Really, the world would have never have moved on from PL1/, B, aseembly and Multics? No one would have ever have thought "is there a better way?"
Sorry, I don't see the birth of C or UNIX as an event that could not have been repeated by many people over the past 40 years. The world just doesn't sit stagnant like that.
If Ritchie hadn't done it, then we would have had something else - but the important thing is we *would* have had something else. We wouldn't be using B, assembly, PL/1 and Multics today - there would certainly have been improvement in the arena.
Praise Ritchie for the things he did do, which is move the community on, not for the things he did not do, which is be the only person who could have moved the community on.
Really, the original poster didnt say "Without C, we wouldn't have Unix (which he also co-developed), Windows, OS X (and thus the i-devices) or most of the other modern operating systems. His contributions will live on."?
What part of that did I misinterpret? Because even rereading it now I don't see a misinterpretation, or even pedanticism on my part - I don't see Ritchie as a god like figure, without whom we wouldn't have had "most of the other modern operating systems". If he didn't do it, someone else would have. Praise him for what he did do, not for the fantastical events you ascribe to him like a messiah.
It also shouldn't be *overstated*, which is my point - the original posters assertion was that without Ritchie, nothing we enjoy in the modern world would have existed - bullshit, someone would have built the foundation if Ritchie hadn't done it.
Its like saying that if Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay hadn't successfully climbed Mount Everest in 1953, then none of the following 5,104 ascents would have even been attempted...
Ritchie deserves the praise for actually doing what he did, but don't overstep that praise and say he was the only one that could have done what he did, and we are all beholden to him for that.
Can you people not understand the difference between "attacking x" and "attacking y, in a thread related to x"?
I never said don't give him credit.
I never said don't praise him.
What I did was challenge the original posters comment (paraphrased) "to say that without him, nothing we have today would exist" and say that it is a load of absolute bollocks. Do you really think that the computing community wasn't ripe at the time for the change of the type that C and UNIX brought along? Are you really standing by the original posters assertion that no one but Ritchie could have possibly built the foundation upon which our modern world is built?
Thats your bullshit right there - but I'm sorry, you've got an idea into your head that my comment was an attack on Ritchie (it was not), so I don't think that you ever stopped to actually think.
And if you think that a comment in a Slashdot thread is in any way comparable to a Westboro protest, then you really need to examine your priorities.
How about you and everyone else who replied to me FUCKING READ SHIT before replying...
I never said "ignore or make light of his contributions".
I was taking issue with the original posters assertion that without him, nothing we have computing wise in the modern world would exist. Which is patently ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS.
Sure, Ritchie came up with what he did - but if he didn't, someone else would have - and we would still have the modern world, stuff would still have been written, the next language would still have been created and LIFE WOULD HAVE GONE ON.
So, show me where I said to "ignore or make light of his contributions", because I never did - I don't take issue with him being remembered for the work that he did, I take issue with the assertion that if he didn't do it then our modern would would be fucked.
Ritchie arguably contributed hugely to the computing industry, and his achievements should certainly be celebrated and he should be remembered.
But... comments like yours seriously piss me off - do you really think that if Ritchie hadn't created C, that no one else would have? That today we would still be using pre-C languages, constructs and ideas? That the world would have stagnated? That there would be no modern equivalents of Windows, OSX, Unix etc etc?
Someone would have done it, sooner or later. Someone would have come up with the idea of a higher level, easier to use and more agile language, and the world would have moved on.
I'm not trying to detract from Ritchies achievements, because he was the one that came up with that idea, and moved the world on - however, don't think that he was the only chance for that advancement...
In the UK, on both outages, RIM has let the mobile networks take full blame for all of the issues - they haven't issued a statement, or let the networks know what to tell customers, with network call centers as much in the dark as the callers themselves.
I think you need to actually review a lot of the understanding you are basing your comment on...
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
CAL. PEN. CODE 485 : California Code - Section 485
I think the next line is more telling than that quote - "People were using Gnu with Linux added, but didn’t know it." No, they were using Linux with Gnu added...
Why does someone have to be a shill to disagree with you?
