Suddenly, we've added this very powerful Functional syntax to our Imperative language.
"we've... our..."
So why not take the time to add it to the already established languages?
I stated in an above post. This sounds more like market speak to me. The technology is already there. This is more of a "my way is better" kind of rhetoric. I'm the big bully in school, and I'm taking my cookies over here. At least... that's how it sounds to me.
I mean, this stuff isn't new hat by any means. It's a culmination of technologies. Heck, I could probably do much of the same in Ruby or even AS3 if I really wanted to. So you added it to the language constructs and now we have a specialized set of keywords created JUST for this type of thing. It's complication at it's worst. It's like adding instructions to the x86 set just to perform a specific task. Complicating things a bit by making developers learn a new set of commands and structure.
Why wasn't effort put into some sort of "deep scan intellisense" in a manner that allows a developer to see all this stuff in the IDE. Closed files or not, libraries or headers. If I open up a DLL, make it robust enough to let me know what it contains while I'm coding instead of adding an additional layer of complication.
Why wasn't this effort put into a C/C++ lib instead? I mean... besides money. Everyone talks of the removal of boilerplate code (which could easily be done with a few smart classes/templates as OO intended.) The only thing I see here is a marketing sales pitch instead of some serious "world altering" code contributions.
So what's different between this and templates in C++? You could template a query class and use it on tons of data structures. Everyone is making this out to be the second coming of Jesus.
Precisely... If I saw a person running at me in the hallway, I'd likely get the fuck out of the way (as I do and expect others to do on the road.) You don't know why that person is running fast, but you know they have a reason. Maybe they cut off their finger and are rushing to the hospital/nurse.
That would make sense, except today you can get on a voice chat server and pretty much identify what race the person is on the other end by their voice, choice of words, or accent. (At least here in America where people think they need to keep their heritage/accent alive.)
It's kind of funny actually. I loved working on Win2K instead of XP. It ran everything made for XP unless they put the restriction in the MSI installer that it would only install on XP. So I learned how to use Orca pretty fast and stripped out those conditionals. It wasn't until they started getting ugly with the installer flags that I just got tired of hacking it.
I think they all know if they were ever intellectually honest about their core values, they'd never get elected.
Why? Obviously, as you stated, I am of the same thought process and I'm sure I'm not alone. What makes you think that people like me are the minority in this world? Maybe we've gotten to the point where it's not politically correct and therefore shunned upon. Now that we've lost that freedom of speech through political obstruction, does that make people like me die off?
My stance on it is kind of cruel to most people. I say if you can't afford it, you don't need it. Does that mean people will die? Yes. That's the way of the world. The sick are sick for a reason. Genetically inferior, poor self hygiene, lack of personal responsibility... whatever way you want to look at it. If someone doesn't work hard to get a good paying job and insurance, how is that my fault? If you believe in God, and he gave you a poor body, how could you defy his wishes and try to keep yourself alive? If you don't believe in God, Natural Selection kicks in. The Human race will only survive if the strongest are allowed to survive. If we treat every person in the world, we defy either God or Natural Selection. That in itself is the biggest losing battle you can place your bets on.
Maybe it's time people faced reality. Nobody lives forever. Some live for less than others and not everyone is entitled to a perfect life. These are the basis of Human existence, present, past and future. Our self-entitlement attitude has gone overboard.
I watch House on a regular basis because I find it interesting how these people off the street pay for this kind of treatment. How the producers of this show never cover the cost. It's all magic and that's how people think of medicine. Medicine is not even close to the point where it's economically feasible to treat everyone in the world in this way. Period. But we apparently live in this magic wonderland where there are no worries in the world and Doctors will make you live forever.
This is a valid concern. But equally valid is also the cost we all bear paying for those who get ill and lack health insurance. There is no good perfect solution to this, but it is a problem and we can't ignore it for much longer.
The solution if to let people pay for it themselves. Why is that so hard to comprehend? If we reduce spending and reduce taxes, that puts more money in people's pockets. Suddenly, we don't have to sue other people/doctors to live well and the price of health care can come back down. Stop litigating doctors responsible for complications in surgery and they won't have to charge you so much. For all intents and purposes, let a jury of their peers (other doctors) determine if they were right or wrong.
