1,122 karma · joined July 7, 2011
I'd take the ThinkPad running 10.6 thanks. 10.7 is a total clusterfuck. It pisses me off (a seasoned developer) and it confuses the fuck out of my wife (who isn't).
Since we're talking about a fantastic breach of trust, I'd like clarification that all copies of all uploaded contact information have been deleted from all servers (even ones that one could argue are other people's), and from all backup media, and further that no effort will ever be made to try to recover this information.
Because, I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks its OK to violate someone's privacy like this is at best someone who is able to easily justify unethical behavior because they think their business might depend on it and at worst a sociopath.
There is not a human on earth who would not object if someone else picked up their phone and started looking through the contacts.
Case in point: Resharper will tell me "This function never returns" in cases where it obviously wont return, and also offer to simplify methods that only ever return a single value despite what looks like a complex set of if-statements.
So, if it is possible to write a program to determine if a specific subset of all possible programs will terminate, is it possible to write a program that can generate a subset of all possible programs from a specific subset of all possible specifications?
I can't be perfect. But might it be useful?
The US Government should not have the power to regulate Doctors, drugs, food, oil, imports, exports etc. It should not have the power to go to war without clear and present danger. It should not have the power to make the Oil business viable by stationing floating fortresses in the gulf at our expense.
For those of you who want to tell me that we need "People To Regulate" Doctors, Drugs and Food: ask yourself, "Is the head of Monsanto the person I want to regulate Food?", because that's what you have. To Regulate Transport Safety, you have a man who makes high-power X-Ray machines.
The problem is not money or lobbyists. The problem is that there is a reason for them to spend their money. Of course, there will be a small number of fundamental rights that will need to be safeguarded - but they will be small, clear and understandable by Citizens.
10 PRINT "<rude message here>"
20 GOTO 10
Also note that the effect on performance and throughput are cited as downsides of using GOAL.[1][2]
I met the Naughty Dog team back then and Crash was an awesome game. Their use of a custom scripting language for so much of a real-time game (as opposed to an RPG) was pioneering. They did other innovative things, like baking in radiance transfer to their models to get the lush levels in the game. But at the end of the day, when the Lisp evangelists left Naughty Dog, they stopped using it almost immediately. Apparently, despite using Lisp, and learning from "one of the best lisp programmers in the world", none of that rubbed off on what appears to be an excellent programming team.
The only explanations are:
a) In 7+ years of working with a foremost Lisp programmer, that knowledge did not transfer, or
b) It did transfer, and the other programmers did not see a net advantage.
The OP would like us to believe that the answer is (a). Subsequent games from Naughty Dog would suggest that it is (b).
[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LispInJakAndDaxter
[2] http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2985/postmortem_naught...
Also, can you define "this problem" because I'm not sure which one you are referring to.
I've written complex systems. Games. Graphics modelling tools. Network game engines. I've seen a lot of code.
I've never seen anything that complex written in a functional language.
Why?
My hunch is that models are powerful, but brittle: they don't stand up against constantly changing requirements. A great quote I read the other day was "If it compiles, it works". Great. Now change the requirements. The "beauty" of imperative languages is that they continue to compile and continue to provide some value of "work" even while they are morphing from one requirement set to the next. Functional languages are cast-iron. Imperative languages are steel.
UPDATE: I should also be clear: I think in models all the time. I just don't have to get it down perfectly on paper for the code to compile. I used to hear, back in the day, C++ programmers opining that we should all use C++ because object-oriented programming is superior. Regardless of whether or not OO is superior, they completely failed to comprehend how one could do object-oriented programming in assembly language, or that we'd been doing it the whole time.
So its entirely possible that there's something I dont get about functional programming that means I don't understand what I'm missing. But its also possible that I understand the theory better than you and so I don't see the distinction you are making because there isn't one. To discern which is true, however, I'm going to need concrete examples, not opinion pieces.
I believe you are suggesting that like Freedom of Speech, the "right" to control a Writing or Discovery exists without the constitution. Your evidence is the use of the word "securing", to suggest that the Founders also believed that right existed already.
