Comment Re:Bwahahahah (Score 1) 239
Point out ONE emulator that doesn't emulate the CPU. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Dosbox.
Wine. (plus various offshoots)
Dosemu.
Point out ONE emulator that doesn't emulate the CPU. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Dosbox.
Wine. (plus various offshoots)
Dosemu.
Even an assembler will link in those libraries that you're talking about.
Assembler has a main() function? That must be new, didn't have one back when I used to do a bit of assembly. In the old days, the loader simply used to jump to a specific address in the executable and then you were on your own.
Even an assembler will link in those libraries that you're talking about. Objective C clearly has a runtime that is deeply involved with the application, and imposes a runtime model that C doesn't have, and that C++ doesn't have unless you use RTTI.
Your point is? The runtime can be a substantial piece of code (eg a VM) or it can be simple (eg in C), or it can be entirely non-existent (nothing more than a loader, as in old-style machine code). So what?
But you still have to have a runtime to handle dynamic method dispatch, especially if you use reflection, making the Java and ObjC runtime requirements about equivalent. (They both have, in their present incarnations, garbage collection, for example.)
Again, so what? You could use a garbage collector with C++, for example (eg the popular Boehm collector). And you can implement your own dynamic method dispatch in C++, if you wanted to go to the trouble. Dynamic dispatch (with a bounded set of types) is way different to a full-blown VM. But they are still part of the runtime environment. I don't understand the point of your post, you seem to be saying basically the same thing I said, but you've written it in a way that makes it look like you disagree. Exactly what do you disagree with?
all languages have a runtime environment, but it isn't necessarily a virtual machine!
The runtime environment for C++ is often fairly simple, it handles the operating system program entry point and passing arguments to the main() function, as well as initializing parts of the standard library.
The runtime environment for Java is a bit more complicated, it usually involves a bytecode interpreter.
But that is mostly a choice of the implementation. Native compilers for Java exist, and so do C++ interpreters.
That is true, but my point is (which I concede wasn't stated properly) that the USA certainly has the capacity to pay down the debt, and the only impediment to doing this is political. So it is not comparable at all to a typical debt holder. The comparison with someone who could potentially become insolvent is meaningless.
Its rather hypothetical, but possibly one could even argue that the constitution actually allows the USA to sell off California to China in order to repay debts. But no way could china seize California!
The total debt US has is way too high anyway, if a person had same sort of debt load they would be insolvent.
That is a pretty astounding thing to say. Most people who have a mortgage have a far higher debt load than the US government, and sub-prime victims excepted, the vast majority of home-owners do not go insolvent in the process.
I can do a lot of the conversions between the systems and within them in my head in just a few seconds. I'm sure many of you can too. What I'm trying to say is that if we do all standardize on the same systems, we're losing the ability to cope with different systems.
I suspect it is very uncommon to be able to do conversions between metric and imperial in your head. Indeed, theinability to convert to metric is the principal excuse for not having converted everything already. What I am totally failing to see is any reason why the 'ability to cope with different systems' is useful for anything. Even in the bizarre example posted earlier of communicating with an alien race, it is unlikely that anyone other than a handful of specialists would ever need to do any unit conversions. Just like today; only a handful of people (eg, scientists, engineers) regularly need to do any metric/imperial conversions.
The problem in your scenario is that there's no such thing as a "write only" file...
Not correct. There are lots of ways of setting up a system that can write but not read. For example, a line printer that records a transaction log. To see the password, you have to physically read the printout. You could get the same effect with a dedicated server with a single-use connection to the main server (and no internet connection! Doesn't even need to have a TCP/IP stack) and a well controlled software environment.
It's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on open markets. When a government mandates a certain platform that is not open. Actually....it's more like socialism.
I think you're confused. Socialism is about the cooperative management of resources and the means of production, leading to equal power sharing among citizens. I don't see how mandating a particular proprietary format (which it is, despite the ECMA and ISO standards) fits anywhere in the socialist spectrum.
On the other hand, it seems to be capitalism at its finest (or worst, depending on point of view); a company on the free market gets big enough that it has an effective monopoly and can use that power to leverage government regulation. Of course the end result is counter to free market principles, but a completely laissez-faire market almost inevitably results in the biggest fish taking over the pond, so it is a natural consequence.
We are not a clone.