That's pretty much what Rust is: a low-level language that can be slotted into the same places C is used now, but without all the undefined behavior and memory leaks. And since it's a new language, it can have features people expect in a new language these days (like type inference, an intelligent build system, etc.).
Blu Ray subtitles are still done with high resolution bitmaps to this day. As mentioned elsewhere, it lets the player be relatively stupid by punting the complexity of fonts/Unicode off to whoever's authoring the disc.
Spinning drives are still the way to go for bulk storage because the cost-per-gigabyte remains far, far cheaper than SSD and will seemingly remain so for the near future.
Unicode support in Python 2 is basically the same as in Python 3. If you want to translate from binary strings to Unicode, you're going to need to specify a codec since the language doesn't just assume everything is UTF-8. The difference is that things like paths and command-line arguments are Unicode in Python 3 but plain binary strings in Python 2, so you wind up with this third "class" of strings that might be one or the other depending on which version of the language you're using.
But with a bit of care it's not hard to get a nontrivial amount of Python code to work unmodified in both versions by specifying import fallbacks and so on.
Haskell doesn't really have an "if" statement as such. It has an "if" expression (analogous to C's [expr] ? [expr] : [expr] conditional expression) but it's not widely used in my experience. Haskell folks would rather use guards and pattern matching to do the same job.
The whole point of HTML and CSS is that all this markup are suggestions to the client, who is free to rearrange elements, use different fonts or otherwise handle things differently for the benefit of the viewer. Making an entirely different, dumber, website for the benefit of some particular class of device defeats the purpose of a "world-wide web".
That's what I'm saying though, it's not all in the implementation, tail call recursion relies pretty heavily on the code being set up (and kept up) properly so that it is possible.
Writing code such that the last call in the function is always another call to itself isn't some deep mystery, though. The only question is whether the language is guaranteed to optimize that case.
Um, is that not sneaking in a normal iterative loop with a conditional check that's always true? What would be the difference from the code that generates and "while (1 == 1)"?
Since Haskell has no built-in "while" statement as such, you're going to need to either write an explicit recursive loop or just use one that's already been pre-built for running some action forever. It's just more obvious what's going on by using the latter.
Of course, in someplace like Haskell one can just use the "forever" function which loops some action forever rather than implementing an explicit tail-call loop and making sure to get it right. I'm just saying that recursion isn't guaranteed to blow up one's stack in all cases - it's all in the implementation.
Browsers pushing stuff outside the standard may have given us the and tags, but it also gave us the
tag. The good thing about having a standards body is that it can incorporate the useful stuff into the next standard while (hopefully) relegating the junk to permanent outcast status.
Though having to call up at all is annoying, I didn't have any trouble with it just a few days ago. I just told customer service I wanted the WiFi turned off and they transferred me over to the tech department and got it done in about 10 minutes after some address verification and whatnot.
If you call Comcast's customer service, they can put their new routers into bridge mode. This turns off its WiFi and other unnecessary features and makes it act like their old routers.
Here's the instructions to an actual Lego castle-themed set. The number of "big castle-shaped pieces", as shown in the back, is not large.
The fact is, older sets were a lot smaller and had a lot fewer pieces with less variety than sets do now.
To be honest, I'm really disappointed with the modern lego sets. When I was a kid, I had the city sets, and for the most part they were buildings that you made from brick-shaped bricks with only a few uniquely molded parts for that set. Today there's barely any blocks. They're all cross-licensed tie-ins with movies or cartoons, and so in order to get the assembled set to look like something from The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, 75% of the blocks are special molds.
There's almost no point in it being a lego toy, because you're just assembling a crude model of an x-wing, and the only thing you can make with the set is...an x-wing. Why not just...play with a model x-wing?
This is completely wrong. Here's the instructions to the latest X-Wing. Flip to the back and count the number of "special molds" yourself. Do you see anything in there that can't be used for anything but an X-Wing?
Hardly anybody prints their photos at all these days since people just stick them on the interwebs, but I think the basic argument is sound. Economics of scale mean that it'll likely always be cheaper to buy widgets from some company who cranks them out in the millions than trying to buy a bunch of equipment to print them at home.
Not that. PHP's only real problems are inconsistent naming and parameter order. (Interestingly enough, a problem partially shared by python in spite of PEP 8) Unlike Python, it doesn't suffer from any serious design flaws.
Is this some kind of joke? Python's use of syntactically-significant whitespace is not in the same league as all the issues PHP has.
At least Quake II and Quake III Arena were released to some measure of success. But there's no denying that neither John has had the same success as they did in Doom's heyday.
Although John Carmack's engine opened up a lot of possibilities, John Romero's level designs were also a big part of Doom's success. The key difference is that Romero hasn't done much since Daikatana landed with a thud.
The top 10 list of best selling Wii software is a mixture of new IPs and franchise titles:
Wii Sports - 82.98 million
Mario Kart Wii - 34.26 million
Wii Sports Resort - 31.89 million
Wii Play - 28.02 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii - 27.88 million
Wii Fit - 22.67 million
Wii Fit Plus - 20.86 million
Super Mario Galaxy - 11.72 million
Super Smash Bros. Brawl - 11.49 million
Wii Party - 7.94 million
sold over the course of over 6 years (so plenty of longevity). The total is more than the PS3 by far. So if Nintendo wants to save the Wii U, it could start by delivering some new IPs to go along with its franchise titles in order to target the audience that made it so successful in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty much what Rust is: a low-level language that can be slotted into the same places C is used now, but without all the undefined behavior and memory leaks. And since it's a new language, it can have features people expect in a new language these days (like type inference, an intelligent build system, etc.).
Blu Ray subtitles are still done with high resolution bitmaps to this day. As mentioned elsewhere, it lets the player be relatively stupid by punting the complexity of fonts/Unicode off to whoever's authoring the disc.
Spinning drives are still the way to go for bulk storage because the cost-per-gigabyte remains far, far cheaper than SSD and will seemingly remain so for the near future.
This "leak" is so obviously fake that Politico pulled their story about it. Here's an article about how obviously fake it is.
Unicode support in Python 2 is basically the same as in Python 3. If you want to translate from binary strings to Unicode, you're going to need to specify a codec since the language doesn't just assume everything is UTF-8. The difference is that things like paths and command-line arguments are Unicode in Python 3 but plain binary strings in Python 2, so you wind up with this third "class" of strings that might be one or the other depending on which version of the language you're using.
But with a bit of care it's not hard to get a nontrivial amount of Python code to work unmodified in both versions by specifying import fallbacks and so on.
Haskell doesn't really have an "if" statement as such. It has an "if" expression (analogous to C's [expr] ? [expr] : [expr] conditional expression) but it's not widely used in my experience. Haskell folks would rather use guards and pattern matching to do the same job.
The whole point of HTML and CSS is that all this markup are suggestions to the client, who is free to rearrange elements, use different fonts or otherwise handle things differently for the benefit of the viewer. Making an entirely different, dumber, website for the benefit of some particular class of device defeats the purpose of a "world-wide web".
Make the devices better, not the websites worse.
Nintendo VS system was an adaptation of their home hardware for arcade use, not the other way around. The Famicom predates it by years, remember.
Writing code such that the last call in the function is always another call to itself isn't some deep mystery, though. The only question is whether the language is guaranteed to optimize that case.
Since Haskell has no built-in "while" statement as such, you're going to need to either write an explicit recursive loop or just use one that's already been pre-built for running some action forever. It's just more obvious what's going on by using the latter.
Of course, in someplace like Haskell one can just use the "forever" function which loops some action forever rather than implementing an explicit tail-call loop and making sure to get it right. I'm just saying that recursion isn't guaranteed to blow up one's stack in all cases - it's all in the implementation.
Languages that guarantee tail call optimization won't have a problem implementing an infinite loop using recursion.
Browsers pushing stuff outside the standard may have given us the and tags, but it also gave us the tag. The good thing about having a standards body is that it can incorporate the useful stuff into the next standard while (hopefully) relegating the junk to permanent outcast status.
Turning de facto standards that have been implemented in actual browsers into a formal specification is how standards work best.
Coming up with a specification first and hoping someone will be able to implement it is how we wound up with Perl 6.
Though having to call up at all is annoying, I didn't have any trouble with it just a few days ago. I just told customer service I wanted the WiFi turned off and they transferred me over to the tech department and got it done in about 10 minutes after some address verification and whatnot.
If you call Comcast's customer service, they can put their new routers into bridge mode. This turns off its WiFi and other unnecessary features and makes it act like their old routers.
tmux runs on a client-server type architecture and every command can be sent to a running instance via the tmux command itself.
Here's the instructions to an actual Lego castle-themed set. The number of "big castle-shaped pieces", as shown in the back, is not large. The fact is, older sets were a lot smaller and had a lot fewer pieces with less variety than sets do now.
This is completely wrong. Here's the instructions to the latest X-Wing. Flip to the back and count the number of "special molds" yourself. Do you see anything in there that can't be used for anything but an X-Wing?
At least no one will attempt to adapt the process of game development into yet another phony "reality" show ever again.
Hardly anybody prints their photos at all these days since people just stick them on the interwebs, but I think the basic argument is sound. Economics of scale mean that it'll likely always be cheaper to buy widgets from some company who cranks them out in the millions than trying to buy a bunch of equipment to print them at home.
Is this some kind of joke? Python's use of syntactically-significant whitespace is not in the same league as all the issues PHP has.
At least Quake II and Quake III Arena were released to some measure of success. But there's no denying that neither John has had the same success as they did in Doom's heyday.
Although John Carmack's engine opened up a lot of possibilities, John Romero's level designs were also a big part of Doom's success. The key difference is that Romero hasn't done much since Daikatana landed with a thud.
What's wrong with the HTML5 audio tag for simple playback of static audio files?
sold over the course of over 6 years (so plenty of longevity). The total is more than the PS3 by far. So if Nintendo wants to save the Wii U, it could start by delivering some new IPs to go along with its franchise titles in order to target the audience that made it so successful in the first place.