So, what do you propose instead? To refuse medical attention to those people when they show up in a hospital? To socialize the cost and pay it yourself? Something else?
GTK tried to do object oriented things in C, and the result is fairly ugly.
This is a very anhistoric statement. At the time GTK was started, there was not even a stable ABI for C++ the language... Do you even understand what that means?
This isn't a show-stopper, but the flexibility of QT just isn't there. Let's say I'd like a widget that works slightly differently than the default that either toolkit provides -- QT makes hanging widgets through inheritance easy and elegant, not so in GTK.
Have you actually tried doing this?
QT's thread api is simple to use with the signal/slot mechanism providing an excellent way to pass data between threads and synchronize them. GTK's thread api is. ..not as nice.
That's a quite subjective statement, don't you think?
The editor cannot possibly guess when to close a scope in 99% of the situations. Unless you have an über smart editor which needs you to input a formal specification of what your code is supposed to do and... hrm... no, actually... there is no possible way for an editor to do what you seem to want.
As for you particular example, try it in vim: you will see that after a return, vim removes a level of indentation for you.
People who argue against semantic indentation tend to be really really bad at providing examples, from what I can see...
That has nothing to do with `statistics'. It is a simple fact of life that if you look at non-disjoint subsets, the sum of their sizes may very well be larger that the size of their union. This does not make knowing the sizes of the different subsets useless...
If that was your argument to show that `python forces you to write horribly formatted code', well, you need another argument.
In any case, have you seen the huge amounts of pretty good python code out there? I have yet to see something which would rightfully be described as `horribly formatted'.
If that code was originally input in that state, then it never had a meaning, since it is not parseable by a python parser. If it was ever indented both in a way it had a meaning and in a way it had the intended meaning, then of course it is possible for an editor to change the indentation in semantically preserving ways---and this does not even require an editor which actually parses the code. So your problem is: "if you have code for which even not the python parser can attach meaning, then an editor cannot attach meaning to it and manipulate it meaningfully". That problem exists for... well... every language.
I fail to see "political and religious" issues in this issue. It is simply a design choice.
Well, there is Thomas Aquinas and there's, say, the systematic support by the Church as an organization and by very many prominent memners of the Church, personally, to quite disgraceful dictatorships in Lati America, for example (recently in Argentina a priest who participated in torturing prisioners and coercing them both physically and psychologically during confession (!) was judged, and that imam you seem to have in mind is hardly any different to him) You need to get better informed, if you think Aquinas is anywhere near representative...
He may or may not say something of import. The problem I have is that he proposes as a justification for what he says (which is what should be used to evaluate the `import') that it derives from his doctrine. Since his doctrine is essentially inconsistent, then the import of his saying can but properly be judged to be insignificant.
...but the fact that humans are intelligent and try things and eventually are able to do artifical insemination is somehow not natural.
Jacques Hadamard (in The mathematician's mind. The psychology of invention in the mathematical field.) mentions that ``[...] Metschnikoff, who observes, at the end of his book on phagocytosis, that in the human species, the fight against microbes is the work not only of phagocytes, but also of the brain, by creating bacteriology.''
Each of those apps you mention has a different interface, with absolutely gratuitous variations in looks, style, behavior, general orientation of the defaults, and so on.
It hurts.
But y'know, it's not just a comparison of the USA to Canada that should be considered
Oh, I know. It's just that Canada was mentioned in the GGP post. Canada is by far not the most socialist when it comes to medicine!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the US is the only developed country in the world without socialized medicine. Everybody else thinks medicine should be in the same category as police and firefighters and roads and sewage.
Indeed. It is moreover the only country I know where it is, for some, a matter of actual pride (because it somehow means more `freedom', market-wise or otherwise) that a huge number of people do not have medical coverage. Of course, it is (almost...) never put in these extreme terms: but this is what most of the reasonings amount to, since the fact that huge number of people do not have medical coverage is the obvious consequence of the policies supported.
You have yet to show an actual instance of this happening in the pharmaceutical industries. You are simply arguing, and, more importantly, reproducing the standard talk lines of the industry itself.
The facts that (i) they send more money on marketing than on research tells you that and (ii) they have a profit margin around 4 times a big as any other industry hint that there is quite a lot of flexibility. in the numbers; of course, *they* are not interesting in making that show...
If the USA suddenly flipped to a price-negotiation/dictation* system, the profit wouldn't be there, the area would no longer be under-valued, investors would jump ship, moving elsewhere. Money would dry up, leaving less for research into creating new drugs. Ergo, fewer new drugs.
The fact that they move elsewhere is irrelevant in so far as you are interested in having a supply of medicines available for the US citizens. And the idea that somehow pharmaceutical companies would simply give up and this create a void is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Do you and the GP really believe this?!
In what way is the current situation not one of a `good and logical separation'?
I did not insult you or anyone. Anyone minimally familiar with GTK understands that `disentangling' it from Glib is an absurd proposition.
So, what do you propose instead? To refuse medical attention to those people when they show up in a hospital? To socialize the cost and pay it yourself? Something else?
Well, they were convicted because of actions which can be described as pretty, pretty closed to that.
This is a very anhistoric statement. At the time GTK was started, there was not even a stable ABI for C++ the language... Do you even understand what that means?
This isn't a show-stopper, but the flexibility of QT just isn't there. Let's say I'd like a widget that works slightly differently than the default that either toolkit provides -- QT makes hanging widgets through inheritance easy and elegant, not so in GTK.Have you actually tried doing this?
