Psycholinguists could easily argue that reality says otherwise. If a person read incorrect English, his/her brain has more trouble reading it: reading times slow down, comprehension levels drop, brain activity increases. So it would be pretty fair to say that there is a shared basis for normal English that native and very competent 2nd language speakers expect.
Oliver Kamm, the author of the piece, on the other hand, just has an opinion, mainly based on his political views.
It's not the keystrokes, it's just an obvious and safe transformation. If all we cared about was number of keystrokes, all our code would be candidate of the Obfuscated C contest.
> "const" is actually coming in TS 1.4
That's not the const I meant: I would like to see const members and parameters. The 1.4 const is for declaring static constants only, and requires ES6, it seems.
Sorry about private and public. I must have forgotten about them...
TypeScript uses just that, but it just reads better.
> Failure to initialize a variable, all dynamic languages have this problem in spades
Static typing can prevent that. Typescript warns against passing a wrong argument, or getting a non-existing member, which cause a lot of the "can't read property" errors.
Not just syntactic sugar. I would like something like the implicit lambda from Java, like this: people.sort(Person::getLastName); instead of having to write people.sort(function(p: Person): string {return p.getLastName();}). There are one or two other practical thingies in Java and C# that could be easily translated to JS too.
For type checking, I would like private/public and const, too. I hate const, but sometimes it's the best.
I don't care about Angular. It's just another tool for the saps in the web page mines (and one that can get you trapped in those mines as well).
TypeScript, OTOH, is the greatest addition to JavaScript I've seen. No more messy.prototype., and much less "can't read property 'x' of undefined". It's not there yet, I must say. I would like it to add some more transformations instead of just type checking, but if you have to write in JavaScript: do yourself a favor, and check it out.
Prejudiced, why? I did do my share of Objective-C programming (some 50k lines by the last count), but it has little to offer over C for tasks other than GUI programming. I think that e.g. C# is a better general purpose language.
Sorry, but STL is not a good example of C++'s superiority. It's bloated and unreadable due to C++'s template syntax. I still prefer my homegrown lib for lists and trees and such, but when I have to choose some publicly available software, I pick Boost over STL.
For the rest: Objective-C is not a great language. It has some cute features, but they are primarily useful for GUI programming and don't really contribute to better software development.
No, the whole point of facebook is to sell ads. Anything they can do to improve that, either by selling more ads or by making the end user more involved contributes to fb's selling power. So if people like automatic face recognition or link suggestions or whatever, that will support fb's business.
I'm betting you didn't. Then why this dumb game? Because you'd like to play it. There's got to be something in it for you. That's the reason. Don't be coy about it.
You are really the kind of idiot that brings open source software down. "It's open source, fix it if you don't like it." How many people can do that? Anonymous Coward indeed.
You might want to think again. I tested the current IE (11) and its JS performance is already better than Chrome's and on par with Safari 8, and the HTML implementation seems pretty standard compliant. I didn't care much for the clumsy dialogs that showed up in some places, but in all, it's a much better browser than IE9 and anything before that.
This, indeed. Literacy is about being able to distill complex information from written sources that do not dwell too much on detail. Coding is about writing instructions for a machine that is too stupid to know that a cow is an animal unless someone tells it precisely how to do that. These two activities are pretty much opposites.
Coding does have a lot in common with math, and is also meant for problem solving. It does not share its universality, though. A more apt comparison would be: coding is the new welding.
I agree. Using the f-word does not make someone racist. Emoji are a bad solution to a insignificant problem. The fact that people use that solution anyway doesn't change that.
Regular expressions are named after Kleene's description of regular expressions as an "algebra of regular sets". The only way to make the strings in the language accepted by an RE longer is by use of "*", which is as regular as it can be.
Precisely. I don't think anyone is really deeply attached to AC, and there are still good reasons to use it. It can also not be compared to the QWERTY keyboard: changing a keyboard can be as cheap as $2.50 (Amazon.com, Genuine Dell QuietKey USB Keyboard, or just a software change and a set of keyboard stickers) per seat, while changing power lines will cost somewhere between $2k and $10k per house. On a larger scale, where DC is better, it will slowly replace AC.
You've got your statistics all wrong: you misrepresent significance testing, and overlook that t-tests are only suitable for a small range of problems. Plus it doesn't bear on the discussion of causality. You should have been downmodded into oblivion.
It gets worse. I've seen this coming since 2008, but gene sequencing, preferably in combination with fMRI, is getting bigger. Not that it means anything: we don't know how a lump of neurons that consume more oxygen relate to behavior, and we don't know how genes affect lumps of neurons at any subtle level, let alone that we can conclude something from gene sequencing, but since it is very sexy and has new images to enhance psychological studies, there will be more and more of it, until you read one day: Reactions to Disgusting Images Determined by Genes.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be because you're accustomed to slang. There are rules and conventions for slang, too. Improper use will (slightly) confuse you.
> That's why txting is so popular, because it's easier to understand.
Talking about flawed assumptions.
Psycholinguists could easily argue that reality says otherwise. If a person read incorrect English, his/her brain has more trouble reading it: reading times slow down, comprehension levels drop, brain activity increases. So it would be pretty fair to say that there is a shared basis for normal English that native and very competent 2nd language speakers expect.
Oliver Kamm, the author of the piece, on the other hand, just has an opinion, mainly based on his political views.
It's not the keystrokes, it's just an obvious and safe transformation. If all we cared about was number of keystrokes, all our code would be candidate of the Obfuscated C contest.
> "const" is actually coming in TS 1.4
That's not the const I meant: I would like to see const members and parameters. The 1.4 const is for declaring static constants only, and requires ES6, it seems.
Sorry about private and public. I must have forgotten about them...
> I kinda like prototype based object orientation
TypeScript uses just that, but it just reads better.
> Failure to initialize a variable, all dynamic languages have this problem in spades
Static typing can prevent that. Typescript warns against passing a wrong argument, or getting a non-existing member, which cause a lot of the "can't read property" errors.
Not just syntactic sugar. I would like something like the implicit lambda from Java, like this: people.sort(Person::getLastName); instead of having to write people.sort(function(p: Person): string {return p.getLastName();}). There are one or two other practical thingies in Java and C# that could be easily translated to JS too.
For type checking, I would like private/public and const, too. I hate const, but sometimes it's the best.
I don't care about Angular. It's just another tool for the saps in the web page mines (and one that can get you trapped in those mines as well).
TypeScript, OTOH, is the greatest addition to JavaScript I've seen. No more messy .prototype., and much less "can't read property 'x' of undefined". It's not there yet, I must say. I would like it to add some more transformations instead of just type checking, but if you have to write in JavaScript: do yourself a favor, and check it out.
Prejudiced, why? I did do my share of Objective-C programming (some 50k lines by the last count), but it has little to offer over C for tasks other than GUI programming. I think that e.g. C# is a better general purpose language.
Sorry, but STL is not a good example of C++'s superiority. It's bloated and unreadable due to C++'s template syntax. I still prefer my homegrown lib for lists and trees and such, but when I have to choose some publicly available software, I pick Boost over STL.
For the rest: Objective-C is not a great language. It has some cute features, but they are primarily useful for GUI programming and don't really contribute to better software development.
No, the whole point of facebook is to sell ads. Anything they can do to improve that, either by selling more ads or by making the end user more involved contributes to fb's selling power. So if people like automatic face recognition or link suggestions or whatever, that will support fb's business.
Quite a sensible guy.
> each manifestation of [creativity] should be embraced and supported as much as possible
Hold it right there. Did you support https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? Why not? It's much more creative than this game. https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...? And that's just an easy search for classical music.
I'm betting you didn't. Then why this dumb game? Because you'd like to play it. There's got to be something in it for you. That's the reason. Don't be coy about it.
What more evidence do you need?
And still they wonder why the turn-out for EU elections is so low.
You are really the kind of idiot that brings open source software down. "It's open source, fix it if you don't like it." How many people can do that? Anonymous Coward indeed.
Ok, one thing broken. But I thought the dev tools were decent. The profiler seemed unreliable, but the rest was Chrome like.
You might want to think again. I tested the current IE (11) and its JS performance is already better than Chrome's and on par with Safari 8, and the HTML implementation seems pretty standard compliant. I didn't care much for the clumsy dialogs that showed up in some places, but in all, it's a much better browser than IE9 and anything before that.
This, indeed. Literacy is about being able to distill complex information from written sources that do not dwell too much on detail. Coding is about writing instructions for a machine that is too stupid to know that a cow is an animal unless someone tells it precisely how to do that. These two activities are pretty much opposites.
Coding does have a lot in common with math, and is also meant for problem solving. It does not share its universality, though. A more apt comparison would be: coding is the new welding.
I'm from continental Europe, and even I know who Duke is.
I agree. Using the f-word does not make someone racist. Emoji are a bad solution to a insignificant problem. The fact that people use that solution anyway doesn't change that.
Regular expressions are named after Kleene's description of regular expressions as an "algebra of regular sets". The only way to make the strings in the language accepted by an RE longer is by use of "*", which is as regular as it can be.
Precisely. I don't think anyone is really deeply attached to AC, and there are still good reasons to use it. It can also not be compared to the QWERTY keyboard: changing a keyboard can be as cheap as $2.50 (Amazon.com, Genuine Dell QuietKey USB Keyboard, or just a software change and a set of keyboard stickers) per seat, while changing power lines will cost somewhere between $2k and $10k per house. On a larger scale, where DC is better, it will slowly replace AC.
The phrase "We retain ... AC current for similar reasons." makes me believe the author doesn't know what (s)he is speaking about.
You've got your statistics all wrong: you misrepresent significance testing, and overlook that t-tests are only suitable for a small range of problems. Plus it doesn't bear on the discussion of causality. You should have been downmodded into oblivion.
Was somebody forcing people to buy anything from Standard Oil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It gets worse. I've seen this coming since 2008, but gene sequencing, preferably in combination with fMRI, is getting bigger. Not that it means anything: we don't know how a lump of neurons that consume more oxygen relate to behavior, and we don't know how genes affect lumps of neurons at any subtle level, let alone that we can conclude something from gene sequencing, but since it is very sexy and has new images to enhance psychological studies, there will be more and more of it, until you read one day: Reactions to Disgusting Images Determined by Genes.