The whole "Jupiter shield" idea is myth. There's no reason to assume that Jupiter will throw more junk into wider orbits than into tighter ones more likely to hit the earth.
The number of people buying a Mac to run anything but Mac OS X is negligible. The machines are overpriced, underpowered, pointlessly quirky, only redeemed by the OS... which makes the Mac Tax worth paying after all.
What do you think? Provide a crippled version of Firefox (would that be a Firefaux) and Opera? Or some other kind of "Magician's Choice", for example other applications screwing up if you choose anything but IE?
I have switched to C++ exactly because overloaded operators allowed me to program transformation in parametric domain (think Fourier) in a natural way, like C = B*A.
I'll even let you start over and not keep backwards compatibility with old code.
Then I'd start over and not keep compatibility with C. Maybe use a Smalltalk-like syntax and encourage reflection. Dynamic typing and binding by default, maybe even relegate static typing to optimization with assertions....... ellipses... more ellipses...
My minivan won't get me to Jamaica, so I need to add wings or pontoons? Or maybe I should buy an airline ticket instead?
Use the right tool for the job. Sticking another bag on the side of a language that's almost entirely bags isn't going to fix it. If you need a better language than C++, maybe you shouldn't be using C++.
Even if the absolutely worst case was true, and MS didn't even thing about the GPL code until they were challenged, releasing the code flat out under the GPL seems to be a better-than-average response.
OK, there's big companies with better open source policies, but they've still come an awful long way.
Probably not. Building a simulated brain isn't the same thing as simulating a specific brain, so it's unlikely Greg Egan's copies are coming any time soon...
Mine even had swipe options to allow me to control applications with my finger. Heck, the "show graffiti" swipe from the bottom to the top of the screen dates back to the first Palm.
The "semantics of the language" don't help us since, in this case, we were already in "Undefined Behavior" territory by the time of the ptr check.
Quality of implementation considerations rule out nasal demons.
Yes, the code is busted, I'm not saying it isn't, but busted or not: removing a null pointer check added by the programmer... as opposed to one added by the compiler... is not a valid optimization. Even if you think it's safe to remove.
Never heard of pouet, and never been to a demo party, but Google brings up the first BADGE killer demo contest. Badge was the Bay Area Amiga Developer's Group (don't ask me about the acronym). Our unimpressive demo was entered in one of the later contests.
I'm not much of a hardcore demo hacker, but I am a hardcore real-time programmer who started on a machine with less than 512 bytes (that's just plain bytes, not kilo, mega, or giga bytes) of memory. So when I see someone talking about fitting something into 4k, I expect to see something running in 4k.:D
Doesn't everyone succumb to the lure of the Lander? Our entry in the BADGE killer demo contest was a version of Lunar Lander that ran on the Amiga Workbench... with the terrain being whatever windows you happen to have open at the time...
I can't find a screen shot or even a copy of the program on google now, and while I have a box of Amiga floppy disks at home I doubt I could find anything that would read them now. I know it was on Fred Fish's disk collection, if someone has a copy I can load into UAE I'd appreciate it.
Elevated is packed down into a 4k package, but it clearly uses many many times that space when it runs. That's practically cheating... a real 4k demo would run in 4k of memory, total, usually including the screen buffer.
When we did our entry for the BADGE killer demo contest in the '80s (a version of Lunar Lander that ran on the Amiga workbench and required you to land on top of your open windows) I felt we were already pushing the envelope of what was really "fair", since we were getting the "terrain" for free.
You mean, apart from "It probably slowed down while passing thru that massive gas layers and halted at the core because of the gravity." involving such a fundamental misunderstanding of physics that I despair for the public school system?
This one implies that the Russians were being discriminated against (Last year a Russian cosmonaut complained that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet), but the linked summary says "Padalka, who will be the station's next commander, says the arguments date back to 2003, when Russia started charging other space agencies for the resources used by their astronauts" and also that it was only a *suggestion* that they stick to their own plumbing.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you could call it "tan" or "dun", I don't know. Keeps the sun out of my eyes, anyway. Isn't that what matters?
The whole "Jupiter shield" idea is myth. There's no reason to assume that Jupiter will throw more junk into wider orbits than into tighter ones more likely to hit the earth.
That's not particularly surprising considering Macs are (or at least were) about twice as expensive as their comparable PC counterparts.
Nah, the "Mac Tax" is typically closer to 40% than 100%.
The number of people buying a Mac to run anything but Mac OS X is negligible. The machines are overpriced, underpowered, pointlessly quirky, only redeemed by the OS... which makes the Mac Tax worth paying after all.
