I was thinking you meant "industry wide" classification of development methodologies...
The problem with the "small study" method is that you're relegated to niche tasks that may not correlate well with the industry at large. (And such efforts have been made, but they are usually targetted at creating some new programming/engineering methodology rather than studying existing methods in detail.)
In any case, I suppose you have to roll over before you learn to crawl.
Write me a Java function that takes two Java functions f and g, and returns their composition f(g(x)) as a Java function...
So you want this generalized: public static RetType fg(x) {
return f(g(x)); }
It can certainly be done ike this: public static Value composite(Operation f, Operation g, Value x) {
f.execute( g.execute(x) ); }
Where f and g implement the Operation interface, and Value represents some generic data type that can be passed in and out of Operations. (Note this could probably be done better with the Java 1.5 additions, but I haven't played with them enough to whip it out off the top of my head.)
The thing about Java is, it isn't that hard to do what you're asking for, but it doesn't come *free* with every function ever written. This is somewhat inflexible but also promotes a certain degree of safety.
Of course. Calling: Util.composite( Foo.f, Bar.g, x );//f and g being Operation variables in this case
Instead of using: Foo.f(Bar.g(x));//f and g being functions in this case
seems silly and over-complicated. In large applications this could even be expensive and dangerous. Every Java programmer knows what f(g(x)) means at a glance. If you call a custom written function: composite(f,g,x) you'd have to look at the code to know what actually happens there (and/or worry about someone "enhancing" it on you).
The problem is: Define "bug" and "bug impact level". How do you do that fairly and objectively? Just getting a set of very basic terminology figured out is going to be a drawn out flame-war. (Or is going to marginalize you into a specific niche which moots the whole point from the get-go.)
Basically it comes down to two things: time and money. Developers aren't going to spend the time to study their own bugs and development models, except when and where it helps them write better software faster. Standardization and sharing this bug-information just doesn't pay off in an obvious and immediate way. (Or more specifically it doesn't necessarily pay off to those putting in the effort.)
You mean like: Hey, that's a nice piece of code, maybe it'll help me out here <clickety>. Or something moore complex like envisioning the interworkings of a whole system in your head and trying to turn that into something useful based on recalled behaviour of snippets of symbols...
I just don't think natural language meshes well with solution space. At best it might be useful for high-level specification.
Catholics and some Protestants believe in free choice of the will, but reformed protestants don't.
What's a "reformed Protestant" exactly? I mean, in a sense Protestants are reformed Catholics, was there another major reformation I don't know about? (I don't recall predestination being a key player in Martin Luther's writings)
For *any* scientific job, I should very well be allowed to ask an applicant at the very least if they're a creationist, since it speaks so deeply to their qualifications for the position.
Wait. So in your ideal world, this gay Christian bloke is going to be living a painful lie *and* out of work for his beliefs. Nice.
Random mutation, natural selection. And what's the a major source of randomness in this universe we call home? Quantum interaction that cannot be predicted accurately only statistically modelled.
How many Q-bits does God have to flip to be doing something?
Sure, that's a "God of the gaps" mentality, but if you think (or assume/believe/whatever) the gaps are going to entirely disappear someday, then that generally winds up becoming "Scientism of the gaps" which is no better.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.
No. That is not the scientifically accepted definition, nor the one those defending evolution subscribe.
Come on. You do at least know you're dismissing the information theory/thermodynamics arguments out of hand don't you? Usually this is explained away by saying we have the sun as a giant energy source, but it *is* at least explained in some way. (Well, at least when talking about the "whole enchilada" of origins)
I certainly hope you don't think Darwin had it all figured out when he wrote his famous book. Saying that book describes origins is like saying "shit happened" describes my day. (I mean "slow change" doesn't come close to matching the fossil record, and we're just barely beginning to learn what goes on in the cells to make it all happen.)
