Jesus. It's two clicks from the GCC front page: hit 'front ends' on the link list to the left, then the second link down, 'other links and readings'.
If you can't make it to the first line of the third paragraph in the front ends front page, you're probably not cut out to write a new front end, and it's a hell of a lot harder to write a GCC front end than it is to write a whole new compiler. Truth is, you really should be looking at YACC and BISON, not GCC at all. Go read Aho before you attempt anything further.
I find it interesting that you believe that there are only two c/c++ compilers available for linux, when simple googling shows more than two dozen. Maybe read some of the other people staring at trolls like you, which have come up with TCC, Compaq Alpha C, OpenWatcom C/C++, TenDra C/C++, egcs, ChEmbeddable, Cint c/c++ interpreter, Absoft C/C++, lcc, metaware high c/c++, iacc, ghoc (green hills), and so on.
It fails to point out that compile times are a fairly critical factor in programmer productivity. Yes, we should care that compile times with the Intel compilers look to be over 25% shorter than with gcc on average. (very rough eyeball estimate)
And in many studies, it has been shown that most large projects - both commercial and open source - can benefit significantly from the proper use of translation units, showing an average of 70% drop in compile time when the code is properly modularized, and occasionally seeing drops as large as 90%.
Switch tools only when you've learned all the techniques available. What you benefit from techniques carries. What you benefit from tools does not.
That's funny: my templates, which are written to the C++ standard, work just fine under GCC, SCC, ICC, Comeau/EDG-based compilers like MSVC and BCC, and so on. Rather than make claims that things vary from compiler to compiler, why not show us some examples?
Ah, Slashdot, where insightful posts are modded funny, funny posts are modded insightful, and a hundred geeks just started trying to mount their iPod onto a rusted-out Huffy.
Yeah, let's make sure not to forget about how Bill Gates overthrew a small hispanic nation in a memorably ugly coup.
That's called guilt by demonization, which is a form of guilt by association modified with hasty generalization, all a family of argumentum ad hominem: attacking the character of the person rather than the topic at hand.
Bzzt. You might as well say that people still think Jackie O. was a good gal because of all the charitable donations, and then attack the business practices of her former husband Mister Onassis (in many ways he was Bill's contemporary of another age) or of John's grandfather, who made his money running alcohol during the depression.
It's not fair to say that someone is guilty because someone else who shares one obvious trait actually is obviously guilty. Billy boy has never had a town burnt to the ground (probably.) There's a big difference. Sit down and crack open a basic debate book, please.
CERT is basically government-funded. The reason they're at the university is that almost all government-funded big computing stuff is at either a university or a shady secret building with no windows. The SEI is one of three government installations at CMU, alongside the supercomputing center and the Mellon Institute (the last of which is also industry funded; yay Westinghouse.)
CMU gets a $20m contribution every year. Nobody in the university is particularly impressed. Certainly not CERT, who have dealt with enough of Microsoft's issues to know better. They're no less jaded than you are.
Gates isn't trying to impress the university. He's trying to impress the undergraduates. If this means that two out of every hundred undergrads are now pro-microsoft, given CMU's success rate, he's just made a good investment moneywise. That's why MS and Borland give their toolchains to universities, why Apple pushes its platform but why clonemakers don't: they're all pushing their particular interface, because the academia drives novelty, and novelty owns this market. We stick to what we're used to and when looking for new we default to what we've heard of. Gates is buying familiarity, and given the experience I've had with doe-eyed freshmen, it's working.
That said, he's also a hell of a real philanthropist. Not all of the money he gives away has an ulterior motive. Even if you go through my particular views on what he's given away as dirty or not-dirty, and only count the not-dirty stuff, he's still the single largest philanthropist in history, donating hugely to agrarian and immunological concerns.
He may be a scumbag businessman, but he's turning a lot of that money to organized capital-g Good efforts which were otherwise going ignored.
We tend to forget that Carnegie was so hard to his workers that he built apartment buildings where the apartments had corridors between rooms that were half-height and offset upwards, so that apartments could be stacked more efficiently; it is arguable that much of Carnegie's success came from skill in screwing his workers (he basically invented both the company shop and company housing unless you count the Egyptian pharoahs; he's basically the reason for the move to unions, yellow dog laws and the Homestead riots.)
