I read an article about the Atom platform, which competes in this space. Apparently only the most powerful version of Atom would have enough oomph to run Vista, so can this nVidia MID handle it acceptably? (I know, the review mentioned it runs Windows Mobile, but I'm curious.)
The HVD promises 3.9 TB of storage, but with a price tag of around $15000 for a drive and $180 for a disk, this puts it clearly in range of companies with the needs and the money. ouch, but imagine the bragging rights from the early-adopters on that!
I have introduced a bug into a program I was maintaining because I failed to notice the difference between the member variable 'SomeVariable' and the local variable 'someVariable'. (it probably depends on the font and initial letters how easy it is to read, but its still poor practice IMHO).
Anything that thrives on an inflexible doctrine should not be used, especially if it is more interested in its 'clever' approach to a problem instead of making things clearer.
An example is how people criticize Hungarian notation for various reasons, mostly because they just don't like it, but if putting a p before a pointer variable helps to prevent a bug then I'm all for it. (ok, but I'm not in favour of dwpszbVariable type hungarian). Camelcase simply does nothing for helping the reader to see clearly, and should be banned for that reason alone. And I don't care how "clean" or "elegant" it might be.
"this load of crap", sir, is the latest cool new thing. Why else would microsoft spend lots of ther precious development and research resources on adding lambda functions to C#, creating F# and why Haskell is now the de-jour of forums and blogs around the world.
Why, I believe you are one of those old style programmers who believe in making things simple, easy to read and maintain, straightforward to develop and simple to understand. How will you appear superior to your colleagues and peers if you write code that they can understand? You have no clue, sir, of the need nowadays to preen your feathers by appearing to "grok" something as obtuse and needlessly obscure as this kind of coding style.
If your code is so simple, and anyone can understand it, then there is no reason why it can't be shipped offshore to Elbonia. So, get with the program and spend at least an hour a day "refactoring" your code to the required level of spaghettiness. Thank you.
EXCEPT that python is just so much faster to develop in. It's amazing how much time you can waste, specifying all the types for an app, defining interfaces, deciding what container classes to use, etc. In python, you mostly just code, and the speed gain is phenomenal./quote?
Or to put it in other words, when people say that they program in Java because it makes them more productive, you're saying that python takes that, trumps it and makes you as productive as ten java programmers.
And when they say, yes but Python doesn't scale as well if you code like that, you can say that if you want performance and detailed design, you code it in C++ which gives you even more structure and speed over your code.
So, to summarise: you should never code in Java, only in either C++ or Python, depending on the task at hand. Good job you can easily mix the two for the ultimate in programming power.
really? I have a server 2003 machine, and it restarts itself regularly. When I come in next day, I find a bubble saying "windows needed to restart to install some high priority updates". I suppose that might not count as restarting to some people.
NT4 was really good, I remember mine that was only restarted when we needed to physically move it, other than that there was never an issue with it.
Remember when XP came out, and lots of people turned the GUI to windows 2000 mode. They weren't too fussed, they wanted it to work, responsively and quickly.
Remember now we have Vista that lots of people turn that UI off.. classic mode is pretty much the same one. Strange that MS would keep the old UI around, if no-one wants it.
So, that Evolution looks like Windows 2000 UI, that could be construed as a good thing. Now round those buttons off, before Ballmer notices and calls in the copyright lawyers!
no, often 'garbage' turns out not to be. I'm sure there are lots of legacy code out there that is a nightmare to maintain, but I've seen too many 'rewrite from scratch' (usually using the latest, coolest technology) that turns out to be even worse.
The first recourse for a professional developer is to salvage what he can from the existing code, preferably refactoring to make it less of a maintenance pain - ie get rid of the old hacks that are no longer needed, convert some individualistic areas to use a common method, etc. If that cannot be done (and I doubt if that can never be done), then a rewrite of core areas should be written woth as much of the existing code salavaged and reused.
A total rewrite should only be done when the technology cannot solve the new problems, or the code has evolved over time to be total nightmare. that is not an excuse to take a 10 second scan of the code, say "I don't understand it, it needs a rewrite", and start deciding what cool tech you'll use this week.
