"Having a compiler swap objects out from under you would be... rude"
I don't mean it to swap the object out, just use a temporary object for the operation.
When you say
string foo = "Hello, "; foo += "World!";
You just want foo to hold the two strings concatenated, you don't care how the compiler did it. The compiler could create a temp stringbuffer object there for that operation, converting back to string and assigning to foo.
I don't see how that's rude, because the programmer wouldn't even know that it's happening, just like a C programmer doesn't know that the compiler will pad his structures so they fit nicely on a word boundary to increase performance.
Think about the string object problem - people have to use stringbuffer because strings are immutable.
When a program thrashes strings around, why doesn't the compiler detect that, and switch to a string buffer object to perform those operations, and then convert the final result back to a string?
If all these performance hacks are documented, why doesn't the compiler implement them?
I've often found that will bytecode languages (Java, C#...) the bytecode instructions are made for the language so that the compiler can just throw them out easy peasy, but they seem to overlook the sort of optimizations that C compilers, for example, work hard to implement.
Apologies. I didn't remember I was speaking to a broader audience - it's just an everyday adjective for something that's unnecessary or frivolous where I live.
I wonder how business in the towers coped after 11/9. They must have had to have applied their contingency plans there, perhaps you could try looking for someone in one of those companies.
I don't think you get it - two people can't edit the same file at the same time on wikipedia - they have to take turns. This is literally two people in the same file at the same time, updates between them in real time.
Slashdot Mirror
Change the record, grandad zealot!
Windows _has_ moved on since that.
"Having a compiler swap objects out from under you would be ... rude"
I don't mean it to swap the object out, just use a temporary object for the operation.
When you say
string foo = "Hello, ";
foo += "World!";
You just want foo to hold the two strings concatenated, you don't care how the compiler did it. The compiler could create a temp stringbuffer object there for that operation, converting back to string and assigning to foo.
I don't see how that's rude, because the programmer wouldn't even know that it's happening, just like a C programmer doesn't know that the compiler will pad his structures so they fit nicely on a word boundary to increase performance.
Think about the string object problem - people have to use stringbuffer because strings are immutable.
When a program thrashes strings around, why doesn't the compiler detect that, and switch to a string buffer object to perform those operations, and then convert the final result back to a string?
If all these performance hacks are documented, why doesn't the compiler implement them?
I've often found that will bytecode languages (Java, C#...) the bytecode instructions are made for the language so that the compiler can just throw them out easy peasy, but they seem to overlook the sort of optimizations that C compilers, for example, work hard to implement.
Apologies. I didn't remember I was speaking to a broader audience - it's just an everyday adjective for something that's unnecessary or frivolous where I live.
"Now extend your example to handle an arbitrary number of arguments."
Piece of piss:
function MyFunction($lines)
{
print join("\n", $lines);
}
And then to call:
MyFunction(array("Hello", "World"));
MyFunction(array("You", "are", "stupid"));
et cetera
How an abuse? Seems to me that here the DCMA has been applied in the normal way.
The DCMA may be a pain in the arse, but the problem is things like this are not abuses of it - they are legitamate uses.
The DCMA is gay, but this is not an abuse of it.
And it's not as if they have to work for Microsoft. If you don't like it, shove off.
Actually, you can just drag and drop the folder in Explorer, and it will set the registry for you.
Don't just assume Windows is just at everything.
The crown jewles of the British monarchy have some big diamonds in them, from a long time ago, so they are not a new phenomonom (sp?).
Why have you put hard returns into your comment? Have you heard of the new technology people have, "word wrapping".
With word wrapping, anyone can select the width they want to view their text at, and the text adjusts for them.
It's like the difference between a well designed site and one "designed for 800 by 600".
"Just my .02 cents."
That's not a lot of cents. I really love it when people go as far as to put
"Just my USD $0.02"
Wankers.
That doesn't make sense:
pre-mix: Before mixing with water
post-mix: After mixing with water
"With pre-mix, you're paying to ship water as well as syrup"
Surely with POST-MIX you're paying to ship the water as well.
But "shit" in an anglo-saxon word
I don't think that applies to mathematics
I wonder how business in the towers coped after 11/9. They must have had to have applied their contingency plans there, perhaps you could try looking for someone in one of those companies.
Well, I think that it's much more clear like this, more breathing room.
You should have previewed anyway.
Bullshit! That is nothing like how VS formats code. I just copied and pasted and this is how it formatted:
namespace Foo
{
public class Bar
{
void Bar()
{
if (foo)
{
bar(0);
}
else
{
bar(1);
}
}
}
}
I don't think you get it - two people can't edit the same file at the same time on wikipedia - they have to take turns. This is literally two people in the same file at the same time, updates between them in real time.
It is an implemntation of the MPEG 4 standard. Just as DivX and the new QuickTime are. See the myriad of other posts supporting this.
I'm honestly suprised by this.
I didn't think anyone ever did anything in CS without at least a BSc.
RTFA, idiot.
Like they found a way around DVD encoding? It might work in theory - but it doesn't work out of the box in any Linux distro I've used.
You are clearly talking absolute bollocks, as WM9 is MPEG. How does MPEG look "sharper & generally better all round" than MPEG?
DRM, you idiot.