I have been told that some hackers, grown up on computers and unused to browsing books, have finally read great literary masterpieces on e-books...
Nice change to see somebody outside the nerd world using the word correctly. Anybody here prepared to admit to being 'unused to browsing books'?:-)
Re:Still Not Real Clear on Design Patterns...
on
J2EE Design Patterns
·
· Score: 1
then in effect you ARE extending the class
From a pragmatic point of view, yes. I would prefer to say that the class has the same method signature. Note that, for example, an encapsulating class of this kind could not be used in the same place as an instance of a superclass of the wrapped class. So taking a simple example:
class Ape() { ... }
class Bonobo extends Ape { ... }
class BonoboWrapper { private Bonobo wrappedBonobo;
public void BonoboWrapper(Bonobo myApe) { this.wrappedBonobo = myApe; } }
then a method expecting an Ape would work with a Bonobo instance, but not with a BonoboWrapper instance. As to which is more appropriate, it depends on the circumstances. Better minds than mine have debated this extensively here and here, so I'm not going to commit myself and look even more stupid:-)
(Sorry about losing the indentation on the code; today's too short to work out how to get round/.'s formatting vagaries.)
Agreed that improvement is a good thing, but not if it pulls the rug out from under you. I incline more to the idea that revised versions of information should be available alongside older versions. This has several benefits:
Others can see the steps on the journey to the "definitive" statement, which allows them to avoid any blind alleys in their own approach;
Conversely, somebody looking at what was passed over in the early stages of development of an idea might find fruitful alternative lines of enquiry;
It can be fun seeing the complete rubbish a supposed genius came up with in their younger days.
Somebody else on this thread has posted a link to Tim Berners-Lee's article Cool URIs Don't Change, which I think makes a good case for using date stamping as the best way of maintaining content even when new and better versions are available.
Very true. Another irritation is the way stuff vanishes from the MSDN Library distribution.
At one place I worked, they kept all the old versions of MSDN Library on the development server; disc space is cheap, but finding that article you read last year, which can save your bacon today, isn't possible if Microsoft have junked it from the new release.
But unless you were revising your own work to reflect those changes, surely you should continue to reference the old version?
This would be akin to (off the top of my head) citing a reference in the first edition of A Vision by the poet W B Yeats. As the second edition was a complete rewrite bearing virtually no similarity in either argument or conclusions to the first, updating one's references to the second edition would not only be undesirable, it would probably be impossible.
The fact that the cpu directly read individual bits off the floppy and controlled the floppy hardware at a low level made possible some truly baroque copy-protection schemes
The Amiga's way of working was similar; if you were taking over the machine at the lowest level (which, being a games programmer, I did), you actually had to implement the MFM encoding of the bitstream sent to or read from the disc. (Yet another use for the blitter.)
On a game I did for a major French publisher (this was in the late '80s) I created a disk format so arcane that the disc duplicating company couldn't duplicate them until I explained how to reprogram their duplicators:-)
As most people are aware, newspapers have a house style which dictates such matters as how dates are shown, whether to have a full stop after "Mr", and such-like details.
The Daily Telegraph house style dictates that, when an amount is given in a foreign currency, it should be followed by the equivalent in GBP, in brackets.
Sometime in the '70s, this led to a front-page photograph appearing with the caption:
Mrs Elizabeth Taylor arriving at Heathrow Airport yesterday. She told waiting journalists, "I feel like a million dollars! (647,000 GBP)"
(Out of curiosity, does anyone know why/. doesn't allow the pound sterling symbol in posts?)
Yes, I have looked at the code, and there aren't any nasties in it;
If you wanted this on your site, you can download the code and put it there, so you know the code won't change;
Scripting security built into browsers means you can't build a privacy-invading keylogger in JavaScript. More accurately, you can only log what people are typing into your own pages, so there isn't much point. After all, the only way to get the logged keystrokes would be if the user submitted a form, when you get what they typed anyway.
Seriously, why the hell would I want all that hassle just so I can use gestures? If I think I'm going to be doing a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, I just have my non-dominant hand on the keyboard and use the shortcuts. I can scroll the page with the mouse wheel.
Speaking as a professional web developer who's been doing stuff with JS since 1996, I have to say that this is most definitely one of those applications of scripting that should be reserved for special purposes. I can't think of any at the moment.
If people want to use mouse gestures, they can (and will) use a browser that supports them, through a plugin if necessary. What's the average punter going to do when he tries to select and copy a bit of text and the browser leaps forward in the history, or scrolls the page, or whatever? Chuckle to him (her) self and say "Silly me, I should have moved the mouse in a big circle first!", or just get annoyed because they can't understand what they're doing wrong?
I for one won't be adding this script to my site - although I do think it's cool in a nerdy kind of way:-)
Sorry, won't work. Browser security ensures that you can't script across domains.
