Indeed they do. ATC discover the plane's location using radar (airplane id is confirmed by it reflecting a unique code with a transponder)
Re:These techniques are horrid for maintainability
on
Metaprogramming Ruby
·
· Score: 1
So can you give a example of an extreme case where metaprogramming (i.e. dynamically generating code) has an advantage over just using a good old-fashioned precompiled abstraction? (Does it really only work in extreme cases?)
Well, nobody forced you to buy a Mercedes! If you ever do any advanced driving courses, you'll learn about correct use of the hand/parking brake (not using it on a hill will soon get you failed).
It's also essential to secure the car against accidental movement while stationary. Example: you're stopped at a pedestrian crossing and somebody shunts you up the rear, you don't want to be ploughing into the pedestrians because your foot slipped off the brake.
That's a bad technique that can only work if the engine idle is set too high. The handbrake start is the correct and safest way to operate a manual on a hill. Indeed, you should have the parking brake engaged whenever the car is stationary (as taught in the UK when I learned to drive).
You don't need three feet. In most cars there's a brake you can operate with your hand that's precisely designed for use when the car is stationary. Any rollback at all in a manual car with a handbrake is just unskilled driving.
Is that a patent? Surely a patent describes how an apparatus is made, not what the desired outcome should be.
It's like patenting TV as 'a box which show moving pictures captured by another box with a lens' rather than 'apparatus for modulating an electron beam in rectangular matrix...'.
You put the waste into a fast-breeder reactor. BTW, do you know how much coal (and therefore radioactive emissions) Germany uses to generate electricity?
Try this:
Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for cable tv that it gives to its own ISP customers for free? Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?
The 68000 didn't have virtual memory so can't be compared with the (later) 80386. The 68010 (which I programmed on in the 80s in a Torch XXX) had virtual memory and was the 'mainframe on a chip'.
Also I question this idea of IBM considering the 68000 for the IBM PC. The 68k had a 16-bit data bus so would have meant a more expensive mainboard design than the (8-bit bus) 8088. The Motorola chip to compare with the 8088 is the 68008 (Sinclair QL anybody?).
The material world doesn't understand seconds either. Should we drop the whole of physics? A year is just a sampling period which can be compared to previous periods. Any natural cycles will be apparent regardless of the period chosen (nyquist notwithstanding).
Indeed you can do that. But the discussion was about using instanceof as an alternative to generics, for which you'd probably want an exception to be thrown since the wrong type is an unexpected case.
How does an instanceof protect your code any better than a ClassCastException? Both ways you're throwing an exception at runtime which has to be handled at some level.
A ClassCastException recast to whatever Exception you want (or inspected as is at your exception handler level) is exactly the same as an instanceof test.
Yea, and I bet the spokesperson talking about that "chemical thing" had you clicking somewhere else immediately. If the spokesperson can't even get basic high-school physics right, it doesn't say much about the company that employed and briefed her.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed they do. ATC discover the plane's location using radar (airplane id is confirmed by it reflecting a unique code with a transponder)
So can you give a example of an extreme case where metaprogramming (i.e. dynamically generating code) has an advantage over just using a good old-fashioned precompiled abstraction? (Does it really only work in extreme cases?)
That's simple - just google it and use the phrase which returns the most hits.
Well, nobody forced you to buy a Mercedes! If you ever do any advanced driving courses, you'll learn about correct use of the hand/parking brake (not using it on a hill will soon get you failed).
It's also essential to secure the car against accidental movement while stationary. Example: you're stopped at a pedestrian crossing and somebody shunts you up the rear, you don't want to be ploughing into the pedestrians because your foot slipped off the brake.
That's a bad technique that can only work if the engine idle is set too high. The handbrake start is the correct and safest way to operate a manual on a hill. Indeed, you should have the parking brake engaged whenever the car is stationary (as taught in the UK when I learned to drive).
You don't need three feet. In most cars there's a brake you can operate with your hand that's precisely designed for use when the car is stationary. Any rollback at all in a manual car with a handbrake is just unskilled driving.
Ever heard of the handbrake? Once you learn the skill on a manual car it makes for perfect hill starts (no rollback at all).
Is that a patent? Surely a patent describes how an apparatus is made, not what the desired outcome should be.
It's like patenting TV as 'a box which show moving pictures captured by another box with a lens' rather than 'apparatus for modulating an electron beam in rectangular matrix...'.
You put the waste into a fast-breeder reactor. BTW, do you know how much coal (and therefore radioactive emissions) Germany uses to generate electricity?
That's happening right now. I'm seeing the same performance from a virtualized 4-CPU 16GB machine as a real one. (Didn't use to be like that).
Your code should be a narrative. How about checkParamaters(...); setupConnection(...); submitQueries(...); checkReturnValues(...);
I'm no electrician
Thank goodness for that!
Try this: Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for cable tv that it gives to its own ISP customers for free? Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?
It's not a tax. It is a toll for a service.
The 68000 didn't have virtual memory so can't be compared with the (later) 80386. The 68010 (which I programmed on in the 80s in a Torch XXX) had virtual memory and was the 'mainframe on a chip'. Also I question this idea of IBM considering the 68000 for the IBM PC. The 68k had a 16-bit data bus so would have meant a more expensive mainboard design than the (8-bit bus) 8088. The Motorola chip to compare with the 8088 is the 68008 (Sinclair QL anybody?).
The material world doesn't understand seconds either. Should we drop the whole of physics? A year is just a sampling period which can be compared to previous periods. Any natural cycles will be apparent regardless of the period chosen (nyquist notwithstanding).
Not all third-party aircraft are hideously expensive.
MSFS is worth the entry price for David Maltby's exquisite (and free) models of classic 60s British jets.
Superb graphics and models. Check out this pic:
dmflightsim
but it contains none of the information encoded in the original consumed matter or energy
Surely it must, otherwise unitarity would be violated?
Indeed you can do that. But the discussion was about using instanceof as an alternative to generics, for which you'd probably want an exception to be thrown since the wrong type is an unexpected case.
How does an instanceof protect your code any better than a ClassCastException? Both ways you're throwing an exception at runtime which has to be handled at some level.
A ClassCastException recast to whatever Exception you want (or inspected as is at your exception handler level) is exactly the same as an instanceof test.
How come they still screwed it up then?
I saw this exact problem on a bog-standard P4 Dell. (Thank goodness it's not my main machine - that's what XP/Linux/Anything else is for).
That plane was being flown by an idiot, not a computer.
so that they open enough bottles at the correct times
Who would buy a bottle of pre-opened wine? That's what decanters are for.
How is the join table different from the link table the AC described?
Yea, and I bet the spokesperson talking about that "chemical thing" had you clicking somewhere else immediately. If the spokesperson can't even get basic high-school physics right, it doesn't say much about the company that employed and briefed her.