Memory management is a red herring; even managed application require it. Garbage collection will just hide poor application design and the inefficiencies that make it difficult. You can still crash on null pointers, leak references and most certainly leak external resources quite easily.
Ok that's true.
C++ just actually makes you actually have to think about these things. You actually have to pay attention to your allocations, scratch space, ownership, etc, and quite frankly applications are often better for it. Well.... were. These days you have devs that never learned how to actually design an app for a computer (basically read 'C') shoehorning their ill-advised classes and designs that worked so OK in Java, etc. into C++ and find that it doesn't work. I just love stuff like "new int[10]"...
Because when I am driving and thinking of how the pistons work in the engine up and down I am so more focused in driving that I am driving better? Having to thing in these things means an opportunity for failure, too. C people seem to overlook that, somehow the people that makes mistakes is always "some other guy".
Hey, if what you said was true we would be still using C or assembler (outside of the very specialized fields where it is still used).
I have used it; it works well when there are no headers or footers. But with heathers / foothers (i.e., all technical manuals), the headers get in the text and disrupt it.
Anyone has tried some software that does not have this problem?
Translation: If you want to be a lazy and shitty programmer you can just leave it to the GC to close the file whenever it feels like it. It's not as if the user might want to open that file in another application or maybe reload it again, right? No, that never happens. One can only hope that you aren't responsible for writing critical software with such shitty standards for writing software.
Sometimes you care, sometimes you don't. It is simple as that. An user document file? You care. A log file? You do not. This is not hard to understand.
I am worried that you call yourself a programmer with so little comprension ability. How do you get to interpret the customer requirements? Or you just write the program what you feel like writting and hope that it fits your customer needs? Sorry, but no amount of proficiency in any technology can compensate for this.
and there's more to the simplified example of developers using inefficient frameworks to create apps quicker (though the cost/performance tradeoff isn't quite as clear cut as they'd have you think - 1 dev taking twice as long to create a great app is a minor cost compared to the thousands of users using a bad app, and uncounted cost of those users stopping using the app when one better comes along. The cost of dev is pretty small all things considered).
Today its not CPU or IO performance that matters so much, its battery life.
Maybe you should think a little before posting ideas so categorically.
So my wildly inefficient framework means that the user needs 10s more every time they read a newspaper. Who gives a shit? The user will spend at least several minutes with it, so it will not even notice the extra time. Price (down because I am using the framework) and UI are what will decide the user to buy/use it.
Or when the user wants to check what time is it, my inefficient framework forces the user to wait 5 seconds before showing it. As the user expects this operation done in 1 second, then the user dislikes the app and won't buy it even if it is almost free.
Not everything is the same, not everyone is only obsessed with performance, and acceptable performance is highly subjective.
No. There are incompetent and lazy programmers everywhere. Many of them consider themselves competents and even speak badly of others because they do not follow their follies or manias.
Managed code means that you can spend less time thinking about the system inner mechanics and take for granted* that they just work, and concentrate in the real productive work.
*Ok, everything is buggy. The question is if the framework is more or less buggy than would be the average program without the framework, and then take into account the improvement in work/time needed to complete a project.
Similarly, C++ gives you the opportunity to learn about memory management, overflows, errors you can encounter when not careful with types. Java handles all that for you
I find this affirmation akin to teaching mountain climbing and saying "If you start practicing on Mt. Everest instead on the small hill outside town, you will learn the basics and to deal with ice walls and frostbite and lack of oxygen... if you do not die while doing it". A learner should not have extra challenges, he should have less challenge so he can move forward.
Now you can argue that Java extensive API is also challenging and feel that something else is better, but C++? Never in life.
But, go ahead, keep printing money and destroying the economy and see who rises to power to clean up your mess. You just might want to escape to a libertarian island soon.
You know that the gold standard did fail, don't you know?
While the GP method looks like sound, I am out of stock market too. FTC, obscene bonus for corrupt and incompetent boards,.... At least if I put it in a lottery I know what I am playing too.
Being 'libertarian' means they wouldn't be forced to spend half of their lives working to feed people who produce absolutely nothing but crime, resource depletion, debt and overpopulation. So they shouldn't have a problem feeding just themselves.
