I had similar problems. I found that I could use Tex4ht to convert the LaTeX files to HTML and then a copy of MS Word running in a VM to convert that HTML to.doc. The results were pretty good though tedious. Thats what I use when I have to give documents to people without LaTeX now.
damn right. emacs + LaTeX is the best word processor I have ever worked with.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
thats the same reason I use python instead of perl. because python is simple. It doesn't have strange wierd syntax and its object model is easy to graps and effectively use. It was designed to be fast to code in and easy to read.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
um... in smalltalk, there is no source code really. You just have an object environment. as a result, compartmentalization sucks. if random programs start re-defining similar objects, you are screwed. That is probably the biggest barrier in smalltalk development. Smalltalk is a great language but it is certainly not a practical language. lisp has similar problems except it does have some forms of compartmentalization and has strict naming scheams so it is not that much of a problem. In terms of capability, I have found both languages to be roughly the same with the one exception that lisp macros are awesome and lisp and ASM are the only languages where I have found such powerful macros. (c pre processor macros do not count since variables can not be localied like with lisp un-interned variables). I personally like the minimalist syntax of lisp but I have done very little coding in smalltalk and a lot in lisp so I am a bit biased there.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
Essentially yes. This is a phenomenae known as network externalities. It where something stays established because it is already established. Example, windows, IE, TCP/IP, IPv4, JAVA, etc... In each case, the reason those standards are still so widespread is because they are widespread. Windows has many alternatives many of which are technically superior (I knwo this is a debatable point). IE has a firefox alternative but it is still the mainstream. TCP/IP have many alternatives (fastband was one of them) but notice how the alternatives dies because everybody already used TCP/IP. IPv4 has a clearly superior alternative (IPv6) but IPv6 is not widely used so the only way to push it forward right now is through massive gov. funding. LISP as a standard may have been there before but decent implementations only came out in 1985 when C was already king. Unless something drastic happens, LISP will keep its position as a speciality language.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
the same reason python isn't wildly popular in corporate environments. The managers are scared of the risks it brings to the table since it isnt standard tech.
bah. limited experience. postgres has very easy methods for handling files (called large objects). The basic methods are the I/O methods which take in a file location and return an OID and those which will take a path and an oid and extract the lo to the specified path. There are also methods for searching. Infact, searching and retrieving parts of the file from inside the db is actually slightly faster because the db is very good at optimizing disk access.
The U.N. could Bzzt... wrong. To my knowledge, the UN is not capable of doing anything. your use of the word *could* implies that you have not yet grasped this vital fact to kep in mind when reffering to the UN.
I should also point out that in very recent version, rm now detects rm [options] / and tells you that it cannot remove the root directory. still some ways to work around that like cd / && rm -Rf * but at least give rm credit for trying to keep idiots safe.
uh... if the GP is decomping a file and wants to do something else, it is the OS's job to make sure that the other processes get their fair share of CPU time. If the OS instead lets that one process consume the entire CPU, then the OS is badly written.
They used to make OEMs pay per computer whether or not they wanted to install Windows on it(do they still?) so the logical conclusion would be that they would install Windows on every computer. Illegal tying of products but not like anybody would win a case against MS if they tried.
Is the tesla roadster a hoax or real? I looked at their website and apparently, they use a "3-phase, 4-pole electric motor." Last time I checked, the electricity needed for that was only supplied by high performance AC sources and batteries are DC current. Can anybody look that up please?
actually no bounds checking is very useful in C code because C has no concept of variable length structures. For example, In PostgreSQL, with the return structure having a variable length, there is a length marker up front and then the data in inlined right after that. Forced bounds checking would make this process incredibally more complicated. If a language implements bounds checking, it needs to go all the way and manage memory completely. If not, you will end up with a screwed up mess when you try to implement anything complex in it.
uh... insurance is designed to cover that sort of stuff in case you didn't know. As it stands, most normal people in the US still can't handle massive emergency care without insurance. without any govt. funding for helth care, this would still stay the same. The difference is that without govt. funding, helthcare would suddenly get a very good reason to reduce cost since a lot more people would now be looking for cheap but effective health care.
don't forget food!!!!! Petroleum products are required for artifical fertilizer production which are needed for atleast 1/3 of the world's food production. When we run out of oil, its not cars we would be worried about but sky rocketing food prices and famine.
companies only have a problem sharing the source of tech that they are directly making cash off of. A good example of companies open sourcing would be JAVA where it makes perfect sense. Sun make no (direct) money when you DL a copy of their JVM off. By open sourcing the JVM, sun gets a bunch of free testers and devs to help them out. It is also possible to build a business model around open source. Just look at Red Hat. In some cases, open sourcing a core software product may also be benificial such as in security software where this could be used a leverage to find bugs and convince customers of the security of the products. Open source is unlikely to fit in every buisiness model but it certainly has many valid applications in the business market.
oftopic but whatev. I have a simple question with regards to XML vs. SGML. I have looked at the parsers for both and SGML parsers seem to be faster. As I inderstand it, SGML is a pure superset of XML. If so, why are SGMLparsers faster? and If they are (who knows, I may be wrong on this account), why is everybody still interested in using XML when they could just use SGML and all its features instead?
