What sort of over-hyped/overly-specific record is this?
Spirit is only competing with it's self. 88 feet is further than 70 feet, which was it's previous farthest distance traveled. If you're not going to RTFA, RTFS. Sheesh
Do you create a distinction between instruction decoders implemented in hardware and instruction decoders implemented in software? If so, how do you justify this distinction, given the existence of hybrid instruction-decoding methods such as Transmeta's Code Morphing technology?
I do indeed make the distinction between hardware and software. Once the code is at the machine level, that is the "fastest" it will go regardless of the caching and decoding that occurs at the transistor level at the CPU. Hardware isn't as maleable as software is.
Any additional latency introduced prior to machine level, is worthy of distinction. The additional layers (exception handling, garbage collection, etc) that are omnipresent in Java happen in software, which means it is _always_ going to be slower than the "byte codes" that just go for it against the CPU.
I do not find "nativeness" a useful end goal in and of itself. Once loaded, modern Java platform runtimes can achieve low execution times without your precious "nativeness." What benefit do you find in "nativeness"?
Well, there is the rub. "Once loaded" and "can achieve" which I would easily rewrite as "may achieve" are the big problems. Native gets you this without a doubt. Java isn't quite there yet (it still has to get out of it's own way).
Nativeness isn't an end goal of itself, but to the point of the parent parent parent poster the claim that a Java app is a "native" app is mistaken.
What benefit do you find in "nativeness"?
The benefits of nativeness are only determined by the hardware, nativeness doesn't suffer from the requirement of being all things (AWT,GC,Exceptions,OO,etc) to all people(byte code portable) at some higher meta level(even further away from the hardware).
Well, so is C. C programmers write code for a machine that doesn't exist (that is, one that interprets C code in hardware), and a program on the user's computer translates it into code in a language (assembly language, then object code) for a computer that does exist.
By-golly you're right!
Oh wait, Java is compiled into byte codes which aren't recognized by any CPU except the Java Virtual Machine, whereas the C "byte codes" map right up to processor instruction sets (object code or executable).
C is an easier to use assembly language.
Java is a high level language that is compiled to byte-codes that are then interpreted by machine codes.
When Java can compile itself for a hardware CPU, and not change size or speed, then it can be compared next to C. Until that day, Java is no closer to the machine than Basic, Perl, or Python.
I fear your comment is going to get lost in the crowd of people who don't understand Perl. The people who don't see that Perl maps exceptionally well to many problem spaces.
Groking Perl seems to be like groking pointers in C. Some people seem to be simply born without the part of the brain that understands them.
Perl is context-aware/intuitive. It understands the need to be able to easily take data from any source, chop it up, mangle it, and then easily spit it back out. There isn't much to learning Perl syntax, but it will insist that you memorize some traditional things, like operator precidence, syntax, and the basic perl functions. Not hard at all when you get down to it.
Perl is inclusive. There is definitely more than one way to do it. This is a "good thing", because one way that works, might not be best way. Similiar problems, sometimes require a slightly different solution. Perl has online documentation out the wahzoo. perldoc rocks, and you have a list of up to date books that rival O'Reilly's (many times by the same authors). Perl modules have built in unit testing. Perl is a language and a culture that values and facilitates "testing".
Pattern recognition, is something Perl excels at. Especially the type of pattern recognition and logic handling that is required for most applications. Need something fancier? Like fuzzy? Neural Net? Look to CPAN. Using regular expressions in Perl takes one line of code, no need to worry about making a regex struct or object, then compiling the syntax, and then running the match, and then deallocating the regex struct.
You're right, the same people who pan Perl for being opaque are typically the same that use method overloading, polymorphism, and other abstraction and obfuscation techniques and then claim their code is more readable, and easier to understand. They also tend to be the same people who believe Perl is only good for one off scripts and hacks. To which I say that is only the beginning of what Perl is great at.
I agree. Any CompSci department worth its salt has a mandatory Machine/Assembly language requirement, and then the next step above it, a compiler course or two.
