I think halo and 007 are the number one and two FPS on the consoles. The reason I think halo is better, is because it had multiplayer on campaign mode. If goldeneye had that, which was certainly a technilogical capabilty of the 64, then it would be my top choice for best Console FPS. It had everything else, for it's time.
My point wasn't that what he was doing was great or bad or anything else. In fact I really don't have much of a clue how it will affect people. My point was that people dismissing things as election year politics, or anything he does as a bid to get reelected, I believe missed the point of our current system, which is that it's irrelevant whether he's doing it for personal gain.
Of course, it's always possible that Bush is idealistically pushing this program with no thought of benefiting from it politically.
I know people view this as Bush doing what's best for Bush, but isn't that the point of our society, that because one benefits, many others benefit. Like this, Bush benefits and so do the people who need jobs. Of course there are many cases where it's only the people in power who benefit, but I don't believe that's what you find most of the time.
umm this is not just a C thing. get used to any language and reading other's code becomes much easier. C is a rather simple and clean, and I love to use it when I think an imperative approach is needed. But I still stand by my original post.
For this example sure.. But can you honestly say that's normally the case?
It's more like calculus and less like following a recipe. Most of us learn how to follow recipes (i.e. imperative programs) in the real world long before we learn higher
I think this is wrong. I think you would have an easier time teaching someone, with no programming experience, a functional language than you would an imperative one.
If you want a simple, easy-to-read language with a fairly straight-forward syntax, check out Ruby. Of course, raw assembly is pretty easy to read too (BRK, JMP, AND, XOR, etc are not exactly hard on the eyes) and has almost no syntax at all! So measures like "syntax" and "readability" aren't always all that informative.
I've never seen ruby, and I don't know what paradigm it is in, but from the other languages i've used and seen, I'd much rather trace through functional language's code than any other's code.
OK mr. picky. I had include;ltstdio.h;gt but I was leaving for class didn't spell check let alone preview my post and forgot that the stdio would get gobbled up by the HTML parsing. There's also a number of grammatical mistakes in the non code part. I believe your pickiness is like taking a 1 minutes example and expanding it to a 10 minute example for no good reason. Yes I know ANSI C and if this was an ACTUAL program i would of not used that code. But the point of my post was not to illustrate proper C code nore to illustrate anything except how tricky imperative languages are compared to functional languages, syntax wise, and I think you've proved my point. Anyhow continue trolling.
I can say that functional languages are a lot more complicated than procedural languages
What?? More complicated? No no no.. They are certainly not more complicated. For instance the funcitonal languages:
(display "Hello World") -Scheme
main =
do
putStr "Hello World" - Haskell
vs
#include main () { printf("hello world"); }- C
#!/usr/bin/perl print "hello world"; - perl
Now those differences are subtle, but A. The functional languages are easier to read(and I think most any none biases person would aggree with me) B. No whacky syntax, hell scheme syntax is only () C. The data types are simple, Pointers? please. Ect ect. The thing that makes functional programming difficult is the lack of an imperative control flow. Which is how people tend to solve problems. For instance if you want to sum up the numbers 1 through 8, in an imperative language it'd be
tol = 0 for i = 1 to 8 tol += i end for
in scheme it'd be (define (sum a b)
(if (equal? a b)
b
(+ a (sum (+ 1 a) b)))
which is confusing. And not obvious. But as for other people's code, that is always the case. Well I've never seen a language that oculd get around that anyhow, the closest I think is java.
So what? I'm Catholic and I believe that people take the bible way to literally. and I think a zealot is a zealot (and therefor often wrong) no matter what the issue is.
Good lord have you hit the nail on the head with number 1. most MUD suck because they are too difficult and end up being to lopsided, IMO. Something we've tried pretty carefully to avoid is am unbalanced MUD. But man it's difficult, plus the players never seem to understand why you downgraded latest-spell to do less damage.
The other thing is, running a MUD is inherently political. There will always be morons out to spoil everybody else's fun; there will always be people who disagree (for whatever reason) with your view of things. Working on back-end code (logins, building blocks -- like the base room, base monster, etc) is very tedious without the chance to do something a bit more visible. Unless you really love it, you're liable to get burnt out relatively quickly.
Another great point. I suppose the harsh reality is anything that has any sort of structure that involves people is political. But they are every present in MUDs that have active players.
I personally aggree for the msot part. I Code for a mud that's been up now since 98 (No cheap plug, you can find it easily enough if you want it) and most muds out there are startups by people who spend a couple weeks figuring out how to setup a mud then do a bit of dabbling in building/coding it up then it pretty much just sits. Problem isn't so much that they do this than it is that they usually take other mudders with them and for the most part the people involved get bored of mudding and go on to other things. As parent said they get a cheapened experience.
