Yeah, except DS:Lite and DS games which are selling like hot cakes: current top 10s of game sales usually have 5-7 DS games at the top (the rest being mostly PS2 games), with New Super Mario Bros usually at the top spot.
And great many (good) DS games have been announced and will supposedly be released pretty soon.
A noticeable part of the PS2 sales are also likely to be replacement consoles for the ones whose DVD reader broke or stuff. When you have dozens of games, you just buy a new PS2 when yours break. I know my PS2-owning friends do it that way. Not that they have the choice.
It's weird simply because Nintendo got trounced in the last two generations
While they didn't get a big market share, the N64 and the GC still sold a fair number of units worldwide and brought money to Big N's piggy bank, and they had an undisputed monopoly on handled until the release of the PSP. And they're getting it back big time with the DS:L, and people realizing that the PSP has something like 2 original/interresting games (Loco Roco and Lumines) with the others being more like ports of PS1&PS2 games.
The wiimotes will more than likely be devkit's wiimotes i.e., wired wiimotes. That doesn't limit the gameplay to anything even remotely like traditional gaming, it just means that the customer can't take off with the 'mote.
Since you're probably running Windows, you should check uTorrents for your torrents: you don't need to install it (it's a single small exe), and it's many times faster than Opera.
The facts that exceptions don't install under the hood without telling you helps a lot, I guess.
The fact that it takes you 2 clics to list your extensions and 2 more to delete an offending one also helps.
The final reason is that Firefox' extensions are actually extremely useful and add wonderful flexibility to the browser thanks to XUL. They also allow the Firefox dev team to see what the users want (they just have to check the most popular extensions and find out why they're popular in the first place).
And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park)
While i'm as much of a Firefox fan as the next guy (maybe more), this is not an argument, no one cares whether or not work has been done on Gecko, what's tested is the output, and the output is that Firefox doesn't pass acid2.
The point of his rant is that the language offers insecure DB access methods by design and by default.
Had it offered no BD access libs out of the box, requiring the users to use 3rd party libs, no one would've cared. Had it provided prepared statements, everyone would've been happy. It doesn't do either, and just fucks everything up.
Yep, Python's DBAPI2 standards requires prepared statements which do all the escaping for you. Works out like that:
cur.execute('SELECT foo FROM bar WHERE baz=%s;", (bazvalue,))
Does all the required SQL escaping on your values and safely injects them in your query.
Makes it actually harder to do it wrong than to do it right. Perl's or Ruby's DBI APIs (Perl's DBI is the oldest one, Ruby's DBI comes from it) play the same role.
How about the fact that you can't use an integer as an array index in Ada and you have to use natural numbers (defined as a positive or null integer), because array indexes can't be negative (in most languages anyway, some -- like Python -- are exceptions to this quite common rule) and you therefore shouldn't be allowed to use a number that might ever be negative as an index. C# merely gives you a warning if your index is explicit (e.g., myArray[-1]) and doesn't do anything otherwise, before throwing an IndexOutOfRangeException at runtime.
That's one measly example, but I find it quite interresting.
So no, C#'s unsafe keyword isn't a factor (and the lack of implicit conversion clearly isn't, if anything implicit conversion is the sure sign of quirky and unsafe type systems).
When people say that an Ada program that compiles will usually work without problem, they're not joking, Ada's type system is so extensive and so strong that it misses very few errors (that it could handle, that is, flaws in your own logic can't be patched by a compiler).
You probably won't be surprised by the fact that you're not the first one to compare Java and Cobol:
It's next to impossible for java code to evolve gracefully because the language doesn't allow it. Welcome to the COBOL of the 21st century you little monkeys. At least you have your fancy IDEs that can do half the thinking for you. Now if only corporate could get rid of the monkeys all together and replace them with really smart IDEs.
Yep C is very weakly typed (some could say that it's untyped, as is ASM) as only the compiler does some sanity check, and even then it doesn't work too hard at it.
