the compiler may well be able to figure that "Test(Water, Wet)"
Yes, it may, and this depends on how well it can understand the code, which reinforces my point. The compiler needs to understand the code just as much as the maintainer five years down the road.
the compiler is going to know if z can be affected by f(),
In this case, I don't agree at all. It is not hard to write code where the compiler gives up and says "I can't tell if there is a dependency there or not" and does not pipeline the code. In fact you can find examples in textbooks with semantically equivalent snippets of code but one can easily be optimized by the compiler while the other can't.
Not sure what to make of your post. It is universally agreed that ADD 1, N GIVING N was a mistake.
The fact that COBOL has some other constructs that are nice (and indeed it does) in no way disprove my statement that a language can make a statement inherently easier to understand.
Another simple example Algol/Pascal's n:= n+1 is preferable to C/C++/Java's n=n+1 because this last can be confused with an equality test.
If you have made z a global so that it is in scope for function f as well as the main code the compiler will know this, as will the programmer.
I don't see what your comment has to do with my statement that the compiler cares about clarity beyond simply parsing syntactically valid code.
And this in no way contradicts that some languages are better than others for that purpose. For a simple example consider the original COBOL syntax of
ADD 1, N GIVING N
This is sucky, harder to read code than n:= n+1 or n++
As far as the compiler is concerned, the code could be obfuscated.
You have no idea how compilers operate if you believe this. The compiler is interested for example, in teasing apart dependencies so it can apply optimizations. Here's an example of badly written code in terms of the compiler:
If Test(Water, Wet) then
blah
the compiler will be unable to see that the first call always succeeds and pipeline its execution.
Another example, things such as side-effects are bad for the programmer and are bad for the compiler so just clarifying them for the programmer is not enough, e.g.
x = f(object y)// function f touches variable z deep inside the methods of object y print z
So the comment makes this perfectly clear to the programmer but not to the compiler.
When writing code, your audience is not the compiler. When writing code, your audience is not the compiler.
Sir, I'm a member of the language police and I just pulled you over for a stupid over generalization for effect infraction.
Your audience is of course both the compiler and the other human being maintaining the code after you. A good programming language walks this fine line. Prolog was too much on the human side, Perl is too much on the interpreter side.
is a fanboy immoral for taking money for something he/she was going to post anyway?
That's the key difference. If the person believes it anyway it is ok. Most of the pro-microsoft posters here seem to land on that pattern. Only recently have I run into pro-Windows 8 posters that seem to have no convictions or beliefs of their own. They simply seemed to have been paid to post empty pro-Windows 8 content.
Before birth control they couldn't easily dedicate themselves to art or science. Today we have Annie Lebovitz, Carling O'Keefe, Nina Simone, Lisa Randall, Shaffi Goldwasser, Nancy Lynch, Maryam Mirzakhani, Athene Donald, Nina Simone, Madona, and on and on. The list keeps growing by the minute in all fields of art and science, popular culture and high-brow.
You could use a Soyuz as a resupply vehicle, and a particularly large one at that if you get rid of all the reentry gear that you'll never use.
Apollo XIII showed that under pressure, equipment can be made to perform tasks very different than those it was designed to do. The only way to know if they could have been rescued was for NASA, Roscosmos, ESA and the Pentagon to each try their best to get supplies to them and find a way to bring them back. Maybe they would have failed, maybe they would have succeeded. Certainly with Apollo XIII no one knew if they would make it until they heard the signal from the capsule upon splashdown and the entire Com broke into applause.
We are no closer to doomsday now than we were then either. As I said, the sane thing to do would have been to retire the clock, but people who have committed their life to a single task have a hard time letting it go.
There is no way we are closer to nuclear annihilation today that we were in 1960. This shows that just like there are corporate interests on the bad side spreading disinformation, there are also alarmists and chicken littles on the good side trying to maintain relevance even after the problem they were tasked to address (nuclear annihilation) has ceased to exist.
Only if you watch Fox News. Back here in the real world, the USA is, as compared to the rest of the developed world, rather lightly regulated and rather lightly taxed.
Ok, show me said ungoverned alternative. Facts are, there is none. You claim that it is possible to have a utopia with less government without any evidence, while I can give you Somalia, Haiti, New Orleans during Katrina and Sealand as examples of how bad things go when there is not enough government.
When incandescents replaced gas lighting people pinned for the orange hue of gaslighting. Within a few decades people had gotten used to the preferable lighter yellow of incandescents. Today, modern CFLs and LEDs have preferable hues to incandescents, yet people pine for their horrible yellow light out of habit.
there are always unintended consequences to government interference.
Just like there are unintended consequences of you getting out of bed, yet that doesn't stop you from going to work, so your point is?
The law of unintended consequences is meant to make anyone not just governments think twice about taking action. The GOP has highjacked this law into a meme against government regulation. Well, guess what? not taking any action also has unintended consequences.
You are only parroting what you have heard and not going by actual experience.
Wholly unfunded statement declared as the sole explanation to the fact that I, like million of other users, do not like a smartphone interface on a desktop.
There is no point in debating that. Either the poster is a complete idiot or, more charitably, it's a shill paid by Microsoft to post drivel like that. Your pick.
Sorry, Windows 8 is a nightmare. I have used every version of Windows since day one, and stand out sucks are 2.0, Windows Me, Windows Vista and Windows 8.
All others, including NT, WfW and the rest were much better than/.ers made them to be. Win 8 is every bit as bad as you've heard.
Windows 8 works in as much as you can make it not to be like it was supposed to.
Indian philanthropists were heavily involved. I sat next to the wife of one of them on a transatlantic flight**. She was a very nice and unassuming lady who proceeded to tell me all about the importance of the polio eradication campaign. Here' s a quote from Rotary International:
Indian philanthropists, including industrialist Harshad R. Mehta of Rosy Blue Group; Aditya Birla Groupâ(TM)s Rajashree Birla; and steel magnate Lakshmi Mittalâ(TM)s wife Usha Mittal, have contributed millions of dollars through Rotary International to win the countryâ(TM)s fight against polio.
** I was upgraded to first class, upper deck of a Jumbo 747.
That is my one beef (no pun intended) with GMOs. We don't know this since the new foods are not submitted to any set of standard safety testing protocols.
If you think about it GMO food should be treated even more strictly than a new drug because after all you take medicine just for a few days while you ingest GMO foods for the rest of your life.
And as I note, just because funding was allocated to a state doesn't mean that it stayed there.
You might as well argue that it was secretly burned in piles at night after being allocated.
Let's review this discussion. First you had incorrectly assumed that blue states receive more money per capita than red states It is a fact that this is not the case.
Do you pause and say "gee, maybe I should inform myself more about this?" or do you make up any possible explanation that could possibly make your unsupported, incorrect opinion true? Why of course the second, which is the textbook definition of grasping at straws:
To guess randomly at or pursue any apparent option, as due to lack of options or information.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have written ADD 1 TO N
Point taken. I should have used as an example
ADD 1, N GIVING M
the compiler may well be able to figure that "Test(Water, Wet)"
Yes, it may, and this depends on how well it can understand the code, which reinforces my point. The compiler needs to understand the code just as much as the maintainer five years down the road.
the compiler is going to know if z can be affected by f(),
In this case, I don't agree at all. It is not hard to write code where the compiler gives up and says "I can't tell if there is a dependency there or not" and does not pipeline the code. In fact you can find examples in textbooks with semantically equivalent snippets of code but one can easily be optimized by the compiler while the other can't.
Not sure what to make of your post. It is universally agreed that ADD 1, N GIVING N was a mistake.
The fact that COBOL has some other constructs that are nice (and indeed it does) in no way disprove my statement that a language can make a statement inherently easier to understand.
Another simple example Algol/Pascal's n := n+1 is preferable to C/C++/Java's n=n+1 because this last can be confused with an equality test.
If you have made z a global so that it is in scope for function f as well as the main code the compiler will know this, as will the programmer.
I don't see what your comment has to do with my statement that the compiler cares about clarity beyond simply parsing syntactically valid code.
Bad code can be written in any language.
And this in no way contradicts that some languages are better than others for that purpose. For a simple example consider the original COBOL syntax of
ADD 1, N GIVING N
This is sucky, harder to read code than n := n+1 or n++
As far as the compiler is concerned, the code could be obfuscated.
You have no idea how compilers operate if you believe this. The compiler is interested for example, in teasing apart dependencies so it can apply optimizations. Here's an example of badly written code in terms of the compiler:
If Test(Water, Wet) then
blah
the compiler will be unable to see that the first call always succeeds and pipeline its execution.
Another example, things such as side-effects are bad for the programmer and are bad for the compiler so just clarifying them for the programmer is not enough, e.g.
x = f(object y)
print z
So the comment makes this perfectly clear to the programmer but not to the compiler.
When writing code, your audience is not the compiler. When writing code, your audience is not the compiler.
Sir, I'm a member of the language police and I just pulled you over for a stupid over generalization for effect infraction.
Your audience is of course both the compiler and the other human being maintaining the code after you. A good programming language walks this fine line. Prolog was too much on the human side, Perl is too much on the interpreter side.
Some people do like Microsoft products,
which is exactly what I said in the OP. So what's your point?
is a fanboy immoral for taking money for something he/she was going to post anyway?
That's the key difference. If the person believes it anyway it is ok. Most of the pro-microsoft posters here seem to land on that pattern. Only recently have I run into pro-Windows 8 posters that seem to have no convictions or beliefs of their own. They simply seemed to have been paid to post empty pro-Windows 8 content.
Before birth control they couldn't easily dedicate themselves to art or science. Today we have Annie Lebovitz, Carling O'Keefe, Nina Simone, Lisa Randall, Shaffi Goldwasser, Nancy Lynch, Maryam Mirzakhani, Athene Donald, Nina Simone, Madona, and on and on. The list keeps growing by the minute in all fields of art and science, popular culture and high-brow.
A Soyuz has a three person capacity.
You could use a Soyuz as a resupply vehicle, and a particularly large one at that if you get rid of all the reentry gear that you'll never use.
Apollo XIII showed that under pressure, equipment can be made to perform tasks very different than those it was designed to do. The only way to know if they could have been rescued was for NASA, Roscosmos, ESA and the Pentagon to each try their best to get supplies to them and find a way to bring them back. Maybe they would have failed, maybe they would have succeeded. Certainly with Apollo XIII no one knew if they would make it until they heard the signal from the capsule upon splashdown and the entire Com broke into applause.
We are no closer to doomsday now than we were then either. As I said, the sane thing to do would have been to retire the clock, but people who have committed their life to a single task have a hard time letting it go.
There is no way we are closer to nuclear annihilation today that we were in 1960. This shows that just like there are corporate interests on the bad side spreading disinformation, there are also alarmists and chicken littles on the good side trying to maintain relevance even after the problem they were tasked to address (nuclear annihilation) has ceased to exist.
Yet somehow the US is decried as a nanny state.
Only if you watch Fox News. Back here in the real world, the USA is, as compared to the rest of the developed world, rather lightly regulated and rather lightly taxed.
physically assaulted him with a bag of popcorn.
You are being ironic right?
Heed your own advice. Here's the original quote:
Any change that reduces the intrusion of government into my daily habits is a good change, regardless of party.
So you see the original post said any change. This means he would like anarchy.
Ok, show me said ungoverned alternative. Facts are, there is none. You claim that it is possible to have a utopia with less government without any evidence, while I can give you Somalia, Haiti, New Orleans during Katrina and Sealand as examples of how bad things go when there is not enough government.
Any change that reduces the intrusion of government into my daily habits is a good change, regardless of party.
Then you should move to Haiti or Somalia. They are a paradise on earth with all that non-government intervention.
Next time you parrot a meme such as "less government is always better", feel free to engage your brain first. Just saying.
When incandescents replaced gas lighting people pinned for the orange hue of gaslighting. Within a few decades people had gotten used to the preferable lighter yellow of incandescents. Today, modern CFLs and LEDs have preferable hues to incandescents, yet people pine for their horrible yellow light out of habit.
there are always unintended consequences to government interference.
Just like there are unintended consequences of you getting out of bed, yet that doesn't stop you from going to work, so your point is?
The law of unintended consequences is meant to make anyone not just governments think twice about taking action. The GOP has highjacked this law into a meme against government regulation. Well, guess what? not taking any action also has unintended consequences.
The OP opening statement says it all:
You are only parroting what you have heard and not going by actual experience.
Wholly unfunded statement declared as the sole explanation to the fact that I, like million of other users, do not like a smartphone interface on a desktop.
There is no point in debating that. Either the poster is a complete idiot or, more charitably, it's a shill paid by Microsoft to post drivel like that. Your pick.
When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything?
Thank you for providing an answer.
p.s. The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
Exactly what leads you to believe that Windows 8 is as bad as you suggest?
I've used it for the last six months.
Win8's only UI issue is easily fixed,
It is not. How do we get rid of charms, for example? How do I get the real start button back without third party software?
it runs faster than even Win7
Not in my experience. I have two nearly identical Asus laptops one running Win7 the other Win8 and Win7 seem snazzier.
Sorry, Windows 8 is a nightmare. I have used every version of Windows since day one, and stand out sucks are 2.0, Windows Me, Windows Vista and Windows 8.
All others, including NT, WfW and the rest were much better than /.ers made them to be. Win 8 is every bit as bad as you've heard.
Windows 8 works in as much as you can make it not to be like it was supposed to.
Indian philanthropists were heavily involved. I sat next to the wife of one of them on a transatlantic flight**. She was a very nice and unassuming lady who proceeded to tell me all about the importance of the polio eradication campaign. Here' s a quote from Rotary International:
Indian philanthropists, including industrialist Harshad R. Mehta of Rosy Blue Group; Aditya Birla Groupâ(TM)s Rajashree Birla; and steel magnate Lakshmi Mittalâ(TM)s wife Usha Mittal, have contributed millions of dollars through Rotary International to win the countryâ(TM)s fight against polio.
** I was upgraded to first class, upper deck of a Jumbo 747.
I was sure it was a buried UFO, after all it is the most likely explanation.
There is no health issues.
That is my one beef (no pun intended) with GMOs. We don't know this since the new foods are not submitted to any set of standard safety testing protocols.
If you think about it GMO food should be treated even more strictly than a new drug because after all you take medicine just for a few days while you ingest GMO foods for the rest of your life.
And as I note, just because funding was allocated to a state doesn't mean that it stayed there.
You might as well argue that it was secretly burned in piles at night after being allocated.
Let's review this discussion. First you had incorrectly assumed that blue states receive more money per capita than red states It is a fact that this is not the case.
Do you pause and say "gee, maybe I should inform myself more about this?" or do you make up any possible explanation that could possibly make your unsupported, incorrect opinion true? Why of course the second, which is the textbook definition of grasping at straws:
To guess randomly at or pursue any apparent option, as due to lack of options or information.