Comment On A Collection Of Comments

It's time once again to give all those cool-but-too-small-to-make-a-full-post submissions a home ... [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:32 • by Alex Papadimoulis
I just have to comment on the last one ... No no! That's a Bad Perl! You Don't comment out "use strict." You'll make a mess all over the code. Bad Perl!

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:37 • by Manni
58142 in reply to 58141
Yes, Windows NT is a butt-head OS. I suppose the code name for Mac OS X was "Beavis"?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:41 • by jvancil
58143 in reply to 58142
The only good OS is one that has been dynamically generated by a dynamic OS Generating tool...

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:43 • by Chris I
It might seem daunting at first, but take note that
"GetProfileCustomerEntityReceiverInformationReceiverAndProgrammingInformationListAccessCardInformationProgrammingListProductDetails"
instances could be referenced using much more manageable instance
names, such as "gpcerirapilaciplpdOne"

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:47 • by OneFactor
58145 in reply to 58142

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:47 • by OneFactor
58146 in reply to 58142

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:48 • by OneFactor
58147 in reply to 58146
sorry for the double post, my finger slipped and i double clicked

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:49 • by somedude
58148 in reply to 58146
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation
of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of
the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided
between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of
the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To
transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation
- I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in
quantum mechanical effects.





wo wo.... slow down egghead

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:56 • by Cranky
58149 in reply to 58147
OneFactor:
sorry for the double post, my finger slipped and i double clicked


Um... triple, including the apology...

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 14:58 • by WTF Batman
Alex Papadimoulis:

#use strict;            #good perl


The hallmark of the exasperated OTP* coder finally giving up his struggle to understand perl semantics, opting instead for mediocrity, insanity, and a slow descent into hell.

*OTP = Other Than PERL

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:01 • by OneFactor
58151 in reply to 58148
Anonymous:
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.




wo wo.... slow down egghead


Point well taken, if I had slowed down I would have realized that the path integral on the Minkowski really did make sense in order to account for a frame of reference that had non-constant velocity. I really should think more before posting.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:03 • by Randolpho
58152 in reply to 58145
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.



I think you and the author should get together and chat about it sometime, but I fear that if you do it'll set off a matter/anti-matter chain reaction that will destroy the entire universe.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:05 • by Cirdan
58153 in reply to 58149
Anonymous:
OneFactor:
sorry for the double post, my finger slipped and i double clicked

Um... triple, including the apology...


I don't think posting _different_ messages usually counts as double posting. Then again, what do I know?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:07 • by Cirdan
58154 in reply to 58149
Anonymous:
OneFactor:
sorry for the double post, my finger slipped and i double clicked

Um... triple, including the apology...


Ach, how silly. That doesn't really count as a third copy of the post, does it?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:10 • by jsumners
kungFuDeathGrip();

I love it! And it is evidently used quite a bit -- http://www.koders.com/?s=kungfudeathgrip&_%3Abtn=Search&_%3Ala=*&_%3Ali=*

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:12 • by Xargon
58156 in reply to 58146
OneFactor:

Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"?

You are correct about Cephied uncertainty and a variable Hubble constant due to an accelerated expansion.  However, the age of the Universe estimated at 13.7+/-0.2 billion years is based on the WMAP analysis of the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. 

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:14 • by WTF Batman
58157 in reply to 58155
jsumners:
kungFuDeathGrip();

I love it! And it is evidently used quite a bit -- http://www.koders.com/?s=kungfudeathgrip&_%3Abtn=Search&_%3Ala=*&_%3Ali=*


Indeed. Considerably more than kungFuSuicideGrip() --

http://www.koders.com/?s=kungfusuicidegrip&_%3Abtn=Search&_%3Ala=*&_%3Ali=*

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:16 • by The BitShifter
Alex Papadimoulis:




--SNIP--

Jeremy Lew found this little comment in some C++ source file.
Judging from the comment, the developer at least had an inkling of his
questionable sanity ...


void sysDraw::close()
{
// Is this necessary????
// probably not but what the hell.
// better safe than sorry
if (!this) return;

// ... snip ...
}
--SNIP--





I have to comment on this one, depending on what other hackery he was
engaged in, this may have been a valid concern.  I've developed
C++ applications for small systems that used pointers to C++ member
functions as call-backs and it is conceivable that

the actual call site might get bad/null data.  Granted, the whole system was fugly, but that is a different story.



