There is no magic pixie dust that will make your code secure. I can write secure code with strcpy, and insecure code with all those Microsoft-specific "secure" functions. You will be writing insecure code if you actually believe that those "secure" functions are good for anything.
Better: learn how to shut up Visual Studio's anti-competitive warnings. (hint: compiler option or pragma) Warning about "insecure" functions in order to market unportable interfaces is a new low.
There is a bit of truth in the idea that premature optimization is bad, but only a bit.
In the beginning, you should stay away from hacks like duff's device. You shouldn't be manually optimizing the common integer operations. You probably shouldn't be averaging more than 1 goto per function. You shouldn't be using inline assembly.
None of this should be taken to mean that early design decisions can ignore performance. You're screwed if your early design is something like Python, one thread per object, short-lived objects being created and destroyed like crazy, and pretty much every function call involving SOAP/D-COM/CORBA/XML-RPC/whatever. When your design is fundamentally slow-ass shit, you'll spend the rest of your time desperately trying foul speed hacks to save yourself from the inevitable rewrite.
If you learn C++ with a modern style, you're using things like auto_ptr, shared_ptr, and string.
You simply don't get comfortable dealing with plain char* strings, memory freeing, macros, function pointers, and thread synchronization. You fail to mark function prototypes as "static" because you assume the compiler will do this by default, so your functions leak into cross-file global scope and are less optimized. You fail to mark functions without parameters with "void", causing a C compiler to assume "..." (anything goes!) instead. You use stuff like strcpy instead of properly-computed memcpy, leading to buffer overflows.
But modern processors are too complicated for this to be a useful learning tool, and you don't want to REALLY start assembly language programming. A new generation of processors will break everything you've ever written.
No way. Really hard-core optimization, counting the pipeline stalls and functional unit slots, is certainly as you say. (but fun!) Regular assembly programming is not.
8088 assembly was good for 15 years, not counting the specialist role it holds today. i386 assembly looks like it will be good for a couple more years, giving it a full 2 decades of useful life. x86-64 will likely live on much longer because we got an extra 32 address lines (beyond what i386 had) rather than just an additional 16.
The transitions have been easy for assembly programmers. Somebody who started in the beginning with the original IBM PC could still have a career doing assembly for x86 hardware.
VM "assembly" has much more limited job potential and much more limited educational potential. You won't get a feel for the hardware by playing with VM assembly.
HR people can't really tell the difference between C and C++. The evidence is all the "C/C++" job listings, treating the languages as one and the same. There is the very wrong assumption that a C++ programmer is any good at C.
Also, lots of "C++" places are using only the C-like part of the language. They may use a C++ compiler, but they mostly aren't touching classes. This is especially true of Visual Studio users, because Microsoft still doesn't support C99 features like variable declarations in the middle of a function.
Algae growth requires lots of sun. Libya is all about sun. Saudi Arabia is nearly the same. In fact, the whole region is pretty much sun, sun, sun, wonderful sun!
sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sandstorms, and sun
Have you ever met a female mathematician who hated her research career [...]
The question kind of assumes the person didn't exit the field, which of course they would do ASAP if they hated it. They'd become a manager, homemaker, etc. at the first opportunity.
Seeing as I haven't met a female mathematician ever, the answer is obviously "no"! Change that to "software developer" though, and the answer is "yes". (BTW, she felt trapped in the field because that's where her education put her)
Not in any company I've ever worked for, but then I'm over in the UK. Possible the US is different.
Oh. Maybe you don't realize the pressure that is put on girls to enter technical fields over here in the US. Especially if a girl does well in high school math, lots of people at her school will be pushing her to do something technical.
Now I'm not getting the web server I think I'm getting. You're pretending to be the server.
No thanks!
I know it could be helpful, but that's fraud. It also subjects me to any bugs in the cache coherency software. I've seen it bite before, while using an ISP to test the outside view of a web page I was developing for work. ("Really boss, I swear I changed the page!")
IP packets let the sender specify which ones are important, via the QoS info. If I'm sending real-time game traffic and a big giant file, I want you to give priority to the game.
Ideally you both respect my QoS info and let me override that via a nice web admin interface that lets me specify ports that are important to me.