I wish people could learn to program asm on very basic hardware. It appears they will never experience the joy of trying to get their Apple II to do double hi-res graphics, or memorizing the specifics of the C000 page, or walking the drive arm and writing (and then READING) data from a floppy, or coding straight from the monitor, and cracking games the old fashion way (by bootstrapping them from their very own boot sector).
Whether they are visible or not or passive or active, does not make a difference. An RFID tag just needs to produce an ID, AFAIK, to be called an RFID.
I also read that some retailers have canceled plans to deploy RFID after getting firestorms of negative feedback from their customers. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. It's sort of a sociological technological showdown.
You're quite right about the firestorm. The technology to deactivate the RFID tags is dependent entirely on the Johnny punch clock who swipes it over the deactivator. My grandmother-in-law works at a Walmart at the return desk. When she is not talking about how the dirty customers try to return anything they can find in their house (50% of the returns are not on the up and up apparently), she is complaining about the RFID tags.
The RFID tags constantly trip the security system, to which Walmart adds insult to injury. Now Walmart is taking to the practice of inspecting the bags when the system trips, manual deactivating each item after checking the receipt, logging the errant employee who rung up the receipt (and didn't deactivate all RFID tags) and then finally letting the customer on their way.
That new practice alone has caused a customer firestorm.
But I thought that Slashdot was above that. This site has a reputation of journalistic integrity that should be upheld.
You must be new here. Let me show you around a bit.
What you are looking at now, is a crispy critter(you) being flamed for good measure for the following things: appearing pro-american (slashdot is Euro centric), bringing up that whole terrorist 9/11 twin towers thing, and mixing LoTR in with the previous two.
Down the hall you'll see the SCO section filled with people who are not lawyers, but play one on slashdot. Across from there is a broom closet, which is also labeled the Journalistic Integrity Vault, there you'll find boxes of repeat stories, mis-spelings, and summaries written by people who never read the article.
Your ignorance is welcome here, but please adjust it according to slashdot standards. 9/11, Osama, et. al are not a national security concern, but more of a vast right-wing conspiracy, LoTR 0wnes j00 and you will recognize it, also LoTR is considered by some more in-line with Christian ideals vs the Muslim ones you suggest.
Look, you are making a really wierd point, and you didn't follow what the previous poster said.
The cost of getting a flash chip to Mars is probably $50k, making each flash chip $50k. I believe he originally sited the cost as $1k for the actual cost to manufacture. Now add in the weight of the chip and related circuitry x distance x fuel and you come up with the flash chip's total cost. They probably have the flash nulled with zeroes, I think ones weight more, but I'm not sure (*smirk*). If your plan is to add 10 of them, then multiply $50k x ~10.
Anyway, I'll take your word on the sub-zero temp insulation, as for the launch, that's precisely what I was talking about, and as for G forces you are forgetting launch and landing both are greater than 1G. Radiation would probably be done by shielding as you stated, but now it has to protect the size of 9 more chips.
Anyway, this whole thread is moot anyway. There is redunancy. Where? A whole 'nother rover on the opposite side of the planet.
Finally, one of your posts gets moderated correctly.
This is a job well done largely by NASA, who is appropriated by the US Government, and financed by the US tax payers. Yes, the US tax payers paid for it, but that's a good thing. With the constant railing about how awful the US is, NASA is again the beacon of light (that it has been in the past) to many who still loves the US.
However, should you want to put down the politics, then pick up a pocket protector. Science wins again this time, be proud instead of taking an "opportunistic jab". I'm still hoping Beagle2 (through some miracle) gasps out something.
Talk about poor return on investment... Use 10 cheaper ones and have more forward error correction than you will ever need.
All 10 of them worthless if the silicon cracks at sub-zero temps, intense temperature differentials, extreme vibration, extreme gravitational forces, etc. You don't sound like you understand or read what "hostile environment" means.
And that's a bad thing? Why would you want to name the file a name unrelated to its contents?
