Curiously, the military may implement the environmentalists' ultimate dream!
Sorry, what? Did you just pull that out of your arse? Which environmentalists are campaigning for the abolition of oil (as opposed to the unnecessary combustion of oil)?
Clearly oil serves a great many needs, fueling your car being just one of those needs. To claim without basis that a group of people dream of the worlds oil stocks becoming unusable is to reveal your own bias against this group.
As a concept, it would resemble the popular Napster peer-to-peer file-sharing system used to swap songs over the Internet, but its scale would be humongous and its design intricate, Arora said.
Ouch! What a stretch of analogy. Surely the journo should've mentioned SETI instead...
Seemed to me that this "review" was biased toward the M. Witness the "support for any language" and lazy comparison with the Java framework. Noticably absent from the article was any evidence of critical commentary. Personally I think C# adds little to the existing set of languages. Why create a language if you also leave programmers free to use their old favourites? What about the problems caused by implementing these old languages in a slightly different fashion? Haskell without complete laziness, C++ with a new concept of object heirarchy and new limits on memory addressing, all the small changes necessary to twist existing language types into a.NET standard, etc. I think Sun got it right by sticking with a single language, it's not really that hard to learn a new language and you stand no chance of tripping someone up with subversive half-alterations to their old favourite.
I also think that making languages named JScript and J++ is very telling. Big M are green with envy over Suns early recognition of a trend.
All that said, I don't think.NET is such a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly oil serves a great many needs, fueling your car being just one of those needs. To claim without basis that a group of people dream of the worlds oil stocks becoming unusable is to reveal your own bias against this group.
I'm not a biologist, but I fully sympathise.
This is yet another word ripped away from its roots by the remorseless corporate PR machine.
Hmm, seems to me that this is an answer to this oppressive SSSCA legislation - patent the means of implementation.
The reason for not using Scheme as an intermediate language? Something about compilation time, no?
Seemed to me that this "review" was biased toward the M. Witness the "support for any language" and lazy comparison with the Java framework. Noticably absent from the article was any evidence of critical commentary. Personally I think C# adds little to the existing set of languages. Why create a language if you also leave programmers free to use their old favourites? What about the problems caused by implementing these old languages in a slightly different fashion? Haskell without complete laziness, C++ with a new concept of object heirarchy and new limits on memory addressing, all the small changes necessary to twist existing language types into a .NET standard, etc. I think Sun got it right by sticking with a single language, it's not really that hard to learn a new language and you stand no chance of tripping someone up with subversive half-alterations to their old favourite.
.NET is such a bad thing.
I also think that making languages named JScript and J++ is very telling. Big M are green with envy over Suns early recognition of a trend.
All that said, I don't think
...Of course the article is quite explicit about shared/compatible language typing.
What I find interesting is the support for Haskell (a functional language), which is nothing like C#.
Every hardware-scale-advance news article will describe Moores first law.
I don't think such a simple method will carry the day...
Consider the input "b>x/b>r>x/r>b>x/b>"
The one-pass array method (with a great number of assumptions on my part) would give us: "b>xr>xb>x/b>/r></b>"
My patented "bit-better" method gives "b>xr>x/r>x/b>"
I think the simple 1-pass method might even be in danger of failing the "stupidity" check they mention.