Comment Re:The state is easy to see. (Score 1) 199
Most people don't know what OS they are using much less what an OS is.
Most people don't know what OS they are using much less what an OS is.
There is no requirement to make any changes in GPL code public unless you distribute it.
A company can take the Linux source, make any changes they like and use those changes internally and there is no obligation to submit those changes back to the source tree.
Most of the Java boilerplate is for the compiler, not the programmer.
You mean seizing mobsters property who were destroying the country?
The US doesn't do that?
Enforcing whitespace in the language weakens it.
Add in the sad decision to not make everything an expression in Python and you have a weaker language with zero benefit to go along with the enforced whitespace.
Guido is almost as stupid Rasmus.
Python used to not have any scoping at all which is why you have all those redundant self self self self self....
And GOTO is function local.
There is zero difference between those breaks and GOTO except that using GOTO won't kill your cache.
> I say "please don't use goto" and instead have a "cleanup_lock" function
> and add that before all the return statements.. It should not be a
> burden. Yes, it's asking the developer to work a little harder, but the
> end result is better code.
No, it is gross and it bloats the kernel. It inlines a bunch of junk
for N error paths, as opposed to having the exit code once at the end.
Cache footprint is key and you just killed it.
Nor is it easier to read.
As a final argument, it does not let us cleanly do the usual stack-esque
wind and unwind, i.e.
do A
if (error)
goto out_a;
do B
if (error)
goto out_b;
do C
if (error)
goto out_c;
goto out;
out_c:
undo C
out_b:
undo B:
out_a:
undo A
out:
return ret;
Now stop this.
Robert Love
"Don't prematurely optimize" is another one of those proverbs that people worship without thinking about it.
Yup
People have taken that to mean that it is okay it write poor code because the compiler will save you and if it doesn't then you can do it the right way.
Most of the time I know the optimal way to write it so I do. Waiting is pure stupidity.
If I am not sure, I come up with the best that I can, profile it and if it isn't efficient enough I tweak it.
So you don't allow break or continue? Because there is no real difference in C between them and GOTO.
You just put acquiring resources in your critical path.
smh
What if you have to clean up memory on the error condition?
Quoting a small snippet from a larger work with attribution in the USA is generally fair use. But in any case, how can the Free Software Foundation claim that code that links to GPL libraries even *dynamically* is a derived work if APIs are not copyrightable? As much as I am against excessive copyright, people can't have it both ways.
There is a huge difference between an API header and the implementation.
The implementation is copyrightable and no one is claiming otherwise.
If you don't understand the difference between:
static int acpi_ac_get_state(struct acpi_ac *ac);
and
static int acpi_ac_get_state(struct acpi_ac *ac)
{
acpi_status status = AE_OK;
if (!ac)
return -EINVAL;
status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ac->device->handle, "_PSR", NULL, &ac->state);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
ACPI_EXCEPTION((AE_INFO, status, "Error reading AC Adapter state"));
ac->state = ACPI_AC_STATUS_UNKNOWN;
return -ENODEV;
}
return 0;
}
You have nothing valid to say on the topic.
The former is what is under discussion. In no way should that be copyrightable.
The latter should be and is copyrightable.
They probably did.
MS moves so slowly that it likely took this long to move through the thousands of layers of bureaucracy.
Pipelight + wine + change UA string for netflix.com = runs netflix in Linux flawlessly.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