Slashdot Mirror
I had similar problems. I found that I could use Tex4ht to convert the LaTeX files to HTML and then a copy of MS Word running in a VM to convert that HTML to .doc. The results were pretty good though tedious. Thats what I use when I have to give documents to people without LaTeX now.
damn right. emacs + LaTeX is the best word processor I have ever worked with.
thats the same reason I use python instead of perl. because python is simple. It doesn't have strange wierd syntax and its object model is easy to graps and effectively use. It was designed to be fast to code in and easy to read.
um... in smalltalk, there is no source code really. You just have an object environment. as a result, compartmentalization sucks. if random programs start re-defining similar objects, you are screwed. That is probably the biggest barrier in smalltalk development. Smalltalk is a great language but it is certainly not a practical language. lisp has similar problems except it does have some forms of compartmentalization and has strict naming scheams so it is not that much of a problem. In terms of capability, I have found both languages to be roughly the same with the one exception that lisp macros are awesome and lisp and ASM are the only languages where I have found such powerful macros. (c pre processor macros do not count since variables can not be localied like with lisp un-interned variables). I personally like the minimalist syntax of lisp but I have done very little coding in smalltalk and a lot in lisp so I am a bit biased there.
Essentially yes. This is a phenomenae known as network externalities. It where something stays established because it is already established. Example, windows, IE, TCP/IP, IPv4, JAVA, etc... In each case, the reason those standards are still so widespread is because they are widespread. Windows has many alternatives many of which are technically superior (I knwo this is a debatable point). IE has a firefox alternative but it is still the mainstream. TCP/IP have many alternatives (fastband was one of them) but notice how the alternatives dies because everybody already used TCP/IP. IPv4 has a clearly superior alternative (IPv6) but IPv6 is not widely used so the only way to push it forward right now is through massive gov. funding. LISP as a standard may have been there before but decent implementations only came out in 1985 when C was already king. Unless something drastic happens, LISP will keep its position as a speciality language.
the same reason python isn't wildly popular in corporate environments. The managers are scared of the risks it brings to the table since it isnt standard tech.
bah. limited experience. postgres has very easy methods for handling files (called large objects). The basic methods are the I/O methods which take in a file location and return an OID and those which will take a path and an oid and extract the lo to the specified path. There are also methods for searching. Infact, searching and retrieving parts of the file from inside the db is actually slightly faster because the db is very good at optimizing disk access.
I should also point out that in very recent version, rm now detects rm [options] / and tells you that it cannot remove the root directory. still some ways to work around that like cd / && rm -Rf * but at least give rm credit for trying to keep idiots safe.
uh... if the GP is decomping a file and wants to do something else, it is the OS's job to make sure that the other processes get their fair share of CPU time. If the OS instead lets that one process consume the entire CPU, then the OS is badly written.
thanks.
Is the tesla roadster a hoax or real? I looked at their website and apparently, they use a "3-phase, 4-pole electric motor." Last time I checked, the electricity needed for that was only supplied by high performance AC sources and batteries are DC current. Can anybody look that up please?
how about just CmdLin cl = CmdLin(argc, argv);
I would advise looking at pyrex. It is designed for integrating C and Python and IMHO does a pretty good job of it.
actually no bounds checking is very useful in C code because C has no concept of variable length structures. For example, In PostgreSQL, with the return structure having a variable length, there is a length marker up front and then the data in inlined right after that. Forced bounds checking would make this process incredibally more complicated. If a language implements bounds checking, it needs to go all the way and manage memory completely. If not, you will end up with a screwed up mess when you try to implement anything complex in it.
uh... insurance is designed to cover that sort of stuff in case you didn't know. As it stands, most normal people in the US still can't handle massive emergency care without insurance. without any govt. funding for helth care, this would still stay the same. The difference is that without govt. funding, helthcare would suddenly get a very good reason to reduce cost since a lot more people would now be looking for cheap but effective health care.
don't forget food!!!!! Petroleum products are required for artifical fertilizer production which are needed for atleast 1/3 of the world's food production. When we run out of oil, its not cars we would be worried about but sky rocketing food prices and famine.
companies only have a problem sharing the source of tech that they are directly making cash off of. A good example of companies open sourcing would be JAVA where it makes perfect sense. Sun make no (direct) money when you DL a copy of their JVM off. By open sourcing the JVM, sun gets a bunch of free testers and devs to help them out. It is also possible to build a business model around open source. Just look at Red Hat. In some cases, open sourcing a core software product may also be benificial such as in security software where this could be used a leverage to find bugs and convince customers of the security of the products. Open source is unlikely to fit in every buisiness model but it certainly has many valid applications in the business market.
oftopic but whatev. I have a simple question with regards to XML vs. SGML. I have looked at the parsers for both and SGML parsers seem to be faster. As I inderstand it, SGML is a pure superset of XML. If so, why are SGMLparsers faster? and If they are (who knows, I may be wrong on this account), why is everybody still interested in using XML when they could just use SGML and all its features instead?
full harddrive encryption, doable on both windows and linux. At that point the only options are to wipe the drive completely.
Mod parent up for a very insightful post on the cost and gains of security. too bad I don't have mod points right now.
thats what emacs in latex mode with flyspell enabled is for.
sure. want me to email it?