Why do we forget? Because, in his old age feeling guilty, Carnegie tried to give it all away. (He was so rich that he wasn't able to spend his fortune in his dying decade; he got about 80% of it out the door, and had to give the rest away as trusts.) He established the world's largest library chain, including modern governmental library systems (yes, there are more Carnegie libraries than US libraries.) He established many of the US' great cultural centers, including one so focal to American stage culture for fifty years that even now, another fifty years later his name brings to mind the same joke in all of our heads (Practice!) He established one of the world's great museums as part of one of the world's few nongovernmental museum chains, which maintains what are largely considered three of the world's great art collections today (you go to the Louvre for renaissance painting; you go to MOMA for experimental painting; you go to Garnegie for contemporary and modern art.) One of the world's great travelling art exhibitions is named for him and maintained by one of his trusts. Many of the nation's great parks are maintained by his money. Many of the world's great mansions belonged to him, his family or his friends. He gave huge trusts silently to dozens of what are still our great universities to promote industry and technology. One of our great universities was built on his money (Mellon pulled out at the last second, when it was too late to remove his name. Carnegie was a great man. Mellon was a scumbag.)
I hate to say it, especially here where he's so hated, but in fifty years when his business tactics are forgotten and nobody's heard of Stac Electronics or Gary Kildall or OS/2, largely because of his phila
:-) MSDOS didn't have any "ease of use". Programs like Lotus and WordPerfect were loaded into memory by MSDOS after which point they received little support from MSDOS as an operating system, especially in comparision to the OSes at the time such as AmigaOS and the Mac. "simple design"!? MSDOS was/is a mess.
Welcome to Mars. Watch that first step: it's a Doozie.
DOS had significant ease of use when it was introduced. You could just type the name of an application and off it would go. None of commodore's half-dozen loader commands, none of Apple DOS's run or brun. Want to start an application straight from disk? At the time, DOS was the only OS which allowed a disc to straight boot the machine other than the now-forgotten Smoke Signal; other OSes always booted straight to ROM.
Moreover, MSDOS was extremely powerful compared to userland OSes of its day. It took a lot of mechanisms from the then unheard of research OS "unix," such as pipes, background processes (ham handedly implemented as TSRs) and device drivers. Did any of the competition in userland of the day have these things? No!
Little support from MSDOS as an operating system? Rubbish. You had devices implemented as named ports (com1:, lpt1:, con:, et cetera,) you had advanced console control (color, cursors, character attributes; text-mode device control,) you had allocators which allowed low-grade concurrency (TSRs and other background mechanisms, and later memory managers like EMM386 which were for their day absolutely cutting edge,) and so on. As DOS progressed, it came to have total device abstraction - remember their three disk compressors? No, you probably only remember the one they stole from Stac, if any at all. DOS was able to provide isolated environments - remember DPMI? No, you probably don't.
Macs didn't show up for almost six years after DOS was new; Amigas for almost five. You've got your history all wrong. That's a little like saying "Jet planes efficient? Rubbish! Scramjets are far better!," making it obvious that you've never even heard of propeller planes, much less used one. God forbid someone tell you that propeller planes (Smoke Signal, OS9, Hydra) were also complex and powerful in their day, too; there are older things. Wonder what happens when someone tells you about the computer's counterparts to Icarus.
DOS games were absolute crap in comparision to the competion then.
Horseshit. The only competition DOS ever had for gaming were console systems. The time frame, so that you don't complain about how crap they were, makes their competition the 2600. Suddenly, those DOS games don't look so bad anymore. King's quest, leisure suit larry, lightspeed and hyperspeed, civilization, railroad tycoon, sim city, syndicate, and for you new kids that don't know shit about old gaming, Quake, DOOM, Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem, Pirates!, they're all DOS games. The last time Apple was king of the games pile was with the Apple ][, with stuff like Hard Hat Harry, Doctor Robot and Hovertank!.
DOS games were and are great. Of all the legacy platforms I play, the only one that even gives DOS a run for its money is classic NES.
It wasn't until the early 90s that the PC started to emerge as the primary home gaming platform.