I find that these days, the label "shill" is being used in the same way a lot of other terms, such as "anti-semetic" is used - to silence the person that label is being applied to, because there is no argument against it once the label has been applied.
I know the code you pasted was for C#, my comment was directed at your initial opening sentence....Net has both query form Linq (what you posted) and method form Linq (what the java version looks like), and the two are interchangeable.
Query form looks better, but method form has distinct advantages in some cases.
Ok then, how about the total opposite - one single department for the entire government which is responsible for releasing properly redacted documents, no other department is allowed to release redacted documents, everything as to pass through this single department...
What is that exactly a solution to? Because it doesn't change the fact that B&N are removing physical copies from all their physical stores due to an exclusivity deal the publisher made with a competitor...
On the other hand, did the B&N spokesman clarify how removing books from sale helps B&N to fulfill the prose "to make available any book, anywhere, anytime"? Surely its counter productive to that promise?
Actually, PDFCreator installed the shit ware even if you said no to it for a long time, during which I discovered thus and promptly stopped recommending it.
Name the definitive version of UNIX please - because pretty much every version out there has been "bizarrely modified" and "quite screwed up" by its vendor.
Awww did someone get all offended at the thought that someone dislikes their Android experience enough to go back to Apple? Poor poor you, don't worry, it will soon pass.
No, I don't have a "horrible misunderstanding" at all - its (pretty much) all private infrastructure, which various people pay to access and carry their traffic over through voluntary agreements.
There is no "public internet", there is merely the "internet" which is nothing more than a lot of people connecting their networks together - and you are suggesting that one network should not be able to connect to another network purely because of the management of the network...
I don't "fail to see" anything, I just don't share your opinion of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, the world would have never have moved on from PL1/, B, aseembly and Multics? No one would have ever have thought "is there a better way?"
Sorry, I don't see the birth of C or UNIX as an event that could not have been repeated by many people over the past 40 years. The world just doesn't sit stagnant like that.
If Ritchie hadn't done it, then we would have had something else - but the important thing is we *would* have had something else. We wouldn't be using B, assembly, PL/1 and Multics today - there would certainly have been improvement in the arena.
Praise Ritchie for the things he did do, which is move the community on, not for the things he did not do, which is be the only person who could have moved the community on.
Really, the original poster didnt say "Without C, we wouldn't have Unix (which he also co-developed), Windows, OS X (and thus the i-devices) or most of the other modern operating systems. His contributions will live on."?
What part of that did I misinterpret? Because even rereading it now I don't see a misinterpretation, or even pedanticism on my part - I don't see Ritchie as a god like figure, without whom we wouldn't have had "most of the other modern operating systems". If he didn't do it, someone else would have. Praise him for what he did do, not for the fantastical events you ascribe to him like a messiah.
Go fuck yourself, you shitty little person.
It also shouldn't be *overstated*, which is my point - the original posters assertion was that without Ritchie, nothing we enjoy in the modern world would have existed - bullshit, someone would have built the foundation if Ritchie hadn't done it.
Its like saying that if Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay hadn't successfully climbed Mount Everest in 1953, then none of the following 5,104 ascents would have even been attempted...
Ritchie deserves the praise for actually doing what he did, but don't overstep that praise and say he was the only one that could have done what he did, and we are all beholden to him for that.
There are some dumb shits on Slashdot these days.
Can you people not understand the difference between "attacking x" and "attacking y, in a thread related to x"?
I never said don't give him credit.
I never said don't praise him.
What I did was challenge the original posters comment (paraphrased) "to say that without him, nothing we have today would exist" and say that it is a load of absolute bollocks. Do you really think that the computing community wasn't ripe at the time for the change of the type that C and UNIX brought along? Are you really standing by the original posters assertion that no one but Ritchie could have possibly built the foundation upon which our modern world is built?
Thats your bullshit right there - but I'm sorry, you've got an idea into your head that my comment was an attack on Ritchie (it was not), so I don't think that you ever stopped to actually think.
And if you think that a comment in a Slashdot thread is in any way comparable to a Westboro protest, then you really need to examine your priorities.
How about you and everyone else who replied to me FUCKING READ SHIT before replying...
I never said "ignore or make light of his contributions".
