The generic solution is to use vector-based window systems like NeXT/Quartz (Display PDF) or the window system of the upcoming Windows release "Longhorn"(?). In these systems, the dimensions of all graphics objects are specified in inches/centimeters instead of pixels. The window knows the graphic card's current (pixel-based) resolution and the monitor's DPI resolution and renders all graphics accordingly.
Re:The Superiority of PHP over Perl
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
I don't know Chinese, and yet, I don't
complain that the language is "strange". If
I know Chinese, I would insist that the language
is just natural.
Perl takes years to learn. That is why it is
so powerfull. Can you imagine how usufull
French would be if you could learn French withing
days? Simple languages are practically useless.
I was trying to say just that. I was criticising people who don't know Perl yet depreciate it because it looks "stranger" to them than e.g. Python looks to people who don't know Python.
Re:The Superiority of PHP over Perl
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Pretty much anything in perl looks like a syntax error.
Well, this seems to be the main reason behind all those "Perl is unreadable" complaints:
People who don't know Perl have more trouble reading Perl code than people who don't know, say, Python, have trouble reading Python code...
Does that company have any more insight than a group of moderately smart IT professionals? Did they predict the Internet boom, for example? I mean, after all they might just as well be a leasable FUD spreading machine...
Well, just look at the examples:-). A closure is something like a local (lexical) variable that happens to be a function, and can freely access in its body all variables (including other local variables) visible at the point where it is defined. The closure can be used just like any other local variable, i.e. it can be passed to other functions as a parameter, and it can be returned from the function where it was defined as a return value (that's what's not working in GCC). The respective receiver of the closure may then call it freely.
Can you direct me to a web-site that explains exactly what closeures are and then explains how to do them in C++ with step-by-step instructions of what's going on so I am able to follow.
C++ doesn't have closures. GCC has a half-complete substitute, as explained in the parent posting.
Google points here. The GCC implementation ist explained here.
Any lexically visible variables that the closure func refers to will be valid for as long as the closure is valid -- in your example when pvar goes out of scope the closure then refers to some random stack value.
The crew of Apollo 13 also had the good furtune to have a fully functional L.E.M. docked and powered up. It was THAT and that alone that let them live. If the explosion had happened before the L.E.M. had docked
...or after lunar orbit insertion
they would be dead.
OTOH, there seem to be credible sources saying that getting Atlantis up in time for a rescue mission might have been possible (albeit risky).
I've programmed in Java and C# and I have to say that I love C#. Java can't even come close to the ease of use you get with Visual Studio and C#. When I started with Java I would spend hours trying to figure out paths and dealing with all that nonsense. I tried the IDEs but they never seemed to work right. I fire up Visual Studio and it works great. There were bugs in the original IDE but most of them have been fixed.
Is this a trolling attempt or something? You write software for a living and stopped evaluating Java because you didn't manage to get the classpaths right?
Come on, admit it: You're being paid by Microsoft (so is the guy who modded you up). The URL advocating FreeBSD.. it all figures:-)
finally, cross-language interop is a dead reality - i can write a C# class, my VB class can inherit from it, and my C++ class can inherit from my VB class, and call functions in Perl
You can't let VB classes or C# classes inherit from C# classes. You *can* let VB.NET classes and "Managed C++" classes inherit from C# classes. If.NET were really that much language-agnostic, one should ask why Microsoft had to invent three new languages for it instead of just providing.NET backends for existing languages. The truth is, Managed C++ and VB.NET are essentially C# with different syntax, so this doesn't prove much (Perl.NET is just a wrapper, not a.NET backend for Perl).
You can currently link up two mac laptops via firewire and no other network interfaces, and exchange data/mount folders, etc. In other words the capability is there.
But I assume iLink only provides the physical connection, the "exchange data/mount folders, etc." stuff is handled by higher-level protocols (AppleTalk?). To make your stereo browse folders and stream MP3 files from your PC, you would need such higher-level protocols too.
OTOH, I'm wondering whether there are technical reasons why companies can't just settle on "WebDAV over Wi-Fi" or something equivalent instead of inventing whole new protocol stacks.
