|
coffeetable posted:Ah, sorry. I meant L = { M : for all inputs x, M(x) halts in 100|x|^2 + 200 steps }. I have no idea what you want to do with diagonalization. Instead, you should show that if L is decidable, then a decider for L could be used to solve the halting problem.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Hey guys, I am considering learning how to code. I have no experience in this field. I own an online business, a few other websites, and am planning on starting a very large project within the next 6-12 months, which everything else would take a backseat to. This project would certainly require a full-time coder. The problem is that while I'm not broke, I am hesitant to use a lot of my resources to outsource something like this again. I've had two different coders and two site designers do my other projects and I haven't had the greatest experience. It's been expensive and time consuming. If I were to start now, and put a ton of effort into learning this stuff, would I be able to be competent enough in six months' time to create a somewhat coding-intensive website myself? I'd imagine it would be similarly difficult to coding a simple forum from scratch. Right now my websites are essentially side sources of income (although the markets they are in have been doing spectacularly awful this year) and my main source of income is playing online poker. I am making between $100-$150 an hour as a poker player, but if it's worth it to learn the "hacker" trade, I can sacrifice a substantial amount of time to do so. If not, I would bite the bullet and outsource the coding again. Lastly, I'll very likely start more websites in the future, so perhaps this is a valuable time investment. Any advice is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 07:29
|
|
|
Read this article: http://norvig.com/21-days.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
shrughes posted:I have no idea what you want to do with diagonalization. Instead, you should show that if L is decidable, then a decider for L could be used to solve the halting problem. well drat. it was at the end of a chapter on diagonalization, so my silly mistake was getting tunnel vision. thanks 
coffeetable fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 08:43
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Read this article: http://norvig.com/21-days.html This is not even close to relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 08:53
|
|
|
Well it is if he doesn't want to create a ton of sites that aren't full of SQL and XSS vulnerabilities, otherwise sure he can learn to code in 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Any UI patterns/tips/research on how to handle applications for non-technical users who want lots and lots of options/settings/configuration? Our clients want EVERYTHING as a setting. Of course, users want everything. And I have no problem programming the options. But, we have mainly non-technical users, some of whom find computers very intimidating (even if I judge from our internal customer representatives). We do custom installations with support and training (i.e. our customers number in the hundreds, not the millions). We're considering having preset groups of options that our support tech can configure for the clients. I'm also wondering if it is a good idea to have a "basic settings" and an "advanced settings". chocojosh fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
chocojosh posted:Any UI patterns/tips/research on how to handle application for non-technical users who want lots and lots of options/settings/configuration? Hit them with a stick, until they achieve enlightenment
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 15:33
|
|
|
chocojosh posted:Any UI patterns/tips/research on how to handle applications for non-technical users who want lots and lots of options/settings/configuration? Tough to answer without knowing a LOT more about your industry, product, and customers, but I design UIs for a group of people who are generally below "average" ( and 'average' is setting the bar very low ) when it comes to technology, and what works for me is: 1. Have as few options as humanly possible showing. Only put what 90% of users want to change each time they use the software. It's very often that this means showing NO options, assuming you have sane defaults that *most* users will use. If users set an option once and tend to leave it alone, hide it. If 95% of your users use the same setting, set it to that and they never need to see it. If that setting will depend on the individual ( i.e. many users have a need for different defaults), show it to them the first time they use the software, let them set it, tell them they can change it later if they want ( with instructions on how to do so ) and then hide it. 2. Find what subset of options most users will change over their usage, but change infrequently. These are your "easy to find" options. There is a button / link / whatever that reveals this ( generally small ) subset of options. There is also a link / button / whatever to "Advanced Options" with scary sounding 'you will be baffled and confused by this crap' text that gets them to the set of everything. Obviously this will require either lots of data on how people are currently using the product, or user testing for something new. If 90% of your users change 90% of the options frequently, then you have a fun design challenge ahead of you! Just remember: an interface is improved by REMOVING things, not by adding stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
shrughes posted:This is not even close to relevant. Where should I start? Perhaps I should learn the basics then determine whether I'd like to continue with the endeavor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
