Standardized ingredient encondings with substitutions and attributions (for diabetics, kosher preperation, increasing/decreasing spiciness, etc.). In this fashion, you could, say, do a search for all Hallal recipes in your index, or have it present a vegetarian alternative to a dish (substituting quantity WXY of XYZ for 3 eggs, let's say).
The big problem with this is that cooking is often chemistry, and like does not always equal like; ingredients are often very context sensitive. E.g. In some dishes, you could substitute, say tempeh, for (scrambled) eggs, but try that with a cake recipe and you get... well, frankly, I don't want to know what you get. The eggs do completely different things. The same for various fats swapped out for applesauce in some baked goods. Just try doing that with a buttercream frosting (or less extreme, a pie crust).
Even worse is when you look at things like gluten-free recipes. The different types of flours that are used in place of wheat flour are often combined in different ratios, depending on what kind of properties you are looking for in the final product. You can't say "Oooh! here's a waffle recipe... 'Computer, do some substitutions and make it gluten free.'" and expect to get good waffles. And if you do get good waffles, try it with brownies, or bread and see how bad the results are.
But is it really technically correct? Is the ability to cook an egg for breakfast an important skill for programmers (or pretty much anyone who doesn't cook breakfast for a living)? There are thousands of choices of foods you could eat for breakfast that don't involve you cooking eggs. And if you want to have eggs for breakfast, in all likelihood there are many places within a five mile radius of you that can cook you an egg cheaply and efficiently.
As far as important life skills go, cooking an egg for breakfast is pretty damn low.
Well, it's quite possible to do things like restrict the problem to a decidable subset of the original problem and only let your solution work on those subsets. Or you can work on problems that are undecidable in general, but in most typical cases are not only decidable, but efficiently solvable. For example, most type systems work in one of these two ways.
You see, you should have learned before you graduated that just because a problem is hard (or impossible) in general, that doesn't mean the average case is hard at all.
Gahhhh! Would you people please quit calling the offense that SF ran in the 80s the West Coast Offense. The WCO is what Doy Coryell developed and ran in his San Diego days with Dan Fouts, slinging the ball about. What San Francisco ran was developed and implemented back in Cincinnati, before Walsh took it to San Francisco. So unless you're referring to the west coast of Ohio, your terminology is terribly wrong.
Yes, I know that the clods in the broadcast booth call it the WCO, but they can't even master the difference between an end-around, a reverse, and a double reverse. Do you really expect them to get the history of the sport correct?
So how do your AV Skills allow you to get shows from cable/satellite only networks on to your computer if you don't don't pay for one of those services? What something like iTV allows someone like me to do is dump the satellite package that they're paying for in order to watch one or two otherwise unavailable shows, and instead pay less to be able to buy them elsewhere.
The only thing they need is an option to subscribe to a season of the show, where the price includes the DVD package of that season's shows at a discount from the retail price that it will be released at, then they'd really be golden.
There's even more to it than that. For example, as long as I've been aware, when my mother (and now I) did grocery shopping, we first looked at the sales circulars to see who had what on sale. Then we went to multiple stores during the shopping trip, armed with a rough knowledge of what each item should cost, and which stores usually had the best prices on which items. We buy some of the items on the list at one store, and the rest at others. We were, and still are concerned with (among other things) the price of peppers. And we noticed when things like the price of beef or fruit fluctuated wildly, as gas has been doing the past few years (note that NY steaks are up about 2$/lb. here from two years ago -- the reason I'm eating them less often). This isn't really possible to do with a single item like gas.
Additionally, this so-called nerd is leaving many other things out of his supposedly thorough analysis. Look at some of the items on his list of things purchased most often at the convenience stores: cold medicine, pet food, toiletries, and sports drinks. Now I can't speak for everyone out there, but I buy cold medicine maybe once a year, when I'm feeling like ass, and I find that I've used up everything in the medicine cabinet. When that happens, I am in no mood to price shop, nor am I really in the mood to travel even a block out of my way in order to get a bit of relief. I'm going to the closest store and praying they have what I need in stock -- the hell with the price (well, I'll grab the store brand if it's cheaper, but that doesn't really take any more time). It's roughly the same thing with me for all the other items: "Whoops! I'm out of pet food and my dog is hungry -- let me run out to the store for a couple of cans to hold him over." "Dammit! I'm out on travel and I left my toothpaste at home. Time to hit the drug store." "Holy hell it's hot. I'm dying of thirst, and I have fifteen more miles of bike riding before I get home. Let me grab some Powerade at the 7-11." They're all purchases of convenience or emergency, which doesn't happen often with gas (unless you're driving across the Western US and push a gas stop too far).
Consider me underwhelemed by his pretty charts and graphs.
However, trying to put object-oriented concepts into a form that children can easily adapt to seems a lot more difficult than one might believe.
Yeah... this is why Alan Kay and a host of like-minded folk hove put together squeak, a Smalltalk based tool for teaching kids about programming. It is inherently OO (like Smalltalk) straight out of the box, and eases into these principles pretty nicely.
Of course there's the question of whether it's worthwhile teaching kids OO concepts before other concepts as I'm not sure which way the easier direction of flow is.
Hmm... you'd think someone with a doctorate in philosophy would be able to craft a better argument for his main premise. His article was essentially: We have no easy to run line oriented languages like BASIC. This is bad because with BASIC you can follow the code on paper as well. Of course we have plenty of other easy to run languages to choose from, but they are bad because they are not line oriented like BASIC so you can't follow the code on paper as well.
Of course, he failed to establish that line oriented <--> easy to follow, so hi argument is one big failure. Really, there's nothing of real substance to be found in the article.
If you get mad a at a reporter for publishing something you said to them that was not agreed to be off the record, then you are a dumbass. The quote was in context, and one would hove to assume that it was actually said by Maynor.
If you were man enough to say it, then be man enough to live with it being printed. Temper tantrums should be reserved for little children.
Really? So where's OCaml? And Smalltalk? And Scala? And Lisp + CLOS? And many, many more? The problem us that they only want to offer up some small subset of languages instead of opening it up to any language you wish to bring to the party, which is how most every programming contest should be run. THe ICFP contest allows all languages, you'd think mighty Google could figure out how to open up the door.
Dear lord, I hope not. The Objective-C is so much more clear and natural than the Java/C++ way. Especially when there are a lot of parameters being sent in the message. E.g.
[myThing putzAboutWithName:"Bill" age:28 pizza:"pepperoni and mushroom" beer:"porter" shoes:"wingtip" inseam:34] vs. myThing.putzAboutWithNameAgePizzaBeerShoesInseam(" Bill", 28, "pepperoni and mushroom", "porter", "wingtip", 34)
Yep. That sounds like O'Reilly. I went to the OSCON site, hoping to find some papers or at least slides from the presenters, and found nothing but hype and hoopla.
I don't know why people continue to support them anymore, it's clear that they abandoned popularizing interesting technology in favor of leeching cash years ago...
No, I'm pretty sure it's a CBV (though a shout out to Guided By Voices would be nice). If you look at the very end of the file there is the sequence "roswell area51 CBV i love bees 42 __42__ lullus surmount Äí currents".
Damn. Too bad I'm going to be traveling all weekend. This looks like a fun contest this year. I might even noodle around after the fact and just not enter it in the contest.
It seems to be using pure bloody-minded interpretation without any bytecode or JIT stage.
As I understand it, that's precisely the case, with the interpreter working on the AST of the program. I also believe that the plan is to go with some form of bytecode/JIT solution in Ruby 2.0.
This is true (well the OCaml bit at least. I didn't look at the Haskell examples), but in one important sense, this is a big plus for languages like OCaml. See, one of the big problems with things like the Shootout is that the mini-benchmarks they use don't really tell you anything about larger program performance. And it is often here that functional constructs are said to shine through. So now one can write the overall program in a more functional style (yielding cleaner, more maintainable, and supposedly speedier code), yet still optimize certain core sections by transforming them into a more imperative style when needed.
