Ingrish of the Day

Another approach would be to declare i and j to be volatile :

class Test {
   static volatile int i = 0, j = 0;
      static void one() { i++; j++; }
      static void two() {
         System.out.println(“i=” + i + ” j=” + j);

This allows method one and method two to be executed concurrently, but guarantees that accesses to the shared values for i and j occur exactly as many times, and in exactly the same order, as they appear to occur during execution of the program text by each thread. Therefore, the shared value for j is never greater than that for i , because each update to i must be reflected in the shared value for i before the update to j occurs. It is possible, however, that any given invocation of method two might observe a value for j that is much greater than the value observed for i , because method one might be executed many times between the moment when method two fetches the value of i and the moment when method two fetches the value of j.

Bold emphasis to the above is my add.

Hell, I remember a time when the current Java Language Specification was written in clear English, and then the dot com bust happened. Thanks Congress for the H1–B visa and the L–1 visa. Obviously, the titans of industry understood that they deserved intellectually expensive labor at bargain prices to do their important projects to the exclusion of other lesser economic pursuits.

Ingrish Excerpt #1: …as they appear to occur during execution of the program text by each thread.

I expect the sentence diagram is not part of the Common Core feeeeeelings curriculum heartily endorsed by John Dewey’s undead corpse on crack, but English uses sentence structure to convey logic which itself is inherently structural. The Ingrish application of ‘by’ is wrong. We already fucking know that ‘execution’ is ‘by each thread’. Threads execute by definition. I am not aware of what order ‘appears to occur’ during execution, but then my x-ray eyes have been giving me fits lately.

Seems rather innocuous, that use of ‘by’; however, the point to be made is that the textual order of writes to and reads from volatile variables are not allowed to be reordered with respect to each other like regular writes and reads may be within a single thread’s execution sequence in isolated consideration of that thread alone to improve execution efficiency in computational time and/or space. Using a preposition per English rather than Ingrish would solve this problem for English language readers.

…as they appear to occur during execution of the program text for each thread.

A by B means B causes A. A for B means A causes something to benefit or improve B. The dyrexsion is diffront, Ingrish uzers. The preposition ‘by’ as used is logically wrong. The preposition ‘for’ would be an acceptable replacement. The preposition ‘within’ vis-a-vis the ‘textual order’ would be crystal clear, if you meant to write a canonical document in English that is.

…as they appear within the textual code as originally written for each thread, interlaced by concurrent execution as may be the case.

Ingrish Excerpt #2: …because each update to i must be reflected in the shared value for i before the update to j occurs.

What the fuck is the difference between an/the updated value and the shared value? Does not the updating thread have a shared value, of which there is apparently only one that has to be the same fucking value?!?! Ingrish uzers, we really care about the distinction between singular and plural amounts. If there are shared values, then the synchronization issue becomes apparent to the English reader, but not if there is only one single, solitary THE value. Maybe instead you could focus on the numerous threads with i in scope because I don’t give a rat’s ass about implementation details left to the implementor’s discretion.

Notice the effete passive voice of ‘must be reflected’. Sounds like Indian Ingrish. Do they have running water? “My good sir, I would like natural flavors to be reflected in this Slushie for which I have paid a king’s ransom in time and dehumanization given the shit wages and social conditions on this IMF tax farm.”

Enough with the A-for-B shit. Again ‘value’ is not doing ‘i’ any favors, Ingrish perzons. Rather, ‘value’ is of ‘i’. ‘i’ tells us which ‘value’, i.e. not the j value. (Pro Tip: I just used a noun as an adjective, but only because a word like ‘jish’ or ‘jy’ would only be extremely confusing. Use an adjectival form for clarity when you can, except when you are talking to people too stupid to understand the specific adjectival form, in which case you would use the well-known adjective form.)

May I seajest a wreerite of Ingrish Excerpt #2?

…because each update to i must reach all threads with i in scope before any?/the original thread’s? update to j occurs.

In this Idiocracy, where the Ojama Upyurs website, mistakenly on purpose to bankrupt private insurers, does not even have a backend to get business to the insurance companies, who then can do the actual work per the elites’ bidding of keeping the masses marshaled and economical? No, if you want profitable access to any wonderfully multiplexed labor units’ backend, you’ve got to be a goobermint insider. That’s why they call them goobermint insiders, silly. As we continue getting dumbed down in the Westy nations, it will be interesting to see if the army of bureaucrats can competently domesticate us plebs whilst domesticating themselves.

Funny, how volatile variables are more stable and predictable than nonvolatile variables. What I want to know though is: How do volatile variables make you feeeeel? and if they make you feeeeel bad (like pesky down language always does), should we (meaning the goobermint meaning some socioeconomically raped chumps who aren’t you) do something?

If elected, I will end the tyranny of volatile variables.

Cherchez la femme,

—‘Reality’ Doug, 10 December 2013

About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
This entry was posted in Philosophy, Political Opinion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.