"So, unless you had a NeXT box when you were growing up, please, put a sock in it." Err...no. Instead, I'll point out that during the period you're talking about, Windows simply wasn't that good. There was a period when it looked like X was fucked, but then the free implementation (XFree86) took over removed the cost element for people who didn't want to pay for the highly optimised versions.
Now, with X.Org pushing X forward, it's now moving forward at a reasonable pace and provides a pretty decent windowing system.
"First and foremost, GCC's bytecode isn't Sun's or MS's proprietary stuff." The Mono folk seem pretty sure they can implement the.Net CLR without being sued out of existence. Also, the CLR is an ECMA standard. GCC's intermediate language is also intended for use in GCC only and is subject to change on a whim.
"It _is_ more efficient." Do you have any evidence of that? When working on an assessment several months back, I wrote a Java implementation of an algorythm whereas my mate wrote his in C. My implementation was at least as fast as his despite using lots of high-level concepts and never marking my methods as final, whereas my housemate used things like small structs and memcpy.
"A Swing app tends to look-and-feel nothing like a native app." So? That has nothing to do with bytecode.
"Still, you know... can't help wondering why we keep waiting for Sun's proprietary thing to eventually get fixed, instead of using the open alternative that already exists and which already works better. Are we _that_ addicted to Sun's marketting and lies, or?" Yes, we're so addicted to Java that virtually nobody in the open source world uses it for desktop applications. Look, do you have *any* evidence that GCC's IL would be useful in the general case, or are you just blowing hot air?
So, instead of using Java bytecode or.Net Intermediate Language, you want to use GCC's...intermediate language, which is essentially a bytecode? Right...
I don't see a need for an apache module, just have a script to do it, spawning mozilla-firefox each time. If the process dies, you've encountered a crash.
I don't know if they still use it, but the Linux kernel developers used to use a program called "crashme" to help test kernel stability. Essentially, it generated random code and tried to execute it. Something like this for web browsers would make for a very useful procedure. Generate the code, throw it at the browser and log the code if it crashed the browser.
At my university (The University of York), they pride themselves on their computer science course being very much about teaching principles and foundations rather than specifics such as programming languages. Yeah, they teach you some, but only as a means to explain/test the principles.
The people who took summer placements and had pet projects outside of the course ultimately ended up with a much more rounded education than those who didn't because we got the practice in applying what we were taught into actual products/projects.
My mother went down to Dixons and ultimately came home with an AMD laptop. They're really not that uncommon. Besides, a 2.8GHz Prescott is slower than a 2.8GHz Northwood. Thus, it really isn't that good an indicator of speed.
The thing is, game developers feel the need to impress their audience. There's a lot of competition and your product has to stand out from the crowd. There are a number of ways to do this: 1) Price. There are a lot of cheap games out there that do not push your system to its limits. 2) Gameplay. This is very encompassing, but things like realistic physics cost a lot of CPU cycles. 3) Graphics. Very, very computationally expensive because we're nowhere near "as real as life" yet. Thus, developers want to have higher and higher polygon counts with more and more effects.
Graphics get a heavy emphasis because you can see them in screenshots, on the box and in gameplay videos.
The point is a 1GHz P4 would be slower than a 1GHz Athlon or P3. Yes, MHz is normally a good way to test processors of the same family, but not much else. Unfortunately, the general public tend to think MHz is a universal indicator of performance.
Err...no. For example, the 486 itself was a CISC processor with the instructions hardcoded in.
Re:I forget if we're supposed to hate them
on
Netscape Turns 10
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Mozilla's source code was released in March 1998 (Or around that time). Before then, mozilla.org existed for a short length of time (i.e. a couple of months).
Actually, Netscape didn't reflow the page as needed. Instead, it started simultaneous downloads and would put an appropriate sized box in place once it knew the size of the image.
Try it for yourself, this behaviour was still present in Netscape 4.
The vast majority of progress has had negative side-effects. Strangely enough, I go to the cinema all the time and it's been getting on for a year since somebody's phone went off (audibly) during the film.
Every time my parents left me or my sister with a babysitter, they left a contact number. Now that everyone has a mobile, the parent just gives the babysitter that, just in case the parents happen not to be where they said they'd be.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you used the phrase "should of."
"So, unless you had a NeXT box when you were growing up, please, put a sock in it."
Err...no. Instead, I'll point out that during the period you're talking about, Windows simply wasn't that good. There was a period when it looked like X was fucked, but then the free implementation (XFree86) took over removed the cost element for people who didn't want to pay for the highly optimised versions.
