1. Which is why it shouldn't be used outside of mathematical contexts. I tend to write mathematical code. It is therefore a hassle.
2. Suppose I wanted to write code that passes a Java list into a Lua function. Then it would be perfectly reasonable to have "Pass(List int_list)" and "Pass(List str_list)", and the type of the list's contents is quite relevant.
3. Yeah, Java not being the language for me is the vibe that I get. I would disagree on your statement regarding verbosity and readability. A little verbosity is a good thing for readability. A great deal of verbosity is not. There is a reason why people dislike reading legalese.
4. Any code that the IDE generates is code that could instead by generated by the compiler. This reduces the amount of visual noise, and means that I don't need to read each function definition to figure out if one of them has changed from the default.
I feel that that is true about any well-written code, not a property of the language. If I see a named function, I assume that it does something similar to its name. If I see addition, I assume that it does something similar to addition. If I am replacing a possibly-having-side-effects method call with a possibly-having-side-effects operator, I don't see why it would increase confusion. Heck, C++ has the "const" keyword, which makes it even easier to specify that a function has no side effects.
Ah, I didn't know that about get() being universal. Thank you. I was misremembering this stackoverflow post, which shows how you need to use either the subscript operator, the get() method, or the charAt() method, depending on whether your object is an array, a list, or a string.
- I would say that operator overloading in some cases is evil. In others, it is the natural thing to do. For example, linear interpolation between two vectors is much easier to read as "s*v1 + (1-s)*v2" than as "v1.multiply(s).add(v2.multiply(1-s))".
- Yes, but by no means should I need to. In C++, I could pass all objects as void* and then include a tag to show which type it represents. I don't do so, because that is something that the compiler can handle.
- Yes, which is why I mentioned it. The situation is better, but only in recent versions of java.
- Generated code gets too complicated, because you need to look at each function and determine whether it is still identical to the generated version, or if it has been modified. If code is present, it should be present as the result of a reasonable decision.
I've tried to get into Java on multiple occasions. Each time, I get thrown back by the amount of boilerplate necessary, and by missing features.
- No operator overloading. As a result, every container type is accessed differently. Arrays use []. Lists use At(). Hashmaps use Get(). Matrices, vectors, and complex numbers are absurdly verbose, because I cannot overload addition and multiplication.
- Type erasure for generics. As a result, I cannot define different function overloads for func(List) and func(List).
- Lack of first class functions. As a result, callbacks required the absurdity of implementing the Callable interface. This has been improved recently with the addition of lambda statements.
- Lack of properties. As a result, I cannot expose anything as public, because I might want to add additional code at some point in the future. Therefore, I must have an explosion of getters/setters.
I like the idea of having a sandboxed virtual machine. I like the idea of having a single version of the bytecode that can run anywhere. I just can't stand the language.
It is still exactly a neutrality violation, because the packets are being treated differently. As a customer, I should not need to worry about whether wikipedia or netflix or MyUpAndComingVideoSite.com has paid the ISP bribe/extortion. Neutrality has been broken at that point.
Good writing eliminates ambiguity. Good reading chooses the most likely interpretation in cases of ambiguity. It is immediately obvious that good reading can alleviate the effects of bad writing, but cannot eliminate the effects, as the most likely interpretation still has some chance of being wrong.
As it is written, the sentence "More than half of the suicides were committed by just five percent of patients." is as silly as "Sixty percent of the time, works every time."
Let's look at the expected gain/loss. Assume that x is the probability that the company gets caught. That means there is an x probability of being down by $3500, and a (1-x) probability of being up by $40k. The break-even point occurs when x=0.08. That means that if this behavior is repeated over and over, we need to catch them at it at least 92% of the time for it to not be financially viable, giving these penalties.
This is the entire purpose of punitive damages. It is impossible to catch someone every single time. The punitive damages are to make it be so costly that one time that they are caught that the entire practice must stop. A $3500 fine is an absolute joke when the stolen wages are over ten times that amount.
