For parallell builds (make -j style, not distcc style) use build.exe in the winsdk. It does what you want and is what is used internally at MS. Be aware though that it builds differently than a makefile would in that procs will recurse before a dependant directory is built, so each target must be marked with PRODUCES/CONSUMES macros.
Oh, and I work closely with the VS Whidbey team BTW with SQL 9 integration. You do realize that even VS isn't built with VS don't you? Sure, projects are wonderful for small things, but try to manage a project file for 60 localizations for 6 seperate sku releases on 4 platforms, each requiring seperate tweaks. Since that's what MS does, they use the more appropriate winsdk massive makefile (similar to the autotools) with nmake and build.exe.
Now, going a bit further to do something that MS doesn't have to do, imaging trying to maintain a source code build system for all of the above configurations that must compile natively on each platform, regardless of whether it is running BSD, linux, OSX, or Windows, and regardless of which compiler the end platform happens to have installed! This is something that the most sophisticated tools put out by MS cannot do, because they were never designed to do that since it's not a problem that MS ever needs to solve in the foreseeable future. THAT is what autotools does, and does pretty damn well.
So just because using a chainsaw to do your own personal small bonzai project seems cumbersome, unneccisary and downright unmanageable, doesn't mean you have to evangelize that chainsaws suck.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Emacs myself and use it everywhere, but every modern IDE I know of lets me define my own keystrokes and has hooks for absolutely every function, so the mouse arguement just doesn't hold water.
Your other points I agree with wholeheartedly. (I'm currently getting into eclipse though, as I'm digging the refactoring stuff, and I rarely find myself developing in non-windowed environments or using the god-like emacs features that no one else has or probably ever will.
VS is different... not superior, nor inferior than emacs. That's like saying sed is superior to bash.
...And nature abhors a vacuum... but those are simply catchphrases, not religious beliefs.
I really don't think Nature holds a grudge against vacuums, just that it's a nice analogy illustrating that maintaining a vacuum in a pressurized space is difficult.
No, I mean I use both 1) Other provider's DNS servers that do not go down and are willing to serve me (actually the local DSL's servers that almost never go down *wink *wink) in addition to some public servers. I only have a very lightweight caching server on my end. There's enough DNS servers out there that you can hit that comcast's aren't really neccissary.
The format is full of syntactic noise. A much simpler format could have been devised if A) They weren't so interested in maintaining a "text" format regardless of data type and B) They had described the data more completely in the tag, including data size to reduce the need for a closing tag. This would also have eliminated the need to escape data. The format would have then been more terse, less redundant, and more easily editable and parseable. The requirement to stick to a text style formats was unneccissary as since the parsers were being supplied, the editors would have been trival to write.
Add to this redundant constructs (elements and attributes are semantically identical, but syntactically different), the need for external validation due to the fact that conforming editors were not supplied, and the need to walk the entire file to simply read an arbitrary node because although all data to offset directly to an index is calculatable at construction it is not supplied, archaic document definition standards, no thought put into stylesheet application for rendering, and the idea that it would make a good language (template OR procedural) in addition to data storage, and you have a poorly thought out and implemented standard.
It was adopted anyway because standardization trumps all of the above... but that doesn't mean it's good.
XML is for the "Parser impared" in that the notation is designed to make it simple to write parsers, rather than make it simple to use the syntax. Parsers are not difficult to write, and once 1 person has written one, everyone can use it... on the other hand, the programmer gets stuck with the syntax of the data forever. XML syntax is mostly noise with a bit of data thrown in and delivers on none of it's promises.
Interesting. Here in Washington State, traffic infractions are "infractions" and are really civil lawsuits, so only a preponderance of evidence is needed to find you guilt... there is no presumption of innocence. They are distinguished from misdemeanors in that they cannot carry jail time.
Misdemeanors can all carry jail time and you are allowed full jury trials for them. Misdemeanors include things like minor assault, reckless driving, and yes, "dog barking too loud". Trivial ones like dogs barking are always dropped if the accused request jury trial because it's just not worth the courts cost and time.
Actually, a ticket is NOT a crime. It is more akin to a small lawsuit of the state against you, therefore you do not need to be proven guilty beyond any doubt, but rather, only be a preponderance of evidence.
