... IPv6 doesn't embed the IPv4 address space and everybody has to buy a new IP and have all domains with TWO different IPs to make the transition possible?
This really is a shortsightedness of their protocol design. Until now all IP versions have contained the address space of the previous version. Until IPv6 came around.
Back in the day Opera was the only one with tabbed browsing.
And Firefox users said the same as you say. "Tabbed browsing, I've tried and it's awful". Until firefox got tabs. And now everybody swears by the tabs, even IE 7 will have tabs.
Back in the day Opera was the only one with mouse gestures.
And Firefox users said the same as you say. But now they have an awful imitation in a plugin.
However Opera tabs are much more useful than FF. And mouse gestures are more useful than firefox. After you have used the mouse with Opera you just can't get back to anything else. And the mail client uses a database futuristic concept, but no one will notice until it's copied by mainstream apps. Ohh wait, gmail uses a similar approach.
For me, other killer features are: fit page to window witdh, a split page feature someone programmed in javascript (yes, like a plugin), total and absolute configurability of the toolbars (the tabs bar are just another toolbar).
FF is more compatible with some not standard pages, but that's the only feature I think is worthwhile.
It really doesn't matter what features Opera has. FF is opensource and Opera is not. That's the only feature you really care about. Face it.
But I've been doing rectangular edits for years in Editplus.
Emacs invented the inferior lisp moniker
on
The Future of Emacs
·
· Score: 1
Emacs itself calls other lisps "inferior lisp", however, emacs lisp is the inferior and outdated one (bignums or lexical scope anyone?). So if you want to blame someone for that moniker, blame emacs authors. (RMS?)
And emacs is really outdated in some aspects by today standards. Having to hit Alt-p to go to the previous line in the historial in a REPL? And if I edit the line emacs forgets completely where I was in said historial. Why don't use the arrow keys and behave like the shell (wich was written in C!) ? That sea of Ctrl, alt, sorry, meta, and shift keys is really a nightmare.
It's true that using the keyboard is sometimes faster than other methods, but in emacs case, the costs outweight the benefits. Try using emacs over SSH (no useful mouse, sorry) to feel the hell that it is. And the mouse can be used way faster than the keyboard, just use Opera to see how.
Using several files open at the same time should be like in Edit-plus. Not buffers non-sense. And slime should be able to connect to lisps all over the internet, not reading the port from a local file (that's quite a HACK!)
We have good things in emacs. We have good things in Visual-(insert your IDE here). We have good things in pure text oriented editors that beat the hell out of the former ones in some things (I love Editplus). But there is no single solution that covers all needs, and really, it could be, is not that hard. And the current emacs effort is absolutely not help in this regard.
I wonder, if it's possible just to make software replacing what the suits do.
It's already done in the stock market, so... what really those people do that can't be done by a computer?
Read financial statements? Nope. Give a team feedback about the rentability of a product line? Maybe, but the gap is closing.
In fact, a computer simulated matrix of game theory could perform better that what most of these people do.
Remember, the suits would fire everybody if they could replace programmers with machines, so why not fire them and let the smart people enjoy themselves?
I believe the teacher should gave students two pieces of code, one with spaguetti goto code, one with well behaved structured code.
Both of them big enough to not be trivial and both of them with some kind of bug.
"Please fix this one. It's called GT. If you solve it the qualification is 100%. If you're unable to fix it, fix the other one, called GTL (goto less), but the qualification in that case is 80%."
And then give 100% to any of the solutions.
That way they will learn WHY most goto's are a bad idea.
"Of course, this is not the easiest technique to use in Java, C#, and C++, [...] Thus it is not surprising that this technique works extremely well in the LispLanguage, and moderately well in the PythonLanguage."
You don't usually use unwind-protect directly. You use a macro that uses it underneath. Like the with-open-file macro or the with-database macro of CLSQL.
Like this: (with-open-file (stream "/some/file/name.txt")
(format t "~a~%" (read-line stream)))
You can never forget to close the file in that code.
Having to use unwind-protect directly is just another case of the "human compiler" pattern at work. It's very unusual to have to use database access or file access or something like that just once in your program, so writing a macro is a good investment.
Closures and objects are quite different, but they can be used (almost) the same way.
However, I think that you don't need an anonymous class to implement an algorithm that is originally conceived using closures. A normal class is enough and easier to use.
The good thing about closures is that you write less code, and that code is usually more elegant.
I say this because I generally try new algorithms in Lisp, and when they are working just perfectly, translate the algorithm to C++ or php or whatever I'm using.
As I said in another post, GC and the automatic release of a resource can be managed independently (when the resource is not allocated memory). It is just a language design issue.
In Lisp you have GC, and you have the unwind-protect macro that does the "RAII" idiom, and they are totally independent one from the other.
Having said that, I like the objects-in-the-stack feature of C++.
The protocol doesn't have one. IPv4 addresses should be embedded into the IPv6 address space, and the protocols should co-exist for a while.
But the IPv6 was designed as a replacement instead of a improvement of IPv4. It's not technical, it's economic, it means that we MUST BUY IPv6 addresses alongside our IPv4 ones. More money for already greedy companies.
If the address space of IPv4 is put inside the address space of IPv6, this problem is over. Everybody instantly has an IPv6 address, no $$$ needed. This is the real problem with IPv6. Fix it and people will start using it.
I'm sorry for you, It seems you've worked with bitching annoying customers for so long, that you sound like one of them.
If you want to add a feature, you write a test for that first. In the so called "bussiness layer". Prioritize the features you can do in some amount of time and do them. And that's all.
If the dataset changes and the app fails, that's a serious bug and a new test should be written with that data so that never happens again. In fact that's the difference between a well though algorithm and a bunch of hacked code.
If the changing requirements are in the presentation then you apply the number one rule of computer science, write an abstraction layer. Like the skins in Winamp. Make it easy to change the presentation, and make easy for different consumers to use different presentations.
And the most important, all this takes some time, don't let yourself be bullied by those people.
Slashdot Mirror
... IPv6 doesn't embed the IPv4 address space and everybody has to buy a new IP and have all domains with TWO different IPs to make the transition possible?
This really is a shortsightedness of their protocol design. Until now all IP versions have contained the address space of the previous version. Until IPv6 came around.
And Firefox users said the same as you say. "Tabbed browsing, I've tried and it's awful". Until firefox got tabs. And now everybody swears by the tabs, even IE 7 will have tabs.
Back in the day Opera was the only one with mouse gestures.
And Firefox users said the same as you say. But now they have an awful imitation in a plugin.
However Opera tabs are much more useful than FF. And mouse gestures are more useful than firefox. After you have used the mouse with Opera you just can't get back to anything else. And the mail client uses a database futuristic concept, but no one will notice until it's copied by mainstream apps. Ohh wait, gmail uses a similar approach.
For me, other killer features are: fit page to window witdh, a split page feature someone programmed in javascript (yes, like a plugin), total and absolute configurability of the toolbars (the tabs bar are just another toolbar).
FF is more compatible with some not standard pages, but that's the only feature I think is worthwhile.
It really doesn't matter what features Opera has. FF is opensource and Opera is not. That's the only feature you really care about. Face it.
Ohh and I installed Opera just typing:
But I've been doing rectangular edits for years in Editplus.
Emacs itself calls other lisps "inferior lisp", however, emacs lisp is the inferior and outdated one (bignums or lexical scope anyone?). So if you want to blame someone for that moniker, blame emacs authors. (RMS?)
And emacs is really outdated in some aspects by today standards. Having to hit Alt-p to go to the previous line in the historial in a REPL? And if I edit the line emacs forgets completely where I was in said historial. Why don't use the arrow keys and behave like the shell (wich was written in C!) ? That sea of Ctrl, alt, sorry, meta, and shift keys is really a nightmare.
It's true that using the keyboard is sometimes faster than other methods, but in emacs case, the costs outweight the benefits. Try using emacs over SSH (no useful mouse, sorry) to feel the hell that it is. And the mouse can be used way faster than the keyboard, just use Opera to see how.
Using several files open at the same time should be like in Edit-plus. Not buffers non-sense. And slime should be able to connect to lisps all over the internet, not reading the port from a local file (that's quite a HACK!)
We have good things in emacs. We have good things in Visual-(insert your IDE here). We have good things in pure text oriented editors that beat the hell out of the former ones in some things (I love Editplus). But there is no single solution that covers all needs, and really, it could be, is not that hard. And the current emacs effort is absolutely not help in this regard.
Actually, my C++ single exe self containded applications are just a little over 1MB and run on win 95, 98, 2K, XP etc...
However, I put them in a installer because clients expect it that way.
Not all C++ stuff is like mozilla or openoffice.
Even after you've applied all the patchs you think you need, don't use IE for casual browsing that's the way to get full of spyware.
Use Opera (recommended by me) or Firefox (a little slower but more popular) to do your browsing and use IE only if a bank site requires it.
That way you'll be free of virus, troyans and that kind of stuff.
They already make shitloads of money.
They have medicines developed that could cure several forms of cancer.
They don't sell them because actually curing people from cancer is less profitable than actual treatments.