The accepted breakpoint was when EA bought Bill Budge's Pinball Construction Set from the Commodore 64 and ported it to PC, then refused to port it off of the PC because it wasn't profitable. That would be 1984 or so, if I remember correctly.
Personally, I object to honoring Bill Gates for anything. As far as I am concerned, he is an unethical shmuck who bears principal responsibility for the suicide of Gary Kildall. Search on "Gary Kildall" if you do not know who he is.
Sigh. He was killed in a barfight, not a suicide, and frankly a suicide over a signle (if huge) missed business opportunity wouldn't make Gates the badguy anyway.
1. The desktop model of computering is old, really old. There are demos from the late 60's, early 70s. MS lifted its windowing ideas the same place Apple did, from Xerox. Seems everything is initially derived from Xerox.
'Course, PARC had really just implemented something Vannevar Bush had thought up in his head fifteen years earlier. The web, hypercard, windowed interfaces and the 'net come from Vannevar. He was teh smartassed.
2. The home computer didn't hit critical mass until Netscape and the web gave people a real excuse to buy a home computer or two.
This really just depends on your definition of critical mass. I would have put the mark at the first end-user spreadsheet, which made the Apple ][ the suddenly-dominant (first dominance in home computing) home computer.
And your kids are going to insist that critical mass came from the... oh wait, the web's your kids' example. Er. Your grandkids are gonna talk about the iPod.
Whereas that's true, and whereas Gates was more a manager for Ticketmaster than anything, there are earlier examples of his personal code such as the old BASIC ROMs which are actually marvellously tight.
He can be shown to at one point have been a hell of a cowboy coder. Grit your teeth all you want; it's actually true.
No, it isn't. It's named for his son, who had died of typhoid. Please stop parrotting the average slashdot idiot in order to gain karma; the average slashdot idiot generally doesn't know a damned thing.
Also, you might want to stop using phrases like "robber barron," also ripped directly from another post; he was an industrial magnate. Robber barrons are people whose vast fortunes were made from other people's vast fortunes, like Mellon and Falk, not actual industrialists like Carnegie. (Jesus, could I look any more like I'm from Pittsburgh?) The Stanford you're referring to, which isn't Leland, the one the school is named for, is not a robber barron, but an industrialist.
Uh... hate to break it to you, but most campuses name buildings after whoever fronts the cash, not after anyone "inspiring".
Hate to be the one to let you in on the big secret, but the reason the academics are up in arms is that this is a 20-year trend which is worrying. This isn't at all true. With the exception of founders naming their schools after themselves, as your oh-so-sage example trips over, the bulk of buildings on school campuses - even donated ones! - are named for luminaries, not people with pocketbooks.
When you struggle to find evidence, please consider that until recently, benefactors almost never gave single buildings. Consider, for example, that every single Rutgers campus and every building on both Livingston and Douglass campuses except for the dorms which have names are named for intellectuals.
I find it particularly ironic
Watch futurama until you know what the word ironic means, please. Oh, and when you get m-w.com to back you up, please go ask a scholar what decimate means and look that up too. When you get confused why that happened, look up translucent, aenima and etiquette. Now finally beginning to grasp that dictionaries gloss over significant usage even when etymological, start your actual education with Ambrose Bierce's "A Little Blacklist of Literary Faults," freely available at Project Gutenberg.
Oh, and while you're pretending to know things, the person you're talking about is not the Stanford for whom the school was named, but rather his father, who built the school in recognition of his son who, while voicing strong opinions on the then-abominable state of American higher education, had died of Typhoid. The son was, in fact, quite the academic, though he died too early to make much personal contribution.
Nice try, though; you got some moderators to fall for your plot. Mod parent down, please; +4 insightful isn't exactly fair to Leland's (false) memory.
Second, the point of the mathematics professor was that it wouldn't be appropriate to name the building after Donald Trump even if he had payed for most of the building.
If that's what he meant, maybe he should have said that instead.
It's a shame that the second I write sarchasm, someone's going to accuse me of not knowing how to spell sarcasm.
With all the pro-/anti-Mac sentiments going on here (go away, you closet desktop publishers) I kind of wonder if I'm the only person here who's happy with an autoindenting editor and gcc.
