You have copyright for that. Patents are a whole different ballgame. They give you a MONOPOLY! You could forbid everyone else to use certain combination of notes if music patents were allowed. It'd be like paying a fee to use the word "and" followed by the word "the". The very building blocks of what you need to use for every day composing, whether in literature, music, or software programming are at stake.
Only thing is that in the programming world, only programmers understand this basic limitation imposed on us. The very building blocks used for composing software is limited to us. But with reserved words, data types and objects, we don't see this in the same way every time. Every programmer will view it in their own heads using their own interpretations and abstractions. But have a patent on just ONE of those views and the other programmers will not see the infringing code. There is NO WAY to check for patents on software. Not only that, but when necessity requires, programmers will solve the problem if it's at all possible in the vast majority of cases. It's a myth that software is clever or non-obvious to other programmers. That defies the very definition of a programmer who's job it is to come up with non-obvious solutions.
I heard it was 4 judges and no jury. One presiding judge and 3 others who are laymen. The three will decide the outcome. In case of indecision, then the presiding judge will decide.
It's both a criminal and civil case all in one.
And as the Swedes like to mention over and over, this is not the US.
Also, the prosecution never mentioned any details about the specific persons who committed the original crime that the TPB is supposedly assisting. Without an original crime, you cannot assist it. This is what I'm interested in hearing about with respect to the decision.
They find you, not the other way around. When they do find you, you'll notice they will let you state what you have to offer at the beginning and they will interview you, not the other way around. They don't care for your interview although the questions you ask are also reflective of what kind of people you have. So yes, even your questions are analysed. Because of this, most interviewers think these programmers are telling them how to do their jobs and these interviewers resent being interviewed themselves when they believe they are the only ones who has a right to form an opinion. Most superstar programmers will fail your interview because it's not up to them to pass (hence they will often fail on purpose to see how you handle it), so it's up to the interviewer to show their skill. If you turn negative, then it's over. If you turn positive and try and engage in a conversation, bonus.
Also, many jobs say they want superstar programmers, but are only interested in scamming them by not paying them or saying they have a certain range in mind and then later on, they will go below it. That's a deal killer right there.
If you want to know if someone is a superstar programmer, ask them to talk about one of their favourite projects and what challenges they faced and whatnot. Anyone, in any field, that truly loves what they do won't be able to shut up. You have to entice them first though. Once they pick up the conversation and start talking a lot, then you at least know you have someone that has potential. Either way, you'll find out a lot more this way than any other technique beyond the simple programming questions.
Oh, and if you see programmers walk out of interviews, those are either superstar programmers or you're the worst interviewer in the world (likely the latter).
This "nothing to hide" thing is irrelevant to the discussion. This is a classic reversal of the object of the argument. It's not the one being observed that is of concern, but the one who is doing the observing. Who is giving this person the right to snoop on you? If they have the right to snoop on you, you should have the same right to snoop on them and the argument ends there as they'll never allow it. Poeple just get caught up that government officials should have more power than citizens. This is completely wrong. They are human just like you. Only when things go wrong can they act. Preventive measures have never worked and only make things worse. Just look at Iraq.
You don't need to buy a keyboard especially for dvorak. I buy a keyboard where all the keys are the exact same shape (watch the surface angle). They take a little bit more hunting down (like going to 2 or 3 local stores instead of 1). Then just rearrange the keys and you're done. I've never met a keyboard where you couldn't pop the keys out. $15 bucks and you're done. And we're talking Canadian money here.
I'm a coder and I will NEVER use qwerty again if I have a choice. Plus, no one will mess with my computer. It's better than a password. Typing is SOOOO much easier on Dvorak. I'd been using qwerty for over 10 years and I could not type worth sh*t. I still can't type fast, but I can touch type and I can do over 50 wpm in code-wise with Dvorak. 45 to 80 in regular text mode. There's always a word here and there that slows me down (bursts of speed with the odd slow word). Not because of the keyboard. Just because I don't like typing. So I went from 25 wpm to 50wpm and in text mode and if I'm really into it, I can reach over 100wpm. In qwerty, the best I could do is 40wpm (yes, I was a sad sight). So for me, it's been a win-win scenario. I couldn't get any worse at qwerty than I was, so it was never an issue. I still type at the same 25wpm speed on qwerty.
