Comment Re:You're a target (Score 1) 470
Comment Re:Dead on. (Score 1) 470
Comment Re:Vinyl (Score 1) 520
Comment Re:Nokia went for Python (Score 1) 428
Comment Re:Why do we attack google? (Score 1) 378
Comment Re:Why do we attack google? (Score 1) 378
Comment Mappero Maemo (Score 1) 119
Comment Nobody read him actually (Score 2, Insightful) 951
It is the same with Slashdot, everybody comments on stories they didn't read. Including me right now
Comment Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score 1) 746
latest Debian on an very old HP Vectra 100 Mhz CPU, 64 MB RAM with 2GB HDD. It is controlling my house heating and runs nice with a modern programming language / editor (IDE) etc. Please advice me how i can do this with Windows XP or VISTA.
Comment Re:Make the Egg so we can get the chicken. (Score 2, Informative) 232
Sure processes are better isolated, but the problem of time and concurrency stays.
This will always be a problem because it is a fundamental logical one, comming from mother nature.
SICP has an good examples of that problem: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-23.html#%25_sec_3.4
Functional programming may be an answer, but this answer is limited by mother nature.
Comment Re:Make the Egg so we can get the chicken. (Score 5, Informative) 232
4. There are computing-jobs that are inherently not parallel.
5. Parallel programming is hard not because of bad programming languages but because of the logical problems that come with shared state and parallelism.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-23.html#%25_idx_3598
Therefore multicores do not bring a substantial performance benefit. Futhermore because the problems are fundamental logical ones, there is no big hope.
Comment Re:Rail, no thanks (Score 2, Insightful) 897