You could just admit that you couldn't prove your assertion.
The list of breaking changes within Python 2.x series is far shorter than the list of breaking changes within PHP 5.x
Go ahead, I'll wait.
I'm sure you have actual data to back-up your claim. Surely, you didn't just make that assertion hoping I'd blindly believe it, particularly with Python's rather notorious track-record with respect to compatibility between minor versions in the 2.x branch.
No, you're not that bold! You MUST have some data.
If Feminism is about equality, why is it still only named after women?
I can offer two reasons: 1) There's no reason to change the name. 2) Men aren't being oppressed (excluding the oppression that "happens" in the imagination of MRA's)
If Feminism is really about equality, then what have Feminists ever sacrificed to help men achieve equality?
Yes, it does. That just basic math. a/c=a/d=b/c=b/d pretty obviously shows a transitive relation! How can you possibly deny this? (Try this, given A=B=C=D, then, by necessity, A=C, A=D, B=A, and B=C. As A=B and B=C so must A=C or A=C and C=D so must A=D, etc. Really simple stuff here. Well, unless you're an autodidact -- those guys have a lot of trouble with stuff like this.)
If you actually want to continue making "your" ridiculous claim, in face of evidence that makes it look foolish, you'll need to show me a case where PHP's == operator is intransitive without mixing types.
Have you checked to see if your local community college offers a remedial reading course?
Something silly (that you'll, hopefully, understand) to show you what that claim looks like to everyone who's thought about it for at least 30 seconds.
There you go.
The first half of your post has nothing to do with transitivity either, which I just explained in my response to your other post.
Which you admit you were completely wrong about in your other reply. It's time to let it go, man. The facts are not on your side.
You just told me a/c == a/d and a/d == b/d implies a/c == b/d. That would be an example of transitivity, I grant you that. The problem is that in the example you have, a/c != a/d:
Which is precisely what you asked for! If a=b and c=d then it follows that a/c=a/d=b/c=b/d In Python a/c !=b/d.
See, the complaint about intransitive operators is laughable nonsense. It's just like every other language in that == is transitive until you start mixing types.
I mean, you've just conceded my entire argument. What is the objection?
Something silly (that you'll, hopefully, understand) to show you what that claim looks like to everyone who's thought about it for at least 30 seconds. >>> 1/2==1/3 True
A bit more obvious, but to the baffled and the unthinking it looks like Python can't be trusted with simple arithmetic. You've, sadly, fallen for the trap because you bought in to the meme and are thus willing to accept any argument that supports the position you've taken (not arrived at) even if it's silly nonsense.
Imagine, if you will, a mix of tabs and spaces that place two lines the same distance from the left-margin, yet, to Python, are at different indentation levels.
Visually identical means exactly that -- no visible distinction between the two programs. Take two screen-shots, they'll be identical down to the pixel.
Not 'similar'. Not 'really really close'. Identical.
It's not something you can defend. Which is funny, considering that it's not even the worst problem caused by Python's absurd use of whitespace.
Slashdot Mirror
I am just curious to know whether this chip can lead to the development of artificial brains to be used by Humans in future?
That's easy: No.
Kurzweil is the modern equivalent of a televangelist.
In short: You pulled it out of your ass.
I can accept that.
You could just admit that you couldn't prove your assertion.
The list of breaking changes within Python 2.x series is far shorter than the list of breaking changes within PHP 5.x
Go ahead, I'll wait.
I'm sure you have actual data to back-up your claim. Surely, you didn't just make that assertion hoping I'd blindly believe it, particularly with Python's rather notorious track-record with respect to compatibility between minor versions in the 2.x branch.
No, you're not that bold! You MUST have some data.
Right?
The list of breaking changes within Python 2.x series is far shorter than the list of breaking changes within PHP 5.x
Prove it.
Python: A fractal of bad design
#347: There's an option, off by default, to divide correctly.
What astonishing arrogance. So anyone who hasn't taken an ethics course doesn't know right from wrong?
Perhaps not, but they're probably not very good at ethical reasoning.
Let me guess: You're an autodidact?
As a vegetarian, I really can't live without eggs
...
Yeah, because when I said "men aren't being oppressed" I meant "No man, ever". Honestly, what's wrong with you?
Are you really this thick or just that deluded? Try thinking before spouting your MRA talking points.
Well, that's certainly a unique interpretation...
There are some men out there who actually hate women or look down on them as lesser
They appear to be (at least, I hope) disproportionately represented on Slashdot.
If Feminism is about equality, why is it still only named after women?
I can offer two reasons: 1) There's no reason to change the name. 2) Men aren't being oppressed (excluding the oppression that "happens" in the imagination of MRA's)
If Feminism is really about equality, then what have Feminists ever sacrificed to help men achieve equality?
