the only thing that will make you better at writing good code is to read good code
Because code is the most direct way to communicate wisdom between geeks? I would submit that unless you get the analysis and design right, your approach to writing good code just teaches you how to make a more polished turd.
As far as getting better at the mechanics of coding, I would suggest reading Steve McConnell's Code Complete.
All to often people think that free markets are about markets, and not freedom. But just the opposite is true, when a society has healthy freedoms - the markets tend to take care of themselves.
So are we to assume that a license that sidesteps the entire not-free-as-in-beer market system is going to help the markets take care of themselves??? There IS no "market" for that kind of product, except in terms of mindshare versus commercial (aka market system) products.
from the can't-read-the-summary dept.
on
Step 2, Groceries
·
· Score: 1
Step 1, ???
Step 2, Groceries
Step 3, PROFIT!!!
Read the fscking summary, dude! Michael already said that.
Step 2, Groceries
Posted by michael on Sat Nov 16, '02 11:19 PM
from the step-3-profit dept.
Check out No-Touch Deployment in the.NET Framework for an interesting way of solving the problem of delivering software updates automatically, without the need for user intervention. If you set it up properly, it's actually more secure than just downloading straight from a website, because of the very granular code access security features of the.NET Framework.
Slashdot is a quoted news source being used by Google News. Be afraid, be very afraid
I agree! Slashdot was Google's headlining article for the redhead story a few days ago. If you just clicked through to the story from Google, you were subjected to comments such as "What about... sex? Do they need 20% less stimulation?:)"
Another Google news source to be afraid of is The Register. I've seen them chosen as the headlining article for a story several times too, even though the articles linked to directly by Google contained a fair bit of gratuitous profanity and questionable reporting.
You are forced to block both TCP and UDP for any given port number.
Not on a Windows machine... Use IPSec to lock down the exact protocols and ports you want. This is kernel-level port blocking, so is better than the TCP/IP Filtering capabilities Windows provides. IPSec can also be used to secure your communications via Kerberos.
Microsoft has been pushing very hard recently to make.NET run on every mobile device out there, both through the Mobile Internet Toolkit (MMIT), and the.NET Compact Framework.
So, will Palladium be extended to mobile platforms such as the Pocket PC, cell phones, toasters, etc?
Will the specs be given out to other hardware manufacturers to implement for their own devices, or will Microsoft have a monopoly on secure hardware?
Real core production FedEx systems revolve around serious IBM mainframe hardware. Nothing else really supports the necessary transaction volume.
For most everything else with really big requirements, Windows just doesn't make sense, whether for reliability, scalability or performance.
Sounds like someone's been fed some tall tales from the old grizzled Unix gurus. For the truth on transaction handling, check out the Transaction Processing Perfomance Council's figures. Oh my goodness, Microsoft's SQL Server rocks them all! How can that be? When you throw as much hardware at it as the mainframe guys do, it blows them all away, because its per-processor performance is higher than all the rest. Oracle has 6615 tpmC per processor, while SQL Server has 9644 tpmC per processor. Tell me again about Wintel's lousy transaction capabilities?
Why is Moore's Law always referred to with a shrug, as if it's some amazing, consistent, unstoppable force? The results that are interpreted as "Moore's Law" exist purely through human effort. Surely Moore's Law can't actually be the law of maximum human ability to improve, can it? Surely people in high places at Intel are throttling the engineers back when they get ahead of themselves, and pouring on the cash when they get behind... Setting and meeting expectations is what matters most to the stock market, after all. Moore's Law is just a means to that end.
This kind of "you'd better not break my existing code" whining is exactly what the Visual Basic folks did when Microsoft revamped their precious language into VB.NET. What did the rest of the world say to them? "Get over it."
These language Luddites should get a copy of "Who Moved My Cheese" and read it.
Also, note that if you attempted to create your own miniature model of the Fed, you would get a $10,000 fine and a ten year imprisonment. Just because it's legal for the Fed to do it doesn't mean it's legal for you.
Sounds to me like it's time for some new language stud to come and save us.
I think the language stud you're looking for is Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of the C# language. Although generics aren't in the current version of the language, they have them working in a research version, and the Common Language Runtime has been designed from the beginning to support them. A future future version of C# will most definitely support generics.
