Well, hell, I'm just psyched they didn't give it a assinine hollywood name (like "Rob and Keanu's totally excellent drug adventure") and stuck with the grammatically challenged "A SCANNER DARKLY".
yes, your experience sounds very familiar to mine. i do tight FP loops (some recursive) that iterate on a bunch of stl containers in a non-local pattern through memory.
Re:Can I have an infinite budget to write the code
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 1
Ah. I see. I'm used to using strings or ints as keys in std::map functions. I don't normally use hash_map because it's not in the g++ 3.1 distro (my company mandates this version).
Is there another source for free STL implementations out there besides the archaic SGI STL?
not sure about::hash_map, but the::map lookup calls a function in this case. using k->second would dereference an ESI pointer to memory, which is faster than an inline call to a member function. not sure if hash_map does the same. yes?
Don't think so. Allocation and printout are insignificant compared to the inner loop functions.
Re:Can I have an infinite budget to write the code
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"The C++ version would have taken longer to write and debug."
Right on.
Unix GUIs are far easier to implement with Java than with C++. Athena/Xlib are a huge fargin' hassle and no-one ever gets the widgets right. Motif is too expensive to license.
In my two decades of experience, even multi-million dollar engineering apps still don't understand the concept of WINDOW RESIZING!!!
Why did he use the strdup function when he already has the char array from the previous sprintf?? That step incurs a huge and unnecessary penalty w/an allocation, just pass the pointer!
Also, in the second 'for' loop in hash2, he does extra work beacuse he already looked up (*k).second.
shouldv'e done hash2[k->first] = k->second;...to avoid another lookup penalty.
that is debatable. if we cherry pick benchmarks, i could show that an equivalent Intel CPU could be lowered in frequency and remove the fan and still perform as wall as a G5 with liquid cooling, and vice versa.
i just see this as a hack rather than raising the bar. i undertstand your point about noise, but the industry shouldn't stand for liquid cooling because it just opens the envelope for higher-power designs, which is bad. it is absolutely possible to design high-performance power-efficient design. look at Intel's Centrino core (Banias), it is a P6 (Pentium3) core that outperfroms most P4s and runs at less than half the power. that is the direction the industry should go, not bolting on more sophisticated cooling solutions that allow designers to waste power.
i'd be just as pissed if dell made liquid cooling standard. it's a big hammer solution to laziness on behalf of Intel/Motorola/IBM. transmeta is the only company serious about power.
btw, i have a 3.0 GHz Dell system and you can't even tell it is on, it uses fan cooling, and outperforms the G5. go figger.
"Nine fans and 21 sensors, generating half as many decibels. Now I'm not an Apple fan-boy but that's the level of attention to detail that seperates Apple from Dell, etc. "
You're impressed by this? I always rooted for Apple, hoping they could make a power-efficient CPU, but now they're using Rube Golderberg-esque designs to account for crappy power efficiency, just like Intel/AMD. (although 0Intel's centrino uses less power than G5 and outperforms Apple/AMD).
I've always wondered if there was a way to make a similar device that I could use to fend off the Paparazzi. My goons aren't allowed to cause bodily harm to annoying photographers, so is there a device I could carry a that would destroy their film without hurting them and not be considered vandalism? Something that gives off a energy in the range that will enter the lense/shutter and overexpose the film, but isn't visible to the naked eye?
These quotes show the type of non-technical pointy-head we're talking about:
"Alas, last week I did some brief security testing and forgot to reinstate high security afterward. It took just one idle hour of web surfing on low security before some pathological web site designer leapt down the throat of my PC through the Swiss cheese that is IE."
and...
"I happen to be technical enough to go through Microsoft Windows with a fine-toothed comb, twiddling bits over here and checking for secret compartments over there..."
Please. Yes, mr expert, you're such an MS guru that even with your VAST stores of knowledge those evil hackers got you too! If only you were running Mozilla.
What a lame way to start a security argument, not even rhetoric! Just an anecdotal horror story, the kind MS uses to defend THEIR side.
Despite what all you teenaged know-it-alls post, Intel isn't stupid. AMD is a very good competitor, and the shuffle of smart people between these two companies has been going on for decades. Intel is huge, it can afford to explore all possible paths. AMD cannot. In fact, no other semiconductor company on earth has the resources to push the limits of design as rapidly as Intel does. Yes, an IBM lab can demonstrate a technology on a test chip, but IBM won't collapse if it can't bring it to market, Intel will.
