| Re: New HD [message #34217 is a reply to message #34167] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 10:12   |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote in message
news:pe8sf8hvplt1tdjjp26f7mvtqj9h1qpi8l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:30:48 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <20130120200611.09b21e8c8b12ab4e631739f1@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It's much easier to preserve information by keeping it in readable
>>> forms than it is to recover information from ancient and unknown forms.
>>> Of
>>> course if nobody bothers to keep it readable then information is going
>>> to
>>> get lost - just as it already has.
>>
>> Mostly but amazingly some analog works survived after being
>> overwritten several times, like an important work by Archimedes.
>
> And there is even a word for this: palimpsest.
>
Yes, but... the Archimedes palimpsest was really only "written over" once.
True, there were some pictures and such painted on certain pages. But the
"write over" was only with the medieval prayer book.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34218 is a reply to message #34170] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 10:13 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote in message
news:gv8sf85viiooij5afflu0nr6hgl8habpe9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:45:42 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The faster the CPUs, the cheaper the RAM gets, the sloppier the
>> programmers.
>> Making a program fit in 4KB really concentrated the mind!
>
> No, it is being economical with one's time. Why spend lots of
> effort on something that does not need it?
>
It's a craftsmanship and pride in work issue, Gene. Many artists continue
to work on their paintings and programs... after others might consider them
finished.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34219 is a reply to message #34213] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 10:47 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Ibmekon
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
<numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Ibmekon" wrote in message
> news:bjarf85ol9lojqj7tnreghf8s1g2s3meb5@4ax.com...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> So there is still something to be said for designing a program before
>> writing the code :)
>>
>> Recently I beat the computer to within a mip of its life, to get the
>> result I wanted. And it worked !
>> Of course I then had to spend an equal amount of time simplifying the
>> code, so I could maintain and develop it.
>>
>> I call it the "necessary and sufficient" development cycle.
>> First, make the computer do whatever is necessary to get the job done.
>> Second, you simplify to leave what is sufficient.
>>
>
> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and force
> you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then they come back
> and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those *every* week!" Now
> you have to go back and re-do the program to make it supportable. ISTM
> that's the genesis of your "necessary and sufficient" development cycle,
> sir.
That is one scenario.
Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
flowchart.
After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
and go for it.
Having achieved the goal, you retrace your steps and tidy up the
route.
Sort of like building a tower of playing cards, then removing some.
That way you can achieve a structure you could not have built from
scratch.
Carl Goldsworthy
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34220 is a reply to message #34103] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 10:52 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On 1/21/2013 11:41 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>> Going to recursive descent sounds like a giant step forward in the
>> backwards direction. There's lots that can't be parsed with recursive
>> descent, and GCC isn't only for C/C++.
>
> If you say so.
> They did say "hand-written".
> I would not expect something generated to be better in any sense than
> something hand written.
>
The threshold of of hand written vs machine generated in commercial
compilers was passed about 20 years ago. Compiler generated code
in anything other than trivial applications is by any measure better.
(real commercial compilers and not gcc rip offs) Specialized tools
like parsers have an advantage because they a knowledge base
embedded in them of a parser design that generates a consistent
predictable result.
My surprise on this is the same as other comments it is a backward
step. I can see making changes to parsing tools and using the new tools.
It is far more difficult to make changes to an application when the
implement needs to concentrate on implementation details and the
application requirements.
w..
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34221 is a reply to message #33967] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 10:53 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 2013-01-20, Elliott Roper wrote:
> In article <kdhgbp$3us$1@dont-email.me>, Charles Richmond
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> Now my new fear is... that *everything* I know will become
>> obsolete and useless in a pragmatic sense.
>
> That's everybody's fear. The half life of geekish knowledge is no more
> than 4 years.
That's what they want us to believe, and it might be true in some areas.
I have yet to see it though. All I see is 1970s techniques and tools,
applied on better hardware by more, less talented, people.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34224 is a reply to message #34215] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 11:03 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:01:29 -0600
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> And I'm here to tell you... that telling people "more than they wanted to
> know" is *not* appreciated in general. As a programmer, I've had other
> programmers come to me with questions about some aspect of C. I'd tell
> them and *try* to explain enough so they could figure things out for
> themselves next time. (And there *will* be a "next time".) But these
> programmers only wanted to know enough to get their present function
> done... any extra information was unappreciated.
