Why not just have a pair of glasses that contain the computer?
I like it, I like it, I like it. Although if it has to come to that, when I'm out walking around or sitting under a tree, I kinda like to walk around or sit under a tree. And I don't wear glasses (or ski googles). Hey, in a few years we may all be wearing gas masks so there may be room.
I think gesture recognition is the input style of the future. think kung-fu moves. we'll lose weight!
it's been tried before (smalltalk, java) and failed, for these and a whole bunch of other reasons.
They "failed" because they were ahead of their time. Babbage tried to build a computer (the analytic engine) and failed. The tools and materials he needed did not exist. Imagine the frustration.
I understand the goal of D, but personally I like the idea in C and C++ where the base laguage is simple (especially C) and all the complicated stuff is in libraries. It makes it easy to get started with the language and learn the more powerful stuff as its needed. It seems to be the goal of D to toss a bunch of stuff in the language itself and let the programmer sort it out. I could imagine it being a real pain for a new programmer to learn a language like that.
A language feature is an assumption about the problem domain. Perl for instance has great regex capabilities built right in; C++ doesn't. Doing text manipulation in C++ is harder and although one can get libraries to do everything, it is not native to C++ and therefore requires significantly more code.
A key C++ assumption is that one may wish to do OO programming. This is much easier in C++ than in C, if only from a syntax standpoint; pointers to functions in various structures are painful and illogical in C, whereas in C++ there is essentially no need for them given the classes, inheritance, polymorphism built into C++. This is not library functionality. So if you want to do OO programming, you start with C++ and not C. If you want, say, auto memory management (but no VM), maybe you go download a C++ garbage collector, or maybe you consider D.
I'm sorry, but when I'm wading through breakpoints, I want something cruncy.
Yow. It's been a few years, honestly, since I have waded through breakpoints. But what I remember was that the music was so loud I doubt I could taste anything anyway. Especially since I was a starvation coder - best work done on an empty stomach. really empty. like 14 hours empty. Take that and add caffeine as needed. Serve nice and burnt out.
I know the same could be achieved with lots of printfs,couts or System.err.println,( I use this technique myself, in conjunction with JAVAs logging API ) but those are a pain to add and remove from code, especially in JAVA.
it sounds like you would be interested in Aspect J.
Actually, when I read "video iPod" I thought - great! Plug it into my DV cam and record onto the iPod drive instead of a miniDV tape. the 20 gig model is almost two hours worth of DV. It could be done with existing cameras via firewire device control, but having the two devices would be a huge pain in everyday situations. I look forward to the day I can chuck tape altogether, as mini DV tapes are not nearly as reliable as analog video.
Inheritance and overriding functions is different: It allows other people to insert their code in the middle of my code.
Inheritance is behavior generalization. Objects are good for bottom-up design: here are all the things, here's what they have in common, and here's how they can work together. You're thinking from the top down. May not be a good fit.
If I want to have people doing that, I'll allow them to pass me a function pointer;
I think this is a basic mistake. You mention "they" as if you know about "them". When overriding a member fuction in a subclass, the superclass doesn't have to know about "them", ie the subclass. One designs a class to be general, for certain, but you describe something much more proactive. You'd have to, for example, write code that deals with the specific case regarding "them", in which you have a pointer to "them", and thus you'd have to know their type. you're on the path to reinventing the OO plumbing at this point, which would definitely be fun, but it's already built into quite a number of languages.
in most cases I want to be able to make internal assumptions about how my code works without having inheritors break them.
Inheritance does not break encapsulation. Encapsulation is hiding your mess; you clearly think it can't be done. But you can design a class as a superclass... or not.
Inheritance is about classes, encapsulation is about instances. If B is a subclass of A, this usually means that A was designed as a superclass. what encapsulation is lost? Your personal desire that A never be a general case? You can enforce that in any OO language. But if you're going to do that, why use OO? as you've been quick to point out....
