Toronto also has "computer professional" overtime exemption laws, which basically says that programmers aren't allowed to receive overtime hours and are not even entitled to pay beyond the 40 hour base pay they receive. I'm happy that I work in Saskatchewan where I'm classified as a regular employee.
I'm a Canadian citizen that fully supports the NDP. If I was an American citizen, I would support Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general as I viewed them both as more competent as Trump.
I'm well aware that even if country 1 enjoys full absolute advantage in both goods, then they should still focus on making the good A they're better at and let the other country 2 make the good B that they perform worse at. However, there's a limit to that theory in that there's never infinite demand for any good, so country 1 can produce good 1 at some limit and use their excess employment capacity to still produce the other good. The myth of comparative advantage is that it assumes that a nation dedicating full employment to producing good A will somehow find infinite buyers of good A when actual production of good A is determined by supply and demand curves, not by theoretical comparative advantage utility based arguments.
I'm sorry, but the reason the US has been hemorraging jobs and racking up trade deficits is because China is not at full employment. So people move their manufacturing to China as China has an absolute advantage in wage and with China not being at full employment, it can continue to suck in more industries from other nations. Once China reaches full employment, then we can discuss comparative advantage, but comparative advantage doesn't apply when both nations aren't at full employment. You can't just brush away the concept of absolute advantages under the first year economics idea of comparative advantage. If comparative advantage was actually working, the US wouldn't be running trade deficits persistently for several years.
Comparative advantage is only useful when both countries are at full employment. China is not at full employment and so the absolute advantage China has starts kicking in.
STIs are introduced through a cheating partner all the time. Husbands and wives can get an STI because they assume their spouse was faithful and so they don't need to wear a condom. It's impossible for all people to know whether their spouses are cheating and whether their spouses caught an STI.
Option.None is useful to indicate that the value is optional in type signatures or that the return value is optional in type signatures. An API documentation that has public Option foo(B b) indicates that the B is a pure value (is not optional/not null) and that the return value has the potential to not be set. public A foo(B b) would indicate that the return value is not optional and that a meaningful value will always be returned. Option also handles primitives because null can't be assigned to primitive types, likes integers or doubles.
An example would be searching a list of primitives. public Option find(List primitives, Func predicateWhereCondition) means that the item in the list matching the where condition may not be found. The classic method of searching usually defaults the value to return value to -1 in public int find(List primitives, Func predicateWhereCondition) when the item isn't found, which is nonsensical when the list can contain negative integers.
If you don't want to unwrap the value, then why aren't you returning the Option type in the return type signature? When you litter your code with foo.unwrap(default), you're being forced to handle the missing foo values. Developers forget to write code on every foo return because they assume that the value is pure, meaning that public List foo() will always return an empty list rather than a null value.
Java has checked exceptions. C# has unchecked exceptions. Option types are similar to Java's checked exceptions (except checked exceptions are more like the semantics of the Either monad). You're not forced to catch the exception. You can throw the exception further up the stack if it doesn't make sense to catch the error. You're not forced to unwrap the Option type. You can throw it up the chain. Why shouldn't your function have the return signature of Option.None if you don't want to deal with unwrapping at the level you're unwrapping your Option types at?
It's actually not. None can considered a subclass of the class Option. It gets the methods defined on Option and one is forced to handle unwrapping the value and placing a default when unwrapping the value. Null have no extra behaviour on them. They can appear at any time and programmers can occasionally forget to check if the value is null. The compiler can help with the Option monad. It can't help catch missing null checks.
I'm sorry, but unwrapping the Optional class is simply better than directly checking for null result. People forget to null check and not null checking will cause the program to crash. It is more difficult to forget to None check on a Optional class. The Optional class is a type that's caught by the compiler at compile time. Null checking can only be caught at runtime. Missing if (variable != null) statements don't get noticed by the compiler. Being forced to unpack the result is what you need to do everytime you deal with nullable values and most developers are going to forget null checking once in a while.
The Optional class also gives a better meaning to element searching as both primitives and objects can be wrapped in the optional class. Searching an array of primitives for a found result previous to Optional would require a default value to be passed when nothing is found matching the search predicate It's nonsensical. Searching an array of primitives with an Optional construct defined let's the API return None, which has better meaning for elements not found.
