Hm. And I thought we're paying the ISP to access Google...
Anyway, I'm pretty sure all the money that Google makes is from the added value that it gives to your bandwidth, not from the bandwidth itself.
Verizon's argument holds no water. It's like the utility trying to charge you additionally for the water just because you make a furtune off your farm.
It's assumption is, the added value is really small to nonexistent.
If it really believes so, Verizon should try to make its own search engine and compete. Trying to distort money from bandwidth use only shows the world your hypocrisy.
People who don't have that kind of money usually walk past expensive restaurants. So you're saying all high end restaurants are unacceptable practices?
I give you the rest - and I quite agree with your "train yourself to write smaller code" mentality.
However..."Pointers must be owned by a specific object; created by that object, used by or through that object, and deleted by that object. That is the only way of ensuring that you always know when and where it is created and when and where it is destroyed, which is what I mean when I speak of object lifecycle."
This is not necessary true in all cases. For example, in a message-passing multithreaded environment, messages are often created by one object, passes through a message queue, and destroyed when a pool of thread, which often is part of another object, has finished processing it.
However, you can view it as an exceptional case. After all it's the exception that makes a rule.
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree. It might appeal to a mathematician who wants to see everything use functional notation and hates every language except lisp, but to a non-abstract-elite-ivory-tower-mathematician this is absurd. cin is not an array of integers and the use of the adapter obfuscates the fact that you are using a conversion from a char array to an int. The back_inserter also makes it harder to see where the data is going by losing "v" in it. Many would also frown at it for taking a non-const reference, although since it is a standard adaptor it is probably ok
Not understanding something is one thing, but not understanding something so let's reject it as being "elite-ivory-tower" and "academic" is another. I've seen a lot of buggy C++ code being rewritten employing this style in obvious places - many defects were automatically addressed.
Reality is algorithmic, not functional, and so are user specifications for the things they want done. Trying to cram them into an abstract mathematical functional model is insanity.
I disagree. Reality is reality. Algorithmic or Functional are just ways people look at it. Aren't "algorithmic" also abstract? Isn't "object-oriented" abstract as well?
By the way, using your vocabulary, I view the world as a mixture of "algorithmic" and "functional". No pure anything can describe the world, in my opinion.
Reality is algorithmic, not functional, and so are user specifications for the things they want done. Trying to cram them into an abstract mathematical functional model is insanity.
Being functional or algorithmic has *NOTHING* to do with one being "more mathematical" and the other "less mathematical". I advise you, that your use of the common peoples' fear for mathematics in your arguments is not going to help.
C++ programmers are often unnaturally attached to efficiency and have to be watchful for template bloat. Your copy generates 88 instructions, whereas an equivalent iterative solution is only 33 instructions long.
Templates, being code generators, differ by nature to hand-tuned codes. So your code generates only 33 instructions vs the template's 88. Great - now tell me - which architecture? What compiler? What version of that compiler, and whose STL are you using, and which version of THAT? And before you count the instructions, did you realize that this code is waiting for keyboard inputs, therefore what you're doing is unnecessary (and obviously premature) optimization?
While I would not deny the utility of auto_ptr in localized situations manipulating the object state during reallocation, its constant use indicates lack of understanding of object lifecycle in the program.
How does the constant use of auto_ptr relates to the understanding (or the lack thereof) of object lifecycle? Sorry, but understanding object lifecycle the liberal use smart pointers are not mutually exclusive.
It is fashionable in Java to create objects left and right, without consideration of who is supposed to own them. Hey, just let the garbage collector take care of it! Who cares how long the object lives? Obviously, such immature mentality produces plenty of memory leaks for which Java is so infamous.
It is fashionable *among incompetent* Java developers to create objects left and right which make their programs memory hogs. It is also fastionable for *incompetent* C++ programs to forget deallocations leaking memories. What's your point? This mentality, immature or not, is not unique to managed languages.
RTFP. It's obvious the parent is restricting the context in C++.
YOU have no idea what it is doing. You know what? *I* think that line looks trivial. Since neither you or I can represent the general developer population, whether YOU can understand or I can understand the line has absolutely nothing to do with beauty. If beautiful code is unreadable by YOU, perhaps you should study the language more.
Of course if I can choose a language I'd greatly prefer Ocaml, Lua, or Ruby than anything else. But in the context of **C++**, your a[3;12]=b[11;2] is utterly pointless.
