Except that the reasons I like Perl are the same as the reasons it's a good browser scripting language. How would those two arguments be different, anyway?
Because we're not all silly enough to think that one language is the best choice for all problems. A language designed to work with markup and browser events has pretty different requirements to a language designed to work with files and text processing.
(P.S. If you decide to respond you need to do more than call my argument "snotty" and accept my "giving up")
One advantage is that lots of people, not just me, have liked Perl enough to have written a large, easily accessible library of code for doing all kinds of things.
Like Python?
Another advantage is that Perl is a much higher performance language than Javascript.
Like Python?
And then there's the flexibility of Perl's syntax and native complexity of data structures.
Like Python?
Perl is a much better language than Javascript in practically every way.
Like Python?
(Replace Python with any widely used language)
See how someone actually forms an argument when they believe something? We back it up with facts and logic. Passive aggression like "whatever you say" doesn't cut it, nor mere assertions denying my argument, nor do empty promises to say the same thing for any language you like, when you can't even say it substantially about Javascript, which you're defending. So despite my giving you the respect of a reasonable argument, you've given me only a snotty attitude. So I accept your giving up, but it wasn't any fun to force it out of you.
Way to put words in my mouth. "I accept you giving in to my superior logic and reasonable arguments, when you did no such thing."
Get over yourself moron; not everyone likes Perl as much as you do.
Whatever you say.. Though I could say the same thing for any language I like. "Why can't my language be the web scripting language?"
And in the first sentence I was saying Perl is useful for those things, but those things have nothing to do with what JavaScript is used for. Perl has nothing that would give it an advantage over JavaScript, or any other language, for web scripting, other than that you like it.
Because dealing with files, processing text and acting as a glue between different applications is exactly the job JavaScript has to do?
For traversing the DOM and performing web related tasks and handling web related events JavaScript is at least adequate. (And pretty impressive considering it was created in large part by competing companies as a way of drowning each other out. Kudos to the ECMA guys for turning that mess around.)
If the "byte array mapped to RAM" installed in Tamarin allows the code to store anywhere in the interpreter's space, that's a huge security hole. It can do anything the user process can do. If you're going to allow that, you may as well just load executable machine code directly, as with Active-X.
You should email them and tell them about this! Surely they haven't though of such a thing!
Sarcasm aside (sorry, I couldn't help myself), I suspect the VM needs to actually hand you a block of memory, and on accesses it validates that it is within the VM allocated range. Anything less would be silly, however such a thing would provide a huge win (I've tried to do image editing in pure managed code, and then found a massive performance win switching it over to P/Invoke native code).
I'm all for web-apps but I really hope we don't start seeing image editing in browsers..
Everything's being constantly reinvented but no actual progress is being made. Oh look, the 100th toolkit to do exactly the same thing! Oh look, a new way of layering something old on something old on something old to give something new! Oh look, another silver bullet framework!
Can anyone here remember the web of 10 years ago, for example? Content = text for reading + graphics for illustration. No bullcrap, just Google/Wikipedia style web sites to give me a simple navbar + content.
(Clicks reply to this, has text-box open up, clicks quote parent, has parent's comment show up, types comment)
Yeah we all really desperately want to go to the web of 10 years ago.. Are you really saying the web is stagnating?
It's the most quickly developing platform out there, and now more than ever. And thanks to open source it's more open than ever and browser wars are finally about being true to standards and not about breaking them.
(Clicks preview, has comment show up, clicks submit, has comment displayed, continues reading from the comment directly beneath)
Aside from the obvious fact that the name is more "theme park" than business-like,
what can it really do that can't be done (with fewer resources) via teleconferencing,
and/or chat, and/or version control? Seems to me it's just teleconferencing with eye candy.
Wonderland also enables participants to share a web browser, an OpenOffice document, and tools such as the calculator. Apparently, you can also share Windows or other desktops using Virtual Network Computing. Nicole opened up an OpenOffice presentation document and added a sentence to it. She then asked me to take control of the document so that I could edit it. I thought this was another great feature of Wonderland. While Wonderland does not allow all participants to edit the document at the same time, it places the document on a wall in a 3D space shared by participants and emulates a real world meeting in which people in a room are looking at and working on a document being projected on a wall.
Sounds pretty neat, if it's executed well.
Re:Head First seems too limited
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apress' take on C# is much more.NET oriented, and much longer and more thorough for only slightly more money..
How did I not notice that?
Re:Head First seems too limited
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
It's still something like 15% last I heard. That may not sound like a lot of share but comparing to browsers it's more than Opera and Safari have put together.
It would be a huge acquisition and could help build a lot of momentum if they can also get some good new stuff out.
How about a look at the big picture? Gates & co. are robbing the rich, and giving a fraction of this money to the poor. The alternative could be that we used Free software, and instead of the money going to Microsoft, it could go more directly towards helping the poor.
I take it the money you don't spend on proprietary software goes towards the poor? It's a cheap argument, but people are being too black and white about this, I think.
