without competition, there would be no advancement of the human species
You have failed to account for the effects of curiosity, appreciation of beauty, and the intrinsic values of comfort and convenience. Not to mention a few other "minor" issues that drive human behavior.
There is a lot more to living than beating the next guy, town, corporation or nation.
We don't start things, but if you do we'll finish it and you won't like that.
We don't (usually admit that we) start things, but if you do (or if we want to make it seem like you do) we'll (drag it out until we are absolutely forced to) finish it and you won't like that (but our military industrial complex and its bought-off politicians sure will.)
Remind me why every city on Earth has to be run differently?
Climate. Resources. Terrain. Industrial base. Regional morality, ethics and superstition. Variance in worker performance. Pollution levels. Consequences of urban planning (or lack thereof.) And so on.
Politics should be the same. These are all solved problems
Under what possible interpretation of the law can this be considered the actions of lawful government?
Oh, I'm sure they can find something. You can't do anything about it -- you can't sue -- because you don't have standing. You'd have to show they were listening to *you*, just to start with, and then you'd have to have a few million to push it through to the supreme court.
And *then* of course you'd be facing the same idiots that think "shall not infringe" means "infringe", "intrastate" means "interstate", article 3 means article 5, and that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" means "as long as we think it's reasonable, we can search and seize to our heart's content", and " no ex post facto Law shall be passed" means "retroactive punishment is no problem."
The only privacy you have at this point is in your own head. Assuming you haven't spoken, written down, or otherwise "shared" your thoughts.
The system is broken. Badly. And very few care -- we're stuck on this downhill-all-the-way roller coaster ride.
We can see now that was a really, really Good Idea(TM).
We can also see that because it has no teeth -- there is no penalty for violating the constitution -- it wasn't able to do its job, and that is why, today, we have ex post facto laws, direct violations of most of the bill of rights, the inversion of the commerce clause, and judicial usurpation of article 5 powers. Not to mention a collapse of representation into corporate servitude, resulting in a de-facto oligarchy.
I'm not sure what qualifies as "Art", I've never seen a Tattoo that would be worthy of a gallery. Some of them could be used as a bumper stick, and some even good enough for a comic book. Either way, it's never a plausible reason to have it drawn on your skin of the rest of your life.
As long as the government's privacy policies and legislation remain as badly broken as they are, what happens in the commercial sector isn't of much significance.
One decidedly low-tech thing that can be done without any other changes is to have your users start saving documents with sortable times in the filenames, updated as to the time they are doing the save:
client1-document-20150217114003.doc
YYYYmmDDhhMMss
If that's done with a save-as, they get the previous version safety they seem to like just by using "save as" intelligently, and they get latest version sorted using just alpha sort, so it cuts down on the confusion factor.
It isn't much effort, but it's surprisingly effective.
You do not need prison tats for that. A background check will do sufficiently.
I wasn't talking about jobs. There, I agree, those doors become more difficult to get through no matter what once you have a record, as a felon or even just an arrest record.
I was referring to the potential classing in social situations visible prison tats provide; they can earn the bearer anything from a spitburger to refusal of housing without any formal checking at all. As can any other form of voluntary or involuntary revelation of wrongdoing, or accusation of wrongdoing. It's the same silent prejudice that the US social structure has always indulged itself with. Any non-white can relate.
Good to hear you're building your own business. It worked for me, hopefully it will for you as well.
I don't see it. The compiler always knows what it is doing. You pass a variable length array, at some point, you're going to have to say how long it is. The compiler has to index into it, but if the language says that all arrays are indexed by 1...n then there's no difference in how such an array is treated as compared to one that is defined statically in the source code, or in how the compiler makes dynamic access to an array work.
The most efficient (codewise) way to write such a system is to allocate every array as +1 and ignore [0] (or use it for something else, like storing the length.) That way there's no need to do any funny math at all. 1 x element_length is the effective zeroth element in the array. Works fine.
Oh, to live in the fantasy world in which you, barely coherently, described, where nothing ever goes wrong and/or you never have to deal with foreign code (person, editor, source, etc...).
I only work with good programmers. Sorry to hear you can't manage the same. Given your admitted limitations -- such as being unable to cope with a simple indentation mechanism -- perhaps that's just a matter of preferring to work with your peers.
because if you were serious, it's obviously *not* programming. Perhaps as a Script Kiddy, but not actual programming.
LOL. Reality says otherwise than your feeble guesswork.;)
Yes, but it's quite possible that the code won't parse correctly w/o the braces (or with extra braces), where improperly indented Python probably will, and just execute incorrectly.
Your argument that your poor code is likely to operate in a poor manner is not a valid objection to Python's indentation. It merely condemns your abilities as a coder (and perhaps your ability to choose an appropriate editor as well, but I repeat myself.)
Write good code, no problem. Your argument simply boils down to you claiming you're a lousy programmer. As do many similar arguments, such as thinking types are required because you "might" call a function wrong, or use a variable in some stupid way. If you call the function wrong, or misuse a variable, you are failing as a programmer. Do it right. Problem solved.
Back in the day, when we were writing in assembler more often than not, you'd have been laughed out of the building if you complained that the assembler should "know" what it was looking at beyond the most simple atomic architecture-related constructs. The fact is, as a decent programmer, you should know what you're looking at, and what you are doing at all times. If you don't -- the problem is 100%, entirely, beginning-to-end -- yours. You need improvement. You should seek it. Your failings will lead to bugs. Not the language's failings -- yours.
No. It limits expressiveness so that we can all read each other's code without having to refactor the whole bloody mess. It does what c coding standards within an organization do, only it does it for everyone who writes in the language. Which is bloody awesome.
And it does so in an extremely efficient way, coding--character-wise.
Would you like reading c code where the style used was totally random? One line, the braces are all there, next block looks like K&R, next block looks wide open, next block some other way... of course not. That's bloody chaos. Well, just as it is an advantage to keep to one consistent style for you, for an organization -- so it is if *everyone* keeps to the same style. Less chaos; more and better comprehension.
Every objection to Python's whitespace mechanism I have ever heard boils down to one or both of two things: Get a better editor, and/or learn to program instead of pretending the language should have been designed to help you cope with your inability to adapt.
The very fact that someone -- anyone, never mind the legions of someones in this case -- can code very well with Python, and you can't, tells you only one thing: Your skills are inferior to theirs. Any protestations otherwise are simply one form or another of making excuses for limitations you refuse to address.
Also: One of the primary skills of any good programmer is to take the advantages of any language they are working in and leverage them to make things easier, better, faster, more efficient. If you can't do that, then you are (considerably) more limited than someone who can. In the case of consistent indentation, the advantages are quite obvious; your job as a programmer is to recognize them, grab them by the neck, and make them your love slaves. Not whine about it.
For instance, much as I despise perl's use of weird characters to mean things, I bloody well use them to my advantage anyway. Because when I write in perl, the language is my bitch. Not the other way around.
For Python, you interrupt your train of thought for ten minutes while you debug the whitespace.
Never happens to me, and I write a lot of Python (though, on-topic, Nim looks fascinating.)
Of course, the reason it never happens to me is that my editor of choice displays tabs as (dimly, colored) visible entitles, thusly:
<-->
That's for a four-column tab, which is what I always use.
I would *like* it if my editor showed an indent level as a vertical bar, with a number prepended to the left indicating the indent level -- 1, 2... n -- I think that'd be very nice for when you page over lots of code. (Maybe I should hack on my editor... hmmm)
I'm a happy user of c, and perfectly comfortable with curly braces (I even wrote a magazine article on c bracing style way back when) but frankly, Python's way is better. Less to type, less to look at, faster to code, perfectly clear as to what's going on at all times. Presuming you use an editor that makes indentation visible. And why would you not?
The overhead of offsetting by one so that the computer can find what you're actually looking for is something you pay for on every single array access.