--The BitShifter, certified language abuse specialist.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:17 • by Sean
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize

Just reading this gives me carpal tunnel.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:18 • by WTF Batman
58160 in reply to 58156
Xargon:
OneFactor:

Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"?

You are correct about Cephied uncertainty and a variable Hubble constant due to an accelerated expansion.  However, the age of the Universe estimated at 13.7+/-0.2 billion years is based on the WMAP analysis of the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. 



Question for you, since you'd seem to know:  What happens when you put silverware in the cosmic microwave? Just curious.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:23 • by Xargon
58161 in reply to 58160
WTF Batman:
Xargon:
OneFactor:

Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"?

You are correct about Cephied uncertainty and a variable Hubble constant due to an accelerated expansion.  However, the age of the Universe estimated at 13.7+/-0.2 billion years is based on the WMAP analysis of the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. 



Question for you, since you'd seem to know:  What happens when you put silverware in the cosmic microwave? Just curious.

The glass rotating plate breaks and God's kitchen starts on fire.  In anger, God throws the resulting debris out the window.  But that only happened once, at the K-T boundary.  The dinosaurs weren't too happy about it, but then again what do they know?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:25 • by rbriem
58162 in reply to 58152
Anonymous:
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.



I think you and the author should get together and chat about it sometime, but I fear that if you do it'll set off a matter/anti-matter chain reaction that will destroy the entire universe.



If a matter/anti-matter chain reaction destryed the entire universe and there was no one left to witness it, would it still be cool?


Let's try it and see ...

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:28 • by Gene Wirchenko
Alex Papadimoulis:
It's time once again to give all those cool-but-too-small-to-make-a-full-post submissions a home ...


And like a new puppy, they make messes on the rug.

...comments budget...


A very apt turn of phrase.  From a quick Google, it looks as if it may be an original.

And I suppose I'll wrap it up with this comment that Adam Lazur found at the top of just about every single in-house-developed Perl script. Note that the "#" is the comment character ...


#use strict;            #good perl


Get that puppy out of here!

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:30 • by Gene Wirchenko
58164 in reply to 58150
WTF Batman:
Alex Papadimoulis:

#use strict;            #good perl


The hallmark of the exasperated OTP* coder finally giving up his struggle to understand perl semantics, opting instead for mediocrity, insanity, and a slow descent into hell.

*OTP = Other Than PERL


Are Perl and the Necronomicon isomorphic?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:31 • by Maurits
For all-too-many Perl "programmers", #use strict; is the Perl equivalent of PleaseCompile.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:31 • by marvin_rabbit
Alex Papadimoulis:
synchronized (surelyReachableObjectsWhichHaveToBeMarkedAsSuch) {

waitRecommended =
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize
== surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();

surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize =
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();

while (!surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.isEmpty())
{
surelyReachableObjectsWhichHaveToBeMarkedAsSuch.push(
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.getFirst() );
}
}


Well that just proves that good code CAN be self documenting!

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:31 • by DarthDevilous
58167 in reply to 58155
jsumners:
kungFuDeathGrip();

I love it! And it is evidently used quite a bit -- http://www.koders.com/?s=kungfudeathgrip&_%3Abtn=Search&_%3Ala=*&_%3Ali=*


After reading the occasional comment in the results of the search, am I right in thinking the kungFuDeathGrip is a instance of a smart pointer created to keep the ref count above nil?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:35 • by WTF Batman
58168 in reply to 58164
Gene Wirchenko:


Are Perl and the Necronomicon isomorphic?



They can be. It depends heavily on whether you 'use strict;'.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:36 • by Stu
58169 in reply to 58146
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.



I think that's what happens when a programmer is told the function needs more commenting.

It probaby orginally said something like:
//Return the current value of Time.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:43 • by mrprogguy
58170 in reply to 58169

But why would you need a wrapper to return the value of an (I assume) intrinsic?  Wouldn't

SQLWord sqlWT = Time;

have worked just as well?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:45 • by W.B. McNamara
Funny -- after seeing the Commentator for the first time yesterday, I put together a post on some of the best comments that I've come across in various chunks of code.

