Riiight... Erlang was developed by Erickson to run their telecommunications infrastructure. It is a very pragmatic language. Haskell is more acedemic, but the point being that there are techniques for automatic parallelization out there.
I had a very similar thing happen (although, I think you mean Orcus summoned Jubilex.) However, I had no cocatrice corpse. I had to beat them all to death with magicbane. The fight went all the way to the top of sokoban.
I disagree that a new class is warrented if it does not exibit different behaviour than it's base. If a class can be logically differenciated into 2, incompatible uses, then it warrants 2 classes. In this case, we can concieve of a method, parent() which can only have meaning for leaf, not root... the act of not bothering to define it for leaf is purely arbitrary, but we can still gain the logical constraint checking of the compiler by differenciating the classes. When you split the tree, your hungarian naming convention fails also according to your example, as a variable named root is treated as a leaf.. Actually, I'd argue that the root variable is treated as a Page, it's base, so there is no conflict. And really, the tree example is simplistic enough that no naming or classing convention is probably needed at all.
Now, I'm not arguing against all hungarian notation, and you bring up some good points. char *sMyNonNullTerminatedStringPointer can make sense. It's the religious adherence to the convention that becomes annoying and worthless. There are a few, a very few in my opinion, variables that might warrent special naming treatment. Most variables however, if the code is written well, are very locally scoped and bound for such a small section of code that elaborate naming is more of a distraction than anything. Especially in languages like C++ where the type system is so strong. In C, there is more of an argument. Interestingly, in languages like Java and C#, where everything is a single rooted heirarchy and types can really become confusing, since alot of times you are dealing with Object*, hungarian is little used. In Lisp-likes, where there are no types, hungarian is rejected outright. I'm not sure why the C++ people hang onto it so in a language where it is the least valuable.
More than "not taking up arms" against the populace, the military would break up into factions and fight each other. In an armed populace, the faction supported by the populace would be served with resupply and conscripts from the populace while the other faction faces broken supply lines and guerilla resistance. The reason for an armed populace is not to overthrow the government, but to ensure that the government realizes that taking any action likely to segment it's military against itself is suicide so that a revolution need never happen.
Governments in unarmed populations do not need to be so cautious, as they know the populace cannot supply or provide decent conscripts, and so factioning is easily overcome.
class Leaf : public Page {} class Root : public Page {}
Now, you can still use your API for pages, and you have compiler enforcement of your conventions. Hungarian notion solves a problem that is caused by a misuse of the language. Fix the improper use of the language and the need for it goes away. This is like arguing to not use carriage returns as often so you can fit more of your common 600 line functions on the screen, or naming your classes after their locations in a deep inheritance heirarchy... they are symptoms of a bigger problem and your toy solutions don't solve anything. ESPECIALLY in C++ which has one of the richest type systems imaginable (although it pales in comparison with Haskell) you should be using the compiler for all this type enforcement.
No perfect will power here.... There are (too) many times when the gratification of caving overcomes the long term goal... but the choice to cave is mine, and I take full responsibility for that choice. Dry heaving and circular thinking are not higher reasoning; they are symptoms of the addiction and extremely uncomfortable. The decision to partake in the addiction to quell the involuntary reaction is a DECISION. You have to get up, find the dealer/convience store/liquor store/computer to buy your smack/cigs/whiskey/WoW... you make that decision because you find, at the moment, the elimination of the torture preferable to the freedom from the addiction. That doesn't make it any less of a choice. I'm not saying it's an easy choice either.
If it weren't a choice, then millions of recovering addicts wouldn't stop BY CHOICE. Teaching addicts that it isn't a choice hurts them horribly because it is the ultimate excuse, when they go through that torture, of why they can't help but give in... and when they are reaching for justification in the midst of craving, it's exactly the kind of thing they use.
There are many problems with it though. First, there is absolutely no enforcement of such typing, which means that if the "type" changes in the future, you have documentation in your code that is linked to the code itself and much more difficult to change... which actually encourages the "out of date" comment problem. Secondly, it was popularized to such an extent as to be obnoxious.. leading to things like: for(int nCount=0;nCount10;nCount++); Thirdly, it gets unweildy for the cases when it begins to become useful, for instance a struct containing a struct of 2 strings, one null terminated and one not, and an int... at that point, I'm tempted to do hungarian on my weird pointer thingie, but my code will start to look like perl.
No, what you would see would be a private Mars homestead, with a corporation doing deep research with the hopes of making a profit of this big chunk of rock. It would be more chaotic and misdirected, but in a much higher volume so that overall the end result would likely be more research being done, self sustaining Mars industry, and a taxable revenue source instead of a tax funded revenue sink.