While I am no fan of "index by 1", I think it's only fair to point out that the above is not true with a compiled language.
This could help out a lot of misguided kids who went and uglified themselves, can't figure out why they keep getting rejected for jobs, can't wear a nice dress without looking like an octopus puked on them, or otherwise have defecated all over their skin.
Some ex-prisoners, too. Nothing like prison tats to mark you as an outcast, with all the social and financial downsides that involves (besides the complete drop to permanently lowest-class unemployable for most, I mean.)
Most tats -- not all, a very few are actually amazing bits of art -- aren't worth getting, and even fewer are worth keeping, confirmation bias and pure stubbornness notwithstanding.
This stuff works, though, and it'll change the entire nature of the industry. The idea that these aren't permanent will change the motivation and the sense of commitment, which could cut down on some of the outright stupidity. And for those who go forward, they'd no longer be outright screwing themselves when the styles change, or they run into one of the (many) bosses who view them as a mark of abject stupidity. Even that outlook might change, based on the knowledge that they aren't permanent -- I could see some saying, "You can work the returns counter as soon as you get 'John luvz Mary' off your forehead."
Agreed. What makes it a write-only language is its use of non-English constructs to get things done.
Extreme minimalism always results in loss of readability, the more so as the code ages, and even more so if you don't keep using the language. Minimalism that incorporates non-math symbols for unique functionality just ups the ante again.
This isn't just an observation of mine. It's a pretty common opinion.
Fucking slashcode. Certainly Dice will never change anything for the better.
You think they can? My understanding is the slashcode was built using write-once tech: Perl. In their defense, in 1997, Python 2 wasn't out yet, and Python 1 was probably a worse choice than Perl, if you can even imagine that.
Society creates corporations and governments, not the other way around.
Certainly that's the way it starts, but I'm afraid that isn't the only way it works; once corporations and government become the controlling force, as they have here in the USA, society bends according to the coercive forces levied upon it -- and today, those come from government, at the behest of the corporations, with exception of social issues that aren't of direct concern to them. Those are only subject to the whims of the representatives. Which hasn't been serving us very well, either. In sooth, the cauda waggeth the canine.
Slashdot Mirror
You have failed to account for the effects of curiosity, appreciation of beauty, and the intrinsic values of comfort and convenience. Not to mention a few other "minor" issues that drive human behavior.
There is a lot more to living than beating the next guy, town, corporation or nation.
Under-rated.
We don't (usually admit that we) start things, but if you do (or if we want to make it seem like you do) we'll (drag it out until we are absolutely forced to) finish it and you won't like that (but our military industrial complex and its bought-off politicians sure will.)
FTFY.
Climate. Resources. Terrain. Industrial base. Regional morality, ethics and superstition. Variance in worker performance. Pollution levels. Consequences of urban planning (or lack thereof.) And so on.
(cough)
Oh, I'm sure they can find something. You can't do anything about it -- you can't sue -- because you don't have standing. You'd have to show they were listening to *you*, just to start with, and then you'd have to have a few million to push it through to the supreme court.
And *then* of course you'd be facing the same idiots that think "shall not infringe" means "infringe", "intrastate" means "interstate", article 3 means article 5, and that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" means "as long as we think it's reasonable, we can search and seize to our heart's content", and " no ex post facto Law shall be passed" means "retroactive punishment is no problem."
The only privacy you have at this point is in your own head. Assuming you haven't spoken, written down, or otherwise "shared" your thoughts.
The system is broken. Badly. And very few care -- we're stuck on this downhill-all-the-way roller coaster ride.
We can also see that because it has no teeth -- there is no penalty for violating the constitution -- it wasn't able to do its job, and that is why, today, we have ex post facto laws, direct violations of most of the bill of rights, the inversion of the commerce clause, and judicial usurpation of article 5 powers. Not to mention a collapse of representation into corporate servitude, resulting in a de-facto oligarchy.
So, we... Hey! Was that a Nipple Slip????
