One of my sites was linked to from boingboing and gizmondo a few days ago. About 48% of the visitors use IE, 38% use Firefox. About 86% were using Windows.
Well, I pay for my internet connection too but there are still ads on websites.
Paying for cable/satellite is like paying for your internet connection.
2. digital clock on laptops. I'd love to have an external LCD display showing the time, even when the machine's not on. hell, that'd even be useful on a desktop machine.
My old HP Omnibook XE3 had a small LCD in the front, which, as far as Iremember, could show the time.
For some reason he thinks that the new Macs with Intel CPUs will suddenly make the new OS X run on a any x86 PC. It will not.
There will still be Macs and PCs. Most games will still only run on Windows.
(However, wine will probably ported to OS X).
Porting applications will be about as easy/hard at it was before. It has been years since most programs were CPU-dependant. The hard part when porting software is porting it between different operating environments.
Here are my results, on an UltraSparc III (Sun Blade 1000) running Solaris 10.
Here are the results using 32 bits integers:
java 1.5.0_01:
$ time java primetest real 2m28.685s user 2m28.539s sys 0m0.131s
forte 8 with -fast:
$ time./primetest real 1m1.748s user 1m1.718s sys 0m0.014s
Here are the results using 64 bits integers:
java 1.5.0_01:
$ time java primetest real 2m30.467s user 2m30.280s sys 0m0.133s
forte 8 with -fast:
$ time./primetest real 1m36.319s user 1m36.266s sys 0m0.018s
For some reason the 32 bit c++ version was a lot faster than the 64 bit version, but the 32 bit java version ran only a tiny bit faster than the 64 bit version. The reason for this may very well be the c++ compiler, which is a bit old.
Population density in Aus is far lower than the US, let alone Europe or Japan. Our population is mainly centered in one large city in each state, with the closest of these being ~900km apart. This makes air travel the only option these days.
Tokyo and Hiroshima is about 900 km apart, yet the fastest train uses about 4 hours (with several stops in between). A commercial airliner uses between an hour and an hour and half to fly the same distance. Usually you have to show up at least an hour before takeoff. In addition, airports are usually located further from cities than train stations, so I guess for 900 km a high speed train may take an hour longer than the plane. That is 4 hour where you can sit in a seat resting/working instead of waiting in line for check-in, waiting in line to get through security, waiting in line to board, sitting in the plane for 1,5 hours and then waiting in line to get your luggage.
...a good standardized classlib which covers all important application scope aspects
Eh. You have no idea what C++ is used for. Programming isn't just writing nice little programs for desktop computers. C++ is used in everything from tiny microcontrollers to large clusters. Good luck writing a classlib which covers that.
You mention KDE/Qt as examples on APIs that are good. I use Qt at work and I really like it. However, Qt covers just one (or a few) uses of C++, regular applications which run on standard desktop computers/handhelds (or servers), usually with a GUI. Qt would've been no use for me when I used C++ for coding for the Gameboy Advance.
... a language which is actually usable without having to fight with it for years before being able to master it to a certain degree
Yes, mastering C++ is hard. So is mastering Java/C#. I've seen a lot of really crappy C++ code, but I've also seen equally bad java-code. A computer language won't help you write better code. It may not crash and burn like a C/C++ pointer error, but an uncaught exception or excessive object creation in innerloops in java is just as bad.
(As a side note. Bjarne was talking about the future of C++ last week, and one of the things he addressed was that C++ have become a bit too "expert friendly". They're addressing this in the next C++ standard, but don't expect anything revolutionary.
A week ago, Bjarne Stroustrup was giving a talk about the work on the next C++ standard.
One interesting thing that he mentioned, was that C++ was quite popular for embedded programming. Templates is a very nice way to make the compiled code small and run fast (if you got a good C++ compiler of course).
My opinion (and probably many others too) is that it is too easy to get a vague patent without ever having the intention to actually implement it. Just sit all day long, figuring out cool stuff that may or may not be possible with todays technology and then file patents. Then, some years later someone spends a lot of time and money and comes up with something that the original patent in some way or another covers, and wham, they have to pay.