Sad, very sad. But you may have hit on an effective way of
distinguishing good programmers from poor ones who nonetheless get the job
done.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34225 is a reply to message #34090] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 11:24 |
Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:18:04 -0600, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 12:53 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 9:20 am, Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:07:53 -0600, Charles Richmond
>>> <numer...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sounds like an "Urban legend", Stan. It is true that the nine-one-one
>>>> emergency number in the US was once calle nine-eleven. The 9-1-1 was the
>>>> preferred way to say it... because the dumb folk wasted time looking for
>>>> the
>>>> 11 key on the phone!!! :-) Stupidity is inifinite.
>>>
>>> If they'd used the original 999 number introduced in 1937 there would
>>> have been no problem :-)
>>
>> Interestingly enough, that's what they use in Britain.
>>
>> But in the U.S., the digits 1 and 0 were special, and 999 would have
>> been an ordinary exchange number.
>>
>
> And (with rotary dials) 999 would have taken a lot longer to complete
> a connection.
>
But 999 was chosen because on a rotary dial you could keep your finger
in the hole while the dial returned, and not have to find another
number, Useful when your vision was obscured by dark, smoke etc.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com
The future was never like this!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34226 is a reply to message #34093] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 11:24 |
Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:37:43 +0100, hda <agent700@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2013 17:47:59 GMT, Stan Barr <plan.b@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jan 2013 09:21:40 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> My first PC (a high-end AST, in 1996) had a free CPU socket on the
>>> motherboard for a second Pentium. Of course, it never made sense to
>>> add one, with hardware evolving so fast back then.
>>>
>>> I still don't own an actual SMP or "multi-core" system.
>>
>> I have a few - this old-ish IBM Thinkcentre, an AMD64 and an old Mac
>> 7300 from 1997/8.
>> I had an argument recently with a noob who was convinced you needed
>> multiple cores to run more than one program simultaneously! I blame
>> Intel's somewhat misleading TV edvertising...
>>
>> I keep eyeing up old Sun E450s with quad Ultra-Sparcs, I always wanted
>> a computer on wheels, but then I think of the power consumption :-(
>
> 3 Watt: http://trimslice.com/web/trim-slice ;-)
Very nice, but it doesn't have wheels :-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com
The future was never like this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34228 is a reply to message #34219] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 11:46 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
Ibmekon wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then they
>> come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those *every*
>> week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make it
>> supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and sufficient"
>> development cycle, sir.
>
> That is one scenario.
>
> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
> flowchart.
Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
> and go for it.
I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to
work. If I really don't know then I write isolated experimental code and
then write the real thing. The experimental code never gets into version
control.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34229 is a reply to message #34228] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Ibmekon
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:46:31 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
> Ibmekon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then they
>>> come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those *every*
>>> week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make it
>>> supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and sufficient"
>>> development cycle, sir.
>>
>> That is one scenario.
>>
>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>> flowchart.
>
> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
I wrote "mental flowchart" first - but it had an odd ring to it :-)
When I started programming late 70's, they were flavour of the month.
>
>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>> and go for it.
>
> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to
> work. If I really don't know then I write isolated experimental code and
> then write the real thing. The experimental code never gets into version
> control.
Ah now, maybe a little bit of the code gets copy, pasted :->
Carl Goldsworthy
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34230 is a reply to message #34189] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:18 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name> wrote in message
news:1302t9-rmg.ln1@wair.reistad.name...
> In article <am5sb3Fbfu3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alfred Falk" <falk@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA14F7FF502883falkarcabca@88.198.244.100...
>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in
>>> news:kdk49h$15v$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 1/21/2013 12:53 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> > On Jan 21, 9:20 am, Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:07:53 -0600, Charles Richmond
>>>> >> <numer...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> Sounds like an "Urban legend", Stan. It is true that the
>>>> >>> nine-one-one emergency number in the US was once calle nine-eleven.
