There is a lot of garbage in the glassdoor data. I personally always inflate my salary when I report it to 'help' HR realize they need to pay programmers more. In any case, here is some better data:
These sorts of stories are harmful, because they make women say, "I shouldn't go into tech, look how bad it is!" Then they do something mis-informed, like go into sales.
If you want to know what it's really like for a woman in tech, here is a good blog post. It's a great field for women.
"Volatile" can't possibly have deep properties with respect to pointers passed to functions, never mind the fact that it works in exactly the opposite way.
Things marked non-volatile can be considered non-volatile by the compiler. That's the point of the keyword.
The compiler won't optimize it because it doesn't know what strlen() is at the compile time.
The compiler can and does recognize functions in the standard library. For example, if you call printf() without including stdio.h, in clang it will give you this error:
warning: implicitly declaring library function 'printf'
Which is a different error than you would get for a normal undefined function.
It didn't. At first I tried using it as a parameter to a function, then I changed it so it wasn't. There is no way I could think of to change it that would cause it to be optimized.
Worse then that, because you probably didn't check for security issues and all the corner cases that other libraries developed over 2+ decades have dealt with.
No, I would take an approach similar to formal verification.
Discussed further in this direction.
You never know for sure what a compiler is going to do. Not long ago I found out this is rather slow compared to hoisting the strlen() out of the loop:
for(int i=0;i<strlen(s);i++) {
I thought the compiler would optimize it, but neither GCC nor clang did with any options I could find.
You got me interested, and with efficiency you can never be sure until you time it, so I wrote a program to time it. Looping from zero to a billion, with an assignment inbetween. Then I recompiled and ran it again, this time going backwards to zero. Here are some times (in milliseconds):
Some CPU architectures have a test-if-zero opcode, so iterating down to zero can save an instruction or two on every loop. In most cases the difference is unlikely to be measurable, something on the order of a nano-second for a single loop
Oh, and most existing image libraries have been reasonably well fuzz-tested recently and had hundreds of security holes fixed, because parsing binary formats in C without introducing exploits turns out to be hard.
If you want to avoid security holes you need to have the security mindset from the beginning, thinking about how to avoid security holes. You can't 'reasonably well fuzz-test' a project like that......if you've fixed 100 security holes, then most likely there were more than 100 and you've missed some. Having worked with the source code for libjpeg and libpng, I am certain I can write more secure code if that is the goal. I would probably double the time estimate, though.
Incidentally, glibc is another library that worries me for security because of its ubiquitous nature.
FYI, to give an idea of how long that would take, I did that a while ago for GIF, and between understanding the documentation and writing the code and debugging, it took 40 hours (my original estimate was ~8 hours ha!). So extrapolating based on that, the time required for the total collection would be 160 hours, pad it up to 200 hours to account for complications. Given the relative stability of the image libraries, it's unlikely to be worth re-implementing them.
For trivial operations, such as left padding, it's almost never worth the risk to use a library unless it's part of the language's standard library. Sure, don't write your own FFT or ORM, but if you can code a function in a few minutes for a well defined problem, there's no reason to add an external dependency.
Generally I've found that anything taking less than two days (one day for writing, one day for testing) is worth rewriting yourself instead of adding a dependency (arguably, anything taking less than a week is worth rewriting, depending on the quality and stability of the dependency).
No, that isn't possible in 2016. You cannot do development at this point without depending on some libraries.
It really depends on what you are doing. If you're building straightforward websites, you can easily do it without using external libraries. Getting a parallax effect isn't so difficult that you need to call a function to do it. You need to weigh the complexity of re-writing a library with the cost of maintaining the library: in my experience, if a library would take less than two days to re-implement (one day for writing, one day for testing), it's more cost-effective to do it yourself.
When you do use someone's library, ask yourself, "Does this library have a commitment to backwards compatibility, or am I going to constantly be fixing things at the whim of the creator?" And of course, you are right, creating a personal fork is the best way (but can be time consuming as well).
I don't think that writing your own libraries will decrease the total number of bugs, it will rather increase them.
That kind of depends on how much skill you have as a programmer, wouldn't you say? When you write your own (small) piece of code, you don't have to worry about other people updating things and breaking them for you. Once you get it to work, it works until you change something, that is the advantage.
In any case, suppose you evaluate the code, and find that it is solid code from a good programmer. The next thing you need to evaluate is their commitment to not breaking things, that is, to backwards compatibility, because otherwise you'll find that the 'solid code' is causing you all kinds of problems.
I can find some of these conveniences in hotels, but only after searching a lot and usually for quite a high premium. AirBNB (or its various copy-cats) really don't have much competition from traditional hotels.
Maybe. When I travel, I choose AirBNB because it's cheaper. If it's not cheaper, I'll go with the hotel. So from my perspective, they are in direct competition.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be interested to see what the starting offer was for men and woman and what disparity was there.
Starting pay (as in, right out of college) it's exactly the same (look on page 17).
There is a lot of garbage in the glassdoor data. I personally always inflate my salary when I report it to 'help' HR realize they need to pay programmers more. In any case, here is some better data:
Women make more than men in some tech jobs.
Overall in tech, men make as much as women.
Another study, women are paid as much as men after graduation, and tech is one of the most equal fields to go into (see page 17). And I believe it. You want to see sexual harassment? Look at the sales team, not the programming team.
These sorts of stories are harmful, because they make women say, "I shouldn't go into tech, look how bad it is!" Then they do something mis-informed, like go into sales.
If you want to know what it's really like for a woman in tech, here is a good blog post. It's a great field for women.
