Well, capitalists are always going to want to draw a harder line between the source code and other client code.
Mostly to support some business model, but also for performance: note that even GNU Emacs, in all of its glory, compiles a significant amount of the grungy code down to native binary, for performance reasons.
Right, but the point about the Lisp interpreter is that wandering back and forth across the line between the source code and the live data (mostly impossible with other systems) is readily attainable with Lisp.
There is no other language that can implement the power of Lisp macros.
Which is another way to state my point about the unity of (code . data)
But I think that point is substantially a theoretical one; I write VBA code that generates VBA code all the time. Sure, I may not be able to execute it cleanly in one fell swoop, but you'll notice that MSOffice has orders of magnitude more market penetration than Lisp.
This project will achieve the first 66% outright, then fanny about ad in-fanny-itum on government subsidies to ivory towers near you, workin' hard, strivin' to get the other 9% nailed down.
Beside the white collar welfare, of course, this will help keep those academics and the stunnedents whose minds they poison voting correctly.
Sweet, sweet descent into oblivion!
What, the unity of data and code?
Sure, it's academically cooler not to kick your design out of the Garden of Eden, but let's not kid ourselves: besides performance, the other reason Lispy systems haven't conquered is that it's darn hard to have a business model that DOESN'T separate code and data to at least some degree.
This is more an observation than a value judgement about the "rightness" of the situation.
BREAKING: Easter Island announces "Hey, we're too insignificant to spy on anyone, domestic or international. Come for the statuery, stay for the liberty."
Could not have stated that more distinctly myself. The humanities, themselves, as with guns, are not the problem. The Godless Commie Sodomites of academia (Zinn, &c) can return their Postmodern hooey to the Hell that spawned it.
The whole "perfect is the enemy of the good argument" (which I can follow, to a point), has devolved into "Hey, it may be a crap sandwich, but rejoice in the bread."
This mooting/affirmation opens the door, lets out the cat, and affords Congress the ability to say: "Our idiocy is a Heisenberg reference!"
My day is made, and it's not 0600.
If Gnumeric had a python IDE that was as get-it-done easy as the Visceral Baysuck IDE in MS Office, I shudder to think of the popping sound you'd hear, as power users drop Excel like Harry Reid drops the idea of voting on a budget.
There will, of course, always be a minority of users who disable or hide the light.
Precisely. And, 'unexpectedly', those are the same people that are going to engage in the most sensational violations.
This is the paradox of locks: they keep honest people honest, and do frack-all for the scofflaws you want to manage.
There will be nothing of the sort. This is just the current version.
When it's refined and mounted into a pair of Silhouettes, what are you going to do? Broad-spectrum jamming?
I'll venture, as a trial balloon, that we need to move toward ultra-public spaces where Glassy technology is OK, and places where the tech is not acceptable, and anyone violating that restraint earns a big party foul (i.e. non-criminal punishment).
And then you've moved the problem to a sort of digital apartheid, where those that wish to retain a modicum of privacy correspond to the rich and the Luddites.
Slashdot Mirror
I just want to know where along the 18-species Last and First Men curve you're talking about. Please be more specific.
No: GTE.
For a guy with a tag like "noh8rz10", you sure serve it up.
There sits disgrace
Like fuzz on your face
Of falsehood be shorn
In liberty reborn
Burma Shave
Well, capitalists are always going to want to draw a harder line between the source code and other client code.
Mostly to support some business model, but also for performance: note that even GNU Emacs, in all of its glory, compiles a significant amount of the grungy code down to native binary, for performance reasons.
Right, but the point about the Lisp interpreter is that wandering back and forth across the line between the source code and the live data (mostly impossible with other systems) is readily attainable with Lisp.
There is no other language that can implement the power of Lisp macros.
Which is another way to state my point about the unity of (code . data)
But I think that point is substantially a theoretical one; I write VBA code that generates VBA code all the time. Sure, I may not be able to execute it cleanly in one fell swoop, but you'll notice that MSOffice has orders of magnitude more market penetration than Lisp.
This project will achieve the first 66% outright, then fanny about ad in-fanny-itum on government subsidies to ivory towers near you, workin' hard, strivin' to get the other 9% nailed down.
Beside the white collar welfare, of course, this will help keep those academics and the stunnedents whose minds they poison voting correctly.
Sweet, sweet descent into oblivion!
What, the unity of data and code?
Sure, it's academically cooler not to kick your design out of the Garden of Eden, but let's not kid ourselves: besides performance, the other reason Lispy systems haven't conquered is that it's darn hard to have a business model that DOESN'T separate code and data to at least some degree.
This is more an observation than a value judgement about the "rightness" of the situation.
The question is whether simplifying the syntax down to a nubbin really flattens the learning curve or not.
BREAKING: Easter Island announces "Hey, we're too insignificant to spy on anyone, domestic or international. Come for the statuery, stay for the liberty."
Could not have stated that more distinctly myself. The humanities, themselves, as with guns, are not the problem. The Godless Commie Sodomites of academia (Zinn, &c) can return their Postmodern hooey to the Hell that spawned it.
The whole "perfect is the enemy of the good argument" (which I can follow, to a point), has devolved into "Hey, it may be a crap sandwich, but rejoice in the bread."
This mooting/affirmation opens the door, lets out the cat, and affords Congress the ability to say: "Our idiocy is a Heisenberg reference!"
My day is made, and it's not 0600.
Fair is where the bus was headed when you went under it.
Who cares? In his prime, he could sing.
If it was any more petty, it would be a home owner's association.
Or a crypto-Phalangist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU
I've no ambiguities about my lineage.
How, 'more flaky'? It's the same code it's been since I first started kicking around with this thing in 1995.
If Gnumeric had a python IDE that was as get-it-done easy as the Visceral Baysuck IDE in MS Office, I shudder to think of the popping sound you'd hear, as power users drop Excel like Harry Reid drops the idea of voting on a budget.
There will, of course, always be a minority of users who disable or hide the light.
Precisely. And, 'unexpectedly', those are the same people that are going to engage in the most sensational violations.
This is the paradox of locks: they keep honest people honest, and do frack-all for the scofflaws you want to manage.
put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device
How under the sun is that enforceable?
There will be nothing of the sort. This is just the current version.
When it's refined and mounted into a pair of Silhouettes, what are you going to do? Broad-spectrum jamming?
I'll venture, as a trial balloon, that we need to move toward ultra-public spaces where Glassy technology is OK, and places where the tech is not acceptable, and anyone violating that restraint earns a big party foul (i.e. non-criminal punishment).
And then you've moved the problem to a sort of digital apartheid, where those that wish to retain a modicum of privacy correspond to the rich and the Luddites.
There you go again with that wooshful thinking.