- Any decent C++ programmer will always put the OS-specific code in an abstraction layer. C++ has many ways of allowing this, ranging from macro's to templates and everything in between. These features even enable portability without sacrificing speed, since the choice of function happens at compile-time. So this so-called portability issue just doesn't hold.
- For a lot of applications, optimal performance simply is the only way to get the job done. JIT Languages often have high-level objects providing functionality that takes lineair time where one would expect constant time performance. Building these objects yourself int a JIT language simply isn't going to make things run any faster, since the atomic components have to much overhead to be good candidates for such low-level operations. C++'s STL templates on the other hand have well-defined operation times. By the way, these lineair/constant time issues won't just go away as computers get faster.
- With JIT-languages, you have no control over the underlying virtual machine on which the program will be running if it's a program that will be downloaded by many people and run on a client machine. If that VM has a security flaw, then your program will have one too. With precompiled programs, you can choose your compiler and have full control over security. You can even decide to link statically to minimize the number of external dependencies that could be a security threat. He who controls (or manufactures for that matter) the VM also controls your program. God knows who's out there wanting your program to be less performant than theirs. And how will you ever find out?
And finally, just take a look at topcoder.com to see what programming language is used most by the people occupying the top 10 highest ranks. It's not a JIT language, but C++. That alone says a LOT to me.
Am I biased? I've written in both C++ and C#. While I even enjoyed writing in C#, I never felt the power as I felt while writing in C++. True, for every downside there's an upside to the JIT languages, but IMHO, the cons of the JITs just don't weigh up to their pros.
Revelation 13:16 - 17 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
I agree. Gathering information is by the way the first step in any strategy, be that in a game or in real life. However, there's more than id-cards to be concerned about. Tell me what sites you surf and I'll tell you what kind of person you are. Give me the statistics of who you've been calling lately, add your sms message traffic to that and I'll tell you how the relationship between you and the people you called evolves. The reason why the public is being given access to so much technology is that it enables whoever controls this technology to control the people who use it. Being a software developer myself, I sometimes feel like we're building our own cage.
By the way, tell me what you post on slashdot and I'll tell you what personality you have.
I have this colleague at work who is totally Linux-minded and opposed to Microsoft (even though he uses Windows all the time to work remotely on Linux - makes one wonder why). I never heard him say a good thing about MS products and never heard him say anything bad about Linux products - to me, that's being biased and non-rational. They both have pro's and con's IMHO. Now while I was "raised" - and pampered so it seems - on Windows, I would feel more comfortable with a deeper knowledge of Linux and in my current job it is also a necessity. I must say that I feel rather discouraged to ask my colleague questions about Linux because when I do, first he ignores me for half a minute and then he comes up with a totally inadequate answer like "that's not difficult". Asking more information doesn't help, so Google is my friend. While I do get work done this way, I would be a lot more efficient (and happy) with a good answer on a small question from time to time. In my previous job, when a colleague asked me something I had the reflex to join him to his desk to give instructions. This person would always be grateful - whether I was able to help or not - for the time and consideration.
So yes, I too have difficulties with Linux snobs and yes Linux folks, if you really want to inspire people to use Linux, you may want to be more considerate and while you're at it, let go of that feeling of superiority. Another poster talked about being an ambassador and he is right; don't soil the image of Linux. I'm glad this topic came up and hope things can change.
First: what are we comparing here? combustion engine vs fuel-cell based engine.
Now, the *environmental* issue is not: which uses more energy? The environmental issue is: which *pollutes* most? It boils down to the fact that the fuel cell can be refilled by electricity taken from the grid (hydrogen and oxigin can be generated by performing electrolysis on water, therefor, net result: the fuel cell is refilled by electricity from the grid). Electricity on the grid can be generated in many ways and as environment-friendly as possible (set up wind-turbines and you have near-zero pollution). The combustion engine is polluting, end of line, no two ways about it. So, *can* the environment win with this solution? Yes!
The economical issue: Fossil fuel is running out and becoming more and more expensive. Prices can fluctuate, so it's a bad thing for the stability of the cash-flow of your business. Since electricity from the grid can be produced in many ways, it's easy to switch your electricity provider, so prices will remain reasonable. So, *can* a business win with this solution? Yes!
Conclusion: fuel cells are a good thing when used in a rational way. Choosing for fossil fuel is a political or biased choice rather than a rational choice.
> You have to remember who you're dealing with here. Many of Slashdot's commenters are kids who have dabbled in scripting or perhaps...
Yes, that is true, however:
- today's script kiddies on/. may become tomorrow's next generation of programmers. That's what concerns me if now they turn away from C++.
