Agreed. I've written horrible C++ programs which had 12 4-dimentional arrays instead of the 4 object classes that it should have had, and I've also written Perl code that, while not necessarily elegant, is intuitive, reads easily, and can be readily understood.
It really _IS_ up to the programmer to maximize readability, and although extremes such as Python's strict definitions of whitespace and assember's "I won't understand this code no matter how many times I read it" certainly exist, in most cases, it's equally easy to write good/bad code in any language.
Eh, I gotta agree with you in general, but Windowblinds extends functionality:
the "always on top," "always on bottom," and "roll up window" (don't know how to better describe it) features that about 1/3 of the default shipping skins have is a cool feature that I wish MS would implement.
I still quit using WindowBlinds, however, because bugs in the software made it difficult to perform basic maneuvers like the double-click to close...
I agree that the summary of the article on the front page was probably sub-par at best, but I don't see how this has anything to do with VA Linux / Andover's stock prices.
IMO, negative feedback to the authors is fine, as long as it is constructive.
Hmm... I've come to notice that paper seems to be remarkably durable over the long run!;) BTW, I'm just wondering: what's the life expectancy of microfilm and microfiche? (sp)
... what exactly constitutes reverse engineering? If I have a proggie that communicates using the IP stack, and I write my own to log all calls before executing/passing them on, is that reverse engineering? (seem to remember Blizzard making quite a bit of stink about that over Starcraft a while ago...) Or how about if I write a Glide dll replacement that logs all calls instead of implementing them? Am I reverse engineering whatever Glide app I run while I have my own logging DLL installed?
Well, if I'm correct, the Williamette is in the Iltanium/Merced family, in which case it would be quite different from an x86. Rumors have it that it will actually run x86 32 bit code slower than an equivalently clocked PIII, since it's designed for 64 bit code. On the other hand, I'm still waiting to see the miracle EPIC compiler that can actually produce code that will utilize this 64 bit processor to the max.
The Sledgehammer, on the other hand, should be optimized to run 32 bit code much faster than it currently runs on Athlons...
An interesting distinction between software and hardware, of course, but isn't the line blurred in the case of the Crusoe? Like many articles have pointed out (esp. the one on ArsTechnica), the Crusoe implements in software much of what other chips implement in _hardware_. Should that mean that the software which is replacing the hardware should be open? Or that since it indeed replaces the equivalent of hardware in other chips, that it should be closed? IMO, this type of software is really hardware. But on the other hand, Linux programmers seem to have no problems distributing their software modem drivers under the open source model, so it _is_ hard to justify why code morphing software, which complements hardware also, should be exempt from open source...
1 in 37 million. There exist roughly, what, 6 billion people on this planet? So for every me, there's about 162 people whose _DNA_ might be mistaken for mine? (assuming this is a linear relationship and their statistics are the same as what I'm calculating.) An rather _unconfortable_ thought, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I've written horrible C++ programs which had 12 4-dimentional arrays instead of the 4 object classes that it should have had, and I've also written Perl code that, while not necessarily elegant, is intuitive, reads easily, and can be readily understood.
It really _IS_ up to the programmer to maximize readability, and although extremes such as Python's strict definitions of whitespace and assember's "I won't understand this code no matter how many times I read it" certainly exist, in most cases, it's equally easy to write good/bad code in any language.
My $0.02
Eh, I gotta agree with you in general, but Windowblinds extends functionality:
the "always on top," "always on bottom," and "roll up window" (don't know how to better describe it) features that about 1/3 of the default shipping skins have is a cool feature that I wish MS would implement.
I still quit using WindowBlinds, however, because bugs in the software made it difficult to perform basic maneuvers like the double-click to close...
Ahem.
A democracy (ok, constitutional democratic republic) like the US could never force members of certain ethnic groups into concentration camps
Excuse me?
Are you forgetting all the perfectly innocent Japanese Americans that were forced into concentration camps during World War II?
How did the above comment get moderated to a 3?
I agree that the summary of the article on the front page was probably sub-par at best, but I don't see how this has anything to do with VA Linux / Andover's stock prices.
IMO, negative feedback to the authors is fine, as long as it is constructive.
Hmm ... I've come to notice that paper seems to be remarkably durable over the long run! ;) BTW, I'm just wondering: what's the life expectancy of microfilm and microfiche? (sp)
... what exactly constitutes reverse engineering? If I have a proggie that communicates using the IP stack, and I write my own to log all calls before executing/passing them on, is that reverse engineering? (seem to remember Blizzard making quite a bit of stink about that over Starcraft a while ago...) Or how about if I write a Glide dll replacement that logs all calls instead of implementing them? Am I reverse engineering whatever Glide app I run while I have my own logging DLL installed?
Well, if I'm correct, the Williamette is in the Iltanium/Merced family, in which case it would be quite different from an x86. Rumors have it that it will actually run x86 32 bit code slower than an equivalently clocked PIII, since it's designed for 64 bit code. On the other hand, I'm still waiting to see the miracle EPIC compiler that can actually produce code that will utilize this 64 bit processor to the max.
...
The Sledgehammer, on the other hand, should be optimized to run 32 bit code much faster than it currently runs on Athlons
An interesting distinction between software and hardware, of course, but isn't the line blurred in the case of the Crusoe? Like many articles have pointed out (esp. the one on ArsTechnica), the Crusoe implements in software much of what other chips implement in _hardware_. Should that mean that the software which is replacing the hardware should be open? Or that since it indeed replaces the equivalent of hardware in other chips, that it should be closed? IMO, this type of software is really hardware. But on the other hand, Linux programmers seem to have no problems distributing their software modem drivers under the open source model, so it _is_ hard to justify why code morphing software, which complements hardware also, should be exempt from open source ...
1 in 37 million. There exist roughly, what, 6 billion people on this planet? So for every me, there's about 162 people whose _DNA_ might be mistaken for mine? (assuming this is a linear relationship and their statistics are the same as what I'm calculating.) An rather _unconfortable_ thought, no?