There is precious little research to date comparing the efficiency of two skilled and experienced programmers doing full-time pair programming with what they produce working alone except when they feel the need to collaborate in real time, and what there is isn't nearly as favourable.
This study is more realistic in that the research subjects were professional Java consultants, rather than college students. However, it appears the study did not allow the subjects to collaborate with anyone outside the pair (or at all, for the solo subjects).
The abstract of the study: A total of 295 junior, intermediate, and senior professional Java consultants (99 individuals and 98 pairs) from 29 international consultancy companies in Norway, Sweden, and the UK were hired for one day to participate in a controlled experiment on pair programming. The subjects used professional Java tools to perform several change tasks on two alternative Java systems with different degrees of complexity. The results of this experiment do not support the hypotheses that pair programming in general reduces the time required to solve the tasks correctly or increases the proportion of correct solutions. On the other hand, there is a significant 84 percent increase in effort to perform the tasks correctly. However, on the more complex system, the pair programmers had a 48 percent increase in the proportion of correct solutions but no significant differences in the time taken to solve the tasks correctly. For the simpler system, there was a 20 percent decrease in time taken but no significant differences in correctness. However, the moderating effect of system complexity depends on the programmer expertise of the subjects. The observed benefits of pair programming in terms of correctness on the complex system apply mainly to juniors, whereas the reductions in duration to perform the tasks correctly on the simple system apply mainly to intermediates and seniors. It is possible that the benefits of pair programming will exceed the results obtained in this experiment for larger, more complex tasks and if the pair programmers have a chance to work together over a longer period of time.
You should first check if s1 and s2 are the same pointer. Also, use true and false when dealing with bools, and use size_t for indexing strings. Here's a somewhat terser variant that uses pointer arithmetic instead of indexes:
I don't know if there's any list of things cut out before version 4.0, but if you want to compare the current version with older ones, there are three print versions from before 4.0 that should still be available from libraries. They are listed in the Jargon File's revision history.
What the authors fail to realize is that UNIX is the triumpth of realism over idealism. And like all ideologues, they're pissed senseless.
Oh, they realized it just fine; the book includes the excellent essay The Rise of "Worse is Better" by Richard Gabriel, which makes exactly this point.
They trot out 'The Longest Journey' as an example of not-dead-yet... and while it *was* a fabulous game, it's not a very good example. The game set up completely for a sequel, which the company then decided wasn't going to happen. It can't have sold very well.
Then turn the ring volume down, so that it will be easier to ignore. DeMarco and Lister recommend doing exactly that in their excellent book Peopleware, where they talk a lot about avoiding disturbances and getting into the "zone".
CVS does have recursive add, or at least something like it: cvs import. While this is usually used to import and track outside sources, it can also be used for inserting new subdirectories of your own creation into an existing repository module. Example:
cd module/new_dir cvs import module/new_dir vendor_tag release_tag
Real-time garbage collection is possible, as described by Donald Knuth in The Art of Computer Programming, third edition, volume 1, section 2.3.5, exercise 12. The basic idea is that whenever available memory is reduced to N, garbage collection is run in parallel with the main routine, with time shared so that the main routine still runs fast enough. N must be chosen so that garbage collection is finished before the main routine manages to exhaust N memory. Knuth gives an extensive list of references for more information.
C has evolved since the ANSI specification of 1989; a new ISO standard, ISO/IEC9899:1999, was ratified in December 1999. However, it will probably take some time before all major compilers support the new standard.
A list of changes and some drafts of the standard are available online. Please note that these might differ from the final version.
SimonK did not say that you should worry about perfomance. He said exactly the opposite -- you should worry about performance after you are sure your program works correctly, and after you have profiled it to find out which parts need optimizing.
Also, he didn't say that Java the language automatically made each of its users a better programmer than those using C++. He said Java tended to attract programmers that wanted their code to reflect the desired functionality, while C++ attracted programmers that wanted to show off by writing very obscure, very optimized code, regardless of whether the optimizations were needed or not. Besides syntax, features, and standard libraries, languages have culture -- the people that use the language, the style and conventions of code written in it, the tools and third-party libraries that are available, the books that are written for it, the nature of its newsgroup discussions, and so on, and so on. Some programming languages are worth learning not because of the language's merits as such, but because of the culture that has grown up around it.
As to Java's speed, it is of no importance whether C++ always is faster than Java if the Java solution is fast enough to fulfill requirements and can be implemented much faster than the C++ solution.
MySQL has got the R of RDBMS, true enough, but it lacks the DBMS. It's not really a DataBase Management System without transactions. Please note that most people don't insist MySql isn't relational, they simply state that MySQL isn't an RDBMS.
JPEG does support CMYK. You might want to have a look at O'Reilly's Encyclopedia of Graphics File Formats, second edition. A quote from chapter 9 (Data Compression), page 195:
The JPEG algorithm is capable of encoding images that use any type of color space. Jpeg itself encodes each component in a color model separately, and it is completely independent of any color-space model, such as RGB, HSI, or CMY.
