I still like Minas Gerais, and Espirito Santo is outstanding as well... Sao Paulo has gotten extremely rough lately, following the same path to becoming a crime-ridden favela (albeit a 30 mile wide favela) as Rio. Santa Catarina is probably the next place I'll visit down there....
Yes, I've been to Rio. It was a nice place to visit in the 80's, but it has been going steadily downhill ever since... I gave up on the idea of ever going back to Rio somewhere around 1995...
The people there are very friendly, although they tended to fall into one of two groups: group (a) would come up to me and tell me that I was going to get a really bad sunburn if I stayed in the sun too long , and group (b) always smiled as they handed me my bill, overcharging me 300% of the posted rates (in restaurants, etc.). Of course, once they realized that I spoke the language, they quickly recognized their "small oversight" and corrected the bill...
The only ones welcoming Americans in Rio are the criminals, who can spot an easy target from a mile away... With the enormous amount of crime that is common in Rio, how could you possibly feel any less comfortable in the US???
As far as lagging on other platforms... For my development work on Solaris, it is quite interesting to compare the speed of my program using Sun's compiler vs. gcc (gcc is _way_ behind)
And just how many C compiler choices are available for Win32 ? Also not very many: Watcom is dead, Borland is basically dead.
For Windows, you can get C compilers from Microsoft, Intel, Borland (they're far from dead) and IBM -- and Watcom's compiler is still around as open source and being maintained as Open Watcom. The first four are major commerical offerings, which is a whole lot more choice than what you'll get on Linux.
I don't think maturity is the issue here. Was there _ever_ a time when Linux had a large selection of compilers that were eventually whittled down to just gcc and Intel's ICC?
Somehow, I think it's pretty much _always_ been a one-gcc show on Linux.
My post wasn't flamebait at all -- just my observation. I think what it boils down to is the fact that gcc is just "good enough" to get the job done for most people -- even if it doesn't generate the best code, or the fastest executables. People use it because its free. A significant number of Linux users _are_ Linux users because they believe in open source (i.e. "I have the right to free software"), and aren't the types that will spend a thousand $$$ or two for a top-of-the-line compiler.
Since people aren't willing to pay for a good compiler for Linux, no one writes one for Linux (Intel is an exception, because they're interested in showcasing their chips).
For the OS/2 platform, there were compilers from Microsoft, IBM (C/Set and C/Set++), Watcom, Borland, Lattice, EMX/GCC, and probably a few more that I don't remember...
It would be nice to have more of a selection under Linux.
How is using an Intel compiler locking you into a proprietary platform? Well-written code can be run through any compiler -- your main cost in switching compilers is figuring out the correct command-line switches, since they're all different...
The title of the piece is "Linux C and C++ Compilers", yet the only ones benchmarked are GCC (various versions) and Intel's 8.1 ICC. Aren't there any others out there???
You know, it seems there were far more compilers available for DOS and OS/2 than are available for Linux. To me, this says that Open Source removes software choices from the consumer in the long run, which means that open source is not a good thing for the general software-consuming public. The ones that benefit from open source are those who don't want to pay for software...
Future generations will look back on open source, curse us and wonder how we could have been so naive and self-centered as to actually promote it...
The difference is, in my opinion, is that a developer with the first attitude will most likely produce and release better code than the developer with the second attitude...
I never said anything about "enforcement" or "guarantees", nor did I "propose legislation"...
Claim as what, you ask? As something that represents our best efforts... Why can't people around here see the difference between:
I have developed and tested this software for my own personal use. I am releasing it as FREE SOFTWARE, so others can share and build on this work. I cannot guarantee it will work for you, because it has only been tested against my own requirements, and I cannot warranty this work against defects at this time.
and this
This is free software. If it kills your dog, sets your house on fire, formats your hard drive, well, that's too bad. If you weren't smart enough to have backups, that's your problem. You should have backups, or you shouldn't have used this in the first place. Besides, this is FREE SOFTWARE -- you didn't pay for this, so don't complain if it doesn't work..
While some may argue that the difference is just semantics, it all comes down to attitude and how you approach your work.
N+C programmers vs N programmers checking the code means the N+C is of at least equal footing.
This is not true. Simply having more people look at something isn't "better", is it simply "more people looking at something". Those doing the looking need to be qualified to evaluate what they're looking at, otherwise, what's the point?
Would _you_ be willing to forego a potential life-saving procedure simply because you read through the source code of a piece of medical equipment and thought you saw a problem -- even without knowing the specifics of the architecture and micro-controller it was running on?
By the way, I don't believe that crap about "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow", for this very reason... Most people simply aren't qualified to judge the code they're reading...
A true professional takes pride in his work; some produce open source and some do not... A professional does not use "open source" as an excuse for releasing shoddy code.
