Which would be why you should occasionally bleach your board... everyone knows that, right? And, of course, you should use a separate board for working with poultry and fish...
Linus is right about one thing; they've gotten more work done, faster, using BitKeeper than they ever have.
Yes, but I think it's a leap to assume this is because of something inherently unique to BitKeeper. What adopting BK did for kernel development was to decentralize things such that Linus wasn't scrutinizing every little patch that went into the kernel. This model can continue without the technological support of BK... it may be a little more awkward, but it can be done.
Tail recursion is good...:) If I could only think of a project to write in it. It's melding of functional and object oriented programming into a single, consistent, well-organized language is really quite beautiful... see, they rewrote Smalltalk the right way!;)
Which would be why I said "What Python doesn't have is nice, clean, anonymous code blocks (ie, for anything non-trivial, you have to name them).". What you've shown me is a very nice example of syntactic sugar. But make no mistake, that's all it is.
The real difference between Python and Ruby is that Python doesn't support true lexical closures. As such, it's not possible to duplicate your example, as you can't rebind the outer variables in Python... an annoyance, to be sure, but certainly not fatal, and it definitely doesn't prevent one from creating a Rails-like system in Python. In fact, it can be argued that Python's way is safer... fewer side-effects.
Incidentally, I have to say, Ruby's idea of having 'yield' execute an implicit codeblock (as opposed to just passing the damn thing in explicitely) is one of the most braindead things I've seen in quite some time... talk about confusing code. I mean, if you're going to copy Smalltalk, at least do it right... yeesh...
All these developments for the PSP within the first month of it being released will definetley increase the market share for the PSP in the battle in sales against the DS
*snicker* Yeah. Right. Do you *really* think the majority of the market Sony is going for is even remotely interested in hacking their PSP? Sorry, but I would hazard a guess that the effect of homebrewing on console sales is negligable at best...
Yes, because the people who develop the friggin' distro are uber-geniuses who have gotten accustomed to the command-line way of doing things.
And, speaking as a developer myself, I can tell you, developers are, hands down, the *worst* people to put in charge of the user experience. IOW, this is just *another* reason why you really don't want the developers in charge of creating packages, which was my original point to begin with.
Well, my initial comment was comparing the PSP to the DS, not a cell phone. In this case, the DS clearly wins out (if not in other areas), as the touchscreen makes a very obvious input device (graphical keyboard or handwriting recognition, your choice), while retaining the device's portability, unlike an awkward, expensive add-on keyboard for the PSP...
Err, I'm not sure about that, actually. 99% of distros install their packages to/usr (right or wrong). Now, autopackages may not be "official" distro packages, but they're packages all the same, and thus it makes sense to do as the Romans do. In my experience,/usr/local has primarily been the domain of stuff installed from source (eg, my stow repository resides there)...
If all those things would be done at developer level, they'd be more coherent, and inter-distro compatibility would be greater
Woah woah. Let me just stop and laugh for a moment. You're telling me that random developer X can do a better job of making a package than the people who develop the friggin' distro? Are you kidding?? Seriously, the idea that *more* cooks in the kitchen will somehow result in a "more coherent" set of packages is incredibly laughable...
Wow... now *that* is an interesting point I'd never considered before. No, I have nothing else to add to this conversation, other than, well put.:)
Re:Where does everything get autopackaged to?
on
AutoPackaging for Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Umm, that's what the Linux Standard Base is for. Blame the distro makers and packagers for not following it. After all, the LSB has been out for a *long* time...
Slashdot Mirror
One has to be much more careful about that now, since eggs are more likely to contain salmonella due to the way they are handled.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the *shell* that contains the Salmonella?
Which would be why you should occasionally bleach your board... everyone knows that, right? And, of course, you should use a separate board for working with poultry and fish...
Linus is right about one thing; they've gotten more work done, faster, using BitKeeper than they ever have.
Yes, but I think it's a leap to assume this is because of something inherently unique to BitKeeper. What adopting BK did for kernel development was to decentralize things such that Linus wasn't scrutinizing every little patch that went into the kernel. This model can continue without the technological support of BK... it may be a little more awkward, but it can be done.
Well, in my experience, there's two types of people who become cops: those who want to help people, and those who want power over them...
Well, that and a foreign policy that's not focused on simultaneously pissing off as many nations in the world as possible.
Assuming the PM didn't declare it a free vote, of course...
Or Basmati Rice... friggin' pirates...