>>>> >>> The 9-1-1 was the preferred way to say it... because the dumb folk
>>>> >>> wasted time looking for the 11 key on the phone!!! :-) Stupidity
>>>> >>> is inifinite.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If they'd used the original 999 number introduced in 1937 there
>>>> >> would have been no problem :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > Interestingly enough, that's what they use in Britain.
>>>> >
>>>> > But in the U.S., the digits 1 and 0 were special, and 999 would have
>>>> > been an ordinary exchange number.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And (with rotary dials) 999 would have taken a lot longer to complete
>>>> a connection.
>>>
>>> The central emergency number was introduced to North America in 1959 in
>>> Winnipeg, following the British model as 999. It was always my
>>> understanding that 911 won out because it was faster on rotary dials.
>>
>> Nope, it turns out to be surprisingly complicated why that won out over
>> 999.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1
>>
>> And virtually everyone else used 999, 000 which is the slowest to rotary
>> dial.
>>
>> NZ has a system which reverses the pulse count per digit and deliberately
>> chose to use 111 which is also the slowest to rotary dial too.
>
> The US(+CA and 12 other smaller nations that form the NANP) has (had) the
> second digit as a "tiebreaker" between long distance and local calls.
> 0 and 1 are for long distance, 2-9 are for local calls.
>
> In the electromechanical swithces of the 1960s the long distance
> calling invoked "escape logic", the call broke out of the normal
> routine and went for special handling. Adding "opcodes" would want
> to use this feature.
>
> Now, the third digit also had a special handling escape, for a
> sequence of two ones. So, hardware-wise, they were constructed as
>
> XNX XXXX local call (X=0-9,N=2-9,Z=0-1)
> XZN XNX XXXX long distance (really everything but X11)
> 011 International pefix
> N11 local escape
>
> 011,311,411,511,611 and 811 were taken in various places on the
> network. 111 and 211 should be avoided because of accidental dialling.
> Which leaves 711 and 911.
Yes, like I said, it had nothing to do with how quick it is to dial the
number.
> Rather simple, really.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34232 is a reply to message #34202] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:08 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <50fe931f$28$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>,
spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid (Seymour J.) writes:
> If IBM bought KFC they'd rename it "Cold Dead Chicken".
Ah, you're thinking about the way Commodore marketed the Amiga.
Someone commented at the time that if Commodore sold sushi they'd
advertise it as "cold dead fish".
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34233 is a reply to message #34172] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 11:56 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <88asf8ta77uin3n1pf9c1ic8appja1hthh@4ax.com>, genew@telus.net
(Gene Wirchenko) writes:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:57:50 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Heck, I was happy when I first got a PC and could run GW-BASIC and do
>> the stuff I did (and more) without paying for a Teletype and computer
>> service.
>
> I still use GW-BASIC for some simple or one-off programs. I did
> so earlier today.
<aol>
Me too.
</aol>
In fact, I even patched GWBASIC.EXE to correct the spelling of
"OK" instead of that bastardized "Ok" which has since gone viral.
(I like to prounounce it "awk" just to piss people off.)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34234 is a reply to message #34219] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:18 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <o9ctf8tpd0bkvtu82hbp1289ev9o5nkem0@4ax.com>, Ibmekon
(Ibmekon) writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>> they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those
>> *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make
>> it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and
>> sufficient" development cycle, sir.
That's why I learned to do it right the first time. It's actually
quicker in the long run (although I sometimes had to go underground
to do it).
> That is one scenario.
>
> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
> flowchart.
Or having the specs change halfway through.
> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
> and go for it.
> Having achieved the goal, you retrace your steps and tidy up the
> route.
BTDT. I also do cleanup passes occasionally after ongoing
maintenance starts making things crufty.
> Sort of like building a tower of playing cards, then removing some.
> That way you can achieve a structure you could not have built from
> scratch.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34235 is a reply to message #34174] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 11:53 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <am6o8vFgvlpU1@mid.individual.net>, job654@ax.com
(James O. Brown) writes:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1325.804T1140T12834133@kltpzyxm.invalid...
