bazoom42

> VB.NET was always second class to c#

VB.NET and C# was treated as equals for a long time. I believe MS initially expected VB.NET to be the mainstream .net language, while C# was a compromise to attract Java and Delphi users.

But the transition from VB to VB.NET was not handled well. VB was very well liked by its users (even if non-users looked down on it) but VB.NET was worst of both worlds. Too different from VB to be smooth upgrade, and still nok considered as professional a language as C#

Probably because someone has created the page and nobody has deleted it.

At least a much more plausible explanation than the “ancient observatory” theory.

Stonehenge is older than the pyramids though.

You dont need giant rocks to observe the sun and moon though.

The BBC does not actually claim that.

Of course the the theory is wrong:

> new investigations since the 1960s have discredited Hawkins' ideas.

> the further back you go, the less historical they become

This makes zero sense.

It is unknow whether it is based on a real historical person, but is there any question the oldest known version of the legend is Welsh?

As far as I can tell, some engines will implicitly coerce types so “7” = 7

What happens if a query compares a string to a number?

Isn’t sql weakly typed? Or does this depend on the engine?

The comment mentioned partioning schemes which is defined using SQL but belongs in the physical layer. Indexes are also defined in SQL.

A core idea of the relational model is to seperate the logical model from the physical layer including optimizations, indexes etc.

So it makes sense to only expose the logical model at the ORM layer.

The problem comes if you want to define the database schema through the ORM layer, rather than just represet it.

Or “the worst query language ever, except for all the alternatives”

I would like to see that example then.

I’m all for improving on SQL, but this syntax does not even solve the dangling comma issue as far as I can tell from the example.

> Even if it's 1% of the population, this would be enough to end Hollywood

Why? Hollywood would still have 99% percent of the population as audience.

Most people will not want to create their own unique movies, even if it is technically possible.

They want to watch movies other people watch with actors they know.

Why would it be impossible to emulate quantum effects?

But why would Hollywood be screwed? They would have new tools at their disposal. Movies with sound put theatre musicians and some actors with unfortunate voices out of a job, but Hollywood thrived.

But why is Hollywood screwed then? Same thing was said when cameras became cheap, when editing became cheep, and when internet made it possible for anyone to distribute movies: Now the movie industry is screwed because anyone with talent and an iphone can make and distribute a movie.

Turns out there is more to it than that.

By that standard, no prediction can be wrong.

Anyone remember when YC declared they would replace Hollywood?

Have someone refactored it into a more concise and modern version?

The readability should be compared to alternative ways to solve the same problem. Sure, regexes are not the most intuitive syntax, but it is compact and declarative. What is the alternative? Substring searches? Looping over characters? Hand-rolled recursive descent? Neither are obviously more readable, and intermingles the pattern with the mechanism.

Doesn’t sound very hippie to assume by default, without knowing anything about the issue, that the big corporations are in the right.

What is json-esque SQL?

Because we call someone using a programming language a programmer. But certainly many professionals who arent full-time programmers write Excel formulas or queries.

The intention of SQL was to be used by domain experts rather than computer scientists. I’d say it have been successful at that.

This article is not about null but about NaN, a special case floating-point value which is the result of diving by zero.

> So what we have is writings written hundreds of years later documenting an event with no earlier writings verifying that documentation.

Unfortunately, this is the case for much of ancient history. Doesn’t mean nothing happend, just that it can be difficult to figure out what is myth and what are actual events.