When observed reality behaves differently from the predictions made by theory, 3 things can be the contributor:
There's another possibility, around the 1.5 mark: The prediction is incorrect because the current theory was misapplied or misunderstood. That's happened more than one in the history of science.
Why not Smalltalk? It doesn't cheat with primitive types or limit you with a rigid object system.
Strong types (and unboxed types) are one of the things that make a garbage collector interesting. For example, if you can prove at compile time that a certain object never points to cycles (which you can often determine from type information alone), that translates to real performance gains in practice.
PyPy people have apparently done quite a bit of research with Python.
Exception handling in modern C++ compilers incurs no overhead other than a small amount of memory that isn't referenced until the exception is thrown.
It also impacts instruction scheduling.
One thing I did originally write (but deleted before posting) was that the performance impact of C's aliasing rules and C++ exception handling is essentially sampling error in practice. I'd go so far as to say that if C's aliasing rules are causing a measurable impact on some part of your code, you may be better off rewriting that code to use assembler intrinsics (or even writing it in assembler), because that will likely win you more than peppering your code with "restrict".
Flawed logic. C++ doesn't have a corporate sponsor either, and yet it has a native compiler on Windows.
Multiple vendors pay good money to develop compliant C++ compilers for many of the platforms that we use.
The two main challenges I see for C are the competition with C++ and faster hardware.
Most "C compilers" are actually C++ compilers running in a "C mode". The trouble is that most of the corporate sponsors care more about being compliant with the latest C++ standard than being compliant with the latest C standard.
And because C++ is slightly more typesafe (strict aliasing), those optimizers can do more for C++ code than for C. So despite the more complex language, C++ can be marginally faster (~1%).
Probably not even that. In the tiny number of cases where strict aliasing buys you anything at all (which on modern out-of-order hardware it almost never does), it's around the same order of magnitude as the performance that you lose in C++ due to maintaining exception handling information. There's really nothing between C and C++ given the same code these days. In practice, most of the performance gains in C++ come from metaprogramming.
Which gets us to the faster hardware: how often is that performance even needed?
For the vast majority of "embedded" devices that I own, the main performance impact isn't CPU speed, it's battery life. A program which gets its job done as quickly as possible and then puts the CPU into an idle state is far more desirable than one which is perceptually just as responsive but wears down the battery faster.
So you think the 1.7 billion that Burnie Madoff defrauded people out of, and then had seized by the FBI [...]
That is a fair point, and it does go to the fact that we don't measure these things well. That $1.7 billion was a technically a "seizure", but it was actually a settlement with JPMorgan Chase. A fairer comparison would only count assets seized without an accompanying criminal conviction.
Still, the mere fact that they're in the same ballpark is a problem. Where I live, non-contraband assets may be frozen prior to a conviction, but they may not be seized until after.
I'm pretty sure the headline left out a slash, and it should read "scramjet/rocket engine". Scramjets (as I'm sure you're aware) need a way to get to supersonic speeds before they start working.
Yup. The main elements of soap opera are that it is a serial with a large primary cast of characters, where the primary (or even exclusive) focus is on inter-personal relationships and the emotional lives of those characters.
I'm not disputing that it's a story. We've both been on Slashdot for a long time, and our memories are probably hazy, but nonetheless help me out. Has "some analyst bets against the share price" ever been the primary focus of the story here?
One AC above noted that the real issue is that the maintainer of an implantable biomechanical device may go bust, stranding everyone who has one implanted and (as a general case) the huge risk inherent in the rise of the Internet of Safety-Critical Things. That is the news for nerds and the stuff that matters. That is not what the headline, the write-up, or most of the up-voted top-level comments are focussing on.
Does anyone have the statistics on corporate and other "white collar" crime? I hypothesise that the racial (and gender!) disparity is even more marked there.
Slashdot Mirror
They may also increase the incidence of food allergies.
The FDA should have to prove harm, rather than the soap companies proving effectiveness.
The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim.
Nah, just put some control fields over DC.
When observed reality behaves differently from the predictions made by theory, 3 things can be the contributor:
There's another possibility, around the 1.5 mark: The prediction is incorrect because the current theory was misapplied or misunderstood. That's happened more than one in the history of science.
Slashdotters never RTFA, so we're good.
Why not Smalltalk? It doesn't cheat with primitive types or limit you with a rigid object system.
Strong types (and unboxed types) are one of the things that make a garbage collector interesting. For example, if you can prove at compile time that a certain object never points to cycles (which you can often determine from type information alone), that translates to real performance gains in practice.
PyPy people have apparently done quite a bit of research with Python.
I'll never understand some people.
