|
Sounds familiar; don't we get this every couple of years or so?
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: don't we get this every couple of years or so?
Well, Esteemed Man of Pie, I may have had it every few years, but I never got it, and still don't.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
We probably get similar articles every year or so; and will until/unless one of the major computational bounds is actively proved one way or the other.
On the flip side, the article has what's probably the best mundane friendly explanation of P vs NP I've seen in a long time if ever.
Quote: The informal version: if P equals NP, we could quickly compute the true answer to almost any question we wanted, as long as we knew how to describe what we wanted to find and could easily recognize it once we saw it, much like a finished jigsaw puzzle. The vast majority of computer scientists believe that P does not equal NP.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
In this article I’m going to tackle the review process by discussing what a good code review should look like. I laughed, I cried. I thought the ending was a little too predictable though.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what good code-review should look like: [^], to be followed-up, of course, by the burning of the apostates.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
It reminds me the fact that, my senior colleages fight together about their coding styles!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is the second thing that drives me wild. Sometimes even I put several short lines in a single line: it may (or may not) have sense and actually improve readability. Of course this is not such a case but consider that the function is very long and not breakable.
But no spaces totally break my token recognition. Wherever I can I try to keep all the tokens in columns, unless it is stupid to do so (fully specified class names can be pretty long).
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Sometimes even I put several short lines in a single line: it may (or may not) have sense and actually improve readability. Of course this is not such a case but consider that the function is very long and not breakable.
My feelings on that range from neutral/mild distaste in trivial cases, (eg int i = 0; int j = 0; ink k = 0;) mostly because anything exceptional causes me to have to slow down and take a 2nd look. I'm extremely strongly against it in the case of conditionals/loops; because without a blank line afterward to cleanly separate it from whatever follows it's too prone to confusion and a blank line is too easily lost.
den2k88 wrote: Wherever I can I try to keep all the tokens in columns,
Many years back I used to do that a lot; but have thrown in the towel because doing so is incompatible with all the auto-formatters I've used and I find them to be more generally useful. I'll still do it occasionally, but it's very much a by exception thing now.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Well some code like
if (condition) { flag = false; break; }
if (condition2) { otherflag = false; break; }
is actually (in my opinion) more readable like this because it is actually one / two short operations that are extremely correlated and stay very wall on one line. But actually this is the only case I put more instructions on a single line - I especialli avoid the "int i = 0; int j; int k = 0;" case because is is less flexible to add/remove/rename variables.
I tweaked VisualAssistX so that now it doesn't autoformat as I don't like, only the VB6 IDE autoformats without possibility of turning it off.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
In Redmond, Washington, Microsoft houses the most technologically advanced hardware labs on the planet in their own Area 51, dubiously titled Building 87. In the future, we will all live in Building 87.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: In the future, we will all live in Building 87.
In the future, I will live in Theory, because in Theory everything works. 
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Stagefright 2.0 comes as Android users were still recovering from Stagefright 1. No one has hacked my "two cans and string" yet
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: No one has hacked my "two cans and string" yet
Vulnerable to the oldest denial of service attack of all:
O O
X
/ \
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft researchers have figured out a way to build software systems spanning many computers that can be proven free of bugs, a significant feat in the decades-long quest to create perfect software. *to varying definitions of "bug-free"
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: software systems ... free of bugs
And how complicated that 'software system' is? Like 1 + 1 = 2?
Kent Sharkey wrote: perfect software
Can it make coffee?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
"I can create bug-free software, if by bugs you mean things I can detect."
|
|
|
|
|
Best of blessing to that!
|
|
|
|
|
By changing the definition of bug we have managed to produce software that's 100% bug free.
|
|
|
|
|
Closed because it is by design.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: to varying definitions of "bug-free"
Agreed 
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what they're actually promising/delivering? Proving software bug free is equivalent to solving the halting problem, and thus is impossible for the general case on a Turing Machine. The 4 most likely possibilities I see are:
0) Their tool only works on simpler languages that aren't Turing Complete; in which case the question becomes how gimped are the languages and what do we lose the ability to do by coding in them?
1a) It only works on a subset of normal code or 1b) a subset of possible bugs. In which case even more than before the question becomes where the limits of what it can do are.
2) They're trying to blow smoke up our USB ports.
As written, the article tends to imply 1a; but I trust PR publications about as far as I can dropkick the companies who create them.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
As in, don't let Microsoft write the software? 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Googler Sanmay Ved was the lucky buyer of "Google.com," if only for a minute. Sadly, he didn't get their income for that minute
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