By having multiple, very different designs cooking at the same time, Intel has wisely used its resources to compete in a rapidly changing market.
I doubt anyone on this board (save a few) could make intelligent decisions with a $40 billion dollar company without 20/20 hindsight.
No, it's not. Reverse engineering would be me analyzing a few ml of Coca Cola, spectroscopy, fractional distillation, etc. to determine the chemical composition, and then synthesizing a new composition that mimics the resulting flavor of the Coke sample.
-OR-
coke could publish the recipe and I could make some at home combining vanilla, lemon and cinnamon.
The former is reverse engineering, the later is what Intel did.
This is ahrdly reverse engineering. This is Intel building an ISA to a specification laid down by AMD. Just like Transmeta executing IA-32 code, or like Lindows looking like windows.
AMD didn't even have silicon before Intel started building 'yamhill', so by definition of the term, it is impossible for Intel to have reverse engineered.
Every Windows user that would click the "yes I want to execute this email attachment becuase I'm brain dead" dialog in Outlook will do the same if they had a Macintosh.
More Mac users are brainded: How often have you or someone you know recommended a Mac to someone who is completely inept with computers because they are so "Easy to use!" By this logic, the least computer-smarts people own Macs.
A new IQ test: should you be allowed to use email if you can't handle a checkbook? In fact, if you even have a checkbook, you probably should stay offline.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
yikes! let me step into my gaussian shell before the lightening bolts start a-flyin'!
i had no idea this is a paraphrase. did i skip a crucial sentence in the book? please explain.
Well, hell, I'm just psyched they didn't give it a assinine hollywood name (like "Rob and Keanu's totally excellent drug adventure") and stuck with the grammatically challenged "A SCANNER DARKLY".
Phew.
"This was published in the October 1843 issue of Scientific Memoirs"
She's so hot.
Didn't Ada Lovelace write "code" for Babbages machine in 1899? I thought she invented the subroutine?
yes, your experience sounds very familiar to mine. i do tight FP loops (some recursive) that iterate on a bunch of stl containers in a non-local pattern through memory.
But Qt ain't free. ;-)
(unless there's a freeware/OSF version??)
Ah. I see. I'm used to using strings or ints as keys in std::map functions. I don't normally use hash_map because it's not in the g++ 3.1 distro (my company mandates this version).
::hash_map, but the ::map lookup calls a function in this case. using k->second would dereference an ESI pointer to memory, which is faster than an inline call to a member function. not sure if hash_map does the same. yes?
Is there another source for free STL implementations out there besides the archaic SGI STL?
not sure about
Don't think so. Allocation and printout are insignificant compared to the inner loop functions.
"The C++ version would have taken longer to write and debug."
Right on.
Unix GUIs are far easier to implement with Java than with C++. Athena/Xlib are a huge fargin' hassle and no-one ever gets the widgets right. Motif is too expensive to license.
In my two decades of experience, even multi-million dollar engineering apps still don't understand the concept of WINDOW RESIZING!!!
I wish all Unix GUIs were done in Java.
what's wrong with g++? i've only ever used intel's compiler besides, and it wasn't much faster for a finite-element circuit simulator that I wrote.
"It's always been written in Java."
;P
Except for the first Java compiler.
Why did he use the strdup function when he already has the char array from the previous sprintf?? That step incurs a huge and unnecessary penalty w/an allocation, just pass the pointer!
Also, in the second 'for' loop in hash2, he does extra work beacuse he already looked up (*k).second.
shouldv'e done hash2[k->first] = k->second;
Tell me I'm not crazy.
When the following two pieces of code are written in Java, I'll take it seriously:
1) a java compiler for java (funny that the java binaries are written in C++ and compiled with a compiler written in C++)
2) id's next game engine
that is debatable. if we cherry pick benchmarks, i could show that an equivalent Intel CPU could be lowered in frequency and remove the fan and still perform as wall as a G5 with liquid cooling, and vice versa.
i just see this as a hack rather than raising the bar. i undertstand your point about noise, but the industry shouldn't stand for liquid cooling because it just opens the envelope for higher-power designs, which is bad. it is absolutely possible to design high-performance power-efficient design. look at Intel's Centrino core (Banias), it is a P6 (Pentium3) core that outperfroms most P4s and runs at less than half the power. that is the direction the industry should go, not bolting on more sophisticated cooling solutions that allow designers to waste power.
i'd be just as pissed if dell made liquid cooling standard. it's a big hammer solution to laziness on behalf of Intel/Motorola/IBM. transmeta is the only company serious about power.
btw, i have a 3.0 GHz Dell system and you can't even tell it is on, it uses fan cooling, and outperforms the G5. go figger.