Incidentally, in the long run, rewrites are never the answer. They'r a short term solution, because pretty quickly your new shiny code will become legacy itself and someone will look at it, say "that's so crufty... we need a rewrite"!
(or to put it in the context of my company: go "hey! Wow. Biztalk! And look, you can create lots and lots and lots of objects in C#, wow that's so cool. Look! LINQ, we must use that too 'cos the old DB access is just so crap and slow and legacy." sigh, so now we have a.NET framework that has more issues than the existing code ever had, and parts of which are *currently* being rewritten again. Its quite sad.)
Pull copyright on their ass. Get your lawyers to insist that the code is removed or they pay you compensation (that you can obviously donate to whatever other OSS project you like).
Unless you explicitly gave away your code, it belongs to you. The mozilla licence doesn't apply until your code is accepted by them - I'm sure you have a case to say that your code was never submitted under any OSS licence until it became part of the FF project, and even if it was then you must get credited for the work.
It sounds like you can prove your claims, so go for it. Its not just for you, but for all the other contributors who may come after you.
Unfortunately, (and even if this is not true, but perception makes it so) if you use some GPL code in your project, your project must be released under the GPL.
So commercial projects do not use GPL code at all, never, ever ever. Which is a shame as some of it is very good:)
Now, if there was a licence that said "all the code in this package is GPL, if you use any of it you're bound to releases any changes you make to the code in this package only. Linked/compiled/merged/etc etc code that you add to it does not need to be re-released, only changes to the code you received", then you would see a huge uptake in OSS code in commercial projects, they'd be happy to use it, and you'd be happy to see improvements released back, and users would be happy because we'd be reusing tons of code.
As it is, the bosses at my company say 'sackable offence' to use GPL code, (which includes LGPL too even if its only kept built into a library).
Both those protocols suffer from 1 problem: bloat. The reason they're bloated and inefficient is because a committee decided how and what to add to the protocol once it was initiated, and we all know how well that works out.
SOAP was a 'quick and dirty solution (by Don Box IIRC) to (apart from getting a job at MS:) ) transfer COM calls over a http tunnel instead of the usual DCE-RPC tunnel, and it worked well when you only wanted to send a request to an object. Obviously, it has to have a webserver on the other end which slows it down tremendously, and then they added support for all kinds of complex types and a large schema as well. I'm surprised it works at all after seeing the raw WSDL code!
CORBA... designed by committee to do everything including transport kitchen sinks.
Since I've been working in the industry there is a tendency for supposedly bright people to take something simple and 'make it a general purpose solution' or 'implement some framework features' which nearly always breaks it into a bloated POS far removed from the original, simple, easy to use, and effective solution.
I welcome Cisco's new protocol, I don't care if it doesn't do everything I might possibly ever want to do, as long as it does the majority of my work quickly and simply. I can work around the edge cases myself, possibly even (gosh!) redesigning the way those edge cases work.
I hope you understand (before digging) that the range limit for ethernet (even cat 6) is 100 metres. And 100BaseFx (ie fibre) is 400 metres.
Howeverm if you lay multimode-fibre then you can get a length of 2km out of it. I have no idea what kind of routers you'd need to make that work, but I guess they'd be expensive.
An economist is not a "bean counter". An accountant is a bean counter
exactly his point, at least a bean counter can count beans! Economists...
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."
nope, its because as soon as you start watching the football, she discovers how incredibly boring it is, and turns the the first thing she finds most interesting: how you 'feel'.
Similarly, when you and your wife find yourselves with a spare moment, and she starts to talk about your relationship, you find it incredibly boring and turn to the thing you find most interesting: what's on the TV.
Personally I think that taking turns at the keyboard is fine too - one of you is always slee^H^H^H reviewing, instead of having to think:)
My opinion is to never have 2 people working on the same chunk of code. 2 people, work on their own areas and then swap over to test, review (and if you want to be really extreme, document) the other guys' code. That'd sort the men from the professionals.
Slashdot Mirror
are you sure?
I read an article about the Atom platform, which competes in this space. Apparently only the most powerful version of Atom would have enough oomph to run Vista, so can this nVidia MID handle it acceptably? (I know, the review mentioned it runs Windows Mobile, but I'm curious.)