I definitely think generics are a very useful concept and you can certainly tell that from all the generics research that's taking place in academia and industry. Templates are one solution to the problem. In our internal discussions, we concluded that we wanted to do it right for this new platform. But what we would really like is to have generics understood by the underlying runtime. This is different from how some of the generic prototypes have been built. Take Java's notions of "erasure" where there's really no knowledge of generics in the system. By having the common language runtime understand the concept of generics, multiple languages can share the functionality. You can write a generic class in C# over in one place and someone else using a different language can use it.
But making generics part of the runtime also enables you to do certain things much more efficiently. Instantiation of generics should ideally happen at runtime. With C++, instantiation of templates happens at compile time, and then you have two options: you can either let your code bloat or you can try, in the linker, to get rid of some of the bloat. But, if you have multiple applications, you can forget about it. You're just going to get bloated code.
If you push the knowledge of generics into the common language runtime, then the runtime can understand that when an application or a component asks for a list of "Foo's," it should first ask: "Do I already have an instantiation of a list of "Foo?" If so, use that one. Indeed, if Foo is a reference type, and if we do the design right, we can share the instantiation for all reference types. For value types, such as ints and floats, and we can create one instantiation per value type. But only when an application asks for it. We've done a lot of the design work and groundwork necessary to add generics to the runtime.
It's interesting you asked earlier about the IL because deciding to add generics impacts the design of the IL. If the instructions in the IL embed type information -- if, for example, an Add instruction is not an Add, but is an Add int or an Add float or an Add double -- then you've baked the type into the instruction stream and the IL is not generic at that point. Our IL format is actually truly type neutral. And, by keeping it type neutral, we can add generics later and not get ourselves into trouble, at least not as much trouble. That's one of the reasons our IL looks different from Java byte code. We have type neutral IL. The Add instruction adds whatever the two things are on top of the stack. In a generic world, that could translate into different code when the generic is instantiated.
Osborn:
Is that available to all.NET languages?
Hejlsberg:
Yes. Microsoft Research in Cambridge has created a generics version of the common language runtime and the C# compiler. We're looking at how to move that forward right now. It's not going to happen in the first release, that much we know, but we are working on making sure that we do things right for the first release so that generics fit into the picture.
More detailed information on C#'s generics implementation can be found here.
C# and the rest of the mainstream languages (java, python, perl, whatever) can do none of the thigs that c++ can do.
Maybe not now, but a research version of C# currently supports generics, which is what C++'s STL is all about. The next commercial version of the C# language will have generics support. Read here for more information.
Just as flares and chaff are used to divert missiles, I'll bet new flares will be developed that make it difficult to keep focus, or temporarily blind the pilot. Who knows... maybe they can develop a laser that targets cockpits.
Another question I'd like to see answered: how accurate is human eyesight anyway? Sure, to us it seems pretty accurate, but how accurately can you pick up on the eye's positioning? What if you've got a gimp-eye that keeps straying off to the corner? What about picking up on depth-of-field? With ground targets this shouldn't be as much of a problem, but in the air, especially with an air target between you and the ground, depth-of-field becomes critical. It seems like the biggest "bugs" in this system are the foibles of the human eye.
Does anyone else think that Sony et al are shooting themselves in the feet here?
Ask yourself this question. How many people would have downloaded this album from a P2P network if the CD wasn't "protected"?
Now ask yourself, how many more people will go out of their way to download this album because it's "protected"? If you ask me, they're getting a heck of a lot of free publicity in a demographic that's pretty hard to penetrate (us paranoid geeks).
A potentially unintended side-effect: the publicity benefits the artist at the expense of the company!
I didn't mean to be redundant. When I posted this, the original post's link didn't work, for whatever reason. Now, it's my link that doesn't work. Something fishy is going on with Google's cache linking scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Because code is the most direct way to communicate wisdom between geeks? I would submit that unless you get the analysis and design right, your approach to writing good code just teaches you how to make a more polished turd.
As far as getting better at the mechanics of coding, I would suggest reading Steve McConnell's Code Complete.
Actually, the history of C# doesn't have as much of a direct link to Java as you might have expected.
So are we to assume that a license that sidesteps the entire not-free-as-in-beer market system is going to help the markets take care of themselves??? There IS no "market" for that kind of product, except in terms of mindshare versus commercial (aka market system) products.
Step 2, Groceries
Step 3, PROFIT!!!
Read the fscking summary, dude! Michael already said that.
