S.E. Connecticut here. 5 hours clearing the driveway (twice since more snow fell after my first round), shoveling the back deck clear of the 3.5 ft. drifts, clearing the front walk and porch, and most importantly, carving some paths into the back yard so the dog can take care of business without bounding around like a deer. Based on the average height in the open areas where drifting was less, and the part of the driveway away from the house, I'd say we got a about 20 inches. And everyone should experience the joy of hacking through the nearly 5 ft mound at the top of the driveway left by the snow ploughs.
It's a hell of a lot harder to bug every man, woman, and child in the west than it is to intercept and crawl their communications.
Oh really? Nest, Kinect, Smart TV and the Internet of Things suggest otherwise. Not to mention remotely monitoring the ambient surroundings of a smart phone, tablet or laptop with microphone/webcam. It may be difficult to bug everyone, but we're bringing the bugs into our homes willingly (though mostly unknowingly, I think), so it's more concievable than you think.
And it gets even better, because if you end up choosing the best shitty compromise that actually kind of works, you flag yourself for extra scrutiny because you are using an effective solution. FML.
This part I have no solution for. : (
I gave you one: Step away from the computer, walk past the smartphone, leash up the dog and head for the woods (or nearest park/nature preserve/whatever). When that becomes illegal it's game over.
So now you are placing your trust in those who wrote the code that runs your server or encrypts your data (or did you write it yourself?). Better than believing "trust us - we don't track you/log you/etc" (looking at you, Startpage and DuckDuckGo), but you have to trust someone unless you do it all yourself from scratch. That's not possible for most people, including myself. So most of us are left with choosing amongst Faustian bargains. That fucking sucks, but seems to be the reality in modern times. And it gets even better, because if you end up choosing the best shitty compromise that actually kind of works, you flag yourself for extra scrutiny because you are using an effective solution. FML. I'm going for a hike in the woods with my dog. Ahhhh. That's better.
Can you think of an instance where you would actually want the capabilities this machine claims to offer?
In situations where moving the original object physically to its destination is difficult or cost prohibitive, and there is no further need of the original at the source (maybe it only has utility at the destination). The most obvious case would be from Earth to space, either to a location in orbit, or eventually another planet.
You're being pedantic. (And I'm about to follow suit.) Paradigm *isn't* a fancy buzzword - it is a word with a clear definition that has been in use since the 15th century. It's fame as a buzzword comes from imprecise overuse during the last decade or so. The word itself is fine.
Here's another definition, this time from Merriam-Webster: "a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about". That seems to fit the discussion pretty well when referring to different ways to approach the decidely non-trivial task of defining at a fundamental and conceptual level how a programming language works.
You mention "style". I don't think it's really equivalent to paradigm, though it could apply to variations of a paradigm. Style involves the details in how you implement a paradigm - it's not a paradigm itself. Merriam-Webster supports this assertion: "a particular form or design of something" and "a particular way in which something is done, created, or performed" (emphasis mine).
But I grow tired of this nitpicky exercise. You may have the last word if you wish (preferably with concrete examples of why you believe you are correct rather than vague generalizations and unfounded assertions regarding awkwardness and clarity). I've said my piece and I'm done with this. Good day.
(Aside: Not quite sure why, but the use of the term "paradigm" multiple times makes me feel slightly icky for some reason. Probably due to it's misuse in business jargon.)
Probably because there's no reason to use such an awkward word in the first place. In this case, notice how you fall into using "style" instead? Also, the vast majority of time, when people use "paradigm", they could replace it with the much more common and simpler word "model" or another simpler term.
Actually I looked it up and based on the definition of the word ("a distinct concept or thought pattern"), its use in the given context seemed appropriate, so I kept it in. "Style" seems to imply something more arbitrary, while "model" is a way of describing reality using simplified concepts (or a plastic thing I used to build as a boy, or something I found appealing as a teenager). Paradigm seems right.
Thanks. I was going to mention that there was a dedicated person (Steve Klabnik is his name, BTW - http://www.steveklabnik.com/) who was doing a great job and has just been momentarily overwhelmed. I decided it sounded too much like an excuse that "drinkypoo" wouldn't find convincing, given that "drinkypoo" (*snicker*) clearly has high standards of professionalism. So I decided to mention the API docs instead, which have been most helpful when sorting out code breakage due a change in the nightly version of the compiler. Actually, much of the time, the extremely clear error messages emitted by the compiler have been enough to make the correct changes to fix errors, which is almost better than good documentation. The latter is more useful in understanding why the code was incorrect, even if the compiler message is often enough to correct the problem.
But with python and javascript being so dominant we are headed in a totally different direction for the bulk of our applications.
I wouldn't bet on that horse staying in the lead forever (well, horses plural). Those of us with long enough memories remember when this wasn't true. Here's a thought experiment: How did they get dominant in the first place, since at one time they were new and different? Things change and improve over time, and that's a good thing. Besides, Python and JS developers aren't necessarily the target audience, though there may be some overlap between them and potential Rust developers. For some reason "The Blind Men and the Elephant" comes to mind, and the term "tunnel vision" as well.:-)
That's a rather uninformed statement to make, given that you're referring to a rather short time period when the rate of change caused the docs to lag behind. That will be corrected soon, I'm sure. Besides, the API docs, which are generated from the code, *are* correct and have been kept up to date all along despite the rapid rate of change. So documentation exists and is correct. The GP was likely referring to the higher level docs, such as guides and tutorials, which aren't produced by "the devs".
But hey, at least you got your *zing* in, though you forgot the rimshot at the end.
Rust is specifically not designed to be a "meets all your needs" language. It's a language that knows its niche well, and sticks to it.
Basically, this is programming language for systems and other low-level stuff done right. It competes primary against C++, and to a lesser extent, C, and does it really well. It's not yet another scripting language for the web or desktop GUI or some such, and it doesn't pretend to be one.
I agree with you in principle, except for the "it competes... really well" part. That's an unfounded assertion since it hasn't actually competed in the real world yet. Because, you know, not being finished yet. The true challenges are still in the future. It seems to have successfully passed the early "get people interested" stage, which is nice, but there are a bunch more hurdles to be surmounted before I would call it even a marginal success. Let's wait and see.
This Rust language is yet another flashy thing that will not get anywhere.
That remains to be seen. I've heard the same thing said about email, the internet, Linux, Java, the iPhone, tablets and many other things over the years. The truth is that in a viable and vibrant marketplace of ideas, many things fail but some survive, and predicting which is hard. Give it a chance to fail or succeed on its own rather than condemning it in the womb, and be glad you live in a time where people have the enthusiasm and energy to try new things. Your attitude leads to stagnation.
Besides, Rust isn't an "OO" language. It's a multi-paradigm language that supports pure-functional, concurrent-actor, imperative-procedural, and object-oriented styles. After 40+ years, a growing opinion seems to be that pure OOP isn't without its problems, and other approaches may fit development goals better. I'm not sure multi-paradigm languages are the answer (there seems to be a huge potential to be confusing, IMHO), but OOP isn't the evolutionary pinnacle of language design that the last few decades of hype would have us believe. I'm willing to give this approach a chance (and I'm always up for learning something new).
(Aside: Not quite sure why, but the use of the term "paradigm" multiple times makes me feel slightly icky for some reason. Probably due to it's misuse in business jargon.)
Eh? Out of all popular languages pretty much only ones trivially googleable are Perl, PHP and Javascript, all the rest either need "language" added or are only googlable due to popularity.
I mean, seriously. An Indonesian island? A precious stone? A large snake? A speech defect? A plan or a plot? To strike heavily and repeatedly? Italian word for "stairs"? And the worst offender, simply third letter of the latin alphabet (also used as chemical symbol for carbon, roman numeral "100", average grade in education and tons of other things)?
Don't forget the fourth letter of the latin alphabet (also used as the first letter in three elements on the periodic table though can't rate it's own, the Roman numeral 500, a poor grade in education and tons of other things. And apparently something the girls be wantin'.)
Eh, I'll try it when they find a way to finally reintroduce female characters without it turning into some misogynistic sausage-fest. ~ censor.nudity false
What about "Rust PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE" was so difficult to understand? Did you even read past the first word of the title?
Thanks for noticing. That was deliberate. My attempt to hold back the rising tide of unclear and uninformative titles and summaries on/. Too bad it wasn't successful.
Or perhaps we're both the victims of *whoosh* and the folks above were just having some fun.:-)
Linux has become the laughingstock of the computing world thanks to the Systemd Fiasco.
An entire operating system trashed by a single incompetent clown and his shit pet project rammed down distro throats by his foaming at the mouth fanboys.
A healthy open source community would never have let this fiasco happen.
Hello FreeBSD. A pure Unix operating system run by grownups only interested in technical excellence.
There seems to be a little foaming at the mouth going on right there in your own post.
Thanks for responding to my off-the-cuff question (Talk about Planetary for a bit).
I found that I just wanted to try and scrape away all those barnacles to see the thing that charmed and fascinated people right at the start. I still don’t know that I managed that to anyone’s satisfaction, but the act of it seemed to me to reveal a story about the genre itself.
If you don't know that you managed it to anyone's satisfaction you're either stupid or deliberately humble and obtuse. I'm guessing the latter. What you describe is the very reason many people love this work. You scraped away the barnacles and managed to produce something that identified what people love about this stuff. Look, back when I was a kid, I KNEW that Godzilla was a guy in a rubber suit, but it was still cool. The same thinking applies to all popular culture. We KNOW there is a man behind the curtain - we're not stupid. The all powerful OZ is just a sham - we get it. But the illusion he's weaving is kind of cool. That's the part we love. I know I'm never going to be Carson of Venus, Superman, Doc Savage, or Tarzan, Lord of the (Ebola-ridden) Jungle. But the fact that I can imagine those ideals inspires me to be a better person, just a little bit. That's what these stories are all about. When faced with the issue of the day, having these stories in the back of my mind helps me to be just a little better. Given the behavior of many that don't have this kind of value system in this world, I recognize that these stories have brought some good to the world.
So scraping off the barnacles and distilling the essence of what people loved about these stories managed to remind me of why they were interesting and important in the first place. And so I try to be a better person with renewed vigor, thanks to you. You have my gratitude.
You don't have to set anything up - just use the address tag when you supply an email address. It's still a valid email address (see link below), so will still get delivered to your inbox. The extra information in the tag/extension makes the address unique (if you made the tag info unique), so can be used to filter messages, sort them to subfolders etc. depending on what your mail provider supports. Different providers support different separators, Gmail happens to be one that supports the plus.
I enjoy all your work, but I view Planetary as a "love letter to the things I love". I would appreciate it if you just wrote a little bit about what you were thinking/feeling when you were working on Planetary. That work covers a lot of territory, but my reaction on first reading was to weep because you captured so perfectly the essence of all those wonderful stories that I loved as a young man. I didn't think anyone loved that shit as much as I did, but Planetary seemed to capture the essence of all those great stories whilst bringing them in to the modern age and reminding us why they were relevant and maybe still are.
So, if you would, just riff a bit on Planetary and all the things you had in your head when you were working that all out. Planetary as the finished work we have as a reference - I'm interested in the stew in your mind containing all that wonderful stuff that eventually was distilled into Planetary. Talk about that a bit, if you are so inclined.
Slashdot Mirror
S.E. Connecticut here. 5 hours clearing the driveway (twice since more snow fell after my first round), shoveling the back deck clear of the 3.5 ft. drifts, clearing the front walk and porch, and most importantly, carving some paths into the back yard so the dog can take care of business without bounding around like a deer. Based on the average height in the open areas where drifting was less, and the part of the driveway away from the house, I'd say we got a about 20 inches. And everyone should experience the joy of hacking through the nearly 5 ft mound at the top of the driveway left by the snow ploughs.
