To put a sharper point on it, Apple's upgrade cycle is very gradual, and very incremental. If I remember correctly, the first release of OSX was pretty disruptive. Now that they did all the breaking they can have these nice incremental upgrade cycles. I think Microsoft is taking a similar approach to Vista.
We'll see if Microsoft can follow-up the initial Vista release with upgrades that are as consistently good as Apple's.
I see a lot of people here putting down there (mis)conceptions about what makes a good CEO.
The book Good to Great describes the research done by Jim Collins (Built to Last), in which he and his team sorted through a list of 1,435 companies. They focused on the filtered down to the companies that managed to transition from Good companies to Great companies. I'll let the amazon info/reviews give you more detail: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-Ot hers/dp/0066620996/
One interesting point in this book is that the CEOs at the good to great companies are very different from the image of the Big Bad CEO that everyone buys into. A lot of the CEOs were quiet, shy, self-deprecating individuals that managed to take these middling companies and make them grow like gangbusters.
P.S. reviews mention silver bullets, which triggers some sort of warm fuzzy feeling in my head. hopefully it's not a hemorrhage.
I think you are confusing to uses of the term Prototype: 1. There is prototype, the javascript library/framework, that makes it nicer to work in javascript. Rails utilizes the prototype library for their main javascript helpers.
Ruby most definitely uses a class based programming model.
What is interesting is that Prototype the library makes working in javascript more "class" like as people tend to prefer that way of working. Not to mention adding a ton of other useful methods.
"Personally I'd be very happy with a more or less "stable" universe, with the occasional new content to keep people entertained. Hell, with good PvP you can even reach that goal by redesigning the PvP areas every now and then, without the need to actually generate a ton of new content!"
If Microsoft would just stick to the bloody standards, we'd all be better off.
While I agree with this statement. The standards themselves aren't too terribly easy to implement. How long did it take the mozilla.org people to create a standards compliant CSS/HTML renderer? Around ten years . [citation needed]
I'm not disparaging, I'm genuinely wondering: "Semantics are the work of understanding context, not identifying relationships."
Isn't the work of "understanding context" simply identifying the relationships between certain items in your data and other items. Which may involve discovering further relationships?
I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I really thought that semantics were derived by understanding the relationship between items.
Carmack has been releasing the source he could since Doom up through Q3 (Quake and later under GPL). The only thing that tends to slow him down is that licensees tend to want him to keep it closed until they finish their products and they have some time on the market. They paid money for it so that is their prerogative.
From other interviews I have seen he tends to live by the credo that trade-secrets and closed source and patents really aren't really advantages that you want. If you couldn't create the technology yourself, then you more than likely can't compete with him / id anyway. So he releases source and ideas as a training device for novice graphics programmers. I think he feels it's the best way for him to encourage competition and raise the bar in the industry. Although, to my knowledge he has never stated it, I would guess that he has some anti-intellectual property leanings.
The article was somewhat technically light, and I imagine Carmack was getting pretty bored/annoyed with the repetitive questions by the end. But like he says in the article the technology isn't some insane technology it is more of a point of view shift. Once you shift your point of view the technology isn't that hard, if you are competent.
Poor Carmack. He releases his game engines open source, something few companies do. He is very open and detailed about the work he is doing. He still gets crap about "keeping trade secrets". I guess you really can't win.
I hadn't really thought of designing in terms of foreman/worker for the PS3 and I seem to like it, but you get to this statement:
At the beginning of each step the main CPU farms out the work to the SPE's. So, you have a burst of activity in the SPE's for each step, thun a lull as the main core figures out what to do next.
Unless I completely mis-understood all of my processor architecture / optimizing compiler classes, to get the best usage of a processor's resources you want all of those resources to be utilized at the same time.
So the model I'd be thinking about in my head would be:
T1:
Foreman working on step1
Workers doing nothing
T2:
Foreman working on step2
Workers processing instructions from step1...
So then you have all of your elements engaged at all times. It will be interesting to see how tolerant of branches this whole set-up would be. Anyway, thanks for changing my perspective on how you'd go about programming on the ps3.
The closer we come to cars that drive themselves, the closer I come to buying a car. Driving a car has to be one of the most mundane / dangerous (for myself and others) activities that I do. I don't find these new technologies scary, I find them liberating. How do people on here complain about being stuck as a cog in the wheel at some corporate job and hold on tight to their sacred role as overly-complicated cog behind the wheel of a car.
I agree with your sentiment that we should not be lazy and should be always dilligent in regards to the performance of our applications, but you seem to be saying that anyone that passes up an opportunity for a micro-optimization for the sake of clarity is being lazy/sloppy and should be sent to your idea of hell (Microsoft). When instead they may be focusing on making sure their application is performing well via profiling / algorithmic optimization.
