Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 1) 182

You are confusing the language and the OS feature. That will need to be recompiled for every OS once compiled it isn't c code it is a compiled library.

At least you'll have the option - Your Java/.Net/Python/Haskell/Ruby/Javascript library can't be used from a different language. Even on the same OS, stuff written in Java can only be reused by Java. Stuff written in C can be reused by everything.

I could make a library in any other compiled language say FORTRAN.

I'll give you this - Fortran is still in high use for a good reason - but you can't make a library in Java, Python, etc.

If distribution your c code and the new system doesn't have the library then you get into dependacy hell.

Now C is considered portable because you can compile it on a different system. But that Python program I make I can run on Linux or Windows without any changes. Just as long as the interpreter is installed.

My point was not portability, but reuse - sure that Python library can run everywhere, but it can only be used from Python. That same library written in C will compile on different platforms too, and can be used from Python as well as other languages.

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 1) 182

The people producing C libraries (like myself) are happily reusing the libraries we wrote two decades ago without having to rewrite them to use in another language.

And I still happily reuse Java libraries I wrote from over a decade ago

You missed the point - if your library is in C, it can be used from just about every language. Your java code is reusable only from Java, or will you now claim that those libraries from over a decade ago are useful to you when you move to another language?

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 4, Interesting) 182

Meaning there is a preference towards more lower level coding, allowing detailed and measured controls over each line of code, at the expense of maintainability and programming time.

I sorta agree with the rest, but this statement is dead wrong - if you want it reusable you write it in C. Anything written in Python/.Net/etc is only usable from a miniscule subset of languages, while the on your system is reusable from everything. This is why the practical/engineering types write it in C - if they chose Python they'll have to rewrite it should they ever decide to use some other language. When they write it in C it need never be rewritten.

The problem with the software engineering/programming people is that they don't care about reusability, and it shows; once the project is done they move on to the next one. The people producing C libraries (like myself) are happily reusing the libraries we wrote two decades ago without having to rewrite them to use in another language. The people producing Python or C++ libraries abandon those libraries when they move to a new language - they don't have a choice.

Comment Re:As a C programmer (Score 5, Insightful) 182

C is still the most portable language in the universe. The only real language that works on all phones, in particuarl (ok, C++ does too but C is where you get all the amazing well written, optimized libraries you'd want on most devices).

It's not only the portability that matters, it's the software reuse. You write your nifty image recognition library in Java and that's pretty much the only language that can use it. Same for Python, C++, etc. Do a locate \.so | wc -l on your system - chances are that the libraries *not* written in C are a rounding error. Pick just about anything remotely useful - chances are it'd more more useful if written in C, because at the very least you can open the executable using dlopen/dlsym and invoke main() with the correct arguments.

If you stick to a C-only subset of C++ you can write your library in C++, but at that point why bother with C++ anyway?

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 781

In context, with Trump denying the DNC hack was Russia trying to help Trump out, yes, this one can be seen as a very obvious joke. Just because he frequently makes horrific statements doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally also make jokes.

I don't think he's ever claimed that the wall comment was a joke. I don't think he ever will.

    • <quote> <dl> <dt>.<dd>..


Comment Re:Why not? (Score 0) 781

He was making a f---ing joke. He has brushed off the notion that Russia was doing the hacking in the first place. He made the comment at a press conference intending to ridicule the concept, not via a semi-secret text message to Vladimir Putin.

I'm no Trumpist, I mean, I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November and you have NO IDEA how little I want to do that, but I'm in Florida, so my vote may make a difference between Trump or Clinton, and Trump really is THAT BAD. But, in this one instance, the collective left and political establishment has lost their minds, and apparently their sense of humor.

Comment Re:Er (Score 1) 566

If you're intimating that someone from Tesla put the definition into Wikipedia

No, I'm intimating that the Wikipedia definition is not the one used if you were to ask the general public.

No. It's the definition you would probably find in the manual for an airplane. It's called reality.

In your reality Tesla drivers receive the same sort of training and certification as airline pilots?

Comment Re:EEE (Score 1) 399

Not that much more subtle. I watched as Microsoft crushed a long list of companies using exactly this strategy across the 80's and early 90's. Borland was easy -- it's so easy to break a compiler with an OS upgrade.

The demise of Borland makes me weep :-( Just last night I was installing the last copy of a 16-bit C compiler + Assembler that I have[1]. Try as hard as I could, I simply could not find my Borland disks (not that it would have helped much - I sincerely doubt that I would have been able to locate floppy drive anywhere). I found only my printed copy of the TASM manual.

Back to my pontification: the demise of Borland makes me weep, but I realise that they were the architects of their own destruction. Borland did not die in a day, and before the writing was on the wall it was clear to all the leading desktop-software companies in the mid-to-late nineties that they had better be making plans for survival as Microsoft eyed different desktop applications.

Borland could have survived: there were enough people who would have paid good money for a decent C compiler and IDE on Linux, Solaris, etc (anyone else here remember how awful gcc was? Or the whole egcs split?) and I made multiple requests to Borland via my employer for a port. No port was forthcoming.

Instead, a few years later we got Kylix which tanked horribly, then gcc's legs started moving and we got a decent compiler for unix systems. I purchased Turbo C 2.01 (three or four disks, I forget), Turbo Pascal (which I eventually used to write a compiler!), TASM, C++ Builder and Delphi (some student version). I wanted to purchase their tools for Linux as well, and I wasn't the only one.

It's not terribly hard to port a compiler - after all the code-generation mostly remains the same, only the static and dynamic linkers/loaders would see major change, and that's an easy enough problem to solve. The majority of work would have been in porting their libraries. But no - no Turbo C for us dirty Linux devs...

[1] Writing something that runs before the bootloader. Long story. Found my Watcom 10.0 CD, though, and installed that. It appears to work on Windows seven and on WINE. Unfortunately the assembler syntax is fully undocumented, so I'm using nasm now.

They've done so in the past and will do so again in the future.


Which is why I'm so confused about developers who, for no good reason, tie their application/game/program to the windows platform exclusively. They will die, and I'll probably weep for them too. But, first they'll flock to the windows store, in the process burning their bridges to other platforms behind them. Once they're unrecoverably wedded to Windows again they'll be squeezed until they're dead. Like Borland.

Comment Re:the phone may not always be in possession phone (Score 4, Informative) 147

Hasn't it been shown that you can take a fingerprint left by someone (say, on their phone) and use it to fool a fingerprint scanner?

It has been shown that this works for old, cheap or crappy fingerprint readers. Modern, state-of-the-art scanners can check for a pulse, or use other techniques to detect tampering. Anyway, the whole point of multi-factor is that each individual factor doesn't have to be perfect. Two layers that are each 90% secure are as good as one layer that is 99% secure.

Biometrics are the worst factor; they reduce the efficacy of the other factors because they can never be changed while there will remain a nonzero number of devices that can be fooled (hence, they reduce the efficacy).

The "modern state-of-the-art" that you refer to doesn't yet exist, but I'm sure that it will be secure when they install it in the future, in my flying car.

Slashdot Top Deals

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.