I'm not sure whether I'm in the right place to ask this and if I'm not, please point me to the right Stack Exchange site.
An NTFS file system search engine called 'Everything' can be downloaded from http://www.voidtools.com/
and because it performs so well, I got curious as to what programming language was it written in.
I've searched the above site's forums and google with no success..
I understand that the application is proprietary freeware and so I will not be able to obtain the source code. However, I've never heard of any apps where info about what language it is written in is hidden.
So my question is: What language was 'Everything' written in?
by David » Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:37 am
98% C
1% C++
1% assembly
The above quote is from a forum post by a Site Admin named David which I am assuming is very likely to be David Carpenter who is the author of Everything.
Quoted from:
https://www.voidtools.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=375#p802 (archive)
Related
V7R1M0 is the version I see in spool files generated in the IBM i server used in my company. Does this version support fully free RPG flavor where even F and D specs can be written in free format? How can this be found out? I have copy pasted few of fully free code samples the available on the internet and it gets highlighted in error which suggests it doesn't work.
Please note that no RDI is available in my company. So this was done in SEU. I have researched a lot about this but there is no definitive guide that can confirm this point
SEU does not now nor will it ever support anything released after v6.1. If you want to use features of RPG released in the last 7 years you either have to turn off syntax validation in SEU, or use RDi. There are other options of course, see What is the best IDE to use for programming in RPGILE for the AS/400 ? Can you connect to a 400 using Visual Studios IDE? for more info. Note that only RDi is guaranteed to support the most recent RPG developments. Third party editors may lag behind while developers determine how to support new features. In addition, some of these editors only support source code in the IFS.
I am looking for some contribution for real time linux which majorly involves RT_PRREMPT patch .
The wiki page of RT are pretty old i,e it says its been updated last at 2008
Also there are no wish list or bug list specific to RT _Preempt
Even bug zilla also doesn't have much on rt preempt?
Any resource pointing towards bugs ,features that are to be added to RT_preempt would be a lot of help.
Yes, thankfully, it does seem to be alive and well.
I can understand your tension: on 21 Oct 2014, an LWN article - The future of the realtime patch set - quoted Thomas Gleixner at less-than-highly-optimistic regarding the future of the PREEMPT_RT project.
The good news: recently, as of 05 Oct 2015, LF seems to have a working group in place for RT Linux.
Additional info here:
The Linux Foundation Announces Project to Advance Real-Time Linux
By Linux_Foundation - October 5, 2015 – 8:14am
and here:
Real-Time Linux on the go, OSADL
(quoting from the article)
“… OSADL is looking forward to a fruitful collaboration in the Linux Foundation RTL Working Group. We very much hope that a day will come in the foreseeable future when Linux mainline will immediately contain - without any further patching - the PREEMPT_RT configuration option. And we can only appeal to the other members of the RTL Working Group to not let Linux users wait too long. OSADL certainly will continue to go for it.”
Many years ago I worked at a DEC-shop. We used a tool called Document (as far as I remember) to create documentation. It was provided by DEC and created the same layout as the original DEC documentation. Which is as far as I'm concerned a milestone in layout and typesetting.
Researching the web I found a more or less obscure company which sells this tool for Open VMS. But I would prefer an open source replacement.
Any help ?
Greetings Till
Touch Technology was, and perhaps still is, an interesting company with interesting folks like 'Mr Dan'.
They picked up a good bit of Digital software in a fire-sale and had some good stuff such themselves such as performance tuning tools and a 4GL (Intouch... available on OpenVMS Freeware).
The company appears to have moved one, judging by their current website front door which does not dwell on the old stuff , but you could do worse than try contact them.
The back door still list DECdocument: http://www.ttinet.com/documentation.html
Good luck!
Hein
If you're still looking for a solution, have you thought about LaTeX? The markup syntax isn't radically different from VAX DOCUMENT's SDML. They both have the same back-end; the final steps in processing an SDML file involved running it through TeX.
I would think the best solution would be DocBook, since it is also an SGML-ish format. You might be able to translate a substantial portion using XSS.
I would need your help. I've come across an interesting book - Programming the Cell Processor: For Games, Graphics, and Computation - it contains mostly C and some Assembly for Cell. The technology is interesting indeed, but there are some doubts on my side.
The book is from 2008 and some things has changed:
There is no Linux support on current firmware version.
Last version on IBM's website is from 2008 Red Hat Enterprise 5.2 and Fedora 9 - has anyone an experience running this IBM SDK on Fedora 13 or at least any version higher than stated Fedora 9, and is Linux available of sufficient testing?
Would it be useful for example for creation of distributable PSN game, and if anyone knows anything about price to actualy get a product there (as I've heard that it waaaaay more expensive than for example X-box indie games)
So do you think that it is worth it or not? Be it just for education purposes or something "more" serious?
Any thoughts are welcomed, thank you!
Cell was dumped by IBM for general purpose computers. It will live for the next 5 years in the Playstation and i'm pretty sure that the next generation Playstation - whenever it will be ready - will also use Cell again because establishing something new in CPU land is so unaffordable today.
But as a technolgy it is indeed no longer interested. Learning CUDA might be a better choice.
Given that you don't have access to a Cell machine, I'd advise that it's probably not worth it. I absolutely love the Cell architecture - I think it was a fantastic step in the right direction. Unfortunately, having done some Cell development in the past, I was really disappointed with the tool chain, the simulator and the seemingly hostile attitude taken towards developers recently.
So given that you're not going to be able to use a real Cell machine in order to get the speed gains you would get from writing programs within that idiom, you'd probably be much better off looking into general distributed programming techniques (using MPI or something similar). These skills are going to be readily transferrable to the Cell or its derivatives, or any similar architectures that might arise in the future.
As far as I'm concerned, and as much as it pains me, I think the Cell is basically a developmental dead end unless you have access to a commercial development license, you'll be extremely frustrated in your ability to actually get anything out of the architecture.
The reason? Pure nostalgia.
Anyway, there was a standard for Basic that was published in the late 80s or early 90s. It was probably ISO/IEC 10279:1991, but I don't have access to that and cannot be sure.
Whatever this standard was, some of the syntax made its way into Borlands Turbo Basic and Microsofts Visual Basic. I never learned any significant amount of VB, but Turbo Basic is one of those things I played with in my mis-spent youth.
At one time, my main reference was an article published in one of the main computing periodicals - maybe Personal Computer World, maybe Byte.
A scan of that article (if anyone can even identify it) would be great, but all I really want is a few pages quick reference of that standard syntax. Must be free (I'm not that nostalgic), but it must describe the standard syntax - the whole point is to sort out what is standard as opposed to VB or whatever.
EDIT The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this standard was available around 1987 or 1988. Maybe it was the earlier non-full version of the standard above, or maybe it was pre-acceptance of the standard.
Take a look at this PDF of a Dartmouth College BASIC manual from October 1964 if you're awash in nostalgia. Dartmouth's then-president John Kemeny invented the language (as you may know) and the 1960s and 70s-era Dartmouth Time Sharing System offered the language for its users to run programs on ancient GE mainframes in one of the first shared environments out there. (Find out more about DTSS here.)
The ANSI standardization process was underway in the mid-80's and Kemeny & Kurtz (the original inventors of BASIC) founded "True Basic" to market a standard BASIC to the PC market. Around this same time the 8th edition of BASIC on DTSS was renamed "Dartmouth Standard Basic", to emphasize its standard compliance.
True Basic hewed pretty closely to the ANSI standard, but I haven't been able to find a copy for their reference manual online. This list of TB functions and commands may give you some idea though.