Deport all the whining civilization-hater "greens" there, and let them cope with the elements bare-ass naked and unprotected by such unsightly man-made trimmings as space suits or pressure domes.
We can call the resulting freeze-dried gradually-sandblast-eroding planetary monument "the loving kindness of mother nature".
Create a dedicated VPN. The misbehaving app server sees only this VPN. Everything it needs to access has a presence thereon, carefully firewalled to allow the relevant ports to open. Everything it doesn't need to access, is not even on the network.
The essence of the bazaar is not voting--a concept I never mentioned in The Cathedral and the Bazaar and don't endorse--but the right to fork.
Democracy: you get a vote, there's a central point of control which, at the culmination of all the votes, ends up bossing people around, and nobody has a legal alternative. Result: if the democracy screws you over for populist causes, or the central point of control gets corrupted, tough luck. Result also: if you're in a numerical minority, your desires will be met coincidentally if at all.
Free markets: nobody has a right to vote how you may or may not act with your own stuff - but if they don't like it, they can get their own stuff and do as they please instead, or go to someone else they prefer. Result: egregious misbehaviour causes a "fork" where customers move away. Also result: not only is the majority happy, but also all profitable minority niches of the market are served.
Not surprising ESR thinks this way considering he's a libertarian and possibly an anarchist:-)
...you (or someone) could work out a way to canonicalize the "meaning" of a patch, so this canonical form would be immutable across commutations, and could be signed.
I mean, a get as I comprehend it should consist of 2 operations - get all the changesets, and an annotation of how they fit together - compute (or for efficiency merely copy) the end product
Both ops could be implemented as straight-up file copies, duration: sod all (give or take bandwidth). So why isn't it so simple?
Cute, sensual, flexible enough to lick anywhere, and can hear a tin opener whirr from halfways across the state. The anime freak's dream come true, brought to you by Science!
Sure, if he wants to get a couple hundred entry-level code grinders in a hurry, if he were a business hiring modular, replaceable Windows monkeys, then Haskell would make his life hard.
However, neither of the above apply. This is basically a hobbyist project, a rare and rarified subject in both its spheres (version control and Haskell), with considerable overlap between the academic C.S. community that truly understands either.
"People won't learn a language for one program"? Not even if that program is one of the few and best in their area of expertise? Not even the handful of people needed to keep alive a tightly focused project like this?
...is that something is still better than nothing at all.
The "quasi-Darwinian process" is not voodoo at all, it's just a matter of (1) somebody knowing better, and volunteering an improvement (2) quality being recognisable (3) there being enough "eyeballs" that mistakes - deliberate or not - will eventually be detected.
His error, really, is to think of Wikipedia as asymptotically approaching a fixed perfection. Instead, it's an ongoing attempt to refine the state of the art. In that regard it's more like the process of science, than like the old-fashioned compilation of encyclopedia articles.
How could they avoid "market[ing] their game by trading on the popularity of characters created by Marvel without Marvels permission"? If it hadn't been for Marvel and DC, who would have thought of "guy who flies while wearing his underpants on the outside" etc etc as a game topic?
But will anyone look at a bland flaggy thing and think "NetBSD"? Meh.
Hint for the suits: if your logo could without alteration be applied to pretty much any category of business or thing, if it could be mistaken for a thousand similar logos, then it's too bland to mean anything or be memorable. Ie: it is unable to function properly as a logo.
Lets change the law. Instead of having the secret service to protect politicians, lets instead ban politicians from being protected by any government employee. Also, ban them from hiring private bodyguards, and when they travel require them to walk, bicycle, take the public subway/bus/train, or fly "coach".
It's a lot easier to have casual contempt for Joe Public if you can flip the bird at him from behind tinted bulletproof glass.
You can do stupid juvenile garble in C too, like rewrite the reserved words with #define macros. You don't because it's dumb and because Linus would laugh his ass off and tell you to throw it away, go read "C for dummies" and try again.
Nobody's forcing you to use C++ features where they would be a bad idea.
Zey set ze blut is ze life, but no, not blut, electreecity! Eh leck TREE city! Eegor, throw ze svitch! Yeth marthter. BWAM! Fzzzt. Zk fzzsnk bzz Eeet leeves. Leeeeeves! Hahahahahaha eee hehehehe. LEEEVES!
Modern science, eh? They should have just hired the guys at Hammer Horror. Been doing this sort of stuff for years, now.
The higher "level" a tool is, the more it operates in terms of the problem's abstractions. The lower, the more it operates in terms of its own internal featureset. So SQL with its task-irrelevant chatter about indexes and tables and whatnot is lower level than a wrapper layer which hides SQL behind purpose-designed data objects.
is "object.frobnicateOtherObject(other)" more readable than "+/v" ?
Yes.
Although, I still prefer the Ada way around for object messages. That would be something like Frobnicate_Other_Object (object, other) - since this means you don't get a messy syntactic difference between methods defined "in" the object, versus methods defined "outside but using" the object.
(frobnicateOtherObject is still a dumb function name. "frobnicate" isn't meaningful enough and "OtherObject" is semantically redundant.)
