If PHPs syntax and semantics weren't that broken, and if they wouldn't introduce incompatibilities with every minor version, the annoteded docs wouldn't be as neccessary as they are now.
Then again, you just compared it to perl, so I probably shoulnd't bitch about syntax and semantics right now...
Common Lisp has a hierarchy of types starting with t, the general type. Its subtypes include number, integer, fixnum, string, cons, list, array, hashtable, function, structure and class objects etc. You can also define own types, for example "all integers between 11 and 42" or "string or list", not to mention structs and OO classes.
In most cases you don't deal with types directly: just try to do with a Lisp object whatever you want, if it isn't allowed an error is signaled. You can, hoever, explicitly check for types at runtime (using the check-type function), dispatch on them using typecase and etypecase, use them for method dispatch (you can write methods for all kinds of objects, not only for the classes you invented yourself.), get the type using type-of, or "declare" the types of your objects and functions, so the compiler can optimize and/or check appropriately, depending on your compiler settings (and your Lisp implementation, of course.) Given a reasonable implementation (the free CMUCL and SBCL systems are great when it comes to optimizing and type-checking), you can have the best of both static and dynamic typing, use whatever approach is more useful in a given situation.
Like Scheme (and I guess TCL), it's an object that has a type, not a name. You can bind a string to the symbol "foo" and then an array of flying deamons after that, but that won't change the type of the string itself - it stays a string until it's gcd.
When you reach a node, and hit , and then try to go to "previous", you are taken somewhere other than "previous" - you get the previous node at the same level. There is no way to retrace your steps, that I was able to discover.
Well, undocumented software is not usable. When you decide that you don't need a manual to understand the tool you wrote, fine, but then don't distibute it, because others don't, and probably don't want to try to figure it out on their own, at the risk of misusing it, causing all kinds of bad things to happen.
That said, last I looked there were a lot of manpages in Debian that basically said "Hi, I'm the manpage of tool X. There isn't any real documentation in here, but hey, it is a manpage, so don't complain!"
I have no problems with bash as an interactive shell (although I like zsh as least as much). However, I think noone should ever use it for writing shell scripts. Most of it's features don't help there much, so you can as well stay portable.
So, just say no to #!/bin/bash. At the very least, use a trick like #!/usr/bin/env bash, or just #!/bin/sh as God^H^H^HPOSIX wanted it. Not everybody has a bash in/bin, but there's always/bin/sh.
I fail to see how modifying the copyright notices is copyright infringement.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
XEmacs releases have oxymoron's as code names. Recent ones included "honest recruiter" and "military intelligence", the current XEmacs is called "portable code".
I was taught assembler in my second year of school.
It's kinda like construction work -- with a toothpick for a tool.
So when I made my senior year, I threw my code away,
And learned the way to program that I still prefer today.
Now, some folks on the Internet put their faith in C++.
They swear that it's so powerful, it's what God used for us.
And maybe it lets mortals dredge their objects from the C.
But I think that explains why only God can make a tree.
For God wrote in Lisp code
When he filled the leaves with green.
The fractal flowers and recursive roots:
The most lovely hack I've seen.
And when I ponder snowflakes, never finding two the same,
I know God likes a language with its own four-letter name.
Now, I've used a SUN under Unix, so I've seen what C can hold.
I've surfed for Perls, found what Fortran's for,
Got that Java stuff down cold.
Though the chance that I'd write COBOL code
is a SNOBOL's chance in Hell.
And I basically hate hieroglyphs, so I won't use APL.
Now, God must know all these languages, and a few I haven't named.
But the Lord made sure, when each sparrow falls,
that its flesh will be reclaimed.
And the Lord could not count grains of sand with a 32-bit word.
Who knows where we would go to if Lisp weren't what he preferred?
And God wrote in Lisp code
Every creature great and small.
Don't search the disk drive for man.c,
When the listing's on the wall.
And when I watch the lightning
Burn unbelievers to a crisp,
I know God had six days to work,
So he wrote it all in Lisp.
Yes, God had a deadline.
So he wrote it all in Lisp.
