Gee! Googling for information?! What a novel concept!
It isn't obvious to me that "choose the fastest, not the strongest" is the same as "lock in 3G". If it is, well then thanks for the tip, if not the attitude.
I love the way you cherry-pick your evidence and ignore the evidence already discussed. If you wanted to have an honest argument, you would have picked nits with my claim that (for example) encapsulation is done by the programmer, not the language. Instead you point to the ability to create objects.
That ability is in any language. That's the fourth time I've pointed it out, which is why this thread no longer has any interest for me.
Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action, they are just a waste of breath.
So we should just act against the Chinese without talking to them first?
Even if your assume somebody is going to respond with BS, it's not a waste of time to talk to them. Spouting BS makes them look bad and helps you justify more direct action. Acting without even trying to talk allows the other side to play the victim.
Javascript? It's got objects and does encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance right out of the box.
The language doesn't do these things. The programmer does these things. It may be easier to work abroad the absence of these features in JS than in some other languages. That's just not the same thing as having the syntax and semantics built into the language.
You know, I can think of ways to do OOP in languages that don't support function pointers. It would be an evil kludge, but a Java programmer would say the same about your workarounds.
is isn't about fairness or network congestion, it is about making as much money as possible, nothing more.
I read somewhere that making as much money as possible is the whole point of capitalism. Perhaps I misunderstood.
The problem here is not their policy, but their dishonesty about it. It's as if a restaurant advertised an all-you-can-eat buffet, but gave you a hard time if you ate more than they liked.
Or maybe the problem is stupidity. The ISPs are stupid because they refuse to admit that not all customers use them in a way that's consistent with their business model. And many users are stupid because they think that bandwidth is a magic resource that ISPs can conjure up for free.
The pooh-poohing I'm doing is the idea that you're not doing "real" object-oriented programming -- or that a language isn't an OOL -- if you don't have them built into the language.
So any language that can implement objects is an OOL? So C is an OOL? Assembly language?
LORAN doesn't have the same military applications as GPS. If you want your missile or bomb to hit within a few meters of your target (essential if you're trying to take out a well-hardened bunker) you need military-grade GPS.
anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it.
And who, exactly, has these resources? This is not something a few hackers can take over and keep maintaining in their spare time. A project this size needs project management, QA resources, bandwidth, and a lot of developer hours.
Apache has done well because it has a robust well-funded organization behind it. That organization exists because a lot of people need Apache to prosper in order to prosper themselves. Yeah, if some of these supporters want to keep 1.3 alive, they can start a new organization for that purpose. But they won't, because it would cost big bucks, and there's no business model to make it worth their while.
All significant OS projects work this way. The common notion that a big software project is alive as long as the source code is available is laughable to anybody who's actually participated in such a project.
I'm not saying this is a waste of time. Science is mostly about exploring blind alleys. But you can't expect the wider community to take an interest until there's actual interesting results.
Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.
Given the the extremely tiny portion of the universe we've actually explored, "no evidence" proves nothing.
It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.
That idea is popular in some circles. I find the arguments in favor less than compelling. It seems to come down to the idea that intelligence is too complicated a phenomenon for any mechanical system. Considering the fact that we're only beginning to understand how complicated the universe is, and the sophisticated emergent behavior it can produce, that strikes me as a willfully ignorant attitude.
Spore only pretends to be a simulation. Like the Sims games, it's really about fantasy and play. People don't care about the quality of the simulation if they're having fun.
Only people with a passionate interest in neural network theory could get any fun out of these games. The rest of us might get interested when you actually do something interesting with this software. The concept itself is just another wonky AI theory; these are a dime a dozen.
Windsor didn't take long before showing off the big guns, including freelancers as different as Thomas Edison and Babe Ruth, Edward Teller and Ted Williams.
Sigh. When Windsor died in 1922, Teller was a teenage kid living in Hungary. He didn't become a well-known public figure until after WW 2.
This is why I rarely read Wired. Their writing is always breathlessly hyperbolic, confusing, and misleading. Too bad, because they do cover a lot of stuff I care about.
