No surprise there. It's because it doesn't actually exist. You'll find absolutely no research to support your assertions.
Since you don't care about evidence and obviously like accepting things on blind faith, I have an argument that's very likely to convince you: The ghost of Steve Jobs appeared to me on a piece of toast and told me that design patterns were nonsense.
Well, by calling a factory, you could deduce something about the way it works.
In your example, you don't. You gain absolutely no benefit. It's just you desperately trying to force it in to conform to terms with which you're comfortable, but it's silly and pointless self-delusion. That fact is that GoF "patterns" not based on actual research. They are nothing more than snake-oil manufactured out of whatever the GoF decided sounded good to them.
Here in reality, we rely on facts and evidence. In GoF land, whatever silly nonsense you can imagine is a-okay!
If you examine the Linux kernel, you will see that the VFS layer is very OO in its design.
Ah, you're one of those. You can't reason with the "everything is OO" nuts and you're a step beyond them; your ridiculous example implies you're also one of the rare "patterns are everywhere" nuts.
Your like the Ray Comfort of programmers. "Evidence of design patterns is all around us. Just look at this banana..."
The GoF didn't uncover them all but they are certainly common patterns.
So... Where's the evidence? Where's the research? What do you think about beliefs unsupported by evidence?
It's very helpful to be able to refer to them with a widely understood name.
Are you sure about that? Again, where's the evidence? You can tell me personal stories all day, and I can match every one with a tale of pattern abuse. That won't get us anywhere. Let me known when there's some actual research that supports your assertion.
The unix open(2) system call is a classic factory pattern.
That's more than a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Connecting this to your earlier quote, how does inexplicably calling it a "factory" benefit anyone?
The incredulity that the parent expressed at the very prospect of laboring exclusively for the benefit of others implies that he's very selfish. So selfish, in fact, that he cannot even comprehend the idea that others would act selflessly.
Please, "typing" a "program" in C is not "writing code". If you're not toggling bits from the front panel, you're not writing code. You don't even get into the underlying instructions that are actually doing things.
C is just giving you some very basic concepts. It's not "writing code", it's using an interface that has some basic programming logic for users to practice "concepts".
When we interview people under 30 they are saying stuff like "I do Apple IOS programming and nothing else".
Do you live in the Unixtown, were everyone specializes in exactly one thing?
I can only imagine the conversations you must have over there: "Hi, I'm Bob and I know Javascript" "Hi Bob, I'm Alice, and I know HTML" "Nice to meet you Alice. Let me introduce you to Carl. He knows CSS. If we got together, we could make a webpage." "What a great idea! I'll call Dora. She knows a cookie recipe. We can put it online If we can find someone who can use Apache."
I'm not going to rehash this with you. If you want to relive the experience, go hunt down the old thread. Maybe you'll understand it the second time around.
My advice to you? Move on with your life. It's not that important. Just let it go.
Ah, I remember. It seems that you missed the entire point of that waste of my time.
The point was that your proclamations were absurd as, if we were to accept them, you'd be forced to that conclusion.
How you came away with the belief that I "believe in homeopathy" is beyond me. After all, I did not, and still do not, agree with your ridiculous assertions.
It's sad, but true. iOS still has the best accessibility options for blind and low vision users. Well, you might as well say it's the only option as it's completely unmatched.
Blind people seems to be OK with that.
They're used to getting screwed, paying way too much for accessible tech.
I haven't met anyone yet with the interest but not the aptitude. I taught computer programming to adult learners for several years as an optional part of a computer literacy series. I had exactly two students fail to complete the course -- both because they refused to do any of the exercises. You can't learn to program without programming, just like you can't learn to drive without driving.
Programming is absurdly simple. It's been my experience that anyone can learn to write computer programs with surprisingly little effort. This terrifies some people. I'll let you puzzle out why.
Yeah, it's so hard that children can easily teach themselves. It's ridiculously easy. How many of the users here taught themselves to write code before they age of 10? Face it, it doesn't take a special mind or superior intellect to write code. It does not make you special. Get over it.
That's all this is. "Look, normal weight people can be unhealthy too!" (So it's okay that I'm obese...) "Personal responsibility never works!" (So I shouldn't even try...)
If we really want to solve the societal pandemic of obesity we need to completely discard the idea that it's caused by some personal moral failing
(It's not my fault that I can't control my diet or be bothered to exercise regularly. It's society!)
I've little doubt that this post will justify that package of Oreos you'll shovel down later. Damn society, keeping you fat.
Slashdot Mirror
try liiking at the citations into the large bibliography. There's the research right there.
Look again. What you think is there, simply isn't there. You just really wish it was.
I hate to break it to you, but your holy book is nothing more than the mad scribblings of some 90's guys. It has no rational basis.
Not that you care. I can't argue with religious zealots.
oooh I dunno.
No surprise there. It's because it doesn't actually exist. You'll find absolutely no research to support your assertions.
Since you don't care about evidence and obviously like accepting things on blind faith, I have an argument that's very likely to convince you: The ghost of Steve Jobs appeared to me on a piece of toast and told me that design patterns were nonsense.
Well, by calling a factory, you could deduce something about the way it works.
In your example, you don't. You gain absolutely no benefit. It's just you desperately trying to force it in to conform to terms with which you're comfortable, but it's silly and pointless self-delusion. That fact is that GoF "patterns" not based on actual research. They are nothing more than snake-oil manufactured out of whatever the GoF decided sounded good to them.
Here in reality, we rely on facts and evidence. In GoF land, whatever silly nonsense you can imagine is a-okay!
If you examine the Linux kernel, you will see that the VFS layer is very OO in its design.
Ah, you're one of those. You can't reason with the "everything is OO" nuts and you're a step beyond them; your ridiculous example implies you're also one of the rare "patterns are everywhere" nuts.
Your like the Ray Comfort of programmers. "Evidence of design patterns is all around us. Just look at this banana..."
The GoF didn't uncover them all but they are certainly common patterns.
So ... Where's the evidence? Where's the research? What do you think about beliefs unsupported by evidence?
It's very helpful to be able to refer to them with a widely understood name.
Are you sure about that? Again, where's the evidence? You can tell me personal stories all day, and I can match every one with a tale of pattern abuse. That won't get us anywhere. Let me known when there's some actual research that supports your assertion.
The unix open(2) system call is a classic factory pattern.
That's more than a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Connecting this to your earlier quote, how does inexplicably calling it a "factory" benefit anyone?
so they looked at patterns people had been using
Which is precisely what they did NOT do. They didn't uncover them, they just made shit up.
'there is a problem,
(Which we have absolutely no reason to believe is common because we did no research what-so-ever.)
this factory pattern will solve it'
(Though we have no reason to believe that it's a common solution, or even a good general solution.)
'I used a factory pattern, now you have an idea of what to expect from this code'.
That much is true. When I see a "factory pattern", or any other "pattern", I know that the code is very likely to be total garbage.
Only if they understand Italian. If you're reading it in English, stick with Pinsky's translation. He captures the triple rhyming surprisingly well.
The incredulity that the parent expressed at the very prospect of laboring exclusively for the benefit of others implies that he's very selfish. So selfish, in fact, that he cannot even comprehend the idea that others would act selflessly.
Yes, because of course people will do hundreds of hours of work for free.
They will, as it turns out. You'll find countless examples on the internet. Not everyone is as selfish as you.
It's more of an API issue than a language issue. Node.js offers a file system API, and the W3C File API has wide browser support.
A third-party library simply isn't an option, as any such library would depend on the underlying API.
So... what's wrong with it?
Please, "typing" a "program" in C is not "writing code". If you're not toggling bits from the front panel, you're not writing code. You don't even get into the underlying instructions that are actually doing things.
C is just giving you some very basic concepts. It's not "writing code", it's using an interface that has some basic programming logic for users to practice "concepts".
When we interview people under 30 they are saying stuff like "I do Apple IOS programming and nothing else".
Do you live in the Unixtown, were everyone specializes in exactly one thing?
I can only imagine the conversations you must have over there: "Hi, I'm Bob and I know Javascript" "Hi Bob, I'm Alice, and I know HTML" "Nice to meet you Alice. Let me introduce you to Carl. He knows CSS. If we got together, we could make a webpage." "What a great idea! I'll call Dora. She knows a cookie recipe. We can put it online If we can find someone who can use Apache."
I'm not going to rehash this with you. If you want to relive the experience, go hunt down the old thread. Maybe you'll understand it the second time around.
My advice to you? Move on with your life. It's not that important. Just let it go.
Ah, I remember. It seems that you missed the entire point of that waste of my time.
The point was that your proclamations were absurd as, if we were to accept them, you'd be forced to that conclusion.
How you came away with the belief that I "believe in homeopathy" is beyond me. After all, I did not, and still do not, agree with your ridiculous assertions.
Ummm... That does not in any way lend support to his laughably absurd claim.
Where did you come up with that? I've never advocated homeopathy.
Most of modern math is premised upon the axiom of choice (equivalent to free will)
Wow, no. Where did you come up with that particular bit of complete and total nonsense?
but I believe A, I change my belief. This is what a rational being does.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that belief is subject to the will.
(Phew, someone should invent a shorter way to say that...)
Try any undergrad text on epistemology. You seem in dire need of one.
But if you do it the other way, and only believe in that which can be proven, the world makes much more sense.
How simple minded. If you only believed that which can be proven to be true, you'd believe very little -- almost nothing.
Manzier!
It's sad, but true. iOS still has the best accessibility options for blind and low vision users. Well, you might as well say it's the only option as it's completely unmatched.
Blind people seems to be OK with that.
They're used to getting screwed, paying way too much for accessible tech.
Are you a scientist? I don't think you are.
I'm starting to seriously doubt your credentials...
you can't just say shit like "the last thing we need is ___" without testing the damned hypothesis
That's not an hypothesis, not in the scientific sense at least, as it's not testable. Not for any given combination of 'we' and ___!
I haven't met anyone yet with the interest but not the aptitude. I taught computer programming to adult learners for several years as an optional part of a computer literacy series. I had exactly two students fail to complete the course -- both because they refused to do any of the exercises. You can't learn to program without programming, just like you can't learn to drive without driving.
Programming is absurdly simple. It's been my experience that anyone can learn to write computer programs with surprisingly little effort. This terrifies some people. I'll let you puzzle out why.
Yeah, it's so hard that children can easily teach themselves. It's ridiculously easy. How many of the users here taught themselves to write code before they age of 10? Face it, it doesn't take a special mind or superior intellect to write code. It does not make you special. Get over it.
Junkie logic.
That's all this is. "Look, normal weight people can be unhealthy too!" (So it's okay that I'm obese...) "Personal responsibility never works!" (So I shouldn't even try...)
If we really want to solve the societal pandemic of obesity we need to completely discard the idea that it's caused by some personal moral failing
(It's not my fault that I can't control my diet or be bothered to exercise regularly. It's society!)
I've little doubt that this post will justify that package of Oreos you'll shovel down later. Damn society, keeping you fat.
Sun come up, sun goes down, he had the only holodeck on DS9, never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.