His point was that he could be a developer God if he could focus on one language, but HTML is completely orthogonal to the languages presented. You can't use Python as web markup and you can't use HTML for shell scripting.
Maybe, but NetBeans only looks/works well in Windows, and elsewhere it just looks and feels wrong, especially font rendering which Swing in general does very badly. It also desperately needs run profiles. Other than that I don't have much against NetBeans.
This has nothing on top of make because it just uses make. And you get all of make's power. I use make to wrap Scons in Eclipse projects. I've used it before for LaTeX compilation as you describe.
Eclipse is a fantastic platform for multi-language development, especially if your primary languages are C, C++, Python, Ruby, etc.
All you need to do is create a C++ Makefile Project, then use the makefile to wrap your build system (e.g. ant, scons, actual makefile, whatever). You can build any number of binaries and launch them (or scripts) from the powerful launch profile system.
Basically, Eclipse projects have "facets" - they can cram in features from multiple language development kits and mostly remain compatible. You still sometimes have to do the glue work yourself, but in general C/C++/Python are very easy to mesh. It is therefore easy to have a project with C libraries being loaded by Python, and so on.
That's being done too. GCC 4.3 with Profile Guided Optimisation is SWEET. I don't think plain PGO can be run on a kernel (but that would be an awesome project), but it would definitely close the gap between ICC and GCC. ICC's PGO is not as good, or rather, ICC itself is better at making the kind of fuzzy predictions that PGO makes definite.
It severely cripples maintenance. Any optimisation, especially one that forks you into multiple parallel implementations (raw C, x86 asm, amd64 asm, amd64 ASM with SSE4, PPC,....), has to be carefully weighed against its extra maintenance cost.
The parts that do benefit from optimisation, such as RAID parity calculation, symmetric encryption, etc. are already optimised. At any rate I think the kernel developers know a lot more about this than you or I do.
If your program is malloc-intensive and you care about performance, you may as well just use a memory pool in userland. It is very bad practice to depend upon specific platform optimisations when deciding which optimisations not to perform on your code. Then you move to another operating system like FreeBSD or Solaris and find your assumptions were wrong and you must now implement that optimisation anyway.
Those fines are supposed to make anticompetitive practice effectively unprofitable. Microsoft's margins run so far above the fines that it's actually good business sense, for their shareholders, to continue the practice and get deducted what is essentially a small "illegal practice" tax. Never mind that the economy is kneecapped because it depends on a monopoly with licensing that would make the RIAA blush.
Oh, but now they have forgotten every non-Ribbon interface, and migrating back to the otherwise familiar Writer will be just as hard as it was to migrate to Ribbon.
The interface is the Ribbon. The interface has always been the Ribbon. The lie became truth.
You may as well buy a desktop computer valued at 2k. A compute farm built out of 20 ARMs with 512MB RAM each (total 10GB), or a single machine with 16GB RAM and probably just as much raw processing power (quad core * high ghz * high flops per hz). You can bet that saving the overhead of networking is worth it even if the total FLOPS is a bit lower. And you get a GPU for GPGPU work.
"Just Works"? How much Java have you actually used? For the space of SEVERAL MONTHS, the official "production-quality" Sun JVM had 64-bit JIT bugs that made it crash very often on very popular projects like Eclipse. They and their users had to wait for months for the JVM to be fixed upstream, and for those fixes to trickle down into their managed environments, which often takes another few months of testing. Don't talk to me about "Just Works", Java is software just like any other, and far from the highest quality.
You mean the "Get The Facts" study that, like all the others, has been widely ridiculed for its inaccuracy? Try actually producing a good product instead of resorting to misinformation to get sales.
I hate to have to repeat it for the thousandth time, but Java's so-called virtualization comes crashing right down if you have even a single threading bug. Let me explain how it works.
Java gets compiled to machine code at runtime. Unlike machine code made from C code, the machine code really does have some nice protections from address and type confusion, with a generally acceptable performance penalty.
However it does NOT have ANY protections from threaded race conditions, so if you make any mistake in this, all bets are off as the results are completely undefined. It could be as simple as a missed increment, or it could cause an internal JVM data structure to be corrupted, either in the Java or C++ components.
At least with C you see and control all of the code that gets run at runtime, all with debug symbols right down to the system calls, and can largely detect and sometimes even trace problems, but with the monstrously large JVM running under your code, you'd be lucky to get a meaningful stack trace.
The same applies right back to security. Threading bugs are generally much more difficult to diagnose and solve than memory management bugs, so if a developer gets memory wrong, they'll get threading wrong too. In a kernel it's worst of all. A Java kernel does little to solve this, and in fact would include a lot of JVM code which must also be debugged.
C is a bad choice for mathematical function definitions, but it's a fantastic choice for integrating into virtually any stage of a software project. It can be used in an OS kernel, a standard portable crypto library (e.g. OpenSSL), embedded firmware, what have you. All of this with NO more library dependencies than the bare minimum memory management, and most crypto/hash functions don't need those because their state fits in a fixed-size structure. So you can have the mythical 100% standalone C code that fits in any context.
