You don't need functional programming to take full advantage of these processors. There are procedural languages with built-in parallel types that can utilize parallel hardware just as well. My personal favourites are Python and Fortran, but I'm sure there are other languages of the kind around.
However, I agree with the general idea that in order to make the most of new hardware, you need better and higher-level languages.
Imagine how crippled Microsoft's version of Firefox would be...
I think this is something the computer vendors should take care of; I don't mind if separate copies of Windows contain IE, after all there needs to be a way for people to download Firefox or Opera or whichever browser they really want:) However, forcing IE on people when they are buying a computer should be forbidden.
A point of light can be moved as fast or as slow as you want it to be. Aim a laser at the moon, now sweep it across the moon as fast as you want. Poof! The "spot" of light just moved across the moon at 18 times the speed of light... no problem.
I was just about to say this, and let me add that this is consistent with Relativity, as long as you're not moving energy or information from one place to another faster than at c. In this case you're moving information/energy from the laser to the Moon, not between the points where the laser hits.
>> but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?
> They do. They're called CDs. You still sell music on those, right?
So, in order to use this wonderful technology I still have to buy a piece of plastic with the bits on it?
People talk about the paperless office. Well I want a CDless computing environment where people would use networks to transfer information.
IMHO it is environmentally and logistically dumb to have to fill my shelves with plastic if the only thing I want is bits that I could store on a hard drive.
We can't see in 3 dimensions. Our visual organs only see two dimensional pictures. Our brains use the parallax from two 2D images to give us depth perception, but this really isn't true 3D vision.
True. You could say this is because a lightray has one dimension, so in N dimension you can only have N-1 dimensional vision.
On the other hand, you can turn your head and see the 3D world from many different points of view, thus creating a mental 3D image. I think this is where a "true 3D" display might help.
Example: Python is hot. . . I'm sure it's OK for simple scripting, but why are people getting so excited about a language that doesn't even come with a good WIMP-based IDE and visual GUI creator? Are we really expected to create applications with this?
Python follows the paradigm that programs are written as text files, like C, Java and so on. It is meant to make this kind of programming easier and more efficient, because it seems we'll be programming this way for quite some time.
Python focuses on making the text-based syntax better than its competitors. This advantage is lost if we start programming with graphical tools instead of text files. If we get to that point, I'm sure Python will not be quite so hot any more.
A blog is short for "web log" and it's basically a public online diary. There is often the feature to comment on the diary entries.
Most importantly, there were public online diaries long time before the invention of the buzzword "blog". It's not particularly cool to have an online diary, but it's way cool to have a blog, even if they are the same thing. It's like iPod versus any other portable mp3 player.
But would an 'intelligent designer' want to test the design?
If the design is an ongoing process, then there is the obvious comparison with software that gets better as vulnerabilities are discovered. Of course the makers of Linux, Apache etc. want to test the design even after releases.
However, the traditional Christian viewpoint seems to be that design is fixed. On the other hand there is the interpretation that evolution is just $deity's way of ongoing design.
I agree with your general idea. However, the grandparent was specifically about "getting into Linux music". If that is the goal, I think it is sensible to get rid of Windows apps.
This is not a troll, I use Linux and Free software to make music myself, for example
Audacity,
Ecasound
and Soundtracker
. These are definitely not the most advanced examples, but they suffice for me for now.
While I know the benefits of Fortran 95 are a big thing, saying it's a technological step forward to incorporate for the first time a 10 year old standard seems a bit ridiculous.
C and C++ are even older than F95. Why should anyone write a new C/C++ compiler these days?? Well, obviously because there's so much code around that could use a better compiler.
To me it seems natural to include F95 in GCC 4 because of the parallelization improvements. It's part of the bigger picture of technological improvements in GCC. Also keep in mind that today's bleeding edge computer science will take years to percolate into mainstream IT. I bet the first F95 compilers weren't as efficient as GCC 4.
