This guy says "Efficiency Is the Key". This guy is wrong.
With the incredible power provided to us by modern CPU's, efficiency is just about completely irrelevant for 99% of non-game applications. Think... when was the last time you thought "This word processor just doesn't respond to my keypresses fast enough." or "AIM takes way too long to open a new IM window."? The reason why these programs aren't getting "faster" (as the article complains) is because there is no way to do so. They spend 99.9% of their time waiting for user input already.
Optimizing code which doesn't need optimization is Bad with a capital 'B'. When optimizing code, there is almost always a tradeoff between efficiency and maintainability. Efficiency often requires cutting corners, killing opportunities for future expansion, or, at the very least, writing ugly code. When that added efficiency does not lead to any noticeable benefit to the user, why do it?
Now, granted, you shouldn't use an O(n) algorithm when an O(lg n) one exists to solve the same problem. However, knowing the difference between O(n) and O(lg n) has nothing to do with knowing assembly. The only benefits you can get out of knowing assembly are constant-multiplier speed increases. And, frankly, shaving off 50% of 0.1% CPU time used is not going to help much.
Really, the speed of modern CPU's is sickening. I can't count the number of times I've written a piece of code, thought "This is going to be so slow...", then watched it execute near instantaneously. Even when running programs in a prototype programming language I'm working on -- which currently runs about 40x slower than C, because it's a crappy prototype -- this happens to me regularly. The only time your code is going to be noticeably slow is if you are processing a very, very large data set or you are using slow algorithms. In the former case, sure, knowing assembly will help, but such cases are extremely rare in typical applications. In the latter case, find a better algorithm.
Unfortunately SCO will be required to sell the unix rights to someone else in a pitiful attempt to pay off debts and pay back shareholders. Will the new owner be willing to let Sun GPL Solaris? The new owner could very well be Microsoft, you know, which would be rather scary.
Yeah, it doesn't help that the people whining usually have inferior products. Sorry, but at the time of Netscape 4, IE was simply a better browser (portability issues aside). It wasn't until reletively recently that Mozilla pulled ahead in my mind.
Apple might be able to make a better case because they actually have a quality product that people like. In Netscape or Real's case, you could shrug it off by saying "They only lost because their products sucked, not because Microsoft exploited its monopoly.". Not here.
1) Enter a section of the software market with a new Microsoft product. 2) Include it free with Windows, thereby eliminating the competition's ability to compete because users are too lazy to download competing software. 3) Profit. 4) When the DoJ gets upset, pay them off by offering to donate massive amounts of Microsoft software to schools, thereby leading students to learn Microsoft software rather than competing products. 5) Profit more. 6) Repeat.
I think it's funny how Bush's campaign seems to be suggesting that we should prefer a president who takes an extremist stance on every issue rather than one who weighs each issue in context and is willing to accept either side of the argument if the circumstances demand it.
First of all, there is already an iTMS input plugin for Winamp. It has been around for some time. It uses the existing QuickTime SDK to play the music.
This new SDK has nothing to do with that. Now, I haven't exactly had much time to review it, so I could be wrong, but what this new SDK looks like is scripting support for manipulating the iTunes interface. For instance, you can write scripts which build playlists, tag files, etc. Basically, this allows you to automate tasks that you might otherwise perform through the iTunes UI.
On Mac OSX, such functionality has been available via AppleScript for some time. In fact, many OSX programs expose functionality like this via AppleScript -- a practice I wish were more widespread on other systems.
Of course, Windows doesn't have AppleScript, but it does have COM, which I guess can be used in vaguely similar ways. So, they have exposed all this functionality via COM instead. The download includes some example scripts written in Javascript for creating playlists, removing dead files, etc. Of course, since it's COM, you can use pretty much any language you want to access it (including C/C++, though I wouldn't recommend it for this sort of thing).
Kudos to Apple for doing this. They could have been snotty and kept the scripting abilities exclusive to OSX, but they instead chose to support both platforms equally.
But, no, I don't think Winamp or WMP have anything to gain from this. Sorry.
I'm no Java fan. Certainly the language itself is designed in such a way that certain types of tasks are necessarily going to be less efficient. It depends on what you are doing, of course. However, the "Java is slow" assumption made by many people is quite exaggerated, mainly because most people don't understand how Java works. People like the original poster think "bytecode = interpreted = slow". I guess the concept of translating bytecode to native code just never occured to them.
As I am currently developing a language which will, among other things, use bytecode, I'd like for this myth to die sometime soon.:)
Java compiles to native code. Just because the translation is done at program startup doesn't mean it is slower. In fact, because of this, it can perform optimizations that couldn't be used in a C compiler (optimizing for specific CPU's, etc.).
The problem with Java is that its GUI toolkit is slow.
In any case, with a file sharing app, CPU efficiency is certainly not an issue. You should never worry abot CPU efficiency if you don't need to, as you will only be making things harder on yourself.
And, finally, writing portable C/C++ code is really not that hard if you know what you are doing. Certainly you'd be better off with that than you would be asking all of your users to install an extra OS over their current one just to run your program. Really, the most important factor in making file sharing successful is to get lots and lots of users, and most of those users are going to be people who have absolutely no idea what an operating system even is.
