I do't kow what kid of orgaizatioal structure is best for a techical departmet (I'm guessig a flat oe)...but for god's sake, do't let the rest of the compay use up all the n's!
I'm assuming by simple sequence you mean a list datatype. As for the rest, do/while and do/until are syntactically equivalent -- you don't need both. The same thing with if/then/else and case. So your "powerful" language is 40% syntactic sugar....
You want to talk powerful...how about Haskell's list comprehensions and pattern matching. Makes your function read like the way you defined them on paper.
I have moderator points, but I replied to this post rather than mod-ing it down, so all you people that bitch about that should mod me up!
I'm glad you did what you did. The post, as it clearly states, is a devil's advocate positions. It outlines what the DVD consortium's position is, and provides a framework for discussion of why that position is not tenable.
When you purchase a DVD, you are paying for the ability to play it on players approved by the people who made the disc.
Under the DMCA this is true. The question is whether this will hold up under existing copyright laws.
Your cable descrambler analogy is invalid, as in that case, the "pirate" has not paid for the content. In the DVD case, the user *has* paid for the content, and, (wholly IMO) has a right to use that content for personal use in whatever way they see fit.
Re:Kids, don't learn English from reading this rev
on
Review: Impostor
·
· Score: 1
The call to the no-arg super constructor is implicit, you know. I never see why people put those in...
If timestamp checking of particular files is all he's doing...well, javac does that for you for free. So I'm not sure what the point of the grandparent post would be.
Except for the fact that make is inherently evil. If you meant ant for Java related development, then I'd mostly agree with you. The upside to Eclipse is that it has ant integration, meaning you can develop both from within Eclipse and a command-line framework.
A general refactoring, without the intent of doing it to add new functionality / fix bugs, isn't worth it. What business value do you gain from it?
However, there are times that it is worth undertaking substantial refactoring to add what may seem like relatively small pieces of functionality. I think it was in his _Refactoring_ book that Martin Fowler likened this to reaching a local peak in a mountain range, where you have to go down into a valley before you can climb the next peak.
ObOfftopic: This is my first post in a while that hasn't been a troll or flamebait. It just isn't as fun being informative.
OS X is architected on top of Mach to keep Apple stockholders from asking why Apple paid $400 million for NeXT, bailing out Steve Jobs and his buddies.
Regardless of what you think, Steve Jobs alone has made more than $400 million for Apple. In that regard, Apple stockholders have nothing to ask about.
I admit that it would have been nice if they released the source code to Netscape 4.x, and not just Mozilla. Even if the code was the most gawd-awful thing in the world, in the years since Mozilla started don't you think we (the open-source community) could have at least fixed some of the more annoying bugs in Netscape?
This is a nice little pipe dream. Unfortunately, what Netscape would have released would not have compiled. There were proprietary parts to NS4 to which Netscape did not own the rights to. They could not have open sourced those portions. No one's going to work on an open source project whose source won't even compile.
Just so I don't come off as a total moron, I did read the article and agree with it a great deal, especially the parts about rewriting code from scratch.
Besides, if you are going to rewrite a bunch of code, you just do it, and don't tell your manager. And then you make sure your unit tests pass afterwards. It's called refactoring...
I'm probably a bit biased towards Mozilla, and yes, it is a commercial failure, but I have a feeling it won't be known whether its successful software until about 5 years from now. It could be the Apache of web browsers, or it could be just the product that caused the end of Netscape as an independent entity.
And finally, it's probably also true that C# will turn out to be a better language (purely technically) than Java, and will rival it as a platform, but I really fear that its going to be hindered by the fact that Microsoft controls it much much much more than Java is hindered by the fact that Sun controls Java. And Java is by no means a failure.
Slashdot Mirror
I do't kow what kid of orgaizatioal structure is best for a techical departmet (I'm guessig a flat oe)...but for god's sake, do't let the rest of the compay use up all the n's!
n/t
Of course, detonating the tank's magazine requires significantly less energy.....