Who else do we grant authority to? Do you think we'd ever reach this level of advancement in society without public investment via the government?
I don't understand your question. Is it our goal to control global markets or is it our goal to treat humans like humans and not robots that pay taxes?
What does the size of the government have to do with money... unless that government prints said money. Don't you think that is where the problem is? We granted the government the ability to control the global economy. It was born out of desperation from the Depression which was helped along by the govt when they tried to limit global trade in order to try to control the global economy...
Of course, after those events transpired, people were all concerned about the future. The govt stepped in to fix it all and we end up where we are today. Always taking the next step in total interdependence. Pretty soon, you may rely on the government for your health. Defy the government and lose your health care benefits because no doctor will treat someone who could be an illegal without the proper med card.
I hate to tell you, but this isn't a Bush legacy. Years and years have gone by where the two party system working against each other have slowly stripped right after right away. All the while they tell the people, "We have to fix what so and so did..." I'd argue that it goes back to the point in history when Social Security was started and never given an end date. The more people grow dependent on the government, the more they will allow to be taken away to protect it.
The Economy. It's the biggest topic these days, eclipsing even war as the most important issue to most Americans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are all the same issue. The economy is in a slump because people don't have money. The government is taking more than a third of your paycheck to pay for a war, government programs, and "Terrorism" and you don't question it?
I'll tell you how to fix it all. Reduce government spending and give the money back to the people so they can pay for their houses, health care, and everything else it takes to live. Stop running the country like a socialist regime.
Yes, and therein lies the problem with this election. (and society?)
Our country is too set on binary operations. I'm not talking about computers here. To most Americans there is a choice and an anti-choice. You either like, or you hate one of them which makes the other your choice. Anyone on the other side is wrong. Nobody even attempts to look for the other option.
What if the matter isn't entering the "event horizon" but is being shot out like a projectile from the other side and in doing so causes other object near it to follow? There are whole galaxies like this, but what if you looked at them from the "top"? Would they "look" like a black hole?
Aren't most hypothesis born from gut feelings? You are eventually educated to a point of understanding at which point things don't make sense. You get a "gut feeling" that it must be something else and you go about trying to prove it. (Or in this case reflect it off others to get feedback.) Then in trounces Mr. Wrong and steps all over your thoughts and tells you that you are wrong, without a doubt. "This is the way it is, and has been for years. So and so proved it and now you must comply." That to me sounds religious in nature. Because [I|God|We|They|Einstein] said so.
This frankly upsets me more than anything. The person so dead set in their ways that everything is black and white. There's no questioning allowed.
How hard is it to temporarily lock out that icon/button/etc until the code returns to that block? Not difficult whatsoever. It should be the first thing done in anticipation of a delay. Personally I don't see what you could possibly be processing to cause a button press to not instantly register. If the button is pressed, there should be instant and undeniable evidence of such a push. Especially with a check box. It's good programming practice to first update the UI before processing in the background. You should NEVER let the user wait without some sort of notification. That's all in UI design.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm sure the soldiers would be told that you were some crazy cult who threaten the government and wish to see them all destroyed. There would be another civil war with those that think the government isn't all that bad and everyone else is a crazy psychopath with no common sense.
I mean, people in The Civil War killed each other and they were militant and military alike.
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
Now you're just trying to get into a debate on when something is considered life.
I guess if you wanted to debate it, you have to first be born to become a US Citizen, so any unborn child is therefore not a citizen.
Then we could get into the definition/interpretation of the word "born" to mean either created or released into another medium (delivered) and debates on the meaning of the 14th.
Slashdot Mirror
Suddenly, we've added this very powerful Functional syntax to our Imperative language.
"we've ... our ..."
So why not take the time to add it to the already established languages?
I stated in an above post. This sounds more like market speak to me. The technology is already there. This is more of a "my way is better" kind of rhetoric. I'm the big bully in school, and I'm taking my cookies over here. At least... that's how it sounds to me.
