That was my first question too, comparing to Groovy. I think the answer is that Groovy has significant runtime requirements (notably dynamic typing and invocation) whereas Xtend appears to purely compile down to plain Java. I suspect that means that you can run it in an ordinary container without extra tooling like Groovy. But a cursory look at the docs suggests that they do have some runtime library requirements (I see a StringConcatenation class and an InputOutput class, for example)
Yes, that's right. Dave Jones has made noteworthy contributions to the kernel, so he gets a free pass to complain about a third-party driver that breaks the kernel, and he is allowed to propose workarounds to correct said breakage, even if they use snarky variable names.
Minor nit: you mean "ellipse", not "ellipsis". An ellipsis is three dots used as punctuation like this...
But I disagree that it will look "if it might crash into us". It will be reportedly 14% larger than it's smallest appearance (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/03/what_the_hell_is_a_supermoon.php), or I'd guess about 7% larger than normal. Not sure if that's areal size or diameter. Most people probably won't be able to tell the difference.
I love Coverity. I love other static analysis tools too -- I'm one of the lead developers for Perl::Critic, which performs static analysis on Perl code. They are enormously valuable tools.
However, I've seen many cases where people read the issue report from the tool and fix the symptom rather than the problem. The improvement from 1 in 3333 to 1 in 4000 is fantastic, but that means 1 *Coverity issue* in 4000, not 1 *bug* in 4000 lines.
My current closed source project has a Coverity count of 2 issues in 150,000 lines of code as of today. Does that means it's less buggy than Samba? No, it's just different. We've simply removed the majority of the easiest-to-automatically-detect bugs.
Google points out that several people have explored opposite idea: LLVM emitting Parrot bytecode. So, you could compile C down to Parrot for the ultimate in interoperability and portability.:-)
I received a Perl Foundation grant in 2007 -- $2000 for about 80 hours of work. That's not a very good rate for an experienced engineer in the USA, but for me the money was not just a carrot but also a stick. I knew that failing my project would be a very public humiliation. It was work I wanted to do anyway, but I had procrastinated it in my free time. The deadline and publicity made me finish it. So, IMO it's the acceptance of the grant that's a significant source of motivation, not the completion.
If it wasn't for the money, I may have been just another open source programmer who didn't finish just another open source project.
The primary reason for the longevity of the Perl 6 development effort is shortage of volunteers. To put it harshly, people like you spend their energy complaining instead of helping.
The money is most certainly well-spent on both Perl 5 and Perl 6. I was a Perl Foundation grant recipient to work on Perl::Critic, a static analysis tool and code quality aid. My contributions are making a positive influence to help with the readability, maintainability and portability of large Perl 5 codebases. (read TFA and you'll see my name mentioned) Perl::Critic is being actively used in improving the Parrot codebase.
I remember that YAPC discussion. As I recall it, the point was that the average age of Perl developers was increasing, indicating a decline in younger programmers entering the community. Perl is rarely a programmer's first language, so this isn't entirely surprising. PHP is taking Perl's place as the newcomer's first web programming language (which is OK in my opinion -- PHP is easier to learn)
The decline of Perl is a myth. A graph of CPAN uploads vs. time shows a dramatic increase in the last couple of years, and 2008 is already ahead of the entirety of 2007.
The Perl program below demonstrates this bug. Tested only on OS X...
#!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; use File::Temp qw(tempdir); use File::Slurp qw(write_file read_dir); use Test::More tests => 9;
# Create some temp files my $dir = tempdir(CLEANUP => 1); write_file("$dir/one", '1'); write_file("$dir/two", '2'); write_file("$dir/three", '3');
# Confirm that the directory contains the files is_deeply([read_dir($dir)], ['one', 'three', 'two']);
# Open a directory handle and read through all files opendir(my $dirh, $dir); is(scalar readdir($dirh), '.'); is(scalar readdir($dirh), '..'); my $file1 = readdir($dirh); is($file1, 'one'); my $file2 = readdir($dirh); is($file2, 'three'); # Record the position of the second file my $pos2 = telldir($dirh); my $file3 = readdir($dirh); is($file3, 'two');
# Rewind to the second file's pos, and confirm that the next read is the third files seekdir($dirh, $pos2); is(scalar readdir($dirh), $file3);
# Delete the first file and try the above test again. It *should* have the same results ok(unlink("$dir/$file1")); seekdir($dirh, $pos2); is(scalar readdir($dirh), $file3);
closedir($dirh);
The output of the program is:
% perl bsdbug.pl 1..9 ok 1 ok 2 ok 3 ok 4 ok 5 ok 6 ok 7 ok 8 not ok 9 # Failed test at bsdbug.pl line 30. # got: undef # expected: 'two' # Looks like you failed 1 test of 9.
