I actually sat through the second lord of the rings in a theater while watching my retina detach. It took pretty much the whole movie to lose complete vision in the eye. Now I have had cataracts removed from both eyes as well, so I have no "focal length" issues. I always assumed with all of the tearing and blindspots in both eyes that 3D would blow ass for me, but I bet not expecting to need to adjust focal length would be some benefit. I'll have to try it out sometime.
Or maybe you can't read and I'm not assuming that at all, just pointing out a trend where more and more people who are smart and weird are categorized as having the disorder, usually by themselves. Don't be a douche and read in to what I said as an attack on autistic people. It wasn't.
I'm refering to the self diagnosers out there. I'm not denying autism or implying awkwardness needs an excuse. I'm deriding the people who use the excuse, which is quite ridiculous. I don't think they're missing out, they think they're missing out. If they didn't, they wouldn't be offering the excuse.
Its not dynamic typing. Its implicit typing. Its syntax sugar. The compiler looks at your "var" and says based on context decides what it should be. It never changes after that. So it doesn't have the usefulness of dynamic typing that you find in Lisp (or JavaScript). Anonymous types (as opposed to anonymous functions) are the same way. The compiler creates a type, it just doesn't have a name. I feel like that makes all the difference between useful feature and obnoxious syntax that will be abused. The only thing I can tell that these things are useful for in a.Net world are to make the syntax more familiar to those who use JavaScript, as I see JavaScript to be a much more widely used "language" than Lisp right now. I'm not trying to blast functional programming or insist that javascript did anything groundbreaking. I'm just trying to say C# is trying to make its syntax more accessible to javascripters.
It has to do with JavaScript because it lets you write code that is very, very similar in terms of how it looks (var i = 1; or new {.member1 = "sfdkl",.member2 = "asfdsfdklasfd" };) and a little in the way it acts. No, its not dynamically typed so I can't use i from above and assign a string to it. But I'm talking about syntax here, baby. Now, I fail to see how anonymous types really help out in writing database-oriented applications. Presumably those types are going to be created through Emit, in which case you can give them a name (and even if you don't this isn't so much a problem, the problem is when people just shit out anonymous types on the fly in code), or you're writing them in the code and in that case you can jsut create a quick struct people can reference.
If you fail to see how the anonymous types and implicit typing is really close to JavaScript in syntax and in functionality then I don't know what to tell you.
Sorry I flipped the Autism/Aspergers switch reading too many comments. I meant Autism, but it pretty much applies equally to both. Just don't want people to think I don't understand the difference.
Nobody said anything about first class functions, buddy. See my () there? And JavaScript doesn't have to create it to be exerting its influence on C#. C# certainly isn't doing anything because of Lisp, but it is taking on syntax more familiar to javascript writers, because in the web domain jQuery is making it a lot easier to do in the UI what used to be done in the back end.
Um... not to be too hard on you, but I think its really funny you corrected an "error" then went on to explain why the correction is useful, instead of accepting what I wrote as what I wanted to write. All of the text I wrote had to do with implicit and anonymous types, not first class functions. I'm talking about it being a pain in the ass to know what types you are working with when nobody declares them explicitly. I understand functions as objects and have no problem with them. Of course they're very useful. Anonymous types, implicit types. These are the things I think are bullshit, and these are the things that make C# work a little more like JavaScript. You see a lot of anonymous types in the results of web service calls for example because you can just write new {.name = "Fred",.underwear = false }; similar to JSON. However when you go to refactor that somewhere, or want to call that function from somewhere else instead of the webservice, you are dealing with an anonymous type as an object (like the generic object type). Now of course JavaScript didn't invent implicit typing or anonymous types, but I think that is why C# is going that way, as the GUI begins overtaking large portions of the server side's functionality in web development.
Foolish? why? because you fail to read? Have you honestly never run across all the people claiming to have Aspergers, or being accused of Aspergers because they're weird? Perhaps you are the foolish one and believe its true. I on the other hand think its relatively rare that the person actually has the disorder and is not looking for a way to feel better ("I'm wicked smart!") and have an excuse ("But I'm awkward cause this disorder.").
