Yes, line continuation is an ugly hack. But, in practice, it's rarely necessary because the language discourages long lines and has enough mechanisms to make them unnecessary.
Not understanding the difference between how to treat CPU-bound threads vs IO-bound threads is a problem between the ears -- not a problem of your programming language.
If you're creating and destroying lots of processes
No. Because that's not how you treat CPU-bound tasks regardless of whether they are threads or processes. If you need CPU-bound tasks, it's because you have already have coarse granularity of data and your data can be processed by a pool of worker threads. The situation you described is that of IO-bound threads. And I specifically said that you treat CPU-bound tasks as processes and IO-bound tasks as threads.
How about a programming language that doesn't force your programs to fit a model?
yes, because uniform api with pluggable implementation depending on the needs is bad thing, right? Oh, brother.
Good thing it was all planned out to add the GIL, and that it wasn't just some limitation that is hard to get rid of.
I don't see it as a limitation. I see it as an advantage. You don't need any processors talking to each other before they each one of them can decide to throw out small chunks of memory back into its unused pile.
how could one threading model be perfect for them all?
It's not. It's why there are 2 models. Same api: that's the advantage. If a thread becomes more CPU bound, you plug in one implementation. If it becomes IO bound, you plug in the other. So you are free to optimize per-thread IO or CPU performance... whichever one is more open to optimization.
It is however a problem if you have much communication between processes.
If you are passing too much information between tasks, they will be slowed down regardless of whether the tasks are processes or threads. There will be significant slowdown in having data travel from one processor's L1 cache to the other processor's L1 cache. In fact, it is so slow that you may as well think of information travelling from one processor to the other processor ar travelling through a (very fast) network and architect accordingly.
Per default the multiprocessing module will pickle/unpickle the transmitter information.
I never saw that as a problem, but I do believe that the underlying process of pickling is open to being modified.
The reason your analogy is faulty is that in the scenario you described there is concrete evidence for the alleged event: the dead President. There is no concrete evidence for a stolen election. And extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence (and, no, further extraordinary claims don't count as "extraordinary evidence").
I can't imagine more damage than was done to the country by Comey not asking "is that an order" when Trump asked if he could drop Flynn's investigation. Comey himself testified that a President can legitimately give such an order. But instead of clarifying what Trump was saying, Comey just gave us 3 months of finger pointing and bull rhetoric about potential abstraction of justice. 3 months of stalling the government because he was too stupid to ask a simple question... Can you name a dumber decision by a person with this much power in recent history?
Are you seriously quoting NYTimes in a story about fake news? Comey himself directly said NYTimes coverage of the spying was essentially a work fiction. That puts NYTimes in the fake news category.
Perhaps it would help if the US admitted past CIA corruption of democracy and apologised.
Why? What does that have to do with this non-story. Whether CIA interfered in foreign elections or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Democrats created this Big Lie about Russian spying in order blame their loss on anything but themselves.
Well, if you really are an outsider, here's a newsflash: people who like Trump, like him despite of his image. So, no, they don't think the Russia spying hoax is a hoax because they care about Trump's image.
The "interference" amounted to what? Running slanted news stories? He testified that New York Times story about contacts between Trump campaign and Russian spies was essentially a work of fiction. Was NYT stealing an election? How about Al Jazeera? If Al Jazeera has its own take on the news reporting in the US, is it Qatar (whose government own Al Jazeera) stealing our elections? How about BBC? BBC is actually financed by the British government. And spare me the "it's independent" nonsense. When it comes to foreign affairs, BBC has a fairly unique point of view: all colonies which rejected British rule continue to be ruled by barbarians or by fools. Is that Britain trying to steal our elections? Who the fuck is Comey kidding? Has he not seen a single movie about the military? When the POTUS tells you "I hope you can let this go", and you work for him, your answer is "is that an order, Sir?" Instead he chose to spend federal money to investigate someone when his told him to let it go because the guy was already punished enough. So now Comey is jumping on the, hey, but look at Russia bandwagon to save his own ass? He was too stupid to ask if he was given an order and paralyzed the government for 3 months because of it. And now we are supposed to believe that 3 agencies which looked at some log dumps at told the other 14 agencies "we definitely saw something" means that Russian government was trying to hack US electoral systems? With no actual evidence for it? Yeah, nahah. Oh, wait, I must be a Russian spy, too. So, here we go: "nyet, nyet, nyet."
Well, apply got killed first. But that's only because Guido is scared of lambdas. Granted, most developers don't think in tensors. But turning programs into abstract algebra exercises could have been a rubicon. For now, it remains outside of the reach.
Braces didn't win over whitespace because of C's readability. They won over because C won over and then Java used em so not to confuse all the struggling C++ programmers. If you can't handle a slight change in how scoping is expressed, you have no business having an opinion on which programming language to use. You'll do what you are told.
