 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> "This test only measures my knowledge of some obscure C trivia; as
> others have already written, I try very hard to avoid this kind of C
> statements anyway. I use parenthesis and typedefs to increase
> readability. This test says NOTHING about my real coder and
> problem-solving skills."
> Seems about right to me...
Well, I'd say the problem is two-fold: On one hand it *is* often a good
idea to avoid obscure "hackerish" solutions which (ab)use seldomly needed
features of the language (just because it might eg. make the code shorter
or a few clock cycles faster). On the other hand, a good C(++) programmer
ought to *know* what those seldomly needed features are and how they work
(in other words, when asked, he should at least have an idea of what it
means and how it works), even if he never uses them. This is especially
true for C, given that it's a relatively short language specification.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yes, because Java is *totally suitable* for embedded programming. Oh,
> wait...
I hate to say this, but Java was *designed* for embedded programming.
Indeed, lots and lots of cell phones only run Java user apps. It was
originally designed for programming cable TV set top boxes.
Which is not to say it hasn't evolved away from that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> This test says NOTHING about my real coder and problem-solving skills."
IME, if you don't know this sort of detail, you don't have the real
problem-solving and architecture skills. This is about what I've noticed.
Everyone programs like they're building the hardware, not programming it.
They worry about things like the overhead of a while loop vs a goto in a
routine that gets invoked once every time you start playing a video, making
the programs pretty much unreadable.
The API I'm using, for example, isn't documented. All you have is the "test"
program, which is about 8000 lines of top-level code (i.e., all in main())
with no comments. Good luck figuring that out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> IME, if you don't know this sort of detail, you don't have the real
Blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just a cranky fart who ought to be doing
something else.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Yes, because Java is *totally suitable* for embedded programming. Oh,
> > wait...
>
> I hate to say this, but Java was *designed* for embedded programming.
> Indeed, lots and lots of cell phones only run Java user apps. It was
> originally designed for programming cable TV set top boxes.
yes, and thankfully 2 things help make it possible too:
1) phone is always on so whatever the java startup cost is hidden
2) no
tomcat/web-framework-of-the-week/netbeans/insert-fav-humongous-java-lib-here in
sight
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > IME, if you don't know this sort of detail, you don't have the real
>
> Blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just a cranky fart who ought to be doing
> something else.
that was not me, I swear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The API I'm using, for example, isn't documented. All you have is the "test"
> program, which is about 8000 lines of top-level code (i.e., all in main())
> with no comments. Good luck figuring that out.
The joys of spaghetti code. Structured programming and especially
modularity is for wimps.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I hate to say this, but Java was *designed* for embedded programming.
I wonder about their design choices given that it was intended originally
for *embedded* (rather than desktop) systems. "Embedded system" usually
implies extremely low amount of RAM and very slow processors (especially
back when Java was first designed). Even if the Java program could be
compiled to native machine code for the target system (are there any such
compilers in actuality, for any embedded system?) which would mostly solve
the speed problem, it would still suffer from the memory consumption problem.
No statically allocatable objects (including no support for arrays of
objects) and all objects always having dynamic binding means inevitably
increased memory consumption. (Also constant allocation/deallocation of
objects induces memory fragmentation, increasing overall memory consumption
as time passes, unless the system implements some form of memory
defragmentation scheme, which might be implausible for an embedded system,
especially at that time.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> 1) phone is always on so whatever the java startup cost is hidden
"Startup cost" for Java is pretty low if you're serving everything out of
RAM. It's copying it from disk to RAM that's the main 'startup cost'.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 1) phone is always on so whatever the java startup cost is hidden
>
> "Startup cost" for Java is pretty low if you're serving everything out
> of RAM. It's copying it from disk to RAM that's the main 'startup cost'.
that too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