I agree with rjejr - we got the blizzard.
It's a hell of a lot harder to bug every man, woman, and child in the west than it is to intercept and crawl their communications.
Oh really? Nest, Kinect, Smart TV and the Internet of Things suggest otherwise. Not to mention remotely monitoring the ambient surroundings of a smart phone, tablet or laptop with microphone/webcam. It may be difficult to bug everyone, but we're bringing the bugs into our homes willingly (though mostly unknowingly, I think), so it's more concievable than you think.
And it gets even better, because if you end up choosing the best shitty compromise that actually kind of works, you flag yourself for extra scrutiny because you are using an effective solution. FML.
This part I have no solution for. : (
I gave you one: Step away from the computer, walk past the smartphone, leash up the dog and head for the woods (or nearest park/nature preserve/whatever). When that becomes illegal it's game over.
So now you are placing your trust in those who wrote the code that runs your server or encrypts your data (or did you write it yourself?). Better than believing "trust us - we don't track you/log you/etc" (looking at you, Startpage and DuckDuckGo), but you have to trust someone unless you do it all yourself from scratch. That's not possible for most people, including myself. So most of us are left with choosing amongst Faustian bargains. That fucking sucks, but seems to be the reality in modern times. And it gets even better, because if you end up choosing the best shitty compromise that actually kind of works, you flag yourself for extra scrutiny because you are using an effective solution. FML. I'm going for a hike in the woods with my dog. Ahhhh. That's better.
Apparently several.
Moonshadow (song)
Can you think of an instance where you would actually want the capabilities this machine claims to offer?
In situations where moving the original object physically to its destination is difficult or cost prohibitive, and there is no further need of the original at the source (maybe it only has utility at the destination). The most obvious case would be from Earth to space, either to a location in orbit, or eventually another planet.
https://xkcd.com/54/
What does the Fox say?
> Windows 10: Can Microsoft Get It Right This Time?
Outlook not so good
There is more to life than STEM.
Often I wish the E stood for English, usually that thought occurs when I am reading status reports and documentation from Engineers.
How about "STEEM" (with an extra E for English)?
Or to be more culture neutral - "STELM" (with L for Language)?
You're being pedantic. (And I'm about to follow suit.) Paradigm *isn't* a fancy buzzword - it is a word with a clear definition that has been in use since the 15th century. It's fame as a buzzword comes from imprecise overuse during the last decade or so. The word itself is fine.
Here's another definition, this time from Merriam-Webster: "a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about". That seems to fit the discussion pretty well when referring to different ways to approach the decidely non-trivial task of defining at a fundamental and conceptual level how a programming language works.
You mention "style". I don't think it's really equivalent to paradigm, though it could apply to variations of a paradigm. Style involves the details in how you implement a paradigm - it's not a paradigm itself. Merriam-Webster supports this assertion: "a particular form or design of something" and "a particular way in which something is done, created, or performed" (emphasis mine).
But I grow tired of this nitpicky exercise. You may have the last word if you wish (preferably with concrete examples of why you believe you are correct rather than vague generalizations and unfounded assertions regarding awkwardness and clarity). I've said my piece and I'm done with this. Good day.
(Aside: Not quite sure why, but the use of the term "paradigm" multiple times makes me feel slightly icky for some reason. Probably due to it's misuse in business jargon.)
Probably because there's no reason to use such an awkward word in the first place. In this case, notice how you fall into using "style" instead? Also, the vast majority of time, when people use "paradigm", they could replace it with the much more common and simpler word "model" or another simpler term.
Actually I looked it up and based on the definition of the word ("a distinct concept or thought pattern"), its use in the given context seemed appropriate, so I kept it in. "Style" seems to imply something more arbitrary, while "model" is a way of describing reality using simplified concepts (or a plastic thing I used to build as a boy, or something I found appealing as a teenager). Paradigm seems right.
