History has shown you to be incorrect regarding the actual degree of robustness however.
Failure of a single DNS has slowed the net (I lived it -- 2000? '99?). Failure of two has slowed the net to a *crawl*.
Anyway, I just don't see the need for it. Design a robust routing system INTO IP addressing, or just fucking forget it. You shouldn't need a crappy hack on top of the addressing system just to talk to each other -- and you don't.
If there is a legitimate reason that this can't work, by all means, let me know. I would love to read up on it. But as far as network topology goes, I don't see a need for DNS; my original post explains well enough I think.
Right. Care to share your wonderful routing algorithm that will allow you to insert a random IP into the middle of a network?
Called a routing table. Might take a few hours for the update to propagate.
DNS is a distributed system, which is what makes it robust. If you are experiencing a slowdown, don't use that name server. You *should* be using your ISPs DNS server, which caches requests and reduces the latency for everyone on your network. DNS is designed to stop using slow root servers, switching to another root server should the need arise. There are 13 root servers, each time a request is sent to one, the response time is recorded. If the response time gets too high, the name server will go to another
*sigh* There have been a few times in the past few years where DNS servers failed, or the fibre lines failed, or whatever, for a day or so -- the ENTIRE NET slowed to a crawl. Hardly fucking anybody has a one of the 13 root DNS servers as their primary or even secondary DNS server -- but if you request a page that isn't in your own DNS servers cache, it will look to one of the 13 roots; therein lies your path to failure.
So, I speak from experience at least in that regard. For what it's worth, I tend to use Verizon's DNS, though at the time I believe I was using the comcast defaults. I have experienced the network going to shit for the exact reasons I describe. Because of the highly centralized DNS.
That is the point though. DNS *CENTRALIZES* the internet. The original intent *was* to give static IP's to objects which need a persistant 'location'.
Create an algorithm to map IP address to a String. Much like dialing a 'string' on a telephone (1-800-die-slow).
Sell IP addresses much like domain names are sold now. Does this require a major shift in how we operate? Well...sortof. It is more a state of mind than of hardware; most routers allow you to define your IP address manually, but most ISPs aren't set up to handle anything that isn't a subset of their own IP address range.
Even one of the US DNS servers going down slows the 'net. Two down slows it to a crawl, and you will get a few time-outs. Three down and there is a good chance you won't be seeing shit on the web that day.
Even if you KNOW the ip address of the site itself, chances are that they have embeded images which are mapped via DNS names.
DNS breaks the internet. *PERIOD*. There will be no successful argument against this. DNS the internet, which is the exact reverse of what the internet is suppposed to represent -- a communications device which is robust due to its inherent decentralization.
It, in fact, is the reason 'the internet' (www) has even the most remote chance of 'breaking'. We have this happy little network, all running fine using P2P IP addressing schemes, router tables all created automagically behind the screens (for most users).... and then we go ahead and add a single point of failure (or, if you are feeling kind, 12 or so points in the US, more abroad - but if any 3 of those go down, the 'net is 'dead' to 99% of the internet (www)-using public -- 2 sites and the www is SLOOOOWWWWW).
So instead of A connecting to B directly, A has to ask C who the hell B is, so that A can talk to B.
All of which could be fixed by having a few smart people sit down in a room and create an algorithm to turn a raw IP address into a 'word' (or vice-versa). Think 1-800-die-slow. Same idea as using a phone mnemonic.
Then IP addresses become the only thing which are issued to individuals -- something which is already handled rather well, I must say. Aside from handing them out like freak'n pez back in the day.
Is it perfect? No. But holy crap, it sure is better than breaking the web to allow the ability to make domain names 'anything you want'. Do you see any requests for text-based phone numbers (heh -- phone 'addresses':~) ).
Bah I say! Bah!
Love to hear why this idea is crap. Good, thought out reasons only please; I can see all the superficial ones.