All of this is subject to my per-user throttling of course. You use it to select which of my packets get dropped first, not the number of my packets that get dropped.
Suppose that women don't feel the desire to succeed in this particular area for an unjust reason. The unjustness of the reason doesn't change the fact that the women lack the desire. You can't make up for one injustice by adding a second injustice, shoving women into science and engineering careers that they won't enjoy.
Other possible reasons include that women have less opportunity to succeed, or are discouraged from succeeding.
The opposite is clearly true.
Men are being denied scholarships simply because they are male. There is even a bias in the workplace; in technical fields the women are hired first and laid off last. Getting rid of a bad female employee requires a bigger paper trail than getting rid of a bad male employee.
Women are being shoved into science and engineering; it seems that many people feel some duty to shove women into these fields. Picture that Monty Python woman screaming "I don't like science!" after being offered science, science, science, science, engineering, and science. Meanwhile, the vikings sing: math, wonderful math!
Can we give up on this costly social experiment now? It's making people miserable, women included.
There need not be a rational decision to impress women. This is an instinct. If a person notices it at all, they see a feeling or emotion. There is an urge to succeed at something, and any rational thought is just about justifying that urge.
Nobel prize winners are awarded decades after the research, which itself usually occurs many years after the fresh meat slogs through the makework. Slogging through the makework would not be done without some sort of inner drive, which is exactly what I referred to.
Slashdot had a great article on the matter, possibly a year ago, but I can't find it right now. (two researchers, one British and one Japanese, explaining to some degree how/why men have the sort of drive that they do)
First of all I happen to mostly agree with Iris-n, but of course I can easily find individuals who don't fit the norm. One must be fair to individuals who are outside the norm.
You're deciding that women are inherently less capable of valuing maths before you even start.
Women are inherently less likely to value math accomplishment for themselves. They may value it, but not as a personal goal.
do you have any evidence that this is an innate difference of men and women, not just a socially created one?
Does it matter? I happen to believe the difference is innate, but that wouldn't really change anything. If women don't feel the desire to succeed in this particular area for whatever reason, then we ought to accept that.
We might as well get all bothered by men not wearing skirts. That might even be more logical; skirts appear to be comfortable in hot weather and easier to deal with in the restroom.
To compare like with like, where is the concern about the limited number of male preschool teachers? Where is the concern about the limited number of female garbage collectors?
There are places that work your way, and they have less than 2 births per woman. I just recently saw a figure of 1.5 for one of those places. (such places are mainly to be found in Europe, but not exclusively)
I didn't make any claim regarding a reason, so I can't be logically incoherent or logically coherent. I just pointed out the facts.
Of course I think I can guess the reasons, but I left that out of my post because it would be a distraction from the simple facts.
This isn't something you think about rationally or even correctly. It's an instinct which might not be ideal for the modern world.
Guys aren't necessarily thinking about girls. They do however act in a way which will tend to impress them, or that would do so if in the right environment.
The guy thinks "accomplishment is fun", but WHY does he think that? Such mental behavior is a trait which has historically been useful for reproductive success.
Fact is, it doesn't work out that way. In a society like yours, the birth rate drops below replacement level.
One can endlessly speculate about the reasons, but that won't eliminate the fact that the children just don't get born.
BTW, I'm not too keen on having early childhood development be handled by the lowest bidder. You also can't purchase love, and you wouldn't want to if you could.
The primary cost is having one parent, normally the mother, give up the opportunity to earn an income. I certainly am assuming a married couple that doesn't burn money on unimportant junk and isn't on minimum wage.
Once you do that, kids are really cheap. I have a half dozen of them.:-) You don't need most of the junk people try to sell you: crib, high chair, changing table, breast pump, fake breast milk, walker, popular toys, special baby food, stroller, restauraunt meals, individual rooms, TV, sugary breakfast cereal, etc. It's mostly useless or worse.
Do buy car seats, new shoes, and wholesome food. Carry the baby in a sling, possibly homemade or even just a knotted sheet. Homeschool if you want your kids to learn more than the watered-down public school curriculum. Let the kids make their own toys from sticks and stones. If you have any friends at all, you'll get more kid clothing than you know what to do with.
you are saying "stupid bitches", complete with your condescending 'but I'm sure they "often do well in other fields".'