All the hardware is there to play MP3, almost all Sony media devices have i-link capability so there should be nothing preventing the dvd player from streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video.
iLink (aka IEEE-1394) is a layer 0 protocol. How can it be used directly for "streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video."?
3) Technology moves at astronomical speed. Instead of waiting around for all the harumphing about the MPEG-4 Standard, Apple and Microsoft are blowing right by them. What do you want to bet this standard will be a non-issue in 18 months because parties can't agree on one thing?
Oh my god. How naive are you to believe that the battle "MPEG4 against Windoze Media" is about technical merits? It never was. Btw, I'm using MPEG4 every day, it works well, thank you. There's not more "harumphing" about it than about the the ever-"evolving" Windoze Media (1..28) "standard".
Because the internal virtual address space is accessable externally, it can be modified, tampered with, or viewed at will.
You can modify, view, and tamper with native assembly code as well. I don't know what you mean by "accessable externally". The virtual address space of a server application running on a virtual machine most definitively isn't accessible automatically to the clients.
I don't see how additional possibilities in the hands of *the server's administrator* could weaken security.
The additional software layer in virtual machines enables you to easily impose all kinds of restrictions like very fine-grained access control etc. on the running code.
Imagine you have written a server application running as root. The application reads "untrusted" configuration files written by less privileged users. You want to make those configuration files as powerful and flexible as possible. So you might want to define a turing-complete configuration language for use in those files. The "easiest" solution would be to allow arbitrary shared libraries containing assembly code to be used as configuration files. Of course, this solution throws all security measures out of the window. So, in order to still retain a decent level of security in this situation, you have to settle on a software layer of some sort in your server, which reads and executes the the configuration files written by the users on their behalf, applying all necessary security checks on the fly.
Voila - you have written a virtual machine.
(in fact, scripting languages like Perl and Ruby have special "tainted modes" to facilitate such uses)
Ok, maybe it's not really that simple, but high-tech weapons will always be useful and have advantages over not having high-tech weapons.
Well, no. This argument assumes that developing high-tech weapons costs no money at all. But if there are anti-terror strategies other than "high-tech weapons" which reduce the terrorist threat 10 times more than high-tech weapons for the same price, then having high-tech weapons may in fact have disadvantages over not having them.
Java 1.5 apparently introduces a bunch of festures like foreach, enums, autoboxing etc. which are just syntactic sugar and trivially map to to equivalent constructs in "traditional" Java. For example,
for ( <type> <id> : <expr>) { <body> }
gets mapped to something like
for ( Iterator it = <expr>.iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) { <id> = (<type>)it.next(); <body> }
Couldn't they just introduce a standardized macro processor/preprocessor and introduce such minor additions as part of a standard macro library (or let users write them themselves), instead of having everybody wait for new language versions?
Re:Java has lost the lead on managed lang. evoluti
on
Preview of Java 1.5
·
· Score: 1
This is firm proof that Java has lost the lead on the evolution of managed languages..Net / CLI has surged ahead, both in terms of the expressiveness of its intermediate language (MSIL can express ALL of the C++ semantics, including all unsafe operations), and in terms of the usability and expressiveness of its primary managed language -- C#.
What are "managed languages"? P-code interpreters/JITers and languages that target them have been available for decades. Neither Java nor C# "leading" in those areas.
Could it be that you're just inventing a new buzzword here? "C# is taking over the lead on byte-compiled languages" would make C# look less unique and suggest too many similarities to Lisp, Ocaml etc., so it has to be "managed languages", uh huh.
Btw, any turing-complete machine can express all C++ semantics.
Sounds difficult, I'd rather just drag/drop to my desktop then just have it run automatically. Maybe have some wizard pop up to configure the thing.
An opaque "setup.exe" that just uncontrollably dumps a pile of binary litter into various places of the filesystem, along with "updating" the registry mess in some undocumented ways, has nothing to do with simplicity.
