64-bit processors are rarely faster. They are usually slower. The advantage is memory addressibility.
AMD64 is slightly unusual in that it also has extra registers, which IA32 sorely needs, so it is possible that AMD64 code will run faster than IA32 code on the same box. However, it's still not because of the 64-bitness.
Just my personal opinion, but the whole reason I use a computer instead of a hundred Post-It notes lying on and around my desk is because the computer supposedly organizes things better. Now they want to have the computer deliberately and faithfully mimic desk clutter? That's so damn stupid, I want to scream.
20/20 hindsight brigade reporting for duty, I see.
Really? If you think writing software to allow for changes in the VIN format requires superhuman foresight, I hope you're not in the business of writing software.
Besides, making your hardware (read: VIN stamper) modular is a bit harder.
I don't understand this assertion. Do you think I'm proposing that the VIN stamper should be constructed to allow for any possible number of digits without modification? If so, you missed my point.
Yes, yes, so it would be more than a 1-liner. I was being facetious. What I'm talking about is information hiding in general. There's no reason that knowledge of the format of a VIN number should be smeared throughout your code. If you can't replace the VIN number logic in your software with a reasonable amount of effort, or if you think the kind of design I'm talking about requires superhuman foresight, then you have no business calling yourself a software engineer.
The principle of information hiding has been known since long before VIN numbers were invented.
It has more to do with the user-interface software that inputs and verifies these numbers, rather than the databases that store them. The trouble is that the modification should be as simple as you say, but brain-damaged software "engineers" have made it harder than it should be.
Then, when you run out of digits, change the 17 to an 18 and recompile.
Seriously. It is not cost-effective in general to t foresee or predict or allow for all conceivable futures. What we can and should do it make our software flexible enough to adapt. You don't need the benefit of foresight to do this. People like David Parnas have shown us how to write modular software for three decades now and we just don't listen.
No, I think it's still wrong. He claimed that a 30:1 ratio meant that if you extract 31 barrels, you consume 1 in the process. Thus, for a 1.5:1 ratio, which is 3:2, that means if you extract 5 barrels, you consume 2 in the process.
Off-topic, but just remember, it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty". Just because you haven't yet been proven guilty doesn't mean you aren't. It just means that the law should presume that you aren't.
A defect is not just a bug; rather, it's a bug that has been found, documented, and fixed using a software engineering process.
Uh, no it doesn't, but thanks for the unwarranted flame. "Defect" is just another word for "bug" or "flaw". If your company's process assigns any other meaning to that word (like mine does), that's not universal practice. Disagree? Ok, where's your evidence?
I think what you are trying to say is something we all agree with: zero bug reports doesn't imply zero bugs.
You need to go a hell of a lot higher than 60,000 feet to get out of the Earth's gravitational well. That's only 18km off the ground, so Earth's gravity is still 99.5% as strong there as it is on the surface.
They are doing more than launching a small rocket. This thing takes off over 100 feet in the air, then starts to fall back to earth, then fires its rocket again to slow its descent, then lands right back upright on the ground. I find this amazing; I had no idea rockets were capable of doing this at all, let alone that it would be a practical way to operate a vehicle.
If the JIT compiler really makes such a difference in performance as you think it does, don't you think that more of the top developers would use it?
I can only reply by quoting myself...
So it is definitely not impossible for a dynamic compiler to outperform a static one. It is just very rare, given the current state of the art of compilers.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD64 is slightly unusual in that it also has extra registers, which IA32 sorely needs, so it is possible that AMD64 code will run faster than IA32 code on the same box. However, it's still not because of the 64-bitness.
Hint to moderators: Erik Lehnsherr.
Wow, you must be pretty dumb. Nice user ID though.
Just my personal opinion, but the whole reason I use a computer instead of a hundred Post-It notes lying on and around my desk is because the computer supposedly organizes things better. Now they want to have the computer deliberately and faithfully mimic desk clutter? That's so damn stupid, I want to scream.
The principle of information hiding has been known since long before VIN numbers were invented.
It has more to do with the user-interface software that inputs and verifies these numbers, rather than the databases that store them. The trouble is that the modification should be as simple as you say, but brain-damaged software "engineers" have made it harder than it should be.
Then, when you run out of digits, change the 17 to an 18 and recompile.
Seriously. It is not cost-effective in general to t foresee or predict or allow for all conceivable futures. What we can and should do it make our software flexible enough to adapt. You don't need the benefit of foresight to do this. People like David Parnas have shown us how to write modular software for three decades now and we just don't listen.
Ah, that's true. Thanks.
No, I think it's still wrong. He claimed that a 30:1 ratio meant that if you extract 31 barrels, you consume 1 in the process. Thus, for a 1.5:1 ratio, which is 3:2, that means if you extract 5 barrels, you consume 2 in the process.
Wow. If you thought email was secure, and that your employer was not allowed to read it, then this was the wake-up call you needed.
Off-topic, but just remember, it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty". Just because you haven't yet been proven guilty doesn't mean you aren't. It just means that the law should presume that you aren't.
Cons: higher taxes.
Just goes to show that Canadian big-business lobby groups don't have as much money as their American counterparts.
He's right, isn't he? So what's your problem?
I'm not going to follow every link posted on Slashdot just to determine whether it's worth reading.
Why is x86 the backward one? SSE and SSE2 are IEEE 754 compliant.
SLI stands for Scan Line Interleave.
Ok, they don't put out the absolute worst tripe in the industry, so we might be able to learn something from them. You are truly wise.
I think what you are trying to say is something we all agree with: zero bug reports doesn't imply zero bugs.
You need to go a hell of a lot higher than 60,000 feet to get out of the Earth's gravitational well. That's only 18km off the ground, so Earth's gravity is still 99.5% as strong there as it is on the surface.
This is being presented as some kind of controversy or embarassment. It's neither.
They are doing more than launching a small rocket. This thing takes off over 100 feet in the air, then starts to fall back to earth, then fires its rocket again to slow its descent, then lands right back upright on the ground. I find this amazing; I had no idea rockets were capable of doing this at all, let alone that it would be a practical way to operate a vehicle.