When did Li write that? In C++, complex types are in the standard library, not built into the language itself. Boost provides more C++ mathematical types.
If I have a hash %foo, then a use would be $foo{bar}. Given an array @foo, a use would be $foo[bar]. Not only does the change from % or @ to $ throw me a bit sometimes, the visual difference between those two different things is braces vs. brackets, and as my eyes age that's not really enough.
Could you tell me about the design of sigils, and why they were done the way they are?
The conditionals aren't wrong, just more varied than you like. You can do "if (!foo) do_something" in Perl. "do_something unless foo;" is optional. Sometimes the additional options can lead to idiomatic phrases. Compare "if (!open file) { die; }" to "open file or die;" and tell me which is easier to read. I'd think that "unless" should mostly be used when the conditional action is almost always executed with some minor exception, and that it could be clearer than the C syntax in that way.
If Perl is difficult to read because of use of non-standard syntax, it's badly written. It is easier to write a bad program in Perl than in Python, but I don't see that as a fault of the language.
I didn't have a good computer store in town at the time, so I had to mail-order anything I was going to do to our toaster Macs. Why would it help to have the tool available locally and the additional RAM I wanted to install available mail-order? I suspect that, if I'd had a store in town that sold the RAM, they'd have stocked the tools.
Are you that accomplished a computer engineer, or are you just guessing on the cost savings? Using a different screwdriver in production is absolutely trivial compared to all the other costs. Moreover, if you wanted to eliminate the need for special tools, you'd have to move the screws somewhere else. I don't have screwdrivers around that would be useful no matter what the head was on those screws, since the screws were small and not very accessible. The Allen head was nice in that it was fairly easy to get the head into the screw top and hold it there.
There are always going to be general-purpose computers around, and your kids will be able to dick around with them as they please. This is good. It's also pretty much necessary to keep software ecosystems going. However, for most people out there, the Apple way is the right one, and it's a good thing that more vendors are offering products with limited ways to screw up.
There's a lot of people on Slashdot who believe that (a) most users will do stupid things, given the chance, and (b) they should be given the ability to screw up big-time at all times. I don't get this. Most of my relatives will do better with a walled garden and locked-down devices than with freer devices. (My close friends are largely computer geeks, so they're not a good group to generalize from.)
First, if you're looking for computer users that are better informed and make better decisions, try another planet, because you're not getting it on this one. We've tried, and I've concluded that relying on well-informed users making good choices is about as practical as Communism or Libertarianism in government. Great ideas, but not for this species of more-or-less intelligent life.
These are the people Apple is trying to take care of. iDevice users are fairly safe from malware, and have reasonably good security. The reason they have these is Apple's walled garden and strict requirements, and if Apple starts bending those there will be much more malware and insecurity. Apple is going to err on the side of safety and security, because they have to.
The phones that didn't work after the iOS upgrade were broken. Intelligent users don't change a working configuration on a broken device, because they don't know what effect a change will have. I don't think users that don't realize that are going to make really good security decisions.
As long as you're talking about the user making security decisions and balancing risks, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that Apple didn't screw it up, or that there wasn't a better way. I'm saying that you don't really understand what you're talking about here, and that you'll be much more effective at criticizing Apple when you realize what they are doing.
Not all beliefs are created equal. One may believe there is no god in a weak sense, based on a lack of evidence. I don't believe in ghosts, but I'd be very interested in objective evidence that they existed. The lack of ghosts in the world is not at all involved with my identity, and if you showed me a real ghost I'd change my mind. I don't believe there are no ghosts in a much different manner than some of my friends believe in Jesus Christ.
Aside from the fact that this is completely impossible in any society that respects civil rights, it's wrongheaded. I'm not particularly fond of Islam, but most Muslims are peaceful people getting through their lives, just like adherents of any other large religion. There was a time when the most advanced and dynamic civilization in the world was Muslim. If Islam was the problem, that would not have happened.