Sometimes it is a bad thing. Let the programmer decide how the executable should look, without requiring that they make a class just like it. Better yet, let the SysAdmin decide how the program should look. Ever try to execute a symlink of a java.class? Oops! Doesn't work, does it? Java is looking for the wrong class for some reason, even though it's right there.
And please, Perl requires "module/object/class" files to be the same as the "module/object/class" name. It's not a strange concept to perl coders, just an unnecessary enforcement for small programs or executables. It's yet something else Perl gets right for both cases.
Perl is a several megabyte binary. Echo is a few kilobytes.
You're embarassing yourself. echo is not a programming language. Perl is under a megabyte, even less stripped. Java is in the low 20k. Neither of which is an indication of "your" program's final executable file size. However, if we were to code a shell script using either, perl is right on the razor edge of executable size with the echo/awk shell script. Java is still not even close. Let's add something program'ish to the example like a for loop of a hello world. Java add's no less that 60 bytes to the size of the executable object. Perl adds 33 bytes (and that's raw source code).
Java lives up to none of it's early promise (low object/execute size, seemless portability, robust downloadable applications, java network computers, the end of Microsoft and world hunger). Java has been a further burden for everything else, and festering pool of pundits who believe their code is prettier, faster, smaller, more robust, easier to understand, and just plain more correct because it's OO. People who know, aren't swayed by the marketing and head nodding of Java, and are already using real solutions. You found one of them.
My bad. I didn't know we were going to be altering the directory structure of our multi-directory CVS checkout on our cell phone. I'll just use the cell phone's find utility *smirk*.
*snip* System.out.println("error writing file " + f.getName() + "/Root"); } }
else{recurse(f,root);}}}}//wow. 16 whole lines. 3 from error checking, and 3 from the original import and class defs. Yes, java requires you to deal with errors. The horror. And I don't really see how putting everything inside one class is any different from having a bunch of variables at global scope. It's hardly 'forced object orientation'
Pfft. One line. Done. I even have a backup (.bak) of the previous version of the files.
Maybe this is cheating, but fuck it, who cares. 30 seconds of thought on the command line is about as long as I would want to spend on this. Code reuse? Readability? Who cares? I can do it again in 30 seconds.
Your Java implementation is slick, but while your still writing that, I've already commited another 10 lines (that's equivalent to ~50 lines of Java code, if it sounds a little light to you) to CVS on the new server.
Not true with regards to the multi-user, database app. But it's definitely true you don't want those startup times for a cell phone. Maybe you could "hide it", waiting for the phone to get a signal when it started. Perl compile time runs circles around Java compile time. Perl and Java probably tie for second (behind C) at runtime.
Extra typing is just the start of it. I also listed a few other reasons. I'll take the Pepsi taste test challenge any day of the week when given Perl.
Java zealots who sit there and say that Java code is "pertier" than Perl are discussing something that is a matter of opinion and I'm just stating the Java Emporer has no clothes.
Java easily allows bad/ugly code as well. You can inherit classes ad nauseum to the point of who knows what the fuck a method might be doing when it's called.
Perl doesn't need an IDE to put "that stock code" their automatically. With a minimal amount of code one can do the required work correctly. Don't know what the fuck $, @, %, m///, s///, tr///, ~, ->, [], {}, or _ mean. Too bad is what I say. Learn the language. It's the equivalent of saying Java is ugly because of all the static, public, private, protected, void, int, string, class nonsense.
Now if you have to ask my wrists which one they want to type all day without an IDE? It's Perl, hands down (no pun intended).
"public class HWorld{public static void main(String args[]){System.out.println("Hello world");}}"
Happy? There's a little more text, but no more programming is required then the C version.
Happy??? What is there to be happy about that? Let's see what you really have there. You have a file that MUST be named HWorld.java. You have an HWorld class. You have the mandatory main function. Then a function call. At the end of the day, it's a whole lot of typing for a "Hello world" program.
In this simple example Perl rocks the socks off of Java.
