You seem to have confused 'gained market share' with 'earned', because if they actualy 'earned' a profit on those 2 billion devices, they wouldn't have had to sell themselves to oracle.
Only machine code and ASM are low level languages, everything else is high level.
Thats not exactly true. There are other low level languages.. they just arent anywhere near as popular as just about anything else..
For example there is the language called 'TERSE' which is a low level x86 language that had gotten some good reviews about two decades ago, and had actualy become slightly popular for a short time.
.
Low level doesnt mean feature-light, and I believe your confusion here extends precisely from the people telling you that C is low level. You have been trying to rationalize the popular misconception to yourself and the end result is that PHP is mid-level and ASM is lower-than-LOW within your rationalization.
A low level language provides an abstraction which is very close to, when not exactly equivilent to, the actual instruction architecture.
First, the guy is not charged with any crime, and has not been found guilty of anything.
Fucking B.I.N.G.O.
He has spent 14 years in jail and has not been charged with any crime, and has not been found guilty of anything.
That makes me fucking founding-father-mad.
he owes the money, AND has the ability to pay it.
Was there a trial which determined that he has the ability to pay it?
No? That makes me fucking founding-father-mad.
There are only two facts to the defense case: he was ordered to pay the money, and he did not pay the money. The only defense possible for those are: I was not ordered to pay the money, and I did pay the money.
Only two? How about 'I do not have the money.'
Under your beautiful fucking world view, a judge can always imprison someone for eternity by simply saying that person has to pay a sum more than is possible to pay. Not charged with a crime. Not convicted of a crime. In jail for eternity.
I'll consider C a 'bastard child of assembly' as soon as I can reliably emit arbitrary opcodes (rotate through carry instructions, for instance) without using proprietary extensions.
The popularity of C is interresting (thank you K&R), the reason for its development is interresting (thank you AT&T), but it is not a low level language. Its a mid to high level language whos programmers incorrectly label as low level, in what I guess is some desparate attempt to make themselves feel superior.
Its low level only in terms of the abstract machine it targets, which barely touches the surface of any actual instruction sets. This abstract machine is sufficient enough to design and implement rudimentary operating systems (with proper machine-specific extensions), but that just aint low level. The low level bits *are* the machine-specific extensions, and that just aint C.
Its been 33% alcohol related for a very long time. Well over a decade. Are you of the opinion that cell phones have been popular for a very long time? Well over a decade?
For their next trick, they will show that chewing gum has a distinct measaurable impact on doing more than one thing.
Driving with Cell Phones
(A) Accidents
(B) Reflexes
We used to have this idea here in America that you are presumed innocent of crimes until actualy getting 'caught.'
That being 'caught' involves things like 'evidence' and 'trial.'
This story makes me mad. Real fucking mad. A founding-father kind of mad that I didn't know that I could feel.
I claim that 1,000 accidental deaths per year due to automobile usage is below the threshhold of me giving a shit. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people die each year (in the U.S.) due to automobiles and almost all of them are accidental, with about 1/3rd being specifically alcohol related.
Accidents. Deal with it. Since 33% of fatalities are alcohol related, then it seems quite clear to me that cellphones aren't a problem.
I'd shut down such a study too, since the preliminary numbers simply do not justify the expense of conducting one.
Are cellphones distracting? Hell yes. So are children. So is that half-naked whore on the corner. So is that guy driving way too slow. If people are expected to only drive when 100% alert, I guess they can drive to work but have to walk home.
The more insane here might, in a very round about way, argue that Microsoft should be donating programmers to the project.
You see this same sort of round-about thinking elsewhere...
examples:
In the round-about-way they argue that Microsoft should have been and continue to be forced to improve Internet Explorer at their own expense, for the sake of standards.)
In the round-about-way they argue that Microsoft should be forced to do open source, and open specifications, again at their own expense.
Does pretty much everything that Microsoft does have the expectation of leading to profits for Microsoft? Absolutely. Thats what most companies do, and thats what publicly traded companies must do (at least here in America.)
The code in this case is GPL2.. so umm.. whats not to like? Sounds like a win for everybody not in direct competition on the virtualization front.. and competition on the virtualization front, regardless of the players involved, is a good thing for everyone using virtualization.
As far as hurricanes, its true, when you factor out observational bias.
The number, or severity, of hurricanes which have made landfall in the united states absolutely has not been increasing over the past 150 years. On the other hand we now detect 100% of all hurricanes even when they do not make landfall, know at all times their severity, and so forth. The # of hurrican plots in the publicly available data sets has increased due to this observational bias.
