Which seems to be your way of saying "exactly right."
It's my way of saying that even in languages that have pushed the boundaries of the functional paradigm, this doesn't matter.
The reality is that functional programing even when "impure" has proven to be a highly effective model, and pretending like impurities within the model discredit that, is just silly.
As I understand it, you should look at variables in functional programming languages like Erlang more like those in a mathematical formula; such programs can be proven correct a lot easier, and since variables are effectively immutable
All of this is based on the premise that Erlang is a functional language. It's not purely-functional, and I just don't see the point of doing it half-assedly. Erlang is effectively an imperative language dressed up like a functional language.
OH come on this is bullshit. Even lisp and scheme aren't "purely functional" the fact that the actor model breaks the functional model clearly makes almost no difference in practice.
And they're not immutable -- they can be unbound. As I understand it, this unboundedness is detected at runtime, not compiletime. If it was detected at compiletime, you'd have a valid point.
it facilitates forking the line of execution in a way that would not be possible without all kinds of semaphores and other concurrency stuff
Except that's not how Erlang does concurrency. It does concurrency with explicit "processes" (green threads) and message-passing.
Now, it does make these very easy, and you can get it to distribute processes among a few real OS threads (one per core) -- so it's still very cool. But you're thinking of languages like Haskell, which can be automagically threaded. Erlang is manually threaded, it's just much easier to think in threads (or "processes") -- they're effectively a language feature.
Actually, there are quite a few good reasons for this, largely around the complete elimination of mutexing and locks.
...What? No, the elimination of mutexing and locks is made possible by a shared-nothing architecture.
Oooooh, a language is faulty because it has a syntax with which you are not familiar.
Hey, I mentioned Ruby. I don't mind LISP, either.
The point is not that the language is unfamiliar, the point is that it's inconsistent (and unfamiliar) for no good reason. I use English, but I could make a lot of the same criticisms about it.
It's not that it's syntax is/inconsistent/ Erlang is actually incredibly consistent, it's just very different. Once you learn the 3 or 4 quirks that separate it from other languages those 3 or 4 quirks are very consistently applied.
Take for instance the punctuation (not line ending characters as is suggested).
Commas separated arguments in function calls, data constructors, and patterns. Periods separate functions.
Semi-Colons separate clauses. (this is the trickiest, but can be thought of as signifying the existence of multiple cases of pattern matching).
They're just lists of numbers;
In that case, the argument becomes, "Erlang has very poor text-processing, if any at all."
If Erlang has text-processing functions that are designed to operate on these "lists of numbers", then yeah, it's pretty much going to be ASCII. And how are Erlang source files read? Could be "neither ASCII nor Latin1" if you like, but they can't be Unicode unless the parser is actually Unicode-aware.
Re:completely missing the point with SUV's.
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
But cmon, they are still the safest for the people inside Not from what I've read. Malcom Gladwel's Big and Bad tries to dispel this myth.
As an example a quote from the article.
In a thirty-five m.p.h. crash test, for instance, the driver of a Cadillac Escaladeâ"the G.M. counterpart to the Lincoln Navigatorâ"has a sixteen-per-cent chance of a life-threatening head injury, a twenty-per-cent chance of a life-threatening chest injury, and a thirty-five-per-cent chance of a leg injury. The same numbers in a Ford Windstar minivanâ"a vehicle engineered from the ground up, as opposed to simply being bolted onto a pickup-truck frameâ"are, respectively, two per cent, four per cent, and one per cent. ~ Anders
Except that the microsoft blogs can't take any amount of traffic, Scott Guthery's blog on the MVC framework for ASP.NET has been down since he posted it 2 months ago.
One would assume that it's because the puck mouse was a periphery that was easily replaced and not lauded by Apple. Whereas Vista is Microsoft's flagship product. (not to mention that the puck mouse happened almost a decade ago)
I did read your post, but your post also implied that Firefox defaulted to crashing on startup, as opposed to giving you the option walk around that problem. If you had mentioned something along the lines of not wanting to loose those tabs I think that would have made for a much more reasonable post.
Perhaps by posting your actual issues, with bug reports, urls or test cases of incidents that affect you, we could then reply to that post and make suggestions on how to improve your experience. As it stands your current comment points to these anomalous issues that haven't seemed to have been effecting many of our users. Or perhaps you've been terribly plagued by the bug posted in this comment?
