The place to extract that information is not from 'configure --help', it's from the configure.{in,ac} file directly. The basic --help output (the standard options like --prefix, etc) is known already, so just get the arguments to AC_ENABLE_* and AC_WITH_*, or however they're spelled.
There is no credit card emergency that cannot be handled the next business day.
Hell, the credit card purchases themselves take a couple days before they're finalized. Even then the companies can "undo" purchases if they are later shown to be illegitimate.
So, there is no point to having a ten-minute investigative response time to credit card fraud. Next day, yes, but 3 AM? Waste of money.
With respect to mozdev, at least, the "community" effect of open source doesn't seem to be taking hold. Projects are dropped, nobody maintains them, nobody can be contacted about them.
Example: CookieBar was this neat little plugin that added a pane to the mozilla sidebar. You could see your existing cookies there, and delete them. (For anything more, like per-site management, you went to the normal cookie manager.) But it's broken for mozilla 1.6, and there's no indication of it ever being maintained past its early days. Lots of comments saying, hey, is there a new version, but nobody who knows xpi or css or xul or whatever the hell plugins are written in has stepped up to fix the packaging issues or whatever seems to be wrong with it.
Shoot, even the little leave-a-comment text boxes are turned off, now that they're used for nothing but spam.
You have not offered proof either, only unsubstantiated claims. I haven't looked at the site since 1997, so I neither know nor care what's happened to it since. Maybe the Wayback Machine has copies of the original, but I have better things to do.
Give up, dude; I still don't believe a word you've said, despite the supercilious tone. And I don't feel the need to make you believe me, so if you don't, you don't. Plonk you go into the killfile.
Where the heck do you get such stupid ideas as 'it was scripted by ONE person??
Because it was posted on the site.
Which leads to some interesting "all Cretans are liars"-class of questions. I choose to believe that the site is a complete piece of shit and to get my entertainment elsewhere.
I remember reading The Spot when it first came out. We were all fascinated by it, even though we could tell it was a little bit unreal.
The reason it failed was that it was a complete set-up. None of the characters existed, not even in the sense of an actor/author playing the part. One person wrote all the various blogs; he and a couple other people plotted out the storylines in advance.
Once that broke, interest in the site dropped like a rock.
One of my best friends at university was also a double major like yourself. And he really, really liked math. To him, there was no such thing as too much math. When he heard that I had signed up to do my Calculus III course (the last math required for CS majors, other than statistics), he asked who the professor was.
I told him.
"Oh," he said, his face going numb, "you don't need that much math."
Turns out this professor was very good at teaching, and a really nice guy, but also strongly believed in getting to the theories that underlie the theories that underlie the more common aspects of everyday math. Where "common everyday math" meant things like "set theory".
On our final exam, we had to derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion. From first principles.
that the editor needs to do a lot of what is requires by a compiler.
The smart way to do this, of course, is by making the editor able to share a front-end with the compiler itself. Possibly even make them all part of the same program, like many of the IDEs.
I know of a variant on GCC where the front-end would dump a kind of XML representation of the program's identifiers, for cross-reference building. An editor would better off asking the compiler to do the work like that, rather than doing it on its own.
You toss around demands like "while I type" and "without running a code through a compiler." Now tell me just what you think is going to be doing the checking.
Detecting the examples you gave require at least a parser, and some minimal semantic analysis. Parsing takes up the bulk of compiling time in C and C++, and you're not going to get that in a heartbeat.
How often is this mini-compiler supposed to check your code? Constantly? It'll be siliently getting errors in the background, as it waits for you to type the closing parenthesis and ending semicolon, and the CPU will be pegged as soon as you start the editor, but you'll get your red lines "as you type"... more or less.
Parsing is expensive. There's a reason why syntax highlighting doesn't go beyond heavy regexing.
Well, I would imagine...
on
Robocones
·
· Score: 1
...that the cone begins blinking its lights on and off, brightly, just before it raises up a few inches, floats over to its new spot, and sinks back down.
Also, like the submitter pointed out, it's screaming EX-TER-MI-NATE, which will get the attention of any driver, except in New York City, where they scream that anyhow.
But I'll continue to live in reality where some languages make it easier to write readable code, while some make it harder.
You and me both. I don't remember who said it, but my position is this:
It's not that Perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior [on the part of the programmer] in a way that no other language has ever done.
While it's obviously technically true that turing complete-languages are equivalently powerful, it ignores the reality that writing certain kinds of programs is easier in some languages,
Here is the proof I mentioned, and the ultimate refutation to anyone who spouts off that nonsense about "all Turing-complete languages are equally powerful, so they're all equally readable" (usually a Perl coder, ha): Brainfuck.
