Re:I just want C++ programs to COMPILE faster
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 2
Back in the days before Slashdot, when compiling took even longer, programmers actually used to go ape-shit watching the compiler.
As I recall, before Slashdot we were all reading the Dilbert "List of the Day", which, believe it or not, wasted possibly even more time than Slashdot did.
And should Slashdot disappear I'm sure we'll find something else to occupy those idle moments while compiling. Maybe talk to that new cute secretary... Hmm...
Re:I just want C++ programs to COMPILE faster
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I think that's specific to GCC. The Microsoft compiler doesn't have this issue.
That's not true. Building C is much quicker with Visual C++ than building C++. I know, I do it every day.
However, it is generally speaking true that gcc takes more time to compile than Visual C++ does.
However, perhaps the Aussies just did it to save themselves the trouble of the CIA kidnapping the guy out of their prison. Don't laugh, this HAS happended (at least in one European country which often is wrongly associated with Kangaroos)
Even if that were The Solution(tm), it's forbidden by the TRIPs treaty
Well, we've just been taught a marvelous solution to that problem by our american allies: we strategically relocate the treaty to the toilet, where it can serve in its new purpose as toilet paper.
Don't they realize that if they establish software patents, that all the prior patents established in the U.S. will override the patents in the EU
Why is that, may I ask? Is there some treaty in place that causes the US patents to also apply in the EU?
And what do we get in return: does a european patent also apply in the US?
As for US connections, do you remember Bill Gates' trip to Europe the other day? The one where he met with all those people involved in the swpat decision process?
So in the article I read this: In accordance with the European Patent Convention, a computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention. Inventions involving computer programs, whether expressed as source code, as object code or in any other form, which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run will not be patentable.
I was talking about the EU, rather than about the whole of continental Europe. Yugoslavia and the rest of eastern Europe is a slightly different story, seeing how they just escaped half a century of dictatorship.
I don't agree with your definition of a civil war. When you have at least two groups having an armed conflict inside a single country, that is a civil war. When you have one group terroring the population as a whole, that is terrorism.
Just to make this perfectly clear: the Basks (at least some of them) are setting off bombs in Spain, but the Spanish are not setting off bombs in Basque. The violence goes in one direction only. And when a handful of ETA members were arrested the organisation was virtually destroyed. That's terrorism.
They will presumably legitimize all those currently illegal software patents that we already have.
Personally I feel that _if_ we ever get software patents, we should attempt to have the whole lot put under public domain just to level the playing field. Otherwise, the criminals (i.e. those companies who obtained software patents while it was illegal) will benefit while law-abiding companies will be punished.
If we also add all the software patents already registered in the US and elsewhere, we will at least have a decent body of prior art so we can fight against new software patents...
Without the bank secret Switzerland would be a third-world nation, an unpleasant hilly patch in the center of Europe. What makes you think Europe actually needs you for anything?
And now the bank secret is going down. It makes it just too easy for criminals and terrorists to keep a lot of cash on hand, and the powers that be are clamoring for openness. We'll talk again after the money has drained away and you'll have to survive on tourist income alone.
Oh, and by the way - if you join the EU you actually get to elect the people in Brussels too, just like the rest of us.
The people pushing for software patents have very, very, very deep pockets. As in billions of dollars.
And what do they have to show for it? Nothing. A promise of possible laws, but at least half the lawmakers opposed to their ideas.
Despite their billions of dollars, they can still be stopped with modest effort by a mostly unfunded group. They don't really have much power, they just want you to think they do so you'll give up fighting them.
Will they have their way? Hell no. Right now the lawmakers are pushing ahead with the proposal ONLY because backing down opens up a can of worms: it means any future agreement between the EU countries becomes meaningless, since countries can still back down after the meeting has completed. Right now this is not truly the case, not if the meeting was concluded succesfully.
So this battle has nothing to do with software patents anymore. It is now about how decisions are made, and what the value of these decisions is. And the people making those decisions very badly want to keep that power.
" Who, aside from perhaps RMS, is calling MS evil for trying to make money?"/. has a picture of Bill Gates in a Borg costume. I think it's pretty clear what the general attitude at/. is.
Eh? Slashdot is not calling Microsoft evil for making money, but for all the other stuff they do. Like in the example you so conveniently ignored: refusing to run Windows with a spurious error message when DRDos is present.
It is kind of annoying that Microsoft has managed to build a shield of people who have no other purpose in the world than to repeat the lie that Microsoft is hated for its success. Any criticism is made, and people will immediately go into "Ahh, but Microsoft is only hated for success" mode, and no proof, no reason, no evidence will convince them that something else may be wrong.
I'm wondering how long until there's a civil war in the EU from people who get sick of their new federalism.
Your civil war was a long time ago and you may think wars are a romantic way to solve conflicts. Here in Europe people remember the last two wars we fought, and we don't labor under such notions. We won't go to war over a perceived democratic deficit (which is funny, coming from a nation with only two parties, which are identical anyway), and we certainly will not go to war over software patents.
And before you ask - we don't need liberating at this time. Thanks for asking, though. No, we don't have oil.
Look, I'm fine with all the criticism, but stop with the 'non-elected' crap, ok? The commission consists of people proposed by the national governments, which are elected just fine.
Indirect elections are nothing new. Some nations even choose their president that way.
Last year we had a quality bozo over from HQ. He explained all the new quality processes to us, and then presented us with an explanatory document that we could keep for reference.
One of his main points had been that all documents must have tracking numbers.
The reference document did not have a tracking number.
I do not think this is very consistent. Evidentally quality is something they bestow upon others, without actually taking part in its processes by themselves... Why is that, one wonders?
On another note, QA and QM methodes may sound incredibly dull and based upon "duh - how else should I do this, dumbass?", but are in fact highly sophisticated.
Ha, in your dreams! I don't mean to belittle those who have made a carreer of QA, but in the end it comes down to checking that procedures are being followed and nothing more. That's not highly sophisticated or even clever, it is just a constant grind. It is more about persistence than about consistency.
Responsiveness: stuff happened when you asked for it, not half a second later like on any current system.
Configurability: if you knew what you were doing you could really set the machine to your way of working. Without ever touching a compiler, I might add.
ARexx: the ability to automate anything you felt like was a major improvement in efficiency.
Screens: allows you to group together related tasks, without ever cluttering up the, uhh, screen.
And I agree - AmigaOS was easily _the_ most productive environment I've ever worked in.
Chances are that once all major markets are covered by anti-patent law, interested parties (I mean Microsoft) will strike in force. Right now they are probably willing to hold back, in order not to scare off the EU.
I suppose it is only a small step from saying "you are not allowed to transport data over this network if it encodes voice traffick" to "you are _only_ allowed to transport government-licensed data over this network".
But hey, I'm not worried - I still have an acoustic modem somewhere in my house...
Well, fighting someone with a cloak of invisibility would be like blind fire, which I believe gives you a +4 (IIRC) penalty. That means your armor class will effectively be 4 lower than normal. Since you are posting on slashdot I'll assume you are a wizard, instead of a warrior or a priest, so that will pretty much put you at 16.
I suppose you could also be a "copyright infringer", but I don't really remember the AC table for that class.
Hmm, shouldn't forget to check that "post anonymously" box...
All told, I think the author failed to completely convince me his way is perfect on only 2 topics.
Any ideas what those 2 are?
1. XML is a good idea.
2. XML is an efficient format for wire protocols, internal program messages, and databases.
Actually I'm just kidding; there are definitely places where it has a purpose. Although I will probably never get why a closing tag requires a repeat of the file opening tag name...
because it's a case of "early optimization" (the root of all evil)
While you may very well be right on this issue, it is taking this quote very much out of context. Early optimization in software is bad because it tends to reduce maintainability and wastes effort on code that is likely not performance critical anyway. In contrast, the need for maintainability in compiler-generated assembly is questionable, and it doesn't really matter if the compiler spends some extra time optimizing every last statement even if it is non-critical; unless you are on unbelievably large projects it just doesn't matter. What I'm trying to say is, the quote you provided doesn't apply here.
Sorry for ranting, but I can't stand it when people take these kinds of "common wisdoms" and then display a complete lack of understanding of the actual issues behind them...
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, before Slashdot we were all reading the Dilbert "List of the Day", which, believe it or not, wasted possibly even more time than Slashdot did.
And should Slashdot disappear I'm sure we'll find something else to occupy those idle moments while compiling. Maybe talk to that new cute secretary... Hmm...
That's not true. Building C is much quicker with Visual C++ than building C++. I know, I do it every day.
However, it is generally speaking true that gcc takes more time to compile than Visual C++ does.
I think you meant to say "...but it is still used, and probably is on at least #4 servers."
Belgium?
Well, we've just been taught a marvelous solution to that problem by our american allies: we strategically relocate the treaty to the toilet, where it can serve in its new purpose as toilet paper.
Why is that, may I ask? Is there some treaty in place that causes the US patents to also apply in the EU?
And what do we get in return: does a european patent also apply in the US?
As for US connections, do you remember Bill Gates' trip to Europe the other day? The one where he met with all those people involved in the swpat decision process?
Doesn't this say that software is NOT patentable?
I don't agree with your definition of a civil war. When you have at least two groups having an armed conflict inside a single country, that is a civil war. When you have one group terroring the population as a whole, that is terrorism.
Just to make this perfectly clear: the Basks (at least some of them) are setting off bombs in Spain, but the Spanish are not setting off bombs in Basque. The violence goes in one direction only. And when a handful of ETA members were arrested the organisation was virtually destroyed. That's terrorism.
