I really did think your first example was funny, but on a more sobering note, Microsoft implemented languages like VB sometimes actually do require crap like that just to work right.
I can't wait for the day processing power isn't a concern and every language (especially PHP) can be used for desktop programming. Short of that, I would love it if someone made a complete "compiler" port of PHP to the desktop (not requiring a server) for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.
PHP is definitely the next best thing to C/C++, so it stands to reason the original poster's mom could get into that after mastering the basics of HTML.
You are mostly correct. I was just about to comment on the same item. Steve Jobs has been the CEO of PIXAR for far longer than of Apple. Steve was also never really CEO of Apple when he co-founded it either, so original time at Apple doesn't count.
George Lucus founded the computer animation division, which Steve bought and gave the name of "PIXAR." That was around 1986. Steve was given the title "iCEO" of Apple around 1998.
What the!? I've never spent over $20,000 on a software package. Of course if I did, I might actually want to get under the hood to work on the code. The comparison doesn't work for another very important reason though: Cars are mechanical, for crying out loud!!! Anything mechanical tends to need maintenance access points. Software has no moving parts, so nothing needed but to run it.
I wouldn't call that politically correct. I would call that conservative. Even though the term "politically correct" was not in normal, everyday language, the concept has been around ever since the beginning of politics.
Other than your use of the term, I agree with your analysis. Under Gene's guidance, Star Trek has always had a moral theme that evoked drama as a result. The prime directive is a "prime" (pun might have been intended) example.
Roddenberry was all about bending politically correct "rules" during the original Star Trek series and movies. Have you ever seen an interview with him or his original cast? He was trying to test the status quo by casting a black female and Asian as lead characters. That was unheard of for primetime television back then.
I'm not sure where this blanket statement (in the form of a question) is leading? It's funny that two assumptions are made in that one question too. The first being that SG-1 fans collectively give opinions regarding Star Trek. The second being that the Star Trek you refer to is Enterprise and not some other Star Trek series.
Personally, I am a huge SG-1 fan. I watch the episodes as they appear on television, and I own all the DVD box sets currently out. I watch Star Trek:TNG almost everyday and feel that it is one of the best science fiction shows ever produced. I really enjoyed Star Trek:Voyager when it was on and am looking forward to getting the DVD box sets. I like some of the characters on Star Trek:DSN, but as a whole, I didn't like to watch the show that often. The original Star Trek series introduced interesting plot devices, but just as the stereotype was set for William Shatner (Captain James T. Kirk), he really didn't contribute much in the way of acting like a real captain. He had his moments, but largely he acted like William Shatner on screen. Star Trek:Enterprise also has good plot devices and even sometimes a good story. The characters are still somewhat new, so I expect it will take a couple more years (just like Voyager) to form into something palatable for more people.
I think many may be missing the point of some science fiction shows. This series is more about science fiction than science drama. I suppose some people don't know the difference between clever, in-character acting, from bad acting. This is a cast of characters acting as military explorers, not acting as actors (as one might find in a science drama like Farscape).
With satellite radio you pay; with FM radio, advertisers pay; and with Internet radio it could be a combination of both, or the Internet radio station just absorbs the cost for gaining listeners. In any case of radio, the music is paid for.
As for actually pirating music or movies, it's pretty hypocritical for someone to appreciate other peoples' work (benefit from services rendered) but not want to support them. If you believe the price is too high for music or movies, then what you have is a philosophical difference with the production company producing the work, and if such exists, the difference should persuade one to avoid that production company's work (stolen or purchased).
"Of course, but you removed all of the indications for inter-paragraph separation."
Uh, no. I just didn't check "Plain Old Text" from the Slashdot format options. I had no intention of using HTML tags for my response.
Firstly, to look good to YOU, YOU need kerning built into YOUR word processor. Take a look at our United States Declaration of Independence or any other important document 100 or more years old. No typewriter. No word processor. No single-spacing.
Secondly, what does inter-word spacing have to do with inter-sentence spacing? I don't give a flying monkey if you want to make your commas look properly kerned in the middle of a sentence. I'm talking about information storage and analysis, not reading. You can do whatever to the text you want in your own processor or browser. Style is a matter of preference, but format (which is what I am talking about) is crucial to a language for temporal coherence.
It was kind of difficult to read with out paragraph spacing, wasn't it? Here it is with paragraphs.
