Algorithms are mathematical constructs that have nothing to do with programming paradigm. Assuming the language is Turing complete, how is that even possible?
Because Turing only says what is possible, not what is efficient.
And many, many algorithms are designed around mutable state. Pure functional programming doesn't have that. You can implement something which emulates mutable state, but it will be incredibly inefficient.
Yes, and packages and repositories are a horrible kludge to fix the basic problem: a lack of binary compatibility between version or even distros.
So you end up with a situation where a third-party developer either has to do the almost impossible task of compiling and packaging for all popular distros, or else depend on the goodwill and whims of a large number of people that they do the work him.
Because the iPod does more than just play mp3 files off a harddrive. It keeps files organized by metadata, it does smart playlists, and it keeps track of play counts, and it syncs all that with iTunes.
We don't have "a little" evidence, we have "little" evidence. These are two distinct concepts in English. Just "little" is usually understood to contain "no" as possible value.
You're not going to have much luck asking Slashdot that kind of thing. Most people around here thing a bullet-point feature list defines a device completely.
Ah yes, the good old libertarian cop-out. If a free market fails, find some tiny little bit of government involvement, and blame that. If a free market succeeds, take credit and ignore any government involvement.
ISPs at that level don't really work like your home DHCP setup, you know. They probably own their own IP blocks, and can route them through whatever provider they choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would that be true?
And once you create that, you lose the multiprocessing advantage you had, and you might as well have used a imperative language in the first place.
Nothing, except practicality.
Algorithms are mathematical constructs that have nothing to do with programming paradigm. Assuming the language is Turing complete, how is that even possible?
Because Turing only says what is possible, not what is efficient.
And many, many algorithms are designed around mutable state. Pure functional programming doesn't have that. You can implement something which emulates mutable state, but it will be incredibly inefficient.
Unfortunately it's a bit immature
Neeext!
And you're not allowed to complain about it if you aren't going to fix it by yourself!
Yes, and packages and repositories are a horrible kludge to fix the basic problem: a lack of binary compatibility between version or even distros.
So you end up with a situation where a third-party developer either has to do the almost impossible task of compiling and packaging for all popular distros, or else depend on the goodwill and whims of a large number of people that they do the work him.
I think disappointment is the feeling any bright-eyed young man wanting to work with AI is going to feel in any case.
Welcome to the AI winter.
Because Wine implements the stable Windows APIs? That's hardly a point in favor of Linux, just more proof that Windows' API design is a very stable.
Except you can't (no, really, you can't) expect users to compile your programs for you. How many binaries from 1998 will still run?
you are REWRITING the entire program's bottom layer every fucking time a new version comes out!
That is complete and utter bullshit.
And the prisoner comes to love his chains.
My honk botnet will crush your lame encryption in less than a day;
No, it won't. It won't crush it in a thousand years, either.
Because the iPod does more than just play mp3 files off a harddrive. It keeps files organized by metadata, it does smart playlists, and it keeps track of play counts, and it syncs all that with iTunes.
Most of Apple's software for Windows is incredibly annoying and buggy compared to the OS X versions.
It's not really a very good strategy for introducing people to their platform.
We don't have "a little" evidence, we have "little" evidence. These are two distinct concepts in English. Just "little" is usually understood to contain "no" as possible value.
Uh, annihilation radiation? Radioactive decay? They're pretty well known.
The hope is we will make ourselves seem like a bunch of confused Luddites when we start tagging things technologyispants.
Too late for that. What you think the whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag does?
Yeah, maybe 9/11 happened because it was getting so damn hot!
See?
Well, at least nobody's started talking about Ogg or FLAC yet.
You're not going to have much luck asking Slashdot that kind of thing. Most people around here thing a bullet-point feature list defines a device completely.
Ah yes, the good old libertarian cop-out. If a free market fails, find some tiny little bit of government involvement, and blame that. If a free market succeeds, take credit and ignore any government involvement.
ISPs at that level don't really work like your home DHCP setup, you know. They probably own their own IP blocks, and can route them through whatever provider they choose.
Er, you can't communicate with a botnet with a harddrive, you know.
Hint: It's not like my identity is hidden. You can easily figure out where I'm from.