The word is "Feds"
Here's one I think is art, even though I don't think highly of religion: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
I really like this, too: https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
Neither one strikes me as cartoony, and both strike me as worthy to wear.
Most tats leave me cold, though.
As long as the government's privacy policies and legislation remain as badly broken as they are, what happens in the commercial sector isn't of much significance.
One decidedly low-tech thing that can be done without any other changes is to have your users start saving documents with sortable times in the filenames, updated as to the time they are doing the save:
client1-document-20150217114003.doc
YYYYmmDDhhMMss
If that's done with a save-as, they get the previous version safety they seem to like just by using "save as" intelligently, and they get latest version sorted using just alpha sort, so it cuts down on the confusion factor.
It isn't much effort, but it's surprisingly effective.
I wasn't talking about jobs. There, I agree, those doors become more difficult to get through no matter what once you have a record, as a felon or even just an arrest record.
I was referring to the potential classing in social situations visible prison tats provide; they can earn the bearer anything from a spitburger to refusal of housing without any formal checking at all. As can any other form of voluntary or involuntary revelation of wrongdoing, or accusation of wrongdoing. It's the same silent prejudice that the US social structure has always indulged itself with. Any non-white can relate.
Good to hear you're building your own business. It worked for me, hopefully it will for you as well.
I don't see it. The compiler always knows what it is doing. You pass a variable length array, at some point, you're going to have to say how long it is. The compiler has to index into it, but if the language says that all arrays are indexed by 1...n then there's no difference in how such an array is treated as compared to one that is defined statically in the source code, or in how the compiler makes dynamic access to an array work.
The most efficient (codewise) way to write such a system is to allocate every array as +1 and ignore [0] (or use it for something else, like storing the length.) That way there's no need to do any funny math at all. 1 x element_length is the effective zeroth element in the array. Works fine.
Am I wrong?
I only work with good programmers. Sorry to hear you can't manage the same. Given your admitted limitations -- such as being unable to cope with a simple indentation mechanism -- perhaps that's just a matter of preferring to work with your peers.
LOL. Reality says otherwise than your feeble guesswork. ;)
Furthermore, if your editor isn't brain dead, spaces and tabs should be clearly visible.
They are in mine, and the editor I use is old.
The second form is far more readable, does the same thing, and requires one less language construct and so is easier on the programmer.
Anonymous functions are syntactic sugar. They have no programming value of their own.
Your argument that your poor code is likely to operate in a poor manner is not a valid objection to Python's indentation. It merely condemns your abilities as a coder (and perhaps your ability to choose an appropriate editor as well, but I repeat myself.)
Write good code, no problem. Your argument simply boils down to you claiming you're a lousy programmer. As do many similar arguments, such as thinking types are required because you "might" call a function wrong, or use a variable in some stupid way. If you call the function wrong, or misuse a variable, you are failing as a programmer. Do it right. Problem solved.
Back in the day, when we were writing in assembler more often than not, you'd have been laughed out of the building if you complained that the assembler should "know" what it was looking at beyond the most simple atomic architecture-related constructs. The fact is, as a decent programmer, you should know what you're looking at, and what you are doing at all times. If you don't -- the problem is 100%, entirely, beginning-to-end -- yours. You need improvement. You should seek it. Your failings will lead to bugs. Not the language's failings -- yours.
No. It limits expressiveness so that we can all read each other's code without having to refactor the whole bloody mess. It does what c coding standards within an organization do, only it does it for everyone who writes in the language. Which is bloody awesome.
And it does so in an extremely efficient way, coding--character-wise.
Would you like reading c code where the style used was totally random? One line, the braces are all there, next block looks like K&R, next block looks wide open, next block some other way... of course not. That's bloody chaos. Well, just as it is an advantage to keep to one consistent style for you, for an organization -- so it is if *everyone* keeps to the same style. Less chaos; more and better comprehension.
Every objection to Python's whitespace mechanism I have ever heard boils down to one or both of two things: Get a better editor, and/or learn to program instead of pretending the language should have been designed to help you cope with your inability to adapt.
