Because then they would have to rewrite the entire compiler. The point with using c++ is that gcc can already be compiled with a c++ compiler so they can now start using the c++ without a total rewrite/redesign.
That is not really because of c++, but due to a really really bad linker which link in far to many methods which are newer called. (And I seems to remember that gcc on linux have the same problem with some c libraries).
You are aware that Apple don't review code before it is added to the shop right?
And the rest of the world have already solved this problem for mobile phones. An application don't have access to do anything that can interfere with other applications/the operation system without explicit user accept.
And this access is handled by the operation system not the application. The application ask the operation system, and the operation system ask the user, so the application don't have any way to trick the user into doing something by lying to the user.
Except that many businesses goes "out of business" by being bought by an other business. Just look at the Oracle which just bought Sun. Sun went out of business but the shareholders were paid the value of Sun by Oracle, so they did not really lose anything. (Well except maybe that Oracle may have paid with Oracle stocks instead of cash).
I still think that the most scary(And interesting) part is that google now have 152,000 hits for the word. So a: Google is fast at picking up new words. It really generated a lot of interest and there are quite some spammers with some effective automatic page generation systems.
How about Apple just make their own implementation of flash? I mean flash is a public and published standard and anyone are allowed to create an implementation.
So if Apple don't like the current Adobe implementation(And I can understand that) they can just make their own.
There is no reason to think it can't work on Android. Android don't have any problems running software written in C. You just have to use the ndk(Native development kit)
Why should they transcode the video? I mean the flash plugin already play h264, and MP4 also contains use so no need to transcode. It is simply a case of serving the files directly to the browser, instead of having a flash plugin reading the file. (Been there, done that there is no reason to transcode anything)
None, I have given up bash scripting. The syntax and semantic are simply to wierd. And it can't handle filenames with space in them without some serious hack magic.
Maybe its time someone (re)-invent a total new shell, with a sane scripting language, commands with consistent names for the same arguments and in general something which don't feel like I live in 1980.
And I am a fulltime linux used, and a software developer, and I do use the shell as an interactive interface, but I newer script it, and I always have the feeling that I am using a 20 year old interface with so many issues that its insane. Kinda like the same feeling I get when I use sas(The static package. Nice features HORRIBLE interface)
But both those examples show what the open source business model is. Support other peoples open source software and use it to sell complete solutions to your customers.
I mean less then 1% of the source code that Redhat supports and use are written by people paid by Redhat.
The problem for Oracle here is that they can't do the same with Solaris, because they write most of the code themself, and if they don't write it, nobody else will.
Dam this is stupid. Let me quote from the wiki text:
"Theoretically, any language may be compiled or interpreted, so this designation is applied purely because of common implementation practice and not some underlying property of a language"
So it does not even make sense to talk about a language being compiled or interpreted*. It is an implementation that is either using a compiler or an interpreter. A language can be designed to be compiled(And java,c and c++ is designed for this purpose), or it can be designed to be interpreted(php is very difficult to make a compiler for, due to the type system). But any implementation
Example: The first c++ compiler did compiler c++ to c. It was still a compiler. And there do exists c interpreters so c is not (always) a compiled language. Even if someone then used a c interpreter to run the compiled c++ code.
The current implementation of Java from Sun/Oracle does in fact use compilers. It use one compiler to compile java to bytecode, and then it use an other compiler to compile the bytecode to cpu instructions. Exactly when this process happens does not change the fact that its a compiler.
And for real fun: Is x86 code interpreted or compiled? Well I am currently running an x86 emulator with a jit, so my computer is currently compiling x86 code to different x86 code. This new x86 code is then interpreted by my cpu. But if I had a high end Intel CPU it might compile the x86 code to "intel micro code format" which would then be interpreted by the processor.
*compilation of java source to java bytecode may be part of the java specs, so if you make an program which interpret java sourcecode without outputting java bytecode, you may not be allowed to call it Java due to an incomplete implementation.
But his banking Qube should be setup not to allow executaion of any software(Except the banking software). And if it's using a webbrowser it should be setup only to access the banks website.
But I still think that having banks give our/sell special purpose computers with a rom chip as only storage is the best way to prevent hacking of bank accounts.
All money transfer operations should then be send to this computer, where the user would then have to confirm the data on the special purpose computer, which could then connect to the bank and order the transfer.
Sound nice, but I hope the library also handle multi processor systems, where each processer have its own ram block. You don't want one cpu to allocate the memory, which is used by an other cpu.
Do operation systems even have support to say "These 2 threads should run on the same processor, but I don't care about which one".
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you or I as gcc users care about if gcc is written in c or c++ ?
Because then they would have to rewrite the entire compiler. The point with using c++ is that gcc can already be compiled with a c++ compiler so they can now start using the c++ without a total rewrite/redesign.
That is not really because of c++, but due to a really really bad linker which link in far to many methods which are newer called. (And I seems to remember that gcc on linux have the same problem with some c libraries).
You are aware that Apple don't review code before it is added to the shop right?
And the rest of the world have already solved this problem for mobile phones. An application don't have access to do anything that can interfere with other applications/the operation system without explicit user accept.
And this access is handled by the operation system not the application. The application ask the operation system, and the operation system ask the user, so the application don't have any way to trick the user into doing something by lying to the user.
