Search Results

Search found 672 results on 27 pages for 'prove'.

Page 2/27 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Prove that the set of regular languages is a proper subset of the set of the context-free languages

    - by David Relihan
    I was brushing up (not homework)on some computation-theory and came accross this problem: How can you prove that the set of regular languages is a proper subset of the set of the context-free languages. Now I know a language is regular iff it is accepted by a finite automaton. And I know a language is context-free iff it is accepted by a pushdown automaton. But I'm not sure of what solution is.

    Read the article

  • What does it take to prove this Contract.Requires?

    - by John Gietzen
    I have an application that runs through the rounds in a tournament, and I am getting a contract warning on this simplified code structure: public static void LoadState(IList<Object> stuff) { for(int i = 0; i < stuff.Count; i++) { // Contract.Assert(i < stuff.Count); // Contract.Assume(i < stuff.Count); Object thing = stuff[i]; Console.WriteLine(thing.ToString()); } } The warning is: contracts: requires unproven: index < @this.Count What am I doing wrong? How can I prove this on an IList<T>? Is this a bug in the static analyzer? How would I submit a bug report to Microsoft?

    Read the article

  • How do you prove your cleverness and programming skills?

    - by Sebi
    Lately, there were a lot of questions related to career planning and how to decide which languages to learn, how to learn new languages and so on. But I was thinking about a way, how do you will proof later that you're really learned something. Ok you can mentione it in your application for a job or in the interview, but by just stating that I was learning e.g. C++ at home, I don't think this will really be very sucessful. So some suggested to create something (homepage, application, whatsoever) to prove that you also can use these skills in practice. But still I'm not really sure if this will provide any benefit, because it would require a very special project to show all your skills and I don't think you can easily invent such a project (that sould also be useful). Others suggested to solve for example the Project Euler questions but still I'm not sure how this will be useful in career-planning. Are you going to mention at your job interview that you solved all this question in the company's favorite programming language?? :D I can't imagine. The reason why I'm asking is that I have some spare time and I would really like to learn some new programming languages (C++ and/or Python if this matters) and I'm looking for a smart way to do is while concurrently assure that it will be useful in my future career. (there are 3-4 companies id like to try to get a job andIi know all of them are using mainly C++/Pyhton...)

    Read the article

  • What data should I (can I) gather to prove a .net bug in third party software?

    - by gef05
    Our users are using a third-party system and every so often - a user might go all day without this happening, other days they may see it two or three times in seven hours - a red x will appear on screen rather than a button, field, or control. This is a .net system. Looking online I can see that this is a .net error. Problem is, our devs didn't write it, and the vendor wants proof that the problem resides with their system, not our PCs. What can we do to gather information on such an issue that would allow us to make our case to the vendor and get them to create a fix? I'm thinking of data to gather - anything from OS, memory. .net version installed etc. But I'd also like to know about error logging - if it's possible to log errors that occur in third-party systems.

    Read the article

  • How do people prove the correctness of Computer Vision methods?

    - by solvingPuzzles
    I'd like to pose a few abstract questions about computer vision research. I haven't quite been able to answer these questions by searching the web and reading papers. How does someone know whether a computer vision algorithm is correct? How do we define "correct" in the context of computer vision? Do formal proofs play a role in understanding the correctness of computer vision algorithms? A bit of background: I'm about to start my PhD in Computer Science. I enjoy designing fast parallel algorithms and proving the correctness of these algorithms. I've also used OpenCV from some class projects, though I don't have much formal training in computer vision. I've been approached by a potential thesis advisor who works on designing faster and more scalable algorithms for computer vision (e.g. fast image segmentation). I'm trying to understand the common practices in solving computer vision problems.

    Read the article

  • How do I prove I should put a table of values in source code instead of a database table?

