Has nothing to do with their products. At least not directly.
Nvidia is one of those companies that has a stock (NVDA) that always seems to go up. I can't count how many times I've day-traded on NVDA and had good returns. Hell, I just played them yesterday and got a nice coin for my trouble.
I was lucky enough to not have any positions on 9/11. But when the market reopened (9/17?), I put all my cash into NVDA. Did they go up? Not right away -- I had to calm my wife when we were down ~25% -- but we ended up making money a few short weeks later.
I don't know as there is a point to my post, other than to say "me, too!". Perhaps some of the reasons Nvidia is successful are the same reasons that investors are drawn to the stock -- it performs, and it shows.
I don't know of anything else (commercial-quality, that is) that works across as many hardware platforms, especially for server-side apps, which is the area where Java has really done well.
Take a look at Python. It doesn't have a large commercial backer, but it is commercial-quality. NASA uses it, Disney uses it, more shops than you probably imagine. Oh, and python simply rocks.
I'm currently working on an application that monitors seemingly random data -- the stock market. I never stopped to consider that there may be statistical techniques above and beyond the standard technincal indicators.
So, let me get this straight: they're going to pick generated results that most closely resemble real, measured results, and then adjust their model to compensate.
Those models wouldn't be "validated" as the poster claims, or would they? It seems to me that without identifying the reasons the computed models differed from the measured results, the selection is damn near arbitrary -- the difference may be something the scientists never considered.
(for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!).
So tell me, since I'm an idiot and you're not: what provision in the brady bill keeps guns out of the hands of kids? Hm? Were there not enough provisions in the existing 20,000 gun laws? Oh, yeah, limiting the size of magazines and banning those oh-so-evil-looking "assault" rifles did so much to stop the Columbine kids.
The problem isn't about our rights, it's about conservative over-reaction.
Lest ye not forget, the Libs are just as anxious to take away speech they do not agree with. E.g., Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center.
Granted, most of the threats to free speech seem to come from the right, but that's only because the left runs the media in this country. (Don't believe me on that one? You're wrong.)
I don't follow CA politics. In fact, I had to google "Gray Davis" to find his party affiliation.
My problem with most media -- specifically scandal reporting -- is that when the scandal involves a Dem, invariably that fact is left out.
Had Gray Davis been a Republican, or worse yet, a conservative, I'd bet you my last dollar that the headline would be something similar to "New Scandal in Republican Governors Office".
Call me a nut, dismiss my option: I don't care. But the next time you're watching CNN and they talk scandal, remember what I said here. Then listen to the talking head very, very closely and tell me I'm wrong.
if you liked TF, you might be interested in Q3F. It's Q3 based, obviously, but they just released a new version that is really slick. It's the most fun I've had playing a varient of TF since the original.
The great thing about this system is that 90% of the time I report SPAM to SpamCop, it says its a fresh SPAM. So not only am I helping to prevent SPAM to my users, I am hopefully helping others that are using SpamCop's RBL.
How certain are you that they are unique spammers, and not just the same spammers with new tricks?
The original point is the same: if you don't worry (or don't have to worry) about the type, then you can be polymorphic.
python file-like objects come to mind. in python, it's trivial (and common) to implement the most used methods of file objects in a new class and then use the new class as a substitute for a "normal" file object. a good example of this is console logging. sys.stdout and sys.stderr can be replaced with objects that log to a database or the filesystem. as long as new objects maintain the correct method signatures (granted, by convention only), they interoperate with existing code -- all without type casting or even type checking.
if you're type casting, you're not taking advantage of polymorphism. rather, you're enabling it thru an explicit operation that says "i think this object is of this type, and i want to treat it that way". (i'm sure some purist will pipe up and correct this, but please just bear with me).
the point of contention is the type casting: if you have to explicitly state that you're using an object of a specific type, you're not really allowing that objects type to vary (aka, be polymorpic).
put another way: type casting is casting into stone, but true polymorphism means you don't really care about the type as long as the object supports the operations you expect it to.
i haven't had enough coffee this morning, so i could still be wrong.:)
5) so you're saying i can pass a class as an argument to a function in java? that's news to me. have you a URL to the javadocs that explains this?
the OP claimed java is brain dead and cannot be fixed; i was elaborating on his point. i don't know why or how you thought this was a comparison to.NET.
6) here's my elaboration: i've never seen a java module of significant size that didn't resort to type casting. a lot. type casting is the antithesis of polymorphism. if the language was truly polymorphic, type casting (more precicely, the level of type casting found in most java code) wouldn't be required.
7) again, i don't recall this being about C#, but instead, about the shortcomings of java. if C# sucks as much as java, well, then that's a shame.
8) no, adding a half-thought-thru feature to an already brain-dead language to give the appearance of multiple inheritance is a hack.
9) so you're saying that the best way to teach people is to give them shitty examples? let me guess, you're from california ?!?!
for what it's worth, i think the MFC library smells worse.:)
and i really do like jython; it gives me an easy upgrade path from java to python.
i can't attest to the speed of the wx bindings for perl, but i can tell you that the wx bindings for python (wxpython, here.) are fast. very, very fast.
amen. i'm an engineer for a regional isp, and we do exactly this. the minute you give users a software package, you're obligated to support their use of that package as long as their a customer.
considering that a support call costs anywhere from US$6 to US$20 (depending on who you ask), you run the risk of losing money for every customer that can't install the latest version of IE on Win31.
Slashdot Mirror
Has nothing to do with their products. At least not directly.
Nvidia is one of those companies that has a stock (NVDA) that always seems to go up. I can't count how many times I've day-traded on NVDA and had good returns. Hell, I just played them yesterday and got a nice coin for my trouble.
I was lucky enough to not have any positions on 9/11. But when the market reopened (9/17?), I put all my cash into NVDA. Did they go up? Not right away -- I had to calm my wife when we were down ~25% -- but we ended up making money a few short weeks later.
I don't know as there is a point to my post, other than to say "me, too!". Perhaps some of the reasons Nvidia is successful are the same reasons that investors are drawn to the stock -- it performs, and it shows.
I don't know of anything else (commercial-quality, that is) that works across as many hardware platforms, especially for server-side apps, which is the area where Java has really done well.
Take a look at Python. It doesn't have a large commercial backer, but it is commercial-quality. NASA uses it, Disney uses it, more shops than you probably imagine. Oh, and python simply rocks.
I know my kbd is cleaner than my toilet, cause I clean it more often!
i think just about everyone who is literate in another language is "non-japansese literate".
i could be wrong, it's happened before. twice.
And I'll say it again:
Java is to code as music is to country.
'nuff said.
'cause VMS scared the hell of the hackers.
do you mean hackers like Mitnick?
Thanks for the explaination!
I'm currently working on an application that monitors seemingly random data -- the stock market. I never stopped to consider that there may be statistical techniques above and beyond the standard technincal indicators.
Food for thought!
So, let me get this straight: they're going to pick generated results that most closely resemble real, measured results, and then adjust their model to compensate.
Those models wouldn't be "validated" as the poster claims, or would they? It seems to me that without identifying the reasons the computed models differed from the measured results, the selection is damn near arbitrary -- the difference may be something the scientists never considered.
I've been wrong before.... once.
(for the LAST TIME idiots, we don't want to take away your guns, we just want to keep them out of the hands of kids!).
So tell me, since I'm an idiot and you're not: what provision in the brady bill keeps guns out of the hands of kids? Hm? Were there not enough provisions in the existing 20,000 gun laws? Oh, yeah, limiting the size of magazines and banning those oh-so-evil-looking "assault" rifles did so much to stop the Columbine kids.
The problem isn't about our rights, it's about conservative over-reaction.
Lest ye not forget, the Libs are just as anxious to take away speech they do not agree with. E.g., Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center.
Granted, most of the threats to free speech seem to come from the right, but that's only because the left runs the media in this country. (Don't believe me on that one? You're wrong.)
I don't follow CA politics. In fact, I had to google "Gray Davis" to find his party affiliation.
My problem with most media -- specifically scandal reporting -- is that when the scandal involves a Dem, invariably that fact is left out.
Had Gray Davis been a Republican, or worse yet, a conservative, I'd bet you my last dollar that the headline would be something similar to "New Scandal in Republican Governors Office".
Call me a nut, dismiss my option: I don't care. But the next time you're watching CNN and they talk scandal, remember what I said here. Then listen to the talking head very, very closely and tell me I'm wrong.
if you liked TF, you might be interested in Q3F. It's Q3 based, obviously, but they just released a new version that is really slick. It's the most fun I've had playing a varient of TF since the original.
i'll buy you a one-way ticket outta the country if you're that concerned, pal.
The great thing about this system is that 90% of the time I report SPAM to SpamCop, it says its a fresh SPAM. So not only am I helping to prevent SPAM to my users, I am hopefully helping others that are using SpamCop's RBL.
How certain are you that they are unique spammers, and not just the same spammers with new tricks?
there are important technical differences between Java the language and Java the set of frameworks
which is why they're all called Java (TM).
Unless, of course, the future archeologists are descendants of the French, in which case, they will think Jar Jar is brilliant.
The original point is the same: if you don't worry (or don't have to worry) about the type, then you can be polymorphic.
python file-like objects come to mind. in python, it's trivial (and common) to implement the most used methods of file objects in a new class and then use the new class as a substitute for a "normal" file object. a good example of this is console logging. sys.stdout and sys.stderr can be replaced with objects that log to a database or the filesystem. as long as new objects maintain the correct method signatures (granted, by convention only), they interoperate with existing code -- all without type casting or even type checking.
if you're type casting, you're not taking advantage of polymorphism. rather, you're enabling it thru an explicit operation that says "i think this object is of this type, and i want to treat it that way". (i'm sure some purist will pipe up and correct this, but please just bear with me).
:)
the point of contention is the type casting: if you have to explicitly state that you're using an object of a specific type, you're not really allowing that objects type to vary (aka, be polymorpic).
put another way: type casting is casting into stone, but true polymorphism means you don't really care about the type as long as the object supports the operations you expect it to.
i haven't had enough coffee this morning, so i could still be wrong.
5) so you're saying i can pass a class as an argument to a function in java? that's news to me. have you a URL to the javadocs that explains this?
.NET.
:)
the OP claimed java is brain dead and cannot be fixed; i was elaborating on his point. i don't know why or how you thought this was a comparison to
6) here's my elaboration: i've never seen a java module of significant size that didn't resort to type casting. a lot. type casting is the antithesis of polymorphism. if the language was truly polymorphic, type casting (more precicely, the level of type casting found in most java code) wouldn't be required.
7) again, i don't recall this being about C#, but instead, about the shortcomings of java. if C# sucks as much as java, well, then that's a shame.
8) no, adding a half-thought-thru feature to an already brain-dead language to give the appearance of multiple inheritance is a hack.
9) so you're saying that the best way to teach people is to give them shitty examples? let me guess, you're from california ?!?!
for what it's worth, i think the MFC library smells worse.
and i really do like jython; it gives me an easy upgrade path from java to python.
but a decision taken when designing the language.
oh really? i thought interfaces were included well after the initial design. i'm by no means a java follower, and therefore could be wrong.
5) Java does not treat classes as first class objects.
6) Java is about as polymorphic as a dead cat.
7) Large split between intrinsic types and object-like types.
8) Java does not support multiple inheritance. Sure, "interfaces" help, but they're really only a hack.
9) Javas standard libraries look, behave, and smell as if they were designed by someone fresh out of CS 101.
Did I miss any others? I would have to disagree with you on point 1: Jython simply ROCKS if you're a python-savy person forced to use Java.
i can't attest to the speed of the wx bindings for perl, but i can tell you that the wx bindings for python (wxpython, here.) are fast. very, very fast.
amen. i'm an engineer for a regional isp, and we do exactly this. the minute you give users a software package, you're obligated to support their use of that package as long as their a customer.
considering that a support call costs anywhere from US$6 to US$20 (depending on who you ask), you run the risk of losing money for every customer that can't install the latest version of IE on Win31.
In general, the fewer lines of code you can get something done in, the better.
how true! that is one of the best reasons to use python.