You missed the point. Isn't there something akin to.NET Reflector (i.e., a disassembler) for Java? For C#, there is a one-to-one correspondence between CLI bytecode and C# source. I would imagine the same (or something very near it) is true for Java.
In other words, these are high-level bytecodes; not low-level assembly. Hence, they are easily disassembled to human-readable source.
But you know that splitting the parsing logic from the rendering logic and creating the interface between would take precious keystrokes from a programmer with limited time on his hands (and this was probably only one of many such points where splits would have to be made). Looks like they did the quick and easy thing by putting the GDI subsystem as a whole into the kernel.
I don't care about type inference. My IDE does a good job. And I like static typing.
Type inference works with static typing. And, even if the IDE automatically produces boilerplate code, who wants to read and maintain *that*? I prefer high signal:noise ratios for source code.
First we got told that writing person.name = "John" is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I never understood why.
The problem is with public fields; not with public properties. Properties allow you to enforce class invariants; fields do not.
So you get pleasure not from the repetition of patterns in Beethoven's Fifth, but from the interplay and differences.
Too bad you weren't giving this talk. The guy that gave it reduced this point to the mere repetition providing the beauty (and also was confused on his claim of pattern-freeness: there were in fact several recognizable patterns in the piece).
That analogy would only be accurate if the key press were a fuzzy one; i.e., a press measuring velocity on say a 0-9 scale and 10 different operating systems installed and selected by the velocity.
True. I would not be surprised if this were a law enforcement agency (or perhaps a vigilante group) posing as Anonymous (after all, anyone can 'be' Anonymous).
Yea, it definitely sounds like they've made improvements overall to the process. I think the most interesting bit is being able to get at compiler metadata (a la LLVM). This should open up so many more meta-programming opportunities (without the performance hit of reflection; i.e., with the perf gains of pre- and even re- compilation).
I've done the same (about 4 years ago actually) without writing to file first. Just build up a string and let the Microsoft.CSharp.Compiler emit the code.
Sorry, I did confuse matters a bit. My point was merely that there are, and will always be, people arguing both sides of this. There is considerable evidence for the 'mainstream' view of an infinite universe too (which is why the 'topological lens effect' is so remarkable). Open vs closed and finite vs infinite are really two orthogonal concepts and I shouldn't have conflated them.
But it is the words 'as far as we know' that are the real issue here. We do not know very far and we likely never will. There are some questions which science simply cannot answer. Of course, we will continue to know more as time passes.
The universe, being (as far as we know) a closed system
The problem is that we don't know very far. There is convincing evidence that the cosmos is a house of mirrors and thus finite and closed. See: 'topological lens effect.'
Funny how you ignored 90% of the content of that post and latched onto the one thing that you thought you could potentially contradict me on.
You really want me to refute every portion of your post? Seriously? What sort of weird masochistic pedant are you?
The kind that hangs out at slashdot, obviously (like 90% of the other wierdos here [including you]).
But, even dumb TVs have chips!
Yes. So does my toaster, my thermostat, the remote for my car locks, and my flashlight. They do not have general-purpose CPUs, though, which is what Intel is in the business of selling.
You know that Linux runs on all of those devices too, no? And, I think Intel sells a fair bit more than GPCPUs. You're the one who interpreted 'embedded' as 'general-purpose CPU' and 'smart'; not myself. See:
http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/embedded/hwsw/hardware
This story has never been about 'general purpose CPUs' and 'smart' TVs. That is precisely the error I pointed out initially.
TVs are merely display devices.
TVs are radio receivers that include a display device. Display devices which do not include a radio receiver are called "monitors." (The "tele" in "television" is not without specific, direct, and obvious meaning.)
Of course. Do you really think I don't know that? TVs are *now* merely display devices (sorry about the shorthand but I assumed that my reader would understand that I'm talking about 2010s and not 1950s). They are becoming more mere display devices with each passage of time. Who picks up radio signals (that they don't transmit to themselves via bluetooth or wifi) these days anyway?
In the laptop
That might work at your house. At mine, I use my laptop for work, and my family would not be appreciative of having their viewing habits be dependent on my work schedule. (I will not accept the notion that I'm the only man on Earth who uses a laptop computer as a computer instead of as an extension of the entertainment system...)
You've got that backwards. The display device is an extension of the computer (technically a peripheral) not vice versa. If you have too few display devices for your household, maybe you can take turns or buy more (or, gasp, do without).
Ultimately people want to use the TV as a display for their 'smart' devices.
If this is the case, then there's no point in having general-purpose CPUs in TVs, anyway. (Which I think was my general point, not yours. Glad you agree, though...)
Once again, you're the one who equated 'embedded' and 'smart' and 'general-purpose CPU'. Maybe you need to read TFS again? It says nothing of the latter two.