Privacy vs. no privacy is a false dichotomy. In my own home, I can reasonably expect that no one will observe me. On a podium in front of a crown, I can reasonably expect that everyone will observe me. Walking down the street, I can reasonably expect that people will see me, notice me, but that I will be one of many, unrecognized other than by those who directly know me. It is this last expectation that is violated by omnipresent cameras.
A plague of locusts swarms outward, consuming everything in its path. A swarm of humans, on the other hand, would swarm outward, terraforming planets and increasing habitability. One leaves the area less able to support life, the other leaves the area more able to support life. The pristine state of the universe is not the best for supporting life, and so we should feel no obligation to keep it as it is.
Still disliking screen real estate being used by uselessly large, annoyingly nested menus that change on the fly? Yup. I can use either. That doesn't mean that both are equally well-designed.
Physical distance, while providing a valid metric, is useless for gaining any understanding. Packet transmission time is not a constant, and so does not satisfy the requirement for a metric.
Not really sure what gives that impression. Neither adding nor scalar multiplication of a server location yield anything useful. I cannot think of a way to define an inner product between two servers, nor any relevant information that could be gained from it. What would be the distance between two servers? In short, a mathematical space has nothing to do with the concept of "cyberspace".
The closest mathematical structure I can see would be an unordered set whose elements are individual servers, but this is so generic of a structure as to be entirely useless.
Metaphors are there to give insight into concepts that are difficult to understand. If a metaphor provides correct understanding by giving intuition based on the metaphor, then it is a good metaphor. If a metaphor provides wrong answers when applying it, then it is wrong as a metaphor.
It isn't a lack of imagination that causes one to see cyberspace as idiotic. Rather, those who see cyberspace as a useful concept have a lack of understanding. It is an incorrect metaphor, because it implies connections that do not exist. For example, it implies that someone must be physically located somewhere in order to affect a location. It implies that a person cannot affect multiple locations at the same time. It implies that a person is capable of littering without the permission of the owner. It implies that borders can be enforced. It implies that there are neighboring areas. (My address being 1 away from yours implies that I have the house next to yours. My IP address being 1 away from yours implies that they were purchased as part of the same lot.)
I'm all for metaphors when they are accurate and increase understanding. When they are outright wrong, then the metaphors are idiotic, and should be dropped.
I have wifi available everywhere except in transit. I have no need of a data plan whatsoever. It would be nice, however, to have my phone be more user-friendly, able to notify me of mail, and have a few games on it for passing the time.
Of course I would be doing more with it than just making calls. However, I would not be doing more on the network than making calls. The requirement of a data plan prevents that.
I would say that it is much less verbose in the case where errors need to be propagated upward. This is exactly why not every function call has a try/catch around it. Suppose I am writing a function that accepts a filename, interprets the text in the file, and then returns some modified version of the text. With error codes, I would need to explicitly check that open_file has returned a valid file handler. I can't do anything without a valid file, so I then need to propagate the error upward. On the other hand, with exceptions, I could simply not catch that exception from open_file. I can't do anything to recover, so I should let the exception propagate upward to wherever called me, and then let them deal with it.
While there may be two sides to every story, I do not believe that they should be presented equally. I would expect someone who insists that the time is a cube to be laughed out of any rational discussion. Equally, I would expect someone who insists that our patent system is the "envy of the world" and that increasing the prevalence of lawsuits are evidence of a well-functioning patent system to be laughed at.
The problem is that there is then no indication of which way the page has turned. If I had a physical button, I would agree. However, with touch screens being the current fad, there is ambiguity in knowing whether the machine knows which direction you have turned the page. An animation as the page turns displays this.
Words that are arranged are not owned. Rather, you are given a limited monopoly on the reproduction of those words, for a limited time. This monopoly is society's way of saying "Thank you" for having contributed to society, and is the way by which incentive is given to enrich society.
You are not given absolute control, nor is the control you are granted to last forever.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Which is why it shouldn't be used outside of mathematical contexts. I tend to write mathematical code. It is therefore a hassle.
