|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:yes, but the poo poo that gets stripped/changed can be really frustrating java.util.concurrent uses sun.misc.Unsafe so I don't think all the sun. packages are missing. unless openjdk ships a different implementation? that would be p. lovely if so
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
It's in OpenJDK 7 Mercurial: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/file/9b8c96f96a0f/src/share/classes/sun/misc/Unsafe.java Along with everything else: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/file/9b8c96f96a0f/src/share/classes/sun/misc/
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
with regards to your latest article, do you know of cool books/articles of people other than yourself that actively try to spread programming to those outside of the crusty hardcore types? i recently got my first dev job after living an unrelated background and while i'm trying to pick up stuff it is daunting sometimes with how little i know since i haven't written a compiler when i was 14 like my coworkers reading about fun things even kids can accomplish would make it seem that, hey, they can do a thing with little/no experience. i can do one too 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:i recently got my first dev job after living an unrelated background and while i'm trying to pick up stuff it is daunting sometimes with how little i know since i haven't written a compiler when i was 14 like my coworkers not to belittle your coworker's achievement, but don't be intimidated by compilers. they certainly can be monstrously complex, but the ones people hack together for shits and gigs aren't. if you work through the dragon book (which i think is still the best compiler text around), you'll have a simple one of your own written by page 80. e: also go read through the YOSPOS project thread. look at the stuff hubris and qwerty have been doing, then come up with a simple lil' project of your own as a channel for your learning. e2: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3561097&pagenumber=15&perpage=40#post418659702 coffeetable fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:not to belittle your coworker's achievement, but don't be intimidated by compilers. they certainly can be monstrously complex, but the ones people hack together for shits and gigs aren't. if you work through the dragon book (which i think is still the best compiler text around), you'll have a simple compiler written by page 80. oh no, i was just using that as a metaphor that they are infinitely more experienced in this than i am. they have been doing this for years and years while i am new to the field (and especially so in doing it professionally) it is lame to hear but i feel bad with how long it takes me to add new features that seem pretty simple at first 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:e2: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3561097&pagenumber=15&perpage=40#post418659702 as a guy with a physics background, that was really funny on a different note, is there a gold standard book on operating systems? i've done a few moocs to patch up the formal cs education i never received but i never did find one on that particular topic
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:with regards to your latest article, do you know of cool books/articles of people other than yourself that actively try to spread programming to those outside of the crusty hardcore types? somewhat, but far more local, or targeted to a specific demographic quote:i recently got my first dev job after living an unrelated background and while i'm trying to pick up stuff it is daunting sometimes with how little i know since i haven't written a compiler when i was 14 like my coworkers eh, it's ok, their experience blinds them to things that you will see, don't worry about being new, just worry if you're not learning anything. right now i'm learning more about programming from talking to children than i have done from talking to adults. the kids just make drawings and games and make the computer fun. it isn't impressive but they're having way more fun than I have had recently with code. the thing is, you don't need to be that clever to write good code. in some cases, writing really stupid code is often a good idea. by that i mean 'so simple and obvious, it's easy to maintain' as opposed to 'metaprogramming a new language to express the problem in' obligatory go and read 'the practice of programming', it's a good book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:on a different note, is there a gold standard book on operating systems? i've done a few moocs to patch up the formal cs education i never received but i never did find one on that particular topic just read through all this stuff and watch the videos and you'll be an operating system master in no time. http://www.templeos.org/
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
tef posted:the thing is, you don't need to be that clever to write good code. in some cases, writing really stupid code is often a good idea. by that i mean 'so simple and obvious, it's easy to maintain' as opposed to 'metaprogramming a new language to express the problem in' further down this road, if domain-specific languages are so powerful, why are they so rare? it seems like every c.s. guy fuckin loves to play with a dsl, so why do we not see them in common use commercially?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:as a guy with a physics background, that was really funny The dinosaur book is the best I think, the other one I know of is the Tanenbaum book
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:further down this road, if domain-specific languages are so powerful, why are they so rare? eh? they're really common. html, sql, (early?) matlab are all dsls