You know, emacs works just fine without Linux, guys.
There's a big difference between visualizing the space containing a billion elements and visualizing the elements themselves. Try imagining all the little plastic millimeter chips that fill that half mile.
Then, since it's actually a billion billion at stake, try to imagine that half by half mile square full of tiny plastic chips.
Finally, put them in an oversized bathtub, surround the tub with video games, a bad pizza parlor and tired parents, and wham! You're Chuck E Cheese. Therefore, we can state firmly:
1) Visualize Billion Billion. 2) ??? [Which adequately describes setting up a chuck e cheese] 3) Profit.
In soviet slashdot, billion billion profits you.
Pardon me; I have to find a way to convince myself that my hot grits cluster joke isn't outdated.
No, they weren't. Just like a lot of what was said last election around wasn't ever actually said, just spun, paraprased and reworded until it looked damning as hell.
Find Gore actually claiming to have invented the internet. Anywhere. What he really said was that he was one of two people which wrote and pushed the bill which made it public, and that's true.
Welcome to why everyone's furious that two of Bush's three largest campaign contributors are giant media moguls. Hint: stop believing what FOX and CNN tell you. (Or, for that matter, any of them. Just because the other guys are slanted the other direction doesn't make them any more honest. Not all liars lie for Bush.)
How you can make a second-order self aware post bitching about the same thing slashdot users have been bitching about slashdot users bitching about, use the phrase infinite loop, and not take a stab at a Macintosh is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus. It's two clicks from the GCC front page: hit 'front ends' on the link list to the left, then the second link down, 'other links and readings'.
If you can't make it to the first line of the third paragraph in the front ends front page, you're probably not cut out to write a new front end, and it's a hell of a lot harder to write a GCC front end than it is to write a whole new compiler. Truth is, you really should be looking at YACC and BISON, not GCC at all. Go read Aho before you attempt anything further.
How you made it to PhD without the ability to understand article bylines, much less to RTFP, is beyond me.
I find it interesting that you believe that there are only two c/c++ compilers available for linux, when simple googling shows more than two dozen. Maybe read some of the other people staring at trolls like you, which have come up with TCC, Compaq Alpha C, OpenWatcom C/C++, TenDra C/C++, egcs, ChEmbeddable, Cint c/c++ interpreter, Absoft C/C++, lcc, metaware high c/c++, iacc, ghoc (green hills), and so on.
Mod parent down.
It fails to point out that compile times are a fairly critical factor in programmer productivity. Yes, we should care that compile times with the Intel compilers look to be over 25% shorter than with gcc on average. (very rough eyeball estimate)
And in many studies, it has been shown that most large projects - both commercial and open source - can benefit significantly from the proper use of translation units, showing an average of 70% drop in compile time when the code is properly modularized, and occasionally seeing drops as large as 90%.
Switch tools only when you've learned all the techniques available. What you benefit from techniques carries. What you benefit from tools does not.
That's funny: my templates, which are written to the C++ standard, work just fine under GCC, SCC, ICC, Comeau/EDG-based compilers like MSVC and BCC, and so on. Rather than make claims that things vary from compiler to compiler, why not show us some examples?
Ah, Slashdot, where insightful posts are modded funny, funny posts are modded insightful, and a hundred geeks just started trying to mount their iPod onto a rusted-out Huffy.
Wait. He's giving away billions in order to make hundreds of millions?
No wonder he's the rich businessman, and you're the slashdot conspiracy theorist. Run the numbers before posting them, chum.
Yeah, let's make sure not to forget about how Bill Gates overthrew a small hispanic nation in a memorably ugly coup.
That's called guilt by demonization, which is a form of guilt by association modified with hasty generalization, all a family of argumentum ad hominem: attacking the character of the person rather than the topic at hand.
Bzzt. You might as well say that people still think Jackie O. was a good gal because of all the charitable donations, and then attack the business practices of her former husband Mister Onassis (in many ways he was Bill's contemporary of another age) or of John's grandfather, who made his money running alcohol during the depression.
