Are those load times compared on the exact same machine with the exact same OS? No changes over that period of time? Or did they obtain the old version and then the new version and compare that way?
I ask because I've seen many cases where developers upgrade machines and compare against old benchmarks and are amazed that they are faster. Duh. I Doubt this is the case, since it's the mozilla project, but I thought I might ask.
I wish someone had a reference to the series of articles they did. They did an excellent job of highlighting the stupidity that is HN. How, you might ask? Well, they took complex code and converted it, to the letter, to HN. They then gave it to HN experts and asked them to decipher the types, without actually giving them the types. In pretty much every case, the wrong type information was obtained. Why? Because HN is very ambigious for complex constructs. When HN isn't ambigious, the code and the constructs are usually so simple, they add no value. Furthermore, there is no value in using HN where the variables are completely in scope and visible to the programmer.
There just is not a good reason to use HN unless you just love extra typing, never suffer from typos, enjoy reading longer variable names which provide little value, or just use it as a form of obfuscation.
Except that a type change often is a trivial operation. HN forces it to never be a trivial operation. Spoken as someone that is so deep in HN-BS, you can no longer see where realiity begins.
Or, as a real programmer with even half a brain would of done. And, it even makes sense:
TextureRead( T* ) TextureDownsample( T* )
So how is your example holding water? Seems to me, I added an "_" for no return. Looks like classic HN worthlessness. Typical. Extra typing for no return.
Long story short, there are smart programmers who actually think about why they do the things they do, and there are bad programmers who are parrots.
I assume you stated this because you're wanting a cracker?
When HN isn't ambigious, you more than likely already have everything in scope and the code in question is very simplistic. So what did it buy you? A merit badge saying that you're good at using worthless concepts. Heh. Extra typing?
I'm sorry, I'm really not balking at you, it's just that it constantly amazes me that so many brain-dead programmers insist there is value when it's obvious, there isn't any. The really sad thing is, it's usually brain-dead MS programmers that have no clue to begin with that insist there is value in using HN. Oh well. Most will grow up. Many, assuming they actually have some skill, will figure out that MS is a horrible development platform anyways, a lookg to move to another platform, if possible.
I remember reading DD mag years ago. They had a series of articles on why HN sucked. For me, the ones that really stuck in my head were:
o When properly used, it created many ambigious meanings, which defeated the whole purpose of using it. Most of these ambiguities centered around various pointer constructs, which is supposedly one of the major areas which it attempts to address. Basically, HN is broken right out of the gate.
o It often required more typing, which slowed development and increased typo error rates. Which, in turn, required another round of typo fixing and compile attempts.
o While HN provides "instant" type information, it's often harder to read, especially for complex types, requiring much longer than an "instant" duration to comprehend or extract the information that it's attempting to provide.
o Maintaining code is very problematic. Changing the type of a variable may result in changes in countless files. This increases development time. It also causes a lot of garbage to be created in RC logs, which may of otherwise required changes in as little as one file.
Long story short, the disadvantages of HN do not justify what is basically a single reward, when it actually works. Basically, there are smart programmers that use good names which help convey the same types of "instant" type information and then there are bad programmers that insist on using HN.
Ummm. Actually, a lot of the guys from 9-1-1 (all maybe?) did not have valid IDs. They had IDs, but they were not valid. The guy that made the ids for them, last I heard, is facing some serious prison time. Furthermore, most (all maybe?) of the guys entered the country with false ids having changed their names...or in some cases, changed the spelling of their names; which is effectively the same thing as changing your name.
Well, to make it effective, the dose would always be large enough to be one-size-fits-all. The problem is, as the terrorist incident in Russia showed, the dose will kill some people. Others may be put into a comma. Still others more, will suffer some sort of long term organ damage. Yet, everyone will go down.
So, on paper it's a good idea. In practice, it's a great way to kill, mame and injure lots of people.
While the facts may be true, this is honestly, one of the dumber things I've read on/. Guess what, world wide, the US is now prime cannon fodder for terrorist which do match specific racial, idealogical, or point of origin criteria. According to you, we should ignore common sense and facts just because, historically, we have never before been such a highly prized canon fodder target.
Get real.
We have two choices. We can ignore common sense and logic, as you insist, and wait for the next non-domestic terrorist attack or we can make an effort to try to prevent them. Let's face it, we have a much, much, much higher chance of non-domestic terrorism than domestic right now. Yet, according to you, we should completley ignore that fact. Let's face it. If I had to pull numbers from my tail pipe, I'd say we have a 70% chance of non-domestic terrorism in the next 2 years, that significantly effects airlines. While I would only guess something as low as 5% to 10% of domestic terrorism in the next 2 years, that will significantly effect airlines. Heck, let's say they are a 50/50 split. Are you really so ignorant that you want to insist that we should ignore a 50% chance to prevent terrorism? Obviously the numbers are made up, but are you really in such a hurry to blindly ignore facts?
You may want to re-read what the original post said. He was talking about internal pressures. Not external pressures where the astroid might be caught in between.
The flip side of this is that the universe is taking its practice shots to make sure, when the shot really counts, it hits France with the first shot.
I know the universe sure would be embarrassed if it was aiming for France and it got Germany. I think these practice shots are pretty important. After all, it's just warming up.;)
Mod the parent back down. The AC which already replied and was marked as flambait is right. This guy is an idiot. The only exception where his statement might hold water would be if the object were solid water...and then, maybe. And then, it wouldn't be because of "pressure differences", it would be because of super heating, causing steam to form inside, causing it to explode.
I believe one of the picture annotations says that they dumped their oxidizer once they hit their target altitude. Perhaps they were out of fuel, but that made me think they had fuel and dumped for safety reasons before they could land.
Umm....there are many torrent applications. Some run under Java. Some run under Python (the defacto reference implementation). Some are written in C or C++. Seems there are plenty of choices.
I completely agree. The use of XML is lame. It serves no purpose. They could of easily created their specification which more naturally blended with the SMTP protocol. Before they even released their specification, they knew they would be conflicting with an emerging standard, which does not use XML.
Begs the question, why didn't they adopt the non-XML emerging standard? Oh, that's right. They are MS! They'll do whatever they want regardless if it makes sense, is good for end users, or is effecient.
If I had mod points, I would mod you up and mod down the person that replied. Since I don't, I can only pat ya on the back and knowingly agree.
Leave it to MS to think of creative ways to waste CPU cycles for absolutely no benefit in return. It's the waste of CPU cycles for the sake of wasting CPU cycles so they can be trendy. Personally, I hope everyone tells MS to stick it and adopt SPF. Let's see, I can do it MS' way and spend 200x the CPU or I can do what makes sense and effeciently do the same processing for a fraction of CPU time. For large sites, ISPs, or home users with modest servers, which one do I want to adopt?
I love the part where you make crap up, attribute it to me and then imagine that it somehow validates your completely illogical statements.
Let me guess. You take medication. It's obvious. You might seriously consider talking to your doctor about an adjustment. I'm not saying this to be cruel, even though much of my previous postings have been. Seriously! Dude! Talk to your doctor. Seriously!
Slashdot Mirror
While not news to me, as I've heard of peolpe doing this, I can't help but laugh out loud at the sheer stupidity. HEhehehehe.
Are those load times compared on the exact same machine with the exact same OS? No changes over that period of time? Or did they obtain the old version and then the new version and compare that way?
I ask because I've seen many cases where developers upgrade machines and compare against old benchmarks and are amazed that they are faster. Duh. I Doubt this is the case, since it's the mozilla project, but I thought I might ask.
Woh!
;)
Stop that crap right now! People that can use there head...neh, their brain, have no place on slashdot! Now, get the hell out of here!
Don't worry, the guy you're replying to is probably a closet Win users.
Cheers!