Oh well, grammar......what an innovation from 1959...... :/
I have trouble believing that it did not lift the entire thing verbatim from some other source. --
Most likely it did. It doesn't seem to be any different than a variation on a typical Eliza Bot.
Yeah, like Windows Phone or Zune.
Clearly it isn't in practical terms. But at least one expert compiler writer has told me that it should be optimized automatically.
Nice.
"Volatile" can't possibly have deep properties with respect to pointers passed to functions, never mind the fact that it works in exactly the opposite way.
Things marked non-volatile can be considered non-volatile by the compiler. That's the point of the keyword.
The compiler won't optimize it because it doesn't know what strlen() is at the compile time.
The compiler can and does recognize functions in the standard library. For example, if you call printf() without including stdio.h, in clang it will give you this error:
warning: implicitly declaring library function 'printf'
Which is a different error than you would get for a normal undefined function.
A trigger warning is to indicate there might be disturbing contents coming up so someone can opt out.
He knows that, and his entire point is to annoy people. Not even worth arguing with him about it.
I always pronounced it G-nome out of fear that otherwise no one would understand what I was talking about. Same with Gnu.
That's the use case the 'volatile' keyword was created to solve.
It didn't. At first I tried using it as a parameter to a function, then I changed it so it wasn't. There is no way I could think of to change it that would cause it to be optimized.
Ironically, it may be Kik's attorneys that acted improperly here.
The attorney wasn't involved. Here's the conversation.
I can tell you, I plan to never use Kik.
Worse then that, because you probably didn't check for security issues and all the corner cases that other libraries developed over 2+ decades have dealt with.
No, I would take an approach similar to formal verification.
Discussed further in this direction.
You never know for sure what a compiler is going to do. Not long ago I found out this is rather slow compared to hoisting the strlen() out of the loop:
for(int i=0;i<strlen(s);i++) {
I thought the compiler would optimize it, but neither GCC nor clang did with any options I could find.
You got me interested, and with efficiency you can never be sure until you time it, so I wrote a program to time it. Looping from zero to a billion, with an assignment inbetween. Then I recompiled and ran it again, this time going backwards to zero. Here are some times (in milliseconds):
Going up: 32453 / 32536 / 32232 / 32604
Going down: 32587 / 32416 / 32216 / 32466
There seems to be no difference at all in either direction. Code is here.
Some CPU architectures have a test-if-zero opcode, so iterating down to zero can save an instruction or two on every loop. In most cases the difference is unlikely to be measurable, something on the order of a nano-second for a single loop
to be fair, the NSA has never been particularly effective at stopping terrorist attacks, so the conclusion is hardly surprising.....
Oh, and most existing image libraries have been reasonably well fuzz-tested recently and had hundreds of security holes fixed, because parsing binary formats in C without introducing exploits turns out to be hard.
If you want to avoid security holes you need to have the security mindset from the beginning, thinking about how to avoid security holes. You can't 'reasonably well fuzz-test' a project like that......if you've fixed 100 security holes, then most likely there were more than 100 and you've missed some. Having worked with the source code for libjpeg and libpng, I am certain I can write more secure code if that is the goal. I would probably double the time estimate, though.
Incidentally, glibc is another library that worries me for security because of its ubiquitous nature.
FYI, to give an idea of how long that would take, I did that a while ago for GIF, and between understanding the documentation and writing the code and debugging, it took 40 hours (my original estimate was ~8 hours ha!). So extrapolating based on that, the time required for the total collection would be 160 hours, pad it up to 200 hours to account for complications. Given the relative stability of the image libraries, it's unlikely to be worth re-implementing them.
For trivial operations, such as left padding, it's almost never worth the risk to use a library unless it's part of the language's standard library. Sure, don't write your own FFT or ORM, but if you can code a function in a few minutes for a well defined problem, there's no reason to add an external dependency.
Generally I've found that anything taking less than two days (one day for writing, one day for testing) is worth rewriting yourself instead of adding a dependency (arguably, anything taking less than a week is worth rewriting, depending on the quality and stability of the dependency).
No, that isn't possible in 2016. You cannot do development at this point without depending on some libraries.
It really depends on what you are doing. If you're building straightforward websites, you can easily do it without using external libraries. Getting a parallax effect isn't so difficult that you need to call a function to do it. You need to weigh the complexity of re-writing a library with the cost of maintaining the library: in my experience, if a library would take less than two days to re-implement (one day for writing, one day for testing), it's more cost-effective to do it yourself.
When you do use someone's library, ask yourself, "Does this library have a commitment to backwards compatibility, or am I going to constantly be fixing things at the whim of the creator?" And of course, you are right, creating a personal fork is the best way (but can be time consuming as well).
I don't think that writing your own libraries will decrease the total number of bugs, it will rather increase them.
That kind of depends on how much skill you have as a programmer, wouldn't you say? When you write your own (small) piece of code, you don't have to worry about other people updating things and breaking them for you. Once you get it to work, it works until you change something, that is the advantage.
In any case, suppose you evaluate the code, and find that it is solid code from a good programmer. The next thing you need to evaluate is their commitment to not breaking things, that is, to backwards compatibility, because otherwise you'll find that the 'solid code' is causing you all kinds of problems.
I can find some of these conveniences in hotels, but only after searching a lot and usually for quite a high premium. AirBNB (or its various copy-cats) really don't have much competition from traditional hotels.
Maybe. When I travel, I choose AirBNB because it's cheaper. If it's not cheaper, I'll go with the hotel. So from my perspective, they are in direct competition.