There's a difference, though. There are successful Agile shops. There are no Communist countries that have turned out well. If I could point to China and the USSR and say "that's bad Communism" and point to another few countries and say "that's good Communism, because these countries are free, democratic, and have thriving economies", I'd be more in favor of Communism. Given the lack of such countries, I'm sticking to my belief that Communism can work for a very few thousand people, for a generation or two, given a charismatic leader and a certain amount of isolation, and is bad if it's imposed on any larger scale.
On the largest agile project I've been involved with, we started by refactoring some pretty basic elements of the system. ("We have A, B, and C, which we're special-casing in the main code. Now you want to add D. We're going to pull a lot of that stuff out, make a class that knows this sort of things, and we'll have subclasses for A, B, C, and D.") It worked great, and had management approval.
I like working here.
(We kept adding on E, F, and G, and split A and B into two. If we hadn't done the refactor then, we would have had considerably more trouble later.)
I'm going to suggest that more people get Agile wrong than get a lot of other things wrong. One thing that hurts Agile is that it's fully buzzword-compliant nowadays, which means that it's a lot more tempting to have some sort-of ill-defined process and call it Agile than to call it Waterfall. Moreover, the Agile Manifesto doesn't translate well into typical management-speak, and the whole concept is not really well-defined.
I'm a product they want to keep happy, for continuing use as a product. I just post to Facebook with the assumption that the entire world has access to what I put there, because that seems to be a reasonably safe assumption. There are things you will not learn about me from Facebook (or anywhere on the Internet, for that matter).
Not really. Back when electronic communication mostly meant email, in what people think of as the AOL era, I could send and receive email with people with @aol.com addresses. With Facebook, I have friends who don't use email, so I need to use Facebook Messenger to send them messages. (In many cases, phone calls are uncertain, and I'm not going to send snail mail messages without a compelling reason.)
Facebook has succeeded where AOL failed, and I don't mean that in an approving way.
I'm not actually used to sexual objectification, and I really am not well suited to the role of sex object, but I am used to software developer objectification. There are people who have cared little about me as a person, but only about me as a software guy. I'm fine with that as long as I get paid well enough in whatever it is that I want.
Some philosophers liked to figure things out. Some still do.
However, natural philosophy got a new name, "science", and gradually started to be seen as something different from philosophy per se. People who are interested in natural philosophy and other forms do still exist, but they're considered to be in both philosophy and science as opposed to just being philosophers.
In your analogy, it would be as if modern people who work with herds of cattle were called "cattle technicians" instead of "cowboys".
You'd think that, if Hillary had caused deaths at Benghazi, thirteen hostile Congressional investigations would have found some wrongdoing. Face it, she did what she could with the resources Congress afforded her. Congress needs to accept the fact that, if they don't provide adequate money for embassy and consulate security, bad things might happen.
In other words, you will refuse to treat anyone who won't agree to entirely give up doctor-patient privacy, and consent to mandatory additional potentially inconvenient procedures at their expense. You get away with this because it beats two months of intense pain. If a patient has any objection to unreasonable demands, you will let that patient suffer.
The only difference between you and a CIA "enhanced interrogator" is that you're more smug about it.
When I go to the doctor, they weigh me, and every so often measure my height. I don't get asked questions that they can quickly measure to get the answer.
Evil organizations are not staffed by people who are profoundly evil and actively work against humanity. (I can come up with reasons why many drugs should be illegal. I don't necessarily find them convincing, but I recognize that there is room for reasonable people to differ here.) Many of them think they're doing the right thing. Many just work there because they got a job. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase 'banality of evil" when describing organizations considerably more evil than the DEA.
I don't want anything worse than unemployment to happen to them.
Most of the stuff I buy never gets fixed. It doesn't break in the first place. Given that, the cost of repairing Apple stuff really doesn't affect the TOC much. And, yes, most consumers aren't total idiots, and will buy things based on their own preferences rather than yours.
Slashdot Mirror
When did Li write that? In C++, complex types are in the standard library, not built into the language itself. Boost provides more C++ mathematical types.
