I disagree strongly. Online documentation tends to be inconsistent, poorly thought out and unclear.
Books tend to be clearer, better-researched and more authoritative. If you already know the technology well, you can sort out the online wheat from the chaff and get what you want rapidly. If not, you flail around a myriad of web pages looking for information that fits your needs.
This applies to my experience of PHP as well as other related experiences.
Of course there are exceptions to this, but my bookshelf grows and grows. Also, if online docs are so great, how come O'Reilly books still sell so well? They're hardly cheap...
No, he rode the wave. Saying something is happening does not mean you made it happen. A case of a post hoc ergo proper hoc argument, for you classicists out there.
"In the real word (sic) you think a lot about design, you want to have nice code that other people can understand."
Clearly he doesn't have what it takes to make it in the "real" word (sic).
1) Was this technique originated by people under contract to Verisign?
2) If so, how did they show this? If not, how did they get the patent?
3) How is it an original and inventive solution to a problem?
4) Does it cover any scripts that perform the task, or is it specifically a scripting solution that is patented? In other words, if I were to compile a binary to do the same thing, would this be a distinct solution and could I patent that please?
5) Do american lawyers/judges have as little understanding of how computer systems work as this suggests?
But his crits are so asinine...
There's so much to hate about Java, yet he picks on points which are fundamental to its philosophy, eg "sometimes, I'd rather not worry about exceptions at all" - Java tries to encourage/force good coding; criticise that forcing philosophy rather than its consequences.
Then he tries to have it both ways by wanting to ignore exceptions and yet force comments.
And how can you have someone writing an article on various languages repeatedly saying "I don't really know much about this? *rolls eyes*
And how exactly can you search databases without doing set operations?
The rest of this article is full of cliches ("It's a lot easier to solve problems if you have a toolbox full of good tools.")
A large problem with AI is that the stuff that fires the public imagination (eg chess playing computers, robots that yawn and "show emotion") bears little relation to actual progress in "real" AI. Real AI, ie AI research which is really making progress toward producing more intelligent machines (a goal that is a *long* way off cf Hofstadter et al) is relatively arcan and relatively unsexy, especially to the woman in the street.
This can be considered an analogue of the ago-old front-end versus back-end development problem... you develop a really clever database schema and the MD comes in and asks you to change the colour of a button and says how great the GUI is.
It's therefore difficult to get funding for "real" AI research.
Another problem is that we are genuinely *way* off understanding how to make "intelligent, autonomous agents" because we don't know how *any* IAAs work! We have no idea at all really. We know how a computer boots up, but nature/nurture? Phww, forget it. How can we create what we don't understand *at all*? It was hard enough to create a chess-playing program and that's a *very* limited problem.
Slashdot Mirror
- nuff said.
Books tend to be clearer, better-researched and more authoritative. If you already know the technology well, you can sort out the online wheat from the chaff and get what you want rapidly. If not, you flail around a myriad of web pages looking for information that fits your needs.
This applies to my experience of PHP as well as other related experiences.
Of course there are exceptions to this, but my bookshelf grows and grows. Also, if online docs are so great, how come O'Reilly books still sell so well? They're hardly cheap...
No, he rode the wave. Saying something is happening does not mean you made it happen. A case of a post hoc ergo proper hoc argument, for you classicists out there.
Body required... (for post and implant...)
"In the real word (sic) you think a lot about design, you want to have nice code that other people can understand." Clearly he doesn't have what it takes to make it in the "real" word (sic).
2) If so, how did they show this? If not, how did they get the patent?
3) How is it an original and inventive solution to a problem?
4) Does it cover any scripts that perform the task, or is it specifically a scripting solution that is patented? In other words, if I were to compile a binary to do the same thing, would this be a distinct solution and could I patent that please?
5) Do american lawyers/judges have as little understanding of how computer systems work as this suggests?
I think he means not even bother with declaring exceptions to be thrown with the "throws" keyword. Either way, it's still nonsense.
Then he tries to have it both ways by wanting to ignore exceptions and yet force comments.
And how can you have someone writing an article on various languages repeatedly saying "I don't really know much about this? *rolls eyes*
And how exactly can you search databases without doing set operations?
The rest of this article is full of cliches ("It's a lot easier to solve problems if you have a toolbox full of good tools.")
And his English - "Language Badnesses"... Jesus.
A large problem with AI is that the stuff that fires the public imagination (eg chess playing computers, robots that yawn and "show emotion") bears little relation to actual progress in "real" AI. Real AI, ie AI research which is really making progress toward producing more intelligent machines (a goal that is a *long* way off cf Hofstadter et al) is relatively arcan and relatively unsexy, especially to the woman in the street. This can be considered an analogue of the ago-old front-end versus back-end development problem... you develop a really clever database schema and the MD comes in and asks you to change the colour of a button and says how great the GUI is. It's therefore difficult to get funding for "real" AI research. Another problem is that we are genuinely *way* off understanding how to make "intelligent, autonomous agents" because we don't know how *any* IAAs work! We have no idea at all really. We know how a computer boots up, but nature/nurture? Phww, forget it. How can we create what we don't understand *at all*? It was hard enough to create a chess-playing program and that's a *very* limited problem.
Not read Ulysses then?
Dude, please self-repair your grammar. I could only follow what you were saying with some effort.