- companies use internet forums as a source of marketing research and can in the long run - wrongfully - get the idea that mature languages like C++ haven't got it anymore and as a result no longer produce software for it (such as compilers, editors,...)
- IT managers, often having no clue at all about the programming language anymore may use such forums as a source of information to select the language in which to develop.
etc.
I think it is usefull to provide a counterweight in the discussion in order to protect a beautiful language that too few people calling themselves programmers bother to master.
> Andrei's Alexandresu's "Modern C++ Design" demonstrates these features well - that book is just mind boggling
Amen to that. This is the future of programming languages. Nowadays, OO is being taught, in a few years time, aspect oriëntation and policy-based design will be the norm.
The only thing I wish to add is that my rant about Ruby (on or off rails) being retarded was exaggerated. What I should have said is that I don't see why we need another language.
Well, the heat was on the other day and I must admit I got carried away. In the same way as others have critisized C++ while never having done anything serious with it I was critisizing on the rails framework, knowing to little about it. In retrospect, it actually reduces the value of my other comment - which does hold a lot of truth as for the other part.
The only thing with Ruby is that I fail to see why we would need yet another language - except maybe to introduce object orientation in scripting languages. But I'm not so much in favor of scripts in the first place; configuration files and good software are a better alternative imho. But that's another discussion.
I do seem to have drawn attention with my rant though...;-)
I can't believe someone rated you "3 interesting" for a crap post like that.
It's like judging the quality of a car by the features of the glove department. Obviously you haven't been doing any serious C++ programming to come up with this sort of comment. I suggest you try to read Andrei Alexandrescu (google that up yourself) for some real programming power.
I can't believe people can be serious about calling Java and C# more modern than C++; they don't even have multiple inheritance or class-local typedefs. Or how about switching your code to call a memberfunction at compile-time vs at runtime (as in templates vs polymorphism). How will you do that if you are forced to use a virtual machine?
Oh no wait, the next big thing: Ruby on Rails (that's Retards on Rails to me). Everybody in the industry knows the major drawbacks of code generation (generate code, change generated code, IT manager says the specs change, regenerate code, redo the initial changes, notice they don't work anymore,...) which is why things like templates were introduced as a first in C++ and LATER adapted in languages as Java and C#. So who's leading?
Talking about comparing apples to pears...
A notebook is something used by 1 (that is one) person. Comparing that to something like a satelite navigation system is just stupid. Whoever modded you up for that is now also officially stupid.
That being said, let me put this in another - a social - perspective. What happens when a lot of people are unemployed? Right, there's an increase in crime. What would many nations - wrongfully - do when there's an increase in crime? Spend more money to police forces and overall security (which is obviously countering the symptom, not the cause). Now, from TFA: Galileo will create some 100000 new jobs. Here we have a drop in unemployment and therefor a drop in in closely correlated things like crime. There's less need for security measures and - however few will realize this - you countered a hidden cost.
When a government spends money, they are investing the taxes that YOU ALREADY PAID OR WILL PAY ANYHOW in order to improve society. Kudos to that, friends!
Indeed, viewable is what I ment. The term "Open Source" tends to attract attention and spice up discussion though...
I guess I just couldn't help myself:-)
Anyway, my point was merely this: As people pointed out elsewhere, Google is after all a company trying to make profit and it's their full right. But as all companies, over time, they will build alliances with other companies. Will they use the same pageranking system for their allies, even though it could be more profitable to keep an eye closed and give them a better price? Do you feel they have the right to do that? Is that honest towards non-allied customers? Should they do that, I feel that they should at least inform you about it. By making their algorithm viewable.
I'm not saying they do this already nor that I think they ever will. But we just have to take their word for it. I think they are trustworthy - for now. Who knows what they will look like in 10 years time? It wouldn't be the first company starting out with a good product and getting ill because of shifts in management, having to keep up the stock price or whatever. "Yes but then we just turn to a different ad provider", sure, but you won't -know- what they've become if there is no openness. As long as the community can observe a company's actions, they have a harder time becoming evil.
Is it feasable to make such algorithms viewable? This would imply making the rankings viewable too, for people might want to mimick the algorithm locally in order to check if it is indeed the viewable algorithm that is in use. This may be utopia - or better, it probably is. There surely would be the downside of companies trying to abuse the algorithm. Google could counter this by adjusting the terms of use.
I'm aware that I don't have all the answers here. But I think it's an interesting issue. I wonder how Google would respond to it.
I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy.
Excuse me? Privacy is a luxury? It's every man's right!
Not having your privacy protected is like alowing any stranger to "know" you (as in knowing how someone will react in certain situations).
Example:
- If your boss has access to your personal email, phonecalls, and whatnot he may know when you are about to quit and find another job. He's able to "pull the right strings" in order to persuade you into staying.
- What if everybody who knows you suddenly has access to all the details about your intimate life?
- If malicious people know when you are not at home, access to codes of your house's alarm system and know that you don't have a dog they can just walk in and shop around.
- What if malicious people know exactly where your children are at what time?
It's so obvious! Privacy is not a luxury. Some people are naive enough to think that our sensitive information will always be in the hands of noble people.
Your information is your virtual self. Giving away information is putting all the cards on the table and being surprised that you lose the game. Wake up people!
It boils down to a simple axiom: Google rewards relevance
First of all, relevance is not something the owner of the site creates, it's what google provides, so this doesn't make sense. You actually mean: this is how Google establishes relevance.
Now, suppose I want to launch some product competing with existing products, only with better properties (i.e. electric car). How does Google reward that? In order for me to launch this product, I would need to pay a huge amount of money.
I understand that Google needs to come up with some algorithm to be able to find relevant sites, however, if this algorithm is closed source, you basically don't know what it is you're eating. On the other hand, if Google opens up this source, it is in a way giving away one of their trade secrets, so I can understand to some extent that they don't. I have no answer to this one myself, I just thought this was an interesting matter.
Re:it can come true-here's my story...
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
...but since it turned you into a dependent, it's not really...
... And coporate life doesn't make you dependent? On who would you like to depend most: your wife you truly love and who truly loves you or some company that only tries to make twice (if not more) the money they pay you?
Who will screen the psychologists? Think about it, if ever there should be an overall accepted psychopathy test, the ideal position for a psychopath would be the position of... psychologist! Everybody who's to be eliminated could just be labeled as a psychopath and down the drain goes their career and life. This is just dangerous, it should NEVER exist. And by the way, a psychological test only lasts so many years/months before it needs to be updated because of changes in society and because people start to get to know the 'right' answers to them.
Slashdot Mirror
- Any decent C++ programmer will always put the OS-specific code in an abstraction layer. C++ has many ways of allowing this, ranging from macro's to templates and everything in between. These features even enable portability without sacrificing speed, since the choice of function happens at compile-time. So this so-called portability issue just doesn't hold.
- For a lot of applications, optimal performance simply is the only way to get the job done. JIT Languages often have high-level objects providing functionality that takes lineair time where one would expect constant time performance. Building these objects yourself int a JIT language simply isn't going to make things run any faster, since the atomic components have to much overhead to be good candidates for such low-level operations. C++'s STL templates on the other hand have well-defined operation times. By the way, these lineair/constant time issues won't just go away as computers get faster.
- With JIT-languages, you have no control over the underlying virtual machine on which the program will be running if it's a program that will be downloaded by many people and run on a client machine. If that VM has a security flaw, then your program will have one too. With precompiled programs, you can choose your compiler and have full control over security. You can even decide to link statically to minimize the number of external dependencies that could be a security threat. He who controls (or manufactures for that matter) the VM also controls your program. God knows who's out there wanting your program to be less performant than theirs. And how will you ever find out?
And finally, just take a look at topcoder.com to see what programming language is used most by the people occupying the top 10 highest ranks. It's not a JIT language, but C++. That alone says a LOT to me.
Am I biased? I've written in both C++ and C#. While I even enjoyed writing in C#, I never felt the power as I felt while writing in C++. True, for every downside there's an upside to the JIT languages, but IMHO, the cons of the JITs just don't weigh up to their pros.
Native code will and should always be around.
Google's version of "we know what you did last summer"... on your other pc!
Tokyo Cabs to Try RFID Payments
_ cabs_to_t.html
h apter=13&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=31&context= context
http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/10/19/tokyo
Revelation 13:16 - 17
He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&c
Just combining...
I agree. Gathering information is by the way the first step in any strategy, be that in a game or in real life. However, there's more than id-cards to be concerned about. Tell me what sites you surf and I'll tell you what kind of person you are. Give me the statistics of who you've been calling lately, add your sms message traffic to that and I'll tell you how the relationship between you and the people you called evolves. The reason why the public is being given access to so much technology is that it enables whoever controls this technology to control the people who use it. Being a software developer myself, I sometimes feel like we're building our own cage.
By the way, tell me what you post on slashdot and I'll tell you what personality you have.
Oh and to all who's sniffing the line I say hi!