Here is what I hate about C#, and I think it is JavaScript infection (they're doing the same to VB, which is pretty much now C# without braces): implicit and anonymous types. That shit is gross. The last thing I want is to come across this in code
var c = SomeFunction();
function SomeFunction() {
var result; some code
return result
}
Wow.... really guys? And then you have named parameters in case you want to just... not specify parameters in the order they were declared? What stupid shit. This is unreadable, language weakening syntax sugar. Who is this for? Anytime somebody uses implicit typing in C# or VB I want to stab them. In the dickhole. With a bigger dick.
I see the appeal of writing JSON-style types, but its just lazy to not quickly make a struct somewhere. Its a pain in the ass to try to refactor.
I've been saying it for years, Autism is what uncomfortable people use to make themselves feel ok about never quite understanding humans because they were too busy thinking instead of experiencing. Also, in rare cases used to refer to a mental disorder.
Dur dee dur because we already did? This reactor is fucking old. Did you know trucks crash spilling everything they're carrying sometimes? We should really modernize them, huh? There will always be some sort of a problem that can happen. When it does and its no big, and we go on to stop building reactors until they are all "fixed" is exactly like halting manufacturing of trucks after every accident. In no way does that mean we will never again work to improve the safety of reactors or procedures around them. It just means keep it in perspective. Its already better than the alternatives.
... What if we're not acting? Nobody is being flippant, at least no more flippant than the auto and coal industries about the safety of their products.
Thats just the withdraw symptoms. That's what so terrible about it. Once you breathe it in you instantly become addicted, and once addicted you can not go very long without very serious side effects, including death.
Coal (for example) exists and is dangerous. That's no excuse for adding even more dangerous matter into the equation.
Coal and oil pollute. Nuclear power does not. The only "pollution" is waste materials that can be effectively dealt with. People are scared of the radiation, which is completely stupid because it has zero effect in reality and even the hyped up risks are substantially lower than the other things I talked about. I'm not saying "lets make it more dangerous" I'm saying we have dirty power generation now that needs to be resolved. We have a perfectly good replacement where the radiation risk in a generation is substantially lower than our daily transportation risks. So what is the panic about?
The ratio of car accidents to plan crashes is far greater than fossil fuel accidents to nuclear incidents.
Neat. Are you suggesting that fossil fuels are the answer to our energy problems for the future? Cause if not, what the hell does that matter? I was commenting on the fact that when a plane crashes a lot of people were injured at once. The deaths on the highway are spread out and therefore aren't as scary to us. This is like fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The fossil fuels are making the air worse and worse, having lots of negative effects on the environment. However, nuclear fuel pretty much runs cleanly, but when something goes wrong its more serious than normal day to day operations at a coal plant. Overall, though, the coal plants will do more damage. Its just not as scary when people point it out because its long term, hard to see damage.
Coal and fossil fuels actually damage the environment. The "problems" with nuclear power are all "what-ifs". When a disaster comes around like happened in Japan (by this I mean the earthquake and tsunami, not the nuclear reactor issues) and it doesn't do very much damage, instead of people seeing how well it went, and the fears of nuclear energy are unfounded, they are now saying since this wasn't 100% safe, some radiation got out (nevermind the fact that it is insignificant) that no nuclear plant will ever really be safe so we shouldn't build them. Do you get what I'm saying? People are taking what happened and using it to bolster their already-formed opinion, instead of looking at it objectively and realizing that nuclear power is not the danger they've been told it was. And the thing is, its only gotten safer since these reactors were built.
I for one don't want to sit here and watch all of our sources of energy deplete and destroy the environment while we've got a very workable solution in front of us that is cheaper and cleaner but we've been scared by the media in to not using it. You may be different.
Driving cars. What a death bringer. And yet, people don't shut down all roadways until safer cars are made that don't pollute at all, have no chance of crashing, and make economic sense. Cheese burgers. What a death bringer. And yet people don't run in the streets screaming about how cattle are gassing up the environment and clogging arteries. You want to talk about nuclear power being so damned dangerous? We all do things that cut our lifespans by a hell of a lot more than nuclear power every day for much less reason. I feel like the whole world is trolling me right now.
It isn't 100% safe, so its unacceptable is unacceptable in a world where everything we do, every day, has a risk attached to it. And the big risk with nuclear is always a hypothetical "the world may come to an end if this, this and this happens." And yet a huge disaster comes about that could be the start of a doomsday movie with almost zero effect on the world, and instead of looking at that and saying "holy crap, nuclear power isn't the bomb waiting to go off we thought it was" people are pointing and saying "see?! disasters happen!" as if we didn't already know.