    - by FastAl
    <tldr>looking for a reference to a book or other undeniably authoritative source that gives reasons when you should choose a database vs. when you should choose other storage methods. I have provided an un-authoritative list of reasons about 2/3 of the way down this post.</tldr> I have a situation at my company where a database is being used where it would be better to use another solution (in this case, an auto-generated piece of source code that contains a static lookup table, searched by binary sort). Normally, a database would be an OK solution even though the problem does not require a database, e.g, none of the elements of ACID are needed, as it is read-only data, updated about every 3-5 years (also requiring other sourcecode changes), and fits in memory, and can be keyed into via binary search (a tad faster than db, but speed is not an issue). The problem is that this code runs on our enterprise server, but is shared with several PC platforms (some disconnected, some use a central DB, etc.), and parts of it are managed by multiple programming units, parts by the DBAs, parts even by mathematicians in another department, etc. These hit their own platform’s version of their databases (containing their own copy of the static data). What happens is that every implementation, every little change, something different goes wrong. There are many other issues as well. I can’t even use a flatfile, because one mode of running on our enterprise server does not have permission to read files (only databases, and of course, its own literal storage, e.g., in-source table). Of course, other parts of the system use databases in proper, less obscure manners; there is no problem with those parts. So why don’t we just change it? I don’t have administrative ability to force a change. But I’m affected because sometimes I have to help fix the problems, but mostly because it causes outages and tons of extra IT time by other programmers and d*mmit that makes me mad! The reason neither management, nor the designers of the system, can see the problem is that they propose a solution that won’t work: increase communication; implement more safeguards and standards; etc. But every time, in a different part of the already-pared-down but still multi-step processes, a few different diligent, hard-working, top performing IT personnel make a unique subtle error that causes it to fail, sometimes after the last round of testing! And in general these are not single-person failures, but understandable miscommunications. And communication at our company is actually better than most. People just don't think that's the case because they haven't dug into the matter. However, I have it on very good word from somebody with extensive formal study of sociology and psychology that the relatively small amount of less-than-proper database usage in this gigantic cross-platform multi-source, multi-language project is bureaucratically un-maintainable. Impossible. No chance. At least with Human Beings in the loop, and it can’t be automated. In addition, the management and developers who could change this, though intelligent and capable, don’t understand the rigidity of this ‘how humans are’ issue, and are not convincible on the matter. The reason putting the static data in sourcecode will solve the problem is, although the solution is less sexy than a database, it would function with no technical drawbacks; and since the sharing of sourcecode already works very well, you basically erase any database-related effort from this section of the project, along with all the drawbacks of it that are causing problems. OK, that’s the background, for the curious. I won’t be able to convince management that this is an unfixable sociological problem, and that the real solution is coding around these limits of human nature, just as you would code around a bug in a 3rd party component that you can’t change. So what I have to do is exploit the unsuitableness of the database solution, and not do it using logic, but rather authority. I am aware of many reasons, and posts on this site giving reasons for one over the other; I’m not looking for lists of reasons like these (although you can add a comment if I've miss a doozy): WHY USE A DATABASE? instead of flatfile/other DB vs. file: if you need... Random Read / Transparent search optimization Advanced / varied / customizable Searching and sorting capabilities Transaction/rollback Locks, semaphores Concurrency control / Shared users Security 1-many/m-m is easier Easy modification Scalability Load Balancing Random updates / inserts / deletes Advanced query Administrative control of design, etc. SQL / learning curve Debugging / Logging Centralized / Live Backup capabilities Cached queries / dvlp & cache execution plans Interleaved update/read Referential integrity, avoid redundant/missing/corrupt/out-of-sync data Reporting (from on olap or oltp db) / turnkey generation tools [Disadvantages:] Important to get right the first time - professional design - but only b/c it's meant to last s/w & h/w cost Usu. over a network, speed issue (best vs. best design vs. local=even then a separate process req's marshalling/netwk layers/inter-p comm) indicies and query processing can stand in the way of simple processing (vs. flatfile) WHY USE FLATFILE: If you only need... Sequential Row processing only Limited usage append only (no reading, no master key/update) Only Update the record you're reading (fixed length recs only) Too big to fit into memory If Local disk / read-ahead network connection Portability / small system Email / cut & Paste / store as document by novice - simple format Low design learning curve but high cost later WHY USE IN-MEMORY/TABLE (tables, arrays, etc.): if you need... Processing a single db/ff record that was imported Known size of data Static data if hardcoding the table Narrow, unchanging use (e.g., one program or proc) -includes a class that will be shared, but encapsulates its data manipulation Extreme speed needed / high transaction frequency Random access - but search is dependent on implementation Following are some other posts about the topic: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1499239/database-vs-flat-text-file-what-are-some-technical-reasons-for-choosing-one-over http://stackoverflow.com/questions/332825/are-flat-file-databases-any-good http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2356851/database-vs-flat-files http://stackoverflow.com/questions/514455/databases-vs-plain-text/514530 What I’d like to know is if anybody could recommend a hard, authoritative source containing these reasons. I’m looking for a paper book I can buy, or a reputable website with whitepapers about the issue (e.g., Microsoft, IBM), not counting the user-generated content on those sites. This will have a greater change to elicit a change that I’m looking for: less wasted programmer time, and more reliable programs. Thanks very much for your help. You win a prize for reading such a large post!

