>A lot of numerical methods people use Fortran >and Fortran has "GO TO".
This is certainly a factor. Lots of NA people started out on FORTRAN and some still cling to old habits. I don't think that's the main reason though; the individuals I have in mind have been using C/C++ exclusively for the past ten years or so -- f2c is definitely out. I even seem to remember reading an article in the Communications of ACM (quite a while ago) extolling the virtues of 'goto' for numerical (specifically, matrix) applications. It seemed a bit peculiar at the time but perhaps the guy had a valid point to make after all.
Actually, many numerical methods people (who tend to use C extensively) seem to like 'goto' a lot. I'm not sure I quite see things their way, but try using 'return' to break out of a triple nested 'for' loop -- often you need to jump to different spots depending on various error conditions, and believe it or not labels do come in handy. Sure, it's relatively straightforward to avoid using 'goto' even in those kind of applications, but usually not without making your code less elegant and/or compact. And these people take writing compact code to ridiculous extremes, believe me. We all learn about the evils of 'goto' in CS101 but I think it does have its (admittedly very limited) uses. Presumably the end goal is to write nice, readable code, not avoid using 'goto' at all costs.
"We are patenting this process of customizing old computer and game console cabinets to be Windows, Linux or other contemporary operating systems based on x86 systems. Contact us if you are interested in licensing from us."
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?
Solaris is indeed a pretty drawn out movie, much like Tarkovsky's other films. However, if you approach it on its own terms, I think it's quite enjoyable and emotionally involving, and the cinematography is simply superb. I don't know whether it's a 'masterpiece' or not, but it's certainly not as bad as some of the people here suggested. Here are some specific points I'd like to address:
>randomly switching between black & white and color (in Russia, they used what stock was available)
First off, Tarkovsky often alternates between colour and BW stock to indicate mood changes. This has absolutely nothing to with using "what stock was avaliable".
>The best were the endless views of a Soviet piece of shit car driving on highway overpasses with dubbed "jet-engine" sounds. The first half of >the movie was nothing but the car driving.
As someone already pointed out, this scene was actually shot in Tokyo, so they're technically piece-of-shit Japanese cars.
>You could also blame it on english translation too. I am sure the was a significant loss of content there because monologs, dialogs play a >huge role in the movie.
Yes, you're quite right, the translation is perfectly horrible. I'm amazed nobody has thought of re-releasing the movie with a more...shall we say, accurate one (or maybe somebody has, I wouldn't know). On second thought, why should they bother -- the market for this kind of thing in the US is evidently rather limited.
>I've seen it a couple of times and frankly it >makes 2001 look like a shallow no-brainer of a >movie.
I wouldn't go that far.
To summarise, Solaris (the original, natch) is basically an art-house sci-fi film. If you like art-house fare, chances are you'll like it. On the other hand, if you're a sci-fi fan with no particular interest in foreign film it may strain your patience. Personally, I think it's worth seeing at least once.
Slashdot Mirror
>A lot of numerical methods people use Fortran >and Fortran has "GO TO".
This is certainly a factor. Lots of NA people started out on FORTRAN and some still cling to old habits. I don't think that's the main reason though; the individuals I have in mind have been using C/C++ exclusively for the past ten years or so -- f2c is definitely out. I even seem to remember reading an article in the Communications of ACM (quite a while ago) extolling the virtues of 'goto' for numerical (specifically, matrix) applications. It seemed a bit peculiar at the time but perhaps the guy had a valid point to make after all.
Actually, many numerical methods people (who tend to use C extensively) seem to like 'goto' a lot. I'm not sure I quite see things their way, but try using 'return' to break out of a triple nested 'for' loop -- often you need to jump to different spots depending on various error conditions, and believe it or not labels do come in handy. Sure, it's relatively straightforward to avoid using 'goto' even in those kind of applications, but usually not without making your code less elegant and/or compact. And these people take writing compact code to ridiculous extremes, believe me. We all learn about the evils of 'goto' in CS101 but I think it does have its (admittedly very limited) uses. Presumably the end goal is to write nice, readable code, not avoid using 'goto' at all costs.
"We are patenting this process of customizing old computer and game console cabinets to be Windows, Linux or other contemporary operating systems based on x86 systems. Contact us if you are interested in licensing from us."
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?
Solaris is indeed a pretty drawn out movie, much like Tarkovsky's other films. However, if you approach it on its own terms, I think it's quite enjoyable and emotionally involving, and the cinematography is simply superb. I don't know whether it's a 'masterpiece' or not, but it's certainly not as bad as some of the people here suggested. Here are some specific points I'd like to address:
>randomly switching between black & white and color (in Russia, they used what stock was available)
First off, Tarkovsky often alternates between colour and BW stock to indicate mood changes. This has absolutely nothing to with using "what stock was avaliable".
>The best were the endless views of a Soviet piece of shit car driving on highway overpasses with dubbed "jet-engine" sounds. The first half of >the movie was nothing but the car driving.
As someone already pointed out, this scene was actually shot in Tokyo, so they're technically piece-of-shit Japanese cars.
>You could also blame it on english translation too. I am sure the was a significant loss of content there because monologs, dialogs play a >huge role in the movie.
Yes, you're quite right, the translation is perfectly horrible. I'm amazed nobody has thought of re-releasing the movie with a more...shall we say, accurate one (or maybe somebody has, I wouldn't know). On second thought, why should they bother -- the market for this kind of thing in the US is evidently rather limited.
>I've seen it a couple of times and frankly it >makes 2001 look like a shallow no-brainer of a >movie.
I wouldn't go that far.
To summarise, Solaris (the original, natch) is basically an art-house sci-fi film. If you like art-house fare, chances are you'll like it. On the other hand, if you're a sci-fi fan with no particular interest in foreign film it may strain your patience. Personally, I think it's worth seeing at least once.