But you're missing the point that analog will alwasy exist until the day the human brain can take a direct digital input. At some point that digital data HAS to be converted into an analogue format for humans to appreciate it and at that point its vulnerable and there is NOTHING they can do to prevent that.
Java doesn't deal with physical memory mapping you idiot , its a higher level language so endian issues don't come into it. I should have qualified my statement with "low level" compiled languages. BASIC can be compiled but you don't get endian issues there either.
"On the other hand, 'new' and 'delete' are operators, i.e. part of the language spec"
So what?
"because there exist no tricks that can make C safer "
Really? So people writing their own wrapper functions to malloc and free that do extra checking are wasting their time, right?
"In C, you have 'malloc' and 'free', and that's it"
Well actually you have "brk" and "sbrk" at a lower level that allows you to do you're own mapping of allocated memory blocks. But you knew that right and you're not just a thick troll?
"It is not. C++ is an entirely different language, partially compatible with C. (for example in C99 you can do 'array[arg1]', whereas in C++ you can not)."
An entirely different language that stroustrup deliberately made 99,9% compatable with C. Yeah ok , I guess you have a different idea about what "entirely" means.
As for C99 , that may well have bits C++ doesn't but don't expect them to remain outside the C++ standard for too long.
"It's obvious who is ignorant, isn't it ? "
Yes, thank you for playing but better luck next time sonny.
Really? Thats odd since recently I've just written a 21,000 line server program in it.
"very, very few situations for which I'd choose C over C++. "
So you won't ever have worked on OS kernel code then where a lot of the runtime features of C++ (for example exceptions) are not available or have limited scope for use. I'm not sure in your 14 years you've really done much to-the-metal coding, I suspect you're an applications coder who thinks a UML design is cool.
Well if it is then someone has obviously designed a fully functional compiled language that operates EXACTLY the same way on ALL architectures even though it goes down to bit level operations. Wow , I'm impressed given that no one else has managed to do that yet. Tell me , how for example does it deal with big/little endian issues at compilation?
Yes it does , you can use the full C API in C++ and for simple things it used to be quicker though I don't think thats the case any longer.
"If you use C++ properly, you shall not have memory leaks"
You could say the same about C or even assembler. If an object is new'd in a function but the coder forgets to delete it thats a memory leak, exactly the same as doing a malloc but forgetting the free.
"Maybe you should be ashamed, because you have no idea of C++ programming."
I'm not convinced you have a full handle on it either. I get the feeling you learnt C++ and never learnt straight C which you may think is an advantage but I can assure you it isn't.
Is this a futile attempt at selling off the family silver in an effort to keep their failing business solvent or is it some shrewd move to raise cash for more profitable enterprises? Is SGI a lost cause or is there life in it yet?
That would be why high speed compute intensive applications are all written in Java would it? Compiling a program everytime its run is an absurd way of working and it may be a way of speeding up an interpreted language like java (which is all jvm code is) but no one in their right mind would use it
for anything else. I can just imagine how fast a system would run if everytime someone typed "dir" or "ls" it had to be compiled from source. Gimme a f*cking break!
If you want examples go google for them , I'm talking from personal experience.
" This is the very best price I'm able to offer on my time, and it only applies for doing FreeBSD work of my own choice.) "
So let me get this straight... he wants someone to pay him a quite large amount of money for 3 to 6 months for doing stuff that HE chooses???!
Sorry pal , but if you're reading this I suggest you land your spaceship and take a walk around on planet earth with the rest of us where you'll find that people who pay you money expect you to do what THEY tell YOU, NOT the other way around!
Umm , what you've described is pretty much what an OS memory management and loader system does with normal binaries. Anyway , the whole argument is irrelevant because by the time the JIT compiler had figured all this out to perhaps save on a few instruction calls it will have executed thousands of instructions itself to do it! In the meantime the standard binary will have chugged away long past that spot. And if you have a JIT that can do a recompile on the fly thats another lump of instructions to execute. You can't get something for nothing and at the end of the day a JIT system will on average be slower than a precompiled binary all other things being equal.
A compiler is a compiler. It wouldn't be hard to implement a JIT C/C++ compiler. Just knock up a short shell script to compile the source before you run it. Like I said , his argument is invalid.
" I think has trouble with some things like the Linux kernel."
