I don't see why. Just test for the exceptions you're interested in and then calling die($@) will pass your exception to the previous eval{} frame. It's really not any more unreadable than most perl code. Perl's lack of a switch() statement makes this a minor hassle of if/elses but that's really no trouble. It's less elegant than C++ but I certainly wouldn't call it "very hard".
You can die with objects or hash/array references as well as scalars, which adds some flexibility. Furthermore, this fulfills your requirement in another comment that internal methods use the exception handling system. eval{} will catch fatal errors from perl internals.
Actually, I was wrong. A "case" as used there is only a gallon and a half. Milk therefore sells slightly more gallonage than all Coke products combined.
Milk is better for you than Coke, but which one sells more?
This surprised me. I know it's a rhetorical question, but in 2000, milk actually sold more, with 6.5 billion gallons, than Classic Coke, with 2 billion cases (two gallons/case). Coca-Cola soft drinks totalled sell more (4.3 billion cases) than milk, however. And like some other jerk pointed out, milk is probably not better for you than Coke. They're both pretty bad.:-)
Hear, hear. And if RealPlayer or Netscape or (presumably) Star Office or whatever is run under Windows, it asks to register itself as the default viewer and then (if you check the box) doesn't ask again. How hard is that?
The Salon article should be moderated -1, Flamebait.
Stupid jackass... are you too terrified to go to web sites on your own? How about Pfizer:
Selling, informational, and administrative expenses: $11,442,000,000
R&D expenses: $4,435,000,000
Merck?
$6 billion on marketing, $2 billion on R&D.
GlaxoSmithKline? They call themselves a "research company"...
$10 billion on "selling, general, and administrative"
$3.8 billion on R&D.
I still can't find information on what Bayer spent on marketing.
All this information is from the companies' annual reports, available for free on their web sites, and this is hardly damning evidence that corps are evil. But it's pretty clear that they do spend way more on marketing than on development.
BTW, I looked at Bayer first, then Roche. I couldn't find marketing expense information on Bayer's site within 5 minutes or so, so I moved on, but I believe their gross profits and R&D costs were on the same order as Roche's. I didn't look at any other companies.
For Roche themselves, the company mentioned in this article. From part of their 2000 annual report, in a PDF ("Finance") available at: http://www.roche.com/home/investor/inv-finance/inv -reports/inv-reports-2000-annual-report.htm
Marketing and distribution 8,746 (2000) 7,813 (1999)
Research and development 3,950 (2000) 3,782 (1999)
did you know the federal budget allocates enough money to federal highway upkeep each year to pay to pave a single lane of each Interstate in GOLD??)
I had no idea.
So I went to the Federal Highway Administration's web site (www.fwha.dot.gov) and found out that there are 43,000 miles of interstate they maintain, and they have a budget of $4.073 billion dollars allocated for interstate maintenance. So I did a little calculation.
Assumptions:
A lane is ten feet wide.
Everyone on the gold-paving project is working for free. The entire infrastructure costs nothing. The *only* cost is the cost of the raw materials (i.e., gold).
Values:
Cost of gold: $260/oz
Miles of interstate: 43000
Dollars available: 4073000000
43000 mi (of highway) * 5280 (feet per mi.) * 12 (in per ft) * 2.54 (cm per in) * 10 (feet wide lane) * 12 (in per ft) * 2.54 (cm per in) = approximately 2109270620160 square centimeters total in the Interstate Highway System
4073000000 (budget) * (1/260) (oz per $) * 480 (g per oz) * (1/19.3) (cc per g)
= 389605415.811 (cc)
389605415.811 (c^3) / 2109270620160 (cm^2) =.00018471096 cm thick
Yes, folks, that is about two millionths of a meter thick. Damn those wasted dollars.
Yep, you pegged it. About a year and a half as a webmaster, that's it. (Note to self: Next time, get a new job before quitting your current one.) Still, why do almost all job openings require 5 years experience?
I'm out of work right now (right out of college - doh) and I've been applying to every job that looks interesting for weeks. I may not be Alan Cox, but I'm not a neophyte who just picked up "Perl for Dummies". In fact I'm damn good at Perl, PHP, C, C++, and hell, I could probably pick up Ada or Smalltalk again if I had to. But no one will even call me back. Jobs that are listed on Monster, Dice, even companies' web sites turn out to be "on hold." What the hell am I doing wrong, or do I just need to quit being picky and go apply for those "experience in Microsoft Internet technology preferred" jobs? This is driving me nuts.
</rant>
the American Computer Museum there actually HAS an Apollo guidance computer, along with a lot of other neat stuff. Very cool. No, they don't let you use it.:-)
Thousands of homes stand empty. And yet we still have homeless people. Why? Because they can't pay for it.
