3,901 karma · joined October 15, 2012
Again, like everywhere else in your comments, you're conflating and confusing the language with the model/paradigm and keep trying to shove a language into a programming paradigm. Firstly, you can do OOP in assembly and yet it's not an "OOP language". The language is quite independent of the paradigm. Secondly, who was even trying to categorize languages here? You keep thinking the argument is about categorizing languages and then refute a nonexistent discussion...
> I must admit my ignorance : which languages except prolog don't work like this ?
Again: the discussion is not about trying to shove languages into categories; it's about programming paradigms. You can use the same language to code in multiple paradigms.
Look up "actor-oriented programming". It's a different model meant for concurrent processes, i.e. it's not a subroutine model since you don't need to wait for the procedure to finish and produce a result before continuing.
There are lot of "models of computation" out there (probably a better search term than "programming paradigm", btw) and people go so far as to do PhDs on these. I suggest looking around and not assuming everything is some trivial variation of OOP or FP or DP (declarative programming) or whatever you saw in undergrad.
> Every languages that have some kind of function pointer allow this.
It doesn't seem like you're reading the discussion. The claim the parent made was that "every time you do {X}, it is OOP". My reply was "yes, you can do OOP in C, but OOP implies far more than just {X} (it implies {Y}, etc.); merely {X} does not imply OOP".
You reply with "languages that have function pointers allow {Y}". Well yes, they do allow {Y}. Most/all of them in fact probably allow OOP in full. Nobody suggested such languages don't allow OOP (in fact I said the opposite about C). What does that have to do with the entire discussion and argument? Your argument isn't even wrong... it doesn't even compile.
> message-passing is only relevant if you adhere to Alan Kay's vision of objects. I personally don't (even if the guy coined the term).
This 100% completely misses the point of what I said. Replace it with "procedural call" if you're allergic to "message passing". The point I was making was we're talking about subroutine calls: you call a procedure and wait for it to produce a single value as the resulting output before proceeding. Again: if you're not used to other paradigms then that might be why you're missing my point here and adversely reacting to superficial things like the nomenclature. Whether you dress it as message passing or anything else has nothing to do with the issue.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean oblivious?
I'd take a 1/1000000 chance. I wouldn't take a 1/1000 chance. Get the point?
Edit regarding your comment: Oh, I see why you're confused. I didn't need to do the math because I was talking about a 1-time bike ride as an example to just get the point across -- it's already scary for 1 ride. But if you want the actual math for a lifetime, there's a ~1/5000 lifetime odds of dying in 1 year of biking. That's still pretty damn high. I don't know about you but I'd rather just give up on the 78th expected year of my life and lose the 0.1% chance of dying in the next 5 years.
This kind of precision sounds insane. It sounds like far more of an achievement than having found Earth-sized planets. Is there any layman explanation of how they do such a thing?
There is obviously nothing in the Constitution about recording public officials, and I assume there isn't a statute against it, so that means it's relying entirely on case precedent, right? Which I understand is still law, so I'm as baffled by the ruling as anybody, but I also feel that if I were taking this case on for the first time, I would find myself ruling that citizens don't have this right -- even though I would desperately hope and agree they very much should. Does anyone feel that if there was no case precedent, they would still believe they had this right due to freedom of "speech" (or something else)? What would be your legal justification?
I don't know if I fall in that group (I don't think I confuse the two and I don't really talk about GMO much) but my prior belief would be that GMO products are probably safe, through some kind of hand-wavy mathematical argument: it's like modifying a program to do what you want; chances are if you mess up, it'll crash quickly and won't work rather than working almost-as-intended while injecting nefarious input into the next program.
Would LOVE to read evidence to the contrary though. So please share your citations.
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.