If he is "tied for the nomination" of one of the parties of a two party system, it stands to reason that he is at LEAST in a 25% probability percentile (given that there is a 50/50 chance of either a democrat or republican getting elected, and if the last election is any indicator, I think that figure is pretty reasonable). I think that qualifies as serious contender.
I'd rather have non-conforming compilers in specific identifiable cases, than no specification whatsoever which leads to all compilers being "non-conforming" by de facto.
Re:ADD Version
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Marriage is a government certification that confers special privileges to certain citizens (including tax relief, coverage under health insurance, etc. etc.). I really don't give a damn about the argument of pro or anti homosexuality. If the government is going to allow marriage between a male and a female citizen, it should allow it for homosexual citizens also. What business is it of the government what gender you are? If the religious right is so disgusted by this notion that they would rather abolish government-recognized marriage, that is just fine with me...I don't think it is any of the governments business who you live/eat/sleep with.
Please tell me you are not suggesting a core feature to save typing one reference...instead of dealing with the complexity (well, not complexity, verbosity really) in your program you are just pushing it into the language...
Java didn't get templates. It got generics which are implemented through erasure, not code duplication.
Unfortunately, generics tend to have a bad reputation because of the way C++ implements them. Bracha maintains that generics as they will appear in Java attempt to fix the shortcomings of C++ templates.
Bracha pointed out that one problem with C++ templates is code bloat. For every List of type T, C++ generates a separate class. Generics as implemented by JSR-014 will not cause similar bloat: the same class and associated bytecode will work for all Lists of T.
Uh, just leaving it as "undefined" so that implemenations MAY (or most probably will not) define some useful behavoir...is far from useful.
Instead of leaving it as "undefined", they should define it as "If compiled with array range checking so and so exception should be thrown with the name of the variable and line (given debugging info is one)" or something...so that at least it is USEFUL.
N1420 Class Namespaces N1428 Dynamic Library Support in C++
Coming from Java (well, I did do a bit of introductory C++), one of the things that really bugs me, is the aesthetic of looking at the soup of classname::function implementation declarations. Class namespaces would clean this up considerably and make things much easier to read and more manageable (Java packages and classes are basically namespaces, and this concept confers very well). I also like the dynamic library support (another thing that is automatic in Java)...the worst thing is having to code native OS-specific macros, extern "C" DECLSPEC(dllexport) BLAH BLAH F'ING BLAH. Dynamic libraries are a ubiquitous concept and support should be built in. Leave it to the compiler to figure out what that actually *means* for a given OS. There is no performance benefit in making a human code this.
Further library standardization would of course help...it really helps to have a standard library (even if it is not the BEST one), since it avoids balkenization, which makes skills truly portable ("C++ developer eh? well do you know how to use the Frobnitz Super Fantastic library? No? Shame."), and programs reusable (by other humans).
"Seeing as how we started building this ship in 1998, wouldn't that make it one of Bill "Stogie" Clinton's projects?"
I didn't see the poster attributing blame for the creation of this ship to anybody. What makes you think that he doesn't blame Clinton for it? A lot of "leftists" don't like Clinton either.
You want to be a selfish bitch about how you're the only one suffering in the world. Guess what? You're not. Grow up and deal. Unless you're a midget...then, just deal.
That has to be the best signature candidate I have ever seen:) Can I print that on a shirt?
I'm no lover of Ronald Reagon. In fact I think he was/is a dirty bastard (either intentionally, through stupidity, or through mental disease).
But I hate logical inconsistencies, so to keep us honest I have to comment:
"All Reagan did was kill MORE civilians by not allowed the Russian government to drop all the military posturing, thus taking even more the little money they had away from the people and putting it into the military (gee, sound a little familiar?)."
What makes you think that if the US *didn't* compete with the USSR, that the USSR *wouldn't* just use this "saved" money to further oppress its own people (for the record I think the "Star Wars" program was a complete waste of time and money, and did indeed make things more dangerous)? Do you think that the USSR would just throw up its hands and say "hey, I guess the americans give up, we win, ok, now let's become democratic?". Very naive. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the US is/was/can be wrong, doesn't remove all culpability from the USSR. It may very well be that in order to acheive a longer-term good, a more acute short-term bad must be endured. Of course this is a very dangerous slippery slope (who is to say what the long term good is, or the probability of accomplishing it, or the severity of the short term bad?), and therein lies the moral dilemma. But I think it is rather naive to assume that if we simple did the opposite a better result would occur (personally I think the only rational solution is diplomacy...god forbid the USSR didn't actually collapse economically on its own, then what would have happened?). If I were the USSR I would exploit any weakness I could to bring other countries under my umbrella, seeing as I was hemorrhaging money.
I can tell you that I have had nightmarish times compiling kernels due to various obscure chipset bugs that may or may not be causing problems. In the end, the solution is just enabled all of the damn chipset bug fixes, even if you are not sure they apply. Sure, this is an issue of the user not knowing their hardware, but considering that a huge amount of linux installs are on previously OEM machines, which have scant hardware documentation, it seems pretty unreasonable to expect users to know the ins and out of every piece of hardware. Of course I have also done dumb things like disable virtual terminals and then wonder why my screen is blank on boot;)
Re:...and "upgrading" will be a headache
on
Perl 5.8.1 RC1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I didn't read the whole changelog, but I did read those two sections. Applications will only break if they relied on specific random ordering ACCROSS EXECUTIONS. E.g., if you dumped the contents of a hash into a file on two runs, and then compared, you may now get different ordering on identical data, whereas before you would (coincidentally) get the same random ordering and there would be no difference between the files. You probably shouldn't have been relying on this to begin with.
For the very reason that his name is unknown, he is referred to as "Jack".
Re:These arguments are so tired
on
Analysis: x86 Vs PPC
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Did you even read the article? It is not about how PPC is faster than x86. It's about how PPC is more *efficient* than x86 which leads in the long term to lower power usage, whereas x86 gets diminishing returns on ramping up their clockspeed and playing games shuffling registers, etc. He specifically mentions that CPU speed is not really as critical as the companies make it out to seem because there are diminishing returns due to other system components. He mentions that x86 is up against a thermal wall by 2004 although I don't know where he got that data (it may be in a footnote but I not going to go back just to check). Speaking as a gamer who runs a pretty loud machine that overheats in summer, I am VERY interested in chips becoming cooler, moreso than them getting faster (the hard work is typically shoved off onto a graphics card).
Is there any reason NOT to prohibit elected officials from owning stock or otherwise have vested interest in companies that are responsible for elections?
I agree. I am a full time Java developer. I love Java. But I ALSO realize.NET is really cool stuff. Or rather, the CLR, which is basically a more generic VM, is cool stuff. If you are a windows user, and have been using windows update, poke around and you will find that you have ALREADY downloaded the.NET runtime, and that various things are already based on, and use it (e.g. IE 6)..NET/CLR is there, you just don't see it. Which is the way it's meant to be anyway. The "Web services" side of.NET of course has been hampered because web services adoption is slow, but the CLR side of.NET is still strong, and I think is a great step up from C/C++/COM/ActiveX/PotLuckAPI.
I recommend FreeMarker over Velocity. Although it is more strictly typed (this can be a good or a bad thing depending on who you are), it preparses templates (IIRC), and it can also do really great things like recursive macros.
Slashdot Mirror
If he is "tied for the nomination" of one of the parties of a two party system, it stands to reason that he is at LEAST in a 25% probability percentile (given that there is a 50/50 chance of either a democrat or republican getting elected, and if the last election is any indicator, I think that figure is pretty reasonable). I think that qualifies as serious contender.
I'd rather have non-conforming compilers in specific identifiable cases, than no specification whatsoever which leads to all compilers being "non-conforming" by de facto.
Marriage is a government certification that confers special privileges to certain citizens (including tax relief, coverage under health insurance, etc. etc.). I really don't give a damn about the argument of pro or anti homosexuality. If the government is going to allow marriage between a male and a female citizen, it should allow it for homosexual citizens also. What business is it of the government what gender you are? If the religious right is so disgusted by this notion that they would rather abolish government-recognized marriage, that is just fine with me...I don't think it is any of the governments business who you live/eat/sleep with.
D is here
D Language
It's a cross of C++ with some Java-ish features and some design by contract thrown in. Fine language if you ask me.
Please tell me you are not suggesting a core feature to save typing one reference...instead of dealing with the complexity (well, not complexity, verbosity really) in your program you are just pushing it into the language...
Uh, just leaving it as "undefined" so that implemenations MAY (or most probably will not) define some useful behavoir...is far from useful.
Instead of leaving it as "undefined", they should define it as "If compiled with array range checking so and so exception should be thrown with the name of the variable and line (given debugging info is one)" or something...so that at least it is USEFUL.
No you are not. Only as an expression, not a statement.
N1420 Class Namespaces
N1428 Dynamic Library Support in C++
Coming from Java (well, I did do a bit of introductory C++), one of the things that really bugs me, is the aesthetic of looking at the soup of classname::function implementation declarations. Class namespaces would clean this up considerably and make things much easier to read and more manageable (Java packages and classes are basically namespaces, and this concept confers very well). I also like the dynamic library support (another thing that is automatic in Java)...the worst thing is having to code native OS-specific macros, extern "C" DECLSPEC(dllexport) BLAH BLAH F'ING BLAH. Dynamic libraries are a ubiquitous concept and support should be built in. Leave it to the compiler to figure out what that actually *means* for a given OS. There is no performance benefit in making a human code this.
Further library standardization would of course help...it really helps to have a standard library (even if it is not the BEST one), since it avoids balkenization, which makes skills truly portable ("C++ developer eh? well do you know how to use the Frobnitz Super Fantastic library? No? Shame."), and programs reusable (by other humans).