I knew you weren't Dutch because You said you were Irish in your previous post;) And I was refering more to the British government rather than the Irish one, because honestly, I don't know my Irish history very well.
In this country, "random maniacs" are labeled felons and their gun rights are removed. The only people who can carry guns are citizens, onto which all law enforcement and militia rights are granted (there is, constitutionally speaking, very little distinction between police, soldier and citizen in rights, as any citizen inherently is a member of all 3).
Yes, the Patriot act swept through congress with hardly a speedbump, but that doesn't mean it wasn't noticed, nor unopposed. It was definately noticed, for even you non-Americans think it a salient point. If you have problems with it across the water, imagine the squirming many of us over here are doing. And don't let the "we didn't know what were were voting on" BS line get to you... that's a lie told by moderate and left leaning congressmen to try to save some face after the fact; they knew exactly what they were voting on. But, the Patriot act mostly gives up rights that most Europeans never possesed in the first place. The rapidity of the investigations into the London bombings in relation to the New York terrorist incident is atributed to law enforcement in England not being constrained by the rules that applied in the US before the Patriot act. In fact, even with the Patriot act, I know for a fact that Dutch law gives much less credence to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then the American restrictions.
The "Oh no the terrorists will get us" is pure Mooreish propaganda. That may have been the overwhelming sentiment in late 2001, but most Americans have settled down and are acting pretty rationally. I can sympathise with your dismay at the reelection of Blaire because our choices were just as ghastly.
It is most certainly not blasphemy to be unpatriotic over here. Michael Moore is not only allowed to exist, but his inaccurate and unsupported rants become best sellers! Most Americans, however, are not patriotic towards their government, but rather to their constitution. In America, all congressmen and military men swear oaths to defend the constitution. Almost no oath in America is to defend the government, rather most oaths include the premise to defend the constitution FROM the government.
I disagree greatly with your premise that guns (or armaments in general) would never be needed do to this being the Nuclear age. The Soviet Union had all the means to defend their government by nuclear force, but it would have been idiotic to resort to that option. During a revolution or restructuring of governemt the means of conflict will most certainly be conventional as the powers that be generally want to retain control of something worth controlling. I highly doubt that the US would Nuke Los Angeles.
Anyway, there are great political movements in the US defending all our rights, including the second ammendment. Even if we were to disagree on guns being a good or bad thing, the ignoring of such an article removes a great deal of the sanctity of our constitution, which is really the only thing other than guns themselves that defend our people from an opressive regime.
The original post is a hyperbole and a joke meant to poke fun at hyper conservative lunacy. I can see how it could be difficult for someone growing up under your conditions to mistake joke for reality in such an alien culture where people still occasionally make decisions not dictated to them by a ruling body. In case you missed it, the preceding sentence was another hyperbolic joke intended to poke fun at European elitist liberalism.
I've said it before and you can read my words there rather than me repeat them ad nauseum. Now I know that most people have absolutely no idea what it is they believe in any culture. Ask the typical American Democrat why they are a democrat and they will say something like "Because I like to help people." Similarly a Republican will probably say "I believe in freedom." This is because most people cannot think for themselves. If you wish to refrain from putting yourself into a similar category, I suggest not sticking to statements that show a blatent misunderstanding of the opposing viewpoint to your own such as you did above. Your country has already given up the right to gun ownership outside of the government so it's easy for you to shout "Hey look! No Hands!" whilest you temporally ride by the bodies of your Easterly neighbors that have completed a cycle within your own lifetime and gone from superpower to revolution in a matter of months.
