The analogy would be to call C a "low level language" even though C++ exists with high level extensions like the template system.
What makes Haskell pure is that stateful code like I/O is handled through a monad so that it doesn't leak out into the rest of the code. The purpose of a computer program is to create a side effect. So every language needs to include some capacity to induce them. What separates pure from impure is whether side effects are scattered throughout the code or isolated.
I agree its a great feature but it also is complicated. Small changes in one part of the code can introduce behaviors wildly apart. A minor syntax change could make it safer:
If X inherits from A and B the method call must be explicit as to whether A or B's method is being called; which could still introduce compiler errors but at least not the subtle bugs. I guess the only safe things is that all methods need to be explicit.
1) Deallocation of memory, bounds checking in arrays... is done manually
2) Lots of direct pointer manipulation. You can't abstract away the "how the computer is going to do this"
3) Multiple inheritance
Getting rid of those things gives you Java which is much easier to learn but doesn't have the performance. The question is why did you choose C++ in the first place if you don't want the excellent performance?
What ZFS does have that typical Apple Consumers would like to see it on desktops and not just on servers?
Snapshots. Which with heavy use of rsync (TimeMachine) allow for very large files to be versioned without having to save the file over and over and over again. Also file saves will become much faster.
Variable block sizes so that different directories (parts of the OS) can be tuned differently.
More inodes for disks over 1TB. As disk sizes start hitting say 100TB HFS is going to be in serious trouble.
I'd assume it would be under Chapter 9 of title 11 (Bankruptcy code). If California challenged this it would revert to the old law which permits a writ of mandamus which allows the court to compel the state to raise taxes.
Either way prop 13 is irrelevant.
So yes I do think they can do that. By going bankrupt the people of California will have lost some of their rights to self governance. It is a very big deal to go bankrupt.
Yeah that is what I meant in context. We were discussing a provision in the California constitution above. Not something from the federal. I should have said that explicitly though.
I'd assume it would be under Chapter 9 of title 11 (Bankruptcy code). If California challenged this it would revert to the old law which permits a writ of mandamus which allows the court to compel the state to raise taxes.
This isn't a disputed point of black letter law. Federal judges override state constitutions all the time when it comes to federal matters. A state bankruptcy is unquestionably outside the jurisdiction of the state.
1) US constitution which sets out the authorities of branches of the federal government 2) The California which sets out the authorities of branches of the federal government
A federal judge is governed by the US constitution but not the California constitution even when ruling in California (I'm oversimplifying a bit here). We were discussing this in terms of a bankruptcy of California which means a Federal judge would be ruling hence prop 13 is not binding on him/her.
Its the same in CA. My point is that if they go to a digital curriculum that's one thing that might have to be centralized. The state might very well want to provide a library of online texts. They might offer some degree of choice to teachers and districts but setting up a full fledged digital document delivery and management system doesn't make sense to do at the district level.
Spare notebooks. There is no reason to have a 1-1 ratio and not a 1.1-1 ratio. As for things like internet outage, the students can have local data and/or the school can have a redundant internet.
If they go into Bankrupcy they get a Federal Judge that has the power to scrap / change / modify the law. Prop 13 is very likely one of the first to go.
This looks like the way you do stuff in Haskell. Functions compute the data and the I/O routine is moved into a "monad" where you need to sequence. This doesn't seem outside the realm of the possible.
An example is the locking problem on variables that are shared. Which variables get locked, for how long? How does the lock get released? To many locks you run sequentially, too few you corrupt your threads.
I thought the context was clear. What is meant by that is "the right of people to keep and bear arms to defend themselves" not literally the second amendment. The same way as one refers to the Egyptians not having "Miranda rights" like the right to have an attorney present during questioning or the right to remain silent.
They aren't fining Microsoft they are asking them to do things to assist in providing customer choice. I see little evidence that this is just a shake down.
Slashdot Mirror
The analogy would be to call C a "low level language" even though C++ exists with high level extensions like the template system.
What makes Haskell pure is that stateful code like I/O is handled through a monad so that it doesn't leak out into the rest of the code. The purpose of a computer program is to create a side effect. So every language needs to include some capacity to induce them. What separates pure from impure is whether side effects are scattered throughout the code or isolated.