Oddly enough, even at 25wpm I'm still the fastest coder I've ever seen. So if you think the keyboard makes a difference in coding speed, you're 100% wrong. If you switch to Dvorak, do it because it's easier and more comfortable. You hardly have to move your fingers. Mostly, you just push down where they're at. But for a coder, speed and wpm don't mean a thing. Typing takes less than 1% of the total work. The typing stage is after everything has already been decided. You're just plugging in details at this point and going through the motions. I'll never understand people who sit at a computer to program software. The computer just slows me down. I'd get bored programming in front of a computer. The funny thing is real programmers understand this implicitly like I'm stating the obvious, yet it seems so nonsensical to debutants.
Standing usually means you're moving around. I used to do this all the time when thinking about a problem. It gets the blood circulating and really does improve mental abilities. Thinking on your feet. It's not just a good idea!
I've never seen a project move from C++ to Java ever succeed. I've seen plenty of disasters. If you want any chance at success, leave behind everything that is C++ and consider this a new project from the ground up. Even then, you chances of success are moot because I've also never seen a successful Java project.
Setting a pointer (otherwise known as a reference in Java) to nil is prone to errors and doesn't guarentee deletion. That's my main point. I'd rather tell the system that I'm done with that memory and be nice to other applications that are also running. That's not advanced programming, it's common sense. And in Java, if you can't even do regular programming, how are you supposed to do anything "advanced"? I'm not bashing Java. It is what it is.
The difference between the two is that if you give a non-GC tool to a beginner, it will blow up in his face and make it clear that the person needs more practice and experience in programming.
Now give a GC tool to a beginner and he will think he is a professional. Only much later will the program callapse under its own weight, but to the beginner, it worked for a while and can you really pin the bug on him?
This discussion is void. If you're arguing FOR GC, you're a beginner, plain and simple. Advanced programmers use it when appopriate and not when it's disavantageous. Languages like Java that force you to use GC and where you can't tell the GC that an object should be deleted is not a real language. When I program, I don't like having chains around my ankles.
This is not bias. Java is a subset of C++ and always will be. It's just a fact and if you use Java, then you must be aware of its limitations is all.
Don't get me wrong... my specialty is optimizing in high level languages such as C/C++ and Java. But all I'm really doing is cleaning up code. I'm not really optimizing in the true sense of the word.
The biggest issue I've encountered is getting maximum speed when processing large amounts of data. This is the classic case. The other one is computationally intensive routines (but that usually requires lots of data as well).
My point is that if you really wanted to optimize a piece of code to process large amounts of data, you would do the following:
1. Try to see how you can segment the data into chunks of less than or exactly 2K. 2. Set some memory aside on a page boundary that doesn't exceed the page size. 3. Prefetch the next chunk of data. 4. Load the fist chunk of data to be processed into the memory that you set aside. 5. Work on data inside this side memory. 6. Save it back out using non-temporal stores (unless you need to reuse the data). 7. repeat by going to step 3.
The above is the fastest way to process large amounts of data. It'll be 10 to 1000 times faster than anything you can do in C/C++ or any other language. The speedups are comparable to C64 vs IBM386DX2/66. You just can't do this in any high level language. At least not in a readable way. If you want to write a video codec for example, good luck writing it in C/C++ where it matters. I'll laugh at you if you say Java. Could you imagine loading a VM for a video codec?
Trying to optimize without using the capabilities of the computer is sorta like trying to build a house without using a hammer. Your software runs on a MACHINE. Trying to optimize in a high level language is IMPOSSIBLE because you don't have full access to the machine!!! The most you can do is clean up your code or design a new algorithm.
These discussions never get anywhere because you're arguing over the best of the mediocre in terms of performance. Until a high level language appears on te market that let's you deal with cache issues, you're all out of luck. And pointer vs. index is retarded. All memory is accessed via a pointer to the CPU. High level languages are used to better describe concepts and ideas. Use it that way... ie. readability first.
I don't think I've ever felt more afraid than this suggestion that developers be held accountable. Bad hiring practices and bad QA are responsible for bugs. Not one single developer. If you want to hold someone accountable, blame the CTO. He or she is the one that is ultimately in charge of giving the OK to releasing the software.
