If I can't photoshop a picture of Julia Roberts, can I oil-paint a picture of Julia Roberts? What if my oil-painting is really good? What if, instead of using oil-paint, I use acrylic? Or instead of a brush I use an air brush? Or instead of real paint, I do it in the computer?
Instead of wasting time with this they should just regulate: all cosmetic product ads should prominently include a disclaimer:
"face it, you're fat and ugly. no amount of this shit is going to make you look like Julia Roberts. now, go for a run."
There is no MSVC x86-32 compiler which runs as an x86-64 application
no, but the x64 linker (amd64\link.exe) can take x86.objs and the "/machine:x86" switch and generate an x86.exe
It's probably not supported, and more advanced things may not work, but I just compiled a test app with the x86 compiler and linked it with the x64 linker.
don't confuse usibility issues with change suggestions. they're different things entirely. sure, if your user suggests a change that doesn't make sense, don't do it. but don't ignore the fact that they found the existing behavior confusing. it's not the user's job to design your application, but it is your job to design it in such a way as not to confuse them.
C:\vs10\VC\bin\amd64>link/dump/headers link.exe Microsoft (R) COFF/PE Dumper Version 10.00.40219.01 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
it's amazing how often i see this happen with open-source software: some guy releases his pet project that he's been working on in his mom's basement for 2 years, he thinks it's the greatest thing on earth and as soon as someone comes along and leaves some comment that isn't just gushing praise they start behaving like a defensive six-year-old.
that's the best way to communicate to the user, that took time out of their non-programming day in order to do you the favor of telling you how your application doesn't work, that you don't really care about them, the problem they were having, or if they are able to use your program.
you don't work on the TortoiseSVN project, do you?
If the software is working the way its designers and architects intended for it to function, there's no bug.
absolutely correct, unless you consider usability to be a feature.
if you do, then every time a user is confused about your application, it's a bug. it may not be easy to fix. but if you don't consider it a bug, track it, prioritize it and potentially fix it, then you don't care about usability.
IANAL, but if you make the following assumptions: - amazon.com is a market - referral codes are equivalent to affiliate advertising for that market
then a 3rd party that alters a piece of software without the user or developers consent (deception) in order to redirect such a revenue stream for their own benefit (fraud) is committing a computer crime which may result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. in california, at least.
This is the kind of behavior we expect of spyware, browser bars &c.
Does the number of applications (1) and the amount stolen ($3.41) make this an acceptable practice? no. what if it were many more applications and much more money?
regulation on the amount of tar and nicotine they can deliver
yes, that's because "a cigarette" is a quanta [*]. plants have no such restrictions - they're continuous quantities at this scale.
if tobacco growers could overnight double the nicotine content of the leaf, they'd be able to make essentially the same cigarette with half the plant material, half the tar, half the lung cancer. Downside? None.
the whole "OMG it's stronger now, just think of the kids" is a scare tactic designed to circumvent the "well i smoked in college in the 60's and i'm ok" mentality. it's a disingenuous myth, nothing more.
[*] of course, the amount of nicotine required to satisfy the addiction is not quantized, which really negates the whole point of per-cigarette regulation. it's like saying that the teaspoon i use to add sugar to my morning coffee MUST be exactly 4.92892159 milliliters. that's great for press conferences, but it doesn't stop me from - gasp - using two teaspoonfuls.
ok, i'm no sign-waving norml guy, but this shit makes no sense.
it's not like marijiana is quantized.
My crop of brussels-sprouts this year are HUGE (yeah, each individual one). But that doesn't bother me, 'cos I'm not a complete fucking idiot - I just eat fewer of them.
C# Has had the equivalent of javax.tools.JavaCompiler since v1.1, Microsoft.CSharp.Compiler which is little more than a wrapper around the command-line compiler.
But the.NET framework has also, for a long time, included Reflection.Emit which allows for direct manipulation of CIL bytecode, and System.CodeDom for generating and compiling source code in multiple languages from an abstract representation.
I wouldn't bother reading about Roslyn, though. It couldn't possibly measure up to anything Java has had for ages now, right?
Having a compiler installed permits the add-hoc creation of code
wait, if gcc is a security risk, then so is chmod + (any program capable of writing binary data to a file). the only 'vulnerability' that gcc exposes is the ability to create cross-architecture exploits.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, this is fucking ridiculous.
If I can't photoshop a picture of Julia Roberts, can I oil-paint a picture of Julia Roberts?
What if my oil-painting is really good?
What if, instead of using oil-paint, I use acrylic?
Or instead of a brush I use an air brush?
Or instead of real paint, I do it in the computer?
Instead of wasting time with this they should just regulate: all cosmetic product ads should prominently include a disclaimer:
Clarification: the only linker for 32-bit targets is, itself, 32-bits
this is false.
the x64 link.exe can link x86 .objs into a x86 .exe
There is no MSVC x86-32 compiler which runs as an x86-64 application
no, but the x64 linker (amd64\link.exe) can take x86 .objs and the "/machine:x86" switch and generate an x86 .exe
It's probably not supported, and more advanced things may not work, but I just compiled a test app with the x86 compiler and linked it with the x64 linker.