I agree its a great feature but it also is complicated. Small changes in one part of the code can introduce behaviors wildly apart. A minor syntax change could make it safer:
If X inherits from A and B the method call must be explicit as to whether A or B's method is being called; which could still introduce compiler errors but at least not the subtle bugs. I guess the only safe things is that all methods need to be explicit.
I think I'm losing you. What book of Djikstra is about C++? What is the "proper way" to handle templates?
You definitely earned funny points for that one. I got a good laugh.
Not sure if that makes C++ harder. But I've seen people disagree.
finalize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_programming_language
What makes C++ difficult is C. That is
1) Deallocation of memory, bounds checking in arrays... is done manually
2) Lots of direct pointer manipulation. You can't abstract away the "how the computer is going to do this"
3) Multiple inheritance
Getting rid of those things gives you Java which is much easier to learn but doesn't have the performance. The question is why did you choose C++ in the first place if you don't want the excellent performance?
Snapshots. Which with heavy use of rsync (TimeMachine) allow for very large files to be versioned without having to save the file over and over and over again. Also file saves will become much faster.
Variable block sizes so that different directories (parts of the OS) can be tuned differently.
More inodes for disks over 1TB. As disk sizes start hitting say 100TB HFS is going to be in serious trouble.
Generally a personal bankruptcy is within a state. So ....
But I'm not sure where you got the employer paying you more from what I was saying.
I'd assume it would be under Chapter 9 of title 11 (Bankruptcy code). If California challenged this it would revert to the old law which permits a writ of mandamus which allows the court to compel the state to raise taxes.
Either way prop 13 is irrelevant.
So yes I do think they can do that. By going bankrupt the people of California will have lost some of their rights to self governance. It is a very big deal to go bankrupt.
Yeah that is what I meant in context. We were discussing a provision in the California constitution above. Not something from the federal. I should have said that explicitly though.
I'd assume it would be under Chapter 9 of title 11 (Bankruptcy code). If California challenged this it would revert to the old law which permits a writ of mandamus which allows the court to compel the state to raise taxes.
Either way prop 13 is irrelevant.
This isn't a disputed point of black letter law. Federal judges override state constitutions all the time when it comes to federal matters. A state bankruptcy is unquestionably outside the jurisdiction of the state.
No you are confusing two documents:
1) US constitution which sets out the authorities of branches of the federal government
2) The California which sets out the authorities of branches of the federal government
A federal judge is governed by the US constitution but not the California constitution even when ruling in California (I'm oversimplifying a bit here). We were discussing this in terms of a bankruptcy of California which means a Federal judge would be ruling hence prop 13 is not binding on him/her.
Its the same in CA. My point is that if they go to a digital curriculum that's one thing that might have to be centralized. The state might very well want to provide a library of online texts. They might offer some degree of choice to teachers and districts but setting up a full fledged digital document delivery and management system doesn't make sense to do at the district level.
The California constitution governs what the legislature can do not what a federal judge can do. A judge isn't subject to the constitution.
California can buy rights to whatever they want. If the state is taking control they are a huge market. This problem is not insolvable.
Spare notebooks. There is no reason to have a 1-1 ratio and not a 1.1-1 ratio. As for things like internet outage, the students can have local data and/or the school can have a redundant internet.
If they go into Bankrupcy they get a Federal Judge that has the power to scrap / change / modify the law. Prop 13 is very likely one of the first to go.
Looking at the 99 bottles Chapel code (from original article)
http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-chapel-1215.html
This looks like the way you do stuff in Haskell. Functions compute the data and the I/O routine is moved into a "monad" where you need to sequence. This doesn't seem outside the realm of the possible.
An example is the locking problem on variables that are shared. Which variables get locked, for how long? How does the lock get released? To many locks you run sequentially, too few you corrupt your threads.
Don't forget coprocessors. Imagine if your video card understood video decoding itself and cached....
Bad data. They are super popular with the HS/College crowd.
I thought the context was clear. What is meant by that is "the right of people to keep and bear arms to defend themselves" not literally the second amendment. The same way as one refers to the Egyptians not having "Miranda rights" like the right to have an attorney present during questioning or the right to remain silent.
They aren't fining Microsoft they are asking them to do things to assist in providing customer choice. I see little evidence that this is just a shake down.
Try living here, the grass always looks greener.