It has only 2 variables and 8 operations, but ooooh, it's Turing complete!
I knew some kid was going to start bitching and moaning about the memory leak comment. I'm not saying they're not important. I'm saying that one has nothing to do with the other.
I'm trying to imagine a programming language that doesn't let you create
functions on the fly but is powerful enough for writing real applications.
C, C++, Java. None of these support closures or lambdas. C++'s Boost makes a good try, but none of them allow me to construct new functions using nothing more than standard language features.
Stack-based languges like the C family (including Java) don't need GC to operate correctly, but can use it if it's available. (Java just has it all turned on by default.)
By "correctly," I'm specifically leaving out memory leaks. Your program may leak, but it will still run correctly, give the right answers to computations, not suddenly lose track of variables, etc. (Right up until you run out of swap.)
Those "other languages" the author dumps a list of don't use GC just to free the poor programmer from the burden of thinking, or whatever. Nearly every one of those languages either has support for functional programming, or is centered around it. And in functional programming, you're creating functions on the fly.
Which means returning functions as data. Possibly involving local variables in the creating function. Which means that locally-declared variables have to keep existing after the creating function returns, even if the coder can't get to them anymore. And the only way to do that is to have the runtime system manage its own heap, which means a garbage collector.
So for all those languages, it's not an "ease of use" thing. It's a "there's no way for a programmer to do even do it manually at all" thing. GC is the only option.
Specifically, his kick-ass novel, A Deepness In the Sky. Gazillions of floating self-propelled nanotech devices, working off of broadcast power, taking your picture, reading your biometric data, etc.
The data are then analyzed by... um, spoiler territory.
The data are then analyzed to predict what you're feeling, thinking, expecting, paying attention to, etc. Very very brilliantly written.
but an actual university (or college for you Americans) degree which comes with a strong theoretical background.
There are plenty of "actual" schools that will claim to have a "strong" background. The word to look for is accredited.
A particular program (say, Bachelor's in CS) will receive accreditation only after being reviewed by national standards bodies (ABET, in the CS case, I believe). It's the seal of approval for that degree, basically. Non-accredited programs from good schools might be okay, or they might suck, and you'll note that the diploma-by-mail spam is careful to point out that it's a non-accredited "school", which gives you an idea of what non-accredited degrees are worth.
Claiming acreditation without having it is fraud at the federal level, so if you get diploma spam selling you an acredited degree, feel free to take them to the cleaners.:-)
BTW, America calls them universities too. Multiple colleges accrete into a university.
but these genetical algorithms could be used to predetermine the optimal compiler settings for each architecture/ebuild-combination, store this information in a central database
That database should be called "the GCC source tree".
Once a particular set of flags has been shown to be consistently better for a majority of sample real-world code, those settings should become the new defaults for that platform on, say, -O2.
Doing this is slightly tricky, given the current GCC codebase, but that's why God gave us text editors.:-)
you have perhaps gone slightly overboard in making compiler optimization options available
...I strongly agree. No other compiler in history has this many knobs and dials. They interact in strange and unpredictable ways. Even worse, the -f (functionality/features) options can't be tested with all the possible -m (machine-specific) ones due to the number of platforms required. So we get bug reports complaining that -ffoo combined with -mbar on the Foonly 3000 causes random explosions killing a busload of nuns, and all we can do is shrug and say, "the -ffoo designers didn't have a Foonly, so just Don't Do That."
One of the things I'm pushing for GCC 4.x is to take an axe to the -f switches. It won't get consensus, of course, but it'll raise interesting discussion.
now officially a murky problem space to attack with pseudo-random hill climbing stuff...
There's an insult in there somewhere, but I'm not sure what you're trying to attack.
Optimization options have always been a murky problem space in GCC. No other compiler targets as many processors as we do. The Right Thing on one chip will not be the Right Thing on another; that's why we have this mess.
As for what you call "peudo-random hill-climbing stuff," probably with little Dogbert-like waves of your hand, I suggest you take some formal courses in evolutionary algorithms. For solving non-linear discontinuous problem spaces, they are extremely effective, and go well beyond "hill climbing stuff."
One of the original goals of Acovea was to find better combinations of switches for popular platforms, and then make those the default for future major versions. I haven't followed the project as closely as I'd wished, so I can't say whether that's still the goal. Hope so.
Your credit rating and history are based entirely on SSN. If you're buying a car, then you're applying for a loan. If you're applying for a loan, then they use your SSN to look you up.
Yes, it sucks. But it's the answer to your question.
...I can feel relatively safe against broken blades in my fencing gear, but still use a sewing needle to restitch the straps when those threads work loose.
