This work sounds interesting. Who was the talk by? It sounds like a student of Jon Kleinberg but I quick glance over his publications didn't reveal work on that kind of mechanism design problem.
I think what VBprogrammer meant is that thinking you've found a bug in a compiler / OS / CPU is often a warning sign you're a poor programmer. Often times a beginner will have a bug in their code that is too subtle for them to identify, so they end up attributing it to some external factor. Actually finding a bug in a compiler / OS / CPU is as you suggest likely a sign you're doing something advanced or unusual and therefore are perhaps more knowledgeable than most.
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry if the sarcasm didn't quite carry.
I know these things can and do happen. I've come across one or two of these strange ones before, but too often I've seen people jump to the conclusion that someone / something else was to blame. Without any other real evidence other than that they have exhausted their shallow back of talent.
It sounds like he's saying it's hard for Julia to interop with languages that don't support arrays of inline structs (e.g. Java). I could be misreading it though.
The problem is that standard statistical tests have two outcomes: (1) "reject the null hypothesis" or (2) "failure to reject the null hypothesis". Moreover in the most common statistical tests the null hypothesis amounts to something like "the two samples were drawn from the same distribution" so if you fail to find a significant difference you haven't shown they're the same, you've just failed to show they're different. If what you want to do is show that they're nearly the same, you can design a statistical test where the null hypothesis is instead something of the sort "these two samples were drawn from distributions that differ by > X amount" so rejecting the null hypothesis shows they differ by <= X.
It's impossible to know whether or not Linux would exist without GNU, but GCC isn't something you can hack together in a few months. Clang is the closest thing to a GCC replacement we have, and it didn't compile Linux until October 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang)
You might naïvely think that, but it turns out that things that need building often don't get built, or at least not for many years after they first needed building. I mean, you could have written jQuery in 1999. We still have problems with hardware that isn't supported by free software.
You're comparing a compiler (necessary to build stuff), with a javascript library which makes things a bit easier for newbies?
If people needed a compiler, they would have built one. Jquery was an optional addition that some like using. It hasn't enabled things that weren't possible before.
> You're comparing a compiler (necessary to build stuff),
You may not be aware of this, but people were writing working computer programs for almost 20 years before they invented compilers. People still occasionally write working computer programs today without compilers.
> with a javascript library which makes things a bit easier for newbies?
I've been programming since 1980. I've been doing AJAX (and Comet!) since 2000 — very reluctantly at first! I've shipped production software that kicked Cisco's ass, in the market, at managing Cisco devices. I'm in the AUTHORS file for Perl 5, although I don't deserve to be. Among other things, I've written OLAP systems; user interfaces; music softsynths; 3-D engines, one of which was in JavaScript; full-text search engines; mailserver software; and compilers.
And I think jQuery is awesome.
> If people needed a compiler, they would have built one. Jquery was an optional addition that some like using. It hasn't enabled things that weren't possible before.
No software "enables" things that weren't possible before; obviously if it hadn't been possible to do the things that the software "enabled", it would have been impossible to write the software.
In particular, any software you can write with a compiler, you can write in machine code. It's just more work.
But some software gives you a lot of leverage. jQuery is a good example. A C compiler is another good example. The leverage provided by the two is roughly comparable.
Its sort of difficult not to call your posts trolling.
Not having tools at hand is a major factor for not to pursue a project everywhere in the world. Not just in the open source world. I don't think Guido or Larry or Matz would have taken trouble to write a compiler to write Python or Perl or Ruby.
Not to mention nearly all major open source projects and many other closed projects are using gcc one way or the other. I bet even Apple uses gcc in some way.
Work happens by incrementally building on others work. Even Linus agrees RMS is one of the giants on whose shoulders he has stood to look farther.
RMS might have some problems communicating in most socially accepted ways. But he has achieved and helped other achieve far more things valuable. And he has done it in time. A lot of people have built on top of his work. And a lot of that work has made a lot of money and provided employment.
Its wrong to compare Steve Jobs and Richard Matthew Stallman. They are great in their own rights. But in terms of absolute comparisons, RMS has achieved far more than Jobs.
iProducts are the cool must have gadgets of this era, they haven't changed the world any more than video games have.
In some communities open access journals are the most prestigious journals. In machine learning JMLR (http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/) is (I think) widely considered the top journal. It was formed when a large group of top machine learning researchers grew fed up with the high cost of paid publication and together resigned from the board of a competing publication (http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/statement.html). All of the top machine learning conferences (NIPS, ICML, UAI, AIStats, COLT) publish their proceedings online too. I think it's only a matter of time before all other communities follow suit, but some communities may lag behind longer than others. The machine learning community was lucky in that a large group of leading researchers decided to collectively make a clean break and support a new journal--the new journal became the premier journal almost over night so there was no slow transition phase.
This is true for some things. For example, UI design can be a long and difficult process for the first mover but easy for competitors who can just lift the design. However, it's not so easy to lift, say, the design of a distributed file system from its public interface.
