A lot of people who grew up and are used to windows prefere the mouse and clicks over keyboard and strokes. They tend to say that with the mouse they can do faster then with their shell.
Sure it's because the command line interface windows ships with is the DOS-Box, actually a very bad and lausy shell. Sure you're faster with explorers cut&paste than typing things into the DOS box.
But most of these people never touched a bash shell. Those who learned to use a 'real' shell (bash) will most likely always prefer to use it against point+click tools, since the shell allows you to write powerfull commands very fast, through technics like tab completion. And for the advandaced user he can even enter commands to be executed in loops.
Try to write apply the program X against all n files ending with.x, In the Dos box? Impossible but entering n times the command, in windows explorer? possible but nasty, since it requires you to select all.x files seperatly, in a bash shell? No problem just write
for i in *.d; X $I; done
finished! It might take once here and there an hour to study the advantaged features a real shell might offer, but for people having to work 8 hours each they with a computer they pay easily of in the long run.
It's like a cashier, in his profession an expert. No cashier wants to use a point&click interface, it would take them indefintly to enter a more compilicated invoice. owever a secreaty having to write just one invoice each day, she will not want to spend a weak to learn the real cashiers interface with all it's short cuts, she will like to click on a menu, look what it offers, drag down to a submenu, look again what it offers, select a item, and fill out a popup box. This takes her say 1 minute. Fine since she has to do it only say once a day. However a cashier working on a line having to enter 1000 entries each day this is unacceptable, however he knows his interface designed for the professional very well, he hits in example CTLR+R, A, 15, Enter and is finished, took him 5 seconds.
Same is it for programmers, shell's. makefiles etc. all take their time to learn, and a hobby programmer will prefer a point&click interface. While one working heavily with these tools day, day out, will prefer a makefile far over the project settings dialog, since it allows him to write more powerful commands in shorter times, but in contrast to the dialog it requires knowledge/training to understand the makefile language.
I don't remember which famous book it was that went around software development, but one of it's sentences was.
"A software usually spends 90% of the time in 10% of the code".
Which is most times pretty true. Now say you've finished an application and it runs too slow, the plain way is to optimize just anything that hits into your mind. Now say you super-optimized the other 90% of the code in which the application spends only 10% of the time to zero effort, you're final application is only 10% faster, not much for the cross assumption we reduced the time requried to null.
So what's the "good" way to do? Run a profiler on the application, find out which 10% of the code is responsible for 90% of the time, and optimize this one, if you're good you can it optimize by the half. So the application runs 45% faster, altough you only re-coded 10% of the code.
Same goes for linux where some percent was rewritten in assembler. Well I guess in the special cases of OSes the breaking point is even more higher, 98%/2%, but it's only some magic number you could tell without the special code in testing.
Hmm I fear posting so late nobody might read this, but well I'll post eitherway ahead.
The fundamental goes about development costs. The article descripes the problem very well in software people can't see inside like in houses or bridges. Okay with OpenSource they can, but still most users won't:)
The matter is as a project making super stable software is far to expensive to be compatitive. Software for airplanes and for nuclear powerplants is tested with other means than 'normal' software. These software is usually tested with a kind of profiler support, until it is taken sure that -every- branch of the software has at least been taken once, and every loop has at least looped 3 times during the test. This requires high qualified testers, beeing able to read and understand the source, and more important time, time, time, time, which is a lot of money. For high security systems this pays of course of. But again people cannot see how the bridge is constructed, say you will be buying a bridge, and it's a black box for you, you can't see it's fundament, you can't see how it's pillars are constructud, it's just a path from one shore to the other. Now for which of the two will you decide? Okay you'll evaluate both, and ran on both bridges a few times up and down, maybe send or two a cars over both. They're stand you're test, and you can't see the one that's build with super high quality means, build of concentrate and secured with steel cables, and the one that's a chaotic assembly of wood added and added to it until it did no longer break if the builders tried to walk over it. Now the first costs 10 times as much, which one will be bought? (remember you can't see the wood vs. steel)
So for software, everybody wants graphics, GUIs, 3d, easy click and features, and features, and features, nobody wants a plain but constructed very carefully but boring/simply interface. Your costumers will need the features, are at least think they can't live without and leave you for featurefull wood bridge.
OpenSource at least eases a little, since people -can- look how the bridge or the house is constructed, but really take yourself, did you ever looked in example at the sources of xfree, gcc, bash or any of the applications you use each day?
In example when exploring the sources of the linux kernel I've a subjective of course safe feeling, most of the stuff looks nicely constructed, and is not super complicated. On the other hand other (opensource) software I looked at, you shudder, but think, well it runs aster all so I just better wont touch it. I'll not call names for this catagory since this would be just a flame, and maybe only because I didn't understand some stuff. But trust me for a quite some closed applications if you could look at the source (supposing you know C(++)) you would never want to start that application again:o) With source comments allied to the bridge example,/* we added this plank here, since if not the bridge will always fall down when poked 3 times in 1 second distances, we don't know why, but with it vanished. */
In this case the construciton engineer would investigate and proparly discover it's some kind of harmonic vibrations that cause it to fall down, but for the (commercial) software enginner there is no time or money for this, he couldn't explain his chief they used up 6 weeks to find out why a plank more changed the harmonic oscillations, he just adds a plank and the problem vanished, so the problem is finished within the available resources.
... already patented the 10base-T Interface on the human body? Hmm I guess I'll immediatly rush to the patent office, and get also USB, Firewire and for the sake of it good old RS232 for direct humanoid interfacing.
Remember you don't have to bring a proof of work to patent something, just have to wait somebody else does.
Maybe the man-page will get a new meaning in the future?
What I got impression from is 'putting NT and 9x together' is only a marketing farce. It's the old NT core kernel after all, they want to let the 9x series dye, and only call the change in flowerly name:o)
(Yes, I'm buying CDs again. The Napster battle is over)
So whats that for a comment?Is it necessary? Is this now a political tension of slashdot? You're admitting you used napster just of piracy?
Honestly I really broke one of my CD's and downloaded the mp3. Really honest I had bought it befor, so it was 100% legal.
Taco gives his impression of the way the humanity should tread musical values just as a side in brackets?
Pleh now why I am reading slashdot at all, for such smartass side-comments?
Any your comment gives +10 score for beeing read by any microsoft user. The linux and bsd kernel and what diverse linux distro's install by default for stuff has nothing to do with each other.
-1 Troll, hitting your brother (linux) is hitting yourself (bsd).
HOWEVER, the big think you're missing is that this is not forced bundling something completly different, you CAN get the Netscape Communicater alone, and this not from AOL at all. Goto http://www.netscape.com and download just the communicater for you. (or http://www.mozilla.org is also nice).
There's a huge difference in offerince software in packets and in bundlings. So why is in example linux distros no bundling? If I buy a linux distro I also get beside the linux kernel, a GUI set, a broswer, a compiler, a mail client, a word processor, an image editor, a web server, a dns server, multimedia software, etc. etc. So what's different? I'll tell you, because you're also able to download every of this packages ALONE and this even FREE OF CHARGE. So this is not bundling.
Bundling is in example (a very theoretical) if a car producer (which has a monopol on some sector) decides you're only allowed to buy cars in pairs, there always only two cars selled at once, but you want only one. So you're forced to buy two ones, and financiate development for two ones, altough you only need one. Do you get it? If they sell also single cars, but give you a ie. a 5% discont for buying two there is nothing wrong with it.
Back to windows if in example there would be a 'windows standard' and a 'windows professional' one which has only the windows base stuff, and the second package comes with a browser, multimedia stuff etc. it would be legal and okay. Cause if you decide you want to use mozilla you can just buy the standard package and not financiate their browser appartment. But actually there is no such possiblity, they use their minimal 'standard package' to bundle and force their technologies to the endusers. They have to buy and financiate the side application altough they might only want the base system.
(please, forgive my spelling, I know, one day I _will_ learn better:o)
I agree to this I'm against splitting of microsoft, in my opinion is a split somthing they would benefit most of in a long termed view, something they don't have deserved:o)
If than they shall fall as a one whole giant slob:o)
Image/.er's would have to hate suddendly 3 different companies and which does what good and evil, one 'personality' gives a far more easier world view.
Tuplets and exceptions are still two completly different things.
Think about a function that inverts in example complex numbers, using two integer types
int32, int32 invert(int32 real, int32 imaginary)
{
// now how do you do this with exceptions?
}
or a function that searches for a specific string and returns the count of the strings, and the first occurnce?
In c it would be:
int32 count(const char *text, int32 &first);
Could be written nicer with duplets:
int32, int32 count(const char *text);
I used misused because as far I understood exceptions where invented orignally with error handling in mind.
