Thats about all you really need to do to install the latest icc7 ebuild. If you don't have rpm portage will download and install that so it can extract the stuff in the icc rpm file.
"when VC7.1 comes out it will probably surpass gcc in terms of standards conformance."
Given that they've already said there are a number of things that won't be supported in 7.1 that gcc has supported for years now, I somehow doubt that.
However, they do say they're now using some really important libraries like Loki and BOOST as test cases for the next release, it looks promising.
A compiler has a more specific meaning than that: it translates code from a high level language. Otherwise the distinction would be meaningless.
This isn't just "what the book says." The difference has to do with the close correspondence between the "translation," which is practically a one-to-one mapping in assembly.
I'd expect someone who was teaching the course and have reviewed the book to know the difference.
The book comes with Microsoft ASM and thus all examples assume using MASM for their compilation needs. In my class, however, NASM has always been the compiler of choice,...
I would lie to you if I told you that I've read the whole book.
It would also seem you would be lying if you said you made it to Chapter 1 -- Basic Concepts, deep into the text on page 3 where it says:
The problem is that he misrepresented himself. He didn't send those global messages asking for donations for himself. He sent them claiming they were for the network! I would suspect the large majority of people who did donate something like $20, did so thinking it was to help pay for things that would be of benefit to the entire system, and not his own personal cash machine. They were deceived, plain and simple.
The last couple of global notices on OPN looks like this:
-FUNDRAISING- [Global Notice] Good morning, all. We're still fundraising for PDPC/freenode. Please look at http://freenode.info/contrib.shtml and help us if you can. The current total still stands at $1,871.27, so we're about 1,157 $20 contributions away from goal. Have a great morning, and thank you for using freenode!:)
(bold emphasis added)
The last message is:
-FUNDRAISING- [Global Notice] Hi, all. We're still fundraising for PDPC/freenode. Please look at the http://freenode.info/contrib.shtml and help us if you can. Slight change to http://freenode.info/faq#fundraising; due to a SSI mistype, the question "Who decides how the money you collect will be spent?" was omitted. We're a bit stalled at $1,871.27, about 1,157 $20 contributions away from goal. Have a great day, and thanks for using freenode!
with straightforward licensing and clarity of intellectual property ownership. (emphasis added)
I just can't see the truth in that one. Microsoft licenses are so long and complicated sometimes that I wonder if anyone would ever get much work done if they actually had to sit there and analyze it all instead of just clicking "OK", "I agree", etc.
I don't think IT really exists, and therefore phrases such as IT Professional are meaningless.
So far as I can tell, the acronym "IT" is used as a catch-all to describe work related to interaction with computers. Jobs ranging from data entry to programming are then all called "IT jobs," and the people behind them "IT professionals."
To me, it represents a lack of understanding - and quite often those who use it don't, and the meaning I get from them is just basically "those computer things I don't understand."
Yeah, I did. If Sun goes with GNOME, on the desktop it will still then mean preference for a WM-environment will be divided into two big camps, although it'd be easier to target either one.
However, what if United Linux has a domino effect? If either Sun or RH decides to join and bases their next release on UL, then I'd think it may put pressure on the other to do the same.
If Sun bases their new upcoming distro on UnitedLinux, which doesn't seem like such a bad idea for a new player -- then RedHat would be all alone. On the other hand, maybe the UL players now are so insignificant that it wouldn't even matter to either RH or Sun, I have no idea.
Another thing that stands out is the absence of Mandrake from UL, and how far the distro-cooperation is going to run. Will a standard set of some of the proprietary "add-ons" like installation/admin-tools be used for UL? Haven't seen anything on that.
Some stats? Just by knowing how much more well-defined C++'s type-system is compared to C is enough to get an intuitive sense that there will be cases where C++ will out-perform it. As for a specific example, type-based alias analysis is one that seems to have been getting attention lately. C++'s templates, are probably the most remarkable example, as they can permit optimizations beyond the ability of current Fortran compilers.