I have this colleague at work who is totally Linux-minded and opposed to Microsoft (even though he uses Windows all the time to work remotely on Linux - makes one wonder why). I never heard him say a good thing about MS products and never heard him say anything bad about Linux products - to me, that's being biased and non-rational. They both have pro's and con's IMHO. Now while I was "raised" - and pampered so it seems - on Windows, I would feel more comfortable with a deeper knowledge of Linux and in my current job it is also a necessity. I must say that I feel rather discouraged to ask my colleague questions about Linux because when I do, first he ignores me for half a minute and then he comes up with a totally inadequate answer like "that's not difficult". Asking more information doesn't help, so Google is my friend. While I do get work done this way, I would be a lot more efficient (and happy) with a good answer on a small question from time to time. In my previous job, when a colleague asked me something I had the reflex to join him to his desk to give instructions. This person would always be grateful - whether I was able to help or not - for the time and consideration.
So yes, I too have difficulties with Linux snobs and yes Linux folks, if you really want to inspire people to use Linux, you may want to be more considerate and while you're at it, let go of that feeling of superiority. Another poster talked about being an ambassador and he is right; don't soil the image of Linux. I'm glad this topic came up and hope things can change.
First: what are we comparing here? combustion engine vs fuel-cell based engine.
Now, the *environmental* issue is not: which uses more energy? The environmental issue is: which *pollutes* most? It boils down to the fact that the fuel cell can be refilled by electricity taken from the grid (hydrogen and oxigin can be generated by performing electrolysis on water, therefor, net result: the fuel cell is refilled by electricity from the grid). Electricity on the grid can be generated in many ways and as environment-friendly as possible (set up wind-turbines and you have near-zero pollution). The combustion engine is polluting, end of line, no two ways about it. So, *can* the environment win with this solution? Yes!
The economical issue: Fossil fuel is running out and becoming more and more expensive. Prices can fluctuate, so it's a bad thing for the stability of the cash-flow of your business. Since electricity from the grid can be produced in many ways, it's easy to switch your electricity provider, so prices will remain reasonable. So, *can* a business win with this solution? Yes!
Conclusion: fuel cells are a good thing when used in a rational way. Choosing for fossil fuel is a political or biased choice rather than a rational choice.
Sure.
And what did they do after Katrina? The usual: shoot people for stealing a banana.
Rescue people my ass.
> You have to remember who you're dealing with here. Many of Slashdot's commenters are kids who have dabbled in scripting or perhaps...
/. may become tomorrow's next generation of programmers. That's what concerns me if now they turn away from C++.
...)
Yes, that is true, however:
- today's script kiddies on
- companies use internet forums as a source of marketing research and can in the long run - wrongfully - get the idea that mature languages like C++ haven't got it anymore and as a result no longer produce software for it (such as compilers, editors,
- IT managers, often having no clue at all about the programming language anymore may use such forums as a source of information to select the language in which to develop.
etc.
I think it is usefull to provide a counterweight in the discussion in order to protect a beautiful language that too few people calling themselves programmers bother to master.
> Andrei's Alexandresu's "Modern C++ Design" demonstrates these features well - that book is just mind boggling
Amen to that. This is the future of programming languages. Nowadays, OO is being taught, in a few years time, aspect oriëntation and policy-based design will be the norm.
The only thing I wish to add is that my rant about Ruby (on or off rails) being retarded was exaggerated. What I should have said is that I don't see why we need another language.
Well, the heat was on the other day and I must admit I got carried away. In the same way as others have critisized C++ while never having done anything serious with it I was critisizing on the rails framework, knowing to little about it. In retrospect, it actually reduces the value of my other comment - which does hold a lot of truth as for the other part.
;-)
The only thing with Ruby is that I fail to see why we would need yet another language - except maybe to introduce object orientation in scripting languages. But I'm not so much in favor of scripts in the first place; configuration files and good software are a better alternative imho. But that's another discussion.
I do seem to have drawn attention with my rant though...
I can't believe someone rated you "3 interesting" for a crap post like that.
...) which is why things like templates were introduced as a first in C++ and LATER adapted in languages as Java and C#. So who's leading?
It's like judging the quality of a car by the features of the glove department. Obviously you haven't been doing any serious C++ programming to come up with this sort of comment. I suggest you try to read Andrei Alexandrescu (google that up yourself) for some real programming power.
I can't believe people can be serious about calling Java and C# more modern than C++; they don't even have multiple inheritance or class-local typedefs. Or how about switching your code to call a memberfunction at compile-time vs at runtime (as in templates vs polymorphism). How will you do that if you are forced to use a virtual machine?
Oh no wait, the next big thing: Ruby on Rails (that's Retards on Rails to me). Everybody in the industry knows the major drawbacks of code generation (generate code, change generated code, IT manager says the specs change, regenerate code, redo the initial changes, notice they don't work anymore,
You people make me tired.