You see, every government in history has failed. Miserably and most of the time in bloobaths. Yours is one of the worst offenders, rising and falling in centralized government countless times throughout the ages, each government lasting only a couple generations. The arrogance of a people to say that they are immune to governmental failure on a massive scale is unsupportable by historical evidence. The normal evolution of a government is Vigilance->Prosperity->Complacency->Power Grabbing->Oppression->Revolution/Reform. The US was designed with this firmly in mind so that such a progression would take as long as possible, because staving off a bloody revolution should be high in the minds of anyone instituting a government if they are honest people who are willing to sacrifice power for longevity of ideals. The "right to bear arms" is one stone in a large wall designed to make it as difficult as possible for the government of the United States to actually get any agenda accomplished, because that "Power Grabbing" stage of government where factions begin vieing for power of a successful economy shepherded by a complacent people is where problems usually start. As I look at the evolution of our respective governments, myself being American, I see your society being much further along the path of complacency then our own, which is why statements from you about the lunacy American Whining can go unchallenged among your peers; I doubt your populace would allow such statements unchallenged shortly after the bloody French revolution when your government underwent its last major reform to avoid massive fighting. In America, we are only beginning to settle into this complacency phase, so of courece we are going to look a bit backwards to you. However, because of the rigorous protections from govenment demanded by the institutors of our country, if I were a gambling man, my money would be on the American government outlasting yours, as our "Whining about rights" tends to slow the progression of governmental expansion and ultimately oppression. I figure we've got a good 75-100 years left in this old ship, and who knows, maybe technilogical advancements will actually change the very way that rulership evolves just as computers have changed the way information flows, but at this moment in history I see no fundamental signs that governance ability is any different than it was 15 years ago during the collapse of a superpower, or 60 years ago during a world empire of fascism. In fact, with modern propaganda, sociology and remote monitoring t
No, Natural Rubies and Emeralds are far more expensive than diamonds. They are much rarer. We have known how to make those artificially for decades too.
Wow... under that logic, isn't every child guilty of possession of child pornography simply by virtue of the fact they carry around a naked childs body under all those clothes?
Slashdot Mirror
For parallell builds (make -j style, not distcc style) use build.exe in the winsdk. It does what you want and is what is used internally at MS. Be aware though that it builds differently than a makefile would in that procs will recurse before a dependant directory is built, so each target must be marked with PRODUCES/CONSUMES macros.
Excuse me, but autotools rock.
Oh, and I work closely with the VS Whidbey team BTW with SQL 9 integration. You do realize that even VS isn't built with VS don't you? Sure, projects are wonderful for small things, but try to manage a project file for 60 localizations for 6 seperate sku releases on 4 platforms, each requiring seperate tweaks. Since that's what MS does, they use the more appropriate winsdk massive makefile (similar to the autotools) with nmake and build.exe.
Now, going a bit further to do something that MS doesn't have to do, imaging trying to maintain a source code build system for all of the above configurations that must compile natively on each platform, regardless of whether it is running BSD, linux, OSX, or Windows, and regardless of which compiler the end platform happens to have installed! This is something that the most sophisticated tools put out by MS cannot do, because they were never designed to do that since it's not a problem that MS ever needs to solve in the foreseeable future. THAT is what autotools does, and does pretty damn well.
So just because using a chainsaw to do your own personal small bonzai project seems cumbersome, unneccisary and downright unmanageable, doesn't mean you have to evangelize that chainsaws suck.
The context sensitive thing is my biggest pet Peeve in VS... WHY THE HELL CAN'T IT TAB INTELLIGENTLY?? Emacs has had this for a decade.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Emacs myself and use it everywhere, but every modern IDE I know of lets me define my own keystrokes and has hooks for absolutely every function, so the mouse arguement just doesn't hold water.
Your other points I agree with wholeheartedly. (I'm currently getting into eclipse though, as I'm digging the refactoring stuff, and I rarely find myself developing in non-windowed environments or using the god-like emacs features that no one else has or probably ever will.
VS is different... not superior, nor inferior than emacs. That's like saying sed is superior to bash.
Wow... nice threadjack my good sir.
...And nature abhors a vacuum... but those are simply catchphrases, not religious beliefs.
I really don't think Nature holds a grudge against vacuums, just that it's a nice analogy illustrating that maintaining a vacuum in a pressurized space is difficult.
Here's a couple:
http://soa.granitecanyon.com/
There are more out there with a bit of googling.
No, I mean I use both 1) Other provider's DNS servers that do not go down and are willing to serve me (actually the local DSL's servers that almost never go down *wink *wink) in addition to some public servers. I only have a very lightweight caching server on my end. There's enough DNS servers out there that you can hit that comcast's aren't really neccissary.