Re:Frameworks vs Heirarchies; OO != Class
on
Learning JQuery 1.3
·
· Score: 1
But there's ways of doing things when it comes to frameworks beyond setting up a class hierarchy.
In general yes. But please notice that I said "object framework" not "framework". And yes, class hierarchies are what you build with the ability to create new classes. Funny thing, though, object frameworks tend to be class hierarchies...
Even if you start with the axiom that OO means classes (a questionable assertion at best)
. Excuse me, you seem to be using OO as shorthand for both OOL and OOP, as if the two concepts were interchangeable. They're not.
From the way you poo-poo classes, I'm also guessing that you're a fan of "duck" objects — that is, if it walks like an object, etc., it's an object. I'm not going to criticize the duck object paradigm, but it's definitely not the same as the OOP paradigm. To insist that "duck" and "classical" objects are the same is like insisting that anything that keeps you warm is fur.
You can do OOP in any language (it's just a set of programming conventions after all) but it's a lot easier to do OOP in an OOL. And I was taught to be a real OOL, and not just a procedural language with pretensions, you have to support encapsulation (hiding the inner workings of the object from the code that uses it), polymorphism (the ability for various kinds of objects to all support the same method, so that user code doesn't need to know precisely what kind of object it's dealing with) and inheritance (the ability to define new object types based on an existing object types). All three of those criteria don't work without something resembling classes. If you think you can define "OOL" without reference to classes, by all means enlighten me.
it's been pretty convincingly demonstrated that you build classes onto standard javascript.
Link?
Please note that I'm perfectly willing to be proven FoS. It's the only way you learn stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee! Googling for information?! What a novel concept!
It isn't obvious to me that "choose the fastest, not the strongest" is the same as "lock in 3G". If it is, well then thanks for the tip, if not the attitude.
Is the left hand column phone models? If so, no.
Didn't even know you could do this. A link to supporting documentation and/or software will earn you a small bribe.
I love the way you cherry-pick your evidence and ignore the evidence already discussed. If you wanted to have an honest argument, you would have picked nits with my claim that (for example) encapsulation is done by the programmer, not the language. Instead you point to the ability to create objects.
That ability is in any language. That's the fourth time I've pointed it out, which is why this thread no longer has any interest for me.
Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action, they are just a waste of breath.
So we should just act against the Chinese without talking to them first?
Even if your assume somebody is going to respond with BS, it's not a waste of time to talk to them. Spouting BS makes them look bad and helps you justify more direct action. Acting without even trying to talk allows the other side to play the victim.
Rambo strategies only work in the movies.
Javascript? It's got objects and does encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance right out of the box.
The language doesn't do these things. The programmer does these things. It may be easier to work abroad the absence of these features in JS than in some other languages. That's just not the same thing as having the syntax and semantics built into the language.
You know, I can think of ways to do OOP in languages that don't support function pointers. It would be an evil kludge, but a Java programmer would say the same about your workarounds.
In other words, all languages are OOLs. In order to wedge JS into the category, you've made it meaningless.
is isn't about fairness or network congestion, it is about making as much money as possible, nothing more.
I read somewhere that making as much money as possible is the whole point of capitalism. Perhaps I misunderstood.
The problem here is not their policy, but their dishonesty about it. It's as if a restaurant advertised an all-you-can-eat buffet, but gave you a hard time if you ate more than they liked.
Or maybe the problem is stupidity. The ISPs are stupid because they refuse to admit that not all customers use them in a way that's consistent with their business model. And many users are stupid because they think that bandwidth is a magic resource that ISPs can conjure up for free.
The pooh-poohing I'm doing is the idea that you're not doing "real" object-oriented programming -- or that a language isn't an OOL -- if you don't have them built into the language.
So any language that can implement objects is an OOL? So C is an OOL? Assembly language?
Please view the video linked in my sig.
LORAN doesn't have the same military applications as GPS. If you want your missile or bomb to hit within a few meters of your target (essential if you're trying to take out a well-hardened bunker) you need military-grade GPS.
Apples and oranges, really. Lightweight http servers just don't serve the same users as Apache.
