I'm afraid you're missing the point of e.g. documentation. You should be able to do maintenance and for that you most likely need documentation.
Then of course the code might be running fine for "most of the time" but it might in fact be broken on certain unforeseen conditions. Even if the quick'n'dirty solution seems to do fairly well it might and probably will hurt you in the long run.
Doing it "right" is not equivalent to making a quick'n'dirty "fix". Perhaps there's a need to see to the real problem instead and fix that.
Well. The natural state would have to be that the bakery owner had money to get by.
And For what it matters I think there's a low level in which laws seize to exist. Welfare is all good and so on, but the start condition was that there'd be no welfare.
But this is Slashdot and we've gone way off topic;-) I agree with your view on copyright infringement not being stealing. It's in fact a very interesting argument.
You've hit rock bottom. You're broke. No one will help you.
You snatch a loaf of bread in a store and you're committing a crime (duh). Now.. you're saying that that is also morally wrong?
Imho this is a case where at least I think it's legitimate to steal since it's for your own survival.
Fight Club had some quote like "It's only when we have lost everything that we are free to do anything", and I think it fits fairly well. And by anything I'm not insinuating e.g. rape. But murder could very well be for your survival.
To tie this all to the music copyright yada yada: you can afford music. It's probably just that a single artists isn't that important to you and you of course like a hord of artists. Hence, you do not buy CDs since you e.g. like one or two tracks by one artists or another and since a CD isn't really near cheap you go with the cheaper alternative - copy it from someone else.
I really want to stress the importance of the two-good-tracks-on-a-shit-expensive-CD -argument. It is important. Nowadays it is entirely legitimate to print out millions of copies of a CD that holds two hits that will play on the radio or MTV and 12 more tracks that are, sad to say, less good or even garbage.
Reading the code raises the suspicion that the author is usually a C-coder.
Someone should rewrite this since it's pretty tough to follow. Goto-statements are extremely rarely necessary in Perl. Use subroutines or "ordinary" flowcontrol.
If this is going to be used it needs to be maintainable. Because of this it would likely be wise to reimplement it as module(s). Greater abstraction would perhaps add a lot more readability and make further development easier.
The question is if you mean "force" and not "encourage". If you do mean "force" then I'd be able to say that well, Perl isn't a programming language. But the community encourages a certain way of writing, see perldoc perlstyle. Buuut, as some might say; the average script found "on the internet" is most likely BS and written badly, which might explain some people's frustration over the "dense unreadable code".
Well there are prototypes for checking number of params and the type of param. This doesn't include checking for e.g. "int" or "float", since they don't exist as types in Perl, merely if it's code, reference, list, etc. (This also enables some fancy ways to write code to subs..)
Slashdot Mirror
.. hope they've learned of the awesome power of Miranda.
Didn't try it, but there's an example of a voice plugin.
I'm afraid you're missing the point of e.g. documentation. You should be able to do maintenance and for that you most likely need documentation.
Then of course the code might be running fine for "most of the time" but it might in fact be broken on certain unforeseen conditions. Even if the quick'n'dirty solution seems to do fairly well it might and probably will hurt you in the long run.
Doing it "right" is not equivalent to making a quick'n'dirty "fix". Perhaps there's a need to see to the real problem instead and fix that.
Well. The natural state would have to be that the bakery owner had money to get by.
;-) I agree with your view on copyright infringement not being stealing. It's in fact a very interesting argument.
And For what it matters I think there's a low level in which laws seize to exist. Welfare is all good and so on, but the start condition was that there'd be no welfare.
But this is Slashdot and we've gone way off topic
You've hit rock bottom. You're broke. No one will help you.
You snatch a loaf of bread in a store and you're committing a crime (duh). Now.. you're saying that that is also morally wrong?
Imho this is a case where at least I think it's legitimate to steal since it's for your own survival.
Fight Club had some quote like "It's only when we have lost everything that we are free to do anything", and I think it fits fairly well. And by anything I'm not insinuating e.g. rape. But murder could very well be for your survival.
To tie this all to the music copyright yada yada: you can afford music. It's probably just that a single artists isn't that important to you and you of course like a hord of artists. Hence, you do not buy CDs since you e.g. like one or two tracks by one artists or another and since a CD isn't really near cheap you go with the cheaper alternative - copy it from someone else.
I really want to stress the importance of the two-good-tracks-on-a-shit-expensive-CD -argument. It is important. Nowadays it is entirely legitimate to print out millions of copies of a CD that holds two hits that will play on the radio or MTV and 12 more tracks that are, sad to say, less good or even garbage.
Too bad you just implemented their own plan.
So what if they *were* tweaked? A tweak is still valid code (just faster than the untweaked code). Hence, argument is invalid.
Reading the code raises the suspicion that the author is usually a C-coder.
Someone should rewrite this since it's pretty tough to follow. Goto-statements are extremely rarely necessary in Perl. Use subroutines or "ordinary" flowcontrol.
If this is going to be used it needs to be maintainable. Because of this it would likely be wise to reimplement it as module(s). Greater abstraction would perhaps add a lot more readability and make further development easier.
First post? :-)
Don't believe everything you see on Fox -- which by the way has splendid WarCraft 5 sceneries: "War On TERROR" in incredibly scary style!
Fox as a news service sucks badly, I must say. They're just as biased as one can get.
The question is if you mean "force" and not "encourage". If you do mean "force" then I'd be able to say that well, Perl isn't a programming language. But the community encourages a certain way of writing, see perldoc perlstyle. Buuut, as some might say; the average script found "on the internet" is most likely BS and written badly, which might explain some people's frustration over the "dense unreadable code".
Well there are prototypes for checking number of params and the type of param. This doesn't include checking for e.g. "int" or "float", since they don't exist as types in Perl, merely if it's code, reference, list, etc. (This also enables some fancy ways to write code to subs..)
Hey, moron, yes you. Having fun? Bored? Take a trip to Hell, it's only $1.99 and you get a FREE meal on the plane!!!
I agree, it *does* sound extremely fake. And hey, 1995?.. does Gates even remember? ;-)
LOL.. you care?
LOL!