Yeah. That's what occam's razor is for. If his theory is needed to explain some things, and explains the things we previously needed black holes to explain, it makes more sense to believe just his theory than his theory and black holes. Right now they seem to both explain the same observations, so it's a toss up, but black holes require some kludges to fit in with quantum theory, so if his doesn't need anything like that then we should prefer it.
That would require the black hole to have a magnetic "charge" at least 10^-36 of its gravity, which isn't going to happen because there's so much gravity. The theory does suggest, however, that you could get a black hole rotating fast enough that you were flung out faster than being sucked in. But that throws up time travel and all other sorts of problems, and bottom line no one has observed anything like it, so physicists tend to sweep them under the carpet.
Black holes are something of an embarrassment because they are inconsistent with quantum mechanics. So if he can show that dark energy stars exist and can explain cygnus-X1 etc, then it makes sense to say black holes don't exist.
We have evidence for the existence of photons so strong we can call it proof. Things like IIRC the photoelectric effect, there's some other things which imply the existence of photons. Wheras we have very little evidence for black holes - the whole reason for believing in them was that they are suggested by a particular theory (relativity). So if they contradict another theory, and there is an explanation for the observed behaviour which is consistent with both theories, it's reasonable to suggest they don't exist.
It is necessary if you want your "Hello" class to be useable elsewhere. Yes you can put everything in one class, but you still have to worry about referencing instance things from a static context, for example, which becomes more problematic when you want to use some classes and some imperative programming.
I agree with you here in principle, but I think the non-ambiguity of the indentation makes things clearer enough to outweigh the disadvantage from non-flexibility. The indentation just becomes part of the syntax, no harder than putting semicolons at the end of statements.
Classes don't behave as objects in every language. Python lets you do things like subclassing the type class, so you can then create instances of this which are themselves classes. Not terribly necessary in most cases, but it shows the object system is very much a part of the language from the ground up.
I just find it more useable. I agree that no option of variable declaration is a flaw, but it's the only one (well, and the colon) I've really found. I think it's been less successful than Java or anything else only because it's less marketed. Zope to me shows that it does work. Bottom line, I don't really do huge projects, but in general I find I can do the same thing in Python quicker and with less bugs than in any other language I've tried. This could just be me though.
No, my biggest "problem", if such it is, is I don't like writing unnecessary code. I've got no problem writing the braces and declarations, but they just waste my time and mean I get less coding done.
No, but this example is, IME, representative of the two, and far shorter than anything else I could show you. Having to type less makes you more productive, plain and simple. And are you saying you follow a program control flow by its bracketing rather than indentation? Because if so I suspect you're very much in the minority.
If the Hello class is meant to be reuseable I don't think you can do that though. Which shows another important difference: in Java, you have to do classes for everything. Which I find to be a problem. Yes OO is good, but it's not necessary for everything.
Not quite. The name is made on construction of the class. And I think the class is meant to be useable separately, so having the main() in the same class is a bad idea. It's exaggerated, yes, but I think there's some truth in the image.
Yes there's nothing really new, but it's better done. Being new and revolutionary doesn't necessarily make a language more useful. The blocks work far better because indentation is what, visually, you look to when trying to understand the code, not the braces.
Yes, but what's the use of the extra stuff? Python's shorter length actually makes it more readable. There's nothing irrelevant, but what there is is more than verbose enough. Having no braces is good, because the indentation is what the eye looks to. And having to add wrapper classes because someone thinks everything needs to be object oriented doesn't increase readability any, quite the opposite.
Have you ever tried Python? It's far more readable than Java, the clean indentation, limited for loop, and general verbosity without anything unnecessary make it much easier to maintain than any other language I've ever worked with. The non-compilation also means it feels easier to debug, there's no separation of compile-time and run-time errors but that's actually a good thing, because it doesn't really matter where the error occurs, you just need to see where it is and fix it, so there's no need for two "cycles" when debugging.
The Python example seemed to be doing the execution part outside of any class, in some non-object oriented fashion.
Yes. And that's because in Python it is possible to do non-object oriented code, you have the choice and can use OO where it's needed, and not where it isn't.
you can see where they stop indenting. But that's there in Java too, it's not forced, but any good programmer does that anyway, and most IDE's do it for you.
It's possible to have deceptive indentation, or indent wrongly by accident. The IDE doesn't always get it right. And when you have the indentation you don't need the braces. It looks so much clearer without them.
By being object oriented from the ground up, and not just having OO as a new feature, like C++, VB.Net, PHP, and a few other ones out there.
Java is different, from C++ at any rate, because it forces you to go OO for everything. Which is not pleasant when you're trying to do something simple with it, or even quite complicated things where you've determined OO is not the best approach. Python's object system is the best I've ever used, because it works very well, but also doesn't get in the way when I don't want it to. The objects are there from the ground up - even the classes are proper objects - but if you don't need them, they stay out the way. Which is how it should be.
Then import it. It's not so much, you'll save it back in the long run I'm sure. And isn't the whole idea of your sacred free market economy that if people wanted efficient cars the market would provide them?
Slashdot Mirror
That's because Avant etc. aren't non-IE and are still subject to many of the same holes. Shame no-one thinks of Opera though.
Just use Links. Smaller download too. No flash, and it asks you every time a site tries to do something bad with javascript.
