Literally within days, this hot breaking news item shows on/. Impressive. How we ever managed to keep abreast before the age of internet is well beyond my metal capabilities.
Too bad that Computer Scientists are a bunch of elitist Haters who only know COBOL from legend.
It's cheap to knock a language with a huge installed base as COBOL, mostly because the syntax and the conventions are slightly awkward for "modern" eyes. (I say modern but the elitist dislike for COBOL I believe started in the 70ies.) COBOL is damn good at solving the kinds of problems it was designed for. I have even seen a shop that had/has a COBOL backend to the web applications it offered/offers.
The problem is that you usually don't know where the the allocated memory is finished.
I understand the rationale behind the pointers like they are, but I'd still prefer if pointers could keep both address and size of the buffer. But it's too late now for such kind of redesign or upgrade.
I understand what you mean. For most projects I do I share your desire to be slightly more casual with memory management. Although I am in the fortunate position to be able to choose a different language (I'm happy to use Java's StringBuilder to append ad infinitum), I cherish the basics I learned when I programmed C. Being able to think in the most basic elements is yet another perspective.
You can't have a string longer than the amount of memory that is reachable by a pointer.
Did you reread what you wrote? A pointer is nothing more or less than a memory address. A string pointer points to the first character in the string and the string can have any length (theoretically.)
Do you mean, perhaps, that you can't have a C string that doesn't fit into memory all at once? Let's assume you do. That would be an academic limitation. I have never ever encountered a string so big. If you have the need to handle such enormous strings then you probably should study streaming (of characters or bytes.)
You don't say. Sounds like this is relatively new to you.
That's a silly tone you'd better ditch buddy.
The former must be very concise
That's complete nonsense. Source code size has nothing to do with object size, let alone suitability of a language for different problem domains. C's conciseness was useful in the 1970s and 80s, where memory used for source code whilst editing and compiling was a significant factor. Nowadays 10s or hundreds of K of source code is irrelevant in GB sized PC memories. The conciseness is worthless.
I give to you that concise was the wrong word to use. However, well abstracted problems result in concise code and object, while at the same time the code remains readable. Beating the optimizer is foolish, but shouldn't be mistaken with well analyzed problems. Simply punching away in order to scratch the itch is a guarantee for revisiting the code unnecessarily.
I believe none of you actually programmed in C. A string terminated by \0 can be represented by a single pointer and an have any length. You can also easily let the string keep growing (until the allocated memory is finished.) That is the epitome of KISS. If you use an 8 byte character at the beginning then you are limited to a string length of 255. A structure with a length and a string pointer (or a character array) is much more complex and that would reflect in more complex library functions.
C was invented by exceptionally bright people. For a language that was primarily designed to program kernels its remarkably versatile. If you are seeking a language to write administrative applications then you should look further. COBOL back in the days or Java nowadays would suit you better. And yes, there is a difference in programming prowess between kernel / library programmers and application programmers. The latter "just" have to get the business logic going and are allowed to use every trick in the book. The former must be very concise and consider that their code will be used by a huge amount of other programs.
You're forgetting that even if you have cached the maps in detail (e.g. by beforehand zooming in to all the parts you really need on your trip) the navigation still doesn't work without being on-line.
After having toyed around with cached Google maps for years, this year I finally got a (2nd hand) car with navigator built in. No more mucking about when crossing country boundaries. Bliss at last.
For my usage (EU, frequent border hopper), Google maps is excellent for planning a trip. Not so much for actual moving between destinations.
Is he an actual scientist? Did he do any scientific research? Did he merit a the title of university professor? Sure, he did make money, but that doesn't automatically mean he should earn a title that few people get after working very hard, usually without extreme luxury or profit.
The device almost by definition must be autonomous. You wouldn't want your phone to setup a session which attackers could misuse. I'd be fine with using a key like my bank uses whereby the application sends me a challenge which the device encodes and which the application recognises as such.
Open hardware key where a private key is held and which cannot be extracted (yes, that is possible.) Access to hardware through small keyboard, requiring a PIN/password. Open protocol to challenge private key. Everything is already available. Openness is the key and I think DARPA could apply strong influence in making this possible.
