Comment Re:I can think of a couple reasons why developers. (Score 1) 518
I gather you didn't play any of the DLC! "The Pitt" was only playable for me if I shut the game entirely down every half hour.
I gather you didn't play any of the DLC! "The Pitt" was only playable for me if I shut the game entirely down every half hour.
Or PS3 owners.
Or (from what I hear) PC owners.
That's not what he said.
He said he's #5 on Google, and another site that does what his does is #6 on Google, while neither is in the top #100 on Bing.
(Not that you can really tell how valid it is without knowing the sites.)
That's why I use ls -lh.
And, of course, the common mistake is believing that "baud" == "bits per second".
If you *really* want to know how big your files *really* are, you should demand that the OS round up to the nearest cluster.
"Experiment" implies that they will later roll it into the browser, like the other "optional experiments".
I am all for improving the browser. I sure would like one that's faster, or uses less memory, or...
Oh, wait, you meant adding features, like last release's ultra-critical "pretty picture behind the address bar" update.
Given that I always say NO GODDAMNIT NO NO NO NO! to those requests because I don't want some idiot social networking fuckhead marketer spamming all my contacts, saying "we'll just do it automagically" fills me with terror.
Why on Earth are they trying to turn Firefox into the Mozilla Application Suite!? There's a reason that failed, and Firefox, originally just an afterthought to quiet those complaining about Mozilla's bloat, won out.
What is wrong with "do one thing and do it well?"
In any case, I look forward to the next project, which spins off a browser from the Firefox project for people who just want a browser.
Amazon is trying a very old business model:
1) Undercut everyone on price.
2) Drive all competitors out of business.
3) Profit!
The battle has sadly mostly been lost for music, to Apple. (Ironically enough.) I would hate to see the same damn thing happen to ebooks.
As opposed to movies and TV, which never, ever suffer from bad acting.
Yup, thanks. It's been many years, obviously.
The fact that helloworld.c compiles to 11k has less to do with bloat than it has to do with people generally not caring about 11k. You could get rid of that 11k, but to do so, you'd have to make trade offs that either make real programs either slower or bigger, or make compilation slower. Very few people would make those trade offs in the other direction. Those that do either use special purpose compilers or (more likely) write in assembly.
Back in the DOS days, any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer, allowing you to display text without any libraries. It's been many years, so I am probably getting this wrong, but in psuedocode it'd look something like
char*cp="Hello World";
char *addr=0xB8000000;
while(*addr++ = *cp++);
That's the C version, of course. You'd actually do it in assembly. My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes, but again, it's been decades since I've done anything like that.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.