Damm - made an = ==:= error - again! But it highlight another C problem - Ada would not stand for a typo like that - but in C it compiles and fails at runtime...
The C language specification is 500+ pages and a horrible read. C only appears simple on the surface but is full of nasty hidden surprises. The later being the reason why the language standard is such a horrible read.
I also disagree with you on the base of the for loop. The C for loop is just a while written on one line. Syntactic sugar without additional abstraction. And even as syntactic sugar a failure because you don't save any keystrokes. Compare:
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++) { // do something }
with:
int i = 1; while (i < 10) { // do something i++; }
2 characters and 2 Enter keys less - what a saving!
compare that to the following Ada code:
for I in 1.. 10 loop -- do something end loop;
Ok, it does not save keystrokes either - but it does add some higher abstraction and I is constant inside to loop - so no hidden surprises here, like in:
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++) { // 20 lines of something
if (i = 5) i = 6;
// 20 lines of some more }
Which brings us back to "C is not simple but full of hidden surprises".
As trampel pointed out: you have a 6 weeks reveal time frame. What trampel missed is: A real fraudster will have moved the money onwards by then. Which puts the loss to the bank.
Of course: As with riding without a ticket in the end we the honest customers will pay through higher bank/ticket changes.
Interesting read - however it reinstates my initial point: The 5 recognised nuclear powers sell each other components and probably weapon grade "fuel" and therefore are able to have enough nukes to blast the planet apart and the rest of us is not allowed to join the club.
As for India: Well they did not sign (good for them). But that means that any country that did sign is not allowed to sell them any components or weapon grade "fuel" so it will be difficult for them to build a large amount of weapons.
The 5 official one that is. And since they can quite officially build nuclear weapons chances are that China has enough nukes to flatten the US. The others are Russia, France and UK. And the US of course.
I would rather say that by this rationale the the 5 recognized nuclear powers are sovereign and the Rest isn't. Because only those 5 recognized nuclear powers have enough nuclear weapons to blast each other from the surface of the planet.
Of course the rest of the planet would be destroyed as well. But hey, attack successfully repelled.
Interesting definition - especially if your replace to words in your sentence: Georgia quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Russia, they're not sovereign.
I know, this is off topic - but I could not resist.
And thinking about it: If your replace UK/Russia with USA then ~95% of all countries become "not sovereign". That's the ~95% which are not mayor nuclear powers.
So by your rationale: sovereign = mayor nuclear power and signing the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" is signing your sovereign away.
Actually most applications on a OS X system are bundles. Bundles are directories which are displayed by the GUI as on file.
Of course your argument still holds true: You install the application by copying its bundle into to application folder and you de-install by moving the bundle into the trash can. It does not get more simpler than that.
The user does not need to know and never notice that the bundle consists of lots and lots of files.
And even I as a power user who does know the underlying mechanism find it incredible simple and amazing. Because I - as a power user - know that moving the application icon into the trash can will actually and fully remove the application from my system.
Something I am never quite sure about with Windows de-installers.
True - I should have specified that my ranting was about ignoring launchd which is a user land application licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
Uhh my first flamebait. And I did not even meat to.
As I can see from other posts zfs has indeed an incompatible licence. But that is not Apples fault.
Only my little rant was about launchd - a replacement for init, cron and inetd which is a 100% Apple development and lincenced under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
Beside: launchd is a user land application so it does not matter. So my little rant holds true.
Note that I have used Linux and configured three: init, cron and inetd and they are a pain to use compared with launchd. And in the case of init &/etc/init.d bloody slow.
The sources to the BSD part of Mac OS X is there as well. And some of Apples own developments on top (launchd - Apples answer to init, cron and inetd - for example). launchd is pretty cool btw.
Well in Germany we have the same law but it must be an obvious and honest mistake like a moved decimal point or reversed digits.
i.E. advertising a 55% off when you meant a 5.5% off. Or â150 you meant â1500 (that would be a 90% discount).
Mind you, with the current "SALE - SALE" Zeitgeist I don't think 55% off is unrealistic and I think in Germany and Switzerland Dell would have to bite the bullet here.
There are countries where contracts under duress are not legal. And where "sign this or stay unemployed" might be considered duress depending on what "this" exactly is.
