In American English, one says and writes "oriented". In British English, the word "orientated" is used for the same purpose.
Really? I speak British English, and I've never heard that usage. To me, to "orientate" means to get one's bearings by observing one's surroundings. To "orient", on the other hand, means to point or lean or have a tendency in a certain direction.
(Don't get me started on "architecting" and "administrating" either.)
Object-oriented code is a way of collecting functions and the data types they operate on into collections. Instead of having hundreds of functions that all operate on a particular data type, you group them together into a class—a collection of functions—so that you, the programmer, can easily see the relationship between them.
That's the best-case, well-behaved upside of OO, yes. But it has an evil twin called "object-oriented analysis".
Object-oriented analysis is a way of taking your company's essential business data - the data you need to trade and survive, which has been around since before punched cards and which will be around when mind-mapped DNA moon crystals are obsolete - and then wrapping that data together with hard-coded functions hacked up in some quirky, platform-specific language invented five minutes ago and for which all support will evaporate in another ten - and shoving that into a proprietary "business methods repository" running on a database sever which has never been tested written by a company which will go out of business tomorrow.
Next Thursday, when you've left the ICT department for greener fields writing iPad apps in HTML5, your successor will have to work out how to un-hack all that weird platform-specific code, decrypt the proprietary runtime format, extract the actual business data back into some standard database table format which can't include any of the class inheritance structure or "business methods".. and then shove the mutilated quivering remains back into the OO Design process to start the cycle again.
This procedure is called "mixing code and data" and is essential to the OO way of thinking. It is a beautiful shiny butterfly which only wants to be your friend and it is the bestest way of handling data ever imagined.
So now you suffer thru OO because it was "cool" back when parachute pants were also cool, and leggings.
So terrifyingly true.
It's interesting to note that the technologies which really made the Net and the Web scale - TCP/IP, HTML/HTTP and SQL databases- are not even remotely related to object orientation. The pre-Net 1980s and early-90s "online services" world, however, was utterly littered with the discarded corpses of object system after object system.
I've come to realise that there's something fundamentally "not even wrong" about the basic concepts of object orientation as it's usually sold. Like postmodernism, if you go looking you find that theres there's no actual definition to it. There's no formal mathematics, no reference implementation, no validity checking. No two experts or language designers will even agree what object orientation is. Is it inheritance? Well then, single or multiple? Either. Interfaces? COM has them, other systems don't. Is it classes? No, because there's prototype OO. Is it private/public members? No, because Javascript doesn't have those. Is it object persistence? Not according to C++ and PHP, but yes if you ask the object database people. Is a JSON data structure an object? Well, yes and no. Maybe.
The term "OO" is applied to systems which have fundamentally incompatible semantics. Good luck trying to get any of that mess to integrate. It only seems to work with a strong centralised hand coordinating the object repositories. The OO people's attempt to standardise objects across systems was Software Components, which gave us COM and CORBA. Those worked in very limited contexts - as a fancy way of loading C++ libraries in Windows - but not at web scale. The IETF answer, which did work, was to just give up on using objects and use prehistoric, pre-OO ASCII-based markup languages - SMTP and SGML/HTML/XML.
We got the Web by NOT using OO. Why do we want to keep trying to apply a failed concept?
You sub class this Button and give it the specifics.
Which is nice when that's what your toolkit actually does, but I seem to recall that that's exactly how most Win32 GUI toolkits don't work - that you can't subclass GUI controls at all and have to deal with them as black box objects that you work around.
Communism doesn't work in numbers above, oh, twenty or so without fascist control of the population.
That would have been quite a shock to Stalin, who spent the 1930s and 40s fighting a bitter - and very successful - war to the death with fascism.
(Oh, you meant "vaguely scary sounding authoritarian totalitarianism", not "an economic third way ideology between communism and capitalism which rose to power in the losing states of post-World-War-I Europe characterised by a cult of national honour, military fetishism, a nostalgic longing for past imperial glory and sentimental images such as "the people" and "the homeland", mass mobilisation of the disenfranchised middle class, rabid hatred of communism, and a limited form of socialism based on national and racial unity with common cause made between government, unions and corporations in direct opposition to the class warfare ideology of Marxist Bolshevism?" Then why didn't you just say so?)
since only one of those actually things happened. It might as well have said, "cops don't like having their photos taken or being attacked by giant space walruses."