>
>> In article
>> <1486fd6d-a8eb-45d3-a9d1-ffe1b877febf@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> daiyu.hurst@gmail.com (Daiyu Hurst) writes:
>>
>>> I'm uploading family pictures from the 1880s to today, to the cloud.
>>>
>>> That way someone else can worry about how they are stored.
>>
>> Yes, all you have to worry about is whether that someone
>> else will let you have it back in a format you can read
>
> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to kee
> a copy.
>
>> - or if you have to pay ransom to get it
>
> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to kee
> a copy.
>
>> - or if it is to be withheld in the name of National Security
>> [tm US Gov].
>
> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to kee
> a copy.
I keep an offsite backup. I don't need no stinking' cloud.
<educated_guess>
Hi Rod!
</educated_guess>
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34236 is a reply to message #34218] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:22 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <kdmab5$rai$2@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> "Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:gv8sf85viiooij5afflu0nr6hgl8habpe9@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:45:42 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The faster the CPUs, the cheaper the RAM gets, the sloppier the
>>> programmers.
>>> Making a program fit in 4KB really concentrated the mind!
>>
>> No, it is being economical with one's time. Why spend lots of
>> effort on something that does not need it?
>
> It's a craftsmanship and pride in work issue, Gene. Many artists
> continue to work on their paintings and programs... after others
> might consider them finished.
An elegant design not only works better, but is often more compact
than quick-and-dirty bloatware.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34237 is a reply to message #34190] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:28 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote
>> Not a hope in hell. They'd just keep using Win7.
>>> and be a vital element in weaning us off of Windows.
>> Not a chance.
>> What might do it is the move to tablets, but whatever
>> Morten claims, I just don't believe they will wipe out
>> desktops and laptops and even if they did, I just don't
>> believe that would see the demise of Win either.
> I never claimed the gadgets would wipe out the desktops
> and laptops. The claim was (and is) that the gadgets wipe
> out the _growth_ of desktops and laptops.
Then you arent in fact saying anything at all surprising
given that tablets are the latest in that group of computers.
> So far that seems to be a correct observation,
I doubt it with what google and the like alone are doing.
> with a ~20% drop in sales volumes from the record year
> (2009); probably hovering at just the replacement rate for
> laptops and/or desktops. It seems to have stabilized at just
> below 200m yearly units, down from 240m worldwide.
I'm not convinced that its actually possible to say
with India and China which must still be dominating
where more than replacement happens.
> It is difficult to get a firm grip on the
> numbers of laptops/desktops in use,
Impossible, actually.
> but it is probably below a billion,
> in the 800-900 millions somewhere.
We'll likely never know.
> Yearly worldwide sales are at slightly below 200m,
I'm not convinced that we know that either.
> and that includes Macs etc, and average
> lifetimes are not above 5 years. (the stats from
> the members of this group does not count here)
> Windows sales are below 600M for the lifetimes of the generations.
But sales arent what matters when piracy is so utterly endemic.
> (And MS' reporting seems to inflate the numbers somewhat).
> Some generations like Vista have significatnly lower lifetime sales.
> The numbers of MMUs sold (which is a better
> indicator of a "real computer" than the CPUs)
But still a very crude measure when they are used a lot in what
arent anything like the personal computers being discussed.
> is at roughly 15x the sales of laptops/desktops, at ~3 billion.
And nothing like the sales of tablets, so it’s a very poor
measure of anything much with respect to the personal
computers being discussed.
> CPUs are probably reaching 10B this year.
All that shows is the number that need a MMU.
> 400m each in iPhones and android phones, selling sufficiently
> _every year_ to rival all the laptops and desktops.
Irrelevant to the question being discussed, OSs in personal computers.
> Add the PCs, and we are at a billion. This leaves two
> billion devices for the alarms, mpeg players, tivos,
> car control, pads, game stations etc. Every year.
Irrelevant to the question being discussed, OSs in personal computers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34238 is a reply to message #34188] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:32 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote
>> I think it's far too much to hope for that Windows 8 will fail
>> resoundingly enough to motivate IBM to dust off OS/2.