As to the rest: Yeah, it's cool stuff, eh?:~) I've vaugly wondered if one could use E=(m/lambda)*c^2 to show that time must be discrete. I really don't know. Six not-so-easy Pieces goes pretty deep, I should re-read it with that in mind. One day. Maybe.;~)
So, yes... there are ways to claim that reality is analog (as, I think it is, ultimatly); it is just very deep physics for the average person. Chemical reactions, etching of membranes, bonds breaking in a musical substrate -- all are discrete events, and thus 'digital':~)
Also length must be discrete. All three 'properties' -- mass/energy, length (size) and time.
Getting kinda deep for a discussion on music tho;~)
eh? The atomic radius of a silicon atom is about an angstrom (110 picometers, 110*E12 meters) across. I rather doubt that the cutting mechanism, whatever it may be, can cut the substrate crystal a billion-trillion times finer than that.
What is the smallest feature that can be picked up by the needle running over the surface of the phonograph?
What is the minimum energy required to activate the crystal who's resonance is providing the grove-to-sound conversion? (basically the same question, from a different angle)
Also, what is the smallest feature which can be cut *into* the phonograph, by the recording device?
And finally, what is the smallest physical structure which can be supported by the recording media? Which is to say, how small of a bump can you create in the material, assuming you have the ability to make infinitely small bumps with your recording mechanism.
When you crunch all the numbers, it turns out that those crazy people who 'love the warm sound of the 'ol 45s' are really saying 'I LIKE NOISE IN MY MUSIC!' (noise being the electronics kind, not the music itself;~)
There was a 'study' (I think the creator was sharpening a personal axe) where a guy sat a bunch of those kind of peeps down and said 'which is better?' and played a.) a CD and b.) The CD with extra noise added to simulate a record. Could have been a smart ass attempt at creating an urban legend too; been forever, can't site a source.
b. won;~)
Really, I was responding to the tounge-in-cheek post (great GP) with an equally toung-in-cheek statement:~). I know I can win, because physics itself is digital until you start getting into quantum mechanics:~) (activation energies, energy bands etc). Wave-form particles may jump to mind, but a.) that is quantum and b.) it is still digital, as the energy level is driven by the wavelength, and the wavelength is driven by the electron energy that was given up in order to produce said wave-like particle of light, and all electron energy levels are in multiples of the plank energy:~D
Yes, I am a smartass sometimes. It's a gift, and I would be remiss to let it whither:~)
Only time I've ever had a virus scan show positive was at uni, when my room-mate ran a virus and it infected non-executable files on my network folder.
I only use online scans -- such as Trend Micro -- and those almost never.
Not only is it possible, it isn't very hard. Just make sure you are behind a firewall (a NAT is a helpful bonus), and you dodge most of those happy worms etc. Then CATCH A F(*^&ING BRAIN and don't run stupid shit off the net unless you have a good reason to trust it.
Google has very sophisticated search algorithms; I would wager that they will exclude a large number of 'insignificant' phrases.
Sort of like the opposite of the Amazon deal 'Statistically Improbable Phrases' -- Throw away all the 'phrases' which are so common as to be worthless for searching or indexing by. As most writing is filler material.
Problem with 'only scanning this 20%' is that you have to scan the whole thing in order to know which 80% to never show. And you have to hold all 100% in your database so as to have a nice fat list of 'Probable Phrases' which should be ignored.
"sexually immoral" means the following in the Greek:,n {por'-nos} 1) a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire 2) a male prostitute 3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
It appears to be true that the definition of fornication is a bit circular in this case, referring back to the law, but it generally refers to a relationship between unmarried people. What makes this even more clear is the distinction between adulterers and fornicators.
You have defined your own personal version of immoral. I have my definition, and it is significantly different than your own.
I simply cannot see how you read that law to imply that unmarried sex is immoral. Do the greek outlaw sex outside of marriage? Somehow I doubt it.
So, not only does the definition of fornication not 'generally refer to a relationship between unmarried people' it doesn't implicate unmarried persons any more (or less) than any other person. -- "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)
Your arguemnt made sense, but I had to be certain -- conceptually I wasn't ready to give up easily the assumption that it was closer to 50/50 at the top of the stroke (which implies that most energy would be imparted by the 'n' over the whole stroke). And the top of the stroke belongs to the high-temperature / lots of crazy combustion products stage.
