This radiator has a FAN blowing on it (as I described in my previous post). If I were to blow a fan and create a 0 degree windchill factor, would I be able to only cool the water to room temp?
Wind chill reflects how cold the air feels to a human, not how cold the air actually is.
> It's already there. It's called an autorelease pool, and it's used extensively throughout Foundation Kit.
Er, no. Autorelease pools are nice, but they're not garbage collection. Real GC has to do with whether an object could ever be accessed, not whether it's marked as retained through manual reference-count annotations. C++ destroys non-static local variables when they go out of scope; that's not GC either.
Now, whether Foundation/AppKit (or, really, CoreFoundation) "should" use GC instead of retain-counting is a separate issue.
I recall reading that that actually happened many years ago, back when people would get programs off of comp.sources and such; there was one whose alleged purpose was to show a picture of a turkey on your terminal (it being close to a relevant holiday at the time), but that instead/also deleted your home directory.
A friend of mine is bitching about this: if you type a list, say ArrayList, you can't use that as an argument for a function that takes a ArrayList.
Of course not; if you could (for example) cast an ArrayList to an ArrayList, then someone could use the latter type to insert an element of class Donkey, and someone using the former type and expecting to extract an Elephant would get an unpleasant surprise. In other words, it would violate the type system. In yet other words, because ArrayList's type parameter is used in both covariant position (return value, for extraction) and contravariant position (argument, for insertion), it must therefore be invariant.
If it were an immutable container, covariance would make sense (and likewise for contravariance and a write-only container like a typed communication channel), but I don't know if the Java 1.5 people have allowed for it.
Show me an operating system that *doesn't* have ldd as a utility. Other than MacOS X. I know AIX, Solaris, Linux, HP-UX support that utility.
I believe they all use ELF for their binaries. Nowadays, anyway. OS X, like NeXTSTEP before it, uses Mach-O; that it has a different set of associated tools is unsurprising.
...static typing (as done in Java and C++) cripples your productivity.
Fortunately, programming languages have advanced somewhat since then. In OCaml, if I declare let f x = x#quack (# being the method-call operator), then the type of f is inferred as < quack : 'a;.. > -> 'a, which is a function whose argument is an object that can quack and which returns whatever type the quack method returns. It is, of course, a type error to call f with an object that is not known to quack, and such code will not compile; yet, note the absence of any declared class or interface, or any other explicit type annotation, in the code.
I'm sure it won't be long before someone finds a workaround to extract the original AAC bitstream by leveraging Apple's own software (peeking at memory).
If you just wanted to transcode to another format for which a QuickTime export component exists (e.g. raw AIFF, Ogg/Vorbis,...), that can be done just with Apple's published APIs; there's even a convnient little GUI provided for selecting and configuring the export component. Of course, while one can reencode as AAC that way, the encoder that ships with QT is distinctly worse than the one they use for the iTMS originals, even with a higher bitrate, so that's not quite what you're looking for.
Apple was way ahead of its time here; they used the shift key as a DMCA circumvention device (hold it down during boot to disable all INITs) long before the DMCA even existed! Wow!
If your data type really can be static_cast'd to a void * then there's probably a much better solution to this problem in almost 90% of the cases: it's called a "better compiler".
Alternately, it's called a vector implementation that has a partial specialization for pointers, like the example in Stroustrup.
Isn't it mathematically impossible to prove something can't be done?
If you believe that, then find me integers p and q such that (p/q)^2 = 2.
There's a well-known and rather old mathematical proof that that's impossible (and thus that the square root of 2 is an irrational number), but feel free to try...
What GCC does when targeting PPC is totaly diffrent then what GCC does when targeting x86 or any other chip. The compiler 'cores' are totaly diffrent.
Actually, a lot of the optimizations are machine-independent. Not all of them, of course, and (as I understand gcc) there are machine-dependent parameters that control whether to apply some of them, but I'd hardly call the x86 and PPC backends "total[l]y diff[e]rent".
First, you don't want the *. Second, it's the GTLD servers, not the root servers, that are authoritative for com., as a simple NS query will show. Thus:
for i in a b c d e f g h i j k m; do dig @$i.gtld-servers.net com. axfr; done
You're trying to link C++ object files with cc instead of c++ or g++; thus libstdc++ isn't linked in and you get lots of undefined symbol errors for things like new and delete and throw. The Makefile needs to be poked at, it seems.
Dammit. I hate it when I get my ballistic knowledge from Hollywood. I guess now you are gonna tell me that I shouldn't turn my pistol sideways to get a more accurate shot like they do in all those John Woo movies.
Well, if you got your ballistics knowledge from Unreal Tournament instead, then you'd know that turning your pistol sideways makes shots less accurate but lets you fire faster.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Javascript is TC.
It most certainly is.
perl -0777 -pi.orig -e s/geID/xxID/ --, with the names of the m4a's as further arguments.
This radiator has a FAN blowing on it (as I described in my previous post). If I were to blow a fan and create a 0 degree windchill factor, would I be able to only cool the water to room temp?
Wind chill reflects how cold the air feels to a human, not how cold the air actually is.
