I'm sorry for plagiarizing another site, but this one can't be missing here:
"His pointer has been cast to void. His process exited with code 0."
Like others said, I too value Ritchie's contribution much more than Jobs. Computer wouldn't be what they are today without his work with Kernighan.
My comment did not generalize the fact that Java runs everywhere. Java runs where a java vm exists.
I wasn't talking about advantages or disadvantages. It was just a simple straight comment on the differences of the native code and the bytecode version.
What I was trying to figure was not the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with anything, but the fact that your comment was irrelevant to the post's subject, which was plain and simply "the java code can be compiled into native code". The speed, the fact that it can't run anywhere but the target, etc, were not important at all, just a parenthesis, and your comment was target against Java, which I was not defending at all
So, your rant on the importance of running everywhere, the needed for classes, libraries, and the heck, indeed had little to do with what I was talking about (and I suppose now you understand that it was not pointing Java's advantages).
Let me correct that: "Java is indeed a language interpreted by a Virtual Machine". I was just trying be polite with the original poster.
I wasn't saying the Java program would be obviously faster than the PHP code, but that the java code compiled into native code would be faster than the "interpreted" (the traditional bytecode) version of the same Java code. The code when compiled into the native code will be faster than the code ran by the virtual machine.
Yes, but usually, we are not writing native code (or even assembler). (..) Porting a reasonably well-written C program can often be much easier, (..)
I'm still trying to figure what this has to do with what I was talking about. I'm not talking about writing in native code. I'm talking about the code generated by the compiler (the one I mentioned that would compile into native code) and that this code would only run in the target machine, contrary to the fact that the bytecode version would run under any JavaVM.
Fine. I hope you understood what I told you, so you don't have to keep going around "pointing that" (whatever that means).
"That" I was trying to point was simply the fact that the Java code could be compiled into native code.
Java, indeed is an interpreted language, but there are compilers that turns it into native code. In this situation, the Java program is (obviously) much faster than the interpreted bytecode version. Obvious too is the fact that the native code version won't run anywhere but the target machine. So, that's the argument his "friend" would probally use.
Don't take me wrong, I really like PHP and I don't dislike Java at all. Just wanted to point that
On the time 0: in reality could be the just after the conception, just after the crossover
and mutations took place, and the process has begun. Yet, I agree the environment is always
an influence. When I refer to a time 0 it should be understood the time just before the environment
begun influencing you directly . Trying to set a start point, but in reality, there's no starting
point, because the environment influenced you before people considered you'd exist, that is, all the
events that led your parents to meet, have sex, etc.
IANA Biologist, yet I think you have over-simplied the interconnected nature of nature vs. nuture.
I oversimplified, no wonder. This is not a scientific magazine and I'd not expect for people to
be interested in every detail of the process. The people who are interested in these matters, should
and will look for technical reading.
Second, genetic influences continue to play an active role in development, even after birth, even
after the brain is fully matured.
Certainly. It's not like your identity is erased after you are born. Everything one learns is
roughly result of a function that involves the biological structure (what genes made up) and what
you already learned. The gene influence is not erased, I didn't mean that.
It's just that we have this notion that our genes are us, and we don't want to be mere automatons created by our environment.
There's the other side: people that do not want to believe they are what they are just because
their genes and that they have no hope to be changed. Is a person an automaton created by the environment
or an automaton created by their genes and without hope to be changed at all? Both questions lead to
displeasing ideas.
It cannot be completely blamed neither upon genetics or enviromnent. It's a mix.
The body, including the brain, is mostly determined by the genes. The brain is
a net of interconnected neurons, that everyone knows. What not everyone knows
is that whatever we knows is not actually "recorded" on the neurons, but in
the synapsis, that is, the brain interconnections.
We learn and reason mostly by electrical impulses flowing through the aformentioned
net. There are basically 2 types of impulses: inhibitive and excitative. The results
of a reasoning (that is, initial input everything you can "sense", final output your
reaction) depends on how these impulses flow, what depends what sort of impulse
reaches each neuron.
The ways these impulses flows depends on each neuron and each neuron is more likely
to propagate one sort of impulse rather than the other (e.g 30% chance to propagate
inhibitive and 70% excitative). But the sort of impulse that flows through a neuron
can make it change its tendency (say, if a neuron gets more inhibitive impulses than
excitative, in time the neuron raises its own lilkeliness to propagate inhibitive
impulses).
Thus, the learning process depends, initially on two factors: the structure at
time 0 (the initial structure, e.g. the brain when you are born) and the structure
at the time a person receive the impulses (the brain after experimenting and
processing all the impulses one got up to now). That means, genetics influence
your behaviour because your brain is biased by the structure it has when you are
born, but the environment is the one that provides the impulses, and because the
sort of impulses can change the neuron's tendencies, you may not develop some
tendencies you had when you were born.
In the end, your personality is a result of what you were in the beginning and by
everything that happens. You may have a tendency to kill, but not develop it because
a nice environment, and otherwise you may be initially a good natured person, and yet
because a bloody murderer if you live in an environment that demands it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry for plagiarizing another site, but this one can't be missing here: "His pointer has been cast to void. His process exited with code 0." Like others said, I too value Ritchie's contribution much more than Jobs. Computer wouldn't be what they are today without his work with Kernighan.
Notice how they say an unpatched version of ghost is required:
Ghost 2003 Build 2003.775 (Be sure not to allow patching of this software)
That's because the patched version fixes A BUG that allowed the "ever expanding miracle".
You didn't get the point.
So, your rant on the importance of running everywhere, the needed for classes, libraries, and the heck, indeed had little to do with what I was talking about (and I suppose now you understand that it was not pointing Java's advantages).
Java, indeed is an interpreted language
Let me correct that: "Java is indeed a language interpreted by a Virtual Machine". I was just trying be polite with the original poster.I wasn't saying the Java program would be obviously faster than the PHP code, but that the java code compiled into native code would be faster than the "interpreted" (the traditional bytecode) version of the same Java code. The code when compiled into the native code will be faster than the code ran by the virtual machine.
Yes, but usually, we are not writing native code (or even assembler). (..) Porting a reasonably well-written C program can often be much easier, (..)
I'm still trying to figure what this has to do with what I was talking about. I'm not talking about writing in native code. I'm talking about the code generated by the compiler (the one I mentioned that would compile into native code) and that this code would only run in the target machine, contrary to the fact that the bytecode version would run under any JavaVM.
Fine. I hope you understood what I told you, so you don't have to keep going around "pointing that" (whatever that means).
"That" I was trying to point was simply the fact that the Java code could be compiled into native code.
Java, indeed is an interpreted language, but there are compilers that turns it into native code. In this situation, the Java program is (obviously) much faster than the interpreted bytecode version. Obvious too is the fact that the native code version won't run anywhere but the target machine. So, that's the argument his "friend" would probally use.
Don't take me wrong, I really like PHP and I don't dislike Java at all. Just wanted to point that
On the time 0: in reality could be the just after the conception, just after the crossover and mutations took place, and the process has begun. Yet, I agree the environment is always an influence. When I refer to a time 0 it should be understood the time just before the environment begun influencing you directly . Trying to set a start point, but in reality, there's no starting point, because the environment influenced you before people considered you'd exist, that is, all the events that led your parents to meet, have sex, etc.
IANA Biologist, yet I think you have over-simplied the interconnected nature of nature vs. nuture.
I oversimplified, no wonder. This is not a scientific magazine and I'd not expect for people to be interested in every detail of the process. The people who are interested in these matters, should and will look for technical reading.
Second, genetic influences continue to play an active role in development, even after birth, even after the brain is fully matured.
Certainly. It's not like your identity is erased after you are born. Everything one learns is roughly result of a function that involves the biological structure (what genes made up) and what you already learned. The gene influence is not erased, I didn't mean that.
It's just that we have this notion that our genes are us, and we don't want to be mere automatons created by our environment.
There's the other side: people that do not want to believe they are what they are just because their genes and that they have no hope to be changed. Is a person an automaton created by the environment or an automaton created by their genes and without hope to be changed at all? Both questions lead to displeasing ideas.
It cannot be completely blamed neither upon genetics or enviromnent. It's a mix.
The body, including the brain, is mostly determined by the genes. The brain is a net of interconnected neurons, that everyone knows. What not everyone knows is that whatever we knows is not actually "recorded" on the neurons, but in the synapsis, that is, the brain interconnections.
We learn and reason mostly by electrical impulses flowing through the aformentioned net. There are basically 2 types of impulses: inhibitive and excitative. The results of a reasoning (that is, initial input everything you can "sense", final output your reaction) depends on how these impulses flow, what depends what sort of impulse reaches each neuron.
The ways these impulses flows depends on each neuron and each neuron is more likely to propagate one sort of impulse rather than the other (e.g 30% chance to propagate inhibitive and 70% excitative). But the sort of impulse that flows through a neuron can make it change its tendency (say, if a neuron gets more inhibitive impulses than excitative, in time the neuron raises its own lilkeliness to propagate inhibitive impulses).
Thus, the learning process depends, initially on two factors: the structure at time 0 (the initial structure, e.g. the brain when you are born) and the structure at the time a person receive the impulses (the brain after experimenting and processing all the impulses one got up to now). That means, genetics influence your behaviour because your brain is biased by the structure it has when you are born, but the environment is the one that provides the impulses, and because the sort of impulses can change the neuron's tendencies, you may not develop some tendencies you had when you were born.
In the end, your personality is a result of what you were in the beginning and by everything that happens. You may have a tendency to kill, but not develop it because a nice environment, and otherwise you may be initially a good natured person, and yet because a bloody murderer if you live in an environment that demands it.