I program for the PC only as a hobby. At work I use only C and program only embedded systems. My industry is strongly and almost universally prejudiced against C++ as they believe it will result in slow applications.
The basic reason I don't use C++ is the lack of sensible libraries as part of the standard. A programmer desirous of learning cross platform GUI programming has to rely on libraries that are not a part of the standard. I haven't poked around that field for a while now, but IIRC, each system had its quirks and arcane additions. For example, MFC (not cross platform) and QT have implemented their own version of various containers, string classes, etc. MFC relies heavily on arcane macros, QT relies on a weird (from a pure C++ point of view) MOC. I understand they both had good reasons for doing that when C++ was still evolving. But today, it is just a hinderance when trying to write "clean" code.
Another disadvantage of not having a great collection of libraries in the standard is that people won't know about them unless they dig around a lot. Introductory text books won't cover them, help files in the system won't cover them (if they do, a beginner in that field might not even know what to look for and where to look).
Do you want a OO library for accessing the serial port? OK... which OS? Windows: use MFC. Linux: google around until you find something on sourceforge. What about some GUI and audio libraries? again, similar method. Fine... now the application has used various libraries from various places. The source now looks like it was done by a person with multiple personality disorder, with each library having its own design and coding approach. Now that you have built an application with ten different sources of libraries, you have to keep track of all of them for bug-fixes, performance enhancementes. Each with its own quirky impact on your application. I went through all this, and eventually gave up C++ in favour of Java.
And this is just the beginning of my woes with C++.
"Officer, I don't have cash at the moment, but as a token of my gratitude, here is a collection of DVDs with GBs of the most populalar MP3s and porn, custom burnt just for you."
Steven Van Langendonck on 4/15/05 wrote: > >This would mean that to work with the tool you need to >connect it the installation of those developers that you >which to cooperate with?!
Yes. Well. Only one of them.
But yes, it does mean that for at least that one developer, your point of:
>And this would drag them automatically into the conflict >between BM and Tridge.
Exactly.
So Tridge is entirely correct in saying that he didn't violate any licenses, since he never agreed to a BK license in the first place. But for the tool to be useful, somebody ends up having to be the fall guy.
So I think Tridge is coming from a "free software is always useful" argument, whether it's true from a technical standpoint or not. Because you can always extend of it, and as such it's "useful" as a thing to hack on. That's certainly a valid point in one sense, but...
Linus This, looks like he was snooping on the network with the co-operation of a licensed user. Another info, Linus says he would have been OK with the reverse engineering if the result was a good enough replacement for BK.
On a positive note, he says: I'm sure Linux will be stronger for it, since it forced me to get off my fat ass and write my own tool. It's the old "whatever doesn't kill you.." thing.
no.... Linus explains clearly enough: 'Tridge wanted to create a tool that checked out BK trees for people who didn't sign the license. But it still needed BK to actually do anything useful - since it would not actually do the work that BK did.
"Hey, that's a useful helper". Yes, except when it isn't.
And it isn't, if releasing it just causes the BK protocols to change, and people who used BK in the first place to have to stop using it, and when using the tool against a BK repository is a violation of the license that the BK user agreed to.'
I wish people would read Linus' comment that I have linked to. He makes is point very cleary there. I really don't need to add anything to that. To avoid linking to some more comments of his, people would not read those either, I clarify: Keep in mind that to reverse engineer BK, one would HAVE to violate the license with BM. Now, once that was getting violated, BM had full authority to refuse to license it anymore.
So you have three choices - don't use the tool (which makes it useless) - use the tool, but stop using BK (which makes it useless) - use the tool _and_ use BK, which violates the BK
license
Two useless cases, and one outright license violation.
Now, let's look at a _constructive_ case: let's say that Tridge had written a really good SCM. Now the choice would be: - use the tool (cool, that works) - use BK (cool, that also works)
and everybody would be happy. If a developer wanted to switch to Tridges hypothetical tool, BK comes with the stuff needed to export your own data.
See? Open Office and Samba are both in that "happy" case. You can use them and be happy. They are _useful_ tools. They actually _replace_ the tool they were meant to replace, rather than just hook into it in ways that are against the license.
Do not assume I represent any side of the argument. I just thought you people should know his rationale.
I know I am getting off-topic but I feel I *have* to explain this! What they probably meant is that they are looking for someone who has spent, effectively, 5 man years on the stuff. Can be managed if you work overtime. If you work 8 hours a day on something for a year, you'll have effectively 1 man year worth experience. Work 16 hours a day on something for a year and you'll have 2 man years worth experience. Work weekends too and you can manage more.;-)
Basically it means they are looking for a person who is willing to work more than twice as hard as a normal person.
Wow! Sounds like it opens up a whole new avenue for spyware! With this, won't it be easy to write software that can access, without your knowledge, your personal mails, chat logs, browser history, etc.? All with a simple API! I wonder.
"2.Set up a future harvesting ground for hiring into his empire when the time is right."
