Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:One line? (Score 1) 169

BBC basic was interpreted, not compiled (though there may have been compilers written for it since).

It was my original instinct to say the same (since nearly all basic languages are), but I looked it up on wikipedia before posting and found that there was indeed a compiler for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

A Compiler for BBC BASIC V was produced by Paul Fellows, team leader of the Arthur OS development, and published initially by DABS Press.[citation needed] This was able to implement almost all of the language, with the obvious exception of the EVAL function – which inevitably required run-time programmatic interpretation. As evidence of its completeness, it was able to support in-line assembler syntax. The compiler itself was written in BBC BASIC. The compiler (running under the interpreter in the early development stages) was able to compile itself, and versions that were distributed were self-compiled object code.[original research?] Many applications initially written to run under the interpreter benefitted from the performance boost that this gave, putting BBC BASIC on a par with other languages for serious application development.

There's not a whole lot of info about it on wikipedia, and it doesn't even say when it was written (and there are no citations), so I have no idea if it was something recent or very old.

Comment Re:One line? (Score 2) 169

Actually, it is written for resource efficiency...specifically program size, which uses memory. The goal was to write a 1 line program, and in BBC Basic, that meant they were limited to 256 characters. Yes, maybe they could have wrote things with more verbose naming and had it compile to the same size, but the particular goal there was to write something big with little code. I think they accomplished it fairly well, and probably 95% (at least) of programmers would be hard pressed to replicate their results. I suspect the people capable of accomplishing that would be capable of similar accomplishments on an embedded platform, given the necessary experience with the particular hardware.

Comment Re:One line? (Score 1) 169

If anybody wrote code like that for me, they'd be made to sit on the naughty step and think very, very hard about what they'd done.

Unless, of course, you were developing for embedded hardware, where you are trying to do way too many things with way too few resources***. Then you'd give that programmer a promotion.

***Although those days are gradually coming to an end, as even the tiniest systems are getting more and more resources, and eventually they'll all join the rest of us, where readability, verifiability, and maintainability take top priority. But for now, they're not all quite there yet.

Comment Re:The US tech industry (Score 5, Insightful) 283

Apple clings so much to legacy hardware that the CPU clock speed of their new entry-level Mac mini is nearly the same as a decade ago.

That's not apple. That's the entire CPU industry in general. Clock speed, we are right around where we were a decade ago. And that has nothing to do with clinging, but rather what's realistically possible. CPU speed used to increase rapidly because it was the easy way to increase performance year after year. Then we started getting into diminishing returns....smaller improvements in performance even while power consumption and cooling requirements grew rapidly. So now they've learned they need to focus their improvements on both multi-core design as well as per-clock execution efficiency.

Comment Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China (Score 1) 256

Apparently your reading comprehension isn't quite there. Did I say we've arrived at the panacea? No, I didn't even say anything remotely like that. What I was saying is that it's a lot better than it was before.

And I don't think your math is quite there either. 170 miles * 21 stops = 3570 miles. Over 2 days, that's 1785 miles per day. Even on the summer solstice, you have only 16 hours of daylight (unless you are up in northern canada). So even if we don't count time to eat, use the bathroom, and get gas, you must have been driving 111 MPH continuously. Even if I grant you the hour before sunrise and after sunset, that's still 99 MPH with no stops.

Comment Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China (Score 2) 256

It'll get to that point eventually. Tesla's currently installing superchargers across the country. You can get a half charge in 170 mile charge in 30 minutes (and it's free)

http://www.teslamotors.com/sup...

That's not too bad. Having to stop for 30 minutes every couple hours is a bit less than desirable, but that's a significant improvement. If you plan your bathroom breaks and dinner around charging time, then several of those stops won't be so bad.

Comment Re:Link to the study. (Score 5, Informative) 422

No difference from the SSBs, or no difference from the fruit juice?

