Today I write software by assembling modular bits of subprograms together rapidly, string it together with this or that, and wham, it's working. Back in the day, everything had to be written from scratch.
Finally someone figured out the difference between the programmer and the developer
You know my cable company also has this amazing concept call programming. They find all the great movies and string them together so that viewers will never take their eyes off the tube. Yes, they have great programmers. And Of course movies have to be made by film makers. Wisely, they are not called programmers.
a single threaded UI is actually not wrong. It means all window handles (win32) are created in only one thread, usually the main thread. Creating UI in more than one threads is just looking for trouble. FireFox's problem is doing too many things in the main thread. To move stuff into other threads require such architectural changes that only a very big head can handle. I wouldn't call them idiots because I understand how difficult things can get.
FireFox's default is not very good. But I can customize it into something I like. With Opera, I can't. Believe me, I tried very hard. FireFox is indeed not fast, but so far it's still not a deal breaker.
I've tried the latest version but still don't like it's GUI (maybe I am picky, as I am a GUI programmer myself). If Opera implements FireFox's GUI, I'll definitely switch.
The UI should be instant, no matter what's going on.
For a non-trivial app, it has to do multi-threading right. And multi-threading is not something you can easily add to a large code base without major rewrites. I think only FireFox devs know if it is doomed (meaning if it'd ever be fully multi-threaded). But I am afraid the answer is yes.
For those who wants to stay with XP, one major reason for 64 bit is if you have a real need for a lot memory, like running a few VMs. Otherwise I agree that using 32 bit would avoid quite a few problems.
My basic argument is that Google is building their empire by reinforcing their core business. I don't think Google does this "web everything" stuff because they think this is the best way to build applications, but because it helps their search and advertisement. But I doubt this web thing is really the direction of the future of application development. Of course this is a huge judgment call. If Google happens to be wrong about this, they would have taken a huge risk.
It seems to me Google has determined to be THE search company instead of a software company. A lot of Google Apps wouldn't stand a chance if they have to compete as software products. It would seem that internet search will remain like this forever, but you never know.
No, XAML is the new HTML. At least if Microsoft get its way. Get thee to Wikipedia and read. It's very comprehensive. Put the blinders on if you wish, but don't say I didn't warn you..NET is subservient to XAML..NET is an effort to herd the corporate developers to XAML. XAML has always underlied.NET.
Nonsense..NET started a long time before WPF, which introduced XAML.
I am not sure it worked for both of them. Steve Jobs was fired but Apple sucked so badly they had to ask him back. Bill Gates was recently "fired" too, and it's unclear if Microsoft will someday need Bill Gates to be back to save it.
Learn from the best!
This gives me an idea why they are abrasive. They do so to make people too fearful to objectively evaluate their opinions.
The only one way I can argue for the need of more than quad cores is to allow for a future unknown resource-intensive application. But for most present day applications, even for Graphics rendering (which by the way - has its own dedicated processor!), spending money on more cores is purely money down the drain.
Parallelization of algorithms is actually not a trivial task at all.
Let's take Visual Studio as an example. It can compile each project in a separate thread. In a large solution, each additional core will cut the total compiling time in half. If it takes an hour to compile on a single core, a dual 8-core xeon will take about 4 minutes (or 2 if hyper threading is really that good). I'd call that money well spent.
And the parallelization here is actually quite simple as it is done on the project level. No complicated algorithms are needed.
For homer users dual core is sufficient, but for professionals more cores can make a significant difference like:
1. A bunch of VMs;
2. Visual Studio with the/MP option.
3. Graphics rendering.
With more cores available, software developers are also encouraged to use more parallel algorithms.
As to the MHZs, I'd give it to the nanometers. I believe they could have gone straight to 11nm or something, but they just have to make each step feel like a breakthrough. Maybe that's true, but I just got this cynic feeling that they are milking us.
Slashdot Mirror
So that I can customize Opera into something I like.
Are you a firefox developer? If so, they need better ones.
You are not totally off the mark, but further discussion would only interest GUI programmers.
Today I write software by assembling modular bits of subprograms together rapidly, string it together with this or that, and wham, it's working. Back in the day, everything had to be written from scratch.
Finally someone figured out the difference between the programmer and the developer
You know my cable company also has this amazing concept call programming. They find all the great movies and string them together so that viewers will never take their eyes off the tube. Yes, they have great programmers. And Of course movies have to be made by film makers. Wisely, they are not called programmers.