It's not fair to say that someone is guilty because someone else who shares one obvious trait actually is obviously guilty. Billy boy has never had a town burnt to the ground (probably.) There's a big difference. Sit down and crack open a basic debate book, please.
Mod parent into the ground.
Amusingly, Microsoft does donate to CMU as a marketing ploy, seperately. ;)
CERT is basically government-funded. The reason they're at the university is that almost all government-funded big computing stuff is at either a university or a shady secret building with no windows. The SEI is one of three government installations at CMU, alongside the supercomputing center and the Mellon Institute (the last of which is also industry funded; yay Westinghouse.)
CMU gets a $20m contribution every year. Nobody in the university is particularly impressed. Certainly not CERT, who have dealt with enough of Microsoft's issues to know better. They're no less jaded than you are.
Gates isn't trying to impress the university. He's trying to impress the undergraduates. If this means that two out of every hundred undergrads are now pro-microsoft, given CMU's success rate, he's just made a good investment moneywise. That's why MS and Borland give their toolchains to universities, why Apple pushes its platform but why clonemakers don't: they're all pushing their particular interface, because the academia drives novelty, and novelty owns this market. We stick to what we're used to and when looking for new we default to what we've heard of. Gates is buying familiarity, and given the experience I've had with doe-eyed freshmen, it's working.
That said, he's also a hell of a real philanthropist. Not all of the money he gives away has an ulterior motive. Even if you go through my particular views on what he's given away as dirty or not-dirty, and only count the not-dirty stuff, he's still the single largest philanthropist in history, donating hugely to agrarian and immunological concerns.
He may be a scumbag businessman, but he's turning a lot of that money to organized capital-g Good efforts which were otherwise going ignored.
We tend to forget that Carnegie was so hard to his workers that he built apartment buildings where the apartments had corridors between rooms that were half-height and offset upwards, so that apartments could be stacked more efficiently; it is arguable that much of Carnegie's success came from skill in screwing his workers (he basically invented both the company shop and company housing unless you count the Egyptian pharoahs; he's basically the reason for the move to unions, yellow dog laws and the Homestead riots.)
Why do we forget? Because, in his old age feeling guilty, Carnegie tried to give it all away. (He was so rich that he wasn't able to spend his fortune in his dying decade; he got about 80% of it out the door, and had to give the rest away as trusts.) He established the world's largest library chain, including modern governmental library systems (yes, there are more Carnegie libraries than US libraries.) He established many of the US' great cultural centers, including one so focal to American stage culture for fifty years that even now, another fifty years later his name brings to mind the same joke in all of our heads (Practice!) He established one of the world's great museums as part of one of the world's few nongovernmental museum chains, which maintains what are largely considered three of the world's great art collections today (you go to the Louvre for renaissance painting; you go to MOMA for experimental painting; you go to Garnegie for contemporary and modern art.) One of the world's great travelling art exhibitions is named for him and maintained by one of his trusts. Many of the nation's great parks are maintained by his money. Many of the world's great mansions belonged to him, his family or his friends. He gave huge trusts silently to dozens of what are still our great universities to promote industry and technology. One of our great universities was built on his money (Mellon pulled out at the last second, when it was too late to remove his name. Carnegie was a great man. Mellon was a scumbag.)
I hate to say it, especially here where he's so hated, but in fifty years when his business tactics are forgotten and nobody's heard of Stac Electronics or Gary Kildall or OS/2, largely because of his phila
What bill is indulging here is what is known as Social Investing
Then how do you explain that he just recently gave away exactly half of his fortune?
You read that right, he gave away 23 billion dollars. And nobody even knows about it. How's that for your spin?
:-) MSDOS didn't have any "ease of use". Programs like Lotus and WordPerfect were loaded into memory by MSDOS after which point they received little support from MSDOS as an operating system, especially in comparision to the OSes at the time such as AmigaOS and the Mac. "simple design"!? MSDOS was/is a mess.
Welcome to Mars. Watch that first step: it's a Doozie.
DOS had significant ease of use when it was introduced. You could just type the name of an application and off it would go. None of commodore's half-dozen loader commands, none of Apple DOS's run or brun. Want to start an application straight from disk? At the time, DOS was the only OS which allowed a disc to straight boot the machine other than the now-forgotten Smoke Signal; other OSes always booted straight to ROM.