It doesn't have a threading problem. It solves the threading vs process problem. CPU bound threats *should* be processes. And it is safer and more efficient to have 1 GIL per CPU. IO bound threads should be threads. This why threads developed on 1-CPU machines and multi-process model developed on multi-CPU machines. Python has 2 libraries with effectively unifying model for inter-thread communications, but one uses processes while the other threads. Both have almost the same API. Processes are bad if you need a context switch before data can travel from one task's to another task's space. In modern processes, you lose more by having data travel from 1 L1 cache to another L1 cache. So you might as well have 1 CPU-bound thread per core when your threads are CPU-bound and do very little talking to each other. Which exactly what you get with multiprocess threading library.
I think the key argument is that until unmasking the person at the other end of the conversation, they cannot know who it is. And without knowing who it is, they don't know if they should count them as an American participating in the conversation. But he wasn't asked for anything even close to an exact number. He could have provided an order of magnitude estimate based solely on statistical evidence. They know how phone calls occur in any one geographic area. They know how many they capture in that area. And from the US census they know what percentage of the residents of the area are US citizens. This is enough to give a ball park estimate of how many citizens were recorded without being unmasked.
But for the movie industry the weather actually mattered. Instead of shooting the cliffhangers on the cliffs of Fort Lee for half a year, they could should cliffhangers on the cliffs of Hollywood most of the year. This had a direct effect on the bottom line.
Really? The publication which was created for the purpose of publishing Snowden's leaks is now getting material from NSA? Because NSA is what? Masochistic?
This is like claiming that anything that New York Times prints about China is the official position of the US State Department position. Can we stop pretending that the USSR (dissolved 25 years ago) is the same thing as RF? There is plenty of commercial interests in RF which are independent of the state. There aren't many which oppose the state (they do quash political opposition ruthlessly), but they have plenty of non-state commercial actors. If actors who are not affiliated with the Russian Federation, but who reside there happened to inject themselves into the US Democratic primaries (and that's a huge "if" with, so far, no evidence whatsoever for it), that's not "Russian" involvement. There is no Soviet Russia. People born after USSR fell apart are now old enough to have graduated college and old enough to rent a car (ie, they are over 25).
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead and link to something which demonstrates a scintilla of evidence and which doesn't claim that more empty claims count as evidence.
No, it's the opposite. They like what he can do even if they don't like him. The cult of personality would be liking him regardless of what he does.
Try this for measure:
for(i = 0; i < something; ++i)
if (expr1)
if (expr2)
do_this();;
else
do_that();
Proper C. Totally readable... of course.
Yes, line continuation is an ugly hack. But, in practice, it's rarely necessary because the language discourages long lines and has enough mechanisms to make them unnecessary.
Not understanding the difference between how to treat CPU-bound threads vs IO-bound threads is a problem between the ears -- not a problem of your programming language.
NO, it doesn't. I has a problem of becoming popular and being used by a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about.
If you're creating and destroying lots of processes
No. Because that's not how you treat CPU-bound tasks regardless of whether they are threads or processes. If you need CPU-bound tasks, it's because you have already have coarse granularity of data and your data can be processed by a pool of worker threads. The situation you described is that of IO-bound threads. And I specifically said that you treat CPU-bound tasks as processes and IO-bound tasks as threads.
How about a programming language that doesn't force your programs to fit a model?
yes, because uniform api with pluggable implementation depending on the needs is bad thing, right? Oh, brother.
Good thing it was all planned out to add the GIL, and that it wasn't just some limitation that is hard to get rid of.
I don't see it as a limitation. I see it as an advantage. You don't need any processors talking to each other before they each one of them can decide to throw out small chunks of memory back into its unused pile.
how could one threading model be perfect for them all?
It's not. It's why there are 2 models. Same api: that's the advantage. If a thread becomes more CPU bound, you plug in one implementation. If it becomes IO bound, you plug in the other. So you are free to optimize per-thread IO or CPU performance... whichever one is more open to optimization.
It is however a problem if you have much communication between processes.
If you are passing too much information between tasks, they will be slowed down regardless of whether the tasks are processes or threads. There will be significant slowdown in having data travel from one processor's L1 cache to the other processor's L1 cache. In fact, it is so slow that you may as well think of information travelling from one processor to the other processor ar travelling through a (very fast) network and architect accordingly.
Per default the multiprocessing module will pickle/unpickle the transmitter information.
I never saw that as a problem, but I do believe that the underlying process of pickling is open to being modified.
The reason your analogy is faulty is that in the scenario you described there is concrete evidence for the alleged event: the dead President. There is no concrete evidence for a stolen election. And extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence (and, no, further extraordinary claims don't count as "extraordinary evidence").
I can't imagine more damage than was done to the country by Comey not asking "is that an order" when Trump asked if he could drop Flynn's investigation. Comey himself testified that a President can legitimately give such an order. But instead of clarifying what Trump was saying, Comey just gave us 3 months of finger pointing and bull rhetoric about potential abstraction of justice. 3 months of stalling the government because he was too stupid to ask a simple question... Can you name a dumber decision by a person with this much power in recent history?
