, well-tested libraries.
The "less code" was my own experience several years ago while still using both for this kind of work. It's been long enough that I"m straining to remember specifics, but the dusty brain cells want to say [no, scratch this example; it make no sense].
Whether you use pointers or not, the C compiler may be forced to make allowances for it. Fortran pointers are far more limited, and the compiler needn't consider the extra possibilities.
And as for goto? Why is it any worse that one exists in Fortran than C? I've used one twice in the last ten years (or is it once). The alternative was setting a status variable to be checked to skip the block of code (for the general case) immediately following the select case structure. I *could* have avoided the goto, but the code was much clearer by using it.
hawk
Basing judgemnt of Fortran on anything you did in the 80s is as silly as using K&R to criticize C . . .
For the problems for which Fortran is well suited, Mathematica is not--unless delaying the results until after your retirement is important.
hawk
For certain purposes (including most of what I do), fortran is unmatched.
It is *possible* to write C that runs as fast as Fortran for heavy math. However, it involves hand-optimizing your C until this happens.
Fortran handles calculations quite well, thank you. It take less Fortran code to handle many common operations, and array options are built in and optimized to high heaven.
With Fortran 90 and 95, the grammars that led to the CS horror (e.g., computed gotos) are marked either deleted or obsolescent (meaning expect deletion in another standard or two).
Also, due to the selection of which features are included in Fortran and which are not, Fortran compilers can make much stronger assumptions than, for example, C compilers working with pointers.
There's nothing unfortunate at all about Fortran's (not FORTRAN any more) role in scientific computing. The tragedy is the number of people who bought into those silly C campaigns.
hawk
> Not much. When was the last time you saw something
>useful spring out of MS R&D?
1993, of course. Why do you ask?
hawk
>Of course, it also costs an arm and a leg, but c'est la vie.
:)
At that price, it leaves you with just over half a vie, doesn't it?
hawk
One share and one stock option have *exactly* the same profit potential. (but diffrent downsides).
NOw, 100 optionns likely have more profit potential than a single share.
hawk
What killed DEC wasn't the changing market, but recto-cranial inversion in the upper layers of management.
Listen to someone from there describe the demise and changes (Cutler's regime seems to be a common cutoff point).
They out-appled apple.
DEC was even more efficient than VW (though the same basic story) at cutting off limbs. After the two previous attempts to kill off the bug failed as people didn't buy the new models, they insured that the third *would* be their new main model by refusing to produce their most popular product.
hawk
Usually, comapanies don't own *any* shares in themsleves. (though some keep "treasury shares" around).
However many shares there are, they represent 100% of the company. (Which is why expensing options is just plain silly--the balance sheet is for the company as a whole, and isn't affected by the number of shares or potential shares--adding more just makes each exisitng share of lower value, leaving the company untouched. It's just a redistribution of ownership).
hawk
Don't multiple windows servers just give you that many *more* security holes? :)
hawk
>Of course, since the US cent is worth less than the
:)
>UK (new) penny, it would make real sense for them
>just to ditch everything below a nickel (5c IIRC)
The half-penny was worth more than today's dime when we dropped it. So maybe kill everything below a quarter
hawk
>why the heck do drive-up ATM's have braille on the
.
>keypads in the US?
Same reason as the cruise control of the Ford they drove up in . .
hawk
. . . I never quite did get those LED's to tell me when the tube filament got warm enough. Maybe a microcontroller . . . :)
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you're considering getting legal advice on the web, get your head checked.
>However KDE would still be able to distribute directly themselves.
It's even broader than that: KDE was QGPL, not GPL, no matter how many times the authors claimed otherwise.
The clear intent of the authors *was* distribution. Their invitation to do so overrides any conflicting statements in boilerplate (in this case, the GPL). Even terms in that boilerplate saying they couldn't be overridden would be overridden.
The flip side of this is that if they incorporated actual GPL sofwtare into their Quasi-GPL product, they would be violating the license of that software. Not "violating the GPL," but violating the software of the other license, which happens to be GPL.
hawk, esq.
That was pretty much it, yes.
The clones were all made with apple-designed motherboards (or was there one that wasn't) running hte Apple OS. The cloners wanted apple to do all the R&D whiel they continued to pay minimal royalties.
It's not a national channel for DirecTV, and our "local" channels (well, it's the closest recognized, market, but far from local) don't include UPN.
hawk
> Apple doesn't even allow clones any more.
No, there just haven't been any for several years.
Apple did *not* refuse to renew the cloning licenses. They *did* insist on larger fees on upper end machines, and the cloners refused.
The more expensive machines with fatter margins for apple had always paid the bulk of the R&D costs. The cloners weren't paying any of that under the old deal.
hawk
Add to that that we pretty much *know* that interest rates will be rising in the near term in the U.S., which will make the dollar stronger wrt the Euro. Given the points you mention about fluctuating prices, Apple would be foolish not to take this into account.
hawk
OSX isn't FreeBSD, but it's closer to that than to linux.
I have 1G in the dual processor machine next to me. Even with outrageous options, such as -j12 on a buildworld (which drove the load well above 50 for an extended period), it *still* wasn't using swap.
hawk
>In reply to your sig, half of /. readers are below the mean.
.sig, it's the median.
Half are below the *median*. It's possible that either more or less than half are below the mean.
Mean, median, and mode are all formes of "the average"; which to use depends upon circumstances. In his
hawk
Err, is this before or after he tells little brother Zack, out flying in their Vipers, to hit reverse thrusters and "maximum braking flaps" to drop behind the cylons on theri tails?
.
Fortunately, I wasn't drinking when I saw that a couple of days ago . .
hawk
>Adama's rank is equivalent to an O-6, making him a
>Navy captain or a Marine colonel.
But in the original series, his rank was far higher than that. He and the other members of the Council of Twelve, the planetary executives (of some form; I'm not sure it was ever clear) each commanded a Battlestar.
hawk
Their *mission* was five years. That had nothing to do with how long the series would (or wouldn't) run.
hawk
"Captain . . . I sense [clutches head] a lousy episode" :)
hawk
>Series get cancelled in less than a season if they
>"suck" (by network standards),
That's normal series, not Star Trek spinoffs.
This is all about syndication. Current viewership is close to irrelevant (or it wouldn't be on UPN, for crying out loud).
By running it to the planned end, they'll maximize revenue for years to come.
hawk
> if you tuned out during the first 3 seasons, you
.
>should tune in and give it a shot).
And just how are we supposed to do that???
Of course it has a small audience--the stubborn and gleeful choice of UPN for the program is just another round of spite over being cut by the big 3 over thirty years ago.
The problem is that UPN just doesn't reach many households. I *can't* get it unless I switch from satellite to cable. Large portions of the country can't get it. But they sure got their dig in by keeping it for themselves . .
hawk