Re:Balkanization
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have to differ on this point, he was merely saying that the optimization wasn't signifcant in comparison to the gains in clarity you get. Programming is typically a resource constraint problem, you can only choose some of the optimizations to implement, so you should be choosey. Why optimize something small when that will have minimal impact on the performance when you can optimize something that can have a big impact. I don't typically use proofs by authority, but there are a number of really smart programmers (Carmack, Sweeney) that agree with some form of this argument.
He should apply to Microsoft, I hear they can use some help.
...or maybe we can switch it to Java On Nails, Jon for short. People in the industry will be talking about how they "Used Jon to build this or that", and I will quietly sneak off and switch my name to "Jon" on my resume and watch the job offers pour in.
When I was there they were called "Dash Trash", because their e-mails had a "t-" or "c-" at the front. I was Dash Trash due to the fact that I was an intern, but I was also a "Blue Badge".
"The firms are in talks to create a shared foundry, which might set the stage for the creation of a 45-nanometer process well in advance of the competition."
Does Brook's Law: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later"
not apply in the least bit to semiconductor shrinking?
That is an actual question, I'm not trying to make a point.
Last time I checked the US money system goes to pennies as it's lowest denomination and there for would still be limited to multiply by two exploit. (example, you can't get 0.15 cents by multiplying by any normal money value). So if you do X * 100 and check if it's odd it would go the same way as I specified before.
I do believe this is a valid technique given the way you've specified the problem, unless you are allowing fractions of a cent in order to turn the value into a real number, but none of the banks I deal with will take.00025 * 1cent. Although I'm sure there are some that do, but they more than likely have their rounding limit, so you just find that and multiply appropriately.
Can you post or send your method, so I can see how it compares?
The reasoning behind strategy number 2 seems to be off in a few ways in my mind. Maybe it is just how you worded it. It seems to me that you need to compare two strategies in order to figure out if you are making anything.
y = small amount Strategy A: Always keep first check.5 * y +.5 * 2 * y =.5y + y = 1.5y
Strategy B: Always take second check (aka your #2 above).5 * y +.5 * 2 * y = 1.5y
Strat A and B are equivalent, which is what your number 1 seems to be saying. But what your number 1 seems to neglect is the fact that when you look at the value of the check you are indeed getting information.
If you multiply by 2, the resultant value should be even. Assuming that the small value could be odd 50% of the time, you could setup a strategy like so.
If check value is odd, switch. If check value is even keep it.
y = small value 50% of the time you will get the small value, and 50% of that you will get the small even value. So the payoff would be:.25 * y +.75 * 2 * y = 1.75y
which is better than your nieve strategies listed above. I don't think I am up to proving that this is indeed the best strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
... so why do you insist on eating mine?
Has his noodly appendage touched you?
We'll see if Microsoft can follow-up the initial Vista release with upgrades that are as consistently good as Apple's.
I see a lot of people here putting down there (mis)conceptions about what makes a good CEO.
t hers/dp/0066620996/
The book Good to Great describes the research done by Jim Collins (Built to Last), in which he and his team sorted through a list of 1,435 companies. They focused on the filtered down to the companies that managed to transition from Good companies to Great companies. I'll let the amazon info/reviews give you more detail:
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-O
One interesting point in this book is that the CEOs at the good to great companies are very different from the image of the Big Bad CEO that everyone buys into. A lot of the CEOs were quiet, shy, self-deprecating individuals that managed to take these middling companies and make them grow like gangbusters.
P.S. reviews mention silver bullets, which triggers some sort of warm fuzzy feeling in my head. hopefully it's not a hemorrhage.
I think you are confusing to uses of the term Prototype:
1. There is prototype, the javascript library/framework, that makes it nicer to work in javascript. Rails utilizes the prototype library for their main javascript helpers.
2. Javascript uses a prototype based programming model versus a class based programming model.
Ruby most definitely uses a class based programming model.
What is interesting is that Prototype the library makes working in javascript more "class" like as people tend to prefer that way of working. Not to mention adding a ton of other useful methods.
"Personally I'd be very happy with a more or less "stable" universe, with the occasional new content to keep people entertained. Hell, with good PvP you can even reach that goal by redesigning the PvP areas every now and then, without the need to actually generate a ton of new content!"
It's called Guild Wars. Check it out.
Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM.
I'm standing by it.
While I agree with this statement. The standards themselves aren't too terribly easy to implement. How long did it take the mozilla.org people to create a standards compliant CSS/HTML renderer? Around ten years . [citation needed]
Malbolge would clean up at a competition like this. But if they required it they would have to call it the "Google Brain Jam".
Too late, the irvine company already owns it. Who do you think Donald Bren, whom the school is named after, is?
Foley and Van Dam have lots of info: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201609215/sr=8-1 /qid=1153828209/ref=sr_1_1/103-0593733-9387027?ie= UTF8/
I'm not disparaging, I'm genuinely wondering:
"Semantics are the work of understanding context, not identifying relationships."