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:on a different note, is there a gold standard book on operating systems? i've done a few moocs to patch up the formal cs education i never received but i never did find one on that particular topic there are very very few books that are gold standard, but the trick is just to read more. the minix book is pretty well written but often idealistic. you may enjoy http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6.html xv6 too Flaming June posted:as a guy with a physics background, that was really funny at the uni i frequented, the running joke was that physicists made better programmers than cs students. they learned just enough programming to solve their problem, and had a little bit more rigor and dicipline too. the cs students would spend most of the time trying to validate their education with endless abstractions actually it wasn't a running joke it was more of a crushing realisation couched in humour anyway, as a newcomer to programming, my aphorisms to you would be as follows - if you feel the need to comment something to explain what the code is doing, rewrite the code: comments are useful ways to explain the intent and rationale of code, and aren't as useful when they serve as apologies for complexity - write simple dumb code that is easy to debug and test. you'll thank me later. - write defensive and slow code, check the assumptions you're making and hard code them into the code. - don't worry so much about being stupid, it's better than thinking you're clever. you will always go into things with the possibility of learning - don't write code you can extend, write code that's easy to replace or delete. frameworks and extensibility are best driven by hindsight, not optimistic views of the future. don't paint yourself into a corner under the guise of finding just the right abstraction. sometimes it's better to write 50 lines of code than 150 lines of setup so you only have to write or edit one line to change something—what happens is that your underlying assumptions about the problem change, so you'll have to rewrite all the framework and scaffold if you code is boring and easy to understand, you're doing a good job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:further down this road, if domain-specific languages are so powerful, why are they so rare? in ruby parlance, a dsl is what they call libraries. quote:it seems like every c.s. guy fuckin loves to play with a dsl, so why do we not see them in common use commercially? excel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:on a different note, is there a gold standard book on operating systems? i've done a few moocs to patch up the formal cs education i never received but i never did find one on that particular topic If you want to dig around inside a real production os along the way http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Implementation-Operating-System/dp/0201549794/
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:as a guy with a physics background, that was really funny Tanenbaum's Minix book: Operating Systems Design and Implementation Intel's Software Developer Manual
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
tef posted:in ruby parlance, a dsl is what they call libraries. sql?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
wow, lots to respond totef posted:the thing is, you don't need to be that clever to write good code. in some cases, writing really stupid code is often a good idea. by that i mean 'so simple and obvious, it's easy to maintain' as opposed to 'metaprogramming a new language to express the problem in' what about "so simple and stupid, it doesn't actually work." i'm finding it infinitely more difficult to try and do simple things with production code since there are a ton of little hangups and exceptions with every little thing tef posted:obligatory go and read 'the practice of programming', it's a good book. Hard NOP Life posted:The dinosaur book is the best I think, the other one I know of is the Tanenbaum book tef posted:there are very very few books that are gold standard, but the trick is just to read more. the minix book is pretty well written but often idealistic. you may enjoy http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6.html xv6 too unixbeard posted:If you want to dig around inside a real production os along the way http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Implementation-Operating-System/dp/0201549794/ thanks  i'm not interested in writing an os or anything like that. i've just been a windows user for most of my life and now am in the, erm, wonderful world of unix. it isn't so much that i want to just learn a lot about unix, but the experience open ups a horizon that there are many ways to do even simple stuff in the background. i find it to be kind of cool in a nerdy way my knowledge about computers tends to run either in the super high abstract level or the super low level stuff (material science). there's a lot of ground in-between i would like to understand tef posted:at the uni i frequented, the running joke was that physicists made better programmers than cs students. they learned just enough programming to solve their problem, and had a little bit more rigor and dicipline too. the cs students would spend most of the time trying to validate their education with endless abstractions one unusual aspect with regards to my formal education is that i did almost zero programming whatsoever while in college. i only used some materials in the higher level math courses i took (and sadly mostly forget now; both the programming and the math). i never interacted with the cs students so i never really had anyone to compare these skills to while there tef posted:anyway, as a newcomer to programming, my aphorisms to you would be as follows the job environment i am in is actually quite welcoming to these already, especially the second point. we have no distinct qa department, so all the devs write all the test code ourselves. one of the developers is very stern about code submissions that doesn't have tests to accompany it the last dashed point is probably the most difficult to wrap my head around as the new guy. my projects have all been in either python or java, and at day one they wanted me to write up stuff in Backbone.js  i have limited exposure to mvc and sometimes what you can and can't do with it is infuriating. the stuff already in place seems to be really modular, its just working with it to do new things that is roughsorry for the wall post. this thread is honestly really good
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