Thanks. I was going to mention that there was a dedicated person (Steve Klabnik is his name, BTW - http://www.steveklabnik.com/) who was doing a great job and has just been momentarily overwhelmed. I decided it sounded too much like an excuse that "drinkypoo" wouldn't find convincing, given that "drinkypoo" (*snicker*) clearly has high standards of professionalism. So I decided to mention the API docs instead, which have been most helpful when sorting out code breakage due a change in the nightly version of the compiler. Actually, much of the time, the extremely clear error messages emitted by the compiler have been enough to make the correct changes to fix errors, which is almost better than good documentation. The latter is more useful in understanding why the code was incorrect, even if the compiler message is often enough to correct the problem.
But with python and javascript being so dominant we are headed in a totally different direction for the bulk of our applications.
I wouldn't bet on that horse staying in the lead forever (well, horses plural). Those of us with long enough memories remember when this wasn't true. Here's a thought experiment: How did they get dominant in the first place, since at one time they were new and different? Things change and improve over time, and that's a good thing. Besides, Python and JS developers aren't necessarily the target audience, though there may be some overlap between them and potential Rust developers. For some reason "The Blind Men and the Elephant" comes to mind, and the term "tunnel vision" as well. :-)
That's a rather uninformed statement to make, given that you're referring to a rather short time period when the rate of change caused the docs to lag behind. That will be corrected soon, I'm sure. Besides, the API docs, which are generated from the code, *are* correct and have been kept up to date all along despite the rapid rate of change. So documentation exists and is correct. The GP was likely referring to the higher level docs, such as guides and tutorials, which aren't produced by "the devs".
But hey, at least you got your *zing* in, though you forgot the rimshot at the end.
Rust is specifically not designed to be a "meets all your needs" language. It's a language that knows its niche well, and sticks to it.
Basically, this is programming language for systems and other low-level stuff done right. It competes primary against C++, and to a lesser extent, C, and does it really well. It's not yet another scripting language for the web or desktop GUI or some such, and it doesn't pretend to be one.
I agree with you in principle, except for the "it competes ... really well" part. That's an unfounded assertion since it hasn't actually competed in the real world yet. Because, you know, not being finished yet. The true challenges are still in the future. It seems to have successfully passed the early "get people interested" stage, which is nice, but there are a bunch more hurdles to be surmounted before I would call it even a marginal success. Let's wait and see.
This Rust language is yet another flashy thing that will not get anywhere.
That remains to be seen. I've heard the same thing said about email, the internet, Linux, Java, the iPhone, tablets and many other things over the years. The truth is that in a viable and vibrant marketplace of ideas, many things fail but some survive, and predicting which is hard. Give it a chance to fail or succeed on its own rather than condemning it in the womb, and be glad you live in a time where people have the enthusiasm and energy to try new things. Your attitude leads to stagnation.
From your link:
How many good OO language exist without constructors? Maybe only javascript. This seems like a terrible decision.
Or maybe an informed one. Go and Rust -- objects without class
Besides, Rust isn't an "OO" language. It's a multi-paradigm language that supports pure-functional, concurrent-actor, imperative-procedural, and object-oriented styles. After 40+ years, a growing opinion seems to be that pure OOP isn't without its problems, and other approaches may fit development goals better. I'm not sure multi-paradigm languages are the answer (there seems to be a huge potential to be confusing, IMHO), but OOP isn't the evolutionary pinnacle of language design that the last few decades of hype would have us believe. I'm willing to give this approach a chance (and I'm always up for learning something new).
Critcisim of the OOP paradigm
(Aside: Not quite sure why, but the use of the term "paradigm" multiple times makes me feel slightly icky for some reason. Probably due to it's misuse in business jargon.)
Eh? Out of all popular languages pretty much only ones trivially googleable are Perl, PHP and Javascript, all the rest either need "language" added or are only googlable due to popularity.
I mean, seriously. An Indonesian island? A precious stone? A large snake? A speech defect? A plan or a plot? To strike heavily and repeatedly? Italian word for "stairs"? And the worst offender, simply third letter of the latin alphabet (also used as chemical symbol for carbon, roman numeral "100", average grade in education and tons of other things)?
Don't forget the fourth letter of the latin alphabet (also used as the first letter in three elements on the periodic table though can't rate it's own, the Roman numeral 500, a poor grade in education and tons of other things. And apparently something the girls be wantin'.)
Eh, I'll try it when they find a way to finally reintroduce female characters without it turning into some misogynistic sausage-fest.
~ censor.nudity false
http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...
What about "Rust PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE" was so difficult to understand? Did you even read past the first word of the title?
Thanks for noticing. That was deliberate. My attempt to hold back the rising tide of unclear and uninformative titles and summaries on /. Too bad it wasn't successful.
Or perhaps we're both the victims of *whoosh* and the folks above were just having some fun. :-)
Linux has become the laughingstock of the computing world thanks to the Systemd Fiasco.
An entire operating system trashed by a single incompetent clown and his shit pet project rammed down distro throats by his foaming at the mouth fanboys.
A healthy open source community would never have let this fiasco happen.
Hello FreeBSD. A pure Unix operating system run by grownups only interested in technical excellence.
There seems to be a little foaming at the mouth going on right there in your own post.
It was an awfully pretty comic, though.
Yes, that it was. And we all like pretty, pretty things.
Thanks for responding to my off-the-cuff question (Talk about Planetary for a bit).
I found that I just wanted to try and scrape away all those barnacles to see the thing that charmed and fascinated people right at the start. I still don’t know that I managed that to anyone’s satisfaction, but the act of it seemed to me to reveal a story about the genre itself.
If you don't know that you managed it to anyone's satisfaction you're either stupid or deliberately humble and obtuse. I'm guessing the latter. What you describe is the very reason many people love this work. You scraped away the barnacles and managed to produce something that identified what people love about this stuff. Look, back when I was a kid, I KNEW that Godzilla was a guy in a rubber suit, but it was still cool. The same thinking applies to all popular culture. We KNOW there is a man behind the curtain - we're not stupid. The all powerful OZ is just a sham - we get it. But the illusion he's weaving is kind of cool. That's the part we love. I know I'm never going to be Carson of Venus, Superman, Doc Savage, or Tarzan, Lord of the (Ebola-ridden) Jungle. But the fact that I can imagine those ideals inspires me to be a better person, just a little bit. That's what these stories are all about. When faced with the issue of the day, having these stories in the back of my mind helps me to be just a little better. Given the behavior of many that don't have this kind of value system in this world, I recognize that these stories have brought some good to the world.
So scraping off the barnacles and distilling the essence of what people loved about these stories managed to remind me of why they were interesting and important in the first place. And so I try to be a better person with renewed vigor, thanks to you. You have my gratitude.
You don't have to set anything up - just use the address tag when you supply an email address. It's still a valid email address (see link below), so will still get delivered to your inbox. The extra information in the tag/extension makes the address unique (if you made the tag info unique), so can be used to filter messages, sort them to subfolders etc. depending on what your mail provider supports. Different providers support different separators, Gmail happens to be one that supports the plus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mr Ellis,
I enjoy all your work, but I view Planetary as a "love letter to the things I love". I would appreciate it if you just wrote a little bit about what you were thinking/feeling when you were working on Planetary. That work covers a lot of territory, but my reaction on first reading was to weep because you captured so perfectly the essence of all those wonderful stories that I loved as a young man. I didn't think anyone loved that shit as much as I did, but Planetary seemed to capture the essence of all those great stories whilst bringing them in to the modern age and reminding us why they were relevant and maybe still are.
So, if you would, just riff a bit on Planetary and all the things you had in your head when you were working that all out. Planetary as the finished work we have as a reference - I'm interested in the stew in your mind containing all that wonderful stuff that eventually was distilled into Planetary. Talk about that a bit, if you are so inclined.
Thanks.