Comment Re:Don't see it (Score 4, Funny) 181
holy shit
a three-digiter
quick, where's my bug-net, before it flies away
holy shit
a three-digiter
quick, where's my bug-net, before it flies away
scope and complexity say absolutely nothing about the quality of code
why did you choose those two words instead of "[...] programs far better than almost [...]" ?
You can write good code and bad code in any mainstream (just so that exercises like brainfuck, malbolge or dis are excluded) language.
Android is just horribly written. They make monumentally bad engineering decisions. Remember one of the major flaws of os/2 4? Yeah. Same thing. Horribly designed UI? Yup. hidden meat interface, interactive elements moving around on their own, windows popping up and disappearing, no deadzone between buttons... But ok that's not coding, that's UX design.
Android is a clusterfuck of bad decisions on every single point and i say that as a proud owner of about a dozen of the blasted things (x10 mini pro, x10 mini, xperia arc, z ultra, z1, milestone, etcetcetc).
but it sure is pretty! look at all those animations! "material design" they call it these days?
"It's one of the big reasons why Android underperforms iOS, why it's never been so smooth in operation."
no, there is only one reason: shitty coding.
> And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race.
you mean like isle of man motorbike racing?
google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading.
i said rarely. consider that in f1 the clutch is to be operated 4-5 times. once at the start, two or three for pit stops and one left over for emergency/unforeseen events.
once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not
Yes... Don't see your point? The gearbox is necessary so that the motor operates near peak efficiency as often as possible. Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch
A clutch isn't really necessary, i'd guess.
and it will get floated every couple of years until they figure out how to make it worthwhile
the whole "max torque from 0 rpm" phrase that is thrown around is quite misleading. While true that a motor exerts its maximum torque at zero rpm (and drops linearly as rpm increases), it also has the worst efficiency. maximum power draw (it's a short circuit!) and minimum power output (it's not moving is it?). peak efficiency is at a specific rpm, thus a gearbox is needed *for efficiency*.
to put 8 kW/kg into perspective, all commercial brushless dc motors are at 4 kW/kg and it is a limitation of the materials used.
Commercial internal combustion engines range from 1 kW/kg to *maybe* 3 kW/kg if it is turbocharged to the point of sacrificing engine longevity and formula 1 engines are at around 5 kW/kg
although i suspect they saved weight by using the vehicle frame as (part of?) the stator, a perk of making a motor for a very specific purpose.
you do realise the absurdity in what you suggested, don't you.
can you think of a way to do those tests with less cost?
but to see them actually go for it?
going off on a tangent, whoever is responsible for android's ui needs to be tortured.
no clear indication of accepted taps, no indication the device is busy, no way to distinguish interactive elements from eyecandy, menus needlessly hidden even on huge devices, pointless separation of menus (eg: why are there two menus with different styles in youtube?), elements abruptly changing location whilst being active (you tap somewhere but at the last fraction of a second, the list refreshes without warning and now you must guess what you've tapped), message windows pop up just before you tap something completely unrelated but since you've already tapped the window disappears and now you will never know what it said, i could go on.
my 1997 hp48gx has immeasurably better engineered UI.
*tortured* i say.
If all else fails, lower your standards.