 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's pretty cool.
http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/working-at-microsoft-day-to-day-coding/
Not unexpected, except for the bit that all the developers have all of the
Windows source code available. I'm rather surprised it hasn't leaked
already, if it has been the case for that long.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not unexpected, except for the bit that all the developers have all of
> the Windows source code available. I'm rather surprised it hasn't leaked
> already, if it has been the case for that long.
Maybe they modify some random part of the code for each person who
checks it out - so if it ever got leaked they know who stole it :-)
But seriously, this is totally the opposite of the company I work for,
where it seems to be to hide everything from everyone unless they have a
real good reason for wanting to see it and a few random managers agree
that you can see it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 09:07 AM, scott wrote:
>> Not unexpected, except for the bit that all the developers have all of
>> the Windows source code available. I'm rather surprised it hasn't leaked
>> already, if it has been the case for that long.
>
> Maybe they modify some random part of the code for each person who
> checks it out - so if it ever got leaked they know who stole it :-)
I was thinking maybe they inserted a faulty gene for the synthesis of
lysine, so if the code ever escaped into the wild it would slip into a
coma and die...
> But seriously, this is totally the opposite of the company I work for,
> where it seems to be to hide everything from everyone unless they have a
> real good reason for wanting to see it and a few random managers agree
> that you can see it.
Don't you just love the way this stuff is totally secret, but to access
it you just need the approval of a bunch of people arbitrarily chosen at
random?
It's like the story Feynmen told of an army general who's stuff was so
secret that he had to get a specialist safe craned in... but he didn't
bother to change the default combination. (??!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 02:25 AM, Darren New wrote:
> That's pretty cool.
The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
Much less a mere desktop PC. It's also news to me that it's even
*possible* to have more than two monitors. (I'm still trying to figure
out why you'd want two in the first place...)
[Also, I hadn't looked at this recently, but apparently SSDs are now
available in capacities that might actually be useful. I.e., more than a
piffling 8GB. Still bloody expensive though.]
I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
branch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 4:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I was thinking maybe they inserted a faulty gene for the synthesis of
> lysine, so if the code ever escaped into the wild it would slip into a
> coma and die...
Oh, crap. Wrong codon. That one actually causes the velociraptor to lose
its feathers!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 4:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>
Oh, please.... The soft synth program I've been playing around with
takes about 10-15min to compile. Our flagship CAD and engineering app
where I work takes a good 30-45min to do a full build.
> Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
> it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
> new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
> branch.
The RCS he talks about is remarkably similar to how Accurev (the RCS we
use) works. The only thing I think we're missing is the ability to run
automated tasks when an item is checked in.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 11:35 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 2/28/2011 4:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I was thinking maybe they inserted a faulty gene for the synthesis of
>> lysine, so if the code ever escaped into the wild it would slip into a
>> coma and die...
>
> Oh, crap. Wrong codon. That one actually causes the velociraptor to lose
> its feathers!
And be 8 feet tall instead of 3 feet?
And for that matter, apparently reptiles (and indeed, most vertebrates)
don't synthesize lysine *anyway*...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
>> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>
> Oh, please.... The soft synth program I've been playing around with
> takes about 10-15min to compile. Our flagship CAD and engineering app
> where I work takes a good 30-45min to do a full build.
How huge is it? o_O
>> Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
>> it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
>> new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
>> branch.
>
> The RCS he talks about is remarkably similar to how Accurev (the RCS we
> use) works. The only thing I think we're missing is the ability to run
> automated tasks when an item is checked in.
Well, you can script that from outside. (That is, you have a check-in
tool that runs whatever tests you want, and then executes the actual RCS
command to check stuff in.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
> Much less a mere desktop PC.
I guess that's because you've never worked anywhere where they upgrade
the hardware every 2 years :-)
BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:02 PM, scott wrote:
> BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Gosh! You must have a big petrol tank. My 8 GB of DDR3 850 cost 260 GBP
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:02 PM, scott wrote:
>> The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
>> Much less a mere desktop PC.
