With a properly set up type system, you express one type as the non-null pointer. You then express a second type - the maybe type, which describes something that is maybe something else. Now you use the Maybe Pointer as the result of allocation. Now in order to use the pointer, you need to get it out of the Maybe or the type system will complain, which enforces that you actually check for null before dereferenecing. It proves that your program will never dereference null.
Obviously this is only one example, but yes, type systems really can eliminate entire classes of programming error. This is just one (particularly common) one that they can get rid of.
Dynamic typing frees your mind to think about the problem at hand and the best solution to that problem
Quite the contrary. It frees your mind to think about the problem incorrectly, then requires your mind to churn through many incorrect ideas before finally settling on the correct one. Meanwhile, static typing deals with a large chunk of correctness for you, and gets you to the correct solution faster by pointing out the errors before you hit them at runtime.
I get sick of spending half my time dicking around with static types, casts, etc
If you're casting, you're not thinking about the types correctly yet. Learn to code a bit better.
I'll take dynamic typing any day and be done twice as fast,
No, you won't. Because every time the static type checker points out an error, it's showing you something that's wrong, that is *going* to crash your program. It's just doing it faster than you would find out otherwise. Otherwise, you'd have to run your program, and discover that type error at runtime.
LET the roads get crowded. You only put off the problem by feeding the beast. To get the demand for mass transit you need to create a problem; putting it off is not a permanent solution and wastes money.
Actually, Britain has already demonstrated that this is a terrible idea. Many councils had this exact thought, and built large estates with only paths into them. The result was lots of small dark alleys that are ideal for crime, rather than nice wide well lit roads. This then cost more in police work than the upkeep on the roads would cost.
That and the other incidental problems like older people being unable to carry their shopping back home etc.
While I agree that signals can waste gas compared to alternatives, what alternatives to signals can handle the traffic at such locations and use less "tarmac"?
Roundabouts.
With light controlled intersections, the roads exiting from the intersection are only used about 50% of the time. You can observe this by standing next to the road, a bit down from the junction, and observing the flow of traffic. You'll see huge blobs of traffic flow through, and then nothing for the same amount of time.
If you replace the intersections with roundabouts then you smooth out these waves, and you can half the width of the roads.
The easiest way to change how they drive is to change the structure of the roads. The amount of fuel and tarmac America wastes by having stop junctions, and light controlled intersections everywhere is enormous.
As someone who lived around London for many years, in Paris for many months, and now near SF, I'll take the bay area over London or Paris *any* day. It's infinitely more pleasant to live in.
Whatever makes you think that? Many electronic components in cars reduce cost, weight, and fuel usage. Take for example variable electrical valve timing. That reduces the complexity of the engine, and replaces some complex mechanical parts with lighter, cheaper electrical ones. It increases fuel efficiency, and engine power, while reducing weight and cost.
Except that there's probably a good reason why this was evolved into our herd in the first place. For some reason, this probably makes us fitter for some function.
If you could choose not to pay the license, then the BBC must produce shows specifically with the interest of getting as many subscribers as possible. The result of this is that they must appeal to everyone. The result of this is that they must produce lowest-common-denominator shite, like ITV and channel 5.
The entire point of the license is to avoid them having to produce this bollocks.
No, the point is that this map is meant to be useful. It is meant to accurately show what the weather is doing in various places. If someone chooses to make the representation of that 40 times smaller (yes, that really is how much smaller shetland ends up with this projection) for some people, than for others, then it's a very clearly biased map.
The point re independence is that while the weather map is clearly a subtle and tiny issue, these things add up. Every time a decision is made, it's made with first thought to London, and 1/40th of the thought to the north of Scotland. As such, decisions are made that are not in the best interest of Scotland, and hence... We should go independent.
Those of us who want to know what the weather is in Scotland care. We're not talking about Merkator making the UK look a little big here, we're talking about the north of scotland being reduced in size by 40 times thanks to perspective, and hence making it very difficult to tell what's going on up there.
Actually, from your east coast, you can see significantly more Scotland than England. Partly because Scotland is actually as long as England north to south, and partly because Ireland blocks your view of England.
I'm trying to figure out how forcing someone to provide a service to another person (for whatever reason) does not have an affect on the person PROVDING the service.
No one is forcing them to provide a service. They are asserting that if they decide to provide a service they must serve all people equally unless there's a compelling reason why they would be wronged by serving that person more than by serving anyone else.
I'm pretty sure that this has already been argued to death and found that you're talking out of your ass. The last time it was argued you can substitute the word "gay" for "black", and you will find that then, as now, the conclusion was "they're not doing anything to harm you, so you can't harm them".
I have not in any way changed my response. As you say, if you have been wronged at can prove it in court it is not inconsequential. That is my definition of inconsequential. If you can not prove this, then it is inconsequential, and you have no right to refuse service.
Slashdot Mirror
He's referencing a couple that did exactly this in the UK a couple of years ago.
Here's an example:
The null pointer dereference.
With a properly set up type system, you express one type as the non-null pointer. You then express a second type - the maybe type, which describes something that is maybe something else. Now you use the Maybe Pointer as the result of allocation. Now in order to use the pointer, you need to get it out of the Maybe or the type system will complain, which enforces that you actually check for null before dereferenecing. It proves that your program will never dereference null.
Obviously this is only one example, but yes, type systems really can eliminate entire classes of programming error. This is just one (particularly common) one that they can get rid of.
Dynamic typing frees your mind to think about the problem at hand and the best solution to that problem
Quite the contrary. It frees your mind to think about the problem incorrectly, then requires your mind to churn through many incorrect ideas before finally settling on the correct one. Meanwhile, static typing deals with a large chunk of correctness for you, and gets you to the correct solution faster by pointing out the errors before you hit them at runtime.
I get sick of spending half my time dicking around with static types, casts, etc
If you're casting, you're not thinking about the types correctly yet. Learn to code a bit better.
I'll take dynamic typing any day and be done twice as fast,
No, you won't. Because every time the static type checker points out an error, it's showing you something that's wrong, that is *going* to crash your program. It's just doing it faster than you would find out otherwise. Otherwise, you'd have to run your program, and discover that type error at runtime.
LET the roads get crowded. You only put off the problem by feeding the beast. To get the demand for mass transit you need to create a problem; putting it off is not a permanent solution and wastes money.
Actually, Britain has already demonstrated that this is a terrible idea. Many councils had this exact thought, and built large estates with only paths into them. The result was lots of small dark alleys that are ideal for crime, rather than nice wide well lit roads. This then cost more in police work than the upkeep on the roads would cost.
That and the other incidental problems like older people being unable to carry their shopping back home etc.
While I agree that signals can waste gas compared to alternatives, what alternatives to signals can handle the traffic at such locations and use less "tarmac"?
Roundabouts.
With light controlled intersections, the roads exiting from the intersection are only used about 50% of the time. You can observe this by standing next to the road, a bit down from the junction, and observing the flow of traffic. You'll see huge blobs of traffic flow through, and then nothing for the same amount of time.
If you replace the intersections with roundabouts then you smooth out these waves, and you can half the width of the roads.
The easiest way to change how they drive is to change the structure of the roads. The amount of fuel and tarmac America wastes by having stop junctions, and light controlled intersections everywhere is enormous.
Right... because this happens so often with banks. We see a bank go pop, and everyone's money disappear every month or so, don't we.
And you know... the government doesn't insure money held in bank accounts. It's completely the same.
As someone who lived around London for many years, in Paris for many months, and now near SF, I'll take the bay area over London or Paris *any* day. It's infinitely more pleasant to live in.
I'm missing something. Are you implying that London or Paris are pleasant places to live? If so... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
But they may not tell you about that... If for example it was north korea, there would be no statement of the plane turning up.
Because the United States is not supposed to have a redistributionist government
Isn't it? Who said? Why does the government have to believe them?
Whatever makes you think that? Many electronic components in cars reduce cost, weight, and fuel usage. Take for example variable electrical valve timing. That reduces the complexity of the engine, and replaces some complex mechanical parts with lighter, cheaper electrical ones. It increases fuel efficiency, and engine power, while reducing weight and cost.
Why is this a problem? You've outlined some interesting results here, but what makes you think there's an issue here?
The one shown in the video uses pinhole projection.
It's rather speculative, but a good inference can be made simply from the vast reduction in the number of moving parts.
Except that there's probably a good reason why this was evolved into our herd in the first place. For some reason, this probably makes us fitter for some function.
You miss the point of the license.
If you could choose not to pay the license, then the BBC must produce shows specifically with the interest of getting as many subscribers as possible. The result of this is that they must appeal to everyone. The result of this is that they must produce lowest-common-denominator shite, like ITV and channel 5.
The entire point of the license is to avoid them having to produce this bollocks.
No, the point is that this map is meant to be useful. It is meant to accurately show what the weather is doing in various places. If someone chooses to make the representation of that 40 times smaller (yes, that really is how much smaller shetland ends up with this projection) for some people, than for others, then it's a very clearly biased map.
The point re independence is that while the weather map is clearly a subtle and tiny issue, these things add up. Every time a decision is made, it's made with first thought to London, and 1/40th of the thought to the north of Scotland. As such, decisions are made that are not in the best interest of Scotland, and hence... We should go independent.
Those of us who want to know what the weather is in Scotland care. We're not talking about Merkator making the UK look a little big here, we're talking about the north of scotland being reduced in size by 40 times thanks to perspective, and hence making it very difficult to tell what's going on up there.
Actually, from your east coast, you can see significantly more Scotland than England. Partly because Scotland is actually as long as England north to south, and partly because Ireland blocks your view of England.
Okay, and how is this an alternative system to money?
This is just a different way of distributing money (which may or may not be a good idea).
No, it just happens to do a better job than all the other broken systems that people have thought of.
I'm trying to figure out how forcing someone to provide a service to another person (for whatever reason) does not have an affect on the person PROVDING the service.
No one is forcing them to provide a service. They are asserting that if they decide to provide a service they must serve all people equally unless there's a compelling reason why they would be wronged by serving that person more than by serving anyone else.
I'm pretty sure that this has already been argued to death and found that you're talking out of your ass. The last time it was argued you can substitute the word "gay" for "black", and you will find that then, as now, the conclusion was "they're not doing anything to harm you, so you can't harm them".
I have not in any way changed my response. As you say, if you have been wronged at can prove it in court it is not inconsequential. That is my definition of inconsequential. If you can not prove this, then it is inconsequential, and you have no right to refuse service.