So, what I did is below -- an analysis of what would happen if you burned air and gasoline at 100 atm in a rocket chamber (rather close, though really it is volume that should be held constant): Only read it if you are bored:~) (might want to paste the table into a spreadsheet -- #(*^$*&^*@& Junk Char filter)
Total starting moles gas = (835/2 + 224/2)*0.2 mol air + 1mol gasoline
= 107 mol
Summarized here, the chamber products are 65% N2; 13% H2O; 10% CO; 6% CO2; 5% H2// implies an incomplete burn, but not interested in fiddling = 98% of total, ignoring rest.
we started with ~84 molecules of N2. 84 = 65% * total = 84/(.65) = 129 mol
Computing case 3 Shifting equilibrium performance evaluation Propellant composition Code Name mol Mass (g) Composition 15 AIR (DRY AT SEA LEVEL) 0.2000 3095.8466 835N 224O 5AR 391 GASOLINE (LIQUID) 1.0000 298.5899 46H 21C Density 8.087 g/cm^3 5 different elements N O AR H C Total mass 3394.436591 g Enthalpy -292.42 kJ/kg 149 possible gazeous species 3 possible condensed species
CHAMBER THROAT EXIT Pressure (atm) 100.000 55.106 1.000 Temperature (K) 1934.929 1705.684 786.303 H (kJ/kg) -292.422 -633.438 -2084.169 U (kJ/kg) -901.443 -1170.298 -2325.507 G (kJ/kg) -16680.271 -15079.706 -8743.749 S (kJ/(kg)(K) 8.469 8.469 8.469 M (g/mol) 26.416 26.416 27.089 (dLnV/dLnP)t -1.00003 -1.00003 -1.01983 (dLnV/dLnT)p 1.00031 1.00016 1.37179 Cp (kJ/(kg)(K)) 1.49693 1.47900 3.61267 Cv (kJ/(kg)(K)) 1.18199 1.16416 3.04631 Cp/Cv 1.26645 1.27045 1.18591 Gamma 1.26641 1.27041 1.16286 Vson (m/s) 878.21815 825.85411 529.75661 Ae/At 1.00000 11.08246 A/dotm (m/s/atm) 11.79677 127.48891 C* (m/s) 1179.67670 1179.67670 Cf 0.70007 1.60469 Ivac (m/s) 1475.92098 2020.50062 Isp (m/s) 825.85411 1893.01171 Isp/g (s) 84.21368 193.03347 Molar fractions DELETED. BECUASE SLASHDOT SUCKS ASS.
I just stopped using slashdot, as of right fucking now. Goddamned lameness filter. FUCK YOU SLASHDOT! FUCK YOU!
LISP syntax is 'different' in such a way as to shove the difference 'in your face'. Not on purpose, just because it is really hard to hide raw power, esp. when there is no desire to do so.
C# is trying to hide that from the coder, in many ways, and to use the unmitigated power of LISP (functional programming)... while not making the coder cry.
Coding in pure LISP (well) requires a completely different mindset than writing code in any other language -- I suppose I should differentiate. I *probably* mean 'functional' when I say LISP, but LISP is the only functional language I have learned (poorly).
I got as far as the dropped jaw effect that probably hits pretty much everyone when they suddenly understand just how MUCH more powerful LISP is than, say, everyday C. I then went ' I must ponder how I can use this...' and never got back to it;~)
As to 'available?' Simple. Libraries. And a KICK ASS SQL tool. Damn I want to try that stuff out now.... But no point until the release the 'finished product' for me.
I don't know. I have NEVER heard a professional friend suggest that something commercial be written in VB. Ever.
Sure, there are some benifits to VB... but not very many.
MS is dumping VB for exactly the same reason that nobody I know would recommend it as a serious commercial option: VB is not a serious computer language. It has so much CRAP in its history that it has to support that there is no way to expand the language without completely changing it.
