Comments

I don't know why Dan doesn't post the low res link, [but here it is] 131.6MB.

I right-click then choose save as file.

Dan wrote:



RichardRudek wrote: I'm starting to feel like a junk-yard dog... It's taking too long to download. Can you guys try to have a little consistency between you. I prefer a lower resolution video. The 320x240 512Kbps is fine for whiteboard stuff (not that I know whether it's in this video or not), and when you zoom in, it's also fine for the videoed 'screencast' stuff too. Actually, it would help if you started to rate the content, so we can make informed choices about what to download - ie maybe this one only needs the audio...

I can add the low-res version, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by ratings or how ratings would help you choose whether you only need the audio. Can you explain a bit more?

First off, thanks for the video. Though, I can't help the feeling of [deja vu]...

Ratings is probably a bad word to use to describe what I meant. Basically, if the content is just head-shots and talk, then that would be an audio-only recommendation.

White-board only would be a low res video recommendation.

Video recorded screencasts, with lazy camera operation (not zooming in close as approriate with the conversation) would be a high res recommendation.

Now if your really into editing/post production, you could take a portable hard disk with you, and save a proper screencast to it. Obviously, the screencast machine will need to have Window Media Encoder (or a commercial product that does it), but at least you get a full-res, high quality, low bandwidth (separate) recording that you could render into a single video stream, later. Better still, produce a multiple stream source that switches appropriately between the screencast and video streams. The best of both worlds for the end users, though a huge PITA for you guys... [A]

Thanks for the video 

I'm starting to feel like a junk-yard dog...

It's taking too long to download. Can you guys try to have a little consistency between you. I prefer a lower resolution video. The 320x240 512Kbps is fine for whiteboard stuff (not that I know whether it's in this video or not), and when you zoom in, it's also fine for the videoed 'screencast' stuff too.

Actually, it would help if you started to rate the content, so we can make informed choices about what to download - ie maybe this one only needs the audio...

I don't know what to think about this 'new style'. At the start, there was too much camera hopping, which made me stop the video, and try to come online and complain.

As the site was (is still) having trouble, I decided to try watching it again, and eventually the camera hopping subsided to a more acceptable level, instead using slow zooms.

Content-wise, there wasn't a lot of value, so if it wasn't for my aggravation with the production, I wouldn't have commented...

THIS IS OFF TOPIC.

I've been trying to wait patiently for the low res link to come live, but no. I'm now downloading the full resolution one.

But seriously, are you guys keeping track of how many people are downloading the low res one even though it's not well highlighted ?

I'd suggest that if you swapped the links around (made the low res then main, with the high res being the exception) you would see the numbers change. Often, the hi-res is just way over the top, considering the content.

It's not that I don't have the bandwidth. I just hate having to manage the disk space so often, and it just smacks of egotism (or should that be pomposity)...

Ha ha:
    You can't light a porcupine on fire and get liquorish...

I suppose it depends on what it's been eating... sugar beets...

Excellent nothing. That was a brilliant video.

Thank you Burton, and thank you Charles.


PS: As for Dave Cutler. I certainly don't want to disrespect him in any way, but my mischievous side just can't resist: My take is that he spends a lot of his time in the primitive world of the Operating System Kernel, etc, and has thus adopted primitive beliefs about Cameras/Pictures stealing people's souls... Either that or he can't trust himself to keep a secret...[A]

stevo_ wrote:

So ok, great, we have a system where everything is 'honest' about it's workings, why is that useful?

It's useful because it not only allow more robust systems, but also allows various other "optimisations".

This idea of (bad) side-effect free permeates most of modern day computing. For example, at the macro-level, we have Operating Systems with protected memory systems, privilege levels, etc, which then allows robust multi-tasking, etc.

Moving to the micro-level, we have instruction-level parallelism, which CPU designers (at the chip, transistors level) needed in order to improve throughput [1]. Things like super-scalar, pipelining, out-of-order execution, etc, I believe, can all trace their roots back to this idea of (bad) side-effect free operations. Sure, they had to introduce a slew peripheral hardware to cache or hide the various (good and bad) side-effects, but they did it.

Now were moving into the age where they are trying (again) to do it at the programmer level. At least, that's my take on it...


[1] The root causes for this are many. But from my perspective, the primary cause is the unwillingness of the 'industry' to move to vastly faster memory sub-systems - orders of magnitude, in some cases. (And yes, it would be extremely expensive, which is why it's not being done, considering ->). So far, they've been able to hide the huge differences between the the throughput achieveable from the various 'levels' in  the memory heirachy: register to register, register to L1 cache, register to L2 cache, etc.

That was an excellent video.

As an old-school, impure programmer, I especially liked the way you cleared up what is meant by functional - in my old-school (C++) ways, I kept thinking 'volatile results'...

One could argue, though, that your starting premise is what is wrong with regards to the 'contract' each function call has, at least in terms of adding 'functional' features to an imperative language. And I suspect Charles may have thought that as well, which is why I suspect he asked about wether it was worthwhile to be able to 'flag' a call/routine as being 'functional' - f(x) called with the same 'x' returning the same result. Always. That is, we know our (default) implementation of an (imperative) function (routine) is not pure, but look here, this function (routine) is meant to be pure, so please beef up the (static?) analysis, and tell me if this gets broken.


Anyway, thanks Erik and Charles. Excellent... [A]

creditcard wrote:



So um, how about a release?

If IE8 releases before Firefox 3 you can deliver a fatal blow to Firefox standards complience claims.

I think I'd prefer that it was done right, rather than release early, just to start a fight...