Usually you can fire someone without any kind of a reason.
Well, if you do that in a civilized country, it also means you have to give the employee a severance package. Which is why companies don't like to do that.
Yes and people (at least the Slashdot crowd) would much prefer to have their CPUs at their full performance, not intentionally crippled so that they can be sold at a lower price.
But that's just how economy sometimes works. For the CPU manufacturer, it's cheaper to produce just one kind of CPUs and then cripple them to different levels and sold at a price based on that crippling. And in this case, everyone wins.
Isn't it possible the situation with cable is similar? If you had large price just for cable without any channels, less people would pay for cable and so it would be less feasible to film those expensive shows like Game of Thrones.
And then rip the CD? So, instead of having the music instantly in a format I want, I have to wait until it arrives through snail mail and then I have to work to get it in a format I want? Thanks, but no thanks.
So you're telling me I should pay for the privilege of paying for Netflix? Thanks, but no thanks. If they don't want my money, I won't force it on them.
Big O is an upper bound, but that doesn't mean it always describes the worst case. Quicksort is O(log n) in the average case (knowing how fast the best case is mostly useless). What that means is that in the average case, quicksort will always use less than c * log n time, for sufficiently large c.
But the summary says different sources of money of different media are the cause of this situation. And in that regard BBC is comparable to RT: both are publicly funded, they don't rely on advertising.
Big O is an upper bound, big Theta is both lower and upper bound. So, big Theta(x) always implies big O(x).
Most people don't bother writing big Theta, because you usually don't care that much about the lower bound. If you want to use those terms, you should know what they actually mean. Saying that something is big Theta(1) or big O(1) is useless if you don't know what that means.
It's still O(1), even with collisions. But there can't be many of them.
And it has nothing to do with pretending, you just have to say what exactly do you mean. If you mean the average case, that's O(1). On the other hand, if you mean the worst case, that would be O(n).
Just because Wikipedia is not for-profit doesn't mean the same rules don't apply.
If a commercial encyclopedia is not good enough (what you describe as "accuracy and reliability reputation"), it means people won't buy it and so the publishing company will go bankrupt.
If an open encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not good enough, it means people won't visit it. And that means nobody will edit it and nobody will donate to it and so the publishing organization will have to close down. And even if it would technically keep running, no visitors and no editors means it's a dead project anyway.
Either way, if an encyclopedia is not good enough, it will eventually go down. It doesn't matter whether it's made for profit or not.
It's not a separate issue. That's because it's very hard (impossible?) to create an electronic voting system that is both secure and has secret votes at the same time.
You can implement security by public key cryptography, but that means you don't get secret voting.
Maybe that would be a good idea in an ideal world. But in reality, such behavior would be deeply confusing for people who know C, C++ or Java. And I think that "it should be easy to write correct code" applies to people who already know another language too.
Also, from my experience, fall-through is not that useful anyway. I don't think I ever wrote code in C# where it would be useful. Having two cases for the same code sometimes is useful, and C# does support that.
That's interesting. The creators of C# have a somewhat similar philosophy: they say that they would like it to be a "pit of quality", it should be easy to write correct code. But that doesn't mean they removed features that can be abused.
As a consequence, the things you mention (pointers, gotos, operator overloading) are all included. But for example in the case of pointers they are "hidden" (they have to be in an "unsafe" block).
On the other hand, for example fall-through switch cases are not allowed in C# at all, they thought those are not worth all the bugs they cause.
Yes, I realize that. But considering it was only a research project and not really a serious port, I think those are great results. And it shows there may be very interesting possibilities in something like this.
In a benchmark they made (granted, it was focused on generics, where C# has serious performance advantage against Java), the port was about seven times faster.
But it's not just about writing. Reading is at least as important. And you need to read thought a lot of noise to get to the signal if you're using an anonymous class.
I must admit that I don't use Java, so I wasn't aware that you can refer to final local variables from anonymous classes.
But yeah, verbosity is a big deal. If LINQ used anonymous classes instead of lambdas, it would be almost unusable (and unreadable). A lambda that can be written in about a dozen characters in C# requires five lines when written as a Java anonymous class.
C# 2.0 had anonymous methods, which were already less verbose than anonymous classes. Then C# 3.0 introduced lambdas, with the main difference being that they are even less verbose (big part of that is thanks to type inference, which means you don't have to specify the types of the parameters of the lambda).
And I think the fact that you can use only final variables is quite limiting too.
I don't know about you, but at this point, I consider a general-purpose language without closures to be a joke. In my experience, they are very useful and I would find it hard to work on a large project without them.
You could do that on a Unix system, but that doesn't cover everything. On the other hand, you can be sure that wherever you have C#, you also have the.Net library.
Technically, the.Net libraries are not part of the C# specification, but practically, all implementations that I know of include them.
Unfortunately, the latest ECMA specification corresponds to C# 2.0 (which is from 2005). Mono already implements the upcoming C# 5.0. And the same applies to the CLI spec.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually you can fire someone without any kind of a reason.
Well, if you do that in a civilized country, it also means you have to give the employee a severance package. Which is why companies don't like to do that.
Yes and people (at least the Slashdot crowd) would much prefer to have their CPUs at their full performance, not intentionally crippled so that they can be sold at a lower price.