Are you seriously quoting NYTimes in a story about fake news? Comey himself directly said NYTimes coverage of the spying was essentially a work fiction. That puts NYTimes in the fake news category.
Perhaps it would help if the US admitted past CIA corruption of democracy and apologised.
Why? What does that have to do with this non-story. Whether CIA interfered in foreign elections or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Democrats created this Big Lie about Russian spying in order blame their loss on anything but themselves.
Well, if you really are an outsider, here's a newsflash: people who like Trump, like him despite of his image. So, no, they don't think the Russia spying hoax is a hoax because they care about Trump's image.
The "interference" amounted to what? Running slanted news stories? He testified that New York Times story about contacts between Trump campaign and Russian spies was essentially a work of fiction. Was NYT stealing an election? How about Al Jazeera? If Al Jazeera has its own take on the news reporting in the US, is it Qatar (whose government own Al Jazeera) stealing our elections? How about BBC? BBC is actually financed by the British government. And spare me the "it's independent" nonsense. When it comes to foreign affairs, BBC has a fairly unique point of view: all colonies which rejected British rule continue to be ruled by barbarians or by fools. Is that Britain trying to steal our elections? Who the fuck is Comey kidding? Has he not seen a single movie about the military? When the POTUS tells you "I hope you can let this go", and you work for him, your answer is "is that an order, Sir?" Instead he chose to spend federal money to investigate someone when his told him to let it go because the guy was already punished enough. So now Comey is jumping on the, hey, but look at Russia bandwagon to save his own ass? He was too stupid to ask if he was given an order and paralyzed the government for 3 months because of it. And now we are supposed to believe that 3 agencies which looked at some log dumps at told the other 14 agencies "we definitely saw something" means that Russian government was trying to hack US electoral systems? With no actual evidence for it? Yeah, nahah. Oh, wait, I must be a Russian spy, too. So, here we go: "nyet, nyet, nyet."
All of them. Don't underestimate a Python programmer generating the code previously typed by a dozen code monkeys.
Well, apply got killed first. But that's only because Guido is scared of lambdas. Granted, most developers don't think in tensors. But turning programs into abstract algebra exercises could have been a rubicon. For now, it remains outside of the reach.
Braces didn't win over whitespace because of C's readability. They won over because C won over and then Java used em so not to confuse all the struggling C++ programmers. If you can't handle a slight change in how scoping is expressed, you have no business having an opinion on which programming language to use. You'll do what you are told.
It doesn't have a threading problem. It solves the threading vs process problem. CPU bound threats *should* be processes. And it is safer and more efficient to have 1 GIL per CPU. IO bound threads should be threads. This why threads developed on 1-CPU machines and multi-process model developed on multi-CPU machines. Python has 2 libraries with effectively unifying model for inter-thread communications, but one uses processes while the other threads. Both have almost the same API. Processes are bad if you need a context switch before data can travel from one task's to another task's space. In modern processes, you lose more by having data travel from 1 L1 cache to another L1 cache. So you might as well have 1 CPU-bound thread per core when your threads are CPU-bound and do very little talking to each other. Which exactly what you get with multiprocess threading library.
I think the key argument is that until unmasking the person at the other end of the conversation, they cannot know who it is. And without knowing who it is, they don't know if they should count them as an American participating in the conversation. But he wasn't asked for anything even close to an exact number. He could have provided an order of magnitude estimate based solely on statistical evidence. They know how phone calls occur in any one geographic area. They know how many they capture in that area. And from the US census they know what percentage of the residents of the area are US citizens. This is enough to give a ball park estimate of how many citizens were recorded without being unmasked.
But for the movie industry the weather actually mattered. Instead of shooting the cliffhangers on the cliffs of Fort Lee for half a year, they could should cliffhangers on the cliffs of Hollywood most of the year. This had a direct effect on the bottom line.
Really? The publication which was created for the purpose of publishing Snowden's leaks is now getting material from NSA? Because NSA is what? Masochistic?
Are you saying DNC hacked the election? Just because the shoe fits? You must be too influenced by the Russian epic of Cinderella.
This is like claiming that anything that New York Times prints about China is the official position of the US State Department position. Can we stop pretending that the USSR (dissolved 25 years ago) is the same thing as RF? There is plenty of commercial interests in RF which are independent of the state. There aren't many which oppose the state (they do quash political opposition ruthlessly), but they have plenty of non-state commercial actors. If actors who are not affiliated with the Russian Federation, but who reside there happened to inject themselves into the US Democratic primaries (and that's a huge "if" with, so far, no evidence whatsoever for it), that's not "Russian" involvement. There is no Soviet Russia. People born after USSR fell apart are now old enough to have graduated college and old enough to rent a car (ie, they are over 25).
I guess truth is not a defense against defamation in Switzerland. I hope irony is.