i've got a dumb question. if you have a function whose job it is to return an object depending on the parameters fed into the function, what's the best way to handle a failure? should i have a failure conditional that returns null or false? should i have the function fail silently and have the application calling it expect an object and handle a missing one accordingly? should i have it throw an exception and catch it somewhere up the stack in an appropriate manner? i've been doing the first, but i have a sneaking suspicion that it's probably not the right way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
change ur username immediately
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
tia
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:eh? they're really common. html, sql, (early?) matlab are all dsls ill give you SQL HTML isn't a programming language Matlab is its own awful thing. It may have started as a dal
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:HTML isn't a programming language what's your definition of a programming language e: nm just googled it myself. i don't see why markup languages aren't programming languages, 'cause they're certainly used to instruct a machine to do a thing, but the wise men of the internet disagree so welp coffeetable fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
your mom
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:i've got a dumb question. if you have a function whose job it is to return an object depending on the parameters fed into the function, what's the best way to handle a failure? pick one, and do it consistently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:i've got a dumb question. if you have a function whose job it is to return an object depending on the parameters fed into the function, what's the best way to handle a failure? throw the exception jesus christ that's like textbook what they're for
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:e: nm just googled it myself. i don't see why markup languages aren't programming languages, 'cause they're certainly used to instruct a machine to do a thing, but the wise men of the internet disagree so welp j-langers can't stand that somebody who picks fonts for a living programs them in css is prolog a programming language? is an excel sheet a programming language? is html a programming language? is css? is sass?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:j-langers can't stand that somebody who picks fonts for a living programs them in css yes yes no no no
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
why is css not a plang? its turing complete
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
FamDav posted:pick one, and do it consistently. received wisdom i've been working by is
coffeetable fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:received wisdom i've been working by is ignore all of this, throw an exception. i hope this devolves into numerous pages of augh exception time
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:received wisdom i've been working by is this but FamDav posted:pick one, and do it consistently. what you think is clearest is not always clearest to someone else. pick a standard and stick with it so the person who has to read your code doesnt have to devote thought to it. this applies to tabs vs. spaces, variable/function naming, and how you write your code in general. dumb and consistent code is good code.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:throw the exception Exceptions are for exceptional conditions. Use an option type if you can't find a good way to prevent improper input in the first place never fail silently if u can help it
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
shaggar is gonna be here within 20 minutes
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
why do people parrot "exceptions are for exceptional conditions" he literally said "whats the best way to handle a failure of a function" is that not a loving exceptional condition? what the gently caress is an exceptional condition? is your exceptional condition so loving exceptional that it should just terminate the program? if thats the case why the gently caress do exceptions even exist
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Bloody posted:ignore all of this, throw an exception. Bloody posted:why do people parrot "exceptions are for exceptional conditions" look at this loving moron springing his own trap ugh you make me sick
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
FamDav posted:pick one, and do it consistently. / 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Exceptions are for exceptional conditions. ftfy, go jack off in pony land Malcolm XML posted:Use an option type if you can't find a good way to prevent improper input in the first place now i'm conflicted because this is right
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Bloody posted:why do people parrot "exceptions are for exceptional conditions" Springing trap: Is failure exceptional? Everyone expects x/0 to fail so IEEE has rules on what u get (+/- inf or nan depending on x ) of course u can force it to signal sigfpe if you want instead making u handle the signal Partial functions are a pain to deal with in general so i use exceptions sparingly and only when the type system can't handle it well
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
gucci void main posted:shaggar is gonna be here within 20 minutes maine loses power after ten pm, so everyone is busy pumping tomorrows shower water and lobster broth into the boiler
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
coffeetable posted:what's your definition of a programming language Cocoa Crispies posted:j-langers can't stand that somebody who picks fonts for a living programs them in css html is a data format. this is distinct from a programming language because i don't have to solve the halting problem to interpret it css was intended to be a data format but they hosed it up laughably badly and ended up turing complete by accident excel was intended to straddle the line, and be turing complete in a limited way, but it turns out that being a fully-fledged programming language was actually useful and important, so they made that easier and easier over time Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 06:12
|
|