It seems people noticed your script:-) They're definitively slacking now.
Two remarks:
Perhaps the --cache=off option might be useful, so we really retrieve stuff from there server.
And with recursive, you're reusing the connection, not spawning new daemons. I'm not aware of a wget option where you can have force it to create a new connection.
As there isn't much on Mars besides rocks, I think that was an important, and interesting, part of the book. People who loved Mars for its own sake and saw the beauty of it. And didn't want to turn it into another earth. How often have humans not ravaged the landscape only to regret it later?
Those books of Stephen Baxter are still on my list. I've read most of his others, and indeed this might be a good time to read these two. He's one of my favorite authors: it's nice to know that it is scientific fact that downstreamers can communicate with us using Feynman radation:-)
I've read a lot of comments that partially or wholly agree with "its's the software". The suggestions to improve this state of affairs range from:
More sleep for programmers
More testing
More experienced programmers
Better management
It's telling that nobody mentions the tools we use. We talk to the computer using a programming language. I really can't understand why we would use a programming language that let us pass feet to something that expects metres. If you press compile, it should just refuse to compile it!
How many years do we already know about static typing and abstract data types? Design By Contract, anyone? But alas, we're programmer gods and need no stinking protection from our computer languages, compilers and tools.
Agreed. Correctness is not something programmers are interested in, it seems. Why else are people still using languages that cannot assure that you do not compare metres and feet? Why are people still using languages that cannot assure you don't have buffer overflows?
Testing doesn't help, because your tests can have bugs too and are probably incomplete. It's gives a lot of peace to the mind if you hit the compile button in Eiffel and it compiles successfully.
That does not imply Eiffel is the end of the road. I would like to see something like Spark being available for Eiffel.
Compared to the number of Visual Basic programmers, the numbers of Eiffel users is small. But not insignificant. And: C and Perl also started with one programmer. Also, Eiffel seems to attract people who are interested in correctness and reuse.
Well, that's where melted mode comes into play. With ISE Eiffel, a single line change takes almost no time to compile. Even for large program, i.e. the 1000 classes range.
The long compilation is only the initial setup, i.e. preparing the melted mode. You can use precompiled libraries nowadays with ISE, so even that is no longer true.
You probably are not interested in an answer, but anyway: with SmartEiffel and boost mode, your hello world is probaby around 4-10KB or so. Quite comparable to C.
ISE Eiffel, a commercial implementation, if you compile hello world in melted code, the binary might be MB's. You can read about the advantages of melted mode on ISEs website. But if you freeze it, it's 160KB.
> It is on or near this day that Microsoft's
> software became, without a doubt, a public
> nuisance to the internet.
I've not seen anyone mentioned the underlying causes for buffero verflows. There are two:
1. The C language, written for programmer gods. Unfortunately, MS hasn't one. If they had used Pascal (Eiffel/Ada/...) and had range checking on, they would have been safe.
2. The Intel processor that let's code on the stack to be executable.
Without these two, the Internet would have been a lot safer. And it would have safed lots of security code reviews too.
Groetjes,
Berend. (-:
Slashdot Mirror
It seems people noticed your script :-) They're definitively slacking now.
Two remarks:
What do those presumptuous geologists think they cannot be slashdotted? This will be the /. of the century!
As there isn't much on Mars besides rocks, I think that was an important, and interesting, part of the book. People who loved Mars for its own sake and saw the beauty of it. And didn't want to turn it into another earth. How often have humans not ravaged the landscape only to regret it later?
Those books of Stephen Baxter are still on my list. I've read most of his others, and indeed this might be a good time to read these two. He's one of my favorite authors: it's nice to know that it is scientific fact that downstreamers can communicate with us using Feynman radation :-)
Hai Ralph,
I agree, Kim Stanley's trilogy (Green and Blue Mars as well) is very well done. I'm currently reading it for a second time.
> To whom is interested, here is a homepage
> of the intervals community.
Both replies to "What is interval arithmetic?" gave a 404. Perhaps this answers your question: "Why is this stuff not used more widely?"
Well, people are not working on it, you can download it now already! :-)
See http://www.pobox.com/~berend/emc/ for more details.
If you want a Bayesian tool that works for an IMAP server, try emc: http://www.pobox.com/~berend/emc/.
This tool builds your spam token list by scanning IMAP folders. It's a command-line tool, binaries for Windows and Linux.
You will download the first release, so it might have undesirable properties. A new release is expected soon.
It's telling that nobody mentions the tools we use. We talk to the computer using a programming language. I really can't understand why we would use a programming language that let us pass feet to something that expects metres. If you press compile, it should just refuse to compile it!
How many years do we already know about static typing and abstract data types? Design By Contract, anyone? But alas, we're programmer gods and need no stinking protection from our computer languages, compilers and tools.
Agreed. Correctness is not something programmers are interested in, it seems. Why else are people still using languages that cannot assure that you do not compare metres and feet? Why are people still using languages that cannot assure you don't have buffer overflows?
Testing doesn't help, because your tests can have bugs too and are probably incomplete. It's gives a lot of peace to the mind if you hit the compile button in Eiffel and it compiles successfully.
That does not imply Eiffel is the end of the road. I would like to see something like Spark being available for Eiffel.
Compared to the number of Visual Basic programmers, the numbers of Eiffel users is small. But not insignificant. And: C and Perl also started with one programmer. Also, Eiffel seems to attract people who are interested in correctness and reuse.
In case the NICE tiny solaris server is killed, here some backup servers:
http://www.berenddeboer.net/nice/eiffelstruggle/20 03/
And the Google cache.
.And you forgot to say that you're not on any mailing lists...
Else the approach doesn't work.
The eposix link should be:
http://www.pobox.com/~berend/eposix/
I found it really good. It's about what an ideal OO programming should look like. It asks and answers lots of questions. Well written.
Well, that's where melted mode comes into play. With ISE Eiffel, a single line change takes almost no time to compile. Even for large program, i.e. the 1000 classes range.
The long compilation is only the initial setup, i.e. preparing the melted mode. You can use precompiled libraries nowadays with ISE, so even that is no longer true.
You probably are not interested in an answer, but anyway: with SmartEiffel and boost mode, your hello world is probaby around 4-10KB or so. Quite comparable to C.
e =U TF-8&selm=3DDF4E65.6933E52B%40ifrance.com
ISE Eiffel, a commercial implementation, if you compile hello world in melted code, the binary might be MB's. You can read about the advantages of melted mode on ISEs website. But if you freeze it, it's 160KB.
Read this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&i
> It is on or near this day that Microsoft's > software became, without a doubt, a public > nuisance to the internet. I've not seen anyone mentioned the underlying causes for buffero verflows. There are two: 1. The C language, written for programmer gods. Unfortunately, MS hasn't one. If they had used Pascal (Eiffel/Ada/...) and had range checking on, they would have been safe. 2. The Intel processor that let's code on the stack to be executable. Without these two, the Internet would have been a lot safer. And it would have safed lots of security code reviews too. Groetjes, Berend. (-: