Actually I know that Clint Whaley is still working on ATLAS and related topics, since he shares the same advisor as me at Florida State University.
Perhaps more interesting (and relevant to the topic at hand) is some other research involving compiler optimization and genetic algorithms. (Please note that I am part of a group currently working in this area.) There have been several papers on the topic already from Rice University as well as from our group at FSU. These results have more to do with tuning the order of optimization phases in a compiler using a genetic algorithm, since certain phases may enable or inhibit other phases. Thus the big difference between these studies and the gcc study is the lack of a fixed optimization phase sequence, so certain phases may be skipped, repeated or just rearranged to provide greater benefit.
I agree that this is the case I have seen at many schools. It doesn't matter that Microsoft software is given away for free, as long as the important computer science classes and professors continue to use Linux and/or Unix.
Funding is important but not so much as to change even something so fundamental as an OS course to using Windows, where students can't look at any of the working parts. Perhaps this is something that will impact Intro. To Computers classes (computer skills for non-CS people), but I can't say that I have ever even seen one of those courses not using Powerpoint, Word, Excel,... It might be nice to see them use free software equivalents, but let's allow businesses to start using free software for the workplace first. Then academia can come completely around and teach free software tools to CS students and Non-CS students alike.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy posing this question has the nick cyclops? If I were him, I would be very careful not to damage my lone good eye.)
I admit I've never coded in C# and only dabbled in Java, but I see nothing wrong with Microsoft requiring Waterloo to teach C# in the core curriculum. C and C++ are quite dated, but C# was built from the ground up and does not suffer from the many subtle pitfalls that Objective C does.
Should any company require a university to teach a particular topic? I would hope that a public university would know better than to be manipulated as such. As an outrageous example, think what would happen if the business course material was decided by a single stock brokering company. This would be a severe conflict of interest for students as well as the university.
As for C and C++ being quite dated, I think you should look into just how widely used and known they still are. A good background in C and C++ will help even a Java/C#/(whatever language you like) to become a better programmer. Your comment reminds me of the quote, "Those who do not understand their past history are doomed to repeat it." I feel that this is pretty relevant, as students who do not have a solid background in a lower high-level programming language (like C) tend to not understand more complicated concepts like computer architecture and compiler development.
Of course if all you expect from students today is to become Java/C# code monkeys that can only program if you give them all of the little details, then it does not matter that they have no real understanding of what they are doing. But if you want students to become effective, problem-solving, and creative programmers, you should definitely at least take a look at my advice.
Actually, how many times has Microsoft been hacked, and not mentioned it to the public (the same way banks and credit card companies hide their problems)?
int whoIsToBlame () {
switch (rand() % 4) {
/* The Usual Suspects */
case 0: return Microsoft
case 1: return Adobe
case 2: return DMCA
case 3: return Macrovision
/* Not very likely */
case 4: return MotherNature
}
}
If you can't obtain the key, it is impossible to know for sure that you have obtained the correct message. For the correct message, you have to be able to verify the key as well, or a near infinite (read "very large") number of other possible messages will also exist for the encrypted stream. Thus if you cannot intercept the key in the transmission process, then even such tools as distributed.net will not work. We assume no knowledge of the subject matter contained within the message, and thus any message of any length can be encrypted within it. Quantum cryptography is only necessary for the transmission of a key, and any of the other proven cryptographic algorithms can then be used with the key to provide secure communications. So provided that the laws of physics are not violated, the data will no longer be vulnerable even to brute force attempts.
Slashdot Mirror
So for all the sed/vi lovers out there, you plan on replacing 'h' with 'it'?!!! Witat tite itell?
Actually I know that Clint Whaley is still working on ATLAS and related topics, since he shares the same advisor as me at Florida State University.
Perhaps more interesting (and relevant to the topic at hand) is some other research involving compiler optimization and genetic algorithms. (Please note that I am part of a group currently working in this area.) There have been several papers on the topic already from Rice University as well as from our group at FSU. These results have more to do with tuning the order of optimization phases in a compiler using a genetic algorithm, since certain phases may enable or inhibit other phases. Thus the big difference between these studies and the gcc study is the lack of a fixed optimization phase sequence, so certain phases may be skipped, repeated or just rearranged to provide greater benefit.
I agree that this is the case I have seen at many schools. It doesn't matter that Microsoft software is given away for free, as long as the important computer science classes and professors continue to use Linux and/or Unix.
... It might be nice to see them use free software equivalents, but let's allow businesses to start using free software for the workplace first. Then academia can come completely around and teach free software tools to CS students and Non-CS students alike.
Funding is important but not so much as to change even something so fundamental as an OS course to using Windows, where students can't look at any of the working parts. Perhaps this is something that will impact Intro. To Computers classes (computer skills for non-CS people), but I can't say that I have ever even seen one of those courses not using Powerpoint, Word, Excel,
You have it all wrong: "new" programmers are "delete"ed.
With all of those (R)'s (Arrr's), it sounds more like you are a pirate.
"That's no moon"
The water spins clockwise when you flush a toilet there, so all the games have to be updated to show this.
Actually I would be surprised if lisp would actually say anything at all with all those parentheses.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy posing this question has the nick cyclops? If I were him, I would be very careful not to damage my lone good eye .)
I admit I've never coded in C# and only dabbled in Java, but I see nothing wrong with Microsoft requiring Waterloo to teach C# in the core curriculum. C and C++ are quite dated, but C# was built from the ground up and does not suffer from the many subtle pitfalls that Objective C does.
Should any company require a university to teach a particular topic? I would hope that a public university would know better than to be manipulated as such. As an outrageous example, think what would happen if the business course material was decided by a single stock brokering company. This would be a severe conflict of interest for students as well as the university.
As for C and C++ being quite dated, I think you should look into just how widely used and known they still are. A good background in C and C++ will help even a Java/C#/(whatever language you like) to become a better programmer. Your comment reminds me of the quote, "Those who do not understand their past history are doomed to repeat it." I feel that this is pretty relevant, as students who do not have a solid background in a lower high-level programming language (like C) tend to not understand more complicated concepts like computer architecture and compiler development.
Of course if all you expect from students today is to become Java/C# code monkeys that can only program if you give them all of the little details, then it does not matter that they have no real understanding of what they are doing. But if you want students to become effective, problem-solving, and creative programmers, you should definitely at least take a look at my advice.
Actually, how many times has Microsoft been hacked, and not mentioned it to the public (the same way banks and credit card companies hide their problems)?
I am a Pusher Robot.
Data: To start fires
Target: Grandmother
Data: Lies
Pak Chooie UNF
See Something Awful for more info
int whoIsToBlame () {
/* The Usual Suspects */
/* Not very likely */
switch (rand() % 4) {
case 0: return Microsoft
case 1: return Adobe
case 2: return DMCA
case 3: return Macrovision
case 4: return MotherNature
}
}
If you can't obtain the key, it is impossible to know for sure that you have obtained the correct message. For the correct message, you have to be able to verify the key as well, or a near infinite (read "very large") number of other possible messages will also exist for the encrypted stream. Thus if you cannot intercept the key in the transmission process, then even such tools as distributed.net will not work. We assume no knowledge of the subject matter contained within the message, and thus any message of any length can be encrypted within it. Quantum cryptography is only necessary for the transmission of a key, and any of the other proven cryptographic algorithms can then be used with the key to provide secure communications. So provided that the laws of physics are not violated, the data will no longer be vulnerable even to brute force attempts.