I wish someone had a reference to the series of articles they did. They did an excellent job of highlighting the stupidity that is HN. How, you might ask? Well, they took complex code and converted it, to the letter, to HN. They then gave it to HN experts and asked them to decipher the types, without actually giving them the types. In pretty much every case, the wrong type information was obtained. Why? Because HN is very ambigious for complex constructs. When HN isn't ambigious, the code and the constructs are usually so simple, they add no value. Furthermore, there is no value in using HN where the variables are completely in scope and visible to the programmer.
There just is not a good reason to use HN unless you just love extra typing, never suffer from typos, enjoy reading longer variable names which provide little value, or just use it as a form of obfuscation.
Except that a type change often is a trivial operation. HN forces it to never be a trivial operation. Spoken as someone that is so deep in HN-BS, you can no longer see where realiity begins.
e (T*)
naive:
ReadTexture(T*)
DownsampleTexture(T*)
hungarian:
Texture_Read(T*)
Texture_Downsampl
Or, as a real programmer with even half a brain would of done. And, it even makes sense:
TextureRead( T* )
TextureDownsample( T* )
So how is your example holding water? Seems to me, I added an "_" for no return. Looks like classic HN worthlessness. Typical. Extra typing for no return.
Long story short, there are smart programmers who actually think about why they do the things they do, and there are bad programmers who are parrots.
I assume you stated this because you're wanting a cracker?
Exactly!
Welcome to the clue train!
When HN isn't ambigious, you more than likely already have everything in scope and the code in question is very simplistic. So what did it buy you? A merit badge saying that you're good at using worthless concepts. Heh. Extra typing?
I'm sorry, I'm really not balking at you, it's just that it constantly amazes me that so many brain-dead programmers insist there is value when it's obvious, there isn't any. The really sad thing is, it's usually brain-dead MS programmers that have no clue to begin with that insist there is value in using HN. Oh well. Most will grow up. Many, assuming they actually have some skill, will figure out that MS is a horrible development platform anyways, a lookg to move to another platform, if possible.
Save only for the control fins and exhaust nozel.
I remember reading DD mag years ago. They had a series of articles on why HN sucked. For me, the ones that really stuck in my head were:
o When properly used, it created many ambigious meanings, which defeated the whole purpose of using it. Most of these ambiguities centered around various pointer constructs, which is supposedly one of the major areas which it attempts to address. Basically, HN is broken right out of the gate.
o It often required more typing, which slowed development and increased typo error rates. Which, in turn, required another round of typo fixing and compile attempts.
o While HN provides "instant" type information, it's often harder to read, especially for complex types, requiring much longer than an "instant" duration to comprehend or extract the information that it's attempting to provide.
o Maintaining code is very problematic. Changing the type of a variable may result in changes in countless files. This increases development time. It also causes a lot of garbage to be created in RC logs, which may of otherwise required changes in as little as one file.
Long story short, the disadvantages of HN do not justify what is basically a single reward, when it actually works. Basically, there are smart programmers that use good names which help convey the same types of "instant" type information and then there are bad programmers that insist on using HN.
Wow...I'm constantly amazed at the idiots out there that have no sense of humor. Flamebait? Ya right. What an idiotically moron of a moderator.
Get a life and sense of humor while you're at it you loser moderator. Shesh.
What a dolt.
Ummm. Actually, a lot of the guys from 9-1-1 (all maybe?) did not have valid IDs. They had IDs, but they were not valid. The guy that made the ids for them, last I heard, is facing some serious prison time. Furthermore, most (all maybe?) of the guys entered the country with false ids having changed their names...or in some cases, changed the spelling of their names; which is effectively the same thing as changing your name.
Well, to make it effective, the dose would always be large enough to be one-size-fits-all. The problem is, as the terrorist incident in Russia showed, the dose will kill some people. Others may be put into a comma. Still others more, will suffer some sort of long term organ damage. Yet, everyone will go down.
So, on paper it's a good idea. In practice, it's a great way to kill, mame and injure lots of people.
While the facts may be true, this is honestly, one of the dumber things I've read on /. Guess what, world wide, the US is now prime cannon fodder for terrorist which do match specific racial, idealogical, or point of origin criteria. According to you, we should ignore common sense and facts just because, historically, we have never before been such a highly prized canon fodder target.
