Seems to me that I've read about proposals for liquid-fueled artillery several years ago. The idea was to use gasoline or diesel fuel in a combustion chamber to propel the shell, and like this proposal, the fuel charge would be variable. IIRC, one proposal was basically to fill the whole barrel with a fuel-air mixture, which would get compressed by a projectile that was a bit smaller than the bore, so you'd have the propellant burning in a shock wave behind it. Don't know if a prototype was ever built, though.
No, there are many instances of the federal government being restrained by the constitution at the beginning of the republic. Hamilton tried like hell to undermine it from the beginning, but his machinations were thwarted for a time.
The main difference between you and me is that, in the 27 years I spent programming computers, I listened and shared ideas with my peers, which at the end, made me an even better coder.
If this is as far as you've gotten in 27 years, then better luck next time.
I taught Cocoa programming to hundreds of people in my time at Apple, and very few of them would find it as difficult as you do to understand that returning an object across a DO connection has a cost. In fact, the only other person I can think of who can't grasp this is David Stes.
It will be easier for you to act like a child, close your ears, sing "I can't hear you", and write some additional insults.
You started this thread ad hominem. If you don't like it, then don't do it.
Your scheme ignores the fact that self is a value that can be assigned. Your proposal introduces new semantics that require the language to distinguish between returning self and returning any other id. You're wrong, you lose, get over yourself.
At least it isn't as bad as it was during the Depression. They made owning gold ILLEGAL back then. What a crock.
That ban was unconstitutional, of course. Not that that's stopped the federal government from doing whatever the hell they wanted since the Lincoln administration.
The matter at hand isn't hard to understand, so it does me no particular credit to have a grasp of the obvious which you lack. The fact that I understand it and you don't isn't an accomplishment on my part, it's just a failure on your part.
His arguments against anthropogenic global warming have all been disproven.
No, they've just been denied. Projections from computer models are not facts, they are hypotheses. Real-world data will show over time whether Lindzen is correct or not.
it seems that he keeps harping on the same disproven points over and over again.
Perhaps he's convinced of his position, and refuses to back down in the face of witch-hunting by people like you.
Anyone who keeps harping on disproven old ideas as if bringing attention to them can give them any validity deserves vilification.
Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
You claim that your position is scientific, but your rhetoric shows that it is emotional.
What matters is whether it's happening at all, and whether any measures taken to deal with it are a win or a lose. A lot of people seem to be quite happy with throwing China and India under the bus, and letting millions of people suffer from a depressed economy as a result of draconian emission-control measures.
Really? So, tossing off terms like "deniers" when someone doesn't agree with you is a scientific argument?
Look, let's suppose for a second that global warming is a problem, that people are causing it, and so forth. Do you think that you can possibly be part of the solution by getting nasty with anyone who isn't yet convinced?
Bottom line, I could attack the arguments without prejudice but my experience has taught me not to waste the time.
What you're doing is a waste of time. I'm sure you enjoy your holier-than-thou posturing, but it doesn't help.
Ah, a budding Zampolit, eh? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the person whose throat you're jumping down might have some basis for his skepticism, or is that simply unthinkable?
But, why on earth would you want to serialize/self/ as a return value ?
I can see that you've never thought the matter through. Methods can't be declared to return self, they can only be declared to return id. That means that you can't take any shortcuts that depend on the object that's returned being the same one that gets the message.
I really want to see one of these fusion processes work. It would make a radical change in our society, by removing any reason for the US government to care what happens in the middle east.
Slashdot Mirror
You really should do a bit of reading about Lincoln.
-jcr
Do you really believe that insulting me makes your position any more valid?\
No, my position is supported by the facts. Insulting you is merely an amusing pastime.
In any case, you started the thread by insulting me. Whining about getting the same treatment in return makes you rather ridiculous.
-jcr
Seems to me that I've read about proposals for liquid-fueled artillery several years ago. The idea was to use gasoline or diesel fuel in a combustion chamber to propel the shell, and like this proposal, the fuel charge would be variable. IIRC, one proposal was basically to fill the whole barrel with a fuel-air mixture, which would get compressed by a projectile that was a bit smaller than the bore, so you'd have the propellant burning in a shock wave behind it. Don't know if a prototype was ever built, though.
-jcr
Returning 'self' incurs additional overhead
Oops, that was the point I meant to quote above.
-jcr
No, there are many instances of the federal government being restrained by the constitution at the beginning of the republic. Hamilton tried like hell to undermine it from the beginning, but his machinations were thwarted for a time.