Thats probably because some kernel code uses C++ type syntax, its not pure C. Function pointer calls spring to mind plus the gcc specific (or is it c99 syntax?) method of defining structure values. eg:
"Now, your C compiler will see that you want to store a 32 bit value, but has to generate code for a 386. So, it generates the code:"
Compilers are quite capable of finding out or being told what architecture to compile for and this includes various x86 types. Sorry , but your argument is invalid.
Most unix apps arn't event driven (or even GUI) so an event driven language like VB (ok i know it can be non event driven but thats not its raison
d'etre) is not much use as an all purpose solution. Tcl/Tk was good at this sort of thing but it seems to have gone below the radar in the last 5 years or so.
Ok I don't use KDE (or Gnome for that matter) because of their bloated size. This probably goes someway to explaining why they're such monstrosities. I'm sure some KDE fanatic moderator will mod me down for this but all I want from a window manager (don't give me this "its an enviroment crud") is to display windows. I want the apps to do what I need , NOT the code running the eye candy around them.
God never told anyone anything anymore than Santa or the pixies at the bottom of your garden did. Because none of them exist. If you want to believe in some fairy story from 2000 years ago and The Good News (sounds like some lame tabloid btw) then thats up to you, but don't expect people to treat you any other way than they would an adult who believed in the tooth fairy.
"I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented"
Very true. But the problem is that the people it scams are too dumb to realise it as you say. Its like those halfwits who still seem to think stage magicians do real magic simply because they've been fooled by some sleight of hand a trained chimp could manage. The vast majority of humans on this planet are either stupid , pig ignorant or both. Its only a very small minority who are responsible for the science and technology we have today.
Widgets moving around when the window is resized is down to low level movement of child windows in the X windows system. I can't remember exactly how its done since its been a few years since I looked at it but you can fix a child window to always remain in the same relative place in its parent window no matter what the parent windows size. In other words you get this functionality for free on ALL systems that use X windows , not just Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
But you're missing the point that analog will alwasy exist until the day the human brain can take a direct digital input. At some point that digital data HAS to be converted into an analogue format for humans to appreciate it and at that point its vulnerable and there is NOTHING they can do to prevent that.
Are there no depths that MS won't sink to??
Java doesn't deal with physical memory mapping you idiot , its a higher level language so endian issues don't come into it. I should have qualified
my statement with "low level" compiled languages. BASIC can be compiled but you don't get endian issues there either.
I said compiled language , not compiler per se hence the point about the preprocessor. Do try and keep up.
"On the other hand, 'new' and 'delete' are operators, i.e. part of the language spec"
So what?
"because there exist no tricks that can make C safer "
Really? So people writing their own wrapper functions to malloc and free that do extra checking are wasting their time, right?
"In C, you have 'malloc' and 'free', and that's it"
Well actually you have "brk" and "sbrk" at a lower level that allows you to do you're own mapping of allocated memory blocks. But you knew
that right and you're not just a thick troll?
"It is not. C++ is an entirely different language, partially compatible with C. (for example in C99 you can do 'array[arg1]', whereas in C++ you can not)."
An entirely different language that stroustrup deliberately made 99,9% compatable with C. Yeah ok , I guess you have a different idea about what "entirely" means.
As for C99 , that may well have bits C++ doesn't but don't expect them to remain outside the C++ standard for too long.
"It's obvious who is ignorant, isn't it ? "
Yes, thank you for playing but better luck next time sonny.
"They don't call the constructors and destructors"
And for allocating a chunk of scratch memory of N bytes this matters why exactly?
"What's clear is that you haven't learned C++, "
Really? Thats odd since recently I've just written a 21,000 line server program in it.
"very, very few situations for which I'd choose C over C++. "
So you won't ever have worked on OS kernel code then where a lot of the runtime features of C++ (for example exceptions) are not available or
have limited scope for use. I'm not sure in your 14 years you've really done much to-the-metal coding, I suspect you're an applications coder who thinks a UML design is cool.
Well if it is then someone has obviously designed a fully functional compiled language that operates EXACTLY the same way on ALL
architectures even though it goes down to bit level operations. Wow , I'm impressed given that no one else has managed to do that yet. Tell me , how for example does it deal
with big/little endian issues at compilation?
"C++ does not have 'free'."
Yes it does , you can use the full C API in C++ and for simple things it used to be quicker though I don't think thats the case any longer.
"If you use C++ properly, you shall not have memory leaks"
You could say the same about C or even assembler. If an object is new'd in a function but the coder forgets to delete it thats a memory leak,
exactly the same as doing a malloc but forgetting the free.
"Maybe you should be ashamed, because you have no idea of C++ programming."
I'm not convinced you have a full handle on it either. I get the feeling you learnt C++ and never learnt straight C which you may think is an advantage
but I can assure you it isn't.
Is this a futile attempt at selling off the family silver in an effort to keep their failing business solvent or is it some shrewd move to raise cash for more profitable enterprises?
Is SGI a lost cause or is there life in it yet?
"That it is so trivial to install a new JDK really ignites your strawman on fire..."
Really? You ever tried downloading 100 megs over dialup? Get a clue pal...
Because it allows Java/whatever to be platform independent but be compiled! It has nothing to do with utlimate performance. Hello??!
That would be why high speed compute intensive applications are all written in Java would it?
Compiling a program everytime its run is an absurd way
of working and it may be a way of speeding up an interpreted language like java (which is all jvm code is) but no one in their right mind would use it
for anything else.
I can just imagine how fast a system would run if everytime someone typed "dir" or "ls" it had to be compiled from source. Gimme a f*cking break!
If you want examples go google for them , I'm talking from personal experience.
I quote from his page:
" This is the very best price I'm able to offer on my time, and it only applies for doing FreeBSD work of my own choice.) "
So let me get this straight... he wants someone to pay him a quite large amount of money for 3 to 6 months for doing stuff that HE chooses???!
Sorry pal , but if you're reading this I suggest you land your spaceship and take a walk around on planet earth with the rest of us where you'll
find that people who pay you money expect you to do what THEY tell YOU, NOT the other way around!
Umm , what you've described is pretty much what an OS memory management and loader system does with normal binaries. Anyway , the whole argument is
irrelevant because by the time the JIT compiler had figured all this out to perhaps save on a few instruction calls it will have executed thousands of instructions
itself to do it! In the meantime the standard binary will have chugged away long past that spot. And if you have a JIT that can do a recompile on the fly
thats another lump of instructions to execute. You can't get something for nothing and at the end of the day a JIT system will on average be slower
than a precompiled binary all other things being equal.
A compiler is a compiler. It wouldn't be hard to implement a JIT C/C++ compiler. Just knock up a short shell script to compile the source before you run it. Like I said , his argument is invalid.
" I think has trouble with some things like the Linux kernel."
.a = 1
.b = "hello"
Thats probably because some kernel code uses C++ type syntax, its not pure C. Function pointer calls spring to mind plus the gcc specific
(or is it c99 syntax?) method of defining structure values. eg:
struct fred f {
etc
"Now, your C compiler will see that you want to store a 32 bit value, but has to generate code for a 386. So, it generates the code:"
Compilers are quite capable of finding out or being told what architecture to compile for and this includes various x86 types. Sorry , but your argument is invalid.
Most unix apps arn't event driven (or even GUI) so an event driven language like VB (ok i know it can be non event driven but thats not its raison
d'etre) is not much use as an all purpose solution. Tcl/Tk was good at this sort of thing but it seems to have gone below the radar in the last 5 years or so.
Ok I don't use KDE (or Gnome for that matter) because of their bloated size. This probably goes someway to explaining why they're such monstrosities. I'm sure some KDE fanatic moderator
will mod me down for this but all I want from a window manager (don't give me this "its an enviroment crud") is to display windows. I want the apps to do what I need , NOT the code running
the eye candy around them.
God never told anyone anything anymore than Santa or the pixies at the bottom of your garden did. Because none of them exist. If you want to believe
in some fairy story from 2000 years ago and The Good News (sounds like some lame tabloid btw) then thats up to you, but don't expect
people to treat you any other way than they would an adult who believed in the tooth fairy.
"I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented"
Very true. But the problem is that the people it scams are too dumb to realise it as you say. Its like those halfwits who still seem to think
stage magicians do real magic simply because they've been fooled by some sleight of hand a trained chimp could manage. The vast majority of humans on this
planet are either stupid , pig ignorant or both. Its only a very small minority who are responsible for the science and technology we have today.
Sorry , but its true and its especially true in small european mountain villages, believe me!
Widgets moving around when the window is resized is down to low level movement of child windows in the X windows system. I can't remember exactly how its done since its been a few
years since I looked at it but you can fix a child window to always remain in the same relative place in its parent window no matter what the parent windows size.
In other words you get this functionality for free on ALL systems that use X windows , not just Linux.
They've even managed to fool judges in a competition now who really should have known that
this sort of thing has been done for thousands of years!