And things are going to go increasingly in this direction as microcontrollers capable of this sort of thing get cheaper and cheaper, and IPv6 could help too.
Microcontrollers are only starting to reach the sort of scale that this kind of functionality can be cheaply tacked onto anything, it's the start of true ubiquitous computing.
I want to see this team of academics write some code that will beat a human at *No-Limit* Hold'em. Or maybe *Pot-Limit* Omaha. NEVER going to happen.
I don't care how well such a program is coded... it will absolutely buckle under the pressure of a professional who constantly bets half his stack on nothing. The machine would turn into a professional folding station that only plays AA, KK, or AK. Guess what? That strategy isn't winning any games or any period of time in a no-limit or pot-limit world.
What is it about poker that everyone that can play thinks they're great at it.. Please give us more of your poker insight, o' master of poker AI..
Are you really suggesting an AI can't tell when someone is overbetting? That's not even AI, it's just basic probability and statistics.
If you even go to somewhere like Full Tilt Poker you'll likely encounter bots with the ability to pick off people which overbet constantly, and you wouldn't even call that software "AI", just basic rules and guidelines.
professional poker is a psychological game. Unless the computer has the feeling of anxiety it will have an edge.
Well some might say that at a high enough level anxiety and tells just don't come into it, and professional poker isn't psychological at all. I don't think Brunson/Greenstein/etc get many nervous twitches (and I don't think you need to get to nearly that high a level before you reach that point)
Because "pages" are a great way to measure a specs size..
What about line spacing, detail of information, number of examples? If the spec is clearest when fully expanded who cares if they can squeeze it onto a single page in microfilm by cutting out helpful documentation?
Rather than looking at the number of pages why not look at the number of distinct node types/attributes? Surely that would give a better idea of spec size?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the reasons I like Perl are the same as the reasons it's a good browser scripting language. How would those two arguments be different, anyway?
Because we're not all silly enough to think that one language is the best choice for all problems. A language designed to work with markup and browser events has pretty different requirements to a language designed to work with files and text processing.
(P.S. If you decide to respond you need to do more than call my argument "snotty" and accept my "giving up")
One advantage is that lots of people, not just me, have liked Perl enough to have written a large, easily accessible library of code for doing all kinds of things.
Like Python?
Another advantage is that Perl is a much higher performance language than Javascript.
Like Python?
And then there's the flexibility of Perl's syntax and native complexity of data structures.
Like Python?
Perl is a much better language than Javascript in practically every way.
Like Python?
(Replace Python with any widely used language)
See how someone actually forms an argument when they believe something? We back it up with facts and logic. Passive aggression like "whatever you say" doesn't cut it, nor mere assertions denying my argument, nor do empty promises to say the same thing for any language you like, when you can't even say it substantially about Javascript, which you're defending. So despite my giving you the respect of a reasonable argument, you've given me only a snotty attitude. So I accept your giving up, but it wasn't any fun to force it out of you.
Way to put words in my mouth. "I accept you giving in to my superior logic and reasonable arguments, when you did no such thing."
Get over yourself moron; not everyone likes Perl as much as you do.
Whatever you say.. Though I could say the same thing for any language I like. "Why can't my language be the web scripting language?"
And in the first sentence I was saying Perl is useful for those things, but those things have nothing to do with what JavaScript is used for. Perl has nothing that would give it an advantage over JavaScript, or any other language, for web scripting, other than that you like it.
Because dealing with files, processing text and acting as a glue between different applications is exactly the job JavaScript has to do?
For traversing the DOM and performing web related tasks and handling web related events JavaScript is at least adequate. (And pretty impressive considering it was created in large part by competing companies as a way of drowning each other out. Kudos to the ECMA guys for turning that mess around.)
You should email them and tell them about this! Surely they haven't though of such a thing!
Sarcasm aside (sorry, I couldn't help myself), I suspect the VM needs to actually hand you a block of memory, and on accesses it validates that it is within the VM allocated range. Anything less would be silly, however such a thing would provide a huge win (I've tried to do image editing in pure managed code, and then found a massive performance win switching it over to P/Invoke native code).
I'm all for web-apps but I really hope we don't start seeing image editing in browsers..
Everything's being constantly reinvented but no actual progress is being made. Oh look, the 100th toolkit to do exactly the same thing! Oh look, a new way of layering something old on something old on something old to give something new! Oh look, another silver bullet framework!
Can anyone here remember the web of 10 years ago, for example? Content = text for reading + graphics for illustration. No bullcrap, just Google/Wikipedia style web sites to give me a simple navbar + content.
(Clicks reply to this, has text-box open up, clicks quote parent, has parent's comment show up, types comment)
Yeah we all really desperately want to go to the web of 10 years ago.. Are you really saying the web is stagnating?
It's the most quickly developing platform out there, and now more than ever. And thanks to open source it's more open than ever and browser wars are finally about being true to standards and not about breaking them.