I want to also add that even though scrum says that the scrum leader should be rotated, the project manager always tends to insert himself into the scrum leadership role (because, they wouldn't have a role otherwise). So rather than the scrum team being a team of purely developers leading developers, we have the programmers leadership abilities suppressed just so that the project manager can be visible as a leader/
You shouldn't post things that you've only read about on the internet. Some of the deadweight loss of taxation is made up from an increase in consumer price, but some of the taxation is passed on as a reduction to the income of the business entity.
The legal environment also changes. Good luck propagating all your change requests through to 2000 staff members through Excel spreadsheets when the government passes a law that changes your wage payouts.
Please have some evidence citing your claims. As is, the socialist health care systems save their citizens more money than American's private health insurance system. The bureaucracy for payment collection is eliminated under the socialized health care systems. And a nation's military funding has no bearing on their health care funding. American's still pay more of their GDP in health care costs compared to Canadians and Europeans.
Monsanto goes after farmers who use Round Up Ready on their farm fields, not farmers who grow the Monsanto seed. Farmers are free to use any other pesticide on their crops and Round Up Ready would work against non-Monsanto crops. Only when both Monsanto seed and Round Up Ready are used is there a clear case of willful patent violation.
With lambda functions, my lines of code is shorter. I'm write now having to debug my predecessor's code and he wasn't aware of lambdas in C#. Everything becomes a jump point into another awkward function with the intent obfuscated. Rather than just using Linq and Expression trees, he made his own collection classes with tailored search functions on each function. Not every function needs a name and the intent can be inferred by just reading the function definition from the body of the function.
I can understand that too. I'm delegating tasks to a person 20 years older than me (I'm 31) and with 16 years more experience than my 4 years of experience. I asked him to write a program that connects to a database directly and he's never had that experience. He said he had several years of experience in VB.NET and he could adapt to other programming languages, but he's struggling with C# and I know he didn't try learning the modern features of VB.NET, like using generics. He has difficulty using search engines to solve common program mistakes, and I've suggested that Google should be his first resort to solving problems rather than I being his first resort. He was fired from his previous job and he's already asking for training on programming. My supervisor is aware of the situation and is growing concerned about his performance. It's basically the end of the line for him in the programming world if he gets fired from my current employer.
What are you limited by in a world where only Android phones existed? You can modify the kernel like Cyanogenmod does and you're free to get your user space applications not from the Play store.
Well, to be fair, generics are also poorly implemented in C#. If scala can use higher order generics like Haskell can, there's no reason why C# and Java shouldn't be able to.
I'm curious. C# avoided the stupid type-erasure mistake (one that has come back to bite Java, *especially* during the Lambda-J discussions). C# has define-site variance as opposed to use-site variance. What exactly is your problem with C# generics?
You only have generics of the first kind in C#, so implemented things like monad transformers become difficult. A higher order generic can box an inner generic. Say if you had something like with the higher order generic boxing in the inner generic. That's not possible in C# and in F#.
new Foo {
G member = new G();
}
A more concrete example of a.NET class that would be G : System.Collection.Generics.List such that G : System.Collection.Generics.List. But you can't pass G around freely and then box it in later. You can only have G an instance of A
so
new Foo {
System.Collections.Generics.List member = new System.Collections.Generics.List()
}
is not possible.
Well, to be fair, generics are also poorly implemented in C#. If scala can use higher order generics like Haskell can, there's no reason why C# and Java shouldn't be able to.
You do realize that the market had its chance to provide rural electrification and yet it failed to do so. It took government mandates to force the utilities to create power lines to rural communities.
This is what happened during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Politicians and other speculators would by up land on the pathway to the CPR and ask the CPR for inflated prices when the CPR would build the railway. Of course some speculators got shafted when the CPR chose to redirect their railway away from the speculators' land.
Slashdot Mirror
Toronto also has "computer professional" overtime exemption laws, which basically says that programmers aren't allowed to receive overtime hours and are not even entitled to pay beyond the 40 hour base pay they receive. I'm happy that I work in Saskatchewan where I'm classified as a regular employee.
I'm a Canadian citizen that fully supports the NDP. If I was an American citizen, I would support Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general as I viewed them both as more competent as Trump. I'm well aware that even if country 1 enjoys full absolute advantage in both goods, then they should still focus on making the good A they're better at and let the other country 2 make the good B that they perform worse at. However, there's a limit to that theory in that there's never infinite demand for any good, so country 1 can produce good 1 at some limit and use their excess employment capacity to still produce the other good. The myth of comparative advantage is that it assumes that a nation dedicating full employment to producing good A will somehow find infinite buyers of good A when actual production of good A is determined by supply and demand curves, not by theoretical comparative advantage utility based arguments.