Yeah. That's what occam's razor is for. If his theory is needed to explain some things, and explains the things we previously needed black holes to explain, it makes more sense to believe just his theory than his theory and black holes. Right now they seem to both explain the same observations, so it's a toss up, but black holes require some kludges to fit in with quantum theory, so if his doesn't need anything like that then we should prefer it.
He's not the middle of a motor?
That would require the black hole to have a magnetic "charge" at least 10^-36 of its gravity, which isn't going to happen because there's so much gravity. The theory does suggest, however, that you could get a black hole rotating fast enough that you were flung out faster than being sucked in. But that throws up time travel and all other sorts of problems, and bottom line no one has observed anything like it, so physicists tend to sweep them under the carpet.
Actually he'd applaud it. It means some dude owes him a 4 year subscription to Private Eye.
Black holes are something of an embarrassment because they are inconsistent with quantum mechanics. So if he can show that dark energy stars exist and can explain cygnus-X1 etc, then it makes sense to say black holes don't exist.
We have evidence for the existence of photons so strong we can call it proof. Things like IIRC the photoelectric effect, there's some other things which imply the existence of photons. Wheras we have very little evidence for black holes - the whole reason for believing in them was that they are suggested by a particular theory (relativity). So if they contradict another theory, and there is an explanation for the observed behaviour which is consistent with both theories, it's reasonable to suggest they don't exist.
I agree with you here in principle, but I think the non-ambiguity of the indentation makes things clearer enough to outweigh the disadvantage from non-flexibility. The indentation just becomes part of the syntax, no harder than putting semicolons at the end of statements.
Classes don't behave as objects in every language. Python lets you do things like subclassing the type class, so you can then create instances of this which are themselves classes. Not terribly necessary in most cases, but it shows the object system is very much a part of the language from the ground up.
I just find it more useable. I agree that no option of variable declaration is a flaw, but it's the only one (well, and the colon) I've really found. I think it's been less successful than Java or anything else only because it's less marketed. Zope to me shows that it does work. Bottom line, I don't really do huge projects, but in general I find I can do the same thing in Python quicker and with less bugs than in any other language I've tried. This could just be me though.
Won't that mean the platters have to be thicker, so you can fit less of them in the same drive enclosure?
No, my biggest "problem", if such it is, is I don't like writing unnecessary code. I've got no problem writing the braces and declarations, but they just waste my time and mean I get less coding done.
We're talking about *format*, not player here.
But the increased verbosity of Java over Python is solely due to unnecessary junk, principally the braces, which only serve to confuse.
It's still beta, or was last time I checked. I like it but I wouldn't be willing to use it for a professional site yet.
No, but this example is, IME, representative of the two, and far shorter than anything else I could show you. Having to type less makes you more productive, plain and simple. And are you saying you follow a program control flow by its bracketing rather than indentation? Because if so I suspect you're very much in the minority.
If the Hello class is meant to be reuseable I don't think you can do that though. Which shows another important difference: in Java, you have to do classes for everything. Which I find to be a problem. Yes OO is good, but it's not necessary for everything.
Not quite. The name is made on construction of the class. And I think the class is meant to be useable separately, so having the main() in the same class is a bad idea. It's exaggerated, yes, but I think there's some truth in the image.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html says you're wrong. It's almost exactly as free and open as Apache.
Yes there's nothing really new, but it's better done. Being new and revolutionary doesn't necessarily make a language more useful. The blocks work far better because indentation is what, visually, you look to when trying to understand the code, not the braces.
Yes, but what's the use of the extra stuff? Python's shorter length actually makes it more readable. There's nothing irrelevant, but what there is is more than verbose enough. Having no braces is good, because the indentation is what the eye looks to. And having to add wrapper classes because someone thinks everything needs to be object oriented doesn't increase readability any, quite the opposite.
Have you ever tried Python? It's far more readable than Java, the clean indentation, limited for loop, and general verbosity without anything unnecessary make it much easier to maintain than any other language I've ever worked with. The non-compilation also means it feels easier to debug, there's no separation of compile-time and run-time errors but that's actually a good thing, because it doesn't really matter where the error occurs, you just need to see where it is and fix it, so there's no need for two "cycles" when debugging.
Yes. And that's because in Python it is possible to do non-object oriented code, you have the choice and can use OO where it's needed, and not where it isn't.
you can see where they stop indenting. But that's there in Java too, it's not forced, but any good programmer does that anyway, and most IDE's do it for you.
It's possible to have deceptive indentation, or indent wrongly by accident. The IDE doesn't always get it right. And when you have the indentation you don't need the braces. It looks so much clearer without them.
By being object oriented from the ground up, and not just having OO as a new feature, like C++, VB.Net, PHP, and a few other ones out there.
Java is different, from C++ at any rate, because it forces you to go OO for everything. Which is not pleasant when you're trying to do something simple with it, or even quite complicated things where you've determined OO is not the best approach. Python's object system is the best I've ever used, because it works very well, but also doesn't get in the way when I don't want it to. The objects are there from the ground up - even the classes are proper objects - but if you don't need them, they stay out the way. Which is how it should be.
Then import it. It's not so much, you'll save it back in the long run I'm sure. And isn't the whole idea of your sacred free market economy that if people wanted efficient cars the market would provide them?
Erm, that's worse than a car with three passengers. Now granted most cars are not full, but then neither are most jets.