Yeah, I know. They are blocking links from any site that is not them. This is common practice. When you click a link, the browser tells the linked site the address of the linking site. So, the server sees "slashdot.org" and thinks "that's not us". When you open a new window and paste the link, your browser does not send the referring URL, so the site lets you in, not knowing that you came from Slashdot.
If the site doesn't want people linking to their pictures, then Slashdot should not be linking to their pictures. It's surprising that neither the submitter nor the editor thought to click on the link to make sure it worked.
"Image Found At www.animelab.com. DONT [sic] STEAL BANDWIDTH! REMOVE THIS IMAGE!"
There's just too many comments I could make about this, Slashdot, the Slashdot effect, inept submitters, and lazy editors. I don't know where to start.
Moogles first appeared in FF3, but I don't think they were actually called moogles at that point. (Of course, since the game was never translated to English, that's probably a moot point.) They actually skipped FF4 but returned in FF5. Hmm... I actually don't remember them appearing in 10 (or X-2) and I didn't play enough of 8 to know, but they definitely showed up in 6, 7 ("Mogs" -- bad translation), 9, and 11. Moogles also appeared in Secret of Mana (and I'm guessing SD3, though I have yet to play it).
Wow, I'm not sure whether to be proud or ashamed that I know all that.
from the happy-birthday-to-you-happy-birthday-to-you dept.
I'm not sure what to think of this. The article has nothing to do with birthdays. However, it is, in fact, my birthday today (March 30th). As I see no other reason why timothy might have chosen that department, I can only assume that he's celebrating my birthday. I don't know whether to be flattered or disturbed by this.
Why screw around with free sites than just link to other free sites and never get you anywhere when you can just pay $20 for a one-month subscription, wget -r, cancel, and have all the porn you'll ever need or want?
Slashdot Mirror
This guy says "Efficiency Is the Key". This guy is wrong.
With the incredible power provided to us by modern CPU's, efficiency is just about completely irrelevant for 99% of non-game applications. Think... when was the last time you thought "This word processor just doesn't respond to my keypresses fast enough." or "AIM takes way too long to open a new IM window."? The reason why these programs aren't getting "faster" (as the article complains) is because there is no way to do so. They spend 99.9% of their time waiting for user input already.
Optimizing code which doesn't need optimization is Bad with a capital 'B'. When optimizing code, there is almost always a tradeoff between efficiency and maintainability. Efficiency often requires cutting corners, killing opportunities for future expansion, or, at the very least, writing ugly code. When that added efficiency does not lead to any noticeable benefit to the user, why do it?
Now, granted, you shouldn't use an O(n) algorithm when an O(lg n) one exists to solve the same problem. However, knowing the difference between O(n) and O(lg n) has nothing to do with knowing assembly. The only benefits you can get out of knowing assembly are constant-multiplier speed increases. And, frankly, shaving off 50% of 0.1% CPU time used is not going to help much.
Really, the speed of modern CPU's is sickening. I can't count the number of times I've written a piece of code, thought "This is going to be so slow...", then watched it execute near instantaneously. Even when running programs in a prototype programming language I'm working on -- which currently runs about 40x slower than C, because it's a crappy prototype -- this happens to me regularly. The only time your code is going to be noticeably slow is if you are processing a very, very large data set or you are using slow algorithms. In the former case, sure, knowing assembly will help, but such cases are extremely rare in typical applications. In the latter case, find a better algorithm.
Unfortunately SCO will be required to sell the unix rights to someone else in a pitiful attempt to pay off debts and pay back shareholders. Will the new owner be willing to let Sun GPL Solaris? The new owner could very well be Microsoft, you know, which would be rather scary.
Question 1: How do you know the CPU you bought is secure and has no code-modifying backdoors?
Answer: Normally you do not.
Question 2: Why do the majority of people buy those instead of manufacturing their own?
Answer: Because it is a lot more convenient.
Any piece of hardware can have a backdoor in it, really. If anything, you're probably safer buying the system all in one piece, because:
1) A packaged system built by a respected company is likely to be far better reviewed and tested than something you assemble/install yourself.
2) If it has a hole, you know exactly whom to blame (and perhaps sue for damages, if exploited).
Yeah, it doesn't help that the people whining usually have inferior products. Sorry, but at the time of Netscape 4, IE was simply a better browser (portability issues aside). It wasn't until reletively recently that Mozilla pulled ahead in my mind.
Apple might be able to make a better case because they actually have a quality product that people like. In Netscape or Real's case, you could shrug it off by saying "They only lost because their products sucked, not because Microsoft exploited its monopoly.". Not here.
1) Enter a section of the software market with a new Microsoft product.
2) Include it free with Windows, thereby eliminating the competition's ability to compete because users are too lazy to download competing software.
3) Profit.
4) When the DoJ gets upset, pay them off by offering to donate massive amounts of Microsoft software to schools, thereby leading students to learn Microsoft software rather than competing products.
5) Profit more.
6) Repeat.
I think it's funny how Bush's campaign seems to be suggesting that we should prefer a president who takes an extremist stance on every issue rather than one who weighs each issue in context and is willing to accept either side of the argument if the circumstances demand it.
