Well that depends on your intent. If it's social, and we're just talking like two mature adults - well no problem. If you're trying to sell me sawdust v!@GRa pills or re-fi my murtg!GE, then you can go fuck yourself.
Unsolicited email, even when the greaseball spammer pays some corporate goon to do so, is still unsolicited. You didn't ask me, you didn't pay me, therefore you're still a gutter dwelling spammer. Even with the corporate stamp of approval.
I used to think it was just poor management, but now you have open source projects with thousands of eyes looking at every line of code.
IMHO, I believe that the reason why is because most of the developers are looking "at the edges" - where new functionality is being added. For example, how many of those developers are looking at the JPEG decompress routine? Turns out that wound up being important exploit-wise recently. And there it sat for years, unnoticed.
from what I remember in taking computer science, if you follow some simple procedures, the code is robust.
Well, robust doesn't just come from simple procedures. It's also design and style. You can't come up with excellent procedures and guarantee good software. You have to design well, communicate well, and implement ideas correctly. A lot is also owed to experience - sometimes, the only way to find out you've screwed up is after the fact. A good example is strcpy(). We know unbounded copy is a bad idea now, but how many years went by before we did?
The major selling point for any car is image. Thus these hybrids need more grunt in their exhaust.
Maybe, if you're sixteen. Me, I'm interested in 60mpg. I'd drive a neon pink VW bus if it gave me 60mpg.
And while we're talking image, do you think that the only viable image is some neon riced-out rollerskate with a thousand dollar exhaust system? I'd rather have the image of someone who gives a crap about our current oil problems rather than a guest extra from 2 Fast 2 Furious.
No kidding. It will catch things most humans will miss. Check it out here. If you want to get an idea of the kinds of things it'll catch, check out their "bug of the month" page - it's a facinating read. You'd be surprised how many nearly-impossible to detect errors you can make in C++.
Ok, the industry goons look at the current model and say "we could make more money if we installed limits."
But wouldn't everyone have to do the same thing on the same day in order to make this work? If my cablemodem suddenly had these idiotic limits put on it I'd move to another service that very day.
How in the world could the industry get paying customers on a less capable model than what we already have? And how could they eliminate every single other alternative?
So, while I'm sympathetic to the frustration you encountered in the sample you posted, my response to your question would be this: Is there a better way to create a new thread from a button click handler and display Hello, world?
Well, of course there is. But rather than post my entire application (which definitely needs threads since they're polling hardware, and they definitely need access to the UI since that's where the status gauges are) I figured a small demonstration program would be more appropriate. Just saying "threads are difficult, do you really need them anyways" is hardly a fix.
In particular, pay attention to the.BeginInvoke discussion and the meaning of the InvokeRequired boolean. And, if you know of a better way please feel free to add it as a response to this post.
My first experience with C#
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I program Java. Recently had to do a C# project.
My first thought - Hey! This is a whole lot like Java. Only took me a couple of hours to learn the syntax differences. I'm off and running!
Two hours later I hated it. If you'd like to know why, allow me to offer you the following observation/puzzle.
In C#/.NET, create a form. Put a text box on it, and a button. Have the button create a thread. Have the thread write "Hello world" in the text box.
Because I'm feeling generous, here is the Java code:
private class myThread extends Thread {
public void run() {
jTextPane1.setText("Hello from a thread");
}
}
private void jButton1ActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) {
new myThread().start();
}
Good luck with the.NET code. I'll give you a hint though. It requires a delegate function, because C#.NET forms aren't thread safe. If you manipulate the text box from the thread without a delegate it dies. As a bonus, you get a really illuminating error when that happens:
[System.NotSupportedException] "An error message cannot be displayed because an optional resource assembly containing it cannot be found"
I sure have, and I think it's a great idea. But how many distros actually implement that standard? Now, what if Google reads it and pushes that as the base for their standard? It would cease being a standard, and become the standard.
Can you see how this could be a seriously great thing for Linux development? I sure do.
All they could do (thanks to the GPL) is add their touches to it. And for it to become a standard, they would have to specify that standard so other people could write to it.
And once they did that, any other group could implement it. It would be like Mandriva(Mandrake) vs. Red Hat. Both use RPM, but people will pick the distro they like. If you like the way Google does things, fine. Use their distro. If not, use some other compatible one.
And yeah, you'd get some people complaining about "those heavy handed Google goons" not setting up/etc the way they like or some other picayune point like that, but so what? The good that would come from this would far outstrip the occasional config gripe.