Unfortunately they are not free, and I cannot even afford one per _year_ on my salary.
Personally I feel that _if_ we ever get software patents, we should attempt to have the whole lot put under public domain just to level the playing field. Otherwise, the criminals (i.e. those companies who obtained software patents while it was illegal) will benefit while law-abiding companies will be punished.
If we also add all the software patents already registered in the US and elsewhere, we will at least have a decent body of prior art so we can fight against new software patents...
And now the bank secret is going down. It makes it just too easy for criminals and terrorists to keep a lot of cash on hand, and the powers that be are clamoring for openness. We'll talk again after the money has drained away and you'll have to survive on tourist income alone.
Oh, and by the way - if you join the EU you actually get to elect the people in Brussels too, just like the rest of us.
Because if there is one thing parliaments _really_ hate, it is that kind of thing...
If you can read Dutch, read all about it here.
And what do they have to show for it? Nothing. A promise of possible laws, but at least half the lawmakers opposed to their ideas.
Despite their billions of dollars, they can still be stopped with modest effort by a mostly unfunded group. They don't really have much power, they just want you to think they do so you'll give up fighting them.
Will they have their way? Hell no. Right now the lawmakers are pushing ahead with the proposal ONLY because backing down opens up a can of worms: it means any future agreement between the EU countries becomes meaningless, since countries can still back down after the meeting has completed. Right now this is not truly the case, not if the meeting was concluded succesfully.
So this battle has nothing to do with software patents anymore. It is now about how decisions are made, and what the value of these decisions is. And the people making those decisions very badly want to keep that power.
Eh? Slashdot is not calling Microsoft evil for making money, but for all the other stuff they do. Like in the example you so conveniently ignored: refusing to run Windows with a spurious error message when DRDos is present.
It is kind of annoying that Microsoft has managed to build a shield of people who have no other purpose in the world than to repeat the lie that Microsoft is hated for its success. Any criticism is made, and people will immediately go into "Ahh, but Microsoft is only hated for success" mode, and no proof, no reason, no evidence will convince them that something else may be wrong.
Your civil war was a long time ago and you may think wars are a romantic way to solve conflicts. Here in Europe people remember the last two wars we fought, and we don't labor under such notions. We won't go to war over a perceived democratic deficit (which is funny, coming from a nation with only two parties, which are identical anyway), and we certainly will not go to war over software patents.
And before you ask - we don't need liberating at this time. Thanks for asking, though. No, we don't have oil.
Indirect elections are nothing new. Some nations even choose their president that way.
Last year we had a quality bozo over from HQ. He explained all the new quality processes to us, and then presented us with an explanatory document that we could keep for reference.
One of his main points had been that all documents must have tracking numbers.
The reference document did not have a tracking number.
I do not think this is very consistent. Evidentally quality is something they bestow upon others, without actually taking part in its processes by themselves... Why is that, one wonders?
On another note, QA and QM methodes may sound incredibly dull and based upon "duh - how else should I do this, dumbass?", but are in fact highly sophisticated.
Ha, in your dreams! I don't mean to belittle those who have made a carreer of QA, but in the end it comes down to checking that procedures are being followed and nothing more. That's not highly sophisticated or even clever, it is just a constant grind. It is more about persistence than about consistency.
Configurability: if you knew what you were doing you could really set the machine to your way of working. Without ever touching a compiler, I might add.
ARexx: the ability to automate anything you felt like was a major improvement in efficiency.
Screens: allows you to group together related tasks, without ever cluttering up the, uhh, screen.
And I agree - AmigaOS was easily _the_ most productive environment I've ever worked in.
Chances are that once all major markets are covered by anti-patent law, interested parties (I mean Microsoft) will strike in force. Right now they are probably willing to hold back, in order not to scare off the EU.
But hey, I'm not worried - I still have an acoustic modem somewhere in my house...
I suppose you could also be a "copyright infringer", but I don't really remember the AC table for that class.
Hmm, shouldn't forget to check that "post anonymously" box...
Any ideas what those 2 are?
1. XML is a good idea.
2. XML is an efficient format for wire protocols, internal program messages, and databases.
Actually I'm just kidding; there are definitely places where it has a purpose. Although I will probably never get why a closing tag requires a repeat of the file opening tag name...
While you may very well be right on this issue, it is taking this quote very much out of context. Early optimization in software is bad because it tends to reduce maintainability and wastes effort on code that is likely not performance critical anyway. In contrast, the need for maintainability in compiler-generated assembly is questionable, and it doesn't really matter if the compiler spends some extra time optimizing every last statement even if it is non-critical; unless you are on unbelievably large projects it just doesn't matter. What I'm trying to say is, the quote you provided doesn't apply here.
Sorry for ranting, but I can't stand it when people take these kinds of "common wisdoms" and then display a complete lack of understanding of the actual issues behind them...