This is just another pathetic excuse by executives to try and pass the buck to someone else. This must stop.
I pay for my Internet. If the people who own the ads want to pay for my Internet, then maybe. Otherwise, web content simply isn't worth it. And I never minded them much until they became intrusive. Pasted over the article while I'm trying to read. No thanks. I can do without.
Also, who wants ads when they can do without? Silly topic.
Since when has allocating all my RAM in exchange for speed ever been a way to break a "myth"?
Ask anyone who's used a Java app. If you leave it open for a while, it'll take quite a long time to get it to continue because it uses so much RAM that it has to be flushed out to disk for me to use anything else. A "paper" cannot dispell personal experience.
Java has been hit hard about its slowness for a very long time. We all know about the tradeoff between memory and speed. And now Java goes to one extreme and tries to pass it off as if it's just as fast (and in some [nut]cases) even faster than C or C++. Sorry, but I'm not that stupid. I'd rather believe in conspiracy theories than believe the nonsense that Java is faster than C/C++.
Garbage collection is probably the single best cause of producing below par programmers. Some programmers think that because Java has a garbage collector that you don't need to deallocate your objects. This is really scary on many levels. Also, some people even go so far as to say because you don't have to worry about it (which is again false BTW), your software will run faster. I'm simply incredulous. It's like saying I don't have to worry about the amount of fuel in a car race.
Going with the analogy, Java runs fine on its first tank, but as soon as it gets low, it needs a fuel tanker. With C/C++, sometimes it may seem like it's taking slightly longer fueling up than it should, but that's because it's environmentally friendly and only consumes what it needs. Java uses a one-stop pit strategy where they steal fuel from the other teams and throws shrapnel in front of other cars. C++ is a well oiled machine that uses proper pit strategy and will still be around long after the other cars have been disqualified (killed and uninstalled).
I'll take C/C++ (Formula 1) or any other compiled language anyday over the ramhog that is Java (SUV).
Slashdot Mirror
You have copyright for that. Patents are a whole different ballgame. They give you a MONOPOLY! You could forbid everyone else to use certain combination of notes if music patents were allowed. It'd be like paying a fee to use the word "and" followed by the word "the". The very building blocks of what you need to use for every day composing, whether in literature, music, or software programming are at stake.
Only thing is that in the programming world, only programmers understand this basic limitation imposed on us. The very building blocks used for composing software is limited to us. But with reserved words, data types and objects, we don't see this in the same way every time. Every programmer will view it in their own heads using their own interpretations and abstractions. But have a patent on just ONE of those views and the other programmers will not see the infringing code. There is NO WAY to check for patents on software. Not only that, but when necessity requires, programmers will solve the problem if it's at all possible in the vast majority of cases. It's a myth that software is clever or non-obvious to other programmers. That defies the very definition of a programmer who's job it is to come up with non-obvious solutions.
I heard it was 4 judges and no jury. One presiding judge and 3 others who are laymen. The three will decide the outcome. In case of indecision, then the presiding judge will decide.
It's both a criminal and civil case all in one.
And as the Swedes like to mention over and over, this is not the US.
Also, the prosecution never mentioned any details about the specific persons who committed the original crime that the TPB is supposedly assisting. Without an original crime, you cannot assist it. This is what I'm interested in hearing about with respect to the decision.
They find you, not the other way around.
When they do find you, you'll notice they will let you state what you have to offer at the beginning and they will interview you, not the other way around. They don't care for your interview although the questions you ask are also reflective of what kind of people you have. So yes, even your questions are analysed. Because of this, most interviewers think these programmers are telling them how to do their jobs and these interviewers resent being interviewed themselves when they believe they are the only ones who has a right to form an opinion. Most superstar programmers will fail your interview because it's not up to them to pass (hence they will often fail on purpose to see how you handle it), so it's up to the interviewer to show their skill. If you turn negative, then it's over. If you turn positive and try and engage in a conversation, bonus.
Also, many jobs say they want superstar programmers, but are only interested in scamming them by not paying them or saying they have a certain range in mind and then later on, they will go below it. That's a deal killer right there.
