I don't think your break down is what this is really about, although perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. There are few concepts (cough...) at play here. One is whether the language itself supports a notion of duck typing or not. Java generally doesn't. You must explicitly implement an interface to adhere to it, and even if your class has methods which do implement it, the compiler still will generate an error or the runtime a class cast exceptions if you attempt to treat it as the desired interface.
If you were to implement concepts in java, I imagine it would have to be permitting a cast as mentioned above by the compiler, rather than treating the types as different. Note that both interfaces and concepts have same compositional power, except that concepts end up being more flexible, as you are generally only enforcing the type in the scope of a particular algorithm, not a class, even if many classes end up supporting the concept.
Back to C++ land. Templates in C++ incidentally fit into a duck typing oriented model, *unlike* Java. Thus, concepts almost existed to provide order to somewhat unwieldy compiler errors from the template system and provide explicit design clarity for those implicit utilizing concepts previously.
Finally, IMHO, modules (and module signatures) implement the idea of concepts quite elegantly (eg. in OCaml).
I agree that curly braced languages should stay as curly braced languages, but it's myopic to assume it's the only choice for scoping when designing a new one.
In any event, you're right that what is broken about GO is not really the scoping mechanisms.
Except that android's audio api keeps going through drastic changes and/or deprecations. Quite annoying as I maintain a music visualizer which needs to sniff the audio signal.
C is still the most portable language in the universe. The only real language that works on all phones, in particuarl (ok, C++ does too but C is where you get all the amazing well written, optimized libraries you'd want on most devices).
People struggle with pretty much every language, it's just that the bugs are different in each.
Sure, but I would argue some languages are dominating strategies over others. There are bugs which simply don't exist in some languages but do in others. Like null pointers or references do not exist in OCaml (instead, you must use the optional type explicitly).
1990 called and wants its version control system back. I'd go poking around in their version control to at least determine the implementation language, but... nah.
Where did you find this? I was looking for the source code repo. And I agree. CVS is dooming this project from the start.
I couldn't find the source code repository. It might just be because I am clueless on how to find them for GNU projects. Anyone devise the subversion or git or darcs or whatever it is location?
I very much agree that SaaS is yet another strategic approach to controlling information and the software used to gather it. But it's hard to completely throw away such a useful abstraction. From a pragmatic view, SaaS is a convenient separation of concerns applied to both infrastructure and software.
Perhaps I missed it, but does RMS actually supply a solution to problems solved by SaaS? I noticed a few already in the threads here, but this basically characterizes most choices:
1. A completely decentralized approach, where everyone shares the software and information equally.
2. Every SaaS must run and share opensource code, as well as somehow opening sourcing the content (safely) as well.
3. Assume the worst about all endpoints, eventually empirically and/or contractually trust certain ones in a white list.
"Fast Open could result in speed improvements of between 4% and 41% in the page load times on popular web sites. In this version only the client-side has been merged."
Slashdot Mirror
What's your evidence of this? Very curious.
Never heard of it. But no arguments from me for dropping 32 bit support. I kind of wished microsoft did that starting with windows 8 or earlier.
I'm trying to figure out if they proved that P != BQP (Bounded-error Quantum Polynomial Time)- the article is light on technical details...
NYSE owns a large share of coinbase already, actually.
Well I'll be damned... https://searchcode.com/codesea...
if (confused == true); killAllHumans(); // ^^ the bug which killed humanity
...or doesn't know what an abstract class is.
What about functional programmers?
What do you think all the crystals are in the Final Fantasy games?
Yeah I couldn't help think of FF or chrono trigger, or maybe the futurama episode with chronotons.
I don't think your break down is what this is really about, although perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. There are few concepts (cough...) at play here. One is whether the language itself supports a notion of duck typing or not. Java generally doesn't. You must explicitly implement an interface to adhere to it, and even if your class has methods which do implement it, the compiler still will generate an error or the runtime a class cast exceptions if you attempt to treat it as the desired interface.
If you were to implement concepts in java, I imagine it would have to be permitting a cast as mentioned above by the compiler, rather than treating the types as different. Note that both interfaces and concepts have same compositional power, except that concepts end up being more flexible, as you are generally only enforcing the type in the scope of a particular algorithm, not a class, even if many classes end up supporting the concept.
Back to C++ land. Templates in C++ incidentally fit into a duck typing oriented model, *unlike* Java. Thus, concepts almost existed to provide order to somewhat unwieldy compiler errors from the template system and provide explicit design clarity for those implicit utilizing concepts previously.
Finally, IMHO, modules (and module signatures) implement the idea of concepts quite elegantly (eg. in OCaml).
who still loves KDE and thinks this is great news?
I actually like ML style: "let foo = bar in zed".
I agree that curly braced languages should stay as curly braced languages, but it's myopic to assume it's the only choice for scoping when designing a new one.
In any event, you're right that what is broken about GO is not really the scoping mechanisms.
Except that android's audio api keeps going through drastic changes and/or deprecations. Quite annoying as I maintain a music visualizer which needs to sniff the audio signal.
C is still the most portable language in the universe. The only real language that works on all phones, in particuarl (ok, C++ does too but C is where you get all the amazing well written, optimized libraries you'd want on most devices).
People struggle with pretty much every language, it's just that the bugs are different in each.
Sure, but I would argue some languages are dominating strategies over others. There are bugs which simply don't exist in some languages but do in others. Like null pointers or references do not exist in OCaml (instead, you must use the optional type explicitly).
This has to be the most pessimistic view on a startup I have ever seen. Did you have a particularly bad experience at one?
1990 called and wants its version control system back. I'd go poking around in their version control to at least determine the implementation language, but... nah.
Where did you find this? I was looking for the source code repo. And I agree. CVS is dooming this project from the start.
I couldn't find the source code repository. It might just be because I am clueless on how to find them for GNU projects. Anyone devise the subversion or git or darcs or whatever it is location?
http://cdn2.cad-comic.com/comi...
Windows 9: ???
Well, what's your prediction?
Windows 9 will be the next the Windows 7, if you believe in markov models..
Windows 98: Good
Windows ME: Sucked
Windows XP: Good
Windows Vista: Sucked
Windows 7 : Good
Windows 8: Sucked
Windows 9: GOOD
http://www.ocamljava.org/
You failed to mention solid state drives. They are a huge game changer for any desktop lacking one.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4348123&cid=45152955
I very much agree that SaaS is yet another strategic approach to controlling information and the software used to gather it. But it's hard to completely throw away such a useful abstraction. From a pragmatic view, SaaS is a convenient separation of concerns applied to both infrastructure and software.
Perhaps I missed it, but does RMS actually supply a solution to problems solved by SaaS? I noticed a few already in the threads here, but this basically characterizes most choices:
1. A completely decentralized approach, where everyone shares the software and information equally.
2. Every SaaS must run and share opensource code, as well as somehow opening sourcing the content (safely) as well.
3. Assume the worst about all endpoints, eventually empirically and/or contractually trust certain ones in a white list.
Sounds like a great feature! From the article:
"Fast Open could result in speed improvements of between 4% and 41% in the page load times on popular web sites. In this version only the client-side has been merged."