But that's just how economy sometimes works. For the CPU manufacturer, it's cheaper to produce just one kind of CPUs and then cripple them to different levels and sold at a price based on that crippling. And in this case, everyone wins.
Isn't it possible the situation with cable is similar? If you had large price just for cable without any channels, less people would pay for cable and so it would be less feasible to film those expensive shows like Game of Thrones.
And then rip the CD? So, instead of having the music instantly in a format I want, I have to wait until it arrives through snail mail and then I have to work to get it in a format I want? Thanks, but no thanks.
So you're telling me I should pay for the privilege of paying for Netflix? Thanks, but no thanks. If they don't want my money, I won't force it on them.
Well, I could afford it, but they don't want my money:
> Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet
Let me get this straight. They're not acting extremely maliciously, they're only acting very maliciously?
Big O is an upper bound, but that doesn't mean it always describes the worst case. Quicksort is O(log n) in the average case (knowing how fast the best case is mostly useless). What that means is that in the average case, quicksort will always use less than c * log n time, for sufficiently large c.
But the summary says different sources of money of different media are the cause of this situation. And in that regard BBC is comparable to RT: both are publicly funded, they don't rely on advertising.
Big O is an upper bound, big Theta is both lower and upper bound. So, big Theta(x) always implies big O(x).
Most people don't bother writing big Theta, because you usually don't care that much about the lower bound. If you want to use those terms, you should know what they actually mean. Saying that something is big Theta(1) or big O(1) is useless if you don't know what that means.
It's still O(1), even with collisions. But there can't be many of them.
And it has nothing to do with pretending, you just have to say what exactly do you mean. If you mean the average case, that's O(1). On the other hand, if you mean the worst case, that would be O(n).
Just because Wikipedia is not for-profit doesn't mean the same rules don't apply.
If a commercial encyclopedia is not good enough (what you describe as "accuracy and reliability reputation"), it means people won't buy it and so the publishing company will go bankrupt.
If an open encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not good enough, it means people won't visit it. And that means nobody will edit it and nobody will donate to it and so the publishing organization will have to close down. And even if it would technically keep running, no visitors and no editors means it's a dead project anyway.
Either way, if an encyclopedia is not good enough, it will eventually go down. It doesn't matter whether it's made for profit or not.
It's not a separate issue. That's because it's very hard (impossible?) to create an electronic voting system that is both secure and has secret votes at the same time.
You can implement security by public key cryptography, but that means you don't get secret voting.
Maybe that would be a good idea in an ideal world. But in reality, such behavior would be deeply confusing for people who know C, C++ or Java. And I think that "it should be easy to write correct code" applies to people who already know another language too.
Also, from my experience, fall-through is not that useful anyway. I don't think I ever wrote code in C# where it would be useful. Having two cases for the same code sometimes is useful, and C# does support that.
That's interesting. The creators of C# have a somewhat similar philosophy: they say that they would like it to be a "pit of quality", it should be easy to write correct code. But that doesn't mean they removed features that can be abused.
As a consequence, the things you mention (pointers, gotos, operator overloading) are all included. But for example in the case of pointers they are "hidden" (they have to be in an "unsafe" block).
On the other hand, for example fall-through switch cases are not allowed in C# at all, they thought those are not worth all the bugs they cause.
No, no, you don't understand. See, "open development ideology" means that they use open source software, not that they contribute to it.
Yes, I realize that. But considering it was only a research project and not really a serious port, I think those are great results. And it shows there may be very interesting possibilities in something like this.
There's also another interesting research project: Porting Android to C# running under mono.
In a benchmark they made (granted, it was focused on generics, where C# has serious performance advantage against Java), the port was about seven times faster.
So, never? There are only 12 months in a year, not 21.
So, is Gamma-ray-bending a special form of Energybending?
But it's not just about writing. Reading is at least as important. And you need to read thought a lot of noise to get to the signal if you're using an anonymous class.
As far as I know, the ECMA spec really is for .Net 2.0 and wasn't updated since.
And I think you can rely on features from C# 4.0 and .Net 4.0 in mono now, there aren't many missing pieces anymore.
I must admit that I don't use Java, so I wasn't aware that you can refer to final local variables from anonymous classes.
But yeah, verbosity is a big deal. If LINQ used anonymous classes instead of lambdas, it would be almost unusable (and unreadable). A lambda that can be written in about a dozen characters in C# requires five lines when written as a Java anonymous class.
C# 2.0 had anonymous methods, which were already less verbose than anonymous classes. Then C# 3.0 introduced lambdas, with the main difference being that they are even less verbose (big part of that is thanks to type inference, which means you don't have to specify the types of the parameters of the lambda).
And I think the fact that you can use only final variables is quite limiting too.
I don't know about you, but at this point, I consider a general-purpose language without closures to be a joke. In my experience, they are very useful and I would find it hard to work on a large project without them.
Even C++ has closures now.
You could do that on a Unix system, but that doesn't cover everything. On the other hand, you can be sure that wherever you have C#, you also have the .Net library.
Technically, the .Net libraries are not part of the C# specification, but practically, all implementations that I know of include them.
Unfortunately, the latest ECMA specification corresponds to C# 2.0 (which is from 2005). Mono already implements the upcoming C# 5.0. And the same applies to the CLI spec.