, as you can tell from his meticulous list of instances when == is not transitive.
Which highlights his laughable ignorance. He clearly doesn't understand dynamic languages. If you do the same comparisons in other dynamic languages, or others with the relevant type casts, you'll get the exact same results.
Then again, I'm not trying to defend a long-debunked meme. I appreciate the effort you put in to your "rebuttal", but it's laughably incompetent. A bit like the "fractal" article itself.
They don't exist. I've asked the "what's wrong with it" question countless times. I've never received an actual answer. I think your six points are about spot on, that's pretty much all the article has to offer.
I disagree with the first point, for obvious reasons. As well as point 5, which is not a language issue. Point 6 would need some clarification as it's completely unsupported. Point 2 doesn't make sense to me. How many languages throw an exception on a parse error? What if the error is in the handler itself? Further, he seems to hate the fact that PHP doesn't have MORE fatal errors. I'm convinced that he'd complain, as he did in other cases, if a parse error *wasn't* fatal. It's a very odd complaint.
I'd give the author points 3, and 4. Of course, even if I grant him all six, it hardly makes PHP a "fractal" of bad design.
In many places, it's illegal to engage in the practice of unlicensed engineering.
We could stand a good crack-down. I'm sick of seeing all the one-skill-wonders running around calling themselves "engineers" to feed their fragile egos. It does a serious disservices to REAL engineers, like the parent.
- it utilisies the very thing that we do in other languages where it isn't necessary to make our code clear.
Except it imposes a burden on the developer, which, in sane languages, can be handled with a single click on the the pretty-print button.
This argument drives me crazy. It completely ignores *every other factor* that affects code legibility. I've even seen Python zealots argue that all Python code readable because indentation is enforced. What a joke! I've seen plenty of illegible Python code.
And yes, when the indentation level changes by more than one level, it's significantly more difficult to read than other languages. Even if you disagree, you've got to admit that it's far easier to tell when a block begins and ends when you have two indicators instead of one.
If that's not to your liking, consider that, in Python, it's possible to have two programs that appear visually identical but are, in fact, different. You want to talk about readability while advocating a language in which you can easily create errors that you actually can't see? It's the height of absurdity.
I'm pretty sure that python has its own list of issues. Maybe not to the same extent as PHP, but they exist.
Python's problems are far broader and deeper than PHP's. At least with PHP, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the language. Python, on the other hand, is beyond salvation.
Just one example: The whitespace issue isn't simply a matter of personal preference. It's why Python will NEVER have anonymous functions without laughably absurd limitations.
So defined by whom? On what basis? Can you direct me to the relevant literature? (Don't look too hard, you won't find anything. Since we're playing CS101, you should pay particularly close attention to formal language theory, which you'll find quite illuminating.)
HTML5+CSS3 is known to be Turing complete, yet no one would call HTML5+CSS3 a "programming language". There are other languages which are broadly recognized as "programming languages" which are not Turing complete. (CS101 again: TM's provide just one of many models of computation. Another, which is not Turing complete, would be FSM's. There are many others.)
See, this thread is all about informal definitions. What is considered a programming language or not in a practical sense. The problem, of course, is that everyone here seems to have forgotten that! If you want to be pedantic, a programming language can be Turing complete, or not. They're just ways in which instructions are provided to a computer.
It's not about mere basic arithmetic, it's about whether or not symbolic computation is possible. The litmus test is whether or not you can write a simulation of a universal Turing Machine within the computer language.
Oh, in that case, HTML5 +CSS3 qualifies. The more you know.
Despite that fact, no one in their right mind would describe the combination that way. I'd find better criteria, if I were you.
The fact that you think not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited showcases that your programming experience is limited to front-end development.
It's clear that he thinks that anyone who thinks that "not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited" somehow indicates that that person's "programming experience is limited to front-end development"
It's far more irrational than I originally thought!
One is (obviously) not an indicator of the other. You'd think will all the self-proclaimed "rationalists" on Slashdot that this sort of nonsense wouldn't be so prevalent.
Slashdot Mirror
Because reading is difficult for you:
The claim was that == was intransitive. My claim was that, like every other language, transitivity only breaks down when you start to mix types.
Feel silly yet? You should.
As Patman64 already said
And you felt the need to repeat it? Even though his reply was completely idiotic? Why?
, as you can tell from his meticulous list of instances when == is not transitive.
Which highlights his laughable ignorance. He clearly doesn't understand dynamic languages. If you do the same comparisons in other dynamic languages, or others with the relevant type casts, you'll get the exact same results.
Then again, I'm not trying to defend a long-debunked meme. I appreciate the effort you put in to your "rebuttal", but it's laughably incompetent. A bit like the "fractal" article itself.
They don't exist. I've asked the "what's wrong with it" question countless times. I've never received an actual answer. I think your six points are about spot on, that's pretty much all the article has to offer.
I disagree with the first point, for obvious reasons. As well as point 5, which is not a language issue. Point 6 would need some clarification as it's completely unsupported. Point 2 doesn't make sense to me. How many languages throw an exception on a parse error? What if the error is in the handler itself? Further, he seems to hate the fact that PHP doesn't have MORE fatal errors. I'm convinced that he'd complain, as he did in other cases, if a parse error *wasn't* fatal. It's a very odd complaint.
I'd give the author points 3, and 4. Of course, even if I grant him all six, it hardly makes PHP a "fractal" of bad design.
But there is!
In many places, it's illegal to engage in the practice of unlicensed engineering.
We could stand a good crack-down. I'm sick of seeing all the one-skill-wonders running around calling themselves "engineers" to feed their fragile egos. It does a serious disservices to REAL engineers, like the parent.
- it utilisies the very thing that we do in other languages where it isn't necessary to make our code clear.
Except it imposes a burden on the developer, which, in sane languages, can be handled with a single click on the the pretty-print button.
This argument drives me crazy. It completely ignores *every other factor* that affects code legibility. I've even seen Python zealots argue that all Python code readable because indentation is enforced. What a joke! I've seen plenty of illegible Python code.
And yes, when the indentation level changes by more than one level, it's significantly more difficult to read than other languages. Even if you disagree, you've got to admit that it's far easier to tell when a block begins and ends when you have two indicators instead of one.
If that's not to your liking, consider that, in Python, it's possible to have two programs that appear visually identical but are, in fact, different. You want to talk about readability while advocating a language in which you can easily create errors that you actually can't see? It's the height of absurdity.
I'm pretty sure that python has its own list of issues. Maybe not to the same extent as PHP, but they exist.
Python's problems are far broader and deeper than PHP's. At least with PHP, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the language. Python, on the other hand, is beyond salvation.
Just one example: The whitespace issue isn't simply a matter of personal preference. It's why Python will NEVER have anonymous functions without laughably absurd limitations.
This is Slashdot so ... probably not.
That definition is decades old.
So defined by whom? On what basis? Can you direct me to the relevant literature? (Don't look too hard, you won't find anything. Since we're playing CS101, you should pay particularly close attention to formal language theory, which you'll find quite illuminating.)
HTML5+CSS3 is known to be Turing complete, yet no one would call HTML5+CSS3 a "programming language". There are other languages which are broadly recognized as "programming languages" which are not Turing complete. (CS101 again: TM's provide just one of many models of computation. Another, which is not Turing complete, would be FSM's. There are many others.)
See, this thread is all about informal definitions. What is considered a programming language or not in a practical sense. The problem, of course, is that everyone here seems to have forgotten that! If you want to be pedantic, a programming language can be Turing complete, or not. They're just ways in which instructions are provided to a computer.
It's not about mere basic arithmetic, it's about whether or not symbolic computation is possible. The litmus test is whether or not you can write a simulation of a universal Turing Machine within the computer language.
Oh, in that case, HTML5 +CSS3 qualifies. The more you know.
Despite that fact, no one in their right mind would describe the combination that way. I'd find better criteria, if I were you.
Then don't put it in the home.
Support your local Neighborhood Networks center!
It really does make a difference.
we can get pedantic about the difference between "coding" and "programming" languages
No, you can't. There is no formal distinction. There isn't even a commonly understood / agreed upon informal distinction!
Pretending that such a distinction exists is just another silly way for the otherwise unskilled to make themselves feel superior to their peers.
Yes, you're right.
The fact that you think not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited showcases that your programming experience is limited to front-end development.
It's clear that he thinks that anyone who thinks that "not knowing CSS will make a programmer limited" somehow indicates that that person's "programming experience is limited to front-end development"
It's far more irrational than I originally thought!
One is (obviously) not an indicator of the other. You'd think will all the self-proclaimed "rationalists" on Slashdot that this sort of nonsense wouldn't be so prevalent.
Going back to languages, no language guarantees good income, not even comfortable jobs.
Except COBOL.
LOL, what?
How does being familiar with CSS indicate that a persons programming experience is limited to "front-end development"?
I can't rightly comprehend the confusion of ideas that would provoke such a statement!
There's a difference?
HTML5 + CSS3 is Turing complete, which is the usual criteria.
Picking nits...
See, old stuff that *they* like is important. Working on that stuff is a great idea.
Working on old stuff that they don't care about is clearly a waste of time.
Anyhow, here's a start for you: GCC PRC-Tools Which is likely what you want. Ron's Obsolete Palm OS Computing Information Page has a working link to HotPaw, which is better than nothing.
You'll also want to take advantage of the Wayback Machine to see what's behind all the dead links you're surely running in to.
This is Slashdot, right?
This is the last thing I expected to find here.
I guess it's BlackBerry or FireFox OS for you.
I'd call that a win anyway, but ymmv.
Yes.
How about "pride in your work"? Remember that old maxim "anything worth doing is worth doing well"?
I simply can't believe that money is the only thing that motivates people.
For the TL;DR crowd - Go read some Paul Tillich
What we need is FireFox OS on the desktop.
Hate Mozilla all you want, this is exactly the reason we need them around.
A lesson about infinity from a guy who fails at basic geometry... I think I'll skip this one.
as much fun to code in as Python
Wow, that's almost as fun as a trip to the dentist!