if (... )
{// do some stuff// cleanup local variables/resources
return()
{ else if (....)
{// do some other stuff// cleanup local variables/resources
} else
{// do some stuff// cleanup local variables/resources
throw ( my error );
}
I guess I would just like to be able to write
func() {// declare my local variables// allocate/open resource (like files/DBs, sockets, threads)// do my logic with multiple control paths and perhaps some try/catch statements
cleanup
{// clean up all my local variables and free resources
} }
If an anonymous delegate with closure can access the encapsulating scope, I think that would do the job though.
Personally, i'd like to be able to specify a code block at the end of the function that will execute after a return statement. That way you only have to write cleanup code once.
Javas biggest implementation will be application/menu/programming layers in the forthcoming Blue Ray DVD standard.
To.Nets features, you have an incredible amount of run time type and linking information that can do things with network enabled applications that were simply not possible before. Forget client/server, think about "clouds" of information logic that can be passed over networks and applications that are incredibly customizable on the fly.
Java never turned out the way people said it would. It was supposed to be a cross platform web centric UI technology. As it turned out it did that job terribly. Now the entire purpose for Java seems to have been eliminated. Namely, there are really just two platforms left that have a real future, Windows and Linux.
The advantage that Oracle will gain by moving to Java interfaces is slower interfaces.
Both of these companies have similar problems and they are just teaming up to keep Microsoft from biting their heels off.
In the 60s, dreams of the future of men in spaceships dominating the planet with super Ray Guns was what drove people to the space race. The world has since figured out that it's all bullshit.
Most sane people realize that colonizing the moon is a colossal waste of money. And this is PRECISELY why Bush wants to go BACK and FURTHERl. Lots of pork for generous aerospace contributors. If they take the same approach as Halliburton, they will charge 20 times as much as the original effort and never actually get there.
I'm glad to see the private sector wasting money .
on
Return to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad to see the private sector wasting their own money. Typically they're at the federal coffers trying to get the government to fund them for the sake of their own profit.
A space elevator seems like the best bet right now. Carbon nano-tubes are coming along nicely (unlimited potential in the private sector). The big problem may be powering the climbers.
Once you have a space elevator in place, commercial development of orbit becomes a practical issue.
I also like the idea of Mag-propulsion cannons. Build it on the side of a TALL mountain and get an orbiting vehicle into the upper atmosphere, than the vehicle itself would take care of the last leg.
Well, the way I figure it the Sun is supposed to bloat and engulf the Earth in a couple billion years. So I figure we probably could probably start planning in a couple million years.
As a backup plan in case of large earth colliding objects, we could simply build underground shelters at various points around the world at 1/1,000,000 of the cost of colonizing the Moon and Mars.
Besides, I think that humans WOULD survive living underground. Don't think that the governments of the world don't have deep bunkers with a LOT of food and clean water stocks.
The world humans would eventually be able to enter after a couple hundred years would be a pretty terrible place.
Every time someone brings up conservation ...
on
Return to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
Anytime someone brings up conservation as a solution to the energy crisis, they are accused of being un-American.
Fission power is a miracle until you consider the nuclear waste. And one could argue that after you've figured in the cost of warehousing all that waste (which we keep deferring onto future budgets) that it isn't much cheaper than coal.
The point to all of this should be that there is NO MAGIC BULLET. We have to pursue conservation, green power, upgraded coal plants (with scrubbers), clean coal, natural gas and of course... nuclear reactors.
Fusion reaction only becomes an option when someone produces a practical reactor. Until that time, the concentration of Helium-3 on the moon as it concerns energy policy is about as important as the price of tea in China.
Do these libertarians believe in libertarian football where the teams do whatever they like to get to the end zone. How about libertarian basketball where players beat each other up in order to score.
Regulation of business is necessary in order to keep some businesses honest. This provides a fair market in which innovators can prosper instead of being crushed by established players.
Unfortunately, we're slipping back into "libetarian" mode and away from good ole' fashion rules of fair play (regulation).
Since this theory was originally proposed in 1950, isn't it more likely that Roddenberry based his FTL drives on this theory??
Personally, I've always felt the Star Trek "subspace" concept was ridiculous. The straightforward way to travel faster than light is to bend space time around your vehicle. That way you are travelling while standing still. No nasty relavitistic effects to deal with.
But any gravitational field strong enough to provide near light speed propulsion would rip you apart from the inside out.
Perhaps the REAL trick of near light speed drive is to make your vehicle and it's passengers massless. At that point you could do simple magnetic propulsion and even the weakest fields would get you where you are going VERY quickly (rockets wouldn't work since you no longer have mass). Since you are massless, you have no G forces. There would be no problem with "staying alive" since strong and weak forces hold your body together. Only planets, suns and moons are held together by gravity.
Not only that but the you couldn't use any electronics besides the actual power plant. All your computers and switching equipment would have to be optical.
What they are describing is effectively the same as an EMP weapon. And perhaps THIS is the real reason the military is interested in it.
Just think if you could polarize this process and capture an equal number of matter and anti-matter. Put these traps on opposite side of a ship and you have slipstream propulsion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well yes, the entire purpose is so I can cleanup local resources ONCE.
More like
if (
{
return()
{
else if (....)
{
}
else
{
throw ( my error );
}
I guess I would just like to be able to write
func()
{
cleanup
{
}
}
If an anonymous delegate with closure can access the encapsulating scope, I think that would do the job though.
String func( someObject obj, anotherObject obj2 )
{
int a;
myComplexObject B;
delegate A () Cleanup = {
B.freeResources();
};
B.OpenSomeExpensiveResource();
if ( obj.x == 5 )
{
Cleanup();
return (obj2.Whatever);
}
else if (obj.bling == "sillystring" )
{
Cleanup();
return (obj2.DerivedValue)
}
else
{
Cleanup();
throw ( new SillyException( "oogaooga" ) );
}
}
Personally, i'd like to be able to specify a code block at the end of the function that will execute after a return statement. That way you only have to write cleanup code once.
Javas biggest implementation will be application/menu/programming layers in the forthcoming Blue Ray DVD standard.
To
Java never turned out the way people said it would. It was supposed to be a cross platform web centric UI technology. As it turned out it did that job terribly. Now the entire purpose for Java seems to have been eliminated. Namely, there are really just two platforms left that have a real future, Windows and Linux.
The advantage that Oracle will gain by moving to Java interfaces is slower interfaces.
Both of these companies have similar problems and they are just teaming up to keep Microsoft from biting their heels off.
In the 60s, dreams of the future of men in spaceships dominating the planet with super Ray Guns was what drove people to the space race. The world has since figured out that it's all bullshit.
Most sane people realize that colonizing the moon is a colossal waste of money. And this is PRECISELY why Bush wants to go BACK and FURTHERl. Lots of pork for generous aerospace contributors. If they take the same approach as Halliburton, they will charge 20 times as much as the original effort and never actually get there.
I'm glad to see the private sector wasting their own money. Typically they're at the federal coffers trying to get the government to fund them for the sake of their own profit.
A space elevator seems like the best bet right now. Carbon nano-tubes are coming along nicely (unlimited potential in the private sector). The big problem may be powering the climbers.
Once you have a space elevator in place, commercial development of orbit becomes a practical issue.
I also like the idea of Mag-propulsion cannons. Build it on the side of a TALL mountain and get an orbiting vehicle into the upper atmosphere, than the vehicle itself would take care of the last leg.
Get it? Got it? Good. Now let's go collect our $20,000 billion in riches, shall we?
Ok, you first, I'll be right behind you.
Well, the way I figure it the Sun is supposed to bloat and engulf the Earth in a couple billion years. So I figure we probably could probably start planning in a couple million years.
As a backup plan in case of large earth colliding objects, we could simply build underground shelters at various points around the world at 1/1,000,000 of the cost of colonizing the Moon and Mars.
Both habitats would be approximately the same.
Bacteria are pretty hardy little things.
Besides, I think that humans WOULD survive living underground. Don't think that the governments of the world don't have deep bunkers with a LOT of food and clean water stocks.
The world humans would eventually be able to enter after a couple hundred years would be a pretty terrible place.
Anytime someone brings up conservation as a solution to the energy crisis, they are accused of being un-American.
Fission power is a miracle until you consider the nuclear waste. And one could argue that after you've figured in the cost of warehousing all that waste (which we keep deferring onto future budgets) that it isn't much cheaper than coal.
The point to all of this should be that there is NO MAGIC BULLET. We have to pursue conservation, green power, upgraded coal plants (with scrubbers), clean coal, natural gas and of course
Fusion reaction only becomes an option when someone produces a practical reactor. Until that time, the concentration of Helium-3 on the moon as it concerns energy policy is about as important as the price of tea in China.
Do these libertarians believe in libertarian football where the teams do whatever they like to get to the end zone. How about libertarian basketball where players beat each other up in order to score.
Regulation of business is necessary in order to keep some businesses honest. This provides a fair market in which innovators can prosper instead of being crushed by established players.
Unfortunately, we're slipping back into "libetarian" mode and away from good ole' fashion rules of fair play (regulation).
Or you could just heard all the people to hollowed out volcanoes and than blow them up with hydrogen bombs.
Oops, gotta go. The Scientologists are the door.
It would have to be an anti-gravity field. Otherwise, it's only purpose would be slamming you into:
a) The Earth
b) The Moon
c) The Sun
And of course their is the side effect of turning your spaceship into a trash collector for orbital debris.
No doubt the power will be bought by Enron, than delievered by Halliburton to the facility on a "cost plus" basis.
What is it with spinning that gets people so fixated? Perhaps you were unduly influenced by Superman and the Superfriends.
http://www.seanbaby.com/superfriends/supermanb.ht
Since this theory was originally proposed in 1950, isn't it more likely that Roddenberry based his FTL drives on this theory??
Personally, I've always felt the Star Trek "subspace" concept was ridiculous. The straightforward way to travel faster than light is to bend space time around your vehicle. That way you are travelling while standing still. No nasty relavitistic effects to deal with.
But any gravitational field strong enough to provide near light speed propulsion would rip you apart from the inside out.
Perhaps the REAL trick of near light speed drive is to make your vehicle and it's passengers massless. At that point you could do simple magnetic propulsion and even the weakest fields would get you where you are going VERY quickly (rockets wouldn't work since you no longer have mass). Since you are massless, you have no G forces. There would be no problem with "staying alive" since strong and weak forces hold your body together. Only planets, suns and moons are held together by gravity.
No doubt kids will start installing "gravity woofers" in their year 3020 Civics so when they're cruising based your planet, everyone can feel it.
No, you would just use a quantum communication system that would communicate simultaneously across the universe through particle entanglement.
Sorry you can't have a force that acts selectively on the earth vs sharp objects in your laboratory.
All I can say is if the thing works, they'd better build it in the basement.
Not only that but the you couldn't use any electronics besides the actual power plant. All your computers and switching equipment would have to be optical.
What they are describing is effectively the same as an EMP weapon. And perhaps THIS is the real reason the military is interested in it.
Just think if you could polarize this process and capture an equal number of matter and anti-matter. Put these traps on opposite side of a ship and you have slipstream propulsion.
A magnetic field that straong could pull you ferrous particles in your blood. Scientists now have a machine capable of levitating mice and frogs.
Didn't you see X-Men 2?