One thing has to be said for C#, as much as I am a subscriber to the "If C is Play-Doh, and C++ is Lego - C# is Duplo" philosophy, it does allow to get results fast without having to use a ton of libraries that in the end weigh you down more than C# would.
So in other words, C# gets results fast without having to weigh you down more than itself would?
Pop quiz. What do you think perl does with "5" + "information". The answer may surprise you. Here's a hint, it actually casts "information" to a number because the first three letters match a defined numerical value.
I did not know that. And I think I just threw up a little in my mouth now.
a==b, b==c, would never presume a==c. It's never true in real-world business, so I'd never want it to be true in business programming.
It's a tautology in mathematics (known as the transitive property of equality) and it should be a tautology in any programming language. If a language gets this wrong, that's a major flaw in the language's design. (Which is not to say that the language isn't still useful. It's just confusing as hell is all.)
This wasn't a bad idea at the time, because most people wouldn't try going thew the back door that they don't know about,...
It was still a bad idea then. It's just that there were a lot fewer script kiddies and bots looking for back doors and exploits back then than there are now.
The simplest way of differentiating the two is to say that a lambda function is a degenerate case of a closure, right? — A pure, standalone function with no captured variables?
In Objective-C, you should only throw exceptions on programming errors. And there's no need to catch them, because you ought to fix the code.
Nonsense. That is what assertions are for. Assertions are not meant to be caught, and should be used to throw an (uncaught) exception upon detection of a programming error, i.e., an internal consistency check. Regular exceptions, on the other hand, are for handling exceptional cases encountered in the process of execution (such as file-not-found or unsupported-format).
Swift just makes it a bit stronger. No exceptions.
They will probably add exceptions in 1.1 or 2.0. They're pretty imporant.
Apple can definitely deploy the new language effectively, but I'm not sure it solves any problems.
The problem it solves is Objective-C having a steep learning curve and, more importantly, people having a kneejerk reaction to its odd syntax.
In other words, Swift will have a wider appeal to people than Objective-C. And that means more developers for iOS, which in turns means more money for Apple.
OK, military airport runways I can maybe see being a few orders of magnitude more expensive per square foot than public roads. But not regular civilian runways.
The $ per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is more than a few orders of magnitude more than that spent on public roads.
I call BS on your assertion. Either that, or you can't be serious. A "few orders of magnitude" is like 4 or 5 or 6, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you mean the lowest possible value of "few," which would be 3. That's still 10^3 = 1000. And then you say "more than a few orders of magnitude," which would mean at least 10^4 = 10,000. In any case, there's no way that the dollars per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is 1000x— let alone 10,000x — more than that spent on public roads.
I seem to remember feeling floppy drives weren't as reliable back in the day either... but yeah, definitely today it's crazy to use them. I wonder if they are doing any kind of RAID or other redundancy? Seems unbelievably, extremely foolish to me if they only have a single copy on a single floppy.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing has to be said for C#, as much as I am a subscriber to the "If C is Play-Doh, and C++ is Lego - C# is Duplo" philosophy, it does allow to get results fast without having to use a ton of libraries that in the end weigh you down more than C# would.
So in other words, C# gets results fast without having to weigh you down more than itself would?
It would be hard to make a programming language slower than Java, even if you tried.
1996 called and wants its Java insult book back.
A couple of questions come to mind. "How does one backup?", and "If I need to make a U-Turn, how can I?"
You can't backup. Backup is a noun. Back up is a verb. The question is: "How does one back up?"
Wow, so it's trying to use [2] as an array index inside @$spi . . .
Is it converting [2] into "REF(ARRAY)" or somesuch, and then converting that to an integer and using that as the index?
My Perl interpreter (5.12) chokes on that code...
$ perl -e 'my $s = [5,6]; my $i = [2]; $s->[$i] = 7'
Modification of non-creatable array value attempted, subscript -1283427544 at -e line 1.
...but it gives an interesting hit with the negative giant subscript index.