Qt may seem expensive for the hobby developer, but paying ~$2000 per developer for a library which really simplifies multi-platform development in C++ is dirt cheap. I know this is a Python story, but I'd just like to say that using Qt in your C++-programs may very well increase your productivity by a large amount (at least this is my experience). It won't make a bad programmer better, but it will make a good programmer more productive.
The difference is that I've written a error-checking, error-reporting parser and an easy to use interface for the first format in less than 50 lines c++.
I visited Game On in London in 2002 and in Edinburgh 2003. It is a nice tour of video gaming from it's beginning to today. The Edinburgh exihibit was updated with some new games, so the current exhibition probably has been updated too.
There are a lot of games to play, but the older ones are usually played on emulators. There are also a hand held section with some early hand held electronic games.
If you're into gaming, especially retro gaming, this exhibition will not offer anything new, but it is fun to walk from game to game, playing a little bit here and there.
(Note. I speak for the exhibits in London and Edinburgh, but they were quite similar so I guess this one is a lot like those.)
A few years ago I used to write C/C++/asm code extensively and used to be obsessed with performance and optimization. Then, one day, I had an epiphany and started writing code that is about 10 times slower than my old code (different in computer language and style) and infinitely easier to understand and expand. The only time I optimize now is at the very very end of development when I have solid profiler results from the final product that show noticable delays for the end user and this only happens rarely.
It is important to be aware of that here are different types of optimizing. Optimizing code where the compiler probably does a good job is just stupid unless the code turns out to be a major bottleneck.
However, not thinking about optimization/speed early can IMHO be very dangerous. If the project is a bit large and complex, a nice design on the whiteboard may very well turn up to be dead slow with no chance in hell to make it run significantly faster without redesigning/rewriting the entire thing (this doesn't really have anything to do with compiler optimization though).
I've been working in a project (I wasn't in it in the beginning), where the design probably looked good for some people in the design document (although I don't really agree on that neither), but the performance aspect was neglected until the application turned out to be quite slow. Adding mechanisms to make it run faster has been quite "challenging". (My personal opinion in this piece of software is that performace issues was ignored even from early design because the wrong people making the decisions. Basically they didn't focus on where performance really was needed.
So after a few years my experience bottles down to: "If you have a performace requirement, make sure your code keeps up the entire time." and "You can't get both high performance and general purpose stuff in the same piece of code".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, with $5000 for the camera and $500 for the wireless addon, I don't think the target audiences for the D2X and the kodak product don't overlap.
The D2X is one heck of a camera, and if I ever get the money I'll replace my D70 with one...
Robo Porn
In my experience, a team of good programmers will probably write the same system using just 250k lines.
One of my sites was linked to from boingboing and gizmondo a few days ago. About 48% of the visitors use IE, 38% use Firefox. About 86% were using Windows.
Well, I pay for my internet connection too but there are still ads on websites. Paying for cable/satellite is like paying for your internet connection.
My old HP Omnibook XE3 had a small LCD in the front, which, as far as Iremember, could show the time.
The page linked to in the story was unavailable for a while.
Well, you can always work for The Ministry of Silly Walks.
There is only one problem. RAM.
For some reason he thinks that the new Macs with Intel CPUs will suddenly make the new OS X run on a any x86 PC. It will not.
There will still be Macs and PCs. Most games will still only run on Windows. (However, wine will probably ported to OS X).
Porting applications will be about as easy/hard at it was before. It has been years since most programs were CPU-dependant. The hard part when porting software is porting it between different operating environments.
Here are my results, on an UltraSparc III (Sun Blade 1000) running Solaris 10.
Here are the results using 32 bits integers:
java 1.5.0_01:forte 8 with -fast:Here are the results using 64 bits integers:
java 1.5.0_01:forte 8 with -fast:For some reason the 32 bit c++ version was a lot faster than the 64 bit version, but the 32 bit java version ran only a tiny bit faster than the 64 bit version. The reason for this may very well be the c++ compiler, which is a bit old.Tokyo and Hiroshima is about 900 km apart, yet the fastest train uses about 4 hours (with several stops in between). A commercial airliner uses between an hour and an hour and half to fly the same distance. Usually you have to show up at least an hour before takeoff. In addition, airports are usually located further from cities than train stations, so I guess for 900 km a high speed train may take an hour longer than the plane. That is 4 hour where you can sit in a seat resting/working instead of waiting in line for check-in, waiting in line to get through security, waiting in line to board, sitting in the plane for 1,5 hours and then waiting in line to get your luggage.
