I agree with you about algae. It does seem like a sweet deal. However, the downside is obviously the landmass required--it would take more land than we currently devote to food just for energy (and we don't have that much of it to spare--even with all the wide open spaces out west).
1 - This depends on your defintion of 'law'. I was using the term loosely and in the abstract/philosophical sense.
2 - How do you think censorship is enforced if not by some laws (and/or rules)?
I don't think he is saying that current or past food costs saw a spike due to ethanol but rather that future costs would if we switched over to ethanol en masse.
And, at your request I suppose. I'm actually pretty surprised that your 'Mod parent down' post didn't get modded down as 'off topic' (and those between here and there too). But, at this level, I suppose we're under the radar!
And, a philosopher (along with the theist) would recognize that science [as defined by materialists] is utterly powerless as a tool for 'proving metaphysical viewpoints' wrong.
I think you can substitute the word 'email' for internet and that quote makes perfect sense. It may be news to you, but sometimes people do not say the word they mean (especially when their brains are as old as Stevens').
I would imagine that if the prison pays the proper royalties, they'd be no different than a radio station. Stations are free to play whatever they wish (even if it goes against their normal programming).
I think that purity with respect to functional languages denotes absence of mutable state hence no objects (as they are simply the concatenation of state and function).
I did read that page and it was quite interesting, but I wonder if the set! operator/function and closures which modify state are 'pure'. Also, it should be noted that this 'simulation' of o-o only gets you part of the way there--polymorphism is apparently pretty hard [read verbose] to simulate and you can forget about heap [dynamic] allocations as everything is on the stack.
Yes, there has been a bit of a fiasco about smart ptrs, but boost has essentially perfected it (and it has become standardized).
I think that with C++ you really have to consider the library part of the language (and that includes boost and TR1). Yes, it's not perfect, but it is much more powerful [in some ways] than most other languages (and a lot closer to the metal). With templates, meta-templates & lambdas/closures, C++ has, in my opinion, become as good of a generic programming language as the functional languages (it has a little more syntax to deal with, but that's a small price to pay for efficiency if you need it) [and some people claim that the extra syntax makes it easier to maintain too because you can jump right into any context and get your bearings pretty quickly].
With all languages, there are upsides and downsides--there's no silver bullet.
And yet in an impure object-oriented language, a set of free functions all taking ptrs to the same type of data structure with a vtable pointer is... well, the way you'd do it if you didn't have O-O (say in C).
Point is: impurity only muddies the waters. If we're going to talk about paradigms, at least stick to 'pure' ones.
OOP is simply a prescribed way to manage state (reduce coupling, etc). FP is the extermination of state [which I suppose could be considered a very extreme form of managing it].
The methods within an object are, of course, not functional (unless they are static and do not return void or rely on any static data). Pure FP has no side effects and does not rely on state such as instance variables or static [global] variables.
If you're using C++ in such a way that 'pointer==array' matters, you are not using it correctly. C++ has STL & boost/TR1 to provide the standard data structures, smart pointers (C#/Java references) and algorithms you want.
Also, if you really want managed memory,, there are GC implementations for C++.
Actually, it has changed drastically. Only for about a decade have we had meta-template programming and the more functional syntax (as detailed by Alexandrescu's _Modern C++_ [and TR1 takes this even further]. Though, I do agree that [typical] templates were in widespread use in 1995.
GP is entirely off-base though. Languages change due to progress. Those who fail to come along for the ride wither and die (or at the very least become the sort of people that no one wants to work with).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you about algae. It does seem like a sweet deal. However, the downside is obviously the landmass required--it would take more land than we currently devote to food just for energy (and we don't have that much of it to spare--even with all the wide open spaces out west).
1 - This depends on your defintion of 'law'. I was using the term loosely and in the abstract/philosophical sense.
2 - How do you think censorship is enforced if not by some laws (and/or rules)?
Why is it that any suggestion of rule of law about anything (and in particular grammar) is greeted with such allegations here on Slashdot?
Don't be an anarchist.
I don't think he is saying that current or past food costs saw a spike due to ethanol but rather that future costs would if we switched over to ethanol en masse.
And, at your request I suppose. I'm actually pretty surprised that your 'Mod parent down' post didn't get modded down as 'off topic' (and those between here and there too). But, at this level, I suppose we're under the radar!
No, really. You are. If i only had a mod point to burn, I could bring the post to +5!!!!
Or maybe he did catch it and thinks that sort of thing belongs on Reddit?
Exactly, it's more of an ethnic or class conflict than anything.
And, a philosopher (along with the theist) would recognize that science [as defined by materialists] is utterly powerless as a tool for 'proving metaphysical viewpoints' wrong.
i can haz spam?
I think you can substitute the word 'email' for internet and that quote makes perfect sense. It may be news to you, but sometimes people do not say the word they mean (especially when their brains are as old as Stevens').
That depends on a compiler setting actually. You can make either one the standard in your compiler options.
Oops, nevermind. That info pertains to x86, not x86-64.
Do you mean 'what are calling conventions' generally --or-- what specifically are the two calling conventions?
I can't speak for Linux, but on Windows, the standard convention (of which there are many) is STDCALL.
For one-- Navigating folder hierarchies in explorer is quicker with the 'breadcrumb' address bar.
Oh, like 'life in prison'. Yea, good idea.
What about a domain specific language? Are you ever one of those? If not, then we really do have lots in common.
I would imagine that if the prison pays the proper royalties, they'd be no different than a radio station. Stations are free to play whatever they wish (even if it goes against their normal programming).
I think that purity with respect to functional languages denotes absence of mutable state hence no objects (as they are simply the concatenation of state and function).
I did read that page and it was quite interesting, but I wonder if the set! operator/function and closures which modify state are 'pure'. Also, it should be noted that this 'simulation' of o-o only gets you part of the way there--polymorphism is apparently pretty hard [read verbose] to simulate and you can forget about heap [dynamic] allocations as everything is on the stack.
Yes, there has been a bit of a fiasco about smart ptrs, but boost has essentially perfected it (and it has become standardized).
I think that with C++ you really have to consider the library part of the language (and that includes boost and TR1). Yes, it's not perfect, but it is much more powerful [in some ways] than most other languages (and a lot closer to the metal). With templates, meta-templates & lambdas/closures, C++ has, in my opinion, become as good of a generic programming language as the functional languages (it has a little more syntax to deal with, but that's a small price to pay for efficiency if you need it) [and some people claim that the extra syntax makes it easier to maintain too because you can jump right into any context and get your bearings pretty quickly].
With all languages, there are upsides and downsides--there's no silver bullet.
And yet in an impure object-oriented language, a set of free functions all taking ptrs to the same type of data structure with a vtable pointer is ... well, the way you'd do it if you didn't have O-O (say in C).
Point is: impurity only muddies the waters. If we're going to talk about paradigms, at least stick to 'pure' ones.
OOP is simply a prescribed way to manage state (reduce coupling, etc). FP is the extermination of state [which I suppose could be considered a very extreme form of managing it].
The methods within an object are, of course, not functional (unless they are static and do not return void or rely on any static data). Pure FP has no side effects and does not rely on state such as instance variables or static [global] variables.
If you're using C++ in such a way that 'pointer==array' matters, you are not using it correctly. C++ has STL & boost/TR1 to provide the standard data structures, smart pointers (C#/Java references) and algorithms you want.
Also, if you really want managed memory,, there are GC implementations for C++.
Actually, it has changed drastically. Only for about a decade have we had meta-template programming and the more functional syntax (as detailed by Alexandrescu's _Modern C++_ [and TR1 takes this even further]. Though, I do agree that [typical] templates were in widespread use in 1995.
GP is entirely off-base though. Languages change due to progress. Those who fail to come along for the ride wither and die (or at the very least become the sort of people that no one wants to work with).