Nobody will ensure the "purity" of Linux, because that's what the GPL does. I'm not sure what specific FUD you're trying to imply with the EEE remarks, but the evidence for chicanery is pretty weak, and you're sort of pointing out that they aren't that effective at it.
And not to defend Microsoft, but.NET is better than Java in most respects, and Java's popularity has been propped up by Android. I'm not sure where.NET is headed, but Kotlin is likely to start cutting into Java on mobile in a big way.
That's exactly what Microsoft does. They have a guaranteed revenue stream, and they've been trying to convert that into dominant positions in various other related industries. They've had success with the console market after burning an insane amount of money, they've failed repeatedly in the phone market after burning even more money, and it seems like they're achieving a pretty comfortable position in the tablet market. Microsoft can certainly afford to hire all of the talent that they want, and they actually do not want for qualified engineers. Also, this is not exactly novel ground here, it's the exact same type of work that was done to create WSL. Money may not solve every problem in the world, but it's actually a pretty effective way to get things done, and there's no reason to believe that this would be an exception.
Well yeah actually, because with Unix you either SSH into the box remotely, or your toolkit consists of a single liveUSB. Real Unix Admins(tm) can restore the whole system from deletion with a half-working copy of cat and no filesystem, of course.
The cherry-picking piece of shit would be the one cherry-picking a tiny percentage of the Sun's output and using that to support the idea that the Sun is the major driver of climate change and not the gigatonnes of carbon.
You mean that thing which has such a consistent output that we refer to the "solar constant"? The thing that varies less than.1% over 11 years? Is that "big yellow thing" you're talking about? What exactly do you think you know about this topic?
I think Ruby is almost clever enough. There's no concise way to send a method as a signal to a collection with the intent that it be applied recursively to any contained collections, one can only curry arguments in one direction, and of course there's no homoiconicity. Still, it's almost lispy. Python is slightly more influenced by the C-derivatives rather than Smalltalk.
What evidence do you have at this point of increasing NoSQL adoption? Most of the HN coverage is pretty negative, e.g. Why SQL is beating NoSQL. I don't think we otherwise have much difference of opinion on the general course of future events.
Yes, since the original claim was that Ruby was forcing him into dealing with classes and things when he didn't wanna, it made sense to opt for the minimal expression. One might even do something like p"Hello, World", but p adds quotation marks to the output, so one might disallow it based on that. Note for the record that the space between p or puts and its argument(s) isn't required. For the purposes of writing small scripts it's almost not worth bothering to list the differences between Python and Ruby — print is also a Ruby function, so the exact code you give can be executed by either interpreter. Using a function:
def main
puts 'Hello, World!' end main
or with a lambda you could do: ->{puts 'Hello, World!'}[]
The square brackets execute the previous lambda expression. I believe the equivalent Python would be: (lambda : print('Hello, World!'))()
More or less the same thing, with Ruby having slightly shorter syntax. However, try this one: puts(Enumerator.new do |y|
loop { y.yield (1..rand(1..18)).map { [*'a'..'z'].sample }.join } end.lazy.reject(&IO.readlines('/usr/share/dict/words').method(:include?)).first(10).join(' '))
This generates random strings which are guaranteed not to exist in the system dictionary, and writes them to stdout. The collection is lazily evaluated, so that we don't have to (explicitly) loop over the generator until we have the specified number of items. Technically, this is a single statement. Also, I should probably say that this was written as a joke, and I promise that I've never written anything like this in production.
It's really cute how you can pretend that you don't understand the context and meaning of those statements. I'm sure there's some mental gymnastics which will allow you to make your choices someone else's fault, but I'm not sure that this routine is a winner.
You did not invent any experiences. You're were sufficiently outraged by the idea of object orientation, because of your own inadequacies, that you stopped reading something that mentioned the subject. In doing so, you somehow missed that Ruby's "hello world" is shorter than Python's, and that in general the only difference in scripting is that Ruby has less required syntax. Not understanding such basic logical abstractions as classes is also completely absurd, but if you can say such things and remain employed then one presumes that you're not in a position to do much damage to anything.
You are wildly off-base with respect to Ruby, and in respect to OOP, "crazy geezer" is the kindest characterization. Ruby and Python are extremely similar as scripting languages. I don't know what you read about either language, but this is an offensively stupid post.
Ruby has a better syntax and probably a better object model. I'm sure there are all sorts of good things about Python's current popularity. Tell me though, can we even call this "2/3" morass a transition at this point, or are we just going to deal with these two separate-but-equal codebases forever? Popularity is not meaningless, but language fundamentals matter too.
Rails is certainly past its peak, but it actually works just fine as a set of REST endpoints. I don't know why you think that the framework is mostly about HTML generation. I'm also fairly concerned if you think that NoSQL is ascendant, dominant, or entirely a good idea. SQL as a query language is likely to be more enduringly popular than the relational datastore per se, but neither are exactly dying out. If as you seem to be suggesting, Node development offers a rapid path to buggy code, I am probably going to steer clear of that one, too.
Ruby is a pleasant and concise language. From my experiences in coding golf competitions, it's usually 30-50% shorter for the equivalent line of Python code. If it had a speed advantage, or seemed likely to obtain one, I would expect it to win out over Python in the long run. As things stand, I would expect that Ruby will continue to exist as a glue language, and as a common point between things like Crystal and Elixir. The syntax ideas and standard library functions of Ruby may end up being more durable than the language itself; Python on the other hand has had far less influence on the design of subsequent languages.
It's really wonderful how you keep deliberately missing the point. The server's role here is to make the files available, and regardless of what the file type is, there is no requirement for it to have a client application installed. If you think otherwise, then apparently Microsoft has damaged your brain to the point of being unable to use a file browser.
The problem is that lots of businesses run Windows servers and this is a problem.
I would agree, but perhaps with a different emphasis.
So in our hypothetical situation of needing to view a PDF on a remote server, what exactly is the problem with opening that folder in Explorer and using your local application to view said document? Are we suggesting that one might have administrative access but not file access? If you need to edit a bitmap on a remote server, would you install Photoshop as well? How about TeX files, or OpenOffice?
This is the sort of problem which would only ever occur to Windows admins, and it doesn't speak well to either the ecosystem or the adminstrators.
I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.
Then it's a good thing that the term "anti-gravity" barely escapes being a complete oxymoron in the context of modern physics. It's about as sensible as an "anti-geometry" device.
Again, whether the action is authorized is irrelevant to whether or not it can be considered obstruction.
I think that your predictions are mostly good, except that they neglect the scenario in which Trump is actually guilty of something. I'm sure it's an oversight. However, I also suspect that someone on the D team will find it politically expedient to attempt impeachment regardless of the results of either the elections or the Mueller investigation.
Legally, it's not relevant whether the act was legal, as long as it had the effect of impeding the investigation, or was done with that motivation. Obstruction of justice charges were brought against Clinton under circumstances which were at least as dubious. I'm not actually suggesting any claims other than that charges will likely be presented; it's just as likely as not that this will be done by one of the Congressional probes if it's not a direct result of the Mueller investigation. Whether the charge would be justified is a question beyond my competence, and as I said, at the moment I doubt a conviction.
Trump cannot directly fire Mueller according to the law. He would have to either get Rosenstein to do this, or fire Rosenstein and get the new deputy AG to do it. This would probably not go unnoticed -- you may recall a certain "Saturday Night Massacre" which got some press attention. If Trump were to directly fire Mueller, it's just as likely as not that this would be upheld in a court of law, but it would also trigger an immediate Congressional reaction, and it's unlikely that the legality of the action would be directly examined.
There can be and wasn't any obstruction of justice involved in the firing of Comey....
As you seem to have said, there can be obstruction. Whether or not there was, is a question which neither of us can guess.
Clinton did not have any authority to deny that trade deal. Uranium One isn't even an American company. For a couple years, some uranium was exported to Canada for processing, and returned to the US. Due to how that works, it can technically be said that some uranium mined in the US in that brief period was exported to Japan and western Europe. No one in the US sold a damn thing.
Firing Comey is entirely likely to result in an obstruction of justice charge, regardless of the results of the probe. I think that at the moment, the odds are against conviction. I would like to think that a charge of treason would be impossible regardless of any actions taken, given that we are not in a declared war, but apparently we have a bad history of ignoring that provision.
No, you have not presented any empirical evidence. You even admitted that you could not provide any. You can't seem to keep your lies straight. Feel free to present any peer-reviewed paper you think might support your views. Calling you out as being a lying bigot does not rise to the level of dogma, I'm afraid.
Numbers. Evidence. Measurements. Prove your assertions using these. You're not exempt from having to back up your words because your cause is just, especially because it's actually morally abhorrent.
It's not necessary to have such large updates, or to reboot during updates. Microsoft explicitly and deliberately forced that upon the world, and have consequently been responsible for more wasted man-hours than really bear contemplation. This happened some decades ago, however, and it's generally widely known. So if you are choosing to run this software, you are signing up for the upgrade hassle, and various viruses, and (in the modern era) some degree of surveillance. If you are regretting that decision, you might seek alternatives. You're probably not going to get much sympathy for your problems, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody will ensure the "purity" of Linux, because that's what the GPL does. I'm not sure what specific FUD you're trying to imply with the EEE remarks, but the evidence for chicanery is pretty weak, and you're sort of pointing out that they aren't that effective at it.
And not to defend Microsoft, but .NET is better than Java in most respects, and Java's popularity has been propped up by Android. I'm not sure where .NET is headed, but Kotlin is likely to start cutting into Java on mobile in a big way.
That's exactly what Microsoft does. They have a guaranteed revenue stream, and they've been trying to convert that into dominant positions in various other related industries. They've had success with the console market after burning an insane amount of money, they've failed repeatedly in the phone market after burning even more money, and it seems like they're achieving a pretty comfortable position in the tablet market. Microsoft can certainly afford to hire all of the talent that they want, and they actually do not want for qualified engineers. Also, this is not exactly novel ground here, it's the exact same type of work that was done to create WSL. Money may not solve every problem in the world, but it's actually a pretty effective way to get things done, and there's no reason to believe that this would be an exception.
Well yeah actually, because with Unix you either SSH into the box remotely, or your toolkit consists of a single liveUSB. Real Unix Admins(tm) can restore the whole system from deletion with a half-working copy of cat and no filesystem, of course.
I'm stuck between, "this is a joke, no one would do that," and "who would make something like that up?".
You might want to improve your toolset, perhaps with software from the current millennium.
Infantile humor, alternative facts, and flamebait: the new Republican Slashdot.
The cherry-picking piece of shit would be the one cherry-picking a tiny percentage of the Sun's output and using that to support the idea that the Sun is the major driver of climate change and not the gigatonnes of carbon.
You mean that thing which has such a consistent output that we refer to the "solar constant"? The thing that varies less than .1% over 11 years? Is that "big yellow thing" you're talking about? What exactly do you think you know about this topic?
I think Ruby is almost clever enough. There's no concise way to send a method as a signal to a collection with the intent that it be applied recursively to any contained collections, one can only curry arguments in one direction, and of course there's no homoiconicity. Still, it's almost lispy. Python is slightly more influenced by the C-derivatives rather than Smalltalk.
What evidence do you have at this point of increasing NoSQL adoption? Most of the HN coverage is pretty negative, e.g. Why SQL is beating NoSQL. I don't think we otherwise have much difference of opinion on the general course of future events.
Yes, since the original claim was that Ruby was forcing him into dealing with classes and things when he didn't wanna, it made sense to opt for the minimal expression. One might even do something like p"Hello, World", but p adds quotation marks to the output, so one might disallow it based on that. Note for the record that the space between p or puts and its argument(s) isn't required. For the purposes of writing small scripts it's almost not worth bothering to list the differences between Python and Ruby — print is also a Ruby function, so the exact code you give can be executed by either interpreter. Using a function:
def main
puts 'Hello, World!'
end
main
or with a lambda you could do:
->{puts 'Hello, World!'}[]
The square brackets execute the previous lambda expression. I believe the equivalent Python would be:
(lambda : print('Hello, World!'))()
More or less the same thing, with Ruby having slightly shorter syntax. However, try this one:
puts(Enumerator.new do |y|
loop { y.yield (1..rand(1..18)).map { [*'a'..'z'].sample }.join }
end.lazy.reject(&IO.readlines('/usr/share/dict/words').method(:include?)).first(10).join(' '))
This generates random strings which are guaranteed not to exist in the system dictionary, and writes them to stdout. The collection is lazily evaluated, so that we don't have to (explicitly) loop over the generator until we have the specified number of items. Technically, this is a single statement. Also, I should probably say that this was written as a joke, and I promise that I've never written anything like this in production.
It's really cute how you can pretend that you don't understand the context and meaning of those statements. I'm sure there's some mental gymnastics which will allow you to make your choices someone else's fault, but I'm not sure that this routine is a winner.
puts 'Hello, World!'
It is certainly silly to suggest that one has to jump through fewer hoops to write a Python program. Nevertheless, that was the claim.
You did not invent any experiences. You're were sufficiently outraged by the idea of object orientation, because of your own inadequacies, that you stopped reading something that mentioned the subject. In doing so, you somehow missed that Ruby's "hello world" is shorter than Python's, and that in general the only difference in scripting is that Ruby has less required syntax. Not understanding such basic logical abstractions as classes is also completely absurd, but if you can say such things and remain employed then one presumes that you're not in a position to do much damage to anything.
You are wildly off-base with respect to Ruby, and in respect to OOP, "crazy geezer" is the kindest characterization. Ruby and Python are extremely similar as scripting languages. I don't know what you read about either language, but this is an offensively stupid post.
Ruby has a better syntax and probably a better object model. I'm sure there are all sorts of good things about Python's current popularity. Tell me though, can we even call this "2/3" morass a transition at this point, or are we just going to deal with these two separate-but-equal codebases forever? Popularity is not meaningless, but language fundamentals matter too.
Rails is certainly past its peak, but it actually works just fine as a set of REST endpoints. I don't know why you think that the framework is mostly about HTML generation. I'm also fairly concerned if you think that NoSQL is ascendant, dominant, or entirely a good idea. SQL as a query language is likely to be more enduringly popular than the relational datastore per se, but neither are exactly dying out. If as you seem to be suggesting, Node development offers a rapid path to buggy code, I am probably going to steer clear of that one, too.
Ruby is a pleasant and concise language. From my experiences in coding golf competitions, it's usually 30-50% shorter for the equivalent line of Python code. If it had a speed advantage, or seemed likely to obtain one, I would expect it to win out over Python in the long run. As things stand, I would expect that Ruby will continue to exist as a glue language, and as a common point between things like Crystal and Elixir. The syntax ideas and standard library functions of Ruby may end up being more durable than the language itself; Python on the other hand has had far less influence on the design of subsequent languages.
Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.
It's really wonderful how you keep deliberately missing the point. The server's role here is to make the files available, and regardless of what the file type is, there is no requirement for it to have a client application installed. If you think otherwise, then apparently Microsoft has damaged your brain to the point of being unable to use a file browser.
The problem is that lots of businesses run Windows servers and this is a problem.
I would agree, but perhaps with a different emphasis.
So in our hypothetical situation of needing to view a PDF on a remote server, what exactly is the problem with opening that folder in Explorer and using your local application to view said document? Are we suggesting that one might have administrative access but not file access? If you need to edit a bitmap on a remote server, would you install Photoshop as well? How about TeX files, or OpenOffice?
This is the sort of problem which would only ever occur to Windows admins, and it doesn't speak well to either the ecosystem or the adminstrators.
I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.
Then it's a good thing that the term "anti-gravity" barely escapes being a complete oxymoron in the context of modern physics. It's about as sensible as an "anti-geometry" device.
Please stop ascribing positions to me.
Again, whether the action is authorized is irrelevant to whether or not it can be considered obstruction.
I think that your predictions are mostly good, except that they neglect the scenario in which Trump is actually guilty of something. I'm sure it's an oversight. However, I also suspect that someone on the D team will find it politically expedient to attempt impeachment regardless of the results of either the elections or the Mueller investigation.
Legally, it's not relevant whether the act was legal, as long as it had the effect of impeding the investigation, or was done with that motivation. Obstruction of justice charges were brought against Clinton under circumstances which were at least as dubious. I'm not actually suggesting any claims other than that charges will likely be presented; it's just as likely as not that this will be done by one of the Congressional probes if it's not a direct result of the Mueller investigation. Whether the charge would be justified is a question beyond my competence, and as I said, at the moment I doubt a conviction.
Trump cannot directly fire Mueller according to the law. He would have to either get Rosenstein to do this, or fire Rosenstein and get the new deputy AG to do it. This would probably not go unnoticed -- you may recall a certain "Saturday Night Massacre" which got some press attention. If Trump were to directly fire Mueller, it's just as likely as not that this would be upheld in a court of law, but it would also trigger an immediate Congressional reaction, and it's unlikely that the legality of the action would be directly examined.
There can be and wasn't any obstruction of justice involved in the firing of Comey....
As you seem to have said, there can be obstruction. Whether or not there was, is a question which neither of us can guess.
Clinton did not have any authority to deny that trade deal. Uranium One isn't even an American company. For a couple years, some uranium was exported to Canada for processing, and returned to the US. Due to how that works, it can technically be said that some uranium mined in the US in that brief period was exported to Japan and western Europe. No one in the US sold a damn thing.
You are a liar.
Firing Comey is entirely likely to result in an obstruction of justice charge, regardless of the results of the probe. I think that at the moment, the odds are against conviction. I would like to think that a charge of treason would be impossible regardless of any actions taken, given that we are not in a declared war, but apparently we have a bad history of ignoring that provision.
No, you have not presented any empirical evidence. You even admitted that you could not provide any. You can't seem to keep your lies straight. Feel free to present any peer-reviewed paper you think might support your views. Calling you out as being a lying bigot does not rise to the level of dogma, I'm afraid.
Numbers. Evidence. Measurements. Prove your assertions using these. You're not exempt from having to back up your words because your cause is just, especially because it's actually morally abhorrent.
It's not necessary to have such large updates, or to reboot during updates. Microsoft explicitly and deliberately forced that upon the world, and have consequently been responsible for more wasted man-hours than really bear contemplation. This happened some decades ago, however, and it's generally widely known. So if you are choosing to run this software, you are signing up for the upgrade hassle, and various viruses, and (in the modern era) some degree of surveillance. If you are regretting that decision, you might seek alternatives. You're probably not going to get much sympathy for your problems, however.