Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Uh, what? (Score 1) 83

by Carewolf (#49173027) Attached to: Khronos Group Announces Vulkan To Compete Against DirectX 12

You don't compile bytecode, you compile to byte code

I can't tell if you're just being obtuse, but: the developer compiles shader language to bytecode, and the graphics driver compiles bytecode to GPU native-code. Both of these stages qualify as compilation. (They're both level-reducing language-transformations.)

The entire point is that byte code is interpreted at runtime.

No. There's no way in hell that anyone's seriously suggesting running graphics code in an interpreter. Again, it will be compiled by the graphics driver. (We could call this 'JIT compilation', but this term doesn't seem to have caught on in the context of graphics.)

building native execution of the bytecode would be fastest

Why not call this what it is? It's compilation.

Especially since the bytecode is supposed to be hardware neutral, it is the compilation from bytecode that will have to do the aggresive optimizations to adapt to the target architecture.
You can have very simple bytecode that doesn't need much processing, and while technically compilation is really compiled, but that wouldn't make sense here.

Comment: Re:C++ is probably a little bit better (Score 1) 376

C++11 seems to be somewhat useable. However, before that it was a complete disaster. Every time I looked at it, I saw code bases that endlessly re-implemented data structures and storage management solutions.
Even with the standard libraries, there were rarely systems without a lot of custom storage code. By it's own claimed abilities for code reuse, C++ was a failure before C++11.

That is how C++ is meant to be used. If you only need fixed standard data structures, you might as well use a higher level language. What something like C++ or C gives you is the ability to write your own data-structures, if you don't need that, they are probably overkill.

C++11 doesn't really change that. It just makes the custom data structures even more powerful, and slightly easier to write.

Comment: Re:c++? (Score 1) 376

Objective-C is an ugly, clunky language, and the only reason Apple uses it is to intentionally make your code incompatible with other platforms.

Actually, they use it for its dynamic binding and loading, but don't let facts get in the way of your FUD!

That and C++ was horribly immature at a time when Objective-C was not and the Next guys were developing NextStep.

I think they were contemporary. They were young and immature together. Both born in 1983.

Comment: Re:And still (Score 1) 189

by Carewolf (#49157917) Attached to: One Astronomer's Quest To Reinstate Pluto As a Planet

Exactly. There are many categories of planets, including but not limited to:

  * Terrestrial planets

  * Gas giants

  * Ice giants

  * Hot jupiters

  * Superearths

And so forth. Why does the concept of another category, dwarfs, enrage people?

Really, the only categorization issue that I'm adamant about is that Pluto-Charon is called a binary. The Pluto-Charon barycentre is not inside Pluto, therefore Charon is not rotating around Pluto, the two are corotating around a common point of space between them. That's a binary.

I think it might be cultural. In Denmark and probably generally for Europe, I grew up with Pluto either never being mentioned as a planet or not said to be a real planet. I knew of Pluto from comic books and American media, so I always brought it up when we had any material on planets in school and Pluto was not mentioned. I was told over and over that Pluto was either not a real planet, or a planet but not like the others.

You can call dwarf planets, planets. Then we have growing number of planets in the solar systems many without proper names, that would be fun, but confusing, and they would still not be like the other planets.

Comment: Re:A different take on this (Score 2) 229

That's bullshit, because the ISPs sold "all you can use" plans, then failed to deliver. The only reason the so-called "cost shifting" went on is because the ISPs outright lied about what they were selling to consumers. To imply that Netflix allowing customers to use what they've paid for is somehow wrong is just plain wrong-headded.

You're basically blaming Netflix for the ISPs mis-selling a service.

It is actually worse. The product they sell is the Internet and specifically all the content on the internet and netflix is a major provider of internet content. Their argument is blaming Netflix for giving them business... Think about that.

Comment: Re:Flying Cars (Score 1) 198

by Carewolf (#49141409) Attached to: The State of Linux Gaming In the SteamOS Era

"We didn't get flying cars, but the future is turning out OK so far."

Flying cars have been produced for the last twenty years. Drivable aircraft for longer than that. The problem isn't technical, it's political. They can't license and regulate them. The Government systems are just too crude.

That is not the problem. You can fly one if you have a flying license or do it at low altitudes over your own private land. The problem is that they are a stupid idea, the power spend keeping the vehicle hovering is not spend moving it which makes the range ridiculous short, on top of a price set in hundreds if not millions of dollars.

Comment: Re:Please tell me this is satire (Score 2) 320

by Carewolf (#49127911) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP

You seem to ignore psychology.

The problem is basically funding, highly trained professionals getting not enough resources to helt people.

You mean psychiatry. Psychology is a not a medical discipline and therefore treatment by a psychologist is actually alternative treatment.

One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.