Let's get a comparison on slow hardware to magnify latencies: celeron 500mhz, 128 megs RAM.
Recent Java (1.4.1_02) javac compilation of HWorld: 10 seconds java execution of HWorld: 1 second size of Hworld.class: 417 bytes
Come again as to what exactly java is better at? It takes more Java to do the same thing in Perl, and no offense, the code you mentioned isn't exactly a joy to read (90% of it is required filler/overhead). Some might call that OVERKILL.
You've never worked for a company that keeps lawyers on payroll. Let me tell you what they do, at big/huge companies. The payroll lawyers outsource to their buddies law firms, and they manage the outsourced lawyers. Y'know, the one they go golfing with?
IBM just has a lot of money, hence, a lot of payroll lawyers. They end up being able to manage/pay more firms.
Yes, but why don't we have plans to switch away from fossil fuels? Why don't we have plans to make a more self-reliant society? Why don't we have plans to benefit all of mankind?
From the President's State of the Union Speech January 28, 2003. "Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."
They are also *very* highly trained & are put thought *a lot* mentally and physically.
Ha. Go figure. Being trained to be a quick thinking sneaky bastard who is an expert with a plethora of weapons and eats, sleeps and dreams about both is more important than how many guys were captured/killed or how many bombs they defused or hostages they rescued.
Strength of the assualt force might be something to worry about, but *damn* just one of those SAS guys would take out a room full of people before they even had a suspicious thought in their head, let alone what a small team of them could do.
From the parent parent poster:
One of the reasons the SAS is so successful is that they keep their tactics very close to their chests. Certainly they never reveal specifics, such as the strength of their assault forces, enemy kills and captures, objectives achieved, casualties sustained, etc
Those aren't "tactics", if anything they are operational statistics. Although...I guess...if you wanted to deduce something about the tactics from the statistics you could figure out that they are a world class special forces group and if they are using their "tactics" against you it means you are 0wn3d.
Slashdot Mirror
What sort of over-hyped/overly-specific record is this?
Spirit is only competing with it's self. 88 feet is further than 70 feet, which was it's previous farthest distance traveled. If you're not going to RTFA, RTFS. Sheesh
Not always. See GCJ.
You get a partial credit for that answer.
Do you create a distinction between instruction decoders implemented in hardware and instruction decoders implemented in software? If so, how do you justify this distinction, given the existence of hybrid instruction-decoding methods such as Transmeta's Code Morphing technology?
I do indeed make the distinction between hardware and software. Once the code is at the machine level, that is the "fastest" it will go regardless of the caching and decoding that occurs at the transistor level at the CPU. Hardware isn't as maleable as software is.
Any additional latency introduced prior to machine level, is worthy of distinction. The additional layers (exception handling, garbage collection, etc) that are omnipresent in Java happen in software, which means it is _always_ going to be slower than the "byte codes" that just go for it against the CPU.
I do not find "nativeness" a useful end goal in and of itself. Once loaded, modern Java platform runtimes can achieve low execution times without your precious "nativeness." What benefit do you find in "nativeness"?
Well, there is the rub. "Once loaded" and "can achieve" which I would easily rewrite as "may achieve" are the big problems. Native gets you this without a doubt. Java isn't quite there yet (it still has to get out of it's own way).
Nativeness isn't an end goal of itself, but to the point of the parent parent parent poster the claim that a Java app is a "native" app is mistaken.
What benefit do you find in "nativeness"?
The benefits of nativeness are only determined by the hardware, nativeness doesn't suffer from the requirement of being all things (AWT,GC,Exceptions,OO,etc) to all people(byte code portable) at some higher meta level(even further away from the hardware).
Well, so is C. C programmers write code for a machine that doesn't exist (that is, one that interprets C code in hardware), and a program on the user's computer translates it into code in a language (assembly language, then object code) for a computer that does exist.
By-golly you're right!
Oh wait, Java is compiled into byte codes which aren't recognized by any CPU except the Java Virtual Machine, whereas the C "byte codes" map right up to processor instruction sets (object code or executable).
