The "very good reason" is that PHP gets its concatenation operator from Perl. As such if it were going to use another one it would make sense to use _, from Perl 6, not &, from fucking VB.
As much as all of my OOP friends might like to pretend otherwise, concatenation is not addition for strings. "str1" + "str2" is nonsensical. If you read the code as "the sum of str1 and str2" you get nonsense, or you make assumptions and sum equivalent ascii values.
It is far, far better to do concatenation explicitly rather than by implication; that is, to *say* when you're concatenating and when you're summing. I would prefer a concat() or cat() function by far above overloading + to do concatenation on strings. I think that foo = concat(bar,baz); is easier to read than foo = bar + baz;, especially if you consider this from the perspective of someone who is (a) unfamiliar with the code he is reading and what it is supposed to do, or (b) unfamiliar with the *language* he is reading. Why should I need to know the type of the variables to be able to figure out the new value of foo?
While I'm talking, the change from -> to . is entirely immaterial. The only advantage is in reduced keystrokes (3 vs 1).
This is an important feature for improving user experience, if nothing else, but I worry. New things are untested. Untested things have bugs. Buggy things don't always work well. VT switching is flawless, even if it's a bit ugly. I worry about the reliability of this in crash scenarios.
Suppose X is locked up. Today I can perform a VT switch and get a pretty responsive console, if the keyboard still responds. From there the offending program, or X, can be killed and the system recovered. Can I still do that? Probably, but I worry.
I have seen the Quicktime download site as described. This would ave been about 1.5 years ago. I was a computer technician at the time looking for quicktime 7 so I could make installation packages and it took my about 5 minutes to find 'just quicktime' on the site. They must have recieved complaints because it was fixed the next time I went back.
Why should Google and Yahoo block porn? I'm willing to bet that a high percentage of their traffic is porn-related searches. If their customers--which is what we all must consider ourselves if we use their search engines--want to search for porn, how can they say no?
Really this is just someone in the porn industry complaining that it's too easy to get *free* porn, obviating the need for membership fees paid to his company.
What disturbs me about HTML5 is the regressions in syntax nazisism. What I mean is that the primary feature of XHTML, for me, is that it REQUIRES matching/closing tags and it REQUIRES all lower case elements and attributes. This HTML4/5 "You can ignore the closing p tag, it's ok" idea is *not cool*. HTML 5 plus all of the XHTML syntax strictness would be a win in my book.
Without that strictness I'm going to have to give it a pass. Bring on XHTML! It may be half way useless but at least it's clean.
But I'm not sure the word 'rapid' could be used to talk about anything as it pertains to Javascript. The language fundamentally hasn't moved in the last decade. What are the two worst things about JavaScript? Most people will tell you "the DOM" and "browser incompatibilities." If you are talking about something else, then never mind.
The DOM is not going away and is not likely to be better in any other language. The API used for it could be improved--maybe, I'd like to know what is considered an improvement here. Browser incompatibility are going away,/rapidly/, because people are becoming good at working around them. The language may be static and unchanging, and implementations maybe be relatively slow-moving, but progress is being made to make that irrelevant.
In a future where ecmascript 4 exists the one, big bugaboo people are talking about, namely backwards incompatibility, would not be an issue for the same reason and if necessary in the same way that Navigator 4.x can do AJAX--people find a way, knowledge is shared, and we all move on.
the incompatibilities between the browsers ...which are fast becoming irrelevant.
stupid APIs like the DOM I do not agree. JavaScript can't fix the DOM by changing the API used to access it. When dealing with the realities of what the browser is you have only a series of poor choices for how you interact with it.
While obviously the upgraded language would be backwards compatible, the APIs, which are what needs fixing in the first place, wouldn't be. This is nonsense.
The only way to work around that would be to completely separate the old and new languages. The only way around a problem I don't see is to throw out and replace a language which is, by some miracle, almost a real, usable standard?
Let me ask this... do you want to have to write one script for each possible client browser, each in its own language? Because if you throw out JS that is *precisely* what you will get.
No Microsoft is not pushing Sliverlight and WPF here. OR saying scripting does not need to be extended. They are saying there needs something better than javascript It's true that this is not what Microsoft is actually saying, but you can be sure that's what they mean and want.
Frankly anyone that thinks the present javascript is worthwhile keeping just has not programmed enough in it I have done a ton of work in javascript for the last decade or so, and you are very wrong. Javascript has always had its pains, but the pains are not inherent in the language and (very importantly!) these pains are rapidly going away. Throwing JS out now back before Mozilla 1.0 might have been reasonable, but by now JS support in all browsers is to a point where throwing out JS would be *stupid*.
There are PS1 emulators for Linux which work quite well, provided your hardware is speedy enough. Oh, and it helps if you're not afraid to build from source.
As for Win98 games... use Wine! Most older games work, some of them work perfectly. I have generally had better luck running Win95 games in Wine than in WinXP. YMMV.
You are falling for a classic mistake: confusing easy with discoverable. Recovering a broken Linux system is *much* easier, no question there. Discovering the recovery method is much *harder*.
In Windows you get very-obvious tools which may or may not help you figure out what the problem is and very-obvious tools which will probably *not* get the problem fixed. The problem is too hard to solve most of the time for an average user.
In Linux you get no few clues as to what went wrong and no clues as to what tools are available to help. But, if you are able to figure out both of those things, recovery is usually very easy. The problem is *still* too hard for the average user, but not because it's hard to do.
The Linux problem is not one of hard-to-use but one of hard-to-discover. Most idiots could use apt-get on the command line to fix problems, *if* they had any clue that doing so would help and *if* they knew what the options were. Most idiots could *not* correct registry problems even if they knew how to open up regedit.
Liberals are not necessarily atheists. Many conservatives appear, from what I can tell, to be atheists, despite their protests to the contrary. George W. Bush is a prime example. Atheistic and amoral to the core.
As for whining... that is merely a perceptual issue. I cannot speak to that.
The eagerness for money is not a Liberal attribute. As another poster commented, it is a federalist or big-government attribute. Unfortinately the Democratic party, which is typically considered to represent liberals, is composed of many people of this type. So, while there is a cross-section of people who are in a party known for liberals and who support this kind of behavior, it is not in any way an inherently liberal attribute.
As with money, so with social programs. It might help if you were to indicate which social programs you find objectionable and what about them is objectionable. I am not thrilled with the amount of waste and inefficiencies I see in some social programs, and perhaps I do not always believe that large government-run programs are the best means to achieve the programs' stated ends but I am, as a liberal, completely committed to the idea of social equality. Anyone who is not also committed is, in my opinion, completely unamerican.
Liberals in no way hate the military, though it is a common fallacy to believe so. The spectrum of opinion concerning the military is actually quite complex. There are the hawks--people who like war for some reason, whether it is for the economic effect or for less savory reasons. If you are not a hawk, must it follow that you hate the military? No. It follows only that you do not love war. I personally detest war and bemoan the sometimes necessity of it. But I do like the military; I admire it very much. When a war is in the offing and no better alternative exists I want a well-funded, well-prepared set of professionals ready to fight and win as decisively and quickly as possible. But I am not a hawk... I prefer not to seek violent conflict. I certainly want to avoid perpetual warfare. I believe in a well-funced military, but I do not believe in the insane level of funding the U.S. military currently enjoys. I believe I am a typical liberal in regards to this matter... love peace, hate war, be suspicious of hawks who tell you that war is necessary, but be prepared to fight if fighting is the best option.
Liberal celebrities? I don't know of very many. Most celebrities are quite awful, those who claim to be conservative as well as those who claim to be liberal.
Liberals do not necessarily have an expensive taste in food. You are confusing rich, affluent people with liberals. I personally enjoy plain fare (plainer than most); a hamburger, pasta, chili... fancy food annoys me.
I wash my hair frequently. Most people I know of every political bent do the same. Do not confuse the styles of liberal-leaning youthful subcultures with necessary attributes of a political ideology.
Should someone be allowed to take Firefox, rip out Gecko, slap in KHTML, and call it Firefox?
Legal answer: no. Idealogical answer: yes. The retribution exacted against someone who did do this with malicious intent should be the deterrant, not some legal threat.
It is against the spirit of Free software, in my opinion, to restrict usage of the name like this. There is no legal way I can think of to be more permissive than Apple is being without being too persmissive, but my answer to that is to err on the side of being too permissive. Worry about outrageous violators after they violate, not before.
This CUPS thing is one more step in a worrying trend from Apple... a trend indicating that they'd be happier if all Free software were to just go away. I imagine they're pretty pissed off about samba right now.
That is not sufficient. Mozilla was willing to grant the same permission to Debian for Firefox, but the permission is non-transferable to Debian's users so it is against Debian policy to accept under those terms.
They wont go without, they will simply change the name of the package and all references to the name within the binary that they produce. And I, personally, approve. I don't want software I can't legally redistribute with my changes. CUPS cannot be legally redistributed with my changes, because then it cannot be called CUPS.
Since this is such an important component I hope someone will fork it, rename it and that the fork will accumulate all future useful changes, if for no other reason then to stick it to Apple for being evil about this.
This trademark clasue definitely violates Debian policies. it's muchlike the Firefox name and logo issue. Debian does not do direct ports, it applies a Debian-specific patchset to make programs work the Debian way. Even if it didn't, since its downstream users might, thereby losing the right to redistribute cups under that name, Debian's policy will forbid Debian from distributing cups under that name.
I propose the replacement name be Mugs. I am open to amusing backronyms if you can come up with any.
Slashdot Mirror
He also said ForEach, which is a syntax error. "foreach" is correct for c#. Case matters.
I loled.
Thanks, you just made my day.
I'm not your buddy, friend.
The "very good reason" is that PHP gets its concatenation operator from Perl. As such if it were going to use another one it would make sense to use _, from Perl 6, not &, from fucking VB.
As much as all of my OOP friends might like to pretend otherwise, concatenation is not addition for strings. "str1" + "str2" is nonsensical. If you read the code as "the sum of str1 and str2" you get nonsense, or you make assumptions and sum equivalent ascii values.
It is far, far better to do concatenation explicitly rather than by implication; that is, to *say* when you're concatenating and when you're summing. I would prefer a concat() or cat() function by far above overloading + to do concatenation on strings. I think that foo = concat(bar,baz); is easier to read than foo = bar + baz;, especially if you consider this from the perspective of someone who is (a) unfamiliar with the code he is reading and what it is supposed to do, or (b) unfamiliar with the *language* he is reading. Why should I need to know the type of the variables to be able to figure out the new value of foo?
While I'm talking, the change from -> to . is entirely immaterial. The only advantage is in reduced keystrokes (3 vs 1).
This is an important feature for improving user experience, if nothing else, but I worry. New things are untested. Untested things have bugs. Buggy things don't always work well. VT switching is flawless, even if it's a bit ugly. I worry about the reliability of this in crash scenarios.
Suppose X is locked up. Today I can perform a VT switch and get a pretty responsive console, if the keyboard still responds. From there the offending program, or X, can be killed and the system recovered. Can I still do that? Probably, but I worry.
Why is parent modded troll? He says nothing controversial, other than questioning hawking radiation (which has done elsewhere with no down-mod).
I have seen the Quicktime download site as described. This would ave been about 1.5 years ago. I was a computer technician at the time looking for quicktime 7 so I could make installation packages and it took my about 5 minutes to find 'just quicktime' on the site. They must have recieved complaints because it was fixed the next time I went back.
I, for one, welcome our new mind-controlling overlords.
Right. Because he's been so successful in the past.
Why should Google and Yahoo block porn? I'm willing to bet that a high percentage of their traffic is porn-related searches. If their customers--which is what we all must consider ourselves if we use their search engines--want to search for porn, how can they say no?
Really this is just someone in the porn industry complaining that it's too easy to get *free* porn, obviating the need for membership fees paid to his company.
Clip showing the actual find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g
What disturbs me about HTML5 is the regressions in syntax nazisism. What I mean is that the primary feature of XHTML, for me, is that it REQUIRES matching/closing tags and it REQUIRES all lower case elements and attributes. This HTML4/5 "You can ignore the closing p tag, it's ok" idea is *not cool*. HTML 5 plus all of the XHTML syntax strictness would be a win in my book.
Without that strictness I'm going to have to give it a pass. Bring on XHTML! It may be half way useless but at least it's clean.
Because doing it yourself is Better.
Yes.
Next question?
The DOM is not going away and is not likely to be better in any other language. The API used for it could be improved--maybe, I'd like to know what is considered an improvement here. Browser incompatibility are going away,
In a future where ecmascript 4 exists the one, big bugaboo people are talking about, namely backwards incompatibility, would not be an issue for the same reason and if necessary in the same way that Navigator 4.x can do AJAX--people find a way, knowledge is shared, and we all move on.
Let me ask this... do you want to have to write one script for each possible client browser, each in its own language? Because if you throw out JS that is *precisely* what you will get.
JS as a language is not fundamentally broken!
There are PS1 emulators for Linux which work quite well, provided your hardware is speedy enough. Oh, and it helps if you're not afraid to build from source.
As for Win98 games... use Wine! Most older games work, some of them work perfectly. I have generally had better luck running Win95 games in Wine than in WinXP. YMMV.
You are falling for a classic mistake: confusing easy with discoverable. Recovering a broken Linux system is *much* easier, no question there. Discovering the recovery method is much *harder*.
In Windows you get very-obvious tools which may or may not help you figure out what the problem is and very-obvious tools which will probably *not* get the problem fixed. The problem is too hard to solve most of the time for an average user.
In Linux you get no few clues as to what went wrong and no clues as to what tools are available to help. But, if you are able to figure out both of those things, recovery is usually very easy. The problem is *still* too hard for the average user, but not because it's hard to do.
The Linux problem is not one of hard-to-use but one of hard-to-discover. Most idiots could use apt-get on the command line to fix problems, *if* they had any clue that doing so would help and *if* they knew what the options were. Most idiots could *not* correct registry problems even if they knew how to open up regedit.
Troll? I'll bite.
Liberals are not necessarily atheists. Many conservatives appear, from what I can tell, to be atheists, despite their protests to the contrary. George W. Bush is a prime example. Atheistic and amoral to the core.
As for whining... that is merely a perceptual issue. I cannot speak to that.
The eagerness for money is not a Liberal attribute. As another poster commented, it is a federalist or big-government attribute. Unfortinately the Democratic party, which is typically considered to represent liberals, is composed of many people of this type. So, while there is a cross-section of people who are in a party known for liberals and who support this kind of behavior, it is not in any way an inherently liberal attribute.
As with money, so with social programs. It might help if you were to indicate which social programs you find objectionable and what about them is objectionable. I am not thrilled with the amount of waste and inefficiencies I see in some social programs, and perhaps I do not always believe that large government-run programs are the best means to achieve the programs' stated ends but I am, as a liberal, completely committed to the idea of social equality. Anyone who is not also committed is, in my opinion, completely unamerican.
Liberals in no way hate the military, though it is a common fallacy to believe so. The spectrum of opinion concerning the military is actually quite complex. There are the hawks--people who like war for some reason, whether it is for the economic effect or for less savory reasons. If you are not a hawk, must it follow that you hate the military? No. It follows only that you do not love war. I personally detest war and bemoan the sometimes necessity of it. But I do like the military; I admire it very much. When a war is in the offing and no better alternative exists I want a well-funded, well-prepared set of professionals ready to fight and win as decisively and quickly as possible. But I am not a hawk... I prefer not to seek violent conflict. I certainly want to avoid perpetual warfare. I believe in a well-funced military, but I do not believe in the insane level of funding the U.S. military currently enjoys. I believe I am a typical liberal in regards to this matter... love peace, hate war, be suspicious of hawks who tell you that war is necessary, but be prepared to fight if fighting is the best option.
Liberal celebrities? I don't know of very many. Most celebrities are quite awful, those who claim to be conservative as well as those who claim to be liberal.
Liberals do not necessarily have an expensive taste in food. You are confusing rich, affluent people with liberals. I personally enjoy plain fare (plainer than most); a hamburger, pasta, chili... fancy food annoys me.
I wash my hair frequently. Most people I know of every political bent do the same. Do not confuse the styles of liberal-leaning youthful subcultures with necessary attributes of a political ideology.
This is so stupid.
Should someone be allowed to take Firefox, rip out Gecko, slap in KHTML, and call it Firefox?
Legal answer: no. Idealogical answer: yes. The retribution exacted against someone who did do this with malicious intent should be the deterrant, not some legal threat.
It is against the spirit of Free software, in my opinion, to restrict usage of the name like this. There is no legal way I can think of to be more permissive than Apple is being without being too persmissive, but my answer to that is to err on the side of being too permissive. Worry about outrageous violators after they violate, not before.
This CUPS thing is one more step in a worrying trend from Apple... a trend indicating that they'd be happier if all Free software were to just go away. I imagine they're pretty pissed off about samba right now.
That is not sufficient. Mozilla was willing to grant the same permission to Debian for Firefox, but the permission is non-transferable to Debian's users so it is against Debian policy to accept under those terms.
They wont go without, they will simply change the name of the package and all references to the name within the binary that they produce. And I, personally, approve. I don't want software I can't legally redistribute with my changes. CUPS cannot be legally redistributed with my changes, because then it cannot be called CUPS.
Since this is such an important component I hope someone will fork it, rename it and that the fork will accumulate all future useful changes, if for no other reason then to stick it to Apple for being evil about this.
Uh oh. Red flag!
This trademark clasue definitely violates Debian policies. it's muchlike the Firefox name and logo issue. Debian does not do direct ports, it applies a Debian-specific patchset to make programs work the Debian way. Even if it didn't, since its downstream users might, thereby losing the right to redistribute cups under that name, Debian's policy will forbid Debian from distributing cups under that name.
I propose the replacement name be Mugs. I am open to amusing backronyms if you can come up with any.