If I have a hash %foo, then a use would be $foo{bar}. Given an array @foo, a use would be $foo[bar]. Not only does the change from % or @ to $ throw me a bit sometimes, the visual difference between those two different things is braces vs. brackets, and as my eyes age that's not really enough.
Could you tell me about the design of sigils, and why they were done the way they are?
Does Perl usage in general have much to do with Perl 6? Perl 5 just kept getting better and better, and I've been away from the community for a while.
I'd think those reasons would apply equally well to Python, or, for that matter, anything that isn't PowerShell.
The conditionals aren't wrong, just more varied than you like. You can do "if (!foo) do_something" in Perl. "do_something unless foo;" is optional. Sometimes the additional options can lead to idiomatic phrases. Compare "if (!open file) { die; }" to "open file or die;" and tell me which is easier to read. I'd think that "unless" should mostly be used when the conditional action is almost always executed with some minor exception, and that it could be clearer than the C syntax in that way.
If Perl is difficult to read because of use of non-standard syntax, it's badly written. It is easier to write a bad program in Perl than in Python, but I don't see that as a fault of the language.
Have you considered the frightening possibility that Wall designed Perl without the use of recreational pharmaceuticals?
I didn't have a good computer store in town at the time, so I had to mail-order anything I was going to do to our toaster Macs. Why would it help to have the tool available locally and the additional RAM I wanted to install available mail-order? I suspect that, if I'd had a store in town that sold the RAM, they'd have stocked the tools.
Are you that accomplished a computer engineer, or are you just guessing on the cost savings? Using a different screwdriver in production is absolutely trivial compared to all the other costs. Moreover, if you wanted to eliminate the need for special tools, you'd have to move the screws somewhere else. I don't have screwdrivers around that would be useful no matter what the head was on those screws, since the screws were small and not very accessible. The Allen head was nice in that it was fairly easy to get the head into the screw top and hold it there.
There are always going to be general-purpose computers around, and your kids will be able to dick around with them as they please. This is good. It's also pretty much necessary to keep software ecosystems going. However, for most people out there, the Apple way is the right one, and it's a good thing that more vendors are offering products with limited ways to screw up.
There's a lot of people on Slashdot who believe that (a) most users will do stupid things, given the chance, and (b) they should be given the ability to screw up big-time at all times. I don't get this. Most of my relatives will do better with a walled garden and locked-down devices than with freer devices. (My close friends are largely computer geeks, so they're not a good group to generalize from.)
First, if you're looking for computer users that are better informed and make better decisions, try another planet, because you're not getting it on this one. We've tried, and I've concluded that relying on well-informed users making good choices is about as practical as Communism or Libertarianism in government. Great ideas, but not for this species of more-or-less intelligent life.
These are the people Apple is trying to take care of. iDevice users are fairly safe from malware, and have reasonably good security. The reason they have these is Apple's walled garden and strict requirements, and if Apple starts bending those there will be much more malware and insecurity. Apple is going to err on the side of safety and security, because they have to.
The phones that didn't work after the iOS upgrade were broken. Intelligent users don't change a working configuration on a broken device, because they don't know what effect a change will have. I don't think users that don't realize that are going to make really good security decisions.
As long as you're talking about the user making security decisions and balancing risks, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that Apple didn't screw it up, or that there wasn't a better way. I'm saying that you don't really understand what you're talking about here, and that you'll be much more effective at criticizing Apple when you realize what they are doing.
Not all beliefs are created equal. One may believe there is no god in a weak sense, based on a lack of evidence. I don't believe in ghosts, but I'd be very interested in objective evidence that they existed. The lack of ghosts in the world is not at all involved with my identity, and if you showed me a real ghost I'd change my mind. I don't believe there are no ghosts in a much different manner than some of my friends believe in Jesus Christ.
Aside from the fact that this is completely impossible in any society that respects civil rights, it's wrongheaded. I'm not particularly fond of Islam, but most Muslims are peaceful people getting through their lives, just like adherents of any other large religion. There was a time when the most advanced and dynamic civilization in the world was Muslim. If Islam was the problem, that would not have happened.