Both of them are so fast already though that comparing them for the most part isn't all that interesting. Awhile back, Alexander Stepanov created the Abstraction Penalty benchmark to test the effect of using abstraction features in C++ like the STL. Over the past several years I've noticed that the penalty is usually close to nothing, if not sometimes less than -- indicating a speedup.
Its also worth mentioning that recent implementations of sort in the C++ STL use the introspective sort algorithm instead of quicksort, which gaurantees the worst-case performance isn't quadratic.
What exactly makes you believe such things? People at Sun have been quoted far-and-wide for the reasons why they decided to charge for it.
After several years after open-sourcing StarOffice it just wasn't taken seriously because it was free. When Scott McNealy tried pitching it to some corporate big-wigs they found the idea that it wouldn't cost them anything to mean StarOffice wasn't a credible competitor.
Re:Wow. Talk about rewriting history.
on
More Marcelo Tosatti
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I thought RMS started Free Software after the issue with the printer driver.
Then you are mistaken as well. RMS uses that as a canonical example of the ills of copywrite and his take on its "antisocial" effect, but he didn't set off to do the whole GNU thing until after '82-83 where he spent time working on LISP systems that competed with Symbolics which he perceived to be the chief parasite at the time most responsible for the "rape" of the MIT AI lab.
Symbolics didn't rip off RMS' work though, which is what the previous post suggests. Infact, the situation was more of the reverse. To quote Symbolics president at the time from Hackers:
"We develop a program or an advancement to our operating system and make it work, and that may take three months, and then under our agreement with MIT, we give that to them. And then [Stallman] compares it with the old ones and looks at that and sees how it works and reimplements it [for the LMI machines]. He calls it reverse engineering. We call it theft of trade secrets. "
I feel that experience speaks far stronger than any certification can. People seem to think that if they get a certification they can land a high paying job in IT. I know plenty of people with various certifications who are dumb as a box of rocks.
Certifications can at least demonstrate that someone has a minimum set of working knowledge. That goes a long way for a third-party in evaluating a long list of applicants which they can't really objectively measure.
Of course they could be entirely unmotivated slugs and have only been interested in studying neat little discrete case-studies so that they could get the cert -- but at least in this way they have provided some kind of filter that would help identify those who are qualified. No doubt its not a perfect world, and computing-trivia isn't an inescapable indicator of capability -- but its a hard problem to solve.
As the author of this article mentioned, it can get you the interview. At that point, hopefully the interviewer can assess them in a way that shows they have experience.
I went the tech-job route quite early around your age, and I usually ended up working with people who were usually at least twice my age and some often even had children as old as I was.
The major drawbacks are social: the people you work with will probably see you as a "kid", and you won't get into their "cliques". Within a corporiate structure, that can translate into a bad political climate for a talented younger person. Some may even perceive you as a threat to their cushy jobs.
The most obvious one is that you will probably not meet many (if any at all) women. That one is a major downer, and perhaps the single most important social factor.:)
Judging from this short review, it just sounds like another in-depth Ode to the various inherent flaws of C. Is that all?
Hopefully not, but from other reviews/stories I've seen here on/. thats what it really seems to boil down to -- and its really beginning to annoy me to hear about some big "security community", and all these "security issues", security this and that, blah blah blah which all boils down to a design problem with C which has been beaten to death by now and is not very interesting.
If that isn't the case, I would have really appreciated a more thorough review (beyond "I liked it").
I think you touch on a more important point that you don't mention specifically: the ability to verify whether or not someone is suited for the job.
For you, it seems you know the good questions to ask to be able to measure someones abilities in that context. There are very few people who can do that. For those that can't, they must rely on criteria listed in a resume such as a degree, work experience, etc.
And so accordingly I've also noticed that those who do not meet some filtering pre-conditions (degree X, Y years of work experience with technology Z) have the most difficult of times just trying to get into a situation where they can be "verified" by someone who has the ability to analyze such things beyond a superficial level.