Except that many businesses goes "out of business" by being bought by an other business. Just look at the Oracle which just bought Sun. Sun went out of business but the shareholders were paid the value of Sun by Oracle, so they did not really lose anything. (Well except maybe that Oracle may have paid with Oracle stocks instead of cash).
No not really. Apples profit for their desktop/laptops are not really that much higher then the 6 mentioned top sellers.
It is the iPhone and music players which bring in the money.
The problem in his example is with the serverside code not html.
And if you want to, it it simply to choose just a single vendors framework and use only that.
I still think that the most scary(And interesting) part is that google now have 152,000 hits for the word. So a: Google is fast at picking up new words. It really generated a lot of interest and there are quite some spammers with some effective automatic page generation systems.
No they would not. They have changed their TOS to allow 3 party player implementations.
That was most likely an "out of memmory error" unless you run the 64 bit version, with something like 32GB ram
How about Apple just make their own implementation of flash? I mean flash is a public and published standard and anyone are allowed to create an implementation.
So if Apple don't like the current Adobe implementation(And I can understand that) they can just make their own.
There is no reason to think it can't work on Android. Android don't have any problems running software written in C. You just have to use the ndk(Native development kit)
Anyone who can explain why the screen in the first example renders from bottom to top?
I would expect it to start rendering at the top.
Why not just uninstall the driver? (Or if it is a vital driver, re-install the old version?)
Why should they transcode the video? I mean the flash plugin already play h264, and MP4 also contains use so no need to transcode. It is simply a case of serving the files directly to the browser, instead of having a flash plugin reading the file. (Been there, done that there is no reason to transcode anything)
[quote]
About spaces:
?? do you mean a '\ ' ? Again, I say, "yikes".
[/quote]
No ofcause not. I mean things such as
xmms `locate Techno`
not working with names containing spaces. But this thread have produced some interesting work arounds for that.
And there is a similary problem if you use for/forall to loop over all the files in a directory.
I think that just illustrate the point that Bash have nice features but horrible syntax and magic.
None, I have given up bash scripting. The syntax and semantic are simply to wierd. And it can't handle filenames with space in them without some serious hack magic.
Maybe its time someone (re)-invent a total new shell, with a sane scripting language, commands with consistent names for the same arguments and in general something which don't feel like I live in 1980.
And I am a fulltime linux used, and a software developer, and I do use the shell as an interactive interface, but I newer script it, and I always have the feeling that I am using a 20 year old interface with so many issues that its insane. Kinda like the same feeling I get when I use sas(The static package. Nice features HORRIBLE interface)
Except that it was not documentet at all. It was just stated as a fact with absolute nothing to back it up. Aka an analysis pulled out of his a**
But both those examples show what the open source business model is. Support other peoples open source software and use it to sell complete solutions to your customers.
I mean less then 1% of the source code that Redhat supports and use are written by people paid by Redhat.
The problem for Oracle here is that they can't do the same with Solaris, because they write most of the code themself, and if they don't write it, nobody else will.
Dam this is stupid. Let me quote from the wiki text:
"Theoretically, any language may be compiled or interpreted, so this designation is applied purely because of common implementation practice and not some underlying property of a language"
So it does not even make sense to talk about a language being compiled or interpreted*. It is an implementation that is either using a compiler or an interpreter. A language can be designed to be compiled(And java,c and c++ is designed for this purpose), or it can be designed to be interpreted(php is very difficult to make a compiler for, due to the type system). But any implementation
Example: The first c++ compiler did compiler c++ to c. It was still a compiler. And there do exists c interpreters so c is not (always) a compiled language. Even if someone then used a c interpreter to run the compiled c++ code.
The current implementation of Java from Sun/Oracle does in fact use compilers. It use one compiler to compile java to bytecode, and then it use an other compiler to compile the bytecode to cpu instructions. Exactly when this process happens does not change the fact that its a compiler.
And for real fun: Is x86 code interpreted or compiled? Well I am currently running an x86 emulator with a jit, so my computer is currently compiling x86 code to different x86 code. This new x86 code is then interpreted by my cpu. But if I had a high end Intel CPU it might compile the x86 code to "intel micro code format" which would then be interpreted by the processor.
*compilation of java source to java bytecode may be part of the java specs, so if you make an program which interpret java sourcecode without outputting java bytecode, you may not be allowed to call it Java due to an incomplete implementation.
But clicking on a link should newer be dangerous, so for this to work there must be a bug in their bugtracking software.
Which is why any decent sql language/database interface will throw an exception if a query fails.
Oh and is MySQL the only database that just let the query hang until there is free diskspace again?
But his banking Qube should be setup not to allow executaion of any software(Except the banking software). And if it's using a webbrowser it should be setup only to access the banks website.
But I still think that having banks give our/sell special purpose computers with a rom chip as only storage is the best way to prevent hacking of bank accounts.
All money transfer operations should then be send to this computer, where the user would then have to confirm the data on the special purpose computer, which could then connect to the bank and order the transfer.
Sound nice, but I hope the library also handle multi processor systems, where each processer have its own ram block. You don't want one cpu to allocate the memory, which is used by an other cpu.
Do operation systems even have support to say "These 2 threads should run on the same processor, but I don't care about which one".