|
Is it as good as the queries that MS Access generates? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch, that's mean 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
In the article it reads:
And a third time: do we care? If we have a rigorous way to express what we want a program to do, we may never need to look at the underlying C or C++.
This is where I tend to land. Generated code must be robust, and the input specifications used to generate the code must be sufficiently expressive and complete, but it's not a requirement that the generated code be manually readable or maintainable, any more than assembly language need be these days.
The input specification is what must be readable and maintainable. This is no different than using any other compiler toolchain.
However, there's an argument to be made for certain types of generated code, like parsing code, where the code must be hand modifiable in some cases, for example, when doing natural language parsing.
Code synthesis/Program synthesis can make this easier, but it's very difficult to implement.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of new features in the release, which only fully come together near the end. Can you smell what Redmond is cooking?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Can you smell what Redmond is cooking?
Every time the local farmer fertilises his fields I can. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Dimon has been a vocal critic of Bitcoin, previously calling it a "fraud" and "fool's gold,"
In other words, they haven't yet found the means to consistently profit from it.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect his real reasoning falls more along the thoughts of some of the comments, although there is a grain of truth in your words. From the comments:
Bitcoin ... has no worth other than what people will attribute to it. Land can be lived on, Gold is a metal that can be forged, a loaf of bread can be eaten, a tarp can provide shelter, Bitcoin can be none of these things.
The US dollar is backed by one of the largest governments in the world. Bitcoin is not. Even the people who trade in it do so that they can convert it back to fiat later.
The US dollar is the currency that all other currencies are measured against, and it has value because it is backed by faith in the US Government, which is stable (enough, LOL) and will honor that value. Bitcoin is unstable because it is not backed by anything, and it is the most lost and stolen "currency" ever.
If Bitcoin is such a great thing on it's own, why does no one say "I have 0.17 bitcoin." What they do say is "I have $10,000 worth of bitcoin.
Which makes the real value of bitcoin entirely dependent on the US dollar, which renders it's uniqueness moot.
I've seen far too many threads on people trying to get rich through bitcoin to believe it is truly a 'currency.' It comes across as a giant ponzi scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: has no worth other than what people will attribute to it
This is true of everything. Price is set where supply and demand balance, and the amounts supplied and demanded at a given price are determined by what the various sellers are asking and what the various buyers are bidding. Valuation is subjective, not intrinsic, but I'm not surprised that Dimon is ignorant of this fact.
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt he is. See the 'tulip mania' link in my post below for his probable reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, maybe BTC will turn out to be another example of tulip mania. If anything, that possibility proves my point that valuations are subjective, not intrinsic. Stocks are another example. When enough people decide that valuations are frothy, a correction or crash occurs. Until then, buyers believe that they'll be able to unload to someone else (a greater fool), but the last buyers become bagholders.
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of bitcoin, there aren't even any bulbs. It is pure speculation. Even stocks are against a business that produces goods of some kind. Bitcoin doesn't even have that.
It is your money. Spend it how you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Google who Dimon is
And it does not need backing. The only thing that is required is "demand". It seems to be there.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Google who Dimon is
Or maybe read the title of the article?Eddy Vluggen wrote: The only thing that is required is "demand".
Just like Tulip mania
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Or maybe read the title of the article?
The title is "BitCoin". If you don't know who Jamie Dimon is, you're out.
David O'Neil wrote: Just like Tulip mania
Sure. You might want to re-read that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I take it you are having a bad day. Here was the article title from the first post: Bitcoin is 'worthless': JPMorgan CEO Dimon | Fox Business.
Hope it gets better.
|
|
|
|
|
As a silver bug, I'm having some good weeks
And Dimon has been saying that BC is worthless for years. It is as valuable as a dollar.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
there should be differences between demand and desire: one can demand things that has a useful value outside of money, but money can only be earned or desired for .
imho, use demand and supply to determine price of money (what ??) is circular or self referential in logic
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: demand and supply to determine price of money (what ??) is circular or self referential in logic
The forex market is entirely circular, with each currency priced in terms of all others. In fact, every price is circular in that regard. If a Big Mac is $4, then a dollar is worth 0.25 Big Macs. There is no anchor.
And when someone buys something, they consider that thing to be more valuable to them than the currency.
Currency can also be counterfeited, or conjured into existence by banks. But I repeat myself.
|
|
|
|
|
as I said in a previous post, I belief that each kind of currency in forex market is backed by at least one physical entity, most likely a government (or company in case of stock share, a limited currency in scope), that the parties involved trust to be capable of deliver the non-currency value when requested, it's essentially a promise (and therefor a non-currency liability). There is no real circularity here, the "buck" stop at trust
however, digital money is created by computers that neither have any capability to deliver any value nor be based on value creation mechanism/statistics of the real world, that when used to points to real values, it dilutes other currency and cases transfer of wealth to, err, computers ? probably you know what I mean, the desire is there
|
|
|
|
|
Creating human-like AI is about more than mimicking human behavior—technology must also be able to process information, or "think" like humans if it is to be fully relied upon. That poorly?
|
|
|
|
|
Or, "Which humans?" These past several years have shown some stunning examples of something... And I'm pretty sure I don't want the machines replicating it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Installing WSL through the store will allow you to get the latest WSL updates and features faster, and without needing to modify your Windows version. I thought it was in the box?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
