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


Forgot your password?
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer company (Score 1, Interesting) 41

The only thing AMD proved is that you could glue 64-bit operands onto a 32-bit processor and that people cared more about running their old software slightly faster than running future software much faster. Thanks to AMD, we're still stuck with one of the first and worst CPU architectures imaginable. The only reason x86/x64 can outperform competitors is due to huge research budgets pushed into eaking out increasingly smaller improvements. It required an entirely new market to give ARM the inroads it needed to start throwing around large research budgets too. I suspect at some point ARM will move onto the desktop (Microsoft-willing) and then Intel can finally start retiring their x86-limited CPU.

Comment Re:Awesome! (Score 1) 155

Cobol was designed almost 60 years ago. No doubt that if Cobol was created today, it wouldn't stand a chance. Fortunately Javascript is unlikely to resemble that fossil, ever.

Modern Cobol might have a prettier syntax, but the language features itself are still rather unique and, for it's specific niche of batch programming, superior to alternatives. There are still very few language that can consistently beat Cobol on performance for batch programming.

Comment Re:Have you ever actually used Python?! (Score 1) 155

Python has remarkably good backwards compatibility. A number of Python 3 features were actually backported to Python 2. And Python 2 still sees excellent continued support.

Backporting features and active development on versions "replaced" eight years ago aren't very good signs of backwards compatibility.

And there's the excellent "2to3" tool which can quickly and reliably convert nearly all Python 2 code to Python 3 code

Your definition of "backwards compatibility" seems to be different from the definition used by the rest of the world.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 633

Because it was already voted for.
Without being able to show a clear posibility of a different result, it's pointless to have a redo.
The number of people who voted the first time were considered representative, so if they assume more people will vote this time, they should assume more people from the other side will vote too.
Thus the only way to demonstrate a redo might yield different results is by demonstrating that the majority of all eligable voters will both want to vote and want to vote for a different result than the first referendum.
Unless you think the first referendum was somehow fraudulent or unfair.

Slashdot Top Deals

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.