Mind, it's a really sharp sewing needle, but still. (And for some reason, dental floss holds up longer than thread.)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the article title was a Creator telling me to snort up for [a] revamp, and I'm like, nah, I've got coffee.
Then I realized that "snort" was a noun, not an imperative. Oh.
The place to extract that information is not from 'configure --help', it's from the configure.{in,ac} file directly. The basic --help output (the standard options like --prefix, etc) is known already, so just get the arguments to AC_ENABLE_* and AC_WITH_*, or however they're spelled.
There is no credit card emergency that cannot be handled the next business day.
Hell, the credit card purchases themselves take a couple days before they're finalized. Even then the companies can "undo" purchases if they are later shown to be illegitimate.
So, there is no point to having a ten-minute investigative response time to credit card fraud. Next day, yes, but 3 AM? Waste of money.
Certainly they can be cancelled at any time -- I've had to do it myself -- but that's not what the poster was complaining about.
Yes, and they've already told you who they are: the various security departments, who will be reporting to work at 9 in the morning.
What, you thought investigative agents hang around 24 hours a day? No, they value sleep.
With respect to mozdev, at least, the "community" effect of open source doesn't seem to be taking hold. Projects are dropped, nobody maintains them, nobody can be contacted about them.
Example: CookieBar was this neat little plugin that added a pane to the mozilla sidebar. You could see your existing cookies there, and delete them. (For anything more, like per-site management, you went to the normal cookie manager.) But it's broken for mozilla 1.6, and there's no indication of it ever being maintained past its early days. Lots of comments saying, hey, is there a new version, but nobody who knows xpi or css or xul or whatever the hell plugins are written in has stepped up to fix the packaging issues or whatever seems to be wrong with it.
Shoot, even the little leave-a-comment text boxes are turned off, now that they're used for nothing but spam.
You have not offered proof either, only unsubstantiated claims. I haven't looked at the site since 1997, so I neither know nor care what's happened to it since. Maybe the Wayback Machine has copies of the original, but I have better things to do.
Give up, dude; I still don't believe a word you've said, despite the supercilious tone. And I don't feel the need to make you believe me, so if you don't, you don't. Plonk you go into the killfile.
Because it was posted on the site.
Which leads to some interesting "all Cretans are liars"-class of questions. I choose to believe that the site is a complete piece of shit and to get my entertainment elsewhere.
I remember reading The Spot when it first came out. We were all fascinated by it, even though we could tell it was a little bit unreal.
The reason it failed was that it was a complete set-up. None of the characters existed, not even in the sense of an actor/author playing the part. One person wrote all the various blogs; he and a couple other people plotted out the storylines in advance.
Once that broke, interest in the site dropped like a rock.
is brief and evocative.
One of my best friends at university was also a double major like yourself. And he really, really liked math. To him, there was no such thing as too much math. When he heard that I had signed up to do my Calculus III course (the last math required for CS majors, other than statistics), he asked who the professor was.
I told him.
"Oh," he said, his face going numb, "you don't need that much math."
Turns out this professor was very good at teaching, and a really nice guy, but also strongly believed in getting to the theories that underlie the theories that underlie the more common aspects of everyday math. Where "common everyday math" meant things like "set theory".
On our final exam, we had to derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion. From first principles.
Is when the story is accepted and then immediately shows up in the "two days ago" column, with the timestamp exactly 48 hours wrong.
The smart way to do this, of course, is by making the editor able to share a front-end with the compiler itself. Possibly even make them all part of the same program, like many of the IDEs.
I know of a variant on GCC where the front-end would dump a kind of XML representation of the program's identifiers, for cross-reference building. An editor would better off asking the compiler to do the work like that, rather than doing it on its own.
You toss around demands like "while I type" and "without running a code through a compiler." Now tell me just what you think is going to be doing the checking.
Detecting the examples you gave require at least a parser, and some minimal semantic analysis. Parsing takes up the bulk of compiling time in C and C++, and you're not going to get that in a heartbeat.
How often is this mini-compiler supposed to check your code? Constantly? It'll be siliently getting errors in the background, as it waits for you to type the closing parenthesis and ending semicolon, and the CPU will be pegged as soon as you start the editor, but you'll get your red lines "as you type"... more or less.
Parsing is expensive. There's a reason why syntax highlighting doesn't go beyond heavy regexing.
...that the cone begins blinking its lights on and off, brightly, just before it raises up a few inches, floats over to its new spot, and sinks back down.
Also, like the submitter pointed out, it's screaming EX-TER-MI-NATE, which will get the attention of any driver, except in New York City, where they scream that anyhow.
