It's all a matter of philosophy. There's been a bit of churning the past few decades, but I prefer this simple differentiation: A theory is a predictive model, an hypothesis is a testable prediction. The utility of a theory is then determined by the success of the hypotheses it generates.
Let's take FireFoxOS as an example. I have a ZTE Open, the lowest of the low-end, running FXOS 1.2 -- an older, slower, version of the OS. The only advantage is its excellent support for web standards.
There are some awful examples of HTML5 apps on the platform, notably the popular solitaire game offered through the marketplace. There are also exceptional apps, that you'd think were native if they were running on any other platform, such as fast-paced 3d games and physics-based games that run without slow-downs or stuttering at a high frame-rate. Seeing what's possible, there's no excuse for far less demanding apps to perform so poorly.
Now, you do take a performance hit when you use tools like PhoneGap that purport to abstract away differences between platforms -- doubly so when you add-on ridiculous libraries like jQueryUI, which are known to slow-down your UI dramatically. Don't be stupid, don't use awful third-party libraries, and avoid unnecessary layers of abstraction and you can have a fast and responsive HTML5 app.
I've not see a mess like that in ages. Not only is your Latin impressively wrong, your application of logic is impossibly bad.
It all goes to hell at the very beginning with "Ad prop". I don't even know what you were trying to say. It's complete gibberish. (If I had to guess, you were trying to use the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" which directly translates to "after this, therefore, because of this". Though that has nothing to do with the rest of your post.)
Moving on, the logic is as incomprehensible as your latin. "If this then that" (to which you thought that nonsense you wrote translates) is perfectly acceptable. Consider, for example, the modus ponens form: a -> b; a;:. b (by material implication, if you'd rather: a' v b; a;:. b)
I should also note, for the sake of my own sanity, that an invalid argument asserts nothing about the truth of the conclusion. Shouting "logical fallacy!" is silly under the best of circumstances. It's absurd when you clearly don't understand basic logic.
Well, no. Not voting is generally interpreted a few ways, none of which are "You're protesting against the political system". It's usually "You're too lazy to get out and vote", "You couldn't be bothered to remember the date of the election", or "You were so uninformed that you didn't know there was an election".
You may want to consider the message your non-voting habit actually sends, and adjust your actions accordingly .
The advantage is usually in readability. Programming languages are, for the most part, terse enough. Most could benefit from a little verbosity. Brevity is not always beneficial.
Java is interesting as it's not the syntax and keywords that lead to it's absurd verbosity. That's a function of the language itself and the JCL.
To all autodidacts: Imagine if YOU were to make a statement this absurd, without even a hint of self doubt. Worse, what if this is the kind of thing you actually believe as a result of your online "learning" adventures?
This is why a formal education is important. On your own, you could very well end up the the AC above -- so deeply misinformed that there's little hope for recovery.
During periods of social change where there is a clear divide between groups over an issue, the side that ultimately loses is said to have been on the "wrong side of history". People who supported segregation, for example, would have been on the "wrong side of history" as segregation is no longer socially acceptable and few can image that there would have ever been a debate! A more modern example would be gay rights. While it's not over yet, it's pretty clear which side will ultimately "win" and which side will fall on the "wrong side of history".
On women's equality, I expect the outcome to ultimately fall in favor of the feminists. My predictions may be a bit premature, but that's what I expect none-the-less.
A real reference, please, not anecdotes repeated on a few blogs. The unpublished paper, lacking peer-review, you cite does assert some figures from which the author makes an inference from some uncited figures.
In the real world, where research is conducted and papers are peer-reviewed and published:
You'll quickly discover that these mysterious "just can't do it" students are mentioned nowhere in the literature. (The closest thing you could find was that some students have a higher aptitude!) It's a myth, promulgated by people who (inexplicably) have make their ability to program a significant part of their identity.
I've yet to have a student who simply "didn't get it". No study that I've encountered mentions these "just can't do it" students.
You just want to believe that you're somehow special because you can write computer programs. Odd, as even children can, and often do, successfully teach themselves!
Slashdot Mirror
It's all a matter of philosophy. There's been a bit of churning the past few decades, but I prefer this simple differentiation: A theory is a predictive model, an hypothesis is a testable prediction. The utility of a theory is then determined by the success of the hypotheses it generates.
Don't use just one bloated library, use two!
To your examples
1. If you're really that slow, write a single, very short (If performance is an issue,
Performance usually doesn't become an issue until you start using jQuery. Nothing kills your UI faster than that nightmare.
Learn a bit more about the topic and you'll understand.
I'd rather do things right. Sacrificing performance and, in the case of jQuery, readability to save a few minutes seems ridiculous.
It's not 2008 anymore. Get with the times.
Let's take FireFoxOS as an example. I have a ZTE Open, the lowest of the low-end, running FXOS 1.2 -- an older, slower, version of the OS. The only advantage is its excellent support for web standards.