What's funny is that this case is specifically accounted for by the dialog that pops up when Firefox recognizes a crash and attempts to load a new session. This dialog is impossible without an extension to get rid of while still keeping the session saver functionality (for this reason precisely). So either... you aren't using the native session saving, or you broke something else. OR! you could be over blowing what's going on and saying that "When I tried to reload my session using the session saver functionality it crashed" which would of course be true, and the fix would be to simple not load the session at startup.
The if the compile time switch "--enable-official-branding" is not present. The official logos (the firefox on the globe, but not the globe) and the official name (usually reverts to the code name for that build... ie deer park, bon echo, etc.) are left out of the build. This is the default way that firefox compiles. And it creates a package that is free of trademark woes.
Supprisingly that option _IS_ available in firefox as a compile time switch. However (and the irony doesn't escape me here) Debian has patched firefox in such a way that this switch no longer works! Hurah!
might I suggest a redefinition of correct. As you've defined it, one can only be correct if it displays as IE would. Which is unfortunately completely broken in it's ability to display proper HTML and CSS. I suggest a definition from the W3C which is the standards body that controls the HTML/XHTML and CSS standards that Microsoft has so happily decided to ignore for the last 6+ years. Based on this definition (surprisingly) you'll find that Opera / Safari / Firefox all manage to display pages so much more correctly! It's like wandering into a schoolyard filled with children speaking broken English, and then when you correct them they tell you to "start speaking gooder English". Except that English as a spoken language has even more flexibility than any language that a computer needs to interpret.
Blame the lazy web designers of the sites your hitting, there are very few things that completely aren't shared between the two browsers, and any savy web designer knows how to hack his code to work with IE (yes that's what it requires).
They can't/won't mate to produce viable offspring with their parent species (the species that were mixed to create the new one). But they WILL mate with their own species. Thus the signifier of a new species: that is, they can't/won't mate outside of their own species.
I can't believe I came back here to say that you're so wrong it hurts... but I am. This is _EXACTLY_ what google proposes. You clearly haven't read up on this. They will index a book that is in copyright and in print sure (becuase there is NO dubious legalize in this case) but they won't include snippets.
But here again you are wrong. I am allowed under copyright law, and owner of a work to make copies of that work for my own use. If I buy a book I can certainly make millions of copies of that work and distribute them all over my own property. (The problems of course come when you give them to other people).
YET! We have a great deal of legal precedence that says taking snippets of already published books, and including them into an "index" is perfectly legal. This was done for centuries before the internet hit it big, and was a useful tool for researchers who wanted to know where every occurance of the word "god" appeared in Moby Dick (since the author didn't include an index).
So the question I ask is how in gods name is what the author of that index did (and has been legal for centuries) different from what google is about to do. Google is creating a service that says "here is where in a book the information you're looking for lies". It's up to anyone else to go track down the book and find it.
Besides let us not forget that the only really questionable chunk of books (to you) should be those books that are in copyright but out of print. These are the only books google isn't asking permision to include snippets for and the only group of books that anyone seems to be contesting googles stance on. All books out of copyright, clearly google can do whatever it wants. All books in copyright and in print, the solution is easy... ask the publisher. But we're talking about a group of books, and information where finding someone to ask permission is often times flat out impossible, and in these times google includes a modest snippet... and index if you will.
Gaim 2.0 won't have the vv components ported into it, and thus there is very little likelyhood (if any at all) that it will interface with video this version.
even in the quietest of commuter cars engine, road, and external noises make hi quality auido nothing but a pipe dream. Just becuase Bose told you that the make it worthwhile doesn't mean that they are doing anything more than the typical car audio manufacturer. Which is siding on the fact that external noises help cancel out poor audio quality and sell you the cheapest stuff they can.
Everything sounds good in a car, nothing sounds great.
"... download and install software for her Mac really makes me ashamed to show anyone how stuff is done on linux."
That's the part that drives me nuts! I've been spoiled by package managers for too long now and I can't bare the thought ot having to prance around the internet trying to hunt down the latest builds of the software I want/need. I never want to have to go to gaim.sourceforge.net, mozilla.com, gimp.org, or hunt around for a new bittorrent client.
THAT! feels like the iceage to me. That is utterly avoidable with a decent package manager, apt-get, portage, freebsd's apt and ports. I can't deal with it, it makes me feel dirty and slow.
emerge -uav world vs. "scroung around like chicken with it's head cut off for an hour getting all my new software"
Now I'm not saying that there's a perfect package management tool. But hell if I would rather have one than watch people go back to the windows/mac installation model. Never again.
Yeah, I'm mostly concerned about an EULA that I'm not aware of hiding somewhere and coming out to bite me in the ass. Or even the DMCA getting pulled. Really I'de also like to know what Linksys corporates feeling on this is. Would hate to deploy say 200 and then get wrapped up in a legal tangle, even if we were on the right side of the law.
Here at my work at an small local ISP we use small Soekris boards running Freebsd. Not only is this hardware rock solid but running a fully featured distro gives us the ability to easily remotely trouble shoot network connectivity issues or firewall rules, or routing tables from here in the office.
We mount them in outdoor enclosures for use as access points or as small deployable routers/firewalls for fiber set ups.
However they are rather pricey (250 - 450 dollars a pop) so still a lot less than comparable cisco hardware, but still too expensive to drop on the porch of a customer.
The question I've had for a while is whether or not I can as a distributor legaly hack a linksys router and drop our own distro on it, and give those out to customers. At a much more affordable price.
I called linksys the other day but the lady I talked to had no idea and never called me back:)
I'm afraid cryptoz is right, what you're talking about is mouse gestures, and as suprising as this may be to you this feature has been available for some time in firefox as an extension and default in opera for ages. *gasp*
If you are however content to use a IE based browser that fails in all the same ways that IE fails (security and standards compliant rendering being my main to beefs) then by all means go right ahead. But be forewarned your avant browser, is nothing but an IE skin, and in my opinion it's not even a very good one.
I actualy don't see any memory issues in Firefox in Linux whereas I deffinantly experience these glitches on the windows machines I have to use at work. They are running equivelent machines, I just never see firefox memory or cpu use climb while on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
OH come on this is bullshit.
Which seems to be your way of saying "exactly right."
It's my way of saying that even in languages that have pushed the boundaries of the functional paradigm, this doesn't matter.
The reality is that functional programing even when "impure" has proven to be a highly effective model, and pretending like impurities within the model discredit that, is just silly.
Even lisp and scheme aren't "purely functional"
Right. Haskell is.
As I understand it, you should look at variables in functional programming languages like Erlang more like those in a mathematical formula; such programs can be proven correct a lot easier, and since variables are effectively immutable
All of this is based on the premise that Erlang is a functional language. It's not purely-functional, and I just don't see the point of doing it half-assedly. Erlang is effectively an imperative language dressed up like a functional language.
OH come on this is bullshit. Even lisp and scheme aren't "purely functional" the fact that the actor model breaks the functional model clearly makes almost no difference in practice.
And they're not immutable -- they can be unbound. As I understand it, this unboundedness is detected at runtime, not compiletime. If it was detected at compiletime, you'd have a valid point.
it facilitates forking the line of execution in a way that would not be possible without all kinds of semaphores and other concurrency stuff
Except that's not how Erlang does concurrency. It does concurrency with explicit "processes" (green threads) and message-passing.
Now, it does make these very easy, and you can get it to distribute processes among a few real OS threads (one per core) -- so it's still very cool. But you're thinking of languages like Haskell, which can be automagically threaded. Erlang is manually threaded, it's just much easier to think in threads (or "processes") -- they're effectively a language feature.
Actually, there are quite a few good reasons for this, largely around the complete elimination of mutexing and locks.
...What? No, the elimination of mutexing and locks is made possible by a shared-nothing architecture.
Oooooh, a language is faulty because it has a syntax with which you are not familiar.
Hey, I mentioned Ruby. I don't mind LISP, either.
The point is not that the language is unfamiliar, the point is that it's inconsistent (and unfamiliar) for no good reason. I use English, but I could make a lot of the same criticisms about it.