Of course, I've yet to see any real comparisons of larger programs like these, almost all of these language comparison sites seem to stick to under 100 line of code benchmarks.
Ben Wilson is an editor at MacFixIt Mike Breeden is from Accelerate Your Mac. He might run it, but I'm not sure. All I really know about Nigel Kersten is that he wrote SirAdmin.
Well, there's Rich Siegel, whose BareBones software hasn't released anything worthwhile or interesting since Apple released OS X, and there's Wil Shipley, whose Delicious Library is quite nice looking, yet ultimately silly.
Of course, there are people like Amit Singh and Aaron Hillegas who deserve to be on the list, and Brent Simmons makes some apps like NetNewsWire that a lot of people love (but I personally have no use for), and I guess Rosyna Keller too, but everyone here is right. There are far, far too many writers and pundits on that list for me to come close to respecting it as a worthwhile list.
Slashdot Mirror
Standardized ingredient encondings with substitutions and attributions (for diabetics, kosher preperation, increasing/decreasing spiciness, etc.). In this fashion, you could, say, do a search for all Hallal recipes in your index, or have it present a vegetarian alternative to a dish (substituting quantity WXY of XYZ for 3 eggs, let's say).
... well, frankly, I don't want to know what you get. The eggs do completely different things. The same for various fats swapped out for applesauce in some baked goods. Just try doing that with a buttercream frosting (or less extreme, a pie crust).
The big problem with this is that cooking is often chemistry, and like does not always equal like; ingredients are often very context sensitive. E.g. In some dishes, you could substitute, say tempeh, for (scrambled) eggs, but try that with a cake recipe and you get
Even worse is when you look at things like gluten-free recipes. The different types of flours that are used in place of wheat flour are often combined in different ratios, depending on what kind of properties you are looking for in the final product. You can't say "Oooh! here's a waffle recipe... 'Computer, do some substitutions and make it gluten free.'" and expect to get good waffles. And if you do get good waffles, try it with brownies, or bread and see how bad the results are.
But is it really technically correct? Is the ability to cook an egg for breakfast an important skill for programmers (or pretty much anyone who doesn't cook breakfast for a living)? There are thousands of choices of foods you could eat for breakfast that don't involve you cooking eggs. And if you want to have eggs for breakfast, in all likelihood there are many places within a five mile radius of you that can cook you an egg cheaply and efficiently.
As far as important life skills go, cooking an egg for breakfast is pretty damn low.
Quite often. But then again, I don't limit myself to languages that treat recursion as a second class form of control.
Here, take a look and see what it's all about.
Meh. I can write just as bad pseudo C...
#include "reason.h"
#include "answer.h"
#include "query.h"
#include "statement.h"
#include "failure.h"
void why(query* question, statement* declaration, char* lang1, char* lang2, ANSWER* ans) {
REASON *reason;
reason = forced_reason_lookup(person,question,lang1);
ans = modify_reason(reason,declaration,lang2));
}
int main() {
ANSWER *ans;
query *quest;
statement *st;
char * me = "I";
init = new_answer();
if (init == 0) failwith(BAD_ANSWER_INIT);
quest = new_query();
if (quest == 0) failwith(BAD_QUERY_INIT);
st = new_statement();
if (st == 0) failwith(BAD_STATEMENT_INIT);
pack_query2(quest,me,"learn");
pack_statement2(st,me,"program");
append_statement_modifier(st,FINE_ST);
wrap_statement_consternation(st,WTH_ST);
wrap_statement_consternation(st,SERIOUSLY_ST);
if (!is_valid_statement(st)) failwith(INVALID_STATEMENT);
why(quest, st, "LISP", "C", ans);
if (ans == 0) failwith (QUESTION_UNANSWERABLE);
print_answer(ans)
destroy_answer(ans);
destroy_query(quest);
destroy_statement(st);
return 0;
}
Well, it's quite possible to do things like restrict the problem to a decidable subset of the original problem and only let your solution work on those subsets. Or you can work on problems that are undecidable in general, but in most typical cases are not only decidable, but efficiently solvable. For example, most type systems work in one of these two ways.