Also, just as food for thought, what if Google decided to drop 5% of their R&D into Wine? Just 2% then? The Wine guys have done miracles so far on a shoestring. Imagine what the result would be if Google paid a few of those guys to quit their day jobs and work on Wine full-time.
The results would be impressive. Probably amazing even.
...what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?
Add their name to it.
That might not seem like a big deal, but I think it might be. Google is huge compared to most companies that put out a Linux distro. If they did this, they could very well become the standard.
And IMHO, that would be a huge blessing. The #1 complaint you see from developers outside the Linux world seems to be "there isn't a Linux standard". And I can kind of see their point - Windows doesn't suffer from the whole RPM vs. DEB vs. whatever problem. Some systems use devfs, and some don't. Each distro has different/etc structure for storing network settings. And so on.
But! If Google were to become the standard, we wouldn't have that as a problem anymore. Think of the possibilities! We might have more manufacturer supplied graphics drivers and more commercial software on the shelves for Linux.
And Google is big enough to make this happen. Go Google!
IMHO, this signaled the beginning of the end
on
Toy Story 3 Scrapped
·
· Score: 1
Now with Pixar and Steve Jobs on the board, Lasseter has taken the necessary steps to prevent the franchise from being diluted.
The day they started refering to a movie as a franchise is the day Hollywood officially started to suck.
Of course they're going to argue any point concerning distribution, no matter how silly. The RIAA doesn't make anything. They distribute (at least, that's what they used to do anyways). And since that's their bread and butter, they're going to defend it. No matter how bizarre their argument. No matter how silly their logic. They're used to getting huge ungodly piles of money for doing nothing. And anything that could possibly be used to set a precedent would be a lot like the very first tiny hole poked in a huge dam. As soon as there is one legal way to bypass them, everyone will eventually do it.
Although it's deplorable, at least you can see why they make these arguments. Without the current distro model in the music industry, they'd have to get real jobs for fair pay. And when you've been a thug for that long, it's pretty much unthinkable.
According to Mark Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School, the MPAA may have been within its rights to make copies of the film. Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain...
So, that's okay then? Please, please, please...say that's ok. Just once. We won't hold you to it in the future. Honest!
I'm guessing you don't know a whole lot about Linux driver development. I'm not being snarky, it's just your comment seems to indicate that.
Plus, Linus' kernel isn't stable. He just waves his hand in the air and announces that 'the distros' will have to make Linux actually work. That means that now we have Red Hat's kernel, Suse's kernel, Mandrake's kernel, Debian's kernel.... and they are all running different versions and patch levels, and each will have different assortments of bugs.
This is not really the case. Even though different distros do things differently, the kernel API remains the same. The only time the API changes is when Linus says so. And that usually happens on even numbered releases (if at all). You will typically see Linux drivers advertised that they work with the 2.4 or 2.6 kernel. Occasionally 2.0 kernel for legacy stuff. And that's pretty much it. Not a terribly difficult target at all. And certainly not harder than Windows.
Well, that might be a useful yardstick if the reason why was that the Linux Kernel API changed every four months, which it does not. But I still think my original point is valid. Both are still being worked on, and both are therefore moving targets. To say Windows is not a moving target is laughable.
Remember the API change when MS moved to WDM? How about the differences between NT and 9x? Or the proposed Longhorn changes? How many drivers changed from 2000 to XP? How many things broke or needed tweaked when XP launched SP2? Windows is every bit as much of a moving target as any other work in progress. The whole "Linux is a moving target and windows isn't" is observably wrong.
In fact, I feel less safe. WAY less safe. Now I have to worry about all the people in the world who are pissed at me for being an American, the new people in the world who hate me because W has pissed them off, and now I have to worry about my own government spying on me and throwing me in jail if I type something into a search engine that returns something naughty.
And that can happen without you doing anything wrong. Ever type in a search that returned a few surprises? How about your wireless access point. Are you SURE it can't be hacked? You BETTER be.
Slashdot Mirror
They're new to x86. Hackers have been here for *decades*.
Welcome to the mainstream, Apple.
Check here for settings.
Performance class cards that can handle DirectX 9.0c are up for the challenge.
Should something as simple as a UI require as much horsepower as a top of the line first person shooter?
Well that depends on your intent. If it's social, and we're just talking like two mature adults - well no problem. If you're trying to sell me sawdust v!@GRa pills or re-fi my murtg!GE, then you can go fuck yourself.
