TeX macros are fundamentally as expressive as java.
17 karma · joined December 5, 2008
TeX macros are fundamentally as expressive as java.
really? what can it do that js can't do?
to be honest, i see the basis of objective-j born from some notion that apple does things right so naturally we all want to do things they way they do...but objective c sucks (having coded in it), and i have no idea why people would want to muck up another stack by pasting objective c onto it
so much so that its almost impossible to find it being put to use outside of places apple forces it. and before you say "gnustep"...no one uses that
Can you give me three reasons why you don't like it?
1. goofy/eyes-bleed syntax
2. i don't care about OO
3. i'll think of something later
Finally, claiming OO programming is dead is nonsensical. Java is by far the world's most popular programming language.
java is a ployglot language. they're busy now trying to turn it into a hybrid-functional language...just like c#, the other kitchen-sink language
and c++ was designed from the ground-up to be multi-paradigm, this is all over everything stroustrup says about it
my guess is that objective-j is DOA. the pool of objective-c programmers is not a motivating factor...i'm not even sure there are many people who really love objective-c. indeed i would offer that the "leaky abstraction" is that which tries to graft one so-so language on top of another so-so language. just man up and use javascript for what it is.
that works both ways. a surplus of naively optimistic information (you! can! flip! a! house! today!, no money down), encourages excess risk.
if anything though, the "fear" of negative consequences is nonsensical now because for many americans, avoiding disaster is not an option, disaster is already happening. positive thinking isn't going to unforeclose their home.
the way out of this fear isn't to have some anthony-robbins moment of self affirmation, its to get out of debt and start creating real nesteggs that preclude the fear. a minimal real nest egg, which everyone out of college and older should have - six months of real living expenses. don't cheap out either, measure what you really spend, including your idiotically expensive cell contract and your nightlife.
monetary cycles typically manifest over an eighteen month period. i.e. the increase or decrease in Fed policy would impact demand directly likely no less than a year. the only way to dramatically alter this...i.e. to actually get people to wake up and work twice as hard takes drastic currency action.
this is all undergrad economics
you need someone with a brain to regulate the amount of currency in the system. how many FooDollars will exist at once? this has been tried. years ago, a neighborhood tried to set up a "chit" system for getting babysitters. because they had no idea how many chits to print up, they just printed up as many as anyone would ever want...in the end they just created their own hyperinflation.
no there isn't. come back in five years, the top ten internet companies will control 95% of all traffic and 99% of all revenues. this market has almost zero friction...how is it that google has already sewn up over 80% of ad revenues on the web? where are all the mom-and-pop ad networks? they're on deaths door
by the same token anyone can build a PC...so what happened to the 10,000 little PC makers that used to be in every strip mall? today we have basically three pc makers....hp, dell, apple. so much for "low barrier to entry = high res"
demand and supply, as always
it is trivial for some hypothetical foobar corp to spit out twice as many widgets as they do now. but why would they? without viable demand, they indeed show a loss for their effort-spurt. as you heard the CEO of ford say today, oversupply was a major problem for the automakers. working twice as hard will kill you if you don't have twice the demand
the better question is how currency growth can be employed to stimulate demand over a period of time. growth comes from healthy inflation (3-5%). inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. this is why you will often hear opponents of "secured" currencies (gold etc) tell you that you can't get growth in an economy in the mid term unless you have a fiat currency.
1. investors are entering a period of risk aversion that is just starting, and will likely last a decade or longer.
2. the next market, energy tech, will require funding on levels very few if any VCs can deliver (billions per investment). this is why the govt is likely going to be more pivotal in funding energy work through the DOE etc
credit cards are cash...someone else's cash (namely a bank) that is being loaned to the card user. nonetheless, the transaction is in the local currency at the point of purchase and paid back in the local currency of the bank and user
a business can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but in the US they can't tell you that you can't use US dollars