You have heard of sub-notebooks and tablets which run full-blown operating systems on, wait for it, special-purpose PUs (e.g., Atom, A4, ARM, etc), no? Or what about your smart phone? Do smart phones have CPUs just because they are referred to as 'smart'? Answer: no. They still run embedded chips.
Not really. It sounds like it would be a difficult market to enter with gaming consoles, Apple TV, WD, Google, Logitech, etc already there. I think we're seeing a trend away from PC generally and this is only one particular instance of how. MS seems intent to make the XBOX the 'room computer' (and it was really quite great foresight for them to head in this direction over a decade ago only to now see the position really start to pay off).
If I were serious about entering this market though, I'd avoid paying MS license fees and stick to a Linux solution (MythTV maybe?) with the usability points you mentioned (it would be way too difficult to compete if you're paying $100-$150 per unit just for the OS). It will be hard to convince people to go with a custom [non-standard] system with such low market share though. Smart consumers don't venture too far off the beaten path if they want things to 'just work' (now and in the future).:-)
Funny how you ignored 90% of the content of that post and latched onto the one thing that you thought you could potentially contradict me on. And, who said anything about 'smart' TVs here anyway. I certainly didn't read the summary that way. It merely says that Intel no longer wants to seek embedding its low-power chips within TVs. All TVs have 'chips' whether they are 'smart' or not.
Chips merely crunch numbers. The software running on (or embedded within) the chips is where the smarts are. [And, I worked on Windows Compact Embedded 7 so I've seen TVs running on a lot of different chips first hand. There's nothing inherently less 'smart' about Intel's offerings compared to other manufacturers]. In this space, the differentiator is power consumption; not 'smarts' (whatever that is).
But, even dumb TVs have chips! TVs are merely display devices. It doesn't matter where the smarts are really. In the tv. In the laptop. Ultimately people want to use the TV as a display for their 'smart' devices.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was referring to World Health Organization.
Actually, that's probably not true this far into the lifetime of the current gen console.
Dwight, is that you?
You missed the point. Isn't there something akin to .NET Reflector (i.e., a disassembler) for Java? For C#, there is a one-to-one correspondence between CLI bytecode and C# source. I would imagine the same (or something very near it) is true for Java.
In other words, these are high-level bytecodes; not low-level assembly. Hence, they are easily disassembled to human-readable source.
But you know that splitting the parsing logic from the rendering logic and creating the interface between would take precious keystrokes from a programmer with limited time on his hands (and this was probably only one of many such points where splits would have to be made). Looks like they did the quick and easy thing by putting the GDI subsystem as a whole into the kernel.
I don't care about type inference. My IDE does a good job. And I like static typing.
Type inference works with static typing. And, even if the IDE automatically produces boilerplate code, who wants to read and maintain *that*? I prefer high signal:noise ratios for source code.
First we got told that writing person.name = "John" is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I never understood why.
The problem is with public fields; not with public properties. Properties allow you to enforce class invariants; fields do not.
That's not a significant difference since there should be a one-to-one correspondence between jvm bytecode and java source code.
So you get pleasure not from the repetition of patterns in Beethoven's Fifth, but from the interplay and differences.
Too bad you weren't giving this talk. The guy that gave it reduced this point to the mere repetition providing the beauty (and also was confused on his claim of pattern-freeness: there were in fact several recognizable patterns in the piece).
Not only that but he apparently did by hand the 'computationally impossible'. That section of his talk was truly confused.
You're putting words into his mouth.
That analogy would only be accurate if the key press were a fuzzy one; i.e., a press measuring velocity on say a 0-9 scale and 10 different operating systems installed and selected by the velocity.
True. I would not be surprised if this were a law enforcement agency (or perhaps a vigilante group) posing as Anonymous (after all, anyone can 'be' Anonymous).
How do we know this wasn't the authorities?
Yea, it definitely sounds like they've made improvements overall to the process. I think the most interesting bit is being able to get at compiler metadata (a la LLVM). This should open up so many more meta-programming opportunities (without the performance hit of reflection; i.e., with the perf gains of pre- and even re- compilation).
I find it hard to believe that a guy with a slashdot id as low as yours has never worked with idiots. You have truly been very lucky!
I've done the same (about 4 years ago actually) without writing to file first. Just build up a string and let the Microsoft.CSharp.Compiler emit the code.
Left hand can do CTRL+TAB and CTRL+SHIFT+TAB even if right hand is on mouse (assuming that you're right handed).
:-)
Not sure how to help with the CTRL+SHIFT+TAB. Maybe take piano lessons? [or re-bind, yea]
You should really just learn to use CTRL+TAB and CTRL+SHIFT+TAB. You'll thank me later.
