Class cast exception can be avoided by not trying to cast objects to types that they shouldn't be cast to. Of course you can't cast an ArrayList to a BufferedStreamReader.
That's correct. But then a function/method having to check for possible parameter errors can be avoided by not passing in incorrect parameters.
The number of unit tests you have to write increases with dynamic typing. You have to write unit tests to see what happens when you pass in the wrong type.
That's incorrect. You do not have to write unit tests to see what would happen when passing in parameters of the wrong type. You have to write test to make sure the callers pass in parameters of the correct type.
// er, not sure what I should do here. // Maybe the caller passed the wrong params OR // maybe I was passed the wrong number of params OR // maybe I was passed NO params // I "guess" that maybe I cuold throw an error OR // maybe I should just pop up a message box OR // Is this a web application? If it is I really can pop a message box // I "guess" that really I should just throw an ugly runtime error // at the user even though this realy should be a "compile" time error.
That's a red herring. Even statically typed languages have run-time errors. For example, in Java there is ClassCastException, IndexOutOfBoundsException, etc. How do you know your code won't generate any of those? Well, you test.
Code that is accepted by the compiler is not necessarily correct code. The type checking done by the compiler for a statically typed language catches a subset of problems. Unit testing can catch a far larger set of problems.
And many people who've used dynamic languages have found, counter to their own expectations, that type-related issues were not a significant source of problems.
So while you may not know how to write code in a dynamically typed language, some of us do.
Yes, it's a tiny video screen, but you can attach the iPod to a monitor using S-Video plus audio cabling.
Sure, but realize that it won't increase the resolution beyond what is viewable on the iPod's display.
How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?
The answer to that is simple. Music has high replayability. You can listen to a song hundreds of times over the course of a year. But video media, such as movies and television programs, loses its appeal very quickly. I find it difficult to watch most movies a second time, let alone a third or fourth.
Plus, music is something you can listen to while doing other things, such as walking down the street or working on your computer. Videos are not well-suited to that, and that makes them somewhat less useful. Yes, sometimes less is more!
To be happy is to be content.. and to be content is to lack the craving to better oneself.
The logic here is flawed. Some people are happy bettering themselves -- learning something new, learning something to greater depth, perfecting a skill, exploring a new place.
By playing the "A is the same as B is the same as C" game, you've cleverly pulled the wool over your own eyes. Happy now?
... but why order from an ethically questionable corporation when you almost as easily get the exact same thing and pay a little less dealing with an independent bookseller.
Well a very similar question could be asked of you. Why are you dealing with what you believe to be an "ethically questionable corporation"? From your stated question, it seems your answer might involve money for you. So does money trump ethics for you?
What about an intersection that results in fewer vehicle-vehicle accidents, is safer for pedestrians, does not require electricity or light bulbs, and has a greater vehicular throughput than a light-governed intersection?
The thing that I'M concerned about is if they pull a similar move that Apple did with mac.com accounts. "Oh yah they'll be free forever", then two years later, once everyone is hooked on free @mac.com email addresses, they turn around and say they're going to charge $99 dollars per year.[bold not in original]
First, you used quotes and I think it's rather obvious that it's not a quote. Second, I don't know that Apple ever claimed free forever. Perhaps you can show us where Apple made such a claim.
Wow...the amount of anti-human hate going on in this discussion is mind-bending.
Well as a human I hate those who are anti-human. What's wrong with that? If they're anti-me, then I'm going to be anti-them!!!
Secondly, keep in mind that we'd really be *fixing* a planet that nature has let die here. All of our new data shows that Mars was once a very life-friendly planet, with oceans, etc.; now it's a cold, nasty place that's only getting more inhospitable as time goes on.
Ah, so you're "*fixing*" it, huh? What's wrong with inhospitable places, such as the deepest portions of Earth's oceans, the tops of Earth's highest mountains, the middle of Earth's deserts, Earth's polar regions, etc.? Just because it's inhospitable does not mean that it needs fixing.