As far as clouds.. more eyes and better equipment.. hard to rule out observational bias.
The point is that that is not possible with macros.
Macro has test for NULL, because it makes sense to do so. Code which uses said macro may, on a case by case basis, make NULL either a certainty or an impossibility. Further, some code may rely on that NULL test being there while other code does not.
You can't wave your hand and resolve all these issues. Crippling macros doesnt seem like a good idea to me.
In effect, the code is a form of broken defensive programming (you check after the fact whether you've screwed up). It's wrong, but we still wouldn't want the compiler to silently remove the check. So I think the ideal solution (besides fixing the code) is to add a warning to the compiler. NULL pointer dereferences are a bug in the vast majority of cases, and checking for a NULL pointer after dereferencing it (in such a way that the compiler recognizes it and is about to remove the check) is at best redundant and more likely a bug.
My problem with this sort of thinking is when you throw in macros and templates and whatnot, there can end up being hundreds, thousands, even millions of "redundant" tests againt NULL specified by the expanded source. Now, I suspect that simply adding this warning to GCC and then compiling some large project would generate so many such warnings that the only reasonable choice would be to then disable that warning. The warning would then have no value, and if so then that certainly doesnt address the "problem."
As far as the other stuff.. my point was that the arguement that the compiler should never optimize away such if() statements is flawed. I was responding to someone who did in fact make such a claim. There are certainly cases where the pointer absolutely cannot be NULL (or absolutely must be).. ex, the pointer was just assigned, or its nested within another test for null.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll buy your argument when you have finally realized that you are simulated.
Where are they now?
You seem to have confused 'gained market share' with 'earned', because if they actualy 'earned' a profit on those 2 billion devices, they wouldn't have had to sell themselves to oracle.
Only machine code and ASM are low level languages, everything else is high level.
Thats not exactly true. There are other low level languages.. they just arent anywhere near as popular as just about anything else..
For example there is the language called 'TERSE' which is a low level x86 language that had gotten some good reviews about two decades ago, and had actualy become slightly popular for a short time.
.
Low level doesnt mean feature-light, and I believe your confusion here extends precisely from the people telling you that C is low level. You have been trying to rationalize the popular misconception to yourself and the end result is that PHP is mid-level and ASM is lower-than-LOW within your rationalization.
A low level language provides an abstraction which is very close to, when not exactly equivilent to, the actual instruction architecture.
First, the guy is not charged with any crime, and has not been found guilty of anything.
Fucking B.I.N.G.O.
He has spent 14 years in jail and has not been charged with any crime, and has not been found guilty of anything.
That makes me fucking founding-father-mad.
he owes the money, AND has the ability to pay it.
Was there a trial which determined that he has the ability to pay it?
No? That makes me fucking founding-father-mad.
There are only two facts to the defense case: he was ordered to pay the money, and he did not pay the money. The only defense possible for those are: I was not ordered to pay the money, and I did pay the money.
Only two? How about 'I do not have the money.'
Under your beautiful fucking world view, a judge can always imprison someone for eternity by simply saying that person has to pay a sum more than is possible to pay. Not charged with a crime. Not convicted of a crime. In jail for eternity.
That makes me fucking founding-father-mad.
I'll consider C a 'bastard child of assembly' as soon as I can reliably emit arbitrary opcodes (rotate through carry instructions, for instance) without using proprietary extensions.
The popularity of C is interresting (thank you K&R), the reason for its development is interresting (thank you AT&T), but it is not a low level language. Its a mid to high level language whos programmers incorrectly label as low level, in what I guess is some desparate attempt to make themselves feel superior.
Its low level only in terms of the abstract machine it targets, which barely touches the surface of any actual instruction sets. This abstract machine is sufficient enough to design and implement rudimentary operating systems (with proper machine-specific extensions), but that just aint low level. The low level bits *are* the machine-specific extensions, and that just aint C.
When did it get that status?
Please find a valid arguement.
"I suspect that you would be against the 2nd ammendment if I put a gun to your head" is not a valid arguement against the second ammendment.
Your way of thinking is a slippery slope. Next we should ban car radios.. then driving with passengers.. then driving..
No it isnt.
Its been 33% alcohol related for a very long time. Well over a decade. Are you of the opinion that cell phones have been popular for a very long time? Well over a decade?
For their next trick, they will show that chewing gum has a distinct measaurable impact on doing more than one thing.
Driving with Cell Phones
(A) Accidents
(B) Reflexes
Which is the only important measure, (A) or (B)?
