OCCAM isn't that much older than Python (which borrowed the idea from ABC). Pythoneers like to point to a Knuth quotation from 1974:
"We will perhaps eventually be writing only small modules which are identified by name as they are used to build larger ones, so that devices like indentation, rather than delimiters, might become feasible for expressing local structure in the source language."
(but they sometimes miss the "only small parts" and "expressing local structure" parts when they do that...)
You can do this in Python too, thanks to generators (which lets you treat inline code as "template methods" in controlling classes). There are some limitations in the current design (related to object passing and exception handling) which will be addressed in a future release:
The "jump" from 1.5.2 to 2.0 (via 1.6) had nothing to do with compatibility; it was pure marketing. If you find that old code doesn't work in a new version, it's usually because you've (accidentally or not) relied on bugs or unspecified behaviour.
(I still run code that was originally written for Python 1.1, and most of my libraries run under 1.5.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and the 2.5 development branch, usually without any version checks whatsoever).
"If you actually read the article, there is a link to MS' research site, where you can find Netscan, a proof of concept that just tracks MS' groups."
the default view only shows windowsxp groups, but nothing stops you from typing in another keyword. for example, here's a comp.lang.python reportcard for the current month:
Perhaps people should encourage 'upstream' developers more to accept debian package building specs as part of their base tree
Well, they could at least send a note to the upstream developers when they find a problem...
(I'm the author of one of the listed packages, and I don't have the slightest idea what that announcement is talking about. My library sure doesn't depend on the library they claim is buggy...)
Re: Anyone going to buy a .biz domain?
on
.biz Open For Biz
·
· Score: 1
yeah, but (IIRC and IANAL) even if you are the first to file, you cannot get a patent if someone else (be it the inventor or a third party) has published a description of the method, or sold a product that clearly uses the method.
(if it's not obvious that a given product uses a certain method, that method is still patentable).
(on the other hand, I think some US company has patented the wheel;-).
Really? I thought the European patent laws were stricter than US Patent laws in respect to Prior Art:
''To be novel, an invention must not form part of the prior art on the date the European patent application is filed or its priority date, if priority is claimed to a corresponding application. The prior art is deemed to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description or by use or in any other way that will enable the public to determine what the invention is''
the european patent convention also says that ''Methods of doing business are grouped with methods of performing mental acts and rules for playing games as being unpatentable''
But IANAL, of course. Guess it takes on of those to explain how on earth the Norwegian patent office can grant a patent that clearly violates European conventions, and have that one apply to other European countries...
here's a rough translation of the patent summary, from the sidebar:
''Norwegian patent no. 17 98 88 describes a system where the user of a public network can get information about availability, order on-line, and get confirmation in real time. This means that the patent covers most ordering systems for ordinary phones, the Internet, and mobile phones.''
If someone beats you to your account and "guesses" your password, now they can masquerade as you, and if they change the password, you can't even get into the account
I'm probably just extremely dense, but isn't dotcommail just yet another free mail service?
do you really think people are stupid enough to think that a mail from 'slashdot@dotcomnow.com' (or 'slashdot@hotmail.com' which I just grabbed) must necessarily come from someone working for slashdot?
if that's the case, we're in deep trouble. there are hundreds of free mail services out there...
Slashdot Mirror
Major parties? ROTFL!
The original is commonly known as "100 Prisoners and a Light Bulb":
m l#100prisonersLightBulb
e rsLightBulb.pdf
m l#100prisoners2LightBulbs
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/riddles/hard.sht
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/papers/100prison
(the latter paper mentions a slashdotting, btw)
also see:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/riddles/hard.sht
OCCAM isn't that much older than Python (which borrowed the idea from ABC). Pythoneers like to point to a Knuth quotation from 1974:
"We will perhaps eventually be writing only small modules which are identified by name as they are used to build larger ones, so that devices like indentation, rather than delimiters, might become feasible for expressing local structure in the source language."
(but they sometimes miss the "only small parts" and "expressing local structure" parts when they do that...)
You can do this in Python too, thanks to generators (which lets you treat inline code as "template methods" in controlling classes). There are some limitations in the current design (related to object passing and exception handling) which will be addressed in a future release:
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0343.html
For the bigger perspective, see:
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0340.html (an earlier version of 343)
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0342.html (the "other half" of 343)
The "jump" from 1.5.2 to 2.0 (via 1.6) had nothing to do with compatibility; it was pure marketing. If you find that old code doesn't work in a new version, it's usually because you've (accidentally or not) relied on bugs or unspecified behaviour.
(I still run code that was originally written for Python 1.1, and most of my libraries run under 1.5.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and the 2.5 development branch, usually without any version checks whatsoever).
That "1" + 1 ought to be 2, or at least 11.
"If you actually read the article, there is a link to MS' research site, where you can find Netscan, a proof of concept that just tracks MS' groups."
d .a sp?timespan=m&searchdate=6/30/2003&NGID=11818&sear chfor=comp.lang.python
the default view only shows windowsxp groups, but nothing stops you from typing in another keyword. for example, here's a comp.lang.python reportcard for the current month:
http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/reportcar
(remove spaces as necessary)
at 280 pages? oops. and I thought it would be a good idea to add another 150-200 pages to the second edition...
maybe you meant Programming Python, 2nd Edition?
the late Frank Willison wrote about the extraordinary size of that book in this article.
Perhaps people should encourage 'upstream' developers more to accept debian package building specs as part of their base tree
Well, they could at least send a note to the upstream developers when they find a problem...
(I'm the author of one of the listed packages, and I don't have the slightest idea what that announcement is talking about. My library sure doesn't depend on the library they claim is buggy...)
well, at least someone bought www.vasoftware.biz
Oh, you're Håkan Lans? -- Data processing system and apparatus for color graphics display (1981)
you mean "Nurway", don't you? or maybe "Norway, ;-)
Pennsylvania"?
yeah, but (IIRC and IANAL) even if you are the first to file, you cannot get a patent if someone else (be it the inventor or a third party) has published a description of the method, or sold a product that clearly uses the method.
;-).
(if it's not obvious that a given product uses a certain method, that method is still patentable).
(on the other hand, I think some US company has patented the wheel
Really? I thought the European patent laws were stricter than US Patent laws in respect to Prior Art:
''To be novel, an invention must not form part of the prior art on the date the European patent application is filed or its priority date, if priority is claimed to a corresponding application. The prior art is deemed to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description or by use or in any other way that will enable the public to determine what the invention is''
the european patent convention also says that ''Methods of doing business are grouped with methods of performing mental acts and rules for playing games as being unpatentable''
But IANAL, of course. Guess it takes on of those to explain how on earth the Norwegian patent office can grant a patent that clearly violates European conventions, and have that one apply to other European countries...
here's a rough translation of the patent summary, from the sidebar:
''Norwegian patent no. 17 98 88 describes a
system where the user of a public network
can get information about availability,
order on-line, and get confirmation in real
time. This means that the patent covers most ordering systems for ordinary phones, the Internet, and mobile phones.''
(dom är inte kloka, norrmännen... suck.)
If someone beats you to your account and "guesses" your password, now they can masquerade as you, and if they change the password, you can't even get into the account
I'm probably just extremely dense, but isn't dotcommail just yet another free mail service?
do you really think people are stupid enough to think that a mail from 'slashdot@dotcomnow.com' (or 'slashdot@hotmail.com' which I just grabbed) must necessarily come from someone working for slashdot?
if that's the case, we're in deep trouble. there are hundreds of free mail services out there...
So much for the wonders of Object Oriented Programming - the biggest intellectual fraud of the nineties
yeah, that's probably why they wrote the front-end in Python...