I'm sorry...C++ is that horrid. I had a T-shirt specially made that puts it succinctly, in the syntax of the old analogy tests: C++ : C:: PL/I : FORTRAN
We still have a choice so if it isn't a good, stable program don't use it.
How long will we have a choice? How long until some Microsoft-proprietary format is forced on us, at which time we won't have a choice. Microsoft has no motivation to do their best for anything but the Windows version, and indeed has motivation not to make a Linux version good, namely to induce people to run Windows.
"I have a two-hundred year old axe!" "Really? Wow!" "Well, the head's been replaced a few times, and once Grandpa had to replace the handle, but..."
The above old chestnut points at one scenario for personality/memory transfer--if you were replaced one neuron at a time, just when would you lose your self?
I personally can't wait to get downloaded...as long as I'm not running under Windo-- [insert BSOD text here]
As a digital cable user (who'll probably continue to use it...it's the only way I can get BBC America), I am less than impressed. Basically, Digital Cable is the local (Des Moines, IA) cable monopoly's semi-gluteal response to the clamor for more channels. Des Moines has limped along with a shabby system with 35 channels for many years now, and rather than upgrading it, we're being offered the Digital Cable boxes, which have many disadvantages:
The digital channels are compressed--and you can see some of the artifacts from the lossy sampling.
Since the digital cable box is needed to see a digital cable channel, kiss goodbye the ability to watch one channel and record another on the VCR (if they're both digital).
You say you bought yourself a cool TV with picture-in-picture? Ha ha, you wasted your money; check out that nice blue rectangle insert on your screen.
It is yet another box eating up space, and yes, it runs hot, so be careful where you put it.
Yet another remote...oops, it doesn't understand my TV or receiver/amp. Maybe I should build a "remote chain" by analogy with a "key chain."
I'm very disappointed, but thanks to AT&T Cable (formerly TCI) having a city-granted monopoly (and living in a condo), I have no choice if I want a decent selection of programming.
A growing majority of the Federal budget goes for "entitlements," i.e. welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. That will continue into the foreseeable future; one figure I've seen mentioned is a taxation rate of 80+% to fund Social Security if things continue unchanged--which they probably will, barring a tax revolt; the elderly vote in far greater proportion than the young. So basically, the answer is (b), Old Kodgers [sic].
That's only the sensible thing if you think it's a good thing for people to not know how much of their resources the government seizes. I would object to that, just as I would like to see an end to payroll deductions--I want everyone to have to write a check for the whole thing every April 15th.
A good friend of mine has a print of a painting depicting a scene in a Scandinavian town where the ruler has required that taxes be paid--in the town square is a large container into which the citizens are placing their goods in payment, and the center of attention is a father staring at the military personnel supervising the affair--if looks could kill...I want the public to share that fury at having the products of their labor seized by the government.
Who needs.inf files? Most monitors these days announce their capabilities; what we need are drivers that read that information and use it to generate the appropriate configuration information themselves. I think the Scitech people do that.
Re:Wish we'd have more articles like that.
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
No, RMS didn't originate the idea of compiling to an intermediate code and translating that into assembly or machine language. The idea was called "UNCOL" (UNiversal COmputer Language) back in the early 60s. BCPL implementations used an intermediate form called "ocode," the Cambridge Algol 68C system used an intermediate form they called "zcode" (which had a parametrizable virtual machine; you could twist a knob to set the number of registers to match the number on the target), and people have already mentioned the UCSD Pascal p-code. (For that matter, RTL isn't original with gcc; wasn't it Freiburghouse who thought of the idea?)
More power to your roomie, but OTOH to get up to the level of a Clapton or Perlman or Watts or a Hedges requires dedication--if you don't do it for a living you can't afford to spend that much time on it. Do you suppose that programmers are only after the bucks? (So far I personally haven't found much in the way of chicks or fame from it, but maybe that's just me.)
How about Third Voice? That has the advantage of appearing immediately alongside the FUD...sort of a (oy, I hate to write this!) cyberheckler taking the wind out of the pitchman's spiel.
With any luck, it should be possible to trade time for fidelity--so if you want your Ring Cycle, or somebody reading War and Peace, on one disc, you can get it.
Re:I really don't believe in this whole Zen concep
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
I agree; mystical powers are BS. OTOH, as many others have said, nothing mystical is involved here, just the notion that just as once you have the chops the piano keyboard stops getting in the way of your expressing yourself musically, or once you've mastered driving the car, you drive without having to pay conscious attention to the steering wheel, accelerator, and brake, computer interfaces should be designed to make that same kind of transparency possible--and keyboards as they are now, with the arrow keys, stupid Windows keys, and typewriter influence (the caps lock key is just where a typist expects to see it; never mind that as a programmer, I've never had occasion to use it!), and requiring one to endlessly switch from keyboard to mouse and back, make the mechanics of interacting with a system about as obtrusive as it can be.