Yikes!
That's like those horror images you see, like the ones the dentist shows you - "clean your teeth children, or they'll look like... THIS!".
Eat your vegetables children, or you'll have to eat bananas.. like THIS!
I have introduced a bug into a program I was maintaining because I failed to notice the difference between the member variable 'SomeVariable' and the local variable 'someVariable'. (it probably depends on the font and initial letters how easy it is to read, but its still poor practice IMHO).
Anything that thrives on an inflexible doctrine should not be used, especially if it is more interested in its 'clever' approach to a problem instead of making things clearer.
An example is how people criticize Hungarian notation for various reasons, mostly because they just don't like it, but if putting a p before a pointer variable helps to prevent a bug then I'm all for it. (ok, but I'm not in favour of dwpszbVariable type hungarian). Camelcase simply does nothing for helping the reader to see clearly, and should be banned for that reason alone. And I don't care how "clean" or "elegant" it might be.
"this load of crap", sir, is the latest cool new thing. Why else would microsoft spend lots of ther precious development and research resources on adding lambda functions to C#, creating F# and why Haskell is now the de-jour of forums and blogs around the world.
Why, I believe you are one of those old style programmers who believe in making things simple, easy to read and maintain, straightforward to develop and simple to understand. How will you appear superior to your colleagues and peers if you write code that they can understand? You have no clue, sir, of the need nowadays to preen your feathers by appearing to "grok" something as obtuse and needlessly obscure as this kind of coding style.
If your code is so simple, and anyone can understand it, then there is no reason why it can't be shipped offshore to Elbonia. So, get with the program and spend at least an hour a day "refactoring" your code to the required level of spaghettiness. Thank you.
Or to put it in other words, when people say that they program in Java because it makes them more productive, you're saying that python takes that, trumps it and makes you as productive as ten java programmers.
And when they say, yes but Python doesn't scale as well if you code like that, you can say that if you want performance and detailed design, you code it in C++ which gives you even more structure and speed over your code.
So, to summarise: you should never code in Java, only in either C++ or Python, depending on the task at hand. Good job you can easily mix the two for the ultimate in programming power.
really? I have a server 2003 machine, and it restarts itself regularly. When I come in next day, I find a bubble saying "windows needed to restart to install some high priority updates". I suppose that might not count as restarting to some people.
NT4 was really good, I remember mine that was only restarted when we needed to physically move it, other than that there was never an issue with it.
*This* is the year of the Linux desktop.
speed, generally.
.. classic mode is pretty much the same one. Strange that MS would keep the old UI around, if no-one wants it.
Remember when XP came out, and lots of people turned the GUI to windows 2000 mode. They weren't too fussed, they wanted it to work, responsively and quickly.
Remember now we have Vista that lots of people turn that UI off
So, that Evolution looks like Windows 2000 UI, that could be construed as a good thing. Now round those buttons off, before Ballmer notices and calls in the copyright lawyers!
no, often 'garbage' turns out not to be. I'm sure there are lots of legacy code out there that is a nightmare to maintain, but I've seen too many 'rewrite from scratch' (usually using the latest, coolest technology) that turns out to be even worse.
.NET framework that has more issues than the existing code ever had, and parts of which are *currently* being rewritten again. Its quite sad.)
The first recourse for a professional developer is to salvage what he can from the existing code, preferably refactoring to make it less of a maintenance pain - ie get rid of the old hacks that are no longer needed, convert some individualistic areas to use a common method, etc. If that cannot be done (and I doubt if that can never be done), then a rewrite of core areas should be written woth as much of the existing code salavaged and reused.
A total rewrite should only be done when the technology cannot solve the new problems, or the code has evolved over time to be total nightmare. that is not an excuse to take a 10 second scan of the code, say "I don't understand it, it needs a rewrite", and start deciding what cool tech you'll use this week.
Incidentally, in the long run, rewrites are never the answer. They'r a short term solution, because pretty quickly your new shiny code will become legacy itself and someone will look at it, say "that's so crufty... we need a rewrite"!