Oh really? And you base this statement on what? The blind ideal that code you can see is better than code you can't? Or on the fact that _you_ have more experience writing control software for medical devices than the programmers that actually wrote the code?
Do you think that _you_ would be able to pick up subtle errors in programming logic, because the XYZ microcontroller does foo instead of bar when baz > 25.5365???
Do you really trust your abilities that much? Or are you just spouting some idealistic nonsense that makes you feel superior to the unwashed masses that can't read computer code?
I said: "Software developers should take pride in their work, and shouldn't release things that they aren't proud to claim."
You responded: Again, a proper attitude for the commercial world - NOT the hobby world.
You're missing the point. If you're going to do something, do it the best you possibly can. When did people stop caring about quality?
Excuse me - why should you have any guarantee of quality if you haven't paid me for my work? If you use free software you accept as your part of the deal that the software is not bound by commercial standards. That may or may not mean anything - some free software is very, very good - but it does mean you have no right to complain. You PAY for the right to complain.
This goes complete against what the open-source fanatics have been spouting for years.. "Open source is just as good, if not better, than closed-source".. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What kind of hypocrisy does it take to claim on one hand "Open source is better than closed source", and on the other "Well, if it doesn't work, you didn't pay for it anyway..." ???
My whole point here is that developers should be releasing the best code they can create and owning up to (and fixing) their mistakes -- and it doesn't matter in this instance if you release your code as open source, or include it in a proprietary piece of work. Shirking responsibility for creating good code (even if that code was "free") is not a trait I would admire in another developer.
I didn't say anything about regulation of software. I didn't claim that you were talking about open source. However, I have seen the same type of claim ("if it doesn't work -- oh well, you didn't pay for it anyway) made by many, many open-source advocates. As I mentioned in my first post, I did ask Is this the basic open-source "it's free software, so don't complain if it doesn't work" attitude?.
I have been a software developer for a long, long time. I take a lot of pride in my work, knowing that everything I release is the best that I could produce at the time. It really bothers me to see so many people (who are generally less experienced than I am) approach software with a "if it works, great, if not, who cares..." attitude.
Furthermore, I believe this attitude is only encouraged by open source, because of the old argument "if you didn't pay for it, don't expect anything"...
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't code that fixes it - just a simple compiler command line switch:
/Zc:forScope (See the MSDN Documentation)
Maybe?
I still like Minas Gerais, and Espirito Santo is outstanding as well... Sao Paulo has gotten extremely rough lately, following the same path to becoming a crime-ridden favela (albeit a 30 mile wide favela) as Rio. Santa Catarina is probably the next place I'll visit down there....
Yes, I've been to Rio. It was a nice place to visit in the 80's, but it has been going steadily downhill ever since... I gave up on the idea of ever going back to Rio somewhere around 1995... The people there are very friendly, although they tended to fall into one of two groups: group (a) would come up to me and tell me that I was going to get a really bad sunburn if I stayed in the sun too long , and group (b) always smiled as they handed me my bill, overcharging me 300% of the posted rates (in restaurants, etc.). Of course, once they realized that I spoke the language, they quickly recognized their "small oversight" and corrected the bill...
The only ones welcoming Americans in Rio are the criminals, who can spot an easy target from a mile away... With the enormous amount of crime that is common in Rio, how could you possibly feel any less comfortable in the US???
Then why does Borland continue selling a C++ compiler? I don't think they have any ulterior motives there -- they just want to sell their software...
As far as lagging on other platforms... For my development work on Solaris, it is quite interesting to compare the speed of my program using Sun's compiler vs. gcc (gcc is _way_ behind)
For Windows, you can get C compilers from Microsoft, Intel, Borland (they're far from dead) and IBM -- and Watcom's compiler is still around as open source and being maintained as Open Watcom. The first four are major commerical offerings, which is a whole lot more choice than what you'll get on Linux.
I don't think maturity is the issue here. Was there _ever_ a time when Linux had a large selection of compilers that were eventually whittled down to just gcc and Intel's ICC?
Somehow, I think it's pretty much _always_ been a one-gcc show on Linux.
My post wasn't flamebait at all -- just my observation. I think what it boils down to is the fact that gcc is just "good enough" to get the job done for most people -- even if it doesn't generate the best code, or the fastest executables. People use it because its free. A significant number of Linux users _are_ Linux users because they believe in open source (i.e. "I have the right to free software"), and aren't the types that will spend a thousand $$$ or two for a top-of-the-line compiler.
Since people aren't willing to pay for a good compiler for Linux, no one writes one for Linux (Intel is an exception, because they're interested in showcasing their chips).
Anything not singing the praises of open source is automatically modded down to flamebait... It's slashdot rule #1 :)
For the OS/2 platform, there were compilers from Microsoft, IBM (C/Set and C/Set++), Watcom, Borland, Lattice, EMX/GCC, and probably a few more that I don't remember...