If you've read your Oliver Sacks, it's a matter of proprioception, and whether one can develop it. If I'm thinking about which button to push, I'm not thinking about my problem, and the "Zen state" is one in which my problem is all I'm thinking about.
In general, I'd say no, it's not worth trying to tweak source code to optimize it.
In fact, some famous tweaks can make things worse: the (in)famous "Duff's Device" creates what's called an "irreducible flow graph" (a pathological sort of loop) that makes a lot of optimizations impossible--the best a compiler can do is to replicate some of the code to make the flow graph reducible, thus undoing the supposed benefits. (In Duff's defense, the device was the Right Thing to do if he had to use a compiler that didn't do data flow analysis.)
I must respectfully disagree. Lists of absurd laws still on the books have long been a source of humor. "Ah, but they aren't enforced," you say? Sometimes they are.
Check out Jonathan Rauch's book Demosclerosis: the Silent Killer of American Government for the gory details. All these stupid laws have vociferous advocates, namely those who benefit from them, and the rest of the public are too apathetic to fight any particular law...and Archimedes' Principle (not the "Eureka" one, but the one that says for any epsilon > 0 and positive integer N, there's some other integer M such that M * epsilon > N...or as Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talking real money") takes hold, and we've lost our freedom and money by thousands of small steps.
Knowledge of mathematics is very useful to a programmer--do you want to prove that your code works? How about estimating its order of complexity so you can figure out how long it might take to run?
I agree that graphics is useful to give one some intuitive feel, but you can't rely on it; there's a famous geometrical example in which a misleading diagram leads to a bogus result. The whole point is to learn to use a formal deductive system.
There is/was Win32 support in OS/2...which Microsoft made a point of repeatedly breaking with successive releases of Win32s. They finally got it "right" when they added a call specifically to allocate memory beyond the 512Mbyte limit that OS/2 (up until the recent "Aurora" version, which IBM isn't going to sell as a client the way they have previous ones) imposes on DOS sessions.
You're right, it is/will be a LOT of work. I for one would love to see the device drivers, and how they manage to move the beast from the 80-column world view to the Unix notion of files.
I give a...well, I think it's significant, and hope that it is a trend. Defections from the Evil Empire, if such they be, are to be applauded. After all, one of Microsoft's bits of dirty dealing is hiring away talent, and movement of talent in the opposite direction is a Good Thing.
The script appeared to be done by somebody who read the first few pages of the book closely, skimmed the next chapter or so, and talked to someone whose friend had read the book to find out about the rest. The movie was filled with gratuitous gross-out material; they totally botched the notion of the Voice; worst of all, they portrayed Baron Harkonnen as a buffoon.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry...C++ is that horrid. I had a T-shirt specially made that puts it succinctly, in the syntax of the old analogy tests: :: PL/I : FORTRAN
C++ : C
How long will we have a choice? How long until some Microsoft-proprietary format is forced on us, at which time we won't have a choice. Microsoft has no motivation to do their best for anything but the Windows version, and indeed has motivation not to make a Linux version good, namely to induce people to run Windows.
"I have a two-hundred year old axe!"
"Really? Wow!"
"Well, the head's been replaced a few times, and once Grandpa had to replace the handle, but..."
The above old chestnut points at one scenario for personality/memory transfer--if you were replaced one neuron at a time, just when would you lose your self?
I personally can't wait to get downloaded...as long as I'm not running under Windo--
[insert BSOD text here]
- The digital channels are compressed--and you can see some of the artifacts from the lossy sampling.
- Since the digital cable box is needed to see a digital cable channel, kiss goodbye the ability to watch one channel and record another on the VCR (if they're both digital).
- You say you bought yourself a cool TV with picture-in-picture? Ha ha, you wasted your money; check out that nice blue rectangle insert on your screen.
- It is yet another box eating up space, and yes, it runs hot, so be careful where you put it.
- Yet another remote...oops, it doesn't understand my TV or receiver/amp. Maybe I should build a "remote chain" by analogy with a "key chain."
I'm very disappointed, but thanks to AT&T Cable (formerly TCI) having a city-granted monopoly (and living in a condo), I have no choice if I want a decent selection of programming.There was a toilet cleanser named "Snobol"...
Correct. It will be touted as "for the children" or possibly "for the environment."