(or to put it in the context of my company: go "hey! Wow. Biztalk! And look, you can create lots and lots and lots of objects in C#, wow that's so cool. Look! LINQ, we must use that too 'cos the old DB access is just so crap and slow and legacy." sigh, so now we have a
I'm reminded of a famous memory leak bug that was most definitely not a bug, until it was fixed in FF3 :-)
Pull copyright on their ass. Get your lawyers to insist that the code is removed or they pay you compensation (that you can obviously donate to whatever other OSS project you like).
Unless you explicitly gave away your code, it belongs to you. The mozilla licence doesn't apply until your code is accepted by them - I'm sure you have a case to say that your code was never submitted under any OSS licence until it became part of the FF project, and even if it was then you must get credited for the work.
It sounds like you can prove your claims, so go for it. Its not just for you, but for all the other contributors who may come after you.
read the first post..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprockets_(Saturday_Night_Live)
oh no. disturbing is when you open the casing to find... spiders.
Unfortunately, (and even if this is not true, but perception makes it so) if you use some GPL code in your project, your project must be released under the GPL.
:)
So commercial projects do not use GPL code at all, never, ever ever. Which is a shame as some of it is very good
Now, if there was a licence that said "all the code in this package is GPL, if you use any of it you're bound to releases any changes you make to the code in this package only. Linked/compiled/merged/etc etc code that you add to it does not need to be re-released, only changes to the code you received", then you would see a huge uptake in OSS code in commercial projects, they'd be happy to use it, and you'd be happy to see improvements released back, and users would be happy because we'd be reusing tons of code.
As it is, the bosses at my company say 'sackable offence' to use GPL code, (which includes LGPL too even if its only kept built into a library).
Both those protocols suffer from 1 problem: bloat. The reason they're bloated and inefficient is because a committee decided how and what to add to the protocol once it was initiated, and we all know how well that works out.
:) ) transfer COM calls over a http tunnel instead of the usual DCE-RPC tunnel, and it worked well when you only wanted to send a request to an object. Obviously, it has to have a webserver on the other end which slows it down tremendously, and then they added support for all kinds of complex types and a large schema as well. I'm surprised it works at all after seeing the raw WSDL code!
SOAP was a 'quick and dirty solution (by Don Box IIRC) to (apart from getting a job at MS
CORBA... designed by committee to do everything including transport kitchen sinks.
Since I've been working in the industry there is a tendency for supposedly bright people to take something simple and 'make it a general purpose solution' or 'implement some framework features' which nearly always breaks it into a bloated POS far removed from the original, simple, easy to use, and effective solution.
I welcome Cisco's new protocol, I don't care if it doesn't do everything I might possibly ever want to do, as long as it does the majority of my work quickly and simply. I can work around the edge cases myself, possibly even (gosh!) redesigning the way those edge cases work.
I hope you understand (before digging) that the range limit for ethernet (even cat 6) is 100 metres. And 100BaseFx (ie fibre) is 400 metres.
Howeverm if you lay multimode-fibre then you can get a length of 2km out of it. I have no idea what kind of routers you'd need to make that work, but I guess they'd be expensive.
An economist is not a "bean counter". An accountant is a bean counter
exactly his point, at least a bean counter can count beans! Economists...
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."
What good is a phone call if you can't speak, mr anderson?"
thank goodness for the anti government-mind-control properties of texting, video messages, IM and email!
nope, its because as soon as you start watching the football, she discovers how incredibly boring it is, and turns the the first thing she finds most interesting: how you 'feel'.
Similarly, when you and your wife find yourselves with a spare moment, and she starts to talk about your relationship, you find it incredibly boring and turn to the thing you find most interesting: what's on the TV.
Personally I think that taking turns at the keyboard is fine too - one of you is always slee^H^H^H reviewing, instead of having to think :)
My opinion is to never have 2 people working on the same chunk of code. 2 people, work on their own areas and then swap over to test, review (and if you want to be really extreme, document) the other guys' code. That'd sort the men from the professionals.
and in the early 80s by other bands. It was a different age, child porn was art and even terrorists were romantic freedom fighters with a cause.
Things are different now. I blame the internet.
or buying even older kit and throwing away the P3 system that was inside it.