Remember that every industry not in the private sector is a double cost... first, you no longer get the taxes from it, second, you have to pay their costs out of taxes you recieve elsewhere.
There will be economic gain from space, that is for sure. Thousands of enterprising failures is how that gain will likely be found. Denying the right to the free enterprise failures keep you from finding that success.
And I wrote a very terse and rather harsh response to MY parent poster who suggested that because there are structural changes in the brain that create a strong desire, that the addict has no choice but to partake. I was suggesting that IF that is true, then they are not human, as all of us HUMANS have choices as to how we live life, no matter how uncomfortable those choices might be.
Sure, we have reaction (sometimes it's impossible not to blink for instance), but the further up we go into the higher reasoning levels of the brain, specifically parts that require planning, IMNSHO we have a choice about everything. To say otherwise about a class of people makes them only automata, and they (who's existence is hypothetical, as I refute it) would garner curiosity, but no sympathy from me, as one unable to make decisions about putting themselves in misery is fatalistically destined to it.
But I like how I said it originally, because it got me my first 2 people who put me on their foes list! Woohoo!
As great a philosophical discussion as the "possibility of times when we have no choice" is, as for an having a choice to a long term repeating pattern in our life, we most certainly do. Enabling an addict by letting him hide behind fatalism is wrong. The only way for an addict to lose the addiction (except perhaps by an outside force such as long term incarceration) is by supporting him in making those difficult choices... not by letting him slide on them.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I'm pretty sure they didn't mean $20 the way you and I mean $20.
As the Bible is a religious text, supposedly written by God, I would assume the laws it sets out are not officially ammendable by mortals. As the context of the OP's statement makes it directly applicable to ruling documents ammendable by their governments, and not specifically historical archives, which would make his a silly statement indeed, then I think we can exempt the Bible as an exception.
As for the link to the book you give... the argument is against the constitution because of it's rejection of proportional representation. In his opinion proportional representation is better than what the US uses, but the drafters of the constitution, and many, many others disagree strongly. Being as the drafter's rejection of it is very carefully constructed in the text of the constitution, the rejection of this philosophy is most certainly not a mistake, and would not be viewed by it's authors as a "flaw". In fact, PR, if adopted, would be the final failure of federalism and the triumph of what the founders would consider an oppressive government, having eliminated the relevance of the states. The author considers these states simply "geographic regions"... viewpoint I think the individual governments of these independant states and their freestanding armies (yes, some still exist... I live in a state that has one) might have some objection to.
Now, you can say that it's not the "most expertly crafted political document in human history", and given a lively discussion of many documents and a few glasses of scotch, we might even come to an agreement on another "best", but that's purely a matter of taste and IMO would really have more to do with it's effectiveness in relation to it's purposes, it's eloquence, it's brevity, and it's clarity than any rejection of it's tenets.
You want to install eclipse for better performance??? Eclipse is nice and all, but I think it holds the title for being the only app on the planet slower than VS.
Actually, since I don't do alot of windows GUI specific programming, I'm more excited about the idea that all the ideas behind XAML will undoubtedly be stolen by other frameworks. I'd love to see a XAML-like SWL binding for instance. The databinding properties of XAML are particularly interesting... you can write entire db frontent apps in XAML with no code at all.. and they run natively.
I've worked extensively with WPF, and yes there are going to be a metrick button of insane GUI apps because it's so easy to do.. But it's also insanely easy to do GUI programming period with WPF. Orders of magnitude easier than any other GUI framework I've seen. From a programmers standpoint WPF just kicks ass.
Actually, I would hope that I have someone less sympathetic than you. The philosophy of helplessness in regards to addiction is a horrible enabling factor for the addict. It allows them to justify their addiction by hiding behind the idea that they can't help themselves. The way to overcome addiction is through strong self dicipline and control, often bolstered by outside support, but certainly not replaced by it. Teaching the addict that he is incapable of those things is condemning him.
Life is very fun because I have the capability of making decisions. Life is NOT a movie that drones on in the background... that would be pretty lame. I have instinctual desires, true, and some of them are quite strong. Were I to completely give in to those desires to the point that I no longer make decisions, then life is no longer fun... it is just a movie, and I am just a consumptive automaton. I can feel no sympathy for an automaton, for fatalism dictates what they experience... they would be tools and pack animals.
You are making a claim that people are incapable of making decisions. I am simply stating that if this is true, then they are not people as we know them, for a neccissary component of personhood is not being an atomaton. I do not believe that these individuals that you bring up are incapable of making decisions... I give them more credit than you. Certain decisions may indeed be very hard for them to make, but they can and do make them.
Slashdot Mirror
Riiight... Erlang was developed by Erickson to run their telecommunications infrastructure. It is a very pragmatic language. Haskell is more acedemic, but the point being that there are techniques for automatic parallelization out there.