I'm sorry, but the reason the US has been hemorraging jobs and racking up trade deficits is because China is not at full employment. So people move their manufacturing to China as China has an absolute advantage in wage and with China not being at full employment, it can continue to suck in more industries from other nations. Once China reaches full employment, then we can discuss comparative advantage, but comparative advantage doesn't apply when both nations aren't at full employment. You can't just brush away the concept of absolute advantages under the first year economics idea of comparative advantage. If comparative advantage was actually working, the US wouldn't be running trade deficits persistently for several years.
Agreed. I'm guessing that the average Trump voter has never heard of Comparative Advantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
Comparative advantage is only useful when both countries are at full employment. China is not at full employment and so the absolute advantage China has starts kicking in.
STIs are introduced through a cheating partner all the time. Husbands and wives can get an STI because they assume their spouse was faithful and so they don't need to wear a condom. It's impossible for all people to know whether their spouses are cheating and whether their spouses caught an STI.
I should clarify that I was trying to talk about the Option It tends to give more type information. Some functional programmers believe that the output of the function should only be returned in the return value and not through things like output parameters. But it's still just a style difference. Even throwing exceptions is no different than having a Either foo(int parameter) defined. I would agree that the non-generic Option monad returns no useful information, but the Option tells you what potentially the output of the function is in one place.
Option.None is useful to indicate that the value is optional in type signatures or that the return value is optional in type signatures. An API documentation that has public Option foo(B b) indicates that the B is a pure value (is not optional/not null) and that the return value has the potential to not be set. public A foo(B b) would indicate that the return value is not optional and that a meaningful value will always be returned. Option also handles primitives because null can't be assigned to primitive types, likes integers or doubles. An example would be searching a list of primitives. public Option find(List primitives, Func predicateWhereCondition) means that the item in the list matching the where condition may not be found. The classic method of searching usually defaults the value to return value to -1 in public int find(List primitives, Func predicateWhereCondition) when the item isn't found, which is nonsensical when the list can contain negative integers.
If you don't want to unwrap the value, then why aren't you returning the Option type in the return type signature? When you litter your code with foo.unwrap(default), you're being forced to handle the missing foo values. Developers forget to write code on every foo return because they assume that the value is pure, meaning that public List foo() will always return an empty list rather than a null value.
Java has checked exceptions. C# has unchecked exceptions. Option types are similar to Java's checked exceptions (except checked exceptions are more like the semantics of the Either monad). You're not forced to catch the exception. You can throw the exception further up the stack if it doesn't make sense to catch the error. You're not forced to unwrap the Option type. You can throw it up the chain. Why shouldn't your function have the return signature of Option.None if you don't want to deal with unwrapping at the level you're unwrapping your Option types at?
It's actually not. None can considered a subclass of the class Option. It gets the methods defined on Option and one is forced to handle unwrapping the value and placing a default when unwrapping the value. Null have no extra behaviour on them. They can appear at any time and programmers can occasionally forget to check if the value is null. The compiler can help with the Option monad. It can't help catch missing null checks.
I'm sorry, but unwrapping the Optional class is simply better than directly checking for null result. People forget to null check and not null checking will cause the program to crash. It is more difficult to forget to None check on a Optional class. The Optional class is a type that's caught by the compiler at compile time. Null checking can only be caught at runtime. Missing if (variable != null) statements don't get noticed by the compiler. Being forced to unpack the result is what you need to do everytime you deal with nullable values and most developers are going to forget null checking once in a while. The Optional class also gives a better meaning to element searching as both primitives and objects can be wrapped in the optional class. Searching an array of primitives for a found result previous to Optional would require a default value to be passed when nothing is found matching the search predicate It's nonsensical. Searching an array of primitives with an Optional construct defined let's the API return None, which has better meaning for elements not found.
I want to also add that even though scrum says that the scrum leader should be rotated, the project manager always tends to insert himself into the scrum leadership role (because, they wouldn't have a role otherwise). So rather than the scrum team being a team of purely developers leading developers, we have the programmers leadership abilities suppressed just so that the project manager can be visible as a leader/
You shouldn't post things that you've only read about on the internet. Some of the deadweight loss of taxation is made up from an increase in consumer price, but some of the taxation is passed on as a reduction to the income of the business entity.
