And then watch the shitstorm as the rest of the world brands you a currency manipulator.
Well yeah, you are right haha, either that, or the rest of the world would laugh and cry as the country killed itself of avoidable, self-inflicted wounds!
As I used to think of it, not making money off the stocks but off of the changes in stock prices. A guaranteed winner. Genius!
That's the dream of every hedge fund, right? It works for a while, but if everyone tries it, then the market tanks while the world cheers.
For example, a lot of people were betting on inflation in 2008 by buying gold. Imagine politicians were doing the same thing. Suddenly it is against their own personal economic interest to stop inflation. That's the sort of thing that can ruin an economy.
I can go on pointing out the bad parts of Android, and you'll continue saying, "that's not bad." We can go on forever. Some parts of Android are good: Bionic is an interesting attempt at taming some complexity, for example. Also, two points:
1) For as long as I've followed Android, Googlers have said, "Android is really big! You have no idea how to handle such bigness!" Which is frankly, ignorant. Android isn't the biggest project out there, not particularly complex (which goes to show it's not entirely poorly designed), and even if it were, that's not an excuse........if it were the largest project out there, you could do some systems engineering, solve the problems, and write a book about your solutions. Call it "Non-Mythical Man-Month" or something. But as it is, the complexities you have are largely because you caused them yourselves. That excuse is annoying because it's not true.
2) This is important: I don't think you can have security with a team that big without having good, solid interfaces between sections of code (and sections of the project, since a set of command-line tools are an interface, even though it's not a traditional API). When you say, "security bugs are ultimately the result of miscommunication", that's a clear sign of poorly defined interfaces (and actually, just looking at the code it becomes obvious). Android is just another distro. It's not revolutionary in terms of project organization.
I have more but that's enough for now haha. Good luck
If I had anywhere near that amount of money and a drive to continue working, I'd at least go Elon Musk and continually pivot towards anything that interested me or would push the world forward.
Arguably, that's what he does. The things that interest you (or me) are different than the things that interest him, though.
I honestly don't understand why all these people stick around so long. I know, they see it as their baby and don't want to leave it, but it can't really be fun to keep doing the boring business stuff day in and day out.
The feeling of accomplishment is addicting. Plus power.......it's like playing video games, except it's real so it's better.
I'm not sure it's a bad thing. The Wall Street Journal definitely agrees with you, but it essentially limits people like Mitt Romney and George Soros from buying companies, ripping them apart and selling them off in pieces. If you're a public company (that is not Apple or Google), and you have a reasonable amount of money in the bank for a rainy day, and own the property your offices are on, then you're going to be constantly fighting off 'activist' groups that will try to buy your company, take the money, sell the property, then dump the company. It adds huge operational risk to companies that are trying to do better.
I don't like him as an entertainer, either. A lot of people here on Slashdot like that he's modified the H1-B process, a lot of blue-collar workers like his wall building for the same reason.
My theory: Hillary's emails only served as a distraction from Trump's negative points. They didn't make many people vote against her. There are a lot of people who really like Trump.
ok, so let me see if I understand what you're trying to say. Basically, if you have an API (which is basically a class with some public methods), then it's easier to modify the class without breaking the API when you have multiple inheritance?
When? Have you heard about the legal fights between IBM and Sun? Have you heard about the patent arguments between Von Neumann, J. Presper Eckert, John W. Mauchly, Bell Labs, Honeywell and Sperry Rand? When has it been a level playing field?
Multiple inheritance is too powerful to give up. Java was wrong here. Better safety than the C++ style seems to be needed though. For OO languages this should be an active area of experimentation.
FWIW interfaces (like Java) plus "favor composition over inheritance" seems to solve this problem for most of my cases.
Searching through a tree is O(lg n), and that's how much space you're going to take on the stack, too. So, if you have a 1k stack (extremely small), and each function call places 10 bytes on the stack, then you're going to be able to search through 2^100 items in your binary tree before running out of stack in your search. If you have that many objects, you can probably afford to increase your stack size a bit.
int main() {
return printf("%d\n", recurse(6502));
}
Then we compile it, adding -S so we can look at the assembly output:
$ clang -S -O3 test.c
The compiler recognizes that the printf() call is a tail call, and uses a jmp (which places nothing on the stack in x86), but it also recognizes that recurse() evaluates to a constant and returns that. I was going to post the assembly output for you to look at, but Slashdot said it had too many junk characters.
There is a lot to complain about in terms of efficiency in clang and gcc, but tail recursion is a well-understood problem with a lot of research behind it, and they both do it well.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know, do you have some sample source code I can try compiling?
And then watch the shitstorm as the rest of the world brands you a currency manipulator.
Well yeah, you are right haha, either that, or the rest of the world would laugh and cry as the country killed itself of avoidable, self-inflicted wounds!
No. That's not what happened.
Hey genius, you missed the word "imagine"
Politicians didn't try to profit off of inflation, and they couldn't do so, even if they tried.
Give me control of the printing press, and I'll print off as much inflation as you want. That is a well-understood economic phenomenon.
As I used to think of it, not making money off the stocks but off of the changes in stock prices. A guaranteed winner. Genius!
That's the dream of every hedge fund, right? It works for a while, but if everyone tries it, then the market tanks while the world cheers.
For example, a lot of people were betting on inflation in 2008 by buying gold. Imagine politicians were doing the same thing. Suddenly it is against their own personal economic interest to stop inflation. That's the sort of thing that can ruin an economy.