I don't use Comcast's DNS servers.. No problems here ;)
The format is full of syntactic noise. A much simpler format could have been devised if A) They weren't so interested in maintaining a "text" format regardless of data type and B) They had described the data more completely in the tag, including data size to reduce the need for a closing tag. This would also have eliminated the need to escape data. The format would have then been more terse, less redundant, and more easily editable and parseable. The requirement to stick to a text style formats was unneccissary as since the parsers were being supplied, the editors would have been trival to write.
Add to this redundant constructs (elements and attributes are semantically identical, but syntactically different), the need for external validation due to the fact that conforming editors were not supplied, and the need to walk the entire file to simply read an arbitrary node because although all data to offset directly to an index is calculatable at construction it is not supplied, archaic document definition standards, no thought put into stylesheet application for rendering, and the idea that it would make a good language (template OR procedural) in addition to data storage, and you have a poorly thought out and implemented standard.
It was adopted anyway because standardization trumps all of the above... but that doesn't mean it's good.
XML is for the "Parser impared" in that the notation is designed to make it simple to write parsers, rather than make it simple to use the syntax. Parsers are not difficult to write, and once 1 person has written one, everyone can use it... on the other hand, the programmer gets stuck with the syntax of the data forever. XML syntax is mostly noise with a bit of data thrown in and delivers on none of it's promises.
Yea, but there is at, smb and a bunch of scriptable utility programs from attrib to compress ;)
It's not as rich as UNIX, but it's capable. I just wrote a very large distributed cluster application in NT Shell, albeit painfully.
Last time someone FTP'd me one, they forgot to set "I" and it was a mess!
Interesting. Here in Washington State, traffic infractions are "infractions" and are really civil lawsuits, so only a preponderance of evidence is needed to find you guilt... there is no presumption of innocence. They are distinguished from misdemeanors in that they cannot carry jail time.
Misdemeanors can all carry jail time and you are allowed full jury trials for them. Misdemeanors include things like minor assault, reckless driving, and yes, "dog barking too loud". Trivial ones like dogs barking are always dropped if the accused request jury trial because it's just not worth the courts cost and time.
Ahh.. I was going on my knowledge of Washington State.
Actually, a ticket is NOT a crime. It is more akin to a small lawsuit of the state against you, therefore you do not need to be proven guilty beyond any doubt, but rather, only be a preponderance of evidence.
Works even better for trivial misdemeanors:
"My dog was NOT barking too loud. I would like to proceed to jury selection."
Not even close. Figure a Dhrystone of 1.3K per Mhz for this ARM proc, and 2K per Mhz for the PIII.
The default Dhrystone for this box: 173K
Overclocked to 266: 346K
Your PIII 800: 1600K
I knew you weren't Dutch because You said you were Irish in your previous post ;) And I was refering more to the British government rather than the Irish one, because honestly, I don't know my Irish history very well.
In this country, "random maniacs" are labeled felons and their gun rights are removed. The only people who can carry guns are citizens, onto which all law enforcement and militia rights are granted (there is, constitutionally speaking, very little distinction between police, soldier and citizen in rights, as any citizen inherently is a member of all 3).
Yes, the Patriot act swept through congress with hardly a speedbump, but that doesn't mean it wasn't noticed, nor unopposed. It was definately noticed, for even you non-Americans think it a salient point. If you have problems with it across the water, imagine the squirming many of us over here are doing. And don't let the "we didn't know what were were voting on" BS line get to you... that's a lie told by moderate and left leaning congressmen to try to save some face after the fact; they knew exactly what they were voting on. But, the Patriot act mostly gives up rights that most Europeans never possesed in the first place. The rapidity of the investigations into the London bombings in relation to the New York terrorist incident is atributed to law enforcement in England not being constrained by the rules that applied in the US before the Patriot act. In fact, even with the Patriot act, I know for a fact that Dutch law gives much less credence to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then the American restrictions.
The "Oh no the terrorists will get us" is pure Mooreish propaganda. That may have been the overwhelming sentiment in late 2001, but most Americans have settled down and are acting pretty rationally. I can sympathise with your dismay at the reelection of Blaire because our choices were just as ghastly.