"It will think whatever I code it to. In this case, it will probably report that there's a grammatical error. What will yours do? What does it matter, since this is an artificial example and has little to do with modern typography?"
How will reporting a grammatical error help you know what a sentence is? I'm not talking about the limited application parser of a word processor during composition. I'm talking about the parsers used for telling you something about what you're reading - not writing. What my parser will do is whatever the standard is for the language, and why I'm so adamant about keeping the double-space a standard. How is this example any more artificial than what one might find in basic literature? Modern typography has little to do with language construction and that's what I'm talking about in this very specific case.
However, with actual regard to typography -
"Because the full width of two spaces looks bad and distracts the reader, that's why!"
Exactly. So why not leave it at that?! The typography conundrum is solved!
"Because you don't use a full stop within a sentence"
Yes, and giraffes have long necks. You must have been answering someone else's question, not mine. Rephrased, I asked why create special punctuation marks for "full stops" when special allowances are already made for double-spacing. Again, the typography quandry is solved with special double-space kerning. I still ask why go to insane lengths to alter the punctuation marks to reflect spacing when spacing can solve itself?
"But we already have a character that does that unambiguously: the full stop. The spacing issue is one of reading ease and scannability, not something for the benefit of someone reading your electronic documents in 3,000 years!"
The last time I checked any of my text documents (Unicode or ASCII), I didn't notice a "full stop" character. When I view those documents in Word though, I see 1.5 spaces between the sentences. I find it very readable. You have somehow concluded that the spacing issue is only about reading ease and scanability in the present. My example of 3000 years can be just 300 years if you prefer. How will the word processor of 2303 know where the full stops are in your text documents if the people of that time see periods all over you document and don't know where to start?
If special kerning for double-spaces solves the typography problem, and double-spaces solves for the terminal portability problem, I only see laziness as our generative problem. I'm not running out of hard drive space because I use double-spaces.
"It will think whatever I code it to. In this case, it will probably report that there's a grammatical error. What will yours do? What does it matter, since this is an artificial example and has little to do with modern typography?"
How will reporting a grammatical error help you know what a sentence is? I'm not talking about the limited application parser of a word processor during composition. I'm talking about the parsers used for telling you something about what you're reading - not writing. What my parser will do is whatever the standard is for the language, and why I'm so adamant about keeping the double-space a standard. How is this example any more artificial than what one might find in basic literature? Modern typography has little to do with language construction and that's what I'm talking about in this very specific case.
However, with actual regard to typography -
"Because the full width of two spaces looks bad and distracts the reader, that's why!"
Exactly. So why not leave it at that?! The typography conundrum is solved!
"Because you don't use a full stop within a sentence"
Yes, and giraffes have long necks. You must have been answering someone else's question, not mine. Rephrased, I asked why create special punctuation marks for "full stops" when special allowances are already made for double-spacing. Again, the typography quandry is solved with special double-space kerning. I still ask why go to insane lengths to alter the punctuation marks to reflect spacing when spacing can solve itself?
"But we already have a character that does that unambiguously: the full stop. The spacing issue is one of reading ease and scannability, not something for the benefit of someone reading your electronic documents in 3,000 years!"
The last time I checked any of my text documents (Unicode or ASCII), I didn't notice a "full stop" character. When I view those documents in Word though, I see 1.5 spaces between the sentences. I find it very readable. You have somehow concluded that the spacing issue is only about reading ease and scanability in the present. My example of 3000 years can be just 300 years if you prefer. How will the word processor of 2303 know where the full stops are in your text documents if the people of that time see periods all over you document and don't know where to start?
If special kerning for double-spaces solves the typography problem, and double-spaces solves for the terminal portability problem, I only see laziness as our generative problem. I'm not running out of hard drive space because I use double-spaces.
Now that's interesting. You mean don't expect people to use proper punctuation so that you can parse a document without the use of expressions? Now you're getting into A.I. Anyone could make a number of mistakes that disallow parsers to recognize a sentence, single-spaced or not! Observe the following:
A cat.. whatever breed, can always see better in the dark.
Are there two sentences there? What does your parser think?
"Moreover, setting up an automatic change from.[sp][sp] to.[sp] on-the-fly isn't exactly difficult"
Microsoft already changes double-spaces to 1.5 spaces. Look at the image I provided again. The spacing is 12 versus 8 in the double-spacing. This is where it's preferable to change the spacing because why would you want to support a typeset that has different punctuation marks such as [ . ! ? : ] for both within the sentence and end of sentence?