What do you think? Provide a crippled version of Firefox (would that be a Firefaux) and Opera? Or some other kind of "Magician's Choice", for example other applications screwing up if you choose anything but IE?
1. There are defined APIs Apple provides to allow third party software to interact with iTunes, and do everything Palm needs.
2. Palm is better at sync software than Apple *anyway*.
Doing it this way is just begging for a visit from the fuckup fairy. Plus, I want Hotsync back. And a pony.
I have switched to C++ exactly because overloaded operators allowed me to program transformation in parametric domain (think Fourier) in a natural way, like C = B*A.
And that's better than (set 'C (* B A)) why?
I'll even let you start over and not keep backwards compatibility with old code.
Then I'd start over and not keep compatibility with C. Maybe use a Smalltalk-like syntax and encourage reflection. Dynamic typing and binding by default, maybe even relegate static typing to optimization with assertions. ... ... ellipses ... more ellipses ...
So they justify their existence by making the problem worse. I understand, and can even sympathize, but it doesn't change the result.
C++ is a legacy programming language, like COBOL and Fortran.
Just because I add a bag doesn't mean you have to use it!
You obviously never had to support someone else's code.
What, what, they're detecting midiclorians?
Amazon Surge prints softcover PAPER books, not e-books.
C++ can't be fixed by adding features.
C++ can only be fixed by removing features.
My minivan won't get me to Jamaica, so I need to add wings or pontoons? Or maybe I should buy an airline ticket instead?
Use the right tool for the job. Sticking another bag on the side of a language that's almost entirely bags isn't going to fix it. If you need a better language than C++, maybe you shouldn't be using C++.
On the whole, I'd rather code in Ratfor.
Even if the absolutely worst case was true, and MS didn't even thing about the GPL code until they were challenged, releasing the code flat out under the GPL seems to be a better-than-average response.
OK, there's big companies with better open source policies, but they've still come an awful long way.
Probably not. Building a simulated brain isn't the same thing as simulating a specific brain, so it's unlikely Greg Egan's copies are coming any time soon...
Mine even had swipe options to allow me to control applications with my finger. Heck, the "show graffiti" swipe from the bottom to the top of the screen dates back to the first Palm.
The "semantics of the language" don't help us since, in this case, we were already in "Undefined Behavior" territory by the time of the ptr check.
Quality of implementation considerations rule out nasal demons.
Yes, the code is busted, I'm not saying it isn't, but busted or not: removing a null pointer check added by the programmer... as opposed to one added by the compiler... is not a valid optimization. Even if you think it's safe to remove.
Heh, I'm smarter than I thought, or stupider. I kept a copy and it's sitting on my own colo server, been sitting there forgotten since about 1995.
Never heard of pouet, and never been to a demo party, but Google brings up the first BADGE killer demo contest. Badge was the Bay Area Amiga Developer's Group (don't ask me about the acronym). Our unimpressive demo was entered in one of the later contests.
I'm not much of a hardcore demo hacker, but I am a hardcore real-time programmer who started on a machine with less than 512 bytes (that's just plain bytes, not kilo, mega, or giga bytes) of memory. So when I see someone talking about fitting something into 4k, I expect to see something running in 4k. :D
Doesn't everyone succumb to the lure of the Lander? Our entry in the BADGE killer demo contest was a version of Lunar Lander that ran on the Amiga Workbench... with the terrain being whatever windows you happen to have open at the time...
I can't find a screen shot or even a copy of the program on google now, and while I have a box of Amiga floppy disks at home I doubt I could find anything that would read them now. I know it was on Fred Fish's disk collection, if someone has a copy I can load into UAE I'd appreciate it.
Elevated is packed down into a 4k package, but it clearly uses many many times that space when it runs. That's practically cheating... a real 4k demo would run in 4k of memory, total, usually including the screen buffer.
When we did our entry for the BADGE killer demo contest in the '80s (a version of Lunar Lander that ran on the Amiga workbench and required you to land on top of your open windows) I felt we were already pushing the envelope of what was really "fair", since we were getting the "terrain" for free.
Apparently Google's Usenet search has been caponised again. If you keep following the links you end up looking at...
You mean, apart from "It probably slowed down while passing thru that massive gas layers and halted at the core because of the gravity." involving such a fundamental misunderstanding of physics that I despair for the public school system?
This one implies that the Russians were being discriminated against (Last year a Russian cosmonaut complained that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet), but the linked summary says "Padalka, who will be the station's next commander, says the arguments date back to 2003, when Russia started charging other space agencies for the resources used by their astronauts" and also that it was only a *suggestion* that they stick to their own plumbing.