Microsoft simply doesn't offer a 64-bit linker that can produce 32-bit code
false.
you can link x86 code using the 64-bit link.exe
just use the 32-bit compiler to compile to .obj, then use the 64-bit linker (with the /machine:x86 switch) to link the .objs.
don't confuse usibility issues with change suggestions. they're different things entirely. sure, if your user suggests a change that doesn't make sense, don't do it. but don't ignore the fact that they found the existing behavior confusing. it's not the user's job to design your application, but it is your job to design it in such a way as not to confuse them.
The MSVC compiler is a 32-bit program
NO:
C:\vs10\VC\bin\amd64>link /dump /headers link.exe
Microsoft (R) COFF/PE Dumper Version 10.00.40219.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Dump of file link.exe
PE signature found
File Type: EXECUTABLE IMAGE
FILE HEADER VALUES
8664 machine (x64)
if you're getting YSOD's you should NuGet Elmah
it's amazing how often i see this happen with open-source software: some guy releases his pet project that he's been working on in his mom's basement for 2 years, he thinks it's the greatest thing on earth and as soon as someone comes along and leaves some comment that isn't just gushing praise they start behaving like a defensive six-year-old.
that's the best way to communicate to the user, that took time out of their non-programming day in order to do you the favor of telling you how your application doesn't work, that you don't really care about them, the problem they were having, or if they are able to use your program.
you don't work on the TortoiseSVN project, do you?
If the software is working the way its designers and architects intended for it to function, there's no bug.
absolutely correct, unless you consider usability to be a feature.
if you do, then every time a user is confused about your application, it's a bug. it may not be easy to fix. but if you don't consider it a bug, track it, prioritize it and potentially fix it, then you don't care about usability.
IANAL, but if you make the following assumptions:
- amazon.com is a market
- referral codes are equivalent to affiliate advertising for that market
then a 3rd party that alters a piece of software without the user or developers consent (deception) in order to redirect such a revenue stream for their own benefit (fraud) is committing a computer crime which may result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. in california, at least.
This is the kind of behavior we expect of spyware, browser bars &c.
Does the number of applications (1) and the amount stolen ($3.41) make this an acceptable practice? no. what if it were many more applications and much more money?
I develop with Firefox.
I browse with Chrome, though. Firefox is too damn slow, big & crashy.
huh? the Run dialog works just fine with spaces in filenames.
for example:
c:\some directory name with spaces\application name with spaces.exe argument1 argument2
no quoting necessary. or did you mean something else?
he's referring to english syntax. hence the funny.
That's funny since every grievance i ever had with C# was solved with Java
just curious. which grievances were those?
There is definitely no Microsoft version of .NET for Mac.
except the one in silverlight.
I think he means lseek(2)-style direct access.
regulation on the amount of tar and nicotine they can deliver
yes, that's because "a cigarette" is a quanta [*]. plants have no such restrictions - they're continuous quantities at this scale.
if tobacco growers could overnight double the nicotine content of the leaf, they'd be able to make essentially the same cigarette with half the plant material, half the tar, half the lung cancer. Downside? None.
the whole "OMG it's stronger now, just think of the kids" is a scare tactic designed to circumvent the "well i smoked in college in the 60's and i'm ok" mentality. it's a disingenuous myth, nothing more.
[*] of course, the amount of nicotine required to satisfy the addiction is not quantized, which really negates the whole point of per-cigarette regulation. it's like saying that the teaspoon i use to add sugar to my morning coffee MUST be exactly 4.92892159 milliliters. that's great for press conferences, but it doesn't stop me from - gasp - using two teaspoonfuls.
not necessarily the stronger strains
ok, i'm no sign-waving norml guy, but this shit makes no sense.
it's not like marijiana is quantized.
My crop of brussels-sprouts this year are HUGE (yeah, each individual one). But that doesn't bother me, 'cos I'm not a complete fucking idiot - I just eat fewer of them.
LOL!
C# Has had the equivalent of javax.tools.JavaCompiler since v1.1, Microsoft.CSharp.Compiler which is little more than a wrapper around the command-line compiler.
But the .NET framework has also, for a long time, included Reflection.Emit which allows for direct manipulation of CIL bytecode, and System.CodeDom for generating and compiling source code in multiple languages from an abstract representation.
I wouldn't bother reading about Roslyn, though. It couldn't possibly measure up to anything Java has had for ages now, right?
the java API allows you to access/modify the syntax tree, get data-flow analysis, etc...? or is it just a dumb wrapper around the compiler front-end?
Having a compiler installed permits the add-hoc creation of code
wait, if gcc is a security risk, then so is chmod + (any program capable of writing binary data to a file). the only 'vulnerability' that gcc exposes is the ability to create cross-architecture exploits.
it can't be relied on to replace a cellular connection.
kinda like AT&T then?
IUnknown is still very much there and fundamental, it's just hidden when you use the compiler extensions - it does it all for you.
2nd rule: you DO NOT talk about programming.