I mean, this stuff isn't new hat by any means. It's a culmination of technologies. Heck, I could probably do much of the same in Ruby or even AS3 if I really wanted to. So you added it to the language constructs and now we have a specialized set of keywords created JUST for this type of thing. It's complication at it's worst. It's like adding instructions to the x86 set just to perform a specific task. Complicating things a bit by making developers learn a new set of commands and structure.
Why wasn't effort put into some sort of "deep scan intellisense" in a manner that allows a developer to see all this stuff in the IDE. Closed files or not, libraries or headers. If I open up a DLL, make it robust enough to let me know what it contains while I'm coding instead of adding an additional layer of complication.
I guess my question was more rhetorical...
Why wasn't this effort put into a C/C++ lib instead? I mean... besides money. Everyone talks of the removal of boilerplate code (which could easily be done with a few smart classes/templates as OO intended.) The only thing I see here is a marketing sales pitch instead of some serious "world altering" code contributions.
So what's different between this and templates in C++? You could template a query class and use it on tons of data structures. Everyone is making this out to be the second coming of Jesus.
Precisely... If I saw a person running at me in the hallway, I'd likely get the fuck out of the way (as I do and expect others to do on the road.) You don't know why that person is running fast, but you know they have a reason. Maybe they cut off their finger and are rushing to the hospital/nurse.
That would make sense, except today you can get on a voice chat server and pretty much identify what race the person is on the other end by their voice, choice of words, or accent. (At least here in America where people think they need to keep their heritage/accent alive.)
It's kind of funny actually. I loved working on Win2K instead of XP. It ran everything made for XP unless they put the restriction in the MSI installer that it would only install on XP. So I learned how to use Orca pretty fast and stripped out those conditionals. It wasn't until they started getting ugly with the installer flags that I just got tired of hacking it.
Only the truly talented can quote themselves before they even post!
Only the truly talented can quote themselves before they even post!
12?
I think they all know if they were ever intellectually honest about their core values, they'd never get elected.
Why? Obviously, as you stated, I am of the same thought process and I'm sure I'm not alone. What makes you think that people like me are the minority in this world? Maybe we've gotten to the point where it's not politically correct and therefore shunned upon. Now that we've lost that freedom of speech through political obstruction, does that make people like me die off?
My stance on it is kind of cruel to most people. I say if you can't afford it, you don't need it. Does that mean people will die? Yes. That's the way of the world. The sick are sick for a reason. Genetically inferior, poor self hygiene, lack of personal responsibility... whatever way you want to look at it. If someone doesn't work hard to get a good paying job and insurance, how is that my fault? If you believe in God, and he gave you a poor body, how could you defy his wishes and try to keep yourself alive? If you don't believe in God, Natural Selection kicks in. The Human race will only survive if the strongest are allowed to survive. If we treat every person in the world, we defy either God or Natural Selection. That in itself is the biggest losing battle you can place your bets on.
Maybe it's time people faced reality. Nobody lives forever. Some live for less than others and not everyone is entitled to a perfect life. These are the basis of Human existence, present, past and future. Our self-entitlement attitude has gone overboard.
I watch House on a regular basis because I find it interesting how these people off the street pay for this kind of treatment. How the producers of this show never cover the cost. It's all magic and that's how people think of medicine. Medicine is not even close to the point where it's economically feasible to treat everyone in the world in this way. Period. But we apparently live in this magic wonderland where there are no worries in the world and Doctors will make you live forever.
This is a valid concern. But equally valid is also the cost we all bear paying for those who get ill and lack health insurance. There is no good perfect solution to this, but it is a problem and we can't ignore it for much longer.
The solution if to let people pay for it themselves. Why is that so hard to comprehend? If we reduce spending and reduce taxes, that puts more money in people's pockets. Suddenly, we don't have to sue other people/doctors to live well and the price of health care can come back down. Stop litigating doctors responsible for complications in surgery and they won't have to charge you so much. For all intents and purposes, let a jury of their peers (other doctors) determine if they were right or wrong.