Funny thing is that the GPL is, by definition, the least free license possible conforming with the Free Software Definition as published by the FSF itself.
Think about it: If you remove any of the restrictions imposed by the GPL, it still qualifies as a Free Software license. If you add any restriction not present in the GPL, it doesn't.
And no, I don't think you should take that too serious.
Well, I'm a programmer, not software. I'm sure the code will feel a lot better if the GPL takes some time to make it Free (although no code ever complained to me), but then again, why should I bother? Seems to be an issue between the code and the GPL alone, no human action required.
Not that I would stop the GPL from making any code Free, mind you. We all know what a hassle it is to deal with a pissed off license.
"Embrace and Extend" is not a Microsoft-specific strategy. The GNU project is all about embracing and extending Unix, for example.
Not that I have a big problem with it (although I often thought about hitting the head of some idiot starting shell scripts with "#!/bin/bash" with a printout of the POSIX standard), I just think you should think a little about what you criticize about others.
if you know how to program, you can learn a new language in an afternoon, and get to be an expert after a month or so working with it.
Definitly not true. You can pick up a new syntax very quickly, but if you don't want to program C in Java (insert your languages of choice), it takes a lot longer. Each language has it's own idioms and cultural conventions about how to do things, different associated tools and working styles etc, and they can differ radically
It's easy to get to the point where you can write working and useful code in a given language if you are a good programmer, but not to the point where your code is elegant.
I would imagine there are a lot more jobs for VB than there are for the languages you listed as should be required (Eiffel, Lisp, Icon).
Who cares? VB is really easy to learn, so if you need it for a job, sit down for 2 days and get used to it (don't learn too much though, or you will notice that it's so ugly that you don't want that job anyway).
OTOH, Eiffel and Lisp (I don't know Icon, so I won't comment on it) will teach you new concepts, like DBC and a lot about robustnes resp. functional programming (Lisp could also be used to teach generic or OO programming, but this is rather unpopular in academia for some reason...). VB doesn't have anything other languages don't, and will only show you that a language designed for beginners some decades ago might not be the best choice for all problems.
Client-side Java, and particularly Swing, is nice for application developers and maybe network admins (btw: Web Start makes deployment trivial without being restricted to an in-browser UI), but not neccessarily for end users. While it may be possible to build decently usable GUIs with Swing, not many developers succeed with this, and lots of Swing apps are not exactly a pleasure to use.
OTOH, DHTML usually is a pain for both users and developers.
This is not a flaw of the book, but of it's topic. Granted, usually there are good reasons for the incompatible changes beween PHP releases, but it would be nice if the PHP developers could just take some time and try to think about things before they implement it.
It is nearly impossible to develop a portable PHP application. You never know what features are available in the installation a client uses. I want a stable development platform dammit, if I'd been looking for an mediocre ad-hoc syntax to access a huge and useful, but ever-changing and frequently buggy library, I'd use VB.
Do you think that everyone in Sun can write good java code?
No, but I think that there should be some Sun employees that can, and that Sun would chose them to implement their GUIs.
However, I don't argue that it is impossible to write good Swing apps. But most I have personally used were slow and needed lots of memory. I doubt that it's just my bad luck and I missed all the really good ones, so I think there is definitly room for improvement. I can't help but see a better Java UI library (that is more Java-like than SWT) as a win for both developers and users. Of course, if anyone could write non-sluggish Swing GUIs, your team would loose it's competetive advantage, so you might not agree;-)
Java is extremely cross platform, both on the server side and the client side.
Well, it is a platform of it's own. Integrating Java with the host system isn't that much easier than integrating two seperate systems.
By the way, try using Java on a free BSD. FreeBSD is the only one of them (of the "core three", maybe it's better on Darwin) with a patchset to get a native Java, but they can't distribute it because of Suns license.
However, if you truly understand the Swing API and the Java language, you can write GUIs that are just as responsive as native applications.
I used to believe this, until I had to use the Swing-based Solaris Management Console coming with Solaris 9. If Sun can't write performant Java GUIs, I guess people should start searching for a solution rather than for excuses.