Implementing the algorithm in C from the start also makes it easy to port to C-like languages like Java and C#.
Personal conclusions are one thing, but established historical facts are another. Please learn to distinguish the two so that you are able to function in society.
Re:iPhone crashes, software crashes, not much else
on
When Servers Explode
·
· Score: 1
So wait, why do they work fine with Linux and BSD? Maybe it really is the software's fault, if other software works correctly.
Now that AIGLX lets you run any window as an OpenGL mesh and texture, it's not a stretch to map that into a surface in your game. But it would require some cooperation from the game itself, since it has to take a reasonable place in the OpenGL command pipeline unless you just want it hovering over everything.
I think you're way off on what CUDA and GPGPU in general really is. It lets you run math kernels on your video card. It does NOT allow it to be used for "any" computation in any practical sense. It may even be Turing complete, but it is so insanely impractical for general processing tasks, it won't replace the CPU, nor should it.
Similarly the CPU as we know it is not fit for handling GPU tasks. Intel is trying to solve that by optimising CPUs and cramming more of them onto a board to make an equivalent to a GPU. They are going to be infinitely more successful at this than nVidia could hope to be at replacing the CPU with anything remotely GPU-ish.
How about "Microsoft will refuse to give you security patches if you will not or can not upgrade to the latest Windows", which is much worse than raping your dog as you and your business are vulnerable to any number of security exploits. Downplaying the real problems and insulting those that recognize them isn't helping your cause one iota.
That's more like forgetting your password. It is definitely not the same as having your own files and hardware seized by computer code you can't even see, let alone change, technically or legally.
No, it's even worse than that. There have been plenty of protections against malware in place even since Windows XP, stacking up thicker with each service pack.
However actual malware has gone on largely unimpeded because hackers always find a loophole (and there's always a loophole, it's a fundamental truth of software security). So once the code is running, it just disables the security before installing itself permanently, or "cooperates" with the security to appear to be trusted code, just like most of those high profile Windows applications do. Digital signing only works if the code verifying the signature hasn't been hacked, and once malware is running that is easily arranged.
Pretty much. If your car is impounded and all your keys taken, yeah, it's not yours until you pay to get it back.
Modern Windows is much the same. Your computer is being held hostage and you are given the occasional phone call to access what you store on it. Once in a while you receive a severed appendage in the mail. As if that wasn't bad enough, hackers who DO know how to deal with Windows' "security" will have more control over your computer than you do. The latest round of Windows worms is irrefutable proof.
Slashdot Mirror
His point was that he could be a developer God if he could focus on one language, but HTML is completely orthogonal to the languages presented. You can't use Python as web markup and you can't use HTML for shell scripting.
Maybe, but NetBeans only looks/works well in Windows, and elsewhere it just looks and feels wrong, especially font rendering which Swing in general does very badly. It also desperately needs run profiles. Other than that I don't have much against NetBeans.
This has nothing on top of make because it just uses make. And you get all of make's power. I use make to wrap Scons in Eclipse projects. I've used it before for LaTeX compilation as you describe.
Man, I hated the last project where I had to write an HTML script to pipe data between.. wait what?
Eclipse is a fantastic platform for multi-language development, especially if your primary languages are C, C++, Python, Ruby, etc.
All you need to do is create a C++ Makefile Project, then use the makefile to wrap your build system (e.g. ant, scons, actual makefile, whatever). You can build any number of binaries and launch them (or scripts) from the powerful launch profile system.
Basically, Eclipse projects have "facets" - they can cram in features from multiple language development kits and mostly remain compatible. You still sometimes have to do the glue work yourself, but in general C/C++/Python are very easy to mesh. It is therefore easy to have a project with C libraries being loaded by Python, and so on.
That's being done too. GCC 4.3 with Profile Guided Optimisation is SWEET. I don't think plain PGO can be run on a kernel (but that would be an awesome project), but it would definitely close the gap between ICC and GCC. ICC's PGO is not as good, or rather, ICC itself is better at making the kind of fuzzy predictions that PGO makes definite.
It severely cripples maintenance. Any optimisation, especially one that forks you into multiple parallel implementations (raw C, x86 asm, amd64 asm, amd64 ASM with SSE4, PPC, ....), has to be carefully weighed against its extra maintenance cost.
The parts that do benefit from optimisation, such as RAID parity calculation, symmetric encryption, etc. are already optimised. At any rate I think the kernel developers know a lot more about this than you or I do.
If your program is malloc-intensive and you care about performance, you may as well just use a memory pool in userland. It is very bad practice to depend upon specific platform optimisations when deciding which optimisations not to perform on your code. Then you move to another operating system like FreeBSD or Solaris and find your assumptions were wrong and you must now implement that optimisation anyway.
Those fines are supposed to make anticompetitive practice effectively unprofitable. Microsoft's margins run so far above the fines that it's actually good business sense, for their shareholders, to continue the practice and get deducted what is essentially a small "illegal practice" tax. Never mind that the economy is kneecapped because it depends on a monopoly with licensing that would make the RIAA blush.
Oh, but now they have forgotten every non-Ribbon interface, and migrating back to the otherwise familiar Writer will be just as hard as it was to migrate to Ribbon.
The interface is the Ribbon. The interface has always been the Ribbon. The lie became truth.
You may as well buy a desktop computer valued at 2k. A compute farm built out of 20 ARMs with 512MB RAM each (total 10GB), or a single machine with 16GB RAM and probably just as much raw processing power (quad core * high ghz * high flops per hz). You can bet that saving the overhead of networking is worth it even if the total FLOPS is a bit lower. And you get a GPU for GPGPU work.
"Just Works"? How much Java have you actually used? For the space of SEVERAL MONTHS, the official "production-quality" Sun JVM had 64-bit JIT bugs that made it crash very often on very popular projects like Eclipse. They and their users had to wait for months for the JVM to be fixed upstream, and for those fixes to trickle down into their managed environments, which often takes another few months of testing. Don't talk to me about "Just Works", Java is software just like any other, and far from the highest quality.
How do you read your taskbar? :|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_related_to_Microsoft
You mean the "Get The Facts" study that, like all the others, has been widely ridiculed for its inaccuracy? Try actually producing a good product instead of resorting to misinformation to get sales.
I hate to have to repeat it for the thousandth time, but Java's so-called virtualization comes crashing right down if you have even a single threading bug. Let me explain how it works.
Java gets compiled to machine code at runtime. Unlike machine code made from C code, the machine code really does have some nice protections from address and type confusion, with a generally acceptable performance penalty.
However it does NOT have ANY protections from threaded race conditions, so if you make any mistake in this, all bets are off as the results are completely undefined. It could be as simple as a missed increment, or it could cause an internal JVM data structure to be corrupted, either in the Java or C++ components.
At least with C you see and control all of the code that gets run at runtime, all with debug symbols right down to the system calls, and can largely detect and sometimes even trace problems, but with the monstrously large JVM running under your code, you'd be lucky to get a meaningful stack trace.
The same applies right back to security. Threading bugs are generally much more difficult to diagnose and solve than memory management bugs, so if a developer gets memory wrong, they'll get threading wrong too. In a kernel it's worst of all. A Java kernel does little to solve this, and in fact would include a lot of JVM code which must also be debugged.
C is a bad choice for mathematical function definitions, but it's a fantastic choice for integrating into virtually any stage of a software project. It can be used in an OS kernel, a standard portable crypto library (e.g. OpenSSL), embedded firmware, what have you. All of this with NO more library dependencies than the bare minimum memory management, and most crypto/hash functions don't need those because their state fits in a fixed-size structure. So you can have the mythical 100% standalone C code that fits in any context.
Implementing the algorithm in C from the start also makes it easy to port to C-like languages like Java and C#.
Personal conclusions are one thing, but established historical facts are another. Please learn to distinguish the two so that you are able to function in society.
So wait, why do they work fine with Linux and BSD? Maybe it really is the software's fault, if other software works correctly.
Now that AIGLX lets you run any window as an OpenGL mesh and texture, it's not a stretch to map that into a surface in your game. But it would require some cooperation from the game itself, since it has to take a reasonable place in the OpenGL command pipeline unless you just want it hovering over everything.
I think you're way off on what CUDA and GPGPU in general really is. It lets you run math kernels on your video card. It does NOT allow it to be used for "any" computation in any practical sense. It may even be Turing complete, but it is so insanely impractical for general processing tasks, it won't replace the CPU, nor should it.
Similarly the CPU as we know it is not fit for handling GPU tasks. Intel is trying to solve that by optimising CPUs and cramming more of them onto a board to make an equivalent to a GPU. They are going to be infinitely more successful at this than nVidia could hope to be at replacing the CPU with anything remotely GPU-ish.
You'll be fine with ext3 created with largefile4 options, and mounted with data=ordered.
mke2fs -j -T largefile4 /dev/myvg/mylv
How about "Microsoft will refuse to give you security patches if you will not or can not upgrade to the latest Windows", which is much worse than raping your dog as you and your business are vulnerable to any number of security exploits. Downplaying the real problems and insulting those that recognize them isn't helping your cause one iota.
That's more like forgetting your password. It is definitely not the same as having your own files and hardware seized by computer code you can't even see, let alone change, technically or legally.
No, it's even worse than that. There have been plenty of protections against malware in place even since Windows XP, stacking up thicker with each service pack.
However actual malware has gone on largely unimpeded because hackers always find a loophole (and there's always a loophole, it's a fundamental truth of software security). So once the code is running, it just disables the security before installing itself permanently, or "cooperates" with the security to appear to be trusted code, just like most of those high profile Windows applications do. Digital signing only works if the code verifying the signature hasn't been hacked, and once malware is running that is easily arranged.
Pretty much. If your car is impounded and all your keys taken, yeah, it's not yours until you pay to get it back.
Modern Windows is much the same. Your computer is being held hostage and you are given the occasional phone call to access what you store on it. Once in a while you receive a severed appendage in the mail. As if that wasn't bad enough, hackers who DO know how to deal with Windows' "security" will have more control over your computer than you do. The latest round of Windows worms is irrefutable proof.