But at the same time our mud is derrived from SMAUG So it's not all bad either;)
pull a fact out of the blue that has nothing to do with anything ontopic, throw some completly unfounded speculation in there, add a dose of current administration's agenda and bam instant karma.
That's why even you, a "conservative", will not actually argue.
There's nothing to argue, all I said is that he jumped to a conclusion, which he did. You somehow miss the fact that I have said little else. But you use that as a reason to go off in tirades continuily(sp?) pointing out that I am a conservative.
and the rest of us with sense avoiding your facile trap, sticking to the charge that Australia is not immune to the tyrranical abuses we see in the US in the form of the act.
OK i have no sense, I also, according to you, feel that sharing is some sort of commie plot dispite, and I repeat myself, I have my own friggin open source website and use linux. The Patriot act increases the power of the GOVERNMENT, not a private company, and it does not increase it as much as you'd believe from reading slashdot posts. there is still judicial oversite for instance. Not that I am defending the patriot act, btw, which i have also NEVER done.
We who value liberty, and understand the actual threats to it, are watching you who would destroy it, or do nothing while those who threaten manage to encircle it.
Yeah that's me destroyer of liberty.. you assume all this fucking crap when I have not said one bloody thing other than he jumped to a conclusion.
On a separate note, I'm a 3rd year university student.
Well i'm a 4th year university student so there:P. (joking joking.. no flames please).
Personally I find other peoples opinions of professors largly worthless. If a student recieves a bad grade in a class, whether deserved or not, are they gonna recremend(sp?) that professor to other students? no. Then there's the students who love a particular prof for similiar reasons. I think it's hard enough to get a decent review of a prof in person. Online it only gets worse imo, the extremes come out a lot more common than IRL. Take/. for example..
Admittedly, determining what qualities make a good or bad professor is subjective.
I think this is my biggest problem with these sites. Not that they should be illegal or anyhting.
Slashdot Mirror
then you watch the BBC and realize they do the same thing! shocking.
females voting
Well that explains our president.
I think halo and 007 are the number one and two FPS on the consoles. The reason I think halo is better, is because it had multiplayer on campaign mode. If goldeneye had that, which was certainly a technilogical capabilty of the 64, then it would be my top choice for best Console FPS. It had everything else, for it's time.
My point wasn't that what he was doing was great or bad or anything else. In fact I really don't have much of a clue how it will affect people. My point was that people dismissing things as election year politics, or anything he does as a bid to get reelected, I believe missed the point of our current system, which is that it's irrelevant whether he's doing it for personal gain.
Of course, it's always possible that Bush is idealistically pushing this program with no thought of benefiting from it politically.
I know people view this as Bush doing what's best for Bush, but isn't that the point of our society, that because one benefits, many others benefit. Like this, Bush benefits and so do the people who need jobs. Of course there are many cases where it's only the people in power who benefit, but I don't believe that's what you find most of the time.
God forbid someone make a joke.
God forbid someone not take said joke as a joke.
thank you much, this helped me out with americas army, same problem. Sweetness I can read the text again!! woohoo
what now you're gonna respond to all my posts like this? Guess what, I'll go anakin on your ass :P
umm this is not just a C thing. get used to any language and reading other's code becomes much easier. C is a rather simple and clean, and I love to use it when I think an imperative approach is needed. But I still stand by my original post.
the Perl is the easiest to read.
For this example sure.. But can you honestly say that's normally the case?
It's more like calculus and less like following a recipe. Most of us learn how to follow recipes (i.e. imperative programs) in the real world long before we learn higher
I think this is wrong. I think you would have an easier time teaching someone, with no programming experience, a functional language than you would an imperative one.
If you want a simple, easy-to-read language with a fairly straight-forward syntax, check out Ruby. Of course, raw assembly is pretty easy to read too (BRK, JMP, AND, XOR, etc are not exactly hard on the eyes) and has almost no syntax at all! So measures like "syntax" and "readability" aren't always all that informative.
I've never seen ruby, and I don't know what paradigm it is in, but from the other languages i've used and seen, I'd much rather trace through functional language's code than any other's code.
OK mr. picky. I had include ;ltstdio.h;gt but I was leaving for class didn't spell check let alone preview my post and forgot that the stdio would get gobbled up by the HTML parsing. There's also a number of grammatical mistakes in the non code part. I believe your pickiness is like taking a 1 minutes example and expanding it to a 10 minute example for no good reason. Yes I know ANSI C and if this was an ACTUAL program i would of not used that code. But the point of my post was not to illustrate proper C code nore to illustrate anything except how tricky imperative languages are compared to functional languages, syntax wise, and I think you've proved my point. Anyhow continue trolling.
lol well I was giving an example i didn't run any of the code at all so for all I know they all may fuck up. Nore did i put much thought into them.