It's just you, as the rest of us remember the RIAA's DMCA subpoena compelling Verizon to provide information on subscribers who were violating copyrights via P2P software. Verizon could fight them, did fight them, and lost.
And another thing. I want random people to be able to contact me, for whatever reason.
Then they should be willing to pay you a small amount (US$0.35?) for that initial contact, which you could optionally refund, and you could then optionally white-list the sender. Of course the payment would be handled entirely through digital means.
A review on crypto or error correcting protocols?
on
Practical Cryptography
·
· Score: 1
I guess when you're such a rabid fan, finding enough complements to pack into your review can be quite a challenge. As a result, one should expect the redundancies.
"Invaluable" appears once in the summary and three more times in the review.
And not only do we discover that "[t]he book pulls no punches", we later learn that "Ferguson and Schneier are refreshingly frank, too."
I would hope that a book outstrips the value of those which cost half the price or less, so is this really a complement?
Some might complain that it is priced too high (it lists at USD50 for the softcover, and USD70 for the hardcover), but it is printed on acid-free paper, and the density of useful advice is such that it outstrips in value many works which cost half the price or less.
One could not make a living soley in the virtual economy, as they would have no basis to provide for their real (i.e., biological) needs--food, shelter, etc.
Thus there needs to be a real economy and there need to be interfaces between the real and virtual economies where exchanges can take place.
With that basis, however, some could make most of their livings in the virtual economy.
What I do not understand is why don't they just block all incoming traffic to the dorms and labs? Why is it that they allow for this traffic to even make it to the PC in the first place?
That would not have helped here. The student would simply have to run an application which originated the network connection from campus to the spammers server. With TCP, once the connection is established, the traffic is two-way.
Sincerely,
[insert deity here]
Re:What about Customs?
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There's also the problem of airport infrastructure. an 80m wide double decker airplane will have a very hard time fitting into any gate spot in an airport anywhere in the world, currently. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport. It is so new that they might have engineered it with larger gate spots to accomodate future aircraft
Actually, the poster meant to say Hong Kong's International Airport at Chek Lap Kok which replaced Kai Tak in 1998. Although, Kai Tak may have been able to handle the new planes, since most aircraft never pulled up to the terminal. Even in 1998 the planes would park on the tarmac, mobile stairs would pull up to the doors, and a bus would take people to/from the terminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Class cast exception can be avoided by not trying to cast objects to types that they shouldn't be cast to. Of course you can't cast an ArrayList to a BufferedStreamReader.
That's correct. But then a function/method having to check for possible parameter errors can be avoided by not passing in incorrect parameters.
The number of unit tests you have to write increases with dynamic typing. You have to write unit tests to see what happens when you pass in the wrong type.
That's incorrect. You do not have to write unit tests to see what would happen when passing in parameters of the wrong type. You have to write test to make sure the callers pass in parameters of the correct type.
That's a red herring. Even statically typed languages have run-time errors. For example, in Java there is ClassCastException, IndexOutOfBoundsException, etc. How do you know your code won't generate any of those? Well, you test.
Code that is accepted by the compiler is not necessarily correct code. The type checking done by the compiler for a statically typed language catches a subset of problems. Unit testing can catch a far larger set of problems.
And many people who've used dynamic languages have found, counter to their own expectations, that type-related issues were not a significant source of problems.
So while you may not know how to write code in a dynamically typed language, some of us do.
Yes, it's a tiny video screen, but you can attach the iPod to a monitor using S-Video plus audio cabling.
Sure, but realize that it won't increase the resolution beyond what is viewable on the iPod's display.
How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?
The answer to that is simple. Music has high replayability. You can listen to a song hundreds of times over the course of a year. But video media, such as movies and television programs, loses its appeal very quickly. I find it difficult to watch most movies a second time, let alone a third or fourth.