Unsolicited email, even when the greaseball spammer pays some corporate goon to do so, is still unsolicited. You didn't ask me, you didn't pay me, therefore you're still a gutter dwelling spammer. Even with the corporate stamp of approval.
I used to think it was just poor management, but now you have open source projects with thousands of eyes looking at every line of code.
IMHO, I believe that the reason why is because most of the developers are looking "at the edges" - where new functionality is being added. For example, how many of those developers are looking at the JPEG decompress routine? Turns out that wound up being important exploit-wise recently. And there it sat for years, unnoticed.
from what I remember in taking computer science, if you follow some simple procedures, the code is robust.
Well, robust doesn't just come from simple procedures. It's also design and style. You can't come up with excellent procedures and guarantee good software. You have to design well, communicate well, and implement ideas correctly. A lot is also owed to experience - sometimes, the only way to find out you've screwed up is after the fact. A good example is strcpy(). We know unbounded copy is a bad idea now, but how many years went by before we did?
The major selling point for any car is image. Thus these hybrids need more grunt in their exhaust.
Maybe, if you're sixteen. Me, I'm interested in 60mpg. I'd drive a neon pink VW bus if it gave me 60mpg.
And while we're talking image, do you think that the only viable image is some neon riced-out rollerskate with a thousand dollar exhaust system? I'd rather have the image of someone who gives a crap about our current oil problems rather than a guest extra from 2 Fast 2 Furious.
Hats off to you, sir. Very well said.
No kidding. It will catch things most humans will miss. Check it out here. If you want to get an idea of the kinds of things it'll catch, check out their "bug of the month" page - it's a facinating read. You'd be surprised how many nearly-impossible to detect errors you can make in C++.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Gimpel, YMMV, etc.
From last April 1st. Right?
....right??
Seriously, this has to be a joke. Pay? To receive email?
Ok, the industry goons look at the current model and say "we could make more money if we installed limits."
But wouldn't everyone have to do the same thing on the same day in order to make this work? If my cablemodem suddenly had these idiotic limits put on it I'd move to another service that very day.
How in the world could the industry get paying customers on a less capable model than what we already have? And how could they eliminate every single other alternative?
So, while I'm sympathetic to the frustration you encountered in the sample you posted, my response to your question would be this: Is there a better way to create a new thread from a button click handler and display Hello, world?
Well, of course there is. But rather than post my entire application (which definitely needs threads since they're polling hardware, and they definitely need access to the UI since that's where the status gauges are) I figured a small demonstration program would be more appropriate. Just saying "threads are difficult, do you really need them anyways" is hardly a fix.
I call shenanigans on you, sir. See the MSDN article for yourself.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/02/M ultithreading/
In particular, pay attention to the .BeginInvoke discussion and the meaning of the InvokeRequired boolean. And, if you know of a better way please feel free to add it as a response to this post.
I program Java. Recently had to do a C# project.
My first thought - Hey! This is a whole lot like Java. Only took me a couple of hours to learn the syntax differences. I'm off and running!
Two hours later I hated it. If you'd like to know why, allow me to offer you the following observation/puzzle.
In C#/.NET, create a form. Put a text box on it, and a button. Have the button create a thread. Have the thread write "Hello world" in the text box.
Because I'm feeling generous, here is the Java code:
private class myThread extends Thread {public void run() {
jTextPane1.setText("Hello from a thread");
}
}
private void jButton1ActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEven
new myThread().start();
}
Good luck with the .NET code. I'll give you a hint though. It requires a delegate function, because C# .NET forms aren't thread safe. If you manipulate the text box from the thread without a delegate it dies. As a bonus, you get a really illuminating error when that happens:
[System.NotSupportedException] "An error message cannot be displayed because an optional resource assembly containing it cannot be found"Wonderful language. Really.
I sure have, and I think it's a great idea. But how many distros actually implement that standard? Now, what if Google reads it and pushes that as the base for their standard? It would cease being a standard, and become the standard.
Can you see how this could be a seriously great thing for Linux development? I sure do.
All they could do (thanks to the GPL) is add their touches to it. And for it to become a standard, they would have to specify that standard so other people could write to it.
And once they did that, any other group could implement it. It would be like Mandriva(Mandrake) vs. Red Hat. Both use RPM, but people will pick the distro they like. If you like the way Google does things, fine. Use their distro. If not, use some other compatible one.