Actually, a large fraction of homeless people are homeless because they intentionally rejected modern society. Another large fraction are homeless because they are mentally ill or drug addicts -- solveable, but not by giving them homes and job training, and not by imposing "programs" on them. People who are homeless because they just can't get a break exist, but they don't represent the whole population, and probably not more than a small fraction.
I don't have numbers for this, and they are probably hard to come by... after all, people who avoid society aren't likely to want to participate in a survey.
The way (to me) an RDBMS makes sense for storing email on the server side are increased speed of retrieval (maybe), and speed of development. It makes more sense to me when you've got 1000 or 10000 clients getting their email all at once... then I think the indexing and concurrency features of the database would make up in speed for the increased complexity.
A true enterprise-grade message store will use an embedded database with transactions support.
Why is it important that the database be embedded? I agree that from a client/server standpoint, using an RDBMS makes far more sense than the standard sendmail mbox format. But it seems to me that having an external database would be more flexible than a linked-in system like Berkeley DB.
If you think about it, most of the money to develop those drugs probably already comes from taxes, through Medicare. I'd rather take the companies out of the loop and have the government pay directly for the research. The government is then paying for a larger share of the research costs, but the marketing costs drop to zero, and the results are (hopefully) available, patent-free, to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
This will probably annoy programmers who started with "pure" C++, Java, or VB.
/* Here we do something with p1, p2, p3 */
int allocate_3(void){
int *buf, *p1, *p2, *p3 ;
buf = malloc(3*SOME_NUMBER*sizeof(int)) ;
if (!buf) { return -1; }
p1 = buf ;
p2 = buf + SOME_NUMBER;
p3 = buf + SOME_NUMBER*2 ;
free ( buf ) ;
return 0 ;
}
I don't see why. Just test for the exceptions you're interested in and then calling die($@) will pass your exception to the previous eval{} frame. It's really not any more unreadable than most perl code. Perl's lack of a switch() statement makes this a minor hassle of if/elses but that's really no trouble. It's less elegant than C++ but I certainly wouldn't call it "very hard".
You can die with objects or hash/array references as well as scalars, which adds some flexibility. Furthermore, this fulfills your requirement in another comment that internal methods use the exception handling system. eval{} will catch fatal errors from perl internals.
While this is not exactly on topic, exception-like behavior in Perl can be handled using the eval()/die()/$@ syntax.
Certainly, exception handling in C++ or Python is much more efficient and elegant.
Example:
#!/usr/bin/perl
eval{test(3)};
if ($@) {
print "Whoops: $@\n";
}
sub test {
my $bob = shift;
if ($bob == 1) {
print "Happy\n";
} else {
die("Failure testing \$bob");
}
}
/me wipes away a tear... Thank you. That was the funniest thing I've seen in days.
Actually, I was wrong. A "case" as used there is only a gallon and a half. Milk therefore sells slightly more gallonage than all Coke products combined.
This surprised me. I know it's a rhetorical question, but in 2000, milk actually sold more, with 6.5 billion gallons, than Classic Coke, with 2 billion cases (two gallons/case). Coca-Cola soft drinks totalled sell more (4.3 billion cases) than milk, however. And like some other jerk pointed out, milk is probably not better for you than Coke. They're both pretty bad. :-)
http://www.beverage-digest.com/editorial/010215s.p hp
8 /06/agweek/806MILK.htm
http://web.northscape.com/content/gfherald/2001/0
Hear, hear. And if RealPlayer or Netscape or (presumably) Star Office or whatever is run under Windows, it asks to register itself as the default viewer and then (if you check the box) doesn't ask again. How hard is that?
The Salon article should be moderated -1, Flamebait.
Executive summary:
Apache 41%
Unknown 18%
IIS 13%
Netscape Enterprise 12%
Stupid jackass... are you too terrified to go to web sites on your own? How about Pfizer:
Selling, informational, and administrative expenses: $11,442,000,000
R&D expenses: $4,435,000,000
Merck?
$6 billion on marketing, $2 billion on R&D.
GlaxoSmithKline? They call themselves a "research company"...
$10 billion on "selling, general, and administrative"
$3.8 billion on R&D.
I still can't find information on what Bayer spent on marketing.
All this information is from the companies' annual reports, available for free on their web sites, and this is hardly damning evidence that corps are evil. But it's pretty clear that they do spend way more on marketing than on development.
BTW, I looked at Bayer first, then Roche. I couldn't find marketing expense information on Bayer's site within 5 minutes or so, so I moved on, but I believe their gross profits and R&D costs were on the same order as Roche's. I didn't look at any other companies.