Its time to grow up and realize our highways are going to kill more people every day than nuclear power will in generations. Being afraid of nuclear power is like being afraid of flying. Yeah, when something happens it'll probably involve more people than a car crash, but its a hell of a lot safer and normal usage is a lot easier on the environment.
I've not undertaken anything major with it yet for development. Mostly just playing with XNA to get a feeling for the capabilities of it. So far I've not really been impressed with power, but I haven't been optimizing the code much. The copy/paste thing is ridiculous though. Its such a small thing to do. I actually tried to get an answer about why they would release without it from one of the mobile architect guys (I can't remember his name right now). His answer was just to smile and say "it's coming". Which is kind of bullshit since it should have been easy to do and in the whole time.
Time Warner doesn't need to be the middle man for internet streaming which is supposedly their future revenue stream. Networks are fully capable of negotiating a contract that says "well, we can get $X from streaming over the internet, so we think you should give us Y% of that for every subscriber based on these ratings. Take it or leave it." People aren't going to pay to stream a channel they get for free with their cable package. They have every right to not allow Time Warner to have their channel. However, they do not have the right to say "You're paying to view these channels, but I'll be damned if you view it on this arbitrary device that could also use a second delivery mechanism from us even though it doesn't have to! We think we can squeeze more money out of you for no logical, moral or technical reason. We are ENTITLED to the revenue from the hypothetical second delivery mechanism that we don't even have available yet!"
The left has their social programs, the right has their social restrictions and military. The left likes things like the department of education, the right likes trading privacy for security. People want laws about everything, you hear it all the time. They may not specifically say "boy, I wish we had a bigger government" but they say things like "there should be a law" or "why isn't that illegal?" or "the government can't cut money for [X] that means they hate [beneficiary of X]". And everytime people talk that way they usually mean federal government. Why do you think its so hard to trim the budget?
He was implying that I was astroturfing by the use of "you guys" and "That explains all the 'developer tools are rock solid' taglines". I'm sorry I identified the only, small pocket of interest for WP7 and said it would never be top-tier without using the magic word "failure". Clearly its marketing-speak and not just my opinion on a product.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually sat through the second lord of the rings in a theater while watching my retina detach. It took pretty much the whole movie to lose complete vision in the eye. Now I have had cataracts removed from both eyes as well, so I have no "focal length" issues. I always assumed with all of the tearing and blindspots in both eyes that 3D would blow ass for me, but I bet not expecting to need to adjust focal length would be some benefit. I'll have to try it out sometime.
Don't you know that the world operates like I would operate in Risk? Now is the time to strike, while nobody is looking at the board!
Oh my god their is know weigh that guy is as smart as you! Good job!
Well most of the spam is sent to linux mail servers. Bitch. Also your post is probably 100% bullshit.
You're gay.
Or maybe you can't read and I'm not assuming that at all, just pointing out a trend where more and more people who are smart and weird are categorized as having the disorder, usually by themselves. Don't be a douche and read in to what I said as an attack on autistic people. It wasn't.
I'm refering to the self diagnosers out there. I'm not denying autism or implying awkwardness needs an excuse. I'm deriding the people who use the excuse, which is quite ridiculous. I don't think they're missing out, they think they're missing out. If they didn't, they wouldn't be offering the excuse.
Its not dynamic typing. Its implicit typing. Its syntax sugar. The compiler looks at your "var" and says based on context decides what it should be. It never changes after that. So it doesn't have the usefulness of dynamic typing that you find in Lisp (or JavaScript). Anonymous types (as opposed to anonymous functions) are the same way. The compiler creates a type, it just doesn't have a name. I feel like that makes all the difference between useful feature and obnoxious syntax that will be abused. The only thing I can tell that these things are useful for in a .Net world are to make the syntax more familiar to those who use JavaScript, as I see JavaScript to be a much more widely used "language" than Lisp right now. I'm not trying to blast functional programming or insist that javascript did anything groundbreaking. I'm just trying to say C# is trying to make its syntax more accessible to javascripters.
It has to do with JavaScript because it lets you write code that is very, very similar in terms of how it looks (var i = 1; or new { .member1 = "sfdkl", .member2 = "asfdsfdklasfd" };) and a little in the way it acts. No, its not dynamically typed so I can't use i from above and assign a string to it. But I'm talking about syntax here, baby. Now, I fail to see how anonymous types really help out in writing database-oriented applications. Presumably those types are going to be created through Emit, in which case you can give them a name (and even if you don't this isn't so much a problem, the problem is when people just shit out anonymous types on the fly in code), or you're writing them in the code and in that case you can jsut create a quick struct people can reference.