I fully agree with you. Of course I quote â while you quote $ and the price difference is more then just exchange rate. Apart from that: yes - yes, would be great.
Well, it's not the OS's fault when the hardware (aka the phone) won't accept altered versions.
Note that in the mobile phone business software locks are the norm - and for a reason: branding. Without the ability to brand phones many network providers won't sell the phone for a subsidised price. Branding if course needs to be sufficiently complicated to remove. And shall consist of more the a start-up screen. Orange for example likes to remove the ability to use mp3 as ring tone - so you need to buy ring toned from - you guessed it - orange.
So Google is between the devil and the deep blue see here. Without software lock down no subsidised phones which in case of a smart phone means a â1000 price tag. Which in turn means: very few customers.
Of course I can see a way out of it: Developers edition phone for everyone who is prepared to pay the unsubsidised price to get total freedom and end user edition with the needed lock downs.
Usually developers editions (at least for Windows Mobile, Symbian etc. pp.) are only available to those you can prove that they are full time mobile phone developers and sign NDA's on top of it.
Well in every poor country there are always some very rich. Of course those rich can afford the download of M$ patches - with there huge M$ bribes in there pocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Very strange opinions.
Note that I remember a time where the following where sold as one of the advantages to of C - showing off the true limitless power of #define:
#define IF if (
#define THEN ) {
#define ELSEIF } else if (
#define ELSE } else {
#define ENDIF }
It does actually work.
Trust me (I used both languages extensively) C make far more unmaintainable code as Ada.
Damm - made an = == := error - again! But it highlight another C problem - Ada would not stand for a typo like that - but in C it compiles and fails at runtime...
C is not a simple language.
// do something
// do something
.. 10 loop
// 20 lines of something
// 20 lines of some more
The C language specification is 500+ pages and a horrible read. C only appears simple on the surface but is full of nasty hidden surprises. The later being the reason why the language standard is such a horrible read.
I also disagree with you on the base of the for loop. The C for loop is just a while written on one line. Syntactic sugar without additional abstraction. And even as syntactic sugar a failure because you don't save any keystrokes. Compare:
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++)
{
}
with:
int i = 1;
while (i < 10)
{
i++;
}
2 characters and 2 Enter keys less - what a saving!
compare that to the following Ada code:
for I in 1
-- do something
end loop;
Ok, it does not save keystrokes either - but it does add some higher abstraction and I is constant inside to loop - so no hidden surprises here, like in:
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++)
{
if (i = 5) i = 6;
}
Which brings us back to "C is not simple but full of hidden surprises".
Martin
Ada has five paradigms build in: concurrent (rendezvous and monitor-like based), distributed, generic, imperative, object-oriented (class-based).
The fact that you say "all three paradigms built in" shows that you have not yet arrived.
As trampel pointed out: you have a 6 weeks reveal time frame. What trampel missed is: A real fraudster will have moved the money onwards by then. Which puts the loss to the bank.
Of course: As with riding without a ticket in the end we the honest customers will pay through higher bank/ticket changes.
No they won't - they sleep under a bridge and won't get the loan needed to furnish and open another shop.
And they won't be a new guy either - any newcomer will see the guy under the bridge and think: No I don't want to end like him.
Interesting read - however it reinstates my initial point: The 5 recognised nuclear powers sell each other components and probably weapon grade "fuel" and therefore are able to have enough nukes to blast the planet apart and the rest of us is not allowed to join the club.
As for India: Well they did not sign (good for them). But that means that any country that did sign is not allowed to sell them any components or weapon grade "fuel" so it will be difficult for them to build a large amount of weapons.
Did Iraq itself cease to be a sovereign nation when the US destroyed and replaced their government?
Theoretically No. But practically YES!
The 5 official one that is. And since they can quite officially build nuclear weapons chances are that China has enough nukes to flatten the US. The others are Russia, France and UK. And the US of course.
So
Martin
I would rather say that by this rationale the the 5 recognized nuclear powers are sovereign and the Rest isn't. Because only those 5 recognized nuclear powers have enough nuclear weapons to blast each other from the surface of the planet.
Of course the rest of the planet would be destroyed as well. But hey, attack successfully repelled.
