Ah, that's a good answer! It also explains why '77 doesn't allow recursion (and '90 requires it to be explicitly declared). That answer really ought to be in a prominent FAQ or something.
Of course, even though I admit that FORTRAN does do that particular thing better than C, C still can do it (via goto if you want the exact thing with ugly syntax, or inlining if you want something sorta similar with clean syntax and don't care about executable size). It's too bad that C doesn't have a "jump" keyword that's used in a similar way as "inline" but causes the function to use FORTRAN semantics.
Being a C# developer most of the time, I really wish I could pass the address of a public property to a method. That's about the only time I really wish I could use pointers.
But if you think about it, that doesn't make any sense anyway: the entire point of using a property instead of making the field it aliases public to begin with is that you want to restrict access through the getter and setter. Or in other words, if you could access the address of the field then you could bypass the getter and setter.
If you want to be able to access the field directly, then just make it a public field instead of a property. If you want to access the property of a class you didn't write, then the writer probably had some good reason not to make it a field (i.e. the getter and setter actually check or transform the data) and you should stop trying!
What about if you have a void* pointer? In that case, do you have to cast it to the correct pointer type before dereferencing?
Yes, because you aren't allowed to dereference a void pointer, period -- it's a syntax error. Think about it: what would you dereference it to, void (which isn't actually a type)?
Right now I have 12 Firefox windows open, with 1, 3, 5, 8, 3, 23, 9, 7, 15, 13, 12 and 15 tabs respectively. That's 114 pages. And for me, that's typical. So if by "30 windows" you mean "30 pages" (either 1 window with 30 tabs, or 30 windows with 1 tab each) then, yes, that would be "basic web browsing" to me!
It doesn't fit my experience either, but in the opposite way: both IE and Firefox are capable of using up my entire RAM (1 to 2 GB, depending on the computer) until they either crash or freeze. But that's because I tend to have a bunch of tabs per window, and a bunch of windows!
If it's labeled as an "undo," then Opera has to keep the old page in memory and it thus isn't a waste. Re-fetching the page isn't the same as "undo" because the page might have changed!
Anyway, I wonder if this is a good thing for PR. If companies point to this to be even more reluctant to adopt F/OSS solutions...
Why wouldn't it be? After all, companies have to comply with the license for the software they distribute regardless of what that license says. There is no difference between this and proprietary software!
If you distribute the software, you comply with the license. Whether it's GPL, proprietary, or otherwise. Period. It's really fucking simple!
Either that's the minimum and there are often considerably more, the vast majority of those officers are part-time, or their math isn't right. If we assume a typical full-time schedule, 40hrs/week * 50 weeks a year (with 2 weeks of vacation), each officer works 2000 hrs/year. Since there are 24 hrs/day * 365 days/yr = 8760 hours in a year, each officer is working 2000/8760 = 22.8% of the time. But if we assumed their 7/400 figure was an average, that would mean each officer worked 7/400 = 1.75% of the time. This does not compute!
Don't play stupid, Twitter -- you damn well know I'm talking about the Linux kernel (along with other, less important, projects that are still licensed under GPLv2 without the "or later" clause -- which do exist, I'm sure). And you also damn well know that the GNU toolchain can perfectly well be used to build non-GPLv3 (and even proprietary) applications. Output isn't covered by the GPL unless the program puts it's own code into it (and Bison has an exception for that), glibc is LGPL rather than GPL, etc. Speaking of which, gnu.org's glibc manual still even lists LGPLv2 (not v3) as the license! (I realize it's the COPYING file in the actual source that matters, but I don't have current glibc source available right now and don't feel like bothering to download it to check.)
In other words, I've been around here on Slashdot long enough to know how you can be rather zealous (to put it politely) in your Free Software advocacy, and that means that I can see through your bullshit. But don't misunderstand me: I'm just as big an advocate as you are, and I understand these licensing issues at least as well as you do. I just realize that spreading FUD isn't helpful to the cause, and I look forward to the day that you realize it too.
Ah, see, that's why I made sure to say I didn't remember the statistic. ; ) Maybe it was referring to 300 felonies...? It was 300 somethings, anyway. Thanks for the correction!
If the streets where he lives are so rampant with criminal activity I would suggest he follows legal measures to do remedy the situation.
I don't know where in Atlanta this guy lives, but the worst neighborhood in the city is English Avenue. I can't remember the statistics I read at the moment, but I think it had something on the order of 300 murders (let alone everything else) in 2006. In a single neighborhood.
Now, you know how many cops patrol that area? Two. Two! That's not even enough to have even any officers in the area all the time! When it's that bad, exactly what legal measures do you suggest he follow?!
It would still earn you a visit from the water police. (And yes, that's despite the fact that the normal police can't be bothered to get rid of the vagrants!)
What license would you recommend for (say) a Free video game, both the code and the assets-other-than-code such as sampled sound, music, models, textures, scripts, and the like?
I don't think you can assume a single license is appropriate for both code and non-code to begin with.
This is a strategic move on the part of Apple to attempt to assure a certain level of quality on the phones.
Bullshit. This is a strategic move on the part of Apple to squeeze $99 out of every iPhone developer. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you honestly think that, once a developer gets a cert, Apple would actually stop him from signing anything he damn well pleases with it, no matter how crappy? If so, you're painfully naive.
It's entirely possible to use iTunes without buying anything from Apple. Sure you won't be able to take your music or videos with you, but they work just dandy on your computer.
Actually, if you're not buying anything from Apple, then you can take your music or videos with you because the only DRM'd things playable in iTunes are from the Apple-owned iTunes store!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, that's a good answer! It also explains why '77 doesn't allow recursion (and '90 requires it to be explicitly declared). That answer really ought to be in a prominent FAQ or something.
Of course, even though I admit that FORTRAN does do that particular thing better than C, C still can do it (via goto if you want the exact thing with ugly syntax, or inlining if you want something sorta similar with clean syntax and don't care about executable size). It's too bad that C doesn't have a "jump" keyword that's used in a similar way as "inline" but causes the function to use FORTRAN semantics.
But what are FORTRAN 77's strengths, pray tell? It seems to me that everything it does, C does better.
But if you think about it, that doesn't make any sense anyway: the entire point of using a property instead of making the field it aliases public to begin with is that you want to restrict access through the getter and setter. Or in other words, if you could access the address of the field then you could bypass the getter and setter.
If you want to be able to access the field directly, then just make it a public field instead of a property. If you want to access the property of a class you didn't write, then the writer probably had some good reason not to make it a field (i.e. the getter and setter actually check or transform the data) and you should stop trying!
Yes, because you aren't allowed to dereference a void pointer, period -- it's a syntax error. Think about it: what would you dereference it to, void (which isn't actually a type)?
Then that doesn't count as "hearts in the right place," now does it?
Right now I have 12 Firefox windows open, with 1, 3, 5, 8, 3, 23, 9, 7, 15, 13, 12 and 15 tabs respectively. That's 114 pages. And for me, that's typical. So if by "30 windows" you mean "30 pages" (either 1 window with 30 tabs, or 30 windows with 1 tab each) then, yes, that would be "basic web browsing" to me!
It doesn't fit my experience either, but in the opposite way: both IE and Firefox are capable of using up my entire RAM (1 to 2 GB, depending on the computer) until they either crash or freeze. But that's because I tend to have a bunch of tabs per window, and a bunch of windows!
If it's labeled as an "undo," then Opera has to keep the old page in memory and it thus isn't a waste. Re-fetching the page isn't the same as "undo" because the page might have changed!
The answer is, or soon will be, to "crossfire" your cards instead.
Well then you have another problem, now don't you? So fucking fix it too!
Why wouldn't it be? After all, companies have to comply with the license for the software they distribute regardless of what that license says. There is no difference between this and proprietary software!
If you distribute the software, you comply with the license. Whether it's GPL, proprietary, or otherwise. Period. It's really fucking simple!
Either that's the minimum and there are often considerably more, the vast majority of those officers are part-time, or their math isn't right. If we assume a typical full-time schedule, 40hrs/week * 50 weeks a year (with 2 weeks of vacation), each officer works 2000 hrs/year. Since there are 24 hrs/day * 365 days/yr = 8760 hours in a year, each officer is working 2000/8760 = 22.8% of the time. But if we assumed their 7/400 figure was an average, that would mean each officer worked 7/400 = 1.75% of the time. This does not compute!
Don't play stupid, Twitter -- you damn well know I'm talking about the Linux kernel (along with other, less important, projects that are still licensed under GPLv2 without the "or later" clause -- which do exist, I'm sure). And you also damn well know that the GNU toolchain can perfectly well be used to build non-GPLv3 (and even proprietary) applications. Output isn't covered by the GPL unless the program puts it's own code into it (and Bison has an exception for that), glibc is LGPL rather than GPL, etc. Speaking of which, gnu.org's glibc manual still even lists LGPLv2 (not v3) as the license! (I realize it's the COPYING file in the actual source that matters, but I don't have current glibc source available right now and don't feel like bothering to download it to check.)
In other words, I've been around here on Slashdot long enough to know how you can be rather zealous (to put it politely) in your Free Software advocacy, and that means that I can see through your bullshit. But don't misunderstand me: I'm just as big an advocate as you are, and I understand these licensing issues at least as well as you do. I just realize that spreading FUD isn't helpful to the cause, and I look forward to the day that you realize it too.
Actually, the place where it affects me most is walking around my college's campus. There aren't a whole lot of cars (let alone cabs) there.
In fact, my college even has a rule that you can't smoke within X feet of building entrances (and maybe even paths in general), but it's not enforced.
Ah, see, that's why I made sure to say I didn't remember the statistic. ; ) Maybe it was referring to 300 felonies...? It was 300 somethings, anyway. Thanks for the correction!
Only for the patents used by those projects that have adopted the GPLv3.
I don't know where in Atlanta this guy lives, but the worst neighborhood in the city is English Avenue. I can't remember the statistics I read at the moment, but I think it had something on the order of 300 murders (let alone everything else) in 2006. In a single neighborhood.
Now, you know how many cops patrol that area? Two. Two! That's not even enough to have even any officers in the area all the time! When it's that bad, exactly what legal measures do you suggest he follow?!
You can't very well fucking do that if the asshole smoker is lighting up right next to the door you need to get in (as they always do), now can you?
It would still earn you a visit from the water police. (And yes, that's despite the fact that the normal police can't be bothered to get rid of the vagrants!)
I don't think you can assume a single license is appropriate for both code and non-code to begin with.
You fail math: $0 = free. $99 != free, regardless of what the $99 is supposedly for or who pays it!
Bullshit. This is a strategic move on the part of Apple to squeeze $99 out of every iPhone developer. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you honestly think that, once a developer gets a cert, Apple would actually stop him from signing anything he damn well pleases with it, no matter how crappy? If so, you're painfully naive.
At what point do we say "enough is enough" and just stop buying locked-down shit in the first place?
Did Nintendo go out of business when I wasn't looking, or did you mean "like most consoles?"
Actually, if you're not buying anything from Apple, then you can take your music or videos with you because the only DRM'd things playable in iTunes are from the Apple-owned iTunes store!