My all-time favorite?  A little one-liner dumped into a couple thousand lines of byzantine code.  I like to picture the expression on the coder's face as they finally figured out what it was all actually supposed to do:

;;; oh sh!t, it tries to write to oracle, too...

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:46 • by geewj
58172 in reply to 58154
Cirdan:
Anonymous:
OneFactor:
sorry for the double post, my finger slipped and i
double clicked

Um... triple, including the apology...


I don't think posting _different_ messages usually counts as double posting. Then again, what do I know?


Cirdan:
Anonymous:
OneFactor:
sorry for the double post, my finger slipped and i double clicked

Um... triple, including the apology...


Ach, how silly. That doesn't really count as a third copy of the post, does it?


Testing your double post with different messages theory?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 15:47 • by Opposable Thumbs

KungFuDeathGrip is the semi-official name for CTRL-ALT-DELETE equivalent on SGI systems. I think it was CTRL-ALT-F7-BACKSPACE. Try this out and you can get a good idea of where the name came from.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:02 • by R.Flowers
58176 in reply to 58160

WTF Batman:


Question for you, since you'd seem to know:  What happens when you put silverware in the cosmic microwave? Just curious.


You end up with the Fantastic Fork(TM).

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:06 • by Rank Amateur
58177 in reply to 58173
Anonymous:

KungFuDeathGrip is the semi-official name for CTRL-ALT-DELETE equivalent on SGI systems. I think it was CTRL-ALT-F7-BACKSPACE. Try this out and you can get a good idea of where the name came from.



With one hand?

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:18 • by Rank Amateur
Alex Papadimoulis:

synchronized (surelyReachableObjectsWhichHaveToBeMarkedAsSuch) {
  waitRecommended =
    surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize
      == surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();

    surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize =
      surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();

    while (!surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.isEmpty())
    {
      surelyReachableObjectsWhichHaveToBeMarkedAsSuch.push(
        surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.getFirst() );
    }
}


If everyone used names like these, spotting bugs would be so much easier. For example, it's clear the sixth line needs to be:


surelyReachableObjectsWhichWouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();


Unsincerely,


--Rank

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:37 • by Gene Wirchenko
Alex Papadimoulis:

synchronized (surelyReachableObjectsWhichHaveToBeMarkedAsSuch) {

waitRecommended =
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize
== surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();

surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContentedSize =
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.size();

while (!surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.isEmpty())
{
surelyReachableObjectsWhichHaveToBeMarkedAsSuch.push(
surelyReachableObjectsWhichShouldHaveBeenProcessedButWereLockContented.getFirst() );
}
}


"...LockContented..."?

"contention" is not from "content" but "contend".

Carnation Condensed Milk: From Contended Cows.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:43 • by hash
58183 in reply to 58164
Can I just say that ending every post with

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko


is not only annoying as hell, but redundant. Your username is Gene Wirchenko, you don't need to reinforce the fact that it was you who posted the message. Maybe i'm the only one that cringes everytime I read



Sincerely,



Gene Wirchenko

but oh well.

Sincerely,

hash.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:50 • by OneFactor
58185 in reply to 58156
Xargon:
OneFactor:

Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"?


You are correct about Cephied uncertainty and a variable Hubble constant due to an accelerated expansion.  However, the age of the Universe estimated at 13.7+/-0.2 billion years is based on the WMAP analysis of the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. 


Aren't some stars dated at 16 billion years old though? I'm rather fond using the planck temperature divided by the cosmic background temperature, squaring it and saying thats the age of the universe in planck time. Though all theoretical calculations have a factor of 2pi as the margin for error.Which is bigger than the Cepheid uncertainty.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:52 • by Omnifarious
58186 in reply to 58145
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.

How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?


It's a joke. How do you know when the Universe was created? Maybe it was created a second ago. :-)


OneFactor:

Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.


Yeah, that stuff is just a mistake. Someone trying to be clever and doing it by saying a lot of nonsense that seems like it makes sense until you actually know something about the topic.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:54 • by foxyshadis
58187 in reply to 58169
Anonymous:
OneFactor:

Original:


    //return greenwich mean time as expressed in nanoseconds since the
    //creation of the universe.  time is expressed in meters, so
    //divide by the speed of light to obtain seconds.  assumes the
    //speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  the file specified by
    //Filename is assumed to be in your reference frame, otherwise you
    //must transform the result by the path integral of the minkowski
    //metric tensor in order to obtain the correct result.