The JPEG FAQ mentions some issues regarding JPEG and CMYK. Also, libjpeg supports CMYK, as described in the documentation.
However, as you say CMYK isn't very useful for web graphics.
A web server or web server module can keep a pool of database connections, thus avoiding the need to establish a new connection for each HTTP request. PHP does this, as do several others. So connection overhead is not really an issue for web sites.
anyone know _any_ karate student without _any_ ego or tendency to violence? - personal experience here
I've studied karate for several years, and many of my friends study karate or some other martial art. None of them have any tendencies to violence, and none of them are arrogant or boastful of their skills.
Slashdot Mirror
There is precious little research to date comparing the efficiency of two skilled and experienced programmers doing full-time pair programming with what they produce working alone except when they feel the need to collaborate in real time, and what there is isn't nearly as favourable.
One interesting data point is the study Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise by Erik Arisholm et al. from Simula Research Laboratory, published in the February 2007 issue of Transactions on Software Engineering. There's a good summary on the Catenary blog.
This study is more realistic in that the research subjects were professional Java consultants, rather than college students. However, it appears the study did not allow the subjects to collaborate with anyone outside the pair (or at all, for the solo subjects).
The abstract of the study:
A total of 295 junior, intermediate, and senior professional Java consultants (99 individuals and 98 pairs) from 29 international consultancy companies in Norway, Sweden, and the UK were hired for one day to participate in a controlled experiment on pair programming. The subjects used professional Java tools to perform several change tasks on two alternative Java systems with different degrees of complexity. The results of this experiment do not support the hypotheses that pair programming in general reduces the time required to solve the tasks correctly or increases the proportion of correct solutions. On the other hand, there is a significant 84 percent increase in effort to perform the tasks correctly. However, on the more complex system, the pair programmers had a 48 percent increase in the proportion of correct solutions but no significant differences in the time taken to solve the tasks correctly. For the simpler system, there was a 20 percent decrease in time taken but no significant differences in correctness. However, the moderating effect of system complexity depends on the programmer expertise of the subjects. The observed benefits of pair programming in terms of correctness on the complex system apply mainly to juniors, whereas the reductions in duration to perform the tasks correctly on the simple system apply mainly to intermediates and seniors. It is possible that the benefits of pair programming will exceed the results obtained in this experiment for larger, more complex tasks and if the pair programmers have a chance to work together over a longer period of time.
You should first check if s1 and s2 are the same pointer. Also, use true and false when dealing with bools, and use size_t for indexing strings. Here's a somewhat terser variant that uses pointer arithmetic instead of indexes:
struct eqstr {
bool operator()(const char* s1, const char* s2) const
{
if (s1 == s2) return true;
if (!s1 || !s2) return false;
while (*s1 != '\0' && *s1 == *s2)
s1++, s2++;
return *s1 == *s2;
}
};
I don't know if there's any list of things cut out before version 4.0, but if you want to compare the current version with older ones, there are three print versions from before 4.0 that should still be available from libraries. They are listed in the Jargon File's revision history.
The Journey Continues
Funcom Announces Strong Production Line-Up
No hints as to when it will be done, though.
Then turn the ring volume down, so that it will be easier to ignore. DeMarco and Lister recommend doing exactly that in their excellent book Peopleware, where they talk a lot about avoiding disturbances and getting into the "zone".
Real-time garbage collection is possible, as described by Donald Knuth in The Art of Computer Programming, third edition, volume 1, section 2.3.5, exercise 12. The basic idea is that whenever available memory is reduced to N, garbage collection is run in parallel with the main routine, with time shared so that the main routine still runs fast enough. N must be chosen so that garbage collection is finished before the main routine manages to exhaust N memory. Knuth gives an extensive list of references for more information.
A list of changes and some drafts of the standard are available online. Please note that these might differ from the final version.
Also, he didn't say that Java the language automatically made each of its users a better programmer than those using C++. He said Java tended to attract programmers that wanted their code to reflect the desired functionality, while C++ attracted programmers that wanted to show off by writing very obscure, very optimized code, regardless of whether the optimizations were needed or not. Besides syntax, features, and standard libraries, languages have culture -- the people that use the language, the style and conventions of code written in it, the tools and third-party libraries that are available, the books that are written for it, the nature of its newsgroup discussions, and so on, and so on. Some programming languages are worth learning not because of the language's merits as such, but because of the culture that has grown up around it.
As to Java's speed, it is of no importance whether C++ always is faster than Java if the Java solution is fast enough to fulfill requirements and can be implemented much faster than the C++ solution.
I'm guessing "Jack of All Trades".
Provided that having a comfortable work environment is worth nothing to you.
whatis.com has a nice definition of DBMS.
However, as you say CMYK isn't very useful for web graphics.
A web server or web server module can keep a pool of database connections, thus avoiding the need to establish a new connection for each HTTP request. PHP does this, as do several others. So connection overhead is not really an issue for web sites.