What that means as an example in real world terms is that if your interviewer is from a part of the company like Human Resources, they typically have no ability whatsoever to make an accurate assessment.
The issue is not pro-FSF con-FSF or pro-Open Source etc. It's that the FSF/GNU philosophy info is out of place in a programming manual about GCC -- thats not its role.
The question of why it is in there is an entirely different matter of inquiry.
Theoretically, the KDE people (for example) should only have to release one set of packages per OS. Doing otherwise wastes a great amoutn of time that could be used elsewhere.
I see your point, but FYI KDE doesn't release distribution-specific packages. They release source only -- it's the distros themselves that are providing specific packages.
With OE 2002 from Office XP I've not been able to get "View Source" to work at all. I used to be able to right-click a message in my Inbox and select that option, or hit CTRL+F3 as you mentioned.
The removal of that single feature is probably what will motivate me to switch to a different client on my windows machine. I just sure as hell hope I can easily import my email from this version.
Well, it is worthless for it's intended use. However, it's valuable because:
1) The reverse connection verifies the source of the connection is 'real'
2) If authentication is stalled until an ident request is satisfied, that prevents a client from DoS attacking by connecting really fast.
Re:FOR loops: a question, ANSI C++, C++98, C++99..
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Actually, your example is how it should be. It's not a bug in ANSI/ISO C++, and C99 adopted that behavior too. My guess is you're comparing it to MSVC6, which incorrectly allows the scope of i to be extant outside of the for block.
I live several miles from downtown and have 45dB line quality, and use DSL. Several people I also know live as far as Nine Mile Falls and have AT&T@Home Cable inet access (CompUSA even has demo setups of it, and try to hook you into buying it). As for your lack of access, thats a bummer -- but I think it's quite a bit more widespread than you think.
[ It's also really weird to see people from Spokane come out of nowhere in/.:) ]
Slashdot Mirror
# emerge /usr/portage/dev-lang/icc/icc-7.0.065-r1.ebuild
# cp /path/to/my/license-file.lic /opt/intel/compiler70/ia32/bin/
Thats about all you really need to do to install the latest icc7 ebuild. If you don't have rpm portage will download and install that so it can extract the stuff in the icc rpm file.
- "when VC7.1 comes out it will probably surpass gcc in terms of standards conformance."
Given that they've already said there are a number of things that won't be supported in 7.1 that gcc has supported for years now, I somehow doubt that.However, they do say they're now using some really important libraries like Loki and BOOST as test cases for the next release, it looks promising.
Next...
A compiler has a more specific meaning than that: it translates code from a high level language. Otherwise the distinction would be meaningless.
This isn't just "what the book says." The difference has to do with the close correspondence between the "translation," which is practically a one-to-one mapping in assembly.
I'd expect someone who was teaching the course and have reviewed the book to know the difference.
The book comes with Microsoft ASM and thus all examples assume using MASM for their compilation needs. In my class, however, NASM has always been the compiler of choice,
I would lie to you if I told you that I've read the whole book.
It would also seem you would be lying if you said you made it to Chapter 1 -- Basic Concepts, deep into the text on page 3 where it says:
" What is an assembler? "
Hint: Not a compiler.
The last couple of global notices on OPN looks like this:
:)
(bold emphasis added)-FUNDRAISING- [Global Notice] Good morning, all. We're still fundraising for PDPC/freenode. Please look at http://freenode.info/contrib.shtml and help us if you can. The current total still stands at $1,871.27, so we're about 1,157 $20 contributions away from goal. Have a great morning, and thank you for using freenode!
The last message is:
-FUNDRAISING- [Global Notice] Hi, all. We're still fundraising for PDPC/freenode. Please look at the http://freenode.info/contrib.shtml and help us if you can. Slight change to http://freenode.info/faq#fundraising; due to a SSI mistype, the question "Who decides how the money you collect will be spent?" was omitted. We're a bit stalled at $1,871.27, about 1,157 $20 contributions away from goal. Have a great day, and thanks for using freenode!
