The good news is you're still in school. Stay there until you learn something. If you're lucky you might learn 2 somethings like why this is stupid. Really, get a clue. This is irresponsible especially in today's society.
Wow. You must be a real joy to be around at parties.
Game developers are desperately looking for something, anything better than C++.
Citation needed. Maybe some tools in addition to C or C++ in some cases.
There are several OSes developed in Java, C# and other languages. I'm pretty sure we'll move away from C-based OSes in 'near' future.
Just because you can develop OSes in Java or C# (or parts of it anyway) does not mean it's a good idea. Web development can be done in C or C++, and it's equally stupid to do so. Unix variety OSes moving away from C is not bloody likely. Maybe parts in C++, if that. I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Hammer and a spade are also tried and true tools. But somehow I don't see people building bridges and tunnels exclusively with spades and hammers.
Java is closer to a Tonka Toy Construction Set than C is to a hammer and spade. Sometimes close control of hardware and predictability on when memory is being released are good things. After you have some experience using RAII, you begin to realize what a kludge those damned finally blocks are.
Sure these categories of applications occasionally have bugs. They're difficult to do. What do you expect?
However, how often they happen are pretty exaggerated as well. The Linux kernel is mostly written in C, of course. How often do you see it lock up for as difficult of a piece of software that is to write? How about all the millions of embedded pieces of code for mission-critical application that perform flawlessly day after day to the point that nobody notices them?
Besides for every C++ desktop app that crashes, there's a Java equivalent that eats up memory until it's unresponsive. People only focus on the C and C++ varieties of problems because they're taught Java or something similar as a first language and assume that lower level languages must be unmanageably difficult.
There are still tasks that are better suited for languages like C and C++. The interesting ones. The alternatives?
"You mean I get to build another boring business web application using the latest kludgy framework du jour so that it's obsolete two weeks later when the more popular kludgy framework comes out. Oh boy!" (OK, it's a little bit better than that. But not much.:) )
Games development, systems development, OS development, embedded programming and the like are places where it pays for development to be done by people who know what they're doing using tried and true programming tools that demand such expertise. When did Slashdot become so dull that nobody was interested in this stuff anymore?
I may be using a different defintion of heap to you, I see the heap as the dynamically allocated memory from the kernel and any smart allocator just maintains a local pool of memory to reduce system calls (and the JVM was shown as an example that does this).
That's how malloc works. Malloc is not a system call. Occasionally it does make a system call (either brk() or mmap() on Unix) to add a block of memory to the running process when it needs it. If it has enough free space within the block already assigned to it, malloc just carves that up without making an additional system call.
Just curious, but what source are you using for this timeline? I've heard the same thing described with small variations between them here and there, and I'm trying to figure out which is believed to be the most accurate of them so far. In the one I remember the most, all of the initial hydrogen and helium nuclei (with tiny amounts of heavier atomic nuclei) were formed within the first three minutes of the initial bang. Things didn't cool off enough for the electrons to join them to form atoms until around 380,000 years after t0.
It uses the same pathways, activates the same brain areas and cells, is processed in the same way, and interacts with other perceptions in the same way. What other sense of "internal" do you want?
Internal in the sense of the actual subjective experience. There's a lot of variation between brains. I find it hard to believe that we can be so certain that the experience of the same frequency of light between two individuals must be completely identical.
But even so, assume we have a complete, materialistic description of the brain, pathways, cells and such of a creature with a sensory perception we don't have. How would knowing this aid us in any way whatsoever in deducing what that perception would be like? The only way we can describe it in terms of our existing senses, which is not the same as what we're trying to find. The only way to know that is to just transplant it in your own brain somehow and experience it for ourselves.
Think of it another way. Take a person who has been completely blind from birth who asks what it is like to see. You describe the interaction with certain frequencies of light with the eye, the signals passed to the brain and the processing it does. Describe every single possible objective detail you can think of or is even possible of knowing. Do you really think it is possible to adequately give him the answer he's looking for?
A description of a thing is not the same as the thing itself.
The wording "to be a truly great programmer" implies that the defining, most important characteristic of a great programmer is proper code reuse. My argument is that this is not the case. It goes along with the theme of the original article. You don't need much math for many programming tasks, but to be properly equipped to do the most interesting ones you do.
Gosh you're really in love with argument, aren't you?:)
The poster that started this thread said "but to be a GREAT programmer, you need to be able to program things yourself". The AC pointed out that, no, to be a truly great programmer, you should know to reuse other people's work whenever they can.
And he's wrong. To know how to properly reuse others' work is just performing to par. The great programming tasks are known to be great because of what was added, not what was copied.