There are some awful examples of HTML5 apps on the platform, notably the popular solitaire game offered through the marketplace. There are also exceptional apps, that you'd think were native if they were running on any other platform, such as fast-paced 3d games and physics-based games that run without slow-downs or stuttering at a high frame-rate. Seeing what's possible, there's no excuse for far less demanding apps to perform so poorly.
Now, you do take a performance hit when you use tools like PhoneGap that purport to abstract away differences between platforms -- doubly so when you add-on ridiculous libraries like jQueryUI, which are known to slow-down your UI dramatically. Don't be stupid, don't use awful third-party libraries, and avoid unnecessary layers of abstraction and you can have a fast and responsive HTML5 app.
Only if they're written by morons.
Of course, that's true regardless of the technology.
Medium.com explains it all.
It's essentially blogspot disguised as a news site.
Look forward to my article explaining how the CMB cold spot is the result of CFC's breaking down galactic ozone. Also, aliens.
I've not see a mess like that in ages. Not only is your Latin impressively wrong, your application of logic is impossibly bad.
It all goes to hell at the very beginning with "Ad prop". I don't even know what you were trying to say. It's complete gibberish. (If I had to guess, you were trying to use the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" which directly translates to "after this, therefore, because of this". Though that has nothing to do with the rest of your post.)
Moving on, the logic is as incomprehensible as your latin. "If this then that" (to which you thought that nonsense you wrote translates) is perfectly acceptable. Consider, for example, the modus ponens form: a -> b; a; :. b (by material implication, if you'd rather: a' v b; a; :. b)
I should also note, for the sake of my own sanity, that an invalid argument asserts nothing about the truth of the conclusion. Shouting "logical fallacy!" is silly under the best of circumstances. It's absurd when you clearly don't understand basic logic.
Well, no. Not voting is generally interpreted a few ways, none of which are "You're protesting against the political system". It's usually "You're too lazy to get out and vote", "You couldn't be bothered to remember the date of the election", or "You were so uninformed that you didn't know there was an election".
You may want to consider the message your non-voting habit actually sends, and adjust your actions accordingly .
The advantage is usually in readability. Programming languages are, for the most part, terse enough. Most could benefit from a little verbosity. Brevity is not always beneficial.
Java is interesting as it's not the syntax and keywords that lead to it's absurd verbosity. That's a function of the language itself and the JCL.
If you think that's a real problem, you should forget about computers and live in fear of the average grade-schooler.
Wait, that's your argument? Fewer keystrokes?
How incredibly stupid.
Whereas scientists principally use deduction
To all autodidacts: Imagine if YOU were to make a statement this absurd, without even a hint of self doubt. Worse, what if this is the kind of thing you actually believe as a result of your online "learning" adventures?
This is why a formal education is important. On your own, you could very well end up the the AC above -- so deeply misinformed that there's little hope for recovery.
No one buys a mobile phone to replace a laptop. They're fundamentally different.
I hadn't considered that, though I can see how that's seemingly inescapable.
But they will. Look at all the impotent whining above over an insignificant change made to Firefox more than a year ago.
People will cry, and cry loudly, over any stupid little thing.
During periods of social change where there is a clear divide between groups over an issue, the side that ultimately loses is said to have been on the "wrong side of history". People who supported segregation, for example, would have been on the "wrong side of history" as segregation is no longer socially acceptable and few can image that there would have ever been a debate! A more modern example would be gay rights. While it's not over yet, it's pretty clear which side will ultimately "win" and which side will fall on the "wrong side of history".
On women's equality, I expect the outcome to ultimately fall in favor of the feminists. My predictions may be a bit premature, but that's what I expect none-the-less.
No one thinks that now. It's like saying "The corn market has overtaken the office furniture market!" They don't compete in the same space.
Well, in a way he's right. It's not possible to persuade the ideologically driven. Facts don't matter to them.
Not that that has anything to do with your name, but I suspect that was just a joke to soften the sentiment.
Either way, welcome to the wrong side of history.
Well, this is Slashdot...
How's that insightful?
A real reference, please, not anecdotes repeated on a few blogs. The unpublished paper, lacking peer-review, you cite does assert some figures from which the author makes an inference from some uncited figures.
In the real world, where research is conducted and papers are peer-reviewed and published:
You'll quickly discover that these mysterious "just can't do it" students are mentioned nowhere in the literature. (The closest thing you could find was that some students have a higher aptitude!) It's a myth, promulgated by people who (inexplicably) have make their ability to program a significant part of their identity.
What a load of nonsense!
I've yet to have a student who simply "didn't get it". No study that I've encountered mentions these "just can't do it" students.
You just want to believe that you're somehow special because you can write computer programs. Odd, as even children can, and often do, successfully teach themselves!
Bigots aren't the victims.
Well, I can see how they'd think they're the victims. That's often the perspective of those on the losing side of history.