Do we need yet another custom C++ interpreter?
http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/do-we-need-yet-another-custom-c-interpreter
Discussion of ROOT's C++ interpreters
biggus_dictus
Re:Phrack Issue #68
on Saturday April 14, 2012 @07:20PM (#3842264)
Maar ik kan niet lezen Nederlands.
Re:ISPs to start policing copyright by July 12
on Friday March 16, 2012 @02:08AM (#3712197)
I understand that you read about a "a neutrino network that would transmit directly through the Earth, for true point-to-point communication," but you obviously didn't read the paper. Here it is. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2847 It's a proof-of-principle. A stunning achievement, no doubt. But it's hardly a practical option for communication, "The link achieved a decoded data rate of 0.1 bits/sec with a bit error rate of 1% over a distance of 1.035 km, including 240 m of earth."
Ant colonies? WTF?
Re:LulzSec indictment published
on Saturday March 10, 2012 @02:49AM (#3687375)
Re:Cling : C++ REPL using Clang and LLVM
on Saturday February 18, 2012 @09:27PM (#3608449)
Re:Cling : C++ REPL using Clang and LLVM
on Saturday February 18, 2012 @09:25PM (#3608443)
It may not be awesome. But it works.
Re:Cling : C++ REPL using Clang and LLVM
on Saturday February 18, 2012 @09:21PM (#3608433)
To be clear: the python interface does use CINT underneath; it's just that the user is less exposed to the subtle "features" that give CINT it's unique character.
Re:Cling : C++ REPL using Clang and LLVM
on Saturday February 18, 2012 @09:16PM (#3608422)
Nobody, and I mean nobody, likes CINT.
Re:Could Elsevier shut down arxiv.org?
on Wednesday January 04, 2012 @02:32AM (#3423210)
> it would be easier for Elsevier to shut down arxiv.org.
It is disheartening to think that such a thing is even remotely possible.
Re:Carnegie Mellon CS Professor challenges Sony by mirroring Geohot's ...
on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:26AM (#2099053)
I think this could fit: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/hannum-efdtt-source...
Re:Pi is wrong... really.
on Thursday December 09, 2010 @10:05PM (#1990417)
Did you read the article? So many fundamental equations become more elegant when pi is redefined in this way. Isn't pi/2 = half, pi=whole more direct?