a) The U.S. is building the only current and planned space station for future space research.
Wrong. The ISS is an international effort. Luckily for the astronauts stranded there by the grounding of the Shuttles.
b) The U.S. has in the past decade and continues to launch many probes into the solar system to study various planets/moons/asteroids/comets while the ESA is working on launching its first and Russia hasn't launched one in years.
It is already launched, not 'working on'. It is also a testbed for new technologies, not one-more-probe. And if you count joint-ventures, ESA has already launched a few solar system probes with NASA and the RSA.
c) This article represents the forward looking aspects that will keep the U.S. in front.
No, this article represents a correction of a 30 year error by NASA. Reusable space vehicles aren't less expensive than discardable rockets like Ariane. NASA will probably go back to a rocket design.
What?! Half of what makes HP49 good is the reliability. They're built like war tanks, and the keys look like old IBM keyboard keys. You can't emulate that on your Palm.
Then there's the people who already have a Linux install. They would far prefer to install the game under their own environment rather than be tied into another dist, and a reboot to play the game.
No. Not if it "just-works". I take no pleasure in fiddling around with obscure settings and installation breakups.
Then there's the people who are anti open source and all things not Microsoft. To purchase a game tied to Linux would be anathema.
Oh yeah... As if anyone cares what kind of OS is running your latest game in PS2. For all everybody cares, Sony could put out SDKs using Linux as the base OS, anyone would hardly notice. The same for a console-type PC.
Indeed, (X)HTML does not rigidly specifiy presentation. CSS, however, are a completely new business. They specify, down to the pixel, how layout and rendering should happen. That's their use.
RSS is just a web page with a fancy name and a somewhat more narrowly defined purpose. But it's still just a web page, and as such, can scale just as well as any other type.
No it isn't. Usage patterns are very different. Please check my other comment on this thread.
Client side e-mail is polling based (POP, IMAP) so what's the difference between polling e-mail servers and polling RSS servers?
Network distance. My mail server is in the same building as me. My hundred or so RSS feeds are scattered all over the net.
RSS must put a lot less load on the network than me checking out the CNN web page 2 or 3 times a day to see what's going on.
Please do not forget that RSS update checks are automated. My news aggregator checks my hundred or so feeds once every hour. If I'd have to do that manually, I'd never check that many sites so many times.
You must have some serious reservations about the scalability of HTML, then:)
Yes, technically you are correct. Both are just standards for document syntax and aren't all that different where bandwidth is concerned. However, do look at the typical usage for RSS and HTML. HTML users typically check manually their pages for updates. They will rarely go beyond a hundred sites (feeds) or so per day. RSS users automatically check the feeds for updates. They can easily check an order of magnitude more feeds, and several orders of magnitude more often.
From what little I know about RSS, it's some form of XML format for content, usually served in a pull oriented fashion (as oposed to email's push method). The advantages related to spam avoidance are obvious, since users don't need to give out their address.
However, I do question the ability of RSS to scale. Think of a scenario where millions of users need to poll hundreds of thousands of sources to check for updates on the feeds. How much unnecessary load does this pose to the network and servers? Is RSS really the best way to do it? Wouldn't we be better off with web based forums, or moderated usenet newsgroups? Or yet, extending email with the concept of task-oriented e-mail addresses -- which accept content coming from a defined set of servers only?
In principle, push methods seem a lot more efficient for this kind of content distribution.
Huge difference. On one side, you have one technology (IP based stacks) whose use is escalating. On the other you have one technology (the web) applied to a new market.
It was not clear to me whether pets.com would succeed. Not any clearer than whether Amazon.com would succeed, although in retrospective it seems obvious.
It's clear to me that IP based stacks will be pervasive, and there aren't enough IP addresses for all possible uses of the technology. Perhaps its time for a Long bet?
I think if we gave the world 100,000 addresses, they would use 100,000. If we gave the world 1,000,000,000 they would use 1,000,000,000 if we gave... and so on. Perhaps wise use of addresses is in order. Does every cell phone need a static IP so all the teenagers can show off to their friends? I don't think so.
And once, someone said that 640kb would be enough for every use of a computer. And once someone said that a computer in every house would be foolish.
History is full of people who minimized the possible uses and evolution of technology. Learn from it.
It's a freaking diary, keep it under your bed. What makes you thing the rest of the world gives a damn.
Perhaps I'm an interestingmind, worthobserving. Perhaps I like to lay down my thoughts so they can be discussed among my peers. Perhaps I don't view the world in such an egocentric way, to believe adding my part to the knowledge pool won't amplify my results.
See, there's lots of reasons for blogging. As for the term, the beauty of it or the need for a new term: it's discussible, naturally, but I believe weblogs differ from journals enough to deserve a new term. They're more like open letters than diaries.
Re:Several lines are still in use
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
I said:
I'm passing by value a reference to an array of unknown size.
You said:
If you teach people that this is a way of passing arrays rather than pointers then you're misinforming them.
If we're to reach anywhere in the discussion, please take the time to read my posts. You are taking the time to pinpoint small flaws in definitions and skipping the top level question:
A program receives an a array of strings as a parameter. How best declare the parameter in C?