Incidentally, I noticed you mentioned Groovy. My personal fascination, right now, is Scala. The grandparent's example would look like this in Scala:
:) If I could only think of a project to write in it. It's melding of functional and object oriented programming into a single, consistent, well-organized language is really quite beautiful... see, they rewrote Smalltalk the right way! ;)
def my_while(cond: => Boolean): WhileBody =
new WhileBody(cond);
private class WhileBody(cond: => Boolean) {
def run(body: => unit): unit = {
if (cond) {
body;
run(body);
}
}
}
var i = 0;
my_while { i < 10 } run {
Console.println("i = " + i);
var j = 0;
my_while { j < 10 } run {
Console.println("j = " + j);
j = j + 1;
}
i = i + 1;
}
Tail recursion is good...
*sigh* What really disappoints me is the fact that you were modded insightful...
So, I presume you can pass multiple blocks?
Which would be why I said "What Python doesn't have is nice, clean, anonymous code blocks (ie, for anything non-trivial, you have to name them).". What you've shown me is a very nice example of syntactic sugar. But make no mistake, that's all it is.
The real difference between Python and Ruby is that Python doesn't support true lexical closures. As such, it's not possible to duplicate your example, as you can't rebind the outer variables in Python... an annoyance, to be sure, but certainly not fatal, and it definitely doesn't prevent one from creating a Rails-like system in Python. In fact, it can be argued that Python's way is safer... fewer side-effects.
Incidentally, I have to say, Ruby's idea of having 'yield' execute an implicit codeblock (as opposed to just passing the damn thing in explicitely) is one of the most braindead things I've seen in quite some time... talk about confusing code. I mean, if you're going to copy Smalltalk, at least do it right... yeesh...
But the lack of a usable lambda feature in Python would mean that you can't pass around significant code blocks like you can in Ruby
Well, this is just silly. I'm not a Python expert by any means, but even I know this works:
def func():
def my_code_block():
print "Hello, World!"
return my_code_block;
f = func();
f();
What Python doesn't have is nice, clean, anonymous code blocks (ie, for anything non-trivial, you have to name them).
Comcast makes you pay for basic cable because they say you might steal it.
Or, put another way, they don't want to spend the money to put a filter on your line...
All these developments for the PSP within the first month of it being released will definetley increase the market share for the PSP in the battle in sales against the DS
*snicker* Yeah. Right. Do you *really* think the majority of the market Sony is going for is even remotely interested in hacking their PSP? Sorry, but I would hazard a guess that the effect of homebrewing on console sales is negligable at best...
Ahh, good ol' "plausible deniability"...
Ha ha, you guys kill me...
Yes, because the people who develop the friggin' distro are uber-geniuses who have gotten accustomed to the command-line way of doing things.
And, speaking as a developer myself, I can tell you, developers are, hands down, the *worst* people to put in charge of the user experience. IOW, this is just *another* reason why you really don't want the developers in charge of creating packages, which was my original point to begin with.
Well, my initial comment was comparing the PSP to the DS, not a cell phone. In this case, the DS clearly wins out (if not in other areas), as the touchscreen makes a very obvious input device (graphical keyboard or handwriting recognition, your choice), while retaining the device's portability, unlike an awkward, expensive add-on keyboard for the PSP...
More awkward than a touchscreen with handwriting recognition. ;)
Err, I'm not sure about that, actually. 99% of distros install their packages to /usr (right or wrong). Now, autopackages may not be "official" distro packages, but they're packages all the same, and thus it makes sense to do as the Romans do. In my experience, /usr/local has primarily been the domain of stuff installed from source (eg, my stow repository resides there)...
If all those things would be done at developer level, they'd be more coherent, and inter-distro compatibility would be greater
Woah woah. Let me just stop and laugh for a moment. You're telling me that random developer X can do a better job of making a package than the people who develop the friggin' distro? Are you kidding?? Seriously, the idea that *more* cooks in the kitchen will somehow result in a "more coherent" set of packages is incredibly laughable...
Heh, no offense, but that must be the most awkward looking thing I've ever seen. :)
Yes, that's very portable...
Wow... now *that* is an interesting point I'd never considered before. No, I have nothing else to add to this conversation, other than, well put. :)
Umm, that's what the Linux Standard Base is for. Blame the distro makers and packagers for not following it. After all, the LSB has been out for a *long* time...
Riiight, Gentoo's package system, which is basically a re-implementation of the BSD ports system, is "nextgen"... oh, you fanboys, you're so cuuute!