    Read the article

  • How do I prove to a client/advertiser that my site's analytics numbers are what I say they are?

    - by Bryson
    I have been asked to provide recommendations on "Verified Analytics" for the next iteration of my company's site. Verified to mean that when we sell ad space, it's based on a number of page-views, and the people who buy that space want a way to verify that the numbers we give them are the actual numbers we're delivering. I have turned to The Google and the only services I can find for this sort of thing revolve around Google Analytics and the sale of a domain name. I export my analytics numbers to a PDF, have Google email the PDF to my auctioneer, and they look for signs of tampering. If no signs of tampering are found they put a little "Verified" badge on the domain auction. (Here) Other than this, and something similar on another domain sales site, I haven't found anything like what I've been asked to find. Currently we are using Google Analytics, however I've been also asked to recommend a replacement for that based on the ability to be verified. I'd rather just stick with Google Analytics since we also use Google for advertising.

    Read the article

  • How do digital certificates prove the identity of a device?

    - by StackedCrooked
    I understand how the relation between issuer and subject certificates enables verification of the subject's authenticity. If I connect to a networked device, and it sends me its certificate to identify itself, then I can verify that it was issued by a trusted party and that it has not been tampered with in any way. However, suppose I simply upload this certificate onto another device. Then what prevents me from having this device identify itself with the copied certificate?

    Read the article

  • How to prove worst-case number of inversions in a heap is O(nlogn)?

    - by Jacques
    I am busy preparing for exams, just doing some old exam papers. The question below is the only one I can't seem to do (I don't really know where to start). Any help would be appreciated greatly. Use the O(nlogn) comparison sort bound, the theta(n) bound for bottom-up heap construction, and the order complexity if insertion sort to show that the worst-case number of inversions in a heap is O(nlogn).

    Read the article

  • Weakly connected tree

    - by wow_22
    hello I have an algorithmic problem using a weakly connected tree T where w(T)=sum(w(e)) for each edge e,by w i declare weight and i have to prove that we can use prim and Kruskal algorithm while w(T)=max{w(e)} maximum between any edge e belongs at T (I proved that) but i have also to prove the same for w(T)=?(w(e)) while ? states product of all edges belongs at T i tried a lot to prove it but i did not came up with a result that proving or disapproving the use of prim ,kruskal any help will be more than appreciated thanks

    Read the article

  • The long road to bug-free software

    - by Tony Davis
    The past decade has seen a burgeoning interest in functional programming languages such as Haskell or, in the Microsoft world, F#. Though still on the periphery of mainstream programming, functional programming concepts are gradually seeping into the imperative C# language (for example, Lambda expressions have their root in functional programming). One of the more interesting concepts from functional programming languages is the use of formal methods, the lofty ideal behind which is bug-free software. The idea is that we write a specification that describes exactly how our function (say) should behave. We then prove that our function conforms to it, and in doing so have proved beyond any doubt that it is free from bugs. All programmers already use one form of specification, specifically their programming language's type system. If a value has a specific type then, in a type-safe language, the compiler guarantees that value cannot be an instance of a different type. Many extensions to existing type systems, such as generics in Java and .NET, extend the range of programs that can be type-checked. Unfortunately, type systems can only prevent some bugs. To take a classic problem of retrieving an index value from an array, since the type system doesn't specify the length of the array, the compiler has no way of knowing that a request for the "value of index 4" from an array of only two elements is "unsafe". We restore safety via exception handling, but the ideal type system will prevent us from doing anything that is unsafe in the first place and this is where we start to borrow ideas from a language such as Haskell, with its concept of "dependent types". If the type of an array includes its length, we can ensure that any index accesses into the array are valid. The problem is that we now need to carry around the length of arrays and the values of indices throughout our code so that it can be type-checked. In general, writing the specification to prove a positive property, even for a problem very amenable to specification, such as a simple sorting algorithm, turns out to be very hard and the specification will be different for every program. Extend this to writing a specification for, say, Microsoft Word and we can see that the specification would end up being no simpler, and therefore no less buggy, than the implementation. Fortunately, it is easier to write a specification that proves that a program doesn't have certain, specific and undesirable properties, such as infinite loops or accesses to the wrong bit of memory. If we can write the specifications to prove that a program is immune to such problems, we could reuse them in many places. The problem is the lack of specification "provers" that can do this without a lot of manual intervention (i.e. hints from the programmer). All this might feel a very long way off, but computing power and our understanding of the theory of "provers" advances quickly, and Microsoft is doing some of it already. Via their Terminator research project they have started to prove that their device drivers will always terminate, and in so doing have suddenly eliminated a vast range of possible bugs. This is a huge step forward from saying, "we've tested it lots and it seems fine". What do you think? What might be good targets for specification and verification? SQL could be one: the cost of a bug in SQL Server is quite high given how many important systems rely on it, so there's a good incentive to eliminate bugs, even at high initial cost. [Many thanks to Mike Williamson for guidance and useful conversations during the writing of this piece] Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • The long road to bug-free software