>
> I guess that's because you've never worked anywhere where they upgrade
> the hardware every 2 years :-)
No, I've never worked for a company that can afford to just upgrade
hardware for no reason other than that a certain number of days have
passed. I would have thought most companies only spend money upgrading
something if it actually needs upgrading. (But then, I've only worked
for one company, so what do I know?)
> BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Damn. I had no idea it had got this cheap!
I guess because my motherboard won't handle more than 4GB, I hadn't
bothered looking at the price. Or maybe it's the fact that I haven't
found anything yet that requires more than 2GB of RAM, let alone 4GB...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:17 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Gosh! You must have a big petrol tank. My 8 GB of DDR3 850 cost 260 GBP
A quick browse shows that ebuyer can sell me a 2GB stick of DDR3 for
£16. (They don't seem to sell anything bigger.)
Then again, when did you buy this? Prices for almost everything
computer-related are in constant free-fall, after all...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:21 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Then again, when did you buy this? Prices for almost everything
> computer-related are in constant free-fall, after all...
For example, apparently today you can buy a drive that burns BluRay
disks for under £400.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:21 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 28/02/2011 12:17 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Gosh! You must have a big petrol tank. My 8 GB of DDR3 850 cost 260 GBP
>
> A quick browse shows that ebuyer can sell me a 2GB stick of DDR3 for
> £16. (They don't seem to sell anything bigger.)
>
Yes when you go up to 4 GB modules the price goes up a lot.
> Then again, when did you buy this? Prices for almost everything
> computer-related are in constant free-fall, after all...
In November last year. And it was DDR3 8500 not DR3 850
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Gosh! You must have a big petrol tank. My 8 GB of DDR3 850 cost 260 GBP
>
> A quick browse shows that ebuyer can sell me a 2GB stick of DDR3 for
> £16. (They don't seem to sell anything bigger.)
I found 4GB sticks on amazon for 32 pounds. I guess it will depend on
your motherboard if it can accept 4x2GB or 2x4GB. Most new motherboards
(apart from the budget ones) seem to accept up to 16 or 24GB.
> Then again, when did you buy this? Prices for almost everything
> computer-related are in constant free-fall, after all...
I've had 8GB for a couple of years now, no idea how much it cost back
then, it came with the rest of the computer (I think it is 4x2GB, but
I've never opened it up).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> A quick browse shows that ebuyer can sell me a 2GB stick of DDR3 for
>> £16. (They don't seem to sell anything bigger.)
>
> Yes when you go up to 4 GB modules the price goes up a lot.
I'll have to take your word on that. (As I say, I don't see any for
sale.) I suppose it depends how many slots you've got to play with.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes when you go up to 4 GB modules the price goes up a lot.
>
> I'll have to take your word on that. (As I say, I don't see any for
> sale.)
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232760
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/183983
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/183459
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:41 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> A quick browse shows that ebuyer can sell me a 2GB stick of DDR3 for
>>> £16. (They don't seem to sell anything bigger.)
>>
>> Yes when you go up to 4 GB modules the price goes up a lot.
>
> I'll have to take your word on that. (As I say, I don't see any for
> sale.) I suppose it depends how many slots you've got to play with.
Well using a laptop means I have only two slots.
Having 8 GB of ram is great. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:44 PM, scott wrote:
> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/232760
> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/183983
> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/183459
>
> :-)
OK, I rephrase: They don't seem to have any 1066MHz DDR3 for sale in 4GB
modules. (That's where I was looking.)
As an aside, it's kind of irritating that you can't see all the DDR3
modules at once. You have to pick DDR3 *and* frequency at the same time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 5:42 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Oh, please.... The soft synth program I've been playing around with
>> takes about 10-15min to compile. Our flagship CAD and engineering app
>> where I work takes a good 30-45min to do a full build.
