OK, but if you read the whole article, it really sounds more like he's arguing that you - as a develop and creator - should not take money from a VC. VC's bring money, but they also bring hidden costs. They are completely inappropriate if you actually care about your business. They are looking for an exit. If you're not, then don't behold yourself to people who disagree.
Actually, you can patent game mechanics (in the USA at least). What you can't do is use copyright to impose restrictions on someone duplicating your game's mechanics without duplicating the wording or presentation.
"Gloof and Ploff are Awesome" - intellectual property "Ugg and Sug are Awesome" - gets around Trademark, but likely infringes copyright "Ugg+Sug=Awesome" - free use unless the mechanics themselves are patented.
Oh, a sensible security policy. Weird... don't see those very often. Most seem split into either the "internetz secure!?! IDK, LOL!" camp or the "my data must be secured from the NSA" camp.
Then people of Flint have nothing to enjoy, I assure you. You know how the rest of the country looks down on Detroit? That's how Detroit looks at Flint...
It's a practical, rather than ideological approach. Sometimes the weather conflates with pollution to make the situation worse. Sometimes, international event planning predicates a necessity to be extra clean on some particular date. This is when China intervenes. They are addressing practical problems without becoming ideologically driven about them. America has had some more years of political development for its leadership to realize the need for ideology to drive practical change. That's why we have emotionally-driven politics. Otherwise, no one looks up from the internet long enough to know what's going on.
I'm not saying the curators of PHP aren't semi-retarded, but the reason they jumped over 6 is because 6 was basically a complete failure. They planned it out, but never managed to deliver. Anything important or useful in v6 was implemented in v5 point releases, and when it came time to put out a new major version, the number 6 had connotations that were undesirable.
So, I don't think "marketing war" is a fair characterization.
Look at the relative global power of Europe and the US, and realize the US is half made up of failed states on continuous welfare from the productive ones. Then maybe you'll rethink the situation.
My thoughts exactly. AT&T needs to be making this comparison in their marketing materials. Otherwise it sounds like they're trying to gouge the customer.
The second form is only more readable if the greaterThan10 function is in some library somewhere globally available. Inner functions distract from reading code by breaking up control flow and computation. Now I have to at least skim that inner function as I'm trying to understand the outer function's behavior. It's noise. It doesn't belong there. It's like writing x = x;
So, even though software developers consistently say naming things is one of the most difficult parts of their job, and the thesaurus is one of the most useful books for a programmer, you want to introduce more pointless names? Why do you need to name something to understand it? Why can't you just understand the abstraction?
More languages are getting these types of syntaxes because people have broken free of the LL(x)/LR parser myopia from academia and are more comfortable with hand-coded parsers which are designed for the person who actually has to get shit done and not just write papers about ways in which other people can get shit done.
How is (a+1)*b any more readable than a+1 * b ? Spaces aren't invisible; they take up SPACE. If you're not using a monospaced font, maybe there's an issue. But otherwise, it seems you're just whining about a feature you're not used to. Or maybe you're one of those programmers who has problems properly spacing their code in the first place. Maybe all your code sucks and languages like this are designed to avoid programmers like you?
Forcing code indentation is LESS invasive than forcing semicolons and braces everywhere. You're already going to be typing that tab character in (if you're not, you're a shitty programmer). Why does the language need me to type in more fucking nonsense to understand what is obvious to anyone with a weekend of programming experience?
Those Chinese banks are going to be the target of a huge amount of hacking. It's like an invitation. We've built a way for you to take over our system. Please try and find it.
I've tried many cheap versions of electronic chess, and most of them have no support for en passant (a couple don't have support for castling either). Not only that, but playing against other players, most people who play chess for recreation don't seem to know about an passant, anyway. So, let's call it's chess 2.0. Streamlined for the modern audience.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but if you read the whole article, it really sounds more like he's arguing that you - as a develop and creator - should not take money from a VC. VC's bring money, but they also bring hidden costs. They are completely inappropriate if you actually care about your business. They are looking for an exit. If you're not, then don't behold yourself to people who disagree.
Of course, it has to be non-obvious that "Ugg+Sug=Awesome" for that idea to be patented.