    - by Tony Davis
    The past decade has seen a burgeoning interest in functional programming languages such as Haskell or, in the Microsoft world, F#. Though still on the periphery of mainstream programming, functional programming concepts are gradually seeping into the imperative C# language (for example, Lambda expressions have their root in functional programming). One of the more interesting concepts from functional programming languages is the use of formal methods, the lofty ideal behind which is bug-free software. The idea is that we write a specification that describes exactly how our function (say) should behave. We then prove that our function conforms to it, and in doing so have proved beyond any doubt that it is free from bugs. All programmers already use one form of specification, specifically their programming language's type system. If a value has a specific type then, in a type-safe language, the compiler guarantees that value cannot be an instance of a different type. Many extensions to existing type systems, such as generics in Java and .NET, extend the range of programs that can be type-checked. Unfortunately, type systems can only prevent some bugs. To take a classic problem of retrieving an index value from an array, since the type system doesn't specify the length of the array, the compiler has no way of knowing that a request for the "value of index 4" from an array of only two elements is "unsafe". We restore safety via exception handling, but the ideal type system will prevent us from doing anything that is unsafe in the first place and this is where we start to borrow ideas from a language such as Haskell, with its concept of "dependent types". If the type of an array includes its length, we can ensure that any index accesses into the array are valid. The problem is that we now need to carry around the length of arrays and the values of indices throughout our code so that it can be type-checked. In general, writing the specification to prove a positive property, even for a problem very amenable to specification, such as a simple sorting algorithm, turns out to be very hard and the specification will be different for every program. Extend this to writing a specification for, say, Microsoft Word and we can see that the specification would end up being no simpler, and therefore no less buggy, than the implementation. Fortunately, it is easier to write a specification that proves that a program doesn't have certain, specific and undesirable properties, such as infinite loops or accesses to the wrong bit of memory. If we can write the specifications to prove that a program is immune to such problems, we could reuse them in many places. The problem is the lack of specification "provers" that can do this without a lot of manual intervention (i.e. hints from the programmer). All this might feel a very long way off, but computing power and our understanding of the theory of "provers" advances quickly, and Microsoft is doing some of it already. Via their Terminator research project they have started to prove that their device drivers will always terminate, and in so doing have suddenly eliminated a vast range of possible bugs. This is a huge step forward from saying, "we've tested it lots and it seems fine". What do you think? What might be good targets for specification and verification? SQL could be one: the cost of a bug in SQL Server is quite high given how many important systems rely on it, so there's a good incentive to eliminate bugs, even at high initial cost. [Many thanks to Mike Williamson for guidance and useful conversations during the writing of this piece] Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • What encryption algorithm/package should I use in a betting game?

    - by user299648
    I have a betting type site where I publish a number (between 0-100) that is encrypted. Then after a period of time, I would review what the number is and prove it with a key to decrypt the encrypted number to prove that I'm not cheating. I also want it to be easily verifiable by an average user. What encryption algorithm/technique/package should I use? I'm no expert on cryptography. There seems to be so many options out there and I'm not sure what to use. python friendly is a plus.

    Read the article

  • What encryption algorithm/package should I use in a betting game type situation?

    - by user299648
    I have a betting type site where I publish a number (between 0-100) that is encrypted. Then after a period of time, I would review what the number is and prove it with a key to decrypt the encrypted number to prove that I'm not cheating. I also want it to be easily verifiable by an average user. What encryption algorithm/technique/package should I use? I'm no expert on cryptography. There seems to be so many options out there and I'm not sure what to use. python friendly is a plus.

