dablya

I ready both of your comments and enjoyed them... Would I pay $5/yr for content like this? Sure. However, it seems that only one of you would stay around...

I actually stopped reading at that point :)

How is that confusing? I read it the same way you did. The title is straight up misleading.

Out of curiosity, what attribute could you not change in URLConnection?

I don't consider Java-style any more "real" as any other, but if something is private in a class and doesn't provide methods for modification, there is either a reason for it, or it is poorly coded... If you mess with private variables, you could be jacking up the way the class works and not know it. If you instead write 3 additional classes, you're at least ensuring your URLConnection state is consistent.

> Anyway, if you think Java-style programming is "real programming", that's great. We don't need to work together, so you are free to waste your time however you like.

Sounds like you're a lot of fun to work with in any language.

"The conclusion that more than 16 cores makes no sense might well be a good conclusion for now, but "more than 16 cores may well be pointless" is by no means a conclusion for the long or even mid term."

From the article: "But, to my knowledge, these die-stacking schemes are further from down the road than the production of a mass-market processor with greater than 16 cores."

The article is pretty clear that "more then 16 cores may well be pointless" is for now.

My understanding of the standards around SOAP, the ws-* ones, is that the don't promise standardization of the payload. The aim is to provide standards for integration, and those are useful, because tooling and infrastructure around the services can be reused. SOAP standards are there to simplify integration, they say nothing about the payload (other then maybe it having to be xml)

Can you suggest some resources that provide guidelines for choosing tags/attributes?

Sure, it's possible. But this now sounds similar to arguing that you can do OO programming in C. Doing inheritance with function pointers and defining all "object" methods to take the data structure as the first parameter. I just think if you're going to code in a specific style, it's better to choose a language that better supports the style.

Defensive programming? You still don't have any guarantees that your code is in fact free of side effects. There isn't a way to easily test for it either. So, even if you don't use any libraries and write all your code in this style, you could have bugs that will be very hard to track down. Functional languages ensure, by design, that this doesn't happen.

Procedural separates procedures from state. OO combines state and functionality into objects. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_passing#OOP

It's most likely possible. However, I am not aware of any OO compiler/runtime that can enforce it. So, while it's possible, it's not easy to implement. With functional programming it's there by design.

But it's easier to program multi-threaded applications when the code doesn't produce side-effects...