...I can reassure you that a lot of the faults you describe don't apply.
- Class-per-table, object-per-row, but the query language is smart enough to let you return only those rows you care to access. That includes when it's emulating data structures like Lists and Maps, from which you can filter a subset. In addition you can optionally use session.iterate() which transparently returns just the IDs and then selects each row seperately, so as to keep the memory usage low.
- If you don't want all the fields of the row, You can avoid creating the row objects entirely and instead instruct Hibernate to return primitive wrapper objects (String, Integer et al) representing the subset of the row you ask for.
- Hibernate is smart enough to translate joins properly into a single select of SQL. It's also smart enough you mosty don't have to think about such low-level stuff as joins at all. You just navigate data structures and references.
- Unlike many object DBs, Hibernate has a proper query language, not just query-by-example. So you can say stuff like session.find("from Person p, where p.age = ? and p.employer.country = Countries.ENGLAND", age, Hibernate.INTEGER)
If you're sensible, you're never touching raw SQL
on
An Alternative to SQL?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Talking SQL nowadays strikes me as being like talking raw assembler. You can do it, the tools are even rather nice nowadays, but any sane developer would use a higher level wrapper.
Like for instance, Hibernate. It does serialize/reconstitute, handles nested objects and data structures, and it's very nearly as easy as programming with regular heap-allocated objects. In any big app if you didn't use some such, you'd end up reimplementing it.
I see no reason wrappers like Hibernate have to backend onto SQL and only SQL. They could as easily emit and control this "Tutorial D" language.
Leather would be a big deal, but I think fur would be bigger. The presence of cheap and abundant lab-grown real fur, leather and hide could alter the clothing market as much as the discovery of synthetic fiber. Plus it would utterly erase poaching, and could save a few species.
The bubble companies didn't last, but the aftermath is: that this thing called "the internet" quit being a comp-sci toy, and became quietly useful in the ordinary lives of regular people.
Why does the government not merely carry letters, but monopolize that service? If it were merely about delivery to remote and uneconomic places, why wouldn't the government remove its monopoly and do only those deliveries nobody else bothers with? If it were about money, why not carry far more lucrative parcels? Because it wants the opportunity to steam your letters open, snoop through them and censor what you say.
It's the exact opposite of mark-and-sweep, it's mark-and-destroy. This is possible because there are no long-distance "references" - all "referenced" objects are adjacent.
I suppose, in programming, this is much closer to refcounting, where each object's utility can be fully determined by looking at just that one object.
Slashdot Mirror
Deport all the whining civilization-hater "greens" there, and let them cope with the elements bare-ass naked and unprotected by such unsightly man-made trimmings as space suits or pressure domes.
We can call the resulting freeze-dried gradually-sandblast-eroding planetary monument "the loving kindness of mother nature".
Create a dedicated VPN. The misbehaving app server sees only this VPN. Everything it needs to access has a presence thereon, carefully firewalled to allow the relevant ports to open. Everything it doesn't need to access, is not even on the network.
Free markets: nobody has a right to vote how you may or may not act with your own stuff - but if they don't like it, they can get their own stuff and do as they please instead, or go to someone else they prefer. Result: egregious misbehaviour causes a "fork" where customers move away. Also result: not only is the majority happy, but also all profitable minority niches of the market are served.
Not surprising ESR thinks this way considering he's a libertarian and possibly an anarchist
...you (or someone) could work out a way to canonicalize the "meaning" of a patch, so this canonical form would be immutable across commutations, and could be signed.
I mean, a get as I comprehend it should consist of 2 operations
- get all the changesets, and an annotation of how they fit together
- compute (or for efficiency merely copy) the end product
Both ops could be implemented as straight-up file copies, duration: sod all (give or take bandwidth). So why isn't it so simple?
Cute, sensual, flexible enough to lick anywhere, and can hear a tin opener whirr from halfways across the state. The anime freak's dream come true, brought to you by Science!
Heere Nekochan, come to papa...
Sure, if he wants to get a couple hundred entry-level code grinders in a hurry, if he were a business hiring modular, replaceable Windows monkeys, then Haskell would make his life hard.
However, neither of the above apply. This is basically a hobbyist project, a rare and rarified subject in both its spheres (version control and Haskell), with considerable overlap between the academic C.S. community that truly understands either.
"People won't learn a language for one program"? Not even if that program is one of the few and best in their area of expertise? Not even the handful of people needed to keep alive a tightly focused project like this?
...is that something is still better than nothing at all.
The "quasi-Darwinian process" is not voodoo at all, it's just a matter of (1) somebody knowing better, and volunteering an improvement (2) quality being recognisable (3) there being enough "eyeballs" that mistakes - deliberate or not - will eventually be detected.
His error, really, is to think of Wikipedia as asymptotically approaching a fixed perfection. Instead, it's an ongoing attempt to refine the state of the art. In that regard it's more like the process of science, than like the old-fashioned compilation of encyclopedia articles.
How could they avoid "market[ing] their game by trading on the popularity of characters created by Marvel without Marvels permission"? If it hadn't been for Marvel and DC, who would have thought of "guy who flies while wearing his underpants on the outside" etc etc as a game topic?