-jcr
Regardless of returning self or void, returning from a method in DO requires creating a response that can be sent over the wire. It is non-trivial.
This was exactly my point, both in the present thread, and back when I argued this with Stes many years ago.
As for being rude, he started it. ;-)
-jcr
The main difference between you and me is that, in the 27 years I spent programming computers, I listened and shared ideas with my peers, which at the end, made me an even better coder.
If this is as far as you've gotten in 27 years, then better luck next time.
I taught Cocoa programming to hundreds of people in my time at Apple, and very few of them would find it as difficult as you do to understand that returning an object across a DO connection has a cost. In fact, the only other person I can think of who can't grasp this is David Stes.
-jcr
I replied to the "self is a value on the stack" post. ...and you further demonstrated your ignorance, just as Stes used to do.
Have a nice day.
-jcr
It will be easier for you to act like a child, close your ears, sing "I can't hear you", and write some additional insults.
You started this thread ad hominem. If you don't like it, then don't do it.
Your scheme ignores the fact that self is a value that can be assigned. Your proposal introduces new semantics that require the language to distinguish between returning self and returning any other id. You're wrong, you lose, get over yourself.
-jcr
At least it isn't as bad as it was during the Depression. They made owning gold ILLEGAL back then. What a crock.
That ban was unconstitutional, of course. Not that that's stopped the federal government from doing whatever the hell they wanted since the Lincoln administration.
-jcr
I honestly think you should stop being arrogant
The matter at hand isn't hard to understand, so it does me no particular credit to have a grasp of the obvious which you lack. The fact that I understand it and you don't isn't an accomplishment on my part, it's just a failure on your part.
-jcr
Care to get closure on our "return self" thread ?
I've answered you there, but I really don't expect you to understand it. You're out of your depth just like Stes was.
-jcr
Give it up, kid.
self is a value on the stack. Think about what that means.
-jcr
we've turned to very, very complex computer models which do the same thing.
Not even close.
A computer model does not "do the same thing", by any stretch of the imagination.
-jcr
His arguments against anthropogenic global warming have all been disproven.
No, they've just been denied. Projections from computer models are not facts, they are hypotheses. Real-world data will show over time whether Lindzen is correct or not.
it seems that he keeps harping on the same disproven points over and over again.
Perhaps he's convinced of his position, and refuses to back down in the face of witch-hunting by people like you.
Anyone who keeps harping on disproven old ideas as if bringing attention to them can give them any validity deserves vilification.
Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
You claim that your position is scientific, but your rhetoric shows that it is emotional.
-jcr
What matters is whether it's happening at all, and whether any measures taken to deal with it are a win or a lose. A lot of people seem to be quite happy with throwing China and India under the bus, and letting millions of people suffer from a depressed economy as a result of draconian emission-control measures.
-jcr
I do have a problem with non-scientific skepticism of a scientific topic.
Do you approve or disapprove of the vilification of Richard Lindzen?
-jcr
how helpful is it to treat any science-denying wackjob's argument
Hey, did that feel good? I sure hope it felt good to you, because it certainly didn't help anyone else.
-jcr
Face it, JCR, you're arguing with dogma.
Yeah, I know.
-jcr
my arguments are based on science
Really? So, tossing off terms like "deniers" when someone doesn't agree with you is a scientific argument?
Look, let's suppose for a second that global warming is a problem, that people are causing it, and so forth. Do you think that you can possibly be part of the solution by getting nasty with anyone who isn't yet convinced?
Bottom line, I could attack the arguments without prejudice but my experience has taught me not to waste the time.
What you're doing is a waste of time. I'm sure you enjoy your holier-than-thou posturing, but it doesn't help.
-jcr
the idea of nuking out humanity from the planet sounds more and more attractive AND eco-friendly.
Why are so many misanthropes masquerading as environmentalists these days?
-jcr
I've dealt with plenty of GW deniers and creationists before, those equations are very good at identifying them.
I see that you're practicing package-dealing, too. Frankly, you've got rather more in common with creationists than you would care to admit.
-jcr
A budding GW denier eh?
Ah, a budding Zampolit, eh? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the person whose throat you're jumping down might have some basis for his skepticism, or is that simply unthinkable?
-jcr
But, why on earth would you want to serialize /self/ as a return value ?
I can see that you've never thought the matter through. Methods can't be declared to return self, they can only be declared to return id. That means that you can't take any shortcuts that depend on the object that's returned being the same one that gets the message.
-jcr
I really want to see one of these fusion processes work. It would make a radical change in our society, by removing any reason for the US government to care what happens in the middle east.
-jcr