Rather than add even more new keywords to the language, C++98 put the can-optimize-for-various-parallelisms numerical arrays in the library. The std::valarray template is defined to be free of aliasing, so implementations are allowed to chew hell out of the numbers. (Many don't, yet.)
FORTRAN 200[03] then went and added even more weird and wonderful features.:-)
...when we worked together on a project. She wrote up most of the documentation, then I copied it into LaTeX. She was stunned when she saw the two printed outputs side by side. There's Word, looking like someone held a transparent piece of paper to the screen and did a tracing, and LaTeX, looking... well, as its stated goal, beautiful.
She just stared at them for a while, and said, "Now I know why you despise Word so much. This is gorgeous." and never brought up Office again.:-)
That ought to work, at least in England. The BBC article says that, "Linux is unique in that it is open source," so they've apparently never heard of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, kOS, etc, etc.:-)
I am indeed, since your post appeared after I updated the killfile with new assholes. I do apologize.
Oh, but you don't use VxWorks. You just "interact" with it. I see.
Um. If you think that major software is only ever seen/touched/affected by the original authors and the final end-users, and nobody else, then clearly I won't be getting my point across today. Look, I'm sorry, I don't know how much of our work is covered by the NDA, and I'm not going to bother reading it all just for the sake of a/. post. (Nothing personal, I just avoid lawyer crap as much as possible.)
Wow. Have you thought about buying another book?
*looks at three bookcases overflowing, sighs, makes mental note to buy a fourth case*
First I've never read it, now I read it too much. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Like the VxWorks situation, there seems to be nothing I can say that will make you think, hey, maybe just maybe this guy knows what he's talking about.
See, when the actual engineers tell me that they've reviewed a certain feature, measured it, analyzed it, and decided that they don't want it, I'm pretty certain they know what they're doing. Frankly, I don't need to worry about some random slashdotter's opposing opinions, because, well, they're clearly wrong in this situation. I mean, I just got off the phone with one of the engineers, and they're quite pleased that "unneeded and unused features are no longer present, or can be disabled". Hostile/. posts from a collection of armchair rocket scientists aren't going to hold a lot of weight with me.
As I mentioned previously, these kinds of protection are being added in, on request, because they're obviously useful in many scenarios. But nothing comes for free, and what y'all seem determined to ignore is that there are scenarios where the cost of protected memory blocks in time/space/money is not acceptable.
Why should I bother addressing any of your points? You started your side of the conversation by saying everything I wrote was "Garbage." Yes, I'd say you're biased. Doesn't sound like you're open to anything but your own viewpoint.
Do you work for NASA? Do you work for JPL? No? Then I don't think you're qualified to say that their requests and decisions (regarding the use or not of protected memory) are all so obviously wrong. I don't know what their reasons were -- I'm not a rocket scientist either -- but I know the reasons that most other embedded engineers give when they chose to not use such protection.
I think it's interesting that somebody who has never used VxWorks
See, dude, that's why I'll be adding you to the killfile once I submit this. I never said "I've never used it." You're not interested in having a discussion. You're interested in looking good.
I've used it. I don't use VxWorks as an end user on a day-to-day basis, but I'm fairly familiar with it. Familiar enough to participate in this thread, at least. I do interact with it and its designers on a day-to-day basis. I don't know how much more I'm allowed to say before treading on NDAs, so I'll stop with that.
I read 1984 in junior-high, and in high school, and in two college courses, and I make it a point to read it every year two since. Same with Brave New World and the other standard civil-libertarian-warnings books. Don't really know what your point was trying to be there.
Go ahead and say whatever you want now, I'm not going to see it.
It makes sense, when building a robust system, to do rigorous testing AND have the memory protection.
Absolutely. While building it.
VxWorks obviously has a brilliant team of brainwashers^Wsalesmen because they've convinced you that you don't need a feature they don't offer. Perfect!
I forgot, this is slashdot, where VxWorks is the eternal enemy, and second-guessing actual rocket scientists is the national sport.
