Look at what Sun says Java is not suitable for to get a short list. IIRC
they included stuff such as life support machinery in hospitals, air traffic
control, and nuclear reactors. Space Shuttle or manned-space-flight rocket
I think this is primarily because Java is not a real-time
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Mark Fowler wrote:
As for the real time nature of garbage collectors, Shevek and I (and some
others) wrote a paper together on this, so I could say a lot here.
Especially about how Perl is much more real time as it can do better at
allocating and deallocating the same bit
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:42:08PM +, Shevek wrote:
I later prove that it is possible to do a hard real time reference
counting garbage collector,
I've heard of implementations of hard real time GCs but they're
ultra-slow. Can you prove one comparably as fast as a non-real
time one is
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Paul Makepeace wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:42:08PM +, Shevek wrote:
I later prove that it is possible to do a hard real time reference
counting garbage collector,
I've heard of implementations of hard real time GCs but they're
ultra-slow. Can you prove one
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 06:56:02PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
Look at what Sun says Java is not suitable for to get a short list. IIRC
they included stuff such as life support machinery in hospitals, air traffic
control, and nuclear reactors. Space Shuttle or manned-space-flight rocket
I
Michael Stevens [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*"Corn syrup" still sounds like something that would taste of wheat. I
*was talking to someone on a talker about this today, but they said they hadn't
*found anything in the UK yet that included it, so I have no reference
*whatsoever for what it is,
However, I don't question the plumber's competence, or
indeed pretend to
anyone including myself that I can do a good job of it.
The same should
apply to programming. If I were to try my hand at
re-plumbing my kitchen,
I know I'd make a god-awful mess, and I am intelligent enough to
Jonathan Peterson wrote:
There is nothing wrong with bad programming.
There is however lots of thinsg wrong with teaching bad pregramming.
Whilst I agree with you to a certain extent about cars a less sinister
explanation is that cars *ARE* getting hideously compilcated with
variable valve
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:25:09PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
No, I disagree. This is like a mechanic saying "You really oughtn't to
change your own oili ...
If the user doesn't know how to check their oil levels, what grade of oil
is needed and so on, then yes, they shouldn't be doing
* at 02/02 12:25 - Jonathan Peterson said:
However, I don't question the plumber's competence, or
indeed pretend to
anyone including myself that I can do a good job of it.
The same should
apply to programming. If I were to try my hand at
re-plumbing my kitchen,
I know I'd
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:47:39PM +, Struan Donald wrote:
you have to teach them some theory of good programming, as at the end
of the day it _will_ make their lives easier.
More importantly, it'll make *our* lives easier :-)
--
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:25:09PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
No, I disagree. This is like a mechanic saying "You really oughtn't to
change your own oil, oil is very important, if you get it wrong you could
really damage your engine, that sort of thing should be left to a qualified
You could argue that irregular shaped bolts is an effort to
save people
from themselves.
Yah. Like Java saves you from procedural programming :-)
Agreed. However, if "Programming Perl for Dummies" tells you
things that
are Just Plain Wrong - like there's no need for strict, -w or
-T - then
the book does more harm than good.
Agreed. Bad teaching is inexcusable and leads only to harm.
If they keep their bad programming to their
Michael Stevens wrote:
(pedantry: There *are* applications where bad programming
could kill. I don't think any of us work in them, but I'm
pretty sure they exist.)
Look at what Sun says Java is not suitable for to get a short list. IIRC
they included stuff such as life support machinery in
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 06:56:02PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
Michael Stevens wrote:
(pedantry: There *are* applications where bad programming
could kill. I don't think any of us work in them, but I'm
pretty sure they exist.)
Look at what Sun says Java is not suitable for to get a
There is nothing wrong with bad programming. Sure, don't pay for it, sure
don't use it for anything important or anything that will affect other
people's lives. But lots of people get satisfaction and reward from making
bad programs, just like they get satisfaction from singing badly in the
17 matches
Mail list logo