2. Suppose I wanted to write code that passes a Java list into a Lua function. Then it would be perfectly reasonable to have "Pass(List int_list)" and "Pass(List str_list)", and the type of the list's contents is quite relevant.
3. Yeah, Java not being the language for me is the vibe that I get. I would disagree on your statement regarding verbosity and readability. A little verbosity is a good thing for readability. A great deal of verbosity is not. There is a reason why people dislike reading legalese.
4. Any code that the IDE generates is code that could instead by generated by the compiler. This reduces the amount of visual noise, and means that I don't need to read each function definition to figure out if one of them has changed from the default.
I feel that that is true about any well-written code, not a property of the language. If I see a named function, I assume that it does something similar to its name. If I see addition, I assume that it does something similar to addition. If I am replacing a possibly-having-side-effects method call with a possibly-having-side-effects operator, I don't see why it would increase confusion. Heck, C++ has the "const" keyword, which makes it even easier to specify that a function has no side effects.
Ah, I didn't know that about get() being universal. Thank you. I was misremembering this stackoverflow post, which shows how you need to use either the subscript operator, the get() method, or the charAt() method, depending on whether your object is an array, a list, or a string.
- I would say that operator overloading in some cases is evil. In others, it is the natural thing to do. For example, linear interpolation between two vectors is much easier to read as "s*v1 + (1-s)*v2" than as "v1.multiply(s).add(v2.multiply(1-s))".
- Yes, but by no means should I need to. In C++, I could pass all objects as void* and then include a tag to show which type it represents. I don't do so, because that is something that the compiler can handle.
- Yes, which is why I mentioned it. The situation is better, but only in recent versions of java.
- Generated code gets too complicated, because you need to look at each function and determine whether it is still identical to the generated version, or if it has been modified. If code is present, it should be present as the result of a reasonable decision.
I've tried to get into Java on multiple occasions. Each time, I get thrown back by the amount of boilerplate necessary, and by missing features.
- No operator overloading. As a result, every container type is accessed differently. Arrays use []. Lists use At(). Hashmaps use Get(). Matrices, vectors, and complex numbers are absurdly verbose, because I cannot overload addition and multiplication.
- Type erasure for generics. As a result, I cannot define different function overloads for func(List) and func(List).
- Lack of first class functions. As a result, callbacks required the absurdity of implementing the Callable interface. This has been improved recently with the addition of lambda statements.
- Lack of properties. As a result, I cannot expose anything as public, because I might want to add additional code at some point in the future. Therefore, I must have an explosion of getters/setters.
I like the idea of having a sandboxed virtual machine. I like the idea of having a single version of the bytecode that can run anywhere. I just can't stand the language.
In which case it would require the full PS4 hardware to play, which is not what this article is about.
It is still exactly a neutrality violation, because the packets are being treated differently. As a customer, I should not need to worry about whether wikipedia or netflix or MyUpAndComingVideoSite.com has paid the ISP bribe/extortion. Neutrality has been broken at that point.
Good writing eliminates ambiguity. Good reading chooses the most likely interpretation in cases of ambiguity. It is immediately obvious that good reading can alleviate the effects of bad writing, but cannot eliminate the effects, as the most likely interpretation still has some chance of being wrong.
As it is written, the sentence "More than half of the suicides were committed by just five percent of patients." is as silly as "Sixty percent of the time, works every time."
Let's look at the expected gain/loss. Assume that x is the probability that the company gets caught. That means there is an x probability of being down by $3500, and a (1-x) probability of being up by $40k. The break-even point occurs when x=0.08. That means that if this behavior is repeated over and over, we need to catch them at it at least 92% of the time for it to not be financially viable, giving these penalties.
This is the entire purpose of punitive damages. It is impossible to catch someone every single time. The punitive damages are to make it be so costly that one time that they are caught that the entire practice must stop. A $3500 fine is an absolute joke when the stolen wages are over ten times that amount.
So, it is worth disenfranchising a sizeable population to stop 31 people from voter fraud? You seem to have your priorities misplaced.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I would love to see this used as a legal basis for abandonware.