Isn't the work of "understanding context" simply identifying the relationships between certain items in your data and other items. Which may involve discovering further relationships?
I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I really thought that semantics were derived by understanding the relationship between items.
Carmack has been releasing the source he could since Doom up through Q3 (Quake and later under GPL). The only thing that tends to slow him down is that licensees tend to want him to keep it closed until they finish their products and they have some time on the market. They paid money for it so that is their prerogative.
From other interviews I have seen he tends to live by the credo that trade-secrets and closed source and patents really aren't really advantages that you want. If you couldn't create the technology yourself, then you more than likely can't compete with him / id anyway. So he releases source and ideas as a training device for novice graphics programmers. I think he feels it's the best way for him to encourage competition and raise the bar in the industry. Although, to my knowledge he has never stated it, I would guess that he has some anti-intellectual property leanings.
The article was somewhat technically light, and I imagine Carmack was getting pretty bored/annoyed with the repetitive questions by the end. But like he says in the article the technology isn't some insane technology it is more of a point of view shift. Once you shift your point of view the technology isn't that hard, if you are competent.
Poor Carmack. He releases his game engines open source, something few companies do. He is very open and detailed about the work he is doing. He still gets crap about "keeping trade secrets". I guess you really can't win.
Shared economies. The zig-zag missle won't fly if by blowing you up their economy takes a hit.
I actaully have no clue.
The closer we come to cars that drive themselves, the closer I come to buying a car. Driving a car has to be one of the most mundane / dangerous (for myself and others) activities that I do. I don't find these new technologies scary, I find them liberating. How do people on here complain about being stuck as a cog in the wheel at some corporate job and hold on tight to their sacred role as overly-complicated cog behind the wheel of a car.
I agree with your sentiment that we should not be lazy and should be always dilligent in regards to the performance of our applications, but you seem to be saying that anyone that passes up an opportunity for a micro-optimization for the sake of clarity is being lazy/sloppy and should be sent to your idea of hell (Microsoft). When instead they may be focusing on making sure their application is performing well via profiling / algorithmic optimization.
I have to differ on this point, he was merely saying that the optimization wasn't signifcant in comparison to the gains in clarity you get. Programming is typically a resource constraint problem, you can only choose some of the optimizations to implement, so you should be choosey. Why optimize something small when that will have minimal impact on the performance when you can optimize something that can have a big impact. I don't typically use proofs by authority, but there are a number of really smart programmers (Carmack, Sweeney) that agree with some form of this argument.
He should apply to Microsoft, I hear they can use some help.
If he was serious about saving the world, he'd be investing in Pirates! http://venganza.org/
...or maybe we can switch it to Java On Nails, Jon for short. People in the industry will be talking about how they "Used Jon to build this or that", and I will quietly sneak off and switch my name to "Jon" on my resume and watch the job offers pour in.
When I was there they were called "Dash Trash", because their e-mails had a "t-" or "c-" at the front. I was Dash Trash due to the fact that I was an intern, but I was also a "Blue Badge".
"The firms are in talks to create a shared foundry, which might set the stage for the creation of a 45-nanometer process well in advance of the competition."
Does Brook's Law:
"Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later"
not apply in the least bit to semiconductor shrinking?
That is an actual question, I'm not trying to make a point.
Do you have a beef with Lisp Macros?
Last time I checked the US money system goes to pennies as it's lowest denomination and there for would still be limited to multiply by two exploit. (example, you can't get 0.15 cents by multiplying by any normal money value). So if you do X * 100 and check if it's odd it would go the same way as I specified before.
.00025 * 1cent. Although I'm sure there are some that do, but they more than likely have their rounding limit, so you just find that and multiply appropriately.
I do believe this is a valid technique given the way you've specified the problem, unless you are allowing fractions of a cent in order to turn the value into a real number, but none of the banks I deal with will take
Can you post or send your method, so I can see how it compares?
The reasoning behind strategy number 2 seems to be off in a few ways in my mind. Maybe it is just how you worded it. It seems to me that you need to compare two strategies in order to figure out if you are making anything.
.5 * y + .5 * 2 * y = .5y + y = 1.5y
.5 * y + .5 * 2 * y = 1.5y
.25 * y + .75 * 2 * y = 1.75y
:)
y = small amount
Strategy A: Always keep first check
Strategy B: Always take second check (aka your #2 above)
Strat A and B are equivalent, which is what your number 1 seems to be saying. But what your number 1 seems to neglect is the fact that when you look at the value of the check you are indeed getting information.
If you multiply by 2, the resultant value should be even. Assuming that the small value could be odd 50% of the time, you could setup a strategy like so.
If check value is odd, switch. If check value is even keep it.
y = small value
50% of the time you will get the small value, and 50% of that you will get the small even value. So the payoff would be:
which is better than your nieve strategies listed above. I don't think I am up to proving that this is indeed the best strategy.
Let me know if I'm right, okay?