I also stopped using VB in the era where you would have to go download the VB dll packs for it to work though... so a while back.
Honestly, I would say that any company that cannot re-create an in-house VB application in less than 6 months in 'some other language' using a professional level IDE should have done better research before starting production of said application in the first place.
Core functionality should have been written in C/C++ and placed in DLLS, then called from VB. Etc. I always beleived that was was the POINT of visual basic -- to design visual applications. 'Real code' goes elsewhere; all the events get handeled in the VB code.
While it does sound like I am defending MS, I have to say that I have also avoided.NET for the same basic reason: it is MS. Looks like that might have to change though, because I've been dreaming of something like LINQ for the past three or so years.
Because: All languages eventually either die out, or evolve into LISP.:~)
And maybe you can't (decide which is the best type). Even with 'int', maybe you could have made it a short? Or, (oops!) a long?
But in this case, the reason you need an implicit type is because the compiler is going to create a class for you, via reflection; litterally, the data type you need DOES NOT EXIST until after you end that line of code using the semicolon. That is, when you call these (absolutely KICK ASS) LINQ functions, it will create a datatype on the fly.
I paused there too, but I think it was the writer sucking at science, not the companies statement. Not sure. The '100% reduction in polutants -- that one is harder to ignore.
Slashdot Mirror
Your steps are correct.
History has shown you to be incorrect regarding the actual degree of robustness however.
Failure of a single DNS has slowed the net (I lived it -- 2000? '99?). Failure of two has slowed the net to a *crawl*.
Anyway, I just don't see the need for it. Design a robust routing system INTO IP addressing, or just fucking forget it. You shouldn't need a crappy hack on top of the addressing system just to talk to each other -- and you don't.
If there is a legitimate reason that this can't work, by all means, let me know. I would love to read up on it. But as far as network topology goes, I don't see a need for DNS; my original post explains well enough I think.
Right. Care to share your wonderful routing algorithm that will allow you to insert a random IP into the middle of a network?
Called a routing table. Might take a few hours for the update to propagate.
DNS is a distributed system, which is what makes it robust. If you are experiencing a slowdown, don't use that name server. You *should* be using your ISPs DNS server, which caches requests and reduces the latency for everyone on your network. DNS is designed to stop using slow root servers, switching to another root server should the need arise. There are 13 root servers, each time a request is sent to one, the response time is recorded. If the response time gets too high, the name server will go to another
*sigh* There have been a few times in the past few years where DNS servers failed, or the fibre lines failed, or whatever, for a day or so -- the ENTIRE NET slowed to a crawl. Hardly fucking anybody has a one of the 13 root DNS servers as their primary or even secondary DNS server -- but if you request a page that isn't in your own DNS servers cache, it will look to one of the 13 roots; therein lies your path to failure.
So, I speak from experience at least in that regard. For what it's worth, I tend to use Verizon's DNS, though at the time I believe I was using the comcast defaults. I have experienced the network going to shit for the exact reasons I describe. Because of the highly centralized DNS.
Hey, let them worship people with brains.
They could be idolizing football stars instead ya' know.
That is the point though. DNS *CENTRALIZES* the internet. The original intent *was* to give static IP's to objects which need a persistant 'location'.
.sortof. It is more a state of mind than of hardware; most routers allow you to define your IP address manually, but most ISPs aren't set up to handle anything that isn't a subset of their own IP address range.
Create an algorithm to map IP address to a String. Much like dialing a 'string' on a telephone (1-800-die-slow).
Sell IP addresses much like domain names are sold now. Does this require a major shift in how we operate? Well..
Even one of the US DNS servers going down slows the 'net. Two down slows it to a crawl, and you will get a few time-outs. Three down and there is a good chance you won't be seeing shit on the web that day.
Even if you KNOW the ip address of the site itself, chances are that they have embeded images which are mapped via DNS names.