It's Monday and you arrive at work. Somehow you feel you're being managed bin a bunch of cretins but you attribute this to your negative outlook on life. But today is different. In a Tommy-esque way, starting from middle management going up, everyone wares ear, eye and mouth plugs. You think, at first, that your outfit is going to the hounds because vision now truly can no longer be. However, well before the 2nd coffee break, you realize you were wrong. Stuff suddenly works. You feel at ease to communicate with your peers. Stuff that would have take weeks of meetings is agreed upon immediately. Stuff requiring well thought considerations actually gets these. You even start greeting the cleaner at the end of the day. The strangest day of your life passed and you became absolutely convinced that the magic potion for the shop was found. A new and effective way of managing a bunch of developers leaves them enthused. It is patented of course. Magic, sheer magic was cast upon everyone in the company. That night you sleep calm and sound knowing the pointy headed bosses suddenly got a clue and that in "vision without seeing" will be the next hot thing. The deaf, dumb and blind bosses sure play a mean pinball.
Don't be naive. The only reason Russia and other oppressive nations pass laws like these is so they can better monitor what their 'citizens' are doing and saying. It's a lot easier to lock up whoever wrote "Putin Sucks" online if the data is in a Russian server.
And having data reside in the USA at the whims of the NSA is how much better?
It depends. No exact numbers apply here. If you take full control and responsibility for your actions, change when you cannot add value to the company you work for and once you have the opportunity to do so elsewhere. The term "adding value" I chose deliberately. You can only add value (and generally make sense) if you're happy and progressing in the fields you find desirable. IMHO anyway. If OTOH building a career only has to do with knowing people and babbling a lot without going fully into something, then WTF are you doing on/.?
Conway states Perl isn't the ideal fist language and I sort of agree. I OTOH have found Perl awkwardly useful for learning OO. As in Perl 5 you had to roll your own inheritance, you definitely understood it better as a consequence. I transitioned to Java SE and I actually prefer the strong typing as it makes messing up that little harder. Perl is still in my toolbox and I do advanced system programs with it. You know, stuff that both Bourne and Java are bad at.
Could this be used to determine whether certain people are invasive? And they should leave on moral grounds. Or that they will face misery because of a gene they don't possess?
My car's clock live on UTC, mostly because I'm too lazy to adjust it.
It's quirky. But could also be a symptom of a benign kind of OCD. Then again, perhaps I'm projecting my prospect of live on you. In which case, please ignore cheerfully.
Hail UTC. Everyone should use it. I mean, what's in a number for keeping track when you have to do stuff? Local time is hard enough and then comes daylight saving. Ever travelled by boat from Europe main land to the British isles? Ever had to calculate tides and/or water flow? Ever had an uncomfortable/critical email exchange between Europe and British isles (where the feet-dragger typically abuses any possible source of unclarity)?
You can write C-code obscurely too. But, somehow, Perl seems to encourage this sort of thing... 20 years ago my CS-professor dismissed Perl as a "write-only" language — since then my conviction of him being right has only grown.
I understand but disagree. Any language can be a write-only language if you don't care about maintainability. Then there are the wannabe gurus that save 3 lines of code not to shorten the program but to impress others. Even worse, there are people that criticise readable code for it being too simple. If you ever worked in a team of programmers with varying skills then you appreciate simple, readable code. You also will once you had to take over unreadable code.
I started my IT life on DEC/VAX with VT220 terminals. VMS wasn't too.
Then Solaris 4.* came along and I had the privilege of setting up a bunch of X-Windows terminals. UNIX, I found, rocked much more than VMS. The best GUI I ever used on X was xterm. Nowadays the herminal emulators on Cygwin are pretty good. The socond best GUI which I ran on X is Eclipse. The Internet browser comes in third.
Sure, you can grasp stuff you google and simply repeat the trick over and over again. If you don't want to learn a new language then that's probably the way to go.
However, if you invest a few hours here and there, you will start to master a language that suits your purpose. I myself learned Perl back when C and LISP were still taught. Any quick, one-time transformation I can do in Perl. There are a bunch of other languages out there that so similar stuff for you purpose (Python, Ruby, etc...)
I also sense you'd be happy to graphically click your transformation together. I advocate against such practice as the solutions I've seen so far work well for Hello Worlds but start to stink at anything half complex.
If you have a career you will understand that unless you invest (in yourself) you will remain at the mercy of others.
I have to say. It is not correct, but is exactly what a foreign neighbor of mine would say me years ago !
I confess to have used Google translate. I would have done a better job at Spanish as it is more similar to Italian, my mother language. But here we are.
Slashdot Mirror
Literally within days, this hot breaking news item shows on /. Impressive. How we ever managed to keep abreast before the age of internet is well beyond my metal capabilities.
Too bad that Computer Scientists are a bunch of elitist Haters who only know COBOL from legend.
