Ah, scheme! Good memories. Scheme was the first language that I was taught in college and I liked it because it was so weird, many of the students dropped out. That's what the first class of any major should do: weed out the people that aren't interested or aren't competent and not willing to learn in the primary area.
Another thing to think about: is this a first course for a Computer Programming degree or a Computer Science degree? These two areas of study should never be confused.
I still won't take Python seriously...
on
Python 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
..until Guido finally figures out the correct use of whitespace.
Instead of comparing features and quirks, what are the strengths and weaknesses of GIT/Subversion/etc. within development processes? What would fit better in, say, and SEI level 5 environment as opposed to an open source world like the Linux kernel or Apache HTTP Server? In an environment where you you must have a clear audit log, not just of the primary branch or release branches but even the development branches, then Git is going to lose out big-time.
Doesn't exist? In a clean-room implementation you must be able to prove to code auditors that a feature or certain code path did not spring fully-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.
I'm not dissing Git, but this myopic discussion of "My feature is philosophically better than yours" is missing a whole range of areas of comparison.
Hmm, that's funny that you couldn't find information for your questions, because with a minimal amount of digging (ie a couple of clicks) I found http://www.newmonics.com/perc/info.shtml and http://www.newmonics.com/perc/perc.shtml, both of which give answers for your queries. Since you didn't, PERC is a JDK 1.3 compatible VM, supports JNI, and does not support graphics at the moment. Supported platforms are VxWorks, VxSim, OSE, OSE Softkernel, WinNT, Linux, and RTX etc. (The overabundance of embedded OSes should be a clue as to where PERC is aimed at.)
As to pricing, I checked a few large corporate sites (WindRiver, Nortel to name) and I did not find cost/license info, which is common for products not targeted for Joe Average Consumer. Instead, there was a "contact marketing for more details" prominently posted.
Does anyone know if MS compares XP Embedded to other OSes besides Linux? I'd really like to hear what they have to say about VxWorks, VxWorksAE, OSE Delta, Nucleus... (heck, I'd almost like to see how they stack up to pSOS, but that would just be insane)
I can agree that the ending seemed a bit drawn out, but I do believe that it was truly needed to advance David -- and humanity -- further.
David, in the end, is the last remnant of a humanity that drove itself to extinction, but he isn't human; he is just a few miles of fiber-optic cable acting on the impulses programmed into him. In the first part of the movie, he didn't sleep, but laid quietly with his eyes open. In the final scene, as the camera pulls out, he finally sleeps with his eyes closed, and the narrator states that he, for the first time, dreams, ie has reached a state of "humanity". So what this ending is saying (rather succintly, I thought) is that the thing that defines humanity is that we dream.
On another note, this last section is very powerful for those of us who have lost a family member that we were close to, because it answers the question, albeit for one person, of "What would you do if you had just one more day...?" Would you make that phone call you put off? Would you apologize for an argument? Would you have a birthday party? Again, this works to humanize David more than anything else in the movie and give the audience hope that humanity is not quite dead.
Going a little bit farther with this it might be a good idea to spend time discussing "firsts" of the computing era without pointing a finger to the absolute "first". With computers it becomes harder and harder to actually point to an idea/device and say it was the first of its kind, because so many similar ideas came to fruition at approximately the same time. Yes, John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry hold the US patent for the first digital computer, but it doesn't mean that they should be the only people who hold the honor of being first. I suggest that this point should be made relatively clear so as to curtail heated discussions in the classroom, unless of course you want that kind of thing.
Of course, if you even _think_ of calling ENIAC the first I will have to find you and hurt you since Mauchly visited Atanasoff and discussed with him his ideas on this electro-mechanical marvel and even observed the uncompleted ABC where it was being built in the basement of the Physics building of ISU campus in Ames, IA.
The Smithsonian iirc has a working model of the ABC that was built recently from Atanasoff's notes and spare parts lying around the US.
This message was brought to you by a CS grad who spent 4 years at ISU being indoctrinated in how great the ABC was.
I would also like to point out a fallacy in the article. The author states that, "Java uses mark-and-sweep in order to garbage collect," which is incorrect. The JVM spec does not specify which garbage collection algorithm is to be used, much that one must be used. So, the gc could be mark-and-sweep, copying, generational, or reference counted. Heck, it could even be an incremental collector, in which case overall application timing becomes a moot point.
So, in this case, the analysis of time-to-collect is misplaced unless there is reference to a specfic VM.
I recommend reading the VM spec. I've read it 5 or 6 times myself.
I think that what's wrong with current GUIs is that we say "Amazing new paradigm" and people get it intellectually, but don't quite get it in the animalistic portion of their brain where it really counts.
Let's face it, people still like to use their fingers when they work. Being able to handle paper, shuffling it around and giving it to someone, is still the way that is preferred to process information. The mouse -- and, to some extent, the keyboard -- divorce the hand from interacting from information on the screen. I would love to be able to touch my screen in order to interact with documents any day. If you haven't seen new people use a mouse, try it some time. They will look at the mouse, move it a little, check the pointer on the screen, look at the mouse and move it more, etc. I felt those kiosks at the mall with the touch-sensitive screens were more userfriendly than some of the junk I've put up with!
Getting back to the point, the idea of an interface needs to be fused at the hardware level before the software level will take off. Make the screen, keyboard and mouse one unit, kind of like in Star Trek. (Not those little terminals that sit on people's desks. I don't see how much usability can come out of those. I'm talking about those terminals the pilot/navigator use.) If anyone has read the StarTrek Technical Manual, you'll know what I mean. A touch-sensitive optical display that automatically re-arranges the controls so that the button you are most likely to use is closest to your hand when you need it.
But that's for another day.
Let's concentrate on the hardware right now and forget the software we have whose only purpose is to work-around dificiencies of a 30-yr old design.
For you civilians interested in going to space, this story reminds me of a book written by Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes, "Encounter at Tiber" that describes the civilian population and private industry pushing the next leg of space travel. Highly recommended if you're interested in alternatives to NASA.
To me, what's funny about the dumb user slant is not that I have had those same experiences with users -- heck, I spent several semesters as a teaching assistant for various CS courses and have listened to some really interesting problems from non-computer-literate students -- but that it lets me step back and laugh because I was once -- and still am, on some occasions -- that newbie. The "dumb user" slant helps me to appreciate what we, as computer professionals, generally take for granted.
Was the choice of 42 as the answer to the great question of Life, the Universe and Everything purely arbitrary, or was there some resoning for it, such as, seeing how many people would ask if your choice was arbitrary?
I understand the ethical ramifications of taking an action such that Jon and Hemos took with the comments to be published in the new book. However, I would like to know what the journalistic profession has to say concerning this discussion.
For the questions I will ask, I would like to pose a likely scenario. Mrs. Dow attends a meeting of the local school board because an issue will be discussed (bond referendum, metal detectors, whatever, it doesn't matter). Mrs. Dow at some point during the discussion raises her hand, is recognized, and makes a comment. The reporter, Fred, who is covering the meeting, believes the comment is insightful and wants to use it in his report. Is Fred legally required to ask Mrs. Dow permission to use her name/comment in his report? Is he required to do so according to some journalistic code of ethics? Would referring the reader to a trascript of this very public meeting be enough if he didn't ask permission?
I believe the above situation is applicable to the current/. discussion, and can be used as a precedent. Again, if there are any journalists in the audience, please respond.
I hereby place these comments into the public domain. If they can be used to inform or teach in another medium, I grant the reader permission to do so, regardless of whether my name appears with a quote. The specific intention is not to harm, so if you print out these words, make a paper airplane with it and use it to poke someone's eye out, do not sue me.
If I make a sculpture that just happens to meet the definition of a supercomputer, can I export it from the US to, say, China? There shouldn't be much of a problem since it is artwork, right?
Possibly, but only if the VM that you are using can handle multiple processors.
Now, the big question: How can I tell? You can tell that a VM can utilize multiple processors if it uses native threads and the OS is capable of scheduling threads across processors. The green-threads linked VMs use a single OS thread so, unless its doing something really wierd, using multiple threads in Java on one of these ports will only use a single processor.
If you installed a second processor you might see a performance boost, but that would only be because the OS is scheduling processes away from the processor running Java.