QT's thread api is simple to use with the signal/slot mechanism providing an excellent way to pass data between threads and synchronize them. GTK's thread api is. .That's a quite subjective statement, don't you think?
GTK is not going to be disentangled from glib, ever: the fact that you consider this realistic shows that you have no understanding of the issue.
Miguel's blog has as much connection with the direction of GNOME as your post with reality.
The point being made, I guess,is that GTK does not ask for license money in order for you to use it, even if you app is not open.
The editor cannot possibly guess when to close a scope in 99% of the situations. Unless you have an über smart editor which needs you to input a formal specification of what your code is supposed to do and... hrm... no, actually... there is no possible way for an editor to do what you seem to want.
As for you particular example, try it in vim: you will see that after a return, vim removes a level of indentation for you.
People who argue against semantic indentation tend to be really really bad at providing examples, from what I can see...
That has nothing to do with `statistics'. It is a simple fact of life that if you look at non-disjoint subsets, the sum of their sizes may very well be larger that the size of their union. This does not make knowing the sizes of the different subsets useless...
Your example is quite absurd, since your pretty matrix code is perfect python, up to changing the ; into commas, and adding the missing commas:
A=[[ 71, 211, 211, 131, 221, 131, 201, 221, 81, 214],
[ 131, 161, 141, 221, 51, 81, 171, 1, 241, 160],
[ 31, 201, 91, 41, 71, 111, 111, 191, 181, 34],
[ 171, 161, 171, 251, 161, 51, 141, 241, 101, 53],
[ 91, 81, 131, 61, 71, 141, 201, 251, 191, 155],
[ 221, 71, 111, 61, 121, 191, 11, 201, 61, 161],
[ 211, 81, 171, 221, 11, 131, 151, 111, 111, 94],
[ 151, 131, 151, 181, 251, 161, 11, 121, 231, 147],
[ 121, 181, 201, 31, 141, 51, 101, 51, 171, 115],
[ 231, 71, 241, 1, 101, 91, 71, 161, 51, 11]]
If that was your argument to show that `python forces you to write horribly formatted code', well, you need another argument.
In any case, have you seen the huge amounts of pretty good python code out there? I have yet to see something which would rightfully be described as `horribly formatted'.
If that code was originally input in that state, then it never had a meaning, since it is not parseable by a python parser. If it was ever indented both in a way it had a meaning and in a way it had the intended meaning, then of course it is possible for an editor to change the indentation in semantically preserving ways---and this does not even require an editor which actually parses the code. So your problem is: "if you have code for which even not the python parser can attach meaning, then an editor cannot attach meaning to it and manipulate it meaningfully". That problem exists for... well... every language.
I fail to see "political and religious" issues in this issue. It is simply a design choice.
Well, I write python using vim's quite simplistic autoindenter, and to tell you the truth, this does not happen.
The answer is simple: no.
What makes you think you cannot have python code auto-indented without changing the semantics?
Why, exactly, is it that it should never have semantic meaning? Is there a rule somewhere?
Well, there is Thomas Aquinas and there's, say, the systematic support by the Church as an organization and by very many prominent memners of the Church, personally, to quite disgraceful dictatorships in Lati America, for example (recently in Argentina a priest who participated in torturing prisioners and coercing them both physically and psychologically during confession (!) was judged, and that imam you seem to have in mind is hardly any different to him) You need to get better informed, if you think Aquinas is anywhere near representative...
He may or may not say something of import. The problem I have is that he proposes as a justification for what he says (which is what should be used to evaluate the `import') that it derives from his doctrine. Since his doctrine is essentially inconsistent, then the import of his saying can but properly be judged to be insignificant.
...but the fact that humans are intelligent and try things and eventually are able to do artifical insemination is somehow not natural.
Jacques Hadamard (in The mathematician's mind. The psychology of invention in the mathematical field.) mentions that ``[...] Metschnikoff, who observes, at the end of his book on phagocytosis, that in the human species, the fight against microbes is the work not only of phagocytes, but also of the brain, by creating bacteriology.''
Each of those apps you mention has a different interface, with absolutely gratuitous variations in looks, style, behavior, general orientation of the defaults, and so on. It hurts.
I've never read such a request around here... and this is not the first big entity to do this.
It took you two years?!
Oh, I know. It's just that Canada was mentioned in the GGP post. Canada is by far not the most socialist when it comes to medicine!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the US is the only developed country in the world without socialized medicine. Everybody else thinks medicine should be in the same category as police and firefighters and roads and sewage.Indeed. It is moreover the only country I know where it is, for some, a matter of actual pride (because it somehow means more `freedom', market-wise or otherwise) that a huge number of people do not have medical coverage. Of course, it is (almost...) never put in these extreme terms: but this is what most of the reasonings amount to, since the fact that huge number of people do not have medical coverage is the obvious consequence of the policies supported.
You have yet to show an actual instance of this happening in the pharmaceutical industries. You are simply arguing, and, more importantly, reproducing the standard talk lines of the industry itself.
The facts that (i) they send more money on marketing than on research tells you that and (ii) they have a profit margin around 4 times a big as any other industry hint that there is quite a lot of flexibility. in the numbers; of course, *they* are not interesting in making that show...
If the USA suddenly flipped to a price-negotiation/dictation* system, the profit wouldn't be there, the area would no longer be under-valued, investors would jump ship, moving elsewhere. Money would dry up, leaving less for research into creating new drugs. Ergo, fewer new drugs.The fact that they move elsewhere is irrelevant in so far as you are interested in having a supply of medicines available for the US citizens. And the idea that somehow pharmaceutical companies would simply give up and this create a void is absurd.