You see, you should have learned before you graduated that just because a problem is hard (or impossible) in general, that doesn't mean the average case is hard at all.
Gahhhh! Would you people please quit calling the offense that SF ran in the 80s the West Coast Offense. The WCO is what Doy Coryell developed and ran in his San Diego days with Dan Fouts, slinging the ball about. What San Francisco ran was developed and implemented back in Cincinnati, before Walsh took it to San Francisco. So unless you're referring to the west coast of Ohio, your terminology is terribly wrong.
Yes, I know that the clods in the broadcast booth call it the WCO, but they can't even master the difference between an end-around, a reverse, and a double reverse. Do you really expect them to get the history of the sport correct?
Yes, but you're also freed from paying 40-60$/month for cable/satellite if you're just using them for those 4-8 shows.
So how do your AV Skills allow you to get shows from cable/satellite only networks on to your computer if you don't don't pay for one of those services?
What something like iTV allows someone like me to do is dump the satellite package that they're paying for in order to watch one or two otherwise unavailable shows, and instead pay less to be able to buy them elsewhere.
The only thing they need is an option to subscribe to a season of the show, where the price includes the DVD package of that season's shows at a discount from the retail price that it will be released at, then they'd really be golden.
There's even more to it than that. For example, as long as I've been aware, when my mother (and now I) did grocery shopping, we first looked at the sales circulars to see who had what on sale. Then we went to multiple stores during the shopping trip, armed with a rough knowledge of what each item should cost, and which stores usually had the best prices on which items. We buy some of the items on the list at one store, and the rest at others. We were, and still are concerned with (among other things) the price of peppers. And we noticed when things like the price of beef or fruit fluctuated wildly, as gas has been doing the past few years (note that NY steaks are up about 2$/lb. here from two years ago -- the reason I'm eating them less often). This isn't really possible to do with a single item like gas.
Additionally, this so-called nerd is leaving many other things out of his supposedly thorough analysis. Look at some of the items on his list of things purchased most often at the convenience stores: cold medicine, pet food, toiletries, and sports drinks. Now I can't speak for everyone out there, but I buy cold medicine maybe once a year, when I'm feeling like ass, and I find that I've used up everything in the medicine cabinet. When that happens, I am in no mood to price shop, nor am I really in the mood to travel even a block out of my way in order to get a bit of relief. I'm going to the closest store and praying they have what I need in stock -- the hell with the price (well, I'll grab the store brand if it's cheaper, but that doesn't really take any more time). It's roughly the same thing with me for all the other items: "Whoops! I'm out of pet food and my dog is hungry -- let me run out to the store for a couple of cans to hold him over." "Dammit! I'm out on travel and I left my toothpaste at home. Time to hit the drug store." "Holy hell it's hot. I'm dying of thirst, and I have fifteen more miles of bike riding before I get home. Let me grab some Powerade at the 7-11." They're all purchases of convenience or emergency, which doesn't happen often with gas (unless you're driving across the Western US and push a gas stop too far).
Consider me underwhelemed by his pretty charts and graphs.
However, trying to put object-oriented concepts into a form that children can easily adapt to seems a lot more difficult than one might believe.
Yeah... this is why Alan Kay and a host of like-minded folk hove put together squeak, a Smalltalk based tool for teaching kids about programming. It is inherently OO (like Smalltalk) straight out of the box, and eases into these principles pretty nicely.
Of course there's the question of whether it's worthwhile teaching kids OO concepts before other concepts as I'm not sure which way the easier direction of flow is.
Hmm... you'd think someone with a doctorate in philosophy would be able to craft a better argument for his main premise.