I can say that functional languages are a lot more complicated than procedural languages
What?? More complicated? No no no.. They are certainly not more complicated. For instance the funcitonal languages:
(display "Hello World") -Scheme
main =
do
putStr "Hello World" - Haskell
vs
#include
main () {
printf("hello world"); }- C
#!/usr/bin/perl
print "hello world"; - perl
Now those differences are subtle, but A. The functional languages are easier to read(and I think most any none biases person would aggree with me) B. No whacky syntax, hell scheme syntax is only () C. The data types are simple, Pointers? please. Ect ect. The thing that makes functional programming difficult is the lack of an imperative control flow. Which is how people tend to solve problems. For instance if you want to sum up the numbers 1 through 8, in an imperative language it'd be
tol = 0
for i = 1 to 8
tol += i
end for
in scheme it'd be
(define (sum a b)
(if (equal? a b)
b
(+ a (sum (+ 1 a) b)))
which is confusing. And not obvious. But as for other people's code, that is always the case. Well I've never seen a language that oculd get around that anyhow, the closest I think is java.
But SOME Fundamentalists do take that to mean...
So what? I'm Catholic and I believe that people take the bible way to literally. and I think a zealot is a zealot (and therefor often wrong) no matter what the issue is.
Well I'm glad that I'll be competing with people who will quit their jobs over forced usage of a particular OS in a short while :).
That's the point. They went WAY too far in this case.
How do you know this? We have half a story here.
I know I get another troll for pointing out someone jumping to conclusions.
Good lord have you hit the nail on the head with number 1. most MUD suck because they are too difficult and end up being to lopsided, IMO. Something we've tried pretty carefully to avoid is am unbalanced MUD. But man it's difficult, plus the players never seem to understand why you downgraded latest-spell to do less damage.
The other thing is, running a MUD is inherently political. There will always be morons out to spoil everybody else's fun; there will always be people who disagree (for whatever reason) with your view of things. Working on back-end code (logins, building blocks -- like the base room, base monster, etc) is very tedious without the chance to do something a bit more visible. Unless you really love it, you're liable to get burnt out relatively quickly.
Another great point. I suppose the harsh reality is anything that has any sort of structure that involves people is political. But they are every present in MUDs that have active players.
I personally aggree for the msot part. I Code for a mud that's been up now since 98 (No cheap plug, you can find it easily enough if you want it) and most muds out there are startups by people who spend a couple weeks figuring out how to setup a mud then do a bit of dabbling in building/coding it up then it pretty much just sits. Problem isn't so much that they do this than it is that they usually take other mudders with them and for the most part the people involved get bored of mudding and go on to other things. As parent said they get a cheapened experience.
;)
But at the same time our mud is derrived from SMAUG So it's not all bad either
i get it.
pull a fact out of the blue that has nothing to do with anything ontopic, throw some completly unfounded speculation in there, add a dose of current administration's agenda and bam instant karma.
I think we were just Farked.
/.ers we must not let this go unpunished
WHAT?? TO arms my fellow
That's why even you, a "conservative", will not actually argue.
There's nothing to argue, all I said is that he jumped to a conclusion, which he did. You somehow miss the fact that I have said little else. But you use that as a reason to go off in tirades continuily(sp?) pointing out that I am a conservative.
and the rest of us with sense avoiding your facile trap, sticking to the charge that Australia is not immune to the tyrranical abuses we see in the US in the form of the act.
OK i have no sense, I also, according to you, feel that sharing is some sort of commie plot dispite, and I repeat myself, I have my own friggin open source website and use linux. The Patriot act increases the power of the GOVERNMENT, not a private company, and it does not increase it as much as you'd believe from reading slashdot posts. there is still judicial oversite for instance. Not that I am defending the patriot act, btw, which i have also NEVER done.
We who value liberty, and understand the actual threats to it, are watching you who would destroy it, or do nothing while those who threaten manage to encircle it.
Yeah that's me destroyer of liberty.. you assume all this fucking crap when I have not said one bloody thing other than he jumped to a conclusion.
actually the particular situtation i was thinking about as I wrote that, was remarkly similiar to yours.
I said:
My problem, if you would READ my posts are with this automatic jump to blaming the patriot act or more generally Bush or Clinton or whomever.
Doc Ruby said:
"Blame" is a fool's game.
QED.
On a separate note, I'm a 3rd year university student.
:P. (joking joking.. no flames please).
/. for example..
Well i'm a 4th year university student so there
Personally I find other peoples opinions of professors largly worthless. If a student recieves a bad grade in a class, whether deserved or not, are they gonna recremend(sp?) that professor to other students? no. Then there's the students who love a particular prof for similiar reasons. I think it's hard enough to get a decent review of a prof in person. Online it only gets worse imo, the extremes come out a lot more common than IRL. Take
Admittedly, determining what qualities make a good or bad professor is subjective.
I think this is my biggest problem with these sites. Not that they should be illegal or anyhting.
booooo UW SUCKS, go WWU.