 |
|
|
alikalik wrote: even Cormen's book is easier to understand, than Knuth's book.
I have to agree, Knuth is not an easy read (even if it is finished in our lifetimes). Definitive though.
Have you tried "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs" (Prentice-Hall Series in Automatic Computation) by Niklaus Wirth? As old as Knuth Volume 1, but it (sort of) started the whole structured programming bit (which led to OOP eventually, when computers were powerfull enough).
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
This message is made of fully recyclable Zeros and Ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he find's Cormen's book hard there is no wa he can understand Knuth's book.
I have tried to move beyond 4 sections in Knuth's book for last 10 years with no luck. But I do want to fully read it one day just for getting some practice to improve my mental prowess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: But I do want to fully read it one day just for getting some practice to improve my mental prowess.
I second that.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried
"ADTs, Data Structures, and Problem Solving with C++", by Larry Nyhoff
I am sure you could find a free electronic version 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you descended from Rottweilers, by any chance?
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A practical book (assuming you are a professional developer) is "Programming Pearls[^]".
Easy to understand for professional developers and a good refresher of concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The competition will definitely be a good thing, but it's scary how much info Google will then be able to collect about someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At last we'll have a choice - will it be free too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
initially they will be open source-ing their code according to the press release note Press Release Note. I don't think they'll open source the OS once its done though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a custom UI layer on top of linux. I don't think they'll be able to de-open source it due to GPL infestation.
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up.
The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it may be a bad decision, because creating an OS is complicated stuff even for companies such as Microsoft, hell look at vista.
Also, putting Google's name on an operating system that tanks can bankrupt a company in this type of global economy.
I think they should rethink it.
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And only Microsoft can do complicated stuff? Hopefully Google will come at it from a different angle to MS who are tied and bound by years of doing things 'the Microsoft way'
Google are big enough to take a hit if it bombs - anyway it can't be worse than Vista can it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: They'll get the customers who use only the IE-part of Windows
Thats 70-80% of users maybe? Not bad business then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only 5% of desktop PC users use Microsoft OS? I find that hard to believe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VectorX wrote: creating an OS is complicated stuff
Depends how much is in it - the OS kernel isn't too tricky, the issues are well understood. I think the problems Microsoft have are more with what they layer on top of the basic OS.
Looking at what Google have said - The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. - I suspect you'll have a minimal Linux kernel, with Chrome as one of very few user applications and most other OS services talking to the user via Chrome and a built-in web-server.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stuart Dootson wrote: I suspect you'll have a minimal Linux kerne
I think the article said an os from the ground up.
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The closest I saw to something saying that was going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS.
I'm not sure if that requires a complete kernel re-architect and re-write - but even if it does, designing and writing an OS kernel isn't actually that hard. If you look beyond Windows, there are plenty of good OS kernels knocking around. Written by clever people, I'll grant you, but Google's meant to be full of those
And talking about the security aspects - anyone else reckon that Google's Native Client[^] will probably form a significant part of the OS? Sandboxing of x86 code...yeah, I can see that fitting in.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Google's blog[^]:
The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like it might be good but persuading ordinary users who buy a machine, plug it in and would no more think of installing a new OS than you or I would think of handling plutonium is going to be a hard sell. And, as someone lese pointed out, should it fail it will tarnish the rest of the brand. Further, it is much like retail banks somehow thought it was a good idea to become investment banks that companies should play to their strngths rather than trying to be all things to all paople. May work for a while but usually ends in tears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, not too much to worry about, it will probably be in beta for the next ten years.
On a serious note, maybe it will push Microsoft to lower their prices. It is just too costly to put Windows on junk PCs you have laying around just for things like file servers, game playing boxes and multimedia servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky Moore wrote: it will probably be in beta for the next ten years
You say that, but Gmail's now out of beta - that was only 5 years!
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin