Depends on where you are and how stringent the police feel like being. Possession of more than one joint has been considerd "intent to distribute". Intent to distribute is when the penalties skyrocket and theres a really low burden of proof for it so thats where they tend to nab people, especially habitual users. As a side point, marijuana is not physically addictive. Unlike, say, tobacco.
I still say tough shit. These are the same companies who ignored everyone warning about single-vendor dominance, and who decided that the speed-to-market of VB was worth it, because Microsoft isn't going to go away, right? You tied yourself inextricably to a single major vendor who wants you to be a recurring revenue stream and not a one-timer. Now you're seeing the downside of it. Maybe next time people will think a little bit more about future-proofing.
VB 6 is the only language in common use without an open source implemenation. And there's been a couple half-assed ones, like OpenOffice's support of a VBScript look-alike.
The "event mechanism" in VB is identical to the event mechanism of pretty much every other event-based system out there, except that it's weaker. VB does enable very simple authoring of COM, and I have recommended it in the past for that reason, but since learning about PyWin32 and it's amazing COM support I would no longer do that. And, in fact, it is perfectly reasonable to judge a language based on what the average user does with it.
He may have avoided the use of boolean because it's usually used when referring to logical operations rather than bitwise ones. Although in the pure logical context they're the same thing.
Here, let me show you why it's a stupidly simple example and why you should comment your code
Say the code is as such:
if (database.isConnected()) { .... if (!database.isConnected()) { database.connect(); } }
It's perfectly clear what this does but a year from now a maintenance programmer is going to see this, think the check is redudant and pull it out.
Compare with this:
if (database.isConnected()) { .... //An exception in the first statement can cause the connection to reset if (!database.isConnected()) { database.connect(); } }
ecode tag is stripping my indentation so you'll have to imagine it on your own.
Bullcrap. They have to learn how to power up and start thier web browser, and if thats *all* they want to learn, then Linux is fine. The people who cry about the lack of the Linux desktop are people with a signifigent investment in Windows (or OS X), who have skills there, and who don't like the barrier to re-training to gain the same amount of skill. Given the same baseline, which is a pre-installed and pre-configured machine from a standard image, then the hypothetical "I just browse the web" user, who I'm not sure really exists, can just as easily use Linux, Windows, or OS X.
Now, now, while Linux is definitly not "ready for the desktop" no matter how many of the zealots tell you it is
See, this is bullcrap. It's always been bullcrap. What people mean is that it's not ready for *them*, which isn't nearly the same thing. The desktop experience on linux is far better than Windows 3.1, for example. It's better than Win95. It's better, for certain values of better, than OS 9. In fact, the Linux desktop has a lot of advantages over WinXP and OS X, although they do have a polish advantage. The Linux desktop is perfectly usable, no matter your level of technical sophistication. People get upset because they're skilled with Windows and can correct problems there, but don't want to learn the same skills under Linux.
If you manage to sucker enough people to get your mac mini, you'll be happy to find out that Spotlight, which will be in the next version of OS X, does all this stuff except better. Like you don't haat to "attach XML metadata to files" (and seriously, who wants to query XML with SQL anyway?). http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight. html
I may be overstating what Rails does, as I am not an expert in this, but i have worked with frameworks (and written a little half-assed one of my own) which pulls the *schema* information directly from the database, parses it, and uses that to create the mappings. The "configuration" is your database schema. The developer does nothing, unless they want to override the way the tool does the default OR mappings.
I'm going to sound like someone I know and really dislike here, but...
If you're regularly dynamically creating and nameing tables, that sounds like you're abusing SQL to create trees and other arbitrarily nested hierarchies. Assuming Oracle and it's tree extensions isn't an option, maybe you should reconsider using an RDBMS for a tree-based back end? Or maybe you're doing something totally different, in which case just ignore me.
In brief order:
All widely used UI frameworks with the exception of the Windows API support declarative mechanisms, Windows to do so in the still-vaporware longhorn, all of them including Windows have bindings in enormous varieties of languages.
We never divorced database usage from being language-specific - it's done exactly the same way GUI is, with language-specific wrappers, often over other generic wrappers. There's a common query language which is sadly not all that common after all.
The "best" way to write web applications is still up in the air and being explored, Rails is one of those explorations.
If you love functional programming, you will hate Java and love Ruby. On the other hand, if you love functional programming but have been doing it in C, you may already be beyond help;).
My point is merely that the database schema does not magically appear from nowhere.
It is magically pulled from the database. Lots of existing OR mapping tools can do this, including Java ones, but lacking Ruby's dynamic nature it's done as an extra pre-compilation step. Rails can do it at runtime.
On the other hand, I actually prefer explicitly creating functions for everything rather than using lamdas or anonymous blocks all over the place. It makes refactoring easier, and the explicitness aids my comprehension of the code. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
Ooh, private network. Good point. I guess all the telcos better give back all that funding and the tax breaks and the eminent domain right-of-way and everything else that they got because they were making something of public benefit. There are very few large corporations, and none that built, build, or maintain nationwide infrastructure, that can make a non-laughable claim that their network is "private". Hell, strictly speaking, the *only* reason corporations are even allowed to exist as legal concepts is to provide societal benefit. It's right there in the legislation.
We need to look into this further! Forget subliminal music in rock music, I bet teen suicide is actually caused by video games! "Elf is about to die!". And obesity! "Wizard needs food, badly!".
The last time I turned on my TV. Come on, that wasn't so hard.
Re:They don't understand licensing though
on
OGRE 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
You're actually quoting from the header of the LGPL, and not from the actual terms of the license. In any case, the concern there is only if you're statically linking (dynamic linking doesn't present a problem, because replacing the library will affect all applications using it). This is a well known characteristic of the LGPL - it requires that end users be able to replace the LGPLed library. Section 6b of the GPL has the relevant legalese.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on where you are and how stringent the police feel like being. Possession of more than one joint has been considerd "intent to distribute". Intent to distribute is when the penalties skyrocket and theres a really low burden of proof for it so thats where they tend to nab people, especially habitual users. As a side point, marijuana is not physically addictive. Unlike, say, tobacco.
I still say tough shit. These are the same companies who ignored everyone warning about single-vendor dominance, and who decided that the speed-to-market of VB was worth it, because Microsoft isn't going to go away, right? You tied yourself inextricably to a single major vendor who wants you to be a recurring revenue stream and not a one-timer. Now you're seeing the downside of it. Maybe next time people will think a little bit more about future-proofing.
VB 6 is the only language in common use without an open source implemenation. And there's been a couple half-assed ones, like OpenOffice's support of a VBScript look-alike.
The "event mechanism" in VB is identical to the event mechanism of pretty much every other event-based system out there, except that it's weaker. VB does enable very simple authoring of COM, and I have recommended it in the past for that reason, but since learning about PyWin32 and it's amazing COM support I would no longer do that. And, in fact, it is perfectly reasonable to judge a language based on what the average user does with it.
He may have avoided the use of boolean because it's usually used when referring to logical operations rather than bitwise ones. Although in the pure logical context they're the same thing.
Say the code is as such:It's perfectly clear what this does but a year from now a maintenance programmer is going to see this, think the check is redudant and pull it out. Compare with this:ecode tag is stripping my indentation so you'll have to imagine it on your own.
I'd be okay with such a tax if they'd decriminalize the sharing. Which they won't - they just want the free money.
No, you mean it's not ready *for you*. Unless you can provide an objective criteria by which you measure "desktop readiness" and then defend that.
Bullcrap. They have to learn how to power up and start thier web browser, and if thats *all* they want to learn, then Linux is fine. The people who cry about the lack of the Linux desktop are people with a signifigent investment in Windows (or OS X), who have skills there, and who don't like the barrier to re-training to gain the same amount of skill. Given the same baseline, which is a pre-installed and pre-configured machine from a standard image, then the hypothetical "I just browse the web" user, who I'm not sure really exists, can just as easily use Linux, Windows, or OS X.
See, this is bullcrap. It's always been bullcrap. What people mean is that it's not ready for *them*, which isn't nearly the same thing. The desktop experience on linux is far better than Windows 3.1, for example. It's better than Win95. It's better, for certain values of better, than OS 9. In fact, the Linux desktop has a lot of advantages over WinXP and OS X, although they do have a polish advantage. The Linux desktop is perfectly usable, no matter your level of technical sophistication. People get upset because they're skilled with Windows and can correct problems there, but don't want to learn the same skills under Linux.
If you manage to sucker enough people to get your mac mini, you'll be happy to find out that Spotlight, which will be in the next version of OS X, does all this stuff except better. Like you don't haat to "attach XML metadata to files" (and seriously, who wants to query XML with SQL anyway?). http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight. html
I may be overstating what Rails does, as I am not an expert in this, but i have worked with frameworks (and written a little half-assed one of my own) which pulls the *schema* information directly from the database, parses it, and uses that to create the mappings. The "configuration" is your database schema. The developer does nothing, unless they want to override the way the tool does the default OR mappings.
If you're regularly dynamically creating and nameing tables, that sounds like you're abusing SQL to create trees and other arbitrarily nested hierarchies. Assuming Oracle and it's tree extensions isn't an option, maybe you should reconsider using an RDBMS for a tree-based back end? Or maybe you're doing something totally different, in which case just ignore me.
In brief order: All widely used UI frameworks with the exception of the Windows API support declarative mechanisms, Windows to do so in the still-vaporware longhorn, all of them including Windows have bindings in enormous varieties of languages.
We never divorced database usage from being language-specific - it's done exactly the same way GUI is, with language-specific wrappers, often over other generic wrappers. There's a common query language which is sadly not all that common after all.
The "best" way to write web applications is still up in the air and being explored, Rails is one of those explorations.
If you love functional programming, you will hate Java and love Ruby. On the other hand, if you love functional programming but have been doing it in C, you may already be beyond help ;).
It is magically pulled from the database. Lots of existing OR mapping tools can do this, including Java ones, but lacking Ruby's dynamic nature it's done as an extra pre-compilation step. Rails can do it at runtime.
On the other hand, I actually prefer explicitly creating functions for everything rather than using lamdas or anonymous blocks all over the place. It makes refactoring easier, and the explicitness aids my comprehension of the code. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
Ooh, private network. Good point. I guess all the telcos better give back all that funding and the tax breaks and the eminent domain right-of-way and everything else that they got because they were making something of public benefit. There are very few large corporations, and none that built, build, or maintain nationwide infrastructure, that can make a non-laughable claim that their network is "private". Hell, strictly speaking, the *only* reason corporations are even allowed to exist as legal concepts is to provide societal benefit. It's right there in the legislation.
Ahem. No it doesn't. It bolds "macintosh" and "opera".
Yes, Apple was famously ahead of the curve with it's pre-emptive, multithreaded operating system in 2001. Nobody had one of those!
er, yes. Subliminal music in rock music. I knew they had that preview button for a reason.
We need to look into this further! Forget subliminal music in rock music, I bet teen suicide is actually caused by video games! "Elf is about to die!". And obesity! "Wizard needs food, badly!".
The last time I turned on my TV. Come on, that wasn't so hard.
You're actually quoting from the header of the LGPL, and not from the actual terms of the license. In any case, the concern there is only if you're statically linking (dynamic linking doesn't present a problem, because replacing the library will affect all applications using it). This is a well known characteristic of the LGPL - it requires that end users be able to replace the LGPLed library. Section 6b of the GPL has the relevant legalese.
My thought too. Which looks nothing at all like Windows XP, by the way, except that they both have smoothly rendered high quality icons.