So, you mean a state like Texas - loose gun control - with a 2012 murder rate of 4.4 (per 100,000 people) versus a state like New York - tight gun control - with a rate of 3.5? Which is the lower number? See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or... . Better yet, look at the ranking by murder rate - and tell me if you think the top of the list - the high murder-rate states - Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and Arkansas - sounds like a bunch of states with tight gun control laws?
In fact, APL is the epitome of elegance in computer programming languages: http://sharonhines.com/interne... (one random, recent example of many).
One simple example: some languages have a way to do matrix multiplication but it's often a clunky function call or an odd, non-standard piece of notation (I'm looking at you, Matlab). APL doesn't just do matrix multiply but generalizes the very concept of it so that you can do a generalized inner product that reduces to matrix multiply when the functions supplied to it are multiplication and addition.
Ignorance of the language, common and widespread though it is, is not the same as an actual reason for dismissing it.
These laws against recording in public are an early step toward curtailing freedom of speech. The recent popularity of variations on this, particularly with regard toward laws against recording police officers should be a tip-off.
We already have laws that differentiate between what's acceptable in public versus private space: walking around naked, for instance. Blurring this line looks like something that favors those who would erode and limit the public space.
As long as the quality of work continues to be an imponderable - not sure why this still is the case, unless management continues to remain clueless - decisions will be made only based on how much money someone costs, and older people want more money. Perhaps they imagine that experience is valuable.
This only holds if there's no awareness of the difference in work quality...oh, wait.
But I call BS on this tired old argument anyway. If it were true, the 50-something w/the kids in college and flexibility would be sought after - we're not.
Your stance on AGW seems to deny the error-correcting features of the scientific method.
So which do you think is more likely: that AGW-deniers are primarily politically-motivated and don't give a crap about simple facts (like the greenhouse effect of CO2) or that the scientific method is deeply flawed?
This is an extremely blinkered view of code that probably well-represents the majority opinion, given that that's the genesis of most programming languages.
However, there is a small group of languages that aspires to represent computational concepts at an abstract level in a clear, consistent, and logical manner. These languages, like APL and J, are based on a regularization of mathematical notation.
There is a (rather small) minority view that code can actually improve our ability to think - http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki... . However, the bulk of opinion sees code as an obstacle to be overcome - rightly so, given the sloppy, ad-hoc construction of most programming languages.
Except that human contributions have only been going one way: increasing over time. Gas due to volcanoes is random.
Oh, also, you're wrong about the magnitude. According to http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php, "all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities."
I have personally worked on a couple of different 20,000 line code bases in dynamic languages.
They worked just fine: in one case we had about 20 clients buying in for tens of thousands per system + 20 % maintenance, which required one senior and one junior programmer to maintain; the other was a system with about three programmers that accounted for about 1% of the trading volume on the NYSE.
You do not have systems in the millions of lines with dynamic languages because you do not need that many lines to do just about anything.
Do you have any support for your baseless assertion?
After decades of enjoying the extreme and obvious productivity advantages of programming with dynamic languages in interactive environments, I continue to be baffled by the overwhelming preference for static, compiled languages. I understand there is a place for such things, much as there is a place for programming in assembly language, but I continue to wonder why such a clumsy paradigm is so dominant.
It's more powerful, concise, and consistent than most languages. However, R and Matlab have larger user communities and this is an important consideration.
There was a note on the J-forum a few months ago from an astronomer who uses J to "...compute photoionization models of planetary nebulae." His code to do this is about 500 lines in about 30 modules and uses some multi-dimensional datasets, including a four-dimensional one of "...2D grids of the collisional cooling by each of 16 ions".
However, the point of his note was that he ported this code to his i-phone - and it works! Consider, too that porting consists mainly of copying some text and data files - there would be little to no code changes.
Slashdot Mirror
The Psychology of Computer Programming by Gerald Weinburg
The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks
A Programming Language
(by Ken Iverson)
So, you mean a state like Texas - loose gun control - with a 2012 murder rate of 4.4 (per 100,000 people) versus a state like New York - tight gun control - with a rate of 3.5? Which is the lower number? See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or... . Better yet, look at the ranking by murder rate -
and tell me if you think the top of the list - the high murder-rate states - Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and Arkansas - sounds like a bunch of states with tight gun control laws?
...know about surveillance?
In fact, APL is the epitome of elegance in computer programming languages: http://sharonhines.com/interne... (one random, recent example of many).
One simple example: some languages have a way to do matrix multiplication but it's often a clunky function call or an odd, non-standard piece of notation (I'm looking at you, Matlab). APL doesn't just do matrix multiply but generalizes the very concept of it so that you can do a generalized inner product that reduces to matrix multiply when the functions supplied to it are multiplication and addition.
Ignorance of the language, common and widespread though it is, is not the same as an actual reason for dismissing it.
These laws against recording in public are an early step toward curtailing freedom of speech. The recent popularity of variations on this, particularly with regard toward laws against recording police officers should be a tip-off.
We already have laws that differentiate between what's acceptable in public versus private space: walking around naked, for instance. Blurring this line looks like something that favors those who would erode and limit the public space.
Most of the essays like this one here: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki... .
You're right as far as I'm concerned but we may not be in the majority.
Sorry, slop and rigor don't really combine well.
...the government funds medical research that suppresses "natural cures" by exposing them as ineffective frauds.
Not enough of this given the giant loopholes opened by our clueless congresscritters, e.g. the DSHEA - http://www.wholefoodsmagazine.... .
As long as the quality of work continues to be an imponderable - not sure why this still is the case, unless management continues to remain clueless - decisions will be made only based on how much money someone costs, and older people want more money. Perhaps they imagine that experience is valuable.
This only holds if there's no awareness of the difference in work quality...oh, wait.
But I call BS on this tired old argument anyway. If it were true, the 50-something w/the kids in college and flexibility would be sought after - we're not.
Your stance on AGW seems to deny the error-correcting features of the scientific method.
So which do you think is more likely: that AGW-deniers are primarily politically-motivated and don't give a crap about simple facts (like the greenhouse effect of CO2) or that the scientific method is deeply flawed?
Judging from the clueless, anti-urban comments predominating here, maybe the site should be renamed "Slashyokel".
This is an extremely blinkered view of code that probably well-represents the majority opinion, given that that's the genesis of most programming languages.
However, there is a small group of languages that aspires to represent computational concepts at an abstract level in a clear, consistent, and logical manner. These languages, like APL and J, are based on a regularization of mathematical notation.
There is a (rather small) minority view that code can actually improve our ability to think - http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki... . However, the bulk of opinion sees code as an obstacle to be overcome - rightly so, given the sloppy, ad-hoc construction of most programming languages.
Not everyone can do calculus in high school. Not everyone wants to play football. Not everyone wants to study art.
Because it's not like the purpose of education is to expose you to things you don't know or care about...
Except that human contributions have only been going one way: increasing over time. Gas due to volcanoes is random.
Oh, also, you're wrong about the magnitude. According to http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php, "all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities."
I have personally worked on a couple of different 20,000 line code bases in dynamic languages.
They worked just fine: in one case we had about 20 clients buying in for tens of thousands per system + 20 % maintenance, which required one senior and one junior programmer to maintain; the other was a system with about three programmers that accounted for about 1% of the trading volume on the NYSE.
You do not have systems in the millions of lines with dynamic languages because you do not need that many lines to do just about anything.
Do you have any support for your baseless assertion?
The Debian Benchmarks game often over-specifies the problem by requiring a particular approach.
After decades of enjoying the extreme and obvious productivity advantages of programming with dynamic languages in interactive environments, I continue to be baffled by the overwhelming preference for static, compiled languages. I understand there is a place for such things, much as there is a place for programming in assembly language, but I continue to wonder why such a clumsy paradigm is so dominant.
The Jewish Ten Commandments are Jewish. The Roman Catholic ones differ, as do the Protestant ones: http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath.htm .
I've heard that he was actually a good coder but have no citation.
I wonder how well this accounts for the extremely variable sleeping periods of various animals? See http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chasleep.html .
...at jsoftware.com .
It's more powerful, concise, and consistent than most languages. However, R and Matlab have larger user communities and this is an important consideration.
There was a note on the J-forum a few months ago from an astronomer who uses J to "...compute photoionization models of planetary nebulae." His code to do this is about 500 lines in about 30 modules and uses some multi-dimensional datasets, including a four-dimensional one of "...2D grids of the collisional cooling by each of 16 ions".
However, the point of his note was that he ported this code to his i-phone - and it works! Consider, too that porting consists mainly of copying some text and data files - there would be little to no code changes.