Tidal lock means huge heat differences, which means constant and extremely big storms, which means the atmosphere will be full of dust and water vapor, blocking the sunlight. No light, no life.
One thing that is special in Earth is that it doesn't have the extremities of other planets. The fluctuations are orders of magnitude smaller than elsewhere. Just because life can adapt to Earth doesn't it can do so on other planets. There is also the problem that for life to adapt it has to be created first.
And isn't iron a fairly common element in planets, hence molten core, hence magnetic field protecting the surface from cosmic rays and all that.
That's not that easy. Mars is mostly iron (that gives its red colour), but has no magnetic field. We still don't know what creates the magnetic field of Earth, so it's hard to say how common it is. But just having iron is definitely not enough.
Yes, yes, yes, all the things that happened here are so incredibly unlikely to happen... but then again, the universe is incredibly large and here the law of the large number fits perfectly: NO matter how insignificantly unlikely something is, if there is ONE case where it is true and your sample size is (nearly) infinitely large, the chance to find another case is 1.
You are making the same mistake as the Drake equation does: if you multiply near zero and near infinity the result is not 1, but impossible to predict. It's basic calculus.
Limiting yourself to a functional paradigm has benefits. You can use equational reasoning about code, and the compiler can perform more vigorous optimizations. Plus, for those of us who program for fun, it's...well...fun!
In Haskell it seems there is always something more to learn. Feature or bug, you decide.
I agree that if you are coding for fun they are the best choice, but the problem is that fun comes from overcoming challenges. And when a programming language is challenging in itself, it's not the best for big projects.
Lisp (+ descendants), Haskell, and OCaml have compilers that have shown themselves to produce code which is rather fast.
While Lisp is very fast, the same is not true for Haskell, which in my experience is considerably slower than Python.
Minimizing execution time and memory usage aren't always the main requirements for a program. Functional programming is well suited for guarantees of correctness, for example.
That is actually true, which is why functional programming is used in many areas where correctness is a must. But that's a narrow userbase.
I think the main problem with functional programming is that it's better suited for numerical calculations, while imperative programming is better suited for handling data. And in most applications, the majority of the tasks is data shuffling.
I hate to brake it for you but OO is not exclusive to imperative programming, so saying that OO languages are better than functional ones is pointless, as many functional languages have object support.
I don't know how this works in America but in most places the upper management of governmental institutions are chosen based on loyalty and connections, not skill. And, like you said, three degrees are not a guarantee of knowledge.
Well the things that annoy me most in Flash are sound, tracking, loading time, memory usage and the ads that overlap the text, animgifs don't have these issues. But if someone finds them annoying they can be turned off.
Python is actually an example of how can a language continue to develop even after becoming popular. In a brave move, they didn't let backwards compatibility tie them down. By breaking compatibility, the language could continue to evolve: there are many new features in Python3. For this to work without breaking existing stuff, the __future__ module was invented, which allows creating 'forward compatible' code.
I think we don't necessarily need to constantly switch languages to evolve, getting rid of backwards compatibility is another way to go (or make the language very general like LISP).
In looking at specific languages, Java EE fared worst at $5.42 per line of code, while Cobol did best at $1.26.
Seriously, lines of code? No surprise this guy favors Cobol, he is stuck in the eighties. So are more compact languages scoring higher for the same number of bugs?
True, but there are major differences in the degree of violation. The problem is, the human rights are too broad, but there is a core of them that most civilized countries respect (for example, th one against slavery). No treaty is unviolable, but as I recall the torture of prisoners generated a great shitstorm in America, which is how it works.
Slashdot Mirror
So where exactly did you get that first number from?
Well a lack of observed, or even hypothetical "other routes" certainly points in one way...
Tidal lock means huge heat differences, which means constant and extremely big storms, which means the atmosphere will be full of dust and water vapor, blocking the sunlight. No light, no life.
One thing that is special in Earth is that it doesn't have the extremities of other planets. The fluctuations are orders of magnitude smaller than elsewhere. Just because life can adapt to Earth doesn't it can do so on other planets. There is also the problem that for life to adapt it has to be created first.
And isn't iron a fairly common element in planets, hence molten core, hence magnetic field protecting the surface from cosmic rays and all that.
That's not that easy. Mars is mostly iron (that gives its red colour), but has no magnetic field. We still don't know what creates the magnetic field of Earth, so it's hard to say how common it is. But just having iron is definitely not enough.
Yes, yes, yes, all the things that happened here are so incredibly unlikely to happen... but then again, the universe is incredibly large and here the law of the large number fits perfectly: NO matter how insignificantly unlikely something is, if there is ONE case where it is true and your sample size is (nearly) infinitely large, the chance to find another case is 1.
You are making the same mistake as the Drake equation does: if you multiply near zero and near infinity the result is not 1, but impossible to predict. It's basic calculus.
Limiting yourself to a functional paradigm has benefits. You can use equational reasoning about code, and the compiler can perform more vigorous optimizations. Plus, for those of us who program for fun, it's...well...fun!
In Haskell it seems there is always something more to learn. Feature or bug, you decide.
I agree that if you are coding for fun they are the best choice, but the problem is that fun comes from overcoming challenges. And when a programming language is challenging in itself, it's not the best for big projects.
Lisp (+ descendants), Haskell, and OCaml have compilers that have shown themselves to produce code which is rather fast.
While Lisp is very fast, the same is not true for Haskell, which in my experience is considerably slower than Python.
Minimizing execution time and memory usage aren't always the main requirements for a program. Functional programming is well suited for guarantees of correctness, for example.
That is actually true, which is why functional programming is used in many areas where correctness is a must. But that's a narrow userbase.
I think the main problem with functional programming is that it's better suited for numerical calculations, while imperative programming is better suited for handling data. And in most applications, the majority of the tasks is data shuffling.
I hate to brake it for you but OO is not exclusive to imperative programming, so saying that OO languages are better than functional ones is pointless, as many functional languages have object support.
I don't know how this works in America but in most places the upper management of governmental institutions are chosen based on loyalty and connections, not skill. And, like you said, three degrees are not a guarantee of knowledge.
No but the damage it caused per line is more than 5.42$.
For system-level native tasks, C is better.
As C is a subset of C++, it can't possibly be better. Every C program can be written in C++.
Well the things that annoy me most in Flash are sound, tracking, loading time, memory usage and the ads that overlap the text, animgifs don't have these issues. But if someone finds them annoying they can be turned off.
Python is actually an example of how can a language continue to develop even after becoming popular. In a brave move, they didn't let backwards compatibility tie them down. By breaking compatibility, the language could continue to evolve: there are many new features in Python3. For this to work without breaking existing stuff, the __future__ module was invented, which allows creating 'forward compatible' code.
I think we don't necessarily need to constantly switch languages to evolve, getting rid of backwards compatibility is another way to go (or make the language very general like LISP).
Haven't seen one in ten years.
Which is why I only block Flash. I have no problem with still image ads.
Seriously, lines of code? No surprise this guy favors Cobol, he is stuck in the eighties. So are more compact languages scoring higher for the same number of bugs?
True, but there are major differences in the degree of violation. The problem is, the human rights are too broad, but there is a core of them that most civilized countries respect (for example, th one against slavery). No treaty is unviolable, but as I recall the torture of prisoners generated a great shitstorm in America, which is how it works.
They will certainly be able to get around it, but not helping them is still the right thing to do.
The Declaration of Human Rights.
The problem is, real troll patents are rarely understandable.
If it's optional, what's the problem?
Eratosthenes begs to differ.
That's why I used the word more. There aren't many places in the world with unlimited free speech.
Which is why it's being decided by a judge.
So in America you only have more rigths to free speech if you are a journalist? It doesn't fit into the principle of 'equality before the law'.