 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>>> That's actually its strength... until it comes to interfacing with
>>> the outside world, which is where things tend to get ugly.
>>
>> And given that currently the number one use for C is to interface with
>> the outside world... strange choice, that.
>
> I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have
> a very limited interface to the outside world.
I would have to disagree. I think google has a much more limited interface
to the outside world than a set top box or an iPhone does, in the sense that
you're talking.
The iPhone has half a dozen pieces of custom hardware. Set top boxes talk to
tuners, hardware decoders, etc. Google? They just talk TCP and disk files.
> <float.h> does the same for floating-point types, by the way.
A) Assuming it's there, and B) assuming it tells you the information you
need in a way you can use it portably. Pick out the best type given an
arbitrary requirement on precision and accuracy and range, and know you got
it right for all compilers. Go for it. (Indeed, it even assumes a specific
floating point representation.)
And where's <decimal.h>. Oh, I forgot, C's type system sucks and doesn't
handle fixed-point. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> pit-lane refuelling fires must have been fun!
Yes. THe official hand signal a driver uses to indicate he's on fire is to
run around in circles waving his hands up and down over his head. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Another film thoroughly worth missing - although at least parts of it
> > made sense.
> What you have to realize is this was a special effects movie. It was the
> first time they had realistic zero-G effects. The first use of matte
> paintings (where you could see in through the windows of a spaceship that's
> actually just a model, for example), and so on.
> Watch it again with that in mind, and you realize why they spend 20 or 30
> seconds of screen time just filming a floating pen.
What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. It's not like the
writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
expressing it, letting it to the viewer to figure out what the message is.
No, it was purely random, with no message, no logic, nothing. The only
purpose of the ending was to screw up with the mind of the viewers, hoping
to put them in a wild goose chase trying to decipher a message and meaning
which simply isn't there.
It's a kind of anticlimax.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Sep 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)
:)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I'd say its number one use is for embedded systems, which typically have
> > a very limited interface to the outside world.
> I would have to disagree. I think google has a much more limited interface
> to the outside world than a set top box or an iPhone does, in the sense that
> you're talking.
> The iPhone has half a dozen pieces of custom hardware. Set top boxes talk to
> tuners, hardware decoders, etc. Google? They just talk TCP and disk files.
I think the iPhone blurs the distinction between "embedded system" and
just portable computer.
How do you define "embedded system"? I'd say the iPhone is more a portable
computer. It's very small in physical size, but that alone doesn't make it
"embedded".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
> a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
> is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all.
Possibly true. I believe the book may have retconned a meaning into it, and
the sequels definitely are based on the ending of the movie/book. But the
story in the *movie* was definitely secondary to the special effects.
> It's a kind of anticlimax.
It did end poorly. Indeed, it probably would have been more satisfying to
just end it with "My god, it's full of stars", and cut out the bits after
the pyrotechnics reflected in the helmet entirely.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/04/09 10:58, Warp wrote:
> What I dislike about the movie is that it's a very good story and it makes
> a lot of sense, up until that craziness at the end. What I dislike about it
> is that the craziness at the end has *no* meaning at all. It's not like the
> writers came up with some kind of deep message and a highly abstract way of
> expressing it, letting it to the viewer to figure out what the message is.
> No, it was purely random, with no message, no logic, nothing. The only
> purpose of the ending was to screw up with the mind of the viewers, hoping
> to put them in a wild goose chase trying to decipher a message and meaning
> which simply isn't there.
>
> It's a kind of anticlimax.
Well, it's all about expectations. In a sense, it "makes sense" that it
doesn't make sense. Not everything in the universe was designed to be
intelligible to humans.
I suppose I could sympathize, though. I feel that way about many movies
(Robert Rodriguez, some of Tarantino's work, most of the Coen brothers'
movies). Not from the unintelligible aspect, but from the "let's throw
in some randomness/weird stuff and everyone will think it's cool/deep"
sense.
--
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How do you define "embedded system"?
I've been thinking about that.
One could say it's a computer with no user-visible UI, like a chip running
you car's engine. Now, what happens when you're talking about (say) a
missile launcher? Clearly that's going to have a UI, and just as clearly
that's an embedded system. However, looking at the chip running your car's
engine, I imagine it's talking to a lot more "outside world" than a google
server is, just in terms of having to be able to do byte-level hardware
programming.
Or one could say it's a computer with no ability for the user to decide what
code runs on it, which would make something like a "dumb phone" an embedded
system. I.e., if in coding it up you don't have to worry about any sort of
security, I'd say it's an embedded system. Not perfect, but close.
Right now, I'm working on a box with built in hardware decoding for various
media types, DMA channels that have to get programmed, etc. I'm porting
webkit to it, and it's running Linux. It's a lump of black plastic whose
only feedback to the user is an LED on the front I can turn different
colors. Is that "embedded"?
> I'd say the iPhone is more a portable
> computer. It's very small in physical size, but that alone doesn't make it
> "embedded".
Nevertheless, the code there talks to the "outside world" far more than
something like google's servers, in terms of finicky technology.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:00:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)
>
> :)
Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It did end poorly. Indeed, it probably would have been more satisfying to
> just end it with "My god, it's full of stars", and cut out the bits after
> the pyrotechnics reflected in the helmet entirely.
That line was actually not in the first movie at all. It was in the book,
and it was put in the sequel movie.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