I am very wary of people that list 20 different languages on their resume, or suggest that they know these languages otherwise. Not that I'm in a position to make hiring decisions right now though.
Right, but the buzzwords land the interview. The experience section of a resume and the interview ought to cover the details. As an interviewer, you obviously would ask about all those twenty listed languages, and in the process would probably discover a lot. To leave the buzzwords and the even vague descriptive phrases off a resume is dumb.
It is an ecconomic argument. I hold to the side that says" They can do whatever they want, I can't control their behavior. However it is immoral for me to support that in any way, and buying their products counts as supporting them - if nothing else it says "I don't like how you act, but keep the cheap (junk) coming and I'll overlook it."
I agree with that, selectively. For instance, Cisco selling hardware that they know is being used for censorship. Or buying goods known to be made in a sweatshop or by slaves.
But it takes educated people to see what's wrong and be able to do something about it. Economic improvement == more education.
That humans are too complicated for us to reproduce artificially is an empirical claim, and it's one that I think is likely true.
This is an interesting comment because pretty much everything in the natural world is too complicated for us to reproduce "artificially." A flower, for instance. Or an ant. To produce a living ant in the lab via a man-made "artificial" process that is fundamentally (or substantially) different than the way they grow in nature would be an incomparable achievement.
In this sense, humans are not different than anything else in the world: we are fundamentally inseparable from the way we have come to exist.
This isn't to say that we won't grow flowers or ants or people in vats someday, but the point is that we have no reason to believe that there is any way to do so other than the natural growth process.
So.... in other words, if everyone stops buying stuff made in China, then the situation will be better? That somehow, if China is unable to export goods, that oppression will decrease?
with all the stories I've seen about being unable to retrieve data from just 15 yrs ago (because the format is unreadable, not because the media deteriorated) I'm convinced that archiving data using a chisel and a rock is the best way to go.
Yeah! You probably can't chisel much in 15 years though, but by then you'll be really buff and may not need your computer quite as much...
Slashdot Mirror
I like it, I like it, I like it. Although if it has to come to that, when I'm out walking around or sitting under a tree, I kinda like to walk around or sit under a tree. And I don't wear glasses (or ski googles). Hey, in a few years we may all be wearing gas masks so there may be room.
I think gesture recognition is the input style of the future. think kung-fu moves. we'll lose weight!
They "failed" because they were ahead of their time. Babbage tried to build a computer (the analytic engine) and failed. The tools and materials he needed did not exist. Imagine the frustration.
Hey this is slashdot. We know globals are bad. integrating previously separate namespaces is bound to produce endless conflicts.
It's obvious that this law will be repealed, but not before some real pain. real pain. It's too bad.
I'd like to see a "Linux Inside" campaign, etc., but now that I think about it, "Linus Inside" has better marketing potential.
1. things that run linux is news for nerds
2. no news is good news
3. news about things running linux is bad!
I think people just won't accept that. But in any case, you can bet that the NRA will make sure that guns won't be RFID tagged.
A language feature is an assumption about the problem domain. Perl for instance has great regex capabilities built right in; C++ doesn't. Doing text manipulation in C++ is harder and although one can get libraries to do everything, it is not native to C++ and therefore requires significantly more code.
A key C++ assumption is that one may wish to do OO programming. This is much easier in C++ than in C, if only from a syntax standpoint; pointers to functions in various structures are painful and illogical in C, whereas in C++ there is essentially no need for them given the classes, inheritance, polymorphism built into C++. This is not library functionality. So if you want to do OO programming, you start with C++ and not C. If you want, say, auto memory management (but no VM), maybe you go download a C++ garbage collector, or maybe you consider D.
so it's like C++ but without the stuff that gives compiler writers keyboard indentations on their foreheads.
Woah. I thought the movie was based on the book.
Yow. It's been a few years, honestly, since I have waded through breakpoints. But what I remember was that the music was so loud I doubt I could taste anything anyway. Especially since I was a starvation coder - best work done on an empty stomach. really empty. like 14 hours empty. Take that and add caffeine as needed. Serve nice and burnt out.
They should. Ever send in your reg card? Me neither. you know.. um, mumble privacy mumble mumble
I know the same could be achieved with lots of printfs,couts or System.err.println,( I use this technique myself, in conjunction with JAVAs logging API ) but those are a pain to add and remove from code, especially in JAVA.
it sounds like you would be interested in Aspect J.
Actually, when I read "video iPod" I thought - great! Plug it into my DV cam and record onto the iPod drive instead of a miniDV tape. the 20 gig model is almost two hours worth of DV. It could be done with existing cameras via firewire device control, but having the two devices would be a huge pain in everyday situations. I look forward to the day I can chuck tape altogether, as mini DV tapes are not nearly as reliable as analog video.
Inheritance is behavior generalization. Objects are good for bottom-up design: here are all the things, here's what they have in common, and here's how they can work together. You're thinking from the top down. May not be a good fit.
If I want to have people doing that, I'll allow them to pass me a function pointer;
I think this is a basic mistake. You mention "they" as if you know about "them". When overriding a member fuction in a subclass, the superclass doesn't have to know about "them", ie the subclass. One designs a class to be general, for certain, but you describe something much more proactive. You'd have to, for example, write code that deals with the specific case regarding "them", in which you have a pointer to "them", and thus you'd have to know their type. you're on the path to reinventing the OO plumbing at this point, which would definitely be fun, but it's already built into quite a number of languages.
in most cases I want to be able to make internal assumptions about how my code works without having inheritors break them.
Inheritance does not break encapsulation. Encapsulation is hiding your mess; you clearly think it can't be done. But you can design a class as a superclass... or not. Inheritance is about classes, encapsulation is about instances. If B is a subclass of A, this usually means that A was designed as a superclass. what encapsulation is lost? Your personal desire that A never be a general case? You can enforce that in any OO language. But if you're going to do that, why use OO? as you've been quick to point out....
Right, but the buzzwords land the interview. The experience section of a resume and the interview ought to cover the details. As an interviewer, you obviously would ask about all those twenty listed languages, and in the process would probably discover a lot. To leave the buzzwords and the even vague descriptive phrases off a resume is dumb.
Yes. Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Director, etc. The Mac versions will be on the chopping block.
If you're interested in other programs that the government is funding, check out this and that. You might get funding for your very own bullshit idea!
Right: Intel Inside.
It was really Moore's marketing plan.
It is an ecconomic argument. I hold to the side that says" They can do whatever they want, I can't control their behavior. However it is immoral for me to support that in any way, and buying their products counts as supporting them - if nothing else it says "I don't like how you act, but keep the cheap (junk) coming and I'll overlook it."
I agree with that, selectively. For instance, Cisco selling hardware that they know is being used for censorship. Or buying goods known to be made in a sweatshop or by slaves.
But it takes educated people to see what's wrong and be able to do something about it. Economic improvement == more education.
This is an interesting comment because pretty much everything in the natural world is too complicated for us to reproduce "artificially." A flower, for instance. Or an ant. To produce a living ant in the lab via a man-made "artificial" process that is fundamentally (or substantially) different than the way they grow in nature would be an incomparable achievement.
In this sense, humans are not different than anything else in the world: we are fundamentally inseparable from the way we have come to exist.
This isn't to say that we won't grow flowers or ants or people in vats someday, but the point is that we have no reason to believe that there is any way to do so other than the natural growth process.
So.... in other words, if everyone stops buying stuff made in China, then the situation will be better? That somehow, if China is unable to export goods, that oppression will decrease?
Yeah! You probably can't chisel much in 15 years though, but by then you'll be really buff and may not need your computer quite as much...
well, I have a septic system....