It's cheap to knock a language with a huge installed base as COBOL, mostly because the syntax and the conventions are slightly awkward for "modern" eyes. (I say modern but the elitist dislike for COBOL I believe started in the 70ies.) COBOL is damn good at solving the kinds of problems it was designed for. I have even seen a shop that had/has a COBOL backend to the web applications it offered/offers.
The problem is that you usually don't know where the the allocated memory is finished.
I understand the rationale behind the pointers like they are, but I'd still prefer if pointers could keep both address and size of the buffer. But it's too late now for such kind of redesign or upgrade.
I understand what you mean. For most projects I do I share your desire to be slightly more casual with memory management. Although I am in the fortunate position to be able to choose a different language (I'm happy to use Java's StringBuilder to append ad infinitum), I cherish the basics I learned when I programmed C. Being able to think in the most basic elements is yet another perspective.
You can't have a string longer than the amount of memory that is reachable by a pointer.
Did you reread what you wrote? A pointer is nothing more or less than a memory address. A string pointer points to the first character in the string and the string can have any length (theoretically.)
Do you mean, perhaps, that you can't have a C string that doesn't fit into memory all at once? Let's assume you do. That would be an academic limitation. I have never ever encountered a string so big. If you have the need to handle such enormous strings then you probably should study streaming (of characters or bytes.)
You don't say. Sounds like this is relatively new to you.
That's a silly tone you'd better ditch buddy.
The former must be very concise
That's complete nonsense. Source code size has nothing to do with object size, let alone suitability of a language for different problem domains. C's conciseness was useful in the 1970s and 80s, where memory used for source code whilst editing and compiling was a significant factor. Nowadays 10s or hundreds of K of source code is irrelevant in GB sized PC memories. The conciseness is worthless.
I give to you that concise was the wrong word to use. However, well abstracted problems result in concise code and object, while at the same time the code remains readable. Beating the optimizer is foolish, but shouldn't be mistaken with well analyzed problems. Simply punching away in order to scratch the itch is a guarantee for revisiting the code unnecessarily.
I believe none of you actually programmed in C. A string terminated by \0 can be represented by a single pointer and an have any length. You can also easily let the string keep growing (until the allocated memory is finished.) That is the epitome of KISS. If you use an 8 byte character at the beginning then you are limited to a string length of 255. A structure with a length and a string pointer (or a character array) is much more complex and that would reflect in more complex library functions.
C was invented by exceptionally bright people. For a language that was primarily designed to program kernels its remarkably versatile. If you are seeking a language to write administrative applications then you should look further. COBOL back in the days or Java nowadays would suit you better. And yes, there is a difference in programming prowess between kernel / library programmers and application programmers. The latter "just" have to get the business logic going and are allowed to use every trick in the book. The former must be very concise and consider that their code will be used by a huge amount of other programs.
You're forgetting that even if you have cached the maps in detail (e.g. by beforehand zooming in to all the parts you really need on your trip) the navigation still doesn't work without being on-line.
After having toyed around with cached Google maps for years, this year I finally got a (2nd hand) car with navigator built in. No more mucking about when crossing country boundaries. Bliss at last.
For my usage (EU, frequent border hopper), Google maps is excellent for planning a trip. Not so much for actual moving between destinations.
Is he an actual scientist? Did he do any scientific research? Did he merit a the title of university professor? Sure, he did make money, but that doesn't automatically mean he should earn a title that few people get after working very hard, usually without extreme luxury or profit.
The device almost by definition must be autonomous. You wouldn't want your phone to setup a session which attackers could misuse. I'd be fine with using a key like my bank uses whereby the application sends me a challenge which the device encodes and which the application recognises as such.
First decent reaction I see here on /.
Open hardware key where a private key is held and which cannot be extracted (yes, that is possible.) Access to hardware through small keyboard, requiring a PIN/password. Open protocol to challenge private key. Everything is already available. Openness is the key and I think DARPA could apply strong influence in making this possible.
If you watch the navigation screen you see the guy approaching a an exit and the video stopping right there. What happened there?
A few observations more.
...
This is for people moving to a text editor from Word.
Then, I sincerely wonder, WTF is this article doing on /.?
Not a threat to security. More of a threat to global mental health.