Want to add 5 to every element of array, X? Then just say 5+X. No DO loops, no indexing through all the elements, just one simple statement. It doesn't even matter is X is a vector, 2-D array, 3-D array, or whatever. Need an 3-D finite difference gas diffusion simulation for N different gases? Just create a 4-D array and a program of under half-dozen lines handles the core diffusion estimation process (with no awful nested loops).
Fortran 90 and later do just this.
On a side note, (I've mentioned in other Slashdot comments that) this idea has advantages beoynd syntax, namely in optimization. When an array operation is to be parallelized, it is nice if the language can handle the abstraction instead of forcing a serial (looping) form that would have to be painstakingly deserialized by the compiler.
(*sigh* Most of the times when I see people bashing Fortran, they mean F77 and older versions, while F90 and later are nice and powerful to work with.)
When you're discussing technical matters, it's easier to type a piece of source code or something, than spell it over the phone, hoping the recipient gets it right.
When you're in a deep hack mode, typing a message is much less distracting than talking to someone.
Most modern motherboards have them both wired to the same thing anyway, so it honestly makes no difference if you plug the mouse into the "keyboard" socket. This has been on mobo's for at least the last 10 years or so.
So what happens if you plug in two keyboards or two mice? I imagine the system would be pretty confused, since the two are connected to the same controller.
The problem with PoE is that you can plug a PoE-enabled device into a non-PoE switch. While not very dangerous, this sort of "compatibility" would moot the point of PoE, as you'd need a separate power source. You'd have to upgrade some of your existing hardware to PoE-enabled versions, and then be careful to only use those (color coding?) when you need power.
We probably wouldn't need this if the industry had standardized on a low-voltage power connector earlier, instead of every single device using a different one. I wonder why they are so keen to standardize now...
the average joe sixpack compares 6 year old iMacs running OS9 to modern PCs running WinXP and Linux.
I understand why this might be the case with WinXP, but not with a properly configured Linux. In fact my old Linux x86 machines have gotten somewhat faster over time, because of the developments in software. From the article, emphasis mine:
Macs run more functional software and have a much longer useful life. As a result, the Macs that PC users see most often -- in schools or at grandma's house -- tend to be significantly older and slower than the PCs people compare them to because Wintel product churn means that a three-year-old PC is a museum piece, while a six-year-old iMac running OS 9 is likely still to be in use.
To me this seems like a software issue, and it has little to do with any inherent flaws in the x86 architecture. Besides, the 'joe sixpack' experience of different computers that people use every day, is usually comparing Mac to Windows, not Linux.
Imagine the joy of helpdesk personnel when consumers complain about their old Ethernet sockets not delivering power.
IMHO, PoE is at least as dumb an idea as using the same (mechanically speaking) PS/2 connector for mice and keyboards, with color coding to help people choose the right socket. I imagine a kind of color-coding scheme will emerge for powered and regular Ethernet, but it would be a lot simpler to have different connectors in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I agree with the general idea that in order to make the most of new hardware, you need better and higher-level languages.
Of course.
I think this is something the computer vendors should take care of; I don't mind if separate copies of Windows contain IE, after all there needs to be a way for people to download Firefox or Opera or whichever browser they really want :) However, forcing IE on people when they are buying a computer should be forbidden.
Network card.
42 % improvement is a big deal any time.
Sorry about your penis. Nice laptop, though.
I was just about to say this, and let me add that this is consistent with Relativity, as long as you're not moving energy or information from one place to another faster than at c. In this case you're moving information/energy from the laser to the Moon, not between the points where the laser hits.
> They do. They're called CDs. You still sell music on those, right?
So, in order to use this wonderful technology I still have to buy a piece of plastic with the bits on it?
People talk about the paperless office. Well I want a CDless computing environment where people would use networks to transfer information. IMHO it is environmentally and logistically dumb to have to fill my shelves with plastic if the only thing I want is bits that I could store on a hard drive.
True. You could say this is because a lightray has one dimension, so in N dimension you can only have N-1 dimensional vision.