Oh, then this "experiment" has been already tried by a famous German libertarian It did not work out well, yet still there are people out there willing to inflict it (to the others, because they are themselves "fit").
I assume you would have liked living then and there. That way, if a son or daughter of yours was disabled, suffered a disabling accident, or became "dangerous to the libertarianism", maybe you would have had the honour of "correcting" that with your own hand. Or is it that the "wrong people" is always those that you do not like?
Oh, I was not saying that criminals are stupid (or more stupid than other people). Many of them surely adapt to the fixed patterns of police and civilians.
But this system makes the pattern dynamic, so in order to predict them a bigger effort and complexity. The added complexity in an hostile environment is what would make unpractical the schemes feared by the people I was replying to.
Your faith in criminals'collective intelligence (or whatever other group you can find) is heartwarming.
The bigger the organization, more probabilities for failures. Add to it that at the moment the police knows of it, you are busted (because they will not like it at all, and you will become their first priority). Someone spotted by the police following them and taking notes, someone who talks too much in a bar, someone who is caught for another delit and offers to cooperate in exchange for a lesser sentence, informants... Not to mention the cost of keeping so many people in the street collecting data.
It may be workable a small group of 3 or 4 people to check a small area (v.g. in front of the jewelry you want to steal). And even them, it is just a way of improving the odds; nothing can prevent about the neighbour who calls because they heard something or the odd police car that just that day chose to go somewhere else throught that street.
Films about Rube Goldberg crimes (à la Ocean's eleven) are fun to watch. But then, think of how simple things can go easily complicated in real life (v.g. in your work), and think if increasing complexity is a good idea.
At some point, you're gonna have to trust someone else, and invariably that trust will be broken at some point. So, how do we fix us broken humans?
For instance you design the protocol so that e.g. 2 or 5 or however many you want humans have to be untrustworthy for the protocol to fail. Allowing multiple signatures on certificates would be a good first step towards that goal.
Yeah, because there are only 4 humans in the world who you would not trust (either because they are bad people or naive enough that bad people can trick them).
I have a great news for you, I have started working that way and I can offer you two trusted CA certificate. First one is signed by 3,000 bearded guys (they like calling themselves Al Qaeda). The second one is even better, because it is from 100,000 cadres from de CPCh. Which one do you want?
Modern pirates usually go around in speed boats with small arms. I'm pretty sure an island run by a bunch of libertarians would have more than enough firepower to take them out, and no qualms about killing in "self-defense". I suppose they could try to kidnap people off fishing vessels further from the island, but wouldn't put my money on the pirates.
Also it sounds like they're going to build these things near US waters, far away from the typical pirate-infested seas.
You are assuming that pirates are not inteligent enough to realize that and think of strategies against that.... It is a good thing you do not command any ship.
It will be an island used by rich people to get more rich. If there is need of pressence of someone to work, they will give powers to a representant that will be who lives there.
For my part, as long as the island produces something instead of living just of being a loophole, I am ok with it. If it is just another nest of thieves (Gibraltar, Channel Islands, Cayman and so on), I am willing to donate GPS to pirates so they can locate it.
Depends. If they're looking for the average length between two randomly chosen accounts, a few hundred tries should give them a pretty good estimate. If they're looking for the longest path, just find a guy with no friends on facebook (for instance me, I created an account to see what facebook was all about. Now that's 10 minutes of my life I will not get back), and state that it's infinite. Not a particularly hard problem.
Ok, they chose person A and person Z. Person A has 130 "friends", they scan them and neither is person Z. So, for each of person A's first grade friends, they search their 130 friends. There will be some repeated, but still it is very close to 130^2. Now none of these is person Z so they do the next step and have to manage 130^3... Numbers go up quickly.
Also, probably they will not be doing a single pair but a more representative set, so add at least a couple of orders of magnitude...
More likely are more powerful than those in other parts of the world, and have a better connection.
If you are attacking big corporations, activity from these machines is more difficult to identify (one hundred failed logins in BoA from China? Intrussion alert. One thousand failed logins in BoA from USA? Bussiness as usual.).
Probably if you scan the hard disk you are more interested also in info from the users. Almost everywhere in the world there is people speaking English and who can read the documents from computers in a zombie from USA/UK, or write a regex to search. It is more difficult to find people profficient in, say, Swedish or German or even French so these computers are harder to scan for profitable data.
Theories are never finished, final, or proved. There is always the probability that, with more data and better tools, a new theory can be formulated that improves the old one. That is how relativist mechanics replaced newtonian mechanics. And yes, they replaced them. You may still use newtonian mechanics because, for its use in Earth, the error in the results is fairly low (lower than the error in your measurements, at the very minimum) and they are simpler to work with.
So, people is working in refining a theory that seems the better to explain the observed results. Yes, it may happen that the best explanation is a completely different theory, but we still have not found it. Then, again, what is wrong with that?
About your last line, if the new theory of light explains results beter than the current one, there is nothing stupid about it. What would be really, really stupid would be opposing it without even checking if it works.
Ancients thought that the world was flat because there wasn't mainstream evidence to prove otherwise. Does it mean they were right?
Correction: uneducated masses of the antiquity thought that the wold was flat. Most of the 'scientifics' people back then knew better, and even calculated its size with an amazing precission.
Nowadays, in western culture there are a lot less of uneducated people so they are less representative. Yet, some educated people chose to play it dumb and act like if they had never been schooled because they think that science should back their beliefs. They ignore evidences gained through study of genetics, biology (of fossils and current living beings), geology and physics (datation) and say that evolution is "untested".
Note that I am not saying that evolution contradicts their beliefs, but as it does not support them either they go against them. Maybe they need "proof" for their beliefs; I was thaught that this means that their faith is very, very weak (You will burn in hell for proposing ID as science, you heathens).
For my part, I think that science is better researched by scientifics than by preachers.
While I understand the issue with other chemicals, why should it be bad if water is contamined with methane? Wouldn't it just "precipitate" (in a gaseous form) when the water gets to the surface?.
Fun fact - the people who own those mineral rights probably don't care about the environmental damage, they are getting massively rich. if you could somehow spread out the wind-power profits to a few hundreds of wealthy people you might see more political support for wind farms.
Just to name a few, China and the Roman Empires (Western and Eastern) fell to less advanced people (mongols, barbarians, turks). And usually they did not fell "all out of sudden" but where falling for centuries until they had just weakened themselves enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Memory management is a red herring; even managed application require it. Garbage collection will just hide poor application design and the inefficiencies that make it difficult. You can still crash on null pointers, leak references and most certainly leak external resources quite easily.
Ok that's true.
C++ just actually makes you actually have to think about these things. You actually have to pay attention to your allocations, scratch space, ownership, etc, and quite frankly applications are often better for it. Well.... were. These days you have devs that never learned how to actually design an app for a computer (basically read 'C') shoehorning their ill-advised classes and designs that worked so OK in Java, etc. into C++ and find that it doesn't work. I just love stuff like "new int[10]"...
Because when I am driving and thinking of how the pistons work in the engine up and down I am so more focused in driving that I am driving better? Having to thing in these things means an opportunity for failure, too. C people seem to overlook that, somehow the people that makes mistakes is always "some other guy".
Hey, if what you said was true we would be still using C or assembler (outside of the very specialized fields where it is still used).
I have used it; it works well when there are no headers or footers. But with heathers / foothers (i.e., all technical manuals), the headers get in the text and disrupt it.
Anyone has tried some software that does not have this problem?
Translation: If you want to be a lazy and shitty programmer you can just leave it to the GC to close the file whenever it feels like it. It's not as if the user might want to open that file in another application or maybe reload it again, right? No, that never happens. One can only hope that you aren't responsible for writing critical software with such shitty standards for writing software.
Sometimes you care, sometimes you don't. It is simple as that. An user document file? You care. A log file? You do not. This is not hard to understand.
I am worried that you call yourself a programmer with so little comprension ability. How do you get to interpret the customer requirements? Or you just write the program what you feel like writting and hope that it fits your customer needs? Sorry, but no amount of proficiency in any technology can compensate for this.
and there's more to the simplified example of developers using inefficient frameworks to create apps quicker (though the cost/performance tradeoff isn't quite as clear cut as they'd have you think - 1 dev taking twice as long to create a great app is a minor cost compared to the thousands of users using a bad app, and uncounted cost of those users stopping using the app when one better comes along. The cost of dev is pretty small all things considered).
