Then there is code maintenance and refactoring, something which is near impossible with loose languages.
I find these work just fine with Common Lisp. Given a problem I know how to solve, C++ is very tempting. Given a problem I'm going to have to experiment with, I prefer Common Lisp, because I find it a lot easier to try things. I'm more likely to come up with an excellent solution.
It doesn't mean it is good, but of course its "better". A certain class of bugs eliminated.
Which is good, all other things being equal. It isn't clear to me that all other things are equal.
I'm willing to believe that Javascript would do better with a static type system, but there are dynamically typed languages that work better than Javascript.
If I have to change a widely used C++ header file, compilation will take a long time. This is necessary because C++ permits types to be instantiated as regular variables or by reference.
On the other hand, Microsoft has written tons of software over the years and perhaps this study might be born out of decades of experience?
Microsoft has written tons of software, but it's mostly in a certain style of language. Writing tons of code in C, C++, and C# is not going to get Microsoft comparable experience in other kinds of languages (like dynamically typed or statically strongly typed - unless C# qualifies). It's entirely possible, and many people believe, that there are better languages for writing large programs, and some of these are dynamically typed.
C++ has 5 different types of casting operators (C style cast, static, dynamic, const and reinterpret)
You left out unions as a way to change type. Do you consider "int(expression)" to be a way of converting to int, or a constructor taking an expression and creating an int?
You can optionally declare Common Lisp symbols (variables) to be a certain type. By setting safety and speed, you can typically either have your types checked at runtime or have the compiler assume you're right and use the information to produce better code.
You're saying that statically typed languages find a certain class of bugs better than dynamically typed, and you seem to think that a definitive argument. If dynamically typed languages have other virtues, they might be better anyway.
Not everything I cook requires a meat thermometer. There's one in the drawer for when it's useful, but it rarely leaves the drawer.
It's not a matter of typing type declarations, it's a matter of dynamic languages being faster to program in, while allowing a class of errors that I've always found to be really easy to find and fix. Perhaps my style in Perl or Common Lisp is better suited for dynamically typed languages than most.
Typically, you don't want to do an upgrade to a new major version without checking reviews. Sometimes the last one isn't good for the device. I've got a four-year-old iPhone running iOS 10 just fine.
Sure, you can repair an iPhone yourself (or try to, anyway), but Apple isn't going to help you. This isn't about "Right to Repair", it's "Right to Get Repair-Related Documents and Parts".
So you have one version that takes care of your wife's iPad, and one version to build software to sell. There's very little commercial opportunity in supporting systems that old. Anyone who still has one either finds that it suits their needs or doesn't have money to spend.
In my observation, Apple fanboyism is less than Apple anti-fanboyism on/.. There are lots of people who go to Apple stories just to say that Apple sucks for some reason that is likely neither accurate nor relevant. I'm not sure why they can't just be happy not having Apple products and ignore the Apple stories.
Apple computers are an easy way to get a Unix system, and/. runs stories on new Samsung phones. I don't see them as inappropriate here.
Our first Mac was an SE, and we upgraded from 1M of RAM to 4M using a kit we bought. It wasn't difficult at all, and there was no solder involved anywhere in the process.
Suppose I invest $10K in a market fund. 0.3% means I've made 0.3%, or thirty bucks. It doesn't matter what the market is at in the first place, because that affects only the number of market units I bought, and I really don't care about that. The number I'm interested in (how much is my investment worth today) is directly derivable from the statistic you call irrelevant, and I don't care about the one you consider necessary for relevance.
Socialism, in its original meaning, has been shown to be a massive failure, and the word's been repurposed, which is hardly unusual in language evolution. It now is generally used to refer to high-service governments with strong safety nets. It's important not to confuse the two.
So, if lots and lots of people can't get decent jobs or health care, or can't retire, are they going to be happy about the reduction of the trade deficit?
What was remarkable about NT? It was a logical progression. So was adding a database to form a full stack. There's a difference between foreseeing something and following a progression.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I use butterflies.
In other words, languages with strong static typing are more pointy-haired-boss-compatible? I can accept that.
