Dynamic language usually means "dynamically typed". This means a typed language that associates type information with data values, not with variables. (i.e, the language keeps track of types, but any variable can hold a value of any type)
Sometimes, it also implies things like dynamically extensible type definitions at runtime, automatic memory management, and support for various functional-style features such as closures.
Compiling a dynamic language to machine code is usually a challenging problem.
The Roadsend compiler isn't a true compiler. As far as I can tell it compiles PHP scripts into scheme and is still interpreted at run-time using a scheme interpreter.
The bigloo scheme compiler can compile the scheme to native machine code that runs without an interpreter.
Why is it that applying security at a higher layer is a bad thing?
Maybe it's because people don't want strangers connecting to the Internet through their wireless networks to leach bandwidth and engage in nefarious activities.
Actually, fixed point arithmetic is much faster and is accurate enough for these applications.
Most modern FP units manage 1 operation per clock, just like the integer units. The vector FP extensions on some newer CPUs can do several FP operations per clock, which can beat the 64-bit integer units and provide more dynamic range at the same time.
The "more registers" are not accessible by 32-bit applications.
Exactly. That's why a lot of people incorrectly think that bigger numbers and pointers cause 64-bit apps to run faster than 32-bit apps on AMD CPUs, when it's really just that there are more registers available.
They're spending countless thousands on newfangled gadgets, while victory could be assured by adding nothing more than a $50 used lawn mower engine to their bikes.
A 64-bit processor's dynamic range is approximately 4.3 billion times greater than a 32-bit processor, which simply means, it can work with much larger numbers. Thats Important in applications like rendering, mathmatical calculations, and even database servers.
PCs have supported 64-bit and 80-bit floating point numbers since the early 1980s. You're talking about 64-bit integers, which are extremely rarely used in mainstream apps; I've probably used them less than a dozen times in 20 years of programming. Rendering and mathematical apps usually use floating point for any number where dynamic range would be an issue. Databases may use long integers, but I/O is probably a far greater bottleneck for a database server than long integer math. It takes orders of magnitude longer to read a long integer field out of the table than it does to add it, even if you split the addition into two 32-bit steps.
You also didn't mention that all of the larger 64-bit pointers come at a cost: increased pressure on your cache resources. This would tend to decrease performance unless you really need 64-bit addressing.
The main reason that AMDs chips are faster on desktop apps are more registers, faster memory controller, and cache architecture. None of those features has anything to do with 64-bitness.
It was the prospect of losing the Space Race against the USSR prompted the infamous "New Math" of the early 60's.
They were still teaching a lot of New Math in the early 70s when I was a kid. My mom was always grumbling about how she thought that it was stupid for them to teach us about all these newfangled "sets", and they weren't drilling us on enough big arithmetic problems. (Even though this was about the time my dad got his first electronic calculator, after which I gleefully breezed through all my arithmetic homework in a matter of seconds.)
Twenty years later I pointed out to her that my career designing and programming computers was largely an exercise in applied set theory, and I was glad they gave us a lot of background in it. She was still unrepentant; she always said "never trusted computers" anyway.
The scheduler is the person on your project team who, after each week's schedule slips, tapes together the latest updated Gantt chart printouts into long banners and hangs them the walls.
Not to be too trollish, but if you are building a bridge to hold 10 tons and it ends up holding 100 tons, you are wasting resources.
The reliability of a complex system made of thousands of parts depends on statistics, whereas the reliability of a bridge depends on much simpler stress calculations.
If you design a complex system such that there is very little chance that any one of its components will fail within 90 days, then each component must be individually designed to last much longer than 90 days. The center of each component's reliability bell curve must be well beyond 90 days so that the product of the tails at the 90 day mark is acceptably low. The system as a whole will therefore probably last much longer than 90 days. If it does, that's not necessarily a sign of overdesign.
Coffee may be good, but that's not necessarily all you get at Starbucks. For example:
The sweet, summery frozen drinks can be even more tempting - and sinful. The largest Java Chip Frappuccino weighs in at 650 calories - 50 calories more than a Big Mac - and contains 25 grams of fat, compared with 33 grams for the Big Mac.
The copyright owner 'owns' the right to do whatever they so wish with each and every copy of the work for which they own the copyright.
...Only until they sell it to you. Then you have all those rights and they don't, with the exception that you can't make copies of it in most cases.
That means they have every right to deny your use of any copy of the work should you fail to abide by their licensing.
Only if they lure you into signing a separate contractural agreement. Note that it has not been decisively proven that clicking on a dialog box constitutes signing a contract.
Any use by you of their copyrighted work in violation of the license is theft.
If the license is more restrictive than standard copyright law, and you have entered a valid contractural agreement with them, it is breach of contract. Otherwise, it's copyright infringement as I originally described.
You can play semantics all you want, it does not change a thing.
You can make all the overblown assertions you want about what a copyright holder actually controls, but that doesn't make you correct.
Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
What the copyright holder owns is the copyright itself, not any particular copy of a work or the medium that it's contained on. The only way to "take" this from the copyright holder would be by fraudulently claiming to hold the copyright youself.
Any particular copy of a work and the medium that contains it is owned by the person who bought it. The copyright holder does not own that copy at all; what he has is a "lien" that prevents the owner of the copy from making further copies in most cases.
If the owner of the copy infringes on the copyright, he has violated the terms of the lien. This makes copyright infringement more akin to trespassing than to theft.
I could have sworn making something and selling it was a business model.
Yes it was when the average citizen didn't have the capability to do mass duplication and distribution of your products. Piracy was less rampant in the old days not because people were more honest, but because it was harder to cheat.
The world has always been full of dishonest people. The current response to this mix of new technology and old-fashioned cheaters seems to be focused on government-dictated restrictions on what your computers can do and Draconian punishments for ever-expanding definitions of crimes. However, centuries of history have shown that this kind of approach often yields questionable results.
If those enforcement efforts fail, then the portion of the software industry that produces shrink-wrapped products will have to find another business plan, rightly or wrongly. That's life in the real world.
The FCC would never tolerate an old-line phone company selling a service that lets people lie to caller ID...
Wow... So that means every telemarketer that has called me in the last 12 years actually was physically and literally "out of area". That's mind boggling. They must all reside in some hidden dimension.
I'm sorry if I generalized to make my point. However, I think that you're generalizing, too. When I lived in the South, I met several people who called any Soda "Coke", and they were proud of it.
The map is a little spotty in areas, maybe you live in a non-Coke spot.
Everybody calls it Windows, not Microsoft Windows.
Irrelevant. Everybody in the South calls a glass of Pepsi a "Coke". That doesn't mean that Pepsi should get a trademark on the word "Coke".
To further confuse things, Microsoft has several variations of Windows like 2000, XP, Me, etc that people are familiar with. Calling it "Microsoft Windows" is not enough by a long shot, especially when compared to "Lindows.Com Lindows".
[ ] Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
[ ] Lindows.com Lindows
If those two choices seem confusing to you, you've got bigger problems than choosing an OS.
What they'd need is a big bold sentence saying "This is not the same as Windows! Watch out!"
And yet they're supposed to read, understand and agree to abide by the 10-page EULA full of obscure legal and technical language.
If Microsoft made a product called Winux, you all'd suddenly change sides on this issue.
I don't see any problem at all with the name "Winux". Notice that the fact that it's not an English word makes it a good choice for a trademark name. I would encourage them to go for it, but unfortunately it seems to already be the name for an Indian Lindows-like product, as well as the name of a recent cross-platform virus.
The full trademark name is "Microsoft Windows". (Or should be, since plain English words describing generic attributes of a product should note be trademarkable.)
The menu choice would then say "[ ] Microsoft Windows". Even the biggest idiot in the world would have no confusion distinguishing that from "Lindows". The consumer is already protected without needing to privatize a word already in general use.
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding budget cuts is tense. Republicans say they will cut the budget, and then they increase it. After the budget has increased, Democrats say that it has been cut.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm well aware of those issues. I guess I just assumed that nobody would jump to the conclusion that I was talking about writing a slow compiler.
Sometimes, it also implies things like dynamically extensible type definitions at runtime, automatic memory management, and support for various functional-style features such as closures.
Compiling a dynamic language to machine code is usually a challenging problem.
The bigloo scheme compiler can compile the scheme to native machine code that runs without an interpreter.
Maybe it's because people don't want strangers connecting to the Internet through their wireless networks to leach bandwidth and engage in nefarious activities.
Most modern FP units manage 1 operation per clock, just like the integer units. The vector FP extensions on some newer CPUs can do several FP operations per clock, which can beat the 64-bit integer units and provide more dynamic range at the same time.
The "more registers" are not accessible by 32-bit applications.
Exactly. That's why a lot of people incorrectly think that bigger numbers and pointers cause 64-bit apps to run faster than 32-bit apps on AMD CPUs, when it's really just that there are more registers available.
They're spending countless thousands on newfangled gadgets, while victory could be assured by adding nothing more than a $50 used lawn mower engine to their bikes.
PCs have supported 64-bit and 80-bit floating point numbers since the early 1980s. You're talking about 64-bit integers, which are extremely rarely used in mainstream apps; I've probably used them less than a dozen times in 20 years of programming. Rendering and mathematical apps usually use floating point for any number where dynamic range would be an issue. Databases may use long integers, but I/O is probably a far greater bottleneck for a database server than long integer math. It takes orders of magnitude longer to read a long integer field out of the table than it does to add it, even if you split the addition into two 32-bit steps.
You also didn't mention that all of the larger 64-bit pointers come at a cost: increased pressure on your cache resources. This would tend to decrease performance unless you really need 64-bit addressing.