>
> How huge is it? o_O
>
Its big. I forget how big, exactly, but there's a lot of code for
handling engineering, performing the CAD drawing, rendering the
building, etc... Not to mention all of the UI glue, database handling,
and other bits and pieces here and there.
> Well, you can script that from outside. (That is, you have a check-in
> tool that runs whatever tests you want, and then executes the actual RCS
> command to check stuff in.)
True. We tend to use the GUI front-end for our RCS software, though. ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Our flagship CAD and engineering app
>>> where I work takes a good 30-45min to do a full build.
>>
>> How huge is it? o_O
>>
>
> Its big. I forget how big, exactly, but there's a lot of code for
> handling engineering, performing the CAD drawing, rendering the
> building, etc... Not to mention all of the UI glue, database handling,
> and other bits and pieces here and there.
Damn. Given that compiling something is approximately 80,000x faster
than writing it... how freaking long did it take to write?! O_O
>> Well, you can script that from outside. (That is, you have a check-in
>> tool that runs whatever tests you want, and then executes the actual RCS
>> command to check stuff in.)
>
> True. We tend to use the GUI front-end for our RCS software, though. ;)
I'm sure even that has hooks for customisation buried within it somewhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 5:40 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> And be 8 feet tall instead of 3 feet?
Yeah, well... ;)
> And for that matter, apparently reptiles (and indeed, most vertebrates)
> don't synthesize lysine *anyway*...
Heh. I suppose if you're going to write science fiction and mention a
particular amino acid, you'd better brush up on your basic biochem.
It didn't click that it was an essential amino acid, but there you have
it; it is.
Also, dinosaurs weren't necessarily reptiles anyway.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 10:36 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Damn. Given that compiling something is approximately 80,000x faster
> than writing it... how freaking long did it take to write?! O_O
>
The software has been around for years. It's a code-base that has
evolved over time, never really restarted from scratch, so it probably
has a lot of historical code in it. Also, keep in mind no just a single
person works on the code base.
>>> Well, you can script that from outside. (That is, you have a check-in
>>> tool that runs whatever tests you want, and then executes the actual RCS
>>> command to check stuff in.)
>>
>> True. We tend to use the GUI front-end for our RCS software, though. ;)
>
> I'm sure even that has hooks for customisation buried within it somewhere.
Probably, no one has been very motivated to dig that far.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 04:40 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Also, dinosaurs weren't necessarily reptiles anyway.
I love the way somebody mentions Microsoft, and within a short time
people are talking about dinosaurs, faulty code and death. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> but he didn't bother to change the default combination. (??!)
No, he cracked the safe. Safes don't have default combinations, unless
they're digital, which they weren't 60 years ago.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On 28/02/2011 04:40 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Also, dinosaurs weren't necessarily reptiles anyway.
>
> I love the way somebody mentions Microsoft, and within a short time
> people are talking about dinosaurs, faulty code and death. ;-)
That's my LOL for the morning.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> *possible* to have more than two monitors.
I'm guessing multiple video cards.
> (I'm still trying to figure
> out why you'd want two in the first place...)
Because you've never tried it, or you don't seriously work with computers.
Does your desk have room for more than just a keyboard and mouse? What else
do you put on it?
> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
Last one I worked on took about 45 minutes to compile, and it included tons
of already-compiled stuff for which we didn't have the source.
> Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
> it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
> new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
> branch.
Hard to say. I'm a little surprised they don't seem to use the tools they
sell to others.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> if it actually needs upgrading.
If the majority of your productive employees actually wait for the results
of things like compiles and automated tests, it actually *does* need
upgrading when newer faster devices come out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 05:18 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> if it actually needs upgrading.
>
> If the majority of your productive employees actually wait for the
> results of things like compiles and automated tests, it actually *does*
> need upgrading when newer faster devices come out.
Well, yes, if you're a software house, perhaps you do need the
horsepower. I was thinking more of your typical office job. You don't
need 8GB of RAM and a quad-core Xeon just to run Word and Excel.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> *possible* to have more than two monitors.
>
> I'm guessing multiple video cards.