It's a matter of degree. There's a fundamental difference between Ken Thomspon designing and programming Unix by building on other people's work, and some flunky creating a business website using the latest framework du jour.
Actually, great programmers avoid shit programming jobs that can be done by just plugging in some else's work and instead prefer ones that demand they think for themselves.
Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that since it's free-falling in orbit that according to general relativity it was going in a straight line through space-time.
Here's my own amateur shot at it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone who knows better will correct me. Oh, and fuck the car analogy.
The quantum entanglement measurements will only work with two entangled photons when the velocities and accelerations of the two parties involved are the same. But if you're doing it with two objects with different motion, say a person on the ground and a satellite orbiting the earth, it won't. The satellite is in free fall and, according to general relativity, not in an accelerated reference frame. A person on earth, though, is feeling a constant acceleration coming up from the ground because of gravity holding him there. One difference between the two is because one is in an accelerated reference frame and the other is not, their clocks are moving at different rates.
The fix for this is to have a third entangled photon in another reference frame. As long as the motion relative between all reference frames are known, the person on the ground and the satellite can use the third entangled photon as a reference point for them to make measurements between the two with their own entangled photons.
Sorry if I'm off about this but if someone corrects me then, hey, it's a learning process for us both.
Your analogy only makes sense if a slight 15 year trend is statistically relevant in comparison to the warming trend data we have available to us for a much longer span of time. As others here have pointed out, it isn't. It's not much better than seeing a cooling trend from August to December and concluding that global warming is a hoax.
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Well it takes more than repeating easily debunked platitudes and specious arguments. Here's Jones' original quote...
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
Sounds a bit more measured and reasonable than your biased histrionics. Yes?
Guess you never bothered to see this fantastic film, huh? William Munny sure as hell didn't have a halo.
Little Bill Daggett: You'd be William Munny out of Missouri. Killer of women and children. Will Munny: That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did...
Randal: So they build another Death Star, right? Dante: Yeah. Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it. Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due. Randal:And the second one was still being built when they blew it up. Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian. Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right. Dante: And you figured it out? Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials. Dante: Basically. Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished. Dante: And the second time around...? Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction. Dante: So? Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers. Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at. Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms. Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction? Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living. (The Blue-Collar Man (Thomas Burke) joins them.) Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about? Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi. Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels. Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs. Randal: Like when? Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was. Dante: Whose house was it? Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's. Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster? Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine. Dante: Based on personal politics. Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling. Randal: No way! Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. You must be a real joy to be around at parties.
Citation needed. Maybe some tools in addition to C or C++ in some cases.
Just because you can develop OSes in Java or C# (or parts of it anyway) does not mean it's a good idea. Web development can be done in C or C++, and it's equally stupid to do so. Unix variety OSes moving away from C is not bloody likely. Maybe parts in C++, if that. I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Java is closer to a Tonka Toy Construction Set than C is to a hammer and spade. Sometimes close control of hardware and predictability on when memory is being released are good things. After you have some experience using RAII, you begin to realize what a kludge those damned finally blocks are.
Sure these categories of applications occasionally have bugs. They're difficult to do. What do you expect?
However, how often they happen are pretty exaggerated as well. The Linux kernel is mostly written in C, of course. How often do you see it lock up for as difficult of a piece of software that is to write? How about all the millions of embedded pieces of code for mission-critical application that perform flawlessly day after day to the point that nobody notices them?
Besides for every C++ desktop app that crashes, there's a Java equivalent that eats up memory until it's unresponsive. People only focus on the C and C++ varieties of problems because they're taught Java or something similar as a first language and assume that lower level languages must be unmanageably difficult.
There are still tasks that are better suited for languages like C and C++. The interesting ones. The alternatives?
"You mean I get to build another boring business web application using the latest kludgy framework du jour so that it's obsolete two weeks later when the more popular kludgy framework comes out. Oh boy!" (OK, it's a little bit better than that. But not much. :) )
Games development, systems development, OS development, embedded programming and the like are places where it pays for development to be done by people who know what they're doing using tried and true programming tools that demand such expertise. When did Slashdot become so dull that nobody was interested in this stuff anymore?
That's how malloc works. Malloc is not a system call. Occasionally it does make a system call (either brk() or mmap() on Unix) to add a block of memory to the running process when it needs it. If it has enough free space within the block already assigned to it, malloc just carves that up without making an additional system call.
Or is there some point of yours I'm missing?
Just curious, but what source are you using for this timeline? I've heard the same thing described with small variations between them here and there, and I'm trying to figure out which is believed to be the most accurate of them so far. In the one I remember the most, all of the initial hydrogen and helium nuclei (with tiny amounts of heavier atomic nuclei) were formed within the first three minutes of the initial bang. Things didn't cool off enough for the electrons to join them to form atoms until around 380,000 years after t0.
Internal in the sense of the actual subjective experience. There's a lot of variation between brains. I find it hard to believe that we can be so certain that the experience of the same frequency of light between two individuals must be completely identical.
But even so, assume we have a complete, materialistic description of the brain, pathways, cells and such of a creature with a sensory perception we don't have. How would knowing this aid us in any way whatsoever in deducing what that perception would be like? The only way we can describe it in terms of our existing senses, which is not the same as what we're trying to find. The only way to know that is to just transplant it in your own brain somehow and experience it for ourselves.
Think of it another way. Take a person who has been completely blind from birth who asks what it is like to see. You describe the interaction with certain frequencies of light with the eye, the signals passed to the brain and the processing it does. Describe every single possible objective detail you can think of or is even possible of knowing. Do you really think it is possible to adequately give him the answer he's looking for?
A description of a thing is not the same as the thing itself.
The wording "to be a truly great programmer" implies that the defining, most important characteristic of a great programmer is proper code reuse. My argument is that this is not the case. It goes along with the theme of the original article. You don't need much math for many programming tasks, but to be properly equipped to do the most interesting ones you do.
Gosh you're really in love with argument, aren't you? :)
And he's wrong. To know how to properly reuse others' work is just performing to par. The great programming tasks are known to be great because of what was added, not what was copied.
It's a matter of degree. There's a fundamental difference between Ken Thomspon designing and programming Unix by building on other people's work, and some flunky creating a business website using the latest framework du jour.
Actually, great programmers avoid shit programming jobs that can be done by just plugging in some else's work and instead prefer ones that demand they think for themselves.
I shudder to think what that euphemism could mean...
Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that since it's free-falling in orbit that according to general relativity it was going in a straight line through space-time.
Here's my own amateur shot at it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone who knows better will correct me. Oh, and fuck the car analogy.
The quantum entanglement measurements will only work with two entangled photons when the velocities and accelerations of the two parties involved are the same. But if you're doing it with two objects with different motion, say a person on the ground and a satellite orbiting the earth, it won't. The satellite is in free fall and, according to general relativity, not in an accelerated reference frame. A person on earth, though, is feeling a constant acceleration coming up from the ground because of gravity holding him there. One difference between the two is because one is in an accelerated reference frame and the other is not, their clocks are moving at different rates.
The fix for this is to have a third entangled photon in another reference frame. As long as the motion relative between all reference frames are known, the person on the ground and the satellite can use the third entangled photon as a reference point for them to make measurements between the two with their own entangled photons.
Sorry if I'm off about this but if someone corrects me then, hey, it's a learning process for us both.
Errr... citation needed.
It was pretty hilarious to go here and read in the first paragraph the exact opposite of what you just said.
Your analogy only makes sense if a slight 15 year trend is statistically relevant in comparison to the warming trend data we have available to us for a much longer span of time. As others here have pointed out, it isn't. It's not much better than seeing a cooling trend from August to December and concluding that global warming is a hoax.
Yes, I thought that was quite odd myself. Way to go Slashdot!
Well it takes more than repeating easily debunked platitudes and specious arguments. Here's Jones' original quote...
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
Sounds a bit more measured and reasonable than your biased histrionics. Yes?
-Filter prevention-
Also keep in mind that as amazing as those guys are they didn't do those tricks under the pressure of their lives on the line.
Guess you never bothered to see this fantastic film, huh? William Munny sure as hell didn't have a halo.
Little Bill Daggett: You'd be William Munny out of Missouri. Killer of women and children.
Will Munny: That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did...
Yes. How awful of us men to want women to sacrifice a half hour of their time whereas women just want us to sacrifice the rest of our lives.
"A visitor from another planet might conclude that rudeness is a cell phone's main purpose."
A-fuckin'-men.
So obscure. So funny. Roll a few criticals to see how successful your post will be. :)
Randal: So they build another Death Star, right?
Dante: Yeah.
Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it.
Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due.
Randal:And the second one was still being built when they blew it up.
Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian.
Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right.
Dante: And you figured it out?
Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.
Dante: Basically.
Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished.
Dante: And the second time around...?
Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction.
Dante: So?
Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
(The Blue-Collar Man (Thomas Burke) joins them.)
Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
Randal: Like when?
Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
Dante: Whose house was it?
Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
Dante: Based on personal politics.
Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
Randal: No way!
Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.