Readit NewsI disagree with the statement too, as people definitely ask for UX / products to be "snappy", but this isn't about speed of development.
Are you kidding me? My product owner and management ask me all the time to implement features "fast".
Oh please
What's wrong with DLL hooking though?
What was supposed to be a reasonably straightforward project proved to be a huge challenge as we encountered numerous unforeseen technical difficulties. One particularly harrowing one was that the Raspberry Pi 3 booted into hypervisor mode instead of supervisor mode and QEMU's Raspberry Pi emulation accuracy was so abysmal back then to be borderline useless for osdev. I recall it took me an entire week of low-level hardware debugging just to figure that one out.
By the end, we pulled through and delivered a working port with UART, GPIO and framebuffer drivers that could run on the Raspberry Pi 2 and 3. We run our presentation with the port on real hardware, using a shell script that displayed bitmaps from the ramdisk and monitored GPIO pins to move slides forwards or backwards (I used a knife to short-circuit the pins as needed). It was by far the coolest presentation of all the groups just on originality alone and I think I still have the image of that SD card somewhere.
> I asked the professors if we could instead port MINIX3 to the Raspberry Pi
I think they were expecting you to fail.
> QEMU's Raspberry Pi emulation accuracy was so abysmal
When I did some hobby OS dev my strategy was to make it work on QEMU and then pray it would work on real hardware as well, which worked OK...
How did you handle the debugging the raspberry pi on real hardware?
Deleted Comment
That can't possibly be the hardest bug ever
No, all finite continued fractions express a rational number (for... obvious reasons), which is honestly kind of a disappointment, since arbitrary sequences of integers can, as a matter of principle, represent arbitrary computable numbers if you want them to. They're powerful than finite positional representations, but fundamentally equivalent to simple fractions.
They are occasionally convenient for certain problem structures but, as I'm sure you've already discovered, somewhat less convenient for a wide range of common problems.
Any real number x has an infinite continued fraction representation. By efficient I mean that the information of the continued fraction coefficients is an efficient way to compute rational upper and lower bounds that approximate x well (they are the best rational approximations to x).
> They are occasionally convenient for certain problem structures but, as I'm sure you've already discovered, somewhat less convenient for a wide range of common problems.
I'm curious what you mean exactly. I've found them to be very convenient for evaluating arithmetic expressions (involving both rational and irrational numbers) to fairly high accuracy. They are not the most efficient solution for this, but their simplicity and not having to do error analysis is far better than any other purely numerical system.
> fundamentally equivalent to simple fractions.
This feels like it is a bit too reductionist. I can come up with a lot of example, but it's quite hard to find the best rational approximations of a number with just fractions, while it's trivial with continued fractions. Likewise, a number like the golden ratio, e, or any algebraic number has a simple description in terms of continued fractions, while this is certainly not the case for normal fractions.
That continued fractions can be easily converted to normal fractions and vice versa, is a strength of continued fractions, not a weakness.
Not everyone with a different opinion is dumber than you.