Get real.
We have two choices. We can ignore common sense and logic, as you insist, and wait for the next non-domestic terrorist attack or we can make an effort to try to prevent them. Let's face it, we have a much, much, much higher chance of non-domestic terrorism than domestic right now. Yet, according to you, we should completley ignore that fact. Let's face it. If I had to pull numbers from my tail pipe, I'd say we have a 70% chance of non-domestic terrorism in the next 2 years, that significantly effects airlines. While I would only guess something as low as 5% to 10% of domestic terrorism in the next 2 years, that will significantly effect airlines. Heck, let's say they are a 50/50 split. Are you really so ignorant that you want to insist that we should ignore a 50% chance to prevent terrorism? Obviously the numbers are made up, but are you really in such a hurry to blindly ignore facts?
Ah..no.
You may want to re-read what the original post said. He was talking about internal pressures. Not external pressures where the astroid might be caught in between.
LOL....you might go back and read what I said.
...Shesh....
I clearly stated, "The only exception where his statement might hold water would be"....
Thanks for restating what I said and then imply I was somehow wrong.
You've cleared so much up.
Thanks.
The flip side of this is that the universe is taking its practice shots to make sure, when the shot really counts, it hits France with the first shot.
;)
I know the universe sure would be embarrassed if it was aiming for France and it got Germany. I think these practice shots are pretty important. After all, it's just warming up.
Mod the parent back down. The AC which already replied and was marked as flambait is right. This guy is an idiot. The only exception where his statement might hold water would be if the object were solid water...and then, maybe. And then, it wouldn't be because of "pressure differences", it would be because of super heating, causing steam to form inside, causing it to explode.
I believe one of the picture annotations says that they dumped their oxidizer once they hit their target altitude. Perhaps they were out of fuel, but that made me think they had fuel and dumped for safety reasons before they could land.
Umm....there are many torrent applications. Some run under Java. Some run under Python (the defacto reference implementation). Some are written in C or C++. Seems there are plenty of choices.
So, no, I don't think I have an answer at all.
...why kernels are still not offered up via torrents yet?
Seems like it would help a lot.
Right now, I can't even connect to a use mirror. Grrr.
I completely agree. The use of XML is lame. It serves no purpose. They could of easily created their specification which more naturally blended with the SMTP protocol. Before they even released their specification, they knew they would be conflicting with an emerging standard, which does not use XML.
Begs the question, why didn't they adopt the non-XML emerging standard? Oh, that's right. They are MS! They'll do whatever they want regardless if it makes sense, is good for end users, or is effecient.
If I had mod points, I would mod you up and mod down the person that replied. Since I don't, I can only pat ya on the back and knowingly agree.
Leave it to MS to think of creative ways to waste CPU cycles for absolutely no benefit in return. It's the waste of CPU cycles for the sake of wasting CPU cycles so they can be trendy. Personally, I hope everyone tells MS to stick it and adopt SPF. Let's see, I can do it MS' way and spend 200x the CPU or I can do what makes sense and effeciently do the same processing for a fraction of CPU time. For large sites, ISPs, or home users with modest servers, which one do I want to adopt?
LOL. Never heard anyone put it like that before.
I, of course, disagree.
Cheers!
Or run long enough so that Java's GC was actually measured rather than pushed out so far to avoid being included in the benchmark. :-) ;-)
Two ways to read this reply. You can read it as "funny", which it has been modded as such, or you can read it as, "troll".
Either way, I understand why it was posted anonymously.
LOL!
What a dolt!
I love the part where you make crap up, attribute it to me and then imagine that it somehow validates your completely illogical statements.
Let me guess. You take medication. It's obvious. You might seriously consider talking to your doctor about an adjustment. I'm not saying this to be cruel, even though much of my previous postings have been. Seriously! Dude! Talk to your doctor. Seriously!
Someone told me that it would be replacing the F-14 too. Is that true?