All this talk of how Mono is going to overtake.NET is silly.
It's not supposed to overtake.NET, any more than gcc is supposed to "overtake" Microsoft visual studio. And as with the gcc example, that's completely beside the point. It's an implementation that is primarily directed at the Linux platform, with solid support for Linux databases and APIs. Just as Microsoft's implementation has first-rate Windows integration, Mono is a version of C# with first-rate Linux integration.
You guys all too often underestimate Microsoft. MONO is part of MICROSOFT'S plan, and its likely a plan to kill Linux.
Actually, it's more likely to be a plan to kill java. C# is a much bigger threat to java than it is to Linux.
Well, what about them ? Are there patent issues ? Who is telling you that there are such issues ? And what are the issues anyway ?
There are no patent issues for the ECMA-standard parts of Mono. The only potential issues are with Microsoft class libraries. This potentially has impact on Microsoft-compatibility (again, only *potentially* -- there are no known patent issues) but not on the standard subset, or the native API stack.
sorry, but I can't think of a single major Linux project that is using or planning to use Mono.
Being a "major project" implies that it's established, so why would one expect a well-established project to suddenly switch technologies ? But if you count Ximian as a "major Linux project", I would be surprised if they are not planning to make some use of Mono.
In fact I would say that most projects are staying away from it due to the uncertainy concerning patents and Microsoft
GTK sharp includes a bunch of examples. apt-get install (or rpm -ivh or whatever) gtk-sharp-examples.
Also, some of the C# books, like the O'Reilly books focus on the language definition and stay clear of Microsoft-specific dependencies.
is that using C# implies accepting being led by Microsoft
No. You're the one who doesn't get it.
Just exactly how is Mono+Linux any better than.NET+Windows?
Runs on Linux.
Does the Mono team have ANY plans to innovate beyond what Microsoft is doing
Yes. See GTK-sharp, Qt-sharp, Mono.Posix, Mono.Data, etc. (in fact, try reading the FAQ before posting) The Mono and portable.Net projects are both interested in supporting the Microsoft APIs, but support for Linux APIs is also important.
Doh! But you appear to have it wrong too -- you need
std::plus. You're right about back_inserter though, its template param is actually list<int*gt; , but it can implicitly deduce this.
The thing is, Python is not really any easier than C++. The only things it gives you are more run-time flexibility and a garbage collector (which is trivial to add to C++; although not as integrated).
Otherwise it's just as verbose and irksome as C++.
You're trying really hard to be wrong, aren't you ?
(1) more runtime flexibility is potentially a huge advantage. Try doing something like eval in C++. Or try typing code directly into the compiler.
(2) python doesn't use gc by default, it uses reference counts. This is again a substantial advantage over manual memory management, because it makes polymorphism simpler. In C++, you have subtle gotchas like "slicing" (when you assign a derived class reference to a base class object).
You need to work with explicit pointers all the time to get polymorphic behaviour (that's why
you always use explicit pointers in toolkits like Qt for example)
In a language that automatically manages memory, there's no need for this.
In addition, there are a lot of operations that
become simpler because you don't have to declare types all the time. You can write something like
[x+2 for X in L]
without having to write a bunch of template gobbledygook.
Don't get me wrong, I like templates, they are quite useful. But sometimes, one likes to be able to work without the baggage that strong static typing brings to the table.
If I need the performance of C/C++, I will still sometimes write it in
Python first to have pseudo-code that I can test before commiting the time
and effort into the C/C++ implementation (assuming I can't get the performance
I need just by using psyco or by writing C modules for the bottleneck sections
The "writing C modules for the bottleneck sections" is in practice rarely adequate, because in an object oriented world (e.g. python), we may have entire classes that deserve a low level implementation (matrices for example).
One can of course still implement the class as a module.
I don't think it's accurate to say that python is
"as time consuming as C/C++". The question itself is bogus, because (1) there is no such thing as "C/C++", and (2) without some context, the question does not mean anything. However, there are a number of tasks for which python is considerably simpler than either C or C++ (or java or any static language)
Limiting your toolkit to one large hammer is just plain nuts, as the more you know, the more useful you can be.
