Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:For us dummies.... (Score 1) 382

by EvanED (#47461151) Attached to: White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales

Size and layout-wise they are closer to resembling the cellphone store in the mall below my office than a car dealership.

Out of curiosity, do they at least have a car or two you can test drive? Since there are only a couple models it wouldn't exactly take up much space, but I also can't imagine buying a car (especially an almost-six-figure car) without trying it out.

Comment: Re:The main problem with all elec (Score 1) 247

by EvanED (#47384557) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

I don't know anyone with a personal garage who doesn't park their car in it - and apart from apartment style condo owners, if you own a dwelling, you have a garage.

I've seen it a lot. One of the houses I spent several years in as a kid had a 1-car garage that I'm pretty sure was basically never parked in -- it was used as a workshop and such.

And there are also areas around at least here and probably plenty of other places in the country where, if you look at MLS sale listings, garages are less common than no garage. There was even a million-dollar lakefront listing with no garage!

Comment: Re:What about range on this smaller car? (Score 1) 247

by EvanED (#47384479) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

Most people don't have a car that can move furniture or large appliances. They just pay to rent a vehicle for those occasions. I find it odd that they don't apply the same logic to EVs.

To play devil's advocate, and I only know my own experiences, but I suspect that people go on longer roadtrips far more than they need to move furniture or large appliances. Especially if you count at the point of renting instead of just "hey, call Joe to see if he will help us move this couch; he's got a pickup."

Comment: Stupidest headline ever (Score 1) 128

by EvanED (#47372487) Attached to: FAA's Ruling On Smartphones During Takeoff Has Had Little Impact

Over a four month period observed by DePaul University's Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development this year, 35.9% of passengers used mobile devices at any point during the flight. In last year's study, while flight attendants still patrolled the aisles for devices that hadn't been shut off, 35.3% of passengers used devices during flight.

This is vaguely interesting, but doesn't match the headline.

Another way to read those numbers is "most people (say they) followed the no-electronics rule." The rule change was "now you can use electronics all the time." That would affect the number of people who used electronics during takeoff/landing, and you wouldn't expect much effect on the number who used it 'at any point during the flight.'

Comment: Re:Good luck automating a dual boot (Score 1) 279

by EvanED (#47321779) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail

Also, with regard to "Of course it's different for an open-source organization or a library vendor that needs to support multiple build/run environments"... it's not an edge case to support multiple platforms. There are lots of closed-source programs that run on multiple platforms you know; possibly more than single-platform ones. (At least if you look at software you can actually buy, as opposed to stuff developed for in-house use only.)

Comment: Re:Here's a concept to prevent this crap - UNIT TE (Score 1) 279

by EvanED (#47321773) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail

That pretty much reflects our situation, except that "one to two hours" can easily be higher even if all your platforms are going at once, depending on how much hardware you want to throw at it. Getting everything set up so that everyone can easily build on all platforms before submitting would provide relatively little benefit (especially when you consider that running the full test suite on all of those platforms pre-commit is basically completely unfeasible) and cost a tremendous amount of money in hardware. Meanwhile, like Darinbob's setup, if you check in something that borks the build, you get an email a couple hours later (ok, sometimes several hours later) telling you to fix it.

Comment: Re:Good luck automating a dual boot (Score 1) 279

by EvanED (#47321755) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail

In addition to the other response, I have a couple others.

First, having a code base that will compile under two disparate compilers (e.g. GCC + MSVC) will help you have cleaner code. Each compiler will find things (whether they be real problems, latent problems, or completely spurious non-problems) that the other won't, and your code will be better for having done it.

And sometimes those differences matter; e.g. MSVC is (slowly) moving toward better standard compliance with C++. I'm not sure what the deal is with flags when it comes to whether you need to explicitly request the conforming behavior or what, but those changes could, in edge cases, silently change the behavior of your code. Building with GCC as well as you go would reduce the probability of that, as well as mean that you make required changes to get it to compile under a conforming compiler gradually instead of all at once when you decide to upgrade to the new version.

Now, worth it if you're as sure as you can practically be that you're sticking on one platform? Up to you to decide. But there's a pretty big benefit.

Comment: Re:Dependencies? (Score 1) 279

by EvanED (#47321699) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail

If I were to pull a number out of my ass, I'd guess forward declarations suffice... maybe a third of the time? You can't forward declare types you want to return or pass as parameters (i.e., not by reference/pointer). You can't forward declare types you want as members in a class you're declaring. You can't forward declare types you're using (beyond having just a pointer/reference) in a function's implementation, which you "need" to have in a header if it's actually a template and you may need to have in a header if you want it available for inlining.

Comment: Re:Because I'm lazy (Score 1) 279

by EvanED (#47318829) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail

If you start out with warnings enabled, you learn pretty quickly how to write warning free code and it never becomes a problem.

"Never" is strong, because compiler writers release new versions that change things that get warned about. You can have software that works wonderfully now, but next compiler upgrade generates 20 bazillion warnings. If you compile with -Werror, now you've got a big effort getting to the point where you can use that compiler.

Not that I disagree with your overall message. :-)

Comment: Re:Because I'm lazy (Score 1) 279

by EvanED (#47318777) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail

I'm reasonably competent, so I can recognize a warning that refers to a line of code I've just changed, even if there are other warnings.

My counterargument would be that I think this sounds very error-prone. I don't think it's a matter of "competence", I think it's a matter of "I just changed a header and now it's rebuilding 100 files and so noticing a new warning requires scanning thousands of lines of output."

The one thing I'll grant is that there's an opposite direction you can go. Instead of disabling warnings you don't like, if you -Werror those that you [i]do[/i] like, that's also sufficient.

Let me ask this: do you have on all warnings when you build? Unless, on GCC for C++, you're passing -Wall -Wextra -Wabi -Wctor-dtor-privacy -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Weffc++ -Wstrict-null-sentinel -Wold-style-cast -Woverloaded-virtual -Wno-pmf-conversions -Wsign-promo -Wformat=2 -Winit-self -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wswitch-default -Wswitch-enum -Wsync-nand -Wtrigraphs -Wunused -Wstrict-overflow=5 -Wfloat-equal -Wundef -Wshadow -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align -Wconversion -Wlogical-op -Waggregate-return -Wno-attributes -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -WWnormalized=nfkc -Wpacked -Wpadded -Wredundant-decls -Wunreachable-code -Winline -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Winvalid-pch-Wdisabled-optimization -pedantic? (Possibly there are a couple redundant ones there, but GCC has lots of warnings included in neither -Wall nor -Wextra.)

If you're not passing those to GCC, what that means is that you have, implicitly or not, decided that the cost-benefit ratio of the warnings you are not enabling is not in favor of enabling them. Well, saying "there are too many of these warnings, I'll disable them" is making the exact same decision: that the cost-benefit ratio of leaving that warning enabled is not in your favor.

My computer can beat up your computer. - Karl Lehenbauer

Working...