- Better business alignment
- with straightforward licensing and clarity of intellectual property ownership. (emphasis added)
I just can't see the truth in that one. Microsoft licenses are so long and complicated sometimes that I wonder if anyone would ever get much work done if they actually had to sit there and analyze it all instead of just clicking "OK", "I agree", etc.I don't think IT really exists, and therefore phrases such as IT Professional are meaningless.
So far as I can tell, the acronym "IT" is used as a catch-all to describe work related to interaction with computers. Jobs ranging from data entry to programming are then all called "IT jobs," and the people behind them "IT professionals."
To me, it represents a lack of understanding - and quite often those who use it don't, and the meaning I get from them is just basically "those computer things I don't understand."
Yeah, I did. If Sun goes with GNOME, on the desktop it will still then mean preference for a WM-environment will be divided into two big camps, although it'd be easier to target either one.
However, what if United Linux has a domino effect? If either Sun or RH decides to join and bases their next release on UL, then I'd think it may put pressure on the other to do the same.
If Sun bases their new upcoming distro on UnitedLinux, which doesn't seem like such a bad idea for a new player -- then RedHat would be all alone. On the other hand, maybe the UL players now are so insignificant that it wouldn't even matter to either RH or Sun, I have no idea.
Another thing that stands out is the absence of Mandrake from UL, and how far the distro-cooperation is going to run. Will a standard set of some of the proprietary "add-ons" like installation/admin-tools be used for UL? Haven't seen anything on that.
Some stats? Just by knowing how much more well-defined C++'s type-system is compared to C is enough to get an intuitive sense that there will be cases where C++ will out-perform it. As for a specific example, type-based alias analysis is one that seems to have been getting attention lately. C++'s templates, are probably the most remarkable example, as they can permit optimizations beyond the ability of current Fortran compilers.
Both of them are so fast already though that comparing them for the most part isn't all that interesting. Awhile back, Alexander Stepanov created the Abstraction Penalty benchmark to test the effect of using abstraction features in C++ like the STL. Over the past several years I've noticed that the penalty is usually close to nothing, if not sometimes less than -- indicating a speedup.
Its also worth mentioning that recent implementations of sort in the C++ STL use the introspective sort algorithm instead of quicksort, which gaurantees the worst-case performance isn't quadratic.
From what I recall from previous updates, they show up on their ftp servers about a month after being released.
What exactly makes you believe such things? People at Sun have been quoted far-and-wide for the reasons why they decided to charge for it.
After several years after open-sourcing StarOffice it just wasn't taken seriously because it was free. When Scott McNealy tried pitching it to some corporate big-wigs they found the idea that it wouldn't cost them anything to mean StarOffice wasn't a credible competitor.
I thought RMS started Free Software after the issue with the printer driver.
Then you are mistaken as well. RMS uses that as a canonical example of the ills of copywrite and his take on its "antisocial" effect, but he didn't set off to do the whole GNU thing until after '82-83 where he spent time working on LISP systems that competed with Symbolics which he perceived to be the chief parasite at the time most responsible for the "rape" of the MIT AI lab.
Symbolics didn't rip off RMS' work though, which is what the previous post suggests. Infact, the situation was more of the reverse. To quote Symbolics president at the time from Hackers:
"We develop a program or an advancement to our operating system and make it work, and that may take three months, and then under our agreement with MIT, we give that to them. And then [Stallman] compares it with the old ones and looks at that and sees how it works and reimplements it [for the LMI machines]. He calls it reverse engineering. We call it theft of trade secrets. "
I feel that experience speaks far stronger than any certification can. People seem to think that if they get a certification they can land a high paying job in IT. I know plenty of people with various certifications who are dumb as a box of rocks.
Certifications can at least demonstrate that someone has a minimum set of working knowledge. That goes a long way for a third-party in evaluating a long list of applicants which they can't really objectively measure.