Sorry, I did confuse matters a bit. My point was merely that there are, and will always be, people arguing both sides of this. There is considerable evidence for the 'mainstream' view of an infinite universe too (which is why the 'topological lens effect' is so remarkable). Open vs closed and finite vs infinite are really two orthogonal concepts and I shouldn't have conflated them.
But it is the words 'as far as we know' that are the real issue here. We do not know very far and we likely never will. There are some questions which science simply cannot answer. Of course, we will continue to know more as time passes.
The universe, being (as far as we know) a closed system
The problem is that we don't know very far. There is convincing evidence that the cosmos is a house of mirrors and thus finite and closed. See: 'topological lens effect.'
Funny how you ignored 90% of the content of that post and latched onto the one thing that you thought you could potentially contradict me on.
You really want me to refute every portion of your post? Seriously? What sort of weird masochistic pedant are you?
The kind that hangs out at slashdot, obviously (like 90% of the other wierdos here [including you]).
But, even dumb TVs have chips!
Yes. So does my toaster, my thermostat, the remote for my car locks, and my flashlight. They do not have general-purpose CPUs, though, which is what Intel is in the business of selling.
You know that Linux runs on all of those devices too, no? And, I think Intel sells a fair bit more than GPCPUs. You're the one who interpreted 'embedded' as 'general-purpose CPU' and 'smart'; not myself. See: http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/embedded/hwsw/hardware
This story has never been about 'general purpose CPUs' and 'smart' TVs. That is precisely the error I pointed out initially.
TVs are merely display devices.
TVs are radio receivers that include a display device. Display devices which do not include a radio receiver are called "monitors." (The "tele" in "television" is not without specific, direct, and obvious meaning.)
Of course. Do you really think I don't know that? TVs are *now* merely display devices (sorry about the shorthand but I assumed that my reader would understand that I'm talking about 2010s and not 1950s). They are becoming more mere display devices with each passage of time. Who picks up radio signals (that they don't transmit to themselves via bluetooth or wifi) these days anyway?
In the laptop
That might work at your house. At mine, I use my laptop for work, and my family would not be appreciative of having their viewing habits be dependent on my work schedule. (I will not accept the notion that I'm the only man on Earth who uses a laptop computer as a computer instead of as an extension of the entertainment system...)
You've got that backwards. The display device is an extension of the computer (technically a peripheral) not vice versa. If you have too few display devices for your household, maybe you can take turns or buy more (or, gasp, do without).
Ultimately people want to use the TV as a display for their 'smart' devices.
If this is the case, then there's no point in having general-purpose CPUs in TVs, anyway. (Which I think was my general point, not yours. Glad you agree, though...)
Once again, you're the one who equated 'embedded' and 'smart' and 'general-purpose CPU'. Maybe you need to read TFS again? It says nothing of the latter two.
You have heard of sub-notebooks and tablets which run full-blown operating systems on, wait for it, special-purpose PUs (e.g., Atom, A4, ARM, etc), no? Or what about your smart phone? Do smart phones have CPUs just because they are referred to as 'smart'? Answer: no. They still run embedded chips.
This discussion is beyond ridiculous.
Not really. It sounds like it would be a difficult market to enter with gaming consoles, Apple TV, WD, Google, Logitech, etc already there. I think we're seeing a trend away from PC generally and this is only one particular instance of how. MS seems intent to make the XBOX the 'room computer' (and it was really quite great foresight for them to head in this direction over a decade ago only to now see the position really start to pay off).
:-)
If I were serious about entering this market though, I'd avoid paying MS license fees and stick to a Linux solution (MythTV maybe?) with the usability points you mentioned (it would be way too difficult to compete if you're paying $100-$150 per unit just for the OS). It will be hard to convince people to go with a custom [non-standard] system with such low market share though. Smart consumers don't venture too far off the beaten path if they want things to 'just work' (now and in the future).
Because 'people' aka the general population do not know what they want yet. They will get there though.
Funny how you ignored 90% of the content of that post and latched onto the one thing that you thought you could potentially contradict me on. And, who said anything about 'smart' TVs here anyway. I certainly didn't read the summary that way. It merely says that Intel no longer wants to seek embedding its low-power chips within TVs. All TVs have 'chips' whether they are 'smart' or not.
Chips merely crunch numbers. The software running on (or embedded within) the chips is where the smarts are. [And, I worked on Windows Compact Embedded 7 so I've seen TVs running on a lot of different chips first hand. There's nothing inherently less 'smart' about Intel's offerings compared to other manufacturers]. In this space, the differentiator is power consumption; not 'smarts' (whatever that is).
But, even dumb TVs have chips! TVs are merely display devices. It doesn't matter where the smarts are really. In the tv. In the laptop. Ultimately people want to use the TV as a display for their 'smart' devices.