We have brains, we don't need large funds.
Think of it like you think of a computer purchase
Talking about comparing apples to pears...
A notebook is something used by 1 (that is one) person. Comparing that to something like a satelite navigation system is just stupid. Whoever modded you up for that is now also officially stupid.
That being said, let me put this in another - a social - perspective. What happens when a lot of people are unemployed? Right, there's an increase in crime. What would many nations - wrongfully - do when there's an increase in crime? Spend more money to police forces and overall security (which is obviously countering the symptom, not the cause). Now, from TFA: Galileo will create some 100000 new jobs. Here we have a drop in unemployment and therefor a drop in in closely correlated things like crime. There's less need for security measures and - however few will realize this - you countered a hidden cost.
When a government spends money, they are investing the taxes that YOU ALREADY PAID OR WILL PAY ANYHOW in order to improve society. Kudos to that, friends!
--
I can't think of a sig right now. Maybe later.
Indeed, viewable is what I ment. The term "Open Source" tends to attract attention and spice up discussion though...
:-)
I guess I just couldn't help myself
Anyway, my point was merely this:
As people pointed out elsewhere, Google is after all a company trying to make profit and it's their full right. But as all companies, over time, they will build alliances with other companies. Will they use the same pageranking system for their allies, even though it could be more profitable to keep an eye closed and give them a better price? Do you feel they have the right to do that? Is that honest towards non-allied customers? Should they do that, I feel that they should at least inform you about it. By making their algorithm viewable.
I'm not saying they do this already nor that I think they ever will. But we just have to take their word for it. I think they are trustworthy - for now. Who knows what they will look like in 10 years time? It wouldn't be the first company starting out with a good product and getting ill because of shifts in management, having to keep up the stock price or whatever. "Yes but then we just turn to a different ad provider", sure, but you won't -know- what they've become if there is no openness. As long as the community can observe a company's actions, they have a harder time becoming evil.
Is it feasable to make such algorithms viewable? This would imply making the rankings viewable too, for people might want to mimick the algorithm locally in order to check if it is indeed the viewable algorithm that is in use. This may be utopia - or better, it probably is. There surely would be the downside of companies trying to abuse the algorithm. Google could counter this by adjusting the terms of use.
I'm aware that I don't have all the answers here. But I think it's an interesting issue. I wonder how Google would respond to it.
... But I can't afford a house with a garage.
I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy.
Excuse me? Privacy is a luxury? It's every man's right!
Not having your privacy protected is like alowing any stranger to "know" you (as in knowing how someone will react in certain situations).
Example:
- If your boss has access to your personal email, phonecalls, and whatnot he may know when you are about to quit and find another job. He's able to "pull the right strings" in order to persuade you into staying.
- What if everybody who knows you suddenly has access to all the details about your intimate life?
- If malicious people know when you are not at home, access to codes of your house's alarm system and know that you don't have a dog they can just walk in and shop around.
- What if malicious people know exactly where your children are at what time?
It's so obvious! Privacy is not a luxury. Some people are naive enough to think that our sensitive information will always be in the hands of noble people.
Your information is your virtual self. Giving away information is putting all the cards on the table and being surprised that you lose the game. Wake up people!
It boils down to a simple axiom: Google rewards relevance
First of all, relevance is not something the owner of the site creates, it's what google provides, so this doesn't make sense. You actually mean: this is how Google establishes relevance.
Now, suppose I want to launch some product competing with existing products, only with better properties (i.e. electric car). How does Google reward that? In order for me to launch this product, I would need to pay a huge amount of money.
I understand that Google needs to come up with some algorithm to be able to find relevant sites, however, if this algorithm is closed source, you basically don't know what it is you're eating. On the other hand, if Google opens up this source, it is in a way giving away one of their trade secrets, so I can understand to some extent that they don't. I have no answer to this one myself, I just thought this was an interesting matter.
El Wife and I got a puppy recently (at about 6 weeks old) and I started training her from day one.
I agree, you should always train your wife from day one.
Hey, Steve! How's it going!
...but since it turned you into a dependent, it's not really...
... And coporate life doesn't make you dependent? On who would you like to depend most: your wife you truly love and who truly loves you or some company that only tries to make twice (if not more) the money they pay you?
Who will screen the psychologists? Think about it, if ever there should be an overall accepted psychopathy test, the ideal position for a psychopath would be the position of... psychologist! Everybody who's to be eliminated could just be labeled as a psychopath and down the drain goes their career and life. This is just dangerous, it should NEVER exist. And by the way, a psychological test only lasts so many years/months before it needs to be updated because of changes in society and because people start to get to know the 'right' answers to them.