His article was essentially: We have no easy to run line oriented languages like BASIC. This is bad because with BASIC you can follow the code on paper as well. Of course we have plenty of other easy to run languages to choose from, but they are bad because they are not line oriented like BASIC so you can't follow the code on paper as well.
Of course, he failed to establish that line oriented <--> easy to follow, so hi argument is one big failure. Really, there's nothing of real substance to be found in the article.
If you get mad a at a reporter for publishing something you said to them that was not agreed to be off the record, then you are a dumbass. The quote was in context, and one would hove to assume that it was actually said by Maynor.
If you were man enough to say it, then be man enough to live with it being printed. Temper tantrums should be reserved for little children.
Really? So where's OCaml? And Smalltalk? And Scala? And Lisp + CLOS? And many, many more?
The problem us that they only want to offer up some small subset of languages instead of opening it up to any language you wish to bring to the party, which is how most every programming contest should be run. THe ICFP contest allows all languages, you'd think mighty Google could figure out how to open up the door.
The Bush family may be old money from New England, but GWB grew up in Texas."
Except for the fact that he went to prep school in Massachusetts, and college in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Dear lord, I hope not. The Objective-C is so much more clear and natural than the Java/C++ way. Especially when there are a lot of parameters being sent in the message. E.g.
" Bill", 28, "pepperoni and mushroom", "porter", "wingtip", 34)
[myThing putzAboutWithName:"Bill" age:28 pizza:"pepperoni and mushroom" beer:"porter" shoes:"wingtip" inseam:34]
vs.
myThing.putzAboutWithNameAgePizzaBeerShoesInseam(
Damn! Now where will I vent my righteous anger?!?
Yep. That sounds like O'Reilly.
I went to the OSCON site, hoping to find some papers or at least slides from the presenters, and found nothing but hype and hoopla.
I don't know why people continue to support them anymore, it's clear that they abandoned popularizing interesting technology in favor of leeching cash years ago...
No, I'm pretty sure it's a CBV (though a shout out to Guided By Voices would be nice). If you look at the very end of the file there is the sequence "roswell area51 CBV i love bees 42 __42__ lullus surmount Äí currents".
Call by value? Are they hinting that Haskell will not be the language of discriminating hacker this year?
Damn. Too bad I'm going to be traveling all weekend. This looks like a fun contest this year.
I might even noodle around after the fact and just not enter it in the contest.
It seems to be using pure bloody-minded interpretation without any bytecode or JIT stage.
As I understand it, that's precisely the case, with the interpreter working on the AST of the program.
I also believe that the plan is to go with some form of bytecode/JIT solution in Ruby 2.0.
This is true (well the OCaml bit at least. I didn't look at the Haskell examples), but in one important sense, this is a big plus for languages like OCaml.
See, one of the big problems with things like the Shootout is that the mini-benchmarks they use don't really tell you anything about larger program performance. And it is often here that functional constructs are said to shine through. So now one can write the overall program in a more functional style (yielding cleaner, more maintainable, and supposedly speedier code), yet still optimize certain core sections by transforming them into a more imperative style when needed.
Of course, I've yet to see any real comparisons of larger programs like these, almost all of these language comparison sites seem to stick to under 100 line of code benchmarks.
Ben Wilson is an editor at MacFixIt
Mike Breeden is from Accelerate Your Mac. He might run it, but I'm not sure.
All I really know about Nigel Kersten is that he wrote SirAdmin.
Meh. Not a sterling list...
Well, there's Rich Siegel, whose BareBones software hasn't released anything worthwhile or interesting since Apple released OS X, and there's Wil Shipley, whose Delicious Library is quite nice looking, yet ultimately silly.
Of course, there are people like Amit Singh and Aaron Hillegas who deserve to be on the list, and Brent Simmons makes some apps like NetNewsWire that a lot of people love (but I personally have no use for), and I guess Rosyna Keller too, but everyone here is right. There are far, far too many writers and pundits on that list for me to come close to respecting it as a worthwhile list.