Moreover, MSDOS was extremely powerful compared to userland OSes of its day. It took a lot of mechanisms from the then unheard of research OS "unix," such as pipes, background processes (ham handedly implemented as TSRs) and device drivers. Did any of the competition in userland of the day have these things? No!
Little support from MSDOS as an operating system? Rubbish. You had devices implemented as named ports (com1:, lpt1:, con:, et cetera,) you had advanced console control (color, cursors, character attributes; text-mode device control,) you had allocators which allowed low-grade concurrency (TSRs and other background mechanisms, and later memory managers like EMM386 which were for their day absolutely cutting edge,) and so on. As DOS progressed, it came to have total device abstraction - remember their three disk compressors? No, you probably only remember the one they stole from Stac, if any at all. DOS was able to provide isolated environments - remember DPMI? No, you probably don't.
Macs didn't show up for almost six years after DOS was new; Amigas for almost five. You've got your history all wrong. That's a little like saying "Jet planes efficient? Rubbish! Scramjets are far better!," making it obvious that you've never even heard of propeller planes, much less used one. God forbid someone tell you that propeller planes (Smoke Signal, OS9, Hydra) were also complex and powerful in their day, too; there are older things. Wonder what happens when someone tells you about the computer's counterparts to Icarus.
DOS games were absolute crap in comparision to the competion then.
Horseshit. The only competition DOS ever had for gaming were console systems. The time frame, so that you don't complain about how crap they were, makes their competition the 2600. Suddenly, those DOS games don't look so bad anymore. King's quest, leisure suit larry, lightspeed and hyperspeed, civilization, railroad tycoon, sim city, syndicate, and for you new kids that don't know shit about old gaming, Quake, DOOM, Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem, Pirates!, they're all DOS games. The last time Apple was king of the games pile was with the Apple ][, with stuff like Hard Hat Harry, Doctor Robot and Hovertank!.
DOS games were and are great. Of all the legacy platforms I play, the only one that even gives DOS a run for its money is classic NES.
It wasn't until the early 90s that the PC started to emerge as the primary home gaming platform.
The accepted breakpoint was when EA bought Bill Budge's Pinball Construction Set from the Commodore 64 and ported it to PC, then refused to port it off of the PC because it wasn't profitable. That would be 1984 or so, if I remember correctly.
Personally, I object to honoring Bill Gates for anything. As far as I am concerned, he is an unethical shmuck who bears principal responsibility for the suicide of Gary Kildall. Search on "Gary Kildall" if you do not know who he is.
Sigh. He was killed in a barfight, not a suicide, and frankly a suicide over a signle (if huge) missed business opportunity wouldn't make Gates the badguy anyway.
Research before slander, asshat. Are you sure you should be telling other people to search?
1. The desktop model of computering is old, really old. There are demos from the late 60's, early 70s. MS lifted its windowing ideas the same place Apple did, from Xerox. Seems everything is initially derived from Xerox.
... oh wait, the web's your kids' example. Er. Your grandkids are gonna talk about the iPod.
'Course, PARC had really just implemented something Vannevar Bush had thought up in his head fifteen years earlier. The web, hypercard, windowed interfaces and the 'net come from Vannevar. He was teh smartassed.
2. The home computer didn't hit critical mass until Netscape and the web gave people a real excuse to buy a home computer or two.
This really just depends on your definition of critical mass. I would have put the mark at the first end-user spreadsheet, which made the Apple ][ the suddenly-dominant (first dominance in home computing) home computer.
And your kids are going to insist that critical mass came from the
Whereas that's true, and whereas Gates was more a manager for Ticketmaster than anything, there are earlier examples of his personal code such as the old BASIC ROMs which are actually marvellously tight.
He can be shown to at one point have been a hell of a cowboy coder. Grit your teeth all you want; it's actually true.
No, it isn't. It's named for his son, who had died of typhoid. Please stop parrotting the average slashdot idiot in order to gain karma; the average slashdot idiot generally doesn't know a damned thing.