Then it's odd that you were just a moment ago woofing mindlessly about how python is "more productive" than "C/C++". There is a reason that both C and C++ (which are not the same language) have been wildly successful -- indeed, the python interpreter you are so enthusiastic about, and many modules written for it are written in C.
It's true that it's easy to throw together a few lines of python code that do something useful in very little time, but that's a far cry from making python "more productive", though it does make it very useful for a number of tasks.
I happen to use and be quite proficient with both python and C++ and frankly I find the woofing of the advocates of both of these to be quite embarrassing at times.
Couldn't stand the taste of it myself when I first tried it, and now that I know more about what it is I won't go near it.
If you're getting what you "know" about food from Dr. Mercola (leading food scaremonger), well, have fun with your diet. Meanwhile, I'll keep enjoying my food (and keeping fitter than mercola will ever be)
The RIAA has turned it into another source of income. They're not going to stop suing people now - that'd be shooting their new cash cow. The purpose of THESE lawsuites is cash.
It's not exactly cheap for them to do this. They'd probably be lucky to recover their legal expenses in the cases that they settle (and of course they don't get anything in the cases that they drop or lose).
Lawsuits against individuals (who may have little financial resources) is not a very effective game -- lawsuits are only a good income source if you sue someone who has some money (e.g. a big corporation)
Yes. Dynamic means that a lot of things are deferred to runtime as opposed to compile-time (static).
For example, some languages like python use dynamic typing :
a = 'hello'
a = 1
def foo(a): # we don't know what type a is -- deferred till runtime
print a
Some languages like C++ have dynamic binding (e.g. virtual functions).
Some languages allow dynamic loading. That is, you can load libraries at runtime and query those libraries. While nearly every language has some support (built in or library support like libdl) for dynamic loading, the functionality available in the dynamic loading varies.
Some languages allow dynamic execution. For example, eval. In most interpreted languages,
one can write a program that reads code from the user and executes that code. One can't do that in most compiled languages.
The term "dynamic language" is used to refer to a language that supports many of the above. Typically, interpreted languages are very dynamic.
VM languages are somewhat dynamic. Pure compiled languages are more static.
but for a growing segment of the population it's not viable to spen $50-60 on a piece of software that may be total crap.
Games decline in price very quickly. So this is not a justification at all. The reason that piracy occurs is that these guys want it both ways -- they want the very latest but don't want to pay for it.
games are requiring hardware farther and further towards the bleeding edge of technology $500-$600 Video cards, etc.
I'm not familiar with any such games, but then I don't insist on owning all the latest games. If you need the latest technology, then pay for it and quit whining.
The entire space of the music "sharing" discussion is: Does giving my friend Joe a copy of this track/disc/collection constitute fair use or not?
Actually, "sharing" as the "sharers" advocate involves "sharing" with your one million or so "best friends", not just with your friend "Joe".
It clearly does not constitute fair use, and the definition makes this quite unambiguous.
How long before... Said software filters out not only copyrighted files, but political speech as well?
Bogus slippery slope argument. You could make exactly the same argument about spam-filtering software -- it could, in theory, be used to filter out political speech, and indeed, anti-spam technology would be much better at doing so.
I suppose you regularly post to this forum criticising anti-spam software for the same reason. After all, it restricts "the free flow of information".
My opinion is that you're intellectually dishonest and your primary concern is actually that the software will be used as intended, but instead of being forthright, you cry crocodile tears for "liberty".
You're right that it's not clear exactly where the line should be drawn. But that's no excuse for permitting even the most egregious infringements. There's a huge difference between swapping CDs with 1 or 2 of your best friends, and doing the same with a million of your "best friends".
How does that affect binary compatibility ? This should only affect out-of-memory conditions which usually result in program termination anyway, right ?
No, this box runs Fedora now with no reboots during compiling. It also has a FBSD hard drive that I plug in for testing that too. No reboots. I'd say that means my Mandrake reboots have *something* to do with the distro.
