Except that you're speaking of a different kind of memory than he was. You're speaking of physical computer memory, which obviously you need some of to do anything useful. He's speaking in abstract about not having to keep track of anything as you go. Not having to "remember" anything. Having no "memory". You see?
Following your scenario out, this will lead to less people skilled in programming, which will increase demand for programmers.
In any case, I think it's unlikely that paying positions for software developers will shrink. It might happen that the market for *selling* software may shrink, so the number of positions for writing third-party software would shrink. But with all the technologies emerging, I expect the number of in-house development jobs to skyrocket.
When I first read this headline I thought "Array of Arrays", for which "AoA" is a common abbreviation in Perl. "Trees Fall Prey to Array of Arrays" is pretty odd.
What he means is: "I don't know anything about Python other than it doesn't have a separate compile phase. That must make it less of a programming language. It doesn't matter if you can write programs in it, doing anything you could in Java. It only matters if you can compile it into something other than the text file you write. If you can do that, it's a full programming language, and we all know those take more resources than mere scripting languages."
I think that a good chunk of the box office for LOTR came from people who found out that they would be getting all three books, and not just a first film teaser.
I doubt it. Many people didn't even know that such a story existed before the movies. And many more didn't know that all three movies had been done at once, or that there would be three movies.
I guess you haven't read the books, have you? The first movie was pretty good, but the second movie took way too many liberties. Half of the scenes were completely changed (which disfigured many of the characters), and a couple of the scenes weren't even in the book at all. I realize that movie's can rarely if ever be a direct dramatization of the book, but this is a separate issue. By changing so many aspects of the story and characters, it effectively ruins the LOTR story. It becomes some other story, which may be similar and good in its own right, but it isn't LOTR anymore. In a sense, killing it.
Apart from whether or not the movie was a good adaption of the book, I think the second movie sucked simply as a movie. It was so disjointed and jumpy. Moving between the different character groups every five minutes made me feel like I couldn't catch my breath, in a bad way. <SPOILER>It makes me wonder how they'll do the third installment since the ring gets destroyed two-thirds of the way through. I'm betting that they end it just after the ring gets destroyed, to save their precious Hollywood ending.</SPOILER>
Re:You lost me on the incredible leap of logic...
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
The logic isn't faulty. That is a completely separate matter from the claims of the premises. You may not agree that XML is merely a text format, but the logic is sound, nevertheless. Unlike yours, where your premises don't support your conclusion. Your first premise claims VW Beetles are well suited for driving, which you then try to use as support for a conclusion about high-performance racing. Most driving would hardly be considered high-performance racing. Your first premise should have been that "VW Beetles are well suited for competing on all roads." This would make your logic sound, but I think you'd have a much harder time convincing people of that than you would convincing them that XML is a text format.
Re:Some words it needs to attract the slashdot cro
on
A Word a Day
·
· Score: 1
Disregarding your misspelling of complain, you should know that realise is a valid spelling in some parts of the world.
And everyone knows that all the current [by then "legacy"] code is going to have to be supported somehow, so backwards compatibility in one form or another is a very strong possibility
Not only is it a strong possibility, it's assured. There will definitely be a Perl5 interpreter for Parrot as well, so all that old Perl5 code won't necessarily have to be ported or tossed out.
Re:You lost me on the incredible leap of logic...
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Except that your syllogism is faulty, whereas his is not.
His: 1. (from earlier in his post) Perl is well suited for processing all text formats. 2. XML is a text format. 3. Therefore, Perl is well suited for processing XML.
Yours: 1. Your pasta maker is good at making pasta. 2. Pasta is a type of food. 3. Therefore, your pasta maker is good at making all types of food (for example, ice cream).
You can see that he went from general to specific, whereas you went from specific to general. He argues that being able to do all things in a given set (process all text formats) gives the ability to do one of the things in that set (process a particular text format). You argue that being able to do one thing in a set (make a particular food) gives the ability to do all things in the set (make all foods).
You could save your argument by changing your middle point to be "All foods are a type of pasta," and then your conclusion becomes trivially true. But you'd also have to get everyone to agree that ice cream is pasta.
Although the Java community is still larger than even this combined pool [of Perl, Python, and Ruby]
Surely spoken by someone outside the Perl community. I might say that more people are paid to write in Java, but I wouldn't call that a community.
I do agree with you about the potential of Parrot, though. By the time it's released (I think current estimates say about a year), it'll already have functional support for a number of languages, including Python and Ruby, and probably Java and C#. This one's gonna be big, folks.
Note: Offtopic I wanted to try out Gentoo, but while installing it I wanted to install the gnome-panel. I couldn't because gnome-core blocked it. No problem, just unmerge and emerge the new gnome package right? Unfortunately, unmerge only unmerges the specified package, and not any packages that depend on it. In fact, it doesn't even tell you if or which packages depend on it. I couldn't find any way to find out more information about package than it's name, version, and a one-line description. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the packaging system really so info-lacking? Makes it tough to switch from Debian where I can find out just about everything about a package through dpkg.