Also, you might want to stop using phrases like "robber barron," also ripped directly from another post; he was an industrial magnate. Robber barrons are people whose vast fortunes were made from other people's vast fortunes, like Mellon and Falk, not actual industrialists like Carnegie. (Jesus, could I look any more like I'm from Pittsburgh?) The Stanford you're referring to, which isn't Leland, the one the school is named for, is not a robber barron, but an industrialist.
Uh... hate to break it to you, but most campuses name buildings after whoever fronts the cash, not after anyone "inspiring".
Hate to be the one to let you in on the big secret, but the reason the academics are up in arms is that this is a 20-year trend which is worrying. This isn't at all true. With the exception of founders naming their schools after themselves, as your oh-so-sage example trips over, the bulk of buildings on school campuses - even donated ones! - are named for luminaries, not people with pocketbooks.
When you struggle to find evidence, please consider that until recently, benefactors almost never gave single buildings. Consider, for example, that every single Rutgers campus and every building on both Livingston and Douglass campuses except for the dorms which have names are named for intellectuals.
I find it particularly ironic
Watch futurama until you know what the word ironic means, please. Oh, and when you get m-w.com to back you up, please go ask a scholar what decimate means and look that up too. When you get confused why that happened, look up translucent, aenima and etiquette. Now finally beginning to grasp that dictionaries gloss over significant usage even when etymological, start your actual education with Ambrose Bierce's "A Little Blacklist of Literary Faults," freely available at Project Gutenberg.
Oh, and while you're pretending to know things, the person you're talking about is not the Stanford for whom the school was named, but rather his father, who built the school in recognition of his son who, while voicing strong opinions on the then-abominable state of American higher education, had died of Typhoid. The son was, in fact, quite the academic, though he died too early to make much personal contribution.
Nice try, though; you got some moderators to fall for your plot. Mod parent down, please; +4 insightful isn't exactly fair to Leland's (false) memory.
Second, the point of the mathematics professor was that it wouldn't be appropriate to name the building after Donald Trump even if he had payed for most of the building.
If that's what he meant, maybe he should have said that instead.
It's a shame that the second I write sarchasm, someone's going to accuse me of not knowing how to spell sarcasm.
housing the pre-eminent computer-science department that is among the top 3 in the nation
MIT, CMU, CalTech, Berkeley, Champaign-Urbana, WUStL, Stanford, in that order. I count #7.
With all the pro-/anti-Mac sentiments going on here (go away, you closet desktop publishers) I kind of wonder if I'm the only person here who's happy with an autoindenting editor and gcc.
You know, emacs works just fine without Linux, guys.
-2, overrated.
She looks like a little girl. Or do you just get a stiffy because she's dressed like the front of a BSD advertisement?
There's a big difference between visualizing the space containing a billion elements and visualizing the elements themselves. Try imagining all the little plastic millimeter chips that fill that half mile.
Then, since it's actually a billion billion at stake, try to imagine that half by half mile square full of tiny plastic chips.
Finally, put them in an oversized bathtub, surround the tub with video games, a bad pizza parlor and tired parents, and wham! You're Chuck E Cheese. Therefore, we can state firmly:
1) Visualize Billion Billion.
2) ??? [Which adequately describes setting up a chuck e cheese]
3) Profit.
In soviet slashdot, billion billion profits you.
Pardon me; I have to find a way to convince myself that my hot grits cluster joke isn't outdated.
No, they weren't. Just like a lot of what was said last election around wasn't ever actually said, just spun, paraprased and reworded until it looked damning as hell.
Find Gore actually claiming to have invented the internet. Anywhere. What he really said was that he was one of two people which wrote and pushed the bill which made it public, and that's true.
Welcome to why everyone's furious that two of Bush's three largest campaign contributors are giant media moguls. Hint: stop believing what FOX and CNN tell you. (Or, for that matter, any of them. Just because the other guys are slanted the other direction doesn't make them any more honest. Not all liars lie for Bush.)
How you can make a second-order self aware post bitching about the same thing slashdot users have been bitching about slashdot users bitching about, use the phrase infinite loop, and not take a stab at a Macintosh is beyond me.
Your willpower is indomnitable.
He's a very intelligent Bush supporter. ... married to the Easter Bunny, playing poker with Santa on the weekends.