If you fail to see how the anonymous types and implicit typing is really close to JavaScript in syntax and in functionality then I don't know what to tell you.
Sorry I flipped the Autism/Aspergers switch reading too many comments. I meant Autism, but it pretty much applies equally to both. Just don't want people to think I don't understand the difference.
Nobody said anything about first class functions, buddy. See my () there? And JavaScript doesn't have to create it to be exerting its influence on C#. C# certainly isn't doing anything because of Lisp, but it is taking on syntax more familiar to javascript writers, because in the web domain jQuery is making it a lot easier to do in the UI what used to be done in the back end.
Um... not to be too hard on you, but I think its really funny you corrected an "error" then went on to explain why the correction is useful, instead of accepting what I wrote as what I wanted to write. All of the text I wrote had to do with implicit and anonymous types, not first class functions. I'm talking about it being a pain in the ass to know what types you are working with when nobody declares them explicitly. I understand functions as objects and have no problem with them. Of course they're very useful. Anonymous types, implicit types. These are the things I think are bullshit, and these are the things that make C# work a little more like JavaScript. You see a lot of anonymous types in the results of web service calls for example because you can just write new { .name = "Fred", .underwear = false }; similar to JSON. However when you go to refactor that somewhere, or want to call that function from somewhere else instead of the webservice, you are dealing with an anonymous type as an object (like the generic object type). Now of course JavaScript didn't invent implicit typing or anonymous types, but I think that is why C# is going that way, as the GUI begins overtaking large portions of the server side's functionality in web development.
Uh, yes. It is not a new plant.
Foolish? why? because you fail to read? Have you honestly never run across all the people claiming to have Aspergers, or being accused of Aspergers because they're weird? Perhaps you are the foolish one and believe its true. I on the other hand think its relatively rare that the person actually has the disorder and is not looking for a way to feel better ("I'm wicked smart!") and have an excuse ("But I'm awkward cause this disorder.").
var c = SomeFunction();
function SomeFunction() {
var result;
some code
return result
}
Wow.... really guys? And then you have named parameters in case you want to just... not specify parameters in the order they were declared? What stupid shit. This is unreadable, language weakening syntax sugar. Who is this for? Anytime somebody uses implicit typing in C# or VB I want to stab them. In the dickhole. With a bigger dick.
I see the appeal of writing JSON-style types, but its just lazy to not quickly make a struct somewhere. Its a pain in the ass to try to refactor.
I've been saying it for years, Autism is what uncomfortable people use to make themselves feel ok about never quite understanding humans because they were too busy thinking instead of experiencing. Also, in rare cases used to refer to a mental disorder.
Dur dee dur because we already did? This reactor is fucking old. Did you know trucks crash spilling everything they're carrying sometimes? We should really modernize them, huh? There will always be some sort of a problem that can happen. When it does and its no big, and we go on to stop building reactors until they are all "fixed" is exactly like halting manufacturing of trucks after every accident. In no way does that mean we will never again work to improve the safety of reactors or procedures around them. It just means keep it in perspective. Its already better than the alternatives.
... What if we're not acting? Nobody is being flippant, at least no more flippant than the auto and coal industries about the safety of their products.
Thats just the withdraw symptoms. That's what so terrible about it. Once you breathe it in you instantly become addicted, and once addicted you can not go very long without very serious side effects, including death.
Coal (for example) exists and is dangerous. That's no excuse for adding even more dangerous matter into the equation.
Coal and oil pollute. Nuclear power does not. The only "pollution" is waste materials that can be effectively dealt with. People are scared of the radiation, which is completely stupid because it has zero effect in reality and even the hyped up risks are substantially lower than the other things I talked about. I'm not saying "lets make it more dangerous" I'm saying we have dirty power generation now that needs to be resolved. We have a perfectly good replacement where the radiation risk in a generation is substantially lower than our daily transportation risks. So what is the panic about?
The ratio of car accidents to plan crashes is far greater than fossil fuel accidents to nuclear incidents.