It would be nice to have more of a selection under Linux.
How is using an Intel compiler locking you into a proprietary platform? Well-written code can be run through any compiler -- your main cost in switching compilers is figuring out the correct command-line switches, since they're all different...
The title of the piece is "Linux C and C++ Compilers", yet the only ones benchmarked are GCC (various versions) and Intel's 8.1 ICC. Aren't there any others out there???
You know, it seems there were far more compilers available for DOS and OS/2 than are available for Linux. To me, this says that Open Source removes software choices from the consumer in the long run, which means that open source is not a good thing for the general software-consuming public. The ones that benefit from open source are those who don't want to pay for software...
Future generations will look back on open source, curse us and wonder how we could have been so naive and self-centered as to actually promote it...
If he's calling American companies, he's doing *some* type of business with them. So what's the problem?
The difference is, in my opinion, is that a developer with the first attitude will most likely produce and release better code than the developer with the second attitude...
I never said anything about "enforcement" or "guarantees", nor did I "propose legislation"...
Claim as what, you ask? As something that represents our best efforts... Why can't people around here see the difference between:
I have developed and tested this software for my own personal use. I am releasing it as FREE SOFTWARE, so others can share and build on this work. I cannot guarantee it will work for you, because it has only been tested against my own requirements, and I cannot warranty this work against defects at this time.
and this
This is free software. If it kills your dog, sets your house on fire, formats your hard drive, well, that's too bad. If you weren't smart enough to have backups, that's your problem. You should have backups, or you shouldn't have used this in the first place. Besides, this is FREE SOFTWARE -- you didn't pay for this, so don't complain if it doesn't work..
While some may argue that the difference is just semantics, it all comes down to attitude and how you approach your work.
N+C programmers vs N programmers checking the code means the N+C is of at least equal footing.
This is not true. Simply having more people look at something isn't "better", is it simply "more people looking at something". Those doing the looking need to be qualified to evaluate what they're looking at, otherwise, what's the point?
Would _you_ be willing to forego a potential life-saving procedure simply because you read through the source code of a piece of medical equipment and thought you saw a problem -- even without knowing the specifics of the architecture and micro-controller it was running on?
By the way, I don't believe that crap about "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow", for this very reason... Most people simply aren't qualified to judge the code they're reading...
Nice of you to notice that :)
A true professional takes pride in his work; some produce open source and some do not... A professional does not use "open source" as an excuse for releasing shoddy code.
I assumed nothing, that's why I asked...
I'd most trust my life to software I can read
Oh really? And you base this statement on what? The blind ideal that code you can see is better than code you can't? Or on the fact that _you_ have more experience writing control software for medical devices than the programmers that actually wrote the code?
Do you think that _you_ would be able to pick up subtle errors in programming logic, because the XYZ microcontroller does foo instead of bar when baz > 25.5365???
Do you really trust your abilities that much? Or are you just spouting some idealistic nonsense that makes you feel superior to the unwashed masses that can't read computer code?
I said: "Software developers should take pride in their work, and shouldn't release things that they aren't proud to claim."
You responded: Again, a proper attitude for the commercial world - NOT the hobby world.
You're missing the point. If you're going to do something, do it the best you possibly can. When did people stop caring about quality?
Excuse me - why should you have any guarantee of quality if you haven't paid me for my work? If you use free software you accept as your part of the deal that the software is not bound by commercial standards. That may or may not mean anything - some free software is very, very good - but it does mean you have no right to complain. You PAY for the right to complain.
This goes complete against what the open-source fanatics have been spouting for years.. "Open source is just as good, if not better, than closed-source".. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What kind of hypocrisy does it take to claim on one hand "Open source is better than closed source", and on the other "Well, if it doesn't work, you didn't pay for it anyway..." ???
My whole point here is that developers should be releasing the best code they can create and owning up to (and fixing) their mistakes -- and it doesn't matter in this instance if you release your code as open source, or include it in a proprietary piece of work. Shirking responsibility for creating good code (even if that code was "free") is not a trait I would admire in another developer.
I didn't say anything about regulation of software. I didn't claim that you were talking about open source. However, I have seen the same type of claim ("if it doesn't work -- oh well, you didn't pay for it anyway) made by many, many open-source advocates. As I mentioned in my first post, I did ask Is this the basic open-source "it's free software, so don't complain if it doesn't work" attitude?.
I have been a software developer for a long, long time. I take a lot of pride in my work, knowing that everything I release is the best that I could produce at the time. It really bothers me to see so many people (who are generally less experienced than I am) approach software with a "if it works, great, if not, who cares..." attitude.
Furthermore, I believe this attitude is only encouraged by open source, because of the old argument "if you didn't pay for it, don't expect anything"...
None of what you wrote would apply to the Therac-25 problems. It was simple programmer error that caused the malfunction, and killed a few people...