Eh. You have no idea what C++ is used for. Programming isn't just writing nice little programs for desktop computers. C++ is used in everything from tiny microcontrollers to large clusters. Good luck writing a classlib which covers that.
You mention KDE/Qt as examples on APIs that are good. I use Qt at work and I really like it. However, Qt covers just one (or a few) uses of C++, regular applications which run on standard desktop computers/handhelds (or servers), usually with a GUI. Qt would've been no use for me when I used C++ for coding for the Gameboy Advance.
Yes, mastering C++ is hard. So is mastering Java/C#. I've seen a lot of really crappy C++ code, but I've also seen equally bad java-code. A computer language won't help you write better code. It may not crash and burn like a C/C++ pointer error, but an uncaught exception or excessive object creation in innerloops in java is just as bad.
(As a side note. Bjarne was talking about the future of C++ last week, and one of the things he addressed was that C++ have become a bit too "expert friendly". They're addressing this in the next C++ standard, but don't expect anything revolutionary.
A week ago, Bjarne Stroustrup was giving a talk about the work on the next C++ standard.
One interesting thing that he mentioned, was that C++ was quite popular for embedded programming. Templates is a very nice way to make the compiled code small and run fast (if you got a good C++ compiler of course).
Actually, my PC stopped working just after I ordered my Mini. Had to boot Windows in safe mode to get my pictures and mp3s.
128 kilobits/s, not 128 kilobytes. 1125 MB 4 GB
My opinion (and probably many others too) is that it is too easy to get a vague patent without ever having the intention to actually implement it. Just sit all day long, figuring out cool stuff that may or may not be possible with todays technology and then file patents. Then, some years later someone spends a lot of time and money and comes up with something that the original patent in some way or another covers, and wham, they have to pay.
Qt may seem expensive for the hobby developer, but paying ~$2000 per developer for a library which really simplifies multi-platform development in C++ is dirt cheap. I know this is a Python story, but I'd just like to say that using Qt in your C++-programs may very well increase your productivity by a large amount (at least this is my experience). It won't make a bad programmer better, but it will make a good programmer more productive.
...as this is the first time I read slashdot on my new Mac Mini.
The difference is that I've written a error-checking, error-reporting parser and an easy to use interface for the first format in less than 50 lines c++.
I visited Game On in London in 2002 and in Edinburgh 2003. It is a nice tour of video gaming from it's beginning to today. The Edinburgh exihibit was updated with some new games, so the current exhibition probably has been updated too.
There are a lot of games to play, but the older ones are usually played on emulators. There are also a hand held section with some early hand held electronic games.
If you're into gaming, especially retro gaming, this exhibition will not offer anything new, but it is fun to walk from game to game, playing a little bit here and there.
(Note. I speak for the exhibits in London and Edinburgh, but they were quite similar so I guess this one is a lot like those.)
For a minute I was wondering what mobile patents were and why they needed to be taken care of.
It is important to be aware of that here are different types of optimizing. Optimizing code where the compiler probably does a good job is just stupid unless the code turns out to be a major bottleneck.
However, not thinking about optimization/speed early can IMHO be very dangerous. If the project is a bit large and complex, a nice design on the whiteboard may very well turn up to be dead slow with no chance in hell to make it run significantly faster without redesigning/rewriting the entire thing (this doesn't really have anything to do with compiler optimization though).
I've been working in a project (I wasn't in it in the beginning), where the design probably looked good for some people in the design document (although I don't really agree on that neither), but the performance aspect was neglected until the application turned out to be quite slow. Adding mechanisms to make it run faster has been quite "challenging". (My personal opinion in this piece of software is that performace issues was ignored even from early design because the wrong people making the decisions. Basically they didn't focus on where performance really was needed.
So after a few years my experience bottles down to: "If you have a performace requirement, make sure your code keeps up the entire time." and "You can't get both high performance and general purpose stuff in the same piece of code".
Very very old barracudas are noisy as hell (I've got a few 4 GB 7200 RPM SCSI Barracudas)