C is an easier to use assembly language.
Java is a high level language that is compiled to byte-codes that are then interpreted by machine codes.
When Java can compile itself for a hardware CPU, and not change size or speed, then it can be compared next to C. Until that day, Java is no closer to the machine than Basic, Perl, or Python.
I fear your comment is going to get lost in the crowd of people who don't understand Perl. The people who don't see that Perl maps exceptionally well to many problem spaces.
Groking Perl seems to be like groking pointers in C. Some people seem to be simply born without the part of the brain that understands them.
Perl is context-aware/intuitive. It understands the need to be able to easily take data from any source, chop it up, mangle it, and then easily spit it back out. There isn't much to learning Perl syntax, but it will insist that you memorize some traditional things, like operator precidence, syntax, and the basic perl functions. Not hard at all when you get down to it.
Perl is inclusive. There is definitely more than one way to do it. This is a "good thing", because one way that works, might not be best way. Similiar problems, sometimes require a slightly different solution. Perl has online documentation out the wahzoo. perldoc rocks, and you have a list of up to date books that rival O'Reilly's (many times by the same authors). Perl modules have built in unit testing. Perl is a language and a culture that values and facilitates "testing".
Pattern recognition, is something Perl excels at. Especially the type of pattern recognition and logic handling that is required for most applications. Need something fancier? Like fuzzy? Neural Net? Look to CPAN. Using regular expressions in Perl takes one line of code, no need to worry about making a regex struct or object, then compiling the syntax, and then running the match, and then deallocating the regex struct.
You're right, the same people who pan Perl for being opaque are typically the same that use method overloading, polymorphism, and other abstraction and obfuscation techniques and then claim their code is more readable, and easier to understand. They also tend to be the same people who believe Perl is only good for one off scripts and hacks. To which I say that is only the beginning of what Perl is great at.
I agree. Any CompSci department worth its salt has a mandatory Machine/Assembly language requirement, and then the next step above it, a compiler course or two.
I wish people could learn to program asm on very basic hardware. It appears they will never experience the joy of trying to get their Apple II to do double hi-res graphics, or memorizing the specifics of the C000 page, or walking the drive arm and writing (and then READING) data from a floppy, or coding straight from the monitor, and cracking games the old fashion way (by bootstrapping them from their very own boot sector).
*sigh*
Whether they are visible or not or passive or active, does not make a difference. An RFID tag just needs to produce an ID, AFAIK, to be called an RFID.
I also read that some retailers have canceled plans to deploy RFID after getting firestorms of negative feedback from their customers. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. It's sort of a sociological technological showdown.
You're quite right about the firestorm. The technology to deactivate the RFID tags is dependent entirely on the Johnny punch clock who swipes it over the deactivator. My grandmother-in-law works at a Walmart at the return desk. When she is not talking about how the dirty customers try to return anything they can find in their house (50% of the returns are not on the up and up apparently), she is complaining about the RFID tags.
The RFID tags constantly trip the security system, to which Walmart adds insult to injury. Now Walmart is taking to the practice of inspecting the bags when the system trips, manual deactivating each item after checking the receipt, logging the errant employee who rung up the receipt (and didn't deactivate all RFID tags) and then finally letting the customer on their way.
That new practice alone has caused a customer firestorm.
Good question. What's your reasoning? :-p
But I thought that Slashdot was above that. This site has a reputation of journalistic integrity that should be upheld.
You must be new here. Let me show you around a bit.
What you are looking at now, is a crispy critter(you) being flamed for good measure for the following things: appearing pro-american (slashdot is Euro centric), bringing up that whole terrorist 9/11 twin towers thing, and mixing LoTR in with the previous two.
Down the hall you'll see the SCO section filled with people who are not lawyers, but play one on slashdot. Across from there is a broom closet, which is also labeled the Journalistic Integrity Vault, there you'll find boxes of repeat stories, mis-spelings, and summaries written by people who never read the article.