IIRC, memory protection was removed from the early versions by popular request, because the cost was too high. Clearly not everyone out there agrees with the opinions stated by sibling posts to yours.
Me, personally, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other. (I don't use VxWorks, and haven't had a single segfault in any of my code since I stopped using C.) I just dislike seeing the groupthink mentality defended so vigourously, thus my initial post.
Without trying to start a flame war, I think you'll find that propulsion/guidance systems behave differently than what you think... (Actually, I guess it depends on the application. The things I'm used to seeing get transported in this matter don't reboot, in flight or ever. Maybe yours do, it's certainly possible.)
And if a pacemaker didn't kick the heart once
I shouldn't have said pacemaker. I can't recall the exact name of the doohickies that do keep patients alive, second by second. (Usually during surgery, but often not.) Either way, you get my point.
And having memory protection only costs you maybe 3% of run speed,
I'd want to see real, hard numbers. Clearly there are applications where the N% lost to protection is too much, else those systems would have it! I know of one embedded OS where it can be optionally enabled, letting the programmers find those really nasty bugs in a non-response-time-critical environment, and then regaining performance in the field. It's not they think such protection is bad, it's just that they can't afford it, is all.
Nope, we thought of that.:-) Stuff below the subtitles in the "present" version is just as visible in the "absent" version. Besides, the subtitles aren't that close to the bottom, at least not in LOTR.
Released versions of VxWorks do not have protected memory. (The development version does.) So nothing is there to prevent overwrites by concurrent tasks, etc.
Those of you in the audience experienced in embedded systems know that this makes sense for embedded hardwar -- VxWorks or not -- for three main reasons:
Stuff running in such environments is damn near bug-free. It's not like, say, Mozilla, or even the Linux kernel, or even/bin/ls. These things get tested rigourously, not as an afterthought deligated to the junior programmer.
In systems which are allowed to fail once in a while, reboots are fast. There's no hard drive to spin up, no filesystem to fsck, etc. It can just go *click* and humans won't typically see an interruption in [whatever it was the doohickey was doing].
There's usually no point in memory protection. If the propulsion system walks off the end of a garbage pointer, mission's over. No real use in keeping the guidance system going; it's already on a ballistic uncontrollable arc. If some critical part of the super-smart pacemaker fails (see #1), there's no victory in digging the device out of the corpse and saying, see, this other critical part wasn't affected, thanks to the memory protection! In those cases, memory protection just increases the cost and size of a device, without helping anything.
Protected memory is good for systems which do more than one thing, and/or have parts which can die without killing the whole device (e.g., a desktop computer). And as I said above, some embedded OSes are added such protection for customers who want to adapt their technology to more general-purpose tasks.
I mentioned this over here. There are at least two versions of RotK running in theatres.
It's not that particular change that bothers me, it's the idea that there could be other variations as well, and that we're missing out on good stuff.:-) I assume the variations are to try and track where the pirated versions come from.
There are three entire DVDs of nothing but commentary and interviews. Pretty much every major departure from the book is drawn out, discussed, and explained.
As LISP coders will tell you, if you're having to think about the "sin tax", it's not user-friendly. Move past that. Think about the semantics. Or as the Bene Gesserit would say,
Syntax is the mind-killer. It is the little death that leads to total obfuscation. I will face the syntax. I will permit it to pass over and through the parser, and when the compiler is done I will turn my debugger's eye to see its path. Where the syntax has gone there will be nothing. Only the executable shall remain.
If strong typing is really important, I can create my own strongly-typed collection.
Over and over and over again...
something called GOOD CODING, along with runtime exceptions, which enforce it. I don't see the need for all that extra ugly syntax just to enforce it at compile time.
Bwahaha. Nice troll. Ask any serious programmer, and he/she will tell you that good coding practice calls for as many checks as possible during compilation, while it's still in the lab. "Whew, it got caught during runtime!" is a shitty excuse when the run time in question was the demo in front of the customer, or during actual use on the flight deck, etc.
I got this book shipped to my door a few days ago.
I never ordered it. Had never heard of it. Not really interested in GUI programming.