A few questions,


How can GMT and UTC have any meaningful values before the creation of the earth since they both depend on the variable rate of rotation of the earth?
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"? 
Why express time in metres when time and the speed of light can be measured more precisely than distances?
To transform between frames, can't you just apply a Lorentz transformation - I thought the (Feynman?) Path Integral was for bringing in quantum mechanical effects.



I think that's what happens when a programmer is told the function needs more commenting.

It probaby orginally said something like:
//Return the current value of Time.

No, this what happens when you put a bored physicist grad student in charge of coding and/or debugging your simulations.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 16:55 • by jvancil
58189 in reply to 58183

hash:
Can I just say that ending every post with

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko


is not only annoying as hell, but redundant. Your username is Gene Wirchenko, you don't need to reinforce the fact that it was you who posted the message. Maybe i'm the only one that cringes everytime I read


Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

but oh well.

Sincerely,

hash.


I think he might be using an automated Signature Generator...

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 17:00 • by Omnifarious
58190 in reply to 58164
Gene Wirchenko:
Are Perl and the Necronomicon isomorphic?

I believe that you have discovered a hidden truth. It would explain a great deal.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 17:15 • by cconroy
58193 in reply to 58190
Without kungFuDeathGrip(), unthinkableMayhem ensues.



Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 17:17 • by headhigh
58194 in reply to 58177
Depends on what your other hand is doing.

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 17:19 • by TheDauthi
Alex Papadimoulis:

#use strict;            #good perl


Well, at least it was good some time in the past.  I write and deal with a lot of perl.  You can tell a lot about the quality of the code, though, by whether or not the code will pass use strict and -w.  If I open a script for maintenance and find that warnings and strict are not on, I don't bother reading the code: I go ask someone what this script was supposed to do instead.  It's generally faster to re-invent the wheel than to try to round someone else's.

Perl's a great language, but there are a lot of perl 'programmers' who leave unreadable messes.


Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 17:48 • by uni penguin
58202 in reply to 58167
Anonymous:

After reading the occasional comment in the results of the search, am I right in thinking the kungFuDeathGrip is a instance of a smart pointer created to keep the ref count above nil?


Precisely.

My favorite error message of all time is still:

kernel panic:
mcs_unlock: lock not currently owned
the zombie walks, the sequel

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 17:53 • by Xargon
58203 in reply to 58185
OneFactor:
Xargon:
OneFactor:

Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"?


You are correct about Cephied uncertainty and a variable Hubble constant due to an accelerated expansion.  However, the age of the Universe estimated at 13.7+/-0.2 billion years is based on the WMAP analysis of the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. 


Aren't some stars dated at 16 billion years old though? I'm rather fond using the planck temperature divided by the cosmic background temperature, squaring it and saying thats the age of the universe in planck time. Though all theoretical calculations have a factor of 2pi as the margin for error.Which is bigger than the Cepheid uncertainty.

That was a problem when comparing globular cluster ages to 1/H0, and probably still when WMAP results were first results.  However, the uncertainty in the age of stars in globular clusters (which contain the oldest stars in galaxies) is dependent on the accuracy of the distance to the star.  Distance measurements have since been improved (IIRC, the inital Hipparcos had some serious accuracy issues) and observed star ages now fall within the age of the Universe.


Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 18:10 • by Gene Wirchenko
58205 in reply to 58202
Anonymous:
My favorite error message of all time is still:

kernel panic:
mcs_unlock: lock not currently owned
the zombie walks, the sequel


I still like:
*** INVALID COMPILED FORMAT ***
YOUR PROGRAM HAS MOST LIKELY CLOBBERED ITSELF.
followed by legnthy details (since it was a batch job).  (I wrote into an area of memory that I was not supposed to.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Re: A Collection Of Comments

2006-01-27 18:32 • by Beaker
58206 in reply to 58145
OneFactor:
Isn't the time of the creation of the universe undecided between 9 and 20 billion years because of the imprecision of the Cepheid yardstick and therefore the Hubble "constant"?


No, no, no... everyone knows that in accordance with today's religious nutjobbery, the universe was created by God Almighty in 4004 BC.
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Add Comment