|
|
|
So I should add something like 'take care, toilet in picture'?  
|
|
|
|
|
Not if one of them involves driving the porcelain bus. 
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Can you handle two emergencies at the same time[^]
Nope, just nope. You can only switch from one task to another in a fast pace, but still not handle it at the same time.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
You can, however, consider the task to be multithreaded. Such as an organ player both doing the pedals, the right hand and the left hand. Or a car driver who both manages the steering wheel, the brake pedal and the speed pedal. (With electric cars, calling it the 'gas pedal' is misleading  ).
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: With electric cars, calling it the 'gas pedal' is misleading  ).
Among English-speakers, it never was the "gas pedal". I was always the "accelerator pedal", as opposed to the "brake pedal".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm so the brake pedal initiates the brakes.
And the accelerator pedal initiates the accelerator?
Or why not the throttle pedal? The Model T had a throttle but that was a lever (hand) rather than pedal.
|
|
|
|
|
"foot feed" back in the day.
>64
It’s weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
No. With any mechanical system, failures happen. For safety, there needs to be a human available to adjust for the failure. According to the Smithsonian Channel's Air Disasters series, there are many times when the instruments, sensors, and automation indicate normal operation, but the pilot's seat-of-the-pants instincts as an aviator tell a different tale: something is wrong. This instinct or feeling has made the difference between life and a fatal crash.
During an emergency, if the airplane needs to land now!, the automation will look for an airport. A human pilot can, and has, considered other options, including highways, river levees, beaches, a farmer's field, and even the Hudson River. In each of those successful cases, no one was killed, there were no serious injuries, and the airplane was repaired and back in service within a month or two.
On longer flights, it is imperative that the task of piloting the airplane be switched of between at least two pilots to relieve strain, stress, fatigue, in some cases boredom, and to allow the pilot to stretch, move, and take care of other human functions.
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
Joke answer, and this comes from an American background, considering the image.
Depends.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not get the proliferation of Python "software" , mainly because almost every time I "update / upgrade " Ubuntu I see lots of Python activities.
If it is so popular, why it needs "updating / upgrading " ?
|
|
|
|
|
jana_hus wrote: why it needs "updating / upgrading " ?
I suppose that just because it is popular. There is more eyes that might find things to repair / people willing to do a new wrap around something or develope some new functionality.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
When I first encountered Python, we were still back in the days when there were people claiming that Python development were just soooo much faster, because you didn't have to wait for the code to be compiled before running. This was a very common argument in favor of interpreted languages way back to BASIC.
Showing those people that pressing F5 gets the program running almost immediately after a code update has no impact. At one occasion, I showed one of those Python guys a compilation log showing that on our main compiler server, a complete rebuild compiled on the average 8 modules per second; it had no impact.
I haven't been around Python code development for 3-4 years, but even then, a number of Pythogonists brought up this argument that you could just type and run, no waiting for compilation. This was particularly prominent among the juniors, two years earlier still in college. So it seems like universities and colleges push this idea that even incremental compiling, precompiled headers and similar speed-ups cannot possibly make compilation fast enough to be useful for development work.
Truth is, of course, that Python has been high academic fashion for a number of years, and you don't risk your academic reputation by checking out un-fashionable alternatives, which might possibly indicate that high academic fashions doesn't match reality. It is much safer to run with the herd you are in.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: high academic fashions doesn't match reality
I think that in many cases, programming languages being one such, that is generally very true.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: you could just type and run, no waiting for compilation.
Yup. Type. Run. And if you by happenchance execute the new code you just typed, discover the syntax errors at runtime instead of compile-time!
|
|
|
|
|
My "assembly language " mentor first lesson was how to write "modular" code - using subroutines.
I do question the " code and run" approach because it . in MY opinion, leads to " let's try this" guessing - instead of spending productive time constructing solid code.
(Besides "basic" was OK to use for years...)
I do agree, it probably is OK approach when only few lines of "embedded" code are involved.
|
|
|
|
|
jana_hus wrote: I do question the " code and run" approach because it . in MY opinion, leads to " let's try this" guessing - instead of spending productive time constructing solid code.
That is one major reason why I dislike interpreted languages so much. Especially in error handling: I have had a few crashes, leaving no traces of its cause, taking a lot of debugging to see that the crash was caused by a syntax error in that routine written to handle an error so it wouldn't lead to a crash.
(Besides "basic" was OK to use for years...) I guess, but today I look back on my first programming language, proudly named Real Time Basic on a Univac 1110 mainframe, as little more than a toy language: E.g. at most 286 variables named A..Z and A0..Z9, plus 26 string variables A$..Z$.
Fact is that it could be compiled, too! But compilation changed some semantics, especially regarding the file system: File references in a compiled program were absolutely bound to a specific catalog, while in interpreted programs, files where located in the running user's catalog. (This was by design.)
But I did learn the basics of programming through that Basic, way back in 1975-1976.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, instant gratification.
All code has to be converted, somehow to machine code.
Pay me now or pay me later.
A home without books is a body without soul. Marcus Tullius Cicero
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking PL/1 and Pascal back in my early days. Had a contract that forced me to port perfectly good and functioning C code to Pascal. It was ugly.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Compiled power and compiler speed in one: Delphi.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it needs updating precisely because it's being used. New language features are added, etc. C# is onto version 10 or something now, so it's not just Python.
My problem with Python is I believe that all my source code should be visible to the naked eye. Python breaks that rule by making whitespace part of the source code. That inspires violence in me. So I don't use it.
And when I tell other people why they shouldn't use it, particularly for embedded systems, I just show them this:
How fast is Python? - MicroPython versus C++ - YouTube[^]
It even covers the issue of lack of decent python bindings for good libraries.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey, you owe me something. I don't know what just yet, but that video was just mind blowingly painful to watch. Took me a while to get to it, I was watching cat videos.
Python has no business being in an embedded environment in any serious role.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: Python has no business being in an embedded environment in any serious role.
The video did its job.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
good morning. My eyes are still watering.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