The main reason that AMDs chips are faster on desktop apps are more registers, faster memory controller, and cache architecture. None of those features has anything to do with 64-bitness.
Your '80s DOS program will probably run fine under Linux as well. In both cases, the 16-bit environment runs in a VM.
They were still teaching a lot of New Math in the early 70s when I was a kid. My mom was always grumbling about how she thought that it was stupid for them to teach us about all these newfangled "sets", and they weren't drilling us on enough big arithmetic problems. (Even though this was about the time my dad got his first electronic calculator, after which I gleefully breezed through all my arithmetic homework in a matter of seconds.)
Twenty years later I pointed out to her that my career designing and programming computers was largely an exercise in applied set theory, and I was glad they gave us a lot of background in it. She was still unrepentant; she always said "never trusted computers" anyway.
Something else besides keed, anyway.
I can't decide which kind of rat's eyes are creepier: original blood red reflective glow or new cool green self-illuminated glow.
The scheduler is the person on your project team who, after each week's schedule slips, tapes together the latest updated Gantt chart printouts into long banners and hangs them the walls.
The reliability of a complex system made of thousands of parts depends on statistics, whereas the reliability of a bridge depends on much simpler stress calculations.
If you design a complex system such that there is very little chance that any one of its components will fail within 90 days, then each component must be individually designed to last much longer than 90 days. The center of each component's reliability bell curve must be well beyond 90 days so that the product of the tails at the 90 day mark is acceptably low. The system as a whole will therefore probably last much longer than 90 days. If it does, that's not necessarily a sign of overdesign.
So the OP was correct, for X == 0.82.
That means they have every right to deny your use of any copy of the work should you fail to abide by their licensing.
Only if they lure you into signing a separate contractural agreement. Note that it has not been decisively proven that clicking on a dialog box constitutes signing a contract.
Any use by you of their copyrighted work in violation of the license is theft.
If the license is more restrictive than standard copyright law, and you have entered a valid contractural agreement with them, it is breach of contract. Otherwise, it's copyright infringement as I originally described.
You can play semantics all you want, it does not change a thing.
You can make all the overblown assertions you want about what a copyright holder actually controls, but that doesn't make you correct.
What the copyright holder owns is the copyright itself, not any particular copy of a work or the medium that it's contained on. The only way to "take" this from the copyright holder would be by fraudulently claiming to hold the copyright youself.
Any particular copy of a work and the medium that contains it is owned by the person who bought it. The copyright holder does not own that copy at all; what he has is a "lien" that prevents the owner of the copy from making further copies in most cases.
If the owner of the copy infringes on the copyright, he has violated the terms of the lien. This makes copyright infringement more akin to trespassing than to theft.
Yes it was when the average citizen didn't have the capability to do mass duplication and distribution of your products. Piracy was less rampant in the old days not because people were more honest, but because it was harder to cheat.
The world has always been full of dishonest people. The current response to this mix of new technology and old-fashioned cheaters seems to be focused on government-dictated restrictions on what your computers can do and Draconian punishments for ever-expanding definitions of crimes. However, centuries of history have shown that this kind of approach often yields questionable results.
If those enforcement efforts fail, then the portion of the software industry that produces shrink-wrapped products will have to find another business plan, rightly or wrongly. That's life in the real world.
Wow... So that means every telemarketer that has called me in the last 12 years actually was physically and literally "out of area". That's mind boggling. They must all reside in some hidden dimension.
The map is a little spotty in areas, maybe you live in a non-Coke spot.
Irrelevant. Everybody in the South calls a glass of Pepsi a "Coke". That doesn't mean that Pepsi should get a trademark on the word "Coke".
To further confuse things, Microsoft has several variations of Windows like 2000, XP, Me, etc that people are familiar with. Calling it "Microsoft Windows" is not enough by a long shot, especially when compared to "Lindows.Com Lindows".
[ ] Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
[ ] Lindows.com Lindows
If those two choices seem confusing to you, you've got bigger problems than choosing an OS.
What they'd need is a big bold sentence saying "This is not the same as Windows! Watch out!"
And yet they're supposed to read, understand and agree to abide by the 10-page EULA full of obscure legal and technical language.
If Microsoft made a product called Winux, you all'd suddenly change sides on this issue.
I don't see any problem at all with the name "Winux". Notice that the fact that it's not an English word makes it a good choice for a trademark name. I would encourage them to go for it, but unfortunately it seems to already be the name for an Indian Lindows-like product, as well as the name of a recent cross-platform virus.
The menu choice would then say "[ ] Microsoft Windows". Even the biggest idiot in the world would have no confusion distinguishing that from "Lindows". The consumer is already protected without needing to privatize a word already in general use.
I'm doing my part to help rectify this problem by steadfastly refusing to use or post messages on websites that have crappy search functions...
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding budget cuts is tense. Republicans say they will cut the budget, and then they increase it. After the budget has increased, Democrats say that it has been cut.
Can you measure your mind? No. You have just prove that you don't exist.