To me the logic is pretty simple. If the program received an array of ints, the syntax would be:
void a(int arg[])
a string in C is commonly represented as char*, so an array of strings is passed as:
void a(char* arg[])
There's no reason to treat strings differently. If the usage isn't deprecated, and if it produces the exact same object code on every platform (contrary to what you hinted previously), I'll stick to the most expressive syntax, thank you. One must have his mind twisted by C's preconceptions to automatically assume that char** arg is an array of strings.
I realize that something like int arg[] could mean that the whole array is passed by value, when it is passed by reference. However, jumping from that to using int* arg to represent an array is going from the pan to the fire. int* arg could as well mean one integer passed by reference. It's not expressive, and I recommend against its use.
As for the set definition, you realize that by scooping up the formal study book definition, you just shifted the domain relationship present in set elements down to the definition of collection. Anyway, the formal definition is not really important. I'm sure we agree on the purpose and correct usage of arrays. We just don't agree on the C syntax to refer to them.
Re:Several lines are still in use
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
That's practically the definition of arrays.
And here we hit the bullseye. You think this is the definition of arrays. I think it is not.
An array is a type construct which allows the programmer to deal with a set of equally typed variables. The set should be a mathematical set, in the sense that all the variables in the array should refer to the same knowledge domain. A programming language should provide an easy syntax for referring to singular members of the array by index -- be it a numerical index or a string index.
And the definition stops here. In fact, for 99% of the cases, the most efficient implementation is to allocate the array in contiguous memory. However, this does not cause this characteristic of most arrays to enter the definition of array. Except in C, again because C is a form of beautified assembly.
C only supports call-by-value and pointers don't change that because they are created explicitly.
No it doesn't. I defended this all along. Using char* arg[] I'm passing by value a reference to an array of unknown size. I think its valid under standard C, and you've failed to prove me wrong.
Re:Several lines are still in use
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
I never said it was deprecated, only that it's for ancient compatibility. Originally C did not have an array type, and arrays really were just appropriately initialised pointer variables. So it sort of made sense to use [] rather than * to indicate a pointer to array. Now that means something quite different in every case except parameter declarations.
C goes back as far as the early 70s, but heavy C usage is a characteristic of mid to late eighties. By then C arrays surely were common. I should know, because it was by that time I learned C.
The common usage of * in array definitions is reminiscent of C-as-beautified-assembly. It assumes arrays are always allocated in contigous memory, and therefore pointer arithmetics are valid on array variables. If you think of it, this assumption is so prevalent it is now impossible to allocate C arrays any other way. The abstract concept of an array is in no way attached to contiguous memory allocation, and some other languages do in fact allocate resizable arrays in non-contiguous areas. This is why I prefere the [] form of defining array types. I'm digressing away from topic, though...
It seems to me you are trying to express that char* arg[] could be interpreted as the passing by reference of an array, since in parameters * means a pass by reference rather than by value. More, you seem to be saying that explicitely passing an array by reference is invalid, since arrays are always passed by reference. The interpretation would be correct, if a * in a parameter type only meant a pass by reference. However, it is a type modifier, creating a pointer off a base type. It marks a pass by reference as a side effect -- by definition, the pointer of a variable is a reference to the var.
As a type modifier, the usage of [] is as valid as that of *. They are both valid type modifiers, as of the ISO standard C.
Re:Several lines are still in use
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
When declaring a variable, char *[] is not the same as char **.
We prove that char* arg[] is the same as char** arg, in the context of assembly code generation.
As for the correctness of using char** arg as opposed to char* arg[], the most I can say is that I never read of the usage of [] being deprecated in function call argument declarations. I'd thank if you if you'd give me some solid reference as to the deprecation. It was in wide use when I learned C, as can be easily observable in K&R.
Re:Several lines are still in use
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
It's supposed to be a joke.
Anyway, I teach C programming to university level students. From my experience, the concept of an array of char pointers is easier to explain, than the concept of a pointer to a pointer being an array of strings. So, in a way, char* argv[] is better, although it's has the exact same compiled output.
That's it. Our uptime is 100.00% The only reboots are planned. Period. The hardware is not esoteric. The loads are easily managable on a simple dual PIII.
Your post was going on nicely, up until this point. No serious application provider gets 100% uptime. Anyone who says they do are either lying or playing doll-houses with their servers. At least it gives the hint you're looking at the world with a rosy tint.
Even five nines, which MS claimed some time ago are a large achievement, and were seriously questioned back then.
Many, many organizations run Exchange with no corruption of the data store and no need for reboots. Get over it - Exchange is a good product.
This is true. Lots of organizations do run Exchange for long periods without corruption. However, Exchange frightens me in one very important point: The message database is in binary form.
Binary data is very difficult to treat with apps other than their author. And at least once I had an Exchange setup crap on me, and lost data. Luckily it was not important, but was enough to steer me away from Exchange whenever possible. I'll trade features away for security anytime, thanks...
Slashdot Mirror
What?! Half of what makes HP49 good is the reliability. They're built like war tanks, and the keys look like old IBM keyboard keys. You can't emulate that on your Palm.