I can go on pointing out the bad parts of Android, and you'll continue saying, "that's not bad." We can go on forever. Some parts of Android are good: Bionic is an interesting attempt at taming some complexity, for example. Also, two points:
1) For as long as I've followed Android, Googlers have said, "Android is really big! You have no idea how to handle such bigness!" Which is frankly, ignorant. Android isn't the biggest project out there, not particularly complex (which goes to show it's not entirely poorly designed), and even if it were, that's not an excuse........if it were the largest project out there, you could do some systems engineering, solve the problems, and write a book about your solutions. Call it "Non-Mythical Man-Month" or something. But as it is, the complexities you have are largely because you caused them yourselves. That excuse is annoying because it's not true.
2) This is important: I don't think you can have security with a team that big without having good, solid interfaces between sections of code (and sections of the project, since a set of command-line tools are an interface, even though it's not a traditional API). When you say, "security bugs are ultimately the result of miscommunication", that's a clear sign of poorly defined interfaces (and actually, just looking at the code it becomes obvious). Android is just another distro. It's not revolutionary in terms of project organization.
I have more but that's enough for now haha. Good luck
Yeah, you're right, it's still just a leaked draft, he hasn't signed it yet.
The Netherlands will wind up completely underwater,
A whole lot of it already is. Netherlands has been completely preparing for the worst possible scenarios of global warming.
If I had anywhere near that amount of money and a drive to continue working, I'd at least go Elon Musk and continually pivot towards anything that interested me or would push the world forward.
Arguably, that's what he does. The things that interest you (or me) are different than the things that interest him, though.
I honestly don't understand why all these people stick around so long. I know, they see it as their baby and don't want to leave it, but it can't really be fun to keep doing the boring business stuff day in and day out.
The feeling of accomplishment is addicting. Plus power.......it's like playing video games, except it's real so it's better.
I'm not sure it's a bad thing. The Wall Street Journal definitely agrees with you, but it essentially limits people like Mitt Romney and George Soros from buying companies, ripping them apart and selling them off in pieces. If you're a public company (that is not Apple or Google), and you have a reasonable amount of money in the bank for a rainy day, and own the property your offices are on, then you're going to be constantly fighting off 'activist' groups that will try to buy your company, take the money, sell the property, then dump the company. It adds huge operational risk to companies that are trying to do better.
I don't like him as an entertainer, either. A lot of people here on Slashdot like that he's modified the H1-B process, a lot of blue-collar workers like his wall building for the same reason.
My theory: Hillary's emails only served as a distraction from Trump's negative points. They didn't make many people vote against her. There are a lot of people who really like Trump.
ok, so let me see if I understand what you're trying to say. Basically, if you have an API (which is basically a class with some public methods), then it's easier to modify the class without breaking the API when you have multiple inheritance?
That's a toy program though. There's a lot of ways to screw up so that your recursive function is not eligible for tail recursion optimization.
Show a program that screws it up, then.
You should avoid recursion when you can imho.
That's a really dumb rule, tbh. Make recursion your friend, get good at it, and then you won't be afraid of it anymore.
When? Have you heard about the legal fights between IBM and Sun? Have you heard about the patent arguments between Von Neumann, J. Presper Eckert, John W. Mauchly, Bell Labs, Honeywell and Sperry Rand? When has it been a level playing field?
The big issue with that is when you have to do complex changes across the system and keep things in sync.
I'm not sure how that relates to multiple inheritance at all, tbh. Complex changes across a large system are always going to be problematic.
What's their angle - drive wages down?
Yes, exactly.
He wasn't rigidly against GOTO. He liked programs to be structured in a way that they can be proven correct if necessary.
Multiple inheritance is too powerful to give up. Java was wrong here. Better safety than the C++ style seems to be needed though. For OO languages this should be an active area of experimentation.
FWIW interfaces (like Java) plus "favor composition over inheritance" seems to solve this problem for most of my cases.
That sort of situation comes up, but in that case a B-tree is more appropriate. See also this comment. And this comment.
Searching through a tree is O(lg n), and that's how much space you're going to take on the stack, too. So, if you have a 1k stack (extremely small), and each function call places 10 bytes on the stack, then you're going to be able to search through 2^100 items in your binary tree before running out of stack in your search. If you have that many objects, you can probably afford to increase your stack size a bit.
Most c compilers. Take this program: #include
int recurse(int x) {
if(x<=0) return 42;
return recurse(x - 1);
}
int main() {
return printf("%d\n", recurse(6502));
}
Then we compile it, adding -S so we can look at the assembly output:
$ clang -S -O3 test.c The compiler recognizes that the printf() call is a tail call, and uses a jmp (which places nothing on the stack in x86), but it also recognizes that recurse() evaluates to a constant and returns that. I was going to post the assembly output for you to look at, but Slashdot said it had too many junk characters.
There is a lot to complain about in terms of efficiency in clang and gcc, but tail recursion is a well-understood problem with a lot of research behind it, and they both do it well.
It was the 90s. I saw it printed on paper. It doesn't really matter in practical terms, though.
When was the last time you had a 'use after free' bug?
For some people it literally can be impossible.
E.g., raw pointers should be eliminated, not just discouraged.
No thankyou, I'd rather you die in a fire than modify the C language. :)
Nothing personal, I just don't like your idea
I'm currently being forced to pick up C++ after staying clear of it for over 2 decades because of various defects.
I'm sorry, it's changed a lot.