Today its not CPU or IO performance that matters so much, its battery life.
Maybe you should think a little before posting ideas so categorically.
So my wildly inefficient framework means that the user needs 10s more every time they read a newspaper. Who gives a shit? The user will spend at least several minutes with it, so it will not even notice the extra time. Price (down because I am using the framework) and UI are what will decide the user to buy/use it.
Or when the user wants to check what time is it, my inefficient framework forces the user to wait 5 seconds before showing it. As the user expects this operation done in 1 second, then the user dislikes the app and won't buy it even if it is almost free.
Not everything is the same, not everyone is only obsessed with performance, and acceptable performance is highly subjective.
No. There are incompetent and lazy programmers everywhere. Many of them consider themselves competents and even speak badly of others because they do not follow their follies or manias.
Managed code means that you can spend less time thinking about the system inner mechanics and take for granted* that they just work, and concentrate in the real productive work.
*Ok, everything is buggy. The question is if the framework is more or less buggy than would be the average program without the framework, and then take into account the improvement in work/time needed to complete a project.
Similarly, C++ gives you the opportunity to learn about memory management, overflows, errors you can encounter when not careful with types. Java handles all that for you
I find this affirmation akin to teaching mountain climbing and saying "If you start practicing on Mt. Everest instead on the small hill outside town, you will learn the basics and to deal with ice walls and frostbite and lack of oxygen... if you do not die while doing it". A learner should not have extra challenges, he should have less challenge so he can move forward.
Now you can argue that Java extensive API is also challenging and feel that something else is better, but C++? Never in life.
But, go ahead, keep printing money and destroying the economy and see who rises to power to clean up your mess. You just might want to escape to a libertarian island soon.
You know that the gold standard did fail, don't you know?
While the GP method looks like sound, I am out of stock market too. FTC, obscene bonus for corrupt and incompetent boards,.... At least if I put it in a lottery I know what I am playing too.
Capitalists are trying hard to kill capitalism.
Being 'libertarian' means they wouldn't be forced to spend half of their lives working to feed people who produce absolutely nothing but crime, resource depletion, debt and overpopulation. So they shouldn't have a problem feeding just themselves.
Oh, then this "experiment" has been already tried by a famous German libertarian It did not work out well, yet still there are people out there willing to inflict it (to the others, because they are themselves "fit").
I assume you would have liked living then and there. That way, if a son or daughter of yours was disabled, suffered a disabling accident, or became "dangerous to the libertarianism", maybe you would have had the honour of "correcting" that with your own hand. Or is it that the "wrong people" is always those that you do not like?
Have a nice day.
Oh, I was not saying that criminals are stupid (or more stupid than other people). Many of them surely adapt to the fixed patterns of police and civilians.
But this system makes the pattern dynamic, so in order to predict them a bigger effort and complexity. The added complexity in an hostile environment is what would make unpractical the schemes feared by the people I was replying to.
Your faith in criminals'collective intelligence (or whatever other group you can find) is heartwarming.
The bigger the organization, more probabilities for failures. Add to it that at the moment the police knows of it, you are busted (because they will not like it at all, and you will become their first priority). Someone spotted by the police following them and taking notes, someone who talks too much in a bar, someone who is caught for another delit and offers to cooperate in exchange for a lesser sentence, informants... Not to mention the cost of keeping so many people in the street collecting data.
It may be workable a small group of 3 or 4 people to check a small area (v.g. in front of the jewelry you want to steal). And even them, it is just a way of improving the odds; nothing can prevent about the neighbour who calls because they heard something or the odd police car that just that day chose to go somewhere else throught that street.
Films about Rube Goldberg crimes (à la Ocean's eleven) are fun to watch. But then, think of how simple things can go easily complicated in real life (v.g. in your work), and think if increasing complexity is a good idea.
At some point, you're gonna have to trust someone else, and invariably that trust will be broken at some point. So, how do we fix us broken humans?
For instance you design the protocol so that e.g. 2 or 5 or however many you want humans have to be untrustworthy for the protocol to fail. Allowing multiple signatures on certificates would be a good first step towards that goal.