DNS breaks the internet. *PERIOD*. There will be no successful argument against this. DNS the internet, which is the exact reverse of what the internet is suppposed to represent -- a communications device which is robust due to its inherent decentralization.
DNS shouldn't even exist.
:~) ).
It, in fact, is the reason 'the internet' (www) has even the most remote chance of 'breaking'.
We have this happy little network, all running fine using P2P IP addressing schemes, router tables all created automagically behind the screens (for most users).... and then we go ahead and add a single point of failure (or, if you are feeling kind, 12 or so points in the US, more abroad - but if any 3 of those go down, the 'net is 'dead' to 99% of the internet (www)-using public -- 2 sites and the www is SLOOOOWWWWW).
So instead of A connecting to B directly, A has to ask C who the hell B is, so that A can talk to B.
All of which could be fixed by having a few smart people sit down in a room and create an algorithm to turn a raw IP address into a 'word' (or vice-versa). Think 1-800-die-slow. Same idea as using a phone mnemonic.
Then IP addresses become the only thing which are issued to individuals -- something which is already handled rather well, I must say. Aside from handing them out like freak'n pez back in the day.
Is it perfect? No. But holy crap, it sure is better than breaking the web to allow the ability to make domain names 'anything you want'. Do you see any requests for text-based phone numbers (heh -- phone 'addresses'
Bah I say! Bah!
Love to hear why this idea is crap. Good, thought out reasons only please; I can see all the superficial ones.
But they utilize individual molecules (well, discrete multiples of such) to conduct such spikes from place to place. Digital :~)
*kicks self*
:~(
:~)
wondered why such a tiny number seemed familiar
6 years away from studying will do that to a mind, I guess
planck -- was a typo, I swear!
:~) I've vaugly wondered if one could use E=(m/lambda)*c^2 to show that time must be discrete. I really don't know. Six not-so-easy Pieces goes pretty deep, I should re-read it with that in mind. One day. Maybe. ;~)
:~)
;~)
As to the rest: Yeah, it's cool stuff, eh?
So, yes... there are ways to claim that reality is analog (as, I think it is, ultimatly); it is just very deep physics for the average person. Chemical reactions, etching of membranes, bonds breaking in a musical substrate -- all are discrete events, and thus 'digital'
Also length must be discrete. All three 'properties' -- mass/energy, length (size) and time.
Getting kinda deep for a discussion on music tho
About 10^-33m
eh? The atomic radius of a silicon atom is about an angstrom (110 picometers, 110*E12 meters) across. I rather doubt that the cutting mechanism, whatever it may be, can cut the substrate crystal a billion-trillion times finer than that.
What is the smallest feature that can be picked up by the needle running over the surface of the phonograph?
;~)
;~)
:~). I know I can win, because physics itself is digital until you start getting into quantum mechanics :~) (activation energies, energy bands etc). Wave-form particles may jump to mind, but a.) that is quantum and b.) it is still digital, as the energy level is driven by the wavelength, and the wavelength is driven by the electron energy that was given up in order to produce said wave-like particle of light, and all electron energy levels are in multiples of the plank energy :~D
:~)
What is the minimum energy required to activate the crystal who's resonance is providing the grove-to-sound conversion? (basically the same question, from a different angle)
Also, what is the smallest feature which can be cut *into* the phonograph, by the recording device?
And finally, what is the smallest physical structure which can be supported by the recording media? Which is to say, how small of a bump can you create in the material, assuming you have the ability to make infinitely small bumps with your recording mechanism.
When you crunch all the numbers, it turns out that those crazy people who 'love the warm sound of the 'ol 45s' are really saying 'I LIKE NOISE IN MY MUSIC!' (noise being the electronics kind, not the music itself
There was a 'study' (I think the creator was sharpening a personal axe) where a guy sat a bunch of those kind of peeps down and said 'which is better?' and played a.) a CD and b.) The CD with extra noise added to simulate a record. Could have been a smart ass attempt at creating an urban legend too; been forever, can't site a source.
b. won
Really, I was responding to the tounge-in-cheek post (great GP) with an equally toung-in-cheek statement
Yes, I am a smartass sometimes. It's a gift, and I would be remiss to let it whither
All audio is by definition digital. The question is, at what sampling rate?