Privacy vs. no privacy is a false dichotomy. In my own home, I can reasonably expect that no one will observe me. On a podium in front of a crown, I can reasonably expect that everyone will observe me. Walking down the street, I can reasonably expect that people will see me, notice me, but that I will be one of many, unrecognized other than by those who directly know me. It is this last expectation that is violated by omnipresent cameras.
A plague of locusts swarms outward, consuming everything in its path. A swarm of humans, on the other hand, would swarm outward, terraforming planets and increasing habitability. One leaves the area less able to support life, the other leaves the area more able to support life. The pristine state of the universe is not the best for supporting life, and so we should feel no obligation to keep it as it is.
Or, since you're already going that route, just use a one-time pad.
Psychological abuse is still abuse.
Still disliking screen real estate being used by uselessly large, annoyingly nested menus that change on the fly? Yup. I can use either. That doesn't mean that both are equally well-designed.
Physical distance, while providing a valid metric, is useless for gaining any understanding. Packet transmission time is not a constant, and so does not satisfy the requirement for a metric.
Not really sure what gives that impression. Neither adding nor scalar multiplication of a server location yield anything useful. I cannot think of a way to define an inner product between two servers, nor any relevant information that could be gained from it. What would be the distance between two servers? In short, a mathematical space has nothing to do with the concept of "cyberspace".
The closest mathematical structure I can see would be an unordered set whose elements are individual servers, but this is so generic of a structure as to be entirely useless.
Metaphors are there to give insight into concepts that are difficult to understand. If a metaphor provides correct understanding by giving intuition based on the metaphor, then it is a good metaphor. If a metaphor provides wrong answers when applying it, then it is wrong as a metaphor.
It isn't a lack of imagination that causes one to see cyberspace as idiotic. Rather, those who see cyberspace as a useful concept have a lack of understanding. It is an incorrect metaphor, because it implies connections that do not exist. For example, it implies that someone must be physically located somewhere in order to affect a location. It implies that a person cannot affect multiple locations at the same time. It implies that a person is capable of littering without the permission of the owner. It implies that borders can be enforced. It implies that there are neighboring areas. (My address being 1 away from yours implies that I have the house next to yours. My IP address being 1 away from yours implies that they were purchased as part of the same lot.)
I'm all for metaphors when they are accurate and increase understanding. When they are outright wrong, then the metaphors are idiotic, and should be dropped.
I have wifi available everywhere except in transit. I have no need of a data plan whatsoever. It would be nice, however, to have my phone be more user-friendly, able to notify me of mail, and have a few games on it for passing the time.
Of course I would be doing more with it than just making calls. However, I would not be doing more on the network than making calls. The requirement of a data plan prevents that.
I would say that it is much less verbose in the case where errors need to be propagated upward. This is exactly why not every function call has a try/catch around it. Suppose I am writing a function that accepts a filename, interprets the text in the file, and then returns some modified version of the text. With error codes, I would need to explicitly check that open_file has returned a valid file handler. I can't do anything without a valid file, so I then need to propagate the error upward. On the other hand, with exceptions, I could simply not catch that exception from open_file. I can't do anything to recover, so I should let the exception propagate upward to wherever called me, and then let them deal with it.
Wikipedia says that there is a right to travel. The right to drive is held under that.
While there may be two sides to every story, I do not believe that they should be presented equally. I would expect someone who insists that the time is a cube to be laughed out of any rational discussion. Equally, I would expect someone who insists that our patent system is the "envy of the world" and that increasing the prevalence of lawsuits are evidence of a well-functioning patent system to be laughed at.
The problem is that there is then no indication of which way the page has turned. If I had a physical button, I would agree. However, with touch screens being the current fad, there is ambiguity in knowing whether the machine knows which direction you have turned the page. An animation as the page turns displays this.
Words that are arranged are not owned. Rather, you are given a limited monopoly on the reproduction of those words, for a limited time. This monopoly is society's way of saying "Thank you" for having contributed to society, and is the way by which incentive is given to enrich society.
You are not given absolute control, nor is the control you are granted to last forever.