It only looks like "stupid bitches" to you because you are judging math as being the superior mental activity. That's a male-oriented way to view things.
If you instead consider social capability to be the superior mental activity, then women tend to look way smarter than men.
If you insist on judging women by male standards, then of course they will look bad. The same goes for judging men by female standards.
Personality often changes a bit because of pregnancy. You may find that you actually enjoy the things that seem yucky to you now, and that your current interests become boring.
You'll still be happy, as long as you don't try to resist your changing desires.
It is heartbreaking for her. I could go on for pages about my wife's emotional state, how profound breastfeeding is for her, they significant career related reasons we both put off having a child until our 30s - why her staying home is so much more reasonable.
Ouch. There is no good reason to suffer like that. Put aside the materialism, do what is natural, and have a truly enjoyable life. Fighting those natural urges is a good way to become seriously depressed, stressed out, or worse.
There is a shameful disparity here. We must address this.
Also: elementary school teachers, nurses, home health care aides, rape councilers, nannies, maids, interior decorators, etc.
We could start early, with after-school and summer programs for boys only. We could offer special college scholarships for men. We could have college admissions quotas to ensure that classes won't be mostly women.
My wife is barefoot, pregnant, and... well she's making chocolate cookies with a slow traditional recipie, but close enough!
She likes it. She knows how to hack code in C, but that doesn't make her feel good. She can even beat me in math much of the time, but she'd rather pop out kids. We're going for double-digit family size here. She even thinks giving birth is fun.
Good thing too; somebody has to make the next generation of engineers or there won't be any.
Slashdot Mirror
In an interview here, that'd be an instant fail.
There is no magic pixie dust that will make your code secure. I can write secure code with strcpy, and insecure code with all those Microsoft-specific "secure" functions. You will be writing insecure code if you actually believe that those "secure" functions are good for anything.
Better: learn how to shut up Visual Studio's anti-competitive warnings. (hint: compiler option or pragma) Warning about "insecure" functions in order to market unportable interfaces is a new low.
There is a bit of truth in the idea that premature optimization is bad, but only a bit.
In the beginning, you should stay away from hacks like duff's device. You shouldn't be manually optimizing the common integer operations. You probably shouldn't be averaging more than 1 goto per function. You shouldn't be using inline assembly.
None of this should be taken to mean that early design decisions can ignore performance. You're screwed if your early design is something like Python, one thread per object, short-lived objects being created and destroyed like crazy, and pretty much every function call involving SOAP/D-COM/CORBA/XML-RPC/whatever. When your design is fundamentally slow-ass shit, you'll spend the rest of your time desperately trying foul speed hacks to save yourself from the inevitable rewrite.
If you learn C++ with a modern style, you're using things like auto_ptr, shared_ptr, and string.
You simply don't get comfortable dealing with plain char* strings, memory freeing, macros, function pointers, and thread synchronization. You fail to mark function prototypes as "static" because you assume the compiler will do this by default, so your functions leak into cross-file global scope and are less optimized. You fail to mark functions without parameters with "void", causing a C compiler to assume "..." (anything goes!) instead. You use stuff like strcpy instead of properly-computed memcpy, leading to buffer overflows.
But modern processors are too complicated for this to be a useful learning tool, and you don't want to REALLY start assembly language programming. A new generation of processors will break everything you've ever written.
No way. Really hard-core optimization, counting the pipeline stalls and functional unit slots, is certainly as you say. (but fun!) Regular assembly programming is not.
8088 assembly was good for 15 years, not counting the specialist role it holds today. i386 assembly looks like it will be good for a couple more years, giving it a full 2 decades of useful life. x86-64 will likely live on much longer because we got an extra 32 address lines (beyond what i386 had) rather than just an additional 16.
The transitions have been easy for assembly programmers. Somebody who started in the beginning with the original IBM PC could still have a career doing assembly for x86 hardware.
VM "assembly" has much more limited job potential and much more limited educational potential. You won't get a feel for the hardware by playing with VM assembly.