Now, with X.Org pushing X forward, it's now moving forward at a reasonable pace and provides a pretty decent windowing system.
By saying X11 is a mess, you're implying what you're comparing it to isn't.
The argument was "make X11 cost money and we've evened the scores." I'm simply pointing out it's not that simple.
"First and foremost, GCC's bytecode isn't Sun's or MS's proprietary stuff." .Net CLR without being sued out of existence. Also, the CLR is an ECMA standard. GCC's intermediate language is also intended for use in GCC only and is subject to change on a whim.
The Mono folk seem pretty sure they can implement the
"It _is_ more efficient."
Do you have any evidence of that? When working on an assessment several months back, I wrote a Java implementation of an algorythm whereas my mate wrote his in C. My implementation was at least as fast as his despite using lots of high-level concepts and never marking my methods as final, whereas my housemate used things like small structs and memcpy.
"A Swing app tends to look-and-feel nothing like a native app."
So? That has nothing to do with bytecode.
"Still, you know... can't help wondering why we keep waiting for Sun's proprietary thing to eventually get fixed, instead of using the open alternative that already exists and which already works better. Are we _that_ addicted to Sun's marketting and lies, or?"
Yes, we're so addicted to Java that virtually nobody in the open source world uses it for desktop applications. Look, do you have *any* evidence that GCC's IL would be useful in the general case, or are you just blowing hot air?
Read Raymond Chen's weblog and tell me Windows isn't just as big of a mess.
Make Windows run on as many platforms as X11, then.
So, instead of using Java bytecode or .Net Intermediate Language, you want to use GCC's...intermediate language, which is essentially a bytecode? Right...
But Firefox has a much bigger market share than Netscape.
renice 10 `pidof CPUIntensiveTask` && ut2004
I can run UT2004 and any spare CPU time goes to CPUIntensiveTask.
I don't see a need for an apache module, just have a script to do it, spawning mozilla-firefox each time. If the process dies, you've encountered a crash.
I don't know if they still use it, but the Linux kernel developers used to use a program called "crashme" to help test kernel stability. Essentially, it generated random code and tried to execute it. Something like this for web browsers would make for a very useful procedure. Generate the code, throw it at the browser and log the code if it crashed the browser.
At my university (The University of York), they pride themselves on their computer science course being very much about teaching principles and foundations rather than specifics such as programming languages. Yeah, they teach you some, but only as a means to explain/test the principles.
The people who took summer placements and had pet projects outside of the course ultimately ended up with a much more rounded education than those who didn't because we got the practice in applying what we were taught into actual products/projects.
My mother went down to Dixons and ultimately came home with an AMD laptop. They're really not that uncommon. Besides, a 2.8GHz Prescott is slower than a 2.8GHz Northwood. Thus, it really isn't that good an indicator of speed.
The thing is, game developers feel the need to impress their audience. There's a lot of competition and your product has to stand out from the crowd. There are a number of ways to do this:
1) Price. There are a lot of cheap games out there that do not push your system to its limits.
2) Gameplay. This is very encompassing, but things like realistic physics cost a lot of CPU cycles.
3) Graphics. Very, very computationally expensive because we're nowhere near "as real as life" yet. Thus, developers want to have higher and higher polygon counts with more and more effects.
Graphics get a heavy emphasis because you can see them in screenshots, on the box and in gameplay videos.
The point is a 1GHz P4 would be slower than a 1GHz Athlon or P3. Yes, MHz is normally a good way to test processors of the same family, but not much else. Unfortunately, the general public tend to think MHz is a universal indicator of performance.
Err...no. For example, the 486 itself was a CISC processor with the instructions hardcoded in.
Mozilla's source code was released in March 1998 (Or around that time). Before then, mozilla.org existed for a short length of time (i.e. a couple of months).
Actually, Netscape didn't reflow the page as needed. Instead, it started simultaneous downloads and would put an appropriate sized box in place once it knew the size of the image.
Try it for yourself, this behaviour was still present in Netscape 4.
The vast majority of progress has had negative side-effects. Strangely enough, I go to the cinema all the time and it's been getting on for a year since somebody's phone went off (audibly) during the film.
Last I checked, it wasn't just cinemas they were going to put jammers in.
Should we halt all progress simply because people managed OK in 1900?
Great, so the innocent can be punished along with the guilty. Great strategy there. I guess you're in favour of the INDUCE act, too.
Every time my parents left me or my sister with a babysitter, they left a contact number. Now that everyone has a mobile, the parent just gives the babysitter that, just in case the parents happen not to be where they said they'd be.
You know, you can't account for every eventuality. There are cases where a babysitter may urgently need to contact the parent.