The legal environment also changes. Good luck propagating all your change requests through to 2000 staff members through Excel spreadsheets when the government passes a law that changes your wage payouts.
Please have some evidence citing your claims. As is, the socialist health care systems save their citizens more money than American's private health insurance system. The bureaucracy for payment collection is eliminated under the socialized health care systems. And a nation's military funding has no bearing on their health care funding. American's still pay more of their GDP in health care costs compared to Canadians and Europeans.
Monsanto goes after farmers who use Round Up Ready on their farm fields, not farmers who grow the Monsanto seed. Farmers are free to use any other pesticide on their crops and Round Up Ready would work against non-Monsanto crops. Only when both Monsanto seed and Round Up Ready are used is there a clear case of willful patent violation.
With lambda functions, my lines of code is shorter. I'm write now having to debug my predecessor's code and he wasn't aware of lambdas in C#. Everything becomes a jump point into another awkward function with the intent obfuscated. Rather than just using Linq and Expression trees, he made his own collection classes with tailored search functions on each function. Not every function needs a name and the intent can be inferred by just reading the function definition from the body of the function.
What programming language features are essential to a large scale industrial system?
I can understand that too. I'm delegating tasks to a person 20 years older than me (I'm 31) and with 16 years more experience than my 4 years of experience. I asked him to write a program that connects to a database directly and he's never had that experience. He said he had several years of experience in VB.NET and he could adapt to other programming languages, but he's struggling with C# and I know he didn't try learning the modern features of VB.NET, like using generics. He has difficulty using search engines to solve common program mistakes, and I've suggested that Google should be his first resort to solving problems rather than I being his first resort. He was fired from his previous job and he's already asking for training on programming. My supervisor is aware of the situation and is growing concerned about his performance. It's basically the end of the line for him in the programming world if he gets fired from my current employer.
Single payer also means that health care isn't tied to our jobs. I can pick up and move to any place without worry about losing my health insurance.
What are you limited by in a world where only Android phones existed? You can modify the kernel like Cyanogenmod does and you're free to get your user space applications not from the Play store.
Need to fix some things because of the use of brackets You only have generics of the first kind in C#, so implemented things like monad transformers become difficult. A higher order generic can box an inner generic. Say if you had something like with the higher order generic boxing in the inner generic. That's not possible in C# and in F#. new Foo { G member = new G(); } A more concrete example of a .NET class that would be G : System.Collection.Generics.List such that G<A> : System.Collection.Generics.List<A>. But you can't pass G around freely and then box it in later. You can only have G an instance of A so new Foo<System.Collections.Generics.List, A> { System.Collections.Generics.List<A> member = new System.Collections.Generics.List<A>() } is not possible.
Well, to be fair, generics are also poorly implemented in C#. If scala can use higher order generics like Haskell can, there's no reason why C# and Java shouldn't be able to.
I'm curious. C# avoided the stupid type-erasure mistake (one that has come back to bite Java, *especially* during the Lambda-J discussions). C# has define-site variance as opposed to use-site variance. What exactly is your problem with C# generics?
You only have generics of the first kind in C#, so implemented things like monad transformers become difficult. A higher order generic can box an inner generic. Say if you had something like with the higher order generic boxing in the inner generic. That's not possible in C# and in F#. new Foo { G member = new G(); } A more concrete example of a .NET class that would be G : System.Collection.Generics.List such that G : System.Collection.Generics.List. But you can't pass G around freely and then box it in later. You can only have G an instance of A
so
new Foo {
System.Collections.Generics.List member = new System.Collections.Generics.List()
}
is not possible.
Well, to be fair, generics are also poorly implemented in C#. If scala can use higher order generics like Haskell can, there's no reason why C# and Java shouldn't be able to.
You do realize that the market had its chance to provide rural electrification and yet it failed to do so. It took government mandates to force the utilities to create power lines to rural communities.
So it's basically marginal taxation with two margins only. Still seems fairly regressive.
This is what happened during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Politicians and other speculators would by up land on the pathway to the CPR and ask the CPR for inflated prices when the CPR would build the railway. Of course some speculators got shafted when the CPR chose to redirect their railway away from the speculators' land.