I'd say that it's still something that you should check instead of guessing. Run cpuburn on windoze or fedora, preferably while monitoring your hardware (lm_sensors on Linux)
Funny you mention that. My first thought was that opensourcing netscape/mozilla was a really bad move, but in hindsight it seems it was quite a good one. I doubt I'd be typing this in mozilla today if they hadn't done this.
sounds about right. i also think there was a time when the standard german (might've been chinese) training program was to run really high distances like that. i think their standard runs were 40+ miles.
Most runners competing in marathon and shorter will rarely run more than 20 miles in a single run, and the 20 miler will only happen once a week. Beyond 20 miles, bonk becomes a problem. Most of the high milage runners run 2-a-day on most days. It's very hard to get over 100 miles
per week without at least some 2-a-days.
Do you have a job? How do you find the time to run 140 miles a week if you do?
Can't say I manage 140 but I can do half that. Part of it is probably that he's fairly fast. Part of it is that you have to be pretty serious about pushing yourself out of the door frequently. You can't maintain good milage unless you get out there every night, regardless of whether you come home late.
Regarding the energy it takes out of you, extra sleep etc -- you do most of your miles at an easy pace and this helps you recover better. Also distributing over a larger number of runs makes it easier.
Using the weekend to pack in miles, you can get higher weekly milage. For example, do a long run on Sunday, and the weekend could give you 25 miles
out of a 60 mile week. So you only have to get 35 out of the other 5 days.
Regarding "Preparation", "stretching", etc -- and the extra time -- all I can say is that if you're only getting 25mpw or less out of 8-9 hours, that's less than 3 miles per hour. You need to be more efficient than this to get more milage done.
Keep in mind though that going for a longer run doesn't mean that it takes any longer to shower or change clothes or anything. So some of the overhead you're talking about is more or less fixed.
Are you serious about the 140 miles per week thing? That seems way high. I don't know any ultramarathoners, much less marathoners, who run that much consistently.
Most "marathoners" are runners of average ability who decide to do a marathon. They are not competitive athletes. Most elite distance runners do
100 miles or more per week. 140mpw is moderately high, but not sky-high. Hal's "advanced" program isn't all that advanced, most runners who race at the competitive running clubs would have little trouble with it.
And yeah, trying to regularly run 20 milers as fast as you can is really, really dumb. That injury is relatively minor, compared to the degree of stupidity.
Re:How good am I? Percentile data?
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'd like to know how good I am at running. The only way I know to assess that is to compare with other people. Are there published percentile running speeds so that I can tell what percentage of the population I run faster than for any given distance?
First, percentiles aren't that meaningful, since most untrained people can barely run at all.
However, there are the WAVA standards. These are age-graded and gender graded. The standards are based on age group records. 70% means that you can run at 70% of world record pace for your age.
The nice thing about these standards is that you can compare performances over different ages, and also different race distances.
Basically, 50-60% is where the midpack runners at most races are. 60% and up is where the entry level competitive club runners are. 70% and up gets you into trophy territory, and most serious competitive running clubs have several runners in this range. 80-85% is where the best local runners are. People in this range stand a good chance of winning their age group, and winning larger races overall (e.g. in NY).
In elite-level races in the US (e.g. the recent mends 8k championships) most competitors finish in
the 85-95% range.
Slashdot Mirror
All this talk of how Mono is going to overtake .NET is silly.
It's not supposed to overtake .NET, any more than gcc is supposed to "overtake" Microsoft visual studio. And as with the gcc example, that's completely beside the point. It's an implementation that is primarily directed at the Linux platform, with solid support for Linux databases and APIs. Just as Microsoft's implementation has first-rate Windows integration, Mono is a version of C# with first-rate Linux integration.
You guys all too often underestimate Microsoft. MONO is part of MICROSOFT'S plan, and its likely a plan to kill Linux.
Actually, it's more likely to be a plan to kill java. C# is a much bigger threat to java than it is to Linux.
No they can't. read the FAQ
Well, what about them ? Are there patent issues ? Who is telling you that there are such issues ? And what are the issues anyway ?
There are no patent issues for the ECMA-standard parts of Mono. The only potential issues are with Microsoft class libraries. This potentially has impact on Microsoft-compatibility (again, only *potentially* -- there are no known patent issues) but not on the standard subset, or the native API stack.
