This has already been said, and my reply is the same: comparing 64-bit Hammer to 32-bit Pentium is comparing applies-and-oranges. There would be no way to separate the advantages of 64-bit processing from the advantages of AMD's implementation.
It's big of you to offer to "give them a break" though.
In general, I agree, but not in this case. The "Very Long" in VLIW doesn't refer to the number of bits so much as the fact that there are multiple instructions in each instruction word.
I'm not talking about 99% of people. I'm talking about you, since you're the one making claims as to the liklihood of buffer overruns in this software.
To put it another way, are you really naive enough to think that all programmers build Microsoft-style vulnerabilities into their code?
No, of course not. But you were talking about one particular DOS firewall product. I don't need all programmers to make this kind of mistakes; just the one who wrote that firewall.
Would you be willing to bet your business on his competence without seeing his code?
Teach the students how to use a tool (language syntax), then once they are comfortable enough with it that it is not a source of confusion for them, teach them how to apply that tool wisely.
As for pianos, it is the same. There is a time for basics and a time for higher level abstract theory. Basics first, theory later (when it can be usefully applied).
Ok, I think we're pretty close to agreement here. We just differ on what we think of as "abstract theory". I bet people learn what a "note" is on their first piano lesson. (Mine was too long ago--I don't remember.:-) Likewise, people should know what the heck it is that they are building with all this syntax.
What is the point of saying "a function body is enclosed in curly braces" if they don't know what a function is, or why they would want one to have a body?
I disagree. Most of those design patterns are useful structures that can be employed in a variety of programs to solve recurring problems. Some are workarounds for C++ warts. But none of them are conceptual models for software.
I agree. Pick the notation that is most likely to help potential readers understand what the code is doing. If you honestly think that means using "i" as the induction variable of a loop (which it occasionally does), then do it.
I find it frustrating to see people like the original submitter trying to do something like this. It is a fine example of someone with lofty ideals and noble intentions who is determined to not let reality get in the way of how things *should* be.
I would say the exact same thing regarding your attitude. Don't let the fact that students might not even know what a program is get in the way of your lofty notion that all you need to learn to program is to practice.
Would you tell a potential pianist not to study music theory?
I think a programmer's competence is a product of three factors:
How much code you have written
How much code you have read
How much theory you know
Set any of these factors to zero, and your competence will also be zero.
5, Interesting?? This is off-topic. The question was not how best to teach programming.
Everyone knows you can only get good at programming (or anything, for that matter) through practice. That is not insightful, nor interesting. It's patently obvious.
Another interesting software feature that will be shipped with the board is CD Player software. While this does not seem to be anything new, AOpen's solution can run the CD player without booting into a Windows OS. The CD Player loads immediately after the BIOS.
People have totally flipped over this. It's as though everyone thinks that people should not be allowed to profit from Free software. Even RMS doesn't think that. In fact, his gripe with this situation is not that people are selling binaries; it's that they are charging a per-seat licencing fee for it.
Personally, I think these guys may have finally found a way to profit directly from Free software; namely, the software is free, but they charge for the service of compiling it. To me, that sounds just fine.
Face it people: nobody's freedom is being denied by this, so it's only offensive if you choose to be offended.
Regardless, this system doesn't even work for GPLed code anyway. The GPL rests on copyright law, and copyright law protects derivative works. Since compiled binaries are derivative works, the GPL applies to them, and the UnitedLinux folks can't stop me from purchasing one copy of their software and giving the GPL'ed binaries to my 300 million closest friends.
The real Freedom problem here, assuming there is one, relates to non-copyleft software. And hell, we all knew that already, didn't we? If the authors of a piece of code that has made its way into UnitedLinux didn't give it a copyleft license, then they have allowed this to happen. They have no right to bitch and moan about it, and we should bitch and moan at them, not the UnitedLinux folks.
Strive for minimalism. Less is more. If you can delete code and have it still work, do so.
I never looked at it quite that way, but it's totally true. Remember that "lines of code" is a
good measure of the complexity of a solution, but has no relation whatsoever to the complexity of the problem.
--
"...lines of code has commonly been found to outperform many of the more
complex composite measures of software development." - A. Powell, 1996
Slashdot Mirror
Carl Sagan's original quote was that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Everyone knows that. The interesting question is this: assuming you have a good admin, which distro is most secure?
Ok, you say a buffer overrun is unlikely, and I say you have no way of knowing that. Let's agree to disagree. :-)
It's big of you to offer to "give them a break" though.
In general, I agree, but not in this case. The "Very Long" in VLIW doesn't refer to the number of bits so much as the fact that there are multiple instructions in each instruction word.
Exactly. And the former is exactly what they have done in this article.
You're very adept at changing the subject.
I'm not talking about 99% of people. I'm talking about you, since you're the one making claims as to the liklihood of buffer overruns in this software.
Not at all. Comparing 64-bit code on the Hammer versus 32-bit code on the Pentium would be apples-and-oranges.
Would you be willing to bet your business on his competence without seeing his code?
Are you really naive enough to think you can argue against buffer overflows in a piece of software you have never seen?
Nice turn of phrase, but what the hell does it mean?
What is the point of saying "a function body is enclosed in curly braces" if they don't know what a function is, or why they would want one to have a body?
I disagree. Most of those design patterns are useful structures that can be employed in a variety of programs to solve recurring problems. Some are workarounds for C++ warts. But none of them are conceptual models for software.
I agree. Pick the notation that is most likely to help potential readers understand what the code is doing. If you honestly think that means using "i" as the induction variable of a loop (which it occasionally does), then do it.
Would you tell a potential pianist not to study music theory?
I think a programmer's competence is a product of three factors:
-
How much code you have written
-
How much code you have read
-
How much theory you know
Set any of these factors to zero, and your competence will also be zero.5, Interesting?? This is off-topic. The question was not how best to teach programming.
Everyone knows you can only get good at programming (or anything, for that matter) through practice. That is not insightful, nor interesting. It's patently obvious.
Now this is what patents are for. Kudos!
Personally, I think these guys may have finally found a way to profit directly from Free software; namely, the software is free, but they charge for the service of compiling it. To me, that sounds just fine.
Face it people: nobody's freedom is being denied by this, so it's only offensive if you choose to be offended.
Regardless, this system doesn't even work for GPLed code anyway. The GPL rests on copyright law, and copyright law protects derivative works. Since compiled binaries are derivative works, the GPL applies to them, and the UnitedLinux folks can't stop me from purchasing one copy of their software and giving the GPL'ed binaries to my 300 million closest friends.
The real Freedom problem here, assuming there is one, relates to non-copyleft software. And hell, we all knew that already, didn't we? If the authors of a piece of code that has made its way into UnitedLinux didn't give it a copyleft license, then they have allowed this to happen. They have no right to bitch and moan about it, and we should bitch and moan at them, not the UnitedLinux folks.
--
"...lines of code has commonly been found to outperform many of the more complex composite measures of software development." - A. Powell, 1996
Translation: they have more toys because they want more toys.
Um, while you're at dictionary.com...
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=spelled
Not taking any chances, huh? :-)