This is, honestly, a pervasive mobile problem. As you've guessed the challenges have nothing to do with the kernel; both Android and iOS have run plenty of services in the background since day one using their native Linux and Darwin multitasking. The bottlenecks are really (a) sloppy UI code that doesn't background well, (b) tiny available RAM that's only enough room for one program, (c) no good way of suspending tasks so that they actually get out of the way, and (d) troubles designing a decent task-switching interface.
People had hacked the iPhone to do multitasking long before Apple released an official patch, but keeping programs in the background drastically reduced battery life and stability due to memory constraints.
This sort of proves a key point that's been ignored in all the articles in the summary: new situations often mean new challenges, so old lessons are not always immediately applicable.
It looks like he's obsessed with APL's vector and matrix math, which is the usual reason people obsess over it. If you're not familiar with APL, something similar is possible in MATLAB, although that's mostly due to well-written functions and is not nearly as intrinsic to the language as it is in APL. (The other notable feature of APL, one-character operators for practically everything, is not generally as well-received.) The magic is more or less the same as in functional programming. (Personally I've settled on a foreach() macro for C++ that takes the pain away.)
...yeah, that's catalogued too. It seems what Lisp needs to get out of that trap is a spec designed by people who have no strong feelings about the history of the language one way or another and, if possible, have no Lisp experience. But I guess that's where Ruby came from.
Woah, woah, he said Turing-equivalent, not just "equivalent." Those are wildly different things. Are you sure the expiry date on your own geek card is still in the future?
Here's some worthwhile reading on why Lisp has trouble staying put—possibly a little flamebait-y: Lisp is not an acceptable Lisp, The Lisp Curse, and Revenge of the Nerds. The core arguments seem to be (a) it's really easy to invent things in Lisp so no one can agree on how to do it, and (b) the lack of a coherent standard platform means there is no easy target for university courses or job descriptions.
I find it curious that he didn't mention this or this at the end, given that they're both about a year old and both flirt with death and/or the halting problem in order to offer better debugging features.
There's arguably a list of things that make a language into "a" Lisp, and not all of the languages that meet those criteria are actually forks or directly inspired by McCarthy et al.'s LISP programming language. GP was referring to this concept, but probably has a much looser understanding of what it means to be a Lisp. Tragically, TFA is mostly about APL.
A little more seriously, they're doing field trials now, so we'll probably know soon enough.
As far as I can tell, the process is clumsy enough (the seeds have to be pre-impregnated in the lab with the bacteria) that this is a rather small risk.
(There's actually no "h" in "foreign"—it and "reign" are the only two words like that. Perplexing, yes, but "gh" doesn't like to come before an "n".)
The biggest hallmark of Victorian writing is the use of very cumbersome clause arrangement. This can have great rhetorical power when wielded selectively, but at the time many of the grammatical innovations which we now take for granted were widely seen by educated people as lazy and vulgar. Moreover, some hadn't been invented yet. Along with that we've lost a lot of near-synonyms from everyday use and substituted in coarse approximations or the occasional more-precise idiomatic phrase.
Consider the following from the start of Pride and Prejudice:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
(And note already that, as the rules regarding punctuation were far from standardized in 1813, the second comma is a splice by modern standards, and should be thought of more as a cue to pause very briefly.)
Without re-picking vocabulary, today a casual speaker might say something more like:
It is universally acknowledged that a single man with a fortune must want a wife.
Most obviously there's less use of the passive voice and other methods of phrasing things indirectly. (To be "in want of" something is particularly out of style.) Rhetorically, someone may still say something very similar to this in order to mimic historical authority and to make a statement seem more profound, but it would be rather unusual.
The second paragraph is probably along the lines of what made h4rr4r's eyes bleed:
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
There's a lot of preponderance here (as well as another questionable comma.) Inverting the grammar of some clauses is necessary to convert it into a more colloquial and readily-grasped thought:
When such a man first enters a neighbourhood, regardless of however little is known of his feelings or views, this truth is so fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is already considered the rightful property of one or another of their daughters.
I would guess that this kind of grammatical complication would get deliberately lost in any translation, since it made the English overly difficult to swallow in the first place, although certain parts may be desirable to translate—in the context of Pride and Prejudice, which is a satire about the well-to-do, this is poking fun at use of complicated language as a status symbol, but for the most part literary Victorian writers did this anyway, and you'd have to do a fair amount of reading of her other works to know if/how much Austen was really exaggerating this affectation.
That sounds like a good plan all around. (And, yeah, of course they can—such 'matched' punctuation marks are really just different ways of marking parenthesis, which is a much broader category of rhetorical phenomena than most people think.)
cultivat8 posted instructions a few minutes before you made your post, so that cat's out of the bag. Now the only value this suppression serves is in protecting the ignorance of people who are in danger; the car company saves a bit of face with its less-aware customers and investors, and that's about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, but it is .
Oh, I know—although the name is somewhat suggestive of it. More importantly, Homeland Security isn't exactly a major presence in France.
Pretty sure Black Mesa won that contract, too. It's back to canned beans for us, folks.
He's... French. In France. Please tell me that's sleep deprivation talking or something.
So that's where all the grant money's been going...
Well, it's certainly not driving WP8 adoption. (Around here, we tend only to care about OS marketshare.)
Line 0: reference past end of file. What are you, a BASIC programmer?
This is, honestly, a pervasive mobile problem. As you've guessed the challenges have nothing to do with the kernel; both Android and iOS have run plenty of services in the background since day one using their native Linux and Darwin multitasking. The bottlenecks are really (a) sloppy UI code that doesn't background well, (b) tiny available RAM that's only enough room for one program, (c) no good way of suspending tasks so that they actually get out of the way, and (d) troubles designing a decent task-switching interface.
People had hacked the iPhone to do multitasking long before Apple released an official patch, but keeping programs in the background drastically reduced battery life and stability due to memory constraints.
This sort of proves a key point that's been ignored in all the articles in the summary: new situations often mean new challenges, so old lessons are not always immediately applicable.
It looks like he's obsessed with APL's vector and matrix math, which is the usual reason people obsess over it. If you're not familiar with APL, something similar is possible in MATLAB, although that's mostly due to well-written functions and is not nearly as intrinsic to the language as it is in APL. (The other notable feature of APL, one-character operators for practically everything, is not generally as well-received.) The magic is more or less the same as in functional programming. (Personally I've settled on a foreach() macro for C++ that takes the pain away.)
...yeah, that's catalogued too. It seems what Lisp needs to get out of that trap is a spec designed by people who have no strong feelings about the history of the language one way or another and, if possible, have no Lisp experience. But I guess that's where Ruby came from.
Woah, woah, he said Turing-equivalent, not just "equivalent." Those are wildly different things. Are you sure the expiry date on your own geek card is still in the future?
Here's some worthwhile reading on why Lisp has trouble staying put—possibly a little flamebait-y: Lisp is not an acceptable Lisp, The Lisp Curse, and Revenge of the Nerds. The core arguments seem to be (a) it's really easy to invent things in Lisp so no one can agree on how to do it, and (b) the lack of a coherent standard platform means there is no easy target for university courses or job descriptions.
I find it curious that he didn't mention this or this at the end, given that they're both about a year old and both flirt with death and/or the halting problem in order to offer better debugging features.
There's arguably a list of things that make a language into "a" Lisp, and not all of the languages that meet those criteria are actually forks or directly inspired by McCarthy et al.'s LISP programming language. GP was referring to this concept, but probably has a much looser understanding of what it means to be a Lisp. Tragically, TFA is mostly about APL.
rrhal.c:1:10: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or <FILENAME>
Oh god, we already are! (It's called grass.)
A little more seriously, they're doing field trials now, so we'll probably know soon enough.
As far as I can tell, the process is clumsy enough (the seeds have to be pre-impregnated in the lab with the bacteria) that this is a rather small risk.
(There's actually no "h" in "foreign"—it and "reign" are the only two words like that. Perplexing, yes, but "gh" doesn't like to come before an "n".)
The biggest hallmark of Victorian writing is the use of very cumbersome clause arrangement. This can have great rhetorical power when wielded selectively, but at the time many of the grammatical innovations which we now take for granted were widely seen by educated people as lazy and vulgar. Moreover, some hadn't been invented yet. Along with that we've lost a lot of near-synonyms from everyday use and substituted in coarse approximations or the occasional more-precise idiomatic phrase.
Consider the following from the start of Pride and Prejudice:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
(And note already that, as the rules regarding punctuation were far from standardized in 1813, the second comma is a splice by modern standards, and should be thought of more as a cue to pause very briefly.)
Without re-picking vocabulary, today a casual speaker might say something more like:
It is universally acknowledged that a single man with a fortune must want a wife.
Most obviously there's less use of the passive voice and other methods of phrasing things indirectly. (To be "in want of" something is particularly out of style.) Rhetorically, someone may still say something very similar to this in order to mimic historical authority and to make a statement seem more profound, but it would be rather unusual.
The second paragraph is probably along the lines of what made h4rr4r's eyes bleed:
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
There's a lot of preponderance here (as well as another questionable comma.) Inverting the grammar of some clauses is necessary to convert it into a more colloquial and readily-grasped thought:
When such a man first enters a neighbourhood, regardless of however little is known of his feelings or views, this truth is so fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is already considered the rightful property of one or another of their daughters.
I would guess that this kind of grammatical complication would get deliberately lost in any translation, since it made the English overly difficult to swallow in the first place, although certain parts may be desirable to translate—in the context of Pride and Prejudice, which is a satire about the well-to-do, this is poking fun at use of complicated language as a status symbol, but for the most part literary Victorian writers did this anyway, and you'd have to do a fair amount of reading of her other works to know if/how much Austen was really exaggerating this affectation.
It's mostly a matter of 'indeed' frequency, I think. There are certainly more easily parsed word choices I could have fallen back on.
Also, I must commend you on your impeccable English—am I to understand you're natively a Czech speaker, given your other mention of it?
That sounds like a good plan all around. (And, yeah, of course they can—such 'matched' punctuation marks are really just different ways of marking parenthesis, which is a much broader category of rhetorical phenomena than most people think.)
Hmmmmm. Okay. I think I can see that with enough squinting. Try slathering on more italics in the future.
...oh slag. This is what I get for skimming posts at work. Sorry!
Repeat after me (and Darwin): survival of the fittest. Competition within a species is one of the quickest ways to make its genepool more competitive.
Youch, you're totally misreading things. I was more concerned that he seemed to be passing judgement on h4rr4r as being "not in the top five percent."
With h4rr4r, who I was replying to?
cultivat8 posted instructions a few minutes before you made your post, so that cat's out of the bag. Now the only value this suppression serves is in protecting the ignorance of people who are in danger; the car company saves a bit of face with its less-aware customers and investors, and that's about it.