A growing majority of the Federal budget goes for "entitlements," i.e. welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. That will continue into the foreseeable future; one figure I've seen mentioned is a taxation rate of 80+% to fund Social Security if things continue unchanged--which they probably will, barring a tax revolt; the elderly vote in far greater proportion than the young. So basically, the answer is (b), Old Kodgers [sic].
A good friend of mine has a print of a painting depicting a scene in a Scandinavian town where the ruler has required that taxes be paid--in the town square is a large container into which the citizens are placing their goods in payment, and the center of attention is a father staring at the military personnel supervising the affair--if looks could kill...I want the public to share that fury at having the products of their labor seized by the government.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept the proposition that the supposed needs of some justify enslaving others.
No, you shouldn't. You shouldn't have to pay the tax when buying in the regular store, either; taxation is theft.
Who needs .inf files? Most monitors these days announce their capabilities; what we need are drivers that read that information and use it to generate the appropriate configuration information themselves. I think the Scitech people do that.
No, RMS didn't originate the idea of compiling to an intermediate code and translating that into assembly or machine language. The idea was called "UNCOL" (UNiversal COmputer Language) back in the early 60s. BCPL implementations used an intermediate form called "ocode," the Cambridge Algol 68C system used an intermediate form they called "zcode" (which had a parametrizable virtual machine; you could twist a knob to set the number of registers to match the number on the target), and people have already mentioned the UCSD Pascal p-code. (For that matter, RTL isn't original with gcc; wasn't it Freiburghouse who thought of the idea?)
More power to your roomie, but OTOH to get up to the level of a Clapton or Perlman or Watts or a Hedges requires dedication--if you don't do it for a living you can't afford to spend that much time on it. Do you suppose that programmers are only after the bucks? (So far I personally haven't found much in the way of chicks or fame from it, but maybe that's just me.)
I'll bite--how would musicians make money? Nobody needs maintenance or an upgrade on their copy of Sgt. Pepper.
How about Third Voice? That has the advantage of appearing immediately alongside the FUD...sort of a (oy, I hate to write this!) cyberheckler taking the wind out of the pitchman's spiel.
With any luck, it should be possible to trade time for fidelity--so if you want your Ring Cycle, or somebody reading War and Peace, on one disc, you can get it.
If you've read your Oliver Sacks, it's a matter of proprioception, and whether one can develop it. If I'm thinking about which button to push, I'm not thinking about my problem, and the "Zen state" is one in which my problem is all I'm thinking about.
In fact, some famous tweaks can make things worse: the (in)famous "Duff's Device" creates what's called an "irreducible flow graph" (a pathological sort of loop) that makes a lot of optimizations impossible--the best a compiler can do is to replicate some of the code to make the flow graph reducible, thus undoing the supposed benefits. (In Duff's defense, the device was the Right Thing to do if he had to use a compiler that didn't do data flow analysis.)
Check out Jonathan Rauch's book Demosclerosis: the Silent Killer of American Government for the gory details. All these stupid laws have vociferous advocates, namely those who benefit from them, and the rest of the public are too apathetic to fight any particular law...and Archimedes' Principle (not the "Eureka" one, but the one that says for any epsilon > 0 and positive integer N, there's some other integer M such that M * epsilon > N...or as Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talking real money") takes hold, and we've lost our freedom and money by thousands of small steps.
I agree that graphics is useful to give one some intuitive feel, but you can't rely on it; there's a famous geometrical example in which a misleading diagram leads to a bogus result. The whole point is to learn to use a formal deductive system.
There is/was Win32 support in OS/2...which Microsoft made a point of repeatedly breaking with successive releases of Win32s. They finally got it "right" when they added a call specifically to allocate memory beyond the 512Mbyte limit that OS/2 (up until the recent "Aurora" version, which IBM isn't going to sell as a client the way they have previous ones) imposes on DOS sessions.
You're right, it is/will be a LOT of work. I for one would love to see the device drivers, and how they manage to move the beast from the 80-column world view to the Unix notion of files.
I give a...well, I think it's significant, and hope that it is a trend. Defections from the Evil Empire, if such they be, are to be applauded. After all, one of Microsoft's bits of dirty dealing is hiring away talent, and movement of talent in the opposite direction is a Good Thing.
The script appeared to be done by somebody who read the first few pages of the book closely, skimmed the next chapter or so, and talked to someone whose friend had read the book to find out about the rest. The movie was filled with gratuitous gross-out material; they totally botched the notion of the Voice; worst of all, they portrayed Baron Harkonnen as a buffoon.