Give me an analog recording mechanism and I'll tell you why it is really digital.
Only time I've ever had a virus scan show positive was at uni, when my room-mate ran a virus and it infected non-executable files on my network folder.
I only use online scans -- such as Trend Micro -- and those almost never.
Not only is it possible, it isn't very hard. Just make sure you are behind a firewall (a NAT is a helpful bonus), and you dodge most of those happy worms etc. Then CATCH A F(*^&ING BRAIN and don't run stupid shit off the net unless you have a good reason to trust it.
All it does is call 'Format c: \m'
All clean!
... Try Again....
.... Not Likely...
*shake*shake*shake*shake*
Google has very sophisticated search algorithms; I would wager that they will exclude a large number of 'insignificant' phrases.
Sort of like the opposite of the Amazon deal 'Statistically Improbable Phrases' -- Throw away all the 'phrases' which are so common as to be worthless for searching or indexing by. As most writing is filler material.
Problem with 'only scanning this 20%' is that you have to scan the whole thing in order to know which 80% to never show. And you have to hold all 100% in your database so as to have a nice fat list of 'Probable Phrases' which should be ignored.
Just a thought.
"sexually immoral" means the following in the Greek: ,n {por'-nos}
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire 2) a male prostitute 3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
It appears to be true that the definition of fornication is a bit circular in this case, referring back to the law, but it generally refers to a relationship between unmarried people. What makes this even more clear is the distinction between adulterers and fornicators.
You have defined your own personal version of immoral. I have my definition, and it is significantly different than your own.
I simply cannot see how you read that law to imply that unmarried sex is immoral. Do the greek outlaw sex outside of marriage? Somehow I doubt it.
So, not only does the definition of fornication not 'generally refer to a relationship between unmarried people' it doesn't implicate unmarried persons any more (or less) than any other person.
--
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)
But that's just me.
No it's not.
You are a troll.
Grow up.
holy crap. I should totally have known that.
I knew the value of R, and I don't think I've ever used the realy Rydberg's constant for anything.
Damn, that has been in my head for YEARS. whups.
I stand corrected.
:~) (might want to paste the table into a spreadsheet -- #(*^$*&^*@& Junk Char filter)
// implies an incomplete burn, but not interested in fiddling
Your arguemnt made sense, but I had to be certain -- conceptually I wasn't ready to give up easily the assumption that it was closer to 50/50 at the top of the stroke (which implies that most energy would be imparted by the 'n' over the whole stroke). And the top of the stroke belongs to the high-temperature / lots of crazy combustion products stage.
So, what I did is below -- an analysis of what would happen if you burned air and gasoline at 100 atm in a rocket chamber (rather close, though really it is volume that should be held constant): Only read it if you are bored
Total starting moles gas = (835/2 + 224/2)*0.2 mol air + 1mol gasoline
= 107 mol
Summarized here, the chamber products are
65% N2; 13% H2O; 10% CO; 6% CO2; 5% H2
= 98% of total, ignoring rest.
we started with ~84 molecules of N2.