Check out No-Touch Deployment in the .NET Framework for an interesting way of solving the problem of delivering software updates automatically, without the need for user intervention. If you set it up properly, it's actually more secure than just downloading straight from a website, because of the very granular code access security features of the .NET Framework.
and two buttons:
I agree! Slashdot was Google's headlining article for the redhead story a few days ago. If you just clicked through to the story from Google, you were subjected to comments such as "What about... sex? Do they need 20% less stimulation? :)"
Another Google news source to be afraid of is The Register. I've seen them chosen as the headlining article for a story several times too, even though the articles linked to directly by Google contained a fair bit of gratuitous profanity and questionable reporting.
I believe Ballmer is referring to their Unix Code Migration Guide that just came out yesterday.
I believe Ballmer is talking about their Unix Code Migration Guide that just came out yesterday.
Not on a Windows machine... Use IPSec to lock down the exact protocols and ports you want. This is kernel-level port blocking, so is better than the TCP/IP Filtering capabilities Windows provides. IPSec can also be used to secure your communications via Kerberos.
So, will Palladium be extended to mobile platforms such as the Pocket PC, cell phones, toasters, etc?
Will the specs be given out to other hardware manufacturers to implement for their own devices, or will Microsoft have a monopoly on secure hardware?
Will the .NET Compact Framework support Palladium?
For most everything else with really big requirements, Windows just doesn't make sense, whether for reliability, scalability or performance.
Sounds like someone's been fed some tall tales from the old grizzled Unix gurus. For the truth on transaction handling, check out the Transaction Processing Perfomance Council's figures. Oh my goodness, Microsoft's SQL Server rocks them all! How can that be? When you throw as much hardware at it as the mainframe guys do, it blows them all away, because its per-processor performance is higher than all the rest. Oracle has 6615 tpmC per processor, while SQL Server has 9644 tpmC per processor. Tell me again about Wintel's lousy transaction capabilities?
Why is Moore's Law always referred to with a shrug, as if it's some amazing, consistent, unstoppable force? The results that are interpreted as "Moore's Law" exist purely through human effort. Surely Moore's Law can't actually be the law of maximum human ability to improve, can it? Surely people in high places at Intel are throttling the engineers back when they get ahead of themselves, and pouring on the cash when they get behind... Setting and meeting expectations is what matters most to the stock market, after all. Moore's Law is just a means to that end.
Hmm... does anyone else wonder if the real reason Bruce was fired is because he couldn't stop reading Slashdot at work?
Great! Then you'll love unemployment... wake up, and you're already on the job...
This kind of "you'd better not break my existing code" whining is exactly what the Visual Basic folks did when Microsoft revamped their precious language into VB.NET. What did the rest of the world say to them? "Get over it." These language Luddites should get a copy of "Who Moved My Cheese" and read it.
Check out The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve for some enlightening info on how fractional reserve banking really works.
Also, note that if you attempted to create your own miniature model of the Fed, you would get a $10,000 fine and a ten year imprisonment. Just because it's legal for the Fed to do it doesn't mean it's legal for you.
I think the language stud you're looking for is Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of the C# language. Although generics aren't in the current version of the language, they have them working in a research version, and the Common Language Runtime has been designed from the beginning to support them. A future future version of C# will most definitely support generics.
More detailed information on C#'s generics implementation can be found here.
Maybe not now, but a research version of C# currently supports generics, which is what C++'s STL is all about. The next commercial version of the C# language will have generics support. Read here for more information.
Another question I'd like to see answered: how accurate is human eyesight anyway? Sure, to us it seems pretty accurate, but how accurately can you pick up on the eye's positioning? What if you've got a gimp-eye that keeps straying off to the corner? What about picking up on depth-of-field? With ground targets this shouldn't be as much of a problem, but in the air, especially with an air target between you and the ground, depth-of-field becomes critical. It seems like the biggest "bugs" in this system are the foibles of the human eye.
Ask yourself this question. How many people would have downloaded this album from a P2P network if the CD wasn't "protected"?
Now ask yourself, how many more people will go out of their way to download this album because it's "protected"? If you ask me, they're getting a heck of a lot of free publicity in a demographic that's pretty hard to penetrate (us paranoid geeks).
A potentially unintended side-effect: the publicity benefits the artist at the expense of the company!
I didn't mean to be redundant. When I posted this, the original post's link didn't work, for whatever reason. Now, it's my link that doesn't work. Something fishy is going on with Google's cache linking scheme.
This link to Google's cache works for me...
Or read the FAQ.
For best results, you may need to reference the illustrations of proper use.
I believe it breaks several laws of computational complexity, including NP-completeness and the halting problem.
I was about to post the repeat too. You'd think they could at the very least do a search for "Spolsky" before posting...