Our transaction processing systems were recently moved to Java from C (Solaris on a Sunfire 6800, 8-way SPARC).
Yes, they require more memory. This doesn't really concern us because we spend far less time tracking down dangling pointers and memory leaks now.
FWIW, there are garbage collectors for C.
debugging is very visual and very easy.
Debugging JavaScript? "Easy"? Yeah, and I bet there's a bridge on the East River I could be buying, too.
> > Garbage collection for Cocoa?
> It's already there. It's called an autorelease pool, and it's used extensively throughout Foundation Kit.
Er, no. Autorelease pools are nice, but they're not garbage collection. Real GC has to do with whether an object could ever be accessed, not whether it's marked as retained through manual reference-count annotations. C++ destroys non-static local variables when they go out of scope; that's not GC either.
Now, whether Foundation/AppKit (or, really, CoreFoundation) "should" use GC instead of retain-counting is a separate issue.
I recall reading that that actually happened many years ago, back when people would get programs off of comp.sources and such; there was one whose alleged purpose was to show a picture of a turkey on your terminal (it being close to a relevant holiday at the time), but that instead/also deleted your home directory.
A friend of mine is bitching about this: if you type a list, say ArrayList, you can't use that as an argument for a function that takes a ArrayList.
Of course not; if you could (for example) cast an ArrayList to an ArrayList, then someone could use the latter type to insert an element of class Donkey, and someone using the former type and expecting to extract an Elephant would get an unpleasant surprise. In other words, it would violate the type system. In yet other words, because ArrayList's type parameter is used in both covariant position (return value, for extraction) and contravariant position (argument, for insertion), it must therefore be invariant.
If it were an immutable container, covariance would make sense (and likewise for contravariance and a write-only container like a typed communication channel), but I don't know if the Java 1.5 people have allowed for it.
Show me an operating system that *doesn't* have ldd as a utility. Other than MacOS X. I know AIX, Solaris, Linux, HP-UX support that utility.
I believe they all use ELF for their binaries. Nowadays, anyway. OS X, like NeXTSTEP before it, uses Mach-O; that it has a different set of associated tools is unsurprising.
...static typing (as done in Java and C++) cripples your productivity.
Fortunately, programming languages have advanced somewhat since then. In OCaml, if I declare let f x = x#quack (# being the method-call operator), then the type of f is inferred as < quack : 'a; .. > -> 'a, which is a function whose argument is an object that can quack and which returns whatever type the quack method returns. It is, of course, a type error to call f with an object that is not known to quack, and such code will not compile; yet, note the absence of any declared class or interface, or any other explicit type annotation, in the code.
systrace?
My computer has 64-bit ints, you insensitive clod!
rsync , anyone?
I think the legal world needs Literate Programming, then. LAWWEB, anyone?
I'm sure it won't be long before someone finds a workaround to extract the original AAC bitstream by leveraging Apple's own software (peeking at memory).
If you just wanted to transcode to another format for which a QuickTime export component exists (e.g. raw AIFF, Ogg/Vorbis, ...), that can be done just with Apple's published APIs; there's even a convnient little GUI provided for selecting and configuring the export component. Of course, while one can reencode as AAC that way, the encoder that ships with QT is distinctly worse than the one they use for the iTMS originals, even with a higher bitrate, so that's not quite what you're looking for.
Apple was way ahead of its time here; they used the shift key as a DMCA circumvention device (hold it down during boot to disable all INITs) long before the DMCA even existed! Wow!
This adds a whole new dimension to that old joke about /dev/drum ....
If your data type really can be static_cast'd to a void * then there's probably a much better solution to this problem in almost 90% of the cases: it's called a "better compiler".
Alternately, it's called a vector implementation that has a partial specialization for pointers, like the example in Stroustrup.
Isn't it mathematically impossible to prove something can't be done?
If you believe that, then find me integers p and q such that (p/q)^2 = 2.
There's a well-known and rather old mathematical proof that that's impossible (and thus that the square root of 2 is an irrational number), but feel free to try...
What GCC does when targeting PPC is totaly diffrent then what GCC does when targeting x86 or any other chip. The compiler 'cores' are totaly diffrent.
Actually, a lot of the optimizations are machine-independent. Not all of them, of course, and (as I understand gcc) there are machine-dependent parameters that control whether to apply some of them, but I'd hardly call the x86 and PPC backends "total[l]y diff[e]rent".
First, you don't want the *. Second, it's the GTLD servers, not the root servers, that are authoritative for com., as a simple NS query will show. Thus:
You're trying to link C++ object files with cc instead of c++ or g++; thus libstdc++ isn't linked in and you get lots of undefined symbol errors for things like new and delete and throw. The Makefile needs to be poked at, it seems.
No, to get proper satanicness you need a tritone interval; for instance, F# to C or vice versa.
Dammit. I hate it when I get my ballistic knowledge from Hollywood. I guess now you are gonna tell me that I shouldn't turn my pistol sideways to get a more accurate shot like they do in all those John Woo movies.
Well, if you got your ballistics knowledge from Unreal Tournament instead, then you'd know that turning your pistol sideways makes shots less accurate but lets you fire faster.