There's a difference, though. There are successful Agile shops. There are no Communist countries that have turned out well. If I could point to China and the USSR and say "that's bad Communism" and point to another few countries and say "that's good Communism, because these countries are free, democratic, and have thriving economies", I'd be more in favor of Communism. Given the lack of such countries, I'm sticking to my belief that Communism can work for a very few thousand people, for a generation or two, given a charismatic leader and a certain amount of isolation, and is bad if it's imposed on any larger scale.
When well done, Scrum can be Agile. You do have to take the process less seriously than I've seen in some places.
On the largest agile project I've been involved with, we started by refactoring some pretty basic elements of the system. ("We have A, B, and C, which we're special-casing in the main code. Now you want to add D. We're going to pull a lot of that stuff out, make a class that knows this sort of things, and we'll have subclasses for A, B, C, and D.") It worked great, and had management approval.
I like working here.
(We kept adding on E, F, and G, and split A and B into two. If we hadn't done the refactor then, we would have had considerably more trouble later.)
I'm going to suggest that more people get Agile wrong than get a lot of other things wrong. One thing that hurts Agile is that it's fully buzzword-compliant nowadays, which means that it's a lot more tempting to have some sort-of ill-defined process and call it Agile than to call it Waterfall. Moreover, the Agile Manifesto doesn't translate well into typical management-speak, and the whole concept is not really well-defined.
I'm a product they want to keep happy, for continuing use as a product. I just post to Facebook with the assumption that the entire world has access to what I put there, because that seems to be a reasonably safe assumption. There are things you will not learn about me from Facebook (or anywhere on the Internet, for that matter).
Not really. Back when electronic communication mostly meant email, in what people think of as the AOL era, I could send and receive email with people with @aol.com addresses. With Facebook, I have friends who don't use email, so I need to use Facebook Messenger to send them messages. (In many cases, phone calls are uncertain, and I'm not going to send snail mail messages without a compelling reason.)
Facebook has succeeded where AOL failed, and I don't mean that in an approving way.
I'm not actually used to sexual objectification, and I really am not well suited to the role of sex object, but I am used to software developer objectification. There are people who have cared little about me as a person, but only about me as a software guy. I'm fine with that as long as I get paid well enough in whatever it is that I want.
Some philosophers liked to figure things out. Some still do.
However, natural philosophy got a new name, "science", and gradually started to be seen as something different from philosophy per se. People who are interested in natural philosophy and other forms do still exist, but they're considered to be in both philosophy and science as opposed to just being philosophers.
In your analogy, it would be as if modern people who work with herds of cattle were called "cattle technicians" instead of "cowboys".
You'd think that, if Hillary had caused deaths at Benghazi, thirteen hostile Congressional investigations would have found some wrongdoing. Face it, she did what she could with the resources Congress afforded her. Congress needs to accept the fact that, if they don't provide adequate money for embassy and consulate security, bad things might happen.
In other words, you will refuse to treat anyone who won't agree to entirely give up doctor-patient privacy, and consent to mandatory additional potentially inconvenient procedures at their expense. You get away with this because it beats two months of intense pain. If a patient has any objection to unreasonable demands, you will let that patient suffer.
The only difference between you and a CIA "enhanced interrogator" is that you're more smug about it.
FTFY. The US medical system is screwed up in more than one unique ways.
When I go to the doctor, they weigh me, and every so often measure my height. I don't get asked questions that they can quickly measure to get the answer.
Evil organizations are not staffed by people who are profoundly evil and actively work against humanity. (I can come up with reasons why many drugs should be illegal. I don't necessarily find them convincing, but I recognize that there is room for reasonable people to differ here.) Many of them think they're doing the right thing. Many just work there because they got a job. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase 'banality of evil" when describing organizations considerably more evil than the DEA.
I don't want anything worse than unemployment to happen to them.
Most of the stuff I buy never gets fixed. It doesn't break in the first place. Given that, the cost of repairing Apple stuff really doesn't affect the TOC much. And, yes, most consumers aren't total idiots, and will buy things based on their own preferences rather than yours.