For Roche themselves, the company mentioned in this article. From part of their 2000 annual report, in a PDF ("Finance") available at: http://www.roche.com/home/investor/inv-finance/inv -reports/inv-reports-2000-annual-report.htm
Marketing and distribution 8,746 (2000) 7,813 (1999)
Research and development 3,950 (2000) 3,782 (1999)
Numbers are in millions of Swiss francs.
Clear enough?
It'd be at least as exciting as the Corn Cam :-)
did you know the federal budget allocates enough money to federal highway upkeep each year to pay to pave a single lane of each Interstate in GOLD??)
I had no idea.
So I went to the Federal Highway Administration's web site (www.fwha.dot.gov) and found out that there are 43,000 miles of interstate they maintain, and they have a budget of $4.073 billion dollars allocated for interstate maintenance. So I did a little calculation.
Assumptions:
A lane is ten feet wide.
Everyone on the gold-paving project is working for free. The entire infrastructure costs nothing. The *only* cost is the cost of the raw materials (i.e., gold).
Values:
Cost of gold: $260/oz
Miles of interstate: 43000
Dollars available: 4073000000
43000 mi (of highway) * 5280 (feet per mi.) * 12 (in per ft) * 2.54 (cm per in) * 10 (feet wide lane) * 12 (in per ft) * 2.54 (cm per in) = approximately 2109270620160 square centimeters total in the Interstate Highway System
4073000000 (budget) * (1/260) (oz per $) * 480 (g per oz) * (1/19.3) (cc per g) = 389605415.811 (cc)
389605415.811 (c^3) / 2109270620160 (cm^2) = .00018471096 cm thick
Yes, folks, that is about two millionths of a meter thick. Damn those wasted dollars.
Yep, you pegged it. About a year and a half as a webmaster, that's it. (Note to self: Next time, get a new job before quitting your current one.) Still, why do almost all job openings require 5 years experience?
I'm out of work right now (right out of college - doh) and I've been applying to every job that looks interesting for weeks. I may not be Alan Cox, but I'm not a neophyte who just picked up "Perl for Dummies". In fact I'm damn good at Perl, PHP, C, C++, and hell, I could probably pick up Ada or Smalltalk again if I had to. But no one will even call me back. Jobs that are listed on Monster, Dice, even companies' web sites turn out to be "on hold." What the hell am I doing wrong, or do I just need to quit being picky and go apply for those "experience in Microsoft Internet technology preferred" jobs? This is driving me nuts.
</rant>
I'll second that. Besides, this can be answered with about two minutes of looking at the MySQL home page.
> It's written mostly in C and C#.
:-)
> CVS Repository ( 0 commits, 0 adds )
ITYM "will" be written, especially since C# requires a runtime that doesn't (yet?) exist for anything but Windows
Whack! Reality strikes again. I had no idea. You're right, though, they're now owned by "Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc."
Computer science: much math-based theory, some programming
Computer engineering: much hardware design, hardware theory, some programming (assembly, C, C++)
Software engineering: tiny bit of hardware design, some theory, much programming, some software development process
Hell, Pizza Hut is *owned* by Pepsi.
the American Computer Museum there actually HAS an Apollo guidance computer, along with a lot of other neat stuff. Very cool. No, they don't let you use it. :-)
Thousands of homes stand empty. And yet we still have homeless people. Why? Because they can't pay for it.
Actually, a large fraction of homeless people are homeless because they intentionally rejected modern society. Another large fraction are homeless because they are mentally ill or drug addicts -- solveable, but not by giving them homes and job training, and not by imposing "programs" on them. People who are homeless because they just can't get a break exist, but they don't represent the whole population, and probably not more than a small fraction.
I don't have numbers for this, and they are probably hard to come by... after all, people who avoid society aren't likely to want to participate in a survey.
The way (to me) an RDBMS makes sense for storing email on the server side are increased speed of retrieval (maybe), and speed of development. It makes more sense to me when you've got 1000 or 10000 clients getting their email all at once... then I think the indexing and concurrency features of the database would make up in speed for the increased complexity.
A true enterprise-grade message store will use an embedded database with transactions support.
Why is it important that the database be embedded? I agree that from a client/server standpoint, using an RDBMS makes far more sense than the standard sendmail mbox format. But it seems to me that having an external database would be more flexible than a linked-in system like Berkeley DB.
If you think about it, most of the money to develop those drugs probably already comes from taxes, through Medicare. I'd rather take the companies out of the loop and have the government pay directly for the research. The government is then paying for a larger share of the research costs, but the marketing costs drop to zero, and the results are (hopefully) available, patent-free, to everyone.