> Vista was a problem for Microsoft with little or no corporate uptake
> resulting in a life extension for XT support. Microsoft still made money
> on it. Linux may be more secure than Windows though since it was written
> in C I doubt that but it is not in the foreseeable future going to push
> Microsoft out of the OS market. The biggest threat to MS is the decline
> in the desktop market and Windows 8 as a result is aimed at the mobile
> market as well as desktops. As for OS2 it would have got a lot more
> uptake with better marketing and an installation program that worked.
Nope, it was never going to fly in that market.
> By the way I have 32 bit XT on this computer and can still play
> DOS games though it would help to change screen resolution.
> The one thing MS can not be criticised for is backwards
> capability which is more than can be said for Linux.
They also cant be criticised for their capacity to come from
behind and end up dominating in that particular area too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34240 is a reply to message #34221] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:44 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jorgen Grahn" <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote in message
news:slrnkftdfe.ah7.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid...
> On Sun, 2013-01-20, Elliott Roper wrote:
>> In article <kdhgbp$3us$1@dont-email.me>, Charles Richmond
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now my new fear is... that *everything* I know will become
>>> obsolete and useless in a pragmatic sense.
>>
>> That's everybody's fear. The half life of geekish knowledge is no more
>> than 4 years.
>
> That's what they want us to believe, and it might be true in some areas.
> I have yet to see it though. All I see is 1970s techniques and tools,
> applied on better hardware by more, less talented, people.
That’s not true of hand coding in assembler.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34241 is a reply to message #34228] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 12:48 |
James O. Brown
Messages: 140
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
> Ibmekon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then they
>>> come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those *every*
>>> week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make it
>>> supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and sufficient"
>>> development cycle, sir.
>>
>> That is one scenario.
>>
>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>> flowchart.
>
> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
Me neither.
>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>> and go for it.
>
> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do it tho.
> If I really don't know then I write isolated experimental code and
> then write the real thing. The experimental code never gets into version
> control.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34243 is a reply to message #34241] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 13:09 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +1100
"James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>> Ibmekon wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>>> they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those
>>>> *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make
>>>> it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and
>>>> sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>
>>> That is one scenario.
>>>
>>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>> flowchart.
>>
>> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>
> Me neither.
>
>>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>> and go for it.
>>
>> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
>
> Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do it
> tho.
Very true, although usually the best way isn't required only a way
that's good enough.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34244 is a reply to message #34229] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 13:08 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:07:42 +0000
Ibmekon wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:46:31 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>> Ibmekon wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>>> they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those
>>>> *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make
>>>> it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and
>>>> sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>
>>> That is one scenario.
>>>
>>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>> flowchart.
>>
>> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>
> I wrote "mental flowchart" first - but it had an odd ring to it :-)
> When I started programming late 70's, they were flavour of the month.
>
>>
>>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>> and go for it.
>>
>> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to
>> work. If I really don't know then I write isolated experimental code and
>> then write the real thing. The experimental code never gets into version
>> control.
>
> Ah now, maybe a little bit of the code gets copy, pasted :->
Shhh, don't tell the managers.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34253 is a reply to message #34224] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 14:29 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:01:29 -0600
> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> And I'm here to tell you... that telling people "more than they wanted to
>> know" is *not* appreciated in general. As a programmer, I've had other
>> programmers come to me with questions about some aspect of C. I'd tell
>> them and *try* to explain enough so they could figure things out for
>> themselves next time. (And there *will* be a "next time".) But these
>> programmers only wanted to know enough to get their present function
>> done... any extra information was unappreciated.
Such a person does not have the hacker nature. :-)
> Sad, very sad. But you may have hit on an effective way of
> distinguishing good programmers from poor ones who nonetheless get the job
> done.