LISP was not "the archetypal high-level language." The very names CAR and CDR mean "contents of address register" and "contents of decrement register," direct references to hardware registers on the IBM 704.
You forgot "CONS" which comes from the IBM cons cells (a 36bit machine word on the 704), which is the block holding both a CAR and a CDR.
The thing is, the names only existed because no one found any better name for them, or any more interresting name (Common Lisp now offers the "first" and "rest" aliases to CAR and CDR... yet quite a lot of people still prefer using CAR and CDR).
LISP has always been a high level language, because it was started from mathematics (untyped lambda calculus) and only then adapted to computers.
And the fact that Lisp Machines (trying to get away from the Von Neumann model) were built doesn't mean that Lisp is a low level language, only that IA labs needed power that the Lisp => Von Neumann machines mappings could not give them at that time.
Lisp is a high level languages, because Lisp abstracts the machine away (no memory management, not giving a fuck about registers or machine words [may I remind you that Lisp was one of the first languages with unbound integers and automatic promotion from machine to unbound integers?])
The FORTRAN compiler was probably written in C, but FORTRAN has language constructs that are more well-suited to numeric computation.
Are you an idiot? The birth of FORTAN predates C by more than 10 years (work started in 1953, first manual in 1956, first compiler in 1957. C was somewhat officially released [as in "C got powerful enough to rewrite the UNIX kernel in C] in 1973, and the K&R was only published in 1978...)
Most truly high-level languages, like LISP (which was mentioned directly in TFA), are interpreted, and the interpreters are almost always written in C.
Failed, most Lisp code is actually compiled before gettting in test or in production, and Lisp compilers are usually written in Lisp (and then you use macros to build your own Lisp dialects on top of existing ones). C is usually used to bootstrap the initial compilers though.
Haskell is another example of a very high level language whose compilers can be written in itself, and which can be both compiled and interpreted.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, this is probably why Google successfully tweaks it's logo every pair of week or so, and why Reddit followed suit.
They're not brand loyal, they're japan-loyal.
If the were brand-loyal, they'd be loyal to Sony and buying PSPs en masse. Suffice to say they're not, and they're buying DS Lites instead.
Yeah, except DS:Lite and DS games which are selling like hot cakes: current top 10s of game sales usually have 5-7 DS games at the top (the rest being mostly PS2 games), with New Super Mario Bros usually at the top spot.
And great many (good) DS games have been announced and will supposedly be released pretty soon.
A noticeable part of the PS2 sales are also likely to be replacement consoles for the ones whose DVD reader broke or stuff. When you have dozens of games, you just buy a new PS2 when yours break. I know my PS2-owning friends do it that way. Not that they have the choice.
While they didn't get a big market share, the N64 and the GC still sold a fair number of units worldwide and brought money to Big N's piggy bank, and they had an undisputed monopoly on handled until the release of the PSP. And they're getting it back big time with the DS:L, and people realizing that the PSP has something like 2 original/interresting games (Loco Roco and Lumines) with the others being more like ports of PS1&PS2 games.
Not that much, I still see quite a lot of parents (in the 40+ range) calling any console they see "a nintendo". And sure not a PlayStation.
The wiimotes will more than likely be devkit's wiimotes i.e., wired wiimotes. That doesn't limit the gameplay to anything even remotely like traditional gaming, it just means that the customer can't take off with the 'mote.
Since you're probably running Windows, you should check uTorrents for your torrents: you don't need to install it (it's a single small exe), and it's many times faster than Opera.
The facts that exceptions don't install under the hood without telling you helps a lot, I guess.
The fact that it takes you 2 clics to list your extensions and 2 more to delete an offending one also helps.
The final reason is that Firefox' extensions are actually extremely useful and add wonderful flexibility to the browser thanks to XUL. They also allow the Firefox dev team to see what the users want (they just have to check the most popular extensions and find out why they're popular in the first place).
Duh... Adblock Plus with the Filterset.G filter is above and beyond anything Opera currently offers...
