I'm fine, thanks. I have a job at a small start-up (spin-off from a university lab). It doesn't pay very well but it's enough for me, and it's nice people and -- generally -- I'm able to write code the way I like, since I'm mostly the only one working on a project. The downside is that I don't have anyone else to review my changes and correct my logic mistakes and typos.
If you replace 80kg (average human) of flesh with 80kg worth of computers and batteries, I think you'd have a considerable amount of processing power available to you... unless the electronic control devices (actuators & sensors) weight considerably more than the manual kind, which I doubt.
Yes. Security codes (numbers), building codes (rules), and possibly other meanings, are countable. But on the software context, there seems to be a disagreement.
Obviously not. Even after reading the other replies, and realizing that I was partially wrong, I still can't help but feel that it sounds wrong.
The concept of code, to me, is a collection of statements, expressions, functions, packages, etc. Like a bowl of rice, it makes no sense to count the grains for themselves. I can accept that other people understand it differently, but it's not easy not to feel that they are doing it wrong...
I guess I was mistaken in assuming the computer-science way of thinking about the concept of "code" (vs. "program", "algorithm", or "function", which are definitely discrete, countable things) should extended to other fields.
As a side note, although it is true that my nickname was originally a misspelling of "gigahertz", I chose it while I was young, and as a non-native English speaker, my knowledge of the language was lacking. I have been perfectly aware of that fact for a long time, but I chose to maintain the uncorrected version, both for the habit, and because I found it amusing that "herz", when read in German, means "heart".
"Is HTML5 the future of ?" NO. If HTML is ever the future of anything, it will most probably be a later version, not 5.
In my opinion, HTML as we know it isn't fit for any truly serious work. The current model based on HTML, CSS and JavaScript is too clunky. Ideally, we would need a new content description (modelling) language, that's better designed at describing the content we want to see on the future of the "web", instead of it all being a hack around vertically-scrolling pages. We would need a new presentation language, that's better fit to describe to the User Agent how that content is supposed to look like, and either a much improved version of the scripting language, or a whole new language that's better fit to interact with both the content sources (model), and the presentation patterns (views).
I will list a few of the flaws I can't stand about the HTML model, roughly in order of how simple the concept is:
You can't vertically-align objects without scripting.
You can't define a horizontal-scrolling element without scripting.
You can't define a non-scripted grid-like layout with proportional, fixed and content-dependant sizes mixed together.
It lacks a simple, integrated, templating and data-binding system.
I will stop here since I'm apparently thinking of WPF too much.
Most of us don't feel important enough to worry about some government knowing our secrets. Yes, we know this gives a means for those governments to identify the people who have something to hide, and that isn't always a good thing, but it's easier than being paranoid.
So, a factory that manufactures 10% of the DRAM had to stop production for 3 days, and resumed at 50% capacity afterwards. It means only roughly 5% of the total production has been affected, but prices go up 27%.... Yay for capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
1. never be consistent. every task is totally different.
I meant within the same codebase.
2. name things in a way that makes sense to you in relation to the other things around. No one cares if it's proper.
Others have to be able to read your code also.
3. put the code where you want it. that's where it belongs.
See 2. Also, if it's in the wrong place it will have more dependencies.
4. never write comments. learn to read code. english isn't any easier to read.
Bullshit. In many cases, it's not easy to understand the PURPOSE of an algorithm, even if it's easy to read.
5. never use existing libraries when you can write your own.
This is just trolling, isn't it?
7. don't use an IDE at all. write a platform that doesn't require debugging at all.
Yep, definitely trolling.
6. never test your algorithms. write self-testing algorithms instead.
I'd be glad to know how that would work.
8. there are no guidelines outside of school. and school just makes them up for grading purposes.
See 2.
9. open source is terrible for the world. but it's a great way for a programmer to take working code and re-write it for themselves.
See 5.
Nice one. Could be reduced to: 10. KISS your code.