"you should be comparing the space between the right of the 'g' and the left of the 'N' with the spacing from the right of the 'e' to the left of the 't', since these are the whitespace areas that the human eye will perceive when scanning the text."
You're missing the point of language and sticking only with modern interpretations of typography. The spacing between the "g" and "N" in my previous example is no different than the spacing between "g" and "N" in the following example:
distracting, Nixon wouldn't come clean
Yet there is an obvious distinction between constructs. So if I were "scanning" a document, it would be more difficult for just about anyone to pick out what are sentences if all spacing was the same.
People also seem to be consumed with the "here and now." Think about how much more difficult it would have been for archaeologists to decipher 3000-year-old scripts exhumed from dig sites if the people of the time said, "Let's do away with that extra (whitespace or any other) character that clearly distinguishes complete thoughts."
My only point is that we should preserve what makes sentences unique in their independent construction within a collection of complete thoughts: the additional space. If you want to get that extra space the hard way by making several versions of our modern punctuation (which is more likely to change over the next 3000 years than whitespace), go ahead. I would rather just add two spaces for clarity in the long run. That way no matter what word processor of the future you open up my documents in, you will ALWAYS know which are sentences and which are continuations.
I know this has been a hotly debated subject in many circles ever since the first written language. Too many times the very simple attributes of written language construction are overlooked in the face of technological advancement. Perhaps in some cases, they are overlooked in spite of technological advancement.
Sometimes I get a bit irritated when people are so willing to discard ideas that are thousands of years old. Sentence boundaries are just as important as glyph boundaries in typography. If you think one space is all you need to differentiate sentences, then why not just go ahead and get rid of paragraphs markers. You could save a whole character or two there as well! That's not to mention all the white-space savings when printed on paper!
Sentences should be treated just as unique as paragraphs; if not for readability for humans, then at least for computers. One of the overlooked aspects of double-spaced sentences is parsing. Go ahead and parse a document by sentence while using single-spacing. If you think you can do it using regular expressions, think again. If everyone would adhere to a double-space standard, parsing at this level would be a snap.
As for the argument that modern word processors use additional padding for punctuation glyphs, "Yeah, right!" It's the other way around so that people can continue in the tradition of double-spacing sentences without it looking out of whack. I have created an example here:
http://www.logicgate.org/lib/images/typeface_spa ci ng.png
The font used was the most common: Times-Roman. The word processor used was the most common: Microsoft Word. The red marks indicate the size of the space not including the anti-aliasing. The green marks indicate the distance between solid stroke to solid stroke of each glyph. As anyone can plainly see, the second partial sentence with a double-space displays a natural appearing break, while the first displays the same size space as any found between words.
There is much more that could be said in defense of double-spacing sentences, but I think enough has been said to justify its use.
You're joking right? From the last statement you made about Apple's market share, it doesn't sound like you are a dedicated Mac user. If this is the case, speaking on behalf of the Mac community just isn't prudent.
Also stating something like "the best" is far too subjective anyway. User experience should be broken down into well-defined categories like, "Browser X is the faster at rendering HTML," or "Browser Y is the most configurable." The interesting thing is that IE, when examined and compared against other browsers in specific categories of user experience, actually looses every time. How one can derive IE for the Mac platform as being "the best" is beyond comprehension, or at least a joke.
I believe the Chimera benchmark was based on a non-pipelined version. I am running a pipelined version of Chimera and experienced an average of eight (8) percent greater speed than Safari for the same sites Apple used. The biggest difference was found on msnbc.com, where Chimera was about six (6) times faster than Safari.
I like the new browser, but it also absolutely destroys certain HTML element properties and client-space rendering. I had a number of problems with Safari rendering my own site, and all my code is to HTML 4.0.1, CCS2, and DOM2 spec.
An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer.
Source: dictionary.com
Are you saying then that JavaScript doesn't fit the definition of a programming language as it is stated above? The definition does not say how high or low a level the language must be, just that it "can be translated into machine language" and that's precisely what your web browser does in real-time.
If you prefer, here are the results according to their own search engine. (Not validated for whether their engine loads a job more than once under a different job category and C++ is unsearchable with their engine.)
