You can sign up by fighting back against the U.S.'s genocidal policies. To the degree that democracy pertains, we determine our own collective role in the world. Or you can just get out of this fascist country, and shake the dust from your feet.
That's cute. But I have to object to the idea that providing the doc would be some sort of measurable expense for Sun. If Sun doesn't have the documentation already printed and bound, then they're a bunch of wankers, not engineers. All they'd have to do is drop a photocopy in the mail.
Sun is trying to sell their stuff to customers. As a customer, I don't buy stuff that isn't documented, because I've got better things to do than spend my time reverse engineering the hardware platform.
Computers are not toasters. They are programmable general-purpose devices. If you don't have documentation, you can't program it. That makes the computer in question less than utile.
It's a bit ludicrous to imply that recent major violent actions against U.S. targets in the past few years are not directly attributable to U.S. policy choices. Switzerland didn't get jet-bombed.
I'm a upper-middle-class WASP, and I have to agree with the reasoning and motivations underlying the various fatwas against U.S. citizens. Moreover, I see the U.S. behaviour getting worse, not better, so I expect much more significant violence in the future.
"Fundamentalism" is a boogie man. It's about responsibility for injustice -- crimes against humanity, even.
That sounds about right. You may have the optimal solution there, if you disallow schemes which algorithmically compress the output string.
Now that you've done your homework and applied all the basic published techniques to shrink the straighforward write of static data down to it's minimum size, you can start to *think* *creatively* and work on dynamically allocating the buffer and generating its contents from code in fewer than 56 bytes.
Re:Good idea - no need for new tool gimmickry
on
Concept Programming
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> What Lisp or Forth lacks is:
Apparently you aren't aware of the reader.
This
is one of many implementations of infix syntax support for any Common LISP.
> Try and do Prolog-style logic programming in LISP, > and you'll end up with a lot of useless effort
Not really. You end up with a lot less effort than using Prolog, because you get all of Prolog's functionality, plus direct access to a more general underlying framework. See, for example, Schelog or Poplog.
Hey, why reinvent the wheel? A dog might not be able to walk past a tree without pissing on it, but I would hope that a software developer could do better than that.... Call me a cock-eyed optimist.
> you could write an expression parser in LISP, but > then in C++ and Fortran, you don't have to...
You don't have to in Lisp either, since it has already been written.
In fact the only reason you don't have to write one in C++ and Fortran is that it has already been written. It happens to be part of the compiler front-end, but that's irrelevant to the point that someone had to write it.
> Using Lisp for such projects is, in most cases, > bigotry.
It's using a general tool for a specific job. That fact that it is such a generally applicable tool is what makes it so valuable.
Re:Not very well-explained nor convincing
on
Concept Programming
·
· Score: 2
Charles Simonyi (the infamous!) appears to think it's more than a wankfest. He has a startup based on what is, in the abstract, essentially the same basic idea.
But I must disagree about the deficiences of Java. It's all about style. Admittedly, the lack of varargs-alike syntax in Java is a bit annoying, but it's trivial to work around:
> They havve one and only one obligation. > Maximize profits.
Not really. There are political ties between corporate boards and the government in most areas of endeavor. In the mass media the primary points of contact are with the intelligence community (aka the "shadow government"). The documented infiltration of CNN by the CIA is one characteristic example.
Really, the media corporations are a mix of economic interests driving sensationalistic pandering coverage of irrelevant personality events and governmental propaganda a la Joseph Goebbels. Both political power and direct profit interests motivate the decision makers.
I'm so expletive sick of this radioactive candy dots design attack on my senses that I want to go postal. First OSeX, then WinXPuke. Fer the love of God, Montressor! Not KDE too!
I'm not saying "back to twm". I just don't want the computer to get in my way. I want to be served, not have my senses spammed.
Frankly, national borders suck bigtime. I resent the restriction on my freedom to travel. I think most wars would be averted by freedom of travel. I think most starvation would be averted by freedom of travel. Nation-states just suck. They kill most of the people who don't die of natural causes.
Nation-states are obsolete, a source of friction in the economy of human liberty and dignity, as well as dollars/marks/francs/rand/rubles/yuan. But like feudal lords, imperial popes, or Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, they aren't going to go without a big fight. There are a lot of vested interests who want nothing more than a fascist iron fist around your neck. People like the CFR, the WWF, and the GWB.
Ooooh, shiny! I just noticed that George W Bush has the same initials as the Great White Brotherhood!
> It's only the sickly pussy-whipped white males >... use the term "Native American."
Au contraire! There are plenty of pussy-whipped brown girls who use it too; I've heard them chatting at the Starbucks by York U in Toronto.
Really, if you used "Indian" on slashdot, everyone would assume you were talking about a person or persons from the Indian subcontinent of Asia. Native is even more ambiguous. The only reason they use "Indian" on the res' is because the context is clearly disambiguating. "Native American" is much clearer in the world at large, and hence a preferred use. If you were in Dodge City, 1880, "Indian" might be clear, but not in New York City, 2002.
Finally, I'd rather be pussy-whipped with too much herb than herbless and nookie-free. At least when you're pussy-whipped you can whip back at it.
> Symbian by the way is a recycled piece of junk. I > won't bother rehashing the ugly history of symbian, > but the thing has been in development for 6+ years. > Do a search in google for symbian to find out how > many horrible failures it's had. The only reason it > is still alive is MS keeps dumping money into the > product.
You misspelled "WinCE".
But seriously, folks, what kind of idiot would name a product "wince"?
Q: Why should we buy WinCE for our (random embedded device), Madame Microsoft-Drone?
A: Well... it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick! Or... maybe not.
> As for Microsft's involvement, who cares? I can't > see them... dominating this space
You seem to forget that you are talking about a convicted criminal organization with a turnover larger than the defense budget of France. If sufficiently motivated, they can give Finland an "offer they can't refuse".
What is most frightening about the extrajudicial execution (i.e. political murder) of American citizens by their own government is precisely that it operates without any check or balance to the power of life or death being exercised. (I won't begin on the issue of murdering swarthy people with oil, since they're just furriners.)
Neither Cisco nor China has a goal of restricting freedom per se. Cisco wants to make money at any cost. The CCP wants to stay in control of the government at any cost. They are both amoral and conscienceless entities.
But yeah, I think you're right. There isn't a lot of difference between the Central Committee of the CCP and the board at Cisco or GE, other than the fact that the boards at Cisco and GE have more externally imposed restrictions. The CCP has a very free hand, and basically only needs to worry about the power of "colonels" and third-tier cadres to form substantive alliances, while GE and Cisco have to deal with national government law enforcement, securities regulators, local labor laws, etc.
China, Inc. is the greatest expression of capitalist corporate culture in the world today, vastly larger and more influential than Chrysler-Daimler, or IBM.
My impression is that the Water vs. JSP example is a poor one because JSP is designed for a different scale of complexity and level of control. The overhead for JSP programming is quite large, but as a result of buying into it's infrastructure, you get a lot of library support. That makes it suitable for large-scale development, where functional components need to be finely factored and real-world issues like deployment methods and human resource application come into play. It's also a poor example for showing the benefits of Water (of which I admit ignorance) because it makes Water look like a toy.
Think about a Hello, World program.
Basic:
Print "Hello, World!"
C:
#include
int main (int * ac, char ** av) {
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
Java:
import java.lang.*;
package org.slashdot.examples;
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println("Hello, World!");
System.exit(0);
}
}
Each of these is increasingly verbose and complex, yet who would argue that it was more complicated and difficult to develop and maintain a typical 3-tier application in Java than in Basic?
Of course the cost of entry is not a definitive indicator of the leverage offered by a platform!
(format t "Hello, World!%n") is pretty straightforward, but CommonLISP is a very sophisticated and highly leveragable environment. It may well be that Water has inherited a similar scalability, but the example fails to show this, by virtue of its triviality.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
You can sign up by fighting back against the U.S.'s
genocidal policies. To the degree that democracy
pertains, we determine our own collective role in the
world. Or you can just get out of this fascist country,
and shake the dust from your feet.
That's cute. But I have to object to the idea that
providing the doc would be some sort of measurable expense for Sun.
If Sun doesn't have the documentation already
printed and bound, then they're a bunch of wankers,
not engineers. All they'd have to do is drop a
photocopy in the mail.
Sun is trying to sell their stuff to customers. As a
customer, I don't buy stuff that isn't documented,
because I've got better things to do than spend my
time reverse engineering the hardware platform.
Computers are not toasters. They are programmable
general-purpose devices. If you don't have
documentation, you can't program it. That makes
the computer in question less than utile.
Don't buy undocumented hardware.
It's a bit ludicrous to imply that recent major violent
actions against U.S. targets in the past few years
are not directly attributable to U.S. policy choices.
Switzerland didn't get jet-bombed.
I'm a upper-middle-class WASP, and I have to agree
with the reasoning and motivations underlying the
various fatwas against U.S. citizens. Moreover, I
see the U.S. behaviour getting worse, not better, so
I expect much more significant violence in the future.
"Fundamentalism" is a boogie man. It's about
responsibility for injustice -- crimes against humanity,
even.
Your post is so completely offtopic that its plaintive
whimpering cry for help has been heard. A little
blue fairy told me to instruct you:
Write a letter to your state PUC and tell them you're
moving to Korea.
That sounds about right. You may have the
optimal solution there, if you disallow schemes
which algorithmically compress the output string.
Now that you've done your homework and
applied all the basic published techniques to
shrink the straighforward write of static data down
to it's minimum size, you can start to *think*
*creatively* and work on dynamically allocating the
buffer and generating its contents from code in
fewer than 56 bytes.
step 3: ????
step 4: PROFIT!
> What Lisp or Forth lacks is: Apparently you aren't aware of the reader. This is one of many implementations of infix syntax support for any Common LISP.
> My question is why Perl forces me to write all this
> less_than stuff if all I want is to compare two
> strings?
Because it's an application domain concept?
Perl is an extensible language. When you need
a concept that's not defined in the base language,
you write an extension.
> Try and do Prolog-style logic programming in LISP,
> and you'll end up with a lot of useless effort
Not really. You end up with a lot less effort
than using Prolog, because you get all of Prolog's
functionality, plus direct access to a more general
underlying framework. See, for example, Schelog
or Poplog.
Hey, why reinvent the wheel? A dog might not be
able to walk past a tree without pissing on it, but
I would hope that a software developer could do
better than that.... Call me a cock-eyed optimist.
> you could write an expression parser in LISP, but
> then in C++ and Fortran, you don't have to...
You don't have to in Lisp either, since it has
already been written.
In fact the only reason you don't have to write
one in C++ and Fortran is that it has already
been written. It happens to be part of the
compiler front-end, but that's irrelevant to the
point that someone had to write it.
> Using Lisp for such projects is, in most cases,
> bigotry.
It's using a general tool for a specific job.
That fact that it is such a generally applicable
tool is what makes it so valuable.
Yeah, you mean meta-object protocol
Charles Simonyi (the infamous!) appears to think
it's more than a wankfest. He has a startup based
on what is, in the abstract, essentially the same
basic idea.
But I must disagree about the deficiences of Java.
It's all about style. Admittedly, the lack of
varargs-alike syntax in Java is a bit annoying, but
it's trivial to work around:
ComparableSubclass object =
ComparableSubclass.Maximum(makeList4(a,b,c,d));
> They havve one and only one obligation.
> Maximize profits.
Not really. There are political ties between
corporate boards and the government in most
areas of endeavor. In the mass media the primary
points of contact are with the intelligence
community (aka the "shadow government"). The
documented infiltration of CNN by the CIA
is one characteristic example.
Really, the media corporations are a mix of
economic interests driving sensationalistic
pandering coverage of irrelevant personality
events and governmental propaganda a la Joseph
Goebbels. Both political power and direct
profit interests motivate the decision makers.
> In any case, I am sure we will continue to get the governement we deserve.
The problem I have is that I get the government
that the average American voter deserves.
Sorry, I'm off for Canada in January. Thanks
for all the fish.
I'm so expletive sick of this radioactive candy
dots design attack on my senses that I want to
go postal. First OSeX, then WinXPuke. Fer the
love of God, Montressor! Not KDE too!
I'm not saying "back to twm". I just don't want
the computer to get in my way. I want to be served,
not have my senses spammed.
A fricative phone? You mean like a "ch" or a "v"?
Hahahaha! I crack me up! (Linguistics humor.)
Why is it that the humanties geeks are stuck in
the 19th century, anyhow? Well, maybe 1968, at
the latest.
Wake up, people! There's been more human culture
in the past 30 years than in the preceeding 30,000!
And now, back to our previous tangent....
> I think people just like to oppose things.
Then why don't they oppose immigration *laws*?
Frankly, national borders suck bigtime.
I resent the restriction on my freedom to travel.
I think most wars would be averted by freedom of
travel. I think most starvation would be averted
by freedom of travel. Nation-states just suck.
They kill most of the people who don't die of
natural causes.
Nation-states are obsolete, a source of friction
in the economy of human liberty and dignity,
as well as dollars/marks/francs/rand/rubles/yuan.
But like feudal lords, imperial popes, or Stalin,
Hitler, and Pol Pot, they aren't going to go
without a big fight. There are a lot of vested
interests who want nothing more than a fascist
iron fist around your neck. People like the
CFR, the WWF, and the GWB.
Ooooh, shiny! I just noticed that George W Bush
has the same initials as the Great White Brotherhood!
Next tangent, please....
> It's only the sickly pussy-whipped white males ... use the term "Native American."
>
Au contraire! There are plenty of pussy-whipped
brown girls who use it too; I've heard them
chatting at the Starbucks by York U in Toronto.
Really, if you used "Indian" on slashdot, everyone
would assume you were talking about a person or
persons from the Indian subcontinent of Asia.
Native is even more ambiguous. The only reason
they use "Indian" on the res' is because the
context is clearly disambiguating. "Native
American" is much clearer in the world at large,
and hence a preferred use. If you were in Dodge
City, 1880, "Indian" might be clear, but not in
New York City, 2002.
Finally, I'd rather be pussy-whipped with too
much herb than herbless and nookie-free.
At least when you're pussy-whipped you can whip
back at it.
> Symbian by the way is a recycled piece of junk. I
> won't bother rehashing the ugly history of symbian,
> but the thing has been in development for 6+ years.
> Do a search in google for symbian to find out how
> many horrible failures it's had. The only reason it
> is still alive is MS keeps dumping money into the
> product.
You misspelled "WinCE".
But seriously, folks, what kind of idiot would name
a product "wince"?
Q: Why should we buy WinCE for our (random embedded
device), Madame Microsoft-Drone?
A: Well... it's better than a poke in the eye with
a sharp stick! Or... maybe not.
*Wince.*
> As for Microsft's involvement, who cares? I can't ... dominating this space
> see them
You seem to forget that you are talking about a
convicted criminal organization with a turnover
larger than the defense budget of France.
If sufficiently motivated, they can give Finland
an "offer they can't refuse".
> Cohabitating with foreigners has never been the
> Anglo-Saxon idea of a good time.
Well, I'm about as WASP as they come, and I'm really
fond of hot Asian action... so there.
Amen, Brother.
What is most frightening about the extrajudicial
execution (i.e. political murder) of American
citizens by their own government is precisely that
it operates without any check or balance to the
power of life or death being exercised. (I won't
begin on the issue of murdering swarthy people with
oil, since they're just furriners.)
Neither Cisco nor China has a goal of restricting
freedom per se. Cisco wants to make money at any
cost. The CCP wants to stay in control of the
government at any cost. They are both amoral
and conscienceless entities.
But yeah, I think you're right. There
isn't a lot of difference between the Central
Committee of the CCP and the board at Cisco or
GE, other than the fact that the boards at Cisco
and GE have more externally imposed restrictions.
The CCP has a very free hand, and basically only
needs to worry about the power of "colonels" and
third-tier cadres to form substantive alliances,
while GE and Cisco have to deal with national
government law enforcement, securities regulators,
local labor laws, etc.
China, Inc. is the greatest expression of
capitalist corporate culture in the world today,
vastly larger and more influential than
Chrysler-Daimler, or IBM.
I have to agree with you.
My impression is that the Water vs. JSP example
is a poor one because JSP is designed for a
different scale of complexity and level of control.
The overhead for JSP programming is quite large,
but as a result of buying into it's infrastructure,
you get a lot of library support. That makes it
suitable for large-scale development, where functional
components need to be finely factored and real-world
issues like deployment methods and human resource
application come into play. It's also a poor
example for showing the benefits of Water (of which
I admit ignorance) because it makes Water look
like a toy.
Think about a Hello, World program.
Basic:
Print "Hello, World!"
C:
#include
int main (int * ac, char ** av) {
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
Java:
import java.lang.*;
package org.slashdot.examples;
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println("Hello, World!");
System.exit(0);
}
}
Each of these is increasingly verbose and complex,
yet who would argue that it was more complicated
and difficult to develop and maintain a typical
3-tier application in Java than in Basic?
Of course the cost of entry is not a definitive
indicator of the leverage offered by a platform!
(format t "Hello, World!%n")
is pretty straightforward, but CommonLISP is a
very sophisticated and highly leveragable
environment. It may well be that Water has
inherited a similar scalability, but the example
fails to show this, by virtue of its triviality.