I never had the chance to try FreeBSD SMP support yet, but I strongly doubt that it is as good as Solaris'.
Solaris is running on systems with lots of processors (as in several hundreds) for years. Even if SMPng adresses such huge systems at all (which I simply don't know), don't underestimate the value of years of debugging and tuning, not to mention controling both the hardware and software part at once.
That said, I'm just configuring my (single CPU) Ultra5 to netboot FreeBSD 5.0:)
Please look also if the files appeared on the other mirrors.
No, please don't. Wait until it's released. The ISOs may still change without notice, destroy your computer and piss in your fish bowl. Say with me: These files do not contain a released FreeBSD version.
And, of course, instead of downloading ISO images, consider using CVSup to save time and bandwidth. Or at least don't download all ISOs - you don't need all packages, and installing the stuff you want from the network works without any problems.
I really wonder whether CmdrTaco is just too stupid to learn that a FreeBSD version is released when the release is announced by the release managment team and not when some files appear on some FTP sites, or if this has become some weird kind of personal vendetta or insider joke. Not only that he fucked up for every single release for some years now, they even started to announce release candidates early recently.
Despite being idiotic, this behaviour is really harmful. FreeBSD takes care to let their mirrors prepare for the traffic peak when a new version is released. The early "announcements" on slashdot of course mean that the people managing the mirrors - voluntarily, people not only FreeBSD but lots of free software projects depend on - don't have this time to prepare, and might get major problems, which in turn might mean that they decide not to support FreeBSD and other projects by providing bandwidth for free any more.
Unless this is some funky plan of VA Software or whatever their name is this week to push SourceForge, it would be really nice if slashdot could just stop damaging the Free Software infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, you just compared it to perl, so I probably shoulnd't bitch about syntax and semantics right now...
Then again, there has to be some reason why people invent and use Python or Dylan.
In most cases you don't deal with types directly: just try to do with a Lisp object whatever you want, if it isn't allowed an error is signaled. You can, hoever, explicitly check for types at runtime (using the check-type function), dispatch on them using typecase and etypecase, use them for method dispatch (you can write methods for all kinds of objects, not only for the classes you invented yourself.), get the type using type-of, or "declare" the types of your objects and functions, so the compiler can optimize and/or check appropriately, depending on your compiler settings (and your Lisp implementation, of course.) Given a reasonable implementation (the free CMUCL and SBCL systems are great when it comes to optimizing and type-checking), you can have the best of both static and dynamic typing, use whatever approach is more useful in a given situation.
Like Scheme (and I guess TCL), it's an object that has a type, not a name. You can bind a string to the symbol "foo" and then an array of flying deamons after that, but that won't change the type of the string itself - it stays a string until it's gcd.
Yes, as if it would be possible that there are people with different points of view! On Slashdot! Ha ha.
Took me some years to figure out, too.
That said, last I looked there were a lot of manpages in Debian that basically said "Hi, I'm the manpage of tool X. There isn't any real documentation in here, but hey, it is a manpage, so don't complain!"
So, just say no to #!/bin/bash. At the very least, use a trick like #!/usr/bin/env bash, or just #!/bin/sh as God^H^H^HPOSIX wanted it. Not everybody has a bash in /bin, but there's always /bin/sh.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
What part of it is hard to understand?
XEmacs releases have oxymoron's as code names. Recent ones included "honest recruiter" and "military intelligence", the current XEmacs is called "portable code".
I was taught assembler in my second year of school.
It's kinda like construction work -- with a toothpick for a tool.
So when I made my senior year, I threw my code away,
And learned the way to program that I still prefer today.
Now, some folks on the Internet put their faith in C++.
They swear that it's so powerful, it's what God used for us.
And maybe it lets mortals dredge their objects from the C.
But I think that explains why only God can make a tree.
For God wrote in Lisp code
When he filled the leaves with green.
The fractal flowers and recursive roots:
The most lovely hack I've seen.
And when I ponder snowflakes, never finding two the same,
I know God likes a language with its own four-letter name.
Now, I've used a SUN under Unix, so I've seen what C can hold.
