"Because obviously Republicans have no right to freedom of speech..."
How exactly is the freedom of speech of the Republican party infringed simply by the refusal of any city to privde them with a forum? That's a bit like saying Ayn Rand's freedom of expression would've been infringed if nobody had published her books, isn't it?
If you have bad program design, GC is necessary, but well thought out design makes it unnecessary. In your example, all you need is some sort of semaphore between the threads, or maintain your own refrence counts internally, or some such.
This is garbage collection! It's just GC done on a per-program level, rather than a systemwide level. I think you just defeated your own argument...
But reference counting is a poor form of garbage collection; it's slow and can't reclaim cyclical structures. Most modern garbage collectors are based on mark and sweep somewhere along the line. (I'll go so far as to claim that copying is a modification of mark and sweep, with the two operations combined into one copy.)
it is also a crutch bad programmers use far too often to cover their own lazyness, and for really complex programs, doesn't solve the problem reliably!
Actually, if a GC algorithm isn't reliable, it's useless. A hell of a lot of care and attention is paid to proving GC algorithms correct. It's permissible for GC to err on the side of caution (we won't reclaim that block because it might still be in use), and a fair few GC methods do this (usually incremental and conservative algorithms) but reclaiming blocks in use is a complete no-no. And whilst I appreciate your points about copying, for one thing it's usually unnecessary in modern systems - tracing works just as well, if not better, and even Baker's copying method can be done without copying - and for another thing, in conservative systems you must trace, as copying would have undesirable side effects on those things which were not pointers...
In any case, you say `lazy' as if it were an insult. I would have thought that the good programmers were the lazy ones, the ones who aren't going to expend any unnecessary effort or have their programs do the same. Why build storage management more than once? If the OS or the language runtime has a totally reliable (and remember, it *must* be, or it's useless) GC system, why storage manage at all?
In any case, there's no harm in having a `free' call that you can call to put something on the collectable list straightaway - but when it becomes difficult to free something in an orderly fashion, why not let the infrastructure take the strain? It's what it's there for.
Granted that negative side, there is something to be said for the concept. Perhaps, instead of giving everyone full moderation access, there should be some kind of "post voting system". Perhaps 4 links by each comment which register whether the comment was very good, good, bad or very bad. (For indifferent, don't vote. *grin* ) That way, everyone gets their say, a general picture builds up, moderation can be automated completely (I'm sure even 400 people are going to have their work cut out) and we won't get into pointless petulance over the one moderator whom you just know has it in for you...
Thanks. You've just given me the motivation to set my threshold to 1. I don't need to read half-arsed comments from unproductive cowards with definition problems.
A warehousing corporation got hold of some sardines for 2p/kg. He sold them to a holding company for 3p/kg, which then sold the sardines on to a large food distribution agency for 5p/kg. This food agency approached a supermarket asking for 8p/kg. The supermarket buyer took a tin home and sampled them, but that night was taken violently ill with ptomaine poisoning. So, when he got back to work, he traced the sardines back to the warehousing corporation, and rang the MD up to complain.
"Those fish are bad! People can't possibly eat them," he said.
"What do you mean, eat them?" replied the MD. "Those fish weren't for eating. They were for selling."
Hence "sardine software".
(And this, children, is why it's important to proofread your posts.;> )
First off, some of us Brits are libertarians too. Some even have big Ls. And there's quite a healthy anarchist contingent over here, too. I think socialism is dead, but principally because nobody believes any more in the concept of a large benificent authority figure. (The final death of feudalism perhaps?;> )
Secondly, I would tend to draw a distinction between the free market and capitalism. That probably sounds strange, and will get people wondering loudly in public if I have a clue.;> Give me a hearing, though. Yes, I know that capitalism is built upon the concept of a free market - but over time, capital tends to centralise, and the larger a company becomes, the easier it is for that company to extinguish all competition. This pattern is ancient. And a lack of competition is the antithesis of a free market; it could be said that the whole purpose of capitalism is to destroy the very mechanism which made it possible. (Worse still is the old boys' club that can be found in any board of directors anywhere in the world; there's no meritocracy at the top - too many people would be out on their ears if there were. But that's just a moan.)
How does this relate to 'free software'? Well, it's a demonstration of how the tendency for capital to centralise can have the rug pulled from under it completely.:> The big capital investment in software is writing the stuff initially. M$ write "sardine software". [1] But free software is generally written to address a need, not to generate sales, and it's not normally written on a commercial basis. And even if it is, it no longer represents capital assets in quite the way M$ source does. Which means that nobody can possibly dominate any part of the supply chain, but especially that nobody can dominate the crucial one - supply of raw materials. In essence, in software we can have a free market without capitalistic structures evolving - because there's no longer any need for them.
Now we just have to figure out how to do the same with bread, and we'll all be happy.;>
Guns: used for destructive purposes, no use that doesn't involve putting large holes in people / animals / things, ten *thousand* murders a year, not counting suicides or accidents... nothing wrong with them at all, can't imagine what the fuss is about.
Emulators: take years of skill to assemble, allow development for a platform without access to the development kit for that platform, only illegal activity encouraged by them is copyright violation and screwing an already rich corporation out of a few more bucks... NASTY! NASTY! BAN THEM! BAN THEM!
May I suggest that your priorities are a little misaligned? May I make that a strong one?
Remember, we're talking about the Irish government here. Despite their origins, they're not noted for shady dealings on quite the same scale as the US (or even the UK) governments.
(Besides, they've just discontinued their currency. They may have other things to worry about right now.;> )
Slashdot Mirror
"Because obviously Republicans have no right to freedom of speech..."