I have a neighbor who has complained bitterly abour her father. When
she, as a girl, would ask him a question, he would *explain* it. This
vexed her mightily as she "just wanted a simple answer". Well, she's
a nice person, kind, generous, bright and highly literate buit she's
not a hacker.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34254 is a reply to message #34243] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 15:02 |
James O. Brown
Messages: 140
Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20130122180918.d0069377362deb40089106f4@eircom.net...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +1100
> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>>> Ibmekon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>>> >force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>>> >they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those
>>>> >*every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make
>>>> >it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and
>>>> >sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>>
>>>> That is one scenario.
>>>>
>>>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>>> flowchart.
>>>
>>> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>>
>> Me neither.
>>
>>>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>>> and go for it.
>>>
>>> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
>>
>> Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do it
>> tho.
>
> Very true, although usually the best way isn't required only a way
> that's good enough.
It may not be required, but is often worth doing it the better way
even if the other way has been partly coded, particularly when the
better way has much more future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34256 is a reply to message #34254] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 15:32 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:02:38 +1100
"James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20130122180918.d0069377362deb40089106f4@eircom.net...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +1100
>> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>>>> Ibmekon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>>> > <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>>> > >force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>>> > >they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of
>>>> > >those *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the
>>>> > >program to make it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your
>>>> > >"necessary and sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>> >
>>>> > That is one scenario.
>>>> >
>>>> > Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>>> > flowchart.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>>>
>>> Me neither.
>>>
>>>> > After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>>> > and go for it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
>>>
>>> Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do it
>>> tho.
>>
>> Very true, although usually the best way isn't required only a way
>> that's good enough.
>
> It may not be required, but is often worth doing it the better way
> even if the other way has been partly coded, particularly when the
> better way has much more future.
That depends entirely on how much future the code has in the first
place.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34258 is a reply to message #34165] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:22 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/21/2013 10:38 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>
>> On Jan 21, 7:52 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2013 1:23 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>>> But this is all irrelevant in the eyes of a company like Microsoft.
>>>> The one relevant question is: "Does it make money?" And there,
>>>> alas, the answer is a resounding "yes".
>>>
>>> Or hopefully now, with "windoze ate", "NO!"
>>
>> I think it's far too much to hope for that Windows 8 will fail
>> resoundingly enough to motivate IBM to dust off OS/2.
>>
>> On the basis that a certain mentality is established in the
>> marketplace that will prevent the PC from just switching to Linux, and
>> so OS/2, with the IBM name on it, would actually make money and be a
>> vital element in weaning us off of Windows.
>
> It's been, what, a decade since OS/2 had any development? Maybe more?
> I think it's unlikely to be an adequate replacement for Windows at this
> point.
I could see IBM putting the Presentation Manager, SOM, and an updated
OS/2 API on the base of a Linux kernel the same way Apple put MacOS on
top of Darwin. I believe it would be a viable alternative, keeping the
best of both OS/2 and Linux, and eliminating the rough edges.
>
> I wonder if Apple could make a version of MacOS X for PCs that would run
> on most PCs and run the most important Windows apps reasonably well.
>
The question is not "could they?" since MacOS has been tweaked to run on
non-Apple hardware. The questions is "would they?" since the Mac
hardware is very profitable. I don't know about the running windoze
part - I assume it's possible (Wine, does it run on Mac?)
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34259 is a reply to message #34187] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/22/2013 5:55 AM, greymaus wrote:
> On 2013-01-22, James O. Brown <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, all you have to worry about is whether that someone
>>> else will let you have it back in a format you can read
>>
>> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to keep a copy.
>>
>>> - or if you have to pay ransom to get it
>>
>> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to keep a copy.
>>
>>> - or if it is to be withheld in the name of National Security [tm US Gov].
>>
>> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to keep a copy.
>>
>>
>
> Cleaning out a friends house some years ago, and found a box of photographs,
> nobody had a clue of who, except they were taken by someone who, in my time,
> had no interest in such things.
>
>
Major problem. I routinely run anything I want to keep thru Photoshop
and add metadata to them with a description and date. My wife's
Grandparents, now deceased, left us a bunch of photos with no names or
dates. I went so far as to call Motor Vehicles to see if I could get
registration information from a 1928 license plate, but no luck.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34260 is a reply to message #34207] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:32 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/22/2013 8:00 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <icvcaq2r5b.fsf@home.home>, on 01/21/2013
> at 03:54 PM, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> said:
>
>> Never seen it in paper form
>
> AFAIK IBM has stopped selling dead tree versions of new PoOps
> editions.
