Alphasite_

It's only been a day to two since thise was public, I'm doubtful that they're being mentioned in court.

Well we have PDF.js, so it's evidently possible, if a bit tricky.

I'm perhaps missing the issue completely, but isn't the argument about sensible defaults?

How would cases work for a modular design? It might be okay for small modules, but the moment it gets bulky, the phones entire profiles changed, and any normal cases are out.

It feels like the only unreasonable party is the author.

iirc they're aiming for Value types and a new JNI for Java 9, so that could simplify some of those issues.

RS/Farnell i guess?

Their Clang Arm64 back end as well, among other things.

It's exactly like what the airline industry does. Sees that your shopping around so it raises the prices.

Even java can do that setOut(system.in); (iirc)

My understanding is that you would have to mark some of the apps pages as executable, iirc, which could allow for arbitrary code execution.

Why not Sender and Receiver? TX and RX are obviously equivalent, but i take it there are downsides that I'm missing?

Two things, being in power makes you more vulnerable to these things and secondly, you should second guess everyone, people look after their own interests and no one is completely reliable.

Well, for example if it was design issue they could pull all effected aircraft immediately, rate than waiting for the next one to crash over and and getting the blackbox then.

I hope you can eventually find a way to work onlive (or its successor) into this (I imagine this is one of your reasons for approaching this problem?).

You don't know that at all. For all you know there are programs which depend on the undefined behaviour (very unlikely, but then what do we know?).

"Who would I switch too? Maybe any of your 12 competitors in this district." This isn't a US based anecdote, they do it because if they dont, their competitors will.

I'd certainly say that it is, it certainly meets the dynamic binding pre requisite. And small talk certainly does, so why does Objective-C not qualify?

Now obviously, c arrays are just strips of memory allocated to that array, so you can access them using the address of the start of the address and the offset (number of array items to skip). To access them, you sum the address and the offset, then you have the address of the item.

     [~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[a~~~~~~~b~~]~~~] Memory
     ^–––––––––––––––––^                Address
                       ^–––––––^        Offset

And now, a[b] is just short hand for the pointer arithmetic going on and you could just use any two ints and access any arbitrary memory address (i assume the compiler enforces that this doesn't happen).

     address[offset] => *(address + offset) => getValueAtAddress(valueIn(address) + valueIn(offset))

    a[b]  => *(a + b) => getValueAtAddress(valueIn(a) + valueIn(b))
    b[a]  => *(b + a) => getValueAtAddress(valueIn(a) + valueIn(b))

Those two are obviously the same so *(a + b) == b[a] == a[b]

In what way do any of these look like an iPad? (apart from being vaguely rectangular)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=star+trek+padd&num=30&clie...

Yep, it would be excellent for virtualising an infinite/larger display.

To be frank, except for games (and even then it's not disagreeable to provide a nice, native UI), I disagree with you quite strongly. As is the usual case, language choice is completely arbitrary, but intentionally aiming for constancy across your narrow range of apps, instead of focusing on working to the platforms strengths is a very dangerous, and damaging approach to take imo.

Although i will say, i do not have a huge host of experience to go from, but this is from the perspective of someone who could potentially be your customer. With two apps at rough feature parity, i would pick the native app every single time, regardless of how nicely you've styled your app, at the end of the day the burden of proof lies on you; to prove the value of your app, if you cannot be bothered to create an appearance and functionality which is native, chances are that if you can't be bothered to do so, you've cut corners elsewhere.

I'm sorry if that comes across as presumptuous, perhaps i completely misunderstood what you're saying, or just jumped to conclusions, if so sorry, if not, i hope got my point across.

Yep. Who wants to make bad ports easier? Their goal is to keep their users hooked, and people are cheap (or stupid if you prefer) and approach value from the wrong direction, money spent instead of value gained.

I hope that you're joking...

Precisely this. I would be surprised if most people haven't realised this by now.

Magic methods have always been my favourite part of python, they're the developers way of ensuring we can do anything that they can do, if there isn't a magic method for it, it's not possible. We can create our own version of anything in the standard library.

Self is one of those things, if you wanted to you could easily add another instance variable, just implement getattr and have it return a partial function. Although I will admit it is one area which does cause more than its fair share of errors, but I prefer it to Ruby's methodology.

Huh, I have to say I'm surprised to see this here, he's a comedian who I haven't seen referenced on the internet before.

Wasn't Git conceived as an api instead of a straight up all-in-one VCS?

Whats the obsession with beginner friendly languages as of late? I can understand it to some extent, but at the end of the day, as long as its size doesn't cause problems does size really cause long term issues? After all you are going to be using (and learning) the language far longer than you're going to be a beginner.

Last few decades? I'm certainly not american, but there have been 3 mars missions in the last 5 years, an orbiter, a rover and a lander, the latest of which launched less than a month ago. Why are people so quick to write off their own achievements?