Actually (c++) is not an l-value is it?...I don't think you can assign to it...
c+=2
"Seeing as how we started building this ship in 1998, wouldn't that make it one of Bill "Stogie" Clinton's projects?"
I didn't see the poster attributing blame for the creation of this ship to anybody. What makes you think that he doesn't blame Clinton for it? A lot of "leftists" don't like Clinton either.
"If you want to insult a liberal, call him a socialist. If you want to insult a conservative, call him a Republican."
Yes, because they are both mischaracterizations.
You want to be a selfish bitch about how you're the only one suffering in the world. Guess what? You're not. Grow up and deal. Unless you're a midget...then, just deal.
:) Can I print that on a shirt?
That has to be the best signature candidate I have ever seen
I'm no lover of Ronald Reagon. In fact I think he was/is a dirty bastard (either intentionally, through stupidity, or through mental disease).
But I hate logical inconsistencies, so to keep us honest I have to comment:
"All Reagan did was kill MORE civilians by not allowed the Russian government to drop all the military posturing, thus taking even more the little money they had away from the people and putting it into the military (gee, sound a little familiar?)."
What makes you think that if the US *didn't* compete with the USSR, that the USSR *wouldn't* just use this "saved" money to further oppress its own people (for the record I think the "Star Wars" program was a complete waste of time and money, and did indeed make things more dangerous)? Do you think that the USSR would just throw up its hands and say "hey, I guess the americans give up, we win, ok, now let's become democratic?". Very naive. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the US is/was/can be wrong, doesn't remove all culpability from the USSR. It may very well be that in order to acheive a longer-term good, a more acute short-term bad must be endured. Of course this is a very dangerous slippery slope (who is to say what the long term good is, or the probability of accomplishing it, or the severity of the short term bad?), and therein lies the moral dilemma. But I think it is rather naive to assume that if we simple did the opposite a better result would occur (personally I think the only rational solution is diplomacy...god forbid the USSR didn't actually collapse economically on its own, then what would have happened?). If I were the USSR I would exploit any weakness I could to bring other countries under my umbrella, seeing as I was hemorrhaging money.
Democrat stupidity is no excuse for Republicans.
fantasy name generator
I can tell you that I have had nightmarish times compiling kernels due to various obscure chipset bugs that may or may not be causing problems. In the end, the solution is just enabled all of the damn chipset bug fixes, even if you are not sure they apply. Sure, this is an issue of the user not knowing their hardware, but considering that a huge amount of linux installs are on previously OEM machines, which have scant hardware documentation, it seems pretty unreasonable to expect users to know the ins and out of every piece of hardware. Of course I have also done dumb things like disable virtual terminals and then wonder why my screen is blank on boot ;)
I didn't read the whole changelog, but I did read those two sections. Applications will only break if they relied on specific random ordering ACCROSS EXECUTIONS. E.g., if you dumped the contents of a hash into a file on two runs, and then compared, you may now get different ordering on identical data, whereas before you would (coincidentally) get the same random ordering and there would be no difference between the files. You probably shouldn't have been relying on this to begin with.
For the very reason that his name is unknown, he is referred to as "Jack".
Did you even read the article? It is not about how PPC is faster than x86. It's about how PPC is more *efficient* than x86 which leads in the long term to lower power usage, whereas x86 gets diminishing returns on ramping up their clockspeed and playing games shuffling registers, etc. He specifically mentions that CPU speed is not really as critical as the companies make it out to seem because there are diminishing returns due to other system components. He mentions that x86 is up against a thermal wall by 2004 although I don't know where he got that data (it may be in a footnote but I not going to go back just to check). Speaking as a gamer who runs a pretty loud machine that overheats in summer, I am VERY interested in chips becoming cooler, moreso than them getting faster (the hard work is typically shoved off onto a graphics card).
Maybe... SUVs the size of tanks? Wait, we already have that.
Is there any reason NOT to prohibit elected officials from owning stock or otherwise have vested interest in companies that are responsible for elections?
I agree. I am a full time Java developer. I love Java. But I ALSO realize .NET is really cool stuff. Or rather, the CLR, which is basically a more generic VM, is cool stuff. If you are a windows user, and have been using windows update, poke around and you will find that you have ALREADY downloaded the .NET runtime, and that various things are already based on, and use it (e.g. IE 6). .NET/CLR is there, you just don't see it. Which is the way it's meant to be anyway. The "Web services" side of .NET of course has been hampered because web services adoption is slow, but the CLR side of .NET is still strong, and I think is a great step up from C/C++/COM/ActiveX/PotLuckAPI.
I recommend FreeMarker over Velocity. Although it is more strictly typed (this can be a good or a bad thing depending on who you are), it preparses templates (IIRC), and it can also do really great things like recursive macros.