Yeah. I mean, my video card has 2 outputs, but I don't recall seeing any
with more than that.
>> (I'm still trying to figure out why you'd want two in the first place...)
>
> Because you've never tried it, or you don't seriously work with computers.
Well, I guess I only spend 90% of my day job and 70% of my spare time
sat in front of a computer.
> Does your desk have room for more than just a keyboard and mouse? What
> else do you put on it?
So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
unused space? That seems like a pretty weak justification for something
so expensive.
>> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
>> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>
> Last one I worked on took about 45 minutes to compile, and it included
> tons of already-compiled stuff for which we didn't have the source.
OOC, how many million lines was it?
> I'm a little surprised they don't seem to use the tools they sell to others.
Isn't this the same company who's main web server was running Apache
under Linux, and not IIS?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> *possible* to have more than two monitors.
>>
>> I'm guessing multiple video cards.
>
> Yeah. I mean, my video card has 2 outputs, but I don't recall seeing any
> with more than that.
>
>>> (I'm still trying to figure out why you'd want two in the first
>>> place...)
>>
>> Because you've never tried it, or you don't seriously work with
>> computers.
>
> Well, I guess I only spend 90% of my day job and 70% of my spare time
> sat in front of a computer.
From the sound of your day job, you don't work seriously with computers
there. At least, not programming. I don't know if a sys admin type gets much
out of multiple monitors, but I wouldn't be surprised, given that most sys
admin types I know have 300+ windows open at any given time, without
exageration.
>> Does your desk have room for more than just a keyboard and mouse? What
>> else do you put on it?
>
> So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
> unused space?
No. Do you set reference books or note pads on your desk just to keep it
from looking tidy?
>>> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
>>> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>>
>> Last one I worked on took about 45 minutes to compile, and it included
>> tons of already-compiled stuff for which we didn't have the source.
>
> OOC, how many million lines was it?
Never counted. I was lucky if I could track down which version of any given
file was compiling, let alone *all* of them.
>> I'm a little surprised they don't seem to use the tools they sell to
>> others.
>
> Isn't this the same company who's main web server was running Apache
> under Linux, and not IIS?
I don't know that it was ever the *main* web server.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 5:02 AM, scott wrote:
>> The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
>> Much less a mere desktop PC.
>
> I guess that's because you've never worked anywhere where they upgrade
> the hardware every 2 years :-)
>
> BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Course... even scarier is how much ram you *could* theoretically put on
them, if not for the fact that pretty much all consumer grade mother
boards are limited to, at most, 4 RAM slots. I think it was something
like.. 128GB or something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 08:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> From the sound of your day job, you don't work seriously with computers
> there. At least, not programming. I don't know if a sys admin type gets
> much out of multiple monitors, but I wouldn't be surprised, given that
> most sys admin types I know have 300+ windows open at any given time,
> without exageration.
My mind is blown.
1. What possible use would having 300 windows open actually be?
2. The human mind can't focus on that many pieces of information at
once, so how can this possibly be useful?
3. Wouldn't the computer slow to a crawl as a result? (Well, I guess it
depends *what* the windows are...)
>> So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
>> unused space?
>
> No. Do you set reference books or note pads on your desk just to keep it
> from looking tidy?
No? But then, I guess if you removed the notepad, it would still look
fairly untidy due to the random stacks of CDs, product boxes, spare CD
cases, assorted pieces of hardware, and other stuff that my desk has on
it...
>> Isn't this the same company who's main web server was running Apache
>> under Linux, and not IIS?
>
> I don't know that it was ever the *main* web server.
I don't have a reliable source to check with.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Course... even scarier is how much ram you *could* theoretically put on
> them, if not for the fact that pretty much all consumer grade mother
> boards are limited to, at most, 4 RAM slots. I think it was something
> like.. 128GB or something.
Now, with *that* much RAM, you could pretty much keep your entire OS
partition in RAM. You wouldn't even need secondary storage. I mean, you
know, unless you wanted to be able to reboot ever again...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now, with *that* much RAM, you could pretty much keep your entire OS
> partition in RAM.