Languages like Erlang and Haskell extract parallelism from the code without the developer having to write multithreaded code.
Also, using poly control and wand of polymorph to become a "new man". This will change your stats around, and reset your hunger status.
PYEC and blessed horn of plenty I hear are handy also, for the unlimited fruit juice.
Nah.. I've got to say that completely is the athiest foodless ascentions I've seen... That's just wrong.
I had a very similar thing happen (although, I think you mean Orcus summoned Jubilex.) However, I had no cocatrice corpse. I had to beat them all to death with magicbane. The fight went all the way to the top of sokoban.
I just ascended a tourist. I started playing monk now, and realize now how freaking hard tourist was.
I'm going for a weaponless, illiterate, wishless, genocideless, vegan monk. If I can do that, I figure I can give the game up permanently.
I disagree that a new class is warrented if it does not exibit different behaviour than it's base. If a class can be logically differenciated into 2, incompatible uses, then it warrants 2 classes. In this case, we can concieve of a method, parent() which can only have meaning for leaf, not root... the act of not bothering to define it for leaf is purely arbitrary, but we can still gain the logical constraint checking of the compiler by differenciating the classes. When you split the tree, your hungarian naming convention fails also according to your example, as a variable named root is treated as a leaf.. Actually, I'd argue that the root variable is treated as a Page, it's base, so there is no conflict. And really, the tree example is simplistic enough that no naming or classing convention is probably needed at all.
Now, I'm not arguing against all hungarian notation, and you bring up some good points. char *sMyNonNullTerminatedStringPointer can make sense. It's the religious adherence to the convention that becomes annoying and worthless. There are a few, a very few in my opinion, variables that might warrent special naming treatment. Most variables however, if the code is written well, are very locally scoped and bound for such a small section of code that elaborate naming is more of a distraction than anything. Especially in languages like C++ where the type system is so strong. In C, there is more of an argument. Interestingly, in languages like Java and C#, where everything is a single rooted heirarchy and types can really become confusing, since alot of times you are dealing with Object*, hungarian is little used. In Lisp-likes, where there are no types, hungarian is rejected outright. I'm not sure why the C++ people hang onto it so in a language where it is the least valuable.
More than "not taking up arms" against the populace, the military would break up into factions and fight each other. In an armed populace, the faction supported by the populace would be served with resupply and conscripts from the populace while the other faction faces broken supply lines and guerilla resistance. The reason for an armed populace is not to overthrow the government, but to ensure that the government realizes that taking any action likely to segment it's military against itself is suicide so that a revolution need never happen.
Governments in unarmed populations do not need to be so cautious, as they know the populace cannot supply or provide decent conscripts, and so factioning is easily overcome.
No perfect will power here.... There are (too) many times when the gratification of caving overcomes the long term goal... but the choice to cave is mine, and I take full responsibility for that choice. Dry heaving and circular thinking are not higher reasoning; they are symptoms of the addiction and extremely uncomfortable. The decision to partake in the addiction to quell the involuntary reaction is a DECISION. You have to get up, find the dealer/convience store/liquor store/computer to buy your smack/cigs/whiskey/WoW... you make that decision because you find, at the moment, the elimination of the torture preferable to the freedom from the addiction. That doesn't make it any less of a choice. I'm not saying it's an easy choice either.
If it weren't a choice, then millions of recovering addicts wouldn't stop BY CHOICE. Teaching addicts that it isn't a choice hurts them horribly because it is the ultimate excuse, when they go through that torture, of why they can't help but give in... and when they are reaching for justification in the midst of craving, it's exactly the kind of thing they use.
There are many problems with it though. First, there is absolutely no enforcement of such typing, which means that if the "type" changes in the future, you have documentation in your code that is linked to the code itself and much more difficult to change... which actually encourages the "out of date" comment problem. Secondly, it was popularized to such an extent as to be obnoxious.. leading to things like: for(int nCount=0;nCount10;nCount++); Thirdly, it gets unweildy for the cases when it begins to become useful, for instance a struct containing a struct of 2 strings, one null terminated and one not, and an int... at that point, I'm tempted to do hungarian on my weird pointer thingie, but my code will start to look like perl.
No, what you would see would be a private Mars homestead, with a corporation doing deep research with the hopes of making a profit of this big chunk of rock. It would be more chaotic and misdirected, but in a much higher volume so that overall the end result would likely be more research being done, self sustaining Mars industry, and a taxable revenue source instead of a tax funded revenue sink.
Remember that every industry not in the private sector is a double cost... first, you no longer get the taxes from it, second, you have to pay their costs out of taxes you recieve elsewhere.
There will be economic gain from space, that is for sure. Thousands of enterprising failures is how that gain will likely be found. Denying the right to the free enterprise failures keep you from finding that success.
what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?
