The test is ridiculous.

In any (Perl) program more complicated that helloworld (and in Perl terms that could be already pretty sophisticated piece of code) most of the time would be spent on calling functions.

All the test accomplishes, is testing how well Perl itself is implemented. And that we know already. (This test is basically biased against Java, or in fact, any language with immutable strings. Java just tops it off with slow IO.)

That's the problem: performance of Perl5 with any kind of largish framework would be pretty miserable because Perl's interpretation model is not designed to handle it.

Literally all interpreters decades ago went with p-code interpreters - and only Perl5 is still stuck with the traditional interpretation by (slightly optimized) syntax tree.

In my personal tests I have seen a clear dependency between performance and the size of optree: larger the optree, slower the code.

With any kind of sizable framework, the optree would be enormous. While bytecode allows for more aggressive optimization (inlining or IPO or profile based optimizations; after all, bytecode is just data), optree is very hard to modify (it is structured and inter- and intra-linked).

Remote display is used only if you are locked into the Windows. And comes with bunch of little problems, of which stuck keys and broken clipboard (until server restart) are though most annoying, the least. Recently admins where I work had to reboot PDC simply because a disconnected remote session got stuck and server didn't allow new sessions because RDP supports only one session.

But that's on Windows, where people have no choice. On *NIX, there is no good reason to choose RDP/VNC over X+ssh. But if you wish, you can RDP/VNC too.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Wayland's official statement is that network support is out of scope. Because Wayland is an interface to *local* graphical subsystem.

As network support goes, Wayland has only recently gained support for the X protocol (aka X Server can use Wayland as a display driver).

That's just ridiculous. Since when the reliability is measured in how many petabytes can be written?

Spinning disks can be forced into inefficient patterns, speeding up the wear on mechanics.

SSDs can be easily forced to do a whole erase/write cycle just by writing single bytes into the wrong sector.

There is no need to waste bus bandwidth with a petabyte of data.

The problem was never the amount of the information.

The problem was always the IO pattern which might accelerate the wear of the the media.

You linked to the list of bugs *fixed* in 3.6

Vast majority of the later bugs were actually caused by the major internal redesigns starting with the version 4: new JS engine (which changed 3 or 4 times) and reworked layout engine. And IIRC there was even one UI security bug, where web-site could trick new FireFox into displaying green verified label for a compromised site.

I'm not saying that 3.6 is perfectly secure. But with AdBlock, FlashBlock and NoScript, it is probably more secure than the recent FireFox out of box. The add-ons cut off the major exploit vectors at the root.

Just where it is in 3.6.

In 29+ the option simply isn't available.

That sounds interesting. Tell me more.

Can one place the close button on the right side in the tab bar? So that I do not have to look at the specific tab in the tab bar while closing tabs in a bulk?

Comparing recent Chrome and FireFox versions, the only real difference is that Chrome still doesn't have a properly functional AdBlock.

But some animations used by web sites are smoother in Chrome, while still jerky in FireFox.

If you do not use AdBlock, or want smoother graphics at cost of ads, keep the Chrome.

If you want AdBlock, then use FireFox.

If you want just a reliable browser, and you are on up-to-date Windows, then better use IE. Ironic as it is, YouTube works better in IE (and FireFox) than in Chrome.

Brrrr.... Close button is still on each tab... The annoying "+" new tab button irrationally placed in the tab bar... Brrr....

Unpredictable and unreliable UI is as unpredictable and unreliable as always.

Care to elaborate what are those customization options?

I have the 29 on my Ubuntu VM, and I see much much less options than, e.g. my desktop's 3.6.

Or just install the 3.6. Works too.

I'm not sure about the whole scope of the lay off, but many of the departed were translators and testers. Definitely not "paper pushers".

(My office is near. Some people stopped showing up for the lunch breaks. Asked few other neighbors and learned that Nintendo in the location laid off 160 out of 600.)

That's possibly why in Nintendo's Frankfrut am Main office, about 20% of employees were laid off.

Oh the flip side of financial news.

Are taxi services sustainable financially at all?

I'm not sure about US, but in most of the world the taxi services are not financially sustainable and thus are subsidized by additional taxes.

In other words, the cheaper services, which disrupt already weak taxi's profit margins, are a burden on the taxpayers themselves.

For example? C/C++/Java/Perl/Python cannot do it.

My impression is that they are talking about making immutable objects part of the language.

I have no details, but in modern languages, const-ness is a context feature, meaning that the same object in different contexts might be both const and non-const. Adding a language-level feature to "freeze" an object and prevent its future modifications would be a welcome addition. For one, it would make it possible for the same class to serve as both mutable and immutable.