Puleaze! Read the whole post before replying and wasting my time.
Indeed, (X)HTML does not rigidly specifiy presentation. CSS, however, are a completely new business. They specify, down to the pixel, how layout and rendering should happen. That's their use.
And why can't it be done without converting it to a free service?
When I think of vacation, eating cheerios at home isn't what I have in mind. More like skiing at 60kph for a week in a row. Hmmm, vacation
But, what could you expect from people who use feet to measure distances...
However, I do question the ability of RSS to scale. Think of a scenario where millions of users need to poll hundreds of thousands of sources to check for updates on the feeds. How much unnecessary load does this pose to the network and servers? Is RSS really the best way to do it? Wouldn't we be better off with web based forums, or moderated usenet newsgroups? Or yet, extending email with the concept of task-oriented e-mail addresses -- which accept content coming from a defined set of servers only?
In principle, push methods seem a lot more efficient for this kind of content distribution.
It was not clear to me whether pets.com would succeed. Not any clearer than whether Amazon.com would succeed, although in retrospective it seems obvious.
It's clear to me that IP based stacks will be pervasive, and there aren't enough IP addresses for all possible uses of the technology. Perhaps its time for a Long bet?
History is full of people who minimized the possible uses and evolution of technology. Learn from it.
See, there's lots of reasons for blogging. As for the term, the beauty of it or the need for a new term: it's discussible, naturally, but I believe weblogs differ from journals enough to deserve a new term. They're more like open letters than diaries.
- A program receives an a array of strings as a parameter. How best declare the parameter in C?
To me the logic is pretty simple. If the program received an array of ints, the syntax would be:a string in C is commonly represented as char*, so an array of strings is passed as:There's no reason to treat strings differently. If the usage isn't deprecated, and if it produces the exact same object code on every platform (contrary to what you hinted previously), I'll stick to the most expressive syntax, thank you. One must have his mind twisted by C's preconceptions to automatically assume that char** arg is an array of strings.I realize that something like int arg[] could mean that the whole array is passed by value, when it is passed by reference. However, jumping from that to using int* arg to represent an array is going from the pan to the fire. int* arg could as well mean one integer passed by reference. It's not expressive, and I recommend against its use.
As for the set definition, you realize that by scooping up the formal study book definition, you just shifted the domain relationship present in set elements down to the definition of collection. Anyway, the formal definition is not really important. I'm sure we agree on the purpose and correct usage of arrays. We just don't agree on the C syntax to refer to them.
An array is a type construct which allows the programmer to deal with a set of equally typed variables. The set should be a mathematical set, in the sense that all the variables in the array should refer to the same knowledge domain. A programming language should provide an easy syntax for referring to singular members of the array by index -- be it a numerical index or a string index.
And the definition stops here. In fact, for 99% of the cases, the most efficient implementation is to allocate the array in contiguous memory. However, this does not cause this characteristic of most arrays to enter the definition of array. Except in C, again because C is a form of beautified assembly.
No it doesn't. I defended this all along. Using char* arg[] I'm passing by value a reference to an array of unknown size. I think its valid under standard C, and you've failed to prove me wrong.The common usage of * in array definitions is reminiscent of C-as-beautified-assembly. It assumes arrays are always allocated in contigous memory, and therefore pointer arithmetics are valid on array variables. If you think of it, this assumption is so prevalent it is now impossible to allocate C arrays any other way. The abstract concept of an array is in no way attached to contiguous memory allocation, and some other languages do in fact allocate resizable arrays in non-contiguous areas. This is why I prefere the [] form of defining array types. I'm digressing away from topic, though...
It seems to me you are trying to express that char* arg[] could be interpreted as the passing by reference of an array, since in parameters * means a pass by reference rather than by value. More, you seem to be saying that explicitely passing an array by reference is invalid, since arrays are always passed by reference. The interpretation would be correct, if a * in a parameter type only meant a pass by reference. However, it is a type modifier, creating a pointer off a base type. It marks a pass by reference as a side effect -- by definition, the pointer of a variable is a reference to the var.
As a type modifier, the usage of [] is as valid as that of *. They are both valid type modifiers, as of the ISO standard C.
As for the correctness of using char** arg as opposed to char* arg[], the most I can say is that I never read of the usage of [] being deprecated in function call argument declarations. I'd thank if you if you'd give me some solid reference as to the deprecation. It was in wide use when I learned C, as can be easily observable in K&R.
Anyway, I teach C programming to university level students. From my experience, the concept of an array of char pointers is easier to explain, than the concept of a pointer to a pointer being an array of strings. So, in a way, char* argv[] is better, although it's has the exact same compiled output.
Although I'm not rich enough to travel there, and just ski in the Pyrenees.
Even five nines, which MS claimed some time ago are a large achievement, and were seriously questioned back then.
This is true. Lots of organizations do run Exchange for long periods without corruption. However, Exchange frightens me in one very important point: The message database is in binary form.
Binary data is very difficult to treat with apps other than their author. And at least once I had an Exchange setup crap on me, and lost data. Luckily it was not important, but was enough to steer me away from Exchange whenever possible. I'll trade features away for security anytime, thanks...