I know nothing about compiling things on Windows, but I do have the full source code to a small C GUI program which needs some headers generally found in things like Visual Studio. Is there any quick and painless ways to compile something for Windows without having to shell out for Visual Studio?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
The Windows API is free and so is Visual C++ Express.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 00:44
|
|
|
Troyo posted:Where should I start? Perhaps I should learn the basics then determine whether I'd like to continue with the endeavor? Read through something like http://www.djangobook.com/ If you can make sense of it, give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Troyo posted:Where should I start? Perhaps I should learn the basics then determine whether I'd like to continue with the endeavor? If you decide to it yourself you will be trusting the coding of your project to a person with only 6 months of textbook learning and no professional experience behind them. That does not sound like a good idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 03:26
|
|
|
Another question from me for the people familiar with IBM DB2 and stuff like that- How hard is DataStage to use for someone who has never worked with databases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
The Gate of Nanna posted:I know nothing about compiling things on Windows, but I do have the full source code to a small C GUI program which needs some headers generally found in things like Visual Studio. Is there any quick and painless ways to compile something for Windows without having to shell out for Visual Studio? If you're used to a *nix development environment, MinGW provides a make/gcc/bash build environment with the w32api headers and libraries preinstalled. If you're actually on linux, this makefile will download and build a linux-host, windows-target gcc4 cross compiler, again with the w32api headers and libraries (grab the development version or you'll have to download some of the parts yourself, mingw changed their download URLs since the last release). In either case you can add more windows libs just by putting the headers in include/ and the .dll/.a/.lib files in lib/. I'm given to understand that there's also a free version of Visual Studio (VS Express?) which you could use if you don't feel like using gcc, but not having used it myself I can't tell you anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
A small C++/Visual Studio question: Does VS9 perform arithmetic on straight-up constants at compile-time? For example, OpenGL measures rotation in degrees, whereas the physics library I'm using measures it in radians. If I want to do something like this: mRotation = (mpBody->GetAngle() * (180.0f / M_PI)) % 360.0f; Is the compiler smart enough to simplify 180/pi to 57.2957795 when it compiles, or do I have to declare ONE_EIGHTY_OVER_PI as a constant to avoid the extra instructions at runtime?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
In general, compilers do not fold floating-point constants (VS2010 might, due to changes in the C++ standard). If you actually care, and you shouldn't right now, check the assembly code generated by the compiler. You'd probably be better spending your time working on other stuff though, instead of worrying about micro-optimizations (unless you've already profiled your code and know that this is taking a large percentage of your CPU time).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
I asked a question in the "C and C++ General Questions" thread and no one really responded, so I figure I'll repeat my question here, with the additional subquestion of whether or not a poorly made Makefile would cause a segmentation fault. Rusty Kettle posted:Quick question, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:In general, compilers do not fold floating-point constants (VS2010 might, due to changes in the C++ standard). I'm not sure where you're getting this. This is really a very common optimization; I don't have a copy of VS to test with, but both gcc and clang fold wasabimilkshake's constant at -O1. The gotchas are: - Programmers need to be careful about order of operations because compilers usually can't re-associate FP operations. blah * (180f / M_PI) can be folded, but blah * 180f / M_PI can't. - The compiler has to simulate FP arithmetic on the target architecture, so if you're cross-compiling, sometimes you lose optimizations because the host system isn't quite sure what to do. - A lot of compilers for embedded systems are total crap and don't actually do any optimization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:I'm not sure where you're getting this. This is really a very common optimization; I don't have a copy of VS to test with, but both gcc and clang fold wasabimilkshake's constant at -O1. What version of GCC? As I recall, before they started working on C++0x support, they didn't do this. Since you have to do this for C++0x, it's obviously going to be the standard going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