However, I assert that in fact we all have Rights to everyone's Writings and Discoveries as soon as they are shared. Therefore, I read the constitution as saying:
"We all have rights to Writings and Discoveries, but to promote the progress of science and useful arts, we will limit these rights exclusively to the authors and inventors for a limited time."
If, as you suggest, the Founders had believed that the right of an Author to his or her Writings existed and was natural, then in order to allow a Writing to join the public domain they would have had to have said:
"To secure the common good, we shall limit an Authors and Inventors Natural Right to their Writings and Discoveries to a period of time, after which they shall belong to the commons."
The Founders clearly did not believe that Authors had such natural rights.
And its not Property. Its information.
"low" indeed.
Basically your choices are:
a) don't do any styling or branding at all and allow the users/carriers/manufacturers theme to do its thing, or
b) make an app that looks nice and has branding, or
c) realize you're spending too much effort try to make a nice UX for a fragmented platform whose users don't buy things anyway, and switch to a platform that does.
Ok, that last one was a little bitchy. Thing is, of the three UI styles shown in the article, does an app like Path or Facebook use any of them? (Yes, I know facebook is totally borked on iOS, but it looks nice at least!)
If you haven't heard of it, Mike is the engine director at insomniac, and a regular speaker at sony dev confs. Lots of great posts from all kinds of game developers.
From the about page:
>What is #AltDevBlogADay?
>#AltDevBlogADay is a group of game developers (generally found on Twitter) that want to blog more regularly. An idea inspired by iDevBlogADay.
>It’s simple! Each day people will be assigned to blog. Each person has contributor access and can post his original writing on to this site directly. Or provide a summary and link to his original writing on his own blog.
The questions are, if you had to develop a distributed version control system in java: a) would you solve it the same way, b) would your solution be faster or slower, and c) would it take more or less time to write it and be easier to maintain?
Clearly you would not solve it the same way, for example it might stick around in memory as you worked. Could it then appear faster, from a user's perspective? Possibly. Might it be easier to maintain. Also possible.
Pretty much by definition, if you are writing it in C, a binary compatible solution is not going to run as fast if you port it to java.
I don't think that is a conclusion that has much value.
EDIT: Now that I look at your two requirements, that's not at all hard for a language like C or java. I recall having this in 1993 on the OS/2 version of SlickEdit. vim or emacs will handle this no problem. If you want a GUI, Visual SlickEdit will do it, and for a whole bunch of languages on every OS.
I thought the issue was that when searching for an article it gave greater prominence to people from ones circles talking about the article than the article itself. As much as I value my friends' experience, I'd like to read the article myself, and maybe see their opinion appear lower down, if at all.
Anyway. I've switched my browser default search to duckduckgo and its working quite well.
Written in 2003, 7 years after UCS-2 was obsoleted by UTF-16 because Unicode 2.0 was too big for just 16 bits. UCS-2 is not UTF-16. Windows NT wasn't UTF-16 either, IIRC.
Of course, Microsoft kept telling everyone that 16bits-per-character is Unicode.
I agree with you. But to play devils advocate, if its so large and deep, why do I only hear about Haskell and Scala when language-geeks talk about "advanced" programming languages? Looking at the wikipedia link you provide, there's a list of bullet points by decade: 7 things worthy of a bullet in the 60's, 7 in the 70's, 4 in the 80's, 2 in the 90's and 0 in the 00's and 10's. Has nothing interesting happened lately? Is Haskell as good as it gets?
I think that tossing a coin and using reason are different, and I believe that a court would uphold my expectation that reason was used. Paypal will then have an opportunity to present their reasons. In this case, IMHO, it would appear that a "reasonable standard" of "reason" was not used.
I have purchased 8 iOS devices and I know more people with iPhones than android. This was the first I've heard of it.
It was not my intention to suggest that I am the authority on iPhone tips. I was merely expressing my surprise that after hearing a similar suggestion practically every damn conversation I have about my Droid, that I had not heard such a thing about iPhone.