If you want to know if someone is a superstar programmer, ask them to talk about one of their favourite projects and what challenges they faced and whatnot. Anyone, in any field, that truly loves what they do won't be able to shut up. You have to entice them first though. Once they pick up the conversation and start talking a lot, then you at least know you have someone that has potential. Either way, you'll find out a lot more this way than any other technique beyond the simple programming questions.
Oh, and if you see programmers walk out of interviews, those are either superstar programmers or you're the worst interviewer in the world (likely the latter).
This "nothing to hide" thing is irrelevant to the discussion. This is a classic reversal of the object of the argument. It's not the one being observed that is of concern, but the one who is doing the observing. Who is giving this person the right to snoop on you? If they have the right to snoop on you, you should have the same right to snoop on them and the argument ends there as they'll never allow it. Poeple just get caught up that government officials should have more power than citizens. This is completely wrong. They are human just like you. Only when things go wrong can they act. Preventive measures have never worked and only make things worse. Just look at Iraq.
You don't need to buy a keyboard especially for dvorak. I buy a keyboard where all the keys are the exact same shape (watch the surface angle). They take a little bit more hunting down (like going to 2 or 3 local stores instead of 1). Then just rearrange the keys and you're done. I've never met a keyboard where you couldn't pop the keys out. $15 bucks and you're done. And we're talking Canadian money here.
I'm a coder and I will NEVER use qwerty again if I have a choice. Plus, no one will mess with my computer. It's better than a password. Typing is SOOOO much easier on Dvorak. I'd been using qwerty for over 10 years and I could not type worth sh*t. I still can't type fast, but I can touch type and I can do over 50 wpm in code-wise with Dvorak. 45 to 80 in regular text mode. There's always a word here and there that slows me down (bursts of speed with the odd slow word). Not because of the keyboard. Just because I don't like typing. So I went from 25 wpm to 50wpm and in text mode and if I'm really into it, I can reach over 100wpm. In qwerty, the best I could do is 40wpm (yes, I was a sad sight). So for me, it's been a win-win scenario. I couldn't get any worse at qwerty than I was, so it was never an issue. I still type at the same 25wpm speed on qwerty.
Oddly enough, even at 25wpm I'm still the fastest coder I've ever seen. So if you think the keyboard makes a difference in coding speed, you're 100% wrong. If you switch to Dvorak, do it because it's easier and more comfortable. You hardly have to move your fingers. Mostly, you just push down where they're at. But for a coder, speed and wpm don't mean a thing. Typing takes less than 1% of the total work. The typing stage is after everything has already been decided. You're just plugging in details at this point and going through the motions. I'll never understand people who sit at a computer to program software. The computer just slows me down. I'd get bored programming in front of a computer. The funny thing is real programmers understand this implicitly like I'm stating the obvious, yet it seems so nonsensical to debutants.
Standing usually means you're moving around. I used to do this all the time when thinking about a problem. It gets the blood circulating and really does improve mental abilities. Thinking on your feet. It's not just a good idea!
This has been known since before Tesla. He actually experimented with it. So there IS an ether after all. Like I said... this is all old news.
I've never seen a project move from C++ to Java ever succeed. I've seen plenty of disasters. If you want any chance at success, leave behind everything that is C++ and consider this a new project from the ground up. Even then, you chances of success are moot because I've also never seen a successful Java project.
Setting a pointer (otherwise known as a reference in Java) to nil is prone to errors and doesn't guarentee deletion. That's my main point. I'd rather tell the system that I'm done with that memory and be nice to other applications that are also running. That's not advanced programming, it's common sense. And in Java, if you can't even do regular programming, how are you supposed to do anything "advanced"? I'm not bashing Java. It is what it is.
The difference between the two is that if you give a non-GC tool to a beginner, it will blow up in his face and make it clear that the person needs more practice and experience in programming. Now give a GC tool to a beginner and he will think he is a professional. Only much later will the program callapse under its own weight, but to the beginner, it worked for a while and can you really pin the bug on him? This discussion is void. If you're arguing FOR GC, you're a beginner, plain and simple. Advanced programmers use it when appopriate and not when it's disavantageous. Languages like Java that force you to use GC and where you can't tell the GC that an object should be deleted is not a real language. When I program, I don't like having chains around my ankles. This is not bias. Java is a subset of C++ and always will be. It's just a fact and if you use Java, then you must be aware of its limitations is all.