Java:_1504
SQL:__1138
PHP:___626 .NET:__225 (just for fun)
C#:_____97
COBOL:__50
The rank still doesn't change though. I do have to admit that SQL, especially MySQL, and PHP go well together.
Okay, I'm game. As we all know, the trend of corporate software development has shifted to contract-based employment. This is the model you will see more of in the next ten years. The primary mission of companies looking to contractors for development services is scalability and to cut down on the time to market. This is achievable with PHP more so than with many other languages.
Bellow are the results of querying contractedwork.com using Google's site search option:
Yeah, so what were you saying about significant numbers again? It isn't that I embrace the contract employment model; I simply recognize this as the model for future software developers, just as you should recognize PHP as a solution to a contracted project's resource crunch. Lower development costs (PHP is free) means more contracts for a contractor.
Apparently, although I'm not sure why. That was my first reaction also. I was really hoping to settle down to a good Slashdot story this morning, like some accomplish with a cup of joe, but I guess somebody who waits for technology reviews to show up in their local small-town gazette doesn't share my vision.
Thank you for pointing that out. It is ridiculous to argue that it shouldn't be the server's job, when the server is just another computer being used for a task. It doesn't matter that it has other (less processor intensive) tasks it's expected to perform. A little disk activity and a lot of network traffic aren't going to suffer just because some images are being cached.
I believe this has already gotten out of hand, but I will try to explain a couple of things that should help understanding my position.
By mentioning the first response to my post, I was simply conveying that you should be nervous about posting a correction to my correction. The previous poster relayed to me a feeling of nervousness about the whole idea, and I thought it was applicable to all that try the same as I. I have not lost my sense of information origin. I do know who posted the comment.
It's generally referred to as a "Rhetoric and Composition Handbook," and Macmillan used to publish the standard reference used at the college level. A style guide has a similar purpose in this regard. I believe the more basic style reference from George Orwell was his "Politics and the English Language" essay. Strunk and White's, "The Elements of Style" is the most accepted, and largely influenced the Standard English standard. The rule is found below:
II.5 Do not join independent clauses by a comma. "If two or more clauses, grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction, are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon."
The recognized conjunctions in Standard English for this rule are "and" and "but." My sentence contained neither, but it still had two independent clauses, as did the original post. I will admit I erred on the subjects of the clauses. What I meant to say was that each subject is an understood you in the passive voice. However, you did not point this out, which makes me wonder what your style is really based on. At least I can identify what are real errors. The complete thought is "at the very least, a semicolon should be utilized." I used "or" when I didn't really need to, but make no mistake, those are two independent clauses. I could also write the sentence as two:
"They should be written as two sentences. At the very least, a semicolon should be utilized."
You're right. The sentence does not need to be split. That's why I used a semicolon! You wrote: "you can see that I do not use the comma as a conjunction." Yeah, I would hope so, since punctuation marks can never be used as a part of speech.
(Unrelated) In the fine print one can find the following: "Santa only gives toys to well behaved children." This is known as the "Santa Clause."
Referring to your comment about obscuring meaning, do you really think you would have figured out that the sentence itself was an example of semicolon usage if I didn't point it out? I wouldn't have, and I'm the author. I would have read it as just another sentence, perhaps even overlooking over the punctuation.
To help you with your quandary about the usage of the term, "utilize," look closely at the "Usage Note" on the following site: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=utilize I described George Orwell as a prolific writer because he is a prolific writer. Prolific doesn't only mean an abundance of work. It also refers to the results of the work. See the definition for this term at Dictionary.com as well. I could make the case that because William Shakespeare invented a large portion of the English vocabulary, that everything he said about the language must be followed exactly. That's a false presumption concerning standards. I agree that Orwell has contributed a great deal to the cause of professional writing, but his writing standards don't always apply to the "model for middle-class educated speakers." I don't see anyone on Slashdot writing fictional short stories or novels.
The concise term is "round bracket." This is one of the most common misunderstandings in all of English language. A single parenthesis is a phrase. The plural form, parentheses, is the pair of marks surrounding the parenthesis. A single mark on either side of a parenthesis is a bracket. I'm glad I could indirectly help.
Slashdot Mirror
Come again?
/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888001259
Actually either link will work if one takes out the stupid spaces Slashdot's code inserts into the URL.
If you're still interested, try a link that works.