For who is who read the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty.
Interesting definition - especially if your replace to words in your sentence: Georgia quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Russia, they're not sovereign.
I know, this is off topic - but I could not resist.
And thinking about it: If your replace UK/Russia with USA then ~95% of all countries become "not sovereign". That's the ~95% which are not mayor nuclear powers.
So by your rationale: sovereign = mayor nuclear power and signing the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" is signing your sovereign away.
Martin
Actually most applications on a OS X system are bundles. Bundles are directories which are displayed by the GUI as on file.
Of course your argument still holds true: You install the application by copying its bundle into to application folder and you de-install by moving the bundle into the trash can. It does not get more simpler than that.
The user does not need to know and never notice that the bundle consists of lots and lots of files.
And even I as a power user who does know the underlying mechanism find it incredible simple and amazing. Because I - as a power user - know that moving the application icon into the trash can will actually and fully remove the application from my system.
Something I am never quite sure about with Windows de-installers.
For a user land application it makes not difference at all.
But everybody things I have started a zfs flame - which is file system driver and has indeed an incompatible license.
But then: the zfs license has been set by Sun.
True - I should have specified that my ranting was about ignoring launchd which is a user land application licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
Uhh my first flamebait. And I did not even meat to.
As I can see from other posts zfs has indeed an incompatible licence. But that is not Apples fault.
Only my little rant was about launchd - a replacement for init, cron and inetd which is
a 100% Apple development and lincenced under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
Beside: launchd is a user land application so it does not matter. So my little rant holds true.
Note that I have used Linux and configured three: init, cron and inetd and they are a pain to use compared with launchd. And in the case of init & /etc/init.d bloody slow.
Martin
Ups forgot aobut that site...
There is quite a bit of GPL licensed software in Mac OS X. Your can download the sources for that part of OS X here:
http://www.macosforge.org/
The sources to the BSD part of Mac OS X is there as well. And some of Apples own developments on top (launchd - Apples answer to init, cron and inetd - for example). launchd is pretty cool btw.
Well you can get all the sources here:
http://www.macosforge.org/
And especially zfs and launchd could be interesting to Linux and BSD. But then the Linux community suffers heavily from Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
Well in Germany we have the same law but it must be an obvious and honest mistake like a moved decimal point or reversed digits.
i.E. advertising a 55% off when you meant a 5.5% off. Or â150 you meant â1500 (that would be a 90% discount).
Mind you, with the current "SALE - SALE" Zeitgeist I don't think 55% off is unrealistic and I think in Germany and Switzerland Dell would have to bite the bullet here.
Martin
There are countries where contracts under duress are not legal. And where "sign this or stay unemployed" might be considered duress depending on what "this" exactly is.
True many telcos don't use SIM-locks here - at least for contracts. The do use SIM lock for prepaid. And they might still disable mp3 ring tones.
The later being a real pain - SIM-locks are easily hacked - and must be removed upon request (for a small fee that is.).
Martin
Ahmm - I quoted EUR 1000 - prices are different here. Basically we get ripped off.
I fully agree with you. Of course I quote â while you quote $ and the price difference is more then just exchange rate. Apart from that: yes - yes, would be great.
Well, it's not the OS's fault when the hardware (aka the phone) won't accept altered versions.
Note that in the mobile phone business software locks are the norm - and for a reason: branding. Without the ability to brand phones many network providers won't sell the phone for a subsidised price. Branding if course needs to be sufficiently complicated to remove. And shall consist of more the a start-up screen. Orange for example likes to remove the ability to use mp3 as ring tone - so you need to buy ring toned from - you guessed it - orange.
So Google is between the devil and the deep blue see here. Without software lock down no subsidised phones which in case of a smart phone means a â1000 price tag. Which in turn means: very few customers.
Of course I can see a way out of it: Developers edition phone for everyone who is prepared to pay the unsubsidised price to get total freedom and end user edition with the needed lock downs.
Usually developers editions (at least for Windows Mobile, Symbian etc. pp.) are only available to those you can prove that they are full time mobile phone developers and sign NDA's on top of it.
Martin
Well in every poor country there are always some very rich. Of course those rich can afford the download of M$ patches - with there huge M$ bribes in there pocket.