But will anyone look at a bland flaggy thing and think "NetBSD"? Meh.
Hint for the suits: if your logo could without alteration be applied to pretty much any category of business or thing, if it could be mistaken for a thousand similar logos, then it's too bland to mean anything or be memorable. Ie: it is unable to function properly as a logo.
Because it's fun, and the knowledge might save your ass some time in the dystopian future.
...as a guard who just earlier got caught sleeping through a burglary.
Lets change the law. Instead of having the secret service to protect politicians, lets instead ban politicians from being protected by any government employee. Also, ban them from hiring private bodyguards, and when they travel require them to walk, bicycle, take the public subway/bus/train, or fly "coach".
It's a lot easier to have casual contempt for Joe Public if you can flip the bird at him from behind tinted bulletproof glass.
You can do stupid juvenile garble in C too, like rewrite the reserved words with #define macros. You don't because it's dumb and because Linus would laugh his ass off and tell you to throw it away, go read "C for dummies" and try again.
Nobody's forcing you to use C++ features where they would be a bad idea.
Zey set ze blut is ze life, but no, not blut, electreecity! Eh leck TREE city! Eegor, throw ze svitch!
Yeth marthter.
BWAM! Fzzzt. Zk fzzsnk bzz
Eeet leeves. Leeeeeves! Hahahahahaha eee hehehehe. LEEEVES!
Modern science, eh? They should have just hired the guys at Hammer Horror. Been doing this sort of stuff for years, now.
- Standing room only, right out into the loo vestibules. Which don't have adequate dehumidifiers, so the walls drip with clammy condensation.
- By god do the toilets stink. In fact, the whole trains reek of sewage.
- The air conditioning backfires producing alternating spots of north-atlantic chill, and unbreathable muggy heat.
The higher "level" a tool is, the more it operates in terms of the problem's abstractions. The lower, the more it operates in terms of its own internal featureset. So SQL with its task-irrelevant chatter about indexes and tables and whatnot is lower level than a wrapper layer which hides SQL behind purpose-designed data objects.
is "object.frobnicateOtherObject(other)" more readable than "+/v" ?
Yes.
Although, I still prefer the Ada way around for object messages. That would be something like Frobnicate_Other_Object (object, other) - since this means you don't get a messy syntactic difference between methods defined "in" the object, versus methods defined "outside but using" the object.
(frobnicateOtherObject is still a dumb function name. "frobnicate" isn't meaningful enough and "OtherObject" is semantically redundant.)
...I can reassure you that a lot of the faults you describe don't apply.
- Class-per-table, object-per-row, but the query language is smart enough to let you return only those rows you care to access. That includes when it's emulating data structures like Lists and Maps, from which you can filter a subset. In addition you can optionally use session.iterate() which transparently returns just the IDs and then selects each row seperately, so as to keep the memory usage low.
- If you don't want all the fields of the row, You can avoid creating the row objects entirely and instead instruct Hibernate to return primitive wrapper objects (String, Integer et al) representing the subset of the row you ask for.
- Hibernate is smart enough to translate joins properly into a single select of SQL. It's also smart enough you mosty don't have to think about such low-level stuff as joins at all. You just navigate data structures and references.
- Unlike many object DBs, Hibernate has a proper query language, not just query-by-example. So you can say stuff like session.find("from Person p, where p.age = ? and p.employer.country = Countries.ENGLAND", age, Hibernate.INTEGER)
Talking SQL nowadays strikes me as being like talking raw assembler. You can do it, the tools are even rather nice nowadays, but any sane developer would use a higher level wrapper.
Like for instance, Hibernate. It does serialize/reconstitute, handles nested objects and data structures, and it's very nearly as easy as programming with regular heap-allocated objects. In any big app if you didn't use some such, you'd end up reimplementing it.
I see no reason wrappers like Hibernate have to backend onto SQL and only SQL. They could as easily emit and control this "Tutorial D" language.
Leather would be a big deal, but I think fur would be bigger. The presence of cheap and abundant lab-grown real fur, leather and hide could alter the clothing market as much as the discovery of synthetic fiber. Plus it would utterly erase poaching, and could save a few species.
The bubble companies didn't last, but the aftermath is: that this thing called "the internet" quit being a comp-sci toy, and became quietly useful in the ordinary lives of regular people.
A result like that for space would a big win.
Why does the government not merely carry letters, but monopolize that service? If it were merely about delivery to remote and uneconomic places, why wouldn't the government remove its monopoly and do only those deliveries nobody else bothers with? If it were about money, why not carry far more lucrative parcels? Because it wants the opportunity to steam your letters open, snoop through them and censor what you say.
In that regard, email is already better.
It's the exact opposite of mark-and-sweep, it's mark-and-destroy. This is possible because there are no long-distance "references" - all "referenced" objects are adjacent.
I suppose, in programming, this is much closer to refcounting, where each object's utility can be fully determined by looking at just that one object.
I'd call it "six degrees of apathy and anarchism".
Except, I can't be bothered, and you can't make me.