The very fact that someone -- anyone, never mind the legions of someones in this case -- can code very well with Python, and you can't, tells you only one thing: Your skills are inferior to theirs. Any protestations otherwise are simply one form or another of making excuses for limitations you refuse to address.
Also: One of the primary skills of any good programmer is to take the advantages of any language they are working in and leverage them to make things easier, better, faster, more efficient. If you can't do that, then you are (considerably) more limited than someone who can. In the case of consistent indentation, the advantages are quite obvious; your job as a programmer is to recognize them, grab them by the neck, and make them your love slaves. Not whine about it.
For instance, much as I despise perl's use of weird characters to mean things, I bloody well use them to my advantage anyway. Because when I write in perl, the language is my bitch. Not the other way around.
No. That's not an "accident"; that's a coding error. It doesn't mean the language is lacking; it means your coding skills are lacking.
Do it right, and you won't have problems. If you think doing it wrong is the fault of the language, then you are very sadly mistaken.
Never happens to me, and I write a lot of Python (though, on-topic, Nim looks fascinating.)
Of course, the reason it never happens to me is that my editor of choice displays tabs as (dimly, colored) visible entitles, thusly:
<-->
That's for a four-column tab, which is what I always use.
I would *like* it if my editor showed an indent level as a vertical bar, with a number prepended to the left indicating the indent level -- 1, 2... n -- I think that'd be very nice for when you page over lots of code. (Maybe I should hack on my editor... hmmm)
I'm a happy user of c, and perfectly comfortable with curly braces (I even wrote a magazine article on c bracing style way back when) but frankly, Python's way is better. Less to type, less to look at, faster to code, perfectly clear as to what's going on at all times. Presuming you use an editor that makes indentation visible. And why would you not?
While I am no fan of "index by 1", I think it's only fair to point out that the above is not true with a compiled language.
This could help out a lot of misguided kids who went and uglified themselves, can't figure out why they keep getting rejected for jobs, can't wear a nice dress without looking like an octopus puked on them, or otherwise have defecated all over their skin.
Some ex-prisoners, too. Nothing like prison tats to mark you as an outcast, with all the social and financial downsides that involves (besides the complete drop to permanently lowest-class unemployable for most, I mean.)
Most tats -- not all, a very few are actually amazing bits of art -- aren't worth getting, and even fewer are worth keeping, confirmation bias and pure stubbornness notwithstanding.
This stuff works, though, and it'll change the entire nature of the industry. The idea that these aren't permanent will change the motivation and the sense of commitment, which could cut down on some of the outright stupidity. And for those who go forward, they'd no longer be outright screwing themselves when the styles change, or they run into one of the (many) bosses who view them as a mark of abject stupidity. Even that outlook might change, based on the knowledge that they aren't permanent -- I could see some saying, "You can work the returns counter as soon as you get 'John luvz Mary' off your forehead."
Agreed. What makes it a write-only language is its use of non-English constructs to get things done.
Extreme minimalism always results in loss of readability, the more so as the code ages, and even more so if you don't keep using the language. Minimalism that incorporates non-math symbols for unique functionality just ups the ante again.
This isn't just an observation of mine. It's a pretty common opinion.
My favorite takeaway was "they let you do that? State to state?"
Only if you drive. and probably not for much longer.
You think they can? My understanding is the slashcode was built using write-once tech: Perl. In their defense, in 1997, Python 2 wasn't out yet, and Python 1 was probably a worse choice than Perl, if you can even imagine that.
Certainly that's the way it starts, but I'm afraid that isn't the only way it works; once corporations and government become the controlling force, as they have here in the USA, society bends according to the coercive forces levied upon it -- and today, those come from government, at the behest of the corporations, with exception of social issues that aren't of direct concern to them. Those are only subject to the whims of the representatives. Which hasn't been serving us very well, either. In sooth, the cauda waggeth the canine.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Interesting. Thank you.