anyway how do you write a recursive function that can detect a cycle in a linked list?"
I'll be honest, of the many bugs I've had in my code, managing to get a cycle in a linked list is one I've never had. I'm 100% perfect at not getting cycles in my linked lists. Wow, go me!
If you're not going to maintain a platform, you should open-source it so people who care about it aren't abandoned without hope. I don't like VB but the way Microsoft dropped it was not good.
Personally i don't see any problems with JavaScript.
None at all? You might want to look into that blindspot.
There are things in this world that I think are just awesome, but even then there are at least some problems.
WebAssembly and Emscripten are really cool technologies though.
But in no way a threat to JavaScript.
The reason Javascript is popular is because in the browser, it's the only option. Once WebAssembly is widespread, that will no longer be a reason to use Javascript. That is my reasoning for explaining why Javascript will no longer be popular.
Why do you think people will still use Javascript once they have other options?
Javascript is approaching its peak as a programming language. The thing that will kill it is WebAssembly.
Soon, you will be able to write front-end code in any language you like, you won't need to use Javascript. And if you're not using Javascript on the front-end, there's really no reason to use it on the back end.
That is the fundamental problem. Almost no one actually believes that the NSA was acting in an unprofessional manner.
I do. Pretty near every abuse you can think of, the NSA has already done it. LOVEINT? Spying on friends? Spying on politicians to influence legislation? It's all there.
tbh I'm kind of surprised how fast the abuses happened.....I figured they could at last survive a couple decades before degenerating into corruption.
The myth essentially shifts the blame from the corporate executives to "the system". It's the same as the hippies' stereotypical disgust with The Man, the modern rebels' jealousy of the 1%, the historic persecution of Jews, and the vilifying of banks. Rather than a specific mechanism to effect change, such as participating in a shareholder poll or vote, the myth provides a vague target for outrage that the masses can rally against, feeling good about their impotent rebellion. It satisfies a craving to be a noble warrior in a community of fellow underdogs, fighting against a powerful oppressor... but it doesn't require the drudgery of actually changing anything.
Most people don't use Maven for building Android apps, believe it or not. Most of the time people used Ant, believe it or not, because that's what Google advocated (I have no idea why). Later, they switched to Gradle (again, I have no idea why).
the so-called Android API already bundles some third-party libraries (such as Apache HttpComponents)
Apparently that's the question of the trial in the OP: whether or not this use of the API is fair use.
Yeah.
I really, really hope they rule for Google in this, because otherwise it could have some pretty far-reaching negative impacts on the software industry as a whole.
The appeal that ended probably will be cited in many cases from now on, but I can't see how the current case will have much affect.
Because in order to re-implement an API, it is necessary to copy almost verbatim the definitions of the functions and other entities that make up the public interface of the API.
Oh. That's where the fair use defense comes in. Obviously in a lot of cases, you can redo your API differently, like C# standard library is different than Java's, but if you need to be exactly the same, there are plenty of reasons you can get away with under fair use.
BS. That's precisely why it was done. It was done so existing Java third-party libraries (of which there are a huge amount) could be leveraged in Android applications without much rework needed.
What existing java libraries became popular on Android? I can't think of any, and I've never used any in my own programming (although I've used C libraries).
It costs ~$5000 to apply for a patent (including lawyer fees). After that, there's no maintenance fee. It will lapse automatically after ~20 years, and there is nothing you can do to renew it.
It's been adopted around the world, so you're basically out of luck there.
because it will make it impossible to reimplement any closed API without licensing agreements.
No, you're wrong! Why do you even think that? There are many reasons that you can re-implement a closed API, among them for interoperability purposes. That covers most things you would want to do with an API, actually.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, so nothing special.
Yeah, being able to break out of the standard distribution network for content (aka extortionists) is huge.
Some people predict that Windows will eventually go open source.
Hmmmm. What could Microsoft possibly gain from that? Even hypothetically in the future, I can't see it.
anyway how do you write a recursive function that can detect a cycle in a linked list?"
I'll be honest, of the many bugs I've had in my code, managing to get a cycle in a linked list is one I've never had. I'm 100% perfect at not getting cycles in my linked lists. Wow, go me!