Ya, that works great when I need to go into the GUI for IIS and tweak some stuff... What were the command line parameters to start mmc for that again? Oh, and what do I have to multiply this by for every other little GUI task out there?
Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false.
I think you're confusing a small bit of Karl Popper's work with all of reality in this statement. First off, falsification/falsifiability only applies to inductive reasoning and scientific experimentation not to things like logic and deductive reasoning. Secondly, since Popper's time it has become obvious that given an infinite set of possible theories it is generally possible to coerce or "loop-hole" a theory into matching the facts without actually throwing out the theory. So, ultimately, falsificationism appears destined to lie on the floor next to verificationism as an objective/absolute criteria for judging scientific theories. (Though the jury may be somewhat out yet)
Guess we're still stuck with all those good old fashioned subjective elements like historical buy-in, complexity, consistency with other theories and lest we all forget: naturalism.
If instead you want to debate whether the dual processes of evolution and speciation have led, over the course of several billion years, to the particular phylogeny biological species which currently inhabit the Earth, feel free. At that point, we're out of the realm of strict science (meaning the scientific method) and into the realm of observation, speculation, and logical argument because we can't, of course, conduct a controlled experiment.
Does that mean it isn't the greatest topic to be discussing with fervent ardor in junior science classes?
The problem is on Windows, you can't just su into root when you need to do something important. The only way to switch back and forth between admin and regular user is to completely log off. What a pain.
Unless that's a pure entertainment system, running on a system with messed up hardware is a gigantic risk and a complete waste of time. You could get disk corruption at any moment, or have your software do any number of random and unexpected things which you could spend days trying to fix. Heck your data may already be corrupted and you wouldn't even know it yet...
Actually... for projectiles you generally want density rather than hardness. Hard and light will bounce right off, heavy will punch on through.
That and these things are *barely* any harder than diamonds. What 402 vs 407 GPa did they say? Not really enough difference to write home about unless there are other favorable properties... (Like avoiding the 4-way shear etc)
Some compound, in vapor form, gets deposited on some surface. Sounds pretty simple.
Sure it don't make me no expert, but it gives me a heck of a lot more information than "CVD" does. (which sounds as much like a venereal disease as a fabrication method)
They already restrict what you can create legally with their development tools ( you cant create a competing product for example )
And what so many folks here seem to be forgetting is that none of that has ever held up in court. When was the last time someone got sued for trying to compile portions of the gcc with VS6?
It grants you rights to use the software (just as the GPL or BSDL do).
GPL and the BSD license have nothing to do with allowing you to use software. They govern redistribution only. (The GPL even explicitly states this fact...)
In this particular case the judge ruled that the EULA was binding ONLY because the software purchasers never *owned* their copies of the software. They were merely leased the software, and the fact the sofware was only leased shows up only in the EULA which they could not read at purchase time. (Most of the boxes did have warnings that an EULA was present, but not what the EULA said, or that an apparent purchase was actually a one-time payment perpetual lease...)
Really, the central argument is: Can you sell copies of copyright protected shrink-wrapped software and get around basic fair use principles simply by claiming to be "leasing" it.
What no America's Army? And does UT2004 actually need the power of a 6800? What resolution you running? 5120 x 3840?
Doom 3 on Wine? You should seek counseling. Seriously though, what's the framerate drop between that and XP? (I'm just realizing not everyone has MSDN subscriptions at work and buddies who can get em $20 copies of XP at the Windows store...)
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking you meant "industry wide" classification of development methodologies...
The problem with the "small study" method is that you're relegated to niche tasks that may not correlate well with the industry at large. (And such efforts have been made, but they are usually targetted at creating some new programming/engineering methodology rather than studying existing methods in detail.)
In any case, I suppose you have to roll over before you learn to crawl.
Write me a Java function that takes two Java functions f and g, and returns their composition f(g(x)) as a Java function...