Developing something high performance or low level is fun.
The rest is essentially COBOL. You may be using C#, Java, Visual Basic, PHP, Python... but you know it's just a fresh coat of paint on COBOL.
HR people can't really tell the difference between C and C++. The evidence is all the "C/C++" job listings, treating the languages as one and the same. There is the very wrong assumption that a C++ programmer is any good at C.
Also, lots of "C++" places are using only the C-like part of the language. They may use a C++ compiler, but they mostly aren't touching classes. This is especially true of Visual Studio users, because Microsoft still doesn't support C99 features like variable declarations in the middle of a function.
California won't be growing fruit for long. We build condos on the best farmland.
FYI, San Jose was once prime apricot land.
Algae growth requires lots of sun. Libya is all about sun. Saudi Arabia is nearly the same. In fact, the whole region is pretty much sun, sun, sun, wonderful sun!
sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sun, sandstorms, and sun
graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii
Not only are they children, they're DEAD children. Eeeeew.
So... what exactly to you dream about doing to them?
Have you ever met a female mathematician who hated her research career [...]
The question kind of assumes the person didn't exit the field, which of course they would do ASAP if they hated it. They'd become a manager, homemaker, etc. at the first opportunity.
Seeing as I haven't met a female mathematician ever, the answer is obviously "no"! Change that to "software developer" though, and the answer is "yes". (BTW, she felt trapped in the field because that's where her education put her)
Not in any company I've ever worked for, but then I'm over in the UK. Possible the US is different.
Oh. Maybe you don't realize the pressure that is put on girls to enter technical fields over here in the US. Especially if a girl does well in high school math, lots of people at her school will be pushing her to do something technical.
Now I'm not getting the web server I think I'm getting. You're pretending to be the server.
No thanks!
I know it could be helpful, but that's fraud. It also subjects me to any bugs in the cache coherency software. I've seen it bite before, while using an ISP to test the outside view of a web page I was developing for work. ("Really boss, I swear I changed the page!")
IP packets let the sender specify which ones are important, via the QoS info. If I'm sending real-time game traffic and a big giant file, I want you to give priority to the game.
Ideally you both respect my QoS info and let me override that via a nice web admin interface that lets me specify ports that are important to me.
All of this is subject to my per-user throttling of course. You use it to select which of my packets get dropped first, not the number of my packets that get dropped.
Suppose that women don't feel the desire to succeed in this particular area for an unjust reason. The unjustness of the reason doesn't change the fact that the women lack the desire. You can't make up for one injustice by adding a second injustice, shoving women into science and engineering careers that they won't enjoy.
Other possible reasons include that women have less opportunity to succeed, or are discouraged from succeeding.
The opposite is clearly true.
Men are being denied scholarships simply because they are male. There is even a bias in the workplace; in technical fields the women are hired first and laid off last. Getting rid of a bad female employee requires a bigger paper trail than getting rid of a bad male employee.
Women are being shoved into science and engineering; it seems that many people feel some duty to shove women into these fields. Picture that Monty Python woman screaming "I don't like science!" after being offered science, science, science, science, engineering, and science. Meanwhile, the vikings sing: math, wonderful math!
Can we give up on this costly social experiment now? It's making people miserable, women included.
There need not be a rational decision to impress women. This is an instinct. If a person notices it at all, they see a feeling or emotion. There is an urge to succeed at something, and any rational thought is just about justifying that urge.
Nobel prize winners are awarded decades after the research, which itself usually occurs many years after the fresh meat slogs through the makework. Slogging through the makework would not be done without some sort of inner drive, which is exactly what I referred to.
Slashdot had a great article on the matter, possibly a year ago, but I can't find it right now. (two researchers, one British and one Japanese, explaining to some degree how/why men have the sort of drive that they do)
First of all I happen to mostly agree with Iris-n, but of course I can easily find individuals who don't fit the norm. One must be fair to individuals who are outside the norm.
You're deciding that women are inherently less capable of valuing maths before you even start.
Women are inherently less likely to value math accomplishment for themselves. They may value it, but not as a personal goal.
do you have any evidence that this is an innate difference of men and women, not just a socially created one?