It is most certainly not blasphemy to be unpatriotic over here. Michael Moore is not only allowed to exist, but his inaccurate and unsupported rants become best sellers! Most Americans, however, are not patriotic towards their government, but rather to their constitution. In America, all congressmen and military men swear oaths to defend the constitution. Almost no oath in America is to defend the government, rather most oaths include the premise to defend the constitution FROM the government.
I disagree greatly with your premise that guns (or armaments in general) would never be needed do to this being the Nuclear age. The Soviet Union had all the means to defend their government by nuclear force, but it would have been idiotic to resort to that option. During a revolution or restructuring of governemt the means of conflict will most certainly be conventional as the powers that be generally want to retain control of something worth controlling. I highly doubt that the US would Nuke Los Angeles.
Anyway, there are great political movements in the US defending all our rights, including the second ammendment. Even if we were to disagree on guns being a good or bad thing, the ignoring of such an article removes a great deal of the sanctity of our constitution, which is really the only thing other than guns themselves that defend our people from an opressive regime.
Dude, she'd be so Petrified
No respect for th OSM!
I'm gunna send unload ninja's with pancakes on his ass.
The original post is a hyperbole and a joke meant to poke fun at hyper conservative lunacy. I can see how it could be difficult for someone growing up under your conditions to mistake joke for reality in such an alien culture where people still occasionally make decisions not dictated to them by a ruling body. In case you missed it, the preceding sentence was another hyperbolic joke intended to poke fun at European elitist liberalism.
I've said it before and you can read my words there rather than me repeat them ad nauseum. Now I know that most people have absolutely no idea what it is they believe in any culture. Ask the typical American Democrat why they are a democrat and they will say something like "Because I like to help people." Similarly a Republican will probably say "I believe in freedom." This is because most people cannot think for themselves. If you wish to refrain from putting yourself into a similar category, I suggest not sticking to statements that show a blatent misunderstanding of the opposing viewpoint to your own such as you did above. Your country has already given up the right to gun ownership outside of the government so it's easy for you to shout "Hey look! No Hands!" whilest you temporally ride by the bodies of your Easterly neighbors that have completed a cycle within your own lifetime and gone from superpower to revolution in a matter of months.
You see, every government in history has failed. Miserably and most of the time in bloobaths. Yours is one of the worst offenders, rising and falling in centralized government countless times throughout the ages, each government lasting only a couple generations. The arrogance of a people to say that they are immune to governmental failure on a massive scale is unsupportable by historical evidence. The normal evolution of a government is Vigilance->Prosperity->Complacency->Power Grabbing->Oppression->Revolution/Reform. The US was designed with this firmly in mind so that such a progression would take as long as possible, because staving off a bloody revolution should be high in the minds of anyone instituting a government if they are honest people who are willing to sacrifice power for longevity of ideals. The "right to bear arms" is one stone in a large wall designed to make it as difficult as possible for the government of the United States to actually get any agenda accomplished, because that "Power Grabbing" stage of government where factions begin vieing for power of a successful economy shepherded by a complacent people is where problems usually start. As I look at the evolution of our respective governments, myself being American, I see your society being much further along the path of complacency then our own, which is why statements from you about the lunacy American Whining can go unchallenged among your peers; I doubt your populace would allow such statements unchallenged shortly after the bloody French revolution when your government underwent its last major reform to avoid massive fighting. In America, we are only beginning to settle into this complacency phase, so of courece we are going to look a bit backwards to you. However, because of the rigorous protections from govenment demanded by the institutors of our country, if I were a gambling man, my money would be on the American government outlasting yours, as our "Whining about rights" tends to slow the progression of governmental expansion and ultimately oppression. I figure we've got a good 75-100 years left in this old ship, and who knows, maybe technilogical advancements will actually change the very way that rulership evolves just as computers have changed the way information flows, but at this moment in history I see no fundamental signs that governance ability is any different than it was 15 years ago during the collapse of a superpower, or 60 years ago during a world empire of fascism. In fact, with modern propaganda, sociology and remote monitoring t
check out cfengine
No, Natural Rubies and Emeralds are far more expensive than diamonds. They are much rarer. We have known how to make those artificially for decades too.
Wow... under that logic, isn't every child guilty of possession of child pornography simply by virtue of the fact they carry around a naked childs body under all those clothes?