No, generally, you just keep your entire database in RAM. How do you think
these "web scale" nosql databases get decent efficiency?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 1. What possible use would having 300 windows open actually be?
Usually a shell or two on each machine in the company, a monitor widget or
two for each (load, memory, disk usage, etc), pages of documentation, and
(in this particular case) at least a couple of porn windows. (He got yelled
at several times until he turned his desk to face the door. Most amusing.)
> 2. The human mind can't focus on that many pieces of information at
> once, so how can this possibly be useful?
It's so he doesn't have to log in.
> 3. Wouldn't the computer slow to a crawl as a result? (Well, I guess it
> depends *what* the windows are...)
No.
> No? But then, I guess if you removed the notepad, it would still look
> fairly untidy due to the random stacks of CDs, product boxes, spare CD
> cases, assorted pieces of hardware, and other stuff that my desk has on
> it...
Well, there you go. I have assorted widgets, random web pages, and various
communications devices on my second monitor. When I'm coding, I often have
the code in front of me and the online docs to the right of me.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I guess I only spend 90% of my day job and 70% of my spare time
> sat in front of a computer.
I couldn't live without two monitors at work. The left screen is for
Outlook (which is usually the source of all work I have to do and where
the work goes after I'm done), the right screen is for whatever I'm
currently working on (3D CAD, powerpoint, excel etc).
> So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
> unused space? That seems like a pretty weak justification for something
> so expensive.
The monitors are probably the cheapest part, after the PC box itself,
the laptop, the phone and the furniture it's all sitting on, it really
isn't a cost worth worrying about in comparison with everything else.
Even if it only saves you a couple of minutes each day it's worth it.
> My mind is blown.
>
> 1. What possible use would having 300 windows open actually be?
>
> 2. The human mind can't focus on that many pieces of information at once, so how can
this possibly be useful?
>
> 3. Wouldn't the computer slow to a crawl as a result? (Well, I guess it depends
*what* the windows are...)
Not 300, but 50 games of online Poker at once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHrGjRO7MFQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 05:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> but he didn't bother to change the default combination. (??!)
>
> No, he cracked the safe. Safes don't have default combinations, unless
> they're digital, which they weren't 60 years ago.
There *was* a story about Feynman cracking combinations. But there was
also a big safe that he couldn't crack, and when the guy came to drill
it, he wanted to see how it was done. The guy told him he just used the
default combination, because it hadn't been changed.
(I can't be bothered to look up the page numbers right now...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 11:36 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Now, with *that* much RAM, you could pretty much keep your entire OS
>> partition in RAM.
>
> No, generally, you just keep your entire database in RAM. How do you
> think these "web scale" nosql databases get decent efficiency?
They don't?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 08:39 AM, scott wrote:
> I couldn't live without two monitors at work. The left screen is for
> Outlook (which is usually the source of all work I have to do and where
> the work goes after I'm done), the right screen is for whatever I'm
> currently working on (3D CAD, powerpoint, excel etc).
Wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just buy one larger monitor?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 08:58, Invisible wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 08:39 AM, scott wrote:
>
>> I couldn't live without two monitors at work. The left screen is for
>> Outlook (which is usually the source of all work I have to do and where
>> the work goes after I'm done), the right screen is for whatever I'm
>> currently working on (3D CAD, powerpoint, excel etc).
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just buy one larger monitor?
Apart from the fact that I like to have both monitors directed towards
me (so they are not in the same plane), I don't think anyone makes a
3840x1200 resolution monitor anyway. It's actually very simple to get 2
monitors, you just write "2" in the quantity box, and connect up 2
monitors instead of 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The guy told him he just used the
> default combination, because it hadn't been changed.
OK. I've never heard of a safe leaving the factory with a default
combination. Maybe they've gotten smarter since then or something. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> > I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
> > longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
> Last one I worked on took about 45 minutes to compile, and it included tons
> of already-compiled stuff for which we didn't have the source.
