Why, do you think Ruby, Python, .Net (LINQ) and the various Lisps are revolutionary??? Or "more revolutionary" than Scala/Clojure?
Well, maybe, Lisp, 3-4 decades ago, was.
140 karma · joined April 27, 2010
Well, maybe, Lisp, 3-4 decades ago, was.
Yes, nothing EXCEPT raw information, that you have to access yourself. Is only spoon-feeding "interesting"?
I, for one, didn't know about this alternative MySQL connection pipeline at all. Now, I know at least that it exists, how it works, etc. I can do the benchmarks myself, if I need to.
Non fiddling access to hundreds of Open Type fonts and UTF-8?
Trivial visual layout changes of almost every aspect of the text instead of having to write then in a layout language?
Integrated spell/grammar checking as you go, word count et al?
Non in Word per se, but BETTER algorithms for typesetting in WYSIWYG (unknown to many, InDesign and Quark have progressed A LOT over TeX's algorithms).
Interoperability for the basic edited document format (not through pdf, ps, html exports) with 99% percent of the world (excluding some parts of Academia that prefer LaTeX)?
And NTFS had mountpoints since Windows 2000.
Now, you could argue that the some/all governments represent the people badly. But this is an argument/call to arms to demand BETTER representation, not for giving up control to other, opaque, entities.
Yes, but "smooth" was the whole point of the question --as in the "no fiddling" part.
And who would be that "somebody else", worrying about the drivers? Surely not the "high end Linux laptop vendor" --because, even though he would have basic stuff like the video card, wireless et al working, with anything not embedded in the laptop, you would be on your own.
It's an old saying, most frequently encountered as "Linux is free, as long as your time is worthless".
Have you been to a OSS based conference in the last 5 years? Anything, from Apache to Rails to Python? The number of Apple laptops is by far greater than any other.
If not, then "FWIW" should have been rewritten as "YMMV".
Now, the lure of an OS X machine for an OSS hacker, is that besides the system "just running", with minimal hunting and improvising, they also need/want/like to have several apps not available as Open Source, or with sub par replacements. Stuff from running Photoshop or Omnigraffle to connecting their mobile phones and being able to see and edit their video captures with a minimum of fuss.
Of course, this only holds true for OSS hackers that are "pragmatic" and just use what they think is best for their needs, not for hardcore "Libre Software" types.
You'd be surprised how one's self can change under unsafe circumstances, despite all the "critical analysis" he had done...
Well, there are SEVERAL kinds of modeling you can do, depending on your application needs. I mean, no shit Sherlock! Still, the problem with polygon -> rectangle still exist, you still need to have contraints.
> And "polymorphism" by itself isn't an end unless it makes your program better.
The same holds true for EVERY language feature: it's only useful if it makes your program better --so it's a tautology irrelevant here.
> Let me ask you this: is it your opinion that because a square is mathematically a rectangle that you should automatically express this with an inheritance relationship, even if it makes the program worse?
No, it's my opinion that if you express mathematical truths right, programs generally get BETTER. The right way is not always inheritance ―it's not even a basic feature of OO programming according to Alan Kay―, but in this case the example fits, and the "problem" spot you mention is contrived and easily solved.
And if you don't like theory, here's practice and history for you: a) almost EVERY successful game and drawing program written in a OO language, or C with some hacks (that makes 99% of 'em), uses such a shape hierarchy.
> It's absolutely "world modeling." You're trying to take some ontological fact about some object (in this case, a mathematical object) and express that in a software design.
Math (and logic) != world.
And a "mathematic object" is not an object, it's the expression of some axioms and constraints. The more faithfully you capture those in your code, the better off you are.
And the square/rectangle example is rather contrived, not to mention wrong, as it assumes a naive constructor, er, construction:
a) of course a square is a rectangle. b) who said that you cannot add constraints to your model?
Oh, and by the way: the rectangle/square relationship is not "world modeling" --it's mathematics, as close to pure logic as it gets.
Seriously, what is it with all those "startups" based on mining Twitter data, Twitter add-ons etc?
OK, we know why you do it. Because Twitter API is easy, Twitter relationships are easy. That's why you shouldn't do it. Nobody cares, and if its that easy, it will never be a real business anyway.
If by "unknown" you refer to rival armies invading your country, yes, but it is still a very strange phrasing.
It wasn't build to protect from squirrels and tourists, you know...
Actually, the "state owning the property" is not a core idea of socialism --it was only a "feature" of "really existing socialism", and even USSR had things like the NEP. Except for the backward places where "really existing socialism" developed, extremely few europeans (or american for that matter) socialists believed that it was a proper socialism at all.
As in, there are several types of socialism. Things americans complain about and deny as "socialism" (universal health care, for one), are proposed by even right-wing parties in Europe.
I'm sorry, but a cursory glance at one book or a documentary, or something heard from a friend of a friend, won't do. In order to intelligently discuss matters of world politics one has to do a little research. And it would be better if that research was impartial. Buy some books from both sides of the argument, and from both sides of the atlantic (and even the pacific).
The average opinion even on this matters, even on a site like "Hacker News" is often little better than what creationists know about evolution.
The Nazi party had nothing to do with socialism, as the term was and is known and defined in the relevant political literature.
Or, more correctly, the horrors of Nazi germany had nothing to do with economic regulation and the social health care et al, and all to do with racist ideology, dictatorship and imperialism.
Actually, Sweden is socialist, in the sense most americans define the word, as well as New Zealand, and it's all the better for them --and they have tens times more refined than either US Republican or Democrat policies.
a) there has never been a "perfect market" left to its own devices.
b) there can never be one in any pragmatic way.
c) Who measured it scientifically, or proved it abstractly that it is "always right"?
It's more like: "we are used to working and bending to the market, so, we won't question it. Oh, and those other folks in USSR had a terrible fate when they fought the market, so we wont try anything stupid".
Why does it have to?
First of all, the article talks specifically about "IT jobs", not "upper level development/software engineer" and it says so in its title.
Thus, your complain amounts to: "The article is pathetic. It gets out to discuss the loss of IT jobs, and it indeed discuses the loss of 95% of IT jobs, just not the higher-end developer jobs I had in mind". WTF?
Second, generic IT jobs are always orders of magnitude more numerous than "upper-level developer" jobs. Hence, the loss of generic IT jobs has much more impact and is more important for way more of readers.
"""Sure IT support is being outsourced. When the employee doesn't need to actually know anything you might as well pay them as little as possible."""
And who said that "paying as little as possible" does not also hold true when the employee has to know "a lot"?
If physical presence is not needed (i.e in all cases where telecommuting could be used), what makes you think that the highest level of jobs cannot be outsourced somewhere else, where the employer will pay "as little as possible"?
You seriously believe USA has the best engineers --or the best by a margin that matters to most projects, anyway? Perhaps that could be argued in the past, but this is the 21st century. Oh, and 20th century called, he wants his prejudices back.
MONGO GREAT GNEER, MONGO DO NOT GREAT IQ!
I have my suspicions of what the outcome would be.