I don't know what the author thinks the common definition of explode is, but a quick look on Wiktionary shows it to have as one common meaning to destroy violently or abruptly which is certainly what happened to the shuttle.
Indeed. Apparently, some people think "explosion" means "detonation", ie. supersonic. However, "explosion" can also include "deflagration", which is subsonic.
If dropping support means some of your customers think you're an asshole, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, then you might not think dropping support was such a hot idea.
You can't just recompile 32-bit source code and expect it to work on 64-bit hardware unless (a) you're using a wordsize-agnostic language, or (b) you have written your code very carefully with 64-bit compatibility in mind.
Lots of code we want to run has no source code available. Think MS Office for instance. (Ok, who would run that on an Itanium, I know...)
32-bit code performs better for some workloads because pointers are smaller. If your data structures contain lots of pointers then you might find a substantial performance boost because the smaller pointers lead to a smaller cache/TLB footprint. (Ok, Itanium's hardware emulation was slow enough that this point wouldn't hold anyway...)
Some of the best JVMs don't support Itanium, and even for those that do, see point #2.
Yes, it makes sense to drop hardware emulation from Itanium, but not for the reasons you mention.
I wonder if the open source projects you mention would be where they are if they were public domain? Following your earlier logic, PD would be even better than BSD wouldn't it?
Sure, it's three times more in North America, but when you're dealing with percentages as large as these, that is misleading. If one were 1% and the other were 3%, that would be ok. But when Australia's figure is 18%, and North America's (not stated in the article) is presumably about 54%, it's the difference between a majority and a small minority, which is far more significant than "three times more" would suggest.
Software needs constant maintenance if it is to remain useful. Having the freedom to use old copies of software isn't useful for very long. Would you be satisfied if every version of gcc after 2.0 were closed-source?
Putting gcc under the GPL is what has given you the freedom to see the source code to the very latest version.
Public domain is anarchy. Anyone can do anything with public domain software, including distributing a changed version under a license that deprives people of the freedom to manipulate the source code. PD is the utmost in short-term freedom, but not in the long term.
Also, remember it's possible for people to disagree with you without being dishonest. Perhaps they are merely mistaken.
As for the freedom aspect, your wording seems disingenuous to me. It's a little bit like saying that shopkeepers are biased against "people they don't like" because they only allow you to enter the shop if you agree not to rob them. The GPL is trying (for better or worse) to maximize freedom by granting users almost unlimited freedom up to the point that they start to try to limit the freedom of others. It has nothing to do with who they "like".
Let's say I give you 14 random points near Andromeda. What are the odds that you could pick 9 of them and find some "plane" that contains them all? I guess it depends on how thick the "plane" is (which the article doesn't say), but I bet it's not that hard.
Usually, the problem with plagiarism is that copying the material was illegal.
Wrong. Plagiarism does not rest on copyright. You can be granted the right to copy some material, but if you submit it as your own work, it's still plagiarism.
Comments and code should not overlap in their content, so your complaints are irrelevant. If you have code that says "x=0" and a comment that says "set x to zero" then you don't understand what comments are for.
Re:From my point of view
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The difference between C and C++ is that C isn't object-oriented while C++ supports object-oriented design. But object-oriented design is not necessarily needed at the low-level programming that is used when accessing devices and similar operations, and hence C will be the choice of such programming.
Also, just because C doesn't "support" OO design doesn't mean you can't do it anyway with some discipline. (And no, I'm not talking about rolling your own vtables everywhere. That's OO implementation, not OO design.)
Re:Balkanization
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The overhead of the indirect call is not the only (or even the primary) performance problem with vtables. The inability to inline virtual calls impairs the optimizer tremendously.
The virtual screen image is at some definite distance -- presumably 12 feet in this example. The difference is where your eye focuses. If you had to focus on a 16" screen 2 feet away, you'd get fatigued pretty quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
If dropping support means some of your customers think you're an asshole, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, then you might not think dropping support was such a hot idea.
You can't just recompile 32-bit source code and expect it to work on 64-bit hardware unless (a) you're using a wordsize-agnostic language, or (b) you have written your code very carefully with 64-bit compatibility in mind.
-
Lots of code we want to run has no source code available. Think MS Office for instance. (Ok, who would run that on an Itanium, I know...)
-
32-bit code performs better for some workloads because pointers are smaller. If your data structures contain lots of pointers then you might find a substantial performance boost because the smaller pointers lead to a smaller cache/TLB footprint. (Ok, Itanium's hardware emulation was slow enough that this point wouldn't hold anyway...)
-
Some of the best JVMs don't support Itanium, and even for those that do, see point #2.
Yes, it makes sense to drop hardware emulation from Itanium, but not for the reasons you mention.The Geekery Times has published a report on the decline of proper anchor texting. Then, when it appears in the Related Links section, you know exactly what you're dealing with.
I wonder if the open source projects you mention would be where they are if they were public domain? Following your earlier logic, PD would be even better than BSD wouldn't it?
Sure, it's three times more in North America, but when you're dealing with percentages as large as these, that is misleading. If one were 1% and the other were 3%, that would be ok. But when Australia's figure is 18%, and North America's (not stated in the article) is presumably about 54%, it's the difference between a majority and a small minority, which is far more significant than "three times more" would suggest.
Putting gcc under the GPL is what has given you the freedom to see the source code to the very latest version.
Also, remember it's possible for people to disagree with you without being dishonest. Perhaps they are merely mistaken.
As for the freedom aspect, your wording seems disingenuous to me. It's a little bit like saying that shopkeepers are biased against "people they don't like" because they only allow you to enter the shop if you agree not to rob them. The GPL is trying (for better or worse) to maximize freedom by granting users almost unlimited freedom up to the point that they start to try to limit the freedom of others. It has nothing to do with who they "like".
Anyway thanks for clarifying your position.
I guess what I'd like explained is this:
What exactly is the freedom that is granted to users they like, and withheld from users they don't like?This is so totally fallacious that I'm not sure even how to refute it.
Let's say I give you 14 random points near Andromeda. What are the odds that you could pick 9 of them and find some "plane" that contains them all? I guess it depends on how thick the "plane" is (which the article doesn't say), but I bet it's not that hard.
If you buy a CD through the normal channels, you have no right to do public performances. So the situation is the same for CDs and MP3s here.
Is there really no way that the article could be correct on this?
...Linux is only for the desktop.
Comments and code should not overlap in their content, so your complaints are irrelevant. If you have code that says "x=0" and a comment that says "set x to zero" then you don't understand what comments are for.
The overhead of the indirect call is not the only (or even the primary) performance problem with vtables. The inability to inline virtual calls impairs the optimizer tremendously.
Wow, the way you presented that, I thought it would contain something funny.
Ok, I read the article -- where's the "remarkably embarrassing" part?
Anyone have a theory why this was modded Funny?
The virtual screen image is at some definite distance -- presumably 12 feet in this example. The difference is where your eye focuses. If you had to focus on a 16" screen 2 feet away, you'd get fatigued pretty quickly.