Heard of backwards compatibility? The C++ standardization commitee certainly hasn't. There is a big long set of rules which have been codified to decide when something should be standardized. One of those rules is that the changes should be in common use (that is, a lot of compilers should have similar features) before they are standardized. Every single time there is a suggestion to add a new feature to C++ this rule is brought up and then subsequently disregarded because if they only added features that were in common use they couldn't drive the development of the language. So they blantantly disregard the rules and make changes to the specification that break existing implementations. There's a reason why there are so few C++ standards compliant compilers available.
Heh, see Plum Hall sell the test suites that everyone has to buy if they want to claim that their compiler is standards compilant. So by forcing changes to the standard Plum Hall make a heap of cash from people buying their updates. The more changes, the more cash. Of course, all those changes to C++ are necessary and there are SO many standard C++ compilers.
Unfortunately the C++ standards commitee has always been a corrupt bunch of language lawyers. You just have to look at all the money that Plum Hall make selling updates to their test suite and then trace back who on the commitee actually proposed and championed the changes to the standard in the first place to see that.
it is also much safer for the astronauts to be at home. Hardly makes sense putting a robot up there for them to remote control when they could remote control it from earth. I think the idea of space habitation is to make it safe for humans to live and work in space, and that means making space suits that are safe and light weight enough to allow astronauts to get outside and do the job. This robot is just a step backwards from the goal (and a step towards sending the astronauts home).
umm.. that's all shit you don't have in the C++ language.. so I guess we could say these are.NET extensions to C++, but can you just recompile C++ to.NET?
Why can't they just change their compiler to generate managed code? Why do they need to change the syntax of C++ at all? In the open source project I work on we use the Boehm garbage collector for C++. So the number one reason to use managed code, automatic memory management, is already available to us. It would be nice if we could just recompile with some settings under VC++ and get a managed version to compare against Boehm. Of course, we'll need to be able to mix safe and unsafe code as our project is a little heavy on the bit manipulation side.
Imagine a world where if you wanted to fly somewhere you just went to the airport, bought a ticket and got on a plane. No need to book x weeks in advance. No need to get patted down and x-rayed. When you get on the plane you just sit where-ever the hell you like (first in, first choice). If you're having trouble imagining this, go to a bus or train station some time - assuming you're not in the US where apparently you have to show ID to even get on a bus these days.
Now imagine if an airline decided they wanted to do this. They'd need their own airport, and they'd probably be violating a dozen federal laws.
Exactly. For such planes is there any need for any security what-so-ever? If the passengers are armed and just trying to get where they're going then all the better.
Oh well clearly it's just propaganda that is making the vast majority of us feel perfectly fine about the smell of our computer cases and only a tiny minority feel sick. Thank you for enlightening us.
Unfortunately that company would soon go out of business as people started trading their flights in a free market driving the prices that people are willing to pay for their flight down. In fact, if any one company were allowed to sell transferable flights it would drive the prices of all flights down which is probably why the feds require that all airlines not sell transferable flights. To look for a "stopping protestors" or some other explaination for this practice is to ignore the much more obvious explaination: to keep the price of flights high enough so that the airline industry can survive.
Couldn't stand em. Made me sick. Well one day I decided to have one even though I didn't like em. Felt like I had wasted my money. Know what I did? I bought another one. After about 5 Big Macs I was startin' to dig it. Now I really like Big Macs. Sometimes you have just to grin and bare it until your body adjusts. Now maybe you have a serious medical condition and are literally allergic to this stuff. In which case, you can probably get some injections that will very slowly expose your body to it until you are used to it. But chances are you're not seriously allergic to this stuff, you're just a big cry baby. Eat the damn Big Mac.
But "making" software is not what the software industry is about. The vast amount of us are employed to maintain software and for that we have no methodologies.
Actually I have. Mozilla is a clean piece of software. It's unfortunate that for way too many software projects it takes me longer to set up the build environment than it does to fix the bug. More software should be written in dynamic languages that the user can hack to their liking. Oh wait a minute, all the UI logic for Mozilla and the apps that are distributed with Mozilla are written in dynamic programming languages (like XUL and Javascript). In fact, fixing things like incorrect spelling or poor documentation or bad widget layout in a Mozilla app is as simple as double clicking on a jar file and editing one of the xml files inside. Of course, you actually have to know XUL and Javascript, RDF and a bit of XML syntax, but hey, these are good skills to have.
Has anyone bothered to find out if Evan Brown's "idea" is even patentable. I mean, from the vague description given it would appear that he's talking about a standard decompiler. There's plenty of prior art for decompilation (going back 40 years). As a researcher in this field I think this whole thing stinks. Neither party appears to want to talk about the actual "idea", it's more the princple of whether or not a company can own an employee's ideas. If either party were to actually investigate whether or not a patent could be filed for the idea and found that it could not this would terminate proceedings without actually answering that question.
Give me any source code, no matter how big, no matter how ugly, no matter how many languages it is written in and a list of bugs and I'll knock em down one faster than the other. How is it so? I have made software maintenance skills baby and if the universities and IT schools recognised that this is where 99% of software development is spent there would be more like me.
Now consider the opposite. As I sit in front of MKS Source Integrity which has the same bug that pisses me off every single time I use it and I can't fix it. It's rare that a bug will piss me off as much as this. If only.. I know, where's that debugger. Uh huh, I've found you little window call, say goodnight. Damn... I can't even patch the binary because it is written in some protected native java shit. God I hate closed source.
People who buy from Dell and don't want to pay for Windows. You can't buy the machine with no OS, so you choose Linux (which is cheaper than Windows) and then just install your warezed copy of XP over the top.