It's Monday and you arrive at work. Somehow you feel you're being managed bin a bunch of cretins but you attribute this to your negative outlook on life. But today is different. In a Tommy-esque way, starting from middle management going up, everyone wares ear, eye and mouth plugs. You think, at first, that your outfit is going to the hounds because vision now truly can no longer be. However, well before the 2nd coffee break, you realize you were wrong. Stuff suddenly works. You feel at ease to communicate with your peers. Stuff that would have take weeks of meetings is agreed upon immediately. Stuff requiring well thought considerations actually gets these. You even start greeting the cleaner at the end of the day. The strangest day of your life passed and you became absolutely convinced that the magic potion for the shop was found. A new and effective way of managing a bunch of developers leaves them enthused. It is patented of course. Magic, sheer magic was cast upon everyone in the company. That night you sleep calm and sound knowing the pointy headed bosses suddenly got a clue and that in "vision without seeing" will be the next hot thing. The deaf, dumb and blind bosses sure play a mean pinball.
Don't be naive. The only reason Russia and other oppressive nations pass laws like these is so they can better monitor what their 'citizens' are doing and saying. It's a lot easier to lock up whoever wrote "Putin Sucks" online if the data is in a Russian server.
And having data reside in the USA at the whims of the NSA is how much better?
It depends. No exact numbers apply here. If you take full control and responsibility for your actions, change when you cannot add value to the company you work for and once you have the opportunity to do so elsewhere. The term "adding value" I chose deliberately. You can only add value (and generally make sense) if you're happy and progressing in the fields you find desirable. IMHO anyway. If OTOH building a career only has to do with knowing people and babbling a lot without going fully into something, then WTF are you doing on /.?
Conway states Perl isn't the ideal fist language and I sort of agree. I OTOH have found Perl awkwardly useful for learning OO. As in Perl 5 you had to roll your own inheritance, you definitely understood it better as a consequence. I transitioned to Java SE and I actually prefer the strong typing as it makes messing up that little harder. Perl is still in my toolbox and I do advanced system programs with it. You know, stuff that both Bourne and Java are bad at.
Could this be used to determine whether certain people are invasive? And they should leave on moral grounds. Or that they will face misery because of a gene they don't possess?
My car's clock live on UTC, mostly because I'm too lazy to adjust it.
It's quirky. But could also be a symptom of a benign kind of OCD. Then again, perhaps I'm projecting my prospect of live on you. In which case, please ignore cheerfully.
Hail UTC. Everyone should use it. I mean, what's in a number for keeping track when you have to do stuff? Local time is hard enough and then comes daylight saving. Ever travelled by boat from Europe main land to the British isles? Ever had to calculate tides and/or water flow? Ever had an uncomfortable/critical email exchange between Europe and British isles (where the feet-dragger typically abuses any possible source of unclarity)?
Cool time capsule. Stuff belongs in a museum. Great document of Japanese culture.
You can write C-code obscurely too. But, somehow, Perl seems to encourage this sort of thing... 20 years ago my CS-professor dismissed Perl as a "write-only" language — since then my conviction of him being right has only grown.
I understand but disagree. Any language can be a write-only language if you don't care about maintainability. Then there are the wannabe gurus that save 3 lines of code not to shorten the program but to impress others. Even worse, there are people that criticise readable code for it being too simple. If you ever worked in a team of programmers with varying skills then you appreciate simple, readable code. You also will once you had to take over unreadable code.
I started my IT life on DEC/VAX with VT220 terminals. VMS wasn't too. Then Solaris 4.* came along and I had the privilege of setting up a bunch of X-Windows terminals. UNIX, I found, rocked much more than VMS. The best GUI I ever used on X was xterm. Nowadays the herminal emulators on Cygwin are pretty good. The socond best GUI which I ran on X is Eclipse. The Internet browser comes in third.
Sure, you can grasp stuff you google and simply repeat the trick over and over again. If you don't want to learn a new language then that's probably the way to go.
However, if you invest a few hours here and there, you will start to master a language that suits your purpose. I myself learned Perl back when C and LISP were still taught. Any quick, one-time transformation I can do in Perl. There are a bunch of other languages out there that so similar stuff for you purpose (Python, Ruby, etc...)
I also sense you'd be happy to graphically click your transformation together. I advocate against such practice as the solutions I've seen so far work well for Hello Worlds but start to stink at anything half complex.
If you have a career you will understand that unless you invest (in yourself) you will remain at the mercy of others.
Why! Cisco gear is actually manufactured in the USA. (As opposed to being outsourced to the cheapest outfit on the planet.)
Vocês crianças saia do meu gramado!
(You kids get off my lawn!)
I have to say. It is not correct, but is exactly what a foreign neighbor of mine would say me years ago !
I confess to have used Google translate. I would have done a better job at Spanish as it is more similar to Italian, my mother language. But here we are.