(Clicks preview, has comment show up, clicks submit, has comment displayed, continues reading from the comment directly beneath)
Easy to say now.. Now that we know the blood was from the murder and not from something else.
Still I'm glad the correct jury came to the correct decision.
Aside from the obvious fact that the name is more "theme park" than business-like, what can it really do that can't be done (with fewer resources) via teleconferencing, and/or chat, and/or version control? Seems to me it's just teleconferencing with eye candy.
Wonderland also enables participants to share a web browser, an OpenOffice document, and tools such as the calculator. Apparently, you can also share Windows or other desktops using Virtual Network Computing. Nicole opened up an OpenOffice presentation document and added a sentence to it. She then asked me to take control of the document so that I could edit it. I thought this was another great feature of Wonderland. While Wonderland does not allow all participants to edit the document at the same time, it places the document on a wall in a 3D space shared by participants and emulates a real world meeting in which people in a room are looking at and working on a document being projected on a wall.
Sounds pretty neat, if it's executed well.
Apress' take on C# is much more .NET oriented, and much longer and more thorough for only slightly more money..
How did I not notice that?
If you don't know C# you might not know that C# in a nutshell is also rather limiting. on C# is much more .NET oriented, and much longer and more thorough for only slightly more money.
Yahoo users feel one way Yahoo shareholders feel another way. :-) We'll see which group yields the most influence
It's still something like 15% last I heard. That may not sound like a lot of share but comparing to browsers it's more than Opera and Safari have put together.
It would be a huge acquisition and could help build a lot of momentum if they can also get some good new stuff out.
The only reason they're doing so is because Yahoo's shareholders can see that it makes sense.
Someone familiar with the latest tech buzzwords is going to have to translate "Magic ponys" for me. (Especially if I'm going to impress my boss)
Look, we get it; you hate KDE 4 and the direction in which it's headed.. There was enough flamebait in your article without you trolling here too.
How about a look at the big picture? Gates & co. are robbing the rich, and giving a fraction of this money to the poor. The alternative could be that we used Free software, and instead of the money going to Microsoft, it could go more directly towards helping the poor.
I take it the money you don't spend on proprietary software goes towards the poor? It's a cheap argument, but people are being too black and white about this, I think.
Yup, poor African countries pay so much for Microsoft Windows they can't afford to build hospitals.
And things are going to go increasingly in this direction as microcontrollers capable of this sort of thing get cheaper and cheaper, and IPv6 could help too.
Microcontrollers are only starting to reach the sort of scale that this kind of functionality can be cheaply tacked onto anything, it's the start of true ubiquitous computing.
I want to see this team of academics write some code that will beat a human at *No-Limit* Hold'em. Or maybe *Pot-Limit* Omaha. NEVER going to happen.
I don't care how well such a program is coded... it will absolutely buckle under the pressure of a professional who constantly bets half his stack on nothing. The machine would turn into a professional folding station that only plays AA, KK, or AK. Guess what? That strategy isn't winning any games or any period of time in a no-limit or pot-limit world.
What is it about poker that everyone that can play thinks they're great at it.. Please give us more of your poker insight, o' master of poker AI..
Are you really suggesting an AI can't tell when someone is overbetting? That's not even AI, it's just basic probability and statistics.
If you even go to somewhere like Full Tilt Poker you'll likely encounter bots with the ability to pick off people which overbet constantly, and you wouldn't even call that software "AI", just basic rules and guidelines.
Poke is almost entirely a game of skill, not chance, at professional levels.
Come on.. no professional player will ever claim that they could ever guarantee a win against a player of lesser skill.
It's a game of skill in the long run, but for the timeframe of individual games it's very much a game of luck, and any pro will tell you this.
You might as well say Roulette isn't a game of chance; after all in the long run the casino is a sure winner.
Well some might say that at a high enough level anxiety and tells just don't come into it, and professional poker isn't psychological at all. I don't think Brunson/Greenstein/etc get many nervous twitches (and I don't think you need to get to nearly that high a level before you reach that point)
Don't act like limit and no-limit require different amounts of skill.. Most would go the opposite of what you're implying.
"No-limit? Hah, go all-in when you are likely to have the best and hope it holds up, that's not skill. Let's see them make it play limit/pot-limit."
Without knowing how to program?? You need to know the code better than the guy who wrote it, by definition, to recognize holes in the code.
I don't know :-| Maybe someone should read the spec and find out.
Perhaps ODF can't do everything OOXML does, perhaps OOXML's spec has more details, perhaps it actually isn't 6000/5000 pages like everyone says.
(And I don't really care either way, I'm not speaking with bias)
Because "pages" are a great way to measure a specs size..
What about line spacing, detail of information, number of examples? If the spec is clearest when fully expanded who cares if they can squeeze it onto a single page in microfilm by cutting out helpful documentation?
Rather than looking at the number of pages why not look at the number of distinct node types/attributes? Surely that would give a better idea of spec size?