Vou can program it like C but take advantage of a few extra things like automatic memory management (no need to use free()), better strings (no strcpy or buffer overflows), etc. C++ is every bit as good as C for this.
But... for larger projects C++ provides proper control of resources (objects have defined lifetimes), exception handling (which combined with stack unwinding makes writing robust code much smaller/neater/easier), much better abstraction abilities (define your interfaces then worry about the details), better namespace control, etc.
I'm sure that as a C zealot you've argued your case against the assembly language zealots, and rightly so - there's a very good reason why people switched from assembly language to C once the C compilers reached maturity.
Well... this is 2010 and that exact same reason is why they later switched from C to C++.
The reason is that C simply doesn't scale. Big projects are a LOT more work in C than in C++ (just like writing 640k programs in assembler was a lot more work than in C), and for zero gain. Learn to use your tools and the "efficiency" argument vanishes like morning mist.
The point is, however, that the new ground to be discovered will be done by having non-programmers be able to quickly, easily, and accurately practice their craft with the aid of numerical analysis and data processing.
We already tried Excel macros, look how well that one worked out...
The idea of programming as a semiskilled task, practiced by people with a few months' training, is dangerous. We wouldn't tolerate plumbers or accountants that poorly educated. We don't have as an aim that architecture (of buildings) and engineering (of bridges and trains) should become more accessible to people with progressively less training. Indeed, one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained.
Obviously, we don't want our tools--including our programming languages--to be more complex than necessary. But one aim should be to make tools that will serve skilled professionals--not to lower the level of expressiveness to serve people who can hardly understand the problems, let alone express solutions.
We can and do build tools that make simple tasks simple for more people, but let's not let most people loose on the infrastructure of our technical civilization or force the professionals to use only tools designed for amateurs.
Yep. The way I read this article is that the plant is designed to produce 5 megawatts, 24/7, in pretty much any weather. Peak output at noon on a sunny day will be much higher than that (I hope - 30 square km of mirrors is a lot of mirrors!)
I could subscribe to The Times and set up a clone site in some remote country, copying and pasting their content verbatim alongside some adverts for viagara and porn.
How much traffic do you think I'd get? How much could I charge for advertising there? I bet it's happening/happened as I write this.
A big flywheel would be better in theory - batteries are messy, wear out, are affected by temperature, etc.
Not sure what the current state of the art is on big, power-station-sized flywheels but I'm sure both technologies are far more expensive than pumped water.
Slashdot Mirror
C++ OTOH, has many, many, many advantages over C.
Vou can program it like C but take advantage of a few extra things like automatic memory management (no need to use free()), better strings (no strcpy or buffer overflows), etc. C++ is every bit as good as C for this.
But ... for larger projects C++ provides proper control of resources (objects have defined lifetimes), exception handling (which combined with stack unwinding makes writing robust code much smaller/neater/easier), much better abstraction abilities (define your interfaces then worry about the details), better namespace control, etc.
I'm sure that as a C zealot you've argued your case against the assembly language zealots, and rightly so - there's a very good reason why people switched from assembly language to C once the C compilers reached maturity.
Well ... this is 2010 and that exact same reason is why they later switched from C to C++.
The reason is that C simply doesn't scale. Big projects are a LOT more work in C than in C++ (just like writing 640k programs in assembler was a lot more work than in C), and for zero gain. Learn to use your tools and the "efficiency" argument vanishes like morning mist.
The OP said he wanted a file server, not a video editor.
(And I'm sure nobody would want it for video editing either, a quad-core PC can be built for what he'll save in electricity...)
Use it as an ornament or junk it. That's about the two best options.
Please point out exactly where he said that a nettop is faster than a G5...
The point is, however, that the new ground to be discovered will be done by having non-programmers be able to quickly, easily, and accurately practice their craft with the aid of numerical analysis and data processing.
We already tried Excel macros, look how well that one worked out...
The idea of programming as a semiskilled task, practiced by people with a few months' training, is dangerous. We wouldn't tolerate plumbers or accountants that poorly educated. We don't have as an aim that architecture (of buildings) and engineering (of bridges and trains) should become more accessible to people with progressively less training. Indeed, one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained.
Obviously, we don't want our tools--including our programming languages--to be more complex than necessary. But one aim should be to make tools that will serve skilled professionals--not to lower the level of expressiveness to serve people who can hardly understand the problems, let alone express solutions.
We can and do build tools that make simple tasks simple for more people, but let's not let most people loose on the infrastructure of our technical civilization or force the professionals to use only tools designed for amateurs.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
Ummm...doesn't Microsoft have their own C++ compiler for Intel chips?
I bet a lot of Indian kids would be ecstatically happy with Best Buy home theater, as would YOU if you had nothing else.
Ok, it's not 30 square km. I spotted it myself after I hit 'send'...
Oh, duh! That's what I get for reading slashdot at 7am.
So we're talking a patch of ground, say, 300m by 100m. That's not so bad...
Yep. The way I read this article is that the plant is designed to produce 5 megawatts, 24/7, in pretty much any weather. Peak output at noon on a sunny day will be much higher than that (I hope - 30 square km of mirrors is a lot of mirrors!)
30 square kilometers of land for 5 megawatts output? To me that doesn't seem very viable...there's single wind turbines with more output than that.
Frequent changes make you more secure against ex-employees and people who use them in cybercafes.
You can make random-yet-pronounceable passwords easily by combining consonant-vowel-consonant groups.
eg.
Three letters: hib
Six letters: nalpik
Nine letters: wibdovkep
They're easy to generate/remember and won't be in any dictionary.
Keyboards can be changed (usually quite easily).
Some people don't do real work, they just play games and use Facebook. I guess glossy is ok for them.
Simple: They look pretty in shops and Joe Public suffers from magpie syndrome.
Try taking your computer upstairs for a while. It's awful.
Glossy screens look pretty in shops, that's why they make them.
They might be Ok for games but they're useless for doing any work.
I could subscribe to The Times and set up a clone site in some remote country, copying and pasting their content verbatim alongside some adverts for viagara and porn.
How much traffic do you think I'd get? How much could I charge for advertising there? I bet it's happening/happened as I write this.
How long before the FEDs realize then can subpoena the data?
(And how long before they decide that due process is a pain in the ass and start with the "national security" schtick....)
it would have to be one huge hole...
There's plenty of quarries/mines that would qualify as 'one huge hole'.
Maybe we could use the old ones for something useful.
Ummm, the same way as a tower does....it creates a difference in height between two places.
Google's ads are mostly text so they won't be affected by this.
Digging a big hole is much easier/cheaper/safer then building a large tower (which would have to be massive to store a useful amount of water).
Even better, use the dirt from the hole to build a hill and get double the height. Tada!
A big flywheel would be better in theory - batteries are messy, wear out, are affected by temperature, etc.
Not sure what the current state of the art is on big, power-station-sized flywheels but I'm sure both technologies are far more expensive than pumped water.
I know a dyke but she won't let me stick my fingers in.
(Ba-dum, ching!)