    Read the article

  • FIFO semaphore test

    - by L4N0
    Hello everyone, I have implemented FIFO semaphores but now I need a way to test/prove that they are working properly. A simple test would be to create some threads that try to wait on a semaphore and then print a message with a number and if the numbers are in order it should be FIFO, but this is not good enough to prove it because that order could have occurred by chance. Thus, I need a better way of testing it. If necessary locks or condition variables can be used too. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Proving that P <= NP

    - by Gail
    As most people know, P = NP is unproven and seems unlikely to be true. The proof would prove that P <= NP and NP <= P. Only one of those is hard, though. P <= NP is almost by definition true. In fact, that's the only way that I know how to state that P <= NP. It's just intuitive. How would you prove that P <= NP?

    Read the article

  • How do you tell that your unit tests are correct?

    - by Jacob Adams
    I've only done minor unit testing at various points in my career. Whenever I start diving into it again, it always troubles me how to prove that my tests are correct. How can I tell that there isn't a bug in my unit test? Usually I end up running the app, proving it works, then using the unit test as a sort of regression test. What is the recommended approach and/or what is the approach you take to this problem? Edit: I also realize that you could write small, granular unit tests that would be easy to understand. However, if you assume that small, granular code is flawless and bulletproof, you could just write small, granular programs and not need unit testing. Edit2: For the arguments "unit testing is for making sure your changes don't break anything" and "this will only happen if the test has the exact same flaw as the code", what if the test overfits? It's possible to pass both good and bad code with a bad test. My main question is what good is unit testing since if your tests can be flawed you can't really improve your confidence in your code, can't really prove your refactoring worked, and can't really prove that you met the specification?

    Read the article

  • Json get a parameter can't access on it iOS

    - by Usi Usi
    That's an example { "updated":1350213484, "id":"http://www.google.com/reader/api/0/feed-finder?q\u003dProva\u0026output\u003djson", "title":"Risultati di feed per \"Prova\"", "self":[ { "href":"http://www.google.com/reader/api/0/feed-finder?q\u003dProva\u0026output\u003djson" } ], "items":[ { "title":"Home Page - La prova del cuoco", "id":"http://www.laprovadelcuoco.rai.it/", "updated":1350213485, "feed":[ { "href":"http://www.laprovadelcuoco.rai.it/dl/portali/site/page/Page-ffb545b4-9e72-41e5-866f-a465588c43fa-rss.html" } ], "alternate":[ { "href":"http://www.laprovadelcuoco.rai.it/", "type":"text/html" } ], "content":{ "direction":"ltr", "content":"Diventa un cuoco provetto con “La Prova del Cuoco”: le videoricette in un' applicazione di facile e veloce consultazione per il tuo Iphone. Scopri come acquistare ..." } }, { "title":"Le prove Invalsi di matematica e italiano", "id":"http://online.scuola.zanichelli.it/quartaprova/", "updated":1350213486, "feed":[ { "href":"http://online.scuola.zanichelli.it/quartaprova/feed/" } ], "alternate":[ { "href":"http://online.scuola.zanichelli.it/quartaprova/", "type":"text/html" } ], "content":{ "direction":"ltr", "content":"Un sito Zanichelli dedicato alle prove Invalsi di italiano e matematica: esercitazioni, consigli, informazioni utili, novità, aggiornamenti e blog d'autore sulle prove ..." } }, How can I get the feed URL? That's what I do NSString *daParsare=[reader searchFeed:searchText]; NSArray *items = [[daParsare JSONValue] objectForKey:@"items"]; for (NSDictionary *item in items) { NSString *title = [item objectForKey:@"title"]; NSString *feed = [item valueForKeyPath:@"feed.href"]; } [tab reloadData]; With the title everything is ok but when I try to access to the feed paramater I get the error...