Actually, you can patent game mechanics (in the USA at least). What you can't do is use copyright to impose restrictions on someone duplicating your game's mechanics without duplicating the wording or presentation.
"Gloof and Ploff are Awesome" - intellectual property
"Ugg and Sug are Awesome" - gets around Trademark, but likely infringes copyright
"Ugg+Sug=Awesome" - free use unless the mechanics themselves are patented.
Oh, a sensible security policy. Weird... don't see those very often. Most seem split into either the "internetz secure!?! IDK, LOL!" camp or the "my data must be secured from the NSA" camp.
Then people of Flint have nothing to enjoy, I assure you. You know how the rest of the country looks down on Detroit? That's how Detroit looks at Flint...
It's a practical, rather than ideological approach. Sometimes the weather conflates with pollution to make the situation worse. Sometimes, international event planning predicates a necessity to be extra clean on some particular date. This is when China intervenes. They are addressing practical problems without becoming ideologically driven about them. America has had some more years of political development for its leadership to realize the need for ideology to drive practical change. That's why we have emotionally-driven politics. Otherwise, no one looks up from the internet long enough to know what's going on.
You think American pop culture is worse than the air in China? Ok...
I'm not saying the curators of PHP aren't semi-retarded, but the reason they jumped over 6 is because 6 was basically a complete failure. They planned it out, but never managed to deliver. Anything important or useful in v6 was implemented in v5 point releases, and when it came time to put out a new major version, the number 6 had connotations that were undesirable.
So, I don't think "marketing war" is a fair characterization.
You mean like when they created time zones just for the rail industry?
Did you just imply that the FDA is qualified to perform software security audits?
Look at the relative global power of Europe and the US, and realize the US is half made up of failed states on continuous welfare from the productive ones. Then maybe you'll rethink the situation.
Far less than the amount of power used to run the credit card networks.
This is also how California works (where Apple is located). But NOT how Massachusetts works (where A123 is located).
My thoughts exactly. AT&T needs to be making this comparison in their marketing materials. Otherwise it sounds like they're trying to gouge the customer.
The second form is only more readable if the greaterThan10 function is in some library somewhere globally available. Inner functions distract from reading code by breaking up control flow and computation. Now I have to at least skim that inner function as I'm trying to understand the outer function's behavior. It's noise. It doesn't belong there. It's like writing x = x;
So, even though software developers consistently say naming things is one of the most difficult parts of their job, and the thesaurus is one of the most useful books for a programmer, you want to introduce more pointless names? Why do you need to name something to understand it? Why can't you just understand the abstraction?
Python's approach is to force you to indent to avoid writing the horrible code you just wrote.
More languages are getting these types of syntaxes because people have broken free of the LL(x)/LR parser myopia from academia and are more comfortable with hand-coded parsers which are designed for the person who actually has to get shit done and not just write papers about ways in which other people can get shit done.
I feel for you. I feel even more for all the blind programmers who still manage to program in silly languages that require you to look at code.
How is (a+1)*b any more readable than a+1 * b ? Spaces aren't invisible; they take up SPACE. If you're not using a monospaced font, maybe there's an issue. But otherwise, it seems you're just whining about a feature you're not used to. Or maybe you're one of those programmers who has problems properly spacing their code in the first place. Maybe all your code sucks and languages like this are designed to avoid programmers like you?
...says a person with fundamentally limited functional programming experience.
Forcing code indentation is LESS invasive than forcing semicolons and braces everywhere. You're already going to be typing that tab character in (if you're not, you're a shitty programmer). Why does the language need me to type in more fucking nonsense to understand what is obvious to anyone with a weekend of programming experience?
Nope, but if you can say it - whether or not you should say it - you should be able to say it.
Those Chinese banks are going to be the target of a huge amount of hacking. It's like an invitation. We've built a way for you to take over our system. Please try and find it.
I've tried many cheap versions of electronic chess, and most of them have no support for en passant (a couple don't have support for castling either). Not only that, but playing against other players, most people who play chess for recreation don't seem to know about an passant, anyway. So, let's call it's chess 2.0. Streamlined for the modern audience.