Did the publishers just compile a list of people who know and talk about C++, and send them (us) free copies? Why? Do they hope we'll suddenly become interested enough to read a few hundred pages, because, hey, free book?
how about real time placement of military resources,
What, saying "gold squandron, move 2 klicks east" into a radio isn't real-time enough?
Yeah, I guess ordering movement by clicking on a screen would be useful. As long as the commander can order them to attack-move or retreat-move by holding down the Ctrl key as he clicks.
Gee, that's exactly what they're doing. Who'd uh thunk it?
Ah yes, this is/., where people see the little green underlines that go to the fucking article and say, ooooo, shiny! Wonder what that does, oh never mind, let's go blather.
In the (invented, grrr) scene where Elrond drops in at Dunharrow (htf did he cross the Misty Mountains so fast?) and gives Anduril to Aragorn (who should have been carrying it the whole time), they conclude by speaking two lines in Sindarin.
Some versions of that reel have English subtitles for that scene. Some don't.
(Full disclosure: the first time I saw it, they weren't there... and that was okay, because I didn't need them.:-) Yes, I have been reading Tolkien my whole life, why do you ask? The lines aren't in LOTR, they're backplot from either the Appendices or one of the other books-of-notes. And when I saw the version with subtitles, I happened to notice that the English version is subtly wrong. Odd.)
I've verified this with some friends of mine. Some of us even went to separate theatres on a return viewing and compared notes afterwards.
Anyhow, my point: anybody know of other "variant" versions?
No, when I say sent, I mean it was sent a day and a half later. I checked the timestamps and Received: headers. From them to me took all of thirty seconds.
I needed some sticks of RAM, shopped around some, ordered from New Egg. Jumped through the hoops of "registering" an account just to place a single order. No special rush delivery or anything.
A few days later, the RAM arrives.
A day and a half after that, New Egg sends me an email telling me that the RAM has been shipped and will arrive soon.
I clicked through ten pages of single-paragraph-per-page advertisement "reviews" and never got to the iGesture. So I've no idea what he says about it.
I'm a happy user of the FingerWorks flagship product, the full keyboard. (Replaces the mouse as well.) The various iGesture pads replace the mouse, and can replace/augment bits of the keyboard. And they all support the really sweet gestures.
Yes, they work with Linux (the keyboard even has special modes for certain programs, including Emacs), and their tech support participates in their discussion forums. Very cool people, very cool products.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than add even more new keywords to the language, C++98 put the can-optimize-for-various-parallelisms numerical arrays in the library. The std::valarray template is defined to be free of aliasing, so implementations are allowed to chew hell out of the numbers. (Many don't, yet.)
FORTRAN 200[03] then went and added even more weird and wonderful features. :-)
After doing the AoE expansion pack and some other stuff, he did Empire Earth. Similar idea, but this time "done right".
I've no idea...
...when we worked together on a project. She wrote up most of the documentation, then I copied it into LaTeX. She was stunned when she saw the two printed outputs side by side. There's Word, looking like someone held a transparent piece of paper to the screen and did a tracing, and LaTeX, looking... well, as its stated goal, beautiful.
She just stared at them for a while, and said, "Now I know why you despise Word so much. This is gorgeous." and never brought up Office again. :-)
Wouldn't the BSD bits build up on top of the undersea transatlantic cables then? That would explain some of outages.
That ought to work, at least in England. The BBC article says that, "Linux is unique in that it is open source," so they've apparently never heard of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, kOS, etc, etc. :-)
I am indeed, since your post appeared after I updated the killfile with new assholes. I do apologize.
Um. If you think that major software is only ever seen/touched/affected by the original authors and the final end-users, and nobody else, then clearly I won't be getting my point across today. Look, I'm sorry, I don't know how much of our work is covered by the NDA, and I'm not going to bother reading it all just for the sake of a /. post. (Nothing personal, I just avoid lawyer crap as much as possible.)