It seems to me this AC is not that smart either.
a single threaded UI is actually not wrong. It means all window handles (win32) are created in only one thread, usually the main thread. Creating UI in more than one threads is just looking for trouble. FireFox's problem is doing too many things in the main thread. To move stuff into other threads require such architectural changes that only a very big head can handle. I wouldn't call them idiots because I understand how difficult things can get.
FireFox's default is not very good. But I can customize it into something I like. With Opera, I can't. Believe me, I tried very hard. FireFox is indeed not fast, but so far it's still not a deal breaker.
I've tried the latest version but still don't like it's GUI (maybe I am picky, as I am a GUI programmer myself). If Opera implements FireFox's GUI, I'll definitely switch.
The UI should be instant, no matter what's going on.
For a non-trivial app, it has to do multi-threading right. And multi-threading is not something you can easily add to a large code base without major rewrites. I think only FireFox devs know if it is doomed (meaning if it'd ever be fully multi-threaded). But I am afraid the answer is yes.
Indeed: debugging subtle bugs in the C preprocessor gives one an important insight into how to make an overly complicated compiler
FTFY.
From what I read from w-m.com, It seems American English only uses ways in construction:
a long ways from home
Otherwise the example it gives is actually using way instead of ways:
Main Entry: way 6 : the length of a course : distance <has come a long way in her studies><still have a way to go>
For those who wants to stay with XP, one major reason for 64 bit is if you have a real need for a lot memory, like running a few VMs. Otherwise I agree that using 32 bit would avoid quite a few problems.
Of course. When matter is energy, and energy is matter, why can't we say math is reality and reality is math.
OK, Let me argue against a +5 insightful post.
My basic argument is that Google is building their empire by reinforcing their core business. I don't think Google does this "web everything" stuff because they think this is the best way to build applications, but because it helps their search and advertisement. But I doubt this web thing is really the direction of the future of application development. Of course this is a huge judgment call. If Google happens to be wrong about this, they would have taken a huge risk.
It seems to me Google has determined to be THE search company instead of a software company. A lot of Google Apps wouldn't stand a chance if they have to compete as software products. It would seem that internet search will remain like this forever, but you never know.
Once if you see it's a search, do you really need to know what kind of search it is?
Damn, I thought one could just write papers to prove something. Now we have to spend millions.
No, XAML is the new HTML. At least if Microsoft get its way. Get thee to Wikipedia and read. It's very comprehensive. Put the blinders on if you wish, but don't say I didn't warn you. .NET is subservient to XAML. .NET is an effort to herd the corporate developers to XAML. XAML has always underlied .NET.
Nonsense. .NET started a long time before WPF, which introduced XAML.
I get it. XAML is the new .NET, which was to replace C/C++/Java, and did a helluva...
This sounds like the cultures in East Asia. And it works in politics too.
I am not sure it worked for both of them. Steve Jobs was fired but Apple sucked so badly they had to ask him back. Bill Gates was recently "fired" too, and it's unclear if Microsoft will someday need Bill Gates to be back to save it.
Learn from the best!
This gives me an idea why they are abrasive. They do so to make people too fearful to objectively evaluate their opinions.
And the parallelization here is actually quite simple as it is done on the project level.
It should be at file level.
The only one way I can argue for the need of more than quad cores is to allow for a future unknown resource-intensive application. But for most present day applications, even for Graphics rendering (which by the way - has its own dedicated processor!), spending money on more cores is purely money down the drain. Parallelization of algorithms is actually not a trivial task at all.
Let's take Visual Studio as an example. It can compile each project in a separate thread. In a large solution, each additional core will cut the total compiling time in half. If it takes an hour to compile on a single core, a dual 8-core xeon will take about 4 minutes (or 2 if hyper threading is really that good). I'd call that money well spent.
And the parallelization here is actually quite simple as it is done on the project level. No complicated algorithms are needed.
For homer users dual core is sufficient, but for professionals more cores can make a significant difference like: 1. A bunch of VMs; 2. Visual Studio with the /MP option.
3. Graphics rendering.
With more cores available, software developers are also encouraged to use more parallel algorithms.
As to the MHZs, I'd give it to the nanometers. I believe they could have gone straight to 11nm or something, but they just have to make each step feel like a breakthrough. Maybe that's true, but I just got this cynic feeling that they are milking us.
making it WAY more than good enough
I believe we programmers have the magic to make today's 32nm dual core to function like your old processor.
Please share the list of software that you use and enjoy.
That's why they should be required to type in all the zeros. If it's big number, it deserves a little more time.
"brilliant but really annoying"
Both are overstated IMO