Your ignorance is welcome here, but please adjust it according to slashdot standards. 9/11, Osama, et. al are not a national security concern, but more of a vast right-wing conspiracy, LoTR 0wnes j00 and you will recognize it, also LoTR is considered by some more in-line with Christian ideals vs the Muslim ones you suggest.
Look, you are making a really wierd point, and you didn't follow what the previous poster said.
The cost of getting a flash chip to Mars is probably $50k, making each flash chip $50k. I believe he originally sited the cost as $1k for the actual cost to manufacture. Now add in the weight of the chip and related circuitry x distance x fuel and you come up with the flash chip's total cost. They probably have the flash nulled with zeroes, I think ones weight more, but I'm not sure (*smirk*). If your plan is to add 10 of them, then multiply $50k x ~10.
Anyway, I'll take your word on the sub-zero temp insulation, as for the launch, that's precisely what I was talking about, and as for G forces you are forgetting launch and landing both are greater than 1G. Radiation would probably be done by shielding as you stated, but now it has to protect the size of 9 more chips.
Anyway, this whole thread is moot anyway. There is redunancy. Where? A whole 'nother rover on the opposite side of the planet.
Finally, one of your posts gets moderated correctly.
This is a job well done largely by NASA, who is appropriated by the US Government, and financed by the US tax payers. Yes, the US tax payers paid for it, but that's a good thing. With the constant railing about how awful the US is, NASA is again the beacon of light (that it has been in the past) to many who still loves the US.
However, should you want to put down the politics, then pick up a pocket protector. Science wins again this time, be proud instead of taking an "opportunistic jab". I'm still hoping Beagle2 (through some miracle) gasps out something.
Talk about poor return on investment... Use 10 cheaper ones and have more forward error correction than you will ever need.
All 10 of them worthless if the silicon cracks at sub-zero temps, intense temperature differentials, extreme vibration, extreme gravitational forces, etc. You don't sound like you understand or read what "hostile environment" means.
And that's a bad thing? Why would you want to name the file a name unrelated to its contents?
Sometimes it is a bad thing. Let the programmer decide how the executable should look, without requiring that they make a class just like it. Better yet, let the SysAdmin decide how the program should look. Ever try to execute a symlink of a java.class? Oops! Doesn't work, does it? Java is looking for the wrong class for some reason, even though it's right there.
And please, Perl requires "module/object/class" files to be the same as the "module/object/class" name. It's not a strange concept to perl coders, just an unnecessary enforcement for small programs or executables. It's yet something else Perl gets right for both cases.
Perl is a several megabyte binary. Echo is a few kilobytes.
You're embarassing yourself. echo is not a programming language. Perl is under a megabyte, even less stripped. Java is in the low 20k. Neither of which is an indication of "your" program's final executable file size. However, if we were to code a shell script using either, perl is right on the razor edge of executable size with the echo/awk shell script. Java is still not even close. Let's add something program'ish to the example like a for loop of a hello world. Java add's no less that 60 bytes to the size of the executable object. Perl adds 33 bytes (and that's raw source code).
Java lives up to none of it's early promise (low object/execute size, seemless portability, robust downloadable applications, java network computers, the end of Microsoft and world hunger). Java has been a further burden for everything else, and festering pool of pundits who believe their code is prettier, faster, smaller, more robust, easier to understand, and just plain more correct because it's OO. People who know, aren't swayed by the marketing and head nodding of Java, and are already using real solutions. You found one of them.
My bad. I didn't know we were going to be altering the directory structure of our multi-directory CVS checkout on our cell phone. I'll just use the cell phone's find utility *smirk*.
*snip* //wow. 16 whole lines. 3 from error checking, and 3 from the original import and class defs. Yes, java requires you to deal with errors. The horror. And I don't really see how putting everything inside one class is any different from having a bunch of variables at global scope. It's hardly 'forced object orientation'
System.out.println("error writing file " + f.getName() + "/Root"); } }
else{recurse(f,root);}}}}
Pfft. One line. Done. I even have a backup (.bak) of the previous version of the files.
perl -pi.bak -e "s/oldhost\.domain\.tld/newhost\.domain\.tld/g" `find . -name Root | grep "CVS\/Root"`
Maybe this is cheating, but fuck it, who cares. 30 seconds of thought on the command line is about as long as I would want to spend on this. Code reuse? Readability? Who cares? I can do it again in 30 seconds.