Well, perhaps if you were slightly less ignorant (I know it's tough, but don't give up) you might have read this story. If you look reeeallly hard, maybe you can pick it out. I know, I know, it's more than two sentences, but pretend it's just a bunch of groups of two sentences each and maybe you'll get through.
By the way, next time it might be a good idea not to act as if you know everything, because chances are very good that you don't.
GeForce2 MX200 32MB for $60? Please tell me you're joking. I can get a GeForce2 Ti 64MB for ten bucks less than that right now. Your "local little chain store" is eating your wallet for a lunch.
Python and Perl are both (relativily) young languages...
I wonder what your definition of young is. In your post it sounds as if you think of C++ as old, or at least not young. C++ was developed around 1983, making it almost 20 years old. The first release of Perl was 1987, making it only 4 years younger, and Python was first publicly released in 1991, another 4 years under Perl. While you can perhaps make a case for Python being "young" at 12, I would think 16 is close enough to 20 to consider Perl not-young. After all, Perl is 80% as old as C++. It's not as if it's Java or C#.
It would be nice if you'd make your 3D game accessible. I've often wanted to play Quake with my eyes closed, and it would be nice for some audible clues. For example: "VISOR AT 3 OCLOCK." "SARGE RUNS BEHIND THE WALL." "VISOR SWITCHES TO RAILGUN." "YOU SHOULD TURN LEFT AND SHOOT NOW." "SARGE SHOOTS YOU IN THE NUTS WITH THE SHOTGUN." "TOO LATE."
The rest of us in the know are not going to think oh no its a 3.x release so it must be buggy cause its not an even number
The stable and development branches are differentiated by the revision number, not the version number. An even number revision means it's the stable branch, an odd number revision means the development branch. Therefore, 3.0 would be stable (version 3, revision 0), and the development branch would become 3.1 (version 3, revision 1).
we'll know its an addon to 2.4.
It's not any more of an "addon" to 2.4 than 2.4 is an "addon" to 2.2. It's a new revision, and in this case they would up the version, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you're speaking of a different kind of memory than he was. You're speaking of physical computer memory, which obviously you need some of to do anything useful. He's speaking in abstract about not having to keep track of anything as you go. Not having to "remember" anything. Having no "memory". You see?
Following your scenario out, this will lead to less people skilled in programming, which will increase demand for programmers.
In any case, I think it's unlikely that paying positions for software developers will shrink. It might happen that the market for *selling* software may shrink, so the number of positions for writing third-party software would shrink. But with all the technologies emerging, I expect the number of in-house development jobs to skyrocket.
When I first read this headline I thought "Array of Arrays", for which "AoA" is a common abbreviation in Perl. "Trees Fall Prey to Array of Arrays" is pretty odd.
What he means is: "I don't know anything about Python other than it doesn't have a separate compile phase. That must make it less of a programming language. It doesn't matter if you can write programs in it, doing anything you could in Java. It only matters if you can compile it into something other than the text file you write. If you can do that, it's a full programming language, and we all know those take more resources than mere scripting languages."
I think that a good chunk of the box office for LOTR came from people who found out that they would be getting all three books, and not just a first film teaser.
I doubt it. Many people didn't even know that such a story existed before the movies. And many more didn't know that all three movies had been done at once, or that there would be three movies.
Similar to Adam's five book Hitchhiker trilogy. :-)
How exactly did they "kill" LOTR?
I guess you haven't read the books, have you? The first movie was pretty good, but the second movie took way too many liberties. Half of the scenes were completely changed (which disfigured many of the characters), and a couple of the scenes weren't even in the book at all. I realize that movie's can rarely if ever be a direct dramatization of the book, but this is a separate issue. By changing so many aspects of the story and characters, it effectively ruins the LOTR story. It becomes some other story, which may be similar and good in its own right, but it isn't LOTR anymore. In a sense, killing it.
Apart from whether or not the movie was a good adaption of the book, I think the second movie sucked simply as a movie. It was so disjointed and jumpy. Moving between the different character groups every five minutes made me feel like I couldn't catch my breath, in a bad way. <SPOILER>It makes me wonder how they'll do the third installment since the ring gets destroyed two-thirds of the way through. I'm betting that they end it just after the ring gets destroyed, to save their precious Hollywood ending.</SPOILER>
The logic isn't faulty. That is a completely separate matter from the claims of the premises. You may not agree that XML is merely a text format, but the logic is sound, nevertheless. Unlike yours, where your premises don't support your conclusion. Your first premise claims VW Beetles are well suited for driving, which you then try to use as support for a conclusion about high-performance racing. Most driving would hardly be considered high-performance racing. Your first premise should have been that "VW Beetles are well suited for competing on all roads." This would make your logic sound, but I think you'd have a much harder time convincing people of that than you would convincing them that XML is a text format.
Disregarding your misspelling of complain, you should know that realise is a valid spelling in some parts of the world.
And everyone knows that all the current [by then "legacy"] code is going to have to be supported somehow, so backwards compatibility in one form or another is a very strong possibility
Not only is it a strong possibility, it's assured. There will definitely be a Perl5 interpreter for Parrot as well, so all that old Perl5 code won't necessarily have to be ported or tossed out.
Except that your syllogism is faulty, whereas his is not.
His:
1. (from earlier in his post) Perl is well suited for processing all text formats.
2. XML is a text format.
3. Therefore, Perl is well suited for processing XML.
Yours:
1. Your pasta maker is good at making pasta.
2. Pasta is a type of food.
3. Therefore, your pasta maker is good at making all types of food (for example, ice cream).
You can see that he went from general to specific, whereas you went from specific to general. He argues that being able to do all things in a given set (process all text formats) gives the ability to do one of the things in that set (process a particular text format). You argue that being able to do one thing in a set (make a particular food) gives the ability to do all things in the set (make all foods).
You could save your argument by changing your middle point to be "All foods are a type of pasta," and then your conclusion becomes trivially true. But you'd also have to get everyone to agree that ice cream is pasta.
Although the Java community is still larger than even this combined pool [of Perl, Python, and Ruby]
Surely spoken by someone outside the Perl community. I might say that more people are paid to write in Java, but I wouldn't call that a community.
I do agree with you about the potential of Parrot, though. By the time it's released (I think current estimates say about a year), it'll already have functional support for a number of languages, including Python and Ruby, and probably Java and C#. This one's gonna be big, folks.
Note: Offtopic
I wanted to try out Gentoo, but while installing it I wanted to install the gnome-panel. I couldn't because gnome-core blocked it. No problem, just unmerge and emerge the new gnome package right? Unfortunately, unmerge only unmerges the specified package, and not any packages that depend on it. In fact, it doesn't even tell you if or which packages depend on it. I couldn't find any way to find out more information about package than it's name, version, and a one-line description. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the packaging system really so info-lacking? Makes it tough to switch from Debian where I can find out just about everything about a package through dpkg.
Well, perhaps if you were slightly less ignorant (I know it's tough, but don't give up) you might have read this story. If you look reeeallly hard, maybe you can pick it out. I know, I know, it's more than two sentences, but pretend it's just a bunch of groups of two sentences each and maybe you'll get through.
By the way, next time it might be a good idea not to act as if you know everything, because chances are very good that you don't.
I think you mean "News about Open Source/Free Software for Gnerds". I mean let's give credit where credit is due.
GeForce2 MX200 32MB for $60? Please tell me you're joking. I can get a GeForce2 Ti 64MB for ten bucks less than that right now. Your "local little chain store" is eating your wallet for a lunch.
Python and Perl are both (relativily) young languages...
I wonder what your definition of young is. In your post it sounds as if you think of C++ as old, or at least not young. C++ was developed around 1983, making it almost 20 years old. The first release of Perl was 1987, making it only 4 years younger, and Python was first publicly released in 1991, another 4 years under Perl. While you can perhaps make a case for Python being "young" at 12, I would think 16 is close enough to 20 to consider Perl not-young. After all, Perl is 80% as old as C++. It's not as if it's Java or C#.
Twelve years is, AFAIK, over 5 years.
Perl is not an acronym. Don't capitalize it like one.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of ads!
It would be nice if you'd make your 3D game accessible. I've often wanted to play Quake with my eyes closed, and it would be nice for some audible clues. For example:
"VISOR AT 3 OCLOCK."
"SARGE RUNS BEHIND THE WALL."
"VISOR SWITCHES TO RAILGUN."
"YOU SHOULD TURN LEFT AND SHOOT NOW."
"SARGE SHOOTS YOU IN THE NUTS WITH THE SHOTGUN."
"TOO LATE."
I think you can see my point.
The rest of us in the know are not going to think oh no its a 3.x release so it must be buggy cause its not an even number
The stable and development branches are differentiated by the revision number, not the version number. An even number revision means it's the stable branch, an odd number revision means the development branch. Therefore, 3.0 would be stable (version 3, revision 0), and the development branch would become 3.1 (version 3, revision 1).
we'll know its an addon to 2.4.
It's not any more of an "addon" to 2.4 than 2.4 is an "addon" to 2.2. It's a new revision, and in this case they would up the version, too.
Maybe that's what he meant by 1).
People think that installing a custom RH theme means ripping the guts out of KDE. It's the mob mentality.
What compatibility was broken between 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 then?