Turbo Pascal, that came out mid eighties had a string type. Delphi improved strongly on that.
Of course, one can try to argue that Borland dialects are not std pascal (the 70ies kind that the anti pascal rants are about), but the Borland dialects do account for 99.9% of the Pascal programmers.
A user came to me with a problem, and it was that they renamed some of one symbol called from the startup code to something with -first behind it, and one was missing completely. It turned out he was using a beta libc he said was packaged with Gentoo.
__libc_init got first suffixed and setfpucw couldn't be found.
Choose something that requires some extra work to get compatible with some other language.
Don't even bother too much to write an initial compiler, and go straight to the horrible task of making something compatible.
While you are making an own language, dealing with compability issues will lead you to more pitfalls than a straight clean 1st order approach of some language than.
While I really deeply respect J. D. (he wrote my first Pascal book, that pretty much put me on the structured programming track), I don't agree, and not with nyda either.
The bigger security problems of Microsoft software are three fold: - indeed bufferoverflows are a C program, but most other OSes have this too. - Microsoft is under hacker fire. True, but so is e.g. Apache, and that project has a much better trackrecord - which brings me to the actual point: the main software development problem of Microsoft is the deep integration of systems, and the total unmanagable chaos as a result. Everything is integrated with everything.
P.s. C has a quite small and straightforward runtime, and this IMHO has a mitigating effect on C software development. The runtime is very predicatable, compared to e.g. JVM, CLR, and the various scripting languages
You'll need 5.x anyway if you want 32-bit PCMCIA on your dead old humble laptop.
This point was the main reason for me to upgrade the laptop to 5.2 (and later to a -CURRENT just after 5.2). I didn't have any real problems, and my machines are not super critical, so I moved all machines to 5.2.
5.0 and 5.1 pretty much sucked, but 5.2 was already quite decent. I just installed 5.3RC1 in my laptop, and it is fine, but has a few release engineering detail bugs. (e.g. no dependancies of xorg on the default font set, no X config in sysinstall)
E.g. assume that the application is a game. The exact timing must then also be duplicated, a quite difficult process. (see e.g. the various Mac, Amiga emulators and Dosbox)
Wait a month and take 5.3 final if it is your first.
Or if you are really in a hurry, try 4.10.
Keep in mind that one of the main problems with 4.x is the missing of 32-bits pcmcia support. So if you are on a laptop, 5.x is quite often the only way to go
(1) Open programming wise. Not just because _I_'m a programmer, but more so because that raises available software. Does not necessarily mean OS should be free, just that the SDK should
(2) space/extensibility. My PDA has two expansion slots (one CF, one SD). Means I can have a wlan card and still have some memory expansion
(3) Be able to use putty/sftp/http to access your PDA (:-) )/me has a Zaurus 5500g btw
While popular, I think the Rambus Jedec issues are more an example of the kind of disputes that IP standards can create then SCO.
I fail to see the relevance of the SCO remark in this case. The SCOIBM case was totally different (and the suing of the individual users totally nonsense and legal wrestling at best)
Indeed. I hate this, and not even out of privacy/control grounds. The main problems are simple practicality.
Such schemes means you can throw away your games when you move to a new (Major) windows version, are far more likely to cause problems in Windows etc etc.
Forget about running your legitimately bought games running on an emulator in 10 years.
It is the same problem I have with DRM and mangled CDs. The copyright enforcing stuff limits the time that it can be used (because of equipment being only in vogue for a few years) and practical use too much.
Tying in media with the OS is a no-no.
sb have more info on the behave differently list
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
However info about it is scarse. Apparantly this list doesn't include the "open the firewall" programs, but does sb know what the problems are exactly? (UT, UT2003, Nero)
- FreeBSD also has a decent AMD64 port - "of course it runs NetBSD (tm)" - OpenBSD too lists it as supported target - DragonFly BSD has it in the works (they wanted to release 1.0 first)
From these I daily use FreeBSD on a dual Opteron box, and it works fast and stable. I have no experience with the others.
And are this salaries or the total amount that the employer has to spend?
I get half of the salary that people get in the US, but my employer pays pretty much the other half to various social securities and benefits, which I would have to have private insurances for anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The point remains the same. Pascal is constantly bashed for things that nearly all production language had before 1985.
However the other languages are forgiven for it, but not Pascal for some mysterious reason.
Turbo Pascal, that came out mid eighties had a string type. Delphi improved strongly on that.
Of course, one can try to argue that Borland dialects are not std pascal (the 70ies kind that the anti pascal rants are about), but the Borland dialects do account for 99.9% of the Pascal programmers.
Why do they need a survey? They can just process the timetables
No not teamspeak.
A user came to me with a problem, and it was that they renamed some of one symbol called from the startup code to something with -first behind it, and one was missing completely. It turned out he was using a beta libc he said was packaged with Gentoo.
