I'd argue that properties aren't that great. Unless I'm mistaken, they are function calls that can be assigned to (instead of putting the argument in parenthesis), that lack parenthesis.
They are convenient, but they can cause problems as a novice developer may not realize they have function-like overhead. I can see a lot of good logic for not adding them to a language.
(1) The API is very well document. Admittedly, Java and python are about as good. All three seem to have differences in where their documentation excel/lack, for me the.NET documentation seems a bit better. (2) Even considering Psycho, it is faster than Python, and depending on the task, the speed can go between slightly faster, parity and slightly slower than Java (3) Visual Studio is an excellent IDE, probably my favorite (but opinions vary). I just started using MonoDevelop, and it has now beaten out Eclipse as my #2 (this is simply rating IDEs for the languages they work best on, not all languages). Mind you, this is a personal preference, but there are plenty who will agree with it (and since someone will say so, plenty who will disagree as well). Java with a good IDE (Eclipse/Netbeans) comes close, but I've yet to see a good autocomlpeter for python, which makes sense given the language - that would be a non-trivial task. (4) I've had better luck in running.NET apps and running them on non-windows desktop platform, than Java apps running on multiple platforms. Mind you, to get this to work their are a few parts of the API you need to avoid, primarily WPF. Again I've seen opinions vary on this. (5) The.NET method for accessing native libraries is much easier/cleaner than that of Java or Python (6) Programming file IO seems a lot cleaner than you would get in the cluttered mess Java gives you. Python has.NET beat here, though. (7) Dynamically loading/unloading.NET libraries from.NET is easier than doing the same for Java libraries in Java. Again, I think Python has a slight advantage here.
It's kinda like "herbal viagra" and penis enlargement spam, but targeting slashdotters - so books that are useless crap rather than pharmaceuticals that are...
(1) most atomic clocks don't use anything radioactive, they use vibrations of cesium atoms. Given how up tight you are, something that vibrates might be useful to you. (2) don't eat bananas.
Look at when the mouse was invented. We switched from ball to optical/laser, one button to a few more, but the principle of the interface is, in general, the same. That was what, 35ish years ago? Keyboards are much older than that. That's the kind of thing he was taking about.
Nonetheless, the statement doesn't seem to show much in parallel with his gallery, which shows a lot of creativity at performing a task within the scope of a given amount of technology.
Not really, when you chill out, you usually don't run so fast.
Speaking of fast, if we could place some observational equipment on such a comet, that might be an interesting way to get some nice extra-solar observations. The landing/impact on the comet, could provide the delta-p needed to get it into a fast orbit out, with less fuel, if the comet survived.
Given that, to my knowlege, all x86 CPUs are internally RISC, that change may be necessary.
However, there's nothing wrong with exposing the x86 arch while internally using their own, separate, instruction set - this allows a model which can perform standard optimizations, keeping the programmers from having to worry about implementing them, themselves. Also, it allows for changing the executed instruction set, to improve performance, without causing problems to existing applications.
With the plethora of JIT compiled languages doing high-end tasks today, and the increasing number of cross platform/arch libraries, I'm not sure that x86 compatibility is such a killer.
Actually, ARM wouldn't take much work to make a good server CPU.
Most servers are better suited by a lot of mediocre or slightly below mediocre cores, rather than one or a few heavier-duty cores. ARM's low power and high performance/power ratio makes it a very likely contender for the server market in the next couple years, if it is developed properly.
For the end-user segment (desktops and notebooks), where low-thread brute force tends to be a more relevant factor, ARM isn't as good of a choice.
It's beaten out other techs for a reason. ARM is not replacing x86 on the desktop any time soon, thank goodness. Maybe joining it, but not replacing it.
Glad I don't have either of those from what I've heard.
I just checked, there is a bandwidth cap with my ISP, but only for newsgroups (5GB). Outside of newsgroups, I don't have one. I pay an arm and a leg though (Wide Open West).
Streaming is nice for when you are on the go. It seems ideal to keep a copy on the remote server, and one on your home device, so you don't have to stream except when on the go.
3 my ISP. No caps. My home device is where I get my content from any location.
And, more importantly, people generally reproduce a subset through both their education, and random and not so random events in their daily lives. The progress of technology is also evidence that it works.
After that point it is extrapolation on the base data, but that's more than you have with faith.
Mind you, that doesn't mean science isn't faith for some either. I have a friend who hasn't the inclination to attempt even a marginal understanding of anything beyond a very limited and simple scope. But he is a complete "believer in science". He doesn't even understand the basics, doesn't want to, it is simply his faith, so that he can have something to oppose the evils of religion.
So, science can be either or both, it depends on the person.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue that properties aren't that great. Unless I'm mistaken, they are function calls that can be assigned to (instead of putting the argument in parenthesis), that lack parenthesis.
They are convenient, but they can cause problems as a novice developer may not realize they have function-like overhead. I can see a lot of good logic for not adding them to a language.
Here are my reasons.
(1) The API is very well document. Admittedly, Java and python are about as good. All three seem to have differences in where their documentation excel/lack, for me the .NET documentation seems a bit better. .NET apps and running them on non-windows desktop platform, than Java apps running on multiple platforms. Mind you, to get this to work their are a few parts of the API you need to avoid, primarily WPF. Again I've seen opinions vary on this. .NET method for accessing native libraries is much easier/cleaner than that of Java or Python .NET beat here, though. .NET libraries from .NET is easier than doing the same for Java libraries in Java. Again, I think Python has a slight advantage here.
(2) Even considering Psycho, it is faster than Python, and depending on the task, the speed can go between slightly faster, parity and slightly slower than Java
(3) Visual Studio is an excellent IDE, probably my favorite (but opinions vary). I just started using MonoDevelop, and it has now beaten out Eclipse as my #2 (this is simply rating IDEs for the languages they work best on, not all languages). Mind you, this is a personal preference, but there are plenty who will agree with it (and since someone will say so, plenty who will disagree as well). Java with a good IDE (Eclipse/Netbeans) comes close, but I've yet to see a good autocomlpeter for python, which makes sense given the language - that would be a non-trivial task.
(4) I've had better luck in running
(5) The
(6) Programming file IO seems a lot cleaner than you would get in the cluttered mess Java gives you. Python has
(7) Dynamically loading/unloading
It's kinda like "herbal viagra" and penis enlargement spam, but targeting slashdotters - so books that are useless crap rather than pharmaceuticals that are...
Pretty soon it'll be:
p4ck7 b00kz 4 ubah c*o*m*p*u*t*e*r skillz!
(1) most atomic clocks don't use anything radioactive, they use vibrations of cesium atoms. Given how up tight you are, something that vibrates might be useful to you.
(2) don't eat bananas.
Actually, I was thinking earlier mice were two button - I didn't realize they were 3 buttons. I knew the reduction to 1 was an apple thing.
Look at when the mouse was invented. We switched from ball to optical/laser, one button to a few more, but the principle of the interface is, in general, the same. That was what, 35ish years ago? Keyboards are much older than that. That's the kind of thing he was taking about.
Nonetheless, the statement doesn't seem to show much in parallel with his gallery, which shows a lot of creativity at performing a task within the scope of a given amount of technology.
When the software can think and feel, I'll give a damn about it's rights. Until then it's the users/developers taht matter.
Funny, I find the same logic follows for a lot of GPL zealots.
Not really, when you chill out, you usually don't run so fast.
Speaking of fast, if we could place some observational equipment on such a comet, that might be an interesting way to get some nice extra-solar observations. The landing/impact on the comet, could provide the delta-p needed to get it into a fast orbit out, with less fuel, if the comet survived.
s/is going to change/has changed/
Given that, to my knowlege, all x86 CPUs are internally RISC, that change may be necessary.
However, there's nothing wrong with exposing the x86 arch while internally using their own, separate, instruction set - this allows a model which can perform standard optimizations, keeping the programmers from having to worry about implementing them, themselves. Also, it allows for changing the executed instruction set, to improve performance, without causing problems to existing applications.
With the plethora of JIT compiled languages doing high-end tasks today, and the increasing number of cross platform/arch libraries, I'm not sure that x86 compatibility is such a killer.
Actually, ARM wouldn't take much work to make a good server CPU.
Most servers are better suited by a lot of mediocre or slightly below mediocre cores, rather than one or a few heavier-duty cores. ARM's low power and high performance/power ratio makes it a very likely contender for the server market in the next couple years, if it is developed properly.
For the end-user segment (desktops and notebooks), where low-thread brute force tends to be a more relevant factor, ARM isn't as good of a choice.
Adaptability and technological superiority for the tasks on a desktop.
So, yeah, it is in part, technological superiority.
I think the only one of those that would stand a chance is Alpha... *MAYBE* MIPS.
Sparc? Doubt it. It's nice for highly parallel tasks, but not so great for high-demand single-thread, which matches a lot of desktop apps.
I've been hearing this drivel for years.
It's beaten out other techs for a reason. ARM is not replacing x86 on the desktop any time soon, thank goodness. Maybe joining it, but not replacing it.
ftfy
Really... At least nuclear fusion is only a decade away, like it's been for the past 50-60 years.
Is this the new nuclear fusion?
Gravity is a huge thing.
Although, a better idea would be to build a station for the task. One that you could apply rockets to, for propulsion to Mars.
That way, it's not just a feasibility thing, but a dry run as well - and you could use it for the mission to Mars.
But... If you don't hug the nuclear waste, it will feel un-special and un-wanted!
For that matter, neither does most of the US.
I have Wide Open West cable.
Apparantly they do have a 5GB cap... But only for newsgroups. I don't use newsgroups, let along 5GB worth of newsgroup use...
It's expensive, but IMO, worth it.
Glad I don't have either of those from what I've heard.
I just checked, there is a bandwidth cap with my ISP, but only for newsgroups (5GB). Outside of newsgroups, I don't have one. I pay an arm and a leg though (Wide Open West).
Streaming is nice for when you are on the go. It seems ideal to keep a copy on the remote server, and one on your home device, so you don't have to stream except when on the go.
3 my ISP. No caps. My home device is where I get my content from any location.
And, more importantly, people generally reproduce a subset through both their education, and random and not so random events in their daily lives. The progress of technology is also evidence that it works.
After that point it is extrapolation on the base data, but that's more than you have with faith.
Mind you, that doesn't mean science isn't faith for some either. I have a friend who hasn't the inclination to attempt even a marginal understanding of anything beyond a very limited and simple scope. But he is a complete "believer in science". He doesn't even understand the basics, doesn't want to, it is simply his faith, so that he can have something to oppose the evils of religion.
So, science can be either or both, it depends on the person.
Maybe part of his team is using metric, and another part is using imperial?