Being a "major project" implies that it's established, so why would one expect a well-established project to suddenly switch technologies ? But if you count Ximian as a "major Linux project", I would be surprised if they are not planning to make some use of Mono.
In fact I would say that most projects are staying away from it due to the uncertainy concerning patents and Microsoft
And I suppose you have a basis for such claims ?
No. You're the one who doesn't get it.
Just exactly how is Mono+Linux any better than .NET+Windows?
Runs on Linux.
Does the Mono team have ANY plans to innovate beyond what Microsoft is doing
Yes. See GTK-sharp, Qt-sharp, Mono.Posix, Mono.Data, etc. (in fact, try reading the FAQ before posting) The Mono and portable.Net projects are both interested in supporting the Microsoft APIs, but support for Linux APIs is also important.
Doh! But you appear to have it wrong too -- you need std::plus. You're right about back_inserter though, its template param is actually list<int*gt; , but it can implicitly deduce this.
You're trying really hard to be wrong, aren't you ?
(1) more runtime flexibility is potentially a huge advantage. Try doing something like eval in C++. Or try typing code directly into the compiler.
(2) python doesn't use gc by default, it uses reference counts. This is again a substantial advantage over manual memory management, because it makes polymorphism simpler. In C++, you have subtle gotchas like "slicing" (when you assign a derived class reference to a base class object). You need to work with explicit pointers all the time to get polymorphic behaviour (that's why you always use explicit pointers in toolkits like Qt for example) In a language that automatically manages memory, there's no need for this.
In addition, there are a lot of operations that become simpler because you don't have to declare types all the time. You can write something like
Don't get me wrong, I like templates, they are quite useful. But sometimes, one likes to be able to work without the baggage that strong static typing brings to the table.[x+2 for X in L]
without having to write a bunch of template gobbledygook.
The "writing C modules for the bottleneck sections" is in practice rarely adequate, because in an object oriented world (e.g. python), we may have entire classes that deserve a low level implementation (matrices for example). One can of course still implement the class as a module.
I don't think it's accurate to say that python is "as time consuming as C/C++". The question itself is bogus, because (1) there is no such thing as "C/C++", and (2) without some context, the question does not mean anything. However, there are a number of tasks for which python is considerably simpler than either C or C++ (or java or any static language)
Then it's odd that you were just a moment ago woofing mindlessly about how python is "more productive" than "C/C++". There is a reason that both C and C++ (which are not the same language) have been wildly successful -- indeed, the python interpreter you are so enthusiastic about, and many modules written for it are written in C.
It's true that it's easy to throw together a few lines of python code that do something useful in very little time, but that's a far cry from making python "more productive", though it does make it very useful for a number of tasks.
I happen to use and be quite proficient with both python and C++ and frankly I find the woofing of the advocates of both of these to be quite embarrassing at times.
If you're getting what you "know" about food from Dr. Mercola (leading food scaremonger), well, have fun with your diet. Meanwhile, I'll keep enjoying my food (and keeping fitter than mercola will ever be)
It's not exactly cheap for them to do this. They'd probably be lucky to recover their legal expenses in the cases that they settle (and of course they don't get anything in the cases that they drop or lose).
Lawsuits against individuals (who may have little financial resources) is not a very effective game -- lawsuits are only a good income source if you sue someone who has some money (e.g. a big corporation)
Yes. Dynamic means that a lot of things are deferred to runtime as opposed to compile-time (static).
For example, some languages like python use dynamic typing :
a = 'hello'
a = 1
def foo(a): # we don't know what type a is -- deferred till runtime
print a
Some languages like C++ have dynamic binding (e.g. virtual functions).
Some languages allow dynamic loading. That is, you can load libraries at runtime and query those libraries. While nearly every language has some support (built in or library support like libdl) for dynamic loading, the functionality available in the dynamic loading varies.
Some languages allow dynamic execution. For example, eval. In most interpreted languages, one can write a program that reads code from the user and executes that code. One can't do that in most compiled languages.
The term "dynamic language" is used to refer to a language that supports many of the above. Typically, interpreted languages are very dynamic. VM languages are somewhat dynamic. Pure compiled languages are more static.