See (2) above.
Otherwise, you need additional models, which violates the rule of not multiplying entities unnecessarily.
That's not a "rule".
And then they wasted even more on that failed mobile OS that nobody really wants.
I must have missed the part where it failed ... and the part where 'nobody' wants it.
You: oh, so that's why they remove useful features that everyone wants with every new release?
Wasn't everyone complaining about feature 'bloat' before? Damned if you do...
That's why they shove a godawful UI that nobody wants down everyone's throat?
I think by 'nobody' you mean 'a tiny minority'. It looks fine to me. What do you think is so awful about it?
Whatever the case may be, I'm not going to needlessly expend the energy to argue with you anymore.
I missed this bit earlier. Fine. If you hate my example, try this one from Lua:
a=10
b="011"
c="02"
print(a,b,c)
print(a
I'm hoping that there's a limit to your denial.
I'd like to leave my challenge open: Show me a case where PHP's == operator is intransitive without mixing types. Betcha can't.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. That just basic math. a/c=a/d=b/c=b/d pretty obviously shows a transitive relation! How can you possibly deny this? (Try this, given A=B=C=D, then, by necessity, A=C, A=D, B=A, and B=C. As A=B and B=C so must A=C or A=C and C=D so must A=D, etc. Really simple stuff here. Well, unless you're an autodidact -- those guys have a lot of trouble with stuff like this.)
If you actually want to continue making "your" ridiculous claim, in face of evidence that makes it look foolish, you'll need to show me a case where PHP's == operator is intransitive without mixing types.
Betcha can't do that!
Have you checked to see if your local community college offers a remedial reading course?
Something silly (that you'll, hopefully, understand) to show you what that claim looks like to everyone who's thought about it for at least 30 seconds.
There you go.
The first half of your post has nothing to do with transitivity either, which I just explained in my response to your other post.
Which you admit you were completely wrong about in your other reply. It's time to let it go, man. The facts are not on your side.
You just told me a/c == a/d and a/d == b/d implies a/c == b/d. That would be an example of transitivity, I grant you that. The problem is that in the example you have, a/c != a/d:
Which is precisely what you asked for! If a=b and c=d then it follows that a/c=a/d=b/c=b/d In Python a/c !=b/d.
See, the complaint about intransitive operators is laughable nonsense. It's just like every other language in that == is transitive until you start mixing types.
I mean, you've just conceded my entire argument. What is the objection?
Although Javascript can be used on the server side, it's not so easy.
It's actually rather simple. Still, your complaint was that it was impossible. Hence, my post.
What do you need to run a Javascript program? A browser.
That's one way, sure. Or you could use something like node.js Just type node yourprogram.js and enjoy.
Not that I'm a node.js fan, but it's been a popular topic for a while. Your post strongly implied that you'd never heard of it.
And the second half of your post has nothing to do with transitivity either.
As I took great pains to point out. Good job, Captain Obvious.
Now, read it again. Do you see the point I was trying to make?
I'm sure that your local community college also has a remedial reading course.
Actually, it seems that YOU don't know what transitivity is. I'm not surprised. The autodidacts have taken over slashdot.
What you've shown is A == D and B == E does not imply A / D == B / E. Where the hell is the A == B statement?
Okay, basic math for you:
If a=b and c=d then a/c = a/d (as c=d) = b/c = b/d (as b=a and d=c)
Nice try, though. I'm sure your local community college has a remedial math course for you.
Actually, just about any language can be easily used on the server side.
Yep,
One of the exceptions is... Javascript!
Wait, what?
Are you from the past?
Abstraction doesn't always make things easier, or you more productive.
The belief that it does is the great myth of abstraction.
Here you go:
>>> 1 == 1.0
True
>>> 2 == 2.0
True
>>> 1 / 2 == 1.0 / 2.0
False
Something silly (that you'll, hopefully, understand) to show you what that claim looks like to everyone who's thought about it for at least 30 seconds.
>>> 1/2==1/3
True
A bit more obvious, but to the baffled and the unthinking it looks like Python can't be trusted with simple arithmetic. You've, sadly, fallen for the trap because you bought in to the meme and are thus willing to accept any argument that supports the position you've taken (not arrived at) even if it's silly nonsense.
Imagine, if you will, a mix of tabs and spaces that place two lines the same distance from the left-margin, yet, to Python, are at different indentation levels.
Visually identical means exactly that -- no visible distinction between the two programs. Take two screen-shots, they'll be identical down to the pixel.
Not 'similar'. Not 'really really close'. Identical.
It's not something you can defend. Which is funny, considering that it's not even the worst problem caused by Python's absurd use of whitespace.