Plus, music is something you can listen to while doing other things, such as walking down the street or working on your computer. Videos are not well-suited to that, and that makes them somewhat less useful. Yes, sometimes less is more!
To be happy is to be content.. and to be content is to lack the craving to better oneself.
The logic here is flawed. Some people are happy bettering themselves -- learning something new, learning something to greater depth, perfecting a skill, exploring a new place.
By playing the "A is the same as B is the same as C" game, you've cleverly pulled the wool over your own eyes. Happy now?
maceilean says:
Well a very similar question could be asked of you. Why are you dealing with what you believe to be an "ethically questionable corporation"? From your stated question, it seems your answer might involve money for you. So does money trump ethics for you?
wikipedia: Elliptic Curve Cryptography
What about an intersection that results in fewer vehicle-vehicle accidents, is safer for pedestrians, does not require electricity or light bulbs, and has a greater vehicular throughput than a light-governed intersection?
Check out the modern roundabout.
First, you used quotes and I think it's rather obvious that it's not a quote. Second, I don't know that Apple ever claimed free forever. Perhaps you can show us where Apple made such a claim.
--BL
Wow...the amount of anti-human hate going on in this discussion is mind-bending.
Well as a human I hate those who are anti-human. What's wrong with that? If they're anti-me, then I'm going to be anti-them!!!
Secondly, keep in mind that we'd really be *fixing* a planet that nature has let die here. All of our new data shows that Mars was once a very life-friendly planet, with oceans, etc.; now it's a cold, nasty place that's only getting more inhospitable as time goes on.
Ah, so you're "*fixing*" it, huh? What's wrong with inhospitable places, such as the deepest portions of Earth's oceans, the tops of Earth's highest mountains, the middle of Earth's deserts, Earth's polar regions, etc.? Just because it's inhospitable does not mean that it needs fixing.
It's just you, as the rest of us remember the RIAA's DMCA subpoena compelling Verizon to provide information on subscribers who were violating copyrights via P2P software. Verizon could fight them, did fight them, and lost.
And another thing. I want random people to be able to contact me, for whatever reason.
Then they should be willing to pay you a small amount (US$0.35?) for that initial contact, which you could optionally refund, and you could then optionally white-list the sender. Of course the payment would be handled entirely through digital means.
"Invaluable" appears once in the summary and three more times in the review.
And not only do we discover that "[t]he book pulls no punches", we later learn that "Ferguson and Schneier are refreshingly frank, too."
I would hope that a book outstrips the value of those which cost half the price or less, so is this really a complement?
Oh, but D&D does corrupt, as proven by this highly factual publication: Dark Dungeons.
:)
I rest my case.
One could not make a living soley in the virtual economy, as they would have no basis to provide for their real (i.e., biological) needs--food, shelter, etc.
Thus there needs to be a real economy and there need to be interfaces between the real and virtual economies where exchanges can take place.
With that basis, however, some could make most of their livings in the virtual economy.
What I do not understand is why don't they just block all incoming traffic to the dorms and labs? Why is it that they allow for this traffic to even make it to the PC in the first place?
That would not have helped here. The student would simply have to run an application which originated the network connection from campus to the spammers server. With TCP, once the connection is established, the traffic is two-way.
Sincerely,
[insert deity here]
There's also the problem of airport infrastructure. an 80m wide double decker airplane will have a very hard time fitting into any gate spot in an airport anywhere in the world, currently. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport. It is so new that they might have engineered it with larger gate spots to accomodate future aircraft
Actually, the poster meant to say Hong Kong's International Airport at Chek Lap Kok which replaced Kai Tak in 1998. Although, Kai Tak may have been able to handle the new planes, since most aircraft never pulled up to the terminal. Even in 1998 the planes would park on the tarmac, mobile stairs would pull up to the doors, and a bus would take people to/from the terminal.
Obligatory Links:
Governmental web page on the history of Kai Tak.
Chek Lap Kok's airport guide in English.