It's not that it's syntax is /inconsistent/ Erlang is actually incredibly consistent, it's just very different. Once you learn the 3 or 4 quirks that separate it from other languages those 3 or 4 quirks are very consistently applied.
Take for instance the punctuation (not line ending characters as is suggested).
Commas separated arguments in function calls, data constructors, and patterns. Periods separate functions.
Semi-Colons separate clauses. (this is the trickiest, but can be thought of as signifying the existence of multiple cases of pattern matching).
They're just lists of numbers;
In that case, the argument becomes, "Erlang has very poor text-processing, if any at all."
If Erlang has text-processing functions that are designed to operate on these "lists of numbers", then yeah, it's pretty much going to be ASCII. And how are Erlang source files read? Could be "neither ASCII nor Latin1" if you like, but they can't be Unicode unless the parser is actually Unicode-aware.
Except that the microsoft blogs can't take any amount of traffic, Scott Guthery's blog on the MVC framework for ASP.NET has been down since he posted it 2 months ago.
One would assume that it's because the puck mouse was a periphery that was easily replaced and not lauded by Apple. Whereas Vista is Microsoft's flagship product. (not to mention that the puck mouse happened almost a decade ago)
I did read your post, but your post also implied that Firefox defaulted to crashing on startup, as opposed to giving you the option walk around that problem. If you had mentioned something along the lines of not wanting to loose those tabs I think that would have made for a much more reasonable post.
Perhaps by posting your actual issues, with bug reports, urls or test cases of incidents that affect you, we could then reply to that post and make suggestions on how to improve your experience. As it stands your current comment points to these anomalous issues that haven't seemed to have been effecting many of our users. Or perhaps you've been terribly plagued by the bug posted in this comment?
~ Anders
What's funny is that this case is specifically accounted for by the dialog that pops up when Firefox recognizes a crash and attempts to load a new session. This dialog is impossible without an extension to get rid of while still keeping the session saver functionality (for this reason precisely). So either... you aren't using the native session saving, or you broke something else. OR! you could be over blowing what's going on and saying that "When I tried to reload my session using the session saver functionality it crashed" which would of course be true, and the fix would be to simple not load the session at startup.
~ Anders
The if the compile time switch "--enable-official-branding" is not present. The official logos (the firefox on the globe, but not the globe) and the official name (usually reverts to the code name for that build... ie deer park, bon echo, etc.) are left out of the build. This is the default way that firefox compiles. And it creates a package that is free of trademark woes.
~ Anders
Bruce -
Supprisingly that option _IS_ available in firefox as a compile time switch. However (and the irony doesn't escape me here) Debian has patched firefox in such a way that this switch no longer works! Hurah!
~ Anders
might I suggest a redefinition of correct. As you've defined it, one can only be correct if it displays as IE would. Which is unfortunately completely broken in it's ability to display proper HTML and CSS. I suggest a definition from the W3C which is the standards body that controls the HTML/XHTML and CSS standards that Microsoft has so happily decided to ignore for the last 6+ years. Based on this definition (surprisingly) you'll find that Opera / Safari / Firefox all manage to display pages so much more correctly! It's like wandering into a schoolyard filled with children speaking broken English, and then when you correct them they tell you to "start speaking gooder English". Except that English as a spoken language has even more flexibility than any language that a computer needs to interpret.
/me sighs in frustration
Blame the lazy web designers of the sites your hitting, there are very few things that completely aren't shared between the two browsers, and any savy web designer knows how to hack his code to work with IE (yes that's what it requires).
~ Anders
Writting English well is just as much a skill ...
This is the second day in a row that some one has made this lovely if unintentional joke.
~ Anders
They can't/won't mate to produce viable offspring with their parent species (the species that were mixed to create the new one). But they WILL mate with their own species. Thus the signifier of a new species: that is, they can't/won't mate outside of their own species.
~ Anders
I can't believe I came back here to say that you're so wrong it hurts... but I am. This is _EXACTLY_ what google proposes. You clearly haven't read up on this. They will index a book that is in copyright and in print sure (becuase there is NO dubious legalize in this case) but they won't include snippets.
~ Anders
But here again you are wrong. I am allowed under copyright law, and owner of a work to make copies of that work for my own use. If I buy a book I can certainly make millions of copies of that work and distribute them all over my own property. (The problems of course come when you give them to other people).