On the other hand, you can turn your head and see the 3D world from many different points of view, thus creating a mental 3D image. I think this is where a "true 3D" display might help.
Python follows the paradigm that programs are written as text files, like C, Java and so on. It is meant to make this kind of programming easier and more efficient, because it seems we'll be programming this way for quite some time.
Python focuses on making the text-based syntax better than its competitors. This advantage is lost if we start programming with graphical tools instead of text files. If we get to that point, I'm sure Python will not be quite so hot any more.
Most importantly, there were public online diaries long time before the invention of the buzzword "blog". It's not particularly cool to have an online diary, but it's way cool to have a blog, even if they are the same thing. It's like iPod versus any other portable mp3 player.
Back in 1998 I served my first homepages from a 486 laptop running Windows 3.1 with Trumpet Winsock, and the WSPlug httpd.
If the design is an ongoing process, then there is the obvious comparison with software that gets better as vulnerabilities are discovered. Of course the makers of Linux, Apache etc. want to test the design even after releases.
However, the traditional Christian viewpoint seems to be that design is fixed. On the other hand there is the interpretation that evolution is just $deity's way of ongoing design.
I agree with your general idea. However, the grandparent was specifically about "getting into Linux music". If that is the goal, I think it is sensible to get rid of Windows apps.
BTW, Lame Ain't Mp3 Encoder, but it is, my head explodes!-)
So why use Windows tools any more?
This is not a troll, I use Linux and Free software to make music myself, for example Audacity, Ecasound and Soundtracker . These are definitely not the most advanced examples, but they suffice for me for now.
NO CARRIER
C and C++ are even older than F95. Why should anyone write a new C/C++ compiler these days?? Well, obviously because there's so much code around that could use a better compiler.
To me it seems natural to include F95 in GCC 4 because of the parallelization improvements. It's part of the bigger picture of technological improvements in GCC. Also keep in mind that today's bleeding edge computer science will take years to percolate into mainstream IT. I bet the first F95 compilers weren't as efficient as GCC 4.
Either way is true. There is no preferential reference frame; all velocities are relative.
It will turn into grey goo that takes over the world. I for one welcome our nanowaste overlords.
Fortran 90 and later do just this.
On a side note, (I've mentioned in other Slashdot comments that) this idea has advantages beoynd syntax, namely in optimization. When an array operation is to be parallelized, it is nice if the language can handle the abstraction instead of forcing a serial (looping) form that would have to be painstakingly deserialized by the compiler.
(*sigh* Most of the times when I see people bashing Fortran, they mean F77 and older versions, while F90 and later are nice and powerful to work with.)
When you're in a deep hack mode, typing a message is much less distracting than talking to someone.
So what happens if you plug in two keyboards or two mice? I imagine the system would be pretty confused, since the two are connected to the same controller.
The problem with PoE is that you can plug a PoE-enabled device into a non-PoE switch. While not very dangerous, this sort of "compatibility" would moot the point of PoE, as you'd need a separate power source. You'd have to upgrade some of your existing hardware to PoE-enabled versions, and then be careful to only use those (color coding?) when you need power.
We probably wouldn't need this if the industry had standardized on a low-voltage power connector earlier, instead of every single device using a different one. I wonder why they are so keen to standardize now...
I understand why this might be the case with WinXP, but not with a properly configured Linux. In fact my old Linux x86 machines have gotten somewhat faster over time, because of the developments in software. From the article, emphasis mine:
To me this seems like a software issue, and it has little to do with any inherent flaws in the x86 architecture. Besides, the 'joe sixpack' experience of different computers that people use every day, is usually comparing Mac to Windows, not Linux.
IMHO, PoE is at least as dumb an idea as using the same (mechanically speaking) PS/2 connector for mice and keyboards, with color coding to help people choose the right socket. I imagine a kind of color-coding scheme will emerge for powered and regular Ethernet, but it would be a lot simpler to have different connectors in the first place.