You forgot to mention Donald Trump.
In addition to the resources, you have to have a sane business case for expanding them. I believe I mentioned that.
anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it.
And who, exactly, has these resources? This is not something a few hackers can take over and keep maintaining in their spare time. A project this size needs project management, QA resources, bandwidth, and a lot of developer hours.
Apache has done well because it has a robust well-funded organization behind it. That organization exists because a lot of people need Apache to prosper in order to prosper themselves. Yeah, if some of these supporters want to keep 1.3 alive, they can start a new organization for that purpose. But they won't, because it would cost big bucks, and there's no business model to make it worth their while.
All significant OS projects work this way. The common notion that a big software project is alive as long as the source code is available is laughable to anybody who's actually participated in such a project.
The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projects
One of them? Is there any other OS project that even comes close to Apache's impact?
You have this thread confused with a serious conversation!
Yes it is. How exactly do you model competition?
I'm not saying this is a waste of time. Science is mostly about exploring blind alleys. But you can't expect the wider community to take an interest until there's actual interesting results.
Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.
Given the the extremely tiny portion of the universe we've actually explored, "no evidence" proves nothing.
It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.
That idea is popular in some circles. I find the arguments in favor less than compelling. It seems to come down to the idea that intelligence is too complicated a phenomenon for any mechanical system. Considering the fact that we're only beginning to understand how complicated the universe is, and the sophisticated emergent behavior it can produce, that strikes me as a willfully ignorant attitude.
That is so unfair! Gas and germs are boring! Just because Skynet wants to have fun while it's exterminating humanity doesn't mean it's crazy!
Spore only pretends to be a simulation. Like the Sims games, it's really about fantasy and play. People don't care about the quality of the simulation if they're having fun.
Only people with a passionate interest in neural network theory could get any fun out of these games. The rest of us might get interested when you actually do something interesting with this software. The concept itself is just another wonky AI theory; these are a dime a dozen.
If so, then Skynet is going to be so zonked out, it will never get around to starting its war of extermination. Rather sad, really.
It's controversial to the people who care about this project. Both of them.
One of the books in Google Books is this collection of all the articles from the first issues of 1910.
http://bit.ly/7Xwqj5
Windsor didn't take long before showing off the big guns, including freelancers as different as Thomas Edison and Babe Ruth, Edward Teller and Ted Williams.
Sigh. When Windsor died in 1922, Teller was a teenage kid living in Hungary. He didn't become a well-known public figure until after WW 2.
This is why I rarely read Wired. Their writing is always breathlessly hyperbolic, confusing, and misleading. Too bad, because they do cover a lot of stuff I care about.
But there's ways of doing things when it comes to frameworks beyond setting up a class hierarchy.
In general yes. But please notice that I said "object framework" not "framework". And yes, class hierarchies are what you build with the ability to create new classes. Funny thing, though, object frameworks tend to be class hierarchies...
Even if you start with the axiom that OO means classes (a questionable assertion at best)
. Excuse me, you seem to be using OO as shorthand for both OOL and OOP, as if the two concepts were interchangeable. They're not.
From the way you poo-poo classes, I'm also guessing that you're a fan of "duck" objects — that is, if it walks like an object, etc., it's an object. I'm not going to criticize the duck object paradigm, but it's definitely not the same as the OOP paradigm. To insist that "duck" and "classical" objects are the same is like insisting that anything that keeps you warm is fur.
You can do OOP in any language (it's just a set of programming conventions after all) but it's a lot easier to do OOP in an OOL. And I was taught to be a real OOL, and not just a procedural language with pretensions, you have to support encapsulation (hiding the inner workings of the object from the code that uses it), polymorphism (the ability for various kinds of objects to all support the same method, so that user code doesn't need to know precisely what kind of object it's dealing with) and inheritance (the ability to define new object types based on an existing object types). All three of those criteria don't work without something resembling classes. If you think you can define "OOL" without reference to classes, by all means enlighten me.
it's been pretty convincingly demonstrated that you build classes onto standard javascript.
Link?
Please note that I'm perfectly willing to be proven FoS. It's the only way you learn stuff.