Of course, since C++ is a multiparadigm language you can still use write functors and use a(3,12)=b(11,2) to accomplish the syntatic sugar you want.
Use Electric Fence, Valgrind or Purify and automatic test your program to death using deterministic and then randomized (in key dimensions) inputs - let the test run itself for days. This technique can uncover a lot of stability defects.
Maybe when you can bet on it like any other game now. I predict in less than 2 years (if not already) we should be able to see gambling houses hosting bets on klan matches.
If you think you're that good, you should write a book, sell it and keep the copyright, or write your own script to see if anyone licenses it.
I believe the organizers are just looking for cheap scripts, or worse, hire the winners and then make them sign off their copyright and moral rights as "work for hire" for new writings created.
It is important - naturally, when a new language is constructed, its compiler and runtime has to be written in an existing language.
As the language matures, you can write the compiler in the language so it'll compile itself, or an intrepretor in the language itself. In fact, it is a major milestone, and a testament to the self-sufficiency and efficiency of the implementation.
Without forgetting about Java application writer's and put the focus on the Java application *users'* point of view for a second, there'll not be much incentive to cut bloats and fix implementation inefficiencies.
It's not that Java's slow, but unfortunately except J2ME everything seems to be resource hogs.
Not everyone is running with 2GB of RAM. Most computers sold today still come with 512MB. Thus, to measure the expected speed of Java you have to take this into account.
When I still had 512MB I tried runining Matlab, Azureus, JSVN and JAlbum (so you can see, I AM a Java fan), my box slowed to a crawl. The solution? I had to run Matlab with -nojvm.
I don't have this problem now since I upgraded to 2GB. Still, had all these apps been native, they wouldn't be such resource hogs.
Had Sun actually thought how to stop different Java apps from loading their own JVM and JRE, it could have really changed people's perception.
I usually run a few more apps alongside with games.
The benchmark does not show how much memory is used - likely, they installed an ungodly amount of RAM on all machines so it's overkill for the C version and adequate for the Java version.
I'd like to see the benchmark on the minimal hardware requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultima III/IV/V best games EVAR...totally agree, espeically with a Mockingboard ;)
The memories.
http://www.blackberry.com/developers/downloads/jde /index.shtml
Hm. And I thought we're paying the ISP to access Google...
Anyway, I'm pretty sure all the money that Google makes is from the added value that it gives to your bandwidth, not from the bandwidth itself.
Verizon's argument holds no water. It's like the utility trying to charge you additionally for the water just because you make a furtune off your farm.
It's assumption is, the added value is really small to nonexistent.
If it really believes so, Verizon should try to make its own search engine and compete. Trying to distort money from bandwidth use only shows the world your hypocrisy.
Er.
People who don't have that kind of money usually walk past expensive restaurants. So you're saying all high end restaurants are unacceptable practices?
I give you the rest - and I quite agree with your "train yourself to write smaller code" mentality.
However..."Pointers must be owned by a specific object; created by that object, used by or through that object, and deleted by that object. That is the only way of ensuring that you always know when and where it is created and when and where it is destroyed, which is what I mean when I speak of object lifecycle."
This is not necessary true in all cases. For example, in a message-passing multithreaded environment, messages are often created by one object, passes through a message queue, and destroyed when a pool of thread, which often is part of another object, has finished processing it.
However, you can view it as an exceptional case. After all it's the exception that makes a rule.
Not understanding something is one thing, but not understanding something so let's reject it as being "elite-ivory-tower" and "academic" is another. I've seen a lot of buggy C++ code being rewritten employing this style in obvious places - many defects were automatically addressed.
I disagree. Reality is reality. Algorithmic or Functional are just ways people look at it. Aren't "algorithmic" also abstract? Isn't "object-oriented" abstract as well?
By the way, using your vocabulary, I view the world as a mixture of "algorithmic" and "functional". No pure anything can describe the world, in my opinion.
Being functional or algorithmic has *NOTHING* to do with one being "more mathematical" and the other "less mathematical". I advise you, that your use of the common peoples' fear for mathematics in your arguments is not going to help.
Templates, being code generators, differ by nature to hand-tuned codes. So your code generates only 33 instructions vs the template's 88. Great - now tell me - which architecture? What compiler? What version of that compiler, and whose STL are you using, and which version of THAT?
And before you count the instructions, did you realize that this code is waiting for keyboard inputs, therefore what you're doing is unnecessary (and obviously premature) optimization?