I was taking issue with the original posters assertion that without him, nothing we have computing wise in the modern world would exist. Which is patently ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS.
Sure, Ritchie came up with what he did - but if he didn't, someone else would have - and we would still have the modern world, stuff would still have been written, the next language would still have been created and LIFE WOULD HAVE GONE ON.
So, show me where I said to "ignore or make light of his contributions", because I never did - I don't take issue with him being remembered for the work that he did, I take issue with the assertion that if he didn't do it then our modern would would be fucked.
Ritchie arguably contributed hugely to the computing industry, and his achievements should certainly be celebrated and he should be remembered.
But ... comments like yours seriously piss me off - do you really think that if Ritchie hadn't created C, that no one else would have? That today we would still be using pre-C languages, constructs and ideas? That the world would have stagnated? That there would be no modern equivalents of Windows, OSX, Unix etc etc?
Someone would have done it, sooner or later. Someone would have come up with the idea of a higher level, easier to use and more agile language, and the world would have moved on.
I'm not trying to detract from Ritchies achievements, because he was the one that came up with that idea, and moved the world on - however, don't think that he was the only chance for that advancement...
In the UK, on both outages, RIM has let the mobile networks take full blame for all of the issues - they haven't issued a statement, or let the networks know what to tell customers, with network call centers as much in the dark as the callers themselves.
I think you need to actually review a lot of the understanding you are basing your comment on...
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
CAL. PEN. CODE 485 : California Code - Section 485
http://www.shouselaw.com/appropriation-lost-property.html
Doesn't CoffeeScript already do cross-compile from native to JavaScript, with quite a few proponents and examples of complex usage working fine?
No idea as CoffeeScript is something on my to-look-at list, and seems to be difficult to use on Windows.
The GPLv3 takes issue with the statement "How people use it is irrelevant."
I think the next line is more telling than that quote - "People were using Gnu with Linux added, but didn’t know it." No, they were using Linux with Gnu added...
Why does someone have to be a shill to disagree with you?
I find that these days, the label "shill" is being used in the same way a lot of other terms, such as "anti-semetic" is used - to silence the person that label is being applied to, because there is no argument against it once the label has been applied.
I know the code you pasted was for C#, my comment was directed at your initial opening sentence... .Net has both query form Linq (what you posted) and method form Linq (what the java version looks like), and the two are interchangeable.
Query form looks better, but method form has distinct advantages in some cases.
Ok then, how about the total opposite - one single department for the entire government which is responsible for releasing properly redacted documents, no other department is allowed to release redacted documents, everything as to pass through this single department...
What is that exactly a solution to? Because it doesn't change the fact that B&N are removing physical copies from all their physical stores due to an exclusivity deal the publisher made with a competitor...
On the other hand, did the B&N spokesman clarify how removing books from sale helps B&N to fulfill the prose "to make available any book, anywhere, anytime"? Surely its counter productive to that promise?
.Net has that form of LINQ as well, and you can convert between the two (method based and query based) easily enough.
You mean, the truth is ... Option B?! Wow! Now, what exactly was Option B?
Patched and distributed outside of the company and its agents...
Last time I looked, the Android user space is Apache licensed, and the Apache license is FOSS...
Actually, PDFCreator installed the shit ware even if you said no to it for a long time, during which I discovered thus and promptly stopped recommending it.
Name the definitive version of UNIX please - because pretty much every version out there has been "bizarrely modified" and "quite screwed up" by its vendor.
I stopped using PDFCreator back when their SF installer started coming with malware auto-installed, even if you said no to the browser bar.
Instead, I use the MS plugin for Office which supplies PDF as a save as option.
Awww did someone get all offended at the thought that someone dislikes their Android experience enough to go back to Apple? Poor poor you, don't worry, it will soon pass.
No, I don't have a "horrible misunderstanding" at all - its (pretty much) all private infrastructure, which various people pay to access and carry their traffic over through voluntary agreements.
There is no "public internet", there is merely the "internet" which is nothing more than a lot of people connecting their networks together - and you are suggesting that one network should not be able to connect to another network purely because of the management of the network...
I don't "fail to see" anything, I just don't share your opinion of it.
Any proof for anything you have claimed?