And now, because you just happened to mention Java on a thread discussing real-time (embedded) computing, I have no choice but to mention NewMonics, Inc..
Also notice that the main point of 3dwm is to run in a 3d immersive environment, or CAVE system. On the user level I can see this hearkening to that goggles-and-interactive-glove thing in Johnny Mnemonic. From a user interaction standpoint, this is really cool! I can't wait until I can have my computer project holograms that I can manipulate in 3d space.
The only question is, would the underlying X-protocols have to change for a truly 3d world?
Though I applaud the makers of ENIAC, and I prefer credit for the first computer to go to the ABC (being an ISU ComSci alum), I have finally come to the conclusion that in the world of computing and the rapidity with which it progresses we can no longer point to an invention/idea and say, "That was first!"
Why? A lot of what people point to as the first digital computers (Colossus, Z3, ENIAC, ABC) were built at (approximately) the same time in relative obscurity. Heck, the teams of researchers probably didn't know much about the others until after WWII! So, It's my belief that computing technology was just waiting to happen. Sooner or later, someone was going to look at the data, research the technology, and get an idea. If you don't believe me, go to segfault sometime and watch the first-posters. You will sometimes get an article with several persons who saw it at around the same time, and reacted to it immediately... as they saw it. Especially in today's world of technology, you can see variances of the same technology, packaged only slightly differently.
So, I propose a grouping, and say that these four computers were the first, all having characteristics that have made their way into the overgrown calculator sitting on my desk. For that, I applaud them all, and refuse to call any individual one the very first.
Good scientific practice is to look at and consider all alternatives. Of course, who is to say that a god created the universe and painted a fresco at that point in time to make it look like man evolved from apes?
I am going to have to disagree with this plan of attack. Do you really want more bums on the street? What about the artists who are great at working with their hands but horrible at algebra? What about those who are great machinests but couldn't give a rip about classical literature?
I suggest we look at more of what the Europeans, and, especially, the Germans do in their school systems. Yes, there is the notion of being kicked out after three strikes, but these school systems also start to specialize curriculums earlier in the educational system (German people, help me out here. It's been a while since high-school german classes!) If a student doesn't do well in a sholastic environment, put them in a more technical curriculum.
In the end, the reason American schools fail, is that we are trying to teach all of the students the same thing, and so must teach the the lowest common denominator. Change that denominator by changing the curriculum, and you will see a different caliber student in no time.
Actually, the question of the first computer is extremely in debate. The patent for the first electronic digital computer is held by John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University, whose machine, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, predates WW2. Just to make a finer point, Mauchly and Eckert studied that machine when designing the ENIAC. The ENIAC just happens to be a multi-purpose machine, instead of being hard-wired to a single purpose. More information at http://www.cs.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/hit-count?jva/jv a-archive.html Remember, truth is relative to those that believe it. More than likely, the ABC was not first...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, scheme! Good memories. Scheme was the first language that I was taught in college and I liked it because it was so weird, many of the students dropped out. That's what the first class of any major should do: weed out the people that aren't interested or aren't competent and not willing to learn in the primary area.
Another thing to think about: is this a first course for a Computer Programming degree or a Computer Science degree? These two areas of study should never be confused.
..until Guido finally figures out the correct use of whitespace.
Instead of comparing features and quirks, what are the strengths and weaknesses of GIT/Subversion/etc. within development processes? What would fit better in, say, and SEI level 5 environment as opposed to an open source world like the Linux kernel or Apache HTTP Server? In an environment where you you must have a clear audit log, not just of the primary branch or release branches but even the development branches, then Git is going to lose out big-time.
Doesn't exist? In a clean-room implementation you must be able to prove to code auditors that a feature or certain code path did not spring fully-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.
I'm not dissing Git, but this myopic discussion of "My feature is philosophically better than yours" is missing a whole range of areas of comparison.
This interestingly reminds me of a book by Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes, "Encounter with Tiber" http://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Tiber-Buzz-Aldrin/dp/0446604046/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203711161&sr=1-6, which describes, among other things, getting normal citizens into space and putting a radio telescope on the dark side of the moon. It's good to see real life catching up with the SF authors.