You and me both. I don't remember who said it, but my position is this:
It's not that Perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior [on the part of the programmer] in a way that no other language has ever done.
Here is the proof I mentioned, and the ultimate refutation to anyone who spouts off that nonsense about "all Turing-complete languages are equally powerful, so they're all equally readable" (usually a Perl coder, ha): Brainfuck. It has only 2 variables and 8 operations, but ooooh, it's Turing complete!
I knew some kid was going to start bitching and moaning about the memory leak comment. I'm not saying they're not important. I'm saying that one has nothing to do with the other.
C, C++, Java. None of these support closures or lambdas. C++'s Boost makes a good try, but none of them allow me to construct new functions using nothing more than standard language features.
...it's required by them.
Stack-based languges like the C family (including Java) don't need GC to operate correctly, but can use it if it's available. (Java just has it all turned on by default.)
By "correctly," I'm specifically leaving out memory leaks. Your program may leak, but it will still run correctly, give the right answers to computations, not suddenly lose track of variables, etc. (Right up until you run out of swap.)
Those "other languages" the author dumps a list of don't use GC just to free the poor programmer from the burden of thinking, or whatever. Nearly every one of those languages either has support for functional programming, or is centered around it. And in functional programming, you're creating functions on the fly.
Which means returning functions as data. Possibly involving local variables in the creating function. Which means that locally-declared variables have to keep existing after the creating function returns, even if the coder can't get to them anymore. And the only way to do that is to have the runtime system manage its own heap, which means a garbage collector.
So for all those languages, it's not an "ease of use" thing. It's a "there's no way for a programmer to do even do it manually at all" thing. GC is the only option.
Specifically, his kick-ass novel, A Deepness In the Sky. Gazillions of floating self-propelled nanotech devices, working off of broadcast power, taking your picture, reading your biometric data, etc.
The data are then analyzed by... um, spoiler territory.
The data are then analyzed to predict what you're feeling, thinking, expecting, paying attention to, etc. Very very brilliantly written.
the Cygwin installer.
There are plenty of "actual" schools that will claim to have a "strong" background. The word to look for is accredited.
A particular program (say, Bachelor's in CS) will receive accreditation only after being reviewed by national standards bodies (ABET, in the CS case, I believe). It's the seal of approval for that degree, basically. Non-accredited programs from good schools might be okay, or they might suck, and you'll note that the diploma-by-mail spam is careful to point out that it's a non-accredited "school", which gives you an idea of what non-accredited degrees are worth.
Claiming acreditation without having it is fraud at the federal level, so if you get diploma spam selling you an acredited degree, feel free to take them to the cleaners. :-)
BTW, America calls them universities too. Multiple colleges accrete into a university.
That database should be called "the GCC source tree".
Once a particular set of flags has been shown to be consistently better for a majority of sample real-world code, those settings should become the new defaults for that platform on, say, -O2.
Doing this is slightly tricky, given the current GCC codebase, but that's why God gave us text editors. :-)
...I strongly agree. No other compiler in history has this many knobs and dials. They interact in strange and unpredictable ways. Even worse, the -f (functionality/features) options can't be tested with all the possible -m (machine-specific) ones due to the number of platforms required. So we get bug reports complaining that -ffoo combined with -mbar on the Foonly 3000 causes random explosions killing a busload of nuns, and all we can do is shrug and say, "the -ffoo designers didn't have a Foonly, so just Don't Do That."
One of the things I'm pushing for GCC 4.x is to take an axe to the -f switches. It won't get consensus, of course, but it'll raise interesting discussion.
There's an insult in there somewhere, but I'm not sure what you're trying to attack.
Optimization options have always been a murky problem space in GCC. No other compiler targets as many processors as we do. The Right Thing on one chip will not be the Right Thing on another; that's why we have this mess.
As for what you call "peudo-random hill-climbing stuff," probably with little Dogbert-like waves of your hand, I suggest you take some formal courses in evolutionary algorithms. For solving non-linear discontinuous problem spaces, they are extremely effective, and go well beyond "hill climbing stuff."
One of the original goals of Acovea was to find better combinations of switches for popular platforms, and then make those the default for future major versions. I haven't followed the project as closely as I'd wished, so I can't say whether that's still the goal. Hope so.
it's an easy one to answer.
Your credit rating and history are based entirely on SSN. If you're buying a car, then you're applying for a loan. If you're applying for a loan, then they use your SSN to look you up.
Yes, it sucks. But it's the answer to your question.
...I can feel relatively safe against broken blades in my fencing gear, but still use a sewing needle to restitch the straps when those threads work loose.
Mind, it's a really sharp sewing needle, but still. (And for some reason, dental floss holds up longer than thread.)