Who else do we grant authority to? Do you think we'd ever reach this level of advancement in society without public investment via the government?
Why do we have to give the authority to anyone?
I don't understand your question. Is it our goal to control global markets or is it our goal to treat humans like humans and not robots that pay taxes?
What does the size of the government have to do with money... unless that government prints said money. Don't you think that is where the problem is? We granted the government the ability to control the global economy. It was born out of desperation from the Depression which was helped along by the govt when they tried to limit global trade in order to try to control the global economy...
Of course, after those events transpired, people were all concerned about the future. The govt stepped in to fix it all and we end up where we are today. Always taking the next step in total interdependence. Pretty soon, you may rely on the government for your health. Defy the government and lose your health care benefits because no doctor will treat someone who could be an illegal without the proper med card.
I hate to tell you, but this isn't a Bush legacy. Years and years have gone by where the two party system working against each other have slowly stripped right after right away. All the while they tell the people, "We have to fix what so and so did..." I'd argue that it goes back to the point in history when Social Security was started and never given an end date. The more people grow dependent on the government, the more they will allow to be taken away to protect it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are all the same issue. The economy is in a slump because people don't have money. The government is taking more than a third of your paycheck to pay for a war, government programs, and "Terrorism" and you don't question it?
I'll tell you how to fix it all. Reduce government spending and give the money back to the people so they can pay for their houses, health care, and everything else it takes to live. Stop running the country like a socialist regime.
Yes, and therein lies the problem with this election. (and society?)
Our country is too set on binary operations. I'm not talking about computers here. To most Americans there is a choice and an anti-choice. You either like, or you hate one of them which makes the other your choice. Anyone on the other side is wrong. Nobody even attempts to look for the other option.
FYI: Bob Barr is the other candidate.
What if the matter isn't entering the "event horizon" but is being shot out like a projectile from the other side and in doing so causes other object near it to follow? There are whole galaxies like this, but what if you looked at them from the "top"? Would they "look" like a black hole?
Aren't most hypothesis born from gut feelings? You are eventually educated to a point of understanding at which point things don't make sense. You get a "gut feeling" that it must be something else and you go about trying to prove it. (Or in this case reflect it off others to get feedback.) Then in trounces Mr. Wrong and steps all over your thoughts and tells you that you are wrong, without a doubt. "This is the way it is, and has been for years. So and so proved it and now you must comply." That to me sounds religious in nature. Because [I|God|We|They|Einstein] said so.
This frankly upsets me more than anything. The person so dead set in their ways that everything is black and white. There's no questioning allowed.
How hard is it to temporarily lock out that icon/button/etc until the code returns to that block? Not difficult whatsoever. It should be the first thing done in anticipation of a delay. Personally I don't see what you could possibly be processing to cause a button press to not instantly register. If the button is pressed, there should be instant and undeniable evidence of such a push. Especially with a check box. It's good programming practice to first update the UI before processing in the background. You should NEVER let the user wait without some sort of notification. That's all in UI design.
Considering pretty much everything goes through a compiler that converts it all to common instructions, can software ever be "new"?
I guess I could have capitalized "The" to denote I was talking about the Constitution of the United States and no other. My bad.
He did have an excellent counterpoint though. It was well thought out and to the point. All three of them. (...)
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm sure the soldiers would be told that you were some crazy cult who threaten the government and wish to see them all destroyed. There would be another civil war with those that think the government isn't all that bad and everyone else is a crazy psychopath with no common sense.
I mean, people in The Civil War killed each other and they were militant and military alike.
It would be ugly, no doubt.
It was also Mel Gibson who rallied freedom for Scotland. What a brave and heroic person.
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
Now you're just trying to get into a debate on when something is considered life.
I guess if you wanted to debate it, you have to first be born to become a US Citizen, so any unborn child is therefore not a citizen.
Then we could get into the definition/interpretation of the word "born" to mean either created or released into another medium (delivered) and debates on the meaning of the 14th.
It's easy enough to explain. GP used a comma for a decimal delimiter... duh!