    Read the article

  • Get MySQL 5.6 Certified at a Much Reduced Price

    - by Antoinette O'Sullivan
    You have already heard the great news that you can now prove your knowledge of MySQL Server 5.6 with the new MySQL certification exams: Oracle Certified Professional, MySQL 5.6 Developer Oracle Certified Professional, MySQL 5.6 Database Administrator Until December 14th 2013, there exams are beta phase so you get a fully-fledged certification at a much reduced price; for example $50 in the United States or 39 euros in the euro zone. There is a lot of excitement around these new certifications as people ramp up to prove their expertise. Here is some information that might help you are you prepare to get MySQL 5.6 certified. Establishing What You Need to Know Your first step is to chose whether you want to take the MySQL 5.6 Developer or MySQL 5.6 Database Administrator certification. Now click on the Exam Topics tab on the corresponding certification page. You will see a list of topics that you will be tested on during the certification exam. These are the areas that you need to improve your knowledge on, if you are not already expert. Register For a Certification Exam Click on the relevant certification and then click on Register for this Exam. The Pearson VUE site will guide you through signing up for an event at a date and location to suit you. Preparing to Take an Exam For each certification, you can click on the Exam Preparation tab. This indicates the recommended training and reference material that can help you prepare to sit the exam. And why not follow the experience of others preparing to take these exams. Todd Farmer Morgan Tocker Moritz Schupp Open Source Dba's blog You could also read MySQL hints and tips from Jeremy Smyth who is part of the team writing the authentic MySQL curriculum.

    Read the article

  • Can I save & store a user's submission in a way that proves that the data has not been altered, and that the timestamp is accurate?

    - by jt0dd
    There are many situations where the validity of the timestamp attached to a certain post (submission of information) might be invaluable for the post owner's legal usage. I'm not looking for a service to achieve this, as requested in this great question, but rather a method for the achievement of such a service. For the legal (in most any law system) authentication of text content and its submission time, the owner of the content would need to prove: that the timestamp itself has not been altered and was accurate to begin with. that the text content linked to the timestamp had not been altered I'd like to know how to achieve this via programming (not a language-specific solution, but rather the methodology behind the solution). Can a timestamp be validated to being accurate to the time that the content was really submitted? Can data be stored in a form that it can be read, but not written to, in a proven way? In other words, can I save & store a user's submission in a way that proves that the data has not been altered, and that the timestamp is accurate? I can't think of any programming method that would make this possible, but I am not the most experienced programmer out there. Based on MidnightLightning's answer to the question I cited, this sort of thing is being done. Clarification: I'm looking for a method (hashing, encryption, etc) that would allow an average guy like me to achieve the desired effect through programming. I'm interested in this subject for the purpose of Defensive Publication. I'd like to learn a method that allows an every-day programmer to pick up his computer, write a program, pass information through it, and say: I created this text at this moment in time, and I can prove it. This means the information should be protected from the programmer who writes the code as well. Perhaps a 3rd party API would be required. I'm ok with that.

    Read the article

  • Where could Distributed Version Control Systems currently be in Gartner's hype cycle?

    - by dukeofgaming
    Edit: Given the recent downvoting (+8/-6 at this point) it was made clear to me that Gartner's lifecycle is a biased metric from a programmer's perspective. This is something that is part of a paper I'm going to present to management, and management types are part of Gartner's audience. Giving DVCS exposure & enthusiasm (that "could" be deemed as hype, or at least attacked as such), think about the following question when reading this one: "how could I use Gartner's hype cycle to convince management that DVCSs are ready (or ready-enough) for us, and that it is not just hype" Just asking if DVCSs is hype wouldn't be constructive, Gartner's hype cycle is a more objective instrument than just asking that (even if this instrument is regarded as biased). If you know any other instrument please, by all means, mention it. Edit #2: I agree that Gartner's Life Cycle is not for every technology, but I consider it may have generated enough buzz to be considered hype by some, so it maybe deserves to be at least evaluated/pondered as such by using this instrument in order to prove/disprove it to whatever degree. I'm an advocate of DVCS, BTW. I'm doing research for a whitepaper I'm writing in favor of DVCS adoption at company and I stumbled upon the concept of social proof. I want to prove that the social proof of DVCS adoption is not necessarily cargo cult and doing further research I now stumbled upon Gartner's hype cycle which describes technology maturity in 5 phases. My question is: what could be an indicator of the current location of Distributed Version Control Systems (I mean git, mercurial, bazaar, etc. in general) at a particular phase in the hype cycle?... in other (less convoluted) words, would you say that currently expectations of DVCSs are a) starting, b)inflated, c)decreasing (disillusionment), d)increasing (enlightenment) or e)stabilizing (mature) and (more importantly) why? I know it is a hard question and there is subjectivity involved, but I'll grant the answer (and the traditional cookie) to the clearest argument/evidence for a particular phase.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >