Whenever a marketer starts their spiel with this "Your call may be recorded..." I immediately say: "I object to this." Throws them off their script, and they don't know what else to say, and they hang up the phone soon after without delivering their pitch.
Patterns point to language deficiencies?
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The GOF book is great, no questions. When I was a C++ programmer, it was my bible.
When I switched to Lisp, I discovered I didn't seem to need most patterns anymore. Seems I'm not the only one to have made this discovery; a well known lisp expert, Peter Norvig, shows us why half the patters in the GOF book are not required in more powerful languages: http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/
The upshot is that most patterns are required because of C++'s lack of powerful abstraction facilities.
I'm currently writing manuals for our products. I'm trying to write them so as to not be TOTALLY boring, say, a bit in the style of Larry Wall's Camel book.
Biz reviews it and tells me to rewrite it because it's unprofessional.
A easy, working definition of a first order object is one which the language can create an manipulate at runtime. Thus, in C, integers and arrays are first object, but, functions, say, are not. i.e. you have to *write* a function and recompile your program to have a new function appear in your system. In lisp, for example, functions *are* first order---you can write your program to create new functions as they are required at runtime.
Slashdot Mirror
Now you go buy from another
manufacturer, thus financially
penalizing the manufacturer whose
policies you disapprove of.
I.e. you vote with your wallet.
Whenever a marketer starts their spiel with
this "Your call may be recorded..." I immediately
say: "I object to this." Throws them off their
script, and they don't know what else to say,
and they hang up the phone soon after without
delivering their pitch.
Yeah, and it might even tell you
that it's spelled compatibility.
Incorrect.
They embrace, extend, and extinguish them.
Interesting example, given that the TLDP project
at least didn't force my browser window into
horizontal scrolling!
I'd say that Gentoo page
is an example of how NOT to do CSS.
I think CSS is like medicine; the first rule
should be: "Above all else, do no harm".
Dunno... been carrying my Swiss Army Knife
on my keyring for the last seven years
(that's how long I've been in Oz). Never
been a problem.
You will anyway
Fred Brooks.
Inconceivable!!!
The GOF book is great, no questions. When I
was a C++ programmer, it was my bible.
When I switched to Lisp, I discovered I didn't
seem to need most patterns anymore. Seems I'm not
the only one to have made this discovery; a well
known lisp expert, Peter Norvig, shows us why
half the patters in the GOF book are not required
in more powerful languages: http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/
The upshot is that most patterns are required
because of C++'s lack of powerful abstraction
facilities.
I'm currently writing manuals for our products.
I'm trying to write them so as to not be TOTALLY
boring, say, a bit in the style of Larry Wall's
Camel book.
Biz reviews it and tells me to rewrite it because
it's unprofessional.
What's a guy to do?
A easy, working definition of a first order object is one which the language can create an manipulate at runtime. Thus, in C, integers and arrays are first object, but, functions, say, are not. i.e. you have to *write* a function and recompile your program to have a new function appear in your system. In lisp, for example, functions *are* first order---you can write your program to create new functions as they are required at runtime.