*looks at three bookcases overflowing, sighs, makes mental note to buy a fourth case*
First I've never read it, now I read it too much. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Like the VxWorks situation, there seems to be nothing I can say that will make you think, hey, maybe just maybe this guy knows what he's talking about.
See, when the actual engineers tell me that they've reviewed a certain feature, measured it, analyzed it, and decided that they don't want it, I'm pretty certain they know what they're doing. Frankly, I don't need to worry about some random slashdotter's opposing opinions, because, well, they're clearly wrong in this situation. I mean, I just got off the phone with one of the engineers, and they're quite pleased that "unneeded and unused features are no longer present, or can be disabled". Hostile /. posts from a collection of armchair rocket scientists aren't going to hold a lot of weight with me.
As I mentioned previously, these kinds of protection are being added in, on request, because they're obviously useful in many scenarios. But nothing comes for free, and what y'all seem determined to ignore is that there are scenarios where the cost of protected memory blocks in time/space/money is not acceptable.
Why should I bother addressing any of your points? You started your side of the conversation by saying everything I wrote was "Garbage." Yes, I'd say you're biased. Doesn't sound like you're open to anything but your own viewpoint.
Do you work for NASA? Do you work for JPL? No? Then I don't think you're qualified to say that their requests and decisions (regarding the use or not of protected memory) are all so obviously wrong. I don't know what their reasons were -- I'm not a rocket scientist either -- but I know the reasons that most other embedded engineers give when they chose to not use such protection.
See, dude, that's why I'll be adding you to the killfile once I submit this. I never said "I've never used it." You're not interested in having a discussion. You're interested in looking good.
I've used it. I don't use VxWorks as an end user on a day-to-day basis, but I'm fairly familiar with it. Familiar enough to participate in this thread, at least. I do interact with it and its designers on a day-to-day basis. I don't know how much more I'm allowed to say before treading on NDAs, so I'll stop with that.
I read 1984 in junior-high, and in high school, and in two college courses, and I make it a point to read it every year two since. Same with Brave New World and the other standard civil-libertarian-warnings books. Don't really know what your point was trying to be there.
Go ahead and say whatever you want now, I'm not going to see it.
Absolutely. While building it.
I forgot, this is slashdot, where VxWorks is the eternal enemy, and second-guessing actual rocket scientists is the national sport.
IIRC, memory protection was removed from the early versions by popular request, because the cost was too high. Clearly not everyone out there agrees with the opinions stated by sibling posts to yours.
Me, personally, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other. (I don't use VxWorks, and haven't had a single segfault in any of my code since I stopped using C.) I just dislike seeing the groupthink mentality defended so vigourously, thus my initial post.
Without trying to start a flame war, I think you'll find that propulsion/guidance systems behave differently than what you think... (Actually, I guess it depends on the application. The things I'm used to seeing get transported in this matter don't reboot, in flight or ever. Maybe yours do, it's certainly possible.)
I shouldn't have said pacemaker. I can't recall the exact name of the doohickies that do keep patients alive, second by second. (Usually during surgery, but often not.) Either way, you get my point.
I'd want to see real, hard numbers. Clearly there are applications where the N% lost to protection is too much, else those systems would have it! I know of one embedded OS where it can be optionally enabled, letting the programmers find those really nasty bugs in a non-response-time-critical environment, and then regaining performance in the field. It's not they think such protection is bad, it's just that they can't afford it, is all.
Nope, we thought of that.
Released versions of VxWorks do not have protected memory. (The development version does.) So nothing is there to prevent overwrites by concurrent tasks, etc.
Those of you in the audience experienced in embedded systems know that this makes sense for embedded hardwar -- VxWorks or not -- for three main reasons:
Stuff running in such environments is damn near bug-free. It's not like, say, Mozilla, or even the Linux kernel, or even /bin/ls. These things get tested rigourously, not as an afterthought deligated to the junior programmer.
In systems which are allowed to fail once in a while, reboots are fast. There's no hard drive to spin up, no filesystem to fsck, etc. It can just go *click* and humans won't typically see an interruption in [whatever it was the doohickey was doing].