For that environment, it's best to have as much static checking as you possibly can. Most programs aren't in that environment.
I find these work just fine with Common Lisp. Given a problem I know how to solve, C++ is very tempting. Given a problem I'm going to have to experiment with, I prefer Common Lisp, because I find it a lot easier to try things. I'm more likely to come up with an excellent solution.
Which is good, all other things being equal. It isn't clear to me that all other things are equal.
I'm willing to believe that Javascript would do better with a static type system, but there are dynamically typed languages that work better than Javascript.
If I have to change a widely used C++ header file, compilation will take a long time. This is necessary because C++ permits types to be instantiated as regular variables or by reference.
Microsoft has written tons of software, but it's mostly in a certain style of language. Writing tons of code in C, C++, and C# is not going to get Microsoft comparable experience in other kinds of languages (like dynamically typed or statically strongly typed - unless C# qualifies). It's entirely possible, and many people believe, that there are better languages for writing large programs, and some of these are dynamically typed.
You left out unions as a way to change type. Do you consider "int(expression)" to be a way of converting to int, or a constructor taking an expression and creating an int?
You can optionally declare Common Lisp symbols (variables) to be a certain type. By setting safety and speed, you can typically either have your types checked at runtime or have the compiler assume you're right and use the information to produce better code.
You're saying that statically typed languages find a certain class of bugs better than dynamically typed, and you seem to think that a definitive argument. If dynamically typed languages have other virtues, they might be better anyway.
Not everything I cook requires a meat thermometer. There's one in the drawer for when it's useful, but it rarely leaves the drawer.
It's not a matter of typing type declarations, it's a matter of dynamic languages being faster to program in, while allowing a class of errors that I've always found to be really easy to find and fix. Perhaps my style in Perl or Common Lisp is better suited for dynamically typed languages than most.
Which is not my experience, any more than it's the GP's experience. Congratulations on getting (5, Insightful) for a short blatant assertion.
Typically, you don't want to do an upgrade to a new major version without checking reviews. Sometimes the last one isn't good for the device. I've got a four-year-old iPhone running iOS 10 just fine.
Sure, you can repair an iPhone yourself (or try to, anyway), but Apple isn't going to help you. This isn't about "Right to Repair", it's "Right to Get Repair-Related Documents and Parts".
So you have one version that takes care of your wife's iPad, and one version to build software to sell. There's very little commercial opportunity in supporting systems that old. Anyone who still has one either finds that it suits their needs or doesn't have money to spend.
I've never had an Apple product fail in under three years, and I've had a fair number of them since the Mac SE came out.
In my observation, Apple fanboyism is less than Apple anti-fanboyism on /.. There are lots of people who go to Apple stories just to say that Apple sucks for some reason that is likely neither accurate nor relevant. I'm not sure why they can't just be happy not having Apple products and ignore the Apple stories.
Apple computers are an easy way to get a Unix system, and /. runs stories on new Samsung phones. I don't see them as inappropriate here.
There were any aesthetic considerations for the Apple 3? Coulda fooled me.
It was eight times the RAM on my first computer.
Our first Mac was an SE, and we upgraded from 1M of RAM to 4M using a kit we bought. It wasn't difficult at all, and there was no solder involved anywhere in the process.
There's an old saying, "Figures don't lie but liars figure."
Suppose I invest $10K in a market fund. 0.3% means I've made 0.3%, or thirty bucks. It doesn't matter what the market is at in the first place, because that affects only the number of market units I bought, and I really don't care about that. The number I'm interested in (how much is my investment worth today) is directly derivable from the statistic you call irrelevant, and I don't care about the one you consider necessary for relevance.
Socialism, in its original meaning, has been shown to be a massive failure, and the word's been repurposed, which is hardly unusual in language evolution. It now is generally used to refer to high-service governments with strong safety nets. It's important not to confuse the two.
So, if lots and lots of people can't get decent jobs or health care, or can't retire, are they going to be happy about the reduction of the trade deficit?
What was remarkable about NT? It was a logical progression. So was adding a database to form a full stack. There's a difference between foreseeing something and following a progression.