If the behavior of big multinational corporations were just a little different your point would be valid.
But as things go now, the Indians are right, and patents are wrong.
I wonder, if it's possible just to make software replacing what the suits do.
It's already done in the stock market, so... what really those people do that can't be done by a computer?
Read financial statements? Nope. Give a team feedback about the rentability of a product line? Maybe, but the gap is closing.
In fact, a computer simulated matrix of game theory could perform better that what most of these people do.
Remember, the suits would fire everybody if they could replace programmers with machines, so why not fire them and let the smart people enjoy themselves?
But now most /. people read the article if it first shows up in digg.com !
I believe the teacher should gave students two pieces of code, one with spaguetti goto code, one with well behaved structured code.
Both of them big enough to not be trivial and both of them with some kind of bug.
"Please fix this one. It's called GT. If you solve it the qualification is 100%. If you're unable to fix it, fix the other one, called GTL (goto less), but the qualification in that case is 80%."
And then give 100% to any of the solutions.
That way they will learn WHY most goto's are a bad idea.
So, well, we are both right.
You're absolutely correct, however...
You don't usually use unwind-protect directly. You use a macro that uses it underneath. Like the with-open-file macro or the with-database macro of CLSQL.
Like this:
(with-open-file (stream "/some/file/name.txt")
(format t "~a~%" (read-line stream)))
You can never forget to close the file in that code.
Having to use unwind-protect directly is just another case of the "human compiler" pattern at work. It's very unusual to have to use database access or file access or something like that just once in your program, so writing a macro is a good investment.
Closures and objects are quite different, but they can be used (almost) the same way.
However, I think that you don't need an anonymous class to implement an algorithm that is originally conceived using closures. A normal class is enough and easier to use.
The good thing about closures is that you write less code, and that code is usually more elegant.
I say this because I generally try new algorithms in Lisp, and when they are working just perfectly, translate the algorithm to C++ or php or whatever I'm using.
As I said in another post, GC and the automatic release of a resource can be managed independently (when the resource is not allocated memory). It is just a language design issue.
In Lisp you have GC, and you have the unwind-protect macro that does the "RAII" idiom, and they are totally independent one from the other.
Having said that, I like the objects-in-the-stack feature of C++.
As I told in another post, in Lisp you can use the unwind-protect macro to perform this "pattern".
This is used to perform file access, database access and so on.
But in the languages you use, you need a compiler-interpreter update from the vendor/implementor to fix that.
In lisp that would be using the unwind-protect macro.
Notice that this is totally unrelated with memory management.
So yes, it IS possible to have our cake and eat it too.
I liked the link. This kind of comments are the reason I read /. and the reason digg will not make this place a point in the past.
The protocol doesn't have one. IPv4 addresses should be embedded into the IPv6 address space, and the protocols should co-exist for a while.
But the IPv6 was designed as a replacement instead of a improvement of IPv4. It's not technical, it's economic, it means that we MUST BUY IPv6 addresses alongside our IPv4 ones. More money for already greedy companies.
If the address space of IPv4 is put inside the address space of IPv6, this problem is over. Everybody instantly has an IPv6 address, no $$$ needed. This is the real problem with IPv6. Fix it and people will start using it.
Stopping the buying of hardware from sony will make their content division stronger, not weaker, inside the company.
People should stop giving sony money for any content, and that means music and movies (any movie! you know who I'm talking about).
And may be buy one or two electronic gadgets from them.
who wants Descent back !
May be start a club???
Descenters Fight Club
The first rule of the Descenters Fight Club is...
Ohh well that's the reason we don't notice it !!!
I'm sorry for you, It seems you've worked with bitching annoying customers for so long, that you sound like one of them.
If you want to add a feature, you write a test for that first. In the so called "bussiness layer". Prioritize the features you can do in some amount of time and do them. And that's all.
If the dataset changes and the app fails, that's a serious bug and a new test should be written with that data so that never happens again. In fact that's the difference between a well though algorithm and a bunch of hacked code.
If the changing requirements are in the presentation then you apply the number one rule of computer science, write an abstraction layer. Like the skins in Winamp. Make it easy to change the presentation, and make easy for different consumers to use different presentations.
And the most important, all this takes some time, don't let yourself be bullied by those people.
And here we have fake "DVD" that are really Video-CD only and also plays nes games.
However only people who don't know the difference buy them, to find later that it doesn't play DVDs.
And there are several playstation clones.
However you are quite correct in your post respect to the parent's claims.
I'm a super Opera fan, and I keep telling my friends about it.
One of them, switched to Firefox later because he is a Web developer and relies heavily in the DOM browser.