Games decline in price very quickly. So this is not a justification at all. The reason that piracy occurs is that these guys want it both ways -- they want the very latest but don't want to pay for it.
games are requiring hardware farther and further towards the bleeding edge of technology $500-$600 Video cards, etc.
I'm not familiar with any such games, but then I don't insist on owning all the latest games. If you need the latest technology, then pay for it and quit whining.
Actually, "sharing" as the "sharers" advocate involves "sharing" with your one million or so "best friends", not just with your friend "Joe". It clearly does not constitute fair use, and the definition makes this quite unambiguous.
Right, 14 years into the future is unreasonable, but 2.5 days into the past is just dandy (-;
Bogus slippery slope argument. You could make exactly the same argument about spam-filtering software -- it could, in theory, be used to filter out political speech, and indeed, anti-spam technology would be much better at doing so.
I suppose you regularly post to this forum criticising anti-spam software for the same reason. After all, it restricts "the free flow of information".
My opinion is that you're intellectually dishonest and your primary concern is actually that the software will be used as intended, but instead of being forthright, you cry crocodile tears for "liberty".
You're right that it's not clear exactly where the line should be drawn. But that's no excuse for permitting even the most egregious infringements. There's a huge difference between swapping CDs with 1 or 2 of your best friends, and doing the same with a million of your "best friends".
How does that affect binary compatibility ? This should only affect out-of-memory conditions which usually result in program termination anyway, right ?
I'd say that it's still something that you should check instead of guessing. Run cpuburn on windoze or fedora, preferably while monitoring your hardware (lm_sensors on Linux)
Funny you mention that. My first thought was that opensourcing netscape/mozilla was a really bad move, but in hindsight it seems it was quite a good one. I doubt I'd be typing this in mozilla today if they hadn't done this.
Most runners competing in marathon and shorter will rarely run more than 20 miles in a single run, and the 20 miler will only happen once a week. Beyond 20 miles, bonk becomes a problem. Most of the high milage runners run 2-a-day on most days. It's very hard to get over 100 miles per week without at least some 2-a-days.
Can't say I manage 140 but I can do half that. Part of it is probably that he's fairly fast. Part of it is that you have to be pretty serious about pushing yourself out of the door frequently. You can't maintain good milage unless you get out there every night, regardless of whether you come home late.
Regarding the energy it takes out of you, extra sleep etc -- you do most of your miles at an easy pace and this helps you recover better. Also distributing over a larger number of runs makes it easier.
Using the weekend to pack in miles, you can get higher weekly milage. For example, do a long run on Sunday, and the weekend could give you 25 miles out of a 60 mile week. So you only have to get 35 out of the other 5 days.
Regarding "Preparation", "stretching", etc -- and the extra time -- all I can say is that if you're only getting 25mpw or less out of 8-9 hours, that's less than 3 miles per hour. You need to be more efficient than this to get more milage done.
Keep in mind though that going for a longer run doesn't mean that it takes any longer to shower or change clothes or anything. So some of the overhead you're talking about is more or less fixed.
Most "marathoners" are runners of average ability who decide to do a marathon. They are not competitive athletes. Most elite distance runners do 100 miles or more per week. 140mpw is moderately high, but not sky-high. Hal's "advanced" program isn't all that advanced, most runners who race at the competitive running clubs would have little trouble with it.
And yeah, trying to regularly run 20 milers as fast as you can is really, really dumb. That injury is relatively minor, compared to the degree of stupidity.
First, percentiles aren't that meaningful, since most untrained people can barely run at all.
However, there are the WAVA standards. These are age-graded and gender graded. The standards are based on age group records. 70% means that you can run at 70% of world record pace for your age. The nice thing about these standards is that you can compare performances over different ages, and also different race distances.
Basically, 50-60% is where the midpack runners at most races are. 60% and up is where the entry level competitive club runners are. 70% and up gets you into trophy territory, and most serious competitive running clubs have several runners in this range. 80-85% is where the best local runners are. People in this range stand a good chance of winning their age group, and winning larger races overall (e.g. in NY).
In elite-level races in the US (e.g. the recent mends 8k championships) most competitors finish in the 85-95% range.