|
I still prefer a consumer based solution (protests, boycotts, etc...) rather than a government regulation solution.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: I still prefer a consumer based solution (protests, boycotts, etc...) rather than a government regulation solution.
Unfortunately, this strategy reminds me of Allan Sherman - The Let's All Call Up A.T. & T And Protest To The President March - YouTube[^]
Just as, back then, threatening to change phone companies was empty (What other phone company?!); now, with most people contractually bound to their ISP, and having few options, there's little leverage to bear on the providers.
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
The power of modern programming languages is that they are expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable. Cogito ergo code
Or rather, whatever is the present-tense, first-person indicative version of to code. (I miss Grade 8)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Or rather, whatever is the present-tense, first-person indicative version of to code.
Sadly, there isn't a definitive English word for this, so we just use the Latin: elephantare.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
He was asking about Latin, not English.
|
|
|
|
|
A bit early to be drunk, don't you think?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you asking for my approval, get pissed at miday if you like!
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable.
IMO, not really.
The BFS example that the author cited is no more or less than the Python code -- if you know the meaning of the symbols, it's easy to understand. Just because those symbols are mostly expressed in English words doesn't make it more readable. queue.popleft is still meaningless to someone that doesn't know what a queue is, and frankly, I have to guess at what "popleft" means with regards to a queue, and I've been using Python for a while now (but am no expert at it.) As it is, I would expect a popright() as well for symmetry, but I much more prefer the word "dequeue," which is more obvious to me given my background with programming languages (and would be the term I would use if I was implementing a queue.) But that's me.
Marc
Latest Article - Merkle Trees
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
modified 26-Apr-17 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I have to guess at what "popleft" means with regards to a queue
Why should a queue (deque) be conceptualized as right-to-left or left-to-right?
Why not top-to-bottom (like a disposable cup dispenser on the side of the water cooler...)?
Defining it as "in left; out right" may require a mental translation from the problem space to the code space. The "impedance mismatch" between the spaces is larger than necessary, especially because the operations are not named symmetrically, as Marc noted.
Yes, the programmer could encapsulate it with naming that matches the problem space, but that adds complexity to the solution. Just naming the input and output as such ought to be sufficient (IMHO). If there are operations that bend those definitions, so be it.
(I don't see the reason for the deque class to exist. It appears to be a doubly-linked list with some LIFO queue concepts wrapped around it with the left-to-right convention.)
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: they are expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable
Luckily, most programmers know how to undo all that! 
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: modern programming languages is that they are expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable
Old programming languages are just as readable too, so I have the impression Scientific American are talking crap. SO, whats in the link...
"C, the burden was on programmers to translate high-level concepts into code. With modern programming languages—I’ll use Python as an example—we use functions, objects, modules, and libraries to extend the language"
We also use functions, objects, modules, and libraries in C too, so yeah, he is talking crap.
Kent Sharkey wrote: Cogito ergo codeOr rather, whatever is the present-tense, first-person indicative version of to code. (I miss Grade 8)
'Cogito ergo codo' i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they'll come up with an article about "Thinking as a way of Programming" - and this way they might get it right.
Or am I asking too much by using the "T" word ?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the assertion that [many] "modern" programming languages are precise, concise or even that readable.
The "modern" programming language meme also seems to entirely miss the point that the purpose of a computer language is to manipulate a computer to solve a problem. At one level, it's the algorithm that matters. Yet, HOW the computer is instructed to go about that is, to me, extremely important. Hence my preference for deterministic languages.
|
|
|
|
|
A response to advances in neurotechnology that can read or alter brain activity, new human rights would protect people from theft, abuse and hacking. Can you prove that you had one stolen?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Can you prove that you had one stolen?
You shouldn't joke about such things.
Brains are stolen all the time.
It happened to Mr. Spock, you know? And, it was no laughing matter.
Spock's Brain - Wikipedia[^]
(worst star trek episode ever...)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't worry me.
I already had a brain scan, not so long ago, and they didn't find anything.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey finds workers still violate security policies to remain productive. Step 0: that poorly worded email isn't really from a prince
Oh, wait. I see I just won the Russian National Lottery. Gotta go.
|
|
|
|
|
What's scary is that it's absolutely true that devs are more likely to fall for stupid scams than plebs, because they think their knowledge of programming somehow protects them.
I gotta say: It ain't so!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It hasn't anything to do with IT Knowledge... to be more secure about scam you need common sense.
In Spain we say: Nobody sells euros/dollars/other_currency for 5 cents
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Today, in a post on the Windows blog, John Cable, Director of Program Management, Windows Servicing and Delivery, recommends that users don’t manually install the Creators Update, but rather wait until it’s automatically offered. /sigh. Really?
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed a slight error in the thread title.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I put it down to the constant desire to freshen and invigorate a corporate image.
I mean, we all know that Microsoft has been ****ing itself for decades now....
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that headline isn't misleading or click-bait-y at all, is it? 
Microsoft: If you force it to install manually, some things might not work at first.
BetaNews: OMG, Microsoft sez don't install it EVAH!!!1!!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
What I wish MS would do is actually provide insight into which of the three potential states my computers are in instead of lumping two of them together.
0) We think your upgrade will go through without problems.
1) We don't have enough data to predict if your upgrade will have problems.
2) We know of a problem item in your system.
The first case is nicely split out as offering it in WU. The other two are just it not being offered; and as the owner of DIY boxes my specific hardware mixes aren't any of the widely sold OEM systems that they can get results on by testing on 0.1% of the available systems. As a result I tend to be offered rather late in the game when they give up and offer to everyone. Since I know they're not going to be able to effectively test my setup in total for the first condition, I'd really like them to let me know if any of my specific hardware bits land me in the 3rd bucket in a way that *will* make me fall back to a system backup.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