I wish the assholes who made the CSI game would have put that number on the outside of the box. I bought it for my girlfriend who finished the whole game in 2 to 3 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Heard of backwards compatibility? The C++ standardization commitee certainly hasn't. There is a big long set of rules which have been codified to decide when something should be standardized. One of those rules is that the changes should be in common use (that is, a lot of compilers should have similar features) before they are standardized. Every single time there is a suggestion to add a new feature to C++ this rule is brought up and then subsequently disregarded because if they only added features that were in common use they couldn't drive the development of the language. So they blantantly disregard the rules and make changes to the specification that break existing implementations. There's a reason why there are so few C++ standards compliant compilers available.
Well how's that going to stop Plum Hall adding bloat to the language just to force an upgrade?
Heh, see Plum Hall sell the test suites that everyone has to buy if they want to claim that their compiler is standards compilant. So by forcing changes to the standard Plum Hall make a heap of cash from people buying their updates. The more changes, the more cash. Of course, all those changes to C++ are necessary and there are SO many standard C++ compilers.
Unfortunately the C++ standards commitee has always been a corrupt bunch of language lawyers. You just have to look at all the money that Plum Hall make selling updates to their test suite and then trace back who on the commitee actually proposed and championed the changes to the standard in the first place to see that.
it is also much safer for the astronauts to be at home. Hardly makes sense putting a robot up there for them to remote control when they could remote control it from earth. I think the idea of space habitation is to make it safe for humans to live and work in space, and that means making space suits that are safe and light weight enough to allow astronauts to get outside and do the job. This robot is just a step backwards from the goal (and a step towards sending the astronauts home).
umm.. that's all shit you don't have in the C++ language.. so I guess we could say these are .NET extensions to C++, but can you just recompile C++ to .NET?
Why can't they just change their compiler to generate managed code? Why do they need to change the syntax of C++ at all? In the open source project I work on we use the Boehm garbage collector for C++. So the number one reason to use managed code, automatic memory management, is already available to us. It would be nice if we could just recompile with some settings under VC++ and get a managed version to compare against Boehm. Of course, we'll need to be able to mix safe and unsafe code as our project is a little heavy on the bit manipulation side.
They have rovers to do the actual space work, and the rover isn't automated. Wow, what a fantastic waste of money.
Now imagine if an airline decided they wanted to do this. They'd need their own airport, and they'd probably be violating a dozen federal laws.
Exactly. For such planes is there any need for any security what-so-ever? If the passengers are armed and just trying to get where they're going then all the better.
Dude no. Read the summary judgement. The judge should have said "ok, where is this law? Oh it's secret. Ok, that's unconstitutional." But he didn't.
Oh well clearly it's just propaganda that is making the vast majority of us feel perfectly fine about the smell of our computer cases and only a tiny minority feel sick. Thank you for enlightening us.
Unfortunately that company would soon go out of business as people started trading their flights in a free market driving the prices that people are willing to pay for their flight down. In fact, if any one company were allowed to sell transferable flights it would drive the prices of all flights down which is probably why the feds require that all airlines not sell transferable flights. To look for a "stopping protestors" or some other explaination for this practice is to ignore the much more obvious explaination: to keep the price of flights high enough so that the airline industry can survive.
Couldn't stand em. Made me sick. Well one day I decided to have one even though I didn't like em. Felt like I had wasted my money. Know what I did? I bought another one. After about 5 Big Macs I was startin' to dig it. Now I really like Big Macs. Sometimes you have just to grin and bare it until your body adjusts. Now maybe you have a serious medical condition and are literally allergic to this stuff. In which case, you can probably get some injections that will very slowly expose your body to it until you are used to it. But chances are you're not seriously allergic to this stuff, you're just a big cry baby. Eat the damn Big Mac.
same with those self righteous assholes who wanna buy milk without showing ID, I hate those guys.
But "making" software is not what the software industry is about. The vast amount of us are employed to maintain software and for that we have no methodologies.
Actually I have. Mozilla is a clean piece of software. It's unfortunate that for way too many software projects it takes me longer to set up the build environment than it does to fix the bug. More software should be written in dynamic languages that the user can hack to their liking. Oh wait a minute, all the UI logic for Mozilla and the apps that are distributed with Mozilla are written in dynamic programming languages (like XUL and Javascript). In fact, fixing things like incorrect spelling or poor documentation or bad widget layout in a Mozilla app is as simple as double clicking on a jar file and editing one of the xml files inside. Of course, you actually have to know XUL and Javascript, RDF and a bit of XML syntax, but hey, these are good skills to have.
Has anyone bothered to find out if Evan Brown's "idea" is even patentable. I mean, from the vague description given it would appear that he's talking about a standard decompiler. There's plenty of prior art for decompilation (going back 40 years). As a researcher in this field I think this whole thing stinks. Neither party appears to want to talk about the actual "idea", it's more the princple of whether or not a company can own an employee's ideas. If either party were to actually investigate whether or not a patent could be filed for the idea and found that it could not this would terminate proceedings without actually answering that question.
Don't worry, every manager has this idea of "hackers". Which is why they treat Programmers like children.
Copyright is the best way to protect software? What planet are you living on?
Now consider the opposite. As I sit in front of MKS Source Integrity which has the same bug that pisses me off every single time I use it and I can't fix it. It's rare that a bug will piss me off as much as this. If only.. I know, where's that debugger. Uh huh, I've found you little window call, say goodnight. Damn... I can't even patch the binary because it is written in some protected native java shit. God I hate closed source.
Notice that "complain" isn't on the list.
Fuck you.
People who buy from Dell and don't want to pay for Windows. You can't buy the machine with no OS, so you choose Linux (which is cheaper than Windows) and then just install your warezed copy of XP over the top.
I wish the assholes who made the CSI game would have put that number on the outside of the box. I bought it for my girlfriend who finished the whole game in 2 to 3 hours.