Q: How many Pentium designers does it take to screw in a light
bulb?
A: 1.99904274017, but that's close enough for non-technical
people.
Q: What do you get when you cross a Pentium PC with a research
grant?
A: A mad scientist.
Q: What's another name for the "Intel Inside" sticker they put
on Pentiums?
A: The warning label.
Q: What do you call a series of FDIV instructions on a Pentium?
A: Successive approximations.
Q: Complete the following word analogy: Add is to Subtract as
Multiply is to:
1) Divide
2) ROUND
3) RANDOM
4) On a Pentium, all of the above
A: Number 4.
Q: Why didn't Intel call the Pentium the 586?
A: Because they added 486 and 100 on the first Pentium and got
585.999983605.
Q: According to Intel, the Pentium conforms to the IEEE
standards 754 and 854 for floating point arithmetic.
If you fly in aircraft designed using a Pentium, what is the
correct pronunciation of "IEEE"?
A: Aaaaaaaiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee!
TOP TEN NEW INTEL SLOGANS FOR THE PENTIUM
-------------------------------------------
9.9999973251 It's a FLAW, Dammit, not a Bug
8.9999163362 It's Close Enough, We Say So
7.9999414610 Nearly 300 Correct Opcodes
6.9999831538 You Don't Need to Know What's Inside
5.9999835137 Redefining the PC -- and Mathematics As Well
4.9999999021 We Fixed It, Really
3.9998245917 Division Considered Harmful - No Life-
Maintenance Devices Should Be Used With This
Processor
2.9991523619 Why Do You Think They Call It *Floating* Point?
1.9999103517 We're Looking for a Few Good Flaws
And the 0.9999999998th Slogan Is...
The Errata Inside
For e.g. PaintEvent() from pure Go code? Not yet, but I have some idea on how to make it possible.
Until then, a nice feature of CGO is you can write one custom Qt subclass in a .cpp file in the same folder as your .go files. Your C++ will be compiled with `go build`, and you can use your custom class directly from Go/MIQT. So even if some advanced Qt feature is not in the binding, anything is still possible at least. I'll make an example about this.
I contribute to NodeGui, Qt on Nodejs. It doesn't try to emulate the C++ API by allowing subclassing. Instead it exposes most methods on QWidget classes/subclasses which process QEvent objects (and their subclasses) in the form of events which you can subscribe to as an application. You can listen to signals and also QEvent related traffic in much the same way. So, if you want to subclass a QWidget to do your own custom rendering/painting, you would create an instance of QWidget and then listen to/hook into, the incoming requests to repaint. Qt sees a normal QWidget instance, but you can customise it do act like the subclass you desire. This avoids any attempt to do a real C++ subclass at runtime. Internally, NodeGui subclasses almost every QWidget (and more) to hook into them to allow this. This works far better than you might expect and saves a ton of complexity.
There is no company size threshold here. This is GDPR related. You and Gruber are both mixing up GDPR with the EU's Digital Markets Act. Digital Markets is the one which has a "gatekeeper" concept tied to company size and market power.
Nobody is confused here. The point is, there's not a single European company that is impacted by the "pay or OK" demand, and it's a fair question as to whether there ever will be.
The rarely discussed cornerstone of Agile is trusting the team and letting them organise themselves. For most organisation this represents a huge internal change in power structure.
The Agile industrial complex can't really sell a message to their customers (i.e. managers) that the development teams should have the power and run themselves how they feel fit. This message amounts to "if this works, we can fire the managers". Not a popular message for managers.
So, instead of building on an agile foundation, companies just add some story points and funny sounding meetings on top of the old structure and nothing really changes. It is Agile cosplay.
I’ll take this a step further too and say that if Agile is being introduced by management, it means they don’t trust their teams to organize themselves. Agile, as sold, can’t actually work in that environment. The battle is already lost.
That's right. It can't be pushed down from above. The team has to want to do this and take the power.
A manager can start work on this kind of culture shift without even saying the word "agile". They need to give their teams more trust and room to govern themselves. i.e. managers need to get out of the way. When a team is open to the idea of Agile or scrum, then the manager could ask the team if they would like training or coaching. But the ground has to be made fertile first.
I prefer desktops because is something breaks I have a chance of working around it immediately (e.g. screen), and if not then I can have a replacement part sent to me in about 24 hours or less which I can install myself.
It's better for the environment as well, because you're not throwing the whole thing out/leaving it to the whim of whoever is supposed to recycle it, plus you can selective change components that are bothering you - keyboard, mouse etc.
I've found LLMs great for vague questions about functions and APIs whose details I've long forgotten. Recognising the right answer when it appears is often faster than digging through random results on google.
I prefer task over just, while I am not a huge fan of YAML, we now use it everywhere so it just makes sense to not learn yet another DSL for Just and just use YAML.
Although SCons is Python (which is a pro or con depending upon your perspective), it has strong dependency management. Or is the argument that dependency management is part of build, not general project maintenance?
Starting out from the blog post, it talks essentially about Make as it was intended, as a build system to compile programs with. Make maps this to the task of producing a file from input files, which are written down in the form of rules in a Makefile. a key ingredient from make is that it checks for timestamps on disk for the source files and updates targets only if the source files have been modified after the targets have been built.
If you go a bit further down this route, you end up with build tools that generate the compilation rules for you in some form: These are Automake/CMake/Meson and SCons. I did use scons years ago and it was nice, but its definitely completely lost its market share. IIRC Scons does this without generating Makefiles.
Task and Just are following a different route. The problem people have solved by using a "hack" in Makefiles (PHONY targets), so that you can easily run "sub-commands" in Make (make install_deps, etc). It would never occur to me to use Scons in that space.
Btw. a third option is to use a shell script like the following (POSIX-shell compatible actually).
sub_install_deps() {
set -e -x
# ...
}
sc=$1
case $sc in
"" | "-h" | "--help")
sub_help
;;
*)
shift
"sub_${sc}" "$@"
if [ $? = 127 ]; then
echo "Error: '${sc}' is not a known sc." >&2
echo " Run '${prog_name} --help' for a list of known scs." >&2
exit 1
fi
;;
esac
reply