//f and g being Operation variables in this case
//f and g being functions in this case
So you want this generalized:
public static RetType fg(x) {
return f(g(x));
}
It can certainly be done ike this:
public static Value composite(Operation f, Operation g, Value x) {
f.execute( g.execute(x) );
}
Where f and g implement the Operation interface, and Value represents some generic data type that can be passed in and out of Operations. (Note this could probably be done better with the Java 1.5 additions, but I haven't played with them enough to whip it out off the top of my head.)
The thing about Java is, it isn't that hard to do what you're asking for, but it doesn't come *free* with every function ever written. This is somewhat inflexible but also promotes a certain degree of safety.
Of course. Calling:
Util.composite( Foo.f, Bar.g, x );
Instead of using:
Foo.f(Bar.g(x));
seems silly and over-complicated. In large applications this could even be expensive and dangerous. Every Java programmer knows what f(g(x)) means at a glance. If you call a custom written function: composite(f,g,x) you'd have to look at the code to know what actually happens there (and/or worry about someone "enhancing" it on you).
The problem is: Define "bug" and "bug impact level". How do you do that fairly and objectively? Just getting a set of very basic terminology figured out is going to be a drawn out flame-war. (Or is going to marginalize you into a specific niche which moots the whole point from the get-go.)
Basically it comes down to two things: time and money. Developers aren't going to spend the time to study their own bugs and development models, except when and where it helps them write better software faster. Standardization and sharing this bug-information just doesn't pay off in an obvious and immediate way. (Or more specifically it doesn't necessarily pay off to those putting in the effort.)
But does the thought process get speeded up.
You mean like: Hey, that's a nice piece of code, maybe it'll help me out here <clickety>. Or something moore complex like envisioning the interworkings of a whole system in your head and trying to turn that into something useful based on recalled behaviour of snippets of symbols...
I just don't think natural language meshes well with solution space. At best it might be useful for high-level specification.
Am I missing something?
Ya, the part where God said, "Do anything else you want, but don't eat that fruit."
It's a good thing the apples weren't laden with strictnine or we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Joke!)
Catholics and some Protestants believe in free choice of the will, but reformed protestants don't.
What's a "reformed Protestant" exactly? I mean, in a sense Protestants are reformed Catholics, was there another major reformation I don't know about? (I don't recall predestination being a key player in Martin Luther's writings)
For *any* scientific job, I should very well be allowed to ask an applicant at the very least if they're a creationist, since it speaks so deeply to their qualifications for the position.
Wait. So in your ideal world, this gay Christian bloke is going to be living a painful lie *and* out of work for his beliefs. Nice.
Random mutation, natural selection. And what's the a major source of randomness in this universe we call home? Quantum interaction that cannot be predicted accurately only statistically modelled.
How many Q-bits does God have to flip to be doing something?
Sure, that's a "God of the gaps" mentality, but if you think (or assume/believe/whatever) the gaps are going to entirely disappear someday, then that generally winds up becoming "Scientism of the gaps" which is no better.
Come on. You do at least know you're dismissing the information theory/thermodynamics arguments out of hand don't you? Usually this is explained away by saying we have the sun as a giant energy source, but it *is* at least explained in some way. (Well, at least when talking about the "whole enchilada" of origins)
I certainly hope you don't think Darwin had it all figured out when he wrote his famous book. Saying that book describes origins is like saying "shit happened" describes my day. (I mean "slow change" doesn't come close to matching the fossil record, and we're just barely beginning to learn what goes on in the cells to make it all happen.)
Ya, that works great when I need to go into the GUI for IIS and tweak some stuff... What were the command line parameters to start mmc for that again? Oh, and what do I have to multiply this by for every other little GUI task out there?
Again. What a friggin pain.
Under the scientific process (and any system of logic), nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false.
