ARM, TSMC announced forefoot A57 + A53 completed the first six-core processor 16nm FinFET process flow sheet to work under , including two A57(Compaq Presario CQ60-409CA keyboard), four A53, rear we see a piece of six-core 16nm wafers at MWC conference, but six core areas exactly the same, are said to be high-end A57.
Chip expert ChipWorks now confirmed this , noting that it is for the demonstration of new technology TSMC maturity and deliberately crafted exhibits, after all, the difficulty of the six A57 is great , does not necessarily mean there will be a real product - of course we are almost can confirm that there must be a six-core A57 , the phone does not work but can be used on the server.
ChipWorks site simply measuring a bit and found the area of each Die is about 22 × 15 = 330 square millimeters, quite large , and each A57 core area of approximately 7.5 mm2 .
This is a standard 300 mm wafers , yield even be 100% , can be cut out of the processor is not more than 60 , the cost is high .
By the way, look at Sony's Exmor CMOS sensor 300 mm wafers, and 1/2.3, 1.0, APS-C, 35 × 24 full-frame and other sensors.
I didn't see this posted recently, and searches here for redmonk and ranking returned nothing, so... I give you - Language Popularity:
GitHub (x-axis) 'v' StackOverFlow (y-axis).
From this article.
And Tim Bray on why a whole heap of things are in a bad way.
Well my last post I explored a little bit of the shinny new Test::Moose::More by adding a few tests to my Acme::Moose class.
I left off with the idea that I could use a test that tells me that I have extra attributes in my 'class'. Not being much afraid to muck about in source code I had a look in 'Test::Moose::More' to see what would be involved in creating such a test.
Well after a few min of poking about I settled on just extending the 'validate_thing' sub by adding in a new Key, 'no_extra_attributes', on the attributes hash. If this key is present then my little test will kick in and report any attributes that are not on the list passed in via the 'attributes' key.
Here is the patch
The deadline to submit grant application is March 14th. So far we got one submission. See here for the application procedure.
This is part 13 (and the final installment) of an ongoing series where I explore my relationship with Perl. You may wish to begin at the beginning.
This week we look at what comes next.
I suppose at the end of any long rumination on the past, it’s only natural to think about the future. I’ve tended to avoid pontificating on Perl’s prospects for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I don’t have any special knowledge to share. I’m not an author of Perl books, a contributor to the Perl core, or even a particularly prolific creator or maintainer of CPAN modules.1 I don’t have any inside knowledge of Perl from hanging out with Larry, or the folks that run the Perl Foundation, or the current Pumpking (nor any past ones, for that matter). I’m just a regular Joe JAPH—admittedly one who has made his living off Perl for 17 years, well enough to support a nice house in southern California and a complement of five humans, three cats, one guinea pig, and a tank full of tropical fish, snails, and shrimp—but just a working schmoe nonetheless, whose opinion isn’t any better or smarter or wiser or more likely to be true than yours. So, you should definitely not listen to me.
The title of this entry will only mean something to a very select few in the world and if you think it has anything to do with perl look below
Anyway I just finished my version .02 of Acme::Moose as I totally botched version .01 as it is a llama not a moose.
However, that is another story. At least I decided to add in a little testing to this version and what the heck I might as well use the fancy new Test::Moose::More and see what it has to offer.
So after about 10 mins of installation from CPAN I was ready to give it a try.
Well at first glance it took a few mins and a couple of runs of my .t to figure out that 'Test::Moose::More' is really just for testing Moose classes so you have to fall back to something like 'Test::More' if you want to run regular type test, but no matter.
So my first test looked like this
Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names (with 544+ comments) is a thorough dissection of the various falsehoods programmers believe about names.
Two takeaways for me:
- Depending on the application, a person may have no name at all -- think about hospitals and automobile accidents, for example.
- Thinking carefully about what name or names you need. Is this name for display to the user? Does it have to be used for email or postal mail? Should the name be sortable? There are lots of issues to consider.
(This makes a nice companion piece to Falsehoods programmers believe about time.)
Really did not have much to do before heading out to a show and was randomly looking at a few things and bumbled across this pic
Then being inspired to look on CPAN I found this ACME::Llama so I just had to do this