For example: you visit a frameset hosted at www.example.com. In one of the frames, it loads a page from www.microsoft.com. Any attempt by a script in the containing frameset, or any other contained document from example.com, to manipulate the content from microsoft.com will fail. This means I can't host a frameset which changes www.microsoft.com's home page to read, say, "MS switches to Linux", or whatever. More importantly, it means my script can't grab the credit card details you're submitting to domain A and pass them along to domain B at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice change to see somebody outside the nerd world using the word correctly. Anybody here prepared to admit to being 'unused to browsing books'? :-)
From a pragmatic point of view, yes. I would prefer to say that the class has the same method signature. Note that, for example, an encapsulating class of this kind could not be used in the same place as an instance of a superclass of the wrapped class. So taking a simple example:
then a method expecting an Ape would work with a Bonobo instance, but not with a BonoboWrapper instance. As to which is more appropriate, it depends on the circumstances. Better minds than mine have debated this extensively here and here, so I'm not going to commit myself and look even more stupid :-)
(Sorry about losing the indentation on the code; today's too short to work out how to get round /.'s formatting vagaries.)
Obviously one of those Internet fridges one hears so much about on slow news days.
Just you.
He already said not:
Reading this book shortens life expectancy. Still, it's your choice...
Agreed that improvement is a good thing, but not if it pulls the rug out from under you. I incline more to the idea that revised versions of information should be available alongside older versions. This has several benefits:
Somebody else on this thread has posted a link to Tim Berners-Lee's article Cool URIs Don't Change , which I think makes a good case for using date stamping as the best way of maintaining content even when new and better versions are available.
Very true. Another irritation is the way stuff vanishes from the MSDN Library distribution.
At one place I worked, they kept all the old versions of MSDN Library on the development server; disc space is cheap, but finding that article you read last year, which can save your bacon today, isn't possible if Microsoft have junked it from the new release.
We could call it an Intellectual Property Address, or IP Address for short.
But unless you were revising your own work to reflect those changes, surely you should continue to reference the old version?
This would be akin to (off the top of my head) citing a reference in the first edition of A Vision by the poet W B Yeats. As the second edition was a complete rewrite bearing virtually no similarity in either argument or conclusions to the first, updating one's references to the second edition would not only be undesirable, it would probably be impossible.
RTFA. These are ads that were made but never used by the original client. Ergo nobody will find them familiar (except the film crew).
Half an hour after your post, there is not the slightest evidence of the site being slashdotted.
There is, however, evidence that you are a troll. Go away.
And the 68008 - the one with the 8 bit data bus - was the processor used in the Sinclair QL.
I don't know if the QL would make my Top Ten list, as it hasn't been delivered yet. I'm sure it said "28 days" on the order form...
The Amiga's way of working was similar; if you were taking over the machine at the lowest level (which, being a games programmer, I did), you actually had to implement the MFM encoding of the bitstream sent to or read from the disc. (Yet another use for the blitter.)
On a game I did for a major French publisher (this was in the late '80s) I created a disk format so arcane that the disc duplicating company couldn't duplicate them until I explained how to reprogram their duplicators :-)
Useful tip! Thanks for that one.
Anybody up for writing "Slashdot Hacks" for O'Reilly? :-)
From the article:
You'll have to try elsewhere to "hear from the troublemakers".
I figured he was, but you'd be surprised how many people out there think this kind of stuff can be done. Just trying to dispel a little FUD :-)
As most people are aware, newspapers have a house style which dictates such matters as how dates are shown, whether to have a full stop after "Mr", and such-like details.
The Daily Telegraph house style dictates that, when an amount is given in a foreign currency, it should be followed by the equivalent in GBP, in brackets.
Sometime in the '70s, this led to a front-page photograph appearing with the caption:(Out of curiosity, does anyone know why /. doesn't allow the pound sterling symbol in posts?)
And as I've asked before, is a virus written in C++ a reason why C++ should be retired?
I think you meant
You can in Safari :-)
I really hate the browser integrated into Windows sometimes... ;-)
<sarcasm>
Well, that makes things a lot easier
</sarcasm>
Seriously, why the hell would I want all that hassle just so I can use gestures? If I think I'm going to be doing a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, I just have my non-dominant hand on the keyboard and use the shortcuts. I can scroll the page with the mouse wheel.
Speaking as a professional web developer who's been doing stuff with JS since 1996, I have to say that this is most definitely one of those applications of scripting that should be reserved for special purposes. I can't think of any at the moment.
If people want to use mouse gestures, they can (and will) use a browser that supports them, through a plugin if necessary. What's the average punter going to do when he tries to select and copy a bit of text and the browser leaps forward in the history, or scrolls the page, or whatever? Chuckle to him (her) self and say "Silly me, I should have moved the mouse in a big circle first!", or just get annoyed because they can't understand what they're doing wrong?
I for one won't be adding this script to my site - although I do think it's cool in a nerdy kind of way :-)
Sorry, won't work. Browser security ensures that you can't script across domains.
For example: you visit a frameset hosted at www.example.com. In one of the frames, it loads a page from www.microsoft.com. Any attempt by a script in the containing frameset, or any other contained document from example.com, to manipulate the content from microsoft.com will fail. This means I can't host a frameset which changes www.microsoft.com's home page to read, say, "MS switches to Linux", or whatever. More importantly, it means my script can't grab the credit card details you're submitting to domain A and pass them along to domain B at the same time.
And your point is?
Any technology can be used to do irritating things. Does the fact that I can write a virus in C++ mean that nobody should ever use C++ again?
Pointless ramblings from people who are too lazy to learn.
Oh wait, it's always somebody else's fault, isn't it. For goodness sake, wake up and listen to yourself.