| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4
Comments:
<0> hence the whole university ***ignment of "It doesn't matter if you write well or not, you're writing for the marker"
<0> ****ignment structure
<1> *or not. You're
<1> comma splice. ;)
<0> yeah, my point exactly, the point got across ;)
<1> another comma splice
<2> jesus, proof reading irc are we ?
<1> just for the fun of it.
<1> there are no linux-related topics at the moment
<0> oh noes, you didn't start your sentence with a capital, how can i understand you? :P
<2> there was one
<1> awk vs. cut?
<0> cut is faster in basic operations it looks like
<0> ;)
<2> ferro: yeah, that's what I figured too
<2> since it's so simple..
<2> just does one thing pretty much
<1> well, debian uses 'mawk', which is 86k, and 'cut' is 23k, if that says anything
<2> heh
<2> it doesn't
<2> of course the awk binary will be bigger, awk does tons more than just the operations cut can do
<1> it isn't conclusive, but it suggests that since cut is smaller, it's simpler, and will both load and execute faster.
<2> it's time to drag out the old cliche
<2> size doesn't matter
<1> as i said, it's suggestive, not conclusive.
<2> well, I hate to say it, but I disagree
<2> actually, I don't hate to say it
<1> one could also link 'cut' statically and it would be huge, yet would run faster.
<1> cut could also contain horribly inefficient code that, while small, would be dog slow.
<1> however, we all know that both mawk and cut are likely to be dynamically linked, and that the code in both has likely been written and reviewed by competent programmers.
<1> so all else being equal, smaller -> *likely* simpler and faster
<2> the only think which would hint towards smaller -> faster is the load time, and 23k vs 83k doesn't matter, becasue when you use those and are worried about performance, they will be executed multiple times, and thus reside in cache
<1> <2> of course the awk binary will be bigger, awk does tons more than just the operations cut can do
<1> more operations -> more code -> larger binaries
<2> yes, I based that not on the size, but the abilities of awk
<2> and I used that argument as a way of telling you that you can't use size as an indication of the speed
<1> well, the logic appears to work anyway, though as i said, it isn't conclusive
<2> no, your logic fails, because you have no real logic
<0> do you know how programs work Thuryn ?
<1> you guys just can't grasp that last part, can you
<0> because your comments seem to suggest you don't ;)
<2> you're just asuming that the larger a program, the slower it is.
<1> no, i didn't say that.
<1> in fact, i even gave an example of the opposite
<2> a bad example
<1> what i said was that SIMPLER is usually faster, and simpler is also usually smaller
<1> usually
<1> not always
<2> yes, simpler
<2> I said that just around the moment you entered the chanel
<1> so did i. scroll back.
<0> ok, recursive function, short lines of code and has a Big O notation that will KILL you (depending on it's layout)
<1> size isn't causal, but that doesn't mean it isn't indicative, given the relationship i just mentioned.
<2> but you're dragging size of the binary into the equation, which is just wrong.
<0> small size of an app does not suggest it's fast
<2> exactly ferro
<1> ferro, as i said above, all else being equal, including decent programming. i ALSO said, that poor programming can always kill something.
<1> again, a point which you appear to have ignored, in favor of looking smart.
<2> sigh
<0> i try to do that a lot, i hope it worked
<0> do i look smart?
<0> please, help my ego grow :P
<2> small code can be written perfect and still not execute fast
<1> well, you have ops in a linux channel. again, suggestive, but not conclusive.
<1> Kristian, so what? that isn't the case with cut and mawk.
<2> how do you know ?
<0> are you playing the part of the partisan by chance? Or are you actually this stubborn?
<1> i'm very stubborn, if i haven't been convinced otherwise. ;)
<2> I also doubt you're a real programmer
<1> define: real programmer
<0> someone that knows wtf they're doing ;)
<2> exactly
<1> not a precise definition
<1> that's purely opinion
<2> no it's not
<2> either you know, or you don't know
<1> no, no, not really. it's not quite that simple. take perl or C for instance. there are many ways to do something.
<1> in some cases, there are even many arguably *correct* ways to do something.
<1> but whether or not one "knows wtf he is doing" depends on who is making that evaluation
<2> what does that have to do with wether or not you know what you are doing ?
<0> everything is purely opinion, whether or not it's accepted by the m***es (which in this case may not include you) and thus become 'fact' (a widely accepted statement), is another question all together
<2> no, I speak the truth, because I'm God
<2> or, actually, a close realtive
<0> Craig?
<3> well, craig is an evil bastard
<2> Jesus
<0> jesus's brother craig :P
<0> you heard that song? absolutely hillarious
<1> missed that one
<2> never heard it :/
<1> and my neighbors listen to mostly hip-hop (unless that fits)
<0> do a google cideo search for Stephen Lynch, he's a comedian that writes music, pretty funny stuff
<0> wow, wtf is a cideo
<0> of, google video
<0> *oh
<2> hehe
<0> i wish i knew what i wrote some times
<1> hehehe. Garrison Keillor said that while presenting his book when looking for a p***age. "You see, I wrote this book... but I haven't *read* it."
<2> who ?
<3> It was the one armed man, I tell you !
<1> he's the host of A Prarie Home Companion
<1> it's a radio show on NPR
<2> no not that
<2> I mean who's "this" for ?
<1> not following?
<0> the person who just joined has a name/nick 'thisisfor'
<1> man, it's time for me to go to bed
<1> apparently >_<
<2> hehe
<0> bbs
<4> does anyone know how to setup a partion that uses 3 disks and never runs out of space? say : /home uses 3 drives and if the first is filled, it uses second, then third... without hte end user knowing?
<5> after I set the resoulution in /etc/.x111/xf86 file what do I do so they take effect?
<6> anyone able to suggest a newreader for x that isn't pan?
<7> opera and thunderbird can do that
<7> iirc
<8> <5> after I set the resoulution in /etc/.x111/xf86 file what do I do so they take effect?
<8> got the same problem here mate
<9> restart X with Ctrl+Alt+Backspace?
<8> i've just reconfigured Xfree86, still low res :/
<8> neither do the ctrl+alt+-/+ keys work
<8> (==) VGA(0): Virtual size is 320x200 (pitch 320)
<8> should I try another videocard?
<8> instead of the onboard one
<10> hrm
<10> time to setup my ipsec server
<8> :)
<11> uhh
<10> I thought you were drafted
<11> yes on monday
<11> today need more booze
<12> we always need more booze.
<11> :)
<7> afternoon
<11> hola
<11> basically, if i want to make my own vhosts i need a dns-server and a domain? or is there something more ?
<13> reverse dns on your ip
<11> if i set to my dns-server a pointer to eg. this.is.my.domain . is it mandatory for this.is.my.domain to resolve back to the ip?
<12> no
<12> for example, try resolving apz.fi, then resolve the ip you get
<11> oh
<12> naturally I won't be able to use it as an IRC-host, but it wrosk
<12> .. works
<11> why not able to use as an irc-host?
<12> because irc-servers do reverse lookups
<11> oh i see.. GhostJ has this vhost in his whois i.am.a.nerdz.org and it resolves the same viceversa
<11> so actually i dont get any anonymity if setting up a vhost with my own dns-server?
<12> well, no
<12> unless you get yourself a shell somewhere else and run your IRC client there
<12> so no-one will be able to track you back to your home address
<14> opers can change hostnames
Return to
#debian
or
Go to some related
logs:
eselect mysql none found
#c
#computers
RADEON X300/X550 Series Secondary
#politics
#politics
oblivion scrollwheel spells
#politics
#freebsd
#freebsd
|
|