8 88 001259/qid=1088253394/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-299918 9-2810521?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1
I can't wait for the day processing power isn't a concern and every language (especially PHP) can be used for desktop programming. Short of that, I would love it if someone made a complete "compiler" port of PHP to the desktop (not requiring a server) for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.
PHP is definitely the next best thing to C/C++, so it stands to reason the original poster's mom could get into that after mastering the basics of HTML.
You are mostly correct. I was just about to comment on the same item. Steve Jobs has been the CEO of PIXAR for far longer than of Apple. Steve was also never really CEO of Apple when he co-founded it either, so original time at Apple doesn't count.
George Lucus founded the computer animation division, which Steve bought and gave the name of "PIXAR." That was around 1986. Steve was given the title "iCEO" of Apple around 1998.
What the!? I've never spent over $20,000 on a software package. Of course if I did, I might actually want to get under the hood to work on the code. The comparison doesn't work for another very important reason though: Cars are mechanical, for crying out loud!!! Anything mechanical tends to need maintenance access points. Software has no moving parts, so nothing needed but to run it.
I wouldn't call that politically correct. I would call that conservative. Even though the term "politically correct" was not in normal, everyday language, the concept has been around ever since the beginning of politics.
Other than your use of the term, I agree with your analysis. Under Gene's guidance, Star Trek has always had a moral theme that evoked drama as a result. The prime directive is a "prime" (pun might have been intended) example.
MacGyver already has!
http://rdanderson.com/film/atlantis.htm
Roddenberry was all about bending politically correct "rules" during the original Star Trek series and movies. Have you ever seen an interview with him or his original cast? He was trying to test the status quo by casting a black female and Asian as lead characters. That was unheard of for primetime television back then.
I'm not sure where this blanket statement (in the form of a question) is leading? It's funny that two assumptions are made in that one question too. The first being that SG-1 fans collectively give opinions regarding Star Trek. The second being that the Star Trek you refer to is Enterprise and not some other Star Trek series.
Personally, I am a huge SG-1 fan. I watch the episodes as they appear on television, and I own all the DVD box sets currently out. I watch Star Trek:TNG almost everyday and feel that it is one of the best science fiction shows ever produced. I really enjoyed Star Trek:Voyager when it was on and am looking forward to getting the DVD box sets. I like some of the characters on Star Trek:DSN, but as a whole, I didn't like to watch the show that often. The original Star Trek series introduced interesting plot devices, but just as the stereotype was set for William Shatner (Captain James T. Kirk), he really didn't contribute much in the way of acting like a real captain. He had his moments, but largely he acted like William Shatner on screen. Star Trek:Enterprise also has good plot devices and even sometimes a good story. The characters are still somewhat new, so I expect it will take a couple more years (just like Voyager) to form into something palatable for more people.
I think many may be missing the point of some science fiction shows. This series is more about science fiction than science drama. I suppose some people don't know the difference between clever, in-character acting, from bad acting. This is a cast of characters acting as military explorers, not acting as actors (as one might find in a science drama like Farscape).
With satellite radio you pay; with FM radio, advertisers pay; and with Internet radio it could be a combination of both, or the Internet radio station just absorbs the cost for gaining listeners. In any case of radio, the music is paid for.
As for actually pirating music or movies, it's pretty hypocritical for someone to appreciate other peoples' work (benefit from services rendered) but not want to support them. If you believe the price is too high for music or movies, then what you have is a philosophical difference with the production company producing the work, and if such exists, the difference should persuade one to avoid that production company's work (stolen or purchased).
"Of course, but you removed all of the indications for inter-paragraph separation."
Uh, no. I just didn't check "Plain Old Text" from the Slashdot format options. I had no intention of using HTML tags for my response.
Firstly, to look good to YOU, YOU need kerning built into YOUR word processor. Take a look at our United States Declaration of Independence or any other important document 100 or more years old. No typewriter. No word processor. No single-spacing.
Secondly, what does inter-word spacing have to do with inter-sentence spacing? I don't give a flying monkey if you want to make your commas look properly kerned in the middle of a sentence. I'm talking about information storage and analysis, not reading. You can do whatever to the text you want in your own processor or browser. Style is a matter of preference, but format (which is what I am talking about) is crucial to a language for temporal coherence.
It was kind of difficult to read with out paragraph spacing, wasn't it? Here it is with paragraphs.