While i'm as much of a Firefox fan as the next guy (maybe more), this is not an argument, no one cares whether or not work has been done on Gecko, what's tested is the output, and the output is that Firefox doesn't pass acid2.
More like PDO is only available out of the box since PHP5, and the old methods have neither been deprecated nor been removed...
The point of his rant is that the language offers insecure DB access methods by design and by default.
Had it offered no BD access libs out of the box, requiring the users to use 3rd party libs, no one would've cared. Had it provided prepared statements, everyone would've been happy. It doesn't do either, and just fucks everything up.
Does all the required SQL escaping on your values and safely injects them in your query.
Makes it actually harder to do it wrong than to do it right. Perl's or Ruby's DBI APIs (Perl's DBI is the oldest one, Ruby's DBI comes from it) play the same role.
No they couldn't, because they'd have to redevelop MSIE from scratch and forget about backward compatibility with previous IE-only code.
How about the fact that you can't use an integer as an array index in Ada and you have to use natural numbers (defined as a positive or null integer), because array indexes can't be negative (in most languages anyway, some -- like Python -- are exceptions to this quite common rule) and you therefore shouldn't be allowed to use a number that might ever be negative as an index. C# merely gives you a warning if your index is explicit (e.g., myArray[-1]) and doesn't do anything otherwise, before throwing an IndexOutOfRangeException at runtime.
That's one measly example, but I find it quite interresting.
So no, C#'s unsafe keyword isn't a factor (and the lack of implicit conversion clearly isn't, if anything implicit conversion is the sure sign of quirky and unsafe type systems).
When people say that an Ada program that compiles will usually work without problem, they're not joking, Ada's type system is so extensive and so strong that it misses very few errors (that it could handle, that is, flaws in your own logic can't be patched by a compiler).
gosh...
My reply was obviously to the "the fortran compiler is written in C" part, I forgot to remove the latter part of the quote.
Yes it is. I take it you've never coded in Ada (likewise for Haskell).
And no, generics are not enough, Ada's or Haskell's type systems are still much stronger than C#'s.
You probably won't be surprised by the fact that you're not the first one to compare Java and Cobol:
WTF? troll? who's the anal retentive mod who did that? I thought that french could at least mock each other...
Yep C is very weakly typed (some could say that it's untyped, as is ASM) as only the compiler does some sanity check, and even then it doesn't work too hard at it.
Unless you develop your language/dialect that is, I know that a game studio had developped it's own Lisp dialect to write PS2 games.
You forgot "CONS" which comes from the IBM cons cells (a 36bit machine word on the 704), which is the block holding both a CAR and a CDR.
The thing is, the names only existed because no one found any better name for them, or any more interresting name (Common Lisp now offers the "first" and "rest" aliases to CAR and CDR... yet quite a lot of people still prefer using CAR and CDR).
LISP has always been a high level language, because it was started from mathematics (untyped lambda calculus) and only then adapted to computers.
And the fact that Lisp Machines (trying to get away from the Von Neumann model) were built doesn't mean that Lisp is a low level language, only that IA labs needed power that the Lisp => Von Neumann machines mappings could not give them at that time.
Lisp is a high level languages, because Lisp abstracts the machine away (no memory management, not giving a fuck about registers or machine words [may I remind you that Lisp was one of the first languages with unbound integers and automatic promotion from machine to unbound integers?])
OCaml is a fairly good example because it doesn't even aim for speed that much (OCaml's lead motto is "never more than twice as slow as C")
Are you an idiot? The birth of FORTAN predates C by more than 10 years (work started in 1953, first manual in 1956, first compiler in 1957. C was somewhat officially released [as in "C got powerful enough to rewrite the UNIX kernel in C] in 1973, and the K&R was only published in 1978...)
Failed, most Lisp code is actually compiled before gettting in test or in production, and Lisp compilers are usually written in Lisp (and then you use macros to build your own Lisp dialects on top of existing ones). C is usually used to bootstrap the initial compilers though.
Haskell is another example of a very high level language whose compilers can be written in itself, and which can be both compiled and interpreted.