>
Good thing. The last one I got was HUGE, maybe four inches or more
using professional-grade paper (thinner than standard Xerox paper).
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34261 is a reply to message #34204] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:35 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/22/2013 8:12 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <864ni9khu6.fsf@chai.my.domain>, on 01/21/2013
> at 07:38 PM, Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> said:
>
>> It's been, what, a decade since OS/2 had any development?
>
> A company named Serenity has a license to sell a rebranded OS/2[1] as
> eComStation, and there's a fair amount of ongoing development.
> Convincing IBM that there's a business case to throwing its weight
> behind it and in supporting additional processors, however, is another
> matter. I'd settle for some OS/2-like facilities on Linux, e.g., WPS.
>
> [1] Limited to the 80386 et al. AFAIK the pertable version is dead.
>
The development is all drivers and support software. I don't think
they've touched the kernel, though I think the contract would get them
IBM OEM support. The kernel is still stuck at 4.5 (32 bit), with the
SIQ bug still intact.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34262 is a reply to message #34236] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:44 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/22/2013 12:22 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article <kdmab5$rai$2@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com
> (Charles Richmond) writes:
>
>> "Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:gv8sf85viiooij5afflu0nr6hgl8habpe9@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:45:42 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The faster the CPUs, the cheaper the RAM gets, the sloppier the
>>>> programmers.
>>>> Making a program fit in 4KB really concentrated the mind!
>>>
>>> No, it is being economical with one's time. Why spend lots of
>>> effort on something that does not need it?
>>
>> It's a craftsmanship and pride in work issue, Gene. Many artists
>> continue to work on their paintings and programs... after others
>> might consider them finished.
>
> An elegant design not only works better, but is often more compact
> than quick-and-dirty bloatware.
>
And is certainly easier to change later, at least if you don't define
"elegant" as "full of obscure programming tricks."
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34263 is a reply to message #34253] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:48 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/22/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:01:29 -0600
>> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm here to tell you... that telling people "more than they wanted to
>>> know" is *not* appreciated in general. As a programmer, I've had other
>>> programmers come to me with questions about some aspect of C. I'd tell
>>> them and *try* to explain enough so they could figure things out for
>>> themselves next time. (And there *will* be a "next time".) But these
>>> programmers only wanted to know enough to get their present function
>>> done... any extra information was unappreciated.
>
> Such a person does not have the hacker nature. :-)
>
>> Sad, very sad. But you may have hit on an effective way of
>> distinguishing good programmers from poor ones who nonetheless get the job
>> done.
>
> I have a neighbor who has complained bitterly abour her father. When
> she, as a girl, would ask him a question, he would *explain* it. This
> vexed her mightily as she "just wanted a simple answer". Well, she's
> a nice person, kind, generous, bright and highly literate buit she's
> not a hacker.
>
That's my wife, too. Whenever she asks me for computer help it usually
ends up in an argument because she just wants a simple answer and I
usually try to giver her a full explanation. Either that or she
complains I don't show her how to do something, only sit down at the
keyboard and type stuff, when I try to explain that I'm trying to figure
it out myself.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34264 is a reply to message #34256] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 16:50 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/22/2013 3:32 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:02:38 +1100
> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:20130122180918.d0069377362deb40089106f4@eircom.net...
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +1100
>>> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
>>>> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>>>> > Ibmekon wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>>> >> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>>> >>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>>> >>> they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of
>>>> >>> those *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the
>>>> >>> program to make it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your
>>>> >>> "necessary and sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That is one scenario.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>>> >> flowchart.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>>>>
>>>> Me neither.
>>>>
>>>> >> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>>> >> and go for it.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
>>>>
>>>> Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do it
>>>> tho.
>>>
>>> Very true, although usually the best way isn't required only a way
>>> that's good enough.
>>
>> It may not be required, but is often worth doing it the better way
>> even if the other way has been partly coded, particularly when the
>> better way has much more future.