How exactly is the freedom of speech of the Republican party infringed simply by the refusal of any city to privde them with a forum? That's a bit like saying Ayn Rand's freedom of expression would've been infringed if nobody had published her books, isn't it?
--
Having said which, this is the company who claimed that a trashcan was their symbol...
--
This is garbage collection! It's just GC done on a per-program level, rather than a systemwide level. I think you just defeated your own argument...
But reference counting is a poor form of garbage collection; it's slow and can't reclaim cyclical structures. Most modern garbage collectors are based on mark and sweep somewhere along the line. (I'll go so far as to claim that copying is a modification of mark and sweep, with the two operations combined into one copy.)
Actually, if a GC algorithm isn't reliable, it's useless. A hell of a lot of care and attention is paid to proving GC algorithms correct. It's permissible for GC to err on the side of caution (we won't reclaim that block because it might still be in use), and a fair few GC methods do this (usually incremental and conservative algorithms) but reclaiming blocks in use is a complete no-no. And whilst I appreciate your points about copying, for one thing it's usually unnecessary in modern systems - tracing works just as well, if not better, and even Baker's copying method can be done without copying - and for another thing, in conservative systems you must trace, as copying would have undesirable side effects on those things which were not pointers...
In any case, you say `lazy' as if it were an insult. I would have thought that the good programmers were the lazy ones, the ones who aren't going to expend any unnecessary effort or have their programs do the same. Why build storage management more than once? If the OS or the language runtime has a totally reliable (and remember, it *must* be, or it's useless) GC system, why storage manage at all?
In any case, there's no harm in having a `free' call that you can call to put something on the collectable list straightaway - but when it becomes difficult to free something in an orderly fashion, why not let the infrastructure take the strain? It's what it's there for.
--
Granted that negative side, there is something to be said for the concept. Perhaps, instead of giving everyone full moderation access, there should be some kind of "post voting system". Perhaps 4 links by each comment which register whether the comment was very good, good, bad or very bad. (For indifferent, don't vote. *grin* ) That way, everyone gets their say, a general picture builds up, moderation can be automated completely (I'm sure even 400 people are going to have their work cut out) and we won't get into pointless petulance over the one moderator whom you just know has it in for you...
--
Thanks. You've just given me the motivation to set my threshold to 1. I don't need to read half-arsed comments from unproductive cowards with definition problems.
--
A warehousing corporation got hold of some sardines for 2p/kg. He sold them to a holding company for 3p/kg, which then sold the sardines on to a large food distribution agency for 5p/kg. This food agency approached a supermarket asking for 8p/kg. The supermarket buyer took a tin home and sampled them, but that night was taken violently ill with ptomaine poisoning. So, when he got back to work, he traced the sardines back to the warehousing corporation, and rang the MD up to complain.
;> )
"Those fish are bad! People can't possibly eat them," he said.
"What do you mean, eat them?" replied the MD. "Those fish weren't for eating. They were for selling."
Hence "sardine software".
(And this, children, is why it's important to proofread your posts.
--
First off, some of us Brits are libertarians too. Some even have big Ls. And there's quite a healthy anarchist contingent over here, too. I think socialism is dead, but principally because nobody believes any more in the concept of a large benificent authority figure. (The final death of feudalism perhaps? ;> )
;> Give me a hearing, though. Yes, I know that capitalism is built upon the concept of a free market - but over time, capital tends to centralise, and the larger a company becomes, the easier it is for that company to extinguish all competition. This pattern is ancient. And a lack of competition is the antithesis of a free market; it could be said that the whole purpose of capitalism is to destroy the very mechanism which made it possible. (Worse still is the old boys' club that can be found in any board of directors anywhere in the world; there's no meritocracy at the top - too many people would be out on their ears if there were. But that's just a moan.)
:> The big capital investment in software is writing the stuff initially. M$ write "sardine software". [1] But free software is generally written to address a need, not to generate sales, and it's not normally written on a commercial basis. And even if it is, it no longer represents capital assets in quite the way M$ source does. Which means that nobody can possibly dominate any part of the supply chain, but especially that nobody can dominate the crucial one - supply of raw materials. In essence, in software we can have a free market without capitalistic structures evolving - because there's no longer any need for them.
;>
Secondly, I would tend to draw a distinction between the free market and capitalism. That probably sounds strange, and will get people wondering loudly in public if I have a clue.
How does this relate to 'free software'? Well, it's a demonstration of how the tendency for capital to centralise can have the rug pulled from under it completely.
Now we just have to figure out how to do the same with bread, and we'll all be happy.
--
Well, RMS gave us Emacs and GCC. I think that's a pretty big contribution to be going on with. :>
Ok, so you're saying:
Guns: used for destructive purposes, no use that doesn't involve putting large holes in people / animals / things, ten *thousand* murders a year, not counting suicides or accidents... nothing wrong with them at all, can't imagine what the fuss is about.
Emulators: take years of skill to assemble, allow development for a platform without access to the development kit for that platform, only illegal activity encouraged by them is copyright violation and screwing an already rich corporation out of a few more bucks... NASTY! NASTY! BAN THEM! BAN THEM!
May I suggest that your priorities are a little misaligned? May I make that a strong one?
I thought interpersonal problems were a known problem with RMS, and that upgrading to ESR went some way towards fixing them...? ;>
"otherwise the Government would have &c"
;> )
Remember, we're talking about the Irish government here. Despite their origins, they're not noted for shady dealings on quite the same scale as the US (or even the UK) governments.
(Besides, they've just discontinued their currency. They may have other things to worry about right now.