For a sane administrator, simplicity means manageability and controllability, not minimum amount of manual steps to do in order for the installation process to complete.
How is that different from C++ and the Win32 APIs? The fact that Microsoft controls the Win32 APIs doesn't matter to me when programming in C++--I just write my code in Gtk+ or wxWindows. Likewise, the fact that Microsoft controls the.NET APIs doesn't matter to me when programming in C#--I can just use Gtk#.
So you're saying you don't use Java because Sun controls it, but you're using C#, whose APIs Microsoft controls -- which doesn't bother you because you could just use *Gtk#*? If you want to write Unix-only applications, it hardly makes sense to use C# at all.
"[0008] The public key architecture involves writing a private key and a digital certificate into each game console during manufacturing. The certificate contains the public key corresponding to the private key. The certificate is part of a certificate chain that includes a certification authority certificate associated with a certification authority at each manufacturing site and a root certificate from which the certification authority certificate is derived. Whenever a game console goes online for registration, a certificate chain verification process along with proof of knowledge of the private key stored on the game console are used to authenticate the console as genuine."
Equivalent mechanisms can be found in GPG, S/MIME, or every other smart card-based authentification system.
Even a single imperative statement potentially interferes with every optimization. ("Can I eliminate this execution branch? It seems like a redundant call but it might branch to that imperative statement.")
Well, AFAIK Ocaml is generally a side-effect-free language, but it has a few imperative elements (like the "mutable" keyword). These elements as well as the fact that they can have side effects (as opposed to other parts of the language) are known to the compiler. So I think the compiler could check whether a given execution branch does not contain any imperative language elements, in which case it can be optimized just just as aggressively as execution branches in a purely functional language.
Slashdot Mirror
system
knows ...
The generic solution is to use vector-based window systems like NeXT/Quartz (Display PDF) or the window system of the upcoming Windows release "Longhorn"(?). In these systems, the dimensions of all graphics objects are specified in inches/centimeters instead of pixels. The window knows the graphic card's current (pixel-based) resolution and the monitor's DPI resolution and renders all graphics accordingly.
Perl takes years to learn. That is why it is so powerfull. Can you imagine how usufull French would be if you could learn French withing days? Simple languages are practically useless.
I was trying to say just that. I was criticising people who don't know Perl yet depreciate it because it looks "stranger" to them than e.g. Python looks to people who don't know Python.
Well, this seems to be the main reason behind all those "Perl is unreadable" complaints:
People who don't know Perl have more trouble reading Perl code than people who don't know, say, Python, have trouble reading Python code...
Does that company have any more insight than a group of moderately smart IT professionals? Did they predict the Internet boom, for example? I mean, after all they might just as well be a leasable FUD spreading machine...
Well, just look at the examples :-). A closure is something like a local (lexical) variable that happens to be a function, and can freely access in its body all variables (including other local variables) visible at the point where it is defined. The closure can be used just like any other local variable, i.e. it can be passed to other functions as a parameter, and it can be returned from the function where it was defined as a return value (that's what's not working in GCC). The respective receiver of the closure may then call it freely.
Can you direct me to a web-site that explains exactly what closeures are and then explains how to do them in C++ with step-by-step instructions of what's going on so I am able to follow.
C++ doesn't have closures. GCC has a half-complete substitute, as explained in the parent posting. Google points here. The GCC implementation ist explained here.
Not true. Please get your facts right.
Right. Thanks for the clarification.
Closures.
Use GCC.Gives
they would be dead.
OTOH, there seem to be credible sources saying that getting Atlantis up in time for a rescue mission might have been possible (albeit risky).
Is this a trolling attempt or something? You write software for a living and stopped evaluating Java because you didn't manage to get the classpaths right?
Come on, admit it: You're being paid by Microsoft (so is the guy who modded you up). The URL advocating FreeBSD.. it all figures :-)
You can't let VB classes or C# classes inherit from C# classes. You *can* let VB.NET classes and "Managed C++" classes inherit from C# classes. If .NET were really that much language-agnostic, one should ask why Microsoft had to invent three new languages for it instead of just providing .NET backends for existing languages. The truth is, Managed C++ and VB.NET are essentially C# with different syntax, so this doesn't prove much (Perl.NET is just a wrapper, not a .NET backend for Perl).