YET! We have a great deal of legal precedence that says taking snippets of already published books, and including them into an "index" is perfectly legal. This was done for centuries before the internet hit it big, and was a useful tool for researchers who wanted to know where every occurance of the word "god" appeared in Moby Dick (since the author didn't include an index).
So the question I ask is how in gods name is what the author of that index did (and has been legal for centuries) different from what google is about to do. Google is creating a service that says "here is where in a book the information you're looking for lies". It's up to anyone else to go track down the book and find it.
Besides let us not forget that the only really questionable chunk of books (to you) should be those books that are in copyright but out of print. These are the only books google isn't asking permision to include snippets for and the only group of books that anyone seems to be contesting googles stance on. All books out of copyright, clearly google can do whatever it wants. All books in copyright and in print, the solution is easy... ask the publisher. But we're talking about a group of books, and information where finding someone to ask permission is often times flat out impossible, and in these times google includes a modest snippet... and index if you will.
~ Anders
Gaim 2.0 won't have the vv components ported into it, and thus there is very little likelyhood (if any at all) that it will interface with video this version.
~ Anders
even in the quietest of commuter cars engine, road, and external noises make hi quality auido nothing but a pipe dream. Just becuase Bose told you that the make it worthwhile doesn't mean that they are doing anything more than the typical car audio manufacturer. Which is siding on the fact that external noises help cancel out poor audio quality and sell you the cheapest stuff they can. Everything sounds good in a car, nothing sounds great.
And fortunantly we all know that rule is actively enforced. Anti-Gravity Patent
"... download and install software for her Mac really makes me ashamed to show anyone how stuff is done on linux."
That's the part that drives me nuts! I've been spoiled by package managers for too long now and I can't bare the thought ot having to prance around the internet trying to hunt down the latest builds of the software I want/need. I never want to have to go to gaim.sourceforge.net, mozilla.com, gimp.org, or hunt around for a new bittorrent client.
THAT! feels like the iceage to me. That is utterly avoidable with a decent package manager, apt-get, portage, freebsd's apt and ports. I can't deal with it, it makes me feel dirty and slow.
emerge -uav world vs. "scroung around like chicken with it's head cut off for an hour getting all my new software"
Now I'm not saying that there's a perfect package management tool. But hell if I would rather have one than watch people go back to the windows/mac installation model. Never again.
~Anders
Yeah, I'm mostly concerned about an EULA that I'm not aware of hiding somewhere and coming out to bite me in the ass. Or even the DMCA getting pulled. Really I'de also like to know what Linksys corporates feeling on this is. Would hate to deploy say 200 and then get wrapped up in a legal tangle, even if we were on the right side of the law.
~Anders
Here at my work at an small local ISP we use small Soekris boards running Freebsd. Not only is this hardware rock solid but running a fully featured distro gives us the ability to easily remotely trouble shoot network connectivity issues or firewall rules, or routing tables from here in the office.
:)
We mount them in outdoor enclosures for use as access points or as small deployable routers/firewalls for fiber set ups.
However they are rather pricey (250 - 450 dollars a pop) so still a lot less than comparable cisco hardware, but still too expensive to drop on the porch of a customer.
The question I've had for a while is whether or not I can as a distributor legaly hack a linksys router and drop our own distro on it, and give those out to customers. At a much more affordable price.
I called linksys the other day but the lady I talked to had no idea and never called me back
~Anders
I'm afraid cryptoz is right, what you're talking about is mouse gestures, and as suprising as this may be to you this feature has been available for some time in firefox as an extension and default in opera for ages. *gasp*
If you are however content to use a IE based browser that fails in all the same ways that IE fails (security and standards compliant rendering being my main to beefs) then by all means go right ahead. But be forewarned your avant browser, is nothing but an IE skin, and in my opinion it's not even a very good one.
~Anders
I actualy don't see any memory issues in Firefox in Linux whereas I deffinantly experience these glitches on the windows machines I have to use at work. They are running equivelent machines, I just never see firefox memory or cpu use climb while on Linux.
~Anders
maybe it's time to pop over to get a copy of Portable Firefox and start carying your firefox with you? ~Anders