"It will think whatever I code it to. In this case, it will probably report that there's a grammatical error. What will yours do? What does it matter, since this is an artificial example and has little to do with modern typography?"
How will reporting a grammatical error help you know what a sentence is? I'm not talking about the limited application parser of a word processor during composition. I'm talking about the parsers used for telling you something about what you're reading - not writing. What my parser will do is whatever the standard is for the language, and why I'm so adamant about keeping the double-space a standard. How is this example any more artificial than what one might find in basic literature? Modern typography has little to do with language construction and that's what I'm talking about in this very specific case.
However, with actual regard to typography -
"Because the full width of two spaces looks bad and distracts the reader, that's why!"
Exactly. So why not leave it at that?! The typography conundrum is solved!
"Because you don't use a full stop within a sentence"
Yes, and giraffes have long necks. You must have been answering someone else's question, not mine. Rephrased, I asked why create special punctuation marks for "full stops" when special allowances are already made for double-spacing. Again, the typography quandry is solved with special double-space kerning. I still ask why go to insane lengths to alter the punctuation marks to reflect spacing when spacing can solve itself?
"But we already have a character that does that unambiguously: the full stop. The spacing issue is one of reading ease and scannability, not something for the benefit of someone reading your electronic documents in 3,000 years!"
The last time I checked any of my text documents (Unicode or ASCII), I didn't notice a "full stop" character. When I view those documents in Word though, I see 1.5 spaces between the sentences. I find it very readable. You have somehow concluded that the spacing issue is only about reading ease and scanability in the present. My example of 3000 years can be just 300 years if you prefer. How will the word processor of 2303 know where the full stops are in your text documents if the people of that time see periods all over you document and don't know where to start?
If special kerning for double-spaces solves the typography problem, and double-spaces solves for the terminal portability problem, I only see laziness as our generative problem. I'm not running out of hard drive space because I use double-spaces.
"It will think whatever I code it to. In this case, it will probably report that there's a grammatical error. What will yours do? What does it matter, since this is an artificial example and has little to do with modern typography?" How will reporting a grammatical error help you know what a sentence is? I'm not talking about the limited application parser of a word processor during composition. I'm talking about the parsers used for telling you something about what you're reading - not writing. What my parser will do is whatever the standard is for the language, and why I'm so adamant about keeping the double-space a standard. How is this example any more artificial than what one might find in basic literature? Modern typography has little to do with language construction and that's what I'm talking about in this very specific case. However, with actual regard to typography - "Because the full width of two spaces looks bad and distracts the reader, that's why!" Exactly. So why not leave it at that?! The typography conundrum is solved! "Because you don't use a full stop within a sentence" Yes, and giraffes have long necks. You must have been answering someone else's question, not mine. Rephrased, I asked why create special punctuation marks for "full stops" when special allowances are already made for double-spacing. Again, the typography quandry is solved with special double-space kerning. I still ask why go to insane lengths to alter the punctuation marks to reflect spacing when spacing can solve itself? "But we already have a character that does that unambiguously: the full stop. The spacing issue is one of reading ease and scannability, not something for the benefit of someone reading your electronic documents in 3,000 years!" The last time I checked any of my text documents (Unicode or ASCII), I didn't notice a "full stop" character. When I view those documents in Word though, I see 1.5 spaces between the sentences. I find it very readable. You have somehow concluded that the spacing issue is only about reading ease and scanability in the present. My example of 3000 years can be just 300 years if you prefer. How will the word processor of 2303 know where the full stops are in your text documents if the people of that time see periods all over you document and don't know where to start? If special kerning for double-spaces solves the typography problem, and double-spaces solves for the terminal portability problem, I only see laziness as our generative problem. I'm not running out of hard drive space because I use double-spaces.
"Don't code for idealism, code for reality."
.[sp][sp] to .[sp] on-the-fly isn't exactly difficult"
Now that's interesting. You mean don't expect people to use proper punctuation so that you can parse a document without the use of expressions? Now you're getting into A.I. Anyone could make a number of mistakes that disallow parsers to recognize a sentence, single-spaced or not! Observe the following:
A cat.. whatever breed, can always see better in the dark.
Are there two sentences there? What does your parser think?