I disagree. It's by far the best platform for those researching JIT compilation or designing advanced garbage collectors.
Like you'd want to do research with Python or something?
Exception handling in modern C++ compilers incurs no overhead other than a small amount of memory that isn't referenced until the exception is thrown.
It also impacts instruction scheduling.
One thing I did originally write (but deleted before posting) was that the performance impact of C's aliasing rules and C++ exception handling is essentially sampling error in practice. I'd go so far as to say that if C's aliasing rules are causing a measurable impact on some part of your code, you may be better off rewriting that code to use assembler intrinsics (or even writing it in assembler), because that will likely win you more than peppering your code with "restrict".
If the laws worry you, you can always write checks rather than walk around with $10,000 in cash.
I don't think a $10,000 check is enough of a bribe (err... sorry, campaign contribution) to get the laws overturned.
Flawed logic. C++ doesn't have a corporate sponsor either, and yet it has a native compiler on Windows.
Multiple vendors pay good money to develop compliant C++ compilers for many of the platforms that we use.
The two main challenges I see for C are the competition with C++ and faster hardware.
Most "C compilers" are actually C++ compilers running in a "C mode". The trouble is that most of the corporate sponsors care more about being compliant with the latest C++ standard than being compliant with the latest C standard.
And because C++ is slightly more typesafe (strict aliasing), those optimizers can do more for C++ code than for C. So despite the more complex language, C++ can be marginally faster (~1%).
Probably not even that. In the tiny number of cases where strict aliasing buys you anything at all (which on modern out-of-order hardware it almost never does), it's around the same order of magnitude as the performance that you lose in C++ due to maintaining exception handling information. There's really nothing between C and C++ given the same code these days. In practice, most of the performance gains in C++ come from metaprogramming.
Which gets us to the faster hardware: how often is that performance even needed?
For the vast majority of "embedded" devices that I own, the main performance impact isn't CPU speed, it's battery life. A program which gets its job done as quickly as possible and then puts the CPU into an idle state is far more desirable than one which is perceptually just as responsive but wears down the battery faster.
Why is that a bad thing?
You may have missed this, but I gave one example in the very next sentence.
c doesn't have "problems"
Sure it does. As TFS notes, C doesn't have a corporate sponsor. That's why (to pick one example) there is no native compliant C compiler for Windows.
(Yes, you can build Clang if you want to. You know what I meant.)
So you think the 1.7 billion that Burnie Madoff defrauded people out of, and then had seized by the FBI [...]
That is a fair point, and it does go to the fact that we don't measure these things well. That $1.7 billion was a technically a "seizure", but it was actually a settlement with JPMorgan Chase. A fairer comparison would only count assets seized without an accompanying criminal conviction.
Still, the mere fact that they're in the same ballpark is a problem. Where I live, non-contraband assets may be frozen prior to a conviction, but they may not be seized until after.
I'm pretty sure the headline left out a slash, and it should read "scramjet/rocket engine". Scramjets (as I'm sure you're aware) need a way to get to supersonic speeds before they start working.
There is never a reason to burgle someone.
You be sure to tell the judge that when it's a cop who stole your money.
(Yes, that's the more likely scenario.)
It was still the done thing.
It was also the "done thing" to lurk for a while before posting. Well, that was the case before Eternal September, anyway...
Yup. The main elements of soap opera are that it is a serial with a large primary cast of characters, where the primary (or even exclusive) focus is on inter-personal relationships and the emotional lives of those characters.
If it's that kind of show, it's a soap opera.
I'm not disputing that it's a story. We've both been on Slashdot for a long time, and our memories are probably hazy, but nonetheless help me out. Has "some analyst bets against the share price" ever been the primary focus of the story here?
One AC above noted that the real issue is that the maintainer of an implantable biomechanical device may go bust, stranding everyone who has one implanted and (as a general case) the huge risk inherent in the rise of the Internet of Safety-Critical Things. That is the news for nerds and the stuff that matters. That is not what the headline, the write-up, or most of the up-voted top-level comments are focussing on.
In that case, what some analyst thinks of the share price (however data-driven it may be) is the least of your worries.
You can't lose what you ain't never had.
News for People Richer than You: Stuff that Barely Matters
Get your facts straight.
What did I say that was factually incorrect?
He's another Roman Polanski, [...]
The main difference being that Polanski was not only charged, he pled guilty and fled from his sentencing hearing.
The guy is a rapist and a coward.
Could well be.
You are right. He should have a trial. What's that? He is hiding in an embassy to avoid having to go to trial.
What trial? He hasn't even been charged.
Does anyone have the statistics on corporate and other "white collar" crime? I hypothesise that the racial (and gender!) disparity is even more marked there.