Job openings easily available for future graduates? Is that so bad? Is he really screwing up their future by hiring them? That answer is extremely subjective.
"3.Spread the good word about Microsoft - 20mil worth of marketing does not seem to have the same effect."
Microsoft is NOT donating $20M... The Gates Foundation is. Do NOT confuse the two. Anyway, how exactly is this beneficial to Microsoft? Will it persuade more people to opt for Microsoft's products? Will it help Microsoft in various anti-trust lawsuits? I don't think so.
To put it mildly, I don't always hold Microsoft in the highest regard. But this is not about Microsoft.
It is sad that your comment has been modded "Funny". I would have modded it "Insightful", but only managers would mod it "Informative"... that is if they modded at all.
"each CPU clock cycle, 1.8 million times a second,"...
No wonder your computer burnt! Speedwise, it is about a thousandth of what you need to actually play this game. How you got a Radeon IGP to interface with this boggles my mind.
Warranty numbers are arrived at by looking at MTBF statistics. If they blindly increase their warranty period, they will end up losing a lot of money on support and replacements.
Warranty indicates how reliable their internal benchmarks indicate their products to be. Of course, I have simplified this a bit here, but, that's the general idea.
So, given an option, if you want reliability, it is better to go with something that has a greater warranty period.
Slashdot Mirror
I program for the PC only as a hobby. At work I use only C and program only embedded systems. My industry is strongly and almost universally prejudiced against C++ as they believe it will result in slow applications.
The basic reason I don't use C++ is the lack of sensible libraries as part of the standard. A programmer desirous of learning cross platform GUI programming has to rely on libraries that are not a part of the standard. I haven't poked around that field for a while now, but IIRC, each system had its quirks and arcane additions. For example, MFC (not cross platform) and QT have implemented their own version of various containers, string classes, etc. MFC relies heavily on arcane macros, QT relies on a weird (from a pure C++ point of view) MOC. I understand they both had good reasons for doing that when C++ was still evolving. But today, it is just a hinderance when trying to write "clean" code.
Another disadvantage of not having a great collection of libraries in the standard is that people won't know about them unless they dig around a lot. Introductory text books won't cover them, help files in the system won't cover them (if they do, a beginner in that field might not even know what to look for and where to look).
Do you want a OO library for accessing the serial port? OK... which OS? Windows: use MFC. Linux: google around until you find something on sourceforge. What about some GUI and audio libraries? again, similar method. Fine... now the application has used various libraries from various places. The source now looks like it was done by a person with multiple personality disorder, with each library having its own design and coding approach. Now that you have built an application with ten different sources of libraries, you have to keep track of all of them for bug-fixes, performance enhancementes. Each with its own quirky impact on your application. I went through all this, and eventually gave up C++ in favour of Java.
And this is just the beginning of my woes with C++.
"Officer, I don't have cash at the moment, but as a token of my gratitude, here is a collection of DVDs with GBs of the most populalar MP3s and porn, custom burnt just for you."
Again, I'll let Linus speak for himself :-)i on=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=85&entryID=49486&roo mID=11
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?act
Here's the extract:
Steven Van Langendonck on 4/15/05 wrote:
>
>This would mean that to work with the tool you need to
>connect it the installation of those developers that you
>which to cooperate with?!
Yes. Well. Only one of them.
But yes, it does mean that for at least that one
developer, your point of:
>And this would drag them automatically into the conflict
>between BM and Tridge.
Exactly.
So Tridge is entirely correct in saying that he
didn't violate any licenses, since he never agreed to a
BK license in the first place. But for the tool to be
useful, somebody ends up having to be the fall
guy.
So I think Tridge is coming from a "free software is always
useful" argument, whether it's true from a technical
standpoint or not. Because you can always extend of it,
and as such it's "useful" as a thing to hack on. That's
certainly a valid point in one sense, but...
Linus
This, looks like he was snooping on the network with the co-operation of a licensed user. Another info, Linus says he would have been OK with the reverse engineering if the result was a good enough replacement for BK.
On a positive note, he says:
I'm sure Linux will be stronger for it, since
it forced me to get off my fat ass and write my own tool.
It's the old "whatever doesn't kill you.." thing.
no.... Linus explains clearly enough :
i on=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=2&entryID=49312&room ID=11
'Tridge wanted to create a tool that checked out BK trees
for people who didn't sign the license. But it still
needed BK to actually do anything useful - since it would
not actually do the work that BK did.
"Hey, that's a useful helper". Yes, except when it isn't.
And it isn't, if releasing it just causes the BK protocols
to change, and people who used BK in the first place to
have to stop using it, and when using the tool against a
BK repository is a violation of the license that the BK
user agreed to.'
I wish people would read Linus' comment that I have linked to. He makes is point very cleary there. I really don't need to add anything to that. To avoid linking to some more comments of his, people would not read those either, I clarify: Keep in mind that to reverse engineer BK, one would HAVE to violate the license with BM. Now, once that was getting violated, BM had full authority to refuse to license it anymore.