"Moreover, setting up an automatic change from
Microsoft already changes double-spaces to 1.5 spaces. Look at the image I provided again. The spacing is 12 versus 8 in the double-spacing. This is where it's preferable to change the spacing because why would you want to support a typeset that has different punctuation marks such as [ . ! ? : ] for both within the sentence and end of sentence?
"you should be comparing the space between the right of the 'g' and the left of the 'N' with the spacing from the right of the 'e' to the left of the 't', since these are the whitespace areas that the human eye will perceive when scanning the text."
You're missing the point of language and sticking only with modern interpretations of typography. The spacing between the "g" and "N" in my previous example is no different than the spacing between "g" and "N" in the following example:
distracting, Nixon wouldn't come clean
Yet there is an obvious distinction between constructs. So if I were "scanning" a document, it would be more difficult for just about anyone to pick out what are sentences if all spacing was the same.
People also seem to be consumed with the "here and now." Think about how much more difficult it would have been for archaeologists to decipher 3000-year-old scripts exhumed from dig sites if the people of the time said, "Let's do away with that extra (whitespace or any other) character that clearly distinguishes complete thoughts."
My only point is that we should preserve what makes sentences unique in their independent construction within a collection of complete thoughts: the additional space. If you want to get that extra space the hard way by making several versions of our modern punctuation (which is more likely to change over the next 3000 years than whitespace), go ahead. I would rather just add two spaces for clarity in the long run. That way no matter what word processor of the future you open up my documents in, you will ALWAYS know which are sentences and which are continuations.
I know this has been a hotly debated subject in many circles ever since the first written language. Too many times the very simple attributes of written language construction are overlooked in the face of technological advancement. Perhaps in some cases, they are overlooked in spite of technological advancement.
a ci ng.png
Sometimes I get a bit irritated when people are so willing to discard ideas that are thousands of years old. Sentence boundaries are just as important as glyph boundaries in typography. If you think one space is all you need to differentiate sentences, then why not just go ahead and get rid of paragraphs markers. You could save a whole character or two there as well! That's not to mention all the white-space savings when printed on paper!
Sentences should be treated just as unique as paragraphs; if not for readability for humans, then at least for computers. One of the overlooked aspects of double-spaced sentences is parsing. Go ahead and parse a document by sentence while using single-spacing. If you think you can do it using regular expressions, think again. If everyone would adhere to a double-space standard, parsing at this level would be a snap.
As for the argument that modern word processors use additional padding for punctuation glyphs, "Yeah, right!" It's the other way around so that people can continue in the tradition of double-spacing sentences without it looking out of whack. I have created an example here:
http://www.logicgate.org/lib/images/typeface_sp
The font used was the most common: Times-Roman. The word processor used was the most common: Microsoft Word. The red marks indicate the size of the space not including the anti-aliasing. The green marks indicate the distance between solid stroke to solid stroke of each glyph. As anyone can plainly see, the second partial sentence with a double-space displays a natural appearing break, while the first displays the same size space as any found between words.
There is much more that could be said in defense of double-spacing sentences, but I think enough has been said to justify its use.
You're joking right? From the last statement you made about Apple's market share, it doesn't sound like you are a dedicated Mac user. If this is the case, speaking on behalf of the Mac community just isn't prudent.
Also stating something like "the best" is far too subjective anyway. User experience should be broken down into well-defined categories like, "Browser X is the faster at rendering HTML," or "Browser Y is the most configurable." The interesting thing is that IE, when examined and compared against other browsers in specific categories of user experience, actually looses every time. How one can derive IE for the Mac platform as being "the best" is beyond comprehension, or at least a joke.
I believe the Chimera benchmark was based on a non-pipelined version. I am running a pipelined version of Chimera and experienced an average of eight (8) percent greater speed than Safari for the same sites Apple used. The biggest difference was found on msnbc.com, where Chimera was about six (6) times faster than Safari.
I like the new browser, but it also absolutely destroys certain HTML element properties and client-space rendering. I had a number of problems with Safari rendering my own site, and all my code is to HTML 4.0.1, CCS2, and DOM2 spec.
programming language n.
An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer.
Source: dictionary.com
Are you saying then that JavaScript doesn't fit the definition of a programming language as it is stated above? The definition does not say how high or low a level the language must be, just that it "can be translated into machine language" and that's precisely what your web browser does in real-time.