But I assume iLink only provides the physical connection, the "exchange data/mount folders, etc." stuff is handled by higher-level protocols (AppleTalk?). To make your stereo browse folders and stream MP3 files from your PC, you would need such higher-level protocols too.
OTOH, I'm wondering whether there are technical reasons why companies can't just settle on "WebDAV over Wi-Fi" or something equivalent instead of inventing whole new protocol stacks.
iLink (aka IEEE-1394) is a layer 0 protocol. How can it be used directly for "streaming audio from a pc, or with a QNX os, be able to mount shared media folders and run slideshows while playing music, or possibly play video."?
Oh my god. How naive are you to believe that the battle "MPEG4 against Windoze Media" is about technical merits? It never was. Btw, I'm using MPEG4 every day, it works well, thank you. There's not more "harumphing" about it than about the the ever-"evolving" Windoze Media (1..28) "standard".
You can modify, view, and tamper with native assembly code as well. I don't know what you mean by "accessable externally". The virtual address space of a server application running on a virtual machine most definitively isn't accessible automatically to the clients.
I don't see how additional possibilities in the hands of *the server's administrator* could weaken security.
The additional software layer in virtual machines enables you to easily impose all kinds of restrictions like very fine-grained access control etc. on the running code.
Imagine you have written a server application running as root. The application reads "untrusted" configuration files written by less privileged users. You want to make those configuration files as powerful and flexible as possible. So you might want to define a turing-complete configuration language for use in those files. The "easiest" solution would be to allow arbitrary shared libraries containing assembly code to be used as configuration files. Of course, this solution throws all security measures out of the window. So, in order to still retain a decent level of security in this situation, you have to settle on a software layer of some sort in your server, which reads and executes the the configuration files written by the users on their behalf, applying all necessary security checks on the fly. Voila - you have written a virtual machine.
(in fact, scripting languages like Perl and Ruby have special "tainted modes" to facilitate such uses)
Well, no. This argument assumes that developing high-tech weapons costs no money at all. But if there are anti-terror strategies other than "high-tech weapons" which reduce the terrorist threat 10 times more than high-tech weapons for the same price, then having high-tech weapons may in fact have disadvantages over not having them.
With lexical scoping? That's news to me.
gets mapped to something like
Couldn't they just introduce a standardized macro processor/preprocessor and introduce such minor additions as part of a standard macro library (or let users write them themselves), instead of having everybody wait for new language versions?
What are "managed languages"? P-code interpreters/JITers and languages that target them have been available for decades. Neither Java nor C# "leading" in those areas.
Could it be that you're just inventing a new buzzword here? "C# is taking over the lead on byte-compiled languages" would make C# look less unique and suggest too many similarities to Lisp, Ocaml etc., so it has to be "managed languages", uh huh.
Btw, any turing-complete machine can express all C++ semantics.
An opaque "setup.exe" that just uncontrollably dumps a pile of binary litter into various places of the filesystem, along with "updating" the registry mess in some undocumented ways, has nothing to do with simplicity.
For a sane administrator, simplicity means manageability and controllability, not minimum amount of manual steps to do in order for the installation process to complete.
So you're saying you don't use Java because Sun controls it, but you're using C#, whose APIs Microsoft controls -- which doesn't bother you because you could just use *Gtk#*? If you want to write Unix-only applications, it hardly makes sense to use C# at all.
Equivalent mechanisms can be found in GPG, S/MIME, or every other smart card-based authentification system.
Well, AFAIK Ocaml is generally a side-effect-free language, but it has a few imperative elements (like the "mutable" keyword). These elements as well as the fact that they can have side effects (as opposed to other parts of the language) are known to the compiler. So I think the compiler could check whether a given execution branch does not contain any imperative language elements, in which case it can be optimized just just as aggressively as execution branches in a purely functional language.