It could also be that most bugs show up in code where the developer is most confused and thus feeling stress.
Code quality measured in FPKLOC. Guess what that metric is.
If you're not going to maintain a platform, you should open-source it so people who care about it aren't abandoned without hope. I don't like VB but the way Microsoft dropped it was not good.
Personally i don't see any problems with JavaScript.
None at all? You might want to look into that blindspot.
There are things in this world that I think are just awesome, but even then there are at least some problems.
WebAssembly and Emscripten are really cool technologies though. But in no way a threat to JavaScript.
The reason Javascript is popular is because in the browser, it's the only option. Once WebAssembly is widespread, that will no longer be a reason to use Javascript. That is my reasoning for explaining why Javascript will no longer be popular.
Why do you think people will still use Javascript once they have other options?
Did you read it? I would be much more impressed if you could comment based on your reading of the case.
Javascript is approaching its peak as a programming language. The thing that will kill it is WebAssembly.
Soon, you will be able to write front-end code in any language you like, you won't need to use Javascript. And if you're not using Javascript on the front-end, there's really no reason to use it on the back end.
Good thing banks never lose money.
That's why I take the stairs.
When I noticed that IBM's parking lot was nearly empty by 6pm, I sold all my IBM stock.
That was like 30 years ago, right? At least, I can't remember ever seeing IBM's parking lot full at 6pm.
Huh.....somewhere I got the idea that the earth was only 4 billion years old.
That is the fundamental problem. Almost no one actually believes that the NSA was acting in an unprofessional manner.
I do. Pretty near every abuse you can think of, the NSA has already done it. LOVEINT? Spying on friends? Spying on politicians to influence legislation? It's all there.
tbh I'm kind of surprised how fast the abuses happened.....I figured they could at last survive a couple decades before degenerating into corruption.
The myth essentially shifts the blame from the corporate executives to "the system". It's the same as the hippies' stereotypical disgust with The Man, the modern rebels' jealousy of the 1%, the historic persecution of Jews, and the vilifying of banks. Rather than a specific mechanism to effect change, such as participating in a shareholder poll or vote, the myth provides a vague target for outrage that the masses can rally against, feeling good about their impotent rebellion. It satisfies a craving to be a noble warrior in a community of fellow underdogs, fighting against a powerful oppressor... but it doesn't require the drudgery of actually changing anything.
Good analysis, and eloquently stated.
the so-called Android API already bundles some third-party libraries (such as Apache HttpComponents)
ok, that's a good point.
Apparently that's the question of the trial in the OP: whether or not this use of the API is fair use.
Yeah.
I really, really hope they rule for Google in this, because otherwise it could have some pretty far-reaching negative impacts on the software industry as a whole.
The appeal that ended probably will be cited in many cases from now on, but I can't see how the current case will have much affect.
Read through this case and you'll be much smarter. Or don't read it, and remain ignorant.
Because in order to re-implement an API, it is necessary to copy almost verbatim the definitions of the functions and other entities that make up the public interface of the API.
Oh. That's where the fair use defense comes in. Obviously in a lot of cases, you can redo your API differently, like C# standard library is different than Java's, but if you need to be exactly the same, there are plenty of reasons you can get away with under fair use.
BS. That's precisely why it was done. It was done so existing Java third-party libraries (of which there are a huge amount) could be leveraged in Android applications without much rework needed.
What existing java libraries became popular on Android? I can't think of any, and I've never used any in my own programming (although I've used C libraries).
It costs ~$5000 to apply for a patent (including lawyer fees). After that, there's no maintenance fee. It will lapse automatically after ~20 years, and there is nothing you can do to renew it.
I really hope this interpretation doesn't stand
It's been adopted around the world, so you're basically out of luck there.
because it will make it impossible to reimplement any closed API without licensing agreements.
No, you're wrong! Why do you even think that? There are many reasons that you can re-implement a closed API, among them for interoperability purposes. That covers most things you would want to do with an API, actually.
No. In this case, Google definitely copied Java. They fully admit that. It's not even a question in court.
The questions in court were:
1) Were the copied parts protected under copyright?
2) Were the copied parts allowed as fair use?