Of course they could be entirely unmotivated slugs and have only been interested in studying neat little discrete case-studies so that they could get the cert -- but at least in this way they have provided some kind of filter that would help identify those who are qualified. No doubt its not a perfect world, and computing-trivia isn't an inescapable indicator of capability -- but its a hard problem to solve.
As the author of this article mentioned, it can get you the interview. At that point, hopefully the interviewer can assess them in a way that shows they have experience.
I went the tech-job route quite early around your age, and I usually ended up working with people who were usually at least twice my age and some often even had children as old as I was.
:)
The major drawbacks are social: the people you work with will probably see you as a "kid", and you won't get into their "cliques". Within a corporiate structure, that can translate into a bad political climate for a talented younger person. Some may even perceive you as a threat to their cushy jobs.
The most obvious one is that you will probably not meet many (if any at all) women. That one is a major downer, and perhaps the single most important social factor.
Judging from this short review, it just sounds like another in-depth Ode to the various inherent flaws of C. Is that all?
/. thats what it really seems to boil down to -- and its really beginning to annoy me to hear about some big "security community", and all these "security issues", security this and that, blah blah blah which all boils down to a design problem with C which has been beaten to death by now and is not very interesting.
Hopefully not, but from other reviews/stories I've seen here on
If that isn't the case, I would have really appreciated a more thorough review (beyond "I liked it").
I think you touch on a more important point that you don't mention specifically: the ability to verify whether or not someone is suited for the job.
For you, it seems you know the good questions to ask to be able to measure someones abilities in that context. There are very few people who can do that. For those that can't, they must rely on criteria listed in a resume such as a degree, work experience, etc.
And so accordingly I've also noticed that those who do not meet some filtering pre-conditions (degree X, Y years of work experience with technology Z) have the most difficult of times just trying to get into a situation where they can be "verified" by someone who has the ability to analyze such things beyond a superficial level.
What that means as an example in real world terms is that if your interviewer is from a part of the company like Human Resources, they typically have no ability whatsoever to make an accurate assessment.
The issue is not pro-FSF con-FSF or pro-Open Source etc. It's that the FSF/GNU philosophy info is out of place in a programming manual about GCC -- thats not its role.
The question of why it is in there is an entirely different matter of inquiry.
Yes, Andrei even used GCC 2.95.3 with it, so its been working for quite some time. 3.0.4 works fine too.
The major improvement over the 2.95.x series (IMHO) are in the STL library thats been included in 3.0.x.
Theoretically, the KDE people (for example) should only have to release one set of packages per OS. Doing otherwise wastes a great amoutn of time that could be used elsewhere.
I see your point, but FYI KDE doesn't release distribution-specific packages. They release source only -- it's the distros themselves that are providing specific packages.
With OE 2002 from Office XP I've not been able to get "View Source" to work at all. I used to be able to right-click a message in my Inbox and select that option, or hit CTRL+F3 as you mentioned.
The removal of that single feature is probably what will motivate me to switch to a different client on my windows machine. I just sure as hell hope I can easily import my email from this version.
Well, it is worthless for it's intended use. However, it's valuable because: 1) The reverse connection verifies the source of the connection is 'real' 2) If authentication is stalled until an ident request is satisfied, that prevents a client from DoS attacking by connecting really fast.
Actually, your example is how it should be. It's not a bug in ANSI/ISO C++, and C99 adopted that behavior too. My guess is you're comparing it to MSVC6, which incorrectly allows the scope of i to be extant outside of the for block.
I live several miles from downtown and have 45dB line quality, and use DSL. Several people I also know live as far as Nine Mile Falls and have AT&T@Home Cable inet access (CompUSA even has demo setups of it, and try to hook you into buying it). As for your lack of access, thats a bummer -- but I think it's quite a bit more widespread than you think. [ It's also really weird to see people from Spokane come out of nowhere in /. :) ]