Your Java implementation is slick, but while your still writing that, I've already commited another 10 lines (that's equivalent to ~50 lines of Java code, if it sounds a little light to you) to CVS on the new server.
Not true with regards to the multi-user, database app. But it's definitely true you don't want those startup times for a cell phone. Maybe you could "hide it", waiting for the phone to get a signal when it started. Perl compile time runs circles around Java compile time. Perl and Java probably tie for second (behind C) at runtime.
Extra typing is just the start of it. I also listed a few other reasons. I'll take the Pepsi taste test challenge any day of the week when given Perl.
Java zealots who sit there and say that Java code is "pertier" than Perl are discussing something that is a matter of opinion and I'm just stating the Java Emporer has no clothes.
Java easily allows bad/ugly code as well. You can inherit classes ad nauseum to the point of who knows what the fuck a method might be doing when it's called.
Perl doesn't need an IDE to put "that stock code" their automatically. With a minimal amount of code one can do the required work correctly. Don't know what the fuck $, @, %, m///, s///, tr///, ~, ->, [], {}, or _ mean. Too bad is what I say. Learn the language. It's the equivalent of saying Java is ugly because of all the static, public, private, protected, void, int, string, class nonsense.
Now if you have to ask my wrists which one they want to type all day without an IDE? It's Perl, hands down (no pun intended).
"public class HWorld{public static void main(String args[]){System.out.println("Hello world");}}"
.027 seconds
Happy? There's a little more text, but no more programming is required then the C version.
Happy??? What is there to be happy about that? Let's see what you really have there. You have a file that MUST be named HWorld.java. You have an HWorld class. You have the mandatory main function. Then a function call. At the end of the day, it's a whole lot of typing for a "Hello world" program.
In this simple example Perl rocks the socks off of Java.
Let's get a comparison on slow hardware to magnify latencies: celeron 500mhz, 128 megs RAM.
Recent Java (1.4.1_02)
javac compilation of HWorld: 10 seconds
java execution of HWorld: 1 second
size of Hworld.class: 417 bytes
Recent Perl (5.8.2)
perl compilation:
perl compilation & execution: 0.027
size of hworld.pl: 39 bytes
Come again as to what exactly java is better at? It takes more Java to do the same thing in Perl, and no offense, the code you mentioned isn't exactly a joy to read (90% of it is required filler/overhead). Some might call that OVERKILL.
You've never worked for a company that keeps lawyers on payroll. Let me tell you what they do, at big/huge companies. The payroll lawyers outsource to their buddies law firms, and they manage the outsourced lawyers. Y'know, the one they go golfing with?
IBM just has a lot of money, hence, a lot of payroll lawyers. They end up being able to manage/pay more firms.
Endless, but you could always do a search to find it.
Finally, an answer (and an end) to the joke... "Dude, where's my car?"
...when I say "where are the pictures of the booth babes?"
...and ttl=239 8 minutes (oops).
"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."
In the mean time
GM Hybrid
Ford Hybrid
Strength of the assualt force might be something to worry about, but *damn* just one of those SAS guys would take out a room full of people before they even had a suspicious thought in their head, let alone what a small team of them could do.
From the parent parent poster:Those aren't "tactics", if anything they are operational statistics. Although...I guess...if you wanted to deduce something about the tactics from the statistics you could figure out that they are a world class special forces group and if they are using their "tactics" against you it means you are 0wn3d.
Wait, I thought Bush was going into Iraq to avenge his father's war? Who's this Nixon guy, and how do we prove his real name is Nixon Bush?
You mean the middle east has been a political hot spot since before any of us were born? I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.