If you prefer, here are the results according to their own search engine. (Not validated for whether their engine loads a job more than once under a different job category and C++ is unsearchable with their engine.)
.NET:__225 (just for fun)
Java:_1504
SQL:__1138
PHP:___626
C#:_____97
COBOL:__50
The rank still doesn't change though. I do have to admit that SQL, especially MySQL, and PHP go well together.
Okay, I'm game. As we all know, the trend of corporate software development has shifted to contract-based employment. This is the model you will see more of in the next ten years. The primary mission of companies looking to contractors for development services is scalability and to cut down on the time to market. This is achievable with PHP more so than with many other languages.
COBOL.0048
Bellow are the results of querying contractedwork.com using Google's site search option:
Java..1320
SQL...1150
PHP...1110
C++...0804
Yeah, so what were you saying about significant numbers again? It isn't that I embrace the contract employment model; I simply recognize this as the model for future software developers, just as you should recognize PHP as a solution to a contracted project's resource crunch. Lower development costs (PHP is free) means more contracts for a contractor.
Apparently, although I'm not sure why. That was my first reaction also. I was really hoping to settle down to a good Slashdot story this morning, like some accomplish with a cup of joe, but I guess somebody who waits for technology reviews to show up in their local small-town gazette doesn't share my vision.
Thank you for pointing that out. It is ridiculous to argue that it shouldn't be the server's job, when the server is just another computer being used for a task. It doesn't matter that it has other (less processor intensive) tasks it's expected to perform. A little disk activity and a lot of network traffic aren't going to suffer just because some images are being cached.
I believe this has already gotten out of hand, but I will try to explain a couple of things that should help understanding my position.
By mentioning the first response to my post, I was simply conveying that you should be nervous about posting a correction to my correction. The previous poster relayed to me a feeling of nervousness about the whole idea, and I thought it was applicable to all that try the same as I. I have not lost my sense of information origin. I do know who posted the comment.
It's generally referred to as a "Rhetoric and Composition Handbook," and Macmillan used to publish the standard reference used at the college level. A style guide has a similar purpose in this regard. I believe the more basic style reference from George Orwell was his "Politics and the English Language" essay. Strunk and White's, "The Elements of Style" is the most accepted, and largely influenced the Standard English standard. The rule is found below:
II.5 Do not join independent clauses by a comma.
"If two or more clauses, grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction, are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon."
The recognized conjunctions in Standard English for this rule are "and" and "but." My sentence contained neither, but it still had two independent clauses, as did the original post. I will admit I erred on the subjects of the clauses. What I meant to say was that each subject is an understood you in the passive voice. However, you did not point this out, which makes me wonder what your style is really based on. At least I can identify what are real errors. The complete thought is "at the very least, a semicolon should be utilized." I used "or" when I didn't really need to, but make no mistake, those are two independent clauses. I could also write the sentence as two:
"They should be written as two sentences. At the very least, a semicolon should be utilized."
You're right. The sentence does not need to be split. That's why I used a semicolon! You wrote: "you can see that I do not use the comma as a conjunction." Yeah, I would hope so, since punctuation marks can never be used as a part of speech.
(Unrelated) In the fine print one can find the following: "Santa only gives toys to well behaved children." This is known as the "Santa Clause."
Referring to your comment about obscuring meaning, do you really think you would have figured out that the sentence itself was an example of semicolon usage if I didn't point it out? I wouldn't have, and I'm the author. I would have read it as just another sentence, perhaps even overlooking over the punctuation.
To help you with your quandary about the usage of the term, "utilize," look closely at the "Usage Note" on the following site: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=utilize
I described George Orwell as a prolific writer because he is a prolific writer. Prolific doesn't only mean an abundance of work. It also refers to the results of the work. See the definition for this term at Dictionary.com as well. I could make the case that because William Shakespeare invented a large portion of the English vocabulary, that everything he said about the language must be followed exactly. That's a false presumption concerning standards. I agree that Orwell has contributed a great deal to the cause of professional writing, but his writing standards don't always apply to the "model for middle-class educated speakers." I don't see anyone on Slashdot writing fictional short stories or novels.
The concise term is "round bracket." This is one of the most common misunderstandings in all of English language. A single parenthesis is a phrase. The plural form, parentheses, is the pair of marks surrounding the parenthesis. A single mark on either side of a parenthesis is a bracket. I'm glad I could indirectly help.