It depends on the compiler too. For example gcc is notoriously *slow*
to compile big projects (but at least it's a top-tier on the quality of
the result).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Last one I worked on took about 45 minutes to compile, and it included
> tons of already-compiled stuff for which we didn't have the source.
Plus, considering #include, the number of lines of source in the project is
not the number of lines you have to compile to compile the project. This
project had include files with tens of thousands of lines (hell, 4000-line
individual macros) that got included in pretty much every source file, as
well as all kinds of nested hierarchies of include files that included who
knows how much extraneous stuff by the time you were done. I've written
serious programs shorter than some of the compiler command lines in that
project.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 05:30 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The guy told him he just used the default combination, because it
>> hadn't been changed.
>
> OK. I've never heard of a safe leaving the factory with a default
> combination. Maybe they've gotten smarter since then or something. :-)
Or maybe they just assume that if you're paying all this money, you'll
read the instructions and choose a new combination. IDK.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Plus, considering #include, the number of lines of source in the project is
> not the number of lines you have to compile to compile the project. This
> project had include files with tens of thousands of lines (hell, 4000-line
> individual macros) that got included in pretty much every source file, as
> well as all kinds of nested hierarchies of include files that included who
> knows how much extraneous stuff by the time you were done. I've written
> serious programs shorter than some of the compiler command lines in that
> project.
If you are going to deliberately make compilation times longer, then
you could just use template metaprogramming and have the compilation take
hours for a simple 50-line source file.
Just because badly designed programs can take long to compile doesn't
mean it's necessarily so.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Or maybe they just assume that if you're paying all this money, you'll
> read the instructions and choose a new combination. IDK.
Maybe. I don't think changing the combination on a safe of that era was a
trivial operation. You needed a locksmith to open up the door and take apart
the lock. It certainly wasn't any easier than re-keying a lock is today.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If you are going to deliberately make compilation times longer,
Nobody wanted the compilation times to be longer.
> Just because badly designed programs can take long to compile doesn't
> mean it's necessarily so.
I know that. I was just pointing out that #include means some files get
compiled many times, so a line count doesn't really tell you how many lines
were compiled to make a complex system. You don't need to get defensive
about the fact.
I remember reading where one customer had called up an Ada compiler
manufacturer to complain their compiler was slow. The manufacturer asked to
see the code and it was tremendously convoluted in terms of what library
generics it instantiated and so on. The vendor asked why they were doing it
this way, and the customer says "I modeled it on your sample XYZ." The
vendor informs them that sample XYZ is a compiler stress-test designed to
make the compiler run out of resources to ensure the compiler handles it right.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I remember reading where one customer had called up an Ada compiler
> manufacturer to complain their compiler was slow. The manufacturer asked to
> see the code and it was tremendously convoluted in terms of what library
> generics it instantiated and so on. The vendor asked why they were doing it
> this way, and the customer says "I modeled it on your sample XYZ." The
> vendor informs them that sample XYZ is a compiler stress-test designed to
> make the compiler run out of resources to ensure the compiler handles it right.
I have heard of projects which use extensively C++ template metaprogramming
to optimize things at runtime (I think at least some of those projects are
related to matrix manipulation). The programs take ages to compile, but the
resulting binaries are significantly faster than equivalent programs made
in more traditional ways. (I suppose it could be summarized as tons of
things being precalculated at compile time.)
(What makes these projects interesting is that template metaprogramming
is not just a curiosity, but it's actually being in some cases used for
great benefit.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (What makes these projects interesting is that template metaprogramming
> is not just a curiosity, but it's actually being in some cases used for
> great benefit.)
Yeah. I don't think Ada computes stuff like that at compile time. The C++
template system is definitely the most powerful mechanism I've seen on a
language of that class, with FORTH really being a close second. But stuff
like LISP and Tcl just can't get the sort of efficiency you can with a
language that really targets the bare metal like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
