IBM's OS/2 was able to run DOS and Windows problems. OS/2 was billed as "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows". I've always thought that feature was actually OS/2's downfall. Back in the day when I had to make a choice whether to develop for Windows or for OS/2 I chose Windows because I knew that my program would run on both Windows *and* OS/2.
So, implementing Android compatibility guarantees that nobody will develop for Windows Phone. As OS/2 proved, making Windows Phone a "better Android than an Android" is a losing strategy.
Soap doesn't kill bacteria, it merely dissolves the oil that enables the bacteria to cling to your skin, thus allowing water to flush them away. Soap and water is so effective at removing bacteria that adding a microbial agent to the soap has no benefit, because there are so few bacteria left on your skin to kill...
Why build a better type system, or any type system at all, when I can just call everything an Object? A better type system makes it easier for developers to create correctly working, and efficient, code. Coding for concurrency is very difficult and a proper concurrency approach (ala Go or Rust) make it much easier for developers to develop correctly working, and efficient, code. Add-on libraries like Akka make things a little easier but can't help nearly as much as a properly designed concurrency architecture.
I have no interest in a new language that has concurrency story at all. Any new language needs to address the biggest development challenge of this time - coding for multiple cores.
If they get a loan from a private lender then it's not aid. If they get a loan from the government then it's aid. Just ask any Republican representative.
Telsa paid 2.6% on a 465 million dollar loan while students pay 6.8%. That's the worst kind of corporate welfare.
I think a better analogy would be if you mail a letter in an envelope that can simply be held up to a light in order to read the contents then it's fair game, but if you send your message in a lead-lined envelope that must be opened in order to read the contents then a warrant is required.
Believing in reality is not necessary for reality at all. One of the most important aspects of reality is, that it is real. No faith needed. A wall is just there, and even if you stop believing in the wall, you will still hit your head if you try to run through it.
Ah, not necessarily. There is an infinitesimal chance that instead of hitting your head on the wall that you will instead disappear from one side of the wall and reappear on the other. This is proven physics. What's your reality now?
Our reality is basically what whatever we *think* is reality.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM's OS/2 was able to run DOS and Windows problems. OS/2 was billed as "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows".
I've always thought that feature was actually OS/2's downfall. Back in the day when I had to make a choice whether to develop for Windows or for OS/2 I chose Windows because I knew that my program would run on both Windows *and* OS/2.
So, implementing Android compatibility guarantees that nobody will develop for Windows Phone. As OS/2 proved, making Windows Phone a "better Android than an Android" is a losing strategy.
It is a given that soap kills bacteria.
Soap doesn't kill bacteria, it merely dissolves the oil that enables the bacteria to cling to your skin, thus allowing water to flush them away.
Soap and water is so effective at removing bacteria that adding a microbial agent to the soap has no benefit, because there are so few bacteria left on your skin to kill...
Is it really the language's job to bake that in?
Why build a better type system, or any type system at all, when I can just call everything an Object?
A better type system makes it easier for developers to create correctly working, and efficient, code.
Coding for concurrency is very difficult and a proper concurrency approach (ala Go or Rust) make it much easier for developers to develop correctly working, and efficient, code.
Add-on libraries like Akka make things a little easier but can't help nearly as much as a properly designed concurrency architecture.
I have no interest in a new language that has concurrency story at all.
Should be 'has no concurrency story', geez....
I have no interest in a new language that has concurrency story at all.
Any new language needs to address the biggest development challenge of this time - coding for multiple cores.
If they get a loan from a private lender then it's not aid.
If they get a loan from the government then it's aid.
Just ask any Republican representative.
Telsa paid 2.6% on a 465 million dollar loan while students pay 6.8%.
That's the worst kind of corporate welfare.
You are conflating religion with spirituality. Religions deserve to be disparaged.
It says 'In God We Trust' right on our money. Who's jamming what down who's throats?
Like a pen with an embedded camera that can broadcast pictures of a test to the group of students that have to take it next period....
Is the point to give kids the skillz they need to become criminals? A computer science club should be about *making* software...
I think a better analogy would be if you mail a letter in an envelope that can simply be held up to a light in order to read the contents then it's fair game, but if you send your message in a lead-lined envelope that must be opened in order to read the contents then a warrant is required.
Believing in reality is not necessary for reality at all. One of the most important aspects of reality is, that it is real. No faith needed. A wall is just there, and even if you stop believing in the wall, you will still hit your head if you try to run through it.
Ah, not necessarily. There is an infinitesimal chance that instead of hitting your head on the wall that you will instead disappear from one side of the wall and reappear on the other. This is proven physics. What's your reality now?
Our reality is basically what whatever we *think* is reality.