The entire discussion thread where Linus explains himself is here: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?act
Linus' views are here: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?acti on=detail&PostNum=3322&Thread=19&entryID=49354&roo mID=11
Here's a relevant extract:
Tridge's tool would have been useful
if that usage had been sanctioned by BitMover. But since
that tool ends up invalidating your right to use BK in
the first place, and since that tool can not replace
what BK did, then yes, the tool is pointless.
So you have three choices
- don't use the tool (which makes it useless)
- use the tool, but stop using BK (which makes it useless)
- use the tool _and_ use BK, which violates the BK
license
Two useless cases, and one outright license violation.
Now, let's look at a _constructive_ case: let's say that
Tridge had written a really good SCM. Now the choice would
be:
- use the tool (cool, that works)
- use BK (cool, that also works)
and everybody would be happy. If a developer wanted to
switch to Tridges hypothetical tool, BK comes with the
stuff needed to export your own data.
See? Open Office and Samba are both in that "happy" case.
You can use them and be happy. They are _useful_ tools.
They actually _replace_ the tool they were meant to replace,
rather than just hook into it in ways that are against
the license.
Do not assume I represent any side of the argument. I just thought you people should know his rationale.
mouthless drones who live just long enough to mate
The mind and the mouth have an inverse relationship: when one is open, the other is closed.
So, you say these Naked Mole Rat males are very open-minded?
I know I am getting off-topic but I feel I *have* to explain this! ;-)
What they probably meant is that they are looking for someone who has spent, effectively, 5 man years on the stuff. Can be managed if you work overtime. If you work 8 hours a day on something for a year, you'll have effectively 1 man year worth experience. Work 16 hours a day on something for a year and you'll have 2 man years worth experience. Work weekends too and you can manage more.
Basically it means they are looking for a person who is willing to work more than twice as hard as a normal person.
Hmmm... come to think of it, do you suppose SF also stands for "Slashdot Fodder"?
Personally, I prefer thumb prints to signatures.
Anyway, I wonder what they can make out from my preference for the Lucida font family.
You are clearly confusing "simple" and "simplistic". Big, big mistake.
Wow! Sounds like it opens up a whole new avenue for spyware! With this, won't it be easy to write software that can access, without your knowledge, your personal mails, chat logs, browser history, etc.? All with a simple API! I wonder.
Exactly. I have subscribed to an always-on service now.
I pay about $28 for download speeds of 64kbps to 128kbps. At this price, it is not worth the money for most people here.
IMO, at $2.5 per month most people would go in for such an offer, considering we pay about $8 p.m. for cable TV.
Heck, do you even know what the terms "Capitalistic", "Republic" and "Democracy" mean?
m .htm
Here is a rather dumbed-down explanation:
http://capitalism.org/faq/capitalis
Yes... maybe this will help you understand how this link below help you understand how this can be done ;-)
http://www.gpgpu.org/
In other news, the Linux Kernel will also "spawn" and "exec". Linus confirmed that the community will not have it any other way, so he *had* to do it.
"Sure, they had one guy who could make a lot of crap out of coconuts"
Who can't? Its easy. You have to eat them first. The rest follows.
You mean it is vaporware?
"2.Set up a future harvesting ground for hiring into his empire when the time is right."
Job openings easily available for future graduates? Is that so bad? Is he really screwing up their future by hiring them? That answer is extremely subjective.
"3.Spread the good word about Microsoft - 20mil worth of marketing does not seem to have the same effect."
Microsoft is NOT donating $20M... The Gates Foundation is. Do NOT confuse the two. Anyway, how exactly is this beneficial to Microsoft? Will it persuade more people to opt for Microsoft's products? Will it help Microsoft in various anti-trust lawsuits? I don't think so.
To put it mildly, I don't always hold Microsoft in the highest regard. But this is not about Microsoft.
It is sad that your comment has been modded "Funny". I would have modded it "Insightful", but only managers would mod it "Informative"... that is if they modded at all.
what next? beowulf cluster of mobile phones?
this is what I saw on their website:
"This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time. You may reach the account administrator at www@www.tableausoftware.com"
Another Google? Ha!
"It's the fact that male testes don't like heat."
:-( I am compulsive!
How about female testes? Do they prefer the warmth?
Sorry for being so pedantic.
As I said before, so what?
"each CPU clock cycle, 1.8 million times a second,"...
No wonder your computer burnt! Speedwise, it is about a thousandth of what you need to actually play this game. How you got a Radeon IGP to interface with this boggles my mind.
Warranty numbers are arrived at by looking at MTBF statistics. If they blindly increase their warranty period, they will end up losing a lot of money on support and replacements.
Warranty indicates how reliable their internal benchmarks indicate their products to be. Of course, I have simplified this a bit here, but, that's the general idea.
So, given an option, if you want reliability, it is better to go with something that has a greater warranty period.