"...so the efficiency or inefficiency of the G5 CPU design has nothing to do with Apple whatsoever."
they make it seem that way when it is to their advantage. not that this is a bad thing, it's called marketing. difficult to seperate the two.
"Nine fans and 21 sensors, generating half as many decibels. Now I'm not an Apple fan-boy but that's the level of attention to detail that seperates Apple from Dell, etc. "
You're impressed by this? I always rooted for Apple, hoping they could make a power-efficient CPU, but now they're using Rube Golderberg-esque designs to account for crappy power efficiency, just like Intel/AMD. (although 0Intel's centrino uses less power than G5 and outperforms Apple/AMD).
Can you post a link to that comment? I didn't see it on the Apple site.
thx.
I've always wondered if there was a way to make a similar device that I could use to fend off the Paparazzi. My goons aren't allowed to cause bodily harm to annoying photographers, so is there a device I could carry a that would destroy their film without hurting them and not be considered vandalism? Something that gives off a energy in the range that will enter the lense/shutter and overexpose the film, but isn't visible to the naked eye?
"Who's more immature? "
The people who work two jobs and drop out of school to pay for status symbols, as opposed to the people who get a good laugh out of it for free?
Dude, why do you think marketing calls it a HUMMER anyway?
These quotes show the type of non-technical pointy-head we're talking about:
...
"Alas, last week I did some brief security testing and forgot to reinstate high security afterward. It took just one idle hour of web surfing on low security before some pathological web site designer leapt down the throat of my PC through the Swiss cheese that is IE."
and
"I happen to be technical enough to go through Microsoft Windows with a fine-toothed comb, twiddling bits over here and checking for secret compartments over there..."
Please. Yes, mr expert, you're such an MS guru that even with your VAST stores of knowledge those evil hackers got you too! If only you were running Mozilla.
What a lame way to start a security argument, not even rhetoric! Just an anecdotal horror story, the kind MS uses to defend THEIR side.
Hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
Despite what all you teenaged know-it-alls post, Intel isn't stupid. AMD is a very good competitor, and the shuffle of smart people between these two companies has been going on for decades. Intel is huge, it can afford to explore all possible paths. AMD cannot. In fact, no other semiconductor company on earth has the resources to push the limits of design as rapidly as Intel does. Yes, an IBM lab can demonstrate a technology on a test chip, but IBM won't collapse if it can't bring it to market, Intel will.
By having multiple, very different designs cooking at the same time, Intel has wisely used its resources to compete in a rapidly changing market.
I doubt anyone on this board (save a few) could make intelligent decisions with a $40 billion dollar company without 20/20 hindsight.
No, it's not. Reverse engineering would be me analyzing a few ml of Coca Cola, spectroscopy, fractional distillation, etc. to determine the chemical composition, and then synthesizing a new composition that mimics the resulting flavor of the Coke sample.
-OR-
coke could publish the recipe and I could make some at home combining vanilla, lemon and cinnamon.
The former is reverse engineering, the later is what Intel did.
This is ahrdly reverse engineering. This is Intel building an ISA to a specification laid down by AMD. Just like Transmeta executing IA-32 code, or like Lindows looking like windows.
AMD didn't even have silicon before Intel started building 'yamhill', so by definition of the term, it is impossible for Intel to have reverse engineered.
Every Windows user that would click the "yes I want to execute this email attachment becuase I'm brain dead" dialog in Outlook will do the same if they had a Macintosh.
More Mac users are brainded: How often have you or someone you know recommended a Mac to someone who is completely inept with computers because they are so "Easy to use!" By this logic, the least computer-smarts people own Macs.
A new IQ test: should you be allowed to use email if you can't handle a checkbook? In fact, if you even have a checkbook, you probably should stay offline. ;-)