Don't get me wrong... my specialty is optimizing in high level languages such as C/C++ and Java. But all I'm really doing is cleaning up code. I'm not really optimizing in the true sense of the word.
The biggest issue I've encountered is getting maximum speed when processing large amounts of data. This is the classic case. The other one is computationally intensive routines (but that usually requires lots of data as well).
My point is that if you really wanted to optimize a piece of code to process large amounts of data, you would do the following:
1. Try to see how you can segment the data into chunks of less than or exactly 2K.
2. Set some memory aside on a page boundary that doesn't exceed the page size.
3. Prefetch the next chunk of data.
4. Load the fist chunk of data to be processed into the memory that you set aside.
5. Work on data inside this side memory.
6. Save it back out using non-temporal stores (unless you need to reuse the data).
7. repeat by going to step 3.
The above is the fastest way to process large amounts of data. It'll be 10 to 1000 times faster than anything you can do in C/C++ or any other language. The speedups are comparable to C64 vs IBM386DX2/66. You just can't do this in any high level language. At least not in a readable way. If you want to write a video codec for example, good luck writing it in C/C++ where it matters. I'll laugh at you if you say Java. Could you imagine loading a VM for a video codec?
Trying to optimize without using the capabilities of the computer is sorta like trying to build a house without using a hammer. Your software runs on a MACHINE. Trying to optimize in a high level language is IMPOSSIBLE because you don't have full access to the machine!!! The most you can do is clean up your code or design a new algorithm.
These discussions never get anywhere because you're arguing over the best of the mediocre in terms of performance. Until a high level language appears on te market that let's you deal with cache issues, you're all out of luck. And pointer vs. index is retarded. All memory is accessed via a pointer to the CPU.
High level languages are used to better describe concepts and ideas. Use it that way... ie. readability first.
I don't think I've ever felt more afraid than this suggestion that developers be held accountable. Bad hiring practices and bad QA are responsible for bugs. Not one single developer. If you want to hold someone accountable, blame the CTO. He or she is the one that is ultimately in charge of giving the OK to releasing the software. This is just another pathetic excuse by executives to try and pass the buck to someone else. This must stop.
I pay for my Internet. If the people who own the ads want to pay for my Internet, then maybe. Otherwise, web content simply isn't worth it. And I never minded them much until they became intrusive. Pasted over the article while I'm trying to read. No thanks. I can do without. Also, who wants ads when they can do without? Silly topic.
Since when has allocating all my RAM in exchange for speed ever been a way to break a "myth"?
Ask anyone who's used a Java app. If you leave it open for a while, it'll take quite a long time to get it to continue because it uses so much RAM that it has to be flushed out to disk for me to use anything else. A "paper" cannot dispell personal experience.
Java has been hit hard about its slowness for a very long time. We all know about the tradeoff between memory and speed. And now Java goes to one extreme and tries to pass it off as if it's just as fast (and in some [nut]cases) even faster than C or C++. Sorry, but I'm not that stupid. I'd rather believe in conspiracy theories than believe the nonsense that Java is faster than C/C++.
Garbage collection is probably the single best cause of producing below par programmers. Some programmers think that because Java has a garbage collector that you don't need to deallocate your objects. This is really scary on many levels. Also, some people even go so far as to say because you don't have to worry about it (which is again false BTW), your software will run faster. I'm simply incredulous. It's like saying I don't have to worry about the amount of fuel in a car race.
Going with the analogy, Java runs fine on its first tank, but as soon as it gets low, it needs a fuel tanker. With C/C++, sometimes it may seem like it's taking slightly longer fueling up than it should, but that's because it's environmentally friendly and only consumes what it needs. Java uses a one-stop pit strategy where they steal fuel from the other teams and throws shrapnel in front of other cars. C++ is a well oiled machine that uses proper pit strategy and will still be around long after the other cars have been disqualified (killed and uninstalled).
I'll take C/C++ (Formula 1) or any other compiled language anyday over the ramhog that is Java (SUV).