I've surfed for Perls, found what Fortran's for, Got that Java stuff down cold.
Though the chance that I'd write COBOL code is a SNOBOL's chance in Hell.
And I basically hate hieroglyphs, so I won't use APL.
Now, God must know all these languages, and a few I haven't named.
But the Lord made sure, when each sparrow falls, that its flesh will be reclaimed.
And the Lord could not count grains of sand with a 32-bit word.
Who knows where we would go to if Lisp weren't what he preferred?
And God wrote in Lisp code
Every creature great and small.
Don't search the disk drive for man.c,
When the listing's on the wall.
And when I watch the lightning
Burn unbelievers to a crisp,
I know God had six days to work,
So he wrote it all in Lisp.
Yes, God had a deadline.
So he wrote it all in Lisp.
Think about it: If you remove any of the restrictions imposed by the GPL, it still qualifies as a Free Software license. If you add any restriction not present in the GPL, it doesn't.
And no, I don't think you should take that too serious.
Not that I would stop the GPL from making any code Free, mind you. We all know what a hassle it is to deal with a pissed off license.
Not that I have a big problem with it (although I often thought about hitting the head of some idiot starting shell scripts with "#!/bin/bash" with a printout of the POSIX standard), I just think you should think a little about what you criticize about others.
It's easy to get to the point where you can write working and useful code in a given language if you are a good programmer, but not to the point where your code is elegant.
For a more general take on this, read Teach yourself Programming in Ten Years.
OTOH, Eiffel and Lisp (I don't know Icon, so I won't comment on it) will teach you new concepts, like DBC and a lot about robustnes resp. functional programming (Lisp could also be used to teach generic or OO programming, but this is rather unpopular in academia for some reason...). VB doesn't have anything other languages don't, and will only show you that a language designed for beginners some decades ago might not be the best choice for all problems.
OTOH, DHTML usually is a pain for both users and developers.
It is nearly impossible to develop a portable PHP application. You never know what features are available in the installation a client uses. I want a stable development platform dammit, if I'd been looking for an mediocre ad-hoc syntax to access a huge and useful, but ever-changing and frequently buggy library, I'd use VB.
However, I don't argue that it is impossible to write good Swing apps. But most I have personally used were slow and needed lots of memory. I doubt that it's just my bad luck and I missed all the really good ones, so I think there is definitly room for improvement. I can't help but see a better Java UI library (that is more Java-like than SWT) as a win for both developers and users. Of course, if anyone could write non-sluggish Swing GUIs, your team would loose it's competetive advantage, so you might not agree ;-)
By the way, try using Java on a free BSD. FreeBSD is the only one of them (of the "core three", maybe it's better on Darwin) with a patchset to get a native Java, but they can't distribute it because of Suns license.
I used to believe this, until I had to use the Swing-based Solaris Management Console coming with Solaris 9. If Sun can't write performant Java GUIs, I guess people should start searching for a solution rather than for excuses.Um, CVSup? There's absolutely no need to download new ISOs again.
Solaris is running on systems with lots of processors (as in several hundreds) for years. Even if SMPng adresses such huge systems at all (which I simply don't know), don't underestimate the value of years of debugging and tuning, not to mention controling both the hardware and software part at once.
That said, I'm just configuring my (single CPU) Ultra5 to netboot FreeBSD 5.0 :)
And, of course, instead of downloading ISO images, consider using CVSup to save time and bandwidth. Or at least don't download all ISOs - you don't need all packages, and installing the stuff you want from the network works without any problems.
Despite being idiotic, this behaviour is really harmful. FreeBSD takes care to let their mirrors prepare for the traffic peak when a new version is released. The early "announcements" on slashdot of course mean that the people managing the mirrors - voluntarily, people not only FreeBSD but lots of free software projects depend on - don't have this time to prepare, and might get major problems, which in turn might mean that they decide not to support FreeBSD and other projects by providing bandwidth for free any more.
Unless this is some funky plan of VA Software or whatever their name is this week to push SourceForge, it would be really nice if slashdot could just stop damaging the Free Software infrastructure.