We used to have this idea here in America that you are presumed innocent of crimes until actualy getting 'caught.' That being 'caught' involves things like 'evidence' and 'trial.'
This story makes me mad. Real fucking mad. A founding-father kind of mad that I didn't know that I could feel.
Real, just like Sun, is a failure too.
Being generous for its own sake is not good business.
Yes its 100% B.S.
33% of all driving fatalities are alcohol related, and thats been true for quite awhile, since before cell phones were even prevelent.
Never-the-less, its only 1000 people per year?
I claim that 1,000 accidental deaths per year due to automobile usage is below the threshhold of me giving a shit. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people die each year (in the U.S.) due to automobiles and almost all of them are accidental, with about 1/3rd being specifically alcohol related.
Accidents. Deal with it. Since 33% of fatalities are alcohol related, then it seems quite clear to me that cellphones aren't a problem.
I'd shut down such a study too, since the preliminary numbers simply do not justify the expense of conducting one.
Are cellphones distracting? Hell yes. So are children. So is that half-naked whore on the corner. So is that guy driving way too slow. If people are expected to only drive when 100% alert, I guess they can drive to work but have to walk home.
"...which is why they folded." - Mr Obvious
The more insane here might, in a very round about way, argue that Microsoft should be donating programmers to the project.
You see this same sort of round-about thinking elsewhere...
examples:
In the round-about-way they argue that Microsoft should have been and continue to be forced to improve Internet Explorer at their own expense, for the sake of standards.)
In the round-about-way they argue that Microsoft should be forced to do open source, and open specifications, again at their own expense.
Does pretty much everything that Microsoft does have the expectation of leading to profits for Microsoft? Absolutely. Thats what most companies do, and thats what publicly traded companies must do (at least here in America.)
The code in this case is GPL2.. so umm.. whats not to like? Sounds like a win for everybody not in direct competition on the virtualization front.. and competition on the virtualization front, regardless of the players involved, is a good thing for everyone using virtualization.
Based on posts over at the steam forums, the XBOX version isnt very popular, and thusly hasnt recieved any updates or new content.
umm, still trying to figure out how this was a reply to me.
As far as hurricanes, its true, when you factor out observational bias.
The number, or severity, of hurricanes which have made landfall in the united states absolutely has not been increasing over the past 150 years. On the other hand we now detect 100% of all hurricanes even when they do not make landfall, know at all times their severity, and so forth. The # of hurrican plots in the publicly available data sets has increased due to this observational bias.
As far as clouds.. more eyes and better equipment.. hard to rule out observational bias.
That's a fairly naive cost assessment. The lifespan of that SSD is much shorter than the 2.5" drive.
Citation? This is going against prevailing wisdom (and so is the disasterous failure arguement, since they fail gracefully)
...or we simply didnt notice them before.
Do you realize that unlike MMO's, DiabloII has a skill aspect similar to single player action games?
The point is that that is not possible with macros.
Macro has test for NULL, because it makes sense to do so. Code which uses said macro may, on a case by case basis, make NULL either a certainty or an impossibility. Further, some code may rely on that NULL test being there while other code does not.
You can't wave your hand and resolve all these issues. Crippling macros doesnt seem like a good idea to me.
Note that TF2 is in fact a console game.
Yeah, its "primarily" a PC game, but the interface had to be dumbed down in the same general way that all console interfaces have been.
WASD was chosen because the first games which used it were before the mouse was popular. Think AppleII and so forth.
Add in multi-player support on a single keyboard, and there you go.
In effect, the code is a form of broken defensive programming (you check after the fact whether you've screwed up). It's wrong, but we still wouldn't want the compiler to silently remove the check. So I think the ideal solution (besides fixing the code) is to add a warning to the compiler. NULL pointer dereferences are a bug in the vast majority of cases, and checking for a NULL pointer after dereferencing it (in such a way that the compiler recognizes it and is about to remove the check) is at best redundant and more likely a bug.
My problem with this sort of thinking is when you throw in macros and templates and whatnot, there can end up being hundreds, thousands, even millions of "redundant" tests againt NULL specified by the expanded source. Now, I suspect that simply adding this warning to GCC and then compiling some large project would generate so many such warnings that the only reasonable choice would be to then disable that warning. The warning would then have no value, and if so then that certainly doesnt address the "problem."
.. ex, the pointer was just assigned, or its nested within another test for null.
As far as the other stuff.. my point was that the arguement that the compiler should never optimize away such if() statements is flawed. I was responding to someone who did in fact make such a claim. There are certainly cases where the pointer absolutely cannot be NULL (or absolutely must be)