There's usually no point in memory protection. If the propulsion system walks off the end of a garbage pointer, mission's over. No real use in keeping the guidance system going; it's already on a ballistic uncontrollable arc. If some critical part of the super-smart pacemaker fails (see #1), there's no victory in digging the device out of the corpse and saying, see, this other critical part wasn't affected, thanks to the memory protection! In those cases, memory protection just increases the cost and size of a device, without helping anything.
Protected memory is good for systems which do more than one thing, and/or have parts which can die without killing the whole device (e.g., a desktop computer). And as I said above, some embedded OSes are added such protection for customers who want to adapt their technology to more general-purpose tasks.
I mentioned this over here. There are at least two versions of RotK running in theatres.
It's not that particular change that bothers me, it's the idea that there could be other variations as well, and that we're missing out on good stuff. :-) I assume the variations are to try and track where the pirated versions come from.
There are three entire DVDs of nothing but commentary and interviews. Pretty much every major departure from the book is drawn out, discussed, and explained.
Not the Scouring, but the grim justice.
...the rover was aiming for orbit.
As LISP coders will tell you, if you're having to think about the "sin tax", it's not user-friendly. Move past that. Think about the semantics. Or as the Bene Gesserit would say,
Over and over and over again...
Bwahaha. Nice troll. Ask any serious programmer, and he/she will tell you that good coding practice calls for as many checks as possible during compilation, while it's still in the lab. "Whew, it got caught during runtime!" is a shitty excuse when the run time in question was the demo in front of the customer, or during actual use on the flight deck, etc.
I got this book shipped to my door a few days ago.
I never ordered it. Had never heard of it. Not really interested in GUI programming.
Did the publishers just compile a list of people who know and talk about C++, and send them (us) free copies? Why? Do they hope we'll suddenly become interested enough to read a few hundred pages, because, hey, free book?
What, saying "gold squandron, move 2 klicks east" into a radio isn't real-time enough?
Yeah, I guess ordering movement by clicking on a screen would be useful. As long as the commander can order them to attack-move or retreat-move by holding down the Ctrl key as he clicks.
Gee, that's exactly what they're doing. Who'd uh thunk it?
Ah yes, this is /., where people see the little green underlines that go to the fucking article and say, ooooo, shiny! Wonder what that does, oh never mind, let's go blather.
because that version was a little less golden.
In the (invented, grrr) scene where Elrond drops in at Dunharrow (htf did he cross the Misty Mountains so fast?) and gives Anduril to Aragorn (who should have been carrying it the whole time), they conclude by speaking two lines in Sindarin.
Some versions of that reel have English subtitles for that scene. Some don't.
(Full disclosure: the first time I saw it, they weren't there... and that was okay, because I didn't need them. :-) Yes, I have been reading Tolkien my whole life, why do you ask? The lines aren't in LOTR, they're backplot from either the Appendices or one of the other books-of-notes. And when I saw the version with subtitles, I happened to notice that the English version is subtly wrong. Odd.)
I've verified this with some friends of mine. Some of us even went to separate theatres on a return viewing and compared notes afterwards.
Anyhow, my point: anybody know of other "variant" versions?
No, when I say sent, I mean it was sent a day and a half later. I checked the timestamps and Received: headers. From them to me took all of thirty seconds.
I needed some sticks of RAM, shopped around some, ordered from New Egg. Jumped through the hoops of "registering" an account just to place a single order. No special rush delivery or anything.
A few days later, the RAM arrives.
A day and a half after that, New Egg sends me an email telling me that the RAM has been shipped and will arrive soon.
I clicked through ten pages of single-paragraph-per-page advertisement "reviews" and never got to the iGesture. So I've no idea what he says about it.
I'm a happy user of the FingerWorks flagship product, the full keyboard. (Replaces the mouse as well.) The various iGesture pads replace the mouse, and can replace/augment bits of the keyboard. And they all support the really sweet gestures.
Yes, they work with Linux (the keyboard even has special modes for certain programs, including Emacs), and their tech support participates in their discussion forums. Very cool people, very cool products.