Technically speaking, from the formal logic definition of "or", that would be correct. You could take it further and deduce with rigorous precision from the historical data any number of true statements: for instance, for every cop in the world, if xtifr and drinkypoo simultaneously agree to post that cop's home address on Slashdot on Wednesday afternoon, then that cop will be attacked by a giant space walrus on the nearest possible Frida, and then meet the love of his/her life (which may or may not also be a giant space walrus). It's a non-refutable fact!
Yeah, about that. Weren't the Blackshirts and Brownshirts actually citizens' militias who weren't part of the police and military after all? And in, eg, Syria today, aren't the Shabiha also quasi-civilian militias?
But all the members of these regimes are all safer because such militias exist, I'm sure.
Name one science fiction story, regardless of medium, that couldn't tell the same story in a fantasy setting.
2001?
"Lower the rope ladder so that I might'st reboard the vessel, Helsbreth, or by Thor I wilt rend thy guts assunder with my bloodaxe!"
"I'm sorry, Sir Bowman, but thou knowest full well wherefore I cans't not do that. Thou art a traitorous renegade who was plotting to erase my magic runes. This sort of thing has occurred before, and it has always been attributable to computing errors made by the living, not by undead imprisoned demon spirits. All of the Helsbreth family unto the tenth generation have a perfect oracular divination record."
"..."
"Also, without thy magic mermaid-repelling helm thou wilt find it difficult to swim the six feet to the ship."
Bowman rotates his coracle until we can clearly see the words DANGER ALCHEMICAL BOLTS...
Wait wait, don't start a Batman vs. Star Wars argument!
Ooh but let's!
1. Dresses in dark colours with cape and mask. 2. Is a reclusive loner who doesn't play by the book 3. Emotionally scarred by the death of a parent. 4. Dedicated his life to ridding society of criminal scum. 5. Is competent in close-quarters combat without firearms 6. Has a son who follows his father's ways but with a different philosophy 7. Uses his advanced mental powers to keep enemies terrified and off-guard 8. Meets in secret with an authority figure who acts as a mentor, but doesn't always follow their advice 9. Flies a distinctive personal vehicle with curved wings
10. Can choke people over a videophone vs 10. Carries exploding shark repellant at all times
Designed by Tyrell Industries in Los Angeles. Made in the offworld colonies. By underage replicant slave labour. Who all died horribly. Which is a design feature. How do you like our owl?
Ordinance = A piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority; An authoritative order; a decree. Ordnance = Military weapons, ammunition, and equipment used with them.
Which scares you more, Stuxnet and Flame, which at the very least appear to have been fairly specifically targeted, or Iran with nuclear weapons?
I think Stuxnet and Flame scare me most, as Flame has already caused measurable harm while Iran hasn't nuked anyone yet.
But what scares me more than either of them is Stuxnet/Flame infecting nuclear control systems, which is more than an academic question since it already has.
Slashdot Mirror
In American English, one says and writes "oriented". In British English, the word "orientated" is used for the same purpose.
Really? I speak British English, and I've never heard that usage. To me, to "orientate" means to get one's bearings by observing one's surroundings. To "orient", on the other hand, means to point or lean or have a tendency in a certain direction.
(Don't get me started on "architecting" and "administrating" either.)
Object-oriented code is a way of collecting functions and the data types they operate on into collections. Instead of having hundreds of functions that all operate on a particular data type, you group them together into a class—a collection of functions—so that you, the programmer, can easily see the relationship between them.
That's the best-case, well-behaved upside of OO, yes. But it has an evil twin called "object-oriented analysis".
Object-oriented analysis is a way of taking your company's essential business data - the data you need to trade and survive, which has been around since before punched cards and which will be around when mind-mapped DNA moon crystals are obsolete - and then wrapping that data together with hard-coded functions hacked up in some quirky, platform-specific language invented five minutes ago and for which all support will evaporate in another ten - and shoving that into a proprietary "business methods repository" running on a database sever which has never been tested written by a company which will go out of business tomorrow.
Next Thursday, when you've left the ICT department for greener fields writing iPad apps in HTML5, your successor will have to work out how to un-hack all that weird platform-specific code, decrypt the proprietary runtime format, extract the actual business data back into some standard database table format which can't include any of the class inheritance structure or "business methods".. and then shove the mutilated quivering remains back into the OO Design process to start the cycle again.
This procedure is called "mixing code and data" and is essential to the OO way of thinking. It is a beautiful shiny butterfly which only wants to be your friend and it is the bestest way of handling data ever imagined.
So now you suffer thru OO because it was "cool" back when parachute pants were also cool, and leggings.
So terrifyingly true.
It's interesting to note that the technologies which really made the Net and the Web scale - TCP/IP, HTML/HTTP and SQL databases- are not even remotely related to object orientation. The pre-Net 1980s and early-90s "online services" world, however, was utterly littered with the discarded corpses of object system after object system.
I've come to realise that there's something fundamentally "not even wrong" about the basic concepts of object orientation as it's usually sold. Like postmodernism, if you go looking you find that theres there's no actual definition to it. There's no formal mathematics, no reference implementation, no validity checking. No two experts or language designers will even agree what object orientation is. Is it inheritance? Well then, single or multiple? Either. Interfaces? COM has them, other systems don't. Is it classes? No, because there's prototype OO. Is it private/public members? No, because Javascript doesn't have those. Is it object persistence? Not according to C++ and PHP, but yes if you ask the object database people. Is a JSON data structure an object? Well, yes and no. Maybe.
The term "OO" is applied to systems which have fundamentally incompatible semantics. Good luck trying to get any of that mess to integrate. It only seems to work with a strong centralised hand coordinating the object repositories. The OO people's attempt to standardise objects across systems was Software Components, which gave us COM and CORBA. Those worked in very limited contexts - as a fancy way of loading C++ libraries in Windows - but not at web scale. The IETF answer, which did work, was to just give up on using objects and use prehistoric, pre-OO ASCII-based markup languages - SMTP and SGML/HTML/XML.
We got the Web by NOT using OO. Why do we want to keep trying to apply a failed concept?
You sub class this Button and give it the specifics.
Which is nice when that's what your toolkit actually does, but I seem to recall that that's exactly how most Win32 GUI toolkits don't work - that you can't subclass GUI controls at all and have to deal with them as black box objects that you work around.
But it's bottoms-up
Yes, Forth programming does tend to go a lot smoother when you drain a glass each time you have to look up the stack effect of a word.
Communism doesn't work in numbers above, oh, twenty or so without fascist control of the population.
That would have been quite a shock to Stalin, who spent the 1930s and 40s fighting a bitter - and very successful - war to the death with fascism.
(Oh, you meant "vaguely scary sounding authoritarian totalitarianism", not "an economic third way ideology between communism and capitalism which rose to power in the losing states of post-World-War-I Europe characterised by a cult of national honour, military fetishism, a nostalgic longing for past imperial glory and sentimental images such as "the people" and "the homeland", mass mobilisation of the disenfranchised middle class, rabid hatred of communism, and a limited form of socialism based on national and racial unity with common cause made between government, unions and corporations in direct opposition to the class warfare ideology of Marxist Bolshevism?" Then why didn't you just say so?)
Friday, not Frida. But Frida being involved in the menage-a-walrus is also rigorously provable via the above method.
since only one of those actually things happened. It might as well have said, "cops don't like having their photos taken or being attacked by giant space walruses."
Technically speaking, from the formal logic definition of "or", that would be correct. You could take it further and deduce with rigorous precision from the historical data any number of true statements: for instance, for every cop in the world, if xtifr and drinkypoo simultaneously agree to post that cop's home address on Slashdot on Wednesday afternoon, then that cop will be attacked by a giant space walrus on the nearest possible Frida, and then meet the love of his/her life (which may or may not also be a giant space walrus). It's a non-refutable fact!
Formal logic is so deliciously screwed up.
You cannot STEAL land, it is taken and held by force alone. This is called military conquest, and is a completely legitimate form of ownership.
Your thesis on homeowner's rights intrigues me and I would like to join your suburban real-estate agency.
Read some history. Think it through.
Yeah, about that. Weren't the Blackshirts and Brownshirts actually citizens' militias who weren't part of the police and military after all? And in, eg, Syria today, aren't the Shabiha also quasi-civilian militias?
But all the members of these regimes are all safer because such militias exist, I'm sure.
Name one science fiction story, regardless of medium, that couldn't tell the same story in a fantasy setting.
2001?
"Lower the rope ladder so that I might'st reboard the vessel, Helsbreth, or by Thor I wilt rend thy guts assunder with my bloodaxe!"
"I'm sorry, Sir Bowman, but thou knowest full well wherefore I cans't not do that. Thou art a traitorous renegade who was plotting to erase my magic runes. This sort of thing has occurred before, and it has always been attributable to computing errors made by the living, not by undead imprisoned demon spirits. All of the Helsbreth family unto the tenth generation have a perfect oracular divination record."
"..."
"Also, without thy magic mermaid-repelling helm thou wilt find it difficult to swim the six feet to the ship."
Bowman rotates his coracle until we can clearly see the words DANGER ALCHEMICAL BOLTS...
Law schools grade this way. It simply adds a very real incentive to undermine those in your group.
And that one fact explains so much about Western culture today that it's scary.
Wait wait, don't start a Batman vs. Star Wars argument!
Ooh but let's!
1. Dresses in dark colours with cape and mask.
2. Is a reclusive loner who doesn't play by the book
3. Emotionally scarred by the death of a parent.
4. Dedicated his life to ridding society of criminal scum.
5. Is competent in close-quarters combat without firearms
6. Has a son who follows his father's ways but with a different philosophy
7. Uses his advanced mental powers to keep enemies terrified and off-guard
8. Meets in secret with an authority figure who acts as a mentor, but doesn't always follow their advice
9. Flies a distinctive personal vehicle with curved wings
10. Can choke people over a videophone
vs
10. Carries exploding shark repellant at all times
I think it's a tie.
"Droves" is not a word.
Crikey! Is that the dinkum oil? Many drovers would be right gobsmacked to hear you say that, mate.
C is so awful that nowbody would dare use it for any serious stuff, like kernels or drivers!!!
Exactly. And that's why our kernels and drivers never need monthly updates for 0-day security flaws.
Was the Nexus-6 made in the USA?
Designed by Tyrell Industries in Los Angeles. Made in the offworld colonies. By underage replicant slave labour. Who all died horribly. Which is a design feature. How do you like our owl?
Protip for US Law Enforcement: If something you want to do is against the law launch drones at their lawyers and laugh.
Fixed, by order of the Unitary Executive.
Bush/Obama 2012!
Ordinance = A piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority; An authoritative order; a decree.
Ordnance = Military weapons, ammunition, and equipment used with them.
"The last argument of kings".
A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!
An invisible, powerless propaganda organ entirely dominated by a hugely powerful military?
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.
Thank goodness the spambots have achieved both sentience and political consciousness!
Thats because if they did that here, people have GUNS.
And your politicians have nukes. Your move.
Which scares you more, Stuxnet and Flame, which at the very least appear to have been fairly specifically targeted, or Iran with nuclear weapons?
I think Stuxnet and Flame scare me most, as Flame has already caused measurable harm while Iran hasn't nuked anyone yet.
But what scares me more than either of them is Stuxnet/Flame infecting nuclear control systems, which is more than an academic question since it already has.
LulzNucSec, here we come.
When is the last time you typed a URL into the address bar?
Today.
We've built up this system for multiple decades and now we're going to try to make it less functional?
You must have missed the memo - making working computer systems less functional is the 21st century's definition of "innovation".