ncmncm

76 ms·

811.
by ncmncm 4y ago
You can, in fact, run it locally.
812.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Gosling's chief skill always was to sound convincing. (Lord knows language design wasn't it.) The contempt he had for Java coders is hard to miss in writings from the time.
813.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Logitech made quite a splash with its "Feels good / Feels better" ad, now almost completely scrubbed from teh innrnets: https://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/23267/baby/ or
814.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Too bad. C++ is wholly usable anywhere C is, now.
815.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The tyranny of linkers. Nobody wanted to write a new linker for whatever machine they targeted. Finally, GNU made a portable linker and saved the world. It might have been the first to support 32-character symbols, just about enough to li
816.
by ncmncm 4y ago
That came later. Then valgrind ate its lunch. Some people still use that! Sanitizers, now.
817.
by ncmncm 4y ago
And yet were faster than the 4 MHz ones.
818.
by ncmncm 4y ago
You lucky bastard! I had to use an egg timer.
819.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Nobody needed to use dialectical extensions. All C compilers supported everything you needed, and all with the same syntax. Except "near" and "far" pointers, which were an absolute plague.
820.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Modula-2 had already lost that race. It was another extended, incompatible Pascal among myriad others mostly still called Pascal. Scud-pascal, Apollo Pascal, Clascal, Turbo Pascal, what-have-you.
821.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Kernighan had the experience then of writing "Software Tools in Pascal", updated from "... in RATFOR". RATFOR was a pre-processor for FORTRAN that made it look sort of Pascal-ish. People could use it to code and run unix
822.
by ncmncm 4y ago
True: people rolled their eyes at anybody trying to field a commercially successful product not coded in assembly. Languages were for proofs-of-concept, and for toys. And yes, that changed as 1990 approached.
823.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Once you start buying easy-to-program microcontroller gadgets from Crowd Supply and Adafruit Industries, it is hard to stop. Nowadays they all have bluetooth built in, so can be controlled wholly from your phone; no buttons, display, or eve
824.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Literally the only thing DOS needed to do was start up a program. Differences between 1 and 2, or any of them, are marginal. That is why windos didn't need to be any good: all it needed was to move the mouse pointer and let you click o
825.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Nobody cares about performance of servers today . Maybe you have noticed that they are not now programmed with performant languages?
826.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Touch screens could not take off until coatings that repelled fingerprints were invented. The iPhone could not have succeeded without.
827.
by ncmncm 4y ago
At the time people bought computer magazines mainly for the ads . The articles were filler. Newspapers, too: editors in newsrooms actually called the reportage "filler". BYTE differed in its filler being of typically better quali
828.
by ncmncm 4y ago
I found the original "C Programming Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie ("K&R") at my university bookstore in, maybe, 1980. I read it cover to cover twice on a plane flight, memorizing it, and immediately recognized i
829.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The failing there is that it is implicit . It didn't need to be.
830.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The library was utterly necessary, purely because the people the language was meant for would have been completely at sea without. The contempt Java's designers held for its users fairly drips, in what they write about it.
831.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Nobody at the time gave a hoot about "unsafe memory accesses". That is a wholly recent conceit. Nobody then cared about security. Sendmail was how e-mail was delivered, and was, believe it, widely admired. Java was just enough
832.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Maybe have a chat with him sometime.
833.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Java's secret sauce was that it liberated a whole generation of Microsoft sharecroppers. Microsoft has since clawed some back via its C# marketing, but cannot dictate a new "framework" every second year as it once did.
834.
by ncmncm 4y ago
You misrepresent history: Stepanov implemented STL first in Lisp, then in Ada. Both were manifestly inadequate. Stepanov openly despised "OO gook", and lamented that "begin", "end", and operators ++ and * had t
835.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Instead you slowed yourself to a crawl. (Which is not to say anything good about Java. The key to Java was elucidated by Mark Dominus: " I enjoyed programming in Java, and being relieved of the responsibility for producing a quality
836.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The things that made C successful are rarely recognized even by its fans, but much moreso by its critics and competitors. Things it is most criticized for are among them. They have made C hard to unseat. Too-easy conversion between arrays a
837.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Cats purr when they want something. Often what they want is more of what they are already getting, so they continue purring while they get it. But, crucially, they purr before. Of course they only purr for what they want when somebody else
838.
by ncmncm 4y ago
If the H in your LiH is deuterium, absorbing neutrons would be OK, because that makes tritium. Not quite as much as lithium absorbing them, but better than anything else. Hundreds of tons of deuterium in your thousands of tons of terrifying
839.
by ncmncm 4y ago
I am anti-boondoggle. $Billions in for nothing out is a losing proposition. Kinetic neutrons are almost the worst energy delivery vehicle conceivable, even worse than gamma rays. (Only neutrinos would be worse.) Visible photons are good.
840.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Energy that is too difficult and expensive to capture is useless. You might as well argue for power from H-bombs. They concentrate energy even more densely than a Tokamak. What matters most, always, is cost. Things that cost more lose. Rene

More ›