their reputation in the open source world is marginal at best because they've always been half-hearted about it.
I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with that but just to provide an alternative opinion
"I think Sun has, well, with this contribution, have contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. And it shows leadership. It's an example that I hope others will follow." - Richard Stallman
So I suppose the gcc team promote optimisations from O3 to O2 after a reasonable amount of time and testing?
I always use O3 (or even O5 on Solaris) so I'm wondering now if I should worry more about errors.
Not really.
Orc http://www.orcsoftware.com/ is one of the best known trading platforms. It runs back end services on Linux and client apps on both Mac OSX and Windows. The client apps were even originally written for OSX.
It was quite interesting at the time how the media totally ignored the story. Probably because most of the jokes were really about how the media failed to do their job.
Put simply, the majority of code simply doesn't parallelize well.
Even if that is true this may not remain so once programmers have multiple cores available.
But lets take spreadsheets as an example. This is possibly one of the most common forms of programming out there. Speadsheets would benefit enormously from multiple cores. The benefits aren't always obvious.
I say our next probe is sent with a well-planned variety of "colonizer" lifeforms to begin teraforming of the planet so it's at least borderline useful by the time we can send people out there
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is only about 0.5% to 1.0% that of earth due to the low gravity. I guess this rules out it ever having an atmosphere suitable for humans, which is what I assume is the point of terraforming. I even doubt any usefull plant life could be grown in such a thin atmosphere.
Yeah, I'd guess your experiences are even reflective of most. But it's good to know about resource management as it will probably crop up at least once or twice in a reasonably complex program. The long and most boring debates around GC often seem to ignore this and many junior programmers come away with a misconception that they can forget about it.
It's much harder to write C++ code that, for example, will never leak memory no matter what goes wrong than in the assorted garbage collected languages, or even vanilla C. That, I don't see how anyone could even reasonably argue.
Probably true. But what does that tell us about general language fitness really since it's equally as easy to hog resources in a language with GC? Database connections for example.
When you absolutely need deterministic release of resources you end up having to approach the problem in a similar fashion to c++ memory management anyway.
Many people believe seem to believe GC allows you to forget about resource management when it doesn't at all.
It's a great tool for a certain class of problems but not a panacea.
Slashdot Mirror
their reputation in the open source world is marginal at best because they've always been half-hearted about it.
I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with that but just to provide an alternative opinion
"I think Sun has, well, with this contribution, have contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. And it shows leadership. It's an example that I hope others will follow." - Richard Stallman
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/sun_s_choice_of_the_gpl_and_rms_in_the_webcast
Not the same. Taxpayers didn't have a choice.
Thanks. I foolishly didn't consider the effects on caching from increased code size.
I think I'll do some profiling on Monday :)
a = 1
;)
longer = 2
some_variable = None
foo = 'bar'
a = 1
longer = 2
some_variable = None
foo = 'bar'
Slashdot hates programmers who don't RTFM
So I suppose the gcc team promote optimisations from O3 to O2 after a reasonable amount of time and testing? I always use O3 (or even O5 on Solaris) so I'm wondering now if I should worry more about errors.
Can anyone here explain why O2 is usually default?
I suspect there is a good reason but haven't heard it yet.
I'd pay for MST3000 Presidential Debates
Not really. Orc http://www.orcsoftware.com/ is one of the best known trading platforms. It runs back end services on Linux and client apps on both Mac OSX and Windows. The client apps were even originally written for OSX.
Mother Nature plays Rochambeau, South Park style.
This is old http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-the-one-third-of-all-internet-traffic-myth/
Got something more recent to back up that 99% claim?
> Anything that you've written for the company while being paid by the company belongs to the company
Except for your name on the Patent as inventor.
I wonder if that raises issues of responsibility regarding prior art?
It was quite interesting at the time how the media totally ignored the story.
Probably because most of the jokes were really about how the media failed to do their job.
How many 10 year old games can you actually get working today?
prior to DX10 backwards compatibility was always a design goal. so yeah 10 year old DX apps should run fine with DX9.
As a European who has seen Fox News I think Liberal means believing Stalin was The MAN! and Conservative means being persecuted for driving.
*shrugs*
It *is* interesting.
Photovoltaic cells are about 10% efficient
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_efficiency_solar_cells
10% was passed a long time ago.
His requirements do seem to fit with my experience of living in Vienna, Austria though :)
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/metro/english/network_maps.html
Average miles traveled per passenger car in 2006 = 12,427
12,427 / 365 = 34
I've no idea what the distribution curve looks like but there's a big market for bicycles it seems.
Put simply, the majority of code simply doesn't parallelize well.
Even if that is true this may not remain so once programmers have multiple cores available.
But lets take spreadsheets as an example. This is possibly one of the most common forms of programming out there.
Speadsheets would benefit enormously from multiple cores. The benefits aren't always obvious.
In reality parallelism is more likely going to be found by better compilers
Better compilers or better languages or just different ones to what are commonly used?
Aren't functional languages are more suited to having the compilers decide how to parallelise a task?
I'd prefer 3 per pixel. And maybe an alpha chip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming#Prospective_planets
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is only about 0.5% to 1.0% that of earth due to the low gravity. I guess this rules out it ever having an atmosphere suitable for humans, which is what I assume is the point of terraforming. I even doubt any usefull plant life could be grown in such a thin atmosphere.
Yeah, I'd guess your experiences are even reflective of most. But it's good to know about resource management as it will probably crop up at least once or twice in a reasonably complex program. The long and most boring debates around GC often seem to ignore this and many junior programmers come away with a misconception that they can forget about it.
Probably true. But what does that tell us about general language fitness really since it's equally as easy to hog resources in a language with GC? Database connections for example.
When you absolutely need deterministic release of resources you end up having to approach the problem in a similar fashion to c++ memory management anyway.
Many people believe seem to believe GC allows you to forget about resource management when it doesn't at all.
It's a great tool for a certain class of problems but not a panacea.