Neat. Are you suggesting that fossil fuels are the answer to our energy problems for the future? Cause if not, what the hell does that matter? I was commenting on the fact that when a plane crashes a lot of people were injured at once. The deaths on the highway are spread out and therefore aren't as scary to us. This is like fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The fossil fuels are making the air worse and worse, having lots of negative effects on the environment. However, nuclear fuel pretty much runs cleanly, but when something goes wrong its more serious than normal day to day operations at a coal plant. Overall, though, the coal plants will do more damage. Its just not as scary when people point it out because its long term, hard to see damage.
Coal and fossil fuels actually damage the environment. The "problems" with nuclear power are all "what-ifs". When a disaster comes around like happened in Japan (by this I mean the earthquake and tsunami, not the nuclear reactor issues) and it doesn't do very much damage, instead of people seeing how well it went, and the fears of nuclear energy are unfounded, they are now saying since this wasn't 100% safe, some radiation got out (nevermind the fact that it is insignificant) that no nuclear plant will ever really be safe so we shouldn't build them. Do you get what I'm saying? People are taking what happened and using it to bolster their already-formed opinion, instead of looking at it objectively and realizing that nuclear power is not the danger they've been told it was. And the thing is, its only gotten safer since these reactors were built.
I for one don't want to sit here and watch all of our sources of energy deplete and destroy the environment while we've got a very workable solution in front of us that is cheaper and cleaner but we've been scared by the media in to not using it. You may be different.
Driving cars. What a death bringer. And yet, people don't shut down all roadways until safer cars are made that don't pollute at all, have no chance of crashing, and make economic sense. Cheese burgers. What a death bringer. And yet people don't run in the streets screaming about how cattle are gassing up the environment and clogging arteries. You want to talk about nuclear power being so damned dangerous? We all do things that cut our lifespans by a hell of a lot more than nuclear power every day for much less reason. I feel like the whole world is trolling me right now.
It isn't 100% safe, so its unacceptable is unacceptable in a world where everything we do, every day, has a risk attached to it. And the big risk with nuclear is always a hypothetical "the world may come to an end if this, this and this happens." And yet a huge disaster comes about that could be the start of a doomsday movie with almost zero effect on the world, and instead of looking at that and saying "holy crap, nuclear power isn't the bomb waiting to go off we thought it was" people are pointing and saying "see?! disasters happen!" as if we didn't already know.
Its time to grow up and realize our highways are going to kill more people every day than nuclear power will in generations. Being afraid of nuclear power is like being afraid of flying. Yeah, when something happens it'll probably involve more people than a car crash, but its a hell of a lot safer and normal usage is a lot easier on the environment.
I've not undertaken anything major with it yet for development. Mostly just playing with XNA to get a feeling for the capabilities of it. So far I've not really been impressed with power, but I haven't been optimizing the code much. The copy/paste thing is ridiculous though. Its such a small thing to do. I actually tried to get an answer about why they would release without it from one of the mobile architect guys (I can't remember his name right now). His answer was just to smile and say "it's coming". Which is kind of bullshit since it should have been easy to do and in the whole time.
Time Warner doesn't need to be the middle man for internet streaming which is supposedly their future revenue stream. Networks are fully capable of negotiating a contract that says "well, we can get $X from streaming over the internet, so we think you should give us Y% of that for every subscriber based on these ratings. Take it or leave it." People aren't going to pay to stream a channel they get for free with their cable package. They have every right to not allow Time Warner to have their channel. However, they do not have the right to say "You're paying to view these channels, but I'll be damned if you view it on this arbitrary device that could also use a second delivery mechanism from us even though it doesn't have to! We think we can squeeze more money out of you for no logical, moral or technical reason. We are ENTITLED to the revenue from the hypothetical second delivery mechanism that we don't even have available yet!"
The left has their social programs, the right has their social restrictions and military. The left likes things like the department of education, the right likes trading privacy for security. People want laws about everything, you hear it all the time. They may not specifically say "boy, I wish we had a bigger government" but they say things like "there should be a law" or "why isn't that illegal?" or "the government can't cut money for [X] that means they hate [beneficiary of X]". And everytime people talk that way they usually mean federal government. Why do you think its so hard to trim the budget?
He was implying that I was astroturfing by the use of "you guys" and "That explains all the 'developer tools are rock solid' taglines". I'm sorry I identified the only, small pocket of interest for WP7 and said it would never be top-tier without using the magic word "failure". Clearly its marketing-speak and not just my opinion on a product.