Totally! I've no idea how to go about applying for a Letter of Marque. Lazy bastards.
I was your parent poster ;)
And I wrote a very terse and rather harsh response to MY parent poster who suggested that because there are structural changes in the brain that create a strong desire, that the addict has no choice but to partake. I was suggesting that IF that is true, then they are not human, as all of us HUMANS have choices as to how we live life, no matter how uncomfortable those choices might be.
Sure, we have reaction (sometimes it's impossible not to blink for instance), but the further up we go into the higher reasoning levels of the brain, specifically parts that require planning, IMNSHO we have a choice about everything. To say otherwise about a class of people makes them only automata, and they (who's existence is hypothetical, as I refute it) would garner curiosity, but no sympathy from me, as one unable to make decisions about putting themselves in misery is fatalistically destined to it.
But I like how I said it originally, because it got me my first 2 people who put me on their foes list! Woohoo!
As great a philosophical discussion as the "possibility of times when we have no choice" is, as for an having a choice to a long term repeating pattern in our life, we most certainly do. Enabling an addict by letting him hide behind fatalism is wrong. The only way for an addict to lose the addiction (except perhaps by an outside force such as long term incarceration) is by supporting him in making those difficult choices... not by letting him slide on them.
Whoa... I fold.
We need to draft laws in a logic language. I propose a LISP dialect.
Well, this gem is included:
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I'm pretty sure they didn't mean $20 the way you and I mean $20.
As the Bible is a religious text, supposedly written by God, I would assume the laws it sets out are not officially ammendable by mortals. As the context of the OP's statement makes it directly applicable to ruling documents ammendable by their governments, and not specifically historical archives, which would make his a silly statement indeed, then I think we can exempt the Bible as an exception.
As for the link to the book you give... the argument is against the constitution because of it's rejection of proportional representation. In his opinion proportional representation is better than what the US uses, but the drafters of the constitution, and many, many others disagree strongly. Being as the drafter's rejection of it is very carefully constructed in the text of the constitution, the rejection of this philosophy is most certainly not a mistake, and would not be viewed by it's authors as a "flaw". In fact, PR, if adopted, would be the final failure of federalism and the triumph of what the founders would consider an oppressive government, having eliminated the relevance of the states. The author considers these states simply "geographic regions"... viewpoint I think the individual governments of these independant states and their freestanding armies (yes, some still exist... I live in a state that has one) might have some objection to.
Now, you can say that it's not the "most expertly crafted political document in human history", and given a lively discussion of many documents and a few glasses of scotch, we might even come to an agreement on another "best", but that's purely a matter of taste and IMO would really have more to do with it's effectiveness in relation to it's purposes, it's eloquence, it's brevity, and it's clarity than any rejection of it's tenets.
You want to install eclipse for better performance??? Eclipse is nice and all, but I think it holds the title for being the only app on the planet slower than VS.
Actually, since I don't do alot of windows GUI specific programming, I'm more excited about the idea that all the ideas behind XAML will undoubtedly be stolen by other frameworks. I'd love to see a XAML-like SWL binding for instance. The databinding properties of XAML are particularly interesting... you can write entire db frontent apps in XAML with no code at all.. and they run natively.
I've worked extensively with WPF, and yes there are going to be a metrick button of insane GUI apps because it's so easy to do.. But it's also insanely easy to do GUI programming period with WPF. Orders of magnitude easier than any other GUI framework I've seen. From a programmers standpoint WPF just kicks ass.
Actually, I would hope that I have someone less sympathetic than you. The philosophy of helplessness in regards to addiction is a horrible enabling factor for the addict. It allows them to justify their addiction by hiding behind the idea that they can't help themselves. The way to overcome addiction is through strong self dicipline and control, often bolstered by outside support, but certainly not replaced by it. Teaching the addict that he is incapable of those things is condemning him.
Life is very fun because I have the capability of making decisions. Life is NOT a movie that drones on in the background... that would be pretty lame. I have instinctual desires, true, and some of them are quite strong. Were I to completely give in to those desires to the point that I no longer make decisions, then life is no longer fun... it is just a movie, and I am just a consumptive automaton. I can feel no sympathy for an automaton, for fatalism dictates what they experience... they would be tools and pack animals.
You are making a claim that people are incapable of making decisions. I am simply stating that if this is true, then they are not people as we know them, for a neccissary component of personhood is not being an atomaton. I do not believe that these individuals that you bring up are incapable of making decisions... I give them more credit than you. Certain decisions may indeed be very hard for them to make, but they can and do make them.
And thanks for the add... I always wanted a foe!
If people do not have a choice, then I am unsympathetic. Automatons are tools, not peers.