84 = 65% * total = 84/(.65) = 129 mol
Computing case 3
Shifting equilibrium performance evaluation
Propellant composition
Code Name mol Mass (g) Composition
15 AIR (DRY AT SEA LEVEL) 0.2000 3095.8466 835N 224O 5AR
391 GASOLINE (LIQUID) 1.0000 298.5899 46H 21C
Density 8.087 g/cm^3
5 different elements
N O AR H C
Total mass 3394.436591 g
Enthalpy -292.42 kJ/kg
149 possible gazeous species
3 possible condensed species
CHAMBER THROAT EXIT
Pressure (atm) 100.000 55.106 1.000
Temperature (K) 1934.929 1705.684 786.303
H (kJ/kg) -292.422 -633.438 -2084.169
U (kJ/kg) -901.443 -1170.298 -2325.507
G (kJ/kg) -16680.271 -15079.706 -8743.749
S (kJ/(kg)(K) 8.469 8.469 8.469
M (g/mol) 26.416 26.416 27.089
(dLnV/dLnP)t -1.00003 -1.00003 -1.01983
(dLnV/dLnT)p 1.00031 1.00016 1.37179
Cp (kJ/(kg)(K)) 1.49693 1.47900 3.61267
Cv (kJ/(kg)(K)) 1.18199 1.16416 3.04631
Cp/Cv 1.26645 1.27045 1.18591
Gamma 1.26641 1.27041 1.16286
Vson (m/s) 878.21815 825.85411 529.75661
Ae/At 1.00000 11.08246
A/dotm (m/s/atm) 11.79677 127.48891
C* (m/s) 1179.67670 1179.67670
Cf 0.70007 1.60469
Ivac (m/s) 1475.92098 2020.50062
Isp (m/s) 825.85411 1893.01171
Isp/g (s) 84.21368 193.03347
Molar fractions
DELETED. BECUASE SLASHDOT SUCKS ASS.
I just stopped using slashdot, as of right fucking now. Goddamned lameness filter. FUCK YOU SLASHDOT! FUCK YOU!
LISP syntax is 'different' in such a way as to shove the difference 'in your face'. Not on purpose, just because it is really hard to hide raw power, esp. when there is no desire to do so.
;~)
C# is trying to hide that from the coder, in many ways, and to use the unmitigated power of LISP (functional programming)... while not making the coder cry.
Coding in pure LISP (well) requires a completely different mindset than writing code in any other language -- I suppose I should differentiate. I *probably* mean 'functional' when I say LISP, but LISP is the only functional language I have learned (poorly).
I got as far as the dropped jaw effect that probably hits pretty much everyone when they suddenly understand just how MUCH more powerful LISP is than, say, everyday C. I then went ' I must ponder how I can use this...' and never got back to it
As to 'available?' Simple. Libraries. And a KICK ASS SQL tool. Damn I want to try that stuff out now.... But no point until the release the 'finished product' for me.
I don't know. I have NEVER heard a professional friend suggest that something commercial be written in VB. Ever.
.NET for the same basic reason: it is MS. Looks like that might have to change though, because I've been dreaming of something like LINQ for the past three or so years.
Sure, there are some benifits to VB... but not very many.
MS is dumping VB for exactly the same reason that nobody I know would recommend it as a serious commercial option: VB is not a serious computer language. It has so much CRAP in its history that it has to support that there is no way to expand the language without completely changing it.
I also stopped using VB in the era where you would have to go download the VB dll packs for it to work though... so a while back.
Honestly, I would say that any company that cannot re-create an in-house VB application in less than 6 months in 'some other language' using a professional level IDE should have done better research before starting production of said application in the first place.
Core functionality should have been written in C/C++ and placed in DLLS, then called from VB. Etc. I always beleived that was was the POINT of visual basic -- to design visual applications. 'Real code' goes elsewhere; all the events get handeled in the VB code.
While it does sound like I am defending MS, I have to say that I have also avoided
Because: All languages eventually either die out, or evolve into LISP. :~)
And maybe you can't (decide which is the best type). Even with 'int', maybe you could have made it a short? Or, (oops!) a long?
But in this case, the reason you need an implicit type is because the compiler is going to create a class for you, via reflection; litterally, the data type you need DOES NOT EXIST until after you end that line of code using the semicolon. That is, when you call these (absolutely KICK ASS) LINQ functions, it will create a datatype on the fly.
I took the UFO part to be in (intentional) jest.
:~)
Otherwise, I agree 100% -- the rest was just a joke.
Oh, point though; 80 hours at 60 mph would consume ~ 800 to 1200 gallons for a typical big rig. 4 to 8 mpg
I paused there too, but I think it was the writer sucking at science, not the companies statement. Not sure. The '100% reduction in polutants -- that one is harder to ignore.