I think you're confusing a small bit of Karl Popper's work with all of reality in this statement. First off, falsification/falsifiability only applies to inductive reasoning and scientific experimentation not to things like logic and deductive reasoning. Secondly, since Popper's time it has become obvious that given an infinite set of possible theories it is generally possible to coerce or "loop-hole" a theory into matching the facts without actually throwing out the theory. So, ultimately, falsificationism appears destined to lie on the floor next to verificationism as an objective/absolute criteria for judging scientific theories. (Though the jury may be somewhat out yet)
Guess we're still stuck with all those good old fashioned subjective elements like historical buy-in, complexity, consistency with other theories and lest we all forget: naturalism.
If instead you want to debate whether the dual processes of evolution and speciation have led, over the course of several billion years, to the particular phylogeny biological species which currently inhabit the Earth, feel free. At that point, we're out of the realm of strict science (meaning the scientific method) and into the realm of observation, speculation, and logical argument because we can't, of course, conduct a controlled experiment.
Does that mean it isn't the greatest topic to be discussing with fervent ardor in junior science classes?
The problem is on Windows, you can't just su into root when you need to do something important. The only way to switch back and forth between admin and regular user is to completely log off. What a pain.
Besides, everyone knows the best party conversations are about things like induction, artifical intelligence, and quantum mechanics. In that order.
Come on... what about the parallels between biological systems and computing systems?
Oh, and uh. Amen about the Randites.
Yeah, that syntax error caused a core dump.
That's interesting considering it's actually spelled right in the body of the article...
Unless that's a pure entertainment system, running on a system with messed up hardware is a gigantic risk and a complete waste of time. You could get disk corruption at any moment, or have your software do any number of random and unexpected things which you could spend days trying to fix. Heck your data may already be corrupted and you wouldn't even know it yet...
They go for as cheap as possible without pursuing this "Maximum MHZ at all costs" garbage...
Actually... for projectiles you generally want density rather than hardness. Hard and light will bounce right off, heavy will punch on through.
That and these things are *barely* any harder than diamonds. What 402 vs 407 GPa did they say? Not really enough difference to write home about unless there are other favorable properties... (Like avoiding the 4-way shear etc)
you get a pretty good idea of the basic meaning.
I mean Chemical Vapor Deposition.
Some compound, in vapor form, gets deposited on some surface. Sounds pretty simple.
Sure it don't make me no expert, but it gives me a heck of a lot more information than "CVD" does. (which sounds as much like a venereal disease as a fabrication method)
They already restrict what you can create legally with their development tools ( you cant create a competing product for example )
And what so many folks here seem to be forgetting is that none of that has ever held up in court. When was the last time someone got sued for trying to compile portions of the gcc with VS6?
It grants you rights to use the software (just as the GPL or BSDL do).
GPL and the BSD license have nothing to do with allowing you to use software. They govern redistribution only. (The GPL even explicitly states this fact...)
In this particular case the judge ruled that the EULA was binding ONLY because the software purchasers never *owned* their copies of the software. They were merely leased the software, and the fact the sofware was only leased shows up only in the EULA which they could not read at purchase time. (Most of the boxes did have warnings that an EULA was present, but not what the EULA said, or that an apparent purchase was actually a one-time payment perpetual lease...)
Really, the central argument is: Can you sell copies of copyright protected shrink-wrapped software and get around basic fair use principles simply by claiming to be "leasing" it.
Actually, the one nice thing about patents is you can make one instance for your own personal use... (Though perhaps that only works for one morning)
...to donate all proceeds to charity on a blocking patent. (Since they'll always be 0)
Makes you sound nice to the press who don't know any better, while those you're out to screw get 0 relief.
The wording is just too simple, and it makes too much plain sense.
Please try again.
What no America's Army? And does UT2004 actually need the power of a 6800? What resolution you running? 5120 x 3840?
Doom 3 on Wine? You should seek counseling. Seriously though, what's the framerate drop between that and XP? (I'm just realizing not everyone has MSDN subscriptions at work and buddies who can get em $20 copies of XP at the Windows store...)