Does it matter? I happen to believe the difference is innate, but that wouldn't really change anything. If women don't feel the desire to succeed in this particular area for whatever reason, then we ought to accept that.
We might as well get all bothered by men not wearing skirts. That might even be more logical; skirts appear to be comfortable in hot weather and easier to deal with in the restroom.
To compare like with like, where is the concern about the limited number of male preschool teachers? Where is the concern about the limited number of female garbage collectors?
There are places that work your way, and they have less than 2 births per woman. I just recently saw a figure of 1.5 for one of those places. (such places are mainly to be found in Europe, but not exclusively)
I didn't make any claim regarding a reason, so I can't be logically incoherent or logically coherent. I just pointed out the facts.
Of course I think I can guess the reasons, but I left that out of my post because it would be a distraction from the simple facts.
This isn't something you think about rationally or even correctly. It's an instinct which might not be ideal for the modern world.
Guys aren't necessarily thinking about girls. They do however act in a way which will tend to impress them, or that would do so if in the right environment.
The guy thinks "accomplishment is fun", but WHY does he think that? Such mental behavior is a trait which has historically been useful for reproductive success.
Fact is, it doesn't work out that way. In a society like yours, the birth rate drops below replacement level.
One can endlessly speculate about the reasons, but that won't eliminate the fact that the children just don't get born.
BTW, I'm not too keen on having early childhood development be handled by the lowest bidder. You also can't purchase love, and you wouldn't want to if you could.
The primary cost is having one parent, normally the mother, give up the opportunity to earn an income. I certainly am assuming a married couple that doesn't burn money on unimportant junk and isn't on minimum wage.
Once you do that, kids are really cheap. I have a half dozen of them. :-) You don't need most of the junk people try to sell you: crib, high chair, changing table, breast pump, fake breast milk, walker, popular toys, special baby food, stroller, restauraunt meals, individual rooms, TV, sugary breakfast cereal, etc. It's mostly useless or worse.
Do buy car seats, new shoes, and wholesome food. Carry the baby in a sling, possibly homemade or even just a knotted sheet. Homeschool if you want your kids to learn more than the watered-down public school curriculum. Let the kids make their own toys from sticks and stones. If you have any friends at all, you'll get more kid clothing than you know what to do with.
you are saying "stupid bitches", complete with your condescending 'but I'm sure they "often do well in other fields".'
It only looks like "stupid bitches" to you because you are judging math as being the superior mental activity. That's a male-oriented way to view things.
If you instead consider social capability to be the superior mental activity, then women tend to look way smarter than men.
If you insist on judging women by male standards, then of course they will look bad. The same goes for judging men by female standards.
Your society keeps the intelligent women from passing their genetic material on to the next generation.
Your society may outcompete mine today, but not N generations later. Your short-term thinking wins today's battle but loses the war.
I think you're in for a surprise.
Personality often changes a bit because of pregnancy. You may find that you actually enjoy the things that seem yucky to you now, and that your current interests become boring.
You'll still be happy, as long as you don't try to resist your changing desires.
It is heartbreaking for her. I could go on for pages about my wife's emotional state, how profound breastfeeding is for her, they significant career related reasons we both put off having a child until our 30s - why her staying home is so much more reasonable.
Ouch. There is no good reason to suffer like that. Put aside the materialism, do what is natural, and have a truly enjoyable life. Fighting those natural urges is a good way to become seriously depressed, stressed out, or worse.
But my little eee isn't up to it.
Your "eee"?
There is a shameful disparity here. We must address this.
Also: elementary school teachers, nurses, home health care aides, rape councilers, nannies, maids, interior decorators, etc.
We could start early, with after-school and summer programs for boys only. We could offer special college scholarships for men. We could have college admissions quotas to ensure that classes won't be mostly women.
Really, why the hell not?
My wife is barefoot, pregnant, and... well she's making chocolate cookies with a slow traditional recipie, but close enough!
She likes it. She knows how to hack code in C, but that doesn't make her feel good. She can even beat me in math much of the time, but she'd rather pop out kids. We're going for double-digit family size here. She even thinks giving birth is fun.
Good thing too; somebody has to make the next generation of engineers or there won't be any.