Yeah, because there are only 4 humans in the world who you would not trust (either because they are bad people or naive enough that bad people can trick them).
I have a great news for you, I have started working that way and I can offer you two trusted CA certificate. First one is signed by 3,000 bearded guys (they like calling themselves Al Qaeda). The second one is even better, because it is from 100,000 cadres from de CPCh. Which one do you want?
On the plus side, when we get fed of them, they will be easier to deal with...
Modern pirates usually go around in speed boats with small arms. I'm pretty sure an island run by a bunch of libertarians would have more than enough firepower to take them out, and no qualms about killing in "self-defense". I suppose they could try to kidnap people off fishing vessels further from the island, but wouldn't put my money on the pirates.
Also it sounds like they're going to build these things near US waters, far away from the typical pirate-infested seas.
You are assuming that pirates are not inteligent enough to realize that and think of strategies against that.... It is a good thing you do not command any ship.
And would they produce anything? Or just being 'libertarian' will feed them?
You do not get it.
It will be an island used by rich people to get more rich. If there is need of pressence of someone to work, they will give powers to a representant that will be who lives there.
For my part, as long as the island produces something instead of living just of being a loophole, I am ok with it. If it is just another nest of thieves (Gibraltar, Channel Islands, Cayman and so on), I am willing to donate GPS to pirates so they can locate it.
Depends. If they're looking for the average length between two randomly chosen accounts, a few hundred tries should give them a pretty good estimate. If they're looking for the longest path, just find a guy with no friends on facebook (for instance me, I created an account to see what facebook was all about. Now that's 10 minutes of my life I will not get back), and state that it's infinite. Not a particularly hard problem.
Ok, they chose person A and person Z. Person A has 130 "friends", they scan them and neither is person Z. So, for each of person A's first grade friends, they search their 130 friends. There will be some repeated, but still it is very close to 130^2. Now none of these is person Z so they do the next step and have to manage 130^3... Numbers go up quickly.
Also, probably they will not be doing a single pair but a more representative set, so add at least a couple of orders of magnitude...
Machines in UK and USA:
Anyone finds this surprising?
Maybe you do not know how science works...
Theories are never finished, final, or proved. There is always the probability that, with more data and better tools, a new theory can be formulated that improves the old one. That is how relativist mechanics replaced newtonian mechanics. And yes, they replaced them. You may still use newtonian mechanics because, for its use in Earth, the error in the results is fairly low (lower than the error in your measurements, at the very minimum) and they are simpler to work with.
So, people is working in refining a theory that seems the better to explain the observed results. Yes, it may happen that the best explanation is a completely different theory, but we still have not found it. Then, again, what is wrong with that?
About your last line, if the new theory of light explains results beter than the current one, there is nothing stupid about it. What would be really, really stupid would be opposing it without even checking if it works.
Correction: uneducated masses of the antiquity thought that the wold was flat. Most of the 'scientifics' people back then knew better, and even calculated its size with an amazing precission.
Nowadays, in western culture there are a lot less of uneducated people so they are less representative. Yet, some educated people chose to play it dumb and act like if they had never been schooled because they think that science should back their beliefs. They ignore evidences gained through study of genetics, biology (of fossils and current living beings), geology and physics (datation) and say that evolution is "untested".
Note that I am not saying that evolution contradicts their beliefs, but as it does not support them either they go against them. Maybe they need "proof" for their beliefs; I was thaught that this means that their faith is very, very weak (You will burn in hell for proposing ID as science, you heathens).
For my part, I think that science is better researched by scientifics than by preachers.
While I understand the issue with other chemicals, why should it be bad if water is contamined with methane? Wouldn't it just "precipitate" (in a gaseous form) when the water gets to the surface?.
There, fixed that for you.
He is from the USA.
The idea that pedestrians should pay extra to be allowed to walk without being run over may only came from there.
Oh, I was not trying to argue, just providing more info for your argument.
Just to name a few, China and the Roman Empires (Western and Eastern) fell to less advanced people (mongols, barbarians, turks). And usually they did not fell "all out of sudden" but where falling for centuries until they had just weakened themselves enough.