Hmm, that's funny that you couldn't find information for your questions, because with a minimal amount of digging (ie a couple of clicks) I found http://www.newmonics.com/perc/info.shtml and http://www.newmonics.com/perc/perc.shtml, both of which give answers for your queries. Since you didn't, PERC is a JDK 1.3 compatible VM, supports JNI, and does not support graphics at the moment. Supported platforms are VxWorks, VxSim, OSE, OSE Softkernel, WinNT, Linux, and RTX etc. (The overabundance of embedded OSes should be a clue as to where PERC is aimed at.)
As to pricing, I checked a few large corporate sites (WindRiver, Nortel to name) and I did not find cost/license info, which is common for products not targeted for Joe Average Consumer. Instead, there was a "contact marketing for more details" prominently posted.
Does anyone know if MS compares XP Embedded to other OSes besides Linux? I'd really like to hear what they have to say about VxWorks, VxWorksAE, OSE Delta, Nucleus... (heck, I'd almost like to see how they stack up to pSOS, but that would just be insane)
David, in the end, is the last remnant of a humanity that drove itself to extinction, but he isn't human; he is just a few miles of fiber-optic cable acting on the impulses programmed into him. In the first part of the movie, he didn't sleep, but laid quietly with his eyes open. In the final scene, as the camera pulls out, he finally sleeps with his eyes closed, and the narrator states that he, for the first time, dreams, ie has reached a state of "humanity". So what this ending is saying (rather succintly, I thought) is that the thing that defines humanity is that we dream.
On another note, this last section is very powerful for those of us who have lost a family member that we were close to, because it answers the question, albeit for one person, of "What would you do if you had just one more day...?" Would you make that phone call you put off? Would you apologize for an argument? Would you have a birthday party? Again, this works to humanize David more than anything else in the movie and give the audience hope that humanity is not quite dead.
Going a little bit farther with this it might be a good idea to spend time discussing "firsts" of the computing era without pointing a finger to the absolute "first". With computers it becomes harder and harder to actually point to an idea/device and say it was the first of its kind, because so many similar ideas came to fruition at approximately the same time. Yes, John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry hold the US patent for the first digital computer, but it doesn't mean that they should be the only people who hold the honor of being first. I suggest that this point should be made relatively clear so as to curtail heated discussions in the classroom, unless of course you want that kind of thing.
Of course, if you even _think_ of calling ENIAC the first I will have to find you and hurt you since Mauchly visited Atanasoff and discussed with him his ideas on this electro-mechanical marvel and even observed the uncompleted ABC where it was being built in the basement of the Physics building of ISU campus in Ames, IA.
The Smithsonian iirc has a working model of the ABC that was built recently from Atanasoff's notes and spare parts lying around the US.
This message was brought to you by a CS grad who spent 4 years at ISU being indoctrinated in how great the ABC was.
So, in this case, the analysis of time-to-collect is misplaced unless there is reference to a specfic VM.
I recommend reading the VM spec. I've read it 5 or 6 times myself.
Let's face it, people still like to use their fingers when they work. Being able to handle paper, shuffling it around and giving it to someone, is still the way that is preferred to process information. The mouse -- and, to some extent, the keyboard -- divorce the hand from interacting from information on the screen. I would love to be able to touch my screen in order to interact with documents any day. If you haven't seen new people use a mouse, try it some time. They will look at the mouse, move it a little, check the pointer on the screen, look at the mouse and move it more, etc. I felt those kiosks at the mall with the touch-sensitive screens were more userfriendly than some of the junk I've put up with!
Getting back to the point, the idea of an interface needs to be fused at the hardware level before the software level will take off. Make the screen, keyboard and mouse one unit, kind of like in Star Trek. (Not those little terminals that sit on people's desks. I don't see how much usability can come out of those. I'm talking about those terminals the pilot/navigator use.) If anyone has read the StarTrek Technical Manual, you'll know what I mean. A touch-sensitive optical display that automatically re-arranges the controls so that the button you are most likely to use is closest to your hand when you need it.
But that's for another day.
Let's concentrate on the hardware right now and forget the software we have whose only purpose is to work-around dificiencies of a 30-yr old design.
For you civilians interested in going to space, this story reminds me of a book written by Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes, "Encounter at Tiber" that describes the civilian population and private industry pushing the next leg of space travel. Highly recommended if you're interested in alternatives to NASA.
All of these are valid contexts, but without knowing why he did it, we cannot pass judgement.
I now duck behind the podium to avoid any rotten fruit thrown my way...
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt...
Was the choice of 42 as the answer to the great question of Life, the Universe and Everything purely arbitrary, or was there some resoning for it, such as, seeing how many people would ask if your choice was arbitrary?
For the questions I will ask, I would like to pose a likely scenario. Mrs. Dow attends a meeting of the local school board because an issue will be discussed (bond referendum, metal detectors, whatever, it doesn't matter). Mrs. Dow at some point during the discussion raises her hand, is recognized, and makes a comment. The reporter, Fred, who is covering the meeting, believes the comment is insightful and wants to use it in his report. Is Fred legally required to ask Mrs. Dow permission to use her name/comment in his report? Is he required to do so according to some journalistic code of ethics? Would referring the reader to a trascript of this very public meeting be enough if he didn't ask permission?
I believe the above situation is applicable to the current /. discussion, and can be used as a precedent. Again, if there are any journalists in the audience, please respond.
I hereby place these comments into the public domain. If they can be used to inform or teach in another medium, I grant the reader permission to do so, regardless of whether my name appears with a quote. The specific intention is not to harm, so if you print out these words, make a paper airplane with it and use it to poke someone's eye out, do not sue me.
If I make a sculpture that just happens to meet the definition of a supercomputer, can I export it from the US to, say, China? There shouldn't be much of a problem since it is artwork, right?
Now, the big question: How can I tell? You can tell that a VM can utilize multiple processors if it uses native threads and the OS is capable of scheduling threads across processors. The green-threads linked VMs use a single OS thread so, unless its doing something really wierd, using multiple threads in Java on one of these ports will only use a single processor.
If you installed a second processor you might see a performance boost, but that would only be because the OS is scheduling processes away from the processor running Java.
And now, because you just happened to mention Java on a thread discussing real-time (embedded) computing, I have no choice but to mention NewMonics, Inc..
The only question is, would the underlying X-protocols have to change for a truly 3d world?
Why? A lot of what people point to as the first digital computers (Colossus, Z3, ENIAC, ABC) were built at (approximately) the same time in relative obscurity. Heck, the teams of researchers probably didn't know much about the others until after WWII! So, It's my belief that computing technology was just waiting to happen. Sooner or later, someone was going to look at the data, research the technology, and get an idea. If you don't believe me, go to segfault sometime and watch the first-posters. You will sometimes get an article with several persons who saw it at around the same time, and reacted to it immediately... as they saw it. Especially in today's world of technology, you can see variances of the same technology, packaged only slightly differently.
So, I propose a grouping, and say that these four computers were the first, all having characteristics that have made their way into the overgrown calculator sitting on my desk. For that, I applaud them all, and refuse to call any individual one the very first.
Good scientific practice is to look at and consider all alternatives. Of course, who is to say that a god created the universe and painted a fresco at that point in time to make it look like man evolved from apes?
I suggest we look at more of what the Europeans, and, especially, the Germans do in their school systems. Yes, there is the notion of being kicked out after three strikes, but these school systems also start to specialize curriculums earlier in the educational system (German people, help me out here. It's been a while since high-school german classes!) If a student doesn't do well in a sholastic environment, put them in a more technical curriculum.
In the end, the reason American schools fail, is that we are trying to teach all of the students the same thing, and so must teach the the lowest common denominator. Change that denominator by changing the curriculum, and you will see a different caliber student in no time.
Actually, the question of the first computer is extremely in debate. The patent for the first electronic digital computer is held by John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University, whose machine, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, predates WW2. Just to make a finer point, Mauchly and Eckert studied that machine when designing the ENIAC. The ENIAC just happens to be a multi-purpose machine, instead of being hard-wired to a single purpose. More information at http://www.cs.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/hit-count?jva/jv a-archive.html Remember, truth is relative to those that believe it. More than likely, the ABC was not first...