And yeah, you'd get some people complaining about "those heavy handed Google goons" not setting up /etc the way they like or some other picayune point like that, but so what? The good that would come from this would far outstrip the occasional config gripe.
Also, just as food for thought, what if Google decided to drop 5% of their R&D into Wine? Just 2% then? The Wine guys have done miracles so far on a shoestring. Imagine what the result would be if Google paid a few of those guys to quit their day jobs and work on Wine full-time.
The results would be impressive. Probably amazing even.
Add their name to it.
That might not seem like a big deal, but I think it might be. Google is huge compared to most companies that put out a Linux distro. If they did this, they could very well become the standard.
And IMHO, that would be a huge blessing. The #1 complaint you see from developers outside the Linux world seems to be "there isn't a Linux standard". And I can kind of see their point - Windows doesn't suffer from the whole RPM vs. DEB vs. whatever problem. Some systems use devfs, and some don't. Each distro has different /etc structure for storing network settings. And so on.
But! If Google were to become the standard, we wouldn't have that as a problem anymore. Think of the possibilities! We might have more manufacturer supplied graphics drivers and more commercial software on the shelves for Linux.
And Google is big enough to make this happen. Go Google!
Now with Pixar and Steve Jobs on the board, Lasseter has taken the necessary steps to prevent the franchise from being diluted.
The day they started refering to a movie as a franchise is the day Hollywood officially started to suck.
Of course they're going to argue any point concerning distribution, no matter how silly. The RIAA doesn't make anything. They distribute (at least, that's what they used to do anyways). And since that's their bread and butter, they're going to defend it. No matter how bizarre their argument. No matter how silly their logic. They're used to getting huge ungodly piles of money for doing nothing. And anything that could possibly be used to set a precedent would be a lot like the very first tiny hole poked in a huge dam. As soon as there is one legal way to bypass them, everyone will eventually do it.
Although it's deplorable, at least you can see why they make these arguments. Without the current distro model in the music industry, they'd have to get real jobs for fair pay. And when you've been a thug for that long, it's pretty much unthinkable.
According to Mark Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School, the MPAA may have been within its rights to make copies of the film. Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain...
So, that's okay then? Please, please, please...say that's ok. Just once. We won't hold you to it in the future. Honest!
I'm guessing you don't know a whole lot about Linux driver development. I'm not being snarky, it's just your comment seems to indicate that.
Plus, Linus' kernel isn't stable. He just waves his hand in the air and announces that 'the distros' will have to make Linux actually work. That means that now we have Red Hat's kernel, Suse's kernel, Mandrake's kernel, Debian's kernel.... and they are all running different versions and patch levels, and each will have different assortments of bugs.
This is not really the case. Even though different distros do things differently, the kernel API remains the same. The only time the API changes is when Linus says so. And that usually happens on even numbered releases (if at all). You will typically see Linux drivers advertised that they work with the 2.4 or 2.6 kernel. Occasionally 2.0 kernel for legacy stuff. And that's pretty much it. Not a terribly difficult target at all. And certainly not harder than Windows.
Well, that might be a useful yardstick if the reason why was that the Linux Kernel API changed every four months, which it does not. But I still think my original point is valid. Both are still being worked on, and both are therefore moving targets. To say Windows is not a moving target is laughable.
Remember the API change when MS moved to WDM? How about the differences between NT and 9x? Or the proposed Longhorn changes? How many drivers changed from 2000 to XP? How many things broke or needed tweaked when XP launched SP2? Windows is every bit as much of a moving target as any other work in progress. The whole "Linux is a moving target and windows isn't" is observably wrong.
It's nice for hardware manufacturers to provide drivers, but why should they chase a moving target?
And Windows ISN'T???
Embrace: solve Pronunciation Key (slv, sôlv)
v. solved, solving, solves
v. tr.
1. To find a solution to.
2. To work out a correct solution to (a problem).
Extend: 3. Not actually find a solution to. See half measure, plagarism.
In fact, I feel less safe. WAY less safe. Now I have to worry about all the people in the world who are pissed at me for being an American, the new people in the world who hate me because W has pissed them off, and now I have to worry about my own government spying on me and throwing me in jail if I type something into a search engine that returns something naughty.
And that can happen without you doing anything wrong. Ever type in a search that returned a few surprises? How about your wireless access point. Are you SURE it can't be hacked? You BETTER be.