What version of Perl are you using that chews up 30 seconds of CPU time?
Pop quiz. What do you think perl does with "5" + "information". The answer may surprise you. Here's a hint, it actually casts "information" to a number because the first three letters match a defined numerical value.
I did not know that. And I think I just threw up a little in my mouth now.
a==b, b==c, would never presume a==c. It's never true in real-world business, so I'd never want it to be true in business programming.
It's a tautology in mathematics (known as the transitive property of equality) and it should be a tautology in any programming language. If a language gets this wrong, that's a major flaw in the language's design. (Which is not to say that the language isn't still useful. It's just confusing as hell is all.)
Stop reading random documentation. ...
It's not random documentation. It's one of several bookmarks I keep around that I pull out whenever anyone tries to say that JavaScript is simple.
This wasn't a bad idea at the time, because most people wouldn't try going thew the back door that they don't know about, ...
It was still a bad idea then. It's just that there were a lot fewer script kiddies and bots looking for back doors and exploits back then than there are now.
Are you insane?
This made me laugh. That was my reaction as well.
But javascript is dead-simple.
Yes, so simple. http://dorey.github.io/JavaScr...
I suspect there is more interest in this than in you whining about how you don't care.
We don't care that you don't care.
I didn't whine about how I didn't care, nor did I ever say that I didn't care.
I asked how it was "news for nerds." Because unless I'm missing something, it isn't.
Now STFU.
Yeah. Thanks for that intelligent commentary.
Why was the above moderated as "flamebait"?! It's a fair question. Seriously, this story is not "news for nerds."
This is interesting news, but what is of interest to nerds about it that wouldn't be of interest to anyone?
Am I missing something here or is Slashdot being stupid about story selection again?
Ciscoracle
Oracisco
Ciscoraciscoraciscoraciscoraciscoracisco
The arrested was meant to send a message to Thailand's online community.
Come on, /. editors. Seriously?
Keyword: "transclusion".
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Y'know, from that video. You've seen it. Can't be bothered to find a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion
The simplest way of differentiating the two is to say that a lambda function is a degenerate case of a closure, right? — A pure, standalone function with no captured variables?
In Objective-C, you should only throw exceptions on programming errors. And there's no need to catch them, because you ought to fix the code.
Nonsense. That is what assertions are for. Assertions are not meant to be caught, and should be used to throw an (uncaught) exception upon detection of a programming error, i.e., an internal consistency check. Regular exceptions, on the other hand, are for handling exceptional cases encountered in the process of execution (such as file-not-found or unsupported-format).
Swift just makes it a bit stronger. No exceptions.
They will probably add exceptions in 1.1 or 2.0. They're pretty imporant.
Apple can definitely deploy the new language effectively, but I'm not sure it solves any problems.
The problem it solves is Objective-C having a steep learning curve and, more importantly, people having a kneejerk reaction to its odd syntax.
In other words, Swift will have a wider appeal to people than Objective-C. And that means more developers for iOS, which in turns means more money for Apple.
Looks like a decent language, actually.
OK, military airport runways I can maybe see being a few orders of magnitude more expensive per square foot than public roads. But not regular civilian runways.
The $ per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is more than a few orders of magnitude more than that spent on public roads.
I call BS on your assertion. Either that, or you can't be serious. A "few orders of magnitude" is like 4 or 5 or 6, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you mean the lowest possible value of "few," which would be 3. That's still 10^3 = 1000. And then you say "more than a few orders of magnitude," which would mean at least 10^4 = 10,000. In any case, there's no way that the dollars per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is 1000x— let alone 10,000x — more than that spent on public roads.
... with one of the best monitors being the Apple 30 inch Cinema Display running at something like 3560x1600 or somesuch
2560x1600.
I seem to remember feeling floppy drives weren't as reliable back in the day either... but yeah, definitely today it's crazy to use them. I wonder if they are doing any kind of RAID or other redundancy? Seems unbelievably, extremely foolish to me if they only have a single copy on a single floppy.
No Love Shack jokes?