Really? You see those as the only two alternatives? Either teachers can say anything about any student on any forum OR they can say nothing about any student ever?
Ah I see what you mean now. Actually I think you've hit upon the key feature of Design by Contract that most people miss. It's not just tossing assertions all over your code. It's a design discipline that shapes the way you write the system, and that's why it's good at finding design problems.
Actually Design by Contract is a design discipline, not a bunch of error checks. It's a bit like programming without gotos: the benefit comes not from avoiding typing "goto" into your source code, but rather from the style of reasoning you use when you learn the proper alternatives.
The "definition of correct" is the system working the way it should. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here: that a system should stick with the original, possibly flawed, contracts rather than fix them to operate properly? That once you make an error in a contract, you should live with it forever? I fail to see how that perspective is helpful or realistic, and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you may be lacking in practical experience with Design by Contract.
Contracts can easily have bugs. That shouldn't be too hard to imagine. You could easily have a postcondition "ensure item[index] == 123" when "index" is out of bounds, or when you meant to write "0x123", or when the array is actually called "items".
The fact that contracts can have bugs doesn't negate their value any more than the same fact about software negates software's value.
I know I find it increasingly frustrating to contribute because whatever you add, there's always someone waiting to revert it immediately without any attempt at compromise or discussion.
I'm not sure how you imagine orbit works, but it's not like things hang there motionless waiting for you to give them the slightest little nudge in the right direction.
You know how much energy it takes to get something into orbit? Well, it takes roughly that much again to fling them into an escape trajectory.
With 600kg of propellant on board, you'd be able to fire the engine for 600kg / 0.209kg/s = 2871 seconds on the Earth's surface... a little over 47 minutes.
True, though your calculation has nothing to do with Earth's surface. (When Isp is measured in seconds, they multiply by the gravity on Earth's surface just for fun.)
The main engine has a Specific Impulse (Isp) of 318 seconds. [spaceref.com] On Earth, you'd get about 318 seconds (5+ minutes) of operation.
No. Specific impulse, despite being measured in seconds, has nothing to do with how long the rocket can fire. That obviously depends on how much propellant you carry.
Take another look at that Wikipedia article you linked on specific impulse.
If your program has a working set larger than the machine's physical RAM, it will be exceedingly slow (effectively running at disk speed rather than RAM speed). If your program's working set is 1/N of its total memory usage, then a swap space N times RAM will make sure you hit unbearably slow performance before you hit an out-of-memory error.
Or edit Wikipedia templates
on
Clean Code
·
· Score: 1
The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.
Same issue with Firefox: according to Mr Baker, their license is GPL plus "don't use our trademarks etc." That's not a licensing issue at all really; just informing you of the rights you don't have regardless of whether you use Firefox.
Based on Mr Baker's comments, I'd expect there is no "by using this software, you agree..." clause in there at all. That's why it's not an EULA.
Slashdot Mirror
Innovation is not impressive unless it matches Mooreâs law?
Really? You see those as the only two alternatives? Either teachers can say anything about any student on any forum OR they can say nothing about any student ever?
Ah I see what you mean now. Actually I think you've hit upon the key feature of Design by Contract that most people miss. It's not just tossing assertions all over your code. It's a design discipline that shapes the way you write the system, and that's why it's good at finding design problems.
Actually Design by Contract is a design discipline, not a bunch of error checks. It's a bit like programming without gotos: the benefit comes not from avoiding typing "goto" into your source code, but rather from the style of reasoning you use when you learn the proper alternatives.
The "definition of correct" is the system working the way it should. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here: that a system should stick with the original, possibly flawed, contracts rather than fix them to operate properly? That once you make an error in a contract, you should live with it forever? I fail to see how that perspective is helpful or realistic, and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you may be lacking in practical experience with Design by Contract.
Contracts can easily have bugs. That shouldn't be too hard to imagine. You could easily have a postcondition "ensure item[index] == 123" when "index" is out of bounds, or when you meant to write "0x123", or when the array is actually called "items".
The fact that contracts can have bugs doesn't negate their value any more than the same fact about software negates software's value.
I picked up a very nice looking 21" 1600x1200 CRT for free. Spending $1 on a display with fewer lines of resolution would be crazy.
Uh... unless you care about something other than resolution. Like desk space, or weight, or power consumption.
I know I find it increasingly frustrating to contribute because whatever you add, there's always someone waiting to revert it immediately without any attempt at compromise or discussion.
I also have to say that I think people will find it humourous 50 years from now when they look back at comments from 2009 about how there's not much new stuff to add. That's a bit like the fellow who wanted to close the patent office in 1899 because everything had already been invented.
In other news, the press favors chocolate over brain cancer.
I'm not sure how you imagine orbit works, but it's not like things hang there motionless waiting for you to give them the slightest little nudge in the right direction.
You know how much energy it takes to get something into orbit? Well, it takes roughly that much again to fling them into an escape trajectory.
Don't quit your day job.
We all understand that the number of sunspots can be low and increasing at the same time?
With 600kg of propellant on board, you'd be able to fire the engine for 600kg / 0.209kg/s = 2871 seconds on the Earth's surface ... a little over 47 minutes.
True, though your calculation has nothing to do with Earth's surface. (When Isp is measured in seconds, they multiply by the gravity on Earth's surface just for fun.)
The main engine has a Specific Impulse (Isp) of 318 seconds. [spaceref.com] On Earth, you'd get about 318 seconds (5+ minutes) of operation.
No. Specific impulse, despite being measured in seconds, has nothing to do with how long the rocket can fire. That obviously depends on how much propellant you carry.
Take another look at that Wikipedia article you linked on specific impulse.
The heritage of abolition and the abolishment of slavery.
Also, don't forget they abolished slavery.
We're all comparing this to the Great Depression.
On what application do you get a 99.99999% TLB hit rate? I've never seen that on a real app.
You don't have a gig of swap utilized.
If your program has a working set larger than the machine's physical RAM, it will be exceedingly slow (effectively running at disk speed rather than RAM speed). If your program's working set is 1/N of its total memory usage, then a swap space N times RAM will make sure you hit unbearably slow performance before you hit an out-of-memory error.
Some of them have to be seen to be believed.
Oh yeah, it was on Slashdot nine months ago.
The GPL only imposes restrictions on how you can distribute software. Anyone can use it however they want.
Same issue with Firefox: according to Mr Baker, their license is GPL plus "don't use our trademarks etc." That's not a licensing issue at all really; just informing you of the rights you don't have regardless of whether you use Firefox.
Based on Mr Baker's comments, I'd expect there is no "by using this software, you agree..." clause in there at all. That's why it's not an EULA.
...but it would seem logical that the same would apply to patents.
I wonder how many other people would even get that reference?
Not me. What is it?
Mods, pay attention!