Thanks. That was the idea.
I'm fine, thanks. I have a job at a small start-up (spin-off from a university lab). It doesn't pay very well but it's enough for me, and it's nice people and -- generally -- I'm able to write code the way I like, since I'm mostly the only one working on a project. The downside is that I don't have anyone else to review my changes and correct my logic mistakes and typos.
I really wanted to get it to 10... and I said NOT SO GOOD, not that it doesn't work. Proprietary software is more lucrative, with exceptions.
Note that I said your algorithms, not just any piece of code. There's unit testing, and then there's paranoid unit testing.
Better list:
I wanted it to be 10 but that's all I could come up with, that I would recommend any programmer, new or not.
Then we'd have "mating seasons", like many other animals. Maybe the reason they are NOT synchronized is because it was too much of a distraction...
Sleeping after lunch works well for a lot of people. I'm Spanish -- we know about our 'siesta'.
There's evidence that we naturally used to sleep in two phases, and some people have suggested a similar pattern to yours.
Or, with over 100kg worth of military-class computer components and supporting hardware, run an AI able to complete the mission on its own.
If you replace 80kg (average human) of flesh with 80kg worth of computers and batteries, I think you'd have a considerable amount of processing power available to you... unless the electronic control devices (actuators & sensors) weight considerably more than the manual kind, which I doubt.
Yes. Security codes (numbers), building codes (rules), and possibly other meanings, are countable. But on the software context, there seems to be a disagreement.
Obviously not. Even after reading the other replies, and realizing that I was partially wrong, I still can't help but feel that it sounds wrong.
The concept of code, to me, is a collection of statements, expressions, functions, packages, etc. Like a bowl of rice, it makes no sense to count the grains for themselves. I can accept that other people understand it differently, but it's not easy not to feel that they are doing it wrong...
I guess I was mistaken in assuming the computer-science way of thinking about the concept of "code" (vs. "program", "algorithm", or "function", which are definitely discrete, countable things) should extended to other fields.
As a side note, although it is true that my nickname was originally a misspelling of "gigahertz", I chose it while I was young, and as a non-native English speaker, my knowledge of the language was lacking. I have been perfectly aware of that fact for a long time, but I chose to maintain the uncorrected version, both for the habit, and because I found it amusing that "herz", when read in German, means "heart".
...like rice, is not countable. At least not since I learned the word.
Can we rename it VKM, so that it doesn't conflict with Kernel-based Virtual Machine?
Shit, I pressed submit too fast forgot to escape the <>.
I know about them, I was just wondering why would slashdot have that style on the comments...
?
"Is HTML5 the future of ?" NO. If HTML is ever the future of anything, it will most probably be a later version, not 5.
In my opinion, HTML as we know it isn't fit for any truly serious work. The current model based on HTML, CSS and JavaScript is too clunky. Ideally, we would need a new content description (modelling) language, that's better designed at describing the content we want to see on the future of the "web", instead of it all being a hack around vertically-scrolling pages. We would need a new presentation language, that's better fit to describe to the User Agent how that content is supposed to look like, and either a much improved version of the scripting language, or a whole new language that's better fit to interact with both the content sources (model), and the presentation patterns (views).
I will list a few of the flaws I can't stand about the HTML model, roughly in order of how simple the concept is:
I will stop here since I'm apparently thinking of WPF too much.
Most of us don't feel important enough to worry about some government knowing our secrets. Yes, we know this gives a means for those governments to identify the people who have something to hide, and that isn't always a good thing, but it's easier than being paranoid.
I never said prices should have gone up 5% only, just 27% seems WAY too much.
So, a factory that manufactures 10% of the DRAM had to stop production for 3 days, and resumed at 50% capacity afterwards. It means only roughly 5% of the total production has been affected, but prices go up 27%.... Yay for capitalism.
... I was hoping they tried to exploit the bank through a Kernel-based Virtual Machine. Disappointing.