|
Starting with the standard library, modules promise to improve both compilation speed and how C++ developers organize code. #include <i-do-not-get-it>
"This will compile 10 times faster than the old version using #include <iostream>, Stroustrup said." OK, fine. I guess I'll allow it
|
|
|
|
|
More boilerplate, so I'll probably pass.
I wonder what it would take to just compile everything together instead of compiling one "translation unit" at a time.
But after switching to CMake with Ninja, I don't care about build times. Maybe 5 times as fast as the old way.
|
|
|
|
|
A toolkit for building rich console apps for .NET, .NET Core, and Mono that works on Windows, the Mac, and Linux/Unix. So we can all go back to those wonderful UIs of yore
|
|
|
|
|
I thought "rich console apps" was a lame joke, but this looks quite good!
|
|
|
|
|
“Top Gun” fans knew ahead of time that Val Kilmer would be reprising his role of Tom “Iceman” Kazansky in the sequel, but the specifics of the actor’s return were a question mark considering Kilmer lost the ability to speak after undergoing throat cancer treatment in 2014. "Some people didn't like what the voice did say, so I took the voice and I locked it away"
Yeah, I'm posting celebrity news now. (but I blame management)
|
|
|
|
|
The technology behind it is actually interesting.
Pity that their biggest use will be to abuse it to create better fake videos... 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
It may be nearly three years since the world officially exhausted all of the available IPv4 internet addresses, but now a new initiative has been proposed that could free up hundreds of millions of addresses that are currently unused – or are they? I thought we've all moved to IPv6?
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone remember what an internet was? As opposed to an intranet, that is?
If you had your education at the start of the 1980s, intranetting handled subnetworks within a single addressing domain, a single network architecture, a single protocol family. Internetting, on the other hand, handled the issues related to different addressing formats or local, uncoordinated address ranges, variations in network protocols, different basic technologies (such as POTS, ISDN, GSM).
In the network wars of the 1980s, the OSI camp did have a real internetting protocol, for uniting data networks in a way similar to the unified POTS / ISDN / GSM phone networks. You could submit traffic to an "interworking function" (IWF), specifying the destination address format and value, which might be different from your own. The IWF would forward the traffic to the identified network, and send it out with the specified address, in that network. It was NOT seen as a goal that every network should convert to the same protocols, the same address format and a single address space; the very purpose of an internet was to allow different networks to cooperate.
If you read the early RFCs on internetting - including those before v4 - you can easily see that there were people promoting the same sort of ideas even in internet IP: The IWF transmitted and received IP packets to a network rather than to an end node, and forwarded data in its local network according to the local network protocol - at a high level, very much like the OSI alternative. As we all know, those voices were fought back. The entire network world was forced to adopt a single network architecture, a single protocol family, a single homogenous address space.
If those that were forced down had rather won the internal wars in the internet camp, we would have had 4.3 billion networks available, rather than 4.3 billion endpoints. Then IPv4 would have been sufficient for a hundred years or more.
The advantage of having a world wide homogenous standard is of course that any IPv4 application may run on any IPv4 network, because it is the only thing there is. The world has proven many times that we are capable of handling a few alternatives, such as Android vs. iPhone apps, 120 vs. 220 VAC household current, motors for diesel and gasoline (even electricity!), POTS and ISDN and GSM, AA and AAA and 18650 battery cells ... There is no real reason why computer networks "must" have a single alternative, with no choices. If we had gone for a true internet, in the 'heterogenous networks' sense, we would have been able to cope.
In a sense, internet NATing is a kind of mapping an internet address onto a local address. (In principle, the local network could be using a different network technology, but that would break with the "Any network application can hook up to any network anywhere".) If NATing had been included in Internet from the very beginning, the 'Local Network Address' could have been included in the IP header, similar to the OSI IP header. Ideally, that local address should have a format code, like in OSI IP, but even without, it would have solved a great problem, although not that of heterogenous networks.
Now that 'Local Network Address' is not part of the IP packet header, all is lost, isn't it? Well, we do have a TCP header, allowing local addressing to a TCP port within a node. We could have defined a similar header - NAT would be a somewhat misleading name, but it would serve functions not unlike NAT. If a 'NAT header' is present, the IP network address would address a network (sic!), the NAT header a local node within that network (and if present, the TCP header would address a port at that local node).
If it had been done this way, we could have had a gradual transition from the old style: No NAT header => End node address, NAT header => Network address, use NAT part for local addressing. The backbone network wouldn't be affected at all. The major change would be that a sender would need an interface to the networking functions that not only would handle <host>:<port> but also <network>:<host>:<port> - with two colons in the address, the second field is put into a NAT header.
I am about 108% sure that something like this must have been discussed in the discussions that lead up to IPv6. Today, we think of addressing extensions being The Primary Reason for IPv6. If that was all there was to it, imagine how much simpler and more flexible it would have been to just add the definition of a 'NAT header' to IPv4!
Of course there is more to IPv6. But 25+ years after the first IPv6 RFCs started appearing, those other aspects of IPv6 has proved not to be fundamental. There hasn't been a very strong demand.
If a 'NAT header' had been added to IPv4 30 years ago, we could have lived with it while waiting for IPv6 to materialize. Maybe IPv6 wouldn't have happened - not in the form it has today. With address limitations solved, a new protocol would have to provide more advantages (beyond solving addressing limitations) than it does today.
It didn't happen that way. That's a pity, really.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm already at IPv7 
|
|
|
|
|
Just get rid of the crap IoT that is connected to the internet with the only sense of sucking data from their users instead of making something really useful for them. 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Over 3.6 million MySQL servers are publicly exposed on the Internet and responding to queries, making them an attractive target to hackers and extortionists. It is open source...
|
|
|
|
|
I have to wonder how many of these exposed servers are people running them at home or in small businesses that have zero cybersecurity in place.
|
|
|
|
|
That's axiomatic. Didn't you just describe the entire user base?
|
|
|
|
|
So...
MiSQL es su SQL? 
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
In our first issue, PC Magazine interviewed the 26-year-old founder of Microsoft about building the original IBM PC. Four packed decades later and we still have questions. 640 TB ought to be enough for everyone?
I kid - Windows 31 will probably be distributed on some petabyte storage media.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I kid - Windows 31 will probably be distributed on some petabyte storage media.
Will square corners be back in style? Or will it be that a window can't have parallel sides?
|
|
|
|
|
 Square corners, and we’ll be back to battleship grey.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: 640 TB ought to be enough for everyone?
That's not even enough for my collection of p... ersonal projects 
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Windows 31 will probably be distributed on some petabyte storage media.
If Bill had his way, Windows would be encoded into ACGT base sequences and injected into your DNA.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Windows 31 will probably be distributed on some petabyte storage media.
And the 90% of that will be preinstalled crapware   
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The care amount is just a way for us to see how much someone cares about something—it helps us resolve arguments "To the degree that I do understand, I don't care"
One of the greatest movie reviews from one of the greatest movie reviewers (IMO)
Although I did kind of like the movie, myself
|
|
|
|
|
What's worse? Ignorance or Indifference?
I don't know and I don't care...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
An option for job growth path to consider is a team lead—considered by many to be a position that is a culmination of long-time efforts, passion and dedication as an IT specialist. But is becoming a team lead an opportunity that an ambitious developer should consider? "No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself, or to get all the credit for doing it."
|
|
|
|
|
How many great developers were promoted to terribles team leaders?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