__libc_init got first suffixed and setfpucw couldn't be found.
A while ago, they were distributing beta glibc's that rumouredly broke a lot of programs.
Did they finally got around to fix that?
Moreover getting some decent error messages out of RD parsers is easier.
Choose something that requires some extra work to get compatible with some other language.
Don't even bother too much to write an initial compiler, and go straight to the horrible task of making something compatible.
While you are making an own language, dealing with compability issues will lead you to more pitfalls than a straight clean 1st order approach of some language than.
While I really deeply respect J. D. (he wrote my first Pascal book, that pretty much put me on the structured programming track), I don't agree, and not with nyda either.
The bigger security problems of Microsoft software are three fold:
- indeed bufferoverflows are a C program, but most other OSes have this too.
- Microsoft is under hacker fire. True, but so is e.g. Apache, and that project has a much better trackrecord
- which brings me to the actual point: the main software development problem of Microsoft is the deep integration of systems, and the total unmanagable chaos as a result. Everything is integrated with everything.
P.s. C has a quite small and straightforward runtime, and this IMHO has a mitigating effect on C software development. The runtime is very predicatable, compared to e.g. JVM, CLR, and the various scripting languages
I usually write a tetris clone.
Basic operation is 400-1000 lines typically
It is not a devil, but a daemon
Everything = 42
You'll need 5.x anyway if you want 32-bit PCMCIA on your dead old humble laptop.
This point was the main reason for me to upgrade the laptop to 5.2 (and later to a -CURRENT just after 5.2). I didn't have any real problems, and my machines are not super critical, so I moved all machines to 5.2.
5.0 and 5.1 pretty much sucked, but 5.2 was already quite decent. I just installed 5.3RC1 in my laptop, and it is fine, but has a few release engineering detail bugs. (e.g. no dependancies of xorg on the default font set, no X config in sysinstall)
E.g. assume that the application is a game. The exact timing must then also be duplicated, a quite difficult process. (see e.g. the various Mac, Amiga emulators and Dosbox)
Or on the constructors that are going to build that HUGE building for the thoughtpolice where they analyse it all.
I think I'll rename myself to Winston Smith, and apply.
Wait a month and take 5.3 final if it is your first.
Or if you are really in a hurry, try 4.10.
Keep in mind that one of the main problems with 4.x is the missing of 32-bits pcmcia support. So if you are on a laptop, 5.x is quite often the only way to go
(1) Open programming wise.
Not just because _I_'m a programmer, but more so because that raises available software. Does not necessarily mean OS should be free, just that the SDK should
(2) space/extensibility. My PDA has two expansion slots (one CF, one SD). Means I can have a wlan card and still have some memory expansion
(3) Be able to use putty/sftp/http to access your PDA (
While popular, I think the Rambus Jedec issues are more an example of the kind of disputes that
IP standards can create then SCO.
I fail to see the relevance of the SCO remark in this case. The SCOIBM case was totally different (and the suing of the individual users totally nonsense and legal wrestling at best)
Game emulators are simpler than complete virtual machine.
Such a starforce beast needs the non game driver system to be emulated too.
(e.g. directx/video drivers are somewhat game related drivers)
Indeed. I hate this, and not even out of privacy/control grounds. The main problems are simple practicality.
Such schemes means you can throw away your games when you move to a new (Major) windows version, are far more likely to cause problems in Windows etc etc.
Forget about running your legitimately bought games running on an emulator in 10 years.
It is the same problem I have with DRM and mangled CDs. The copyright enforcing stuff limits the time that it can be used (because of equipment being only in vogue for a few years) and practical use too much.
Tying in media with the OS is a no-no.
I've several games and apps on this list:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=
However info about it is scarse. Apparantly this list doesn't include the "open the firewall" programs, but does sb know what the problems are exactly? (UT, UT2003, Nero)
Microsoft is a bit scarse in info.
Our faculty library still uses vt220's. They are never down, and there are always enough fere.
PC's are too often either down, messed up, or used for non-library purposes.
One might check out FreeBSD 4.x, it defined some workaround systems for prototypes to be both Ansi and K&R usable.
- FreeBSD also has a decent AMD64 port
- "of course it runs NetBSD (tm)"
- OpenBSD too lists it as supported target
- DragonFly BSD has it in the works (they wanted to release 1.0 first)
From these I daily use FreeBSD on a dual Opteron box, and it works fast and stable. I have no experience with the others.
.... and certainly are better at handling the king's English than the average PC operator."
Euh, afaik Apple has a far larger marketshare in the USA than e.g. in mainland Europe due to it being entrenched in the US educational system.
So if you have a higher percentage of native speakers, no wonder they write better English on Slashdot on average
And are this salaries or the total amount that the employer has to spend?
I get half of the salary that people get in the US, but my employer pays pretty much the other half to various social securities and benefits, which I would have to have private insurances for anyway.