Man... someday someone is going to write an obfusicated perl version of "rm -rf *" and post it on slashdot, and everyone is going to fall for it.
I built him from a kit as part of a science project in fifth grade.
There have been Winamp plugins to support the DRM'd iTMS AAC's for some time as well.
First of all, there is already an iTMS input plugin for Winamp. It has been around for some time. It uses the existing QuickTime SDK to play the music.
This new SDK has nothing to do with that. Now, I haven't exactly had much time to review it, so I could be wrong, but what this new SDK looks like is scripting support for manipulating the iTunes interface. For instance, you can write scripts which build playlists, tag files, etc. Basically, this allows you to automate tasks that you might otherwise perform through the iTunes UI.
On Mac OSX, such functionality has been available via AppleScript for some time. In fact, many OSX programs expose functionality like this via AppleScript -- a practice I wish were more widespread on other systems.
Of course, Windows doesn't have AppleScript, but it does have COM, which I guess can be used in vaguely similar ways. So, they have exposed all this functionality via COM instead. The download includes some example scripts written in Javascript for creating playlists, removing dead files, etc. Of course, since it's COM, you can use pretty much any language you want to access it (including C/C++, though I wouldn't recommend it for this sort of thing).
Kudos to Apple for doing this. They could have been snotty and kept the scripting abilities exclusive to OSX, but they instead chose to support both platforms equally.
But, no, I don't think Winamp or WMP have anything to gain from this. Sorry.
I'm no Java fan. Certainly the language itself is designed in such a way that certain types of tasks are necessarily going to be less efficient. It depends on what you are doing, of course. However, the "Java is slow" assumption made by many people is quite exaggerated, mainly because most people don't understand how Java works. People like the original poster think "bytecode = interpreted = slow". I guess the concept of translating bytecode to native code just never occured to them.
:)
As I am currently developing a language which will, among other things, use bytecode, I'd like for this myth to die sometime soon.
Java compiles to native code. Just because the translation is done at program startup doesn't mean it is slower. In fact, because of this, it can perform optimizations that couldn't be used in a C compiler (optimizing for specific CPU's, etc.).
The problem with Java is that its GUI toolkit is slow.
In any case, with a file sharing app, CPU efficiency is certainly not an issue. You should never worry abot CPU efficiency if you don't need to, as you will only be making things harder on yourself.
And, finally, writing portable C/C++ code is really not that hard if you know what you are doing. Certainly you'd be better off with that than you would be asking all of your users to install an extra OS over their current one just to run your program. Really, the most important factor in making file sharing successful is to get lots and lots of users, and most of those users are going to be people who have absolutely no idea what an operating system even is.
Video of that quote and the Daily Show's coverage of it. (Appologies for Real Media format.)
I've had my e-mail address listed all over the place for several years (Google), and my mail server performs absolutely no filtering.
I spend about 30 seconds a day deleting my spam.
If this is stopping you from working on Linux, you must not be very interested.
Yeah, I know. They are blocking links from any site that is not them. This is common practice. When you click a link, the browser tells the linked site the address of the linking site. So, the server sees "slashdot.org" and thinks "that's not us". When you open a new window and paste the link, your browser does not send the referring URL, so the site lets you in, not knowing that you came from Slashdot.
If the site doesn't want people linking to their pictures, then Slashdot should not be linking to their pictures. It's surprising that neither the submitter nor the editor thought to click on the link to make sure it worked.
Uh... yeah, I know.
"Burned". "Burned", not "bured", dammit.
Add some comments about my lazy proofreading to that list.
"Image Found At www.animelab.com. DONT [sic] STEAL BANDWIDTH! REMOVE THIS IMAGE!"
There's just too many comments I could make about this, Slashdot, the Slashdot effect, inept submitters, and lazy editors. I don't know where to start.
His name (Komawi) is linked to his e-mail address right there in the writeup, but thanks for playing.
Oh! Duh! I totally forgot about Lulu's weapons. It's been too long since I played that game.
Moogles first appeared in FF3, but I don't think they were actually called moogles at that point. (Of course, since the game was never translated to English, that's probably a moot point.) They actually skipped FF4 but returned in FF5. Hmm... I actually don't remember them appearing in 10 (or X-2) and I didn't play enough of 8 to know, but they definitely showed up in 6, 7 ("Mogs" -- bad translation), 9, and 11. Moogles also appeared in Secret of Mana (and I'm guessing SD3, though I have yet to play it).
Wow, I'm not sure whether to be proud or ashamed that I know all that.
from the happy-birthday-to-you-happy-birthday-to-you dept.
I'm not sure what to think of this. The article has nothing to do with birthdays. However, it is, in fact, my birthday today (March 30th). As I see no other reason why timothy might have chosen that department, I can only assume that he's celebrating my birthday. I don't know whether to be flattered or disturbed by this.
At least our streets are straight.
Why screw around with free sites than just link to other free sites and never get you anywhere when you can just pay $20 for a one-month subscription, wget -r, cancel, and have all the porn you'll ever need or want?
Perhaps someone should clue them in on how to create an index in SQL.