Damn...why isn't this k5
What...you're going to tease us like that and not link to pictures? Piker. =)
I'm assuming by simple sequence you mean a list datatype. As for the rest, do/while and do/until are syntactically equivalent -- you don't need both. The same thing with if/then/else and case. So your "powerful" language is 40% syntactic sugar....
You want to talk powerful...how about Haskell's list comprehensions and pattern matching. Makes your function read like the way you defined them on paper.
And then you end up having spent 95% of your time optimizing things which were and never will be your code's bottleneck in the first place.
Quickly on a geological time frame - tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Really just a blink of an eye in the geological record.
It can always be done without a rewrite of the codebase. You just don't want to do it.
I'm glad you did what you did. The post, as it clearly states, is a devil's advocate positions. It outlines what the DVD consortium's position is, and provides a framework for discussion of why that position is not tenable.
Under the DMCA this is true. The question is whether this will hold up under existing copyright laws.
Your cable descrambler analogy is invalid, as in that case, the "pirate" has not paid for the content. In the DVD case, the user *has* paid for the content, and, (wholly IMO) has a right to use that content for personal use in whatever way they see fit.
The call to the no-arg super constructor is implicit, you know. I never see why people put those in...
If timestamp checking of particular files is all he's doing...well, javac does that for you for free. So I'm not sure what the point of the grandparent post would be.
And ant is still nicer. =)
The lack of a repository is definitely a blessing for no reason other than the fact that no one will be tempted to use it.
Except for the fact that make is inherently evil. If you meant ant for Java related development, then I'd mostly agree with you. The upside to Eclipse is that it has ant integration, meaning you can develop both from within Eclipse and a command-line framework.
Umm...the core of the editor *is* in Java. That's the whole point. An open source IDE/platform written in Java.
++ to that comment.
A general refactoring, without the intent of doing it to add new functionality / fix bugs, isn't worth it. What business value do you gain from it?
However, there are times that it is worth undertaking substantial refactoring to add what may seem like relatively small pieces of functionality. I think it was in his _Refactoring_ book that Martin Fowler likened this to reaching a local peak in a mountain range, where you have to go down into a valley before you can climb the next peak.
ObOfftopic: This is my first post in a while that hasn't been a troll or flamebait. It just isn't as fun being informative.
But al-Qaeda definitely hacked a trojan horse into my pants. They keep falling down uncontrollably. Whoops! There they go again...
Regardless of what you think, Steve Jobs alone has made more than $400 million for Apple. In that regard, Apple stockholders have nothing to ask about.
That's GÉANT, you my-native-alphabet-only-has-26-letters-and-i'm-sti ll-not-sure-how-to-use-all-of-those
ninnies.
IIRC, the Ackerman function (and relatives) do a relatively good job of describing very large numbers.
This is a nice little pipe dream. Unfortunately, what Netscape would have released would not have compiled. There were proprietary parts to NS4 to which Netscape did not own the rights to. They could not have open sourced those portions. No one's going to work on an open source project whose source won't even compile.
Just so I don't come off as a total moron, I did read the article and agree with it a great deal, especially the parts about rewriting code from scratch.
Besides, if you are going to rewrite a bunch of code, you just do it, and don't tell your manager. And then you make sure your unit tests pass afterwards. It's called refactoring...
I'm probably a bit biased towards Mozilla, and yes, it is a commercial failure, but I have a feeling it won't be known whether its successful software until about 5 years from now. It could be the Apache of web browsers, or it could be just the product that caused the end of Netscape as an independent entity.
And finally, it's probably also true that C# will turn out to be a better language (purely technically) than Java, and will rival it as a platform, but I really fear that its going to be hindered by the fact that Microsoft controls it much much much more than Java is hindered by the fact that Sun controls Java. And Java is by no means a failure.
Cringely is a moron. And Java isn't buggy.
And as far as speed goes, just like use is better than reuse, done is better than fast.