How does the constant use of auto_ptr relates to the understanding (or the lack thereof) of object lifecycle? Sorry, but understanding object lifecycle the liberal use smart pointers are not mutually exclusive.
It is fashionable *among incompetent* Java developers to create objects left and right which make their programs memory hogs. It is also fastionable for *incompetent* C++ programs to forget deallocations leaking memories. What's your point? This mentality, immature or not, is not unique to managed languages.
RTFP. It's obvious the parent is restricting the context in C++.
YOU have no idea what it is doing. You know what? *I* think that line looks trivial.
Since neither you or I can represent the general developer population, whether YOU can understand or I can understand the line has absolutely nothing to do with beauty. If beautiful code is unreadable by YOU, perhaps you should study the language more.
Of course if I can choose a language I'd greatly prefer Ocaml, Lua, or Ruby than anything else. But in the context of **C++**, your a[3;12]=b[11;2] is utterly pointless.
Of course, since C++ is a multiparadigm language you can still use write functors and use a(3,12)=b(11,2) to accomplish the syntatic sugar you want.
Use Electric Fence, Valgrind or Purify and automatic test your program to death using deterministic and then randomized (in key dimensions) inputs - let the test run itself for days. This technique can uncover a lot of stability defects.
Let's form an organization "Common Sense Of the Commons" and file an amicus curiae.
(no content)
China is not a facist country. It is a Statist country.
Maybe when you can bet on it like any other game now.
I predict in less than 2 years (if not already) we should be able to see gambling houses hosting bets on klan matches.
Problem: Web users read and ignore stories in the blink of an eye.
Solution: Slashdot editors post a story a number of times to make sure it gets the attention it deserves.
> I think we should impose a ban on any and all fly-by assisted missions.
I think you're trying to be funny here...
I care.
For one, I want to see the internal PSU goes the way of Dodo and all replaced by nice fanless noiseless cool (well, warm) laptop power bricks.
1998: Fought with Jesus http://home.arcor.de/pla-scripts/scripts-spirit2.h tm
If you think you're that good, you should write a book, sell it and keep the copyright, or write your own script to see if anyone licenses it.
I believe the organizers are just looking for cheap scripts, or worse, hire the winners and then make them sign off their copyright and moral rights as "work for hire" for new writings created.
AFAIK infinite divisibility is not proved nor disproved.
Do you notice that we discover new "smallest" particles once every decade, each time an order of magnitude smaller than the previous smallest?
Mod parent up.
.jpg should be treated as image/jpeg if the user has configured so.
IMHO a browser should make it possible for users to configure a mapping of unknown mime type based on extensions.
i.e. application/octet-stream with extension
I don't see how it can be a security risk given that the http header is as easy to hack as the file extensions.
Those of you who say "complain so they follow the standard" are just not flexible enough to deal with the problem practically.
It is important - naturally, when a new language is constructed, its compiler and runtime has to be written in an existing language.
As the language matures, you can write the compiler in the language so it'll compile itself, or an intrepretor in the language itself. In fact, it is a major milestone, and a testament to the self-sufficiency and efficiency of the implementation.
Without forgetting about Java application writer's and put the focus on the Java application *users'* point of view for a second, there'll not be much incentive to cut bloats and fix implementation inefficiencies.
It's not that Java's slow, but unfortunately except J2ME everything seems to be resource hogs.
Not everyone is running with 2GB of RAM. Most computers sold today still come with 512MB. Thus, to measure the expected speed of Java you have to take this into account.
When I still had 512MB I tried runining Matlab, Azureus, JSVN and JAlbum (so you can see, I AM a Java fan), my box slowed to a crawl. The solution? I had to run Matlab with -nojvm.
I don't have this problem now since I upgraded to 2GB. Still, had all these apps been native, they wouldn't be such resource hogs.
Had Sun actually thought how to stop different Java apps from loading their own JVM and JRE, it could have really changed people's perception.
I usually run a few more apps alongside with games.
The benchmark does not show how much memory is used - likely, they installed an ungodly amount of RAM on all machines so it's overkill for the C version and adequate for the Java version.
I'd like to see the benchmark on the minimal hardware requirements.
As far as I know, there are assembly code in libc and the kernel, but they're mostly C.
I tried, but cannot even find a JVM that's mostly Java. Am I asking too much?
The day when I can use a JVM written in 100% pure Java is the day I'll believe in Java performance.
From my rather limited knowledge, this has not existed yet.
Am I the only one who read it this way at a glance?