This might be a bit of a weird question, but at what point are you generally allowed to say "I can program" ? When i first started learning a few months ago (mainly just just to see if i could do it) i thought that if could make a simple program with a user interface that responds to user input, then i'd be able to say 'i can program'. Now that ive done that, and given how easy it was, i still feel like a complete novice (and rightfully so). Then i thought that if i could make a simple interactive game (no fancy graphics, just nuts and bolts stuff) then i'd be able to say 'i can program'. Ok. done that, and i still feel horribly inadequate as a programmer. It feels like each step i take to get better, i just realise how little i actually know about programming. I'm trying to get a job in IT at the moment. It's not directly programming related, but it's a job where programming knowledge would be beneficial to have on my CV. At what point is it 'ok' to say i can program on my CV, and not look like a complete idiot if called on it at interview ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:What version of GCC? As I recall, before they started working on C++0x support, they didn't do this. Since you have to do this for C++0x, it's obviously going to be the standard going forward. Well, with the machines I can ssh to, I can only directly verify it back to gcc-3.4.6 (March 2006), but the old GCC hands here remember when RMS rewrote the FP folding code 10 years ago, so I'm going to say it doesn't have anything to do with C++0x. It's true that '0x is the first C/C++ standard to codify the idea of a FP constant expression and to mandate folding in certain situations, but the whole reason that's acceptable (†) is that there's decades of compiler support for FP folding, only it's been in optimizers rather than front-ends. † Not that the C++ committee has ever felt particularly constrained by what the implementors think is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:What version of GCC? As I recall, before they started working on C++0x support, they didn't do this. Since you have to do this for C++0x, it's obviously going to be the standard going forward. Both clang 2.7 and gcc 4.4 do it now. A random gcc dev I just asked says that gcc has been folding floats since real.c was added in 1993 or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Rusty Kettle posted:I asked a question in the "C and C++ General Questions" thread and no one really responded, so I figure I'll repeat my question here, with the additional subquestion of whether or not a poorly made Makefile would cause a segmentation fault. As for the makefile question, I can't think of anything that could be screwed up at the Makefile level that would cause a segfault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
Dijkstracula posted:As for the makefile question, I can't think of anything that could be screwed up at the Makefile level that would cause a segfault. Pointing to the wrong mpicc could do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Pointing to the wrong mpicc could do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Dijkstracula posted:Ah, true, if you were using the right mpiexec but were using the wrong mpicc, that could do it, too. Oh wow. I didn't think about that. That is a good point. What is the best way of removing MPICH2, so I can test out OpenMPI without it? EDIT: Also, the reason I am looking to have both is because I would like fortran support. Rusty Kettle fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 03:45
|
|
|
[deleted]
Aesop fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
Rusty Kettle posted:What is the best way of removing MPICH2, so I can test out OpenMPI without it?  Did you get it from macports or build from source or ...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
At the risk of sounding  , can anyone help me with this?I'm trying to set this up for someone to use as a .sh: code:: command not foundsh: line 2: 'home/Susan/mktorrent.sh: line 4: syntax error near unexpected token `do 'home/Susan/mktorrent.sh: line 4: `do How do I fix this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 12:28
|
|
|
code:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 12:33
|
|
|
Thanks, but it still produces the same errors as before.  This is Ubuntu 10.04 if it makes any difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 12:46
|
|
|
LittleBob posted:Thanks, but it still produces the same errors as before. Your bash is different than my bash then. My version works for me with echo instead of mktorrent. What is the error you now get, because your previous error is impossible with my version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
It's still this: Susan@ns211627:~/OCR$ sh ~/mktorrent.sh : command not foundsh: line 2: 'home/Susan/mktorrent.sh: line 4: syntax error near unexpected token `do 'home/Susan/mktorrent.sh: line 4: `do
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 13:48
|
|
|
LittleBob posted:It's still this: That token does not exist in the script... So this is an impossibility if you're running a saved version of my script.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 13:51
|
|
|
I copy pasted your code directly in to nano and saved as mktorrent.sh. This is what I have if I reopen it:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 14:10
|
|
|
I can't tell from the image and don't trust Bash's error reporting to not have off-by-one problems; is the shabang actually on line 1?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
LittleBob posted:It's still this: Are you sure you're running the right version of the script? It looks like you're in the OCR directory but you're running the script in your home directory. Contra Duck fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Dijkstracula posted:probably the same way you installed it I built it from source. The problem is that the "make uninstall" command might end up uninstalling the mpicc, mpiexec, and so on. Really what I want is to revert to OSX's standard OpenMPI, and then try again from there to create a fresh installation of MPICH2 for fortran only. I think my initial error was that I used the default installation that did everything, and that overwrote the OpenMPI binaries or something, which is causing my segmentation fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 15:59
|
|