Well you donnot need to rethrow excpetions explicitly, however I recoqnize the problem in C++ if a function raises an exceptoin you didn't thought about, every function at least should tell the compiler it is aware of all exceptions that can be thrown, java solves this in example in a brilant way.
Okay let's the SETI@home say you know that network errors can occur, and guess you're reaction will be always the same, no matter where it occured, here a multidrop is something very beneftical. The way why it is expensive since all the destructors have to be called and memory has to be tidied up while jumping upward. However taking a stop at every fragment and rethrow is even more slower.
The second reason why multidrops are convinient since it allows the programmer to concentrate on the problem, not to concentrate what everything could go wrong.
Tradionally people often write C code in the first attempt that just solves a given problem, if some unexpected exeption occurs it simply crashes, then they add crash handlers to the code, which at the end can be even overlay the orignal code completly, one code line for solving the problem, 2 for error checking.
With well done exceptions you've at least an exceptable error handling from start on, no need to discuss the programmer can inhance it, put if the application exists with a description what went wrong is already far better than a core dump.
Well multiple return values is an old problem, and excpetion throwing is just the latest solution that can be misused for this purporse.
Well actually you can handle non errors also as exceptions, why not? But becare that exception catching is an expensive job. It requires some time to do multidrops (jump several functions call backward at once, not just one like the normal return), since the complete stack so far has to be cleared and destructed cleanly by that process.
I'm not saying that exceptions this way is the last answer to the multi-return problem, however they can be misused in this condition.
to declare a function with multi returns could be done rather easy:
take this as dummy example:
int32 , bool positivize(int32 a)
{
if (a 0) {
return -a, true;
} else {
return a, false;
}
}
This could be done easily with parsers/compilers however the problem arises how to call the function...
positivize(4)
Now how should this be treated furhter? So far there is no public solution to it.
of my project! However there are some differences.... I do plan to allow templates and operator overloads, however currently these two feature a vapor, since they are not yet supported
I called it Dtone, since I thought calling it just D would be arrogant, claming a single letter name. However it seems others didn't disturb that:o)
Well it's not nice to link to ones own page, and advertise on/. but:
http://w ww.dtone.org
I don't see many people saying "Screw RedHat, screw FreeBSD, MICROSOFT RULES!"
Oh I see and hear them all the time, most times it are people that grew up windows, never touched a *nix system and are simply fearthe unknown/new and would prefer it to go away quickly before they would have to learn something new.
Look at slashdot right here, in almost every software related thread you'll find comments like this..
Physical constants, like Grav Constant (which by the way, is NOT a composite), however, are constants in the sense that they come out of a theory that needs MEASURED parameters to make it work.
How do you know that the gravitation constant is not a composite? It's there because we don't understand gravitation. Gravitation itself is an unexplained force, and the constant results only from observation. Now how do we know it cannot be composited from rules we don't yet know?
HOWEVER it's not fair to snicker if the 'other' operating system got stroken by a worm. There were many unix based worms also, remember the buffer offerflow hole 'bind' had?
So what happens if the BSD TCP Stack is found to have such an overflow error? This would automatically infect ALL systems I can think of, who doesn't use BSD's stack today?
When talking about light memories and light computers etc. we must face the fact that one basic light component is missing:
The Light Transistor
We can store light (the light flipflop), we can transport light effictivly, overlay it and all that, but we've no light controlled light amplifier.
Currently we've to take the way around through electricity. Receive the light, transform it to an electrical signal, amplify the signal electrically and retransform the signal to light. This way we loose all the benefits light would have.
Until we find a way to amplify light, directly controlled by light there will be no light computers, and light memories will stay in labratory only.
If one day someone would discover in example some crystal that if shined upon from the side, will change it's up/down transperncy then nothing will stop the light computer, without that all other light components are for funny experiments only.
When are we going to see the equivalent of Delphi or object VB + DirectX IDE on Linux?
Do you know what kylix is?
DirectX IDE? What?
You're not mismatching direct-X with active-X are you?
Active-X is what VB supports, and allows programs to interact with each other. Direct-X is the direct media layer which games use.
For 2D direct-X linux has a nice equivalent: SDL.
Simple Directmedia Layer.
From my own expireience far easier to use than direct-X.
For 3D I'm not on the run.
If you actually meant Active-X, then KDE has a cute equivalent.
If only AmigaOS had been released for Intel back when Windows still sucked big time...
If only some early *nux version would have been stackable with DOS as windows 3.0 did, we would all use it today, and this is no joke. Really. Microsoft promised us (IBM) since MSDOS 1.0 to make an unix like derivate for the pc, are promise never hold. If an Msdos compatible *nix kernel (one that could run all existing dos programms) would have been broadly aviable at times when windows 3.0 just marketet we would have all switched to it.
Can we distance ourselfs from writing "micro$oft", it sounds unprofesional, and gives in the sight of outsiders, that the OpenSource movement is against economy at all, at commonistic, which of course is not the case. The GPL is itself not against $.
Re:Obviously,IIS is *vastly* more popular then apa
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1
Apache also runs per default on many linux distros, I also didn't know it until I entered once 'localhost' into my browser and was surprised that I got an answer...
However I believe that many linux users after some time where kudos and typed 'ps ax' and looked what each program is good for.
I'm sure the 20 second rule will be satisfied. The message will also consume more space in the database. And this is desired why, exactly?
SO you can post a maxiumum of:
* 3 comments per minute
* 180 comments per hour
* 4320 commments a day
* 1537920 comments per year, expect a leap year then you can post 1581120 comments.
Well according to the timeline in 1985 all of your points already existed. Assembler was there far longer, also c was already existend, recursion was idead by some university professor if I remember right.
The C compiler was a major leap forward in computing, but was it developed by with a patent? No, it was developed to allow some guy to write an operating system kernel. The freedom of the language, and the way it was NOT protected made it to a major movement beside it's orginal intention.
You judge software development and patents, but actually did you ever do any software development, or do you earn you money at the patent office?
In example compare you writing a letter with me writting a program, can you imagine how it feels like you know you can't start you letter in example with "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen" because that phrase is patented by someone? Or you have to investigate every sentence you've written that it's special grammar is not patented. It's just like me writing an procedure and in example if recursion would have been patented have to think: hey I may not call the procedure with the same name, since this is patented recursion.
Why are it the lawyers, and the managers of big ones who think to know how softwaredevelopment goes?
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people who grew up and are used to windows prefere the mouse and clicks over keyboard and strokes. They tend to say that with the mouse they can do faster then with their shell.
.x, In the Dos box? Impossible but entering n times the command, in windows explorer? possible but nasty, since it requires you to select all .x files seperatly, in a bash shell? No problem just write
Sure it's because the command line interface windows ships with is the DOS-Box, actually a very bad and lausy shell. Sure you're faster with explorers cut&paste than typing things into the DOS box.
But most of these people never touched a bash shell. Those who learned to use a 'real' shell (bash) will most likely always prefer to use it against point+click tools, since the shell allows you to write powerfull commands very fast, through technics like tab completion. And for the advandaced user he can even enter commands to be executed in loops.
Try to write apply the program X against all n files ending with
for i in *.d; X $I; done
finished! It might take once here and there an hour to study the advantaged features a real shell might offer, but for people having to work 8 hours each they with a computer they pay easily of in the long run.
It's like a cashier, in his profession an expert. No cashier wants to use a point&click interface, it would take them indefintly to enter a more compilicated invoice. owever a secreaty having to write just one invoice each day, she will not want to spend a weak to learn the real cashiers interface with all it's short cuts, she will like to click on a menu, look what it offers, drag down to a submenu, look again what it offers, select a item, and fill out a popup box. This takes her say 1 minute. Fine since she has to do it only say once a day. However a cashier working on a line having to enter 1000 entries each day this is unacceptable, however he knows his interface designed for the professional very well, he hits in example CTLR+R, A, 15, Enter and is finished, took him 5 seconds.
Same is it for programmers, shell's. makefiles etc. all take their time to learn, and a hobby programmer will prefer a point&click interface. While one working heavily with these tools day, day out, will prefer a makefile far over the project settings dialog, since it allows him to write more powerful commands in shorter times, but in contrast to the dialog it requires knowledge/training to understand the makefile language.
I don't remember which famous book it was that went around software development, but one of it's sentences was.
"A software usually spends 90% of the time in 10% of the code".
Which is most times pretty true. Now say you've finished an application and it runs too slow, the plain way is to optimize just anything that hits into your mind. Now say you super-optimized the other 90% of the code in which the application spends only 10% of the time to zero effort, you're final application is only 10% faster, not much for the cross assumption we reduced the time requried to null.
So what's the "good" way to do? Run a profiler on the application, find out which 10% of the code is responsible for 90% of the time, and optimize this one, if you're good you can it optimize by the half. So the application runs 45% faster, altough you only re-coded 10% of the code.
Same goes for linux where some percent was rewritten in assembler. Well I guess in the special cases of OSes the breaking point is even more higher, 98%/2%, but it's only some magic number you could tell without the special code in testing.
>>>Slashot<<<
/.-effect attack? :o)
The ultimative cyber-war weapon of the future.
Do we require in futurue also the personal apporoval of the president for a
Hmm I fear posting so late nobody might read this, but well I'll post eitherway ahead.
:)
:o) With source comments allied to the bridge example, /* we added this plank here, since if not the bridge will always fall down when poked 3 times in 1 second distances, we don't know why, but with it vanished. */
The fundamental goes about development costs. The article descripes the problem very well in software people can't see inside like in houses or bridges. Okay with OpenSource they can, but still most users won't
The matter is as a project making super stable software is far to expensive to be compatitive. Software for airplanes and for nuclear powerplants is tested with other means than 'normal' software. These software is usually tested with a kind of profiler support, until it is taken sure that -every- branch of the software has at least been taken once, and every loop has at least looped 3 times during the test. This requires high qualified testers, beeing able to read and understand the source, and more important time, time, time, time, which is a lot of money. For high security systems this pays of course of. But again people cannot see how the bridge is constructed, say you will be buying a bridge, and it's a black box for you, you can't see it's fundament, you can't see how it's pillars are constructud, it's just a path from one shore to the other. Now for which of the two will you decide? Okay you'll evaluate both, and ran on both bridges a few times up and down, maybe send or two a cars over both. They're stand you're test, and you can't see the one that's build with super high quality means, build of concentrate and secured with steel cables, and the one that's a chaotic assembly of wood added and added to it until it did no longer break if the builders tried to walk over it. Now the first costs 10 times as much, which one will be bought? (remember you can't see the wood vs. steel)
So for software, everybody wants graphics, GUIs, 3d, easy click and features, and features, and features, nobody wants a plain but constructed very carefully but boring/simply interface. Your costumers will need the features, are at least think they can't live without and leave you for featurefull wood bridge.
OpenSource at least eases a little, since people -can- look how the bridge or the house is constructed, but really take yourself, did you ever looked in example at the sources of xfree, gcc, bash or any of the applications you use each day?
In example when exploring the sources of the linux kernel I've a subjective of course safe feeling, most of the stuff looks nicely constructed, and is not super complicated. On the other hand other (opensource) software I looked at, you shudder, but think, well it runs aster all so I just better wont touch it. I'll not call names for this catagory since this would be just a flame, and maybe only because I didn't understand some stuff. But trust me for a quite some closed applications if you could look at the source (supposing you know C(++)) you would never want to start that application again
In this case the construciton engineer would investigate and proparly discover it's some kind of harmonic vibrations that cause it to fall down, but for the (commercial) software enginner there is no time or money for this, he couldn't explain his chief they used up 6 weeks to find out why a plank more changed the harmonic oscillations, he just adds a plank and the problem vanished, so the problem is finished within the available resources.
... already patented the 10base-T Interface on the human body? Hmm I guess I'll immediatly rush to the patent office, and get also USB, Firewire and for the sake of it good old RS232 for direct humanoid interfacing.
Remember you don't have to bring a proof of work to patent something, just have to wait somebody else does.
Maybe the man-page will get a new meaning in the future?
Maybe the news written for books, printed, shiped, and buyed in my store are a little out of date :o)
What I got impression from is 'putting NT and 9x together' is only a marketing farce. It's the old NT core kernel after all, they want to let the 9x series dye, and only call the change in flowerly name :o)
(Yes, I'm buying CDs again. The Napster battle is over)
So whats that for a comment?Is it necessary? Is this now a political tension of slashdot? You're admitting you used napster just of piracy?
Honestly I really broke one of my CD's and downloaded the mp3. Really honest I had bought it befor, so it was 100% legal.
Taco gives his impression of the way the humanity should tread musical values just as a side in brackets?
Pleh now why I am reading slashdot at all, for such smartass side-comments?
Any your comment gives +10 score for beeing read by any microsoft user. The linux and bsd kernel and what diverse linux distro's install by default for stuff has nothing to do with each other.
-1 Troll, hitting your brother (linux) is hitting yourself (bsd).
This is just complete nonsense.
:o)
HOWEVER, the big think you're missing is that this is not forced bundling something completly different, you CAN get the Netscape Communicater alone, and this not from AOL at all. Goto http://www.netscape.com and download just the communicater for you. (or http://www.mozilla.org is also nice).
There's a huge difference in offerince software in packets and in bundlings. So why is in example linux distros no bundling? If I buy a linux distro I also get beside the linux kernel, a GUI set, a broswer, a compiler, a mail client, a word processor, an image editor, a web server, a dns server, multimedia software, etc. etc. So what's different? I'll tell you, because you're also able to download every of this packages ALONE and this even FREE OF CHARGE. So this is not bundling.
Bundling is in example (a very theoretical) if a car producer (which has a monopol on some sector) decides you're only allowed to buy cars in pairs, there always only two cars selled at once, but you want only one. So you're forced to buy two ones, and financiate development for two ones, altough you only need one. Do you get it? If they sell also single cars, but give you a ie. a 5% discont for buying two there is nothing wrong with it.
Back to windows if in example there would be a 'windows standard' and a 'windows professional' one which has only the windows base stuff, and the second package comes with a browser, multimedia stuff etc. it would be legal and okay. Cause if you decide you want to use mozilla you can just buy the standard package and not financiate their browser appartment. But actually there is no such possiblity, they use their minimal 'standard package' to bundle and force their technologies to the endusers. They have to buy and financiate the side application altough they might only want the base system.
(please, forgive my spelling, I know, one day I _will_ learn better
I agree to this I'm against splitting of microsoft, in my opinion is a split somthing they would benefit most of in a long termed view, something they don't have deserved :o)
:o)
/.er's would have to hate suddendly 3 different companies and which does what good and evil, one 'personality' gives a far more easier world view.
If than they shall fall as a one whole giant slob
Image
Tuplets and exceptions are still two completly different things.
// now how do you do this with exceptions?
Think about a function that inverts in example complex numbers, using two integer types
int32, int32 invert(int32 real, int32 imaginary)
{
}
or a function that searches for a specific string and returns the count of the strings, and the first occurnce?
In c it would be:
int32 count(const char *text, int32 &first);
Could be written nicer with duplets:
int32, int32 count(const char *text);
Now how do you do this with Exceptions?
I used misused because as far I understood exceptions where invented orignally with error handling in mind.
Well you donnot need to rethrow excpetions explicitly, however I recoqnize the problem in C++ if a function raises an exceptoin you didn't thought about, every function at least should tell the compiler it is aware of all exceptions that can be thrown, java solves this in example in a brilant way.
Okay let's the SETI@home say you know that network errors can occur, and guess you're reaction will be always the same, no matter where it occured, here a multidrop is something very beneftical. The way why it is expensive since all the destructors have to be called and memory has to be tidied up while jumping upward. However taking a stop at every fragment and rethrow is even more slower.
The second reason why multidrops are convinient since it allows the programmer to concentrate on the problem, not to concentrate what everything could go wrong.
Tradionally people often write C code in the first attempt that just solves a given problem, if some unexpected exeption occurs it simply crashes, then they add crash handlers to the code, which at the end can be even overlay the orignal code completly, one code line for solving the problem, 2 for error checking.
With well done exceptions you've at least an exceptable error handling from start on, no need to discuss the programmer can inhance it, put if the application exists with a description what went wrong is already far better than a core dump.
Well multiple return values is an old problem, and excpetion throwing is just the latest solution that can be misused for this purporse.
Well actually you can handle non errors also as exceptions, why not? But becare that exception catching is an expensive job. It requires some time to do multidrops (jump several functions call backward at once, not just one like the normal return), since the complete stack so far has to be cleared and destructed cleanly by that process.
I'm not saying that exceptions this way is the last answer to the multi-return problem, however they can be misused in this condition.
to declare a function with multi returns could be done rather easy:
take this as dummy example:
int32 , bool positivize(int32 a)
{
if (a 0) {
return -a, true;
} else {
return a, false;
}
}
This could be done easily with parsers/compilers however the problem arises how to call the function...
positivize(4)
Now how should this be treated furhter? So far there is no public solution to it.
function(
of my project! However there are some differences.... I do plan to allow templates and operator overloads, however currently these two feature a vapor, since they are not yet supported
:o)
/. but:
I called it Dtone, since I thought calling it just D would be arrogant, claming a single letter name. However it seems others didn't disturb that
Well it's not nice to link to ones own page, and advertise on
http://w ww.dtone.org
I don't see many people saying "Screw RedHat, screw FreeBSD, MICROSOFT RULES!"
Oh I see and hear them all the time, most times it are people that grew up windows, never touched a *nix system and are simply fearthe unknown/new and would prefer it to go away quickly before they would have to learn something new.
Look at slashdot right here, in almost every software related thread you'll find comments like this..
as far i know linux now also used a bsd based stack.
Physical constants, like Grav Constant (which by the way, is NOT a composite), however, are constants in the sense that they come out of a theory that needs MEASURED parameters to make it work.
How do you know that the gravitation constant is not a composite? It's there because we don't understand gravitation. Gravitation itself is an unexplained force, and the constant results only from observation. Now how do we know it cannot be composited from rules we don't yet know?
HOWEVER it's not fair to snicker if the 'other' operating system got stroken by a worm. There were many unix based worms also, remember the buffer offerflow hole 'bind' had?
So what happens if the BSD TCP Stack is found to have such an overflow error? This would automatically infect ALL systems I can think of, who doesn't use BSD's stack today?
When talking about light memories and light computers etc. we must face the fact that one basic light component is missing:
The Light Transistor
We can store light (the light flipflop), we can transport light effictivly, overlay it and all that, but we've no light controlled light amplifier.
Currently we've to take the way around through electricity. Receive the light, transform it to an electrical signal, amplify the signal electrically and retransform the signal to light. This way we loose all the benefits light would have.
Until we find a way to amplify light, directly controlled by light there will be no light computers, and light memories will stay in labratory only.
If one day someone would discover in example some crystal that if shined upon from the side, will change it's up/down transperncy then nothing will stop the light computer, without that all other light components are for funny experiments only.
When are we going to see the equivalent of Delphi or object VB + DirectX IDE on Linux?
Do you know what kylix is?
DirectX IDE? What?
You're not mismatching direct-X with active-X are you? Active-X is what VB supports, and allows programs to interact with each other. Direct-X is the direct media layer which games use.
For 2D direct-X linux has a nice equivalent: SDL. Simple Directmedia Layer.
From my own expireience far easier to use than direct-X.
For 3D I'm not on the run.
If you actually meant Active-X, then KDE has a cute equivalent.
If only AmigaOS had been released for Intel back when Windows still sucked big time...
If only some early *nux version would have been stackable with DOS as windows 3.0 did, we would all use it today, and this is no joke. Really. Microsoft promised us (IBM) since MSDOS 1.0 to make an unix like derivate for the pc, are promise never hold. If an Msdos compatible *nix kernel (one that could run all existing dos programms) would have been broadly aviable at times when windows 3.0 just marketet we would have all switched to it.
Can we distance ourselfs from writing "micro$oft", it sounds unprofesional, and gives in the sight of outsiders, that the OpenSource movement is against economy at all, at commonistic, which of course is not the case. The GPL is itself not against $.
Apache also runs per default on many linux distros, I also didn't know it until I entered once 'localhost' into my browser and was surprised that I got an answer...
However I believe that many linux users after some time where kudos and typed 'ps ax' and looked what each program is good for.
I'm sure the 20 second rule will be satisfied. The message will also consume more space in the database. And this is desired why, exactly?
:o)
SO you can post a maxiumum of:
* 3 comments per minute
* 180 comments per hour
* 4320 commments a day
* 1537920 comments per year, expect a leap year then you can post 1581120 comments.
That's cleary a cap
Well according to the timeline in 1985 all of your points already existed. Assembler was there far longer, also c was already existend, recursion was idead by some university professor if I remember right.
The C compiler was a major leap forward in computing, but was it developed by with a patent? No, it was developed to allow some guy to write an operating system kernel. The freedom of the language, and the way it was NOT protected made it to a major movement beside it's orginal intention.
You judge software development and patents, but actually did you ever do any software development, or do you earn you money at the patent office?
In example compare you writing a letter with me writting a program, can you imagine how it feels like you know you can't start you letter in example with "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen" because that phrase is patented by someone? Or you have to investigate every sentence you've written that it's special grammar is not patented. It's just like me writing an procedure and in example if recursion would have been patented have to think: hey I may not call the procedure with the same name, since this is patented recursion.
Why are it the lawyers, and the managers of big ones who think to know how softwaredevelopment goes?