>
> That depends entirely on how much future the code has in the first
> place.
>
The definition of a "one shot" is a program that's going to be run only
once - a week (or month).
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34273 is a reply to message #34264] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 17:15 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:50:49 -0500
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/2013 3:32 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:02:38 +1100
>> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20130122180918.d0069377362deb40089106f4@eircom.net...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +1100
>>>> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>>> > news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
>>>> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>>>> >> Ibmekon wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>>> >>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!"
>>>> >>>> and force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done
>>>> >>>> quickly! Then they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!!
>>>> >>>> Give us one of those *every* week!" Now you have to go back and
>>>> >>>> re-do the program to make it supportable. ISTM that's the
>>>> >>>> genesis of your "necessary and sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That is one scenario.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>>> >>> flowchart.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>>>> >
>>>> > Me neither.
>>>> >
>>>> >>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>>> >>> and go for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
>>>> >
>>>> > Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do
>>>> > it tho.
>>>>
>>>> Very true, although usually the best way isn't required only a way
>>>> that's good enough.
>>>
>>> It may not be required, but is often worth doing it the better way
>>> even if the other way has been partly coded, particularly when the
>>> better way has much more future.
>>
>> That depends entirely on how much future the code has in the
>> first place.
>>
>
> The definition of a "one shot" is a program that's going to be run only
> once - a week (or month).
I was thinking more in terms of a program being used for no more
than a few years, something which is not uncommon. I've known a good many
pieces of code from their design to final deletion.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34274 is a reply to message #34258] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 17:18 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:22:57 -0500
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 10:38 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>
>>
>> I wonder if Apple could make a version of MacOS X for PCs that would run
>> on most PCs and run the most important Windows apps reasonably well.
>>
>
> The question is not "could they?" since MacOS has been tweaked to run on
> non-Apple hardware. The questions is "would they?" since the Mac
> hardware is very profitable. I don't know about the running windoze
> part - I assume it's possible (Wine, does it run on Mac?)
MS Office is available for MacOS X.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34275 is a reply to message #34258] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 17:41 |
Bill Findlay
Messages: 286
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 22/01/2013 21:22, in article kdmvv8$mak$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Flass"
<Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> The question is not "could they?" since MacOS has been tweaked to run on
> non-Apple hardware. The questions is "would they?" since the Mac
> hardware is very profitable. I don't know about the running windoze
> part - I assume it's possible (Wine, does it run on Mac?)
No need for Wine.
Apple support running Windows natively on Macs, and it is also possible to
run Windows under OS X in a virtual machine.
--
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use surname & forename;
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34276 is a reply to message #34019] |
Tue, 22 January 2013 18:15 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 2013-01-21, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2013 09:21:40 GMT
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
....
>> On the other hand, the story upthread happened in 1993. Already then
>> -- or a few years later -- it was understood that if your program
>> couldn't cope with running on an SMP system, it was plain broken.
>
> High end boxes had gone multi-processor quite some time before
> that. In 1990 we were using quad core 88K based boxes (the kernel was
> single threaded). That being said, if your code couldn't cope with SMP
> it probably couldn't cope with a uniprocessor system that scheduled
> differently to the box you tested on - in other words it was broken.
Not in the context I was thinking of back then -- Unix, and
specifically Solaris. As I remember the 1990s, Sun drove my part of
the world and the future was threads, threads, and more threads[1].
Plain Unix C applications with didn't do any funky stuff with shared
memory would have no problems, until you rewrote them to be heavily
threaded (without having a firm idea of how to do that safely[2]).
>> The easiest way to avoid that was not to use threads. The easiest way
>
> Actually no - the first time I saw concurrency biting bad code
> there were no threads, just multiple processes and a shared memory segment.
OK, but I'd argue such applications were and are not the norm.
If you're going to drop your process's memory protection anyway, why
not use threads? (Assuming processes and threads were available in
your environment.)
/Jorgen
[1] Slightly before the Java craze.
[2] I still haven't met anyone who has, except maybe one guy over
in comp.unix.programmer.
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
