Boy, a few things here. AGC sucks. I've never found anything 'automatic' that can normalize gain well. The biggest problem is that spikes (that are noise) unduly influence them. You have to have a human involved. The old Cool Edit and it's new life as Adobe Audition (I'm sure there are lots of others; those are what I've had experience with) allow the human to see the gain change and decide if it's 'correct'.
iPods. Crappy little 128kbs files that placate the music biz moguls. One can almost divide up the world into two groups: those who really love music and can hear how crappy 128s sound, and those who want to hear all the music their ears can deliver. OK, there's a third group, those who are only listening casually, so low quality but high quantity are important. He said, grudgingly.
Hacking anything Apple is a smile for me. I love it.
gotos are sometimes the best way out of a situation you've designed your way into, but a well-designed procedure does not need them.
Frankly, I'm surprised anyone here would champion gotos. Us old farts had to use them back when languages didn't lend themselves to well structured design. That was a long time ago.
I have a hard time trying to understand your statement "They accurately reflect what the processor actually does". Uh, the processor only does what it's told to do. By the time it gets to "the processor", the goto isn't any different than any of the other instructions it receives. But how the programmer caused that to happen can vary from a poorly coded module that jumps all over the place, to one that does alter the flow of execution, but not by dictating exactly to where it goes, rather, it specifies what function it wants to happen next.
Can you give us an example or two of modern languages (or even ancient ones) that give coders a way to "use a computer's strength instead of writing in some horrid POS like Java or Perl"? Machine language comes to mind, but, criminey, who writes that any more?
Back when I was programming an Apple II, your statement made sense. But it was never the "computers's strengths", it was the programmer's skills. Has that changed for you?
I once had to deal with a program where permanent changes were referred to as PMT and temporary ones (this exectuion only) as TMP. TMP and PMT? Now there's some readability. Almost induces lysdexia.
Your 3 points are 100% right. I agree. Someone who's 'arrrived' at the 'good coder' level and understands anything he or she is presented with has read a lot of other people's code, done a lot of his/her own, and understands that some code does goofy things because the coder was told to do it. Nothing new there.
But why not leave some clues behind? The people who come after you don't determine your raise or bonus. They're not going to be impressed by obscure and uncommented code. Always assume someone dumber than you will have to figure out what your code does and how it does it. You don't need to dumb down the code. Just explain it.
I think the issue here (in this thread) is that it wasn't designed for coders. FORTRAN's whole gig was that scientists and mathmeticians could make a computer do their grunt work by explaining it to FORTRAN. FORmula TRANslator. Think science and math geeks.
There wasn't any juxtaposition with assembler.
The ugliness of FORTRAN (and, no, I never coded any, only read some to see if I wanted to learn it--didn't) is the point here. Real coders think it's ugly because it was designed for non-coders. And, IMHO, that's the point of the FORTRAN thread.
I think that's universal. In every shop, there's people - really smart people - coding great stuff. (Well, OK, not every shop.) They code clever stuff, but no one else can see how it works.
Comment your code. If you're one of those previously referenced smart people, you need to leave some hints about what you're doing. The rest can learn from it if they can understand it.
And if you're at the other end of the scale, you need to leave some hints about what you thought you were doing.
Bottom line: Code and comment the way you wish the author of what you're maintaining had coded and commented. You won't be giving away on which end of the scale you perceive yourself to be, but those who follow will like you better.
Well, I've never done any ASCII art, hateful or otherwise, even though I've seen some really cool things in that medium. And I was wearing a skirt until a few minute ago when some police people came to the door.
I know, I'll get mod'd down again, but I just have to say, Sun has the world's coolest logo. I thought that the first time I ever saw it, many years ago, and just now, scrolling the summaries, there it is again. I just love it. I get in a forever loop following the shapes and the word around and around and around and... cocking my head to the right...
Does anyone else think it's really, really, really cool? Or am I just easy? About logos.:)
Wow, you're an old guy.:) We were high tech: we had a PA system for the operator to issue those commands. No screaming over the din. IBM 360-20s and 30s. Amazing stuff. My Apple II with a 16k memory card (64k total) was as 'powerful' as the 360-20 that they had at my first job. But the Apple was 13 years later. Or should I say, only 13 years.
Anyway, thanks for the flashback. The 'NO RING' was a nice touch.:)
If I remember correctly, 1-2-3 was the killer app that made PCs happen. Anyone else remember that? It started with Visi Calc, but the main guy at 1-2-3 (I should know his name) made Lotus 1-2-3 the reason PCs took off. OK, so now you know how long I've been bangin' keys.
Oops. I see somebody already made that connection - the governmentgrants.com guy. At least it keeps me from being the only one seeing that. And that's worth at least a horse turd or two, right?
Ain't gonna be pretty when they get here, is it? But you seriously have a good point. Those blobs and every subatomic particle in them are going to just plow right through anything in their way. I guess til they hit another one coming head on, anyway.
Then why didn't you submit it to Slashdot when you read it yesterday? The stories that get listed here don't just fall off a tree onto the editors' (or whatever they're called) laps. People have to submit them. Don't bitch about Slashdot being late, help them keep up. As I understand it, that's the way it's intended to work.
Re:Not everyone uses IRC for illegal things...
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I'd kept my Timex. $40 seemed like a lot those days for a 'toy'.
Or are there fewer 'getafreeipod' .sigs in here than normal? Wait. Than usual They're never normal.
Man, you're as old as I am! No, older. I never got to hear it.
iPods. Crappy little 128kbs files that placate the music biz moguls. One can almost divide up the world into two groups: those who really love music and can hear how crappy 128s sound, and those who want to hear all the music their ears can deliver. OK, there's a third group, those who are only listening casually, so low quality but high quantity are important. He said, grudgingly.
Hacking anything Apple is a smile for me. I love it.
Frankly, I'm surprised anyone here would champion gotos. Us old farts had to use them back when languages didn't lend themselves to well structured design. That was a long time ago.
I have a hard time trying to understand your statement "They accurately reflect what the processor actually does". Uh, the processor only does what it's told to do. By the time it gets to "the processor", the goto isn't any different than any of the other instructions it receives. But how the programmer caused that to happen can vary from a poorly coded module that jumps all over the place, to one that does alter the flow of execution, but not by dictating exactly to where it goes, rather, it specifies what function it wants to happen next.
Can you give us an example or two of modern languages (or even ancient ones) that give coders a way to "use a computer's strength instead of writing in some horrid POS like Java or Perl"? Machine language comes to mind, but, criminey, who writes that any more?
Back when I was programming an Apple II, your statement made sense. But it was never the "computers's strengths", it was the programmer's skills. Has that changed for you?
How come nobody's mod'd this?
I once had to deal with a program where permanent changes were referred to as PMT and temporary ones (this exectuion only) as TMP. TMP and PMT? Now there's some readability. Almost induces lysdexia.
But why not leave some clues behind? The people who come after you don't determine your raise or bonus. They're not going to be impressed by obscure and uncommented code. Always assume someone dumber than you will have to figure out what your code does and how it does it. You don't need to dumb down the code. Just explain it.
There wasn't any juxtaposition with assembler.
The ugliness of FORTRAN (and, no, I never coded any, only read some to see if I wanted to learn it--didn't) is the point here. Real coders think it's ugly because it was designed for non-coders. And, IMHO, that's the point of the FORTRAN thread.
Comment your code. If you're one of those previously referenced smart people, you need to leave some hints about what you're doing. The rest can learn from it if they can understand it.
And if you're at the other end of the scale, you need to leave some hints about what you thought you were doing.
Bottom line: Code and comment the way you wish the author of what you're maintaining had coded and commented. You won't be giving away on which end of the scale you perceive yourself to be, but those who follow will like you better.
Well, I've never done any ASCII art, hateful or otherwise, even though I've seen some really cool things in that medium. And I was wearing a skirt until a few minute ago when some police people came to the door.
Man, you have problems. Go back on the medications, OK? Nobody wants to fight you. Can you see the doctor again? Do you need some money for that?
And I get mod'd for not reading from the bottom up. Sheesh.
fos8er I sod ju st softrie s ad it. wnisd ye t sidoo hard ud teos ayt to sinsoiid tpes type
All keyboards can do this. Just pull up the plastic key-caps and then put them back down in any random order. It's lots of fun.
Does anyone else think it's really, really, really cool? Or am I just easy? About logos. :)
Wow, you're an old guy. :) We were high tech: we had a PA system for the operator to issue those commands. No screaming over the din. IBM 360-20s and 30s. Amazing stuff. My Apple II with a 16k memory card (64k total) was as 'powerful' as the 360-20 that they had at my first job. But the Apple was 13 years later. Or should I say, only 13 years.
Anyway, thanks for the flashback. The 'NO RING' was a nice touch. :)
If I remember correctly, 1-2-3 was the killer app that made PCs happen. Anyone else remember that? It started with Visi Calc, but the main guy at 1-2-3 (I should know his name) made Lotus 1-2-3 the reason PCs took off. OK, so now you know how long I've been bangin' keys.
I've checked the whole thread. Nope, nobody asked you.
Oops. I see somebody already made that connection - the governmentgrants.com guy. At least it keeps me from being the only one seeing that. And that's worth at least a horse turd or two, right?
... The guy in the question mark suit who hawks the 'free money' book. Lasko, I think.
Ain't gonna be pretty when they get here, is it? But you seriously have a good point. Those blobs and every subatomic particle in them are going to just plow right through anything in their way. I guess til they hit another one coming head on, anyway.
Hey dude, sell me some of that shit. Gotta be some good stuff.
Then why didn't you submit it to Slashdot when you read it yesterday? The stories that get listed here don't just fall off a tree onto the editors' (or whatever they're called) laps. People have to submit them. Don't bitch about Slashdot being late, help them keep up. As I understand it, that's the way it's intended to work.
capital letters