The license.txt file included in that tarball says:
"The source code of unRAR utility is freeware." and
"The unRAR utility may be freely distributed." However:
"The unRAR sources... cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary."
parent suggests moving all firefox activities into separate processes
Shall we call it FireToroise -- SLOW and steady wins the browser race? I think this is analogous to performance issues of microkernels vs. monolithic kernels. And, have you heard about the huge overhead in forking new processes on Windows?
For Linux, rsync works quite well for the base OS (say, a staggered start time at night based on IP)
Try Unison. It caches the state of the last sync, so it's dramatically faster at startup. Under the hood, it uses the rsync protocol when it does need to transmit changes. Additionally, it's much more configurable than rsync.
I use Unison to sync/backup my home and work computers, including my music and photo collection as well as ~/bin, ~/perl, ~/.cshrc and ~/.emacs.
ok but those are just as unpaletable to the RIAA as un-drm'd MP3. and if you are going to sell un-drm'd music to the masses may as well do it in the de-facto standard format
You missed my point. I wasn't advocating AAC, I was simply pointing out that to an *iPod* user, MP3 without DRM and AAC without DRM are roughly equivalent in terms of usability. The great-grandparent claimed that "MP3s are their only way in" which is not true.
Reassembling packets into a data stream requires a stateful firewall to track the connections. The summary says that the China firewall is stateless which implies that it cannot reassemble packets.
Apple should spend more time making it easier to switch -- like including a "start menu" equivalent, using the defacto standard "ctrl-c & ctrl-v" type shortcut keys, better windows-style support for right-click instead of always having to use ctrl-click to get a pop-up menu, real windows-style "uninstall" functionality.
1) Start menu - Ha ha! Good one!
2) Mac had Cmd-x, Cmd-c, Cmd-v first. MS copied them, but changed it to Ctrl since Windows machines lack a Cmd key.
3) Mac has had full right click support for years for all multi-button mice. If you have the (superb) Mighty Mouse, go to System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse and set the right button to behave as a right click.
4) Uninstallers -- Apple has done a terrific job of avoiding the need for an uninstaller for the majority of apps. However, I agree with you about drivers after spending a half hour trying to delete iChatUSB off my machine...
With only 1% of users on Firefox, they can hardly be considered critical. Any vulnerability in Internet Explorer is automatically 99 times as bad, due to its user base.
On MY computer, Firefox has 100% market share, so a Firefox security bug is infinitely worse than an IE bug. Don't downplay security bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my first question too, comparing to Groovy. I think the answer is that Groovy has significant runtime requirements (notably dynamic typing and invocation) whereas Xtend appears to purely compile down to plain Java. I suspect that means that you can run it in an ordinary container without extra tooling like Groovy. But a cursory look at the docs suggests that they do have some runtime library requirements (I see a StringConcatenation class and an InputOutput class, for example)
Yes, that's right. Dave Jones has made noteworthy contributions to the kernel, so he gets a free pass to complain about a third-party driver that breaks the kernel, and he is allowed to propose workarounds to correct said breakage, even if they use snarky variable names.
Ha ha, but seriously: Android's Dalvik virtual machine does not use the Hotspot compiler, so I think it should be unaffected by this bug.
Minor nit: you mean "ellipse", not "ellipsis". An ellipsis is three dots used as punctuation like this...
But I disagree that it will look "if it might crash into us". It will be reportedly 14% larger than it's smallest appearance (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/03/what_the_hell_is_a_supermoon.php), or I'd guess about 7% larger than normal. Not sure if that's areal size or diameter. Most people probably won't be able to tell the difference.
I love Coverity. I love other static analysis tools too -- I'm one of the lead developers for Perl::Critic, which performs static analysis on Perl code. They are enormously valuable tools.
However, I've seen many cases where people read the issue report from the tool and fix the symptom rather than the problem. The improvement from 1 in 3333 to 1 in 4000 is fantastic, but that means 1 *Coverity issue* in 4000, not 1 *bug* in 4000 lines.
My current closed source project has a Coverity count of 2 issues in 150,000 lines of code as of today. Does that means it's less buggy than Samba? No, it's just different. We've simply removed the majority of the easiest-to-automatically-detect bugs.
Google points out that several people have explored opposite idea: LLVM emitting Parrot bytecode. So, you could compile C down to Parrot for the ultimate in interoperability and portability. :-)
I received a Perl Foundation grant in 2007 -- $2000 for about 80 hours of work. That's not a very good rate for an experienced engineer in the USA, but for me the money was not just a carrot but also a stick. I knew that failing my project would be a very public humiliation. It was work I wanted to do anyway, but I had procrastinated it in my free time. The deadline and publicity made me finish it. So, IMO it's the acceptance of the grant that's a significant source of motivation, not the completion.
If it wasn't for the money, I may have been just another open source programmer who didn't finish just another open source project.
The primary reason for the longevity of the Perl 6 development effort is shortage of volunteers. To put it harshly, people like you spend their energy complaining instead of helping.
The money is most certainly well-spent on both Perl 5 and Perl 6. I was a Perl Foundation grant recipient to work on Perl::Critic, a static analysis tool and code quality aid. My contributions are making a positive influence to help with the readability, maintainability and portability of large Perl 5 codebases. (read TFA and you'll see my name mentioned) Perl::Critic is being actively used in improving the Parrot codebase.
What have you done to help?
I remember that YAPC discussion. As I recall it, the point was that the average age of Perl developers was increasing, indicating a decline in younger programmers entering the community. Perl is rarely a programmer's first language, so this isn't entirely surprising. PHP is taking Perl's place as the newcomer's first web programming language (which is OK in my opinion -- PHP is easier to learn)
The decline of Perl is a myth. A graph of CPAN uploads vs. time shows a dramatic increase in the last couple of years, and 2008 is already ahead of the entirety of 2007.
http://blog.timbunce.org/2008/03/08/perl-myths/
That's easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AllPages
I know if I was blind, I would simply boycott them.
:-)
The court declared that the site is inaccessible to the blind, so if you were blind you'd be hard pressed NOT to boycott them!
> Even compiling and installing a driver or two isn't rocket science.
Even rocket science isn't rocket science if you're a rocket scientist.
RAR - It's a proprietary compression algorithm with no open-source implementations.
... cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary."
It may not be a truly open license, but the source is freely available:
http://files.rarlab.com/rar/unrarsrc-3.4.1.tar.gz
I built it on my Mac via "fink install unrar".
The license.txt file included in that tarball says:
"The source code of unRAR utility is freeware."
and
"The unRAR utility may be freely distributed."
However:
"The unRAR sources
parent suggests moving all firefox activities into separate processes
Shall we call it FireToroise -- SLOW and steady wins the browser race? I think this is analogous to performance issues of microkernels vs. monolithic kernels. And, have you heard about the huge overhead in forking new processes on Windows?
Try Unison. It caches the state of the last sync, so it's dramatically faster at startup. Under the hood, it uses the rsync protocol when it does need to transmit changes. Additionally, it's much more configurable than rsync.
I use Unison to sync/backup my home and work computers, including my music and photo collection as well as ~/bin, ~/perl, ~/.cshrc and ~/.emacs.
Quantum, of course, means the smallest possible increment. That's not a very complimentary statement.
You missed my point. I wasn't advocating AAC, I was simply pointing out that to an *iPod* user, MP3 without DRM and AAC without DRM are roughly equivalent in terms of usability. The great-grandparent claimed that "MP3s are their only way in" which is not true.
How about non-DRM'd AAC? ALAC? While MP3 is undoubtably the lowest common denominator, it's not the only answer for entering the iPod world.
TLA Psych Report for: [Smooth Wombat]
Recommendation: REJECT
Reason:
Psych models predict subject shows high likelihood
of revealing operational procedures to Slashdot
Reassembling packets into a data stream requires a stateful firewall to track the connections. The summary says that the China firewall is stateless which implies that it cannot reassemble packets.
1) Start menu - Ha ha! Good one!
2) Mac had Cmd-x, Cmd-c, Cmd-v first. MS copied them, but changed it to Ctrl since Windows machines lack a Cmd key.
3) Mac has had full right click support for years for all multi-button mice. If you have the (superb) Mighty Mouse, go to System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse and set the right button to behave as a right click.
4) Uninstallers -- Apple has done a terrific job of avoiding the need for an uninstaller for the majority of apps. However, I agree with you about drivers after spending a half hour trying to delete iChatUSB off my machine...
MacOSX 10.4 was released almost a year ago with GCC 4.x as the default. I'd say that means it's stable enough. :-)
With only 1% of users on Firefox, they can hardly be considered critical. Any vulnerability in Internet Explorer is automatically 99 times as bad, due to its user base.
On MY computer, Firefox has 100% market share, so a Firefox security bug is infinitely worse than an IE bug. Don't downplay security bugs.