Neither. Read that sentence again, and I think it's pretty clear they are comparing all 4 to a baseline level (not sure what that is or how they get it). Think of it like:
basline = x
carbonated SSBs = x-1
fruit juice = x + 1
non-carbonated SSBs = x
diet carbonated SSBs = x

And just to be certain I am interpreting it right, I took the 15 seconds (literally, that's how long it took me) that you couldn't to click the link, skim the 1 page summary, and find: "No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length."

Comment Re:Firmware != Drivers (Score 1) 192

You are right, they are not the same thing. However, some pieces of hardware have no firmware instanlled and require the driver to upload it on boot. I have no idea if that's how nvidia cards work, but I know that years ago when I was using hauppauge analog tv capture cards, this was exactly the case. Instead of flashing the firmware to the card, it just gets loaded every time you reboot. In these cases, people passionate about open source are probably going to want to use open source firmware to go with their open source driver. Or perhaps using the closed source firmware with the open source driver isn't even an option. I really don't know.

Comment Re:Python False = True (Score 0) 729

Do your new hires routinely circumvent 2 layers of security mechanisms just to alter the values of Integer objects? Sounds like you have some shitty new hires. What you really should be teaching them is that, if they have an Integer object with a value of 2 and they want it to be 3, then rather than use the reflection API to bypass private and final modifiers and turning off the accessibility restructions, they could just do "new Integer(3)" or "Integer.valueOf(3)" and be done with it.

I'm sure as hell glad I don't have your shitty new hires working with me. Nor your stupid ass teaching/hiring my coworkers.

Comment Re:Python False = True (Score 1) 729

OK, if autoboxing is crap, then you should just consider it invalid to assign a primitive type to an object type. Thus I guess you made a coding error when you wrote the code that did autoboxing. Shame on you.

Now, back here in the real world, you went OUT OF YOUR WAY, even going so far as to explicitly circumvent 2 levels of security measure, just to FORCE the problem to occur. That's like claiming the scissors you bought are unsafe because they made you go blind when you jammed them into your eyes.

Sorry, but the autoboxing is completely safe unless you take explicit measure to attempt to make it unsafe. Don't go whining just because the language didn't protect you from yourself. It actually tried, but you told it not to. If you can't trust yourself not to be an idiot, then just run all of your code with an appropriate security profile in place and you'll be all set.

Comment Re:Python False = True (Score 1) 729

I'm not sure Id say this is "due to the nonsensical autoboxing syntactic sugar". This only works because you "hacked" the system.

1) You aren't allowed to modify the value of an Integer object, as the value is both private and final. You worked around that by using reflection to get at the object's variables in the roundabout way.
2) Even then, you wouldn't be allowed to modify it because of security restrictions. However, you also explicitly turned off the security restrictions.
3) The only reason you were even able to turn off the security restrictions is because you were running in an unmanaged environment. In that situation, it is assumed you have full access to do pretty much anything you'd like. However, if you were running in any sort of managed environment with a security manager installed, you wouldn't have been able to do that.

This is really not much different than C++, where it's assumed you have full access to everything. You can take a const, get a const pointer to it, cast that to a non-const pointer, and then modify it. Even if that constant value were stored in a non-writable code page, you could make the code page writable if you were running in an environment that allowed you to alter those permissions. I haven't done such a thing in a VERY long time, so I'm not sure if Admin access under windows these days gives you that level of access, but I'm almost certain linux root level would allow it.

Comment Re:They descended (Score 1) 66

I think all 3 of those were the same degree of closeness, just difference camera angles and zoom.

If you look at the shot at 0:52, you can really see there are only 2 ledges in the volcano. There is the really close one at the very edge of the lava, which you later see getting splashed with lava continuously, and at one point even see a piece breaking off. These guys clearly did not go to that one. Then there is another rim which is probably 80-90% of the way down. That's the one I'm pretty certain they filmed themselves standing on. According to their blog (http://www.stormchaser.ca/News.html) they repelled 1200 feet down to get there. So if my estimate of 80-90% is correct, then they are 100-300 feet above the lava surface at that point.

Slashdot Top Deals

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...