"No matter how much Knight Rider you watch, AI is no where close to this."
AI might be up to it, but the sensors aren't. The fact that it can respond as quickly as it does to inputs that reflect a blurry picture of what is 2-5 seconds ahead of the vehicle is respectable; That is what sets it ahead of the average inattentive driver.
Having more cars with sensors that can share their information and then coordinate their actions would make it much better, but you have to get a much broader distribution of sensor-equipped cars.
The sensors are fine. It's the software that isn't.
. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam.
It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name.
The problem is you are working under the mistaken belief that the Islamic regressives are a small minority of the Islamic population. They are not. They are the clear majority.
I get you don't like him. I don't like him. But tearing down the entire legal system --this action has thoroughly shot both countries' legal systems' credibility-- just to get rid of one fat fsck seems a bit much, eh?
Your statement needs to be higher modded, and I'm trying to give it visibility. From "A man for all seasons":
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The problem with changing the law to fit individual circumstances is that, sooner rather than later, the now modified law can be used to pursue you.
Hes gone to all his court dates you say?
Hes delayed the trial so many times over so many petty reasons and cost the taxpayer millions in the process.
He tried to bribe his way into our government system, so that during our last elections if his tiny internet party got into power, his party would veto any extradition order.
Hes defenality a fugitive to us law. There is nothing stopping him from going to the US. And our nz law has decreed he should go. But hes refusing and tying up the courts to avoid doing so.
You think that someone exercising all their legal options is a fugitive?
Lemme guess - we should do away with trials altogether and simply see if they float on water, right?
Ive discussed this ad nauseam with my MBA crowd. Long story short our guess is self-driving tech itself will not be a great industry to be in.
I doubt it... While engineers think that software works just like hardware and being 98% there means that you'll eventually get to 100%, Computer Scientists know that solving 98% of an intractable problem doesn't bring you any closed to a 100% solution.
The state of self-driving cars improved by fractions of a percent after throwing 10000x more powerful resources at it. The odds do not look good for the problem being solved anytime soon.
As you correctly indicated the tech will be a commodity in a few years with a dozen different companies offering from a consumers point of view identical tech.
Yeah, right:-/... Five years ago the true believers were sure that SDCs would be a solved problem in five years time. Five years later, they still think it's only five years away. The SDC prophecies are eerily similar to the ones made by AI back in the 80's. I suspect that their accuracy will match the AI predictions made back then, as well.
The first to market will enjoy a temporary dump but that will be short lived.
What can be profitable is the driverless car platform, much the same way a phone OS is valuable, not because the technology to make a call is still a differentiator but because it allows you to control an entire industry
The current future paradigm is that the smart home, smart car, cell phone, and PC industries will become just one industry.
SDC is harder than it looks. The engineering is easy. The software is not. FOr the last five years we've hearing how we are five years away from SDCs, and yet the current state-of-the-art SDCs are only very slightly better than SDCs from the nineties.
Given that I'd used Python for a couple of decades without experiencing significant type errors, I find that using optional, well supported and semi-official static analysis still has something nice to offer.
"Semi-official" is still not "official". It's hardly well-supported if the maintainers call it experimental?
But frankly, I feel like you're moving the goalposts.
I did not. I did not say "Python does not have strong typing", I said that Python type errors are only determined at runtime, which they are. You are trying to make this into a "python has strong typing/python has weak typing" argument when it isn't.
The argument is "Type Errors Are Useful Before Runtime". I'm not going to argue about whether Python has strong typing or weak typing because it doesn't matter. The type error only happens at runtime, hence the typing that python has is about as useful as a chocolate hammer.
The tab is literally just another ascii value. Why would any of those tools have a hard time 'seeing' it?
Let me repost so that you can read it again:
You kept saying "Now find the bug", and I showed you how common tools actually do find the bug.
I don't need a special editor, or enforced (meaningful) whitespace to take your program-all-on-a-single-line and turn it into well-formatted code. I can use a program that does that. When your python code is mangled you have no tools to unmangle it.
You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
Actually, rioting, setting things on fire and shutting down speech via violence is a good reason to hate a group of people. That they self-identify as liberals is purely coincidental.
And why don't you understand that tab is just another ASCII character. Drop a few braces in C and you'll have a similar problem.
No, I won't - indent, grep, diff and all the other tools I use (including the compiler) will show me a blank spot where the missing brace should be. With python the missing character is invisible, you twit. It is literally not visible.
Besides, you're moving the goalposts. You kept saying "Now find the bug", and I showed you how common tool sactually do find the bug. These tools can't work with python because python syntax depends on invisible characters.
So, you perform a totally optional and currently experimental static analysis that may or may not cover most (or even some) of the code, and which doesn't affect the production of the program at all? You seriously think that that sort of thing is what we mean by "type-safety"?
No because C code is easily structured to LOOK like it says one thing when it says another. Now try and find the bug.
Like I pointed out above, it takes less than a second to find a bug that is due to incorrect formatting. Because, you see, indent works on non-python programming languages.
You keep saying "Now find the bug" and I keep saying "cat src.c | indent". What don't you understand about "Python indentation errors cannot be caught nor fixed by any automated process"?
And mixed tabs and spaces in "brace languages" will sooner or later mess up formatting when handing the code back and forth between different developers, so you're sooner or later confronted with the issue anyway and need to get your editors in line. Well, Python editors are already in line because the language demands it...
The non-python programmers can run indent. The python programmers will have to figure out the mess on their own.
If someone screwed up the indentation years ago, it would have passed the unit test just fine (if there was one then).
But if you're really hung up on a visible character top decide the level, just use an editor that makes tabs visible.
Or I could, you know, run the code through indent to make it conform to the company's guidelines. Of course, I can only do that if it isn't written in Python.
Remember your original "example" of having all the code on a single line? Remember how easy it was for an automated process to format? Tell you what - find a way to instruct a computer to turn the following back into the original source:
def fizzbuzz(n): if n % 3 == 0 and n % 5 == 0: return 'FizzBuzz' elif n % 3 == 0: return 'Fizz' elif n % 5 == 0: return 'Buzz' else: return str(n)
Using braces gives me options that don't even exist with python
These imperfections are completely outweighed by its superb readability/understandability/clarity, and the ease with which it can be learned.
Those attributes, in any profession, are not the ones that career-folk care for. They are highly desired by amateurs in every field, but not by professionals in the same field. This applies to all professions, not just s/ware development.
Nope, C++ is not a superset of C at all. There's lots of subtle little things that are different in very important ways.
Some examples:
1) void* is not considered implicitly castable to any other pointer type. That means that you need to cast the output of malloc for example.
2) character literals have the type char, rather than int. That means their size is different, and hence programs behave differently.
3) C++ does not require to use the keyword 'struct' in front of structure names. This can subtly change the behaviour of programs like int A; void foo(void) { struct A { char x; }; return sizeof(A); }, which will return the size of the variable A in C; and the size of the structure A in C++.
Also, C took the const keyword from C++, and then broke it.
Swift would be one recent example and provides a migration tool.
When Swift made the breaking change the amount of software written in Swift was not even a rounding error. The amount of apps broken by the Swift change is so small you can't even measure it accurately.
OTOH, the breakage between Python 2 and 3 would have broken tens of millions of lines of code.
No, I'll just have to do the same analysis you will when you decide which is wrong. OTOH, the python is less likely to have been checked in defective since the whitespace error should make it flunk a unit test on the spot.
And the C or C++ defective code would *pass* the unit test? The odds for bugs getting checked in are higher in the python case, not in the static+strongly typed languages case.
No it would not have killed both versions. Other projects have managed breaking transitions far more quickly and without wasting nearly a decade supporting two code bases with the subsequent confusion and stagnation that goes with it.
Which programming language made changes that broke the last ten years worth of software that was written in it, and survived? Perl?
Why, if it's misformatted, it's an actual bug, not just a visual flaw.
OPf course, with a program more complex than fizz-buzz, you might have a hell of a time deciding if the indent is wrong of the brackets.
I might, but my odds are better when I can run the program through indent than when I can't because the whitespace is significant. Face it, if you have the same problem in python, you're shit out of luck.
Non-issue. It's no different than agreeing on a nomenclature before starting any other software collaboration. If you don't, you'll get a big mess, regardless of language.
Incorrect - in non-python language I can run an indent program, turning the big mess into a non-existent one. In python your big mess has to be manually fixed by a human.
Actually, that IS superior to using whitespace for indentation, because I ran it through indent on the default settings and got this..
If that line of code was python, no tool on earth will figure out the correct formatting. You provide a compelling reason for whitespace to be independent of meaning in the source code.
Slashdot Mirror
"No matter how much Knight Rider you watch, AI is no where close to this."
AI might be up to it, but the sensors aren't. The fact that it can respond as quickly as it does to inputs that reflect a blurry picture of what is 2-5 seconds ahead of the vehicle is respectable; That is what sets it ahead of the average inattentive driver.
Having more cars with sensors that can share their information and then coordinate their actions would make it much better, but you have to get a much broader distribution of sensor-equipped cars.
The sensors are fine. It's the software that isn't.
It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name.
Damn big cult, seeing as more than 2/3 of the Islamic population support Sharia Law ...
Stoning gays for being gay. How very progressive.
The problem is you are working under the mistaken belief that the Islamic regressives are a small minority of the Islamic population. They are not. They are the clear majority.
And why is that?
I get you don't like him. I don't like him. But tearing down the entire legal system --this action has thoroughly shot both countries' legal systems' credibility-- just to get rid of one fat fsck seems a bit much, eh?
Your statement needs to be higher modded, and I'm trying to give it visibility. From "A man for all seasons":
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The problem with changing the law to fit individual circumstances is that, sooner rather than later, the now modified law can be used to pursue you.
I'm a Kiwi, and hes far from a saint.
Hes gone to all his court dates you say? Hes delayed the trial so many times over so many petty reasons and cost the taxpayer millions in the process. He tried to bribe his way into our government system, so that during our last elections if his tiny internet party got into power, his party would veto any extradition order.
Hes defenality a fugitive to us law. There is nothing stopping him from going to the US. And our nz law has decreed he should go. But hes refusing and tying up the courts to avoid doing so.
You think that someone exercising all their legal options is a fugitive?
Lemme guess - we should do away with trials altogether and simply see if they float on water, right?
Ive discussed this ad nauseam with my MBA crowd. Long story short our guess is self-driving tech itself will not be a great industry to be in.
I doubt it... While engineers think that software works just like hardware and being 98% there means that you'll eventually get to 100%, Computer Scientists know that solving 98% of an intractable problem doesn't bring you any closed to a 100% solution.
The state of self-driving cars improved by fractions of a percent after throwing 10000x more powerful resources at it. The odds do not look good for the problem being solved anytime soon.
As you correctly indicated the tech will be a commodity in a few years with a dozen different companies offering from a consumers point of view identical tech.
Yeah, right :-/ ... Five years ago the true believers were sure that SDCs would be a solved problem in five years time. Five years later, they still think it's only five years away. The SDC prophecies are eerily similar to the ones made by AI back in the 80's. I suspect that their accuracy will match the AI predictions made back then, as well.
The first to market will enjoy a temporary dump but that will be short lived.
What can be profitable is the driverless car platform, much the same way a phone OS is valuable, not because the technology to make a call is still a differentiator but because it allows you to control an entire industry
The current future paradigm is that the smart home, smart car, cell phone, and PC industries will become just one industry.
SDC is harder than it looks. The engineering is easy. The software is not. FOr the last five years we've hearing how we are five years away from SDCs, and yet the current state-of-the-art SDCs are only very slightly better than SDCs from the nineties.
Islam isn't a person and thus cannot be violent at all. Islam is a bunch of words and ideas.
You think ideas can't be violent?
Given that I'd used Python for a couple of decades without experiencing significant type errors, I find that using optional, well supported and semi-official static analysis still has something nice to offer.
"Semi-official" is still not "official". It's hardly well-supported if the maintainers call it experimental?
But frankly, I feel like you're moving the goalposts.
I did not. I did not say "Python does not have strong typing", I said that Python type errors are only determined at runtime, which they are. You are trying to make this into a "python has strong typing/python has weak typing" argument when it isn't.
The argument is "Type Errors Are Useful Before Runtime". I'm not going to argue about whether Python has strong typing or weak typing because it doesn't matter. The type error only happens at runtime, hence the typing that python has is about as useful as a chocolate hammer.
The tab is literally just another ascii value. Why would any of those tools have a hard time 'seeing' it?
Let me repost so that you can read it again:
You kept saying "Now find the bug", and I showed you how common tools actually do find the bug.
I don't need a special editor, or enforced (meaningful) whitespace to take your program-all-on-a-single-line and turn it into well-formatted code. I can use a program that does that. When your python code is mangled you have no tools to unmangle it.
You hate liberals, you don't have a fucking reason other than they're not like you.
Actually, rioting, setting things on fire and shutting down speech via violence is a good reason to hate a group of people. That they self-identify as liberals is purely coincidental.
And why don't you understand that tab is just another ASCII character. Drop a few braces in C and you'll have a similar problem.
No, I won't - indent, grep, diff and all the other tools I use (including the compiler) will show me a blank spot where the missing brace should be. With python the missing character is invisible, you twit. It is literally not visible.
Besides, you're moving the goalposts. You kept saying "Now find the bug", and I showed you how common tool sactually do find the bug. These tools can't work with python because python syntax depends on invisible characters.
As a Python programmer, I use types and check them before it runs.
So, you perform a totally optional and currently experimental static analysis that may or may not cover most (or even some) of the code, and which doesn't affect the production of the program at all? You seriously think that that sort of thing is what we mean by "type-safety"?
No because C code is easily structured to LOOK like it says one thing when it says another. Now try and find the bug.
Like I pointed out above, it takes less than a second to find a bug that is due to incorrect formatting. Because, you see, indent works on non-python programming languages.
You keep saying "Now find the bug" and I keep saying "cat src.c | indent". What don't you understand about "Python indentation errors cannot be caught nor fixed by any automated process"?
And mixed tabs and spaces in "brace languages" will sooner or later mess up formatting when handing the code back and forth between different developers, so you're sooner or later confronted with the issue anyway and need to get your editors in line. Well, Python editors are already in line because the language demands it...
The non-python programmers can run indent. The python programmers will have to figure out the mess on their own.
, the typing is quite strongly enforced. Me's thinks you don't know what you're talking about.
The typing is strongly enforced at runtime. We'd like to catch those obvious errors before it runs.
If someone screwed up the indentation years ago, it would have passed the unit test just fine (if there was one then).
But if you're really hung up on a visible character top decide the level, just use an editor that makes tabs visible.
Or I could, you know, run the code through indent to make it conform to the company's guidelines. Of course, I can only do that if it isn't written in Python.
Remember your original "example" of having all the code on a single line? Remember how easy it was for an automated process to format? Tell you what - find a way to instruct a computer to turn the following back into the original source:
def fizzbuzz(n): if n % 3 == 0 and n % 5 == 0: return 'FizzBuzz' elif n % 3 == 0: return 'Fizz' elif n % 5 == 0: return 'Buzz' else: return str(n)
Using braces gives me options that don't even exist with python
These imperfections are completely outweighed by its superb readability/understandability/clarity, and the ease with which it can be learned.
Those attributes, in any profession, are not the ones that career-folk care for. They are highly desired by amateurs in every field, but not by professionals in the same field. This applies to all professions, not just s/ware development.
Nope, C++ is not a superset of C at all. There's lots of subtle little things that are different in very important ways.
Some examples:
1) void* is not considered implicitly castable to any other pointer type. That means that you need to cast the output of malloc for example.
2) character literals have the type char, rather than int. That means their size is different, and hence programs behave differently.
3) C++ does not require to use the keyword 'struct' in front of structure names. This can subtly change the behaviour of programs like int A; void foo(void) { struct A { char x; }; return sizeof(A); }, which will return the size of the variable A in C; and the size of the structure A in C++.
Also, C took the const keyword from C++, and then broke it.
Swift would be one recent example and provides a migration tool.
When Swift made the breaking change the amount of software written in Swift was not even a rounding error. The amount of apps broken by the Swift change is so small you can't even measure it accurately.
OTOH, the breakage between Python 2 and 3 would have broken tens of millions of lines of code.
No, I'll just have to do the same analysis you will when you decide which is wrong. OTOH, the python is less likely to have been checked in defective since the whitespace error should make it flunk a unit test on the spot.
And the C or C++ defective code would *pass* the unit test? The odds for bugs getting checked in are higher in the python case, not in the static+strongly typed languages case.
No it would not have killed both versions. Other projects have managed breaking transitions far more quickly and without wasting nearly a decade supporting two code bases with the subsequent confusion and stagnation that goes with it.
Which programming language made changes that broke the last ten years worth of software that was written in it, and survived? Perl?
Why, if it's misformatted, it's an actual bug, not just a visual flaw.
OPf course, with a program more complex than fizz-buzz, you might have a hell of a time deciding if the indent is wrong of the brackets.
I might, but my odds are better when I can run the program through indent than when I can't because the whitespace is significant. Face it, if you have the same problem in python, you're shit out of luck.
It was, is and will always be useless for a certain domain of programming in which some of us live.
That's not was GP claimed. GP claimed it was useless in the real world, not that it was useless for certain domains.
Find the bug. Better yet, hand it to a co-worker to find it.
Bug found in less than a second after I put it into file tmp.c:
cat tmp.c | indent
Now, try to do the same thing with misformatted python.
Non-issue. It's no different than agreeing on a nomenclature before starting any other software collaboration. If you don't, you'll get a big mess, regardless of language.
Incorrect - in non-python language I can run an indent program, turning the big mess into a non-existent one. In python your big mess has to be manually fixed by a human.
So:
#include int main(void){int i;for(i=1; i<=100; i++){if(((i%3)||(i%5))== 0) printf("number= %d FizzBuzz\n", i);else if((i%3)==0) printf("number= %d Fizz\n", i);else if((i%5)==0) printf("number= %d Buzz\n", i);else printf("number= %d\n",i);} return 0;}
Actually, that IS superior to using whitespace for indentation, because I ran it through indent on the default settings and got this..
If that line of code was python, no tool on earth will figure out the correct formatting. You provide a compelling reason for whitespace to be independent of meaning in the source code.