Not a problem, dude.
You *don't* have zero reduncy, right?
The rest of the servers takes the load, while you fix it.
Not to mention that this kind of stuff doesn't go down that often.
Worst come to worst, they can get one of those non-stop, they has 100% uptime gurantee.
Is there a good reason for using so many servers, instead of several (very) high end boxes?
Sure, it's cool that they use linux for such a hard task, but just think about the administration nightmares.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Hell, just think about the *space* 8000 computers takes.
Replace those with a couple of E10K, and you at least get a major saving on the rent.
Not to mention you lose the risk of tripping ovel the miles of cables they have there.
My main problem with AMD is that I can ruin my CPU just by *using* it.
The P4 termal throtteling is a *Good Thing(tm)*.
When P4's speed goes down, an AMD would *melt*.
ACLs are being used extensively by many people.
They can be misused, make no mistake, but used correctly, they are far superior to rwx method that is the prefered by the *nix people.
Not a single OS, a single platform, which all OS should implement.
Frex, did you know that NT is 100% POSIX complient? (Giving MS a reason to have the threading support done well)
Java was a good promise, but it's *way* too tied down to one language.
Yes, you *can* compile other languages to byte code, that is not enough, you have to force your code into Java-like in order for this to work.
I believe that.NET is a better solution, if it will be as good as I hope (multi lanuage, multi platform, openly speced), it might be just the thing that you are looking for.
I don't think so, you can take a program in english, and compile it. (Okay, by hand at the moment, but one day... my computer will core dump because I used or instead of and/or when I told it what to do:) )
What about this, then?
int a;
float b;
char c = foo(a);
c = foo(b);
Unless I missed something, C can't handle polymorphism, encapsulation, and several other basic OO or even OB programming.
(Talking about straight C here, Objective C is an unknown beast to me)
As a note, CORBA is nearly dead, AFAIK.
And since COM is an open standard (is DCOM, too?) which is used by non-Windows applications, I think that DCOM is a preferable alternative.
GUI shouldn't be standard, I think, too different between platforms to get it right in one library.
What I *really* want is to have more abstracted OS stuff, other than I/O.
IL == Intermediate Language.
I know that VB uses P-Code (not exactly VM, though).
IL is when you don't compile to native code, it's higher level than Java Byte Code, frex, it then gets compile by a JIT or another compiler to native code. This allows you to sub-class with different languages, among other neat stuff.
I want Ada's style way to create and limit new types.
Frex, in Ada, you can do this:
Week is new integer 1..7;
(This create a new type, named Week, which is an integer that can only accept values between 1 to 7)
And the compiler will take care of making sure that the value is within viable range.
Compare this to C++'s way of doing it:
typedef Week int;
(Week is a new name for int)
This saves me the time checking what the variable contains, and actually make Week a new type.
Here is how I would like it to be:
create/* new reserved word, I'm afraid */ {
week ( int (1-7) );// I don't care how you spesify ranges
//only operators allowed, not functions
};
Yes, I *know* I can do it with a class, it's not the same.
Ada also allows you to specify the size of the type you create (16,32,64,whatever) saving the need to check on each platform & compiler what size the basic stuff is.
I think my method is more readable than Ada's way, at least to C's people.
Borrowing from Ada is not a bad idea at *all*, IMO.
I like C++ better than Ada, though, Ada's OO approach is a little strange, and it's syntax can drive me crazy sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it resemble more of Ada, not that there is much difference between OP & Ada.
http://www.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/0000 06-2.html
Watch out for that annoying space, AC.
Not a problem, dude.
You *don't* have zero reduncy, right?
The rest of the servers takes the load, while you fix it.
Not to mention that this kind of stuff doesn't go down that often.
Worst come to worst, they can get one of those non-stop, they has 100% uptime gurantee.
Is there a good reason for using so many servers, instead of several (very) high end boxes?
Sure, it's cool that they use linux for such a hard task, but just think about the administration nightmares.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Hell, just think about the *space* 8000 computers takes.
Replace those with a couple of E10K, and you at least get a major saving on the rent.
Not to mention you lose the risk of tripping ovel the miles of cables they have there.
My main problem with AMD is that I can ruin my CPU just by *using* it.
The P4 termal throtteling is a *Good Thing(tm)*.
When P4's speed goes down, an AMD would *melt*.
As a note, MS is neutral on this war, XP will support both Intel & AMD 64 Chips.
Your XML is wrong, it should be this:
550
We don't accept mail from spammers
Java, ActiveX, windows file sharing, are the first things that come to mind that are so.
ACLs are being used extensively by many people.
They can be misused, make no mistake, but used correctly, they are far superior to rwx method that is the prefered by the *nix people.
The *new* standard, several years ago, you were perfectly okay doing it.
There is a compiler switch in VC6 that fixes this, but it's off by default because some core header files in windows needs it.
The standard changed, it's not VC's fault.
for (int i=0;i10;i++){
//do stuff
//do some more stuff
}
for (i=0;i45;i++){
}
Your method will break anything like this one.
Not a single OS, a single platform, which all OS should implement.
.NET is a better solution, if it will be as good as I hope (multi lanuage, multi platform, openly speced), it might be just the thing that you are looking for.
Frex, did you know that NT is 100% POSIX complient? (Giving MS a reason to have the threading support done well)
Java was a good promise, but it's *way* too tied down to one language.
Yes, you *can* compile other languages to byte code, that is not enough, you have to force your code into Java-like in order for this to work.
I believe that
The kernel is C, though.
Not if I've to use the :: operator.
I *hate* this one.
What is wrong with "." operator double duty, as it does in Java?
I think that you might want to take a look on C++.NET, especially managed code, which seems to have many of the stuff that you want.
Not much farther, we will have C? (for AI) C$ (to replace COBOL) C! (mathematics) C+=4 (for the latest, hottest hype around).
As a note, last Ada version was on 95, when OO was added to the language. I don't think it needs to be changed any time soon.
I don't think so, you can take a program in english, and compile it. (Okay, by hand at the moment, but one day... my computer will core dump because I used or instead of and/or when I told it what to do :) )
What about this, then?
int a;
float b;
char c = foo(a);
c = foo(b);
Unless I missed something, C can't handle polymorphism, encapsulation, and several other basic OO or even OB programming.
(Talking about straight C here, Objective C is an unknown beast to me)
As a note, CORBA is nearly dead, AFAIK.
And since COM is an open standard (is DCOM, too?) which is used by non-Windows applications, I think that DCOM is a preferable alternative.
GUI shouldn't be standard, I think, too different between platforms to get it right in one library.
What I *really* want is to have more abstracted OS stuff, other than I/O.
Isn't refernce and pointer one and the same?
IL == Intermediate Language.
I know that VB uses P-Code (not exactly VM, though).
IL is when you don't compile to native code, it's higher level than Java Byte Code, frex, it then gets compile by a JIT or another compiler to native code. This allows you to sub-class with different languages, among other neat stuff.
I want Ada's style way to create and limit new types.
/* new reserved word, I'm afraid */ {
Frex, in Ada, you can do this:
Week is new integer 1..7;
(This create a new type, named Week, which is an integer that can only accept values between 1 to 7)
And the compiler will take care of making sure that the value is within viable range.
Compare this to C++'s way of doing it:
typedef Week int;
(Week is a new name for int)
This saves me the time checking what the variable contains, and actually make Week a new type.
Here is how I would like it to be:
create
week ( int (1-7) );// I don't care how you spesify ranges
//only operators allowed, not functions
};
Yes, I *know* I can do it with a class, it's not the same.
Ada also allows you to specify the size of the type you create (16,32,64,whatever) saving the need to check on each platform & compiler what size the basic stuff is.
I think my method is more readable than Ada's way, at least to C's people.
Borrowing from Ada is not a bad idea at *all*, IMO.
